Debating the BNP

According to the mainstream parties of British Politics the main reason for not discussing anything with the BNP publicly (ie. on weekly platitude fest Question Time or the Daily Politics) is that it gives them a higher profile and legitimises them in the eyes of the wider public. The recent decision to review long-standing Labour Policy of no debate with the BNP is being discussed by Labour Party big-wigs in light of Nick Griffin's invitation as a panellist on QT and the BNP's success at the last European Elections.
It seems that since the last time they looked the BNP now has access to many more funds and an elevated media profile. They are now wondering whether or not they should acknowledge this and go face to face with regular James Blunt and bullshitter Nick Griffin MEP and his circus troupe of performing baboons (no offence to baboons).


I'm not going to do one of these posts about how awful it is that the Blackcoats are Haw Hawing in their cornflakes (witty) at the recent news of their election in a vote which meant nothing to anyone in a parliament which means nothing to anyone. I don't like the BNP, neither do you (most likely), let's move on.


It simply astounds me that so many in the mainstream of British Politics refuse to debate with them. While some in the ranks of the moderate even go so far as to say we should ban them. A combination of ignoring the problem until it goes away and banning/not taking into account those who don't agree with you smacks of the 5 year year old with his hands on his ears shouting LA LA LA at the top of his lungs until the problem decides to sort itself out.

Ask a Frenchman/woman to tell you the effects of ignoring a fringe party and he/she will cite the 2002 Presidential election in which National Front came second in the first round. Ask any Italian or German to tell you the effects of banning a fringe party and she/he will cite the terrorism engendered as a result. Suffice to say history should have corrected the silly illusion that we should ignore/ban the party.

Then why do the mainstream do this? What makes them spout inanities which amount to saying if you wish to debate with me you have to agree with me on this, this and this? Yes the BNP are wrong about race, yes they are wrong about Europe and so on and so bloody forth, but in my eyes the Conservatives are wrong on pretty much everything, why don't we ban the Conservative Party? Should you not be confident/secure enough in the strength of liberal democracy and pluralism that you can defend it against such idiocy?

You can only uphold liberal and pluralist democracy if you let it harbour its antagonists, or at least let them speak. Same goes for radical Imams and Revolutionary Marxists. Something Voltaire said about mildly inconveniencing himself for your right to speak and something else about God granting his wish that his enemies be made to look ridiculous spring to mind. These ideas go hand in hand. If you let them speak, it amounts to them giving you the stick to beat them with. That's the beauty of the system these shy democrats/pluralists represent, they just seem to have forgotten that.

Upon the news that the BNP were elected to the European Parliament the Conservative Party announced that it was glad that we don't have a system of Proportional Representation in Westminster. So they justify an unjust and outdated voting system by saying that it stops the BNP being elected to Parliament. It's not as if we would end up with the instability and centrifugal forces of the Weimar Republic, many of the French Republics or Post-War Italy should we finally be given an opportunity to cast a FAIR and CONSEQUENTIAL vote. I'd rather not be talked to like a moron when in fact it's obvious the Tories simply don't want to change a system which advantages them.

But it's not only the Tories being pathetic about this. Labour have gone from bad to worse. Not only have they dropped plans for PR but they recently proposed (to the delight of the BNP) new legislation to prioritise locals in the council flat selection process based on a MYTH propagated by the BNP itself. Also their near silence on Europe has been infuriating and has played right into UKIP's and the BNP's hands.

Another problem in not addressing the problem of the BNP is that it makes it impossible to acknowledge the isolation felt by many disaffected voters in the outskirts of London and the North of England from the political system. Thus their needs are not taken into account and their misconceptions not addressed. Which is certainly not healthy, nor is it fair.


The problem is that if the mainstream continues in its policy of simply ignoring the BNP and using it as a smokescreen for their own incompetence and lack of imaginative and forward looking policy, the BNP can only flourish as the party of change, albeit regressive unchallenged change.

A few questions to David Davis

- Why did you not speak up before the actual vote as opposed to after? Considering this matter is something which apparently is dear to your heart and you are Shadow Home Secretary.
- Since you were partly the architect and a keen supporter of 28 days, not to mention the fact that you support the Death Penalty, doesn't this show that you're not really that big on civil liberties?
- Would you accept a seat on David Cameron's shadow cabinet, should you win the by-election, considering (as he has said) he is unlikely to repeal it if he wins the next election?


