WHY DID NO2EU STAND IN THE EURO-CONSTITUENCIES WHERE THERE WAS A BNP DANGER?
No2EU as an independent political force had a democratic right to stand wherever they wanted, that is not in dispute. It is equally not in dispute that the primary blame for the rise of the BNP lies with the Labour Party that has become disconnected with many of its traditional working class supporters, and riddled with loathsome careerists like James Purnell and Caroline Flint who voters detest.
Nevertheless, the possible impact of No2EU standing in the three Euro constituencies where there was a clear and present danger of a BNP victory was not only foreseeable, it was foreseen. These seats were on a knife-edge, and it was always possible that a few thousand voters who could otherwise have been persuaded to vote to keep out the BNP, by voting Green or labour, might vote for NO2EU and let the BNP win.
This was expressed privately and publicly to leading figures within NO2EU. Some acknowledged the argument had substance.
The RMT union, CPB and SP could have forcibly argued that in these constituencies, and in these constituencies alone, even though they disagreed with the Labour party or Green Party, the threat from the BNP was so severe; and the impact on wider politics of the fascists winning MEPs was so strategically important, that even though they disagreed with labour and The Greens, they urged their supporters to cast a tactical anti-fascist vote in just these three constituencies. Elsewhere they could have continued with the No2EU project.
A large part of the labour movement were seriously worried about the BNP threat,and were arguing that the prospect of European funding for the BNP, and the boost of respectability for the fascists would make them much harder to contain; whereas if the BNP failed in this push for the Euro elections, the fascists could have politically and financially overreached themselves
No2EU could have stood in Wales without any threat that their participation in the election would let the BNP win.
No2EU could have stood in Scotland without any threat that their participation in the election would let the BNP win.
No2EU could have stood in London without any threat that their participation in the election would let the BNP win.
No2EU could have stood in five other English constituencies without any threat that their participation in the election would let the BNP win.
By standing in 8 instead of 11 constituencies, NO2EU would still have made the political statement they wanted to make; they would still have been involved in the same building of relationships and exploring collaborative working for the future. But they would have also been showing both tactical nous, and making an acknowledgment of the concerns of the rest of the labour movement. Even those of us unconvinced by NO2EU would have recognised it was a progressive electrical challenge and wished them well.
But let us be clear, many trade union activists and committed anti-fascists greeted the decision of No2EU to stand in the North West, Yorkshire and Humberside, and West Midlands with dismay; and I have spoken to union officials who are deeply angry about it. Under the d’Hondt electoral system votes for a minor party who polled less than the BNP would not help stop the fascists, unless it was done by directly taking more votes from the BNP than Labour and the Greens.
So what is the upshot? Far from building confidence in the wider movement that the component parts of the No2EU could be the building blocks of a future political coalition; many of us look at it and see that a reckless and irresponsible decision was taken, by people who were unaccountable, through a process that was not transparent. This is not just concern from pro-Labour loyalists.
No responsibility is accepted that NO2EU did in fact campaign to take progressive votes, and therefore would have attracted some thousands from the Greens and Labour. No responsibility is taken for the fact that the danger was actually pointed out to them, and they chose to ignore it.
We hear stentorian declarations that the long term best way to prevent fascism is to build a working class, socialist alternative. But the enemy were at the gates, we did not have the luxury of playing the long game for the future in these three danger constituencies, we had to draw a line in the sand and say “they shall not pass”. That is what most of us did; we understood that there was a perfect political storm that contained within it the danger of the fascists consolidating a strategic advance; and this had to be factored into all our calculations
So why did NO2EU stand in these three danger seats? What was the gain? Just to get a party political broadcast? Who made the decision? What consideration within NO2EU was given to the impact on the anti-fascist campaign? But no explanation is available, no-one is prepared to explain the process by which the decision was reached, or to justify why it was felt necessary to stand in all nine rather than just six English constituencies.
The comrades involved need to be very clear. I say this with regret as I have respect for all the comrades involved, but the political authority and reputation of Bob Crow, Brian Denny and Alex Gordon of the RMT; and the reputation for good judgement of the CPB and SP leadership has been damaged in the wider movement by the unaccountable, opaque and indefensible decision to recklessly engage in an election in constituencies where it was foreseeable that it might tilt the result the way of the BNP. Every time a hard left challenge to Labour is envisaged in the future; this result will be thrown in our face.
This is not a criticism of the NO2EU project overall, but of the totally unnecessary decision to stand in the three euro-constituencies where the BNP were an active threat.
I’ve got no remit to defend the NO2EU campaign, having voted Green in the election because I support their pro-European position. But I think it’s unreasonable to expect that in a Euro election an anti-European coalition like NO2EU should stand aside in a number of constituencies and urge a vote for a pro-European party (whether Labour or the Greens). A portion of their vote, as others have pointed out, may well have gone to UKIP anyway.
Surely it’s more important to look forward to next year and beyond, rather than scurry round apportioning blame? It will be incredibly difficult to negotiate electoral pacts in the next round of elections, and that task will be made even harder if people start throwing bitter recriminations around in the wake of the Euro results. We need to see to it that progressive candidates - whether Labour, Green, SLP, Respect, SP or whatever - who support an anti-war, anti-racist, pro-union position stand unopposed by other progressive candidates. I’m not optimistic, because party interest seems to trump everything. But that should be our goal. And having a go at NO2EU is not the best way of starting that process. We need to call a truce if we are to have any hope at all of stopping the rise of the BNP.
Comment by Deckchair Socialist — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:19 am
I agree with you Andy, but hindsight is a wounderful thing
Maybe they stood in all regions to ensure political broadcast ??
Its intresting that the SLP did better with less money and profile
If we are standing on left wing priciples then they were right to stand
if you believe in a united front against fascism then you have to seriously consider backing other candidates, such as respect to their credit did in West Midlands did (Iam a Labour supporter).
In the Euro’s tatically had to be a green vote in North West and Labour (shock horror) in Yorks & Humberside
It will depend on many factors, but primerily best position to pick up last seat
if you dont want to get your hands dirty then fine wake up to BNP MEP with all that Euro money
but dont complain
thats electoral politics
Comment by Sean — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:23 am
#1
Well, actualy we need a post-mortem of what went wrong in the BNP getting elected and the “move along now, nothing to see here” defecne is not very convincing.
If you think that providing individual voters with the opportunity to vote according to their conscience is the only consideration, then for sure, you don’t need to worry about the longer term strategic issues like the BNP winning two MEPs.
But for those of us who engage in politics because we actually want to change the world for the better, (or at very least prevent it from getting worse !!! ), then elelctions involve political calculations about what is the best outcome and how can we intervence to acheive it.
there is a simple question. Does having two BNP MEPs prvide a significantly worse political context for the labour and prgressive movements to operate within? Would Green or Labour MEPs have been better friends and allies going forward? How can we ensure that our intervention in an election builds relationships and contributes to the best achievable outcome.
I am particularly disappointed in the CPB who normally understand this sort of reasoning really well.
I haven’t made any criticism of the Socialist Labour Party, becasue we all know they are a sect who do their own thing, and have no concern about the consequencies, or building alliances with others. The component parts of No2EU are better than that, and I expect better from them.
If the parts of NO2EU were sects, then you are right, there would be no reason to discuss their decision; but because they are not sects, then we will wish to work with them in the future. Hopefully if they wish to work with others then they will be happy to discuss in a fraternal manner what their political judgements were, so that we can resolve out political differcnes over this.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:32 am
#2 “hindsight is a wounderful thing”
Well yes - but this was pointed out to them IN ADVANCE !!
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Andy, you should send this in condensed form as a letter to the Morning Star.
Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:39 am
I agree with this very much - and made the same points in comments yesterday.
I have met Bob Crow and Alex Gordon in an anti-fascist context and have no doubt about their absolute determination to stop the fascists. Another (non-RMT) activist who appears in the no2eu broadcast is a committed anti-fascist I have known for many years.
I can only assume that they would have seen it as a sign of weakness to launch themselves and say but in 3 constituencies we want you to vote for someone else. On the contrary though, I think many socialists and anti-racists/anti-fascists will have seen it as a sign of strength and political maturity to explain why in certain constituencies they were prioritising above all an anti-fascist vote
Two other points need emphasising.
Andy’s commnents about accountability and responsibility highlight the need for absolute transparency and democracy in bulding the left alternative that is so needed.
And secondly, all of us on the left are going to have to recognise that building a left coalition must entail putting the creation of a coalition above narrow sectarian interests. it is not just about being able to work with each other while staying in our own hermetically sealed ideological enclaves, it is about coming together with our own insights and perspectives to create something that can move out of the left sectarian ghetto and be a pole of attraction to a much wider public. Let’s not forget that apart from the BNP victories the biggest vote last week was an “I’m not interested in these politics vote’ which seemed to win more than 60%.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Of course, most people who voted for No2EU did it on the basis of the name alone; some of those would have been right-wing anti-Europeans who would naturally vote for UKIP.
UKIP needed only 1000 more votes in the North West to stop the BNP. The Greens needed 5000 more (I think).
without No2EU, Nick Griffin would almost certainly have lost - to UKIP.
Comment by unseen — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Andy’s argument just does not stand up to scrutiny. Here is what I wrote last night refuting the ‘if No2EU stood aside’ argument. I’ll have more to add to it later.
On another point about the “RMT’s standing being damaged in the labour movement”, just by who exactly? To give you local examples postal workers in the local CWU branch welcomed the fact a union had decided to stand up and fund an independent left alternative. And I doubt the RMT’s standing is much damaged by their call yesterday for the left to get its act together and enter talks about building a coalition in time for the general election.
Comment by a very public sociologist — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:42 am
#8
So Phil
Is that a straight answer that it was the Socialist Party who were responsible for this decision?
What consideration did you give to the argument being strongly put to you by anti-fascists that NO2 EU should not stand in the NW constituency in particular.
Why did you consider it necessary to stand in every constituency?
What did you gain?
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:51 am
#1 Greens = Pro-European?
“# Reject the Lisbon Treaty
# No to EU directives that privatise our public services
# Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in Britain
# Repeal anti-trade union ECJ rulings and EU rules promoting social dumping
# No to racism and fascism, Yes to international solidarity of working people
# No to EU militarisation
# Repatriate democratic powers to EU member states
# Replace unequal EU trade deals with fair trade that benefits developing nations
# Scrap EU rules designed to stop member states from implementing independent economic policies
# Keep Britain out of the eurozone ”
Those are Green Party policies as well as no2eu ones.
Comment by Aaron — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:02 am
They’re not for pulling out of Europe though, are they? I thought they were in favour of working with other progressives in the EU, on the basis of critical engagement with it?
Comment by Deckchair Socialist — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:10 am
That is the case. We are progressively Eurosceptic, but not Euro refusenik, as it were.
Comment by Matt S — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Right, I really must come in on this canard about No2EU wanting to “pull out of Europe”. As a Green Party European candidate I shared a platform at two hustings in London organised by trade unions and PCS. At both hustings, the No2EU speakers (one of whom was the Election Agent) said quite clearly when asked did they want to leave the EU that THEY DID NOT WANT TO LEAVE THE EU! Their position was, and it is the Green Party’s also, that they were opposed to the Lisbon Treaty and both of us want a referendum. It is simply untrue to say that their position was to leave the EU. The only parties openly stating that were UKIP and the BNP.
What they were confused about however, was whether they would take their seats or not. At some London hustigs candidates said they would, at others that they would not. And who was going to attend the special convention which would decide this after the election? The movers and shakers with no democratic input? Apart from the fact that this was fantasy politics it demonstrated a level of political awareness and organisation which can only be described as infantile.
I will continue to argue for a non-sectarian broad Left agreement on electoral strategy and Green Left are meeting at their AGM on the 20th and will discuss this. However, No2EU’s antics have left a bitter taste. Why come up with this only 3 months before the elections and then be unclear and muddled over so much. The actions of New Labour are the main reasons why we have two BNP MEPs but No2EU’s catastrophic dunderhead politics have not helped.
I have to salute the boldness and willingness of Respect in NW and West Midlands to support the Green candidates and I for one, will be calling for reciprocation at the general election. We must and should unite against the common enemy and the time for infantile game playing is long past. Even worse, we fact the real prospect of a successful Fascist block now being formed in the European Parliament. Look at Italy for a demonstration of what this could lead to. The Mayor of Rome is a Fascist, the government includes Fascist ministers. The nightmare draws ever closer!
