Introduction
In Part I, the author considered the recent history of nationalist politics in Britain, examining the underpinning causes of failure, the weaknesses of existing parties contending for the nationalist vote, and the consequent need for a new nationalist party. In Part II, discussion shifted to the rather more difficult task of offering concrete proposals for a positive and viable policy alternative. In this final instalment, consideration moves to addressing the question of how to go about the practical task of communicating policy to the public and winning support. As such, it will be divided into the following sections: 1) the potential baseline of support for a nationalist party; 2) strategy; 3) tactics; 4) language, tone and focus and 5) party organisation and conduct. Should the suggestions contained within the ‘Beyond the Fringe’ series be positively received, thought will then need to be given to making this vision a reality, which can only happen of course, with your support and participation.
As the goal of a new party should be to advance the interests of members of the national community, indeed, of all loyal and culturally assimilated citizens, its supporters and activists should have the following at the forefront of their considerations: how is political office to be achieved? Without office, a new party will not be able to do anything to advance the interests of our people. Not every reader will concur with this judgement, yet if that should prove to be the case, there is much that can be done outside of the realm of party politics, whether that should be involvement in a protest movement such as the EDL, campaigning in pursuit of changing a specific aspect of policy such as bringing about an end to inhumane methods of religious slaughter, or cultural activity of various types such as writing, the visual arts and music.
To win the trust of voters, both a new party’s policy and approach must be: positive; focused; appealing; resonant and distinctive. Both the party and its candidates must embody probity, transparency, honesty and accountability. This of course is a tall order, particularly in the sphere of politics, but it is an ideal towards which we should seek to strive. To win elections trust of course is not enough, for a party also needs to be able to offer people the credible prospect of a better future. This, a nationalist programme can truly achieve, through focusing upon the economic, environmental and cultural benefits that it can confer, as illustrated in Part II.
The potential baseline of support for a nationalist party
What are the grounds for concluding that a credible nationalist party would be able to exert mass appeal in Britain? What indicators can be called upon to demonstrate the latent appetite for nationalism? As readers will be well aware, our national demography has been changing rapidly owing to mass immigration and differential birth-rates, but the following figures taken from the last EU and General Elections of 2009 and 2010 respectively, should provide an approximate baseline of the core nationalist vote for each type of election. It is important to differentiate between the two (and indeed, to separate them from local elections), as radically different dynamics are at play in each.
EU elections
In defining the potential core support of a credible, moderate nationalist party, votes cast for the following parties must be considered to be potentially available: the BNP; the English Democrats; UKIP and United Kingdom First (of this latter party the author knows next to nothing, other than that it secured 0.5% of the vote in the last EU elections). All of the aforementioned parties have enjoyed greater success in EU rather than Westminster elections, partly because party political tribalism tends to be weaker in the former, and partly also because they serve as the only means in which an emphatic rejection of the EU can be delivered at the ballot box. Moreover, the system of proportional representation used when electing MEPs enables candidates from other than the big three established national parties to break through and gain seats in the European Parliament. Thus UKIP returned a respectable number of MEPs in 2009, and the BNP won its first ever seats which were taken by Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin.
The national shares of the vote enjoyed in June 2009 were: UKIP – 16.5%; BNP – 6.2%; English Democrats – 1.8%; UK First – 0.5%, coming to a total of 25%, just shy of the Conservative Party’s winning share of 27.7%. The potential nationalist vote thus outstripped both that of the Labour (15.7%) and Liberal Democrat (13.7%) parties. However, it was not uniformly spread, and England was the country in which this vote was concentrated, unsurprising given the presence of other local nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This ballot also coincided with the height of the parliamentary expenses scandal, so voters were more inclined than usual to lend their votes to other parties, with the consequence that Labour experienced its worst drubbing in a national election since before the Second World War. Nonetheless, the fact that UKIP managed to gain MEPs in this and previous EU elections, thanks to the system of proportional representation employed, demonstrates that it should be possible for a new party to field candidates and win seats in the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament in 2014.
General elections
Turning now to the question of baseline support in general elections, this is, as one would expect, far lower. In May 2010 for example, in which the broadly defined nationalist parties performed far better than hitherto, the national shares of the vote secured broke down as follows: UKIP – 3.1% (917,832); BNP – 563,743 (1.9%); English Democrats – 0.2% (64,826). This brings the total to 5.2%. Once again however, these figures hide considerable variation in performance across the country, as these parties faired relatively poorly (or not at all in the case of the English Democrats) outside of England. What they also mask is the fact that in the majority of constituencies where both the BNP and UKIP fielded candidates, the BNP secured a higher share of the vote, but the BNP was unable to stand as many candidates as UKIP. Both UKIP and the BNP had hoped to make a Westminster breakthrough in 2010, but neither came near to winning a seat. Winning under a first past the post system is an extremely difficult task, especially when the nationalist vote is split.
The weakening of traditional party loyalties
What then, has changed since 2010, besides the implosion of the BNP? Most importantly perhaps, the Conservatives are now the main party of government, and despite having promised a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty and to drastically reduce immigration, they have done neither. Moreover, David Cameron is deeply unpopular with many grassroots Tories, which is why UKIP has seen a slight fillip in its fortunes. Although like Labour voters many Tories are deeply tribal in their party political affiliations, might it not be possible, given the deep fissures that now run through the Conservative Party, to deliver a few well-aimed strategic blows which could cause it to fracture? A certain percentage of the Conservative vote should therefore be considered as potentially up for grabs, owing to widespread disillusion with the ‘Cameroons’.
