Mainstream has a duty to vote against BNP
Posted on 1 June 2009 | 11:06am
After posting my blog on the BNP and Diversity yesterday (apologies to Diversity for having them in the same sentence as the BNP) I went for a long bike ride, with the wind behind me all the way back from Chipping Barnet, read a bit, wrote a bit, watched a bit of the French Open before checking on responses to the blog.
The avalanche on Facebook suggested that if only people are exposed to the reality of what the BNP say and stand for, they can be provoked into action.
It was not all one way. Whilst most took the opportunity simply to add their own forms of condemnation, or historical context, there were a few ‘I’m not racist but…’ contributions in there, a few blaming Labour’s record on helping working people (which I can defend against any government record you like to name) and some saying we should not be taking them seriously, all of which provoked fresh debate through the day.
Watch out in the next 24 hours for a letter whose signatories are headed by Gordon Brown, and include sports stars, actors and trade union leaders, urging people to ‘vote for a Great Britain’ in the European elections on Thursday.
The letter celebrates our tolerance and diversity and draws attention to some of the views of racial-hatred-inciting, Holocaust-denying BNP leader Nick Griffin, a man it describes as ‘not only racist but fascist.’ It was obvious to me from some of the comments yesterday that Griffin’s strategy of concealing his extremism has had some effect, helped of course by MPs’ expenses which have created a sense of a political elite divorced from the mainstream majority.
I would argue that it is extremism and fascism that is divorced from the mainstream, and which the mainstream has to defeat, by voting against the BNP on Thursday.
** I can’t let the morning go by without pointing out that had a Labour Cabinet minister been responsible for the expenses claims of David Cameron, both wisteria clearance and second home allowance, we would have heard an awful lot more of it.
In an explanation so convoluted I don’t have the time or the will to put it up here in full, Dave insists he has done nothing wrong, that the taxpayer has had value for money and if his party’s scrutiny committee thinks he should pay it back he will. That would be the three-man scrutiny committee with his chief whip and his chief of staff on it. Some ‘new politics’ eh?