Griffin and BNP strategy

[SpineyNorman]

I think another big scandal involving the mainstream parties (especially now the Lib Dems aren't seen as a protest vote) could do it for them, especially as there's no real credible left alternative at the moment. Although I'd say UKIP are probably better placed to take advantage than the BNP.

 

[The39thStep]

Brons has now thrown his hat in the ring with Edmonds stepping down. Can't help thinking that there is so much dirt on both these two from the past that there are dark forces at work.

 

[claphamboy]

Well Brons certainly has a better chance than Edmonds of winning, he also has a better chance of pulling things back together, so lets hope the Griffin manages to hold on as Chairman.

I see Griffin is up to his usual tricks, a new constitution was voted on at the party conference last year and was due to be put to a Extraordinary General Meeting of the members, but the main proposals have been totally changed from what the conference voted for and what is now proposed for the EGM.

For example the proposed new National Executive, replacing the fully appointed Advisory Council, was due to be fully elected (indirectly by local & regional branches) and have real power, including the ability of getting rid of the Chairman (with a 75% majority vote).

This has changed to the Chairman appointing 16 (rises to 17 with the chairman included) out of 29 officers, leaving a minority to be elected. It also makes the National Executive just an advisory one, with no power to remove the Chairman, who would serve a 5-year fixed term with no way of getting shot of them.

Griffin certainly seems to want to keep total control of the party.

 

[butchersapron]

Well Brons certainly has a better chance than Edmonds of winning, he also has a better chance of pulling things back together, so lets hope the Griffin manages to hold on as Chairman.

I see Griffin is up to his usual tricks, a new constitution was voted on at the party conference last year and was due to be put to a Extraordinary General Meeting of the members, but the main proposals have been totally changed from what the conference voted for and what is now proposed for the EGM.

For example the proposed new National Executive, replacing the fully appointed Advisory Council, was due to be fully elected (indirectly by local & regional branches) and have real power, including the ability of getting rid of the Chairman (with a 75% majority vote).

This has changed to the Chairman appointing 16 (rises to 17 with the chairman included) out of 29 officers, leaving a minority to be elected. It also makes the National Executive just an advisory one, with no power to remove the Chairman, who would serve a 5-year fixed term with no way of getting shot of them.

Griffin certainly seems to want to keep total control of the party.

Brons like re, has chance.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

 

[The39thStep]

Well Brons certainly has a better chance than Edmonds of winning, he also has a better chance of pulling things back together, so lets hope the Griffin manages to hold on as Chairman.

I see Griffin is up to his usual tricks, a new constitution was voted on at the party conference last year and was due to be put to a Extraordinary General Meeting of the members, but the main proposals have been totally changed from what the conference voted for and what is now proposed for the EGM.

For example the proposed new National Executive, replacing the fully appointed Advisory Council, was due to be fully elected (indirectly by local & regional branches) and have real power, including the ability of getting rid of the Chairman (with a 75% majority vote).

This has changed to the Chairman appointing 16 (rises to 17 with the chairman included) out of 29 officers, leaving a minority to be elected. It also makes the National Executive just an advisory one, with no power to remove the Chairman, who would serve a 5-year fixed term with no way of getting shot of them.

Griffin certainly seems to want to keep total control of the party.

Why wouldn't he?

 

[butchersapron]

Opps, missed out the 'no.'

Brons like re, has no chance.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

It was the re bit I didn't get, you meant Richard Edmonds of course...

 

[Greenfish]

Tin hat time, but there'll be this problem all the while we have an immigration policy like the one we have - huge, huge demographic changes across the country, particularly aimed at traditionally white working class areas. I have no idea how you would solve this - I am neither for or against mass immigration, I don't know enough about it, but I know it's a particular problem for those on the left have with just totally ignoring the fact of 100ks of people coming into communities every year and expect there to be zero fall out from the people living there. And people wonder why left wing politics is slowly becoming the preserve of the white middle class. They have got this massively wrong. The answer? No idea.

 

[audiotech]

Tin hat time, but there'll be this problem all the while we have an immigration policy like the one we have - huge, huge demographic changes across the country, particularly aimed at traditionally white working class areas. I have no idea how you would solve this - I am neither for or against mass immigration, I don't know enough about it, but I know it's a particular problem for those on the left have with just totally ignoring the fact of 100ks of people coming into communities every year and expect there to be zero fall out from the people living there. And people wonder why left wing politics is slowly becoming the preserve of white educated liberals. They have got this massively wrong. The answer? No idea.

It will be all change now there's 'workfare', so instead of immigrants being exploited to the max, the unemployed will now feel the benefit (pun intended) of this.

 

[The39thStep]

not sure that I understand the impact of this ^

 

[SpineyNorman]

I think he's saying that employers won't need cheap migrant labour if they can get "doleys" to work for them for free, and so there won't be the same influx of migrant workers into w/c areas. Not sure I agree though. I don't think people on workfare will be employed in the same private sector jobs as economic migrants have been. My understanding is that people on workfare will be set to work on things like street cleanups, stuff that's been done by the public sector in the past.

