IWCA statement on BNP

[Sue]

I'm not convinced that anonymity helps a political voice to be taken seriously. Maybe it does, and I'm missing some fundamental point somewhere

Not sure I really get your point. Would it make any difference to the analysis in the article if it said 'Joe Bloggs' or 'John Smith' or 'Julie Brown' (or whoever) wrote it?

What do you think of the points raised in the article?

 

[newbie]

It wouldn't change the analysis, obviously, but it makes some difference to the reader whether it's written by one person as part of ongoing debate or is the result of drafting and redrafting by some sort of central committee handing down the party line. I don't think the anonymity is massively important, but I don't understand the reasoning behind it and would appreciate some sort of explanation of why the author doesn't put their name to it, as with most articles.

Since you asked, I thought the article itself was fairly unexceptional and didn't really say much that I haven't read before, but then I'm no great shakes at political analysis and the nuances often pass me by That's why I prefer reading debate to tracts, because eg the points made by fridge, and the reaction to them, illuminate more than I get out of a carefully crafted article.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Does Gilligan's track record give any indication that he has Tory leanings? Quite the opposite.

I don't think "quite the opposite" at all but "Tory" is a bit crude. He's writing for the Standard as part of their agenda here, though.

As for the white working class Londoners, what he was talking about here was their perception of 'Red Ken's' priorities. This is what led them to vote Tory. Incidentally the BNP also called for supporters to transfer their second vote to Boris so the triangle was sort of complete.

I just think this is false, sorry. W/w/c Londoners don't really vote Tory much for a start, and despite the stereotype I think the few policies are pretty irrelevant as to why people abandoned Labour. Surely this is what everyone's been saying, that the real issues are things like housing, employment, exploitation - those are what people care about? Not "omg there's a Diwali festival".

Finally your 'rivers of blood' remark suggest you would prefer that people other than the BNP did not talk of racial/religious tensions at all - even - or particularly if they are true?

Who does that help at the end of the day? Half of the reason the BNP are where they are today is because the establishment/media/left tactitly supported the censorship of any analysis of their chances, other than a damning one. The only people really fooled by this nonsense are the likes of UAF.

Indeed even on here anti-fascists who called it right were themselves accused of actually being secret admirers. Not good. Not healthy.

I say "rivers of blood" to compare it to another load of shite spouted by a far-right demagogue which didn't turn out to be true. Sorry, I don't think people should be giving uncritical support to statements like that, no. Is it now accepted "mainstream non-mainstream" opinion that we're going to have race wars within three years because of a "failed multiculturalism experiment"? Count me out of that opinion if so.

 

[brasicritique]

I just think this is false, sorry. W/w/c Londoners don't really vote Tory much for a start, and despite the stereotype I think the few policies are pretty irrelevant as to why people abandoned Labour. Surely this is what everyone's been saying, that the real issues are things like housing, employment, exploitation - those are what people care about? Not "omg there's a Diwali festival".
.

This point just proves that you dont know what you are talking about.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You seem to be under the impression that I care what you think, you tool.

 

[Sue]

It wouldn't change the analysis, obviously, but it makes some difference to the reader whether it's written by one person as part of ongoing debate or is the result of drafting and redrafting by some sort of central committee handing down the party line. I don't think the anonymity is massively important, but I don't understand the reasoning behind it and would appreciate some sort of explanation of why the author doesn't put their name to it, as with most articles.

Since you asked, I thought the article itself was fairly unexceptional and didn't really say much that I haven't read before, but then I'm no great shakes at political analysis and the nuances often pass me by That's why I prefer reading debate to tracts, because eg the points made by fridge, and the reaction to them, illuminate more than I get out of a carefully crafted article.

There isn't a central committee and all policy decisions are discussed and voted on at an AGM where there's one member, one vote. People do send thoughts/ideas round on an email list that all members have access to. Not sure who wrote the article but I suspect one or two people wrote it as part of the ongoing debate and then various other people chipped in with their thoughts.

Anyway, sorry you didn't find the article of interest.

