TIME TO RETHINK NO PLATFORM?
We can take the claims from the BNP about the huge boost in membership enquiries since Griffin’s appearance on the BBC’s Question Time with a pinch of salt. They would say that, wouldn’t they?
A You Gov poll in the aftermath of the programme says that 22% of people would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP. But in a sense, this is not different to what we would expect. The BNP have won elections to the London Assembly, and to the European parliament in two constituencies, and they have won several seats across the country to local councils.
Their committed vote is much lower than 22%. For the European elections in June they got 6.2% across the country, amounting to 943598 votes; but nevertheless it is not surprising that more people then actually vote for them would consider voting for them.
What successive polls have shown is that there is a determined majority of people who utterly reject the BNP; and who wouldn’t vote for them under any circumstances. The BBC Question Time programme reflected that, with an audience that was seemingly relatively representative of the London population mostly very hostile. Although the demographic profile outside London may have been less multi-racial, any representative audience would have been equally antagonistic to the BNP.
The novel situation that we are in is that a crypto-fascist party has achieved sufficient voter support among a section of the population in Britain (or more specifically in England) to ensure that have representatives elected at multiple levels. This means that they cannot be denied a platform to speak in council chambers, in the London Assembly and in the Europeans parliament; they will be reported in the media, and there are some scattered parts of the country where they are the most popular political party.
I think it was regrettable that the BBC decided to allow the BNP on Question Time, but now that this Rubicon has been crossed, then there is no going back. The BNP are going to be invited again, inevitably, and we need to negotiate this new situation.
What are our objectives? We need to be clear.
We wish to consolidate the progressive anti-BNP majority, and we wish to reduce the size and firmness of the minority who do give the BNP their ear. We wish to discredit the BNP in the eyes of voters, so that the fascist right are driven back into the political margins. We wish to ensure that the BNP lose elections rather than win elections. We wish to expose the true nature of the BNP as being a party whose racial supremacist programme could not be achieved by peaceful and constitutional means. We wish to pull the political mainstream away from the terrain where the BNP are comfortable, both by prioritising issues where it is the left and not the right that have the better arguments; and also by undercutting the racist myths, bigotry and half-truths that their support relies upon.
Immediately we see that these tasks are unachievable by the far left alone. We need to leverage off the mainstream opposition to the BNP. Despite the fact that the capitalist system is founded on imperialism, and stokes racism, the mainstream ideological grounding of liberal democracy is hostile to both racism and fascism; and we need to work with and not against that. Tories and Lib Dems, as well as Labourites and socialists can be firmly opposed to the BNP. (thanks to Harry’s Place for this great image of how popular anti-fascism can transcend the limits and iconography of the far left)
However, this also means we need to be careful. We need to ensure that in opposing the BNP the anti-fascist left is not perceived as itself being undemocratic. It is correct to seek to prevent Griffin appearing at the Oxford Union, or on the BBC by political pressure and argument; but once the invitations have gone ahead, and we have lost the argument; it is counterproductive to attempt to use physical force to prevent the events taking place. That is not to say that physical force anti-fascism is always wrong, but it is politically inapprorpriate in the current political conjuncture. As times change, we need to be clever and adapt.
The modern BNP is adept as posing as victims, supposedly sticking up for a semi-mythologised “white working class” that they claim has been ignored by the metropolitian, liberal elite. The left simply lacks the democratic legitimacy to use physical force to seek to prevent the BNP from speaking; and if we get this wrong we may end up helping the BNP to pose as people being wrongly and unjustly silenced by liberal do-gooders. Although there is a firm majority opposed to the BNP, we cannot assume that this majority supports militant anti-fascism. Indeed, there is a danger of the anti-fascists gaining an image of being left extremists acting as the symetrical opposite of the BNP - avoiding that trap needs long-term, patient political spadework.
This doesn’t mean abandoning the policy of “ no platform”, we still continue to deny fascists labour movement platforms, we still argue against the BNP being invited to any political debates; but if the BNP are going to be invited anyway, then we need to make a tactical assessment of whether or not we should debate with them. Sometimes, it would be better to have a principled left speaker to oppose the BNP, rather than relying on the likes of Chris Huhne and Jack Straw.
Of course, this also means that the left speaker is someone with real standing and democratic legitimacy, not a self appointed expert on anti-fascism, the last thing we need is a numptie turning up on Newnight dressed in a Fred Perry shirt and looking at his shoes while he mumbles incoherently about “counter-revolution”. Let us not give the BNP any further gifts of performances so woefully bad that the fascists even put them up on their own website.
There are people on the left more than capable of dealing with Griffin, whether it is Bob Crow, Salma Yaqoob, George Galloway, Tommy Sheridan; I am sure we can think of others as well. Our objective is to stop the BNP by any means necessary - perhaps the “means necessary” might include publicly debating them.
Quite right, Andy (except I can’t agree that an objective of the left should be to “stop” the BNP “by any means necessary”, because that implies you would condone terrorism and vigilantilism).
Whether the left likes it or not, scenes of rioting by SWP and UAF outside the BBC do not persuade ordinary people to abandon the BNP. The opposite is true: no platform and UAF?SWP silliness plays perfectly to the BNP underdog/victime of the liberal elite narrative. Debate them, and destroy them in debate.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 26 October, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Peter Hain, Ken Livingstone, even Alan Johnson are for no platform for the racist, fascist BNP.
Thousands turned out to march on BBC HQ in an attempt to prevent the programme going ahead - and were close to succeeding. BECTU back members who refuse to work giving the BNP a platform.
What sort of Socialist Unity is it that abandons the unity in action we have seen all over the country against the BNP and the EDL?
You want to surrenders to the fascists because they got elected, and the BBC want to big them up?
Remember Hitler got even more votes - would you have said ok then - no point in opposition!?
You want to open the door to the fascists? Sounds like you are advocating to ‘run away!’.
It has been tried before. Surrender of the fight for NO Platform will only lead to increased support for the BNP.
I am with Peter Hain on this one. And the Gaurdian editorials.
Are you with the Daily Mail?
A shameful post advocating an unecessary retreat retreat
Comment by Mark Krantz — 26 October, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Johnny
“by any means necessary” doesn’t mean “by any means at all”
It means that the end must justify the means. But if the means are necessary to acheive the end, then that is what needs to be done.
I am no pacifist. Hitler’s armies were defeated by phsyical force at Stalingrad, and at El Alemain; in the Ardennes, at D-Day and over the skies of Britain. And that was necessary to defeat fascism.
