The BNP manifesto for the local elections promises zero tolerance of
anti-social behaviour but many of its candidates are guilty of the
worst kinds of anti-social behaviour. Today’s Sun (pages 22&23 –
you’ll have to buy a copy because the investigation is not online)
exposes the unsavoury backgrounds of many of the men who want to be
councillors after this Thursday’s elections:
- Alan Bailey standing in Romford “pleaded guilty to assault after a white man married to a black woman was kicked to the floor”.
- Mick Treacy standing in Oldham has five convictions for offences including handling stolen goods and deception.
- Kevin Scott, a candidate in Gateshead, has been convicted of assault and for racist abuse of a group of Asians.
- Jason Douglas is a BNP candidate in Redbridge. He has a conviction for soccer violence.
The Sun goes on to list the dark pasts of other leading lights of the BNP. Warren Bennett, security chief for the BNP, is, according to The Sun, “a known soccer hooligan”. The BNP’s ‘group development officer’, Tony Lecomber, committed offences under the 1985 Explosives Act including possession of home-made hand grenades. In 1991 he was sentenced for three years for his part in an attack on a Jewish teacher. Burnley BNP councillor Brian Turner was convicted only last year of attacking his wife and a police officer.
‘The Sun Says’ column admits that “Labour may well deserve a bloody nose in this week’s elections” but, it continues: “inviting the hobnailed boot of the BNP to sort it out would be like calling in Mafia protection gangs instead of police when you are robbed.”
RELATED LINK: Any questions for The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh?
Point 1: I'm sure few people are unaware of the unsavoury nature of the BNP.
The fact that an increasing number of people are still considering voting for them, despite this, must highlight the severity of the more pressing issue of why people are becomingly increasingly prepared to do this.
Are these people whose first protest at the big 3 not listening was not to vote at all, but who are now actively voting as a bigger protest, or are there specific concerns the BNP are addressing that the big 3 refuse to touch?
I guess we'll have to wait for the result to see what impact the BNP and other small parties have made, but it could make for a decent Dimbledy diuscussin on why voters are abandoning the big 3.
Point 2: Are 100% of Labour and Tory candidates conviction free? You would hope so, if they are seeking elected office.
Posted by: Chad | May 02, 2006 at 08:36
I don't see how The Sun can attack the thugs of the BNP for their criminal past when it supported the Good Friday Agreement which allowed murderers and terrorists to hold office in the government of Northern Ireland.
Posted by: Andrew Kennedy | May 02, 2006 at 08:50
Fact is most of the above are ex BNP members and this news is very old news.However the UK is rapidly being ethnically cleansed thanks to nu-Labours open door immigration policy so these guys may actually be heros.No one else has the proverbial "bottle" to stand up and say a big NO.....I for one will be voting for the BNP.....call me what you like!
Posted by: Alan Gray | May 02, 2006 at 09:13
Labour may well deserve a bloody nose in this week’s elections” but, it continues: “inviting the hobnailed boot of the BNP to sort it out would be like calling in Mafia protection gangs instead of police when you are robbed.”
In many countries e.g. Japan, you call the Yakuza (mafia equivalent - they all have tips of little finger missing) not the Police. They are thugs but they are thugs that keep the neighbourhood in order, and make sure society runs well.
People should call for the Conservatives to sort out Labour as they used to do, but we are seen as all part of the problem. To be differentiated we need to talk openly about what is happening to Britain, not join the 'let's pretend' game, and hope no one is noticing that everything has changed.
If the BNP offer people an explanation as to what they are witnessing, and Conservatives under Cameron do not, they will turn to the BNP.
The media can rant and rave against the BNP, but no one trusts the media any more. They've been lying to us for a generation. You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Posted by: William | May 02, 2006 at 09:32
To describe the UK as being "ethnically cleansed" is frankly insulting to those peoples who have suffered genocidal wars (Rwanda, Kosovo). Whether or not you agree with the Government's immigration policies, to use such intemperate language demonstrates a complete lack of perspective.
"These guys" (the BNP) are not heroes. They are just offensive racists.
Posted by: Richard ROBINSON | May 02, 2006 at 09:34
Not often I say this, but good on the Sun. It should make a few potential BNP voters rethink.
Posted by: True Blue | May 02, 2006 at 09:39
Congratulations Tim for this excellent piece!
