After the British National Party had gained election to the London Assembly in 2008 and then subsequently gained two representatives, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, in the European Parliament in 2009, the party was on a high with its largest ever membership at around 14,000 and morale at stratospheric levels.
Who could have foreseen that just 2 years later, the party would have been reduced to a half of what it had been with the effective damage even more disastrous having lost roughly 80% of its activists and 90% of its councillors in the most comprehensive wreckage ever to befall nationalism and all completely self inflicted with just one man primarily responsible – its leader, Nicholas John Griffin.
Other commentators have noted that given the external circumstances and the mass the party had gained that the results the party should have been getting just prior to the European Elections weren’t being realised and that when the European election came along instead of winning handsomely, the party merely limped over the finishing line. There is a lot of truth to this observation and the primary reason is that while the party had become increasingly professional in its outlook and campaigning the media, which has always held nationalism back, was doing it again and the party had not responded adequately.
Inadequate managerial oversight of performance is also partly to blame since had there been sufficient oversight, this failure to ‘fly’ would have been spotted in a timely fashion, but there was no such system in place. What was needed at this time was a thorough appreciation of the reasons for the party’s lack of traction through sampling. At around this time, there was indeed a brief experiment with polling, but it was not developed. In hindsight, the party would have been well served with a re-launch at around this time. The party was still polling well, was topical and such a re-launch would have connected with the people.
Having the benefit of seeing nationalism and the media work at first hand for 34 years on the front line of nationalist activity, it is my view that the broad mass of liberal left opinion will attack nationalism regardless of whatever PR measures and substantive policy measures that the party (any party, it must be stressed!) may adopt to distance itself from outmoded extremism and any embarrassing vestiges from its past.
Having said that, the media is fond of attacking other parties too and from time to time, the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour have all suffered from media scrutiny. Nevertheless, as experience bears out, the media will always go harder against nationalists than against system politicians.
Accordingly, therefore, however good a leader is that leader will, over time, accumulate such a baggage of bad feeling courtesy of the press that for the good of the party that leader will need to step down for someone without that heavy weight of opprobrium to more fully realise the party’s potential.
Looking back at the BNP and its predecessor organisation, we find only two Chairmen in its entire history from 1982 to the present day. John Tyndall was its first Chairman from 1982 to 1999 and Nick Griffin from then until now, some 17 and 12 years respectively and, in Nick’s case, he is assured of another four years taking his tally up to 16 years.
First Chairman of the BNP - John Tyndall
Both men had their good points. Tyndall ensured a stable party that grew slowly to the point where, chiefly because its main rival - the National Front - disintegrated, the BNP became the predominant nationalist party in Britain. Griffin presided over the growing professionalism of the party and a more moderate appeal which led to rising votes, elected office and a growing organisation.
Unfortunately both men shared two characteristics. Firstly, they both believed that the only they could run the party and sought to extend their tenure in power and this is a tendency common among those that have been in power too long. Secondly, while having their positive aspects and being their party’s best asset, they also acted as the party’s biggest handicap. In Tyndall’s case this was his PR failings and also his distinct lack of managerial flair and political nous. In Griffin’s case, it was also his PR failings and, in the end, the evidence of the truism that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Internal Democracy
Chiefly because of the disaster over the last year or so of Griffin’s damaging wrecking of the party alongside the strengthening of the powers of the party Chairman, there has been an understandable reaction against the whole idea of a strong Chairman and a leaning towards a more democratic internal party structure. While understandable, this is a dangerous tendency as the most democratic internal structure of any nationalist party (for example, the National Front in the 1970s & 1980s suffered an average of one split every 2 or 3 years. Since there are so few people around now who experienced that time, it is natural that those without first hand knowledge will be unaware of the dangers.
Nick Griffin helped rise and fall of the BNP
The problem the party has had over the last ten years or so is that since it began to improve its organisation and began to become more professional and present, for the first time, an electable face and organisation it has come under increasing external assault. From dirty tricks operatives like Searchlight and the BBC with leftist agent Andy Sykes taking over the running of Bradford BNP from 2004 – 2006 and thereby neutralising it for a while to the concerted effort to get both Nick Griffin and Mark Collett gaoled for speaking at party meetings in 2005 and 2006. Then latterly, the assault from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in 2009 – 2010. Under this onslaught, it is not surprising that the party stood shoulder to shoulder to see off these threats. At the same time, however, this led to the membership giving the Chairman way too much freedom and power.