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 October, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
If anti-fascists agreed to debate Nazis on TV and Radio shows it would become increasingly hard to win the arguments that we need to prevent fascists from organising in our locales. Afterall how can you argue that a Nick Griffin public meeting needs to be broken up, if people see anti-fascists talking on the same platform as him on TV. People would argue that the main anti-fascist strategy should be ‘liberal debate’, but we know that the fash operate on a different terrain of ‘well aimed boots and fists’
Imagine in this context: local fascists are attempting to organise a meeting at a community centre in your neighbourhood or a Young BNP society is set up at your college or you work in frontline public services and there’s an open fascist in your workplace.
Currently fascists know that if they try to hold public meetings they would be broken up by anti-fascists, that they couldn’t get away with organising openly on campuses & trade unions organise against fascists in the workplace.
If we abandoned ‘no platform’ at the top, it would become increasingly hard to hold the position the argument that fascists should not be allowed to organise in our communities and locales
Comment by Adamski — 26 October, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Adam
they do organise in communities, and they win elections.
Time for you to stop living in the past.
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 October, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
“No platform” isn’t a principle, it’s a tactic. The principle is that racist and fascist ideas should be marginalised, the tactics depend on the situation. Where the BNP can be deprived of platforms, they should be. Where they can’t be deprived of platforms, their ideas need to be tackled head on. But we should not forget that we are contesting for the hearts and minds of the wider population. If you smash up a meeting but thereby generate sympathy for the BNP, that is a defeat.
Comment by Francis King — 26 October, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Adamski’s point is the most important one here. The argument about no platform has barely begun. Its an argument which will become more and not less pertinent, as time goes on. It was an argument which was won last time round in the process of fighting them. Whilst all kinds of tactical flexibility may be neccessary in given circumstances, it is a great mistake to concede so much ground around what is essentially a populist campaign led by the right around the issue. Its also true that there are very bad arguments doing the rounds in relationship to this, arguments which effectively seek to conceede the ground that the BNP is a legitimate party like any other. The principle is to reject this. Other arguments are attempting to suggest that protesting against fascists alienates their support. Nothing could be more dangerous.
Comment by johng — 26 October, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Mark Kranz’s post above is a typical example of the shitty way much of the left argues.
“What sort of Socialist Unity is it that abandons the unity in action we have seen all over the country against the BNP and the EDL?”
There’s no implication of that at all, just a questioning of whether a particular tactic works or not. Where did you get the idea that Andy is “abandoning” unity in action? He’s against a lot of what he sees as macho posturing in the movement, and I disagree with a fair bit of what he says about the counter-demos when the EDL shows up - but why not try tackling the points? Too busy trying to prove that Andy is zooming to the right?
“You want to surrenders to the fascists because they got elected, and the BBC want to big them up?”
In what way does Andy advocate, or even imply that he advocates, “surrendering”? Does a re-assessment of tactics now equal bowing down before fascists?
“Remember Hitler got even more votes - would you have said ok then - no point in opposition!?”
In what way has Andy even gone near the idea of saying “no point in opposition”? Please Mark, be really clear on how you got from Andy re-assessing “no platform” to declaring that he thinks there’s no point in opposing the BNP.
“You want to open the door to the fascists? Sounds like you are advocating to ‘run away!’.”
Where in Andy’s post is there even a hint that he actively wants to invite fascsists in? Where, in his talk of opposing the fascists, does he even hint at “running away”?
“It has been tried before. Surrender of the fight for NO Platform will only lead to increased support for the BNP.”
Do you think that all historical comparisons are entirely identical? Using your own twisted logic, can we say that “no platform has only led to increased support for the BNP”? No, cos it’s only people with no ability to argue in a comradely way who resort to the cheap shots in posts like yours.
“I am with Peter Hain on this one. And the Gaurdian editorials.
Are you with the Daily Mail?”
Are you against the war on Afghanistan? OMG are you with the BNP? Seriously, are you expecting people to take you seriously?
“A shameful post advocating an unecessary retreat retreat”
And yet in your haste to post your ridiculous pseudo-arguments, you don’t actually manage to say one single thing that might persuade people that Andy is wrong.
This sort of shite is so typical of what we see from the self-styled “vanguard”. No attempt to win people over, no attempt to take on the arguments. Just snipe and exaggerate, without any actual counter-arguments.
This is a crucial issue for right here and right now. If SWP members actually want to win other left wing activists to a particular position, they might want to try actually debating.
Comment by external bulletin — 26 October, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Griffin is unattractive to look at and a poor extempore debater [even given that the QT bear-baiting eposide was a one-sided utter disgrace even by BBC standards] but it is possible - not certain but possible - that a glibber, smoother and more photogenic frontman / frontwoman will, or may, replace Griffin and then if all the tiresome and embarrassing and thoroughly unendearing skin-colour-racism / KKK / holocaust denial stuff can be jettisoned …
Well, if the ghastly and toe-curling Michael Foot / Neil Kinnock Labour Party can very successfully rebadge itself, so can the BNP.
Comment by Gerry — 26 October, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
I think you will find that organisations and political currents that actually tried to put No Platform into practice (as opposed to waving lollipops at people or calling on the state to ban the BNP) have for some time been pointing out that the BNP have side-stepped no platform. Sadly it is no longer relevant as a strategy to defeat the BNP.
Their decade long electoral strategy, voter base and use of the internet ensure that.
Never mind the problem of supposed revolutionaries and progressives asking the state/police/CPS to act on their behalf. Hilariously in last weeks Socialist Worker Chris Bambery was arguing “we can’t rely on the liberal elite to defeat the BNP” - who the bloody hell had much of the left been appealing to the past few weeks but the BBC - the definition of the liberal elite in this country!
The final problem with No Platform is of course the brand of multi-culturalism that the state and local government introduced in the 1980s, and has seeped into the consciousness of much of the left. Having talked for a generation of ‘the black community’, the ‘Muslim community’ etc (regardless of the million and one divisions that make such concepts a nonsense) the state and the left is now reacting with horror when someone stands up and says “I represent the white community”. You’ve made your bed - lie in it.
Class politics instead anyone?
Comment by Paul Stott — 26 October, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
If the BNP ever wanted to get to massive levels of support they would need to stop the current practice of being a nazi party masquerading as a populist right wing party and actually become a populist right wing party.
That means all the folk with neo-nazi backgrounds have to go, and ethnic minority members not just accepted as members but made candidates in some areas as a fig leaf to show theyve transformed.