Posted by: Suggestion | May 02, 2006 at 09:39
The Sun is giving the BNP free publicity, yet again, and will give them the sympathy vote. And when anyone reads this, they'll ask who the bigger crook is, Blair for handing out peerages for a cash loan, Clarke for letting foreign murderers and rapists out of prison, or the BNP, people they've never heard of, who it so happens, have done all this bad stuff just days before an election the establishment are desperate for them not to do well in.
This will backfire, just when we don't need it to...
Posted by: Tim Aker | May 02, 2006 at 09:42
It still astonishes me how right-wing some people on this site are. The BNP are a bunch of thugs who have no answers to this countrys problems but still when they are attacked we have people defending them.
Those that do this have no place in the Conservative Party. The BNP and others on the right have nothing in common with Conservatism but everything in common with facism.
Posted by: Jack Stone | May 02, 2006 at 09:47
Firstly, anyone who thinks fascism is right wing doesn't know much about it. Fascism and all its offsprings are socialist, statist and corporatist. Oh yes, and there was always a strong green componen and a hatred of capitalism and industrialism.
Secondly, it is always best not to look into the past history of members, let alone ex-members.
Thirdly, and most importantly, to tell people that it is not legitimate for them to vote for a party, because the political and media establishment does not like that party is an insult to the electorate. It would be a good idea for those on this forum who have political ambitions to remember that the electorate owes them nothing. You owe the people a reason for them to for vote for you.
Posted by: Helen | May 02, 2006 at 09:58
Nice diversionary tactics. Now compare and contrast.
EDITOR'S NOTE (ADDED AT 11.37): This will take you to a National Front website.
Posted by: Richard North | May 02, 2006 at 10:08
Jack Stone wrote:
""It still astonishes me how right-wing some people on this site are.""
Unbelievable. A Conservative website where it is thought wrong to be right-wing. When any intellectual impulse is present in the Party (sadly not in these times) it invariably comes from the Right Wing - all that we have now is the platitudinous mewing of the centre left and much good that does us, as this week will tell.
You may be part of the lefty consensus, Mr Stone, but that doesn't make being right-wing reprehensible. Think again and sharpen up your spelling whilst you're at it.
Posted by: John Coles | May 02, 2006 at 10:20
"the UK is rapidly being ethnically cleansed" Editor, little editing?
I don't know who you are, but since I can call you what I like, I'll call you a racist scumbag who has no right to post on a conservative or Conservative blog.
"but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." What, that what they really want is to have their communities run by jackbooted thugs rather than the Police and local council? They just haven't realised it yet?
"In many countries e.g. Japan, you call the Yakuza (mafia equivalent - they all have tips of little finger missing) not the Police. They are thugs but they are thugs that keep the neighbourhood in order, and make sure society runs well." WTF? I mean seriously, why in the hell are you posting on a conservative blog? Law and order can be handed over to sectarian/racist protection operations? Hands up how many conservatives think that is a good idea?
Posted by: Henry Whitmarsh | May 02, 2006 at 10:29
It would be very hard for the BNP to run, convincingly, on a law and order platform.
Posted by: Sean Fear | May 02, 2006 at 10:41
I haven't deleted Alan Gray's comment but I have banned his IP address in the hope that he won't be able to post again. I'm not sure that I've done the right thing as I think free speech is important but I want to make it clear that ConservativeHome does not, in any way, regard BNP people as heroes.
Richard Robinson said all that needed to be said about the offensiveness of the "ethnic cleansing" remarks.
Posted by: Editor | May 02, 2006 at 10:42
Editor, why are you carrying a link to the National Front on your blog in addition to having one for Conservative Friends of Israel? Nick Griffin is of course founder of International Third Position, a neo nazi group. Harrys Place carries some of their literature in a piece about anti-semitism in the mainstream media.
Posted by: Henry Whitmarsh | May 02, 2006 at 10:52
Editor
You haven't banned freedom of speech as other sites (including the link to a nasty site so helpfully posted by Richard North) are free to carry them - a blog does have the right to set standards regarding what is exceptable and what lanhguage can be used.
I don't think the Sun is giving "oxygen of publicity" with this - its article is more like an extinguisher in reminding those who think the BNP is just a very patriotic party what it really is.
Posted by: Ted | May 02, 2006 at 10:55
I actually think you have done the wrong thing Tim.The refusal of the main parties to debate with them allows the BNP to get away with policies which are often ludicrous.
If Alan Gray is prepared to debate in a civilised manner we should be prepared to debate with him.It should not be too difficult to prove what a reprehensible party the BNP are.