 

[brasicritique]

You seem to be under the impression that I care what you think, you tool.

Nope i'm under the rather obvious impression that your both a tool and someone who dont know what they are talking about. You see your arrogant, out of touch, and seemingly prevelent attitude is one of the reaons the far right are doing so well. The paragraph i quoted in the above post sums up your ignorance as you seem to think that working class people see a seperation between a dwali festival and the issue of housing. Well i would argue from experience that they are percieved by many of the WC as part of somthing the same- preferential treatment. Of course this is not the case, however that you dont know this just exposes your ignorance.

 

[liampreston]

Liebour!!!1!!!11OMG

LimpDemzzz!!11!!lolZ!!!

etc, etc....

 

[brasicritique]

you point is

 

[smokedout]

Is it now accepted "mainstream non-mainstream" opinion that we're going to have race wars within three years because of a "failed multiculturalism experiment"? Count me out of that opinion if so.

tbh, i agreed with most of the article but i thought the paragraph referred to by fridgy was a bit daft

if anything the events in luton showed quite the opposite, that the working class can sort this kinda shit out without resorting to all out war

its true theres a backlash to multiculturalism, its true that people are getting fucked over and that some wc people blame immigration for the lack of jobs/houses/provisions - and i say some, the situation in many parts of london and in scotland is very different

but by and large the bnp have gained a miniscule share of the vote in fairly insignificant elections on the ack of a failed and dying labour government which we can all agree abandoned the wc long ago and a tory party who are far from full strength yet

as a quote by treelover in another thread pointed out, lots of people voted for the bnp as a protest vote and dont consider themselves racist

theres probably less racism right now than at any other period in the uks history, the fact the bnp were elected despite that is one of the questions we need to be asking

 

[brasicritique]

I disagree with your last point to me it is obvious why people voted this way to try and get it down to one specific question is in danger of ignoring a variety of interlinked issues ( which i admit are complex and linked to globalisation ) and your final point is also in danger of reducing the whole debate to ' theres racsist people they are WC and chavs its only a million so what ? ' .

 

[newbie]

Anyway, sorry you didn't find the article of interest.

that's not quite what I said, but I do tend to get more out of the debate than the article that sparked it off.

anyway, thanks for the explanation.

 

[partyzan]

I disagree with your last point to me it is obvious why people voted this way to try and get it down to one specific question is in danger of ignoring a variety of interlinked issues ( which i admit are complex and linked to globalisation ) and your final point is also in danger of reducing the whole debate to ' theres racsist people they are WC and chavs its only a million so what ? ' .

It's as simple and as complex as this - people voted for the BNP because they're a racist party!

 

[durruti02]

It's as simple and as complex as this - people voted for the BNP because they're a racist party!

the studies and surveys say otherwise

 

[JHE]

It's as simple and as complex as this - people voted for the BNP because they're a racist party!

And presumably it was "a racist party" a decade ago, too. Why did they get many fewer votes then? Were there fewer racists then? If there are more racists now, what has caused the increase?

 

[liampreston]

It is a lot more complex than a whole host of racists suddenly found their way to a polling station. This year's result is the sum of, and combination of, the economic situation (from which we can draw connections to unemployment, cheap labour, minimum wage, and so on), working class voters feeling as though they had no-one else to vote for (from which we can draw connections to Labour Party and its standings, Labour Party and its movement from the Party we knew in the 60s/70s/80s, how the Right connects to disinterested and cynical voters, and so on..)

The BNP are a good brand, they make good copy, and somehow this year some elements of "a perfect storm" attrated success to them.

From now - well, I dunno. I am a member of a mainstream political party, which has its own problems. Being in the North West of England, I am appalled and disgusted that one of my elected representatives is a member of the BNP. It needs us to reconnect with voters just as people of the further left will need to.

Maybe those behind NO2EU are going to draw up an Alliance for Workers, Equality and Socialism in an actual unified political and campaigning grouping for the next 12 months. If so, or however a new left/workers party forms, I wish it luck, I really want to see as many united action against the far-right and ignorant as possible.