The problem with the BNP becoming UKIP is that the neo-nazi core of the party is still too important to be purged. It would mean expelling both their MEP’s for example.
Comment by AndyB — 26 October, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
“This is a crucial issue for right here and right now. If SWP members actually want to win other left wing activists to a particular position, they might want to try actually debating.”
SWP members are having these arguments up and down the country as external bulletin well knows. Quite why anyone would seriously engage with the tired sectarian réchauffé that masquerades for analysis on this site I don’t know.
Comment by internal bullet wound — 26 October, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
9. A good post. The counter arguements have so far been incredibly weak. ‘we will let them in’ etc.
doh, where are they now? in,
in the media, in communities, in councils, thier arguements in tens of 1000’s of workers heads, it is these that need defeating.
If the bnp, edl try to use violence or intimidation then physical force should be used to stop them and defend communities.
the false polarisation radical no platdform- or ‘liberal’ debates is useless the SWP members should dealwith the real situation.
Comment by non-partisan — 26 October, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
AndyB is right and wrong; the 2 MEPs need to be fitted with speech-filters and subjected to rigorous ‘Manchurian Candidate’ thought reform but the BNP is, some think, actually in the process of transforming itself right now.
There are training classes for would-be councillors, for example.
EVERYONE interested in this thread needs to check the BNP website on a daily basis to UNDERSTAND what is happening and what is being said.
Comment by Gerry — 26 October, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
I know there has always been training courses for councillors but these have their limits.
You can’t train someones past out of existence, and the fact is the BNP hardcore still have limits on how far they are prepared to go to modernise.
Griffin for example, could explain why he does not believe the holocaust happened. It would be easy for him to do so - “I believed it because I hung around far-right circles because only they talked about immigration, I read their magazines and agreed with them - when I read further I realised I was wrong, I had been listening to nutters and I have silenced these people in the BNP now”.
He won’t and can’t say that because the neo-nazi core would go mental.
Comment by AndyB — 26 October, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Personally I think the SWP should put out a pamphlet arguing that zebras are black with white stripes so this blog can put out a response arguing that zebras are white with black stripes.
Comment by Roobin — 26 October, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Green Left voted to continue with no platform at the general meeting yesteday.
Comment by Derek Wall — 26 October, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
This article is right, the BNP, like it or not have achieved public office, they represent people and on that basis we have to engage with them in debate, there isn’t any other choice.
And when I say engage I don’t mean in the style of QT where we shout them down as racist holocaust deniers but on the issues that effect our day to day lives, public services, employment etc. Win the arguments that concern us all in the here and now and rest becomes irrelevant.
Comment by Class Crisis — 26 October, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
The Nick Griffin episode of QutestionTime just reaffirmed why I am firmly for no platform.
I was in the Student Union in Stoke-on-Trent watching the images of the demonstration outside the BBC. At the university we have a large proportion of international students, many from Pakistan and India. They were all over the moon to see people, White, Black and Asian people trying to stop a fascist getting onto tv.
However when the show came on they felt uncomfortable, as did I, at the very fact that Nick Griffin was there, being broadcast out to the country.
Everyone agreed afterwards that it had made them feel very nervous that such a point had been reached where this man could be allowed to speak.
I side with these Pakistani students in Stoke-on-Trent who have the daily worry of physical attack from Fascists here in Stoke.
No platform all the way.
Comment by Gary Mc Nally — 26 October, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
“Of course, this also means that the left speaker is someone with real standing and democratic legitimacy, not a self appointed expert on anti-fascism, the last thing we need is a numptie turning up on Newnight dressed in a Fred Perry shirt.”
So pray tell who would that refer to?
Comment by tyresome points — 26 October, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Class crisis epitomises what is wrong with the retreat from no platform. Why on earth SHOULD’NT the BNP be exposed as Holocaust Deniers and Nazis? That is what they actually ARE. There has been a constant drumbeat from the right wing media trying to argue that the real problem is that there is not an ‘honest’ discussion about ‘immigration’. This is rubbish. The reason why Holocaust Deniers and Nazis are winning votes is because politicians and the media have spent the last five years making racist arguments acceptable as explanations for the mess the country is in. We can’t counter all of that overnight. But the very least the left ought to do is reject the argument that the BNP are a normal and legitimate political party. They are not. And Gary’s argument is precisely why we have an absolute duty never ever to make concessions to arguments which are designed to allow them to pose as such. Targeting and deporting part of the population of our country is not a legitimate subject for discussion. End of. Nobody has the right to threaten the lives of citizens of this country on publicly funded television whilst politicians wisely ask questions about the postal service. Its a bloody outrage and just because its been done once does’nt make it less outrageous. We did’nt suddenly support the invasion of Iraq because it had already happened…
Comment by johng — 26 October, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
I totally support no-platform for fascists and can’t understand the arguments countering this. Has fascist ideology changed? No, it has not it’s still based on violence, racism and hate destroying freedoms and civil liberties for others. Griffin is a suited and booted Hitlerite and if the BBC decides to invite him back on the BBC then I will be back outside the BBC making my voice heard expressing my anger. No platform.
My own position on this question http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/why-no-platform-is-politically-principled/
Comment by HarpyMarx — 26 October, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
Also many people in Stoke said that they hadn’t heard about Griffins appearence on QuestionTime. We now have a list of people willing to jump on a coach and come down the next time Nazi-Nick gets airtime.
I think that the stratergy needs to be that the left make it impossible for the BNP to safely go on air, thus forcing the BBC to not allow him on.
Also, my partner lives in Manchester, where Nick Griffin is one of her MEP’s. Because of the militant campaign to No Platform him, he has not been able to speak publicly in Manchester since he has been elected. This is a huge win for us on the left and a huge loss for him.
The great thing about the QuestionTime debate I think is that on the day the story wasn’t him, it was the thousands outside trying to get at him!