My view is that a democratic structure of the type that the NF possessed in the 1970s and 1980s would already have led to internal schism given these external threats because some party movers and shakers will always hold the view that the Chairman isn’t doing enough to deal with the threat of the day. Until Nick Griffin totally hijacked the Constitution to make himself 'Leader for Life', the Constitution was changing gradually and would have benefited greatly from having adopted Arthur Kemp’s proposals which were accepted at the party’s Annual Conference in December 2010. It was a careful blend of central authority, separation of powers and democratic control, which would have satisfied bottom up views reaching the top with the power to do the job at the top being preserved. My only modification to Arthur’s suggestions would have been to retain a yearly Leadership challenge and limit the Chairman to, perhaps, a five years continuous stretch following which he couldn’t return to the post of Chairman for two years. The phenomenon of yearly leadership challenges only became bothersome when Nick Griffin was manifestly failing and some members sought to highlight such failings by standing for election. Even so, a yearly leadership challenge is surely a worthwhile handicap for a party to burnish its democratic credentials.
Nationalists need to learn the winning lesson of standing aside
When one looks at political parties facing an image problem, aside from the BNP, one can immediately think of Labour under Neil Kinnock. For all his detractors, Kinnock removed the more overt and loony Trots from the party and made it basically electable again at least in terms of its organisational structure. Unfortunately for him, his public persona had been so besmirched that he, and therefore Labour, had been rendered unelectable. Kinnock did for Labour what Griffin has not been able to do for the BNP and stood aside allowing another to benefit from his good work.
It is a salutary lesson that while Kinnock may be a political reptile, as a man he was able to see his PR limitations and put his Cause before self, showing more honour and dedication to Cause than our own Nick Griffin.
Neil Kinnock, former Labour leader knew when his time was up
The reason I touch upon this is because it is my view that whoever shoulders the burden of leading our Cause will, over time, accumulate such baggage and a negative PR reputation that they will, at some stage, have to stand aside for another for exactly this reason and this will have to be understood by everyone in the party and anyone taking on the role of Chairman.
The BNP’s Leadership Contest
As we all know, Griffin’s disgraceful manipulation of the Constitution and squalid dirty tricks put paid to Eddy Butler’s leadership bid last year in 2010. So much so that it looked as if another leadership bid was out of the question. As we all know, Richard Edmonds announced his intention to stand against Griffin and Griffin, who knew that he would easily best Edmonds, altered the Constitution again to make such a challenge a possibility. Then, once the changes were announced Andrew Brons, MEP, announced his candidature and Richard bowed out.
Again, there can be no doubt that Nick Griffin would have won this contest fairly comfortably owing to his control of all party communication channels, but for the intervention of Jim Dowson, the party’s previous fund raiser. Dowson financed a glossy booklet that was mailed to every single party member able to vote. For those who could remember Griffin’s unseating of Tyndall in 1999, it was eerily reminiscent.
In the end, Brons came within just nine votes of taking the party off Griffin. The salient point of the election was that it became apparent that Brons had won the broad mass of the activist base.
The Constitutional shenanigans that allowed this election to go ahead also gave the winner – Nick Griffin – a 4 year period of unchallengeable leadership, after which there will be no one left to challenge him further. Sadly, the BNP has become a cult surrounding the personality of Nick Griffin. In these circumstances and having lost most of the party’s more able talent, Griffin has to make do with what he has left.
I do not believe it is constructive to attack those party members immediately surrounding Nick Griffin now because most of them are honestly doing their best to fulfil the brief given to them by the Party Chairman. It may be true that some of them are having difficulty fulfilling their roles perfectly, but that is wholly down to Nick Griffin. He is ultimately responsible for the conditions they are having to work in and he is also the man who makes the appointments.