 

[audiotech]

I watched a recent discussion with a panel of most of the organisations to be involved in 'workfare' and this aspect was talked about. It was mentioned that rather than it being about a group having "better motivation" leading to say Eastern Europeans putting themselves forward for fruit/veg picking jobs, it was more to do with economic reasons why local workers don't apply for this sort of work - low pay, short-term contracts and the inflexibility of the benefit system. There was talk too about the unemployed working for sole traders and small businesses. Alleviates bureaucracy for them apparently and may lead their businesses to expand to a point when they can take on more permanent staff and by doing so creating employment.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Was it a an online video? If you have a link I'd be interested in having a look.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

A piece on the fallout between Brons and Griffin:

http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2011/06/bnp-gets-ready-to-rumble.html

With regard to "room for a far right party to grow" - I aint sure, as others have saidthe BNP screw up seems to be in place for at least the medium term. If we can hoof out Griffin in 2014 then it's curtains in any meaningful sense. Replacements will take 2 steps forward, 1 back. Endless rows and being tainted by racism will persist. Populist right wingery with a tint of migration skepticism could do well. Step forward UKIP who are, as again said elsewhere, just not as offensive as the BNP or seen that way. What UKIP have on the mainstream in the migration issue is that it is the EU which determines much of policy in this area. The EU is a crock in many ways so UKIP are knocking at an open door. Obviously they only seek to replace the percieved tyranny of the EU with even more reliance on the tyranny of capitalist markets, but that's detail.

 

[The39thStep]

There is an article on Lancaster Unity placed by 'anti fascist' which quotes a spokesperson from Hizb ut-Tahrir !

 

[audiotech]

Was it a an online video? If you have a link I'd be interested in having a look.

Drat, can't find it now. I'll have another look.

Interestingly, it was also pointed out that working for benefits, as in the Australian model, with a 80 percent failure rate, is very expensive and takes time away from those seeking work. Instead it was stated it was more efficient to focus on 'using the stick of seeking work' on JSA benefit claimants

 

[audiotech]

There is an article on Lancaster Unity placed by 'anti fascist' which quotes a spokesperson from Hizb ut-Tahrir !

Somewhat disingenuous of you, as it's an article from The Independent newspaper, which also quotes a spokesperson of largest mainstream Muslim organisation, The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Also quoted is Dr Lambert, a former counter-terrorism police officer, Ghaffar Hussain of the counter-extremism think-tank Quilliam and Mohammed Khaliel, who was reportedly "...among horrified families who discovered Muslim graves at a local cemetery had been desecrated."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslims-call-for-action-against-hate-crimes-2296477.html

 

[ViolentPanda]

Tin hat time, but there'll be this problem all the while we have an immigration policy like the one we have - huge, huge demographic changes across the country, particularly aimed at traditionally white working class areas...

Slow, slow demographic changes that have taken 30+ to actually manifest meaningfully.
The reason it's slow?
Even now, the "ethnic+" population of the UK tops out at about 8% of of the total. That's 5 and a half million or so people spread throughout the UK.

*Including eastern and central Europeans.

I have no idea how you would solve this - I am neither for or against mass immigration, I don't know enough about it, but I know it's a particular problem for those on the left have with just totally ignoring the fact of 100ks of people coming into communities every year and expect there to be zero fall out from the people living there.

Pathetic. The issue isn't about the left's attitude, or indeed the right's attitude to immigration, although obviously you're trying to make it the issue even after you've admitted that you "don't know enough about it".

The issue is resources. If, as has happened in the UK since Thatcher, you have an ever-shrinking social housing supply, and public services are under sporadic periods of "boom" (with relative ease of funding acquisition) and "bust" (where funding is steeply restricted, whether for economic or ideological reasons), then of course there's "fallout".

And people wonder why left wing politics is slowly becoming the preserve of the white middle class. They have got this massively wrong. The answer? No idea.

That much is obvious.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think he's saying that employers won't need cheap migrant labour if they can get "doleys" to work for them for free, and so there won't be the same influx of migrant workers into w/c areas. Not sure I agree though. I don't think people on workfare will be employed in the same private sector jobs as economic migrants have been. My understanding is that people on workfare will be set to work on things like street cleanups, stuff that's been done by the public sector in the past.

It's right-tinged wishful thinking bollocks that entirely elides the state's role in the issues.

 

[FreddyB]

The issue is resources. If, as has happened in the UK since Thatcher, you have an ever-shrinking social housing supply, and public services are under sporadic periods of "boom" (with relative ease of funding acquisition) and "bust" (where funding is steeply restricted, whether for economic or ideological reasons), then of course there's "fallout".

This can't be emphasised enough. The only time race becomes an issue is where it's made into an issue - See Kenan Malik's essayHow to make a Riot for a brilliant explanation of political multiculturalism and the racialisation of service provision.

People care about resources, access to and reliance on public resources are class issues. Tackling issues on that basis is the only way forward, getting bogged down in the race game is the mistake that the right make - they're the other side of the political multiculturalism coin. Class, class, class. It's literally the answer to everything.

 

[audiotech]

It's right-tinged wishful thinking bollocks that entirely elides the state's role in the issues.