Comment by Gary Mc Nally — 26 October, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
We had the public launch of the SSP’s Glasgow North East by-election campaign today and our candidate Kevin McVey was specifically asked by STV’s Bernard Ponsonby if we still supported the no platform tactic and Kevin replied that we absolutely did and that included not sharing media appearances or doing hustings meetings to which the BNP were invited.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 26 October, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
There’s another effect of the ‘Liberal’ break with the no-platform consensus:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6400553/Cowardice-on-immigration-has-allowed-the-BNP-to-flourish.html
The above is a response by none other than Frank Field AND Nicholas Soames. To me the article sounds in large part indistinguishable from BNP arguments, but remember these are ‘mainstream ‘ politicians . I suspect politicians such as these were waiting for an event such as QT to make their move, their intention is to pave the way for BNP policy to become manifesto policy, QT just made it a lot easier.The medium term result will be all mainstream parties shouting ’swamped’ come the general election, with the correspondiong increase in levels of violence and racism, and the start of the cogs turning, if the BNP make significant gains, towards ‘power-sharing’, alliances of convenience, and, lest we forget, a deal on a par with Hindenburg -Hitler. Why? because they not only opened the Pandora’s Box by putting him on, but they gave him his ‘victimhood’ on a plate with cream and sugar by playing with the format and making it appear to be a ‘bash Griffin’ event. it doesn’t matter what we thought of his performance , it’s his audience , real and potential, that he was mindful of. He was always going to shout stitch-up , but they made it even easier for him , and they’ve come out of it looking as if a ‘liberal elite’ snobbishly and underhandedly tried to fix him , their way .
All because the BBC broke with ‘no platform’ - don’t forget that the BNP already get their Party Political Broadcasts, ‘Housewives’ documentaries and the rest . They did not have to do this.
Comment by Seabiscuit — 26 October, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
The idea that we can debate the BNP contains within it the notion that the public will be won over by ‘correct ideas.’ Socialists have been advancing correct ideas for decades without winning over large sections of the population, so why will it work this time? Time and again on blogs you see people advancing the most nonsensical rubbish, such as Holocaust denial, and when those ideas are thoroughly trashed, still they go on advancing them and observers say, ‘well, I thought he had a point.’ Nothing in my life persuades me that people are rational.
Comment by apollo — 26 October, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Good luck the Johng, don’t retreat from no platform, it’s worked brilliantly so far keep it up. Get yourself down to the local high street and get some “The BNP is a Nazi Party, smahs the BNP” chants going. That’s sure to work, they’ll be gone by Christmas.
While you’re at it you might want to make the argument that anyone who votes BNP is a Nazi too. I’m sure it’ll make them see the error of their ways.
Comment by Class Crisis — 26 October, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
#22
“Griffin is a suited and booted Hitlerite and if the BBC decides to invite him back on the BBC then I will be back outside the BBC making my voice heard expressing my anger . No platform.”
Sorry, I have missed something here, since when was the debate about No Platform concerned with what will make the left feel better? If the protest outside is to let people vent their anger, then that may be cathartic therapy, but is it actually stopping the BNP appearing on the BBC?
Do you really tnink it is possible to prevent the BBC from giving a platform to the BNP though physical force? And do you really think that if you were succesful that this would be a set back for the BNP, as opposed to being fantastic publicity for them?
Do you really think that the political establishment, the judiciary an the poice will allow anti-facsists to disrupt the flagship political TV programme in the UK, run by the state broadcsasting service, and with cabinet ministers on it?
Now i think the BNP shoudl not be allowed on the BBC. But it isn’t my call, it is the BBC’s.
and now that the BNP have been on newsnight, and on Queston Time, that they have been on “BNP Wives” and on Newsbeat; now that they are all over the internet, and they have been elected to the European parliamant is it really plausible to argue “No Platform” as if nothing has happened?
So the question is, given that they BNP have breached our first line of defence, anf got onto the BBC, what is our fall back position? Do we debate with them, now it is unavoidable that they are going to be on thr TV and radio? Or do we try, like canute, to hold back the tide, even though we don’t have the political or moral authoity to win that battle.
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 October, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
#19 - sorry, but oh what pious cr@p.
a) no platform, re the BNP and in the sense of physically preventing an appearance or speech, is over. You can’t no platform the internet. You can’t no platform appearances on television discussion programmes, as last night showed. Saying you believe in no platform for the BNP in 2009 is just a statement of ideology that is disconnected from the real world.
b) the BNP have a foothold. It’s real. Normal, non-racist people who are worried about immigration are toying with the idea of voting for them. These are the people who are now key. Griffin gets them, and we are in real, genuine trouble. You might not like that, I don’t like it, but it’s a fact, and we have to deal with it.
Now, do you really think that such people will be persuaded not to support them by violent rentamob attempts at preventing them appearing on TV?
Of course not. The opposite is true. If you don’t believe me, read the BBC forums, or don your cybergloves and read the comments on the Daily Mail site.
As others have said, this is about tactics, not ideology. Keep trying to lock Griffin and his sad little band of losers out, and you only increase their appeal.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 26 October, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
“Do you really tnink it is possible to prevent the BBC from giving a platform to the BNP though physical force?”
Probably not, but it might give BECTU members the confidence to pull the plug.
“Or do we try, like canute, to hold back the tide, even though we don’t have the political or moral authoity to win that battle?”
Or do we act like surrender monkeys,thinking putting up Galloway would make the increased respectability of Griffin go away?
Comment by tyresome points — 26 October, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
I think this stuff about BBC opening Pandora’s Box eg by SeaBiscuit is exaggerated. I will repeat a link I posted on another thread that shows how national newspapers have been making the running for the BNP for years http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/hmm-remember-this.html
Comment by Matthew Stiles — 26 October, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
#29
“Probably not, but it might give BECTU members the confidence to pull the plug.”
Fantasy, pure Fantasy.
BECTU is taking a principed stand and correct positioon to defend the rights of its members to exercise a conscience clause not to work on the programme, I understand.
However, there is no way that the argument for “No Platform” of Nick Griffin has sufficient political weight in the real world to allow a trad eunion to unilaterlaly block a broadcast. That would be a potentially suicidal move by BECTU confronting the BBC governors and goverment head on, over an issue that there is very amibiguous, and over which they would not have widespread public support.
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 October, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
#30 I quite agree about the Press, hope you’re not missing the point I was trying to make about the nature of QT as an ‘event’ and a bridge that the BNP have been able to cross, and the opportunity it represents both to them and opportunists like Frank Field - issues on which anti-fascists can fight and win such as housing, bankers, redistribution of wealth etc are of course completely absent from his article. Why? Because an event like last week’s QT gives them precisely the opportunity.
Comment by Seabiscuit — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
A.N. “We need to leverage off the mainstream opposition to the BNP. Despite the fact that the capitalist system is founded on imperialism, and stokes racism, the mainstream ideological grounding of liberal democracy is hostile to both racism and fascism; and we need to work with and not against that. Tories and Lib Dems, as well as Labourites and socialists can be firmly opposed to the BNP”
Just how broad do you want your Popular Front against the BNP to be?