Likewise, many traditional Labour supporters find themselves without a political home, having seen their party vigorously promote economic policies that have facilitated globalisation and hollowed out those sectors of the economy that have traditionally provided a living for members of the working class as well as courting ethnic minority bloc votes. Many of them are patriotic, and have had to bear the brunt of some of the less savoury aspects of communal behaviour displayed by certain immigrant populations, hence the popularity of the EDL. As with disillusioned Tories, there are votes that can be picked up from disaffected indigenous Labour voters, as well as from the significant percentage of adults who abstain from voting because they believe, with some justification, that “voting will change nothing because the parties are all the same.”
In conclusion, a new credible nationalist party should be able to make ready headway in EU elections given that perhaps 30% of the vote could potentially be available. This figure could be still higher, given the growing anti-globalist sentiment arising from increasing lack of economic security amongst not only working, but also middle class voters. Depending upon the number of seats in a given EU region, it could be possible, as has been demonstrated in the past, to win electoral representation with 10-15% of the vote. At the local level too, often owing to low turnout, it should be plausible to win seats in elections, as demonstrated by the BNP and English Democrats.
Implications for Strategy
One of the clear messages to arise both from electoral experience and from other indicators of the public mood, such as opinion polls, is that there is no longer a single national political stage in the UK, but four, and that the separate dynamics at play within each are becoming ever more pronounced.
This naturally poses the question: to whom should a nationalist party address itself? On the British mainland, there are three, arguably four nations currently sharing one state: the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Cornish. If taking into consideration the United Kingdom as a whole, an entirely separate political situation pertains in Northern Ireland, and although the proposal forwarded here is based upon unionist principles and assumes that it would be preferable for the UK to remain as a single state, each nation must possess its right to self-determination and thus the right to secede should a majority of its people choose to do so.
In terms of practical politics therefore, although a new party should seek to be inclusive of the separate nations within the existing state, its efforts should be directed primarily towards England and the English, for it is in England and amongst the English that the demand for national expression is least catered for in electoral and constitutional terms. The devolutionary muddle created by the last Labour Government has bolstered the rise of nationalist sentiment in Scotland, and has allowed Wales to enjoy a certain degree of autonomy in policy making, with both being subsidised by England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all possess nationalist parties of various types that can count upon considerable support from their electorates, so the likelihood of a new nationalist party exerting much appeal within these parts of the UK is slim. Moreover, polls seem to indicate that many people are re-evaluating their identities in light not only of constitutional, but also demographic changes; thus, a YouGov survey conducted in October 2011 yielded the following results: only 20% of respondents in the UK described themselves in the first instance as British, and in England, 63% of the sample thought of themselves first and foremost as English. This latter figure represented a 41% increase since 2008.
Electoral Tactics
Thus far the following has been ascertained: the pool of potential support for such a party is highest in England and can most readily be tapped in EU elections, and in appropriate circumstances, in local contests too. The likelihood of making a Westminster breakthrough however, is extremely slim, at least until a party has established widespread public recognition and has conclusively demonstrated that it is not the belligerent bogey that its foes will claim it to be.
Initial efforts during the party’s early period of growth should thus be devoted to judiciously identifying suitable target seats in the May 2013 local elections and concentrating all efforts on these few. This should prove to be both affordable and practicable. Local knowledge should be utilised to create carefully crafted campaign literature that addresses key concerns amongst constituents that directly mesh with party policies. Generic leaflets in such a context are useless. All activists involved in canvassing should be fully briefed in advance, so that they are aware of the key issues to be highlighted on the doorstep, and adopt an appropriate tone and register when dealing with householders of different backgrounds with often different primary concerns. Such campaigning will also be enhanced by knowledge of rival candidates’ positions and specific pledges that can be picked apart in advance. One approach suggested by regular blog reader Cygnus, which although particularly appropriate to Westminster elections could also be employed in a local context, involves directly challenging voters over their choice of party. In this approach, the campaign team would identify say five policies apiece core to the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, and unfavourably juxtapose these with five policies offered by the party candidate.
The local elections of May 2013 will serve as a trial run for the elections to the European Parliament in June 2014, and should hopefully yield at least a few victories that will afford the party publicity. The scale of the effort mounted in 2014 will by definition depend upon the extent to which the party has grown by that point and the resources that are available to it. However, its priority target regions should be: Yorkshire and the Humber; North West England; North East England; East Midlands and West Midlands. By the time of the May 2015 General Election, a new party should aim to be in a position whereby it can field a sufficient number of candidates to secure a party political broadcast. However, in order to maximise impact, party finances and activists should be used in a targeted fashion, with complex campaign plans devised for those seats most likely to yield a return. Such parliamentary constituencies should receive 80% of the party’s efforts, whilst allowing candidates to stand elsewhere with minimal backing. A symbolic Westminster breakthrough in 2015 is required, and given the manifest bankruptcy of globalism and its attendant system of economics, a new credible nationalist party pursuing a campaign focused upon economic policy stands a decent chance of achieving this.
Language, tone and focus: shifting the discursive terrain
One key aspect of strategy that nationalists have up to this point neglected is the most powerful political weapon of all: language and the honing of a credible appealing message. There are many ways of presenting the nationalist message, and how this is communicated requires serious thought to ensure that a new party is also viewed as credible by an educated middle-class audience. The general tone of rhetoric employed hitherto in nationalist circles might well go down well in the convivial atmosphere of a pub, but it sounds out of place in the general public arena. This is not to imply that a new party should abandon any one class in favour of another, for as a nationalist party it should by definition transcend class divisions and seek to represent the interests of all sections of society. Nonetheless, its message needs to be communicated in a way that resonates with a middle-class audience and readership, as well as with those whom our political elite have readily confined to the margins of society and who have to date been subject to the worst effects of mass immigration, multiculturalism and imported misogynist cultural attitudes and practices.
