Show Hide image

All white on the right

Jon Cruddas reviews Daniel Trilling's book on Nick Griffin and the BNP, Bloody Nasty People.

Bloody Nasty People: the Rise of Britain’s Far Right
Daniel Trilling
Verso, 240pp, £14.99

Why bother with the BNP? It’s heading into oblivion through factionalism, financial disintegration and assorted membership problems. Sure, the EDL (English Defence League) has its militia-style street politics but why write a new text on the growth of the far right? Isn’t it in free fall? Maybe the New Statesman’s Daniel Trilling should have not bothered and just kept busy at the day job.

In the warm afterglow of Olympic triumph, we’ve been pretty busy congratulating ourselves on the nature of modern Britain. Team GB’s successful multiculturalism defines a positive national story, in strict contrast to one anchored in loss, anomie and far-right extremism. That is all to the good. Why, then, a new history of the BNP and assorted far-right crews?

There is a central pivot to this book that alone is worth the asking price. Hit the rewind button and think of another Olympic year – the late summer and early autumn of 2000, following the Sydney Games – and one of the great missed opportunities of the last government. Twelve years before the London Games of Danny Boyle, Jessica Ennis and Mo Farah, there was an opportunity to forge a new, confident national story. Trilling’s book hinges on this often forgotten moment and the damage that political indecision inflicted on the character of the country.

In 2000, the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain signalled that Britain faced a fork in the road. Would the country push forward and define itself as a “community of communities . . . at ease with its place in the world and with its own internal differences” or would it squander this opportunity and accept emerging resentments? Fearful that this opportunity might be missed as a result of the toxic climate around race and asylum, the commission implored the then Labour government to make a formal declaration that Britain was a multicultural, multi-faith society.

Following leaks in the Daily Telegraph, the government swerved around the question of modern national identity and triangulated instead between the nationalist right and the liberal left. What followed over the next decade were successive attempts at a much vaguer, defensive notion of Britishness. In short, the Labour government lost a decade in this debate, much to the dismay of Bhikhu Parekh, the commission’s chairman. Trilling’s book joins the dots and works through the fallout.

In August 2000, Nick Griffin’s leadership of the BNP was in crisis: the Conservatives under William Hague were making the running on asylum and immigration. Yet within a year of Labour’s body swerve on the commission’s report, the BNP was on the move and a decadelong battle was taking shape.

By the spring and summer of 2001, communities off the radar of the middle-England focused political calculus – Bradford, Oldham and Burnley – were rioting. Griffin learned from Bruno Mégret, the principal strategist of the French Front National, that the party founded by John Tyndall had to forge a new identity politics; that the old left/right fault line was withering away and the real conflicts were “between nationalism and cosmopolitanism, between identity and internationalism”. The attacks of 11 September 2001 soon followed and the climate of fear and suspicion intensified, playing into the hands of the BNP and its new emphasis on “freedom, security, democracy and identity”.

Bloody Nasty People walks us through the various sites of contest across England. It offers sharp portraits while also keeping an eye on the increasingly harsh tone of political language driven by fear, polling and press dynamics. However, the book is by no means all one-way traffic. While all the political parties are criticized for pandering – for example, at different times, each of them deployed ruthless “sons and daughters” populism on housing issues – light is also shone on successful mobilization and forms of political resistance (though this is a long and painful war of position that has left plenty of wreckage by the roadside).

One might take issue with some of Trilling’s conclusions or with the slightly reductive class component to his analysis, and more discussion of the various strategies, as well as the tensions, inside the anti-fascist movement would have been desirable. But these are second-order points. This is a cracking book that respectfully weaves together testimonies and stories – of people and places – with national political formations, examining them alongside the deeper economic and cultural questions posed by globalisation. Especially strong is the analysis of the cross-currents at play in the 1993 Isle of Dogs council by-election victory of Derek Beackon.

Despite our post-Olympic glow, Trilling’s book is a useful reminder of our Balkanised political landscape. It places him alongside other young, left-wing writers such as Owen Jones in the front line of political and cultural debate, to which I don’t see a downside. I just keep thinking back to 2000 – to the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain and what might have been.

