Is Farage Treading an Old Path to Oblivion?

One of the few blessings that I have acquired in a lifetime of political interest and involvement is an exceptional long-term memory. No matter that I am more than capable of venturing out into the rain having forgotten to put my shoes on, I can nonetheless still recall verbatim particular conversations that I had with particular people in particular situations in days when we all watched TV in black and white.

I was only a boy of fifteen when I joined the National Front back in 1977, but I do remember the buzz of excitement and expectation that existed around the party at that time. Although at its heart it was an anti-democratic party the NF was committed at the time to following the electoral road to power, which after all its Austrian mentor had himself trodden successfully. Ever-increasing returns from elections, local and national, seemed to confirm that the party was on its way. There was no need to shun democracy for as long as it seemed to be working in one's favour.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL ELECTIONS

It seems incredible to reflect that even in its halcyon days of the 1970s the National Front never won a single seat on a single local council. It came exceptionally close, capturing more than 30% of the vote in several wards in its East London and other heartlands. In the Greater London Council elections of 1977 it won 119,000 votes in the capital, and a local election in Deptford saw a combined vote of 44.5% for the NF and National Party (an NF splinter group), against 43% for the victorious Labour candidate. The NP won two local council seats in Blackburn. At its absolute peak, NF membership was nudging 20,000.

The reasons why the NF never made the breakthrough to actual electoral success are manifold. The party's electoral strategy was, to begin with, designed with rapid national success firmly in mind. Subconsciously party managers were only too well aware that the whole edifice was constructed on sand. Living a lie by presenting itself as a democratic patriotic party when at its core its philosophy was national socialist it could have been forgiven for fearing that a period of "middle management" which would have exposed it to the daylight may actually have been detrimental to the realisation of its long term aims. Particularly as most of its candidates would have made noticeably poor councillors.

Secondly the party system was less fluid than it is today. With a significantly higher percentage of voters still committed to one or other of the big mainstream parties, often still according to class background or loyalties, and generally better turnouts, the prospects for an outsider party to launch a successful assault even at local council level were less promising.

Thirdly, and associated with the previous point, there was already an aura of "bad news" developing around the NF. Its opponents relentlessly opposed it as a nazi party through publicity campaigns, demonstrations, media coverage and youth culture and, whilst the Front had constructed an elaborate defence strategy to try to minimise the effect of such attacks, that strategy was somewhat compromised by the fact that, in essence, the allegations were true.

AGE OF THATCHERISM

When the general election of 1979 took place all of these facts eventually conspired to deliver the National Front a hammer blow from which it never recovered. An unwitting pincer movement by the combined forces of the anti-racist left and a dynamic new Conservative Party leadership drew the large majority of the NF's erstwhile voters away, and the age of Thatcherism began in earnest.

What comparisons can be made between the NF's adventure in the mid to late 1970s and that currently being enjoyed by Nigel Farage and the UK Independence Party?

At every level UKIP has exceeded anything the NF ever achieved even at its peak. It has a number of councillors. Recently it won its first ever parliamentary election, by a landslide, and is anticipating another as I write. At this year's elections to the European Parliament UKIP won more votes, and returned more MEPs, than any of the establishment parties.

Whilst it is important to acknowledge that, unlike the NF of yesteryear, UKIP is not an extremist party with an underlying anti-democratic agenda, many of those who follow it are of a similar ilk to those I used to share meetings with back in those far-off days. Old reactionaries, averse to Johnny Foreigner and bemoaning the loss of Empire, are not a great deal different today to what they were four decades ago. For the NF they were padding, a useful veneer with which to mask a much nastier and more sinister reality. In UKIP's ranks they are probably more genuinely welcome. But they are of a similar stock.

