Why don't *more* people vote BNP?

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 11 2004 15:49
Why don't *more* people vote BNP?

Have never really looked at the BNP manifesto properly, but it seems like their stance on a lot of issues goes pretty well with what a lot of people believe.

They're pretty "national socialist" too, wanting universal free healthcare, decent pensions etc. On things like capital punishment they say they'd like to re-introduce it but they'll have a referendum - this is fucking clever.

This ties in with their whole policy about greatly increased democracy, with more referenda, greater decentralisation etc.

The race stuff is reasonably played-down - although there are some very nutty fascistic news stories, like about the NUT being a Communist, pervert-paedo-loving front - but I think a lot of people would agree with it.

So why are they only getting, what 5% of the vote?

I reckon it's for 3 main reasons:

1: the unfair 1st-past-the-post electoral system which makes most people think a vote for a small party is a wasted vote

2: A lot of people don't want zero-immigration

3: Most people *do* think that the BNP is a fascist party, and so hate them on principle.

What do people think of these?

I know that a lot of people slag off those who would argue against the BNP simply by saying "they're fascists" (myself included), but tbh I think that is probably the main reason most people don't vote for them.

As for what does this mean I really don't know. I just thought I'd throw it out there and see what people thought smile

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
May 11 2004 16:15

Yeah, i would say its mostly down to number 3.

The media, encouraged by the left with their symbolic anti-fash actions against the BNP portray the BNP as an out and out evil organisation which i think turns alot of ppl away from it.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 11 2004 18:03

Most people don't vote for ANY political party in local elections. Most people know little about party politics full stop.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
May 11 2004 18:31

Well something like 20% of the population aren't likely to vote BNP for starters unless they had a sudden suicidal impulse

the majority just hates them or doesn't bother voting.

the danger is that they can slip into the mainstream by wiinnibng a few votes from certain semi-politicised naive groups, gaining financial backing and building up an effective community activist bloc.

john

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
May 11 2004 22:48

I reckon too many people think BNP = rascists = nazis = bad, without questioning. I think they've got the right outcome all the same. Funny thing is, I think the same problem affects the anarchist movement, i.e. negative association in the over-simplistic logic of many people who can't be bothered to find out.

Kalashnikov_Blues
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
May 12 2004 00:37

I reckon....!

That they fall victim to the classic "third-party-ain't-never-gonna-make-it-in-anyway" trap, coupled with the right wing stigma.

Works ok for me either way! grin

I was talkin to some guy at work who said that he liked some of what the BNP said (probably what George n his Bush were refering to) but that he didn't like the way they went about things, i.e. the stigma of street fights and fascism...

PaulMarsh's picture
PaulMarsh
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 12 2004 06:41

There is also the fact that many people simply distrust politicians.

The more polished and organised the BNP become, the more like a "serious" party, the more this attitude begins to count against them.

As a final point, voting BNP can scare central government into action (if I recall correctly government money was put into the Isle of Dogs after the BNP victory in 94, equally the number of asylum seekers dispersed to Burnley has arguably stayed low becuae of BNP success there) but I doubt the BNP can even get close to implementing their programme.

If liberal democracy does not allow radical socialists to implement their programme, why would it allow radical fascists?

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
May 12 2004 08:58

Because fascism is the last resort of the ruling class aginst the working class, its not radical, there is a political bulwark consisiting of a section of the ruling class who have specific political careerist and business interests which fascism would overun, but in the event of a crisis, this bulwark dissappears.

So basically say the economy fails, due to say somethin like an oil shortage, which isn't an unreal prediction for the next 20 years, then fascism takes an upsurge in response to the failure of liberal democracy to provide resulting in union militancy and other symptoms of class warfare.

The BNP right now, with no shortages, have little chance of getting into actual power by acieving that 30% plus or so support needed. But there is a real danger they'll slip in and becoem a major party liek the french far right. Plus the bigger they are, the more the bourgeoisie can get away with racist policy.

As always its all about what the bourgeoisie or various sections if it, think they can get away with.

john

ClassWar
Offline
Joined: 24-10-03
May 12 2004 11:34
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Because fascism is the last resort of the ruling class aginst the working class,

john

This is the classic "leftist" analysis of fascism. Time however moves on.

Now a significant minority of the ruling class comprises Blacks, jews, gays etc, the sort of people traditionally despised by fascists.

I think it is better to say that a form of fascism can be the last resort of the ruling class.

If the USA were in danger of falling to the armed proletariat, Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice would be looking round for alternatives, but I doubt they would be turning to the KKK somehow ...........

