Friday, 26 June 2009
Sunday, 14 June 2009
There is much discussion round 'tinternet on whether lobbing eggs is a well-targeted strategy for challenging the BNP.
Is ‘direct action’ of this type their just (egg-based) desert or does it grace them with more importance than one would wish.
There is an honourable/dishonourable* (*delete as appropriate) tradition of pelting MPs etc with stuff with which to compare this strategy.
Reflect on your reactions, thoughts, feelings on these episodes:
Was the peltee turned into an object of ridicule or enhanced as a macho martyr speaking difficult truths, making hard decisions in the face of whatever was thrown at them, so to speak?
At the end of the Politics Show today a video montage was played of other such episodes caught on camera ...also here the Daily Telegraph delights in same with a picture gallery.
My instinct on seeing these was to laugh at those in authority brought down a peg, their ostensible status interrupted by some unexpected, external 'matter' much in the manner of ordinary folk's worlds' being rent asunder by random, external forces. Welcome to our world! A cup of cold, green custard only begins to hint at the rude forces which we are encouraged to embrace as opportunities.
However, despite my relish, I did wonder does this practice feed into that stream of opinion which an anti-politics political party might wish to exploit? or does it tar them with the same custard?
Well there was certainly publicity from it and no doubt propaganda opportunities to portray themselves to their members and supporters as a persecuted minority. Which is one of the things they want.
The other strategy is to ignore them, let them get elected and by their elected representative's deeds shall ye know them. But it should be noted they have not remained at lower council tier seats. Lancashire now has one of the first BNP County Councillors and the NW BNP leader as MEP.
The other opposition strategy is to take on their arguments and policies seriously, debate them and expose them as logically, morally or otherwise fallacious.
However, I have seen their comment postings and they make great play of this opposition. They see that it means they should be taken seriously and feeds in to their claims to power.
There have been attempts around the internet to debunk their claims and policies but I doubt these would be read by those who are attracted to them.
Once attracted some people are lost to reasoning. Some are not.
There has been much finger pointing about where on the political spectrum the BNP should be placed and from whence they draw their support. Much of this seems to be driven by whose responsibility it is to challenge and counter them. This is unhelpful and not quite the spirit required of the moment and the challenge. It is everybody's business.
Their policies are a politically pragmatic mish-mash drawn from across the political spectrum in order to garner support from a broader base and having policies on other than immigration is cover for their core objectives and true policies.
This video shows Nick Griffin speaking of his strategy for not changing what the BNP are about but about making it more saleable, 'not selling out our ideas but selling our ideas', using more saleable words such as 'identity' instead of racial purity. He also expresses a desire that by being more subtle they will get into a position where they control the British broadcasting media and change people's minds so that people say 'yes, every last one of them should go'.
This is fascism plain and simple.
'Racial purity' in Nazi Germany meant the eradication of a wide range of groups including Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally ill and disabled too.
Another of the BNPs policies is a 'Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to British people'. Fair enough you might say. But when you realise that their definition of British is narrowly defined (Dame Kelly Holmes only half qualifies apparently. Its not clear which half of her will have her freedoms guaranteed which just shows the idiocy of the BNPs thinking and policies) one doesn't have to wonder very much about the implications for those deemed not British.
And this bunch are coming to Blackpool for a victory celebration.
While politics has been blamed for the election results, the media have to answer for their part.
Why did the Daily Telegraph, in the run up to council and European elections, in which it was predicted that 'smaller parties' might do well add to this maelstrom the toxic ingredient of their story on expenses, which tarred all mainstream parties and obliterated discussion on the issues which could have been at hand- Europe and Social Care.
If anything the run up to the elections was not about policy but about power politics. Who speaks for 'the people'? They don't call it the 'fourth estate' for nothing. What part did the power plays and circulation figures of the media contribute to what dominated the news at that time?
If there is any finger pointing to be done, how have the Telegraph got off so lightly? Was it the height of irresponsibility to publish at this time? Did they want the BNP elected!?
In history, those who thought they could ride the fascist beast ultimately delivered them to power, and the rest, as the saying goes, is history.
It took more than a few rotten eggs to defeat them.
Responsibility is on the lips of every party. Here it really matters.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Except this was all about the Conservative leader, David Cameron back in 2007.
Meanwhile, YouGov’s monthly poll for the Telegraph back then had voting intention figures, with changes from YouGov’s last poll, of CON 32%(-1), LAB 41%(+1), LDEM 16%(+1).
UK Polling Report who look at these things said:
"...there is still a sharp difference between positive opinions of Gordon Brown, who enjoys a net approval rating of plus 7 as Prime Minister, and negative opinions of the government, whose net approval rating is at minus 25. It’s been a lot lower (at some points in the last year it reached minus 43)... The obvious explanation is that Labour’s positive position in the polls at the moment is based on Gordon Brown, he hasn’t yet transferred that popularity onto the government or the Labour party."
Can such a catastrophic fall from grace be based on any rational and objective analysis of the man, his government, policies and performance. Sure mistakes have been made but add a dash of "media character assassination" and a "vilification of the prime minister on his first anniversary [that] is grotesque" and so he becomes the most unpopular leader since [insert odious leader of choice from any time in the history of the world here].
As, Simon Jenkins wrote in no piece of flattery, back in June 2008 "The psychological abuse now being heaped on Gordon Brown is beyond reason".
It must be that time of year again!
Some commentators have suggested that the Tories should be doing better.
So what are the lessons to be learned from all this? Stick with your leader, unite and you too could be as popular as David Cameron.
Monday, 8 June 2009
Even this small but huge effort has been squandered. We now have BNP on Lancashire County Council and representing us in the North West in Europe.
This is a failure of the media, the politicians, education and culture.
Please get a grip everyone.