Posted by: malcolm | May 02, 2006 at 11:03
Editor
I would be grateful if you would consider removing the link made by Richard North 'compare and contrast'. It takes you to a (repulsive) National Front website which I have just inadvertently visited.
Since I view Conservativehome from the office on my work computer and my browsing is tracked I'm now in the slightly embarrassing position of having to explain to my management why I was on a National Front website.
I take the point about free speech seriously but the link is disingenious as it is not clearly marked where it is taking you.
Posted by: Mark Clarke | May 02, 2006 at 11:15
I agree with Malcolm.
The big 3 parties should be shouting
"Vote for us because..."
not "don't vote for them because.."
Make the BNP irrelevant by talking to the electorate and addressing their concerns.
Posted by: Chad | May 02, 2006 at 11:19
"Unbelievable. A Conservative website where it is thought wrong to be right-wing."
Jack Stone is a UKIP-supporting interloper who comes on here to wind people up.
This is an excellent expose of the BNP but as Chad mentioned above, not all mainstream councillors are innocent either. Indeed, the BNP have started to respond to these charges by highlighting the criminal behaviour of mainstream party councillors.
If BNP members wish to post here we should let them and debate with them. The same applies to anyone from the Left who pops in for a chat. Obviously if the board became overwhelmed by non-Tories then I can understand restricting opposition views. This is Conservative Home afterall!
Posted by: Richard | May 02, 2006 at 11:24
Mark Clarke: I have added a warning to the offending post.
Posted by: Editor | May 02, 2006 at 11:39
"The BNP and others on the right have nothing in common with Conservatism but everything in common with facism."
Jack, I know you get some kind of bizarre kick out of demonising the right, but in this instance (as with so many of your rants) it is misplaced.
As Helen hinted at above, the BNP actually has more in common with the extreme left than the extreme right.
Sorry to disappoint you.
"Jack Stone is a UKIP-supporting interloper."
But Jack supported Ken Clarke's leadership bid (before David Cameron came along anyway...).
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | May 02, 2006 at 11:43
It is interesting to see the criminal records of the candidates shown on the article above. I was in Gosport yesterday to help with their election effort and was told that one of their Labour councillors had a criminal past which was exposed recently in the local press, including harassment and theft. He has served his sentence, and the criminal activity is some years in the past. The local Labour Party appear to have stood by him. A Labour candidate in one of the Reading seats at the last general election had convictions for indecent activity in public toilets. I suppose these candidates have the right to stand, though unless they are exposed by others their past may not be known to the public. Should we be told? Should candidates be forced to reveal their past, or should they be allowed to conceal it?
Posted by: Derek | May 02, 2006 at 11:48
The terrible truth is, that a lot of people will vote BNP because they do the sort of things they do! Pointing out, they do the sort of things they do, will make some people even keener on voting for them!
Posted by: J.W.Tozer | May 02, 2006 at 12:12
That is sadly true. There are a small element of thugs who will vote for thugs. But this should put the dampers on any waverers who imagine the BNP have changed.
Posted by: Suggestion | May 02, 2006 at 12:22
But this should put the dampers on any waverers who imagine the BNP have changed.
That's what I think will be interesting. I don't think these people tempted to vote BNP do think they have changed. I saw this with my family in East London in the 80's, voting NF not because they thought they were a *nice* party but because they hated the big parties and the nice man from the NF popped round to discuss their concerns.
Don't blame the electorate, they are trying to tell the big 3 something rather important. Not that they like the BNP message, but that they are well and truly pissed off.
Posted by: Chad | May 02, 2006 at 12:27
I think the Sun has done well to put this out. Countering the BNP's attempt at spinning away their thuggishness is important. Not all publicity is good publicity and I'm pretty sure that people can tell the difference between cash for honours problems and violent assault.
This seems far more effective than campaigns by lefty organisations like the NUS who send people out and tell them that they need to become socialists to stop the fascist BNP. I don't think presenting that choice helps.
The BNP supporters who posted here at first aren't indicative of a problem with this site. There are a few parties that are sufficient full of cranks that they wander the web looking for chances to attempt to make their party look larger than it is.
Posted by: Matthew Sinclair | May 02, 2006 at 12:37
I think a mafia protection gang would be more use than calling the police.
