Add the total SLP, NO2EU & SPGP votes to Labour’s own and it’s STILL a dismal performance.

Labour lost because of 12 years of regressive, authoritarian politics, economic mismanagement and (finally) the expenses scandal, none of which you can blame on ‘splitters’.

Oh, and splitting the right-wing vote between the Tories, UKIP, the BNP, etc. didn’t do the right any harm, did it?

A kind note: my original article was not aimed at the B*P. My point was that the centre-right as a whole (i.e. Sarkozy in France, Merkel in Germany and Berlusconi in Italy) was helped by divisions (the case of France the most blatant).

Like I argue here, I am actually of the opinion that too much attention is being given to the B * P- certainly disproportionate compared to their actual share of the vote and that we need to stop giving them so much free publicity.

Shatterface,
point taken and also on Labour you’re knocking on an open door with me.
But can you kindly explain the tactical and pracical differences between Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party (1.1% of the vote), Bob Crowe’s NO2EU (1%) and the Socialist Party of Great Britain (0.3%)? Why 3 of them (plus more even smaller ones?).

Blame the existence of a small but significant constituency of hard-right racists – it’s no use pretending they’re not out there. Also blame the tabloid media which encourages them.

A significant number of people voted for the hard right not because they’re dissatisfied with the performance of the left, but rather because they’re hate-filled, racist, xenophobic assholes.

He’s not blaming Labour’s loss on the left: but he is rightly pointing out that all the nutty far-left factoids sucked up votes that could’ve together made just enough difference to keep the BNP out.

The reason the split between the right-wing factions wasn’t as damaging to the right was simply because they have tons more voters this year. And so many people who would’ve voted left or centre-left just stayed at home.

The SPGB are very different to NO2EU and the SLP. The latter adhere to traditional far-left politics. The SPGB believe in a peaceful transition to socialism via democracy and are opposed to reformism e.g. campaigning for a minimum wage etc. Unlike most Marxists they did not consider the 1917 Russian Revolution to be a true Marxist revolution.

The three of them sound like a bunch of fucking loons as far as I’m concerned. It’s funny how No2EU, with all its shockingly nationalist bollocks about british workers etc, did even worse than Arthur Scargill’s SLP.

Rather than worrying about why the BNP vote wasn’t countered by a coherent left, perhaps we should think about why nearly a million people voted BNP.

The BNP’s ideas are obviously neither useful nor interesting and so there is little point in engaging with them. However, we have a democratic obligation to engage with the message voters were trying to send by voting for them. Various ideas have been mooted over the past 48 hours for why people voted BNP – racism, failure of the left to defend liberal(ish) immigration policies, the politics of moats and duck houses and entrenched social disadvantages.

It is the latter suggestion I find most convincing. There are still, in many parts of Britain, areas of steadfastly entrenched social disadvantage where families have been disfunctional, out of work and denied fair opportunities for generations. This is a totally unacceptable state of affairs. People should be able to expect an education which empowers them to live the life they want, they should not have to live in fear of crime, they should be helped out of drug dependency, they should have access to excellent healthcare facilities and public transport which will reliably gets them to where the jobs are. When people don’t have access to all these things, they are likely to enormously resentful of their situation and particularly of the help given to others. It is because of this that the BNP’s message of hatred seems, in some places, to resonate so potently.

Rather than spending time worrying about the minor issue of electoral tactics, a much greater concern for the left should be working to promote an agenda of real (as opposed to formal) equal opportunities for all.

http://petespolitics.wordpress.com

“Various ideas have been mooted over the past 48 hours for why people voted BNP – racism, failure of the left to defend liberal(ish) immigration policies, the politics of moats and duck houses and entrenched social disadvantages.It is the latter suggestion I find most convincing.”

I despair. If voters are motivated by a genuine horror at social disadvantage, there are many fringe groups where they can place their vote, from the Greens to the SLP, which do not intend to address social disadvantage by permanently disadvantaging every non-white person in the country. The distinctive feature of the BNP, the only thing everyone knows about them, is that they are a racist party. Why so many people are falling over themselves to deny the obvious fact that BNP voters are, therefore, racists, is beyond me. There just is a bloc of racists out there who want to to see a racist, nationalist politics in place. The only thing that generally keeps them from identifying openly with the BNP is the social opprobrium that goes along with it. The recent political turmoil has (temporarily I hope) weakened the opprobrium because so many commentators have been giving the racists the free pass of ‘protest vote’. But that shouldn’t fool anyone.

