Reforming British Nationalism Update
Some folks are holding out for the appearance of the accounts, as if this will suddenly bring the leadership down. As the leadership control the dissemination of financial records, it’s obvious that they’re unlikely to release anything that would incriminate themselves.
I’m one of the growing crowd who believes that the party is beyond reform. Look at the subtitle of this site, it says “Reforming Nationalism”. I’m interested in building a political vehicle for British Nationalism, and as we know, the inevitable collapse of the BNP doesn’t mean the end of British Nationalism because it is an ideology, an idea, you can’t kill it.
We have a golden opportunity to build something special within the next few months by heeding the lessons gained from the failure of every nationalist party in British history. The BNP was fundamentally flawed because its constitution was never designed for growth. I’m sure that despite what Tyndall said, he never truly believed he would preside over a party of 14,000 members with millions of pounds in turnover – and here’s the catch, the constitution was specifically tailored by John Tyndall, for John Tyndall.
In the near future there will be a meeting, similar to the famous gathering which launched earlier nationalist parties. Delegates will need to reach a consensus on a party constitution, structure, etc..
I’m quite happy to leave Griffin to twiddle his fingers.
The Griffinites are starting to do exactly what I said they would; blaming the reformers for the current financial plight of the BNP. Here’s a typical example below:
“Can I ask what this group actually hopes to achieve? all you seem to be doing is destroying party unity and encouraging BNP activists and councilors to leave – the kind of thing a left-wing mole would do (just saying is all).
My question is what is your end goal? do you just want Nick Griffin to stand down as chairman and clearer financial accounts? If so I can understand that but you can’t honestly think the likes of Butler should be leader – he’s caused too much damage for the party membership to trust him.
What if someone else like Richard Barnbrook, Adam Walker, Arthur Kemp or Michael Barnbrook were to take over – would that stop your relentless attacks on the party?“I’m am soo sick of this internal fighting! it’s destroying the party and giving searchlight etc exactly what they want – surely you can see this.” ” – By NZ_BNP
My response follows.
The activists and councillors are the most important component of the party. We’re not encouraging them to leave the party, we’re applauding their integrity. We’re applauding their decision to make a stand and say: “not in my name!”
As for the end goal. Some demand the removal of Nick Griffin, believing that this may somehow save the party. In my opinion, it has become crystal clear that is constitutionally impossible to dig Griffin out of the hole of his own making. I can’t speak for others, but what I hope to see is the “skimming off” of the BNP’s best activists, members and elected officials. To reassure them that the demise of the BNP isn’t the end of the world. That we can build something better, something that doesn’t resemble a personality cult with a constitution built on the Fuhrer principle.
Eddy Butler was to be our glorified administrator and temporary leader. Think of it this way, when a football club is in severe financial difficulty, they may end up being forced into “Administration”. This is a period of time which gives the directors “breathing space”, allowing them to find solutions to satisfy the creditors – the people they owe money to. This was to be Eddy Butler’s role.
I completely reject your assertion that Eddy has damaged the party. That is the equivalent of blaming the postman for delivering your credit card bill. Eddy was merely the messenger, albeit one who felt duty-bound to offer a solution.
Your leadership suggestions are based on the assumption that Griffin can be unseated and/or the party will still operating in the near future. However, I’m bored.
Richard Barnbrook – Richard is a charming man who even manages to defuse hostile journalists. It’s impossible to dislike this chap, but he is a shadow of his former self. No way near his most impressive form in 2008. He has little or no baggage, and with some regained self-confidence and stability in his personal life, he’s a winner with the electorate. As for being leader, he wouldn’t be my choice, but it’s not up to me. It’s a question for a membership organisation to hopefully answer in a fully-democratic leadership challenge.
Adam Walker – Another likeable fellow. Although he has made a serious faux pas in his recent statements regarding Japanese war crimes. There is also the question of his devotion to “Griffinism”. Though I will say, he seems competent.
Arthur Kemp – I don’t think he wants it? He is one of the very few hierarchy members that I have any time for. He knows his job inside out, and he does it to a professional standard. You can’t ask any more of party staff.
Michael Barnbrook - I don’t think Michael B wants it either. However, he does want the recognition he deserves for his role in blowing the whistle on the MP’s expenses scandal. He wants to do his service for the cause, it was a shame that the party barely utilised his undoubted skills.
Again I must disagree with your statement that we’re making “relentless attacks on the party.” We are committed to uncovering the lies, deceit and corruption(?) of the party hierarchy. The hierarchy are not the party, please don’t confuse the two separate entities.
Searchlight et al are often privy to more information than the average member. It is the nature of the party hierarchy, the leaders and the party constitution that forces people to divulge potentially damaging information into the public domain.
What would you have us do?
Too many people have gritted their teeth for the greater good, and that has contributed to the position we find ourselves in today.
As for destroying the party. Well, was it us that dragged the party into completely avoidable and costly litigation? Was it us that approved a program of suicidal rapid expansion? Was it us who gave control of the party machinery to a non-nationalist, non-member (Dowson)?
Was it us that violated one of the party’s key principles, the commitment to democracy?
No, it wasn’t. Surely you can see this?
Loading ...
Leave your response!