Comment by Verde — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:47 am
#12 Which strikes me as a pretty good position to take!
Comment by Deckchair Socialist — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Quick question: did political parties at the recent Euroelection have to contest every seat in order to qualify for a Party Election Broadcast? (I’m not including regional/national parties such as SNP, Plaid Cymru and English Democrats in this.)
Comment by Darren — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:51 am
Not all on the left are anti EU
infact I am probably pro EU
with massive clarification
saying your anti EU is just a statement…doesnt really mean anything
Iam sure its not the main reason people voted no2eu, most will have know it was left wing as did those voting for the SLP
but the ant EU issue is a distraction from the main issue Andy raises about electorial politics under PR what the forces of the left should do when you have a fascist threat
I remember some on the left (SWP)arguing in the last but one french Presidential elections that they should not vote even though it was between Le pen Fascist and a Gaullist
difficult I know but it has to be done
Comment by Sean — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:56 am
The logical extension of Andys argument is that the Greens took votes from Labour and Nader allows the republicans to win elections.
It is pointless speculating on the basis that these votes were transferrable to whatever party Andy attributes them to. I voted No2Eu but if they didnt stand I would not have voted for the Greens or for Labour. I am sure that I am not alone.
The Green Party were irresponsible when deciding to stand in all regions they should have encouraged their voters to turn to UKIP in the North West!
Voters do not read SU nor do they have an outlook of whats best for an overall progressive movement, they usually pick whose policies or candidates that they like most. Voters deserve a range of options.
Under Andys plan we should distill elections to a simple equation of everyone getting behind the least worst option or the best of a bad bunch or, as I said, a two party system.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:00 am
#15 yes darren
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:01 am
I understand respect issued leaflets backing Greens in West Mids
so it can be done
not everyone will change but 5,000 out of 50,000 in the NW would have been easy
Comment by Tim — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Tim, that couldnt have been done by No2Eu, where they didnt stand they wouldnt have existed. Now, if you thinki that the SP or RMT would have been able to persuafd etheir members to pay for leaflets backing the Greens, thats a different matter, but I doubt that would have happened. If that coalition had decided not to stand in NW then there would have been no group to make thjose decisions.
Remember, Respect came within one vote of backing No2Eu and the SSP were split 50/50.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:09 am
-21
no, jim. the ssp were slightly against “discussing” the no2eu project.
Comment by Albert — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Phil #8
So your argument is that you had no idea who would or wouldn’t vote for you, and just threw your rock into the pond anyway. and that wasn’t, according to you, reckless.
You also equate (on your blog) the tactical considerations of whether or not a BNP member might as being similar as whether labour or SNP win a seat in the Scottish parliament, errr, NO!
It is not as if the d’Hondt system was unkown to you. There was a very finely balanced election, where whoever you took votes from (unless they were votes directly taken from the BNP) you were increasing the chances of a BNP victory - that is true whether you took vote from Labour, the Greens or UKIP. that is because any party that scored less than the BNP would not affect the result.
Did NO2EU not understand the electoral system? Or did you simply not care about the increased risk of a BNP victory?
What profit/loss evaluatun did you make of the risk. Given that you could have anyway stood in six other euro constituencies, what extra did you gain by standing in the NW, WM and Y&H? And you judged that this marginal benenfit was worth the risk of increasing the chances of a BNP victory.
I find your arguments evasive.
Either you did consider the risk, and decided it was worth it, in which case can you explain what was gained by standing in 14 constituencies instead of just 11?
Or you didn’t consider the risk.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:26 am
#17
“The logical extension of Andys argument is that the Greens took votes from Labour and Nader allows the republicans to win elections.”
No, becaaue both the Greens and Labour had a serious prospect of geting more votes than the BNP, and thereofre affecting the result and denying the BNP a seat.
That is the d’Hondt system
Even in their wildest dreams NO2EU could not have thought they would outpoll the BNP, and therefore any votes you took from parties who might outvote the BNP made the prospect of a BNP victory MORE LIKELY.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:29 am
#17
“Under Andys plan we should distill elections to a simple equation of everyone getting behind the least worst option or the best of a bad bunch or, as I said, a two party system.”
No that is simply dishonest Jim, becasue I have stressed that in the constutuneces where the BNP were not a clear and present danger then there was no problem at all in NO2EU standing. You coud, still have sood in London, Wales, Scotland and most of England.
If you honestly don’t think that socialists shouod take into account the tactical consideration that the BNP winning seats is important then I really do despair of you.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:31 am
#17
“Voters do not read SU nor do they have an outlook of whats best for an overall progressive movement, they usually pick whose policies or candidates that they like most. Voters deserve a range of options.”
But there was a massive campaign in the constituencies under threat warning people of the need to stop the BNP, and tens of thousands were voting tactically.
Meanwhile NO2EU were arguing with progressive voters not to cast a vote that would be effective in stopping the facsiits,, but for NO2EU.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:34 am
#17
” voted No2Eu but if they didnt stand I would not have voted for the Greens or for Labour. I am sure that I am not alone.”
Jim, again this is a slightly disingenuous argument, becasue you live in Scotland, and therefore were not facing the very immediate prospct of Nick Griffin being your MEP.
Are you saying that you would rather have voted for NO2EU, even in the knowledge that you vote might have been enough to have stopped the NP had you voted Green or labour? And remember in the North West, the Green candidate (and indeed as was the third placed Labour candidate) was a socialist
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:37 am
#17
Jim
“The Green Party were irresponsible when deciding to stand in all regions they should have encouraged their voters to turn to UKIP in the North West!”
What amazing ultra-leftisn. Do you really think there is political equivalence between UKIP and the Green party?
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:39 am
The principle reason for the election BNP fascists is that the Labour Government has betrayed the hopes of its traditional core voters.
I have no doubt that there will be Labour apologists in the Trade Union movement who will wish to sacapegoat the RMT & the No2EU project for the outcome. Which side in that debate should socialists take?
The fact is that appeals to vote for ‘liberal capitalism’ and to uphold democratic values as embodied by the criminals in Westminster in order to keep out the fascist threat has little impact.
It was Labour voters who stayed away from the polling stations - and the failure of anti-fascist campaigners to convince them to vote - that allowed the BNP to sneak in. Why this failure? It is that question that anti-fascists need to address. The likelihood is that most No2EU voters would not have voted at all, some may have voted UKIP. Personally I don’t think that No2EU provides the left alternative at the ballot box that is so desperately needed. But I am not going to turn on them for trying. I certainly will not join in a sectarian witchhunt against the RMT/SP that can only serve the interests of those who believe that the party of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair is the best the working class and trade union movement can ever hope for.
Comment by Groucho — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:39 am
#20
Jim’s best argument of all:
“If that coalition had decided not to stand in NW then there would have been no group to make thjose decisions.”
the benfit that was gained from NO2EU standing, and which justifies the cost of having the BNP get an MEP, access to hundreds of thousands of pounds of funding, and making racism rspectable, is that a body arose in the NW that was able to discuss whether to stand in the election or not!
Brilliant.
Is it unreasonable to ask the people who made that decision to actually explain their reasoning?
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Why are you blaming everyone apart from New Labour for the EU results?
It could be argued that a vote for New Labour was a wasted vote as everyone knew their vote would decrease - so why did you not vote tactically to stop the BNP from getting in the areas that you say they are active?
Comment by Jamie — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:43 am
#18
Jim,
therein lies the rather mundane explanation as to why the No2EU were never going to stand down in the North West then.
Of course they wanted the PEB. How else were they going to raise their profile at such short notice? Political differences aside, you can hardly blame them.
Comment by Darren — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:44 am
It’s understandable that after the election of 2 fascists that there should be some level of introspection and self-analysis on the left. Every party…and I mean EVERY party needs to examine their role over the last few years.
The main focus for this analysis should be the absolute abandonment of the working class by the New Labour project and the failure of trade union leaders to stand up for their members political interests.
The focus should be on why almost 1 million people chose to vote for a fascist party.
The focus should be on the failures of the hard left to so far come up with a viable political alternative to give working class voters a choice to vote for a credible socialist party that unites socialists, trade unionists and environmentalists.
But…all we have had since the result is attacks on the one trade union and its leader who dared try something to stem the tide. It’s not the fault of New Labour. Not the fault of the Greens who have never EVER considered standing aside for other progressive candidates.
No..it’s the fault of Bob Crow and No2EU.
Bob Crow and the RMT’s standing have been damaged in the labour movement I hear…which union leaders in particular are angry with Crow? Who are these knights of the working class?
Is it leaders of unions who have sycophantically paid money to a party that has done its level best to attack their members interests over the best part of 20 years?
Is it leaders of unions whose funds have helped to politically sustain the lies of Blair and Brown as they led us into the imperialist follies of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Are these trade unionists who have made the break from the New Labour project and argued to swing their members resources behind a new party than can better represent their members interests?
There isn’t even ideological consistency to some of the arguments against No2EU.
The argument employed by Andy and others is equally valid when applied to the Greens in Yorkshire and Humberside.
Why did they stand there and not stand aside in favour of New Labour?
The best chance of keeping the BNP out was to ensure a turnout of New Labour voters who stayed at home in droves.
Therefore, all left progressives and environmentalists should have been campaigning for votes for New Labour…no?
Why (if the left was serious about stopping the BNP at ALL costs) was there not a concerted effort to convince voters to vote UKIP to keep the BNP out in the NW?
I voted for and campaigned for a party that was a genuine attempt to unite left forces, on a program of workers rights and that stood unequivocally against racism and fascism.
I have nothing to be ashamed of unlike the trade union leaders and members of New Labour who are sniffing down their noses (if they can lift them out of the trough for long enough) at No2EU.
Comment by unity - you know it makes sense — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:45 am
#28
“I certainly will not join in a sectarian witchhunt against the RMT/SP that can only serve the interests of those who believe that the party of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair is the best the working class and trade union movement can ever hope for.”
Ahh this is the new definition of witchhunt that the SWP popularised, where asking people to explain the reasons for their decisions, and stand by the cnsequences of their actions is a “witchhunt”
Surely the MIlitant comrades in the North West have expereinced a real witchhunt in the past, and won’t be scared by questions on a blog.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:45 am
#18 amd #31
So is that the answer,
No2EU stood in the danger seats to get a party political broadcast?
Was it worth it? I can assure you more people have heard the newly elected Nick Griffin MEP on the news since his election than saw your broadcast.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:46 am
#32
“The argument employed by Andy and others is equally valid when applied to the Greens in Yorkshire and Humberside. ”
Well, personally I would have voted labour in Y&H, but the Greens did have a realistic expectation that they might have got more votes than the BNP, an are in any event a nationally established and long term political project.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:49 am
To blame No2EU for the success of the BNP in grabbing two seats is a total red herring and divisive. The success of the fascists is due to New Labour’s right wing policies, the alienation and dissolussionment that Labour has sown amongst the poorer sections of our communities. It is much to do with the failure of the Labour party itself in allowing the right wing to hijack heir party, to acquiescent trade union leaders, who are frightened to rock the boat as much as they are scared of the left. They have remained silent over the past weeks.
Petty nonsense about No2EU splitting the anti-BNP vote ignores the failure of the left as a whole to unite itself against the right and offer the working class electorate a credible alternative. NO2EU at least tried to do that.
The question for the left now is to decide where it takes itself now?
Unity around a mutually agreed programme is essential. The Peoples Charter offers a way forward. A building of a united anti-BNP front is another urgent requirement.
Action against unemployment including mass marches organised and led by the Trade Unions and TUC must be pressed for.
For too long the right have held sway. The BBC, utterly disgraceful mouthpiece of the right must also be held to account. Up to the elections and after they have given reactionary parties such as UKIP plenty of airtime, and that fascist lout Griffin more interviews in one day than any spokeperson of the true left over the whole election campaign.
Nick Robinson the BBC’s political commentator was once President of the Conservative student association at Oxford, so we know where his political affiliations are.
Comment by Alfie — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Andy is either dense or dishonest, of course. Here are some scenarios:
Scenario 1: Everything happens as it did in reality, but magically No2EU votes are counted for the Greens. This is what Andy operates under. It has the advantage of having the Greens get the seats, but the disadvantage of being impossible.
