Well, I’ve just done the rounds of the political and news sites that I like to keep an eye on and can’t say that I feel much in the way of hope. The sites on my ‘rounds’ include these days the two sides in the BNP leadership contest.
So what’s the problem? It’s a leadership challenge boys and girls. That’s all it is. It happens in political parties. Let it happen, argue your case, put it to the members in a fair contest and then accept the outcome.
That can’t be so difficult can it?
Apparently it is difficult. It has been allowed to develop from a simple leadership contest to something that could seriously split the party. There was no need for this. Initially there was a very big chance that Nick would have won anyway, but at least questions that needed answers would have been brought into the open and he would have had renewed authority to carry on for another three years.
It’s that decision to stay on for another three years, something which I find to be a very odd decision, which sowed the seeds of doubt within me in the first place. Surly it would be best for a new leader to implement the changes and not the outgoing old leader.
Since then so much has happened that my doubts, unfortunately, have been confirmed. The question is no longer the wisdom of Nick deciding to stay on for three years despite admitting that he’s not able to lead the party through the next election. After what I’ve seen and read it now has as much to do with the mind set and suitability of Nick and the team around him.I'll need some convincing.
It’s all well and good saying that we need to build a New Model Army, but a New Model Army needs a New Model Leader, not someone who has allowed the "old decayed serving men and tapsters” to thrive in the first place. I digress. To understand what the hell I’m banging on about you will have to have read this.
I also see that Nick is intending to write a major piece on his plans for the next three years. It’ll be interesting to see how much of this needs Nick Griffin to implement it and how much could be done by a new leader. More on this as and when.
The BNP rightly complains of the abuse that it receives at the hands of the mainstream media, of the lies and smears that are printed without any right of reply, and the stupid anti-democratic ‘no-platform’ policy that the establishment would prefer. And yet when it comes to internal debate the leadership unashamedly use exactly the same tactics but at a level that would make even the most rabid tabloid editor blush.
Take a look at this article “exposing” those who are supporting Eddy Butler. The article and the whole blog balances precariously between paranoia, patheticness and black comedy (your name too vil go on ze list). Their “crimes” are all twofold. One: they have decided to use their democratic right in a (supposedly) democratic party to support a challenge to the incumbent leadership in a way which conforms to the legal constitution of that party. Which clearly has become a hanging offence. Two: they have other ‘issues’ or ‘undesirable traits’ which marks them down as “freaks”. Such as for example being gay. They’ll be bringing out the coloured badges soon to stitch on your jacket.
Some of the names on ‘ze list’ are familiar to me others are not. One that sticks out is Tony Ward. Tony you might recall is the long term activist who put himself in harm’s way during a fund raising event for the party and got his head smashed with a hammer by UAF thugs.
The slur and unforgivable sin which is attached to Tony Ward (apart from supporting Eddy Butler) is: (he has a) “wife of Chinese extraction, has worked extensively in Israel on military jets.”
While he was being feted as a BNP hero for standing up to the UAF this was widely known but was not an issue. Now, for the paranoids convenience it is. As I said: pathetic.The problem with this level of paranoia is that no one is safe.
You can read the rest of the article at: http://dowlish.blogspot.com/2010/07/part-three.html