Typically, it is the Right and Far-Right which profits from and occupies itself with concerns over identity. Excluding Gordon Brown’s occasional remarks on possibly considering planning a “British Day” and citizenship classes, British National identity tends to be restricted to the hard-line Eurosceptic Tories and UKIPpers as a means to denounce the European Union and the core campaign front of the British National Party.

In France, by contrast, National Identity has been a strong recurring theme since President de Gaulle in the 1960s. Even now, Nicolas Sarkozy has launched a campaign for a ‘great debate on National Identity’ in events organised across the country.

However, though I am well known for clear opinions and a willingness to discuss contentious issues in free, pluralistic and useful debate, Sarkozy’s campaign has none of these three traits. It is not free because it is his government which sets the agenda, asks the questions and controls the answers. It is not pluralistic because it tries to hammer diversity into a single rigid identity. It is not useful because it is nothing but a divisive tool designed to stigmatise foreigners.

National Identity, as opposed to regional identity, is an artificial Napoleonic concept. As such, it is driven by the state as a means to define a citizen’s place in order to encourage and pressure people into conformity and submission.

Identity is not assigned, fixed and then closed; it is based on a set of political and social principles which are open and organic. This is why the EU struggles time after time to create a European Identity. The French Republic, above all else, is founded on its liberty of expression, its equality of rights and its fraternity of people. Equally, Britain is based on values of justice, tolerance and respect.

Thus the Far Right can only profit from National Identity using an outdated and narrow definition. As part of Sarkozy’s debate, Jean Marie Le Pen, leader of the Front National, held a rally in Marseilles (he is standing in the PACA Regional Election) claiming the debate swung in his party’s favour. This announcement was backed up by the polls; the FN has now hit 10% in the region; up four points since October. He promised a “cruel surprise” for Nicolas Sarkozy in March.

In my summer by-election, there was a party known as Nissa Rebelda, which is also known as Nissa Identiaire; which is a good example of fascist “identity politics” though fairly new they did equally well as the FN.

Similarly, in Britain, Nick Griffin was attacked on Question Time for hijacking Churchill’s image by declaring that he would have been a BNP member. He stole an important symbol of National Identity to use for his own political gain, suggesting that he would protect Britain from a perceived threat using Churchill standing up to the Nazis as an ironic metaphor.

The threat has traditionally been on racial and religious grounds, well before nations were founded. Now, as academics (and myself) discuss the nature of globalisation, national identity is attached to immigration and sovereignty despite, or as a consequence of the fact that national borders are becoming more porous and nations more co-dependent.

As sovereignty is increasingly shared and people are increasingly mobile, National Identity as a political construct can no longer exist as a single, rigid image. Identity is a perception. If someone feels that their identity is threatened it is often the case that their identity is at odds with the identity of another.

Though concerns about immigration and citizenship should not be dismissed, it is not acceptable to suggest that, in the name of National Identity; someone is “less” British or has “less” right to be in the country than someone else.

This is the politics of fear; bitterness and aggression. The discussion on National Identity is not framed around who you are; it is about who you are not.

When Cameron came to visit, the Lib Dems criticised the Tories over the amount of information participants were asked to give, claiming that the meeting would be rigged or filled with Tory apparatchiks. They smarmily added that their meetings are open and honest.

Now, even by their own criteria, the Lib Dems have failed. They are now under fire for asking that residents sign up online and receive an e-ticket.

“Nobody wants to come to my party.”

It could be suggested that the Lib Dems are getting scared. With a majority of 4,638 and a certain sentimental element to it, Bath could be in danger of falling to the Tories, despite being Lib Dem since 1992 when Tory Party Chairman Chris Patten helped win the General Election despite losing his seat.

In principle, I see nothing wrong with the fact that people are asked to register because it helps organisers get a good idea of the numbers. On top of that, they can prioritise local residents.

If only there was some easy and simple way of proving identity, without the awkwardness of a passport or the need to know how to drive. Some sort of card, for your identity, like all other nations have. That’d be a radical idea, though just the sort of thing the Lib Dems oppose.

When Cameron came, he was warned that residents would ask questions regarding the Bath Transportation Package, which directly contradicts Conservative policy on Green Belts. He avoided and refused to answer the question for fear of embarrassing his Tory Council.

This time, with Clegg, I have no doubt that seagulls will be top of the agenda.