Scenario 2: No2EU campaigns as it did, but on election day magically there’s no No2EU candidate on the ballot. Anyone claiming to know what this scenario would have resulted in is dishonest. My guess is the NW seat would have gone to UKIP, but I do not know.
Scenario 3: No2EU does not campaign in the three regions. No election broadcast (nationwide), nothing. Again, we do NOT know what the result would have been. Elections campaigns are dynamic (in the mathematical sense). For example, every campaign influences turnout of not only its own supporters, but also of potential supporters of other parties. My guess: no change in outcome under this scenario, but damage to No2EU nationwide b/c of missing election broadcast.
Scenario 4: No2EU components actively campaign for the Green/Labour candidates. This might have worked, but also seriously damaged the SP’s local election campaign and credibility with their supporters - nobody could seriously expect them to do that.
Comment by christian h. — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:52 am
I am a 20 year old who was told by other members of my family to check this site out. Well not for me.
I can’t believe some of the shit that is being spouted.
BNP didn’t exist before 1997 - New Labour are to blame.
Comment by Jamie — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Jamie,
the BNP has been around since the early 80s.
Comment by Darren — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:55 am
Didn’t even have a councillor never mind a MEP Darren before 1997. Is that not true?
Comment by Jamie — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Not true. BNP’s Derek Beacon was elected as a councillor in Millwall in 1993.
Comment by Darren — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Andy # 35 “Well, personally I would have voted labour in Y&H, but the Greens did have a realistic expectation that they might have got more votes than the BNP, an are in any event a nationally established and long term political project.”
Andy…they were substantially beaten by the BNP…by over 15,000 votes. Therefore, by your reckoning…does that not make them reckless for standing?
Should they not at least discussed with Labour the possibility of pulling out and campaigning instead for a second Labour seat?
Surely there must have been informal discussions at least between the Greens and New Labour in Y and H given the BNP threat?
Enemies at the gate and all that?
Comment by unity - you know it makes sense — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
OK. What I do know is that they now have a number of councillors and now have 2 MEPs elected and there a folk on this site blaming everyone other than a New Labour.
People having a go at other parties that stood. Naw not for me.
Comment by Jamie — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Healthy instinct Jamie. Look around, there are other sites…
Comment by swp member — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Andy’s argument rests essentially on the proposition that ensuring that the BNP was not elected was the objective that overrode every other. In doing so he makes the large and unsupportable assumption that No2EUs votes would have unproblematically transferred to his preferred alternative in the North West, the Greens.
He further suggests that No2EU, and its component parts, are principally responsible for this failure of coordinated action and thus ‘let the fascist in’.
This does not do justice to Andy’s normally acute powers of analysis or his usual and widely acknowledged unsectarian style.
Andy says “This is not a criticism of the NO2EU project overall, but of the totally unnecessary decision to stand in the three euro-constituencies where the BNP were an active threat.”
If defeating the BNP was the most important thing then responsibility for the failure to arrange that each party’s voters did what was necessary to achieve this objective can be allocated in proportion to the number of votes each party has at its disposal.
Simply to put the question in these terms illustrates the idiocy of the whole discussion. Voters cannot be directed in this way. The election timetable and regulations do not encourage such manouvres and none of the prerequisites for such political horse trading exist – not least in the absolute refusal of the Greens to accept any national level of inter-party coordination.
We do need to find a way to deal with whatever boost to the BNP this election result brings but it is worth bearing in mind that in addition to its racist pitch the BNP’s support in working class areas rests on its populist exploitation of basic class questions and even so its actual votes did not increase so spectacularly. All of the direct anti fascist work, especially but not exclusively the Hope not Hate campaign played a key part in containing the BNP but it was the abstention rate that provided the basis of their relative success.
European and especially the French experience demonstrates both how volatile support for such formations is and how their election to office presents both new problems but also new possibilities for isolating and defeating them.
Mark Perryman’s insights about the parlous state of the left in general should be rescued from his incendiary presentation of the issue elsewhere on this site. The whole European and British context of this election with massive levels of (mostly) working class abstention, a reduction of ‘social democratic’ representation, a shift of (mainly) middle class votes to the Greens and a standstill for the aggregate of left votes in most countries demands a more comprehensive analysis than one which simply concentrates on the peculiarities of the British situation or seeks to freight the fledgling No2EU project with the principal responsibility for the election of a couple of BNP nasties.
It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if the vote in the Respect leadership had swung by one vote the other way and if the SSP had reigned in its suicidal leadership. A wider No2EU campaign may have changed the dynamics. However, the fact is that for perfectly understandable reasons, and for their own electoral advantage, Respect and the Greens reached, well in advance of the election, a local deal. None of the other parties were included in the negotiations or were consulted. It takes two to tango.
Comment by Nick Wright — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Nevertheless, he lost it at the next election. The sustained period of BNP has been simce 1997. Jamie is basically correct. Blame New Labour, and maybe the left for not building a more credible alternative earlier (something maybe all groups on the left have to hold their hands up to - maybe the SP less than most), not the attempt to build that alternative - regardless of how imperfect that attempt has been. If No2EUs components have made a mistake it is that predicatably their sectarian rivals will have a field day, as is evident here. Maybe they decided they didn’t care about that. Great news about the CWU.
Comment by Jota — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
‘No2EU stood in the danger seats to get a party political broadcast?’
It does look like it unless we hear reasons to the contrary. I would have to say it was not worth it. The NO2EU vote was not very significant in and of itself and I doubt it can be significantly built on. Others have pointed out they were outpolled by SLP which itself did very badly.
So No2EU get on TV but in doing so played a part in ensuring huge resources and legitimisation for the NAZI’s. That’s a very bad deal, indeed surely it cannot be right? Let’s hear the other strategic and tactical reasons NO2EU stood in the NW despite the recognised BNP threat.
Comment by Christy — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Andy’s “widely acknowledged unsectarian style”: Surely Nick must be joking?
Comment by christian h. — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Andy - “But let us be clear, many trade union activists and committed anti-fascists greeted the decision of No2EU to stand in the North West, Yorkshire and Humberside, and West Midlands with dismay; and I have spoken to union officials who are deeply angry about it.”
Figures in West Midlands show that the Greens were 34,000 votes short of BNP.
I’ll ask again…were there any discussions between the Greens and New Labour about the Greens standing aside to let New Labour win another seat and keep the BNP out?
Which unions are these officials members of and what is their record of standing up for their members interests against New Labour?
Comment by unity - you know it makes sense — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
I live in the north west. I voted green. I feel as frustrated as anyone that the left vote was split between 3 parties (Green / SLP / No2EU) and that the BNP were to some extent a beneficiary of this. However I disassociate myself with the criticism and recrimination being levelled by some against No2EU. It’s their absolute right to raise their own political banner and fight for their own platform. Whenever the left take new initiatives, the fiercest critics are usually supporters of established parties, but we are now living in a situation where large sections of the electorate have rejected the established parties, and there is a strong case that the failure of Labour has created the need for an alternative.
What we should be discussing is how the left can reconcile their differences and create a united electoral alternative, capable of beating both Labour AND the BNP at the polls. The need for this is greater than ever.
Comment by red mole — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
One of the main problems with the NO2EU campaign is that it pandered to part of the BJ4BW platform. This does not mean that it took up the slogan, but it tried to give a reactionary sentitment a left face. This is similar to what part of New Labour has done in the past regarding immigration, etc. But this is past, we need to move on. Some form of left unity around the most progressive parts of the left inside and outside the labour party is needed to help build the left after the huge defeat that awaits us next year. Also the British left should really start thinking about how it can seriously engage with and help rebuild the European left. After the huge defeats accross Europe at the w/end we can see what a real dire situation we are all in.
p.s I used to post as RG, but then noticed someone else using the same username so I have dropped it. This is not me adopting multiple identities!
Comment by Gav — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
Amen to red mole. This is an extremely destructive discussion at the present juncture. From the outside it looks like an attempt to diss potential rivals on the electoral left rather then to fight for the unity that is so desperately needed. I’m sure its not. But its certainly what it looks like. And whatever the tactical mistakes that were or were not made, tactical voting won’t be enough to stop the rise of the BNP. There has to be some kind of national level left of Labour Alternative. Given that, increasingly, everyone is agreed on that, I think its foolish to start a huge debate dividing relative levels of blame to the left of the left for the rise of the BNP. There ought to be other priorities.
Comment by johng — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
Few are better qualified to talk about the BNP than Nick Lowles and he has blogged
“I will end the night with the words of BBC political editor Nick Robinson when he noted that the BNP vote in the North West was lower this year than in 2004.
“They are there because of the falure of the other parties.”.”
Scapegoating No2EU, Yes to Democracy, which is an anti fascist force that took the struggle to those areas influenced by the BNP is just old sectarian point scoring. The SLP got more votes but has attracted fewer such comments. I wonder why. And in the new political arena we find ourselves in that kind of division is exactly what the fascists need.
Surely it cannot have escaped our attention that a core strength of the fascists is that they are represented by a single party. Unlike the left, which presents itself [or in some cases hides from] the working class electorate as a series of competing groups. That is why No2EU, which united disparate forces whilst allowing them to retain internal integrity of processes/democracy etc was a big step forward. No2EU, Yes to Democracy should become a Movement. And in the general election it could stand for No2EU, Yes to Public Ownership.
I still cannot fathom why the SLP and No2EU, Yes to Democracy stood against each other when their platforms were so very similar. Together they achieved 300+k votes and that vote would have been a serious base on which to advance future campaigning.
One final point. The fascists only have two arrows to their bow. They are ‘immigration’ and ‘the EU’. Unless progressives have strong answers to these questions they will not last five minutes when it comes to winning over working class communities.
Comment by Caxton — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
48 Christian h thinks I am joking when I referred to Andy’s unsectarian style. I am not.
Sectarianism is not expressing one’s views with passion and power. That’s polemics. Sectarianism is putting ones sectional interest above the interests of the working class as a whole.
People and parties can make mistakes of both analysis and action that run the danger of sectarianism but you make a judgement based on your experience of people and their evolution. My judgement is that the very existence of this site as a place where sharply divergent views may be debated owes much to Andy’s style. He must have the patience of a saint to moderate some of the daft people that contribute here and a very permissive domestic regime to spend the time it takes.
On the question under discussion here I think it would have been desirable, but in the circumstances impossible, for us collectively to have arranged things better in the Euro election. We do not make history in conditions of our own choosing but we do have a responsibility to create the best conditions.We should find unity where we can and look for it where once we would not have looked.
Comment by Nick Wright — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Andy demands to know who took the decision for No2EU - Yes to Democracy to contest the EU elections in the North West. He thinks that this and other No2EU decisions were taken by people who were ‘unacountable’ in a process which was ‘not transparent’.
was nearer the mark:
There is no mystery about the No2EU decision-making process. Representatives of the constituent organisations met and took decisions, on the basis of whatever consensus could be reached after discussion. They were accountable to their respective organisations.
This was the case when it was agreed to contest all 11 seats across Britain, a decision taken primarily in order to secure election broadcasts in England and thereby project our platform - including the sharpest opposition to racism and the BNP - on a mass scale. Given the almost total boycott of the No2EU campaign by the mass media subsequently, which we suspected might be the case beforehand, this was a perfectly logical decision to take. Whatever the considerations about the dangers of a BNP victory (which were present not only in the North West), the record of some sitting Green or Labour MEPs and candidates etc., that was the position eventually agreed upon, and all constituent organisations have to take responsibility for it.
The position in the North West was not as straightforward as is now being presented with the benefit of hindsight. I’m not questioning the value of hindsight, merely to suggest that it is not the best basis for standing on a pedestal and dishing out condemnations.
Discussions on the left and among anti-fascists about tactical voting began some time ago, including on the Socialist Unity site. Many of us were prepared to look at different options, and it would be wrong to characterise the No2EU decision to contest everywhere as being the result of a sudden rush of blood to the head.
Certainly, at one time, Andy himself was arguing very strongly on this site that ‘the left must be absolutely clear that beating the BNP in the North West means voting Labour … in reality only voting Labour will stop them’ and that ‘I find it highly unlikely that the Green party will get more votes than the BNP, and as such a Green vote is a wasted vote with regard to stopping the fascists’ (December 5, 2008).
He changed his estimation later, as he was entitled to do - and correct to do when changing realities can justify it.
