IWCA statement on BNP

[Joe Reilly]

Reminds me of the time just after the 2004 euros when one of the now long gone swpers argued that the rise in the UKIP vote was not just accidentally happening to block off the BNP gaining a seat or two that time round, but was actually an explicit conscious anti-BNP vote.

A cursory look at the 2004 voting figures showed that the Tory/Ukip/BNP was a right-wing voting bloc, with ist and second prefs shared between them. Undoubtedly something similar happened this time.

 

[The39thStep]

where, barking and dagenham, ah no, they voted for ken

trust me gilligan is nothing if not dilligent and its thats the best he could find i doubt youll find any better evidence


because most white working class voters vote on allegiance to class rather than race and have traditionally voted labour, not tory

why would any working class voter ever vote tory, now thats a turkey voting for christmas

but if you can prove me wrong with any evidence (as opposed to your opinion) im happy to see it

We would all like this to be true wouldn't we, but is it? Is voting New Labour a class vote? How do we explain in class over race the vote for the BNP in Barking and Dagenham where thousands once worked in the motor trade, or the former mining areas or North Manchester?There is in my view some truth in that the BNP is seen by some as a left wing alternative to a market obessesed New Labour govt who have long sinced abandoned any pretence of working class agenda.

Even before the rise of the BNP the Lib dems began to exploit the gap between the working class and New Labour taking council seats in working class areas.

Le Pen took over former CP inner city areas even claiming May day as being in the FN tradition.

Its dangerous and complacent to assume that the white working class will vote on a class and not racial basis, as it is equally so to assume that the working class per se will vote automatically on a class basis.

Actually the vote as we are seeing is up for grabs

 

[newbie]

Finally there is the notion that 'Red Ken' was indeed a 'red' or at least pink when he had long ago abandoned any such pretence. Look at his love affair with the City and developers - pre crunch. Now his acolytes in City Hall might have an interest in denied all of the above prior to the election but I'm seriously puzzled why individuals on here are doing so after the election. He lost. Just as Labour will lose the general election. There are deep rooted reasons for all of this and none involve the scribblings of Andrew Gilligan.

you're tilting at windmills, keep trying if you like but it's pretty clear that no-one wants to be sidetracked into discussing Livingstone.

There is a seriously hallucinatory quality to the debate. It is like a re-run of the debate with the trots in around 2002 who stridently insisted that the BNP support was coming from the Tory Party rather than Labour.

no-one has said anything remotely like that. What's been questioned are some of the assertions in the article we're discussing, in particular that somehow what's happened in B&D is illustrative that the wwc voted "almost as one for Boris". The way ward boundaries are drawn in B&D doesn't mean that much, on it's own, he lost the 1stb pref vote there. The place is a bit singular- older and less diverse but also less well educated and in poorer health than most of the rest of london, they have every right to feel aggrieved, not much doubt about that, and maybe to feel a bit abandoned. The BNP can feed on that, as can the Standard.

But I'm not sure it demonstrates what the article claims, that "Another welcome reality check is the growing recognition that ‘anti-racist’ policies that effectively work to widen the racial divide – in either direction – and leave the BNP as sole beneficiary, cannot any longer be justified in the name of either anti-fascism or class solidarity." If that's the case why hasn't the BNP taken more root elsewhere in London, particularly in the areas which are more diverse and where those policies may have been applied a bit more enthusiastically? The wwc is, after all, still "the largest single group in the city", presumably that's true in almost all boroughs including other white flight refuges and many of the places they left behind.

 

[cogg]

The strange nature of the debate on this thread is reflected by an email I got from Andy Newman of the "Socialist Unity" blog in response to my offer of letting him put the IWCA statement on his site. First of all, he got some sidekick to post this message:
"I'm holding the fort for a few days as Andy's away at a conference. Sorry I haven't got back to you about the piece. I read it and have to say there are a few things that would stop me posting it on SU, specifically the attacks on Tommy Sheridan and George Galloway, which I feel are hardly conducive to forging left unity.

I spoke to Andy about it briefly and he agrees with my opinion, but he'll take a look himself when he gets back tomorrow.