Unlike most Marxists they did not consider the 1917 Russian Revolution to be a true Marxist revolution.

Love it!
I’m sure the voters found that a highly relevant consideration in 2009.

Unlike most Marxists they did not consider the 1917 Russian Revolution to be a true Marxist revolution.
I see…highly relevant to people’s current problems…

DISCLAIMER

I’m afraid, headlines/titles can really change the angle to a story or an article.

Like I pointed out in #3, at no point, did I make an analysis of the B*P vote. I didn;t choose the title Blame-The-Infighting-Left-For-The-B*P.

I merely took an objective picture of the left’s split vote in Western Europe based on the European elections. Mine wasn;t meant to be an Anglo-centric analysis anyway.

Above all, the last thing I wanted was for another debate to be centred around the B * P. I maintain. WE SHOULD STOP TALKING ABOUT THEM.

Their publicity-levels are currently above Cheryl Cole’s and that’s the problem , in my opinion.

@John Meredith – I do not and did not deny that the BNP are racist and doubtless many or most of those who voted for them are too. What I am arguing is not that people observe entrenched disadvantages suffered by others and then vote for the BNP – that’s obviously ludicrous. Rather, I am saying that many people who have suffered from entrenched disadvantages feel desperation about their situation and resent help given to others, which they feel should have been destined for them. It is easy for the BNP to go into that sort of situation and say to people that immigrants have taken the resources which should be theirs. The fact that the BNP is far more successful in deprived areas of northern England rather than in the affluent south east surely adds weight to this argument.

There is YouGov research out there which suggests that BNP voters are more racist than the electorate as whole (no surprise there) but that they are not actually all that much more racist. It also suggests that BNP voters tend to substantially more pessimistic about the future than the electorate as a whole and tend to be more dissatisfied with their lives than the electorate as whole. I would suggest that this is tentative evidence for my claim that BNP voting is more a product of deprivation than of racism.*

*I am, however, sceptical about how appropriate YouGov’s online survey method is for analysing the views of the poorest in society, given that these people will be less likely to own computers. Here is the YouGov research:

http://www.channel4.com/news/media/2009/06/day08/yougovpoll_080609.pdf

http://petespolitics.wordpress.com

I’d rather vote for Cheryl Cole than vote BNP! Let’s raise her publicity level again. Or wasn’t she eclipsed by Jade Goody, then Joanna Lumley, then Susan Boyle?

Hi Claude,

Interesting article, but even when aggregated, the numbers for the centre-left and left aren’t that clever:

In Germany, SPD/Green/Linke is about 44%, behind CDU/CSU/FDP on 49%.

in Italy, the Liga Nord got 10%, Berlusconi + the right is comfortably ahead of all the left put together.

In the UK, Labour/Lib Dem/Green/Socialist/SNP/PC all combined got less than Tory/UKIP/BNP

Germany “it’s Angela Merkel who’s popping the champagne.”

I think it might be a bit flat though.

Merkel’s party was the only party to lose seats in Germany – and how – they lost seven seats to the liberals, the left and the greens.

I don’t think it was a happy night for them somehow.

The right are more divided than the left. UKIP took more votes off the Tories than the Greens, SLP, No2EU and SPGB combined took off Labour.

With the exception of the SLP (where large numbers of people got confused between the Labour Party and the Socialist Labour Party, thus losing Labour votes), I don’t believe the votes for the smaller far-left parties would have gone to Labour (or gone anywhere, necessarily) if they hadn’t stood. It’s also likely that No2EU took some right-wing eurosceptic votes (including possibly off the BNP) based on the name, and Green votes clearly don’t come solely from the left.

The main problem remains the massive number of voters who simply stayed at home – the balance of which would, in the past, have voted Labour.

Can anyone explain, for instance, the tactical differences between Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party (1.1% of the vote), Bob Crowe’s NO2EU (1%) and the Socialist Party of Great Britain (0.3%)?

Scargill’s party is Stalinist. I think the SPGB is Trotskyite. And I’d say No2EU is an unfocused expression of discontent.