- Do you want the electorate of your constituency to vote solely on the issue of 42 days, considering most of the public support that particular piece of legislation?
- What possible difference is this going to make, what are you going to accomplish, since the bill already passed in parliament and you face no plausible opposition for your seat (labour has decided not to challenge you)?


- Why did you feel the need to resign considering your party was against the Government's proposals? Doesn't this show that you don't think David Cameron was strong enough in his opposition to 42 days detention?
- Do you have any leadership ambitions, and wasn't this whole thing about trying to further your own political agenda as opposed to defending our liberties?
- Isn't it odd that the Conservative Party is not funding your campaign? Doesn't this show that David Cameron has seen beyond your pretense and is worried that you are trying to steal his job?

I, like Davis, am against 42 days detention, but find his motives questionable and dishonest at best. This kind of blatant publicity stunt over such an important and sensitive issue further weakens the faith that the general public have in politicians , not only that but makes a mockery of the ideals we are all trying to defend by opposing this piece of Government legislation. Though I do thank him for exposing the cracks within the Conservative Party and wish him the best when it comes to damaging his party in the future.

A Chameleon, a car salesman and a bleach blond fop take over CCHQ... what happens?

"La rupture, ce sont souvent des réformes transgressives en symboles mais marginales sur la substance."


Many have heralded the recent Tory fortunes as the signs of a New Conservative Era, signs that New Labour has run out of steam and that the Cameron brand is a viable alternative to the current administration, brimming with new ideas and hope. I must admit that when the local election results were announced a few weeks ago, I was gripped by an intense panic, for the first time since I have been politically active it well and truly seemed that New Labour was dead in the water and that Cameron was effectively going to be the next prime minister, the Tories were on the road back to Downing Street. But now that the dust has settled, that New Labour have been rattled and the smirks on the Tory front benches have grown wider, my panic was lessened, replaced however by a growing sense of disgust, at once at the misfortunes of Labour and the complete hypocrisy of the Conservative Party.

Watching the Conservative Party today one would think they have entered the realm of Narnia, surely we're looking at the wrong party. I couldn't help thinking as I watched David Cameron address the Prime Minister in the Commons that I was watching some kind of freak show, as the Leader of the opposition criticized the Prime Minister for his removal of the 10p tax band and his abandonment of the poor. What made me sick however was at once his complete inconsistency with what he had voted for the previous year and his complete incapacity to promise it's reinstatement should he help his party return to power in 2010, despite his rebirth as a man with a social conscience, sticking up for the little guy. It was as if I was on the mother of all come downs and someone had stuck U2 on, I had to stop watching as my stomach nor my nerves could take it.

What people seem to forget is that the negative effect the removal of the 10p tax rate has upon lower incomes is in the process of being corrected, which is by the by a lot more then any Conservative administration would do. For god's sake they were against it's creation in 1999, as they were against the minimum wage and various forms of tax credits for the poor. How dare they launch such an attack on Labour when in fact they honestly could not give a toss about lower income earners. The worst affront was the seeming incapacity to back up this outcry, with any meaningful policies or proposals: this was cheap point scoring by a most sinister PR man.

Now this doesn't mean Labour are absolved for their mistake. The mistake which they tried to cover up and backtrack on, was a clear sign of a party which has lost touch with it's purpose and is falling behind on the promises it made in 1997, 2001 and 2005. Labour has accomplished much in the last 11 years, it has made an outstanding effort to reduce poverty in this country, increase equal opportunity and in the process has managed to combine this with modern and mostly effective supply side policies. But Brown is low on ideas and originality, his time has come I feel, but I'll save this for a later post. The Conservatives, who despite giving us a new way of approaching State intervention and monetary policy, fed the illusion of freedom to us for 18 years on the twin opiums of greed and nationalism, while plundering our social services and making sure that one child in three was born in poverty: I don't think any of us should forget that on polling day in May 2010, when we cast our votes.

Cameron may be charming, with his weak chin and his "call me dave" airs, while his eminence grise, Osborne, may be professional and brutally intelligent. But this Notting Hill brigade which rides bicycles and tries to reduce it's carbon footprint, while hugging hoodies at the same time, is but a complete pretence upheld by a most brutal and dogmatically monetarist party, who view their so called "natural role" as the leaders of this country, as some kind of celestial providence.

