Shame about the “hardline socialist” myth at the bottom, otherwise good site and nice to see the Tories taking this seriously.

hadn’t seen that bit – although I think I agree with them on it

I’m not sure whether I’d call it socialist, but it’s certainly protectionist.

I think ‘national socialist’ (for once) pretty much hits the nail on the head: captialist economic relations permitted but directed by the state to serve a nationalist agenda.

Well, I haven’t read the BNP’s economic policies to comment but since almost every BNP supporter I’ve ever seen post on the internet has at some point expressed a desire to ‘sort out’ the ‘Reds’ that’s second only to their desire to do the same to foreigners, I’d say that the BNP themselves would strongly object to any of their policies being described as socialist.

They might do, but that doesn’t mean there is no socialism in their programme. There clearly is. They believe that the economy should be directed by the state towards satisfying social aims. The difference between their national socialism and other forms of socialism is just one of emphasis (economically speaking).

Their ‘social aims’ are exclusively White and Christian: they have more in common with the Corporatism of Chile – itself a precursor of Thatcherism.

Faced with the choice of backing a union or their employer, who do you think the BNP would have their police wield their batons at?

Yes. They are culturaly right wing, as is much of their program. Anyone denying this is simply spouting nonsense, its very clear. But their economic program is old-labouresque.

Shatterface- Yes, I do suspect that some of the program has been influenced by corpratism, though my reading of their history is thats its more from the old Italian facist tradition. However, they also include a number of measures that resemble old labour public sector policies- essentially because their white, christian supporters are also often dirt poor. I’m not sure if it represents their actual opinions of if they have come up with it because they think thats what has appeal (and lets them spew bile at all the other parties).

Tinter, how can you be anti-trade union and be economically old-labouresque?

Also, don’t believe the myth that BNP supporters are mainly “dirt poor” as you put it. There are plenty of middle-class right-wing nutcases and they don’t all vote UKIP.

Its a sad state of affairs that the 3 mainstream parties main campaigning position – as confirmed on Question Time, last night – is anti-BNP. They are saying, we are deceitful, greedy, hypocrites, but vote for us because we are not the BNP. Suddenly everyone is at it; hyping a motley crew of sad individuals into the greatest threat to civilisation, and giving them lots of free publicity.

They are even targeting ethnic minorities with scaremongering, by telling them if they don’t vote Labour/Tory/LD they will let in the BNP. If a white face opens the door they won’t say it. Its actually quite racist to assume someone of ethnic origin can be manipulated by scare tactics. How ironic.

What rubbish. How do you know how campaigners act on the doorstep and how can you generalise about that? Locally we do warn people who are thinking of not voting at all that it might let in the BNP because it is true. I’d rather people vote Labour but I will encourage them to vote for anyone else to stop the BNP in European Elections even if they won’t vote Labour. However I’ve had that conversation with more people who are white than people who aren’t.

Well sure there are. But a large proportion of their strongholds are on council estates. They tend to draw from lower income groups.

Old Labour may have supported the unions but that hardly defines economic policy. I don’t understand why this is so controversial, their policies on the public sector, welfare state ect are a ham-fisted attempt to mimic old-fashioned lefty politics. I’m not claiming they are in general left, just part of their manifesto program is.

Chavscum, so far as I am aware only labour have made BNP a significant subject of their campaign, as their main obstacle as they see it is turnout. I am sure when it comes up at question time all parties will slam them but I don’t believe you have any real evidence of it being especially central to either of the other parties campaigns. But making stuff up is more fun one supposes.

Well, Montgomerie and Bethell are taking the threat seriously and I’m guessing they’re not Labour supporters.

Well done to Tim Montgomerie. Found the video very effective, more so than any PEB in this cycle. It’s approach doesn’t try to dodge the facts about the BNP’s appeal: but ultimately focuses on what the BNP are about in reality behind all the rhetoric. It’s much better than the HNH ‘Griffinazi’ video posted here before.

Did anyone see Tebbit commenting on the news the other night (when “subtly” petitioning the public to vote UKIP at the forthcoming Euro elections). Every time he mentioned the BNP, he prefixed it with the words “the socialists in the (BNP)”…quite entertaining, I found. Clearly even he finds them pretty hard to stomach….