Posted by: Peter North | May 02, 2006 at 12:42
I tend to agree with the last paragraph in your 12:27 post Chad, although it is the big 2 really as the Lib Dems, I think, are still the recipients of the protest vote in those areas of England where just the three main parties are standing.
Posted by: Paul Kennedy | May 02, 2006 at 12:57
Not surprised people are turning to the BNP. Limp wristed Cameron is wittering about the environment when our communities are being over-run by Islam. Why should we pay any attention to him?
Posted by: Peter North | May 02, 2006 at 12:57
"When our communities are being over-run by Islam" - We really need some mafia hit men to sort them out, don't we? This discussion is like a trip to la la land.
Posted by: Henry Whitmarsh | May 02, 2006 at 13:23
Tell that to a white kid in Manningham, Bradford.
Posted by: Peter North | May 02, 2006 at 13:32
The BNP are a tragic little band of knuckle-dragging uniform fetishists.
The thing that exercises me is why they are constantly lumped on "the right". They aren't. They are authoritarian socialists. Of course, lefties love to put them on the right, the insinuation being that if you are on the right of the Conservative Party you are a small step away from being a fascist.
Posted by: Andy Peterkin | May 02, 2006 at 13:40
Quite right Andy, although in large part it's due to our own failure to point out that fact, plus the way the BNP themselves define themselves in opposition to Socialism and Communism.
Posted by: Martin Smith | May 02, 2006 at 13:53
"I would be grateful if you would consider removing the link made by Richard North 'compare and contrast'. It takes you to a (repulsive) National Front website which I have just inadvertently visited."
Are we not being a bit too squeamish, or narrow-minded? One rule of politics, surely, is to find out what the enemy are doing on the other side of the hill.
Posted by: Richard North | May 02, 2006 at 14:00
I must confess it amuses me during BNP discussions in general (not just on this board) that people feel the need to put negative adjectives before the word "BNP". "Odious", "evil" etc. It's as if they feel that failing to do so makes them look like a potential sympathiser. Or they just like to feel self-righteous. Maybe I've just been watching too much Brass eye.
Posted by: Richard | May 02, 2006 at 14:09
Of course, there is also the maqtter of "people in glass houses"....
http://uk.altermedia.info/fraud-and-corruption/hit-and-run-councillor-may-appeal-over-sentence_744.html
Disgraced Bradford councillor Intkhab Alam is considering appealing against his jail sentence for trying to evade capture after a fatal hit-and-run crash.
The minicab driver, who won the Great Horton seat for the Conservatives in 2004, was locked up for a total of two years and four months after he admitted perverting the course of justice, failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident.
Posted by: Richard North | May 02, 2006 at 14:10
So Alan,Peter,Richard etc do you seriously believe that the foremost of Britains problems are concerned with race? I'm interested to know how the BNP would solve the growing pensions crisis we are faced with and what if any solution you have for energy problems that will soon beset this country.
Posted by: malcolm | May 02, 2006 at 14:10
"It takes you to a (repulsive) National Front website which I have just inadvertently visited."
It's morbid rather than repulsive. There's nothing politically controversial on there. It's a list of white people murdered by non-whites. Obviously we know the NF's motivation behind this but that particular page isn't repulsive in itself.
If you want to see something repulsive (and highly comic!) check this out: http://www.n9s.org/
Welcome to clown central!
Posted by: Richard | May 02, 2006 at 14:15
"I'm interested to know how the BNP would solve the growing pensions crisis we are faced with and what if any solution you have for energy problems that will soon beset this country."
The BNP have a big thing about peak oil and how we're going to have to return to a simpler way of life: http://www.bnp.org.uk/peakoil/opportunity.htm
Nothing about pensions though. But then their economic policy is just plain demented.
Posted by: Richard | May 02, 2006 at 14:18
"I'm interested to know how the BNP would solve the growing pensions crisis we are faced with and what if any solution you have for energy problems that will soon beset this country."
Leaving the EU is a damn fine start
Posted by: Peter | May 02, 2006 at 14:28
"Leaving the EU is a damn fine start"
This is the BNP we're talking about, so "leaving the EU" will undoubtedly be followed by "kick out anyone who immigrated between 1946 and now".
I mean, come on. Do people really fall for this stuff as a feasible political option?
Posted by: Andy Peterkin | May 02, 2006 at 14:33
Yes very good Peter.Leaving the EU will undoubtedly solve all our problems.Why didn't we think of that?
Posted by: malcolm | May 02, 2006 at 14:34
Should the BNP increase its vote and support then it should be seen as an indictment of the oddly and whimsically named Conservative Party.