I’m glad you start your reply (to my reply of your reply to my article) by acknowledging that “this topic arouses passions.” As you will have noticed, it is a topic that not just arouses passions but makes my blood begin to boil, mainly out of sheer frustration that I’m not getting through.

I’m not going to go over  my arguments once again by combing through your article point-by-point, as we are now moving far away from the central issue, which is that the Labour party must renounce its No Platform Policy. I will make a few general comments though based on my reaction to reading your post.

As for some preliminary remarks, I find it nothing more than a little cheeky that you begin by talking about yourself, then proceed to bemoan the fact that I am the one “playing the man rather than the ball” while continuously crying foul and on top of that getting in some digs of your own! I don’t know who you are apart from what I’ve heard on the Internet (about Draper and all that), and you have probably never heard of me because there’s nothing to hear (as far as I am aware) so I think ad hominem attack claims (certainly sounds like you went to Debating Society!) are quite a stretch of the imagination.

I found it especially amusing when you went so far as to call me naive (though I did slate your patronising tendencies, so mud is mud) but I think my favourite “man-not-ball” line goes to “I find this argument quite incoherent I’m afraid.”  Which I may have misinterpreted, it might actually have been a faulty argument, until you finish the paragraph with “That hardly sounds like Einstein.” Thanks for insulting my intelligence there! Bath may not be Manchester, and Modern Languages may not be Law with Politics, but please don’t treat me the way you treat the average voter! “Call me patronising as much as you want.” I will, particularly when I feel like I’m being patronised like when you tell me “You can do better than that.”

One final thing, “No, it’s your ‘realisation’, i.e. your appreciation. Your subjective opinion. It’s an opinion which has been catching on, especially with what seems to be a LabourList campaign to ditch the policy.” One, thanks for reminding me what my opinion is, having only spent about 3000 words on it the past 2 days or so. Two, the “LabourList campaign” is paranoia, because I suspect you are more intelligent than you are leading us to believe, and have actually figured out that we’ve already won (more on that later). If it is an opinion which is catching on, that might suggest that people who used to be in favour of No Platform have realised it is wrong and have changed their mind. It also means that if Anti-No Platformers (Not Pro Platform, note) are writing in, that just reflects the majority opinion and should not be stifled, I’ve already talked about how I perceive your views on democracy, so no need to go into that again. There is no campaign, though I’d gladly set one up, but calling cheat is one of the last resorts for people who are in the wrong and find themselves more and more isolated.

Moving on to arguments now. (You don’t need to worry yourself the above rant, it’s just my impatience).

I said I’m not going to pick apart your points again, mainly because the comments on your articles do it for me, incontrast to the comments on my pieces, which are almost exclusively supportive. There seems to be a democratic majority/minority divide reoccurring.

From “Madasafish”:

Tom said “I’m saying this because I’ve traipsed all over university campuses delivering leaflets in support of this policy”

What have university students to do with Labour voters voting BNP.

Students live a different life from working people and are totally unrepresentative. No wonder your policy is so out of touch with reality in my view.

The Aneurin adds:

A very good question indeed. I’d have thought that spending one’s time traipsing around council estates would be more productive in the fight against the BNP.

Says it all really. In fact, it allows me to bring in a another personal anecdote. In may 2007 the leader of the Youth BNP was a student at Bath, who invited Nick Griffin to speak. Instead of the SU taking a stand either way, for or against No Platform, Griffin was not allowed to speak because “it would disrupt exam time”. The result was that Griffin sat in a pub in town chatting to anybody who cared to listen, instead of just smart-arsed students hurling loaded questions at him.

In a very reactionary way, the following year the SU tried to introduce a No Platform Policy. In a referendum, Bath Students voted AGAINST No Platform in a ratio of 3:1. Voila democracy. Anyway, No Platform at Uni is totally removed from Labour Party No Platform. So let’s have that argument another day.

From Monkeybot 5000:

We are adults. We are your intellectual equals and in many cases your superiors. We do not need you to protect us from the likes of the BNP just in case we’re too stupid to make the right choice when it comes to cast our ballot.

Alun Lloyd:

No platform is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “I’m not listening, lalala!!”. You give them a mystique and aura they don’t deserve. They develop a persecuted persona to wheedle their way in. We need to stand them up in front of everyone and make them say out loud what they believe. Not let them whisper invidiously in corners.

