Opposing No Platform misses the point

By Tom Miller

UPDATE: Hadleigh Roberts has responded to this post here.

A lot has been made over the last two weeks of the prospect of Labour’s politicians abandoning the ‘No Platform’ policy of refusing to debate the BNP. While some politicians appear to be gearing up to appear alongside the BNP on the BBC’s Question Time program, others such as the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, have laudably opted not to speak alongside them.

We should consider this decision praiseworthy, because we have a few reasons for doing so.

Those on the left and more widely know that the bulk of those who have recently begun to vote for the BNP don’t do so because they are committed hardcore racists. These people have material concerns, and, given New Labour’s longstanding practice of a narrow concentration on the middle 5% of the electorate as applied since 2001, an electorate which we must remember is on average richer and more comfortable than the population as a whole, a whole stratum of the working class feels profoundly disillusioned.

Yet we on the left continue to be convinced that racism is not the solution.

We must therefore question how discontent and disillusion are converted by the BNP into the votes which win them MEPs. Understanding this process in deciding what strategies to use against them is crucial.

Mark Steele is a funny man, but he is also a man who has demonstrated some understanding of this debate. His first paragraph in his recent article for the Independent is a very accurate characterisation of the situation as it stands. Though it rests on a comedic logic, there is a serious point to be understood:

“There’s something touchingly innocent about the argument put forward by many people that the BNP should be allowed space in the mainstream media as this will “expose their ignorant ideas”. Because history doesn’t necessarily prove this to be the case. I don’t suppose that, in 1941, many people thought: “You see, this is all working to plan. Now he’s invaded Russia everyone will see just what an idiot this Hitler really is.”

We have to think about the actual point of politically opposing the BNP on a day to day level. What are politicians of the left trying to achieve?

Labour politicians want to win elections, yes. But there is a far deeper and more historically resonant logic behind Labour’s anti-fascism. Fascists need to be opposed full stop, because of what they believe. At the moment, the main fascist party is the BNP, and it concentrates on election campaigns in their context as what the far left term ‘propaganda candidacies’.

They are only on Question Time because they hold office, and their immediate goal is to hold office. More of it. If we concentrate only on fighting the effects of this, a spilling over and legitimisation of racism in public discourse, and the social discord which goes with that, then we are lost.

The BNP’s ability to use the BBC as a propaganda platform also needs to be tackled at the root cause; the lack of representation for the people who have added to their vote, and further to that, the fact that they are winning any elections full stop.

In other words, while it is satisfying for politicians to look forward to ‘winning the argument’ against people who are already seen even by many of those who vote for them (let alone Labour MPs) as profoundly illogical, that means very little if it boosts their vote.

Labour should not want to beat them in arguments if a necessary side effect is that their vote increases.

During the MPs expenses scandal Question Time saw record viewing figures of 3.8 Million. Polly Toynbee believes with some justification that General Elections are won under the First Past The Post system on the back of just a few thousand votes. While more proportionate, European elections typically see very low turnout and are seldom ever about the policies of the European Parliament; those with the most extreme views are far better represented.

Bearing in mind that many of those who vote for the BNP, particularly as a protest against the other parties, often know little of their policies full stop, imagine how many people would see the BNP for the first time in their life on such a TV performance? Even if the BNP are roundly defeated in debate, this number will be such a large one that the percentage of people who find themselves agreeing with them will almost definitely outstrip the number who would support them without having seen question time. It then facilitates their building on the ground by putting their names and personalities into public debate.

In any event, they have and will without exception continue to produce utterly false figures and examples to justify their beliefs which, because they are false, no politician can have counter-figures or examples to rebut. Subject matters on which there are real material disagreements between the main parties will be racialised, whether this is an accurate description, or indeed a relevant solution, or not.

Such debates make race a completely unnecessary but nevertheless ubiquitous prism. Given the sensitive and deeply personal nature of the subject and the violent emotions it disturbs, it is a topic that while in itself is sometimes worthwhile debating, is not worth implementing on wider public debate through an extremist lens, with a widely respected haven in programs like Question Time. At the absolute least, from a purely party-political point of view, the espousal of these views on such popular television programs will give space to the more moderate element of the hard right to become less moderate without risking such a large backlash.

For all of these reasons and more Labour should avoid providing a motivation the BBC and other broadcasters along with organisers of public events more generally to invite the BNP and involve their warped and necessarily violent views more deeply in the space of public debate.

The BNP have a right to free speech, but nobody is under any obligation to provide them the means to use it effectively. In fact, we have a moral obligation to refuse to help them gain exposure, win voters who would not previously have voted for them, and open debating space for others who are slightly more credible.

The argument that the No Platform policy has failed has been fashionable lately. But it has been treated lazily and accepted with little question. The fact is that with regards to the BNP, it is one of the only parts of mainstream politics which still works.

If you agree, then you can help to fight for No Platform here.

Related posts:

1. No Platform is dead
2. The limits of No Platform
3. The BNP: No Platform, No Exceptions
4. It’s Labour’s duty to defeat the BNP – to achieve this we must end No Platform
5. No Platform isn’t working – it’s time to put forward the case for immigration