In response to the No2EU decision to contest everywhere including the North West, lead Green Party candidate Peter Cranie said on his blog ‘I don’t think we are particularly concerned about this development. Yes, some socialists are going to back No2EU in the North West that otherwise may have tactically voted Green, but not all of them. I’d estimate potential support for No2EU in our region at 2 to 3%, but a lot of that will come at the expense of UKIP, and maybe some at the expense of the BNP’ (March 19, 2009). As late as May 5, Peter was declaring ‘I respect the decision of anyone who votes no2eu in this election. I understand the reasons why you will do so’ (Liammacuaid).
Now Andy wants to hold No2EU chiefly responsible for Nick Griffin’s victory in the North West (a throwaway line at the outset of his post notwithstanding).
Such a proposition is based on a number of selective but unveriable suppositions, while ignoring other possibilities that don’t fit the thesis.
Firstly, Andy assumes that without No2EU campaigning in the North West, and without the No2EU election broadcasts, the constituent bodies of No2EU might well have made the difference by delivering the extra 5,000 votes needed for the Greens to deny the BNP a seat. (That also presumes none of us will have acted on his earlier advice to campaign for a Labour vote). But my own extensive campaigning experience in this election indicates that many No2EU voters would have been unlikely to vote for anyone else. They liked the anti-EU emphasis, especially when they could vote for it without having to vote Tory, UKIP or the BNP. Very few of the many undecided yet interested people I met on stalls and in hustings showed any inclination to vote Green.
Secondly, Andy assumes that the main constituent bodies of No2EU would all have lined up behind the Greens. I’m not sure about this. I certainly can’t speak for the RMT, Socialist Party, Alliance for Green Socialism etc.
In fact, there was always a credible case for tactically voting Labour in the North West. Indeed, had just 20,000 of the 127,000 Green votes gone in that direction, then Labour and not the BNP would have taken the 8th seat. In the past, the CPB has even been prepared to call for a vote for anti-racist Lib Dem candidates if that looks likely to be the best way of preventing a BNP win. In the North West on this occasion, just 14,000 votes from Labour, the Greens or - yes - No2EU would have enabled the Lib Dems to keep out the BNP.
It is also a fact that 72,000 of Labour’s 337,000 votes in the North West were ‘wasted’, and so - by the same faulty line of argument - Labour campaigners have thereby contributed to the BNP victory.
Andy also discounts the contribution that the No2EU campaign locally and nationally made to the anti-BNP struggle, alongside our contributions via Searchlight, UAF etc. No2EU campaigners did a terrific job in Carlisle and elsewhere, countering the BNP on the streets. Our propaganda contributed to the anti-BNP fight, and our election broadcasts delivered the sharpest attacks on the BNP of all, on television across the whole of Britain.
Of course, it is not possible to quantify any impact this may have had on the potential BNP vote, in the North West and elsewehere. But it was a contribution on a far bigger scale than the constituent bodies of No2EU could have made separately.
Yes, for the CPB - again I can’t speak for others - there were tactical considerations to be taken into account regarding the BNP in a number of regions. Andy highlights the North West, Yorks & Humberside and the West Midlands. Yet he also urged a Labour vote in the South West, on the grounds that Glyn Ford MEP has a good record on anti-fascism, although he also supports many of the New Labour and neo-liberal policies which have opened the door to the fascists. Was there a significant BNP threat there? Was there ever a serious chance of the BNP winning a seat in the West Midlands? What about London?
The reality is that No2EU has met with a very hostile response from some sections on the left, for a variety of reasons and motives. I suspect that would have been the case whatever the decisions might have been on contesting this region or that.
But what is particularly worrying is the argument, based on presumption and selective speculation, that No2EU votes alone - and certainly not Green or Labour ones - are responsible for BNP victories. Such an approach contributes nothing to building left and anti-fascist unity, which will not be advanced by a single, unilateral, prescriptive electoral policy, nor by recriminations which go some way beyond an objective assessment of veriable facts and trends.
Worst of all is the way that Andy’s approach lets New Labour off the hook. A throwaway line is not good enough when all the fire is then concentrated somewhere else.
Putting modesty aside, I think the CPB statement issued yesterday (Monday June
NEW LABOUR TO BLAME FOR FASCIST GAINS
Monday, 08 June 2009 14:03
‘New Labour must bear prime responsibility for the election of two BNP fascists to the European Parliament’, the Communist Party of Britain has declared in response to the EU election results.
‘Their failure to protect jobs, pensions and homes while promoting policies for privatisation, war and a police state has driven millions of working class electors away from the Labour Party’, CPB general secretary Robert Griffiths said in a statement today (June 8).
‘The Westminster corruption scandal was the last straw for people on low pay, state pensions or benefits who see Labour MPs grabbing salaries, allowances and property deals worth seven or eight times their own annual income’, he claimed.
In particular, Mr Griffiths accused New Labour ministers and the right-wing press of preparing the ground for BNP and UKIP election gains with ‘a decade of speeches, stories and parliamentary bills demonising asylum seekers, migrant workers and Muslims’.
The Communist Party leader also accused Britain’s big trade union leaders of ‘failing to fight the New Labour clique which has hijacked the Labour Party and attacked the jobs and living standards of millions of workers’.
‘Instead of demanding that union donations are matched by government support for public services, manufacturing industry, public sector housing and trade union rights, they have funded New Labour’s betrayal of the labour movement’s values, policies and democracy’, Mr Griffiths charged.
‘The writing is on the wall for the next General Election’, he concluded, ‘with Britain on course for a right-wing Tory victory unless the unions help force this government to defend workers and their families instead of bailing out the bankers and speculators’.
Comment by Rob Griffiths — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Understand why you get hooked. I live in Scotland and looked around at all the parties. My family are SLP. Wasn’t voting for any of the main parties because to me they are all the same. Scottish Greens don’t like them went to a hustings to listen to them all and the Scottish Greens sounded like my boss. SSP - Tax the Rich sounded great but didnt tell us how they were going to do it - to much bull-shit. N02EU didn’t mention Socialism. So ended up going with the rest of the family and voted SLP. So did many of my mates. They did well in Scotland considering what they did in 2007! I voted for them because I read their Manifesto and I liked it.
Comment by Jamie — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
“Jim’s best argument of all:”
Andy, this wasnt my ‘best’ argument or even a significant part of my ‘argument’, your selective picking up on points to prove the conclusion that you have decided beforehand is, quite frankly, cringeworthy. My point was in response to the claim that No2Eu could have decided not to stand. The set-up of the group was that either a regional group was formed with the specific intentions of standing or the groups involved would do their own thing at that election.
“What amazing ultra-leftisn. Do you really think there is political equivalence between UKIP and the Green party?”
Andy, I am genuinely angered by the attempt to portray me as “ultra-left’ my point on UKIP and the Greens was a tongue in cheek extension of your own simplistic argument about vote transferrance. I am far from being ultra-left and it is this polar style that puts people off this site.
I had vowed not to get involved in the debates here following this election as the left, especially you, turms inward yet again and blame each other. I should have stuck to that plan and will now.
This debate is pointless, divisisive and quite personal.
Anyone who knows ne would know that ultra-left is that last term that could describe my politics. FUCK OFF!
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
As Rob Griffiths explains the central flaw in Andy Newman’s article is that supporters of no2eu were necesssarily anti-fascist.
There is absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever.
They stood on a Euro sceptic platform that echoed arguments put by UKIP and the BNP about “social dumping”. I attended a meeting in Manchester where two Nazis were allowed to speak by the Socialist Party chair and where they explained that it was agreement with this policy that had encouraged them to attend.
What is required is for the real left i.e. socialists i.e. not Andy Newman or Salma Yaqoob, to think about forming a socialist party.
The fascist vote did not go up in the North West. The Labour vote collapsed. People didn’t vote Nazi. They just didn’t vote. They won’t be enthused by Liberal or nationalist slop.
Comment by bill j — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Alright then lets see if I have this right.
‘it was agreed to contest all 11 seats across Britain, a decision taken primarily in order to secure election broadcasts in England and thereby project our platform - including the sharpest opposition to racism and the BNP - on a mass scale.’ So No2EU did do it to get on TV!
But.. ‘This is an extremely destructive discussion at the present juncture.’ So lets not talk about it now- its too difficult.
I don’t think so, it was clearly a very poor decision and Andy does well to open the discussion. If we are serious about stopping the BNP the thinking has to improve and that means discussing difficult matters.
Comment by Christy — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
In Scotland like I expect the rest of the UK most voters were unaware of who NO2EU were. I know of noone where I live who received a leaflet. As Solidarity received 30,000+ votes in 2007 it may have made more sense to stand in these elections offering a known alternative to neo-liberalism, while in the longer term working towards regroupment on the left.
Comment by Solidarity — 9 June, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
If the kind of mud-slinging and futile recriminations on here are anything to go by, then frankly - as far as developing elecoral pacts at the next election is concerned - we’re totally stuffed. I may as well as pop out this afternoon and buy a pair of lederhosen…
Comment by Deckchair Socialist — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
The latest research from Robert Ford of Manchester university has shown support for many of the BNP’s policies if not the party itself, is over 20%
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=4677
many of these polled were working class and people the left should be attracting with a different vision. Unless the far left accepts that yes there are some intrinsic problems with mass migration:(not just lack of information, again quite a patronising stance) one being it is basically a neo-liberal economic tool and that over 86% of the public (of all ethnicities) have decided they want it limited as was identified by GP polling, the left will continue to decline. The Dutch Socialist Party have acknowledged this and are now being taken seriously, but will this debate ever happen on the Left or will it be just more shouts of ‘racist’
Comment by Auteur — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Confused now Solidarity - at the hustings I was at Tommy Sheridan was there as NO2EU. This is what I don’t understand you all get involved in No2EU and now you want something else - no wonder folk get confused!!! Total bull-shit.
Comment by Jamie — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Some comrades seem to have difficulty understanding the word ‘primarily’. It does not mean ’sole’.
There was a strong feeling in some sections of the left and in the trade union movement in the North West that anti-fascist campaigning should not only be linked to appeals to ‘vote Green’, ‘vote Labour’ or ‘vote anything except BNP’.
That is why No2EU linked its anti-fascist and anti-racist position to opposition to EU and New Labour neo-liberalism (including in the Third World), to opposition to EU militarism, to support for trade union rights and struggles etc. It provided an additional and in our view important dimension to the fight against fascism.
Comment by Rob Griffiths — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
There are some really feeble arguments coming from No2EU enthusiasts on this thread. They say, for instance, that No2EU didn’t give the BNP the 2 seats, because there is no way of knowing how the No2EU voters would have acted, if No2EU hadn’t been on the ballot paper.
It’s true that we can’t look inside the heads of each individual voter. But we can make a few intelligent deductions. First, anyone voting for a coalition that includes the CPB and the SP is almost certainly on the left, and an anti-fascist.
If you argue that No2EU voters might have switched to UKIP, you are suggesting that No2EU is just UKIP with a trade union face – and I’m sure Rob Griffiths and Nick Wright would take great exception to such a claim.
It’s also obvious that there are a fair number of people on the left who would only vote New Labour with the greatest of reluctance, if at all. If those people had voted Green, instead of No2EU or SLP, that would have made all the difference.
Of course, it wouldn’t have happened automatically. What was needed was for groups such as the component parts of No2EU to put the broader interests of the progressive movement ahead of their own sectarian interests, and campaign for a Green vote, at least in the three constituencies Andy mentions.
On this issue Respect took a more intelligent position than the CPB, which astonished me.
There’s really no excuse – comrades in the CPB, if they understood the voting system, knew of the dangers, but ignored them. They thought the miniscule propaganda benefits from this campaign outweighed the fascist threat.
Political irresponsibility carries a heavy price, and communists should have learnt this from their own history.
Just to make it clear – I am not blaming the CPB/No2EU for the rise of the BNP. That would be absurd. Obviously the mainstream parties, both Labour and Tory, and the tabloid media, who have created the environment in which racism can flourish, are the midwives to British fascism.
But tactical blunders by the left can also help the far right – and this was one such case.
Comment by paul fauvet — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Jim #57
Have a cup of tea and a sit down.