A new party will need to concentrate on a few core positive messages which will enable it to broaden its base of support and appeal. These must be communicated using temperate language to emphasise its moderate nationalist agenda. Always refer to the party as a “moderate nationalist party”. The words “moderate” and “nationalist” must appear together as frequently as possible, so that listeners become accustomed to pairing the two, instead of “far-right” which is currently the undesirable descriptor habitually associated with the terms “nationalist” and “nationalism”. Who could possibly object to a moderate party with a moderate agenda?
The term “anti-globalist” must be used as frequently as possible in relation to the party’s stance. The Conservatives, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Greens must constantly be referred to as “globalists”. “Globalists” and “globalism” must be transformed into pejorative terms by highlighting the very real and negative aspects of this ideology and its attendant processes. The party and its position on the other hand, stand for freedom, self-determination and democracy. This must be emphasised repeatedly, and juxtaposed with the innately anti-democratic structures of transnational political and financial governance, as well as with the particularistic interests of transnational corporations which are the stuff of globalism and globalisation. We, as nationalists, are the real environmentalists, not the Greens. Only nationalism and national stewardship can guarantee respect for national natural resources and ecosystems. A respect for our natural environment, on land and at sea, should be an integral part of our nationalism. The landscapes, flora and fauna of our isles and surrounding seas are ours in trust to be tended and passed on to future generations in good condition.
The following key messages should be stressed: it is a party of peace and seeks an end to unnecessary wars and the policy of military interventionism pursued by Labour and Conservative alike; it is a party of neutrality that seeks to maintain good relations with neighbouring countries; it seeks to preserve the best of British heritage and culture, whilst developing a dynamic hi-tech science focused manufacturing economy; it subscribes to upholding individual liberties and the right to free speech; it affirms that the peoples of the United Kingdom, like all peoples, are sovereign and possess the right to self-determination; it aims to enhance the quality of life of our people through focusing upon per capita rather than aggregate economic measures; it recognises that sustainable development requires a truly sustainable demographic policy.
These suggestions illustrate that it is not necessary to lapse into the language of ethnicity or even overtly emphasise immigration to adequately defend our way of life, sovereignty and demographic integrity, for the solution to these issues is implicit in the arguments themselves and the language used to express them. Nonetheless, it is essential not to neglect directly referring to the unsustainable nature of immigration and its negative consequences for our economy, housing, environment and culture. A clear differentiation must also be made between those immigrants who have proven to be upright culturally compatible citizens, and those who have not.
Wherever possible, a credible nationalist party should seek to validate and bolster its position through reference to data and arguments derived from respected non-partisan sources of information, such as Migration Watch, the Optimum Population Trust and Civitas. These conduct much research that can be put to good use in backing up policies on immigration, the environment, economics and education, and possess added weight precisely because of their the absence of any party affiliation.
Party Conduct
One way in which a new party should bear no resemblance whatsoever to the BNP is in its general conduct, for on a number of occasions members of that party behaved in a disgraceful manner towards representatives of the press. Even if an interviewer or camera crew prove to be hostile both in manner and intent, this is no reason for treating them in an uncivil fashion, thus there must never be any of the unjustifiable scenes of violent manhandling of journalists that have been witnessed beforehand. This is not a question merely of presentation, but of principle. Anyone found to be in breach of codes of good conduct should be expelled from the party. It is crucial that representatives of a new party should conduct themselves in a professional and civil manner. A new party should not be blighted by the taint of thuggery.
To grow and prosper, a new party will need to reach out to people from a variety of social backgrounds, bringing together different perspectives and skills that will provide it with broad-based experience and support, and the requisite communicative abilities to ensure that its message and policies reach their target audiences in the manner intended. Hitherto, people from the professions have been deterred from involvement in nationalist politics both because of a perceived social stigma, and the real threat to career and reputation posed by membership of, or support for, the BNP. It will be one of the tasks of a new party to break down this stigma, and to ensure that active support for and membership of the party does not pose a threat either to career or to reputation.
In calling for such a party to be seen to be worthy of support by people from professional backgrounds, this is in no way meant to signify that they should play a dominating role in the new party. The entire system of party politics in this country has come to be controlled by individuals from a middle (frequently an upper middle) class background, with the consequence that the concerns and conditions of working class people have often been ignored. This is one of the great sources of disaffection with contemporary politics, and it needs to be addressed. The Labour Party no longer represents our working class; a new party should seek to actively recruit from amongst it, and to give a platform to its representatives.
Organisation
Unless a situation should arise whereby it looks as if the proposals outlined in the Beyond the Fringe series attract significant support, it would be superfluous to devote much attention to outlining party organisation, structure and procedure. With this in mind, the following brief overarching observations ought to be seen as applicable to any new party that wishes to be taken seriously.
It should be fully democratic and open to all people who support its fundamental goals and values. Whereas it should possess a clearly identifiable and effective leader, it is essential that the party should never become the creature of any one individual or property of a small clique (although of course in its initial stages it may of necessity consist of nothing more than a small core of founding members). The leader will need to be complemented by a talented team, each member possessing a specific function relating to internal party affairs, as well as a distinct policy brief, creating an equivalent of a shadow cabinet. Checks and balances will need to be embedded within its constitution to ensure that all senior members of the party remain accountable to the membership. As such a party grows, authority needs to be delegated accordingly, to allow regional and local branches a certain degree of autonomy over their day-to-day functioning. The party leadership should always be open to suggestions from the general membership, and seek to maximise to best effect the talent and enthusiasms of all of those who comprise its body.
No party will be viable without effectively handling its accounts, and to this end, an especial effort should be devoted to maintaining financial transparency and ensuring that all accounts are submitted in good time.