The ‘winners’ Pyrrhic Victory Conference
Not long after the BNP leadership contest, both Griffin’s BNP and Andrew Brons’ BNP Ideas group held separate meetings. The BNP’s 2011 Annual Conference was a disastrous flop and attracted less than 100 people and that included paid functionaries and family members. Brons’ BNP Ideas Annual Conference meeting saw 170 people present, nearly all activists and former Organisers. And it is the fact that although Griffin ‘won’ the BNP leadership contest, he has done so with perhaps just 10% – 20% or so of the existing activist base, never mind of those who have dropped out over the last year that gives the clue as to why he has not moved to discipline Andrew Brons. The fact is that if Brons goes a lot of people will follow him, although not all the people who voted for him would do so.
Andrew Brons
Andrew Brons’ intentions are hard to follow. At the end of 2010, he ruled himself out of standing for the party leadership – a fact that no doubt encouraged Griffin to change the rules to make it easier for Richard Edmond’s much heralded attempt.
Just months later, Brons was a candidate!
Brons clearly realises the dangers of launching a split – the vast majority end in failure and that brings me to the meat of the BNP Ideas Conference. People attending the BNP Ideas meeting were going with the full expectation that a new party was going to be announced and formed. Indeed, a new party name (British Democratic Party) has already been registered with the Electoral Commission and is being kept ‘warm’ by former Freedom Party leader Adrian Davies. However, in contrast with a number of others who have grown restless and wanting to be ‘doing something’, Brons has (so far) resisted the idea of striking out with a new party.
Andrew Brons - can he gather popular support in 2012?
In doing so, he has recognised that any new party could well face eclipse by the BNP. This was the fate of the National Party in 1976-1977 at the hands of the National Front. The NF policy at the time was to stand candidates wherever the NP stood to take enough votes to stop the NP progressing. As a result, the National Party which contained the brightest and best of the NF folded despite winning a couple of council seats in Blackburn. The seats were subsequently lost when the NF deliberately stood against them which left the NF to outdistance the NP by virtue of its bigger base recruiting proportionately more new members and the NP members becoming disillusioned and dropping out. Much the same thing happened to the Front National in 1998 – 1999 when the talented Bruno Megrét struck out independently of the FN with many of the talented and bright young things of the FN into a new party called the Mouvement National Républicain (MNR) who saw that Jean Marie Le Pen had been its leader for perhaps a little too long. This included former FN MEP Carl Lang, who has since become the leader of his own party and plans his own bid at the French Presidency next year against the FN's new leader, Marine Le Pen. Somewhat surprisingly, the MNR is still going, but it failed to surpass theFN even with many of the FN’s Organisers behind it. Reasons for this included established voting patterns (people had become used to voting FN) and the broad mass of the membership (the ‘armchairs’) stayed with the main party.
A similar situation could well arise in Britain in any split unless Griffin becomes indisposed. Griffin faces a number of different investigations, including one very serious police investigation that will undoubtedly result in his imprisonment if it goes to trial and he is found guilty. In addition, there are also various large scale money problems with people pursuing Griffin through the courts for monies owed – and all against a backdrop of a falling membership and plummeting donations.
Moreover, there is a serious possibility that if Griffin isn’t hauled into court and gaoled, he could very well be declared bankrupt instead, although he would still remain ‘leader’.
It needs to be understood that there is no requirement for Griffin to be solvent and party leader. For those who might argue that such a humiliation would surely result in his resignation, they have not studied Griffin’s past form. Over the past two years, he has been caught out in the most disgraceful behaviour that would have resulted in an honourable man resigning four or five times over. But that’s the point, for Nick Griffin has no shame and he has no honour. And while it can be argued that such a humiliation would weaken Griffin’s position, the fact is that all that would happen, as can be attested to over the past year or so, is that while Griffin would undoubtedly carry on without a care, it would be the members who would become so disgusted that they could bear it no longer and leave.
The Calculation
These possibilities have no doubt weighed heavily on Andrew Brons’ mind as he urged the BNP Ideas Conference attendees to stick with the BNP. However, while there are signs that Griffin is being made to pay up, however slowly, there is little likelihood that the rozzers will be feeling Griffin’s collar until at least the next Euro election. There seems little appetite for the State to come speedily to grips with the multitude of sins that Mr Griffin is accused of. One of the reasons the State is in a ‘go slow’ mode is because it suits the government to have the BNP continue to implode.