This is a polemical discussion where people have strone feelings. You made what I felt was an ultra left argument and I called it as I saw it; it doesn’t mean I think you are a bad person, or that you are always ultra-left. It means I think you are wrong on this one.,
You think I am wrong, and I have been called worse than “ultra-left” over the years.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
#63 No need to get confused. All I’m saying is it may have been a better option in the circumstances to stand as Solidarity. I thought reflection and in my case thinking out loud was allowed - without abuse.
Comment by Solidarity — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Dont patronise me Andy, This is a divisive debate based on blaming one part of the left for the election of fascists, when it is clear that 20 years of the degenartion of Labour is the real cause.
The Left is knackered because of these type of debates, there is no prospect of a united left while people like you treat everyone who disagrees with you with such contempt.
You may have been called worse things than ultra-left but to me it is an insult as it is the opposite of what I am, and a position I would never hold.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Solidarity, you are correct, I had it confirmed by my postwoman today that there were no leaflets from No2Eu distributed in this area, I know the same is true in other areas as well.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Hey mate not giving you abuse just stating the obvious. Just like you was thinking out loud so maybe you can tell me how all this confusion helps the working class? In N02EU now not in No2EU; lets all get together - lets not.
Comment by Jamie — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Rob
#55
No - there was no credible BNP threat in the South West, the BNP got 3.9% there this time, and the region included the four lowest BNP votes in the local elections, with some leading BNP members getting around the 2% mark.
In London, the BNP threat was not considered a particular danger; or rather if they won in London we were facing a BNP tide that would have overwhelmed all of us; and would have made the type of tactical considerations we are discussing here irrelevant.
The West Midlands, yes Simon Derby could easily have won.
But the issue here is the tactical wisdom of entering the fray in some highly marginal constituencies, with a delicately poised complex electoral system, where the effect of your intervention ran the risk of letting the BNP win. Under the d’Hondt system whatever vote the No2EU acheived could not be electorally effective unless you got more votes than the BNP, or took more votes from the BNP than you did from other parties.
I am not “demanding” that the decisions of NO2EU be justified to me. What I am saying is that there needs to be some recognition that many people in the movement think the decision was reckless and ill-judged;,and the justifiatioon for that decision needs to be made.
If the consideration was that increasing the risk of a BNP win was a price worth paying for a party politicall broadcast then I have to disagree with you very strongly.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
#68
“This is a divisive debate based on blaming one part of the left for the election of fascists, when it is clear that 20 years of the degenartion of Labour is the real cause.”
Well yes, the big picture is the political context and who has created it.
But within that we make tactical choices and manouevre to make the best advantage for the left. The decision of NO2E was a wrong tactical call, and a badly wrong tactical call, in my opinion; and I think we do need to discuss it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
I voted No2Eu down in London, even though I’ve said elsewhere that they’re confused ; you could say that effectively that was ‘critical support’ , something it looks like a lot of people are going to have to get to grips with if anything successful is to be built. Andy claims London wasn’t under significant threat of a BNP victory - at no time have I come across this estimatiom, on the contrary there was a very big campaign to get people out to vote abainst them - they didn’t get in in London, which alongside the extensive points above , pretty much undermines the accusations about ultra-leftism etc. When it comes to teeth-grittingly nausea-causing tactical voting , I’ve had experience, believe me - I had to vote for Chirac a few years back to stop Le Pen(dual citizenship) Last week simply wasn’t like that, there was absolutely no need to hitch up with a reactionary neo -liberal grouping a la Chirac (i.e New Labour) , nor even a left/reformist grouping (the greens). There were alternatives. By ducking out of supporting an identifiable Left grouping Andy and Salma end up simply attacking the left and effectively nullifying themselves into the bargain. There might have been a case for accusations of ultra-leftism if the Greens were on their way to winning, but they weren’t.
Comment by Seabiscuit — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Red Mole at #50 writes:- “What we should be discussing is how the left can reconcile their differences and create a united electoral alternative, capable of beating both Labour AND the BNP at the polls. The need for this is greater than ever.”
Slight problem with that sentence ‘Red Mole’, it needs to be able to beat the TORIES too.
Remember them?
They’re the party who got the highest number of councillors in the local elections and the most votes in the Euro election.
Judging by your moniker, you may remember the days when the “Red Mole” carried its infamous headline on the Labour Party, “Let it Bleed”.
Your analysis sounds rather similar.
As for Wright and Griffiths of the CP-B, Richard “Lenin” Seymour and his mate Christian H, they all seem to be obsessed by the blame game and their “divine right” to stand in elections, but completely oblivious to the question of electoral tactics.
Comment by prianikoff — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
I would have thought that the primarily problem with the No2EU exercise was that a few core affiliates stitched up the decision making without being accountable to anyone else.
Maybe Andy has a argument, albeit one produced on a very long bow, but the real complication is that the No2EU process was warped from the first instance and if it survives, as it plans to — then it is likely to replicate the very same disdain for democracy that marked other half baked unity projects on the British left that have preceded it.
Compare No2EU to the sort of engagement fostered as part of the formation of the French NPA.
So in the great stream of things, this is a sideshow argument relying on a
hypothesis . The main argument should be whether the No2EU will be accountable and open in future so that issues like this are debated and decided democratically in a process open to all those who wish to sign on.
Without that, anything with the No2EU brand will be as unwelcoming and as useless as Arthur Scargill’s toy party.
Comment by St Georges — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
#73
“. Andy claims London wasn’t under significant threat of a BNP victory - at no time have I come across this estimatiom, on the contrary there was a very big campaign to get people out to vote abainst them ”
If you look at the Searchlight site, this was their evaluation all along. Of course it was necessary to have a very serious effort to ensure that the anti-facist vote was mobilised, and that the BNP were exposed in order to minimise the numbers voting BNP. The estimation that this campaign was likely to be successful enough in London to prevent them reaching the hurdle informed the judgement that there was no a high risk there.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
#74 I don’t think that’s true - this is an argument about what tactics to use - intervention or (in this case)tailing left-ish reformism and/or new Labour
Comment by Seabiscuit — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Andy #72
Of course it’s ok to discuss tactics. You have the absolute right to make your criticisms of No2EU.
But I will ask again…if the overriding tactical question was to stop the BNP at any cost did the Greens sit down in any of the 3 mains marginal seats and at least discuss the possibility that they should stand down in favour of Labour?
Or…conversely…did Labour mount a campaign to urge voters refusing to vote for them to vote Green rather than abstain? Was this discussed by the trade union officials angry at No2EU?
Comment by Anonymous — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
#78 sorry…that should have had my name at the bottom
Comment by unity - you know it makes sense — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
“did Labour mount a campaign to urge voters refusing to vote for them to vote Green rather than abstain? Was this discussed by the trade union officials angry at No2EU?”
I was at a public meeting with about 40 trade unionists, where a GMB official who herself has been a labour European candidate called on trade union members to vote Green if they couldn’t stomach voting Labour, and I have heard other trade union officials, and labour Party members make the same argument; including from some surprising places
But the difference is that Labour and the Greens could both credibly hope to effect the outcome through getting more votes than the BNP. NO2EU could not ever have expected to do that.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
I know who Arthur Scargill is don’t know who St Georges is! But he obviously hates the man. This concerns me everything I read about AS in papers always has a go at the man. You are obviously on their side.
Comment by Jamie — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
The decision to stand against Peter Cranie was a serious tactical misjudgement and Respect in the north-west was right to call for the Green vote. But we are where we are and need to take advantage of the call by Bob Crow to build something capable of opposing the BNP politically. Discussion on that is much more constructive.
Right now the leadership of every part of the left-of-Labour Left has to stop and think. Calculations on the basis of a ’small capital’ basis, eagerly counting the number of new recruits and papers sold, hopelessly fails to meet the situation. Left leaders have to start talking to one another, irrespective of past conflicts and prejudices.
Comment by Liam — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Paul Fauvet seeks to buttress his claim that the No2EU campaign permitted the BNP election by suggesting that the proposition that some No2EU voters might have otherwise voted UKIP means “… you are suggesting that No2EU is just UKIP with a trade union face – and I’m sure Rob Griffiths and Nick Wright would take great exception to such a claim.”
Of course they would. In the words of the judge who dismissed the Morning Star’s objection to the launch of the Star newspaper – a moron in a hurry would know the difference. But people in elections vote for complex reasons and often with a very hazy idea of the ideological hinterland to the most simple of propositions.
But what Paul is discounting here, and as an effective anti-fascist campaigner he should know better, is that the only way to reduce the fascist vote is get them to vote for someone else. Preferably one of us. It is better if they do with a clear vision that the dictatorship of the proletariat must necessarily replace the dictatorship of capital – but any less advanced reason will do very nicely.
This means changing the nature of the discourse around the issues that the fascists make their own in approaching working class voters. Thus shifting the discussion around the EU onto its determining role in institutionalising neo-liberalism and privatisation is politically important in defeating fascism. In the same way we have to explain migration in terms of Britain’s imperialist present and past. We cannot prevent the role of migration in reducing wage levels without fighting for an end to discrimination. If No2EU is open to criticism it is on the extent to which it failed to do this.
Votes do not carry DNA. A confused worker who one day votes BNP and the next day goes on strike against privatisation is worth fighting for politically. Probably more productively so than a liberal minded eco conscious middle class professional who switches from Lib Dem to Green. But their votes weigh the same.
It is odd that Paul’s argument: “First, anyone voting for a coalition that includes the CPB and the SP is almost certainly on the left, and an anti-fascist” seems to sit unproblematically alongside the assertion that No2EU is UKIP in a red dress.
Comment by Nick Wright — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Andy #80
“I was at a public meeting with about 40 trade unionists, where a GMB official who herself has been a labour European candidate called on trade union members to vote Green if they couldn’t stomach voting Labour, and I have heard other trade union officials, and labour Party members make the same argument; including from some surprising places”
But the example you give Andy is of one individual trade unionist rather than a concerted strategy agreed between New Labour and the Greens.
You quite rightly raise concerns about how the No2EU decision to stand in the 3 seats was reached but then do not apply the same rigorous standards on New Labour and the Greens.
It was Labour who lost out to the BNP and it was Labour voters who abstained in huge numbers. The Greens were actually well behind the BNP in all 3. It was new Labour who could have kept the fascists out.
Therefore, the obvious conclusion to draw is that it was not that NO2EU standing that caused the BNP to get in but the failure of New Labour to get its vote out!
So..rather than an extended sectarian bun fight like we find on this blog the left needs to discuss where it goes from here to try and fill that space abandoned by New Labour.
That will involve working with trade unionists like Bob Crow who long ago recognised that Labour was no longer the vehicle for working class representation.
That’s the real discussion from now on.
Comment by unity - you know it makes sense — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
As a person who helped NO2EU be the only group fighting the fascists on the streets of Carlisle, I find it incrediably insulting that I am charged with helping the BNP get elected.
firstly, I don’t agree with the concept that those who voted NO2EU would have voted Green, the vast majority of people that i spoke to had either voted UKIP or Labour, Or not at all.
Secondly, the BNP’s vote did not go up very substantially, the defining feature of this election was the failure of the New Labour project.
I am very disappointed at Andys line of argument, it doesn’t correlate with your usual non-sectarian ethos.
At the end of the day it is like telling keir hardie that he needs to continue supporting the Liberal party, to prevent a tory government.
On this campaign i have faced fascists pushing me, taking photos, verbal abuse, because we were the only people to stand up to the BNP. To be told I helped the fascists is a very bitter, and ultimately non-constructive lie.
Comment by YCLer — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
I know its unpopular
but if your going to stand candidates
then you need to get to grip with the different electorial systems
and historical and present electorial trends
hopefully we will all learn something from this debaracle
as for blame i blame primerily Hazel Blears (Iam a Labour supporter) resigning, for depressing the Labour vote
and maybe the broader lefts failure ) to back candidatres in other parties(historical), if they dont agree with one line of their platform
Comment by Sean — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Yes ycler, it seems that some would have us believe that the rise in the BNP, leading to them having MEPs elected, is the fault of Bob Crow, Tommy Sheridan, Dave Nellist et al, a position that cannot be taken seriously.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
St Georges (75) should be wary about presenting the NPA as a model of good political practice. They refused to enter an alliance with the PCF and the Parti Gauche and succeeded in splitting themselves. The calculated that standing alone they would win more votes than the Front Gauche (PCF, PG, GU-ex NPA) and that the Front would fall below the threshold.
Their mostly middle class prospective voters switched to the Greens, the PCF machine rolled over them in the localities and they fell below the threshold while the PCF PG GU alliance won an extra seat.