At the top of this page are five photographs under the caption: Voting BNP would be criminal. I can quite easily replace those photos with another five from the mainstream parties - make up your own list.
"Never send to know for whom the bell tolls... (An apt quote of a quote from Richard North).
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh | May 02, 2006 at 14:36
I thought someone was not allowed to become an MP if they had a criminal record? I don't know about councillors. Judging by the lot that claim to represent (legally) people in Northern Ireland, I suppose I am wrong!!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | May 02, 2006 at 14:36
"I can quite easily replace those photos with another five from the mainstream parties - make up your own list."
I suppose you could. The proportion seems to be rather high in the BNP, though, doesn't it?
Posted by: Andy Peterkin | May 02, 2006 at 14:55
"Do people really fall for this stuff as a feasible political option"
A lot more credible than Camerons witless prattle.
Posted by: Peter | May 02, 2006 at 14:58
"A lot more credible than Camerons witless prattle."
Yes, I'm always struck by the number of credible political movements that have racialism as one of their central tenets.
Oh, and I voted for Davis.
Posted by: Andy Peterkin | May 02, 2006 at 15:05
The more I hear Cameron denigrated by people who seem BNP/UKIP supporters the less I am concerned we selected the wrong leader. Just as Labour's Chameleon campaign showed their fear of DC so the response from some of the posters above confirms their growing feelings of impotence.
There is a danger that people who feel dis-enfranchised will reach out to the fringe of politics but response isn't to comfort them with gestures but think through, as IDS & others have, what a government can reasonably do to create the conditions that will help sustain communities and in doing so drive out the purveyors of hate driven politics.
Posted by: Ted | May 02, 2006 at 15:15
"Yes very good Peter.Leaving the EU will undoubtedly solve all our problems.Why didn't we think of that?"
I think he's referring to the UKIPesque policy of funding pensions with money that we give to the EU. Although under the BNP we'd quickly lose money as they initiated a policy of economic autarky. I have yet to hear a sensible defence of their economic plans.
Posted by: Richard | May 02, 2006 at 15:16
"Should the BNP increase its vote and support then it should be seen as an indictment of the oddly and whimsically named Conservative Party."
Not really - the BNP espouse markedly unconservative values and tend to do better in traditional working-class strongholds.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | May 02, 2006 at 15:21
BNP poll at 6%. Their support is likely to grow to say 10% as they are currently on a growth trend - unless the Conservative Party starts to address the concerns of this kind of voter.
You don't have to become racist to deal intelligently with immigration. You might need to repeal the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Union though.
I am told that the BNP has a democratic constitution so their racist roots and their other policies could change as the party grows. I am not advocating support for the BNP.
I am advocating that the Conservative Party addresses these issues openly and honestly, and stops playing 'let's pretend' politics -especially pretending that the EU is nothing to do with us. If Cameron doesn't get real, the voters will make things real for him, and us.
I would rather we moved now to prevent a surge from the BNP. Conservative MP's are the only ones who can get control of the situation, by joining with Better Off Out and letting Cameron know that their loyalty is conditional. If he doesn't respond to this then they must retake control by threatening his leadership.
If Conservative MP's don't take responsibility for representing peoples' views and dealing with peoples' legitimate concerns, sadly other Parties with far less acceptability will do so.
Let's get real, and stop pretending.
Posted by: William | May 02, 2006 at 16:16
There are many important reasons not to vote BNP. Some of them are:
1) They want to establish a fascist one-party state
2) Their economic policy is insane - national autarchy (self-sufficiency), '70's style Militant socialism mixed with Mussolini style Corporatism.
3) Nutty foreign policy e.g. Re-unite the UK with Republic of Ireland. Dont say how (or why).
4) They are violent thugs.
The trouble is that they are always attacked for being racist and anti-immigrantion (and wanting to leave the EU). A large majority of people are opposed to large scale immigration, but that is branded as racist by much of the media. It is my theory that some people (including some on here by the look of it) therefore assume that if they are called racist and the BNP are called racist, then the BNP are just like themselves.
Other BNP policies should be made known for public ridicule
Posted by: Jon Gale | May 02, 2006 at 16:50
"I am told that the BNP has a democratic constitution so their racist roots and their other policies could change as the party grows."
They were founded as a racial nationalist party. They might have modified their repatriation policy but they will always uphold a political philosophy based upon race.