Political Scrapbook:

“The BNP have a right to free speech, but nobody is under any obligation to provide them the means to use it effectively”. Erm, apart from the BBC, who are legally bound obligated to provide political balance. In the 1999 Euro elections UKIP gained three seats – one less than the BNP have now. If the BBC had decided to ‘no platform’ UKIP then they could have had John Birt up in court.

No Platform is an article of faith for many on the left. It’s sad to see people clutching at straws when it is clear that – as a strategy – it isn’t working. The game has changed!

Tristan Pithers:

I can totally understand your anger at the BNP and I share your belief that we have a ‘moral obligation’ to fight against them and their ideology of hate but No Platform is not the way to go. It is regressive and as much the start of a dangerous slippery slope as the election of Brons and Griffin.

Jules Wright:

No it doesn’t tom. prohibition of any sort always fails. i suspect that you simply lack the bottle to take them to task.

Ricki Lake:

Burying our head in the sand wont make the bnp go away , look at it from a voters view , the bnp come on and make a statement witch is riddled with lies ( i know this could apply to all 3 main parties) and no one challenges them then the voter thinks its true and falls under the spell of bnp .

We must ( all parties) debate with them and show the voters the type of nasty and racist party they are .

Hugh Pettit opens another compelling case:

But they’re going to be on TV whether you refuse to share a platform with them or not since they now hold office, as you admit. The only difference with following your logic is that there will be no one there to actually point out that they are a racist party and their policies are underpinned by bigotry.

It links back to my earlier “more on this later” statement. I think the argument is over because the BNP will get their place on Question Time. We might not like it, but if we can’t win through argument then  it says more about us than it does about them.

We should now stop digging this hole because the debate is now a forgone conclusion. Labour can either swallow its pride and get with the program as the Tories and Lib Dems have done, or we can stay sitting at home (much like our voters probably will) while they have the debates without us.

What will you do come the election if the BNP fields a candidate in Woking? Will you take them on as your electorate watches or will you let them forget you exist?

We are baying at the gates Tom. Will you let us eat cake?

PS I think it’s painfully obvious that neither of us is going to back down so we had better end our feud with the non-progressive ”agree to disagree.” If you want to say something else, it would be better if you posted it as a comment here, or better yet send me a message via my contact form. That way we can stop spamming LabourList and LabourHome with our debate that seems to have gone rapidly off topic.

Shortly afterwards, fellow Labour Colleagues came forward with their own pieces agreeing with me, including Bryony King, Adam Connell, James Alexander and Olly Deed. (Each name links to each post)

Even on the Right, it won support from Working Class Tory.

In the name of debate, I’ll also present to you those who are still in favour No Platform; a piece by Ellie Levenson and then Tom Miller.

Normally I avoid the practice of Fisking (definition) because I find it a rather vulgar and ugly form of rebuttal, but I think it’s right that we have this debate within the Party, and it’s an important one to win. I hope you’ll permit me to take the gloves off this one time.

A lot of the debate was sparked by the suggestion that the BNP is to be invited on to Question Time. Imagine that Tom Miller and I are sitting next to each other on such a panel, he is arguing in favour of No Platform and I am arguing against.

If you don’t want the point-by-point reconstruction, skip to the second image for general comments.

Having framed the debate, Miller begins his piece by quoting the comedian Mark Steele:

“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.”

That’s completely inappropriate. First, it totally misrepresents our approach; abandoning No Platform does not mean we roll out the red carpet for the BNP, and we’re not giving them rope in the hopes they will hang themselves by “exposing their ideas”. If we let them loose with their own TV spots (to which they are legally entitled in the form of Party Political Broadcasts) then they are not going to be stupid enough to say “We support fairer taxes, safe streets, oh and also the immediate deportation of anyone with thick lips.” They will hide their racist agenda if left to their own devices. We’re arguing that we should lead the charge against the BNP, not sounding the retreat and leaving the door open for them.

I want to dismiss the historical example out of hand because it’s so ridiculous, but I can’t help myself. I don’t suppose in 1941, many people thought “You see, this is all working to plan, we should carry on ignoring Hitler’s invasion of Europe and it will just fizzle out.” Chamberlain appeased and appeased, not confronting the problem as it grew and grew. By the time we decided to fight them on the beaches Hitler was a lot more powerful than he might have been.

