Johann Hari: BNP votes are a cry of white working-class anguish
We dismiss them as 'chavs', 'pikeys' and racists, and jeer at their names
Monday, 5 May 2008
The London results were so bleak the election coverage soon turned into an edition of Have I Got Noose For You. Mayor Boris has gone from punch-line to punch-out, and I watched it all in a black cloud, waiting for his pledge to rule on behalf of all Londoners – white, Asian or piccaninny.
But there is worse news still: the far right have seized their fattest electoral prize since the 1930s. The British National Party now have a seat in the London Assembly, continuing a dramatic rise: in 1992, it won 7,005 votes nationally; by 2005 it hit 192,746. This is their most effective lurch into the mainstream yet.
Of course, it’s tempting to ask: does this ugly protest vote matter? The BNP will never take power – so let them spew their bile from isolated seats. But whenever I think this, I remember Robert Cottage. In the most under-reported story of the past year, this 49 year-old BNP election candidate was discovered to have stock-piled explosives and bomb-making manuals in his house. He wanted to use them in a “race war”; they were found along with a letter from BNP leader Nick Griffin thanking him for his hard work. Cottage’s wife believed joining the party had led to this point, saying, “The BNP changed him.” This isn’t new: the Soho nail-bomber was a BNP activist, as are many members of Combat 18. As the party grows, the opportunities for men like this to be hoovered up into far right radicalism swell.
Yet there is a big difference between the party and its voters. It would be easy to say the BNP vote represents simply the remaining rancid scraps of racism – but it’s not true. I spent last Thursday canvassing the vast concrete estates of East London, where I live, and I spoke to half-a-dozen openly pro-BNP voters. They were not straightforwardly bigoted: one single mum said she would vote BNP “if my kids weren’t mixed race.” Instead, they were angry and alienated, and the BNP seemed to them to be the sharpest needle to jab into the eye of the political process; as one fiftysomething white woman said, “I just want to tell politicians to fuck off.”
How do we persuade these voters to make better choices? The first step is the easiest: expose the party for what they really are. The BNP has tried to rebrand itself, hoping we will forget its founder declared “Mein Kampf is my Bible”, and its current leader attacks even David Irvine for admitting some Jews died in the “Holohoax.” This leads to the second step: stop trying to silence them. The trial of Nick Griffin for hate-speech wasn’t just immoral – he has a right to free speech, no matter how foul – but also dumb politics. The way to discredit the BNP is for people to hear what they say. No more no platforms: take them on. Read out their pro-Hitler quotes. Watch them implode.
But we also need to address the biggest worries of BNP voters. Most of them are anxious about immigration not because they don’t want different-looking people walking the streets, but because they feel it damages them, in three distinct ways: through housing, wages, and the unequal provision of public services.
Of course we have to start by debunking the Littlejohnian lies. No, asylum seekers are not “hosed down” with benefits: a single asylum seeker struggles by on forty-four quid a week. No, they are not put ahead of you in housing queues: some 90 percent of people in council houses were born in Britain, and only 5 percent each year go to recent arrivals. No, they don’t commit more crime: the Association of Chief Police Officers says so. But not all their concerns are based on myths pumped out by bigots; many are real, and legitimate.
Let’s start with council housing. We need to say: yes, it is a scandal. The Thatcher policy of selling off council houses was a good way of spreading property ownership – but the Tories didn’t put the proceeds into building more new council homes. Instead, they frittered them away on tax cuts for the rich, and for ten years, Labour let the waiting lists sky-rocket and the housing stock deteriorate. The fact this coincided with a rise in new immigrants – who almost all live in private rented accommodation – created the false impression they were linked. The best tactic to stymie the BNP is a huge programme of council house construction, immediately.
How about wages? It’s true that immigrants boost the economy overall, and boost public services and pensions because they pay back £6bn more than they take from the Exchequer. But it’s also true that British people don’t benefit equally from it. It’s simply a fact that if you significantly increase the supply of cheap labour, the hourly rate for it comes down: that’s why wages for builders and waitresses and cleaners have barely budged for ten years now. For people on the lowest wages, immigration does depress their wages, and it is wrong to deny this, or wave it away as unimportant. Instead, we must advocate a simple non-sectarian answer: a higher minimum wage. A campaign calling for this creates a new dividing line: instead of the white working class vs. immigrants, it puts the white working class and immigrants side-by-side, against the CBI and the super-rich who want to preserve their vast profits at their expense.
And what about ethnic divisions in public services? Again this is uncomfortable to face, but we have to be honest about it. If you build a Bengali community centre, you create demand for a ‘white’ community centre to match it. Faith schools are the worst offenders, dividing up communities on ethnic lines when they are at their most impressionable: Muslim kids this way, white kids that way. How can we be surprised if people then convert this tribalism into their political preferences too? Our public services need to be run so they bind us together, not carve us into ethnic chunks.
But instead of offering these solutions, we have turned the white working class into a national punch-line. We dismiss them as “chavs”, “pikeys” and racists, and jeer at their clothes, voices and names. So we don’t really have the right to act surprised when they vote in a way designed to tell us – as the woman standing in her damp flat, carrying bags of economy-brand food from Iceland, told me – to “fuck off.”