“THE QUEEN has declared WAR on the BNP.
She’s furious at the party for using Winston Churchill to promote its racist image and has ORDERED all the royals to join forces with her to unite Britain against hated BNP leader Nick Griffin. A senior royal aide told us: “The Queen thinks it is a disgrace that the name of such a courageous leader in our hour of need has been hijacked in this way.”
No, it’s not from “Private Eye”.
It’s from:-
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1405/Queen-fury-at-BNP
Comment by prianikoff — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
You can’t fight the BBC comrades, it’s too powerful!
Another I’ll thought out article as far as I’m concerned. The demonstration outside the Beeb was one of the most exciting and angry I’ve been too for a long time; surpasses the G20 stuff for me.
I don’t really buy this idea that the BBC is some sort of political Holy Grail. It dores not have any automatic response that once a party has been on one of it’s progs, said party has rights to all. I think Andys disbelief that you could (brace yourself) actually stop the programme going ahead is pretty defeatist. We might not stop it from EVER going ahead but we weren’t far off on the night; the demo had good response from BECTU comrades. It’s the fact that silent sections of our communities take heart in seeing people stand up and stand strong. Do we really want to be ‘debating’ fascists, however nonsensical it sounds?
“Nick, I want to come back at your point that other races are subhuman, I disagree with you.”
As has, is and will be repeated tome and again, no platform is a tactic not a principle. I’m enjoying the debates with comrades about tomes when we may have to take a different course but right now I think it’s absolutely right to defend No Platform.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
#35
apologies for my phones (un)predictive nature
MRD
Comment by MRD — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
I also think borrowing a picture from Harry’s Place, a notoriously Islamophobic site, is really pushing the Popular Front bit too far. As to it “transcending” the iconography of the far left, of course it does. Because it is not left-wing at all, but mainstream ideology. You might just as well be praising Friedrich Ebert for “transcending” the narrow constraints of Marxism when he told a German general how much he hated social revolution.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
#35 “Do we really want to be ‘debating’ fascists, however nonsensical it sounds?
“Nick, I want to come back at your point that other races are subhuman, I disagree with you.””
–
Yes we do!! Precisely illustrates my point! Get him on, and let him come out with rubbish like that - and watch the worrried by immigration but not racist-types run a mile.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
#35 No, the Beeb’s no Grail ; but what it’s leadership done has effectively signalled it’s compromise with fascism, and done it big-time, hence my view that the green light was given for other nasties like Frank Field to move in quickly on their territory; he and his ilk may think they’re making strategic inroads into BNP support , but what they in fact do is allow further strategic inroads into them by the BNP!
Comment by Seabiscuit — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Comment #19 really sums up the irrelevancy of No Platform nowadays. While you were sat in your Student Union in Stoke shouting “no platform” at the TV, outside your doors the BNP have nine councillors on Stoke council! Talk about sticking your head in the sand.
The BNP have lots of platforms all around the country and two in Brussels, all given them by the electorate. They got 6% of the national vote earlier this year. They also have this thing called the internet. The BNP’s message is available for anyone who wants it and you can’t stop that. And guess what? The idea that if you share a platform with them then you legitimise their politics also misses the point: many BNP voters support them precisely because they are outsiders.
I hate the fact that this is the state of affairs we are in, but at least I can recognise that it is reality, which is the point that Andy Newman is trying to get across. If you want to construct an effective strategy to defeat the BNP, you have to start by facing up to reality. For those of you who didn’t notice, the UAF demo outside the BBC on Thursday did not prevent Nick Griffin from appearing on Question Time; it just ensured that more people watched it.
If you really want to defend No Platform to the end, please answer this question. The current approach has failed to prevent the BNP winning dozens of council seats, a GLA seat, two MEPs and 6% of the national vote. How much bigger does their national support have to grow before you change strategy? 8% of the vote? 10%? 20%?
Comment by Dave Rich — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
MRD , although I supported the television centre demo and continue to do so, don’t kid yourself ot others about being ‘not far off’ - you’d have to have been able to know precisely when and where QT was taking place in that building to stop the programme - unless you had good reconnaissance - which will of course be handy if there has to be a next time.
Comment by Seabiscuit — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
#40
Dave
Brilliant.
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Statistics don’t usually set the blood racing. But here are a few, published yesterday by the Office for National Statistics, that might shake you. In the next 20 years, the population of the UK will rise from 61 million to 70 million – and then go on rising. The bulk of that growth will be due to immigration, which will have added seven million – seven cities the size of Birmingham – to our population by 2034. In the next 10 years alone the British population will rise by four million.
The above quotation was from the Field and Soames article. The concern about immigration cannot as JohnG says be just down to, as John G puts it in typical SWP mantra form ‘ The reason why Holocaust Deniers and Nazis are winning votes is because politicians and the media have spent the last five years making racist arguments acceptable as explanations for the mess the country is in.’
The fact is there has been, and will be, significant immigration which due to incompetence and design, puts a stress on housing, services etc. Now, the government has never made the case for immigration and made sure the resources were available for communities. Not surprisingly, people see with their own eyes immigration without any context that this may be a good thing, and that, so far, this has not been catastrophic for the UK. And yes, it is a topic people want to debate and want to hear what the parties have to say about it.
The issue really is that many people on the left do not believe in immigration controls. Most people do want them and it’s an argument the right will probably always win in a capitalist society. Unless, immigration is seriously addressed as an issue, the BNP will continue to thrive. For example, white working class people on a housing waiting list may not believe that immigrants are given priority, but they know they are the people who are disadvantaged because immigrants are on the waiting list at all. They may agree that large numbers of social housing should be built, but let’s face it, it’s not going to happen is it. Quite simply, the left has to make the case why immigration actually benefits ordinary working class people whose services are stressed and in the next few years, will be increasingly under threat.
For too long no platform has been an extension of the ‘it’s racist to talk about immigration’ approach of many on the left. Well, things have moved on. George Galloway is probably right that no platform is effectively dead. Immigration is an issue and nature abhors a vacumn. The left should be making a contribution to explaining to people that immigration has a positive side but honest that it does create issues that need to be dealt with. The best you’re going to do is give a more balanced perspective. The mainstream parties will indeed be calling for more immigration controls, and I suspect UKIP may benefit as EU immigration is more or less uncontrollable anyway. Either way, I don’t want to see Griffin get an easy time he appears on QT or a similar programme.
Comment by Howar Kirk — 26 October, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
“How much bigger does their national support have to grow before you change strategy? 8% of the vote? 10%? 20%?”
