So the English Democrat elected mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies, has finally announced his intention to resign from the party over its links with the far right.
Davies claims to have only just discovered his party’s links to racist and extremist groups and is “concerned” about recent claims former BNP members have joined the English Democrats. The takeover of the English Democrats by the BNP, EDL and other extremist groups has been widely publicised for the last few years and Steve Uncles’ attempt to form a partnership with Sinn Féin is well documented. It is also well known that 4 in 10 of their candidates at the last local elections were former BNP members.
Hope Not Hate recently announced that they were targeting Peter Davies at the next mayoral election because of the English Democrats’ links to extremists and only a few days ago reported on the English Democrats’ new alliance with a new fascist group, English National Resistance. Davies is either naive or telling porkies and you don’t get elected as mayor of a large city by being naive.
Eddy Butler, the former National Front, former BNP, former Freedom Party, former BNP a couple more times, former BNP national elections co-ordinator, has joined the English Democrats.
The announcement, which was the EDP’s worst kept secret since his mate Richard Barnbrook joined in January, will be a bitter blow to the handful of party activists that haven’t yet joined UKIP who had hoped to stop the BNP takeover of the party.
UKIP recently announced a revised devolution policy that would see the creation of a federal UK with devolved parliaments for all four home nations. The final touches are being put to the full devolution policy paper before it goes to the membership for ratification. UKIP is the only non-racist, mainstream democratic party advocating the creation of a federal UK with equality for all four home nations.
English Democrats: not left, not right, just racist.
I was browsing the BBC News website this morning and started to read an article on the “far right” English Defence League (EDL).
The BBC has an obsession with the term “far right”, applying it to any organisation that speaks out against unfettered immigration and criticises Islam or multiculturalism. In general, I think the BBC is a good thing but their institutional left wing bias really gets on my tits so I’ve sent this complaint:
It is increasingly common to find protest groups and political parties referred to by the BBC as “far right” when they hold views that are not mainstream.
The term “far right” is not a synonym for “different” or “extreme”, it refers to an extreme right wing ideology. In Europe, the right wing of politics is conservative, liberal, generally christian and monarchist. Racism is considered to be a trait of far right politics (although the same is equally true of the far left) but by no means the sole or overriding defining criteria.
The BBC labels the BNP as “far right” yet the BNP is a nationalist socialist party advocating nationalisation of industry and illiberal curtailment of freedom of the press. Yes, they are racist but they are not conservative or liberal. They have some traits of the far right but their core ideology is a national socialism which is very much a left wing ideology. In reality, the BNP are a far left party.
The BBC also – bizarrely – refers to the EDL as “far right”. The EDL is not a political party, nor is it a political organisation. It has no political ideology at all and campaigns only against Islamification and unfettered immigration. Whilst the cause of, and answer to, Islamification and unfettered immigration is politicial, so is the cause and answer to high fuel prices and food prices yet the motoring organisations and charities campaigning against those aren’t given left/right wing political labels.
Finally, why do you not use the term “far left” in the same way that you do far right? I appreciate that the BBC is awash with Guardian-reading communists but there are prominent organisations like the laughably named fascist group “Unite Against Fascism” who are quite evidently far left extremists bent on violence and the suppression of freedom of speech and suppression and advocates of the sort of far left society that George Orwell warned about.
So my complaint is three-fold really and there are therefore three questions that I want an answer to:
1. Why do you mis-label left wing organisations such as the BNP as “far right” when they meet only peripheral right wing criteria that can be equally applied to the far left and their core ideology is left wing?
2. Why do you label apolitical organisations like the EDL as “far right” when they have no political ideology?
3. Why don’t you label left wing extremists like UAF as “far left” in the way you label what you insist on calling right wing groups as “far right”?
No2AV have produced some “research” claiming that changing to the Alternative Vote system will mean the BNP getting into power. Well, that’s how some in the No2AV camp (such as Witchfinder General Warsi and Guido) are painting it but that’s not what their “research” says.
The “research” says that in 35 seats, the votes of “extremists” would decide the outcome of the election. Or to use their words, “35 seats could be in the gift of extremists under AV”.
So what do they mean when they say the seats could be in the gift of extremists? Reading the three and a half pages of “research” which contains no verifiable facts, no numbers and no explanation of how they did their research, what they are saying is that the second preference votes of people whose first preference is the BNP or National Front could make the difference between a win or loss for the candidate that would have won if those people were disenfranchised.
My first question is how do they know what BNP and National Front voters’ second preferences are going to be? We’ve never had an election under AV so nobody knows what second preferences would look like. It’s pure guesswork.