Like the NF, UKIP do sometimes get a bad press from the anti-racist movement - but there are two essential differences. The first is that charges of racism, and more especially those of fascism, stick far less. There are no embarrassing photographs of which I am aware of Farage parading around the English countryside in paramilitary uniform. No quotes about putting people into gas chambers. No prison sentences served for violent and unlawful political activity. The second is that much of the "left" which comprises that movement is still sufficiently emotionally attached to Labour not to want to unsettle too much a rising political party which takes most of its votes from the Tories.

Nevertheless, one has to ask whether the powers that be will ever trust UKIP, as an outsider party, enough to allow it to make the breakthrough which runs the risk of changing the character of a hitherto obedient party system forever. If it won't, then at some point they will need to act.

Currently the big parties seem to be following what is really something of a non-strategy, vying limply with one other for the UKIP vote. Doubtless the Tories, who have the most to lose, will be scouring the sewers for undiscovered dung piles which can be unveiled to the voting public at strategic times during the coming campaign. Labour loyalists meanwhile must decide just how comfortably their natural aversion the UKIP-style politics can sit with their hopes that a divided right-leaning vote will help ease Labour into office.

Nick Griffin Expelled as BNP Follows a Time-Honoured Tradition

 

When I stumbled by chance yesterday evening upon an article on the BBC News website breaking the news that Nick Griffin had been expelled from membership of the British National Party my first reaction was to laugh out loud.

My mirth was induced not by any desire to heap scorn upon a man whom I’d considered a friend and comrade in the days when we shared a political outlook which I’ve since come to despise. Rather it was the amused reaction of one who had once more been reminded of the perennial farce that is and always has been the far-right’s approach to organisational etiquette.

Griffin and I were both young men in the National Front in the late 1970s, when the racist party had emerged from an acrimonious split with a Strasserite faction, which had oddly allied itself to a right-wing Tory-inclined faction in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to wrest control of the organisation from the national socialist clique which had ruled with a hidden hand more or less since the NF’s inception a decade or so earlier.

MARGINS

During the latter part of the seventies the party mood had been upbeat and expectant as election results got better and better and the breakthrough for which it had hankered appeared increasingly imminent. When instead of achieving that breakthrough electoral support crashed, membership figures plummeted and the organisation was reconsigned to the margins whence it had come the then NF leader John Tyndall scarpered to form his own breakaway party, the New National Front (which, ironically, would later become the British National Party). So bitter was the manner of his parting that Tyndall and those who had followed him very quickly became non-people, whose names could no longer be spoken.

Nick Griffin, the NF’s National Student Organiser, was by this time already firmly ensconced on the party’s governing body, the National Directorate.

A shadow of its only recently former self the NF trundled along, holding badly-attended public activities in the back of beyond which had become more of an institutional nostalgia trip than a serious attempt at winning friends and influence, until the de facto leader of the party and “mastermind” of the failing strategy, Martin Webster, was ousted from his post of National Organiser following a carefully managed coup in which Griffin was instrumental. Needless to say the transition from deposed leader to expelled ex-member was, for Webster, a rapid one and he and his supporters very quickly became persona non grata, the more outspoken amongst them soon finding themselves the unwilling recipients of some pretty disgusting (if sometimes rather imaginative) hate material.

For a few years thereafter the National Front, sans Webster, ploughed new furrows, enjoying small oases of success amid a wider desert of failure as the party remained the retreat of the lonely, the obsessive and the eccentric. Nick Griffin was a major player, although there were other major players too. There were fewer though once the split of 1986 had taken place. At a historic meeting of the National Directorate in Slough factions led on the one side by Griffin and on the other by Martin Wingfield, Andrew Brons and the late Ian Anderson went their separate ways in a dispute which began with the almost gentlemanly exchange of letters of expulsion and culminated in the attempted car-bombing of Anderson’s motor vehicle and the breaking of the then Griffin supporter Patrick Harrington’s arm during a factional scuffle outside an East London public house.