Cameron has done nothing to modernise his party into the centre ground. They seem to have little to show for their apparent adherence to the third way, their policy output beyond giving a couple of tax cuts to the rich and opposing Government proposals, not for the general good, but to score a few points, is a vain attempt to cover up their complete and utter policy vacuum. What surprises me most is the general public's complete lack of awareness as to this. Cameron has simply painted over the cracks of the party and benefited hugely from the popular fallout of Labour since the botched election plans last autumn.

His party is still hugely anti-Europe, it can barely hide it's elitist leanings behind the rather weak attempts to defend the 10p tax band, nor can they say they have any proposals to modernise the NHS and better our education system, beyond the tediously overused phrases of "waste management" and "rationalisation", which can only be interpreted as tax cuts and neglect (the effects of which I don't feel I need to remind anybody of) since they have proposed ABSOLUTELY nothing and Labour with it's audits and managerial emphasis on public services is doing it's best to rationalise anyway.


Alan Duncan MP and Tory front bencher, said to Labour Health minister Alan Johnson last Thursday that Labour "are just as bad as us". This clearly shows where the part is at, so to speak. Benefiting hugely from public disaffection with Brown and effectively being considered a protest vote last month, as opposed to an aspirational one, Cameron and his Etonian chums may grin and smirk, but we should all hope and pray that this rather farcical and frankly offensive freak show which is the Conservative "Manifesto" will be revealed for what it is sooner rather then later, and these absurd and mostly redundant Labour/Conservative comparisons dropped. Before these buffoons and PR men enter Downing Street and realise they have nothing to offer but silly smiles and comic appearances on topical game shows, and we all suffer as a result.

He has no IDea

There is supposedly a plethora of reasons for having ID cards. However once confronted over this Government ministers tend to mumble embarrassed into their chests something about illegal immigration, fighting terrorism and utility, then run off feigning moral "conviction" and introducing them via a wasteful consumer lead system.


The Cards will be made compulsory for Airport Workers, guest workers and students who open a bank account after 2008, a voluntary scheme has also been set up. Should the trial prove successful and the Brown administration is re-elected in 2009/10 ID cards will be made compulsory for anyone over the age of 16. This is not a popular party line, but unlike the Government backed Lisbon Treaty it's not a good one either.




The idea that somehow a plastic card with your fingerprints, details and biometric data will stop illegal immigrants and strengthen borders is laughable. The only conceivable use in that context is to make public services not accessible to them, which is clearly not humane. Nor would ID cards have stopped Mohammad Sidique Kahn, Shehzad Tanweer, Germain Lindsay and Hasib Hussain blowing up London Buses and Tubes on 7/7 since they would have had them anyway. All but one was born and bred in the UK and the other was naturalized at the age of five. As for utility and identification, a passport, driver's license or student card should suffice to prove one's identification (after all the data on a passport is difficult to forge).


Jacqui Smith and Ed Miliband have also trumpeted Crime prevention as a reason. This argument does have some weight, in that not only could it prove useful in a Criminal investigation but it would also prove a disincentive to crime. However to use the often stated and tired phrase (though no less relevant) one ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty,...we cannot ignore what is a cornerstone of our judicial system and our moral compass. A system of collecting data from serial offenders and more serious criminals should be adopted as in Scotland, a blanket data collection system is not right and should be deemed unconstitutional.

In terms of Data safety it is important to remind people of the gargantuan nature of the State bureaucracy. It is a regular and expected occurrence that data is lost, whether under Thatcher, Blair, Brown or even (heaven forbid) Cameron, data will be lost, it would be ridiculous to label an executive "incompetent" because of a bureaucratic mix up. The most recent case involving the loss of 20 million people's benefit data is one among 30 in 2007. There is no strict impermeability because of possible bureaucratic irregularities and mistakes, but also the leaking into the private sphere for criminal or business ends.

It seems to me that the Government should scrap the plan, as it is not necessary, nor is it preferable. Gordon Brown wants to prove that he has substance and conviction, he should therefore break with some of these ridiculous and misguided Blairite vestiges (extended detention time, flouting of constitutional conventions among others) to establish his own view on freedom, rights and the balance of power... a passion of his he has talked up many times. He should distinguish himself from his predecessor by focusing on civil liberties and reforming the legislative/executive process. A healthy refocus of government priority and agenda should be addressed to push back the tide of Care Bear Conservatives and the Callaghan/Major comparisons. New Labour has nothing to fear by proposing an alternative to the old party line on constitutional and rights legislation, or in fact challenging it, since it is a passion of our Prime Minister and is an area where Labour can contrast with the weak chinned Cameroons.