The trouble is that many of the people currently arguing against the “No Platform” position, are doing it on the basis of cowardly, opportunist politics.
Winning debates in the media can’t stop the growth of fascist organisations that want to control the streets, intimidate immigrants, divide the working class and ultimately, smash the workers organsisations.
The electoral wing of the BNP, led by Griffin may be presenting a more moderate face. But the Strasserite “anti-middle class” wing are straining at the leash to undermine that approach. This may well be a conscious double-act. But it represents the dynamics of their politics.
Debates alone, can’t stop such a movement.
If the recession, unemployment and homelessness grow, they’re likely to grow, as they offer simplistic solutions to the problem that blame immigration and pick and choose who they want to be allowed to stay in Britain. This is a calculated policy of division in the interests of preserving capitalism.
Since Labour and Tory parties are part of the problem, their opposition to the BNP is hypocrical and superficial. Part of it is simply based on their fears of losing their own voter base.
So joining an anti-BNP political bloc with them isn’t the solution either.
What is needed is a message which doesn’t let them off the hook and also helps build a Socialist Organisation.
Where the BNP or EDL try to transform the electoral base or foothold in the media into actions which threaten immigrant communities, union members and socialists, the traditional approach, the approach of Cable Street, Brick Lane, Southall and Lewisham, the approach that Blair Peach died for is 100% correct.
The SWP leadership are 100% right about this against their rightwing opponents.
The issue under those circumstances is to build mass opposition on the streets by unity in action.
Not some nonsensical unity in action in the mass media involving Jack Straw, the Tories, Liberals and the Queen!
Comment by prianikoff — 26 October, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
And of course the question that was posed at the top of #44 “How much bigger does their national support have to grow before you change strategy?” is just as nonsensical. Because the bigger the support they get, the more likely the situation would move to Civil War.
Comment by prianikoff — 26 October, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
Comment by Dave Rich: ‘If you really want to defend No Platform to the end, please answer this question. The current approach has failed to prevent the BNP winning dozens of council seats, a GLA seat, two MEPs and 6% of the national vote. How much bigger does their national support have to grow before you change strategy? 8% of the vote? 10%? 20%?’
I think you’re serious about this, though talk of no platform being irrelevant, and of the electorate’s having given the BNP its platforms, may mean I’m wrong.
You talk as if no platform were the cause of the BNP’s electoral rise. This is wrong. The cause lies in neoliberalism’s now thirty year-old project to shift wealth from less to more well-off; and it lies in social democracy’s adoption of neoliberalism. To maintain that you’re serious about discussing this, you have to grasp that.
So, for all your talk about heads in the sand, etc, the reality post-QT will be of heightened threat to black people, Muslims, gays, socialists, etc; and the extent to which this is prevented is the extent to which we can mobilise each time fascists raise their heads. So, respectfully, I have to disagree with you - abandoning no platform now weakens our ability to prevent.
Comment by richsw — 26 October, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
The BNP in Stoke don’t just have a platform, they have influence and serious political clout. The Racial Equality Council in Stoke went bankrupt recently denying BME Elders groups logistical support, workers, transport,and a venue. These groups provide a lifeline to many isolated older people. When I contacted the Council asking whether they could continue to funds these groups via third sector intervention to replace the collapsed REC infrastructure, I was told that the BNP councillors had opposed this and demanded that the value of such work be independently audited before any help could be forthcoming. You’d hope that any other council would have looked at the numbers of people using these groups, and spoken to the older people themselves to establish their worth but in Stoke they are answerable to racists and fascists who believe that community cohesion should be brought about by the repatriation of minority communities. As a result of BNP strength and a spineless Labour group, many older people are now effectively housebound. People were right to protest against the BNP outside the BBC but they need to get active in their own towns too, beginning with the fascist stronghold in the Potteries.
Comment by Chris — 26 October, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
#44 Just to clarify a hastily worded formulation in the above post.
Trying to enforce “No Platform” without a United Front would lead to self defeating minority actions. This is what happened in the very earliest protests agains the NF like at Red Lion Square.
I obviously support a United Front with the Labour Party. In particular, Peter Hain and Ken Livingstone’s statements indicate that they support such an approach.
But the policies of New Labour’s leadership bear responsibility for the growth of the BNP. So they need to be distancing themselves from the right wing in the Cabinet and helping to build a Left wing pole of attraction against them.
This has to start right away, before the General Election campaign gets underway.
Comment by prianikoff — 26 October, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
#38 Johnny Mac
“Yes we do!! Precisely illustrates my point! Get him on, and let him come out with rubbish like that - and watch the worrried by immigration but not racist-types run a mile.”
If only it was that simple.
We saw the mainstream parties try that, sure they had no ‘left’ bones in them and are the cause of the problem; what happened was the debate got dragged ever rightwards to try and be as hard on immigration as Nick Griffin, whilst trying not to be Nick Griffin.
Ever circling arguments on immigration and the right, or attempts to pull left would be inanely dull to a viewing audience, more geared up to watch and see if anyone says something a bit controversial rather than pick through the finer points of fascist ideology.
However, if you get someone on and call him a Nazi, i’m up for that. Sure there’s no ‘debate’, pretty futile in the scheme of things but it’s the truth. And a hell of a lot more principled than arguing with a fascist on why racism is bad.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 26 October, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Most of the comments here amount to knee jerk reactions and an expression of the sad lack of the real world in most of what passes for the left at the moment. The major problem is that the BNP has an increasingly durable electoral base in some areas. The European Election of two MEPs was the consequence not the cause of this development. It will also help the BNP strengthen its base. Press attention has given the BNP a platform in wider society whatever the left believes.
The question is how we erode that electoral base and prevent the emergence of a fascist organization on the streets (those claiming this is the significance of the EDL have no analytical skills at all). If the BNP are getting platforms in areas and in the media, do we absent ourselves from attempts to undermine its electoral base by arguing against its racism and ’solutions’?
As the public spending cuts hit and unemployment worsens, do we piously stand aside from arguing who the real enemy is and how the BNP wants to scapegoat or do we engage and demonstrate that the left is anti-cut and anti-racist and why this is correct?
Too many people on the left have not set foot in the areas of BNP support and do not realize that there is more to a city than its city centre.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 26 October, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
prianikoff
The far right has reached 20% support in some other West European countries without there being a civil war. Stop fantasising about 1930s Spain and address Britain today.
richsw
I don’t think that No Platform is the cause of the BNP’s rise, that would be ludicrous. What I argued is that it has failed to prevent the BNP’s rise and that it no longer applies in the current conditions.