For the remainder of the 1980s the two factions, both calling themselves the National Front, dedicated themselves almost entirely to the cause of trying either to harass or to embarrass the other out of existence. When the anti-Griffin NF announced its intention to stage a march against Middle Eastern terrorism the pro-Griffin version would distribute a press release declaring its undying love for the fathers of the Iranian Revolution. When the Griffinites denounced the Union Flag as an imperialist rag the Wingfieldites, for want of a better term, would bedeck every page of their propaganda material with it.

ITALIAN EXILES

Then, in 1989, Griffin and a few others got itchy feet and decided they would relocate what was left of the party (or at least their faction thereof) to the French countryside, much to the chagrin of Patrick Harrington who by now was running the organisation on a day-to-day basis from his Mum’s basement pad in Kensington. The result, inevitably, was not a mature discussion on the future direction of the party but rather its division into two further factions, this time neither of them laying claim to the name “National Front”. The Griffin group, backed by the Italian exiles around Roberto Fiore, became the International Third Position whilst what remained in England changed its name to the Third Way. The Wingfield/Anderson faction, whose existence everybody had all but forgotten, thereby became the one and only National Front by default. Every one’s a winner.

By far-right standards the ITP/TW split was relatively civil. Both parties decided to go fairly much their own way and to do fairly much their own thing. Both organisations still exist today, in one form or another, but Nick Griffin has nothing to do with either of them

When I parted company from the far-right and its ideology towards the end of 1991 – many years later than I ought to have done – Griffin was still a member of the ITP, although recovering from the shotgun cartridge accident in France which led to him losing an eye. It was some while later that he joined the BNP, apparently via an incident in which he managed to relieve an ITP colleague of his life savings through an ill-advised printing venture, and determined from the beginning that he would usurp the leadership from the now ageing John Tyndall. Within a few years he had achieved his objective of taking control of the party which he had once so disparaged. Before long, naturally, Tyndall had been expelled.

Under Griffin and his “modernisation” strategy the BNP achieved considerable, if temporary success. At one point it was able to count its councillors (including parish) in three figures, as well as boasting two MEPs and an elected representative on the Greater London Authority. His ability to achieve this was down to lessons learned from the experience of the NF in the 1970s coupled with an understanding of the importance of building from the grass roots, a strategy to which Webster had been oblivious. Add this to a political climate in which establishment politicians were held in low regard, low voter turnout and an element of personal media savvy and he and the BNP were away. Sadly for him the quality of his elected councillors was found wanting and his unwillingness or inability to train them conspired against any prospect of sustained growth.

DECLINE

As decline began to set in BNP members began to ask questions. They questioned Griffin’s tactics. They questioned his commitment to core principles – some traditionalists felt he had moved away from those great fictions that have sustained “nationalist” ideology in the UK since the Second World War whilst some of the newer recruits feared he was still old guard at heart. Most of all, they questioned his financial probity. Talk abounded of large sums of money unaccounted for, dodgy deals, debts not honoured, employees not paid and all manner of other irregularities.

A common by-product of the disputes that beset the BNP during its later days of decline was the emergence of leadership challenges. Chris Jackson, Colin Auty, Eddy Butler, Andrew Brons – all of them tried, failed – and ended up outside of the party in short order. Nick Griffin, as the far-right itself, has never done “ordinary” leadership contests in which the best person wins and the other shakes hands and lends his or her full support to the victor. For as long as I can remember, every leadership challenge in the recent history of the far-right has resulted in expulsions, resignations and bitter recriminations.

As the BNP’s star has faded with the emergence to major prominence of UKIP which, despite its undisputed commitment to democratic traditions, casts its net wide enough to enable it to embrace most erstwhile far-righters, so my own interest in keeping a watchful eye on the BNP and other far-right groups has mellowed. Nevertheless I have been periodically following with voyeuristic interest the fortunes of what very little is left of the BNP, from the moment when Griffin “stepped down” to make way for one Adam Walker (whom I’ve never met, but from his track record he seems none too bright) to his inevitable expulsion.