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.

I don’t quite understand your sentence because it’s quite convoluted and doesn’t seem very clear to me. Just to pick up your point about the “legitimisation of racism in public discourse” though, it’s only legitimised if it goes unchallenged by other parties, and it’s not likely that the general public are going to continue nonchalantly sipping their tea and think, “Oh, we can use that word again? Jolly good.” Olly Deed made an excellent point when he said “Surely the election of two MEPs and nearly a million votes at a European election suggests that they are a legitimate political party. Legitimacy is not an emotive term; I would argue it is an empirical term that shouldn’t be bounded about willy nilly.”

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.

I’m trying to be reasonable, but that’s just nonsense. Simultaneously you claim that people vote BNP without knowing their policies yet that knowing about their policies will get more people to vote for them.

If voters are informed then it is their democratic right to be able to vote BNP, that’s not negotiable. If they are uninformed then they could be making a mistake, having only hearsay and gossip to consider, which links to the question of martyrism and protest voting.

More alarming than your assault on Democracy, Tom, is your assault on the Working Class. I believe it to be very patronising, and you write them off as racist and stupid. The mother of a friend of mine was prepared to vote BNP because they seemed like a genuine alternative. He had to explain their racist policies to her to change her mind, but sometimes people won’t believe what they hear because the No Platform line comes across as fear mongering because you don’t want them to vote BNP.

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.

You’re suggesting that people knowingly vote BNP because they are illogical! Again it shows your pathological distrust of voters by suggesting that people will see BNP claims being exposed as false but will still vote for them regardless. Not to put words in your mouth, but it seems like we might as well restrict suffrage to those with a degree in political science.

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.

It’s not fashionable, it’s a realisation. As one of the commenters brilliantly puts it, “Well if 2 MEPs for the BNP means the policy is working, I hate to see it fail.” The fact is that with a growing base (that erodes our own, I may add) the equation has changed and we need to up our game, which we can’t do if we tie our hands behind our backs.

That’s my rebuttal Tom, I hope you’ll have found me reasonable, now allow me to make some of my own points:

When it comes to the BNP, I’ve seen the whites of their eyes. It gave me a chill down my spine but I didn’t blink and I didn’t flinch because I knew I was doing what was right. Similarly, I’ve also gone face to face with the much more powerful Front National. For years and years in France, the FN was No Platformed, yet it grew and grew feeding and thriving on its victim status until it was too big to continue ignoring, which was also the point where it became too big to extinguish.

You will perhaps recall that Front National leader Jean-Marie Le Pen beat the Socialist Lionel Jospin in the presidential race of 2002 and went head-to-head with Jacques Chirac. The shock was similar to the one we felt on June the 4th, but the lesson is that you have to have faith in democracy and in people, because a week later 80% of the French people went out and voted for Chirac, or rather, against Le Pen.

We in Labour have a unique opportunity to learn from this mistake and prevent a similar event happening in our country.

The “utopian stuff about the messianic power of debate” as you describe it suggests you have a much bigger problem with democracy than you do with the BNP.

If the BNP are continuously allowed to spout out their hate-filled rubbish and it goes unanswered, then I put it to you that it is this that actually legitimises their claims more than anything else because it doesn’t hold them to account.

No Platform on the grounds of one of their policies makes us look cowardly, not just on the subject of racism (where I would hope we have the better side of the argument!) but also on all the other policies. If we can’t defend our own policy on immigration and so on then we look desperately shifty.

No Platform ultimately comes down to a question of trust in the electorate. If we don’t trust voters enough to make the choice for themselves and treat them with contempt as if they are stupid, even those Labour voters who disagree with the BNP will not turn out for us at the polling stations if they continue to see “their” party as patronising and willing to act undemocratically.

We in the Labour party have an obligation to engage with the public. If the public, especially the working classes, are turning to the BNP to be their voice then we need to engage with the BNP and show that they do not hold the answers. You are wrong to blame New Labour, and “triangulation” for the disillusionment of the ‘core’ vote; the Labour Party must make a choice between the authoritarian approach of No Platform or the democratic one of enfranchisement.

I appreciate that the BNP strikes fear into the hearts of many Labour members, but remember, we are at our best when at our boldest.