No rush for the State to start criminal proceedings against Griffin
If readers think I exaggerate political interference in the judicial process, I would remind readers of the government reaction from the first free speech trial of Griffin and Collet in 2006 where it was declared within half an hour of the end of the first trial that there would be definitely be a retrial (at which the pair were acquitted). This is something that the CPS normally takes days or even weeks to decide. Clearly, that was a political decision. I see no reason why the same cannot be happening now.
On the other hand, simply waiting is not much of an option for Andrew Brons either. Disillusioned nationalists are walking away in considerable numbers. If Brons wishes to take a part in saving nationalism from the ruin that Nick Griffin has inflicted upon it, then he must act sooner rather than later.
For those who might think that the BNP is finished, I would suggest this question needs looking at on more than one level. All those who have pronounced the BNP dead are wrong. Furthermore, those dismayed by the BNP’s collapse need to keep watching because the party has not touched bottom yet!
The BNP still has a membership base of at least 6 or 7 thousand, most of whom are relatively new members and so have no idea of the scale of betrayal that Nick Griffin has perpetrated. This is still a considerable and worthwhile prize to fight over, although perhaps for not much longer.
I saw a few friends before Christmas and over general chin wagging, one old fighter said that he thought that Brons may make his move in a new party some time in the New Year.
Assuming he does, the questions are as follows: a) Will he have enough new members to make a new party a going concern? b) What will be the likely drop out rate for the BNP and thus the funds available to it to hinder the new party’s progress? c) Depending upon the join up pattern, what will be the main areas of strength for any new party?
To take the second question first, it is expected that the drop out rate this year (2011) to the next will be horrific, possibly leaving the BNP with just 2,000 – 3,000 members (down more than 10,000 from just 2 years ago). The party will also have to contest the London GLA elections in 2012 without a hope of winning a seat as it did last time and possibly without even saving its deposit. It is bound to throw some money at this even if the real goal, as opposed to the stated one, is to simply save the Mayoral deposit of £5,000 – returnable with 2½% of the vote.
The first question is in the lap of the gods, although to turn the question around, the implosion of the BNP can be gauged from the December members’ bulletin wherein the party congratulated itself on remaining a ‘going concern’! This is highly relevant. If the BNP in its weakened state is in no position to effectively oppose a rival party, then providing a new party has a sufficiently large seasoned nucleus to be able to conduct election campaigns – and win them, then the BNP’s days could be numbered. It is important to note that so comprehensive has been the wreckage of the BNP that whole regions have ceased to exist. Wales, the South West and Eastern England have gone barring an odd group. Every other region has suffered a catastrophic collapse of numbers, effectiveness and morale. London was destroyed personally by Nick Griffin when he suspended every single London official because he could not be certain how many of them were supporting Eddy Butler’s leadership bid in 2010. From covering nearly the whole capital at borough level with a group or branch covering each borough, the party now has ‘sub regions’ within London to try and scrape enough activists together in each part of London accomplish basic activities because the branch system was destroyed along with its active base.
Whether a new party can take enough members to make it a going concern is uncertain, but given the BNP’s declining membership and ability to oppose such a new party, the numbers needed to make a new party viable might be less than might be supposed. If the BNP dips to, say, 3,000 members in early 2012 and the vast bulk of those being ‘armchair members’, then I would suggest that a bare minimum of 700 – 800 would be necessary and only if a high proportion of that number were activists and skilled elections practitioners.
The third question as to where might the areas of strength be for the new party is also one that is in the 'Lap of the Gods', although avoiding the problem associated with one small party that broke away from the BNP and finding its strongest area located in the worst performing area for nationalism in England would be beneficial. The Midlands – east or west, Yorkshire and the North West would be the best areas and only Brons can know the likely disposition of any new force if he is keeping a careful check on things.
Where Now?
Given the state of the party today with a collapsing membership, activist base and slide in the party’s vote and professional standards, the question to be asked is where now?
