What is it about the BNP?

One of the key distinctions between those on the left and right has been their different approaches to explaining critical events such as wars, revolutions, riots and industrial unrest.  In general those on the left have tended to emphasise the underlying social causes of such events, while those on the right focus more on the actions of individuals.  Of course, most serious writers will look at both but there still tends to be a difference in emphasis between right-wing and left-wing commentators.

A riot, therefore,  will be seen by the left as an expression of deep rooted social unrest but by the right as an attempt by agitators and criminal elements to stir up an otherwise peaceful populace.  Many right-wing commentators blame strikes on the trade unions,  as if,  without the unions upsetting them,  workers would be happy and contented.  The left argues that you can’t agitate people if they have no grievances.  Furthermore,  even if you were to sack all the militant shop-stewards,  the unrest is probably so strong that new leaders would soon emerge. 

The right has a tendency to demonise unrest and look for individual perpetrators.  The left is more likely to try to understand the underlying causes and, sometimes, even to excuse those who commit violence as a result.

That is until you start discussing the BNP. Suddenly,  all the left’s principles go out of the window.  They no longer want to hear about the underlying causes of BNP support. They demand that the party be shut down because it causes racism.  If it wasn’t for the BNP,  so their story goes,  there wouldn’t be all these racial attacks.  Left-wing journalists tell us how the BNP invades towns and whips up trouble.  It is as if the white working class had never thought of being racist until their minds were polluted by the BNP.  Left-wingers refuse to debate with the party,  prevent its members them from hiring rooms from the councils they control and deny that there is anything but evil in their motivation.  It seems that no repressive measures should be ruled out when it comes to clamping down on the nasty BNP.  The usual leftie desire to understand the underlying causes of unrest is nowhere to be seen.   

While any number of journalists are trying to understand what caused Asian youths from Leeds to bomb the tube, few people ever asked the same about David Copeland,  the white nail-bomber. He was quickly dismissed as an evil bastard. When it comes to the far-right,  the left suddenly starts to sound like the Daily Mail. A demonstration becomes a “mob of thugs”,  when it is organised by the BNP.  Left-wing Disgusted-of-Dorkings call for severe punishment and demand that free speech is banned for such evil people. Last week,  in the comments to this post,  an otherwise moderate blogger said that he would like to bring back hanging for Nick Griffin. When Barclays and HSBC withdrew banking facilities from the BNP,  the left cheered. Multi-national capitalist corporations used their financial muscle to close down a political party and the left rejoiced! There is something funny going on here,  surely.

So what is it about Nick Griffin and his crew?  Why,  given that there are more violent and more dangerous organisations trying to hurt and kill people,  does the left reserve such venom for the BNP?  It’s some achievement,  for a party with only 9,000 members and a handful of councillors,  that it can make left-wingers totally abandon their principles and start foaming at the mouth like a bunch of Colonel Blimps.

Comments

[Sam Roony]

A serious shortage of "demons" is emerging for the left. The Tories are not up to the job any more; even Radio Four's hardy perennial jokes about "Thatcherism" don't rate much more than a polite giggle in an audience of trusties.

Domestically, the BNP is all they've got. But, as you've pointed out, hacking at the BNP post 7/7 may not be a smart move. The minor electoral revolt - mainly based in W.Yorks./E.Lancs. - that pushed the BNP up the agenda was generated by opposition to the very same community that reared the Thursday Bombers club. Bit awkward that!

[Bloggers4Labour]

Well, it's worth talking about. Will have to see if we get some comments.

http://www.bloggers4labour.org/2005/07/bnp.jsp

[Steve]

Sam - I remember thinking exactly the opposite in the early 90s. I stood watching the speeches at the Anti-Nazi carnival in Brockley Park and I thought "this is all too easy." The left was weak, demoralised and divided then, having just lost a fourth election but the one thing they could agree on was that they all hated this miniscule party. It was easier to hate the BNP than to have difficult arguments about where the left was going. Hating the BNP, I decided, was a symptom of impotent fury.

Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe my theory still holds up - as the hard left has been smothered by Blairism, they have retreated to the certainties of old battles. Or maybe I'm just trying to make the evidence fit my old theory. Perhaps you are closer to the mark.