Posted by: Richard | May 02, 2006 at 16:52
"They want to establish a fascist one-party state"
Where does it say that in their manifesto? they might secretly want that but we need to prove it to people.
"Their economic policy is insane - national autarchy (self-sufficiency), '70's style Militant socialism mixed with Mussolini style Corporatism."
I think they've dropped the Corporatism but they're still keen on autarchy and anticapitalist rhetoric. They also want to break up supermarkets. Would definitely put off right-wing Tory voters.
"Nutty foreign policy e.g. Re-unite the UK with Republic of Ireland. Dont say how (or why)."
I don't think this would put people off, it's more of a minor point people are likely to turn a blind eye to. Pulling troops out of Iraq and making them patrol the Channel Tunnel on the other hand...
"They are violent thugs"
Unfortunately they have been successful in getting token "respectable" people to stand for them as well. Nevertheless, do enough digging as the Sun did and the thugs will be revealed.
"Other BNP policies should be made known for public ridicule"
Like compulsory machine gun ownership!
Posted by: Richard | May 02, 2006 at 16:58
Why guess what BNP policies are? Click www.bnp.org.uk and then click 'policies'.
The BNP website has more hits than the Labour party website. They claim 13,500 per week. Many of the policies make you feel 'thank god - someone's willing to take responsibility', while others make you think 'oooops'! Read it yourself. Make up your own mind.
Either way Conservatives need to know what's going on in political marketplace.
Posted by: William | May 02, 2006 at 17:15
Richard,
"They want to establish a fascist one-party state"
Where does it say that in their manifesto?"
Ok, that was largely infered, but there are bits and pieces about not letting the media tell lies and disparage the nation, im sure there other bits when i last looked at their website 2 years ago, but i cant find them now.
Posted by: Jon Gale | May 02, 2006 at 17:24
William: "The BNP website has more hits than the Labour party website. They claim 13,500 per week."
ConservativeHome has been getting almost that number every day over the last fortnight.
Posted by: Editor | May 02, 2006 at 17:39
and see 'manifesto' on www.bnp.org.uk to get the flavour of the bnp mentality.
Conservative MP's especially should read this so they know what the new kid on the block is really saying to electors.
The greatest mistake we can make is to underestimate our opponents. I wonder if Cameron has any idea what the BNP actually say - or if he prefers to dismiss them out of hand as a movement based on 'hatred'.
If you read the letters sent in from bnp supporters, they sound not full of hate, but full of despair at the lack of response to their viewpoint from the big parties.
It would surely be better to address these people in their own terms, and answer their concerns than to completely dismiss the whole bunch out of hand. They are now about 1 in 18 of all voters, and could become 1 in 10.
Posted by: William | May 02, 2006 at 17:44
Think of the advertising revenue you could be making, Editor. Can I be your agent?
Posted by: William | May 02, 2006 at 17:46
Some people here need to get real. Highlighting the BNP's absurd economic policies will not cost them a single vote. Highlighting any of their dubious policies will not cost them a single vote.
Why?
Because very few people vote for them because they want a BNP government or council. They are a party built on protest votes, a plague on both your houses votes and two fingers up at the establishment votes.
Until we give such people a reason to vote for another party we should stop acting surprised when they vote for the BNP.
Posted by: Richard Allen | May 02, 2006 at 19:25
At local level, i'm quite sure that, when you get into people's pasts, you can find all sorts of murkeyness.
Glasgow's Lord Provost is a convicted housebreaker.
Anyway, I have been speaking to a few people who, let us say, are traditional Tory voters, from Liverpool.
A few have mentioned voting for the BNP, but only in local elections, citing reasons such as "I waited half an hour in the Post Office for a stamp and they have a special window for their food vouchers" etc.
One lady I spoke to claimed that she was torn between the BNP and the Greens. Read what you want into that, though it sounds like a protest vote to me.
When I asked them what would make them vote Tory in the local elections, they replied that a tougher line of immigration certainly would.
I was reduced to promising them that graffiti would come off walls and dog dirt would be cleared up. Noble policies of course, but when people say that local politics is really about bins etc, it should be realised that voters look at the bigger picture.
Posted by: Neil Wilson | May 03, 2006 at 08:32
Richard hits the nail on the head in noting:
Until we give such people a reason to vote for another party we should stop acting surprised when they vote for the BNP.
Sorry, that deserved more emphasis that italics.