In 2004, the European Union underwent a “Big Bang” enlargement and added 10 Eastern European countries to its membership list. Meanwhile, the Convention on the Future of Europe met to draft what was known was the Constitutional Treaty. The aim was to scrap the previous treaties; Nice (2001), Amsterdam (1997), and Maastricht (1992), going right the way back to the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and start anew with a comprehensive Constitution for the EU in the globalised world.

It didn’t quite pan out like that.

In Britain, all the main parties promised a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty during the ratification process in their manifesto. As the Constitutional Treaty made it’s way across Europe, it became more and more clear that it wouldn’t fly. The Dutch rejected it, as did the French, as did the Irish. By this time, it was called off for a redrafting. The British Government decided that there was no point kicking a dead Treaty, and so called off any referendum. There is little point in rejecting something that has already been rejected, apart from adding insult to injury.

Thus was born the Lisbon Treaty. Instead of a grand project for the EU, the Commission had to return to the traditional tinkering with an old engine and created a Reform treaty to amend the previous treaties. A much more modest scheme than before; it kept the necessary bits that would help the EU to cope with so many new (and vastly different) members while removing the bits people were upset about.

The problem is that the People weren’t really talking about Constitutions and enlargement and other lofty EU issues. They were talking about other things, this is the inherent problem with referenda.

In Ireland, the ‘No’ vote was successful because of some fears over abortion laws (or something like that). In France, the ‘No’ result was attributed to fears of an invading Polish Plumber who would steal French jobs, in a country which terminally has about 8% unemployment. The French also wanted to tell Jacques Chirac how useless he was.

It seems very democratic to have a referendum; it’s almost as democratic as a proper election. Who better to decide anything other than The People? The trouble is that The People don’t answer your question if they have something else to say.

France likes to have referenda because it knows that the actual subject doesn’t matter. It doesn’t make a difference what the implications of saying ‘non’ are, it’s just fun to do. Charles de Gaulle was brought down in a referendum in 1969 over a trivial amendment to the Constitution, which through the campaign became a Confidence Vote.

Likewise, in 1992, on Maastricht, the French passed the Treaty. President François Mitterrand had identified himself so closely with the European Integration Project he staked his reputation on it. Consider the following quote from a French Minister:

About 70% of the population are Pro-Europe, while 70% are anti-Mitterrand, so I would say the result will be about 50-50.

The result was 51-49 in favour. I hope you see what I mean.

Maastricht brings us neatly back to Britain. While the French people were voting to establish the European Union, the British people were watching their elected representatives do the same, as they have done for every Amending Treaty before and after. The last referendum was in 1975 under Harold Wilson on a Europe “in-or-out” ticket.

The debate has never really moved on since.

[poll id="2"]

[poll id="3"]

I’ve decided to launch my own little campaign because in Britain, at least, the debate over Europe is farcical at best and dangerous at worst. Hopefully, this website can become a space to talk intelligently about Europe for just a little while.

Considering that we’ve had about six weeks of campaigning, you probably recycled all your election material long ago. Don’t worry about it, it was mostly junk.

The real need for this is, as I see it, that the British don’t take these elections seriously. On the part of political parties, we have some using the campaign as a dry-run for the impending General Election, others trying to capitalise from the MPs’ Expenses debacle (I have something to say on this, but I’m sick of the whole thing for the moment) and other parties just engaging in old fashioned nostalgia for the Empire.

Then, when it comes to the public, so few seem to have any idea what the European Union is about, for or even does, let alone the European Parliament. How many voters will ‘protest’ by voting for (some deserving, some not) fringe parties? Should I ask how many will be voting against parties, particularly the Government?

So, I hope you’ll join me in the debate this week, please leave your thoughts and comments.

Please send this to all your friends and colleagues too.

My good friend Simon Budden has written in to give his account of the event on Friday. Here he tells us what happened from inside the building.

By Simon Budden

While Hadleigh stayed outside during the protest at the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institute (BRLSI), I managed to make my way into the building and I remained there throughout the protest and the speeches that eventually took place.

I have little to add to Hadleigh’s account of the evening, which is very accurate and records how an evening of speeches (to which all candidates in the European Parliament elections were invited – including the BNP) was protested against but took place, albeit, in a reduced form.

Long past the original start time and with only four candidates, the event eventually began. I should note that, due to the protest, the audience consisted of approximately 80-90% BNP supporters and the candidates were only given 5-10 minutes to speak with (unfortunately) no time for questions.

