26.02.2004

New Tories take on BNP

Michael Howard made a brief sojourn to Burnley last week. In half Churchillian, half smarmy mode, the Tory leader proclaimed that he was going to the Lancashire town in order to ‘take on’ the British National Party. His weapon of mass deception was a vile speech on immigration and asylum policy: being anti-BNP and anti-migrant makes for a powerful combination of patriotism and common-sense economics.

Burnley has, of course, proved fertile ground for the neo-Nazis. There is depravation - Burnley is ranked 46th in the list of most deprived council areas in England. Consequently housing is poor, unemployment is high and education standards are low. But BNP success hinges not on poverty or neglect: rather the absence of class politics and the establishment’s racialisation of local government.

Instead of having to confront the working class, councils rule over rival supplicant groups, each defined on the basis of multiculturalism and so-called ethnicity: ie, white British, Irish, Asian, Asian-British, West Indian, Jewish, Chinese, Somali, etc. That plus the irrational fear of being swamped by a massive wave of benefit-scrounging outsiders (whipped up by reactionary papers such as the Daily Mail and The Sun) has been cleverly exploited by Nick Griffin and the BNP.

Two years ago, Burnley - along with Bradford and Oldham - was the scene of so-called ‘race riots’. Subsequently, in the May local council elections, the BNP scored something of a spectacular success by winning just over 12% of the vote and eight (now down to seven) seats on the council. The local Tory Party performance in those elections was particularly woeful - it won just three seats and, unsurprisingly, had to face severe criticism for failing to put up a full list of candidates (three fewer than the BNP).

Incidentally this does tend to contradict the claim made by leading SWPer Julie Waterson at last May’s Socialist Alliance conference. She insisted that the BNP got its vote from the “collapse of the Tory Party”. True, she instantly contradicted herself, claiming that the BNP won Labour votes - but only from the lumpen “scum” on the housing estates.

Frankly, this just about sums up the patronising and insulting attitude of cosy middle class reformism when confronted by backward white workers who are actually on the receiving end of some of the worst jobs, worst housing, worst education, etc. They react to this mistakenly - by voting ethnically. A by-product of multiculturalism.

Comrade Waterson is not alone. The same elitist and haughtily dismissive spirit informed the Electoral Reform Society’s report on Burnley, published last month. The ERS warned about the possibility of stupid white folk giving the BNP control over the council. To stop that happening they do not quite propose abolishing democracy - merely moving the goal posts. They recommend a proportional voting system - ideally one based on the single transferable vote (STV). Their report states: “At present the votes of many people who oppose racism are wasted on losing candidates, but STV would allow those votes to be transferred to other candidates opposed to extremism. Using STV, the BNP would win only those seats which its electoral strength justifies.”

All in all, it must surely be a merely objective observation to note that the Conservative Party needs to do something about its presence (or rather lack of it) in Burnley - and northern towns and cities in general. Indeed Howard seems to be mapping out a strategy to outflank the Labour Party and win the votes of that backward section of the white working class that believes it has been ignored or neglected in favour of other sections. Howard has confirmed that his party will be fielding a full list of candidates in Burnley in the next local elections.

This was actually welcomed from what might appear to be an unusual quarter. Peter Pike, the Labour MP for Burnley, remarked: “If Howard says to traditional Tory voters who have been attracted by the extreme right, ‘Come back and vote for us’, that is not a bad thing for mainstream politics in the town”. This opinion - or hope - was concisely summarised in The Guardian by journalist David Ward: “Burnley desperately needs to get back to mainstream politics” (February 19).

Most Labourites were not so keen, however. Unlike Pike, his colleagues seemed outraged just by the mere fact that Howard had gone to Burnley at all, let alone that he had delivered a speech on immigration and asylum. Indeed, some of Howard’s detractors positively oozed arrogance: Burnley is Labour territory and forever shall be so.

Hence Fiona Mactaggart, the home office minister with ‘responsibility for race equality’ (whatever that means), attacked the Tories for having “no asylum and immigration policy” - an obviously nonsensical claim. As for Shahid Malik, Labour national executive member and Burnley resident, he was almost apoplectic - or at least did an excellent impression. Malik made the somewhat odd claim that Howard’s visit could only strengthen the BNP, arguing: “We have got a 90,000 population here of whom, I think, 57 are asylum-seekers. Yet, if you ask people why they voted for the BNP, many will say because we have been swamped with asylum-seekers.”

Malik’s logic is curious. If this is indeed the case - and there is no reason to fundamentally disagree - then surely one conclusion to draw is that the question of asylum-seekers, immigration, etc urgently needs to be confronted in Burnley. If not, this fear of being “swamped with asylum-seekers” will continue to prove something of an electoral bonanza for the likes of the BNP. Exactly the point made by Michael Howard - whether opportunistically or not.