Comments
101 Comments
I vote BNP as I love Britain its been good to me and I think the people are good and kind I am none white as are my children .I hate what is happening to our land Ive met and respect the BNP .I Beleive my children will be safer under a true government that intends well for this land The others are rancid with corruption.Its not safe to walk the streets any more
Posted by terence | 11.05.08, 16:05 GMT
Wahey. Laying off the Boris-bashing results in a good article for once. Well done. Though to be fair a lot of the left in the past week have not been so decent, effectively libelling Boris's victory as just white trash 2nd prefs from the BNP.
Agree with the principal points, also include a decent education system, with the introduction of 'technical' schools so that those working-class kids not of an academic bent can learn a trade.
Posted by Parasite | 11.05.08, 09:39 GMT
Interesting article but a few facts need to be added.
First- fascist parties have historically been supported by big business, the middle classes and the petit bourgeois - shopkeepers, self employed, managers etc.
Historically, the working classes had organised socialist and social democratic parties to speak for them.
What worries me is this link was broken in the UK by Blair by following Thatcherite economic policies.
Brown has tried to re-establish this link (minimum wage, new schools, hospitals, tax credits, more housing association builds) as both Chancellor and PM, but is trapped by opinion polls and the media into addressing middle England. He needs to speak loud and clear about his record for the ordinary working classes. And the media should let him if they want to prevent the rise of fascism, whether openly as the BNP or covertly under the Tories and Cameron.
Posted by ian soffe | 07.05.08, 16:09 GMT
Absolutely FANTASTIC. Thanks.
Perhaps this is GB's calling card?
I think turning the declining wages of the working classes into just that--a working class issue rather than an immigrant issue--is one of the most pressing political challenges facing the Left today.
Posted by Anarchicjunglist | 07.05.08, 12:36 GMT
"Instead, we must advocate a simple non-sectarian answer: a higher minimum wage."
Right there you lost me. Raising the minimum wage is never a simple issue, to say the least. What raising the minimum wage does is that it forces employers to cut off anyone they cannot afford to pay the new standard.
If for example, an employer can only afford to pay £5.73 an hour, but the new minimum wage is more, then either the employer will have to fire that employee, or find some other way to make ends meet. If this trend continues nationwide, the unemployment rate will rise, as well as the various other negative economic circumstances that the initial piece of legislation created. If you do not believe me, take a look at the unemployment rate of France and Sweden.
Another effect created by all this is that the prices of goods would likely rise, due to the reduction of affordable cheap labor. Employers will have their costs raised. Many would try to make ends meet one way or the other. Illegal immigration and under the table payments would likely increase, because the employers have even fewer options with the increased burden imposed upon by government.
Posted by Mr. Schipul | 07.05.08, 06:18 GMT
To J J Lillis -
Nice rant. Unfortunately it is nigh on impossible to take you seriously when you berate the "working class" (leading me to assume you consider yourself something loftier) and yet cannot even differentiate between your and you're and there and their.
Get your own life in order before criticising others. Idiot.
To the article -
I can only comment that social housing is almost non-existent in New Zealand, and while we do have some historical racial tensions, there is generally a far better level of integration between cultures. I honestly don't see how more council homes will remove the bitterness. The equitable minimum wage and less segregation in education may well help. Sadly, I don't have much faith in UK society clawing itself back from the mess it is in currently.
Posted by Rob NZ | 07.05.08, 03:37 GMT
I don't want to get in to slanging match, if you read this link it hardly paints the party in a good light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party
Posted by Jimmy B | 06.05.08, 21:11 GMT
The "white working class" did not vote BNP because they are not being heard properly. They voted BNP because they are racist. I can say this because I am a white, working class man, yet I manage to get through live without voting for the extreme right. these peopel should not be listening to, they shouldn't be ignored either. What they should be is educated.
Posted by Barry S | 06.05.08, 21:02 GMT
In reply to Jimmy B.
I'm shocked your post has not yet been deleted as it makes 'The Independent' guilty of libel as well as yourself. Not only is 'The Independent' breaking the law by not removing your they are showing themselves to be immoral too. The BNP does not support/encourage/condone bomb-making, nor does it 'deny the Holocaust', nor am I an idiot, nor am I full of hate whereas the contrary could well be the case - I think you should seek medical help before you get yourself into trouble and stop posting comments on websites as it is clearly not bringing out the rational in you.
Posted by Peter | 06.05.08, 20:04 GMT
lets face it, how many of us have ever taken the time to look at the BNP ourselves and form our own opinions on them? most people have heard of them in the press, or hear someone call them racist, and therefore decide not to like them. you cannot let someone else do your thinking for you, and too many people do these days. this jumping on the bandwagon, and the trend of the anti-BNP press to use words like nazi and facist without often understanding the meanings of these terms, make the BNP seem under attack, which only serves to win them more support. they are a legitimate party, who participate in our democracy, and so they should not be simply dismissed because you may disagree with them. to listen to what they say is not to agree with it. to allow them a platform along with other parties, which is their right, is not to agree with everything they say. in a democracy we should not pick and choose which parties should be excluded, and shamefully the bigger parties are doing just that
Posted by BedfordBoy | 06.05.08, 19:17 GMT
101 Comments