2004 local elections.

(Previously titled: The ersatz appeal of the BNP.)

These days elections - a chance to openly fight for ideas and elect people's representatives are seen as a chore - something that gets in the way of more important things like getting on with life. People have decided that best practice is not to get too involved.

Erstwhile politicians of all calibre should be wary of the level of commitment attached to their vote as voter connections are superficially based in the main. Each party may have its core of support and the attentions of a handful of people actively lobbying for a select interest but the general public aren't moved. People are motivated by values and may associate their vote for what a party may represent. This is probably less well defined than in the past. People, perhaps surprisingly, may attach one single issue to a vote or even give a local chancer a go. One amusing encounter with an exasperated voter revealed she voted for all three main parties in this local election. Such is the punter's attachment to the vote.

Yet there are underlying beliefs that people have - rightly or wrongly, that need challenging.

Reason being that everything has become an issue. The depoliticised nature of politics ie. no grand or competing visions to take society forwards, comes with its mini me alterego - the micro politics of everyday life. So much to the point that to pay attention to it all makes you wonder which of your actions is the right thing to do. Indeed, quite maddening.

Little wonder then that people vent their anger, subdued though it is, by flicking the 'v' at best or more generally ignoring it all.


I stood as an Independent candidate in the 2004 local elections, although not because of any faith in the Office of Councillor, but mainly to see what people thought, amongst other reasons (guts of election leaflet posted at bottom).
I was a little surprised as to the strength and calibre of the vote for the BNP. Not much like that as portrayed in the recent New Statesman article - too much guesswork, emphasis on statistics and a lazy pastiche for want of a 'typical' interview. This would seem to be the real problem - so called radicals making out that only white trash vote far right.(http://www.newstatesman.com/200501240011).
Many said that despite knowing 'what they are' the BNP were the only organisation offering something concrete, for instance instead of making do and mend with a local school the BNP suggested a newly built one. Even saying that immigrants should be allowed to work (albeit largely doing menial and degrading tasks).
The punters weren't fooled by the pantomime 'nazism' and the reference to some mythical golden era when things were supposedly whiter than white. Some referred to the rank opportunism and thinly veiled anti-foreigner sentiment (genteel Horbury didn't quite merit the vulgar approach that the BNP take elsewhere); many even expressed concern for the plight of the refugee. Though it would be foolish to discount the underlying currents no matter how well they are understood. Many people - not just your 'typical' council house dweller - were fed up with being marginalised whilst official policy apparently favours the immigrant (regardless of category). Not to say by any means that our foreign counterparts had plenty but in the ease with which they got what they had - housing, furniture, healthcare, etc. Yet it would be foolish to equate this with any hard held nationalist sympathies (the tacky St. Georges flags in evidence may have pleased the ardent nationalist but were soon considerably less than half mast upon Engerr-land's demise at the concurrent Euro 2004 - echoes of 30's Germany it wasn't.) People were aggrieved at the condescension, aloofness and false promises of mainstream politicians and so picked on the easiest target, although many also figured that a significant vote for the BNP would also make politicos listen to them.

Interestingly enough no candidates went out door-to-door canvassing.


(The BNP also do a fine line in character assasination.)


************************************************************************************

2004 local election leaflet.


My aim in standing in these elections is to counter some of the myths and misinformation that poses as politics. As such, I do not concern myself with the 'bean count' that is the scrabble for apparently scarce resources. I am more concerned with raising the level of discussion above this and its meagre outlook. One thing is clear - the distinct lack of vision and principle at the heart of politics today. This displayed quite readily from the top down with debate at the petty level of the playground. Little wonder then that many of us choose to ignore the bigger picture, shrug our shoulders and acquiesce. Such apathy, though understandable, does not bode well for the immediate and long term future. Instead of a progressive, dynamic culture we have one of limits - an increasingly regulated and constrained society seeking accomodation to an imagined 'golden age' and largely afraid of its own shadow.


What kind of world do we want to live in?

