1933: Germany, on the brink of economic ruin, welcomes Adolf Hitler into its desperate arms.
2009: Recession hits Britain and X finally marks the spot in voting polls for BNP.
The recession has been the big boom that the right in the United Kingdom has been waiting for. For the Conservatives, the recent economic downturn, together with a tired and broken Labour party, has boosted them to be front runners in the next general election.
In a forthcoming episode of Question Time, the BBC has decided to allow Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (BNP), to sit on the panel alongside Justice Secretary Jack Straw. This is a large step for the party, seen by many as giving it a legitimacy previously alien to such an extreme party.
In the European Parliament elections last July, the BNP gained 8.68% of the national vote and secured MEP status for Griffin and Andrew Brons, ex-Chairman of the British National Front. Whilst the European elections tend to benefit fringe parties, this was nevertheless a huge step for the party.
Economic stability has never fluctuated this extremely since the end of the Second World War; house prices dropped 15% this year and, with unemployment expected to reach two million by 2010, it’s no surprise that people are losing faith in Gordon Brown and turning to more radical alternatives.
Throughout history, economic instability has triggered the rise (and fall) of many of the most infamous dictators; Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini. Comparing the BNP with Hitler may seem extreme, but close scrutiny of the proffered manifesto reveals concepts not dissimilar to those initially espoused by the Nazi party. Their current manifesto declares “We will offer generous grants to those of foreign descent…to leave permanently ... we will stop all new immigration”. This, echoing Borders and Immigration Minister Phil Woolas’ comment that “it’s a national health service, not an international health service,” is not dissimilar to the National Socialist Party’s 25-point programme: “Those who are not citizens…must be subject to the law of aliens… [they] shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately…any further immigration of non Germans must be prevented”.
The majority of society, it appears, has no desire to submit the ideologies of the parties they support to such intense scrutiny, yet such ignorance may be one reason for the sudden rise of the BNP. If we take at face value that which the BNP offers – “back to British independence” – it seems an inviting option: cut all trade links and work on “greater national self sufficiency”. Recession provokes panic, most commonly with regard to redundancy, and many feel that the jobs should be ‘saved’ for the locals. Many hesitate at allowing immigrants into the country, ignorant to the conditions of their origins, thinking it may ‘taint’ our way of life, and the BNP is one of the only parties that stands totally against immigration.
However, to attribute the rise of the BNP solely to the recent economic downtown is to ignore other trends in the UK electorate. For example, in the 2001 General Election, the BNP polled 0.2% of the vote, which rose to 0.7% in 2005. With the ‘New Left’ under Blair, parties in the UK arguably returned to the consensus which had been apparent for much of the post-war period, only ending with Ms. Thatcher. The problem with a consensus between the main parties is that policies are always centre-right or centre-left, hence never catering for the proportion of the electorate which are attracted by the extremes. For example, because the Thatcher government acknowledged both the grievances of the mainstream and the concerns of the right, the National Front lost their base with the electorate.
Since one can argue that the consensus between the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats has returned, the main parties can no longer cater for the extremes, and hence the opportunity for the BNP and other right-wing parties to gain a foothold. Although the recession exaggerated the attention to parties such as the BNP due to worries about unemployment and the recent expenses scandal, the real reason is that there is always going to be a proportion of the electorate which cannot be catered for during a time of consensus, and it is these elements of the electorate which are exacerbated in a recession.
It is perhaps too easy to look to, for example, the rise of the National Socialist Party and compare it to the rise of the BNP. Labour chairman on anti-Semitism, John Mann, has said “it is absurd giving the BNP any space. This is how Hitler got to power and these people have the same objectives”. Precedents, however, can also be found closer to home, such as when the British government applied to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1976 – a key factor contributing to the rise of the New Right, of which Margaret Thatcher was the figurehead. The Conservatives in the late 1970s and early 1980s filled the gap that the current parties on the right now occupy with clear anti-EU and anti-immigration policies. In 1978 Thatcher stated that “If we do not want people to go to extremes…we ourselves must talk about this problem and we must show that we are prepared to deal with it…We are not in politics to ignore peoples’ worries: we are in politics to deal with them”.
This is perhaps where the BNP is gaining votes. No one could contest that the BNP and United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) are against the very essence of what our European country is today, but their attraction to certain members of the electorate can be explained by historical precedence and the reluctance of the main three parties to engage with fears which plague an ever-growing proportion of the electorate. Indeed, the Conservatives under Thatcher provided the right-wing attraction during the economic hardship of the late 1970s of which parties such as UKIP and the BNP are today reaping the benefits.
Dr Hugh Pemberton, modern British political historian at the University of Bristol, explained that “recession and rising unemployment discredit the politics of moderation and create the space for the far right to mobilise support. In both the 1930s and the 1970s the far right had high hopes of an electoral breakthrough. That these hopes were not realised owed much to the strength of Britain’s democratic institutions”. It is these democratic institutions which we must charge with ensuring that extreme parties do not gain any more support than they already have.
The BNP’s policies are a mockery to what it means to be a member of the United Kingdom, but to ignore their swelling popularity is a dangerous tactic. We must realise that, during times of economic hardship, the electorate instinctively turns more conservative and more right-wing. Political ignorance is a factor, as is the consensus among the major parties in Britain, but the BNP are confident that the economic downturn is their revolution.
Jonathan Pearson
Alice Geddes
19/10/09