If there was no BNP, no UKIP, perhaps LibDem too etc, there will always be another party to act as a protest vote unless all small parties are outlawed.
"None of the above" as part of the compulsory voting plan is another very divisive move as it enables the big parties to allow the people to vote without it building support for a small party (which would otherwise be the recipient of the protest vote) which could eventually cost them seats. It is another way to preserve the big parties.
State funding, compulsory voting, ripping apart the small parties (ukip racist, vote anyone but bnp etc) are all symptoms of the same disease; politicians are representing their own interests, not those of the people.
You never know, some nutter might even come up with a state funding protest party based on a John Lennon song! ;-)
Posted by: Chad | May 03, 2006 at 08:58
The way some people have commented on this discussion makes me think that the BNP must be employing a lot more PR men and women nowadays.
The reason why people should not vote for the BNP is simple and not exactly rocket science. To judge a person simply on there race or religion is wrong.There is no place for this sort of thinking in any decent society.
This site serves a useful purpose in that it gives Conservatives a voice. If it starts being a voice to the racist scum of the BNP it will not only not be useful to the Conservative cause it will be downright dangerous to the cause of humanity and decency.
Posted by: Jack Stone | May 03, 2006 at 09:28
"To judge a person simply on there race or religion is wrong.There is no place for this sort of thinking in any decent society."
I must be an indecent person for writing that 'a religious sect which encourages its followers to kill others by turning themselves into human bombs, is downright evil', then.
Religious ideology can be evil in the same way Communism is evil and results in many deaths and tortures.
Posted by: Christina | May 03, 2006 at 10:31
The Charles Clarke fiasco has played right into the hands of the BNP by putting criminal immigrants right on the front page. Is it any wonder that the voters are desperate for our politicians to get a grip on this issue?
Every day we read of more evidence that the government and its minnions seem to care more about what happens to convicted immigrants than protecting the public. We must stand up firmly against this pathetic response, or we will simply be thought of as being just more of the same.
Posted by: Derek | May 03, 2006 at 10:44
"Every day we read of more evidence that the government and its minnions seem to care more about what happens to convicted immigrants than protecting the public."
Sarcasm alert:
But what about human rights? Surely the government should stand up for victimised minorities who need to be understood? Middle Britain is privileged and its obsession with criminal foreigners is spiteful and reminiscent of racism.
Posted by: Richard | May 03, 2006 at 11:19
"If it starts being a voice to the racist scum of the BNP it will not only not be useful to the Conservative cause it will be downright dangerous to the cause of humanity and decency."
How could I be so foolish? It is obvious to me now that a few pro-BNP posts on ConservativeHome will bring civilisation to a halt! Look! Is that a swastika I see as the new CH logo?!
Posted by: Richard | May 03, 2006 at 11:21
It is a deliberate tactic of Cameron to leave his right flank unprotected (See Fraser Nelson Spectator 29th April).
The strategy that has persuaded the Cameroons to allow the BNP to collect the anti-immigration vote is as follows -
It will take in excess of a 10 point lead for the Conservatives to obtain a majority. This is unlikely to occur, the Cameroons believe, so the only way to win power that the Cameroons can visualise is to join a coalition with the Lib Dems.
All policies are now only looked upon in the light of their acceptability to the LD's and their supporters.
I jest not. Read it for yourself.
Cameron is not interested in attracting the ex-Labour working class, low income, aspirational voter. In these circumstances the BNP can only prosper.
The ABC1's have three parties competing for their vote. The aspirationals only have a choice of one.
The weakness of this strategy is that it holds open no options if events don't comply. It has been decided what will happen in the future, and all is committed to this one theory which of course may or may not occur.
A better strategy would be to play to all audiences, and only commit to one option or another as events unfold. Immigration politics does not have to be racist. It can be based on other factors such as education or skill levels for example.
The Human Rights Act might have to repealed for murderers and rapists to be deported, and we may have to withdraw from the EU. Neither of these moves is racist. But these are options that should be being considered by a responsible leadership, in case the elctorate strengthens in its desire for these matters to be dealt with.
What if election day comes, and it is the BNP that holds 20% of the vote and the Lib Dems are no longer big enough to provide the coalition?
If I was a Conservative MP being sent into battle in the colours of a Lib Dem, I would wish to prepare the ground for a rapid rediscovery of blue.
I would be meeting with Better Off Out so that the option of EU withdrawal can quickly be brought to bear on the situation, before fringe and racist parties get too powerful and cannot be stopped.