Would you be willing to edit the piece at all?"

Then the great man himself replied exactly like this: "too left wing for us"


No other explanation was forthcoming.
http://socialistunity.com/

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Coming back to this thread after a while, so there's no indication that any of this stuff about w/c in London areas going Tory is correct, yes? Let alone any of the other bullshit about race wars, as promoted in the original statement.

 

[cogg]

Coming back to this thread after a while, so there's no indication that any of this stuff about w/c in London areas going Tory is correct, yes? Let alone any of the other bullshit about race wars, as promoted in the original statement.

You must be getting confused as the original IWCA statement doesn't mention 'race wars' at all or use the words 'race' or 'war'.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You must be getting confused as the original IWCA statement doesn't mention 'race wars' at all or use the words 'race' or 'war'.

You must be getting confused as the original IWCA statement says

And if that wasn’t bad enough and if Nick Griffin is even half right (and at least some of his forecasts have actually been accurate before) racial/religious demarcations are due for a dramatic expansion too. Recently Griffin confidently announced that he expects the lid to come off the multicultural experiment some time soon. ‘Inter-communal violence’ will likely be a fact of life for many working class communities within, he believes, ‘three years’. The seemingly spontaneous demonstrations in Luton recently may be a portent. It is difficult to predict the short-term winners and losers from such a collective meltdown but it’s a fair bet it won’t be pretty.

i.e. Nick Griffin says "race wars will happen" and they say "yeah looks like it".

 

[Joe Reilly]

do you live in london?

its fairly obvious to anyone who actually does that the working class areas of london, ie lambeth, hackney, barking, stepney, brent, newham, walthamstow, tottenham etc etc all universally voted for ken

and that the rich areas, ie kensington, westminster, city of london and the outer boroughs, many of which are in the home counties and do not have large working class populations voted for boris

do you want me to dig out economic stats, or are you prepared to accept that on average people in richmond have a lot more money than those in newham

Is this who fridge magnet is citing as the expert who has demolished the notion that large sections of the white working class vote Johnson?

Someone who thinks places like Enfield and Havering do not have large working class populations? Are in fact the 'home counties'...

Meanwhile he invents the working class boroughs of Tottenham and Stepney to strengthen his case.

We all know things are bad - but that bad?!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Should I be stacking up the beans and shotgun cartridges for a race war or not?

 

[where to]

Should I be stacking up the beans and shotgun cartridges for a race war or not?

inane comment.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

inane comment.

Utterly pointless post.

This IWCA statement is promoting a BNP view of race war. Or, if not, I'd be interested to see how the bits supporting Griffin actually aren't.

 

[where to]

Utterly pointless post.

This IWCA statement is promoting a BNP view of race war. Or, if not, I'd be interested to see how the bits supporting Griffin actually aren't.

you're talking shite and being disingenuous. (imho)

your quote is preceded with the comment "if Nick Griffin is even half right racial/religious demarcations are due for a dramatic expansion too", which is the main point of the paragraph.

it is followed by the comment "At the same time it is important not to panic."

you're spinning what they're saying. the main thrust of what they are saying is "racial/religious demarcations are due for a dramatic expansion" which is bloody obvious to any one whose been living in the UK this decade and not some wacky prediction as you're spinning it.

 

[treelover]

@Cogg,

That John Wight who posts on SU and i think was the guy you discussed it with is truly bonkers, he is in the mould of our very own Spion and sees anti-imperialism as central to everything: to him Palestine and Muslims seem to come first.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Thing is, "racial/religious demarcations" are _not_ "due for a dramatic expansion" i.e. we are _not_ due for rivers of blood.

You think they are? Mmm. Interesting. Some indication apart from "Nick Griffin says so and you know he might be a fascist but he's right here"?

 

[cutandsplice]

You must be getting confused as the original IWCA statement says

i.e. Nick Griffin says "race wars will happen" and they say "yeah looks like it".