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
May 12 2004 15:57
ClassWar wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Because fascism is the last resort of the ruling class aginst the working class,

john

This is the classic "leftist" analysis of fascism. Time however moves on.

Now a significant minority of the ruling class comprises Blacks, jews, gays etc, the sort of people traditionally despised by fascists.

I think it is better to say that a form of fascism can be the last resort of the ruling class.

If the USA were in danger of falling to the armed proletariat, Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice would be looking round for alternatives, but I doubt they would be turning to the KKK somehow ...........

yeah thats true, class changes, although i would think the condtions for a group liek the BNP to take over in the UK are still pretty much present.

john

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
May 13 2004 13:12

Basically they arte a bunch of suite wearing nazis, and only wankers vote for them.

captainmission
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
May 13 2004 15:33
Quote:
Now a significant minority of the ruling class comprises Blacks, jews, gays etc, the sort of people traditionally despised by fascists.

There were numerous gay and jewish fascist in Fascist Italy and gay fascists in German weren't there?

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
May 13 2004 16:24
WeTheYouth wrote:
Basically they arte a bunch of suite wearing nazis, and only wankers vote for them.

They are Suit wearing nazis yes that is pretty obvious to everyone on here, but they have council seats, and not just in some feild owned by some baron or other

The BNP got a seat in Enfeild North London for example, simply saying ''only wankers vote for them'' is rather pointless, unless 40% or so of the population of enfeild are just ''wankers''.

If we don't make an attempt to understand facsim and how it appeals to various classes and groups in society, its going to beat us!

john

GenerationDecay
Offline
Joined: 5-11-03
May 16 2004 18:32
ClassWar wrote:
This is the classic "leftist" analysis of fascism. Time however moves on.

Now a significant minority of the ruling class comprises Blacks, jews, gays etc, the sort of people traditionally despised by fascists.

I think it is better to say that a form of fascism can be the last resort of the ruling class.

If the USA were in danger of falling to the armed proletariat, Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice would be looking round for alternatives, but I doubt they would be turning to the KKK somehow ...........

I think that in itself is a misunderstanding of fascism. 'Fascists' may themselves traditionally hate minorities, but fascism only uses that as a form of control. Fascism, as Mussolini said, can more properly be called corporatism, as its main goal is to protect the property of the ruling class from the working class. Mussolini himself didn't bother going after the jews until Hitler pressured him to, like Franco after him he was more concerned the danger of the organised working class.

What the US administration would do in the face of armed revolution would depend on the political landscape. If there was a strong fascist movement they would likely turn to it, like the German government did in 1931, but if not then they'd go for the huge concessions route, like the French in 1968.

GenerationDecay
Offline
Joined: 5-11-03
May 16 2004 18:35
WeTheYouth wrote:
Basically they are a bunch of suite wearing nazis, and only wankers vote for them.

Julie Waterstone, is that you? grin

'NO WORKING CLASS PEOPLE VOTE FASCISTS, THOSE THAT DO ARE JUST SCUM FROM THE ESTATES!' eek

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 16 2004 22:04

Amusing interview in the Observer today with Nick Griffin's daughter's first ever visit to London, where she, amongst other revelations, said she thought asylum seekers should be given MORE money. Looks like her parents have been lying to her (8% of NHS workers foreign born? at the hospital I worked at in South London it was more like 80%)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,11981,1218008,00.html

Tom A
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 17 2004 10:49

I'm confused here.

Are people here thinking that the BNP actually isn't that evil as everyone on the left would have you believe, or that the BNP are still as dangerous as every other fascist party before them (like the NF, BUF etc) was in their time, only that the press demonisation has kept them at bay?

I can understand why BNP policies would be bad news for a lot of people, (as would Tory policies, and New Labour are hardly people friendly are they?), but on reading that Observer article they don't seem to come across as Nazis at all. They still may not be plesant people, they still may be racist, of course, but isn't the anti-fascist movement (particularly Searchlight and the ANL) clutching at straws desperate to find any dirt on them that they can use to call them Nazis?

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 17 2004 13:34

Tom Im probably not the most able to reply to your post, but Ive come across this argument several times and Ill try to give it an adequate response.

Now centrally the argument always rotates around are they fascist? Now there are certain things that cloud this perception, but to begin with, I dont think the term nazi is either helpful or correct, and was chiefly used in the 70's as a propaganda tool to use in a landscape when many could actually remember the horror of the war and the holocaust.

Now Id begin by arguing they are fascist because they follow a very typical model, playing an old national identity card time and time again (despite its many contradictions), a party which is very top down with a strong leader figure, using issues which promote strengthening of the state (crime, security), populist and centrally believe in extra-parliamentary activity to enforce their politics.