Conclusion
A latent pool of support for a credible nationalist party exists in Britain, in particular, in England, one sufficiently large as to promise the return of many MEPs and local councillors. In time, this could even lead to a Westminster breakthrough. Through adopting an intelligent, flexible and tailored approach to electioneering, as well as an effective and focused use of language to convey a cohesive and appealing message, a new party has the potential to win support. Not only that, but it could also succeed in affixing deservedly negative labels to those parties that advocate globalism and globalisation, thereby inflicting lasting damage on the existing mainstream parties. The way should lie open to shifting the entire discursive terrain in a nationalist direction.
Winning public trust and confidence are key, and good conduct on the part of party members, as well as a democratic, transparent and fully accountable organisational structure, are essential preconditions for both. This approach, when combined with the policy programme outlined in Part II of this series, ought to make for a potent combination. Having come to the end of this analysis of what is wrong with nationalist politics in our country today, and what needs to be done to turn failure into success, the ball now lies in your court as much as mine. Where do we go from here? Do you support the concept of a new party as outlined in these proposals? If so, would you be interested in helping to make it become a reality?
In Part I, the author considered the recent history of nationalist politics in Britain, examining the underpinning causes of failure, the weaknesses of existing parties contending for the nationalist vote, and the consequent need for a new nationalist party. In Part II, discussion shifted to the rather more difficult task of offering concrete proposals for a positive and viable policy alternative. In this final instalment, consideration moves to addressing the question of how to go about the practical task of communicating policy to the public and winning support. As such, it will be divided into the following sections: 1) the potential baseline of support for a nationalist party; 2) strategy; 3) tactics; 4) language, tone and focus and 5) party organisation and conduct. Should the suggestions contained within the ‘Beyond the Fringe’ series be positively received, thought will then need to be given to making this vision a reality, which can only happen of course, with your support and participation.
As the goal of a new party should be to advance the interests of members of the national community, indeed, of all loyal and culturally assimilated citizens, its supporters and activists should have the following at the forefront of their considerations: how is political office to be achieved? Without office, a new party will not be able to do anything to advance the interests of our people. Not every reader will concur with this judgement, yet if that should prove to be the case, there is much that can be done outside of the realm of party politics, whether that should be involvement in a protest movement such as the EDL, campaigning in pursuit of changing a specific aspect of policy such as bringing about an end to inhumane methods of religious slaughter, or cultural activity of various types such as writing, the visual arts and music.
To win the trust of voters, both a new party’s policy and approach must be: positive; focused; appealing; resonant and distinctive. Both the party and its candidates must embody probity, transparency, honesty and accountability. This of course is a tall order, particularly in the sphere of politics, but it is an ideal towards which we should seek to strive. To win elections trust of course is not enough, for a party also needs to be able to offer people the credible prospect of a better future. This, a nationalist programme can truly achieve, through focusing upon the economic, environmental and cultural benefits that it can confer, as illustrated in Part II.
The potential baseline of support for a nationalist party
What are the grounds for concluding that a credible nationalist party would be able to exert mass appeal in Britain? What indicators can be called upon to demonstrate the latent appetite for nationalism? As readers will be well aware, our national demography has been changing rapidly owing to mass immigration and differential birth-rates, but the following figures taken from the last EU and General Elections of 2009 and 2010 respectively, should provide an approximate baseline of the core nationalist vote for each type of election. It is important to differentiate between the two (and indeed, to separate them from local elections), as radically different dynamics are at play in each.
EU elections
In defining the potential core support of a credible, moderate nationalist party, votes cast for the following parties must be considered to be potentially available: the BNP; the English Democrats; UKIP and United Kingdom First (of this latter party the author knows next to nothing, other than that it secured 0.5% of the vote in the last EU elections). All of the aforementioned parties have enjoyed greater success in EU rather than Westminster elections, partly because party political tribalism tends to be weaker in the former, and partly also because they serve as the only means in which an emphatic rejection of the EU can be delivered at the ballot box. Moreover, the system of proportional representation used when electing MEPs enables candidates from other than the big three established national parties to break through and gain seats in the European Parliament. Thus UKIP returned a respectable number of MEPs in 2009, and the BNP won its first ever seats which were taken by Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin.
The national shares of the vote enjoyed in June 2009 were: UKIP – 16.5%; BNP – 6.2%; English Democrats – 1.8%; UK First – 0.5%, coming to a total of 25%, just shy of the Conservative Party’s winning share of 27.7%. The potential nationalist vote thus outstripped both that of the Labour (15.7%) and Liberal Democrat (13.7%) parties. However, it was not uniformly spread, and England was the country in which this vote was concentrated, unsurprising given the presence of other local nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This ballot also coincided with the height of the parliamentary expenses scandal, so voters were more inclined than usual to lend their votes to other parties, with the consequence that Labour experienced its worst drubbing in a national election since before the Second World War. Nonetheless, the fact that UKIP managed to gain MEPs in this and previous EU elections, thanks to the system of proportional representation employed, demonstrates that it should be possible for a new party to field candidates and win seats in the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament in 2014.
General elections
Turning now to the question of baseline support in general elections, this is, as one would expect, far lower. In May 2010 for example, in which the broadly defined nationalist parties performed far better than hitherto, the national shares of the vote secured broke down as follows: UKIP – 3.1% (917,832); BNP – 563,743 (1.9%); English Democrats – 0.2% (64,826). This brings the total to 5.2%. Once again however, these figures hide considerable variation in performance across the country, as these parties faired relatively poorly (or not at all in the case of the English Democrats) outside of England. What they also mask is the fact that in the majority of constituencies where both the BNP and UKIP fielded candidates, the BNP secured a higher share of the vote, but the BNP was unable to stand as many candidates as UKIP. Both UKIP and the BNP had hoped to make a Westminster breakthrough in 2010, but neither came near to winning a seat. Winning under a first past the post system is an extremely difficult task, especially when the nationalist vote is split.