Shatterface- I didn’t say noone else was doing anything, there are many supporters of other parties standing up to the BNP, including doing non-partisan anti-BNP leafleting and the like. I was merely refering to the parties European election campaigns, which unsuprisingly did not generally choose negative campaiging against a minor party as a central plank.

Shatterface, I see what you’re trying to say, and it is true that the BNP profit & Labour are generally at a disadvantage from low turnout. However the other side of that is Labour and especially the Labour Left and Trade Unionists have always campaigned harder against fascism whether in the 30s or now, so it’s a little unfair to claim it is a cynical tactical decision to hype the BNP.

whoops, that should’ve been addressed at Tinter rather than Shatterface. Sorry. All these pseudonyms!

Sure theres always been grassroots efforts against it, I’m not denying this. But central party campaign plans are made by spin doctors and the people who have fought to the top of the party apparatus. So its being spoken about at every labour party campaign event by top people ect as a campaign strategy for those reasons. Its not a bad thing, they are just trying to choose an effective strategy, it just shows what a low the party is at.

tim f “Also, don’t believe the myth that BNP supporters are mainly “dirt poor” as you put it. There are plenty of middle-class right-wing nutcases and they don’t all vote UKIP.”

Very true, which is why I take issue with the title of this article.

It seems to me that there is something VERY British about the BNP. Right wing, racist, small minded, and very hypercritical. A lot of British people are just like that.

From what I can see of the video, the entire thrust of the argument is that denying Ben his Britishness is evil. That’s it. Nothing else. No definition of “Britishness” whatsoever. How pathetic. It’s just typical of the prevailing media view that anyone can be what they want, do what they want and if you don’t have the same world view, you are evil. Hence their support for homosexual marriage, pornography, moral relativism, abortions, promiscuity etc. Yet if I don’t agree with them, I should feel guilty about that. Likewise, they seek to deny the indigenous people of this country the right to define THEIR OWN identity, instead insisting that ANYONE can be British (which they define in some airy-fairy multicultural manner or by the fact that someone has a passport). The reality is that Ben has his own identity and can decide for himself who he is. But by the same token, the native population can decide for themselves who they are, without supposed Conservatives trying to guilt trip them into accepting their own nothingness. An ethnic group has the right to exclusivity otherwise it accepts its own destruction. I wish Ben all the best with his life, but niether Ben, nor the entire non-indigenous population of the UK are a reason to destroy the indigenous population (which is what they are trying to achieve by mish-mashing everyone).

I wish people would stop having this argument about left/right, the political spectrum should be viewed as a shape in the form of an incomplete circle, so for example at the top you have the centrish parties (Labour, Lib Dem, Con) who straddle the Apex on either side.

The further right or left you get the further down the circle you go it then reaches a point where the circle starts to come back together, at this point the two extremes right and extreme left almost come back together again at the bottom of the circle, although the circle is incomplete at the bottom the parties down this area are so alike in their policies etc but are polar opposites in ideology.

I find it easier to picture Left and Right as moving points on a two dimensional differentiable manifold like a Mobius strip or a Klein bottle but I’ve had two packets of Skittles and they have that effect on me.

It amazes me that there is zero coverage in the UK about the breaking story in Washington over the last few days. Namely, that Cheney ordered torture of prisoners so that they would confirm a link between Bin Laden and Saddam.

They were not torturing people to give them information. They were torturing people get them to say what they wanted to hear. How very Medieval. And yet the British press is more interested in kit cats and moat cleaning.

Err, Sally, I think you mean Kit Kats rather than home assembly felines. And whilst you may think that US government treatment of prisoners is revolting, a sentiment shared by most people, I suspect that you may have posted to the wrong thread.

However, people here are discussing the BNP and the European parliament elections, so the concept of torture is bizarrely pertinent. I’m not sure whether the Conservative bloggers have got the tone right with the video of Ben, but they are spot on with the table reporting BNP criminality. Violence as well as racism is what separates the BNP from mainstream politics.