Labour Bloggers - thanks for the link. Maybe one of you can explain it to us.

[sam roony]

Steve,

I suspect the BNP of '05 is sufficiently different from the BNP of '90 be in a different universe. (wasn't NF still top demon then? Can't remember). Don't think the BNP is picking up support for the full chorus of loony tunes. But it has taken up the anti islamic immigration script at just the right time - given its limited electoral support on any other count.

[Bernard]

The left would love to believe otherwise but the BNP (or another party like it) will rise more or less in line with the effects of immigration. Once Brits are a noticible minority (a situation thats not far off in W.Yorks./E.Lancs) a BNP will appear as if by magic. No doubt the left will be perplexed each time this happens.

[Rob]

Well, I don't want to bring back hanging for Nick Griffin or anything - but isn't it enough to hate them because they're a neo-Nazi, fascist party and that their manifesto is a rabid stream of racism? I'm confused ...

[Chris]

great article, keep it up

[Joe90]

There are neo-Nazis in the BNP (as a quick look at the Stormfront forums will confirm) but it cannot be described as a neo-Nazi organisation. They are indeed racist - race is to them what class is (or was) to the Left. But publicly they eschew the old lumpen talk of 'wogs' etc which characterised the National Front.

The official line is that races may be equal but are inherently different, and so it is disastrous to attempt to have different races living together in the same society. Of course, there is a strong element of self-fulfilling prophecy here.

But much of the Left, under the guise of multiculturalism, has followed a curiously similar line to that of the BNP, in taking social issues and trying to racialise them.

Lee Jasper advocates black-only schools. Oona King recommends mentors for failing black pupils (more precisely, those of Jamaican descent) but says nothing of the needs of poorly-performing white pupils. Tower Hamlets Council has a Bangladeshi Youth Centre on the Isle of Dogs, but not one for white youngsters. Why not just have a Youth Centre - full stop? The SWP/George Galloway concoction known as Respect openly identifies with Muslims - no wonder in the saloon bars of Dagenham it is referred to as the 'paki party'.

In more elevated circles, there are delighted trills about the services of Polish carpenters ("They work so hard!") or the pleasures of living in parts of town described as 'vibrant', i.e. which have significant non-white populations.

Meanwhile, who looks out for the white working class? Who is out campaigning on local issues which affect them, such as crime, or the sell-offs of public amenities? Who sticks up for their culture and way of life? Who bothers to ask them what they think about one issue or another?

The Left has largely abandoned them. Maybe all those St George's flags which decorate the balconies and windows on council estates act like garlic to vampires - the Left won't go near them.

But a political vacuum like that won't stay empty for ever. In a few areas, with largely incompetent councillors, the BNP has nonetheless begun to fill it.

[Sam Roony]

Joe90,

Spot on. The soft (electable) left walked away from it's roots, and has diligently tried to dig them up.

What remains of the white working class communities don't like it. They're swelling the BNP vote, if only here and there. The white salariat preaches multicult, but covets a mono lifestyle. Tartuffe would love it!

[Steve]

Rob, hate them because they are a 'fascist party', by all means. But why not hate the Islamists who attack Christian converts in their homes? Why tolerate the West Indian homophobic "Dance Hall" stars? What about the religious nuts who try to get plays closed down? Not to mention the sectarian Sinn Fein.

OK, many on the left may hate these people too but they don't campaign against them with nearly as much gusto as they do against the BNP.

My point isn't that the BNP are "nice chaps really", it's that (a) there are some really murderous bastards out there who are far worse than the BNP, about whom the left remains silent and (b) the left is so obsessed by the BNP that it completely loses its collective composure when discussing them.

[john b]

The Left (or at least, 'many people and organisations on the left') has spoken out against homophobic dancehall stars and the nutters (Christian and Sikh) who try to get plays closed down.

The Islamists who attack Christian converts don't get much play (perhaps on the grounds of 'why bother throwing out one silly set of superstitions only to take on another?' - it's a lot easier to be sympathetic to someone who isn't doing something daft, even if the daftness leads to people doing horrible and brutal things to them); and the Sinn Fein question isn't really reducible to sectarianism ('supporting terrorism' versus 'history of fighting colonial oppression' are the two main conflicting narratives).