On any objective measure, if nationalists wish to swing behind the biggest and most effective party around today, they’d have to join UKIP with its eleven MEPs. It also has 110 councillors, although 82 of those are town, parish and community councillors where no election was likely required. That still gives UKIP 28 County and borough/district councillors, although it’s uncertain as to how many of these were actually won by UKIP and how many are defections.
On previous form, half of these will be defections. The big flaw with UKIP, as everyone knows, is that it is seen as a one-issue party: i.e. to vote for in EU elections and has almost no grass roots campaigners and, as a result, few councillors considering the size of its EU vote. That problem is unlikely to be rectified since UKIP won’t accept known BNP members.
That leaves the English Democrats and the new party of Andrew Brons, assuming it does get going. Several high ranking and effective BNP personnel have already joined the English Democrats including several entire BNP branches, including Cheshunt, Southend and Leeds. Two of these branches have previously won election at council level for the BNP.
The advantage of the English Democrats is that they are already a party in being. In addition, they have a reputational shield to deflect from accusations of ‘racism’, although how long that might hold up given literally hundreds of defecting BNPers is hard to say. It is for this reason, of course, that UKIP won’t entertain any known BNP member at all and there is a certain logic to it.
One thing that does hinder the English Democrats is their lack of activism and lack of good quality Organisers over the country. If you want a leaflet, you have to go to head office for it. Local initiative and leaflet production is almost unknown, although I am sure that Eddy Butler will want to change this.
Of course, while it is true to say that practically all BNPers accept that, in some degree or another, the multi-racial state is here to stay, that will not satisfy the liberal left media which will harass every known BNP member in any new party.
Assuming Andrew Brons does make the break with the BNP in the New Year as the only credible challenger to Nick Griffin within the BNP, the names British Democratic Party and even the already existing, but small, Democratic Nationalists are names to watch in the New Year.
My belief is that the word ‘British’ is redundant. Scotland will be independent within a few years. What of ‘Britain’ then? Or indeed, the ‘British’? England and the English is the new wave of patriotism and even the BNP have been playing that tune in recent years. For that reason, the word ‘British’ is a bad idea, indeed the most high profile supporters of ‘Britain’ and the ‘British’ are now system politicians and second generation immigrants! However, there are a lot of unionist nationalists around and, as a result, an attachment to ‘Britain’. I myself have fond feelings towards my fellow Britons north of the border, but British Nationalism has always struggled there. Indeed, it is seen by many Scots as being some kind of Westminster-rule-on-steroids tendency. As a result and also because Labour are always helped into power by a disproportionate number of Scots MPs, I have always held the view that, in the end, England and the struggle for race and nation would be better off without Scotland, as much as I like them personally.
Holyrood- Scottish independence will render "British" redundant
A Westminster without Scots Labour MPs would also have another effect. The Conservative party hangs together because of the huge power of Scottish Labour MPs. But without its Scots MPs, Labour would be out of power for a generation. That would, in turn, encourage tendencies within Conservatism to become more pronounced, possibly leading to a split and as every nationalist knows, for nationalism to succeed the Conservative Party must, ultimately, be destroyed. A Conservative split would start things off nicely.
All the external factors are present in Britain for nationalists to make hay. On the economy, on the EU, on immigration and on foreign affairs. The winners within nationalism will be the ones to get their act together quickest. An initiative by Andrew Brons will mean the instant formation of groups nationwide with practised Organisers and skilled elections practitioners far in excess of that which can be disposed of by the English Democrats or even the BNP, which is why the lack of an armchair membership will not be too much of a hindrance at least at first. Should such a party start to build, then by the time it loses all vestiges of EU support (through wages), it should have gathered to itself sufficient casual financial support to keep going and make the gains that will enable it to overtake the BNP and become Britain’s (or more precisely - England's) premier nationalist party.
It is this much larger reservoir of practised Organisers and skilled elections practitioners still within the BNP that could support Brons that makes the already pre-existing English Democrats with their scant resources of the same not the dead certainty that it might be.
What will happen in the New Year, I cannot predict. Which party will emerge strongest likewise. But with the BNP continuing to decline the opportunity is fast approaching for a definitive break and time of decision.
Tony Lecomber was the BNP's Group Development Officer from 1999 to 2006 and effectively Nick Griffin's second-in-command during that period.