Grodon Brown's flaws (non-psychological)

The date has been announced. The cogs set in motion, all internal opposition (well credible) silenced, the keys to 10 Downing Street will almost certainly fall into the hands of our Chancellor Gordon Brown. He seems ideal. Modern enough to stay within the New Labour fold, a sufficient red streak within him to satisfy backbenchers and extensive cabinet experience. But the A.B.B. (anyone but brown) movement highlights certain discrepencies as to his seemingly moral and serious persona. Many skeletons in the closet of number 11 threaten to hinder his route to number 10.



His actions as Chancellor of this country show at once a worrying tendency within Mr.Brown to relinquish responsability and, to put it bluntly, lie. The latest pensions scandal clearly shows this, he knew in 1997 the cost of removing tax credits on share dividends would have on future pensions, yet did not alert the nation of the 150 billion pound gap that would ensue. The document which proves he knew only released (under the Freedom of information act) the day after his meeting with Treasury officials in April, that being the last oppotunity for him to be questioned about it before he becomes Prime Minister in July.
As for his 1997 promise not to tax over 40% of the nation's GDP in what he called a pledge for "sustainable investment", to keep inside this self imposed quota, Mr.Brown seems to have fiddled with the figures. He has managed to keep outside of the Budget spreadsheets P.F.I (Private finance initiatives) which in 2001 were worth an estimated 100 billion pounds. Considering the amount one can assume the underevaluation of tax withing GDP to be significant . The OCDE now estimates taxation to represent 42,4% of British GDP, this figure includes the P.F.I.s conviniently left out of the Treasury's estimates.

Tessa Jowell's plan to build a supercasino in Manchester was opposed by Gordon Brown, he is said to be moraly against this perversion. He even increased the tax burden on new casinos in Britain. Yet he has allowed an exeption for "smaller casinos" (the definition of small turning out to be rather large),as well as letting betting shops set up virtual betting and slot machines. Not surprisingly bigger casinos now want the same rights, will Mr.Brown stand in the way of extra tax money? or will his "morality" prevail?

Another flaw appears in his handling of Iraq. Mr. Brown has been hailed by his fellow Brownites as a more pragmatic man then his predecessor, someone who supports the United States but doesn't bow down to them. He voted in favour of sending British troops to Iraq, not only that but he very recently stated that Iraq was a "good idea". Yet rumours have circulated that in fact he is against the war in Iraq, the only reason he didn't publicly denounce the government's plans in 2003 was because he wanted to stay in Government. With his government standing and his influence within the party he could have thrown a huge, if not deadly spanner into the works of Blair's war machine. Speculation aside, this man was ready to compromise his beliefs for self promotion.

I'm not saying Gordon Brown is the anti-christ or that he's not fit for the job. Just he seems as entrenched in the game of politics and punctual thinking as his conservative opponent David Cameron, which is a shame.

London

Since when did London become so ugly and sinister? Since when did I not care, notice, or care to notice the blackness of London, the flipside of this gritty, urban and cosmopolitan city?
The tired and edgy businessman sipping his skinny latte with chocolate sprinkles, spewing his customer relations blabber even to his friends on the tube. A fat and grumpy looking track suit clad woman with Golden earings curtosy of Asda, frowning and pondering her Gemini Horoscope as if it were really complicated algebra. The eastern european men, who walk the streets very early in the morning, with their small rucksacks and huge heads. The sloanies, chatting on their motorola about who' s fucking who at the moment, in their faux arty dress, eating pret a manger salads (with no dressing of course) which will probably end up at the bottom of some toilet, forced out by the image of Kate Moss advertising Rimmel London. Old men and women dressed in beige, moaning about hooded children and getting mugged, before finaly appearing on the front page of the Daily Mail which reads the caption "Ethnic thugs batter old lady". The young woman walking towards you and who avoids all eye contact with any passers by, because of the sheer act of aggression it would represent if she looked at anyone.
The worst is it seems normal..