In simple terms they are reactionary with a capital R, a much further step than say the tories.

However the problem is that the landscape they find themselves in wont allow them to follow a traditional model. Theyve retreated physically from the streets since the 90's and the mainstream parties have been exposed time and again for their incompetence, so in can step the BNP to work on 'local issues' albiet with a racial and backward bent.

The problem is on some issues they sound more left and caring than most of the other parties, this really is point at which we now find ourselves at. So for every progressive campaign they hijack (closure of old peoples homes, improving local services) they will use the issue to drag immigration and race into the arena, thus souring the entire climate for theyre own shitty ends.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Jun 3 2004 20:20
Tom A wrote:
I'm confused here.

Are people here thinking that the BNP actually isn't that evil as everyone on the left would have you believe, or that the BNP are still as dangerous as every other fascist party before them (like the NF, BUF etc) was in their time, only that the press demonisation has kept them at bay?

I can understand why BNP policies would be bad news for a lot of people, (as would Tory policies, and New Labour are hardly people friendly are they?), but on reading that Observer article they don't seem to come across as Nazis at all. They still may not be plesant people, they still may be racist, of course, but isn't the anti-fascist movement (particularly Searchlight and the ANL) clutching at straws desperate to find any dirt on them that they can use to call them Nazis?

No

the core leadership were all members of violent nazi organisations and maintain links to those organisations, principally combat 18 and the NF but other organisations aswell.

If they got into power, i very uch doubt they would suddenly go on a crusade of extermination within days, of course not, they're nazis, they know how to hide their politics under a mask of populism, thats what nazis do. But slowly they'd start removing political enemies and isolating their ideological enemies.

The BNP in power would pretty much either lead to a civil war or a totalitarian state in which a good 10-20% of the population would be killed because they are considered ''undesireable''.

john

Mystic
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jun 3 2004 20:44

It's in the BNP's interests not to portray themselves as fascists because of the connotations that has. From what I make work out the way they target support among the working class is through extreme policies mixed with socialist ones, 'cos working class people in this country would never vote in large numbers for people they perceive as Nazis. But that's the way the Nazis started out anyway (ie. "National Socialist").

rohan
Offline
Joined: 3-06-04
Jun 3 2004 23:16

I remember being quite shocked when i read that a life long member of the Green Party decided to join the BNP because of its environmental policies!

Its strange, but their policies are very populist so i suppose it makes sense for them to claim they're going to raise pensions, improve health care, clean up the environment etc.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jun 4 2004 06:31
rohan wrote:
I remember being quite shocked when i read that a life long member of the Green Party decided to join the BNP because of its environmental policies!

shouldn't be too suprised - there's always few odd ones out in any movement/group. For instance, there are ex-nazis in anarchist movement and no doubt other way around as well!

Or read the conservativepunk.com site and stories of punks maturing from the anarchist naivety to common sense conservatism and backing bush for president grin

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Jun 4 2004 06:53
rohan wrote:
I remember being quite shocked when i read that a life long member of the Green Party decided to join the BNP because of its environmental policies!

Its strange, but their policies are very populist so i suppose it makes sense for them to claim they're going to raise pensions, improve health care, clean up the environment etc.

ecofascism is always a threat, i think david irving was a Green MP before he went nuts

john

joy
Offline
Joined: 6-06-04
Jun 25 2004 18:45

as for waiting about and pragmatically trying to consolidate their position before whacking the working class, females, gays, ethnic minorities, travellers etc, it appears not; already since getting three councillors in epping forest they are trying to kick traveller families off their own land.

the bnps website is extremely clever, you just have to know how to read it properly. 'traditional family'- read repression of youth,single mothers, females, gays and lesbians, etc.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Jun 25 2004 19:31
Quote:
they're nazis, they know how to hide their politics under a mask of populism, thats what nazis do.

I wouldn't say the BNP were Nazis. Fascists yeah, but not Nazis. When we call them Nazis, it makes us sound hysterical. People who know the BNP in their area know they aren't Nazis and we just sound silly when we say it. Of course, they used to be Nazis and a lot of the leadership could be found seig heiling their way through marches in the late 80s/early 90s(including "Nice Guy" Nick Griffin!) but that's not what they are now. C18 are Nazis, White Nationalist Party are Nazis, but not the BNP. They're just standard, run-of-the-mill fascists.

Quote:
since getting three councillors in epping forest they are trying to kick traveller families off their own land.

After chatting to a mate of mine from the area the other day, he told me that the council have been trying to get rid of the travellers for years anyway. Just shows how closely tied the fascists are to more mainstream political parties.

For those interested in militant anti-fascism, check out www.antifa.org.uk