My amusement derives from the fact that Nick Griffin’s BNP career has ended in precisely the same manner as that of every one of his victims, from his expulsion without a proper hearing to the obligatory whinging about the unfairness of it all.

It is difficult to predict where Nick Griffin will go from here. Much depends on whether, at 55 and with 40 years of flat-out political activity behind him, he has the stomach for beginning all over again. Maybe he’ll fight for his job back which, with the BNP’s current fortunes, is akin to squabbling over the best seat on the proverbial Titanic. Or maybe he will regard it as a blessing and launch a new project of his own, one more suited to the current UKIP-friendly climate. His traditional support base has not vanished, it has simply relocated to a nicer home. For as long as it exists, it has the potential to return to the far-right if it gets its act together and the “moderate” UKIP fails to maintain momentum. To get rid of it for good we need to educate, not manipulate.

To some Nick Griffin is the man who almost took racism and fascism into the political mainstream. To others he is a charlatan who has run the BNP in the manner of some two-bit gangster, first cooking up spurious charges and later expelling all his critics within the movement. It is difficult not to see that the folk now running the party who have expelled him for bringing the organisation into disrepute are treading a well-trodden track.

The Demise of the BNP and the New Challenges it Brings

Some while ago I wrote on this blog about the emergence from the wreckage of the BNP of a grouplet calling itself the British Freedom Party and in particular about its professed creed of “cultural nationalism”. I expressed doubts at the time that the BFP would come to anything much. It appeared devoid of anybody with sufficient pedigree or charisma to overcome the enormous challenge of emerging from amid the confused mess that is the far right today and, as former NF leader Martin Webster is alleged to have once put it, of “kicking its way into the headlines” (Webster maintains that he used the word “crashing” as opposed to “kicking” but the point I am making remains).

Indeed it appeared even back then that some of the personalities the BFP did possess were of the destructive variety and were primed to bring embarrassment to the new party at any moment of their choosing.

I also remarked that, whilst I doubted the organisational potential of the BFP itself, the concept of cultural nationalism was one that could emerge when the smoke clears to cause very real problems.

Since its formation the BFP has hardly set the world alight, indeed one of its few actions of note has been to engage in its own acrimonious split which has lead the tiny party to divide into two even tinier, rival parties. However the faction retaining the party name surprised a few observers recently when it announced the formation of some manner of pact/agreement/merger (the precise nature of the deal depends very much upon whom one is listening to) with the controversial English Defence League (EDL).

The EDL itself, of course, preaches a similar cultural nationalist message in that it professes to be a movement solely opposed to militant Islam and one that is not racially exclusive. The reality is that its ranks are filled with racists and politically is to all intents and purposes a street army of the far right. It, too, has experienced splits and leadership disputes in recent months.

More on cultural nationalism anon, but in the meantime it is worth taking some time out to catch up with developments within the mainstream of the far right, if that is not a contradiction in terms.

The BNP continues to crumble under the weight of serious debt, poor votes and a massive decline in membership numbers. As it does so sundry factions squabble over the corpse, some opting for fight and others for flight.

Those inclined to fight are largely rallied around Andrew Brons MEP, a retired politics lecturer from Harrogate who was elected to the European Parliament alongside BNP leader Nick Griffin in 2009. After months of apparent indecision Brons, a former Chairman of the National Front, this year challenged Griffin for the leadership of the BNP and lost by a mere nine votes in an election that seemed to be conducted very much on Griffin’s terms to say the least.

Despite his youthful activities as a keen member of the late Colin Jordan’s National Socialist Movement (he once wrote to Jordan’s equally Nazi wife Francoise that he held a “dual view” as to whether or not burning down synagogues was a good thing to do, whilst ordering a consignment of stickers with swastikas on), Brons seems to have managed to gain for himself a reputation on the far right as a logical and reasonable man, as well as being something of a thinker. His genteel manner, his intellect and his maturity in years command him respect and he would appear to have been adopted as some kind of wise elder statesman within the movement, although some others accuse him of being a ditherer due to his apparent reluctance to make a decisive move in his ongoing quarrel with Griffin.

