They’re insignificant, ignore them. You don’t see the right getting all het up about the far-left.

As ever, the Daily Mash never fail to deliver.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/mystery-surrounds-bnp-invite-to-palace-200905211776/

Post 1, The BNP are the far left. The Queen should decline to invite them, it’s as simple as that. She still is the pinnacle of political power in this country, even if she’s never weilded it. What would the BNP do then? Dare to crticise the Queen? I doubt it as people wouldn’t stand for it.

Well, I’m not going anyway so boycotting it is no sweat off my arse.

Maybe my invite got lost in the post.

On the other hand if the BNP DO attend and this reflects badly on the royal family and the ‘defender of faith’ in particular, as a republican and an atheist I’ll be overjoyed.

I’ve got no problem with declining my invitation.

Oh wait, what invitation

Just passing through for now. will be back later, but briefly:

@1: I’m not sure how you can suggest that a party with, at times, 10% of the popular vote, in the context of rnewed calls for PR electoral reform, and one which may well have an MEP v soon, can be seen as insignificant. The Austria experience, etc. etc.?

@2: Yes, that is funny. Good link, that nurse

@3: BNP as far left. Oh, yawn., But yes, ok, I’ll come back later and patiently explain how this is not so, whatever a few right wing bloggers might like to claim. In fact I agree with your sentiment in the rest of your comment – she should not invite the BNP. But my point was that she is bound to by current convention, so we should react to that rather than wish she did something else.

@4: Yes, mine got lost too.

@5: Ditto.

We should have our own Alternative Queen’s Garden Party like Channel 4′s Christmas Message. But we don’t invite Ahmadinejad.

What do you mean, “we” should boycott the Queen’s party? We’ve not been invited!

If you mean the representatives of the non-racist parties should boycott it, I don’t think that would happen. It would really show up the Queen, though, if the only people who turned up were Nazi BNP scum.

Oh dear, have people started the “BNP are far left” meme again?

There’s a simple answer to that suggestion. Go up to a bunch of BNP members and tell them that they’re on the far left. When you get back from A&E, let us know how what they replied.

Can I asks why anyone from the Left would wish to attend a party at Buck House anyway?

I can see the attraction for the far Right but the royal family are the epitome of privilage, deference, theocratic power and imperialism: they represent the oposite of the Left on every level – more so in fact than the BNP themselves.

#10

Usually because the point is that you bring a guest as a thanks for service to the community or something, and they appreciate it even if the leftie can’t stand it. Otherwise I agree with you.

@4, @5,@8, @10 It’s a shame that the ‘we’ mentioned in the headline (which I didn’t write, so please blame Sunny) can be interpreted as suggesting that ‘the left’ sould boycott the queen’s do. My point was the the Left should be at the forefront of calling for a boycott by those who would otherwise be very keen to attend (that’s why I said ‘It’s not my bag’ personally).

Oh well, at least it reinforces my understanding that headlines matter, and the actual text sometimes doesn’t get read.

@3, I was going to come back on your ‘BNP are the far left ‘nonsense, though I’m grateful for Zarathustra @9 for his intervention. Let’s start with a assumption or two I think we may be able to agree on:

a) the Far Left is influenced by the work of Marx, and especially the notion of class antagonism under capitalism
b) As such, the Far Left calls, in its different ways, for action by the working class to end its exploitation
c) This notion of working class solidarity is largely international inconception, and has primacy over other identity politics (though leftwing feminist might validly disagree about primacy over the need to challenge patriarchy)

Agreed?

Does the BNP accept any or all of these things?

No? Then it is not of the far left, or indeed the left?

Not that that was the issue at hand in my article.

That might be the definition of the left if you’re on the left. If you’re on the right, the definition of the left is “people who think the state is a Good Thing”. Then, shock horror, it turns out that racists like the state when it is being racist! So, erm, doesn’t that mean that, erm… ….no it doesn’t.

@:13. An excellent point Tim, on how the right misinterpret the left’s view of the state, and one which I happened to cover in detail recently at http://www.bickerstafferecord.org.uk/?p=678

Thanks for the opportunity to mention that!

The arguments about “left” and “right” are pretty shallow. The BNP are anti “globalisation”, call for a ban on imports and the introduction of “worker collectives”. So if you are WASP English, I guess that makes them pretty Socialist.

In fact, explain the difference between their economic policies and those of Chavez?

@15: Oh for pity’s sake. The BNP mention the words globalisation and workers’ collectives and you reckon that makes them socialists?

What do you think they actually mean by workers’ collectives, if they’ve even bothered to work it out any further than knowing it might be a good short term sales pitch? They don’t mean workers’ collectives in the sense that the Far Left envisage it – as an integral part of a new society in which workers have control of the means of production through control of key institutions (see comments on the right’s misintepretation of the left’s view of the state above). If the BNP have ever thought it through, and I really doubt they have, they probably mean something like a social enterprise/firm, and every party in the UK supports those for one reason or another (for the Tories it is a means to cut the welfare state). The key difference (as , to be fair, you acknowledge) is that the BNP’s workers’ collectives exclude black people and Muslims and Jews etc.

And are you seriously suggesting that speaking out against globalisation automatically makes you a socialist? Socialists are INTO globalisation, just not the globalisationwhich is restricted to global flow of capital as a means of maximising exploitation of labour.