“Love it!
I’m sure the voters found that a highly relevant consideration in 2009.”

Lol, I was just explaining why the SPGB nutters won’t co-operate with the other nutters. However, am unsure why the SLP and NO2EU don’t combined forces.

#14 Dom Paskini

Interesting article, but even when aggregated, the numbers for the centre-left and left aren’t that clever:

In Germany, SPD/Green/Linke is about 44%, behind CDU/CSU/FDP on 49%.

in Italy, the Liga Nord got 10%, Berlusconi + the right is comfortably ahead of all the left put together.

Maybe.
But a) at least it’s more of a level plain field as opposed to a slaughter.
b) In Germany a colaition FDP/CDU is not at all to be taken for granted
c) I disagree about Italy. Add those votes up again. Berlusconi and Lega Nord reach 45-46% of the votes. The combined left around 44-46%, depending on who you include. Either way I wouldn’t call it “comfortably ahead”.
d) In France Sarkozy would have been destroyed.
—
Other points.

You shouldn’t just look at NO2EU or SLP or any of them purely in terms of the tiny percentages they got.

This is the thing: in certain areas, had most of their votes gone to the Greens instead (forget that cesspit called New Labour), it may have been enough to grant them a 3rd MEP- or to reach a national 10%.

I insist, what was their bloody point? There was already a party clearly to the left of Labour, anti-war, pro-environment, new to Westminster, clearly “anti-old politics” so to speak: the Green Party.
—
The incapability of so-called “Socialist Parties” in Britain to finally shelve sectarianism and to stop looking back is staggering.

Claude, I know you want to stop talking about the BNP – but that won’t make them go away. Strategically, the split among the leftwing parties is still a failure.

It is still a problem that these resources are not joined up together to make a stronger case and ensure the BNP don’t get seats.

Well – the premise of the article and in its title is correct in as much as we assume that those people who previously voted Labour but stayed at home last week, could be persuaded to vote for a left-wing alternative, and that such an alternative could arise from the “infighting left”. Personally, I reckon those voters would be more likely to vote for a competent left-of-centre party OR a competent right-of centre party. I don’t think the reason they stayed at home was because Labour wasn’t left-wing enough.

A candid question to Sunny and everyone here.

Aside from the understandable personal satisfaction of the act itself, do you think pelting Griffin with eggs yesterday carried more benefits or negatives?

Like someone else pointed out elsewhere, courtesy of the egg throwers, what would have consisted in a simple squalid press conference in front of a few reporters, became an event seen by millions as it then made news bulletins and front pages giving extra publicity to the B * P.

Think about it.

Claude are you saying that if we all pretend the BNP are not an unpalatable political reality then their support will fade – personally I don’t buy that line of thinking.

But I don’t think an egg-based solution is the best approach either.

The way to winkle out the BNP is to simply provide voters with more attractive alternatives.

Lets face it there is always a certain amount of electoral apathy at the Euro’s?
I don’t think the two seats signifies any seismic shift in the political landscape – perhaps there are a few more Enoch Powell diehards than we realised but most sane people recognise the BNP for what they are.

Claude, I think that it is the height of irony that anti-fascist protesters can wind up looking juvenile in comparison with the BNP. It makes it looks as if those of us who despise the BNP’s racism are unable to articulate clearly and rationally why the BNP is wrong. Perhaps even more importantly, however, throwing eggs creates the impression that the issue is somehow trivial when it most certainly isn’t. We really do not need to throw eggs at them, regardless of how satisfying the spectacle is to watch.

The only real argument in favour of egging them is that it gets media coverage for the fact that most people hate the views of the BNP.

http://petespolitics.wordpress.com

#23 the a&e charge nurse

I don’t think the two seats signifies any seismic shift in the political landscape – perhaps there are a few more Enoch Powell diehards than we realised but most sane people recognise the BNP for what they are

I think we are saying the same thing. The B * P’s alleged “success” is being bigged up. I don’t see any seismic shift either. The amount of stuff that is being said about them outweighs by a mile their real significance in society.

Lest we have forgotten, although ugly and ridiculous, it still remains a fringe group full of socially inept weirdos with anger management issues. So let’s not give it more importance than it deserves.

