Conservative Vision

So there we have it; the BNP Party Leader Nick Griffin completed a shakey hour on the panel of Question Time. Wracked with nerves, constantly digging himself into holes he couldn't get out of, the man seemed incapable of forming a cogent answer to anything put to him. This hasn't stopped some polls today suggesting that the number of people who would vote BNP in an election tomorrow has risen from 2% to 3%.

Hain, in typical fashion, has come out saying that this has proven his fears. I told you, he says triumphantly, that allowing the BNP platform would lead to nothing but trouble. He is geniunely sure that what he says is in accordance with democratic ideals and that he is fighting the corner of liberty.

He is wrong.

The point that Hain has so ignorantly glossed over is that this was never about whether the BNP would lose out or gain something from appearing on the BBC. This is an irrelevance; a non-issue. I say this because the inclusion of the BNP - like that of any other party - was the correct thing to do in light of their recent electoral success. The fact is, the party now has over a million voters and holds two seats in the EU Parliament. Who is the BBC to decide what is suitably edifying for the public? The BBC was correct to invite Griffin in the first place and the corporation should be commended for this.

It is beyond me how Hain can possibly justify his stance; is he really suggesting that not agreeing with a party's ideology is reason enough to ban them from the air? There's a name for that, and it is one that is ironically usually attributed to the very party they seek to suppress: fascist. It's about time Labour (and other) MPs brushed up on the definition of democracy and all its related components. The BNP is a legitimate, democratic body with about 6% of public support. It got there by virtue of its exclusion and its subsequent ability to indoctrinate the working class voters into believing it to be a virtuous body.

More of the same will not rectify the problem, nor will resorting to fascism in order to fight fascism.

The Welsh Secretary, Peter Haine, has dropped even further in my estimations today. In coming out and denigrating the BBC for granting the BNP a platform owing to what he sees as their illegality, he is playing straight into their hands. There is only one possible conclusion to this debate, and it is an increased publicity for the party, with vast swathes of the public viewing this as nothing more than another reason to opt out of voting for mainstream parties.

The BBC is quite right to point out that, were an election held tomorrow, the BNP would be eligible to field candidates. As we stand, they are a democratic party with significant representation in certain quarters of the United Kingdom. Their abhorrence is exceeded only by their right to be so; it is a dangerous path when we begin to suppress views antithetical to our own for no other reason than that they are distasteful.

I await the Question Time debate with intrigue, and praise the laudible attitudes of Straw and Sayeeda Warsi in stepping up to the plate and agreeing to debate with the BNP. Time has shown that starving the party of media oxygen serves only to aid the BNP in propagating a message door-to-door, safe in the knowledge that their flawed vision of the world remains unshattered by intellectual discourse and engagement.

It is crucial that the BNP's message is heard, debated, exposed as flawed and put to bed. This process cannot gather pace without first inviting them to participate in such shows as Question Time.

Whilst walking through my university campus the other day, I stumbled upon a crumpled up leaflet on the floor entitled 'Labour Students'. It turns out - as I began to read - that crumpled and on the floor was an extremely befitting state for it. As I read the pamphlet, it was confirmed in my mind that Labour's problems do not just rest with the incumbent ministers; they are deeply imbedded and are filtering down to the grassroots members.

The leaflet gleefully told of how 96% of Conservative parliamentary candidates for the next general election would "not protect international development" from cuts. They followed this with a spiteful soundbite to the effect of "they may have changed their logo, but they're still the same old party".

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but there is a degree of consensus surrounding the need for public cuts over the next few years. The Conservatives have already safeguarded the NHS, and both parties have acknowledged that sectors will need cutting back. If we take this as a given, then why on Earth would we form a protective ring around the area of international development? Laudible though it is to help though in a less fortunate state of affairs, it is undoubtedly a luxury. It should be paid into when possible, but where is the logic in shielding it from the same cuts that all other sectors must experience?

Why not education? Defence? Home affairs? Transport? The environment? Surely if we are to protect a particular department, any of these (particularly the first three) should be immunised first. There is something that the Labour Student movement fails to realise; it is a fundamental error or judgement, and it exposes what really is a bitter party's only true attack line: smear. The crucial mistake they are making is to recognise that:

Sensibility is not akin to callousness. Pragmatism is not malice.

If the nation were, in 2006, a man on £75k a year giving £5k to charity and, when the financial crisis hit found his bonus taken away thus leaving him on £40k a year, nobody would criticise him for choosing to cut his charitable contribution to £2k. He would be seen as perfectly reasonable; he doesn't have to donate and, after all, he has his childrens' education, his car and his property to pay for.