 

[JHE]

Maybe those behind NO2EU are going to draw up an Alliance for Workers, Equality and Socialism in an actual unified political and campaigning grouping for the next 12 months. If so, or however a new left/workers party forms, I wish it luck, I really want to see as many united action against the far-right and ignorant as possible.

What sort of 'united action' do you want?

Why would you, a member of the Lib Dems, the third most important party (albeit not really doing very well at the moment), want to get together with a tiny left-wing group? Is it because you want some sort of street protest and have noticed that Lib Dems don't much bother with that sort of thing while it's second nature for the Tankies and Trots of No2EU?

 

[liampreston]

Because being a party member does not mean signing up to each and every assumed characteristic of one. There is only so much the mainstream parties can do at the moment, not least because trust has fallen so far. "The BNP aren't to be trusted" doesn't cut it with some of the voters we canvassed over the weeks running up to polling day.

Now to balance things out, though I marched on Preston's Gaza march and will happily join any protest against the BNP (there's one....two weeks away in Preston folks) I'm not about to a) sign up to NO2EU and/or succesor groups, or b) arm myself with half-a-dozen free range.

 

[Nigel]

So I read this, but saying 'we were right all along' raises the question - so what did you do about it then yourself ?

I dont agree the 'pilot schemes' where successful, in that for the most part they didnt last. Part of the reason for this I think is the sectarian approach of the organisation to other activists on the left. Its not clear if people like me are the enemy or potential allies of the IWCA, with that level of ambivalence even those of us who have left the traditional left parties and are sympathetic to the analysis have not seen the IWCA as anything better.

There may well be other reasons for the IWCA's own failure to grow but there seems to be a strong aversion to talking about them here. Maybe, as with other far left outfits, its culture doesnt allow for serious examination of its own mistakes?

Until the IWCA seriously looks at where they went wrong themselves I think they are just part of the problem to be honest. I hope you can think about that and get past it, in the meantime I guess I will carry on doing my own thing and hope something better emerges.

Good Post!

 

[Nigel]

What sort of 'united action' do you want?

Why would you, a member of the Lib Dems, the third most important party (albeit not really doing very well at the moment), want to get together with a tiny left-wing group? Is it because you want some sort of street protest and have noticed that Lib Dems don't much bother with that sort of thing while it's second nature for the Tankies and Trots of No2EU?

Didn't Paddy Pants Down single handedly disarm knife wealding 'racists' in the west country once.

Compared to many anti-fascists/racists they probably have a better reputation; better than chucking eggs at Griffin, giving an image of greater credibility.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I don't think "quite the opposite" at all but "Tory" is a bit crude. He's writing for the Standard as part of their agenda here, though.


I just think this is false, sorry. W/w/c Londoners don't really vote Tory much for a start, and despite the stereotype I think the few policies are pretty irrelevant as to why people abandoned Labour. Surely this is what everyone's been saying, that the real issues are things like housing, employment, exploitation - those are what people care about? Not "omg there's a Diwali festival".

Gilligan describes himself as standing to the left. His CV backs this up if you care to check it. The point he was making is that 'exceptionally' large swathes of the working class did vote tory in mayoral elections. How does he know this? Because the results are broken down borough by borough and ward by ward. So it is simply not a matter of opinion.

 

[newbie]

As a Londoner I find using Gilligan wholly unconvincing. The mayor election was based almost entirely on personalities and one of the main players was the Evening Standard, who spent the whole of the Livingstone period tearing the man to pieces, just as they did when he was leader of the GLC. Gilligan himself focussed on Livingstone. What he says has to be seen in that, highly partizan, context.

 

[Streathamite]

It's as simple and as complex as this - people voted for the BNP because they're a racist party!

I'd say it's more likely that they felt that the BNP were the only party listening to their concernsm over crime and immigration, and they felt deserted by mainstream parties.