If they had joined the Front they might have strengthened its EU critical line and they would certainly have found themselves elected with one in eight left voters united. They put sectional interest above unity and their souffle collapsed.
Comment by Nick Wright — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
#84
“It was Labour who lost out to the BNP and it was Labour voters who abstained in huge numbers. The Greens were actually well behind the BNP in all 3. It was new Labour who could have kept the fascists out.”
Well we couldn’t know whether Labour or the Greens were the better vote on the day, but both were credible in the sense that they mighgt get sifficient votes to afect the outcome. In the NW, the Greens were much nearer beating the BNP than the third placed labour candidate, Pete Cranie needed just 5000 votes or 0.3%.
Now, as you are not doubt aware, under the d’Hondt system for their third seat, each additional Labour vote would only counat as 1/3 of a Green vote. So anyone voting tactically should have bourne that in mind.
On the question of whether there was a formal pact; isn’t that what the whole Hope Not hate campaign was about? encouraging people to vote, and to vote effectivley against the BNP.
But in no constituency was there a credible risk that the BNP would get more votes than labour - so you scenario doesn’t apply.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
#89
Andy it applies when Labour are chasing more than one seat.
The BNP gained lost Labour seats did they not?
They did not win them from the Greens.
Comment by unity - you know it makes sense — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
#85
“I am very disappointed at Andys line of argument, it doesn’t correlate with your usual non-sectarian ethos.”
I am not being sectarian, I am just disagreeing with you.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
#82 Liam “Right now the leadership of every part of the left-of-Labour Left has to stop and think. Calculations on the basis of a ’small capital’ basis, eagerly counting the number of new recruits and papers sold, hopelessly fails to meet the situation. Left leaders have to start talking to one another, irrespective of past conflicts and prejudices.”
The fall in the Labour Party vote is mainly the product of the disillusionment amongst working class voters at the cutting edge of the recession.
They either abstained in large numbers, or in some cases, were prepared to accept the simplistic xenophobic arguments of the far right.
This situation wasn’t unique to Britain either:-
* The SPD in Germany had its worst ever result in postwar history, receiving 20.8% of the vote.
* The Socialist Party in France only received 16.8% compared to 29% in 2004.
*The Austrian Socialist Party lost a third of its vote in 2004 and had its worst ever election result.
The common factor in all cases being the sharp rise in unemployment.
Social Democratic parties which have junked their traditional ideology and accepted privatisation are now paying the price.
A new coalition of the Left will need to have the fight to defend JOBS as its central focus. It needs to be composed of everyone to the left of *New Labour*
Comment by prianikoff — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Every party starts somewhere.
This reminds me a little of the formation of Labour and the Liberals trying to force them down by saying “you’ll split our vote and the Tories will get in”…
Yes, No2EU standing offered people another vote. So why doesn’t Andy write a piece on the political failure of the Greens to win enough votes.
The BNP getting in is bad. But trying to get a new working class formation – that in the long term has the long term answer to defeat the fascists politically – to back down is ridiculous. It almost reads like Andy’s trying to tarnish those involved with NO2EU so that they are ignored when we all get back to the serious and more urgent issue of left unity.
Why doesn’t Andy write a diatribe like this against the SLP as well? Well? Why pick on NO2EU?
Comment by Pete — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
#85 I feel your pain YCL’er.
But the argument wasn’t that you were an actual *accomplice* of the BNP. (that’s more of a Moscow trials line of argument)
It’s more along the line that *just possibly*, you were being tactically dumb-arsed.
Unfortunately, getting duffed up by the fash, doesn’t disprove this proposition.
Comment by prianikoff — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Andy doesn’t like the SLP so tends to ignore them. He beleives the SLP is already tarnished with Arthur Scargill.
He wants to transfer the blame onto everyone rather than those that should be blamed - New Labour.
Comment by Daisy — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
#93
“Why doesn’t Andy write a diatribe like this against the SLP as well? Well? Why pick on NO2EU?”
Becaue the SLP are incorrigable sectarians that are beyond reasoning with. you may as wel complain about the weather.
The comrades behind No2EU on the other hand are generally sensible people, who are open to debate, and cooperative working. So when they make a mistake, I feel it is worth engaging in a debate about it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Told you!
Comment by Daisy — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
#84
But equally it will need to engage with the still one fifth of the electorate who vote labour, ,and the tens of thousands of largely exasperated trade union activists who still look to Labour.
Seeking to leap over this reservoir of support for social democracy is misguided.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
By their decision to form no2eu the Socialist Party took some of the best people and campaigners on the left into the wilderness that was no2eu so depriving the left a chance to support people who could electorally stop the BNP.
The SWP went largely to ground but may have been persuaded with others to build a campaign that explictly said who to actually vote for in the regions stop the BNP
By the way please don’t come back with jibes about the Green party voters only being middle class - this is not true and is lazy politics. Also the vote of no2eu would very similar to past votes for the Socialist Party/Socialist Alliance in past elections - in the main these were progressive people who went along with the call to vote no2eu by the SP.
If people wanted to just vote against the EU - they did it by voting for UKIP
Comment by Roy — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
#99 The SWP tried to mobilise the anti-BNP vote by building the LMHR festival in Stoke, and by leafleting with UAF (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, with Hope not Hate).
Comment by red mole — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Nick Wright on the Greens: “a liberal minded eco conscious middle class professional ”
I love the lack of self-awareness here, when NO2EU put up loads of university professors and barristers on its slate.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
#100 - But not explictly saying who to vote for! Which given the mistrust of the main parties due to the expenses scandal (on top of other things) would had been a Green Vote or with a bit of footwork a left Labour MEP.
A good leafletand campaign but people wanted to protest and hit back at the Labour Party etc. and some people thought a vote for the BNP would do this!
Comment by Roy — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
“But equally it will need to engage with the still one fifth of the electorate who vote labour, and the tens of thousands of largely exasperated trade union activists who still look to Labour.”
But Andy, that is precisely who No2EU, Yes to Democracy sought to engage.
The constituency I had in mind when I helped produce propaganda for the campaign is as follows: organised trades unionists, working class communities who were not going to vote out of disgust for politics and New Labour who might even consider voting fascist or UKIP, Labour supporters reluctant to vote for New Labour and who really wanted to deal with the EU and young people who were getting interested in politics.
Reading some of these blogs I suspect that many were caught out by the election, thinking it another ‘run of the mill’ EU affair. But others spotted its real significance in different ways. For example, Hope Not Hate spotted the danger of the fascists. No2EU, Yes to Democracy spotted the danger of the Lisbon Constitutional Treaty.
The challenge we face is defined by the collapse of New Labour when there is nothing more radical or effective to replace it. This is the reason for the BNP victory. Until we deal with the crisis in worker representation expect things to get worse. I think there is a gap now appearing which is the most dangerous of all. That is where some union general secretaries hold frantically to New Labour, the EU and its ‘modernising’ policies, at a time when the same factors conspire to do away with the industry and jobs of the union members.
Comment by Caxton — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
I think a number of left groups will now have to seriously consider electorial position and reccomend voting Green in certain areas - possibly in Norwich by election for example if Labour pick Blairite
The difficulty for us on the Left (Iam Left Labour) is that the Greens are highly unlikely to reciprocate
thats probably a fact
and maybe something we have to live with
In the past the greens have had pacts with Plaid in Wales and MK in Cornwall
but probably doubtful given leadership of the Green’s
Thats just political reality
but in the same way the left may have to (shock horror) vote Labour.
Comment by Sean — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
I think its understandable in discussions of left unity for Respect to be in negotiation with the Greens (particularly the left sections of that movement). But I think attacking and blaming comrades in No2EU in this way is a touch dishonourable. I don’t think thats the way to build unity on the left.
Comment by johng — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
#105
“dishonourable” ???
you will be accusing me of wearing brown shoes with blue suit next, or other crimes that show I am not really a gentleman.
This is - in my view - a completely legimate questioning of the tactical nous of the leaders of NO2EU, and given that the intervention in these constituencies was done to get a party political broadcast, it is entirely reasonable to question the wisdom of that choice, and the priorities that it reveals.
At one level of course Rob Griffiths is correct that this is a question only for the members of the organisations involved; but given that it affected the anti-fascist strategy of the whole labour and progressive movement, I still think the bigger picture should have been taken into account, and NO2EU should have taken wider consultation.
I know that it was a decision greated with consternation by many socialist activists in the NW. Now NO2EU may take the apporoach that they are not interested in the views of those not in their own electoral coalition a perfectly defensible point of view - but is that the direction they want to take their project?
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Its clear a new political alliance project will have to be initiated.
Its not clear who will be in it-I fear the Greens may want to retain their independence and stand so we may have a new electoral alliance that has to consider an electoral pact with, say the Greens. We vote for you in Norwich you vote for us in area x.
However, I am very concerned by a major assumption in many postings: that if we create a new electoral alliance working class voters will automatically vote for it, switch from other parties.
This must not be taken for granted-loyalty to Labour and abstaining from voting amongst the working class runs deep.
To interest people do we not have to address:
Creative ways to make politics attractive(specifically to the non-aligned and the young),
To create a new culture of ‘doing politics’,
Of running meetings, of being inclusive (particularly for women and black people)
Of avoiding jargon, insider lefty terms, of long-winded speakers/meetings etc.
Do we not have to think of new places, spaces and ways to meet (evenings tend to exclude many women)and incorportae them with old ways….
Comment by Pego — 9 June, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Andy, (102)
My point was precisely that in the ballot box every vote is the same but that in political campaigning an orientation to working class issues is critical for achieving our wider objectives and not simply beating the fash. If by your comment you are suggesting that we should not take into account the objective class position of people whose votes we are trying to win you are abandoning a very important analytical tool. Or perhaps ypu are saying that only workers can represent workers and that working class political organisations should keep their intellectuals, irrespective of their class origins or actual role in politics and intellectual life, locked away.
And while we are on the question of the composition of the No2EU list we could perhaps take into account the ways in which the different formations were able to reflect the ethnic diversity of Britain’s working class in their lists of candidates. Would you not agree that No2EU included some very impressive leaders of the Indian and Bangladeshi communities. perhaps they are too middle class for your taste.
The Greens have a complex demographic but I know of no one who seriously argues that their primary orientation is to the working class as such. Of course they get some working class votes and I am glad of this because it makes them more realistic about alliance building. It also helps get working class organisations more conscious of environmental issues – all round a good thing.
If the political subject is the working class it is very important to ensure that workers form the leadership and that the party is embedded in the working class. No2EU had some very prominent worker’s leaders on its lists, no doubt we could have done better but criticism should always be matched by self criticism so do what you invite me to do and try a little self scrutiny.
No2EU’s lawyer candidates included John Hendy QC, probably the most prominent advocate of workers rights and known to thousands of workers. (Incidentally, my dad knew his father as an outstanding industrial worker’s leader so by the criteria of class origins he probably trumps a good few.) Nick Wrack of your very own Respect was a candidate for No2EU and we know him as an uncompromising advocate for workers rights. Comrade (Professor) Mary Davis drew up the Women’s Charter, perhaps she is to petty bourgeois for your taste.
Comment by Nick Wright — 9 June, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Very good stuff just in from Nick Lowles at Searchlight (and i hear that Griffin got turned over outside Parliament this afternoon)
Friend —-
I keep playing the moment over and over in my head. Watching Nick Griffin - a racist, Holocaust denier - taking a seat in the European elections. We were so close to stopping him - the BNP received less votes than they did in 2004.
It is so tough to take.
But now we have to deal with a new reality - we have to face down Griffin and Brons wherever they rear their heads. On July 14th, they will be in Strasbourg for the first sitting of the European Parliament. We’ll be there as well - delivering a petition saying that the BNP do not represent Britain - that they are not there in my name. An amazing 30,000 people have sign this petition already - I want you to sign it next:
http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/notinmyname
Griffin won by just 1,200 votes. He won because of the failure of the major political parties. He did not win through “new” support. He did not win a breakthrough victory.
When we started this campaign I feared the BNP would win 5,6 or 7 seats. When the expenses scandal broke the BNP said that they would win 12 seats. But we stopped a breakthrough.
