In the light of the BNP getting their first councillor outside of London in the south east of England, maybe we should look at who is voting for the BNP and why. First of all, let's have a look at the results in Swanley:-
Sevenoaks District - Swanley St Mary's: BNP 408, Lab 332, C 247.
(May 2007 - Two seats Lab 462, 420, C 208, 197, Ukip 165). BNP gain from Lab. Swing 10.5 per cent Lab to C.
Turnout for the election was 31.3 per cent.
As far as I can see the most important figure was the turnout. It seems rather likely that the Labour vote stayed at home. I trust that the 54 Labour voters who voted last time but didn't bother this time are reflecting on their decision. It would seem to be a fair assumption that the UKIP vote shifted to the BNP.
I'd not heard of Swanley before this story broke, so I've no idea if there was a local reason for the vote, but in my experience the BNP vote can be classified as follows
A) Hardened BNP activists
B) Right leaning voters who don't like immigrants/foreigners - would vote Tory/UKIP
C) Disaffected working class voters - previously voted Labour
D) Local issue voters - Vote BNP because they've cottoned on to some local issue & exploited it - often don't normally vote
Now as a Labour supporter, my view of how the Labour Party should address these issues are as follows
Hardened BNP activists. These are never going to vote Labour. It should be a priority to ensure that where these people are active, they are challenged. I would never advocate a violent response, opposition should be by force of argument. If they are canvassing, then the labour Party should make it a priority to counter this by ensuring Labour supporters are also canvassing locally and people taking BNP leaflets should be engaged in conversation about why they shouldn't vote BNP, not in a patronising or hectoring manner - just on the basis that the BNP have policies which could destroy the prosperity of the UK. I'd suggest that it should be pointed out that the NHS and the transport system in London would collapse if immigrants were deported. If all migrant workers were deported and every job was filled by those out of work (assuming they had the skills/training which is unlikely) there would be a million jobs not getting done.
Right leaning voters. Again these are unlikely to vote Labour. If nothing else we should point out to these voters the downside to BNP policies which would result in economic collapse. Labour has been extremely bad at pointing out the benefits, economically and socially of immigration and immigrants.
Disaffected Labour Voters. For these voters, the Labour party should be explaining it's successes. Improvements in the NHS, increased prosperity since 1997, new & better schools. These are tangible things which people understand.
Local issues. It is vital that Labour gets out of it's ivory towers and out on the street. If people are complaining about local issues, then Labour should address these. This doesn't mean bending over to the right, it means ensuring that groups aren't left behind or ignored.
Statements like "British Jobs for British Workers" are petrol on the BNP fire. Labour should have a "fairness and justice" agenda. People want jobs and security. Where these are perceived as being neglected, the BNP will thrive.
The most important thing that Labour should be doing is ensuring that the vote turns up. If all the Labour voters who voted in 2007 had turned out in Swanley, the BNP would have lost. This must be the lesson.
It's depressing news, but I'm not surprised. I have asked a friend who comes from Swanley for his insights - I'll let you know what he says if he gets back to me.
ReplyDeleteI am from Kent - my mum lives in Rochester and my dad near Maidstone. I think your analysis is good of why it is happening.
It doesn't help that Gordon Brown started off the 'British jobs for British workers' slogan and the right (and suicidally misguided trade unionists) can now throw it back in his face.
I would be much harder on Labour than you. They have been willing to let employers exploit cheaper, 'foreign' labour (actually, it doesn't matter where it comes from, so long as it's cheaper - it could come from 'up north', for employers in the south east). They have not protected the working class against exploitation - they have served them up to the employers on a plate. What happens, now that the 'party's' over and jobs are shed? We are seeing what happens.
As you say, they have not challenged enough the anti-immigrant statements that the press come out with.
But then I think the Labour Party itself cannot decide what it thinks about immigration. See, for example, Phil Woolas, immigration minister http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4965568.ece
His comment about not letting the population go above 70 million says a lot. There's a mistaken idea that more people means less wealth... but people CREATE wealth, if the capital is made available to create jobs and is not retained in the hands of a few... (dyed-in-the-wool Marxist speaks).
I do think it is possible to redistribute wealth and power so that everyone can have a decent job, decent home, decent schools for their children, etc.
But I think the working class has to think harder about what it wants. For example...
'British Jobs for British Workers' is a slogan that DIVIDES people who could be supporting each other. White construction workers raising that slogan are cutting themselves off from the many working class people who fear the BNP, and don't identify as British before all else. It makes it easier for the ruling class - sorry, I do believe in that concept and have to use the term! - to divide and rule - why else do anti-union papers like the Daily Star offer support to trade union 'leader' Derek Simpson for his nationalist slogans?
I don't think Labour's achievements for working class people have been ENOUGH to crow about, either. A lot of the new building, eg, hospitals, is PFI which the public has to pay through the nose for. Jobs created have been low-wage (minimum wage, yes, but low-wage), insecure jobs, vulnerable in economic downturns, as we are seeing. Everything that has been done 'for' the working class, has been accompanied with moralising lectures that set up a paradigm of a 'decent' working-class family that pays its taxes, and keeps its errant children out of mischief in return for any crappy job that comes its way. It's a quite authoritarian stance.
And as for democracy! Pah! Labour Party democracy has gone out of the window - all the mechanisms for local parties and grassroots trade unionists to have an input into policy making or keep tabs on their representatives have been removed, expunged. That's why Labour can't campaign on the ground - they have no activist base anymore.
The work I do with the trades council will, I hope, allow 'us' to take up and campaign on the social/political issues that are making Labour Party voters apathetic or, even worse, vote BNP. I hope we can campaign around them and give answers that are an alternative to the BNP. I do feel we are in a race against time, even in leafy Barnet.
If anyone agrees somewhat with these sentiments, please attend and let people know about a meeting we are having on 4 March, 7-9pm, at Barnet Multicultural Community Centre, around these sorts of issues. Sorry, Roger, for putting in a plug here, but it would be perverse not to!
Vicki, No problem plugging your meeting here. As things are difficult, it is to be expected that the BNP will see a spike in support.
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is that we need people doing what you do.
My Swanley friend's initial thoughts on the BNP's Swanley councillor win are:
ReplyDelete"It's surprising that Swanley has elected a BNP councillor but I suspect it's more because of a massive lack of political engagement with residents. I didn't know the local elections were taking place and suspect many others didn't - I know none of my family voted. I would bet that the victory has been because of intense canvassing by the BNP, but I'll investigate this and get back to you."