The BNP are an irrational group of deeply flawed individuals. The list of members and activists and the crimes they have committed only go to illustrate how twisted an organisation they are.

The threat of the BNP can easily be talked up, people in general hate them, not just dislike but still believe they are scum. The real danger is apathy not hate.

Voting against something is important, even if not as important as voting for something, as there are rarely only two positions on anything. I’ve just discovered that Dan Han is my top Tory MEP, so I’ll definately be voting if only to register my disgust at him. But I’ll also be voting for positive reasons, because we need as many Green representatives as possible (Unless Clegg does something really exciting in the next 3 weeks, Carpe indeed).

hadn’t seen that bit – although I think I agree with them on it

The notion that protection equals socialism is completely stupid. One of the interesting things about the present situation is how ignorant modern Tories are about economics and in particular economic history. They imagine capitalism has never practiced protection – perhaps unaware that the United States tends to advocate this for other countries? So why are you agreeing with them?

Sally

y ou just said “Right wing, racist, small minded, and very hypercritical. A lot of British people are just like that.”

So you’re blanket anti British.

I January you wrote: “The Jewish lobby is so powerful in both the 2 main parties in America they practically own and run America now.”

So you’re ant-semitic.

I guess Pagar got it right back in April “Sally- You are, without doubt, the most completely blinkered individual ever to post on this site. “

Shuggy: they quote a BNP policy document as saying:

“[T]he BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers.

“When this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish”

That sort of economic illiteracy could come from the extreme left or extreme right. Unfortunately the left is very often the keenest on advocating protectionism – as Compass has demonstrated in some recent statements.

Conor : Replace ‘British’ with ‘local’ in your last comment and see how many people object to it.

Shatterface, I’d find use of “local” in that context objectionable actually.

Bit of a difference between encouraging people to buy local food & what-have-you, & exclusion of non-local goods from markets using the weight of the law.

I went to a farmers’ market today, I’d have no objection to their being promoted by tourist boards & that, but I would have a problem with imports being restricted by the state.

Yes- BNP “policies” are economically illiterate shite. They seem to think that heavy industry could employ millions as it once did. But the sort of manufacturing we need revolves around machines rather than men & needs only a relatively small number of skilled workers for a high output.

They are all about make-work schemes for their own voters. Understandable politically but no way of making it viable in fact.

Is there any site which tells you which way to vote to keep the BNP from winning any seats in the European elections?

Interesting point KB Player- tactical voting comes into place.

I myself inhabit the West Midlands constituency.where we will be electing 6 members to the European “parliament”.

Perhaps UK Polling Report could help: you could browse your own constituency & look at who’s likely to do well etc.

Looks like being a Tory victory in this seat. Possible BNP resurgence as they have always polled well in Sjoke & you’ve also got various other towns, & any possible surge outside their strongholds too.

Don’t know what will happen in this region at all really.

Actually looking forward to scanning the results. All kinds of fascinating shite may take place.

The BNP election leaflet that dropped through my door has on it a photograph of a Spitfire. sadly for them its from a Polish Squadron. without the Polish airmen we’d probably have lost the Battle of Britain. The BNP’s attacks on Poles etc dishonours Britain. The debt we owe cannot be repaid in abuse. As for their economic policy, in a global market it would be an act of national suicide to adopt it !

#34 look at the euro-elections thread on the front page. I don’t actually believe it’s possible, other than by making sure you vote and by voting for a party that has a chance of gaining at least one seat.

Conor, what exactly is wrong with protectionism? Ultimately protectionism is just a catch all term for a series of policies designed to influence trade in certain goods. I find it seriously wrong that these policies are falsely associated with the evils of facism.

Protectionism as practised in agriculture is one of the biggest single causes of poverty in the global south. Rich countries spend tens time as much susbidising agriculture as they give in aid to the poor and these countries consequently are blocked from exporting in the one sector where they have a competitive advantage. Africa currently exports less food than it did 50 years ago – and we are all suffering higher food prices as a result.

The rise of protectionism in the 1930s deepened the great depression leading to the rise of fascism and the second world war.

A case can sometimes be made for short-term measures in one country to protect particular industries, but the long-term effects of protectionism are almost always negative.