I've just read the whole thing again and your misrepresenting the IWCA's position. It's a lot more subtle than you represent it. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Anyway, if you really believe this "This IWCA statement is promoting a BNP view of race war. Or, if not, I'd be interested to see how the bits supporting Griffin actually aren't. ", you're in trouble.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I've just read the whole thing again and your misrepresenting the IWCA's position. It's a lot more subtle than you represent it. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Anyway, if you really believe this "This IWCA statement is promoting a BNP view of race war. Or, if not, I'd be interested to see how the bits supporting Griffin actually aren't. ", you're in trouble.

I'm not in trouble, no. I don't see how that puts me in trouble.

 

[treelover]

Smears against the IWCA are not new, they have been challenging the 'smelly orthodoxies' of the majority of the failed left and the liberal left for a long time now.

 

[where to]

Thing is, "racial/religious demarcations" are _not_ "due for a dramatic expansion" i.e. we are _not_ due for rivers of blood.

can you explain that jump from "racial/religious demarcations" to "rivers of blood" ?!?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well, what do you think Griffin means by a "dramatic expansion"? A full and frank exchange of opinions on Question Time?

 

[where to]

didn't think so.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

My father came from a family in Wigan where his father was a miner from his teenage years to retirement. His decision to be a Thatcher and Major voter, initially, came from his attitude that the Labour Party he knew from his youth in the 60s and especiallly 70s was a dictating, "top down" party he could not stand. I was brought up with him telling me how the right to buy council homes was the best policy Labour had never come up with.

And yet, that very policy has given the BNP one of their strongest (stupid) arguments 'I got a council house, my parents got a council house, why can't my kids get a council house? Must be the fault of all those foreigners, I'll vote BNP, that'll show 'em"

 

[smokedout]

Someone who thinks places like Enfield and Havering do not have large working class populations? Are in fact the 'home counties'...

Enfield's in middlesex and havering is in essex

Meanwhile he invents the working class boroughs of Tottenham and Stepney to strengthen his case.

i said areas, not borourghs

got any actual evidence of this massive working class switch to boris?

 

[tbaldwin]

Middlesex doesnt really exist anymore as a seperate entity but yes Enfield was in Middlesex same as Wood Green, Southall and Edmonton..Hard to imagine these places as the Home counties.......

Point is that the suburbs do have large working class populations. Many who have moved out of Inner London as people from better off areas have moved in.
All the Rich white incomers in areas like Brixton,Tower Hamlets and Hackney have made areas like Enfield relativelly affordable.
Many of the people in boroughs like Enfield and Havering are just the type of working class people not just forgotten by New Labour but most of the Middle class left.

 

[smokedout]

Many of the people in boroughs like Enfield and Havering are just the type of working class people not just forgotten by New Labour but most of the Middle class left.

well id say lower middle class by and large, few working class londoners can afford a quarter of a million pound house

 

[smokedout]

interestingly boris got trounced in the three wards covering edmonton, easily the most working class area of enfield

 

[butchersapron]

well id say lower middle class by and large, few working class londoners can afford a quarter of a million pound house

av mortgage in london is £300 000 - don't confuse w/c with poor. if you follow your formula of having an average/below average mortgage you're going to come to the conclusion that 70% of the popoulation are middle class.

 

[smokedout]

londons a bit of an exception though due to the price of houses, admittedly the older section of the population may have been lucky enough to buy a house but anyone working class under the age of about 45 is pretty fucked and certainly couldnt afford a house in enfield

 

[butchersapron]

Surely the fact that london is an anamoly makes the fact that the av mortgage is 300 000 more likely that w/c people can/could afford 200-250 grand mortgages?

 

[smokedout]

not really, wages arent that much higher that it compensates

you need to be on about 30k before youve even got a chance of getting a mortgage and even then thats likely to be for a studio flat

 

[tbaldwin]

londons a bit of an exception though due to the price of houses, admittedly the older section of the population may have been lucky enough to buy a house but anyone working class under the age of about 45 is pretty fucked and certainly couldnt afford a house in enfield

You dont seem to have much idea of what your talking about. Do you know Enfield at all? You really think that anyone under 45 who owns a house in Enfield is middle class? How exactly are you defining middle class?