 

[butchersapron]

The yougov thing that asked 32 00 people found that BNP voters (in their sample)

74% don’t feel they have enough money to live on properly, compared to a nationwide average of 52%.
49% do not feel safe going out in their area, compared with 29% nationally (and 22% for Labour).
75% do not feel their family will have the chance to prosper in the years ahead, compared with 52% nationally.
49% fear a family member will lose their job in the next year, compared with 40% nationally.
They also show less trust for a whole range of people than the average – judges, council officials, company directors, politicians, BBC reporters, police etc. The only groups of people BNP voters trust more than the average are journalists on mid-market (Express, Mail) and red-top tabloids.

Look like social issues, issues we can get out teeth into, to me.

 

[belboid]

Look like social issues, issues we can get out teeth into, to me.

As well as the other things the poll found:

"Not surprisingly, BNP voters regard immigration as the top issue facing Britain. Fully 87 per cent of them told us it was one of their top three or four concerns. (This compares with a still-high 49 per cent among the public as a whole.)"

however

"We also find that most BNP voters do NOT subscribe to what might be described as "normal racist views". Just 44 per cent agreed with the party in rejecting the view that non-white citizens are just as British as white citizens.

Yet the feeling is widespread that white Britons get a raw deal. Seventy seven per cent of BNP voters think white people suffer unfair discrimination these days. But that is also the views of 40 per cent of the public as a whole."

 

[butchersapron]

True b -just grabbed the headline figueres. I think they do enough to undermine the idea that "people [simply - BA] voted for the BNP because they're a racist party!"

Voters/menbership/leaders/interests - didn't we all use to use this sort of analysis as standard?

 

[belboid]

yeah, there are clearly a multitude of reasons why people vote for them, including, but not limited to, racial questions.


All to easy to just cateegorise them as 'racists' or 'pissed off labour voters' and fail to see the whole picture

 

[Joe Reilly]

As a Londoner I find using Gilligan wholly unconvincing. The mayor election was based almost entirely on personalities and one of the main players was the Evening Standard, who spent the whole of the Livingstone period tearing the man to pieces, just as they did when he was leader of the GLC. Gilligan himself focussed on Livingstone. What he says has to be seen in that, highly partizan, context.

What do you mean 'using Gilligan'? The importance of the quote was what it revealed about working class voting patterns not the reputation of the reporter per se. Undoubtedly the biggest damage to Livingtone's reputation was his association with Lee Jasper who ran his department as a personal and heavily racialised fiefdom. Gilligan was the one that unearthed the staggering level of corruption involved. Livingstone didn't distance himself from his crony until it was too late. The idea that Gilligan shouldn't have conducted such an investigation or that the the people like Jasper and co were progressive is rubbish. Afterall the people in whose name the various project were operating; black working class Londoners were the very people jasper and co were ripping off.

 

[newbie]

I mean that if you quote a tainted source the impact of the quote is diminished, particularly if you state that because it was him that said it, "it is simply not a matter of opinion". Who says something matters as much as what they say (partly why I'm unimpressed by anonymous articles, but that's by the bye). Surely, if your facts about voting patterns are as rock solid as you think they are, you could find someone with a less obvious axe to grind to quote?

 

[audiotech]

Channel 4 this week reported on the findings of a YouGov poll that interviewed over 1,000 BNP voters. They reported;

Yet, depending on how the term “racist” is precisely defined, our survey suggests that the label applies to only around a half of BNP voters. On their own, these votes would not have been enough to give the BNP either of the seats they won last night. There are two telling pieces of evidence that suggest wider causes of disenchantment. Seven out of 10 BNP voters (and almost as many Green and Ukip voters) think that “there is no real difference these between Britain’s three main parties".

As many as 59 per cent of BNP voters think that Labour “used to care about the concerns of people like me but doesn’t nowadays”.

This sentiment, apparently shared by millions of voters, goes way beyond the ranks of BNP voters. Overall, 63 per cent of the British public think Labour used to care about their concerns – and only 19 per cent think it does today.”

This sense of abandonment, along with greed and corruption displayed by politicians during the expenses scandal has also seen a sharp rise in the numbers of people abstaining in this and all other elections.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4223