That was down to our campaign - you have all been phenomenal. Now we need to tell the world that the BNP do not speak for Britain - that the BNP are not there in our name. Will you add your name to our campaign?
http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/notinmyname
Today is a new day - we’re all ready regrouping and planning the campaign ahead. The BNP made a significant gain but without our collective work it could have been far worse.
Now a new fight must begin.
Thank you.
Nick
Comment by Nick Wright — 9 June, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Some good news. Griffin news coference stopped by anti-fascists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8091605.stm
Comment by anticapitalista — 9 June, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
The tone of the responses to Andy’s original post baffle me. He was suggesting that a tactical error was made by people he regarded as comrades, and continues to regard as comrades, seeking roughly the same ends.
In Andy’s opinion, and in several other’s opinions, this tactical error had serious consequences, and raises crucial issues of how the left in its broadest sense conduct itself in relation to electoral politics and in relation to building a left alternative beyond elections.
No one denies that the root cause of the BNP’s ability to mobilise nearly 1 million votes nationally was the failure of the New Labour project but that didn’t make the BNP’s success in particular seats inevitable.
We are not going to be able to convince those 1 million to abandon the BNP very quickly, and we probably have to reckon with the fact that at a general election a proportion of BNP-lite (UKIP) votes will head their way as well, but what we can do alongside any patient work towards left/progressive coalition building, is work tactically to deny them victories in any elections - general/local council/by-elections - that come along in the meantime.
And that may mean some groups standing down to enable those within the progressive fold with the best chance of defeating them to do so. And in different places and different elections it could be different groups that have to make that temporary tactical sacrifice.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 9 June, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
good to see Griffin got a good welcome at his house of commons press conference
well done comrades
Comment by Sean — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Johng: ‘I think attacking and blaming comrades in No2EU in this way is a touch dishonourable. I don’t think that’s the way to build unity on the left.’
That is one way of presenting it, although somewhat mischievous in my view (old habits die hard apparently). Another way is to say that there needs to be a serious discussion about left tactical unity to maximise opposition to the BNP and more generally to best advance the totality of the left, not just this or that fragment of it.
David Rosenberg makes this general point very well and is a healthy antidote to those whom prianikok rightly describes as being ‘obsessed by their “divine right” to stand in elections, but completely oblivious to the question of electoral tactics.’
Comment by Ger Francis — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Isn’t there an arguement that No2eu took votes that otherwise would have gone to the BNP?
This would mean that rather than letting the BNP in, No2Eu actually may have played a part in ensuring the far right vote didn’t rise.
Comment by Anonymous — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Who’s claimed ‘divine right’? No one . How does such a silly statement advance the totality of the left? Yet again, this whole discussion is all about electoral tactics - including the tactic of standing for election.
‘Priapikoff’ would have been much funnier by the way. If we were in the business getting snide.
Which we’re not ….
Comment by Seabiscuit — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Andy,
Much of what you say is excellent, though I have some quibbles, because all your arguments could be used against the Greens, too, or anyone who allows themselves to be held hostage by Labour’s uselessness and rightwing. But I think we should be brutally honest here.
So when you write about NO2EU being in a position of “building of relationships and exploring collaborative working for the future”. There is zero chance of any “relationship” with Labour - other than that between slave and master. The only thing Labour wants to hear is that everyone will stand down in their favour.
They would never countenance anything else, and if they have any sense, they’ll now use the election of the BNP as a stick to beat the Left and the Greens and anyone with a progressive bone in their body. That is to say, they will use this issue to further their own electoral chances. That’s what I’d do. And I’m nowhere as sinister as Labour’s high command!
It’s not an easy situation and no one ever said it would be. But parties - or organisations that will become parties - always start from a small base, and if we never have the courage of building on those small foundations because of Labour’s uselessness of letting in the fascists or the Tories, we might as well just join Labour and endeavour the impossible task of changing it from within.
Not that I completely blame Labour or the mainstream parties for what has happened. The Left’s sectarianism is staggering. The Labour Left, which I’ve always considered our only hope of breaking the Leninist and Trotskyist madness of many on the Left, has been a doormat for so long it’s enjoying it; and the “far Left” parties are so caught up in the ridiculous rantings of Lenin, Trotsky and Mao, that they can’t be bothered to enter the real world.
But my important point is the following. Things are so bad now that I would go as far as to say that the BNP is a threat just about everywhere. Should the Left stand down everywhere? And what if that’s not enough? Blame the Greens, then the Lib Dems, then the anarchists for not voting, then those who are too apathetic to vote? That is to say, tactically we blame everyone except Labour. I know right at the top of your article you blame Labour, but since ***tactically*** the onus is on anyone but Labour, the logical conclusion is that everyone but Labour is to blame. As I said elsewhere, if you or anyone else was making the more general point that we should vote for literally anyone who keeps the fascists out, then at least that argument has the merit of coherence. That is, if the Tories can keep the fascists out, vote Tory. If Ukip can, vote Ukip. But that is not the argument. The argument seems to be vote Labour, which does not seem to be a well-argued point.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
New Labour melt-down
Fighting socialist leadership needed
Peter Taaffe, General Secretary, Socialist Party (CWI, England and Wales)
[CONTENT DELETED - PLEASE DON’T CUT AND PASTE WHOLE ARTICLES, JUST INCLUDE A LINK TO THE ORIGINAL]
Comment by Socialist — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Linking no2eu to the Socialist Labour Party vote is not really on - because those ordinary people (except in a few places) who see themselves has being socialist - decided to vote with the party with the actual name of Socialist in its name as they did in 2004 with the Socialist Alliance etc.
no2eu - yes to democracy was a pretty awful name to use.
Comment by Roy — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
It was a terrible choice of name Roy alongside other mistakes that they made, but it still doesnt make Bob Crow responsible for the BNP being elected.
There is little or no chance of left unity when people like Salma Yaquoob make calls for unity while attacking union leaders and others and pinning the blame for the BNP on them.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
Nick Wright says “It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if the vote in the Respect leadership had swung by one vote the other way”
Well interesting but since apparently both motions debated at the relevant National council accepted the position of Respect in the North West to back the Greens (even if the No2EU supporters didn’t like it) the effect would have been pretty much the same - though it would have prevented Salma giving her backing to the Greens in the West Midlands.
But either way Respect in the North West would have been backing the Greens - up here we distributed 20,000 Respect leaflets backing Peter Cranie to our core areas in the last week of the campaign (along with HOPE not Hate papers, Green party leaflets and other anti-fascist material). No body can say what effect this had but I’m very glad we did it. Perhaps it helped a bit. Either way it was certainly not enough. We all lost in this election.
I’m not sure there is any point ‘blaming’ No2EU now but surely there is a point in future for left groups to have some discussion across the piece prior to such watershed elections. We may not have agreed on tactics but we would have known the others’ reasons and would be able to take part in more informed debate.
Comment by TLC — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
TLC, it is right to discuss all of these things when elections are due, but not right to spend the days after the election effectively blaming socialists and trade unionists for the election of the BNP.
What we are seeing now is those on the left making their usual divisive calls for unity, look at Salma Yaqoob’s latest call, clearly identifying those in SLP and No2Eu as being unsuitable to lead this new “broad left coalition”.
The thought of a string of unity calls in the next few days depresses me as all of them will be about placing their own group at the forefront of any new movement and not about actual unity.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
120 Good suggestion by TLC.
It does rather support my point that Respect and the Greens had already reached an agreement on the NW independently and without consulting or informing any other formation.
The London Communist Party argued very strongly and well in advance for the widest possible discussions prior to the GLA elections with agreements to avoid clashes in the constituencies and united lists in the London-wide contest. It also argued that such a strategy should include consideration of critical support for left wing Labour candidates in the constituencies.
Comment by Feliks Dzerzhinsky — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Feliks Dzerzhinsky - Respect went through a democratic internal process which involved discussions at branch meetings and then at the National Council. It was then announced at the Convention of the Left one-day conference on 23rd January in Manchester (and elicited some discussion) and posted as a press release and on the internet. Articles appeared on blogs and magazines where we could get them.
This was before No2EU muted publicly. Respect were never invited to any meeting of No2EU in the North West (I suppose they knew we already had a position). I’m not sure who else we should have informed as all the electoral players were at the Convention meeting - except the perhaps the SLP but to be honest we don’t know any SLP members (they’re an elusive bunch in these parts).
It appears the SWP are now calling for a conference to bring the left together for these discussions. Not a bad idea in and of itself - but let’s hope the mud stays unslung.
Comment by TLC — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
I am getting mixed analysis from NO2EU supporters on here. On the one hand they say that NO2EU attempted to reach out to trade unionists and progressive voters, but also that they took votes away from the BNP on their name alone? Well which is it, did you want to attract progressives or reactionaries?
Comment by Luke — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
Mr Monaghan,
would you like to correct your factually inaccurate statement regarding the SSP?
Regards
Comment by albert — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
#125 I would Albert if I could find what statement you are referring too.
While you are here perhaps you can explain the last post in this place about me when you told Kevin Williamson that there were 2 journalists ’sniffing about Monaghan” and explain why you offered to put Kevin in touch with them?
I can assure you that you will get no help from Kevin with that sort of game, but would appreciate more information on the suggestion that journalists are targetting me and how you would know about them?
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
#96 Andy Newman - Well of course that is complete rubbish. Socialist Labour are committed to working with others on a broad basis to further the aims of such organisations that are in line with SLP policy. e.g. anti-war, anti-nuclear, for repeal of anti-trades union laws, anti-racist campaigning, for a free Palestine etc. It’s even in the constitition. What the SLP are opposed to is ELECTORAL ALLIANCES/PACTS and for one simple reason - THEY DON’T WORK !
Here’s Arthur on video on YouTube stating just that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeO8s9ekZps&feature=related
Well worth a watch.
Comment by Jim — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
For those that doubt that Greens take votes away from traditional Labour voters…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/table/2009/jun/09/european-elections-elections-2009
…in those places that the Greens do well (10%+) for the majority of them Labour has a poor showing. Just look at Canterbury and Horsham for instance. In Canterbury the Greens were not particularly active during the campaign and in Horsham there is no local Green Party!
I think it is clear that many traditional Labour voters drifted to the Greens in this election, especially in the South East and South West where the BNP don’t figure at all.
Greens don’t pose an alternative to the BNP then?
Comment by Luke — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
Indeed “South West where the BNP don’t figure at all”
I am pleased that the four lowest local council election results in the whole UK for the BNP were in the West County, and three of the bottom four were in Wiltshire where our GMB branch led the campaign.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
#129 I see. The SSP were split 50/50 on the issue of whher to sepak to No2Eu, is that better? It still doesnt change the point that I was making.
Now that you have identified yourself as SSP, do you really think that involving yourelf with assisting journalist against individuals does your party any favours? Dont you get fed up with that is the split was a long time ago now.
Just tell me which journalists and I will get in touch with them. You offered to put Kevin in touch with them, why not me?
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Well done to Wiltshire GMB.
But I think that breakdown shows the possibilities of the left lining up behind the Greens in the South at least, where I think traditional Labour voters tend to identify themselves as progressive and anti-racist, whereas in the Midlands and North traditional Labour voters may not identify themselves with progressive politics but instead with the tradition of voting Labour.
Comment by Luke — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
“Well done to Wiltshire GMB.”
I think it is more “well done to the common sense of west country folk”, but we played our part.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
-130. It fundamentally changes the point you were making, Mr Monaghan. Your statement was a lie. Now you have corrected that. (although you seem to see my interest in the truth as an example of pedantry)
Assisting journalists in uncovering the truth does us all a favour, Mr Monaghan. The truth is all we have.
Comment by albert — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Albert, apologies for the original statement, it wasnt a lie it was just a simple miswording of a point that wasnt aimed at the SSP not was it a criticism of the SSP. As I said at the time I can see why parties had problems with no2eu and I didnt join in the criticism of those who didnt take part.
On the questions of journalists though, I really dont see your point. What “truth” are these journalists trying to find out? What questions are they asking? and why did they ask you and not me?
If they want to know something relating to me I would be happy to contact them, you clearly know who they are as you offered to put Kevin in touch with them. If you are concerned about the truth then I am happy to assist.
If you really do believe that assisting journalists to find out the “truth” about me does all of us a favour then lets get this done and dusted and put me in touch with them. I really cant see what “truth” about me would concern them and am mistified as to why it would concern you in your capacity as an SSP member.