My second question is how do define an extremist? Is an 80 year old woman casting a protest vote for the BNP because the housing estate she’s live in all her life has been taken over my immigrants an extremist? What about an 18 year old student voting for the BNP because his parents do? What about the thousands of ordinary people who don’t hate foreigners and don’t want to “send the darkies home” but vote BNP in the mistaken belief that their protest vote will force the LibLabCon to change their ways? Are they extremists?
My third and final question is why are the second preference votes of anyone who puts a tick in the BNP box automatically “wrong”? Why should their choices be ignored because they vote for the “wrong” party? No2AV’s “research” makes it clear that a candidate winning because of the votes of an “extremist or fringe” voter is wrong, the implication being that the candidate that gets their second preference votes must automatically be unsuitable. I vote UKIP so I presumably fit into the “fringe” category because I don’t vote for the LibLabCon so why is my vote worth less than someone who votes for one of the establishment parties that are full of liars, crooks and warmongers?
A “no” vote in the AV referendum will be deemed to be a “no” to any form of electoral reform. AV isn’t the answer to the current system of unrepresentative and unaccountable government but it’s better than First Past the Post which ignores the votes of most of the electorate. The answer is AV+ or STV but that’s not on offer so we have to set the ball rolling with plain old AV.
It does no credit to the No2AV campaign when they so obviously misrepresent facts and misrepresent opinion as fact. They don’t have a clue what AV will mean at elections so they have to resort to trying to scare people about the non-existent threat of the BNP getting into power. The simple fact of the matter is that under AV, the votes of more people will matter than under First Past the Post and the fact that elections will be more unpredictable under AV is no reason not to try it. Far from it – the LibLabCon will have to start doing something about the issues that drive people to vote for “extremist and fringe” parties if they want to win elections and anything that makes politicians listen to voters can’t be a bad thing.
The election is almost upon us and it’s time for a prediction I think: Nick Clegg will be Prime Minister.
Now, don’t get any silly ideas about the Lib Dems winning the election because they won’t. The Tories will win the election with most seats but they won’t have a working majority and Cameron would rather go without than share power. The newspaper ads and constant talk about how terrible a hung parliament would be confirm that Cameron is out for absolute power and nothing less.
There will be no shortage of offers to form a coalition with Cast Iron Dave but they will be rebuffed. The party faithful will be told that it’s better to let a LibLab coalition limp along for a few months before collapsing and then the Tories can romp home to victory in a snap election. Most of them will fall for it of course and those that don’t will accept it for the greater good.
So that just leaves the Lib Dems and Labour. The Lib Dems will come second on Thursday, relegating Labour to third place. Clegg will want a coalition of the left which rules out the Tories and whilst the SNP and Plaid will make gains at the election (the former more so than the latter) they won’t have enough lobby fodder for Clegg to see off the Tories so it will be a LibLab coalition with Clegg as Prime Minister.
Whether El Gordo will manage to cling on as leader after the election remains to be seen. Mandelson is already leader in all but name and I expect him to take over the reins from El Gordo at some point after the election. Clegg says he won’t work with Brown but once he smells victory he’ll soon change his tune.
And what about the non-LibLabCon/celtic nationalists? Well, UKIP will come out with a handful of MPs – I think between three and five. The BNP will retain some deposits but they won’t win and seats. The English Democrats will spring a few surprises but won’t win any seats. The Greens will come worryingly close to winning a seat but won’t quite make it.
A court has ruled that a school has broken the law by refusing admission to a child that the Chief Rabbi considered to not be a proper jew.
Interestingly, the judgement is based on the assertion that “Jewish” is a race, not just a religion. Which is bollocks. The rules are that anyone with a Jewish mother is Jewish – they may not have any Hebrew blood in them at all as the child of a Jewish convert is considered Jewish in the Jewish faith.
The Chief Rabbi says that God tells him who is and isn’t a Jew and that the court’s ruling implies that his God is a racist. Some other Jewish person whose name I didn’t catch has been on Newsnight saying that Jewish schools have prevented the destruction of Jews and that forcing them to take people who the Chief Rabbi says aren’t real Jews puts the “Jewish community” at risk.
I know this is a generalisation but Jews are, sadly, so used to using such extreme terms as “destruction” and “racist” that they use them for something as minor as a schools admission policy. Forcing Jewish schools to adopt a legal admissions policy will not destroy the Jewish faith, nor does it amount to the state calling God a racist.
Presumably the court ruling was based on the same law that bans the BNP from accepting only white members. If the Jewish school is successful in getting the ruling overturned then that will give the BNP legitimate grounds to appeal the recent ruling that they must change their admission rules to allow ethnic minorities to join their party. Is that what the Chief Rabbi wants?