What about his speech itself? He attacked the “cancer of extremism” and described the BNP as “a bunch of thugs dressed up as a political party”, who have cast “a stain on our democratic way of life”, adding: “Imagine the shame of this great nation if Britain sends a member of the BNP to Brussels.” No surprises there - it would be astonishing, and almost certainly suicidal, for any mainstream politician to say anything else. The ideology of anti-fascism (and thus anti-racism) is central to the post-World War II UK state and its institutions.

More interestingly, Howard expressed explicitly pro-multiculturalist sentiments - not something we would have necessarily associated with Tory leaders of yesteryear. He told his audience that the UK is “a stronger and better country, rich in our cultural diversity, because of the immigrant communities that have settled here” and actually applauded them for holding on to “their traditions and culture, while at the same time embracing Britain’s and playing their full role in our national life”.

Of course, the modern-day Tory Party is now part and parcel of the official anti-racist consensus - that is unarguable, whatever most of our comrades on the left insist. But it is still worth stressing that Howard’s comments are a far cry from Enoch Powell’s fanatical devotion to ‘Anglo-Saxon’ values and the British empire - even from Margaret Thatcher’s fears in 1979 that UK was on the verge of being “swamped” by immigrants. Those - whether from the reactionary right or the economistic, business-as-usual left - hankering for the familiarity of an unashamedly racist Conservative Party are in for a disappointment.

However, the Tories have been historically resistant to the multiculturalism so assiduously pushed by the liberal/Blairite wing of the bourgeoisie. The professional and well remunerated ideologues of multiculturalism - whether in local government or academia - have never been natural Tories. But Howard’s speech indicates that the Conservatives may well be coming to recognise - albeit a bit slowly perhaps - that multiculturalism is useful as a new means to secure the domination of the ruled by the rulers.

Maybe Howard has made a quick trip to the website of the home office’s race equality unit, which tells us that multiculturalism aims to create “one nation”, where “every colour is a good colour” and “racial diversity is celebrated” (my emphasis). This “celebration” of difference means shoe-horning every UK subject into their appropriate ‘ethnic’ box. Workers who are busily celebrating their “diversity” or “roots” are hardly likely to forge any sort of class consciousness, let alone class unity. No wonder local government bosses are so keen to get their employees to attend ‘anti-racist’ and ‘multicultural awareness’ courses. Howard would be a fool not to become a convert. (The likes of the SWP have long since signed up, of course, myopically believing that the experience of multiculturalism has been “overwhelmingly positive” - Socialist Worker December 21 2001.)

Welcome then to Michael Howard’s New Tories? At Burnley, Howard issued a stern challenge: “It is important for politicians from mainstream parties to face up to extremists. It means acting justly but decisively on issues such as immigration. People want to know that immigration is controlled. They want to know that the asylum-seekers legislation is being used to protect those genuinely fleeing persecution, and not abused by those seeking a back door into Britain.” Howard finished his speech by lambasting the government’s supposed “failure” to put in place “transitional arrangements to deal with immigration from the new EU accession countries”.

These final remarks by Howard are indicative. What we are witnessing between the Tories and New Labour is not a tussle over the validity of anti-racism, multiculturalism, etc. Far from it. There is a mainstream consensus over these issues. Rather, what we have is an ugly squabble as to who is going to be toughest and meanest when it comes to dealing with migrant workers - especially the ‘illegals’.

Which immediately poses a thorny question for the left - especially the Socialist Workers Party, now fronting the populist Respect coalition. In many ways, the views expressed by Peter Pike MP, The Guardian, et al are not a million miles away from the perspective offered up the SWP.

A scandalous suggestion? Sadly, no. Faced by the BNP, the SWP has traditionally rushed around like a programmeless chicken, frantically urging the working class, ‘Don’t vote Nazi’. As we communists have always said, this is effectively a cry of despair. Was the SWP really urging workers to suppress their disgust and vote for Tony Blair’s New Labour? Or how about the Lib Dems, or even - swallow hard - the … the Tory Party? Maybe the SWP thought that we should all go in for a spot of tactical voting? Whatever the case, ‘Don’t vote Nazi’, is a call to “get back to mainstream politics”.

However, the SWP and its allies are clearly in a different situation today. They are in Respect - trying to ‘make a difference’ - and inroads into mass electoral politics (or so the theory goes). From auto-Labourism to auto-anti-Labourism. Given this, surely it is now untenable to wheel out the ‘Don’t vote Nazi’ slogan. But, come ‘Super Thursday’ and the June 10 elections, what are SWP candidates going to tell the potential voter who has just read a BNP leaflet and wants to know Respect’s position on immigration and asylum?

Tragically, at the moment, the ‘advanced’ SWP or International Socialist Group member - if they adhere to the rejection of open borders by the January 25 Respect convention - will inform the ‘non-advanced’ voter that they oppose the “anti-European xenophobic right” and defend the “rights of refugees”. Such platitudes could, of course easily come from the mouths of Michael Howard or David Blunkett. And there’s the rub.