So why, I would love to know, is it cold-hearted when it is on a national level? It is simply more of Labour's tireless negative campaigning. It characterised their literature leading up to the European elections and, it seems, it shall remain the trend leading into the general election next Spring. What's worse is that this negative approach to attracting voters has reached the young party members; prepare for lots more in the future.

I am blogging a bit late on this issue as the past week has been completely taken up by university admin and other odds and ends. But I feel this is a subject that needs opening up, even if the media circus has rolled out of town and no one any longer seems to recognise the magnitude of what we recently witnessed in the Republic of Ireland. I talk, of course, of the 'Yes' vote.

Just what exactly is it that the EU fails to grasp about the word no? In one form or other, this document has now been put to France, Holland and Ireland. All three gave a resounding 'No' to the document, enough (you would think in a democratic society) to condemn it to the history books. Yet instead what we find is an incessant pestering of these so-called rogue nations into accepting their place in the federal map of Europe slowly emerging from the embers of the European Coal and Steel Community.

It is a curious thing indeed that when the people vote 'No' it is because they do not understand the document, yet when the question is asked again and the people vote 'Yes', there is no question of their ability to comprehend to document. As Hannan has pointed out in the past, this is a clash of eurocratic will versus popular will. The people have made clear on numerous occasions that this is not the fate they wish for, yet it is what they shall get.

Factor in the ratchet clause which, to all intents and purposes makes this treaty self-amending, and we really do begin to get a scary picture of the future. The EU will no longer have to go through the inconvenience of asking the people, because we know that never works out well for the Brussels institutions.

Casting proxy votes for the whole of the EU, a country which voted no to a treaty had millions of euros worth of propaganda poured down its neck in order to influence a vote. The conspirators of the 'Yes' campaign succeeded and what we are now left with is a treaty that looks inevitable despite every single nation asked rejecting it flat out. This is not democracy.

Let us pray that a future Conservative government is elected in time to put this treaty to the sword.

I recently read an article on Cranmer which brought to my attention the abhorrent contempt for democracy that some MEPs truly possess. One in particular, Proinsias de Rossa, an Irish Labourite, has commented continually and consistently insisting on berating his electorate for their lack of support for the Lisbon Treaty. Where is the democratic representation? Below is a copy of a letter I recently sent to de Rossa. I do not expect a reply.

Dear Proinsias,

Upon perusing the news this morning, I stumbled upon an article that evoked within me the need to speak out; an article which, to my thinking, highlights a point of view that derogates the very essence of democracy. An argument so antithetical to the fundamental principles of a representative system that I was momentarily taken aback. I speak of the article published today by the blogger Archbishop Cranmer, detailing the basic premise of your support for the Lisbon Treaty.

I count myself privileged to live in a system that affords others and myself the right to debate the rights and wrongs of issues of mutual concern. These issues are, in turn, legislated upon in accordance with the public consensus (mostly, anyway). I am delighted when I see my viewpoint has been taken on board, often being entrenched into law. I am less happy when I find that an alternative perspective is taken, rendering my opinions irrelevant.

But I accept it gracefully.

We have chosen to live in a representative democracy in which public will is translated into electoral representation to the best extent possible. There is, of course, one problem with this system that we all must live with: sometimes we don’t get what we want. It is a by-product of living in a liberal democratic system that, from time to time, people will feel strongly one way about something that their elected representatives feel just as strongly about the other way. In such a state of disparity, it is essential that the peoples’ verdict prevail.

Where on Earth is the representation of the Irish people in insisting upon a particular answer to a referendum? Where is the perspective when prophesising upon the demise and isolation of a nation should it dare stand up for its beliefs? It is imperative that MEPs such as yourself remain in touch with the wishes of your electorate. To stray from this path is the thin end of a wedge indeed; teeter any nearer the brink of what can permissibly pass as democracy and Ireland will need to change its name to something more befitting; something like Zimbabwe, perhaps, although that may actually have already been taken.

What I would like you to at least contemplate from this email, if nothing else, is an evaluation of whether the way in which many Irish MEPs are going about their business is worthy of the term “democracy”. Attempting to create the impression that there really is only one correct answer. Criticising vehemently comments of any and every Euro sceptic and thereby completely disregarding any right they may have to voicing their opinions (especially since, you may have forgotten, they can currently claim to be representing the views of a majority of Irish people). It is such an utter failure to accept that democracy doesn’t always yield the result everybody wants (precisely because this is in fact impossible) that astounds me.