I think 'workfare' on the Australian model (a reality there) is indeed wishful thinking, as the costs are too great, however, for those on Employment Support Allowance (ESA) "work related activity" to "support them back into work" is here now.

 

[The39thStep]

Somewhat disingenuous of you, as it's an article from The Independent newspaper, which also quotes a spokesperson of largest mainstream Muslim organisation, The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Also quoted is Dr Lambert, a former counter-terrorism police officer, Ghaffar Hussain of the counter-extremism think-tank Quilliam and Mohammed Khaliel, who was reportedly "...among horrified families who discovered Muslim graves at a local cemetery had been desecrated."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslims-call-for-action-against-hate-crimes-2296477.html

Nothing disingenuous of me at all. The article , which is lifted without any comment what so ever, quotes Hizb ut-Tahrir. Not sure if you have ever come across this group otherwise you would also find the fact that their views are posted withoput any comment very surprising. Unless the role of Lanacster Unity is now simply to cut and paste articles without any comment.

 

[The39thStep]

This can't be emphasised enough. The only time race becomes an issue is where it's made into an issue - See Kenan Malik's essayHow to make a Riot for a brilliant explanation of political multiculturalism and the racialisation of service provision.

People care about resources, access to and reliance on public resources are class issues. Tackling issues on that basis is the only way forward, getting bogged down in the race game is the mistake that the right make - they're the other side of the political multiculturalism coin. Class, class, class. It's literally the answer to everything.

Good post and a view that is not always popular on here when race/culture silo funding has been criticised for exactly that

 

[Greenfish]

Slow, slow demographic changes that have taken 30+ to actually manifest meaningfully.
The reason it's slow?
Even now, the "ethnic+" population of the UK tops out at about 8% of of the total. That's 5 and a half million or so people spread throughout the UK.

*Including eastern and central Europeans.



Pathetic. The issue isn't about the left's attitude, or indeed the right's attitude to immigration, although obviously you're trying to make it the issue even after you've admitted that you "don't know enough about it".

The issue is resources. If, as has happened in the UK since Thatcher, you have an ever-shrinking social housing supply, and public services are under sporadic periods of "boom" (with relative ease of funding acquisition) and "bust" (where funding is steeply restricted, whether for economic or ideological reasons), then of course there's "fallout".



That much is obvious.

So your answer to the massive, nationwide issue with mass-immigration is "there should be more resources" - that's what you implying, that if we just had more social services such as houses, etc, then the problem would just vanish?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Lack of houses, services, etc. is the problem.

 

[Greenfish]

Lack of houses, services, etc. is the problem.

so mass immigration is fine as long as we have more services?

You would justify, say, a million people entering the UK every year as long as there was enough services to provide for them?

 

[audiotech]

Nothing disingenuous of me at all. The article , which is lifted without any comment what so ever, quotes Hizb ut-Tahrir. Not sure if you have ever come across this group otherwise you would also find the fact that their views are posted withoput any comment very surprising. Unless the role of Lanacster Unity is now simply to cut and paste articles without any comment.

I have come across and know about this group, nonetheless, the article in question is not specifically about Hizb ut-Tahrir, nor is it supporting them. If you feel so strongly about Lancaster Unity posting a lengthy article from The Independent, that includes a three line quote from said organisation, then I suggest you post your feelings in LU's comments section.

 

[SpineyNorman]

so mass immigration is fine as long as we have more services?

You would justify, say, a million people entering the UK every year as long as there was enough services to provide for them?

Resources, yes. Why not? But given this hypothetical situation is never likely to happen it's a bit of a non-issue, isn't it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So your answer to the massive, nationwide issue with mass-immigration is "there should be more resources" - that's what you implying, that if we just had more social services such as houses, etc, then the problem would just vanish?

As you're obviously not too quick on the uptake, I'll state things more simply than in my previous answer.

1) there isn't "mass immigration". Even those twats at "Migrationwatch" acknowledge that if you take the (usually transient, 85%+ of them return to their state of origin within 4 years) "immigrants" from the EU accession countries out of the picture, immigration isn't a problem in the way you're implying.

2) The biggest problem is that a naturally-expanding (through birth-rates currently out-stripping death-rates) sector of the legitimate population are competing for a static or dwindling pot of social resources.

3) The biggest immigration issue is the failure of 30 years-worth of governments failing to tackle illegal immigration, which undercuts employment opportunities for "natives" and legal immigrants. Ever wonder why that is? Here's a hint: Do a bit of research into companies that donate to the three big political parties, then cross-check with companies that have been done for being caught employing illegals. Good old Thatch decimated Customs and Excise in the '80s and made people-smuggling easier than at any time since the end of the 19th century.

4) It's not an issue of "Left" or "right". There's barely a fag-paper's difference between parliamentary "left" and "right", and the extra-parliamentary left and right have no power. Tossing the blame back and forth between one bunch of cunts who do something one way, and another bunch of cunts who do the same thing another way has fuck all to do with "left" or "right", and everything to do with those in power passing the buck.

5) I'm not implying that problems will vanish, given more resources, I'm stating that the degree of problem would lessen, as would frictions and tensions.