The current state of play is that Brons and his supporters have created what they refer to as a “parallel party” within the BNP, retaining their membership and professing their loyalty to the party whilst not to Griffin himself and organising around a website called “BNP Ideas”, effectively daring Griffin to expel them.

Meanwhile the flighters include 2010 leadership challenger Eddy Butler, who has joined the English Democrats, an organisation that seems to operate just within the pale although the infusion of ex-BNP bigwigs may have the effect of changing that. They also include one Jim Dowson, a businessman whose recruitment by Griffin as an “industry expert” to make the BNP money was one of the biggest bones of contention at the time of the Butler challenge, but who has since fallen out with Griffin himself and now heads his own breakaway group calling itself Britain First.

What this all has to do with cultural nationalism is the opportunity that the general realignment of the far right affords it to reassess the way in which it pitches its message. With the field awash with small groups and disgruntled individuals as the parent organisation reluctantly but most certainly disappears further into oblivion the potential for fusion around a new strategy is a worrying one. Particularly when the message essentially masks the same underlying racist philosophy.

For what has changed is not the type of individuals that we are dealing with. There is nothing about the EDL that makes it in any way more cuddly or more acceptable than the BNP, or the NF of bygone days. Fascists have not suddenly become nicer people. On the contrary all that is different is the demographic. The far right, for the most part, recognises that a seismic shift has taken place in the composition of our society since the days when the movement could say “Send them all home!” and still credibly maintain that “they” had an identifiable home to go to.

Anybody who wishes to understand the potential for cultural nationalism needs only to walk into any working men’s club and listen for a few moments to the conversation when it gets around to immigration. The message everyday people are getting from the tabloids is that a new generation of immigrants is receiving everything on a plate, has hostile intentions towards the (now multi-ethnic) host community and is challenging us all for resources that with the economic downturn have already become scarce. In the absence of any information to correct these false perceptions it is little wonder that they are held close by people who are otherwise normal and decent.

Generally people are not racist in the sense of having a conscious belief that they are in some way superior to other people (although ironically some “anti-racists” of my acquaintance would appear to make similar assumptions about themselves). However in my experience there is clearly a “dislike of difference” which leads them to be mistrustful of others whose looks, dress and mannerisms differ from their own and which, when coupled with a belief that the other community is in receipt of special favour, makes many an obvious soft sell for the cultural nationalist argument that “it’s not about race but…”.

Where there are myths perpetuated about the nature and intentions of the group, as in the case of Islam, this is even more so.

A cultural nationalist position furthermore gives the racist an unhealthy amount of wiggle room. In defence it is not about race or ethnicity so nobody need be offended, but in attack it means that everybody needs to be “like us” and, where the message is receiving a sympathetic hearing, opens the door to all the prejudices and hatreds that have historically informed the far right. It is an expandable, contractible ideology which can mean almost anything the intended audience wishes it to mean, yet retains racism and xenophobia at the core of its message.

Common sense suggests that there will be a regrouping on the far right and whilst we rightly celebrate the demise of the BNP this, perversely, has the potential to trigger it. While the economic conditions remain, and ignorance abounds, there is no logical reason why fascism should suddenly vanish, or why racists should cease being racists and not look to organise themselves again. With the “soft” nationalism of UKIP and the English Democrats enjoying some popularity and with a small army of stateless ex-BNP and soon to be ex-BNP followers looking for a new home, it is important that anti-fascists do not take their eye off the ball.

If I sound defeatist or fatalistic then it needs to be understood that I flag up this prospect because somebody has to, and in the hope that those whose task it will be to confront the new threat will be ready and waiting for it. A new wave of far right activity is inevitable, but its success most certainly isn’t.