You’re completely taken in by a bit of BNP rhetoric designed to appeal to working class people frustrated with the lack of a mainstream, leftwing party, as a convenient electoral mask for the kind of savagery and hatred that predates the Enlightenment, wherein lie the philosophical roots of socialism (and liberalism)

And you call my analysis shallow? Go away and study the fake ‘pro-worker’, but ‘Wagnerian’ throwback rhetoric used during the rise of National Socialism in Germany, and then come back and defend the BNP as leftwing.

lol, oh bugger. I wrote the headline wrong in my hurry. I meant we as in the left, but yeah – it doesn’t quite work. Hehe.

“I do not buy the argument, put forward most forceably by Lee in the comments to Dave’s piece, that protesting at the BNP’s invitation will only: ”

Well that wasn’t my argument, I never said that *would* happen. The selective quote you’ve used of mine was part of a question…mainly because we don’t KNOW what such action would result in. We spend so much time sticking our heads in the sand and trying to censor the BNP that I doubt few here even consider how those actions resonate with those sympathetic to the BNP. That was my only point.

“As an adjunct to the boycott of this event, therefore, pressure needs to be exerted through the media to get the Queen to host Garden Party Mark 2, later in the summer, when those who have delclined get a further invite to make up for it.”

Not much of a protest then really, if they know they get their tea and scones anyway

I’ve noticed the ‘BNP are leftwing’ claim is being made with increasing frequency, and i’m always reminded of the chapter in Tressell’s ‘Ragged Trousered Philanthropists’ where the corrupt members of the local government use tax money to buy plants for their gardens and then claim this arrangement is ‘socialist’. Presumably the right will continue to claim the BNP are ‘leftwing’ up until such time as it becomes essential to invite them into the government to save the country from Immigration / Multi-culturalism / Muslims / Communism / the Trade Unions / etc . . .

Paul, the left right issue is not really relevant to this topic, but yes it is completely shallow to suggest that any Party, whether they are Neo Nazi BNP or Greens should be viewed according to some consideration as to where they may have sat in the French legislature at the turn of the 18th to 19th Century.

They are a race hate authoritarian STATIST party. Those trying to place them as either left or right wing simply attempt to disassociate themselves from them by associating them with what they view as the other side.

As for whether there should be a boycott of the Garden Party, for those invited, I would say not. Doing so would create a bigger issue for them, they would gain the publicity victory for such an event. Boycotting the event gives them the flag of patriotism. The dirty BNP Bigots were invited, because they won a seat on the GLA. They were elected.

You say the free speech argument is easy for them, this would only be the case if it is made easy for them. They need to be debated, their ideas need to be slapped down, they need to be exposed and shown up at the polls, they of all people do not need to be made victims.

@18/19 Lee

I’m obviously very sorry if I’ve misinterpreted an open question as a rhetorical question. In my defence, I’ve looked back and I really do think 99% of readers would have done the same, but if you say that you were saying we simply don’t know how BNP sympathisers would react, then I’ve no reason to doubt you.

On your more substantive point, I do think you get to the core of the argument here, which is whether the left (or anyone who is not a BNP sympathiser themselves) should concern itself with how actions like the one I propose ‘resonate’ with BNP sympathisers.

My view is that this is wasted energy. The argument in my article is that by and large you are not going to convince this group they are wrong, and that there is no poin in being sensitive to their sensitivities. What is more productive is to ensure that the whol group and its hangers-on feel ostracised from whatever they regard as the mainstream and cut off from their social norms by their BNP affiliation. Being ever so sensitive to their needs is counterproductive, in a Phil Woolas way, to making them feel excluded, not to mention damaging to the interests of those the BNP want to harm.

There’s a longer piece to be written her (which I may do at some point on my blog) about the way social movement grow through peer acceptance and wither when that starts to go (cf. football hooliganism?). I disagree with your view about the need always to see matters in the BNP’s terms, but I respect the fact that you have clearly thought the matter through.

On your other point @19, why does a protest action have to be hard work/a large sacrifice for the protestors to make it worthwhile. Surely better to be tactically astute in drawing in support from people who might otherwise not be keen on sacrifing what they feel they have earned, especially when in the context of what I’ve said above the main aim is to get the queen to provide clear disapproval of

@20 James O

Good point.

@21 BB

Yes, not really relevant to this post, but in brief I do think the left-right spectrum, while certainly the creation of the idea is no longer too relevant,does provide a convenient shorthand for positioning around support for/the fight against capitalism. The waters are muddied, as you suggest, by the different interpretations of the state and what it is for (cf my earlier article on same). But yes, better park this here for now if that’s alright with you (may come back tlo it later on my blog but articles are now queuing up so it may be a while)

“The argument in my article is that by and large you are not going to convince this group they are wrong”

My only concern is how you’re fencing the “group”

You’re not going to change the views of the BNP supporters, or members, no. But what about those that aren’t BNP supporters as such but ARE the sort of people that will kind of agree with them on some things?

It’s OK to make blanket assumptions that you have to just abandon anyone and everyone, but to do so means you also have to take ownership of the problem you may well create; potentially pushing this latter group of people towards the BNP rather than away, due to what is ultimately a protest against the monarchy for some, and/or a protest against democratic process resulting in what a portion of society finds unpalatable.