Thus, the audience received speeches from the candidates of the English Democrats Party, Libertas, the Christian People’s Alliance and the British National Party (in order).

The English Democrats Party’s speech outlined their main (only) policy, that of fighting for an English Parliament. This seemed out of place given that the European Parliament elections were the focus of the evening.

Libertas presented themselves as a pro-EU party with their single policy of reforming the European Union. This is mainly by means of empowering the elected representatives of the Parliament, as opposed to the appointed Commission. This seemed reasonable and honest; although I profess that I am not an expert on Libertas.

Stuck Inside: A few punters who breached the blockade

The Christian People’s Alliance, similar to that of the English Democrats candidate, spent a large portion of time describing what his party was and didn’t give any European policies.

Finally, the British National Party candidate took his turn to speak. He began by commenting that he had recently returned from Gibraltar, claiming that the Gibraltar Chronicle and the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation had been “very sympathetic” to what he had said.

He also laid out his stance as pro-U.K. and (in contrast to other candidates) found it necessary to point out that the suit he was wearing was made by an Indian gentleman and that his account was Chinese, before she sold her company.

Moving on, he informed the audience that there was absolutely nothing that the United Kingdom could do in order to stop immigrants from entering the U.K., due to the European Union. Immigrants who only take from the welfare state, and contribute nothing. Added to this, was the promise that the BNP would eradicate all foreign aid, instead helping pensioners.

The BNP candidate finished with the claim that the European Union is very wasteful. He gave the figure that each MEP costs £125,000 per year, although the sources were not elaborated on and no description was given of the work that MEPs undertake.

The BNP candidate then received a standing ovation from many in the audience, all of whom, I suspect were BNP supporters before the speech. A number of people (author included) neither stood, nor clapped.

Overall, the impression that I came away with was that the BNP thought of the evening as a victory for themselves, in the guise of the democracy. They had beaten the protesters and been allowed to speak. However, had the evening gone as planned and had many people from many parties taken part, I feel that there would have been a different outcome.

The lack of time of questions (along with the large BNP contingent) meant that we were unable to tackle any of the claims made. This would have been avoided, had the public been allowed to enter the building.

Since it hasn’t been mentioned here yet, the following quote was used twice to sum up a part of the spirit inside the building.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your rights to say it”

Most people attribute it to Voltaire, but there is some debate. However, I wish the event could have been summed up with another quote:

“The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously” – Hubert H. Humphrey

Arriving at about 1830 (I had aimed to get there at 1800, but the bus hit a very expensive looking-car half way down Bathwick Hill, so we decided to walk), there were dozens of protesters from various different groups, including the Bath Activist Network, Unite, Bath Labour Students, Bath LGBT group, the various political parties, a group whom I suppose were “Anarchists” and some people who probably didn’t know what was going on.

For about 30 minutes everything remained reasonably calm as cars passed by and occaisionally beeped their horns, greeted by a return cheer from protesters. Doors opened a little after 1900 and by 1913 things started to kick off.

As punters arrived and attempted to enter the public meeting, a few of the Anarchists (with the black hoodies and scarves over their faces) sat at the top of the stairs to block people in. An elederly gentleman tried reasoned argument about democracy and freedom of speech and so on, but it fell on tin, hoodied ears. He tried to step over the teenagers but was tripped up. Eventually he managed to get in.

At this point, a few punters were able to hop over the line as they followed a policemen in. This could not have been more than ten or so, before more protesters began to copy the television and linked arms, blocking the steps as seen here:

By 1923, the entrance was totally blocked with only of handful of police around. Soon after, a group of BNP members arrived, most of whom conformed to the stereotype of big, shaven-headed types. Albeit in ugly suits. It was sad to see a few young teenagers who probably weren’t into being shouted at, but I didn’t really stop to chat.

At 1945, traffic was stopped completely and a second wave of police arrvied, numbering about ten. There was a lull while people waited for something to happen. The police put on their helmets. The speaker from one of the fringe parties (I understand the member ship was 2) made an empassioned speech that bemused the crowd.

A large police van pulled up at 2004 and a “senior police officer” proceeded to read a statement to the blockade claiming that the meeting was cancelled. (Image below).

The police, numbering about 25, formed a circular barrