Ten reasons why the BNP isn't "left-wing"

Norman Tebbit describes the BNP as "left-wing". I beg to differ

I gave Norman Tebbit a warm welcome to the blogosphere earlier this week, but I'm dismayed to see that he's joined those who absurdly seek to redefine the BNP as "left-wing". I'm inclined to argue that to label the BNP as either left-wing or right-wing is to lend the party's "policies" a degree of ideological coherence they don't deserve. But even so, the increasingly popular argument that the BNP is left-wing deserves to be resisted, and here are ten good reasons why.

1. The BNP's political doctrine is based on theories of racial supremacy and hierarchy. Those on the right may have the ghost of a point when they explore the economic similarities between Stalinism and state fascism, but no far-left party has ever endorsed white supremacism.

2. The party may support widespread nationalisation but it's the end not the means that counts. The left supports nationalisation in the belief that it will further economic equality. The far right supports nationalisation in the belief that it will further the power of "the nation".

3. It has pledged to raise the inheritance-tax threshold to £1m (was this before or after the Tories?). Not much sign of left-wing egalitarianism there.

4. Unlike the "far-left" CND (to borrow the right's own definition), the party supports Britain's continued possession of nuclear weapons.

5. It opposes "left-wing" comprehensive education and would reintroduce academic selection at 11.

6. The party supports immediate withdrawal from the EU. Is this necessarily right-wing? Several far-left groups such as No2EU also support withdrawal. But those on the right who describe the BNP as "left-wing" are the very same people who portray the EU as an inherently left-wing institution. They can't have it both ways.

7. Like its fascist predecessors, the BNP is opposed to free trade unions.

8. The BNP opposes civil partnerships, supports the reintroduction of Section 28 and maintains a section on its website called "Liars, buggers and thieves". Even the most misguided conservative has never described homophobia as "left-wing".

9. It has pledged to repeal the Human Rights Act. For good or ill, the mainstream right has largely chosen to define human rights as a cause of the liberal left. It's therefore rather contradictory to describe a party that doesn't believe in them as "left-wing".

10. Appearing on Question Time, Nick Griffin declared the BBC to be part of a "thoroughly unpleasant ultra-leftist establishment". As my colleague Mehdi Hasan has argued, genuine lefties know that the BBC is predominantly right-wing.


Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

For the first time in my life I have a sworn enemy – and I don’t even know her name

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

Last month, I made an enemy. I do not say this lightly, and I certainly don’t say it with pride, as a more aggressive male might. Throughout my life I have avoided confrontation with a scrupulousness that an unkind observer would call out-and-out cowardice. A waiter could bring the wrong order, cold and crawling with maggots, and in response to “How is everything?” I’d still manage a grin and a “lovely, thanks”.

On the Underground, I’m so wary of being a bad citizen that I often give up my seat to people who aren’t pregnant, aren’t significantly older than me, and in some cases are far better equipped to stand than I am. If there’s one thing I am not, it’s any sort of provocateur. And yet now this: a feud.

And I don’t even know my enemy’s name.

She was on a bike when I accidentally entered her life. I was pushing a buggy and I wandered – rashly, in her view – into her path. There’s little doubt that I was to blame: walking on the road while in charge of a minor is not something encouraged by the Highway Code. In my defence, it was a quiet, suburban street; the cyclist was the only vehicle of any kind; and I was half a street’s length away from physically colliding with her. It was the misjudgment of a sleep-deprived parent rather than an act of malice.

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

I was stung by what someone on The Apprentice might refer to as her negative feedback, and walked on with a redoubled sense of the parental inadequacy that is my default state even at the best of times.

A sad little incident, but a one-off, you would think. Only a week later, though, I was walking in a different part of town, this time without the toddler and engrossed in my phone. Again, I accept my culpability in crossing the road without paying due attention; again, I have to point out that it was only a “close shave” in the sense that meteorites are sometimes reported to have “narrowly missed crashing into the Earth” by 50,000 miles. It might have merited, at worst, a reproving ting of the bell. Instead came a familiar voice. “IT’S YOU AGAIN!” she yelled, wrathfully.

This time the shock brought a retort out of me, probably the harshest thing I have ever shouted at a stranger: “WHY ARE YOU SO UNPLEASANT?”

None of this is X-rated stuff, but it adds up to what I can only call a vendetta – something I never expected to pick up on the way to Waitrose. So I am writing this, as much as anything, in the spirit of rapprochement. I really believe that our third meeting, whenever it comes, can be a much happier affair. People can change. Who knows: maybe I’ll even be walking on the pavement

Mark Watson is a stand-up comedian and novelist. His most recent book, Crap at the Environment, follows his own efforts to halve his carbon footprint over one year.

This article first appeared in the 20 October 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brothers in blood