I agree that the BNP needs to be confronted whenever they raise their heads. Given that they do not hold street demonstrations, rallies or marches, but concentrate their pursuit of power solely throught the ballot box, how do you propose confronting them without addressing their arguments through debate?
Comment by Dave Rich — 26 October, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
When considering no platform, it’s important to consider where BNP sympathisers get their information from. This YouGov poll conducted just before the Euro elections gives a tonne of useful information, broken down by voting intention. From this we know that BNP voters are more likely than voters of any of the other major parties (Lab/Lib/Con/Green/UKIP) to:
Have phoned a talk radio programme
Get their information mainly from political party websites or blogs
Get their information mainly from political party leaflets/magazines (joint with Labour voters)
Get their information from friends and relatives (joint with Green voters)
Read the Sun or Star
Not read the Financial Times, Times, Telegraph, Guardian or Independent
In other words, they get their info from the BNP website, BNP sympathising blogs, BNP literature, red-top newspapers, TalkSport shock jocks, and anecdotally from their mates. We know the sort of shite the Sun and Star puts out about Muslims and immigrants, and we know that the ‘facts’ on the BNP website, leaflets and blogs are anything but. What we need to be doing is talking this shit head on, taking apart their lies and putting our own narrative on the problems faced by workers in Britain today.
This is why Galloway on TalkSport and in the Record is a good thing. We need to fight the fascists and their sympathisers on their own territory.
Comment by Jon — 26 October, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
21* I think we all appreciate your anger john, but that is not enough.
there is a false line being drawn Militant anti-fascism = No Platform
liberal &reformist = debate with fash
No platform, has not worked! the bnp have hundreds of thousands of votes, has not having a meeting in Manchester (the claim because of NO Platform) stopped the MEP’s being elected? clearly NO.
The ideas of the BNP need defeating, in open public debate, wherever they are raised, and yes they should be exposed as fascists, no one on here is saying they shouldn’t - but what you can’t do is say because they are fascists we don’t have to counter their arguements, we just demand they not be heard.
look at martin smith again on newsnight Andy posted the link, MS says
no one who denies other people democratic rights deserves those rights themselves!????
he is denying bnp democratic rights, so does he not deserve them?
it is a ludicrous psition.
seabiscuit says ‘the BBc broke with no platform’ This also exposes the nonsense, the BBC has never had a ‘no platform’ position to believe it has or would is relying on precisely the liberals you claim to oppose.
I sympthathise with gary mcnally, even more with the international students, but hiding the BNP from view neither defeats it or makes it go away, they should be opposed werever they appear, and should they resort to attacks they should be physically defeated.
rather than getting a coach to the BBc Stoke students with support of Tu’s should be organising self defence.
and john g says ‘Targeting and deporting part of the population of our country is not a legitimate subject for discussion. End of.’
really? end of? that’s it? no one ever going to discuss this again, tell me why?
how you can stop them? The Tories? UKIP all have discussed this idea in different forms Labour ‘targets’ those it argues are illegal ‘part of our population’ for deportation - end of? don’t be silly.
This Labour govt is killing ‘muslims’ around the world, why not ‘no platform’ them?
This is about the best way to DEFEAT the BNP
Humiliate
Demoralise
Isolate
and yes smash the BNP as a political force by beating its arguements and physically defending ourselves.
Its not a who hates the BNP most competition, its a competition for political leadership of the working class, and no platform is an obstacle to that.
Comment by non-partisan — 26 October, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
“by any means necessary” doesn’t mean “by any means at all”
Tell that to the people of Stalingrad, Coventry, Warsaw, Guernica,etc
Strange how Andys finished up parroting Galloway and to the right of Alan Johnson.
Galloway should look at his own platform for starters
A right wing racist radio station and a reactionary Irainian Government sponsored TV Station.
Comment by Red Bandits — 26 October, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Some of you might find this article interesting:
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Anti-fascism-isn-t-working
Comment by chuck wilson — 26 October, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
#54
“by any means necessary” doesn’t mean “by any means at all”
Actually that is a word for word quote from malcolm X
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 October, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
When a party is on question time, newsnight, has councillors throughout the country and two MEPS in Europe to argue for no platform is just plain daft. The left comes across as authoritarian and allows the BNP to act as victims. Constant references to Hitler, Nazis and Holocaust dont work either. We need to engage with the real issues of why people are voting BNP-immigration, Eastern European workers being used by bosses to undercut British workers, the lack of council housing which fuels racism and so on. If we deal with these issues head on, instead of knee jerk reactions, then we can trully defeat the BNP.
I would also ask people to have some perspective: we are nowhere near a fascist takeover of Britian. The majority of British people reject political extremisim and the vile racism of the BNP. Advanced Liberal democracy’s should be capable of defeating fascism.
Comment by Owen — 26 October, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
I am not sure about “no platform” and am open to persuasion. I do think that calling them Nazis is losing its traction, simply because WW2 is a long time ago. As a tactic in the 1970s, it was effective, but the generation that fought in the war was still only middle-aged in the 1970s. Now, it is dying out.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 26 October, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
I have started re-reading Willam Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”. In chapter 1 entiltled “Birth of the Third Reich” under chapter section “The budding ideas of Adolph Hitler” on pages 23-24 Shirer quotes Hilter stating that his experience of Vienna prior to World War 1 demonstrated a middle class plebian movement could only come to power by being usefual to an Imperialist ruling class. This is a liberal work correctly recording Fascist strategy.
The only way to prevent a ruling class attempting a Fascist seizure of power is by showing that it risks a Socialist revolution. As Louise Whittle points out the historic role of Fascism is to destroy the workers’ mass organisations. Ernest Mandel argued that days before Hitler became Chancellor the German Ruling Class tested to see how workers reacted by the Nazis demonstrating outside the head-quarters of the German Communist Party (KPD). Mandel argued if the KPD had resisted then the German Ruling Class would not have gambled with granting political power to Fascism. Shirer ponts out in page 24 that Hitler worked throughout January 1933 to win the ruling class over to grantig powar to the Fascists.
The Liberal Bourgeois strategy is two-fold by weakening Fascism, believing that can undermine them. This is a delusion which Gary Younge argues correctly is impossible where Capitalist decay breads this degenerate movement. As Younge argued Fascism can only be undermined by the working class challenging Capitalism effecively. A second dimension of Liberal Bourgeois strategy is to keep options open where Fascism may be useful to crush a revolutionary threat by workers or in a position to destroy the organised working class saving declining profits. That strategy is more medium to long-term. This is why it is fundamentally wrong to stop protesting when a BBC decision to invite BNP members appearing cannot be reserved.