If you prefer just to make insinuations and throw about rumours then that is up to you, if you prefer to withhold this information as some sort of scare tactic, it wont work.
If you prefer, just ask me the questions, I will answer them and you can pass it on to the journalists involved. I can assure that the “truth” about me is not newsworthy.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
New Labour are the greatest reason for the growth of fascism in this country. They encourage the working class not to fight for their interests which gives the scabs all the room they need.
Comment by Perhaps — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
apologies to all inolved in this thread who are bored with the whole scottish left, I dont ask for these people to appear and would rather they didnt but feel that I should respond to them.
This is an important discussion and it is a shame that it is sidetracked by this nonsense. Thankfully it happens less than it used to but clearly “albert” isnt one who gets over things easily or quickly.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
Alex Gordon, a member of the RMT executive and lead No2EU candidate, argued the following points in a No2EU meeting (he has also made similar points in the Morning Star):
1)No2EU should not stand down in favour of the Green Party because no matter how left wing some of their candidates were, they are a neo-liberal party not worthy of support from a working class trade union like the RMT which has the goal of socialism in its constitution.
2)The Liberal Party councillor Steve Radford was included on the No2EU list in the North West because in 2004 his party won 4.2%, 90,000 votes in the region on the slogan “No to the Euro”, and these were votes No2EU wanted to get.
3) By putting a socialist anti-EU message, No2EU would take votes from the BNP and reduce the threat of their election in the North West.
4) The North West was third in the priority for distribution of No2EU leaflets, after London which was first priority, and the West Midlands which was second priority - despite the threat of the BNP winning - because No2EU could not give each region equal priority as the resources of the RMT and other constituents were limited and that was the decision on priorities made by the steering committee.
5) No2EU was definitely not taking seats in the European Parliament, as it was not a genuine sovereign parliament, and therefore the slogan of a “workers MP on a workers wage” was inappropriate as it was necessary to boycott the parliament and call for a return of powers to the sovereign parliament of the UK.
6) That No2EU and he in particular understood the D’hondt election system perfectly well.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
Gordon was constantly ignoring the decision of the Scottish and Midlands regional No2Eu groups to adopt the principal of a ‘workers wage’ rather than non-participation. (not that it mattered as there was never going to be a seat).
He was very much a disruptive influence in my opinion and was responsible a large part of the lack of enthusiasm in Scotland even from those parties supposed to be involved.
My experience of the involvement in No2Eu was almost entirely negative and Gordon was one of people involved who contributed heavily to that negativity.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
#138 “He was very much a disruptive influence in my opinion “
Sorry, I actually burst out laughing at that.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Alex Gordon was one of us involved very early in the creation of No2Eu. When other groups came on board some things were set in stone already on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis, other things were up for discussion. Gordon ignored the decisions taken on the things that were up for discussion and opted for what he wanted the outcome to be, rather than what was decided. When it came to selecting the Scottish list he employed rather unnecessary tactics which caused a lot of hostility.
I wouldnt recommend him for a job as a ‘coalition builder’
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
I used to be in the same anti poll tax union as Alex, back twenty years ago, when i was in the SWP and he was a swivel eyed anarcho-syndicalist, we lived one one street away from each other
I am mindful of not letting personal animosity intrude on political judgements, so i will say no more.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
It’s nothing personal with me, I dont even know the guy. Solidarity made the decision to join No2Eu despite many reservations. But I am always of the idea that, once you are in something, you should sing from the same hymnsheet, he seemed to more bothered about beating those involved in the project than he was about beating labour, in my opinion. Of course, there will be people who disagree with me and many of those will be better placed to judge than me.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Auteur: “Unless the far left accepts that yes there are some intrinsic problems with mass migration … that over 86% of the public (of all ethnicities) have decided they want it limited as was identified by GP polling, the left will continue to decline.”
This is my planet. I go where I like. There is nothing to debate about. What part of that do you not understand?
Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
It’s perfectly legitimate to criticise the decision to stand in the three area.
What Johng is saying is that left groups who make tactical blunders such as No2EU did should not be called to account in the wider movement. But that leaves the movement a prisoner of these groups.
(The people who’ll pay the immediate price of the BNP getting in are more likely to have a name like Salma Yaqoob’s than Alex Gordon’s, incidentally.)
Comment by Ferrier — 10 June, 2009 @ 1:18 am
#7: “Of course, most people who voted for No2EU did it on the basis of the name alone; some of those would have been right-wing anti-Europeans who would naturally vote for UKIP.”
Too much of the discussion on voting motivation, whether in the mainstream or amongst the left, is highly speculative or anecdotal, like the above. More informed analysis sometimes relies only on aggregate figures from electoral districts, perhaps relating voting patterns to aggregate demographics, a method which has its place but which is highly limited.
You can be a bit more scientific using an instrument like the British Election Study, an academic survey with a substantial sample and which asks respondents a broad range of questions on past and present voting intentions, attitudes on issues, and demographics, all of which you can correlate and factor analyse to your heart’s content.
Hopefully this survey is undertaken for the Euro elections, and when it’s released in a few months it would be a great idea for anyone on the left with the appropriate software and skills to drill deeply into the BNP voting base in terms of attitudes, class position etc.
Of course the BNP voters at maybe 5% or 6% of the sample of maybe 2000 or so will make up a small sample with consequently large margins of error. This was a problem for the substantial analysis of the 1998 Australian Election Study after the poll in which the racist One Nation Party scored 8% nationally. And you could look at the Greens a bit but you’d be lucky if there’s any NO2EU voters at all in the respondents.
In the 2007 Australian Election Study there was a single brave Socialist Alliance voter. But there was also a single person willing to admit to being a large capitalist (if you define that as employing more than 500 people) so kind of a symmetry there.
Anyway, hopefully a useful suggestion. These sort of large-scale questionnaire things also have limitations, and you need a range of qualitative and quantitative data to get a picture of the social dynamics behind political processes.
Although at this point we can safely say, it sucks. My commiserations.
Comment by Nick Fredman — 10 June, 2009 @ 1:32 am
In reply to your points at #22 Andy:
1) Arguing that the vote support you attract is internally complex is not the same as saying we have no idea what that support is. In all my years of activity I have not once come across anyone who was going to vote Green but seeing as socialists are standing decided to support us instead. It was clear to absolutely everyone, including Peter Cranie himself, that No2EU and the Greens were not competing for the same voters. In fact had No2EU not stood it is far more likely its support would have stayed at home or gone for the BNP than the Greens. Therefore far from being ‘reckless’ I would go so far to say that the reason why the gap between the Greens and the BNP being reduced to just 5,000 votes was because of No2EU’s challenge.
2) Re: “You also equate (on your blog) the tactical considerations of whether or not a BNP member might as being similar as whether labour or SNP win a seat in the Scottish parliament.” Now you’re being disingenuous Andy. As you know I did know such thing - it was a point made to illustrate how complex one’s support can be. There was absolutely no comparison of the SNP to the BNP.
3) I’m well aware of the mechanics of the d’Hondt system, and your point about No2EU here makes no sense. If we suspected No2EU was going to take more votes from the Greens than the BNP then from an anti-fascist point of view it would have indeed been reckless. But I suspect, backed up by socialist electoral experience in a city where the BNP has nine councillors, that a far greater proportion of the No2EU support would have come from people who would have otherwise stayed at home or voted BNP than the Greens. The argument you make about d’Hondt in this instance is completely irrelevant.
There is no evasiveness here Andy. On the contrary the evasion lies with those keen to pin the BNP breakthrough on No2EU rather than study the complexities of voting behaviour and draw hard political conclusions from them.
Comment by a very public sociologist — 10 June, 2009 @ 9:53 am
Why did Andy Newman not consistently condem the anti-working class Labour Party resulting in the BNP making an election breakthrough? Discuss.
Comment by Henry — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:05 am
By Channel 4 News
Channel 4 News has been given exclusive access to a unique YouGov poll on BNP voters and their attitudes. Here YouGov President Peter Kellner gives his views on the poll’s findings.
The BNP won its first seats in the European parliament not because its supporters are all racist, but because many voters feel insecure and let down by the main parties.
View the full YouGov results here (.pdf).
This finding emerges from the largest election survey ever conducted in Britain. Last week YouGov questioned more than 32,000 electors in order to understand not only the people who voted Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, but those who backed the Greens, Ukip and the BNP.
Our sample included almost 1,000 BNP voters, and much larger numbers of those who backed the other five parties. As our final prediction poll was the most accurate of all the pre-election surveys, with an average error of just one point, we are confident of the results from this very large sample.
First, who voted BNP? They were mainly men: their voted divided 61 per cent male, 39 per cent female. (Men comprise just 48 per cent in the electorate as a whole.)
They were also more working-class. In the country at large, professional workers outnumber manual workers by 20 per cent to 18 per cent. Among BNP voters the pattern is very different: 36 per cent manual workers, 11 per cent professionals.
One third of them read the Sun or Daily Star as against one in five adults generally; just 6 per cent of BNP voters read the upmarket papers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian etc), which is less than half the national average.
Yet the household income of the typical BNP voter (£27,000 a year) is only slightly below the national median (£29,000) – and not that far below that of a typical Conservative voter (£33,000).
It is not money that marks BNP voters apart as much as their insecurity. Just 19 per cent of BNP voters are “confident that my family will have the opportunities to prosper in the years ahead”. This compares with 59 per cent of Labour voters, 47 per cent of Lib Dem and Green voters, and 42 per cent of Conservative voters.
Among Ukip voters the figure is also fairly low, at 28 per cent, which suggests that Ukip also picked up the votes of many who feel the traditional parties let them down – and not just on Europe.
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.)
But when people are shown the same list and asked which three or four issues “are the most important facing you and your family”, the figure falls to 58 per cent. True, this is three times the national average of 20 per cent, yet it means that for almost half of BNP voters, immigration is NOT among the worries of day-to-day life.
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.
The average British voter is more likely to think that discrimination afflicts white people than Muslim or non-white people. And only seven per cent of the public think white people benefit from unfair advantages, while more than one in three think Muslim and non-white people receive unfair help.
Thus the BNP is tapping into some very widely held views, such as the desire to stop all immigration, and the belief that local councils “normally allow immigrant families to jump the queue in allocating council homes” (87 per cent of BNP voters think this, but so does 56 per cent of the public as a whole).
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”.
But perhaps the most startling finding came when we tested anecdotal reports that many BNP voters were old Labour sympathisers who felt that the party no longer speaks up for them. It turns out to be true. 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”.
What is more worrying for Labour is that this sentiment is shared by millions of voters, 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.
In contrast, just 29 per cent think the Conservatives used to care about their concerns; this figure has climbed to 37 per cent who think they care in the Cameron era.
Yes, Labour has a problem with voters deserting the party for the BNP. But its far bigger problem as it heads towards the next general election is to extinguish the overwhelming public view, reinforced by the scandal over MPs’ allowances, that today’s Labour Party is no longer on the side of ordinary voters. And that, more than anything else, is why its vote collapsed to just 16 per cent in the Euro election.
Comment by readit — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:20 am
I humbly submit (as a No2EU campaigner) that it was the Greens who failed in the North West, not us.
Firstly, blaming No2EU for “stealing” votes from the Greens — and it’s amusing how the soft-left thinks it’s entitled to the revolutionary-left vote — assumes that we took votes *only* from the Greens. This is a disservice to the independent nature of our coalition; we did draw away some left-Green voters (and why aren’t the Greens keeping those voters?), but we also drew potential UKIP and BNP voters — and I’d guess the bulk of our supporters were either disaffected Labour voters or people who would have otherwise stayed home.
Secondly, the Greens’ campaign in the North West was *entirely* BNP centered, every word as far as I can tell. The Greens had an opportunity to sell their own policies and win on their own merits, and they failed to step up to the plate. Rather than try to draw in people who would vote Green because they liked the Greens, they abandoned these voters and set themselves up, without credentials, as the arrogators of the Left vote in the North West.
If the Green wants the Left vote, they simply have to do more for the Left. Run as socialists rather than some undecided mishmash. Assist in the struggle for workers’ rights — that means, show up at strikes, sign our petitions, join our campaigns where our policies coincide, rather than letting workers’ rights be a backburner issue within the Green agenda.
Other Green parties in Europe have learned this, and it’s working. I hope the English & Welsh Greens will soon.
Comment by Edmund Schluessel — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:23 am