The EU will try to ban the BNP and out its leaders in jail. That might work in Belgium or Holland (where similar parties have already been banned), but in the UK that might only help them to grow even faster.
Posted by: William | May 03, 2006 at 14:37
"Is that a swastika I see as the new CH logo?!" That comment is too funny for words. The BNP are the fascists. They are not right wing, left wing or any other wing. They are not a political party, they are merely a group of antisemites, racists and bigots who are exploiting the political process to gain a platform to spread their poison still further. If you think that racism and religious bigotry are acceptable then the existence of the National Front/International 3/British National Party should not trouble you too much.
For Christina, who I have had the unhappy misfortune to meet on this site before, could I just remind her that Islamic Terrorism is to Islam what the KluKluxKlan is to Christianity.
Humanity and decency are not BNP values. I have always thought of them as essential conservative principles. It is a truly pathetic state of affairs when voters are lulled into voting for a party which wants to destroy our society in the name of saving it. The BNP is an insult to everything which this country stands for, as are all fascists, past and present.
Posted by: Henry Whitmarsh | May 03, 2006 at 14:53
"For Christina, who I have had the unhappy misfortune to meet on this site before, could I just remind her that Islamic Terrorism is to Islam what the KluKluxKlan is to Christianity."
Yes, and that is what I meant. Extremism in any religion can be evil.
You can keep your personal comments to yourself, you need to grow up.
Posted by: Christina | May 03, 2006 at 15:06
Whitmarsh sounds extremely wound up. Leave the extremes to the extremists, mate. Moderate views should be expressed in moderate terms or the critic comes across as more unhinged than the criticised.
The fact is that Cameron's giving the BNP a free home run, by not providing a non-racial alternative to controlling immigration. There is a vast hole appearing in the political landscape.
The Cameroons are burying their heads.
If your leaders are burying their heads in the sand, it's a good moment to kick them in the arse. They won't have any idea where the blow came from and it will get their heads up. MP's will have to take on the happy task - or it will all be left to the BNP.
Posted by: William | May 03, 2006 at 15:35
Racism and religious bigotry should have no voice or outlet and I regret that those who have posted offensive comments on this site have been allowed to do so.
Cameron is not going down the immigration path as Howard did because he wants to project a moderate, modern image for the party not make it seem as it did during the last election campaign that we are BNP lite.
Immigration policy I think would be better dealt with if the party could try to build some cross party consensus on the issue. If you go it alone and start talking about immigration in the way it was then it just looks as if we are playing the race card to get votes.
Personally that is one way I do not want to see the party winning support.
Posted by: Jack Stone | May 03, 2006 at 18:30
Jack, there is image, and there is substance.
We know that Cameron wants to project a certain image. We are told that his only strategy is to work toward a coalition with the Libdems, even if this means losing votes to the BNP, or others.
In these circumstances there is much to discuss.
To suggest that the whole thing is about race, is to misrepresent the issues. Immigration is also about numbers, tolerance levels of the populations affected by the arrivals, the behaviour of some of the immigrants, whether to build a multicultural society or to make sure we preserve a British identity and so on.
Immigration is a multi-faceted subject of which race is only a part. Are we going to completely ignore an issue that exercises the minds of over half the electorate? If we do, how can we claim to be representing voters?
Maybe this why Cameron's image is liked by voters but they are not going to vote for him. They don't like his version of substance.
Posted by: William | May 04, 2006 at 08:22
Whenever people mention immigration they talk about black and asian immigration they never mention immigration from the white commonwealth countries or the United States or Europe.People when they talk about immigration are concerned about those who are coming into the country with a differant coloured skin than them or a differant religion.
I come from an area with a high immigrant population and I can tell you two things. One is that it is a big issue in that area and it is only about race nothing else. Secondly the members of that community who go to church on a sunday, who believe in the family and work hard and who share our values are mostly from immigrant backgrounds.
Nine out of ten people who say they are against immigration are racist. This party needs to bring forward policies that restict immigration because we don`t have the resources or the space to have an open door policy but those policies should be compassionate, fair and above all treat all immigrants the same regardless of race or religion.
Posted by: Jack Stone | May 04, 2006 at 17:55
Interesting observations.
It is a shame that some people want what I can only describe as football hooligan types to run their council. People vote BNP because the BNP disguise their real motives and opinions.
Posted by: Mel | May 16, 2006 at 12:49