Conor, few would disagree with your first paragraph. But isn’t their a case for developing countries using protectionism to their own advantage, especially if they can form cartels with neighbours in their region?

Conor, I’m afraid I disagree here, firstly, I think it’s foolish to view protectionism on one type of good in the same way as another. I think it’s important to view a protectionist policy in terms of it’s individual effects rather than simply viewing them as wrong in their entirity.

On agriculture, I can see that US and EU subsidies may be a problem due. However I do wonder how much of the problem can be traced back to the forced reductions in tariffs that have been imposed on many developing countries. Were these countries able to protect their own agriculture, local produce would not have been undermined by foreign imports.

The problem with southern protectionism is that it is ineffective and often ends up hurting poor people most.

Brazil puts high duties on lots of imports which just raises their price for consumers. If people want to buy western consumer goods because they are cheaper and better than locally -produced ones than why shouldn’t they? I could write a chapter on how the import substitutionist strategy of the successive Brazilian governments (including the military) was such a disaster (in fact I am writing a book on this) but this policy has now largely been abandoned.

Developing countries are instead pushing for free trade deals with eachother (India, Brazil, South Africa is one example) and for a multilateral deal at the WTO. The EU and US agricultural policies are the main obstacle to this. Of course it is hypocritical of the north to be pushing southern countries to be opening their markets to manufacture goods while they keep their own ones closed in the one sector where the south has a competitive advantage, but there is not that much evidence that southern protectionism has led to increased development (for everyone who points to the south-east Asian tigers I have got a dozen counter-examples)

I’d be interested to know what your criticsms of Brazil are, certainly the figures I’ve found here would indicate reasonably good growth between 1960 and 1980, (I’m not sure exactly when and to what degree Brazil adopted ISI).

On southern protectionism, there is the question as to whether the lower consumer prices that result from lowering tariffs are worth the damage that could be done to the economy. If this drives domestic producers out of business it is only of benefit if those previously employed in agriculture can find work in some other more productive industry. There is also the question of government revenue and the question of whether the reduced government revenue will be made up for by increased private sector spending. Ultimately, if a government has a democratic mandate for this kind of policy then I think that overrides the right of the individual consumer.

Protectionism as practised in agriculture is one of the biggest single causes of poverty in the global south.

Uh huh – but since the United States is one of the worst offenders here, I don’t think it makes any sense to describe protection as a left-wing policy. Historically this certainly hasn’t been the case. Unless it is being suggested that Bismarck was a socialist. Or the Tories in the 19th century. D’ya think many of today’s lot realise it was the Conservatives that were the defenders of the Corn Laws?

Protectionism works extremely well when practised properly, not long term to be sure, but as a way to build up an economy it can be fantastic.

For example the UK became a textile giant by protecting this industry from foreign competitors and allowing it to grow to a point where it could out compete everyone.

The US is a deeply protectionist country at heart, their industrial policy was engineered by Alexander Hamilton and was pretty protectionist. Economically Smoot-Hawley wasn’t even a particularly harsh tariff regime in a historical context (although politically it was disastrous).

Germany caught up with the UK by employing the protectionist industrial policy of Friedrich List and soon overtook it, only then favouring “free trade.”

The Indians and Chinese in fact have fairly high tariffs for developing countries. If free trade was so good Africa would be prosperous by now, its been the most open continent for a century.

However, its pretty clear that the BNP are not taking lessons from those above and are simply economically illiterate.

Shuggy: historically true, but US Democrats today are more likely to push for protectionism than Republicans – think about the Social Clause debate or discussions about re-negotiating NAFTA.

The proposals put forward by Compass also had a protectionist element. Left Outside has just repeated the classic left-case for protectionism. Naomi Klein’s latest book is a screed against free trade.

Today’s Tories tend to be ideologically pro-free trade. John McCain was also more pro-free trade than Barack Obama (and this got quite a lot of coverage in Brazil because a lot of the debate was about Brazilian ethanol.

Simon Hughes MP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mrJmSrVawU

Demographics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PliODvEGuxI

Malik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttz8-ucWhYc