Environmentalists and other commentators make much of the 'fact' that we are overcrowded. This is only true to the extent that new build largely equates to urban regeneration and increased population density. This make do and mend approach needs binning. Misplaced concern for the environment above our need has lead to a chronic shortage of available and decent land for housing and the subsequent, and likely, unsustainable increase in house prices. New and readily available technologies could do much to alleviate this crisis. Instead we are faced with a more compact and constrained society - evermore regulated, watched, held back and looking to the illusory comforts of the past rather than confidently going forwards. Yet close to 90% of this green and pleasant land (most of it man made) is undeveloped, ie. non-urban. There is no shortage of space - just a lack of political will.
Similar anti-human sentiment holds back much that is progressive, be it GMO food technology, medical experimentation or dams in developing countries. we live longer and healthier than ever before precisely because of our control over nature. That some people would not only hold up progress but question the achievements made thus far betrays a lack of confidence in ourselves. Nature is both creative and destructive, but it is no coherent or stable force. We should have no worries nurturing that that is beneficial to us and progessing.


Work.

The workplace is of major concern to me. Often it is just something we put up with before going home or out to spend our hard earned cash. Job satisfaction goes out of the window as you wait for the next element of control - be it petty disciplinary, misplaced criticism or myopic helth and safety initiative.
The forthcoming bonus review where I work is not likely to be more money, more time to enjoy nor universally applied. This despite a 50% increase in productivity over the past 4 years. So how come more production equals less money? It is often the case that you have to fight to get the job done as organisation is poor. Either that or go through the motions as part of the machinery.
This is not to single out my present empolyer - such a scenario can be pretty much applied to most jobs.
The world of work ought to be an enjoyable, productive and well rewarded experience rather than the source of frustration that it frequently is.
The announced job losses at Bombardier, Sirdar and The Post Office need some serious consideration. If it is the case that the labour market is set to expand and suitable well paid employment is to be had then fair enough. Otherwise not.
Blame for the current state of affairs can largely be attributed to the old Labour party and co. for never holding out for the interests and aspirations of its constituents. The current out of control version does much to hamper with an endless array of target driven initiatives, flip charts and an accompanying army of bureaucrats.
The unions spend far too much time discussing management concerns and keeping their members in the dark, offering little more than excuses or financial or legal services. In their current form they are worse than useless.
We need to build better ones that serve our interests.


Immigrants.

Be they economic migrants, asylum seekers or refugees - these people should be made welcome here. Too often immigrants are made scapegoats for a society ill at ease with itself and not the cause of its problems. From Doctors to construction workers, and many more besides, more immigrants are a requirement and much is to be gained either way from this.
Not much of an outcry is made when UK citizens go to live the ex-pat life in Spain or as health tourists to France or Hungary. To castigate others for wanting to lead a healthier life is hypocritical to say the least. It does none of us any favours to accept that people should live in poor conditions - wherever that may be.


Iraq.

For a good year leading up to the war, and since the occupation, many a poor reason has been given as to why war in the first place. There has been a long history of western involvement overseas - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Somalia and Sierra Leone to name but a few of the most recent. And none of these countries any better for it. Criticism of our Governments involvement is either superficial, one-sided or avoids the issue.
Much of what is happening in Iraq shows just how directionless our leadership is - a poorly considered venture, on suspect grounds and no positive end in sight. That we allow this to continue is shameful.


Faith in Humanity.

According to some we are own worst enemies - selfish, destructive and heading for disaster unless guided by some higher order, be that a god or government. Society, such as it is, does have its fair share of problems although arguably not those often presented. There are some that see teenagers as hooligans, foreigners as grabbing scroungers and a paedophile or mugger lurking around every corner. What are we scared of here? We could be forgiven for thinking that we are on the verge of complete moral collapse, yet vthis is far from the case. Theses are largely overblown fears. An informed discussion would serve us better and not the kneejerk response that is.
Ultimately, the problems we face can all be overcome - by our involvement in the workings of society. Consequently we should have no faith in religion, nor those that would have us be subservient. That denies our personal responsibility.


Community.

It's pretty safe to argue along the lines of the honourable Lady herself, Margaret Thatcher, that there is no such thing as the community or indeed society. Leastwise not one that acts out of common interest and certainly not in an effective manner. We face pretty similar concerns at a basic level yet choose to ignore them and hope the bad stuff 'goes away', or better still never happened in the first place. This is 'not in my backyard', 'not in my name', 'I'm alright, Jack' thinking - a fairy story and we must take the blinkers off.

If we are ever to build a community or greater society then we must stop avoiding the issues and get a grip of events.



**************************************************************************************