The weakening of traditional party loyalties
What then, has changed since 2010, besides the implosion of the BNP? Most importantly perhaps, the Conservatives are now the main party of government, and despite having promised a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty and to drastically reduce immigration, they have done neither. Moreover, David Cameron is deeply unpopular with many grassroots Tories, which is why UKIP has seen a slight fillip in its fortunes. Although like Labour voters many Tories are deeply tribal in their party political affiliations, might it not be possible, given the deep fissures that now run through the Conservative Party, to deliver a few well-aimed strategic blows which could cause it to fracture? A certain percentage of the Conservative vote should therefore be considered as potentially up for grabs, owing to widespread disillusion with the ‘Cameroons’.
Likewise, many traditional Labour supporters find themselves without a political home, having seen their party vigorously promote economic policies that have facilitated globalisation and hollowed out those sectors of the economy that have traditionally provided a living for members of the working class as well as courting ethnic minority bloc votes. Many of them are patriotic, and have had to bear the brunt of some of the less savoury aspects of communal behaviour displayed by certain immigrant populations, hence the popularity of the EDL. As with disillusioned Tories, there are votes that can be picked up from disaffected indigenous Labour voters, as well as from the significant percentage of adults who abstain from voting because they believe, with some justification, that “voting will change nothing because the parties are all the same.”
In conclusion, a new credible nationalist party should be able to make ready headway in EU elections given that perhaps 30% of the vote could potentially be available. This figure could be still higher, given the growing anti-globalist sentiment arising from increasing lack of economic security amongst not only working, but also middle class voters. Depending upon the number of seats in a given EU region, it could be possible, as has been demonstrated in the past, to win electoral representation with 10-15% of the vote. At the local level too, often owing to low turnout, it should be plausible to win seats in elections, as demonstrated by the BNP and English Democrats.
Implications for Strategy
One of the clear messages to arise both from electoral experience and from other indicators of the public mood, such as opinion polls, is that there is no longer a single national political stage in the UK, but four, and that the separate dynamics at play within each are becoming ever more pronounced.
This naturally poses the question: to whom should a nationalist party address itself? On the British mainland, there are three, arguably four nations currently sharing one state: the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Cornish. If taking into consideration the United Kingdom as a whole, an entirely separate political situation pertains in Northern Ireland, and although the proposal forwarded here is based upon unionist principles and assumes that it would be preferable for the UK to remain as a single state, each nation must possess its right to self-determination and thus the right to secede should a majority of its people choose to do so.
In terms of practical politics therefore, although a new party should seek to be inclusive of the separate nations within the existing state, its efforts should be directed primarily towards England and the English, for it is in England and amongst the English that the demand for national expression is least catered for in electoral and constitutional terms. The devolutionary muddle created by the last Labour Government has bolstered the rise of nationalist sentiment in Scotland, and has allowed Wales to enjoy a certain degree of autonomy in policy making, with both being subsidised by England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all possess nationalist parties of various types that can count upon considerable support from their electorates, so the likelihood of a new nationalist party exerting much appeal within these parts of the UK is slim. Moreover, polls seem to indicate that many people are re-evaluating their identities in light not only of constitutional, but also demographic changes; thus, a YouGov survey conducted in October 2011 yielded the following results: only 20% of respondents in the UK described themselves in the first instance as British, and in England, 63% of the sample thought of themselves first and foremost as English. This latter figure represented a 41% increase since 2008.
Electoral Tactics
Thus far the following has been ascertained: the pool of potential support for such a party is highest in England and can most readily be tapped in EU elections, and in appropriate circumstances, in local contests too. The likelihood of making a Westminster breakthrough however, is extremely slim, at least until a party has established widespread public recognition and has conclusively demonstrated that it is not the belligerent bogey that its foes will claim it to be.
Initial efforts during the party’s early period of growth should thus be devoted to judiciously identifying suitable target seats in the May 2013 local elections and concentrating all efforts on these few. This should prove to be both affordable and practicable. Local knowledge should be utilised to create carefully crafted campaign literature that addresses key concerns amongst constituents that directly mesh with party policies. Generic leaflets in such a context are useless. All activists involved in canvassing should be fully briefed in advance, so that they are aware of the key issues to be highlighted on the doorstep, and adopt an appropriate tone and register when dealing with householders of different backgrounds with often different primary concerns. Such campaigning will also be enhanced by knowledge of rival candidates’ positions and specific pledges that can be picked apart in advance. One approach suggested by regular blog reader Cygnus, which although particularly appropriate to Westminster elections could also be employed in a local context, involves directly challenging voters over their choice of party. In this approach, the campaign team would identify say five policies apiece core to the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, and unfavourably juxtapose these with five policies offered by the party candidate.
The local elections of May 2013 will serve as a trial run for the elections to the European Parliament in June 2014, and should hopefully yield at least a few victories that will afford the party publicity. The scale of the effort mounted in 2014 will by definition depend upon the extent to which the party has grown by that point and the resources that are available to it. However, its priority target regions should be: Yorkshire and the Humber; North West England; North East England; East Midlands and West Midlands. By the time of the May 2015 General Election, a new party should aim to be in a position whereby it can field a sufficient number of candidates to secure a party political broadcast. However, in order to maximise impact, party finances and activists should be used in a targeted fashion, with complex campaign plans devised for those seats most likely to yield a return. Such parliamentary constituencies should receive 80% of the party’s efforts, whilst allowing candidates to stand elsewhere with minimal backing. A symbolic Westminster breakthrough in 2015 is required, and given the manifest bankruptcy of globalism and its attendant system of economics, a new credible nationalist party pursuing a campaign focused upon economic policy stands a decent chance of achieving this.