In a democratic nation, you win some and you lose some. In thinking that when the people disagree with you it is okay to demand of them the perceived “correct answer”, somewhere along the line you have confused democracy with authoritarianism. If you were looking to the EU definition of democracy for guidance, then it is perfectly understandable as to how this uncertainly arose.

I very much look forward to your response.

When asked to describe the BNP, it is a fairly safe bet that the response given will be 'far right'. They're racist, afterall; their agenda is a discriminatory one favouring those of indigenous white heritage. Those who fail to meet these specifications are forbidden from joining the party and, should the BNP be elected to govern the country, people who do not fall into this narrow social band will be asked to voluntarily repatriate (how considerate...). On the surface, the party does seem to be espousing views that are typical of the far right wing. The 'right wing' tag is ascribed to the BNP in such a broad way that it may at the same time tar the moderate right with the same brush. In the popular psyche, right wing comes to represent the worst of political opinion - an attack on all that is not 'British', and an ideology that can not possibly accommodate notions of diversity.

But it is important that the record is set straight on this matter.

The BNP is left wing, plain and simple. It advocates a brand of socialism within the context of a republic Britain. Social housing and tax relief are high on its agenda, making it a particularly attractive proposition for the working class. Indeed, in areas in which the BNP has made significant gains (such as Luton and Dagenham), it is traditionally Labour seats that have been challenged. I propose an alternative to the currently accepted view. The BNP, rather than being 'far right', are simply racist left-wingers. Racism is not confined to one end of the political spectrum; socialism does not abolish derogation along ethnic or class lines. What we have in the BNP is Labour of 1983 with an underlying racist agenda. To define the BNP as right wing is a completely unfounded assertion, and I am sick to the back teeth of hearing those on the Left gloat that a vote for Labour is a vote against the 'far right'.

There is, however, a far scarier proposition to consider.

It is no secret that the Labour Party is in dire financial straits - the party is struggling to meet loan interest payments stretching into the millions, whilst fundraising events have failed to make a dent in the money owed. Add to this the threat of a funding withdrawal from unions such as UNITE, and the United Kingdom must prepare for the significant possibility of a diminished role for Labour in the party politics of this country. This is significant; when Labour underachieve, the BNP vote rises.

Without a stable left wing alternative, I predict that the BNP fan club would soar to stratospheric levels. The BNP are Labour's UKIP - a pressure group keeping tabs on the party's line in certain areas. The core Labour vote are attracted by promises of social provision, public service development and schemes that favour the working man. It is areas in which Labour are seen to shun these responsibilities that we see a rise in the BNP vote.

It is both for my sanity and the reasons stated above that I feel we must begin seeing the BNP for what they really are: a racist, far Left body. If we fail to make this distinction as a country, we will face significant problems in the event of a Labour collapse. Parties on all sides of parliament must begin to treat the BNP as a party looking to mobilise voters who have lost faith in the party they used to believe in, and in the BNP they have found a party firmly committed to these ideals. A party that will never renege on its duties of servitude to the blue collar classes, and for whom a racist agenda is not perceived as such, but as a drive to look out for the ordinary man's interests.

The threat is real, and it is something that must be realised soon.

So there we have it: the Sun newspaper has today officially announced its endorsement of the Conservative Party going into the general election of 2010. According to Conservative Home, "failure to address Sun readers' concerns about Europe, the Lisbon Treaty and the treatment of our armed forces" are among the principle reasons for this desertion.

This comes as a blow to Labour, whom the paper has consistently backed for the last 12 years, and particularly to Brown, heaping further misery on a party already in freefall.

That the newspaper has chosen the morning after Brown's keynote speech to drop this hefty bombshell seems particularly poignant. Ed Miliband has tried fervently to play down the significance of the result, quipping that "people decide elections not newspapers". He seems to forget the tabloid media's ability to mobilise the swing voter class of this country - one needs only think to Kinnock's fall from grace based almost entirely on a retraction of support from the Sun.

Particularly worrying for Labour is that it is truly impossible to discern any real talent among the rising 'stars' of the party whatsoever. Purnell and Cruddas lead a fairly poor bunch of MPs whose role it will be to steer the party clear of complete dissolution. Could it just be that we are witnessing the end of Labour as we know it? With the party trailing 3rd in the latest polls for the first time in decades, the Labour-Conservative dynamic could be truly and irrevocably rattled at the next election.

Only time will tell.