The Greens scored a MUCH bigger result than the B * P but the press coverage they have received since the elections has been a fraction of Griffin’s & co.

This is what I mean.

Incidentally, the Hope not Hate ‘Not in my Name’ petition is a good non egg-based way of publicly stating your disapproval of the BNP candidates being elected:

http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/page/s/notinmyname

Claude, I absolutely agree that undue attention is being paid to a miniscule number of BNP EMPs while the Greens have been ignored and that the egg throwing was peurile and counterproductive.

The BNP and Nick Griffin have been followed everywhere by protestors. Yet they choose to hold a press conference in a public outdoor area which is normally only used for interviews.

They wanted UAF to attack them so they would get near the top of the news and play the victim card. UAF blundered right into their hands because they are primarily about effective activism- as an SWP front its about recruitment first and foremost.

Sorry- should read NOT primarily about effective…

The old industrial areas dominated areas dominated by low skill employment have faced two threats; computer aided design and manufature and cheap clothes and goods from overseas.
Income in much of industrial Lancashire, Yorshire and Stole and Derrby areas is well below the national average. Unless well paid employment in the high tech manufacturing can be developed in the next 10 ye

Sorry, pressed wrong key. Unless well paid and relatively secure employment can be created in high tech manufacturing in the next 10 years then the future for these former industrial areas is very bleak. Before high tech manufacturing ( e.g Rolls Royce Aero Engines ) can be set up, the technical skills of the people must be greatly increased. All parties have ignored the fact that a combination of technology and globalisation ( when a country starts industrialisation it invaribaly starts with textiles and clothes) means there is no well paid and secure employment for unskilled and uneducated people. The textile, pottery and coal industries were very large employers of unskilled labour- most people did not need to complete a 5 ys apprenticeship to be employed. The increasing computer controlled aspects of manufacture mean that today employment also requures a good knowledge of electrical systems- look at printing .

What these former industrial areas need are large numbers of James Dysons supported by a large workforce trained in high tech skills to create a high tech manufacturing base.

One reason for the rise in BNP and Islamic extremism may be that white and asian people no longer work alongside each other. In addition, over the last 25 years ( since the collapse of the textile industry) the increase in the influence of the Wahabis has increased the ghetto mentality of many muslims- hijabs were not that common in the 80s. When people have to work together to achieve a common goal theuy share a commin identity.

The BNP are totally incapable of improving the skills and educational level of people and supporting the development of an advanced manufacturing capability anywhere in the UK. A vote for the BNP will only keep uneducated, unskilled, unemployed and poorly paid white Britons in a state of poverty.

UAF blundered right into their hands because they are primarily about effective activism- as an SWP front its about recruitment first and foremost.

Claude, the clearest answer to the questions you ask regarding the splintering of the left vote is contained in the sentence I’ve quoted. Honestly the left can’t pull together because it’s full of people who are intent on criticising each other and that criticism is sometimes based on ideology and sometimes on tactics used by organisations. In the UK the left is dominated by the SWP and various groups who have emerged from it, most importantly even a group that’s essentially a single issue oppositional group like Unite Against Fascism is viewed by some people as a recruiting ground for the SWP. Incidentally I don’t know if it is or not, I just think that sentence perfectly represents why there will be no unity in the left and why there’s no point trying to unite lefty groups. I mean, no one can even agree on whether to let Nick Griffin speak to the press or not so there’s no hope on bigger, more important issues.

Blame the tabloids/newspapers who regurgitate lies about true immigration statistics and have a general anti-immigrant, anti-gay and anti-ethnic stance.

This is what leads people to post comments on The Daily Mail’s website which read:

[i]“Congratulations BNP! Nick Griffin is one of the best politicians Britain has offer!”[/i]

The PCC should have the power to make newspapers print retractions/apologies of the same size that the original article which caused the complaint, instead of them being hidden away on page 56.

“Unlike most Marxists they did not consider the 1917 Russian Revolution to be a true Marxist revolution.

Love it!
I’m sure the voters found that a highly relevant consideration in 2009.”

Not such a highly relevant consideration in 2009 – which probably explains why it wasn’t given prominence in their election manifesto – but they were saying it back in 1918 when maybe, just maybe, it was a rather important matter.

It’s a shame that not more people listened at the time. It could have been a different twentieth century for radical politics.