Language, tone and focus: shifting the discursive terrain
One key aspect of strategy that nationalists have up to this point neglected is the most powerful political weapon of all: language and the honing of a credible appealing message. There are many ways of presenting the nationalist message, and how this is communicated requires serious thought to ensure that a new party is also viewed as credible by an educated middle-class audience. The general tone of rhetoric employed hitherto in nationalist circles might well go down well in the convivial atmosphere of a pub, but it sounds out of place in the general public arena. This is not to imply that a new party should abandon any one class in favour of another, for as a nationalist party it should by definition transcend class divisions and seek to represent the interests of all sections of society. Nonetheless, its message needs to be communicated in a way that resonates with a middle-class audience and readership, as well as with those whom our political elite have readily confined to the margins of society and who have to date been subject to the worst effects of mass immigration, multiculturalism and imported misogynist cultural attitudes and practices.
A new party will need to concentrate on a few core positive messages which will enable it to broaden its base of support and appeal. These must be communicated using temperate language to emphasise its moderate nationalist agenda. Always refer to the party as a “moderate nationalist party”. The words “moderate” and “nationalist” must appear together as frequently as possible, so that listeners become accustomed to pairing the two, instead of “far-right” which is currently the undesirable descriptor habitually associated with the terms “nationalist” and “nationalism”. Who could possibly object to a moderate party with a moderate agenda?
The term “anti-globalist” must be used as frequently as possible in relation to the party’s stance. The Conservatives, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Greens must constantly be referred to as “globalists”. “Globalists” and “globalism” must be transformed into pejorative terms by highlighting the very real and negative aspects of this ideology and its attendant processes. The party and its position on the other hand, stand for freedom, self-determination and democracy. This must be emphasised repeatedly, and juxtaposed with the innately anti-democratic structures of transnational political and financial governance, as well as with the particularistic interests of transnational corporations which are the stuff of globalism and globalisation. We, as nationalists, are the real environmentalists, not the Greens. Only nationalism and national stewardship can guarantee respect for national natural resources and ecosystems. A respect for our natural environment, on land and at sea, should be an integral part of our nationalism. The landscapes, flora and fauna of our isles and surrounding seas are ours in trust to be tended and passed on to future generations in good condition.
The following key messages should be stressed: it is a party of peace and seeks an end to unnecessary wars and the policy of military interventionism pursued by Labour and Conservative alike; it is a party of neutrality that seeks to maintain good relations with neighbouring countries; it seeks to preserve the best of British heritage and culture, whilst developing a dynamic hi-tech science focused manufacturing economy; it subscribes to upholding individual liberties and the right to free speech; it affirms that the peoples of the United Kingdom, like all peoples, are sovereign and possess the right to self-determination; it aims to enhance the quality of life of our people through focusing upon per capita rather than aggregate economic measures; it recognises that sustainable development requires a truly sustainable demographic policy.
These suggestions illustrate that it is not necessary to lapse into the language of ethnicity or even overtly emphasise immigration to adequately defend our way of life, sovereignty and demographic integrity, for the solution to these issues is implicit in the arguments themselves and the language used to express them. Nonetheless, it is essential not to neglect directly referring to the unsustainable nature of immigration and its negative consequences for our economy, housing, environment and culture. A clear differentiation must also be made between those immigrants who have proven to be upright culturally compatible citizens, and those who have not.
Wherever possible, a credible nationalist party should seek to validate and bolster its position through reference to data and arguments derived from respected non-partisan sources of information, such as Migration Watch, the Optimum Population Trust and Civitas. These conduct much research that can be put to good use in backing up policies on immigration, the environment, economics and education, and possess added weight precisely because of their the absence of any party affiliation.
Party Conduct
One way in which a new party should bear no resemblance whatsoever to the BNP is in its general conduct, for on a number of occasions members of that party behaved in a disgraceful manner towards representatives of the press. Even if an interviewer or camera crew prove to be hostile both in manner and intent, this is no reason for treating them in an uncivil fashion, thus there must never be any of the unjustifiable scenes of violent manhandling of journalists that have been witnessed beforehand. This is not a question merely of presentation, but of principle. Anyone found to be in breach of codes of good conduct should be expelled from the party. It is crucial that representatives of a new party should conduct themselves in a professional and civil manner. A new party should not be blighted by the taint of thuggery.
To grow and prosper, a new party will need to reach out to people from a variety of social backgrounds, bringing together different perspectives and skills that will provide it with broad-based experience and support, and the requisite communicative abilities to ensure that its message and policies reach their target audiences in the manner intended. Hitherto, people from the professions have been deterred from involvement in nationalist politics both because of a perceived social stigma, and the real threat to career and reputation posed by membership of, or support for, the BNP. It will be one of the tasks of a new party to break down this stigma, and to ensure that active support for and membership of the party does not pose a threat either to career or to reputation.
In calling for such a party to be seen to be worthy of support by people from professional backgrounds, this is in no way meant to signify that they should play a dominating role in the new party. The entire system of party politics in this country has come to be controlled by individuals from a middle (frequently an upper middle) class background, with the consequence that the concerns and conditions of working class people have often been ignored. This is one of the great sources of disaffection with contemporary politics, and it needs to be addressed. The Labour Party no longer represents our working class; a new party should seek to actively recruit from amongst it, and to give a platform to its representatives.
Organisation
Unless a situation should arise whereby it looks as if the proposals outlined in the Beyond the Fringe series attract significant support, it would be superfluous to devote much attention to outlining party organisation, structure and procedure. With this in mind, the following brief overarching observations ought to be seen as applicable to any new party that wishes to be taken seriously.
It should be fully democratic and open to all people who support its fundamental goals and values. Whereas it should possess a clearly identifiable and effective leader, it is essential that the party should never become the creature of any one individual or property of a small clique (although of course in its initial stages it may of necessity consist of nothing more than a small core of founding members). The leader will need to be complemented by a talented team, each member possessing a specific function relating to internal party affairs, as well as a distinct policy brief, creating an equivalent of a shadow cabinet. Checks and balances will need to be embedded within its constitution to ensure that all senior members of the party remain accountable to the membership. As such a party grows, authority needs to be delegated accordingly, to allow regional and local branches a certain degree of autonomy over their day-to-day functioning. The party leadership should always be open to suggestions from the general membership, and seek to maximise to best effect the talent and enthusiasms of all of those who comprise its body.
No party will be viable without effectively handling its accounts, and to this end, an especial effort should be devoted to maintaining financial transparency and ensuring that all accounts are submitted in good time.
Conclusion
A latent pool of support for a credible nationalist party exists in Britain, in particular, in England, one sufficiently large as to promise the return of many MEPs and local councillors. In time, this could even lead to a Westminster breakthrough. Through adopting an intelligent, flexible and tailored approach to electioneering, as well as an effective and focused use of language to convey a cohesive and appealing message, a new party has the potential to win support. Not only that, but it could also succeed in affixing deservedly negative labels to those parties that advocate globalism and globalisation, thereby inflicting lasting damage on the existing mainstream parties. The way should lie open to shifting the entire discursive terrain in a nationalist direction.
Winning public trust and confidence are key, and good conduct on the part of party members, as well as a democratic, transparent and fully accountable organisational structure, are essential preconditions for both. This approach, when combined with the policy programme outlined in Part II of this series, ought to make for a potent combination. Having come to the end of this analysis of what is wrong with nationalist politics in our country today, and what needs to be done to turn failure into success, the ball now lies in your court as much as mine. Where do we go from here? Do you support the concept of a new party as outlined in these proposals? If so, would you be interested in helping to make it become a reality?
Just a very quick knee-jerk reaction.
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff. Stumbling blocks : civic, which seems to be a dirty word in the hard-core Nationalist arena
yes must be English
However many sreats are won in Europe, withdrawal will only be achieved in Westminster
Bert Leech
Thanks Bert. We have to remember however, that the approaches of hard-core nationalists have conclusively failed for decade after decade. For those who would deem the approach that I have outlined to be excessively "civic" I would ask them this question: do you wish to engage in real politics, or in fantasy politics? If they wish to pursue their current obsessions, they will have to content themselves with the realms of fantasy, for their approach will not win support. I am interested in a viable, practicable politics.
DeleteTheir approach might, if they were lucky, win them an MEP or two, but it most certainly would not open the doors to Westminster, whereas this more realistic tack could yield such parliamentary fruit.
Absolutely. You mirror exactly what I have been saying for years. We have to ignore this tiny vocal element which is incapable of change, if we are to make any progress - we have to reach out to a wider audience. Is it of significance that mine is the only 'Comment' so far?
ReplyDeleteAnd I must stop agreeing with everything you write - it infuriates quite a few people, I imagine.
Press on regardless Durotrigan - the fair-minded realists are with you all the way. And we have more in our armoury than people suspect
Bert Leech
Do not fear Bert, I shall press on. As for the lack of comments to date, it is probably due to a combination of things: it's a reasonably long piece, so not everyone who would be interested has had time to read and digest it; it is the third instalment, so some are perhaps reflecting upon the sum of the whole series and its implications, and others, whilst agreeing with my diagnosis of what is wrong with nationalist politics as set out in Part I, disagree with my suggested solutions. A fourth group, which I'm not interested in, will be hostile to all of it.
DeleteI decided to stay up a bit longer and attack part three.
ReplyDeleteAgain, it is quite a spooky piece!.
Whilst I have no head for electoral chances and statistics (and thus covered none of that), I had focussed on writing about remembering what nationalism is for and what we should push/sell our virtues on.
Essentially, this included the fundamental of how nationalism = anti globalism (and how we need to positively sell the latter), the importance of language as a tool, changing the current nationalist narrative on the whole - and (as I believe Cygnus has suggested?)- a direct promotion of our policies as something to *offer* whilst simultaneously showing up the problems of our rivals as part of a positive and pro-active strategy.
He/yourself put it over in a much more practical example of a doorstep situation though, whereas mine was speaking more generally about our wider output.
This time in your piece you cited Optimum Population Trust, Migrationwatch and Civitas.......whereas I had cited Civitas, Migrationwatch and the Taxpayers Alliance (and a video by UKIP, as it happens) for making the very same arguments you make.
Seriously, I shit you not!
Mine was also about style and substance examples though (and things to support more than we do) rather than that of using them for providing source material.
I even discussed the problems of class attraction, only I was a little more coarse - and in one of my examples I cited the experiences inside a BNP meeting venue I once had the misfortune to attend! lol.
Your article here is once again much more comprehensive and yet more concise than my own though.
It is a good one, again, superior to my unpublished series.
I am sure your series will be greatly received on the whole. It is what many of us seem to be looking for.
Although I am trying to moderate my views on strategy plans relating to the indigenous-factor element (and its defiant defence thereof) - I might still struggle on some of those aspects of what is written above.
There seems to be a new and much more professional counter-culture of 'identitarianism' pushing up the ranks on this score. It is still a bit embryonic, but I cannot deny that I would rather tack on to (or hold onto) some of that rather than peel off the other way.
Unlike others though, I do not advocate the thrusting of race into politics. All I seek to retain is the ability to openly defend that position and cite the legitimacy of its importance (when necessary) in the best way possible. This actually includes a bit of the aforementioned link to 'globalism' and how it is a tool being used.
The old models, discourse and stereotypes have indeed failed to do this properly. I do not seek to emulate them or continue the more atrocious elements of some them, that is for sure.
I do see a different way ahead on this issue than a complete removal strategy though. People are not going to agree on everything I suppose.
Andrew Brons's kind of approach to this issue has a decent tone about it - and even Paul Weston can articulate a very decent case that is not shying away from it either(when he occasionally takes a holiday from Islam once in a while, lol).
I seek no more than that really.
But the main point is the drive of this whole article and the issues raised within it as a completer set of recommendations and suggestions in the series.
There is very little which I can see to quibble over at the moment. I expect it to be very well received.
BA, many thanks for your feedback on these various instalments. It's reassuring to see that you too have been thinking along the same lines. This reply is just a holding comment I'm afraid, as I have to head off to work now, but I shall respond this evening.
DeleteI have enjoyed the series thoroughly and I am largely in favour of everything you have said, it is hard to argue with such eloquent and well informed arguments.
ReplyDeleteThe one snag that sits uncomfortably with me is the race issue. I personally have a strong believe in race as a defining factor in peoples behaviour and outlook upon the world, while I am sure that this is the case with most of us, we must not ignore completely that the race that has been behind much of the positive change in human civilisation is today threatened.
We as a race are no more guilty of evil than any other race and in many cases less so, yet we are the victim of a protracted and vicious campaign to delete the white race from existence. We cannot forget this nor fail to make explicit in our literature that we are acting in self defense, for the interests of an entire people. We should not dodge the issue or be apologetic for our stand against genocide.
I hope I have impressed the issue enough, I do feel that we should allow members not of our race who share our principles to join the party however and I agree with a much more positive attitude towards the lesser victims of Globalism. I pray that not too many of our people feel that we should resist every human being not of our ancestry, our enemies are the Globalists and we should focus the majority of our efforts towards combating them.
I would like to congratulate the author on a finely written article and to express my wish to help in any reasonable way I can. This is a tall order, but we should never underestimate the ability of the English to overcome an obstacle.
Thanks for your supportive comment Serpent Slayer. I am glad that you have found the series of interest.
DeleteI understand what you are referring to, but think that I have covered your concern with respect to this matter through the following formulation outlined in Part I relating to the core objective of a new party:
“To join a new party it should only be necessary for the prospective member to pledge to forward the cause of establishing recognition of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, and their right to political self-determination. This would constitute the sine qua non for admission. As such, the party should be open to all citizens of the United Kingdom irrespective of their background. Upon this one principle, all nationalist politics are predicated.”
I don’t think that anything more than this would exert mass appeal, and mass appeal is what is required in electoral politics to be successful. Moreover, to state anything beyond this could possibly contravene the law, thereby nullifying the whole project of a new political party.
Thankyou Durotrigan and SerpentSlayer. Firstly, I am yet another commentator who must say, "my thoughts exactly". I have been hoping for some years now that the BNP would have taken largely the same approach - particularly with regard to stategy and tactics. I am one of those lower middle class 'professionals' you mention - I have been (and remain in the absence of a credible alternative) a local activist and donor supporter of the BNP for about 4 years now, and I'm a regular donor and letter writer in support of the party and of British nationalism. However, I have shied away from membership and public support for the reasons you identify (as well as my non-support for capital punishment, which I believe should be open to a free vote or referendum and not party policy ). Whilst I believe that any party, such as you propose, which is truly oppositional to globalist orthodoxy will always be subjected to vilification, defamation and organised subversion (I am painfully aware of how many nationalists have played into their hands on this!) I have often wondered, for example, what BNP policy/ies is/are the one(s) which the globalist diversity and equality Robespierres would presently send me to the guillotine for supporting or being affiliated with. ( I work in further education and am involved in facilitating learning for people with disabilities). It would be equally interesting, and deserving of urgent investigation, to know on which pretext the vile and truly despicable Tory Education Minister, Michael Gove, has been able to 'justify' and bring into law such a prohibition. Otherwise supporters of your proposed new party will be in exactly the same situation as at present; threat of loss of livelihood for involvement with ethno-nationalist politics.
ReplyDeleteRegards, North- West Nationalist (I am a regular commentator but do not wish to give my exact location on this occasion)
Thanks for your message of support NWN. I hope to post more about intentions for the future within the next few weeks, so if I do not write anything concrete on the subject in the interim, it is not because nothing is happening, but rather because something is. Any party that emerges, should a critical mass of support be forthcoming, needs to be built upon solid foundations and requires good planning. The matter of a month here or there at the moment is largely immaterial. I am in no rush to make mistakes.
DeleteFrom what you have written, it would seem that you are exactly the sort of dedicated, level-headed and decent person needed to make any new party succeed. I share your concerns about the vilification that will unfortunately be heaped upon anyone involved in a party that opposes globalisation, and am in many respects in a similar situation to yourself in terms of employment. So, be assured that I always respect people's confidentiality, as I am fully aware of the damage that involvement in this sphere of politics can bring to someone's career. Moreover, I too am no supporter of capital punishment.
If you do wish to get in contact, please leave your email address in the comments section and I will be in touch. Your comment containing this information will of course not be published and will be deleted.
Absolutely brilliant tactical thinking - thank you!
ReplyDeleteAgain, I don't think too much should be read into the BNP MEP victories - the consituencies were gerrymandered to facilitate a Labour MEP being elected by about 8% of the electorate, so when Labour voters wanted to register their protest...
I came across the above-mentioned article through the BDP website. You constantly refer to creating a new nationalist party, is this other than the BDP ? Please help as I'm confused !!
ReplyDelete