Jon Cruddas is MP (Labour) for Dagenham and Rainham.

Jon Cruddas is Labour's policy review coordinator and MP for Dagenham

This article first appeared in the 17 September 2012 issue of the New Statesman, Who comes next?

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

No, IDS, welfare isn't a path to wealth. Quite the opposite, in fact

Far from being a lifestyle choice, welfare is all too often a struggle for survival.

Iain Duncan Smith really is the gift that keeps on giving. You get one bile-filled giftbag of small-minded, hypocritical nastiness and, just when you think it has no more pain to inflict, off comes another ghastly layer of wrapping paper and out oozes some more. He is a game of Pass the Parcel for people who hate humanity.
For reasons beyond current understanding, the Conservative party not only let him have his own department but set him loose on a stage at their conference, despite the fact that there was both a microphone and an audience and that people might hear and report on what he was going to say. It’s almost like they don’t care that the man in charge of the benefits system displays a fundamental - and, dare I say, deliberate - misunderstanding of what that system is for.
IDS took to the stage to tell the disabled people of Britain - or as he likes to think of us, the not “normal” people of Britain -  “We won’t lift you out of poverty by simply transferring taxpayers’ money to you. With our help, you’ll work your way out of poverty.” It really is fascinating that he was allowed to make such an important speech on Opposite Day.
Iain Duncan Smith is a man possessed by the concept of work. That’s why he put in so many hours and Universal Credit was such a roaring success. Work, when available and suitable and accessible, is a wonderful thing, but for those unable to access it, the welfare system is a crucial safety net that keeps them from becoming totally impoverished.
Benefits absolutely should be the route out of poverty. They are the essential buffer between people and penury. Iain Duncan Smith speaks as though there is a weekly rollover on them, building and building until claimants can skip into the kind of mansion he lives in. They are not that. They are a small stipend to keep body and soul together.
Benefits shouldn’t be a route to wealth and DWP cuts have ensured that, but the notion that we should leave people in poverty astounds me. The people who rely on benefits don’t see it as a quick buck, an easy income. We cannot be the kind of society who is content to leave people destitute because they are unable to work, through long-term illness or short-term job-seeking. Without benefits, people are literally starving. People don’t go to food banks because Waitrose are out of asparagus. They go because the government has snipped away at their benefits until they have become too poor to feed themselves.
The utter hypocrisy of telling disabled people to work themselves out of poverty while cutting Access to Work is so audacious as to be almost impressive. IDS suggests that suitable jobs for disabled workers are constantly popping out of the ground like daisies, despite the fact that his own government closed 36 Remploy factories. If he wants people to work their way out of poverty, he has make it very easy to find that work.
His speech was riddled with odious little snippets digging at those who rely on his department. No one is “simply transferring taxpayers’ money” to claimants, as though every Friday he sits down with his card reader to do some online banking, sneaking into people’s accounts and spiriting their cash away to the scrounging masses. Anyone who has come within ten feet of claiming benefits knows it is far from a simple process.
He is incredulous that if a doctor says you are too sick to work, you get signed off work, as though doctors are untrained apes that somehow gained access to a pen. This is only the latest absurd episode in DWP’s ongoing deep mistrust of the medical profession, whose knowledge of their own patients is often ignored in favour of a brief assessment by an outside agency. IDS implies it is yes-no question that GPs ask; you’re either well enough to work or signed off indefinitely to leech from the state. This is simply not true. GPs can recommend their patients for differing approaches for remaining in work, be it a phased return or adapted circumstances and they do tend to have the advantage over the DWP’s agency of having actually met their patient before.
I have read enough stories of the callous ineptitude of sanctions and cuts starving the people we are meant to be protecting. A robust welfare system is the sign of a society that cares for those in need. We need to provide accessible, suitable jobs for those who can work and accessible, suitable benefits for those who can’t. That truly would be a gift that keeps giving.