Comment by Anrhony Brain — 26 October, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
Comment by Dave Rich @51: ‘I agree that the BNP needs to be confronted whenever they raise their heads. Given that they do not hold street demonstrations, rallies or marches, but concentrate their pursuit of power solely throught the ballot box, how do you propose confronting them without addressing their arguments through debate?’
By building as big a movement against them as we can; by demonstrating each time some fool liberal organisation gives them a platform; by arguing against cuts and the hand-outs to the bankers that require them; by leafletting; by letters to local newspapers; by contacting and working with the people being targetted by the fascists and racists, even if we have some disagreements; by opposing immigration controls; by building the Left. Not by pretending it’s worth debating a lifeling Nazi who says, ‘I’m not a Nazi, never have been.’
Comment by richsw — 27 October, 2009 @ 6:14 am
It is the far left that is virtually no-platformed because, unlike the BNP, we have failed to offer working people a credible electoral alternative to the mainstream. We will only drive the BNP out of our communities when we have shown an alternative that fights hate day to day and week to week. It is an absolute priority to plant the roots of a new workers party. Unfortunately the leaderships of the various left groups and their TU allies seem incapable of giving us a national lead.
Comment by Jota — 27 October, 2009 @ 9:00 am
I think “No Platform” exemplifies a symptom of the British far left. — that a tactical position becomes a shibboleth. I think it’s a mistaken course seemingly deployed so that Group A can prove it is much more radical than Group B.
But what it amounts to is promulgating a double edged sword: if there is to be no platform for fascists (on the basis of some 1920s writings on the subject), why today should there be one granted to socialists?
Why indeed? That this salient consequence, of the way bourgeois democracy operates, is not recognized, amazes me.
Comment by Dave Riley — 27 October, 2009 @ 9:59 am
Note: In France, the LCR’s commitment to a sort of “no platform” tactical position gave the bourgeoisie and excuse to ban the party.
Comment by Dave Riley — 27 October, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Dave Rich: “The far right has reached 20% support in some other West European countries without there being a civil war. Stop fantasising about 1930s Spain and address Britain today.”
That’s a bit rich, Dave.
I’m not arguing for self-defeating isolation from the mass media, council chamber or European Parliaments, just because the BNP are in them. But you can’t treat an organisation with clearly fascist origins as though it’s just an embarassment in a polite debating society.
Nor I wasn’t “fantasising” about such a situation developing, just prognosticating about what would happen if a party committed to repatriating maybe 2 million immigrants got within even touching distance of power.
Either the BNP continue to backpedal on their objectives, or they try to implement them. If they became a physical threat, I’d imagine the repercussions for Civil Peace would be rather serious and the issue would become existential for those threatened. Maybe then it would be a question of the the organisational non-existence of the BNP, as opposed to simply “No-Platform”.
Recall the slogan “Smash the National Front”?
Comment by prianikoff — 27 October, 2009 @ 10:12 am
It’s nice to see I’m not the only Socialist opposed to the ‘No Platfom’ thingy. Like it or not, the BNP are a legitimate party that people have voted for, and our unelected groups lack the authority and the right to deny them a platform. Not that doing so has prevented the BNP getting where it is now.
We have to rethink our strategy for defeating the BNP - because a lot of people sure as shit won’t be voting Tory or Labour in a few months, and houses all over Britain are going to get nice shiny BNP lealets and newsletters through the letterboxes in the run-up to the election, not to mention extensive canvassing. If ‘No Platform’ is our only tactic, then we really have something to worry about.
While most comrades have been preoccupied with the trade unions, the BNP have been building themselves up in our communities, and now they have councillors all over the UK (60 at last count). The only way we can fight them is to build within communities, not just the unions. We have to get locals discussing the issues that affect them directly and put our Socialist ideas into practice there to counter any BNP candidates standing for election in those areas.
#43 - Yes, our public services are a tiny bit overstretched, but I reckon it might have something to do with spending cuts, outsourcing and bank executives ripping us off, and then blaming immigration
Comment by excrow — 27 October, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
#63 Dave Riley: “In France, the LCR’s commitment to a sort of “no platform” tactical position gave the bourgeoisie and excuse to ban the party.”
Are you talking about the days when the LCR were into launching vanguardist demos against Ordre Noveau wearing crash helmets? They got banned because they didn’t build a mass united front.
This was exactly the same thing that the IMG did at Red Lion Square, when they led a demo that tried to stop an NF meeting with only around 600 students.
That’s what needs to be avoided nowadays with the EDL demonstrations and when small groups seriously imagine that they can storm the BBC!
The ANL proved that you could have a postion of ‘No Platform’ and organise hundreds of thousands of people around it. According to their statements on the issue, both Ken Livingstone and Peter Hain both continue to support the policy.
Arguing for “No Platform” it is not the same as arguing for a State-ban.
That is the double-edged argument, which can be used against the left.
“No Platform” includes the position of numerous unions in Britain with regard to fascists who are members.
“No Platform” is saying that you can’t defeat racists and facists simply by debating, but only by militant action against them and building a Socialist movement that deals with the issues they grow on.
Whether it’s always possible to achieve, is not the question.
It’s the overall orientation towards fascist organisations that’s involved.
The argument that the BNP’s success at the ballot box invalidates this doesn’t hold water.
If they are still genuinely a fascist organisation, it would be even more urgent to stop them!
Griffin may have in fact, become a cuddly Teddy Bear. The BNP councillors may all be working in their local shopping centres as Santa Claus this Christmas.
But unless they expel the remaining fascists in their organisations, no one is likely to believe they’ve really changed.
So neither should the policy.
Comment by prianikoff — 27 October, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Hopefully reality will triumph over bullshit, a tendency which thankfully appears to be on the increase. For instance I notice that we don’t tend to see stickers randomnly placed saying “Asylum seekers welcome here”, in areas where nobody has done anything to establish whether that is actually the case.
I wasn’t aware of the meeting in North Manchester referred to elsewhere until I read about it the other day. Funny, last time I went to a public meeting in that area was about 15 years ago, and there was a row -but between the SWP and AFA- not a BNP member in sight.
Congratulations to the comrades who helped organise it for dealing sensibly with what sounds like a really difficult situation.
Comment by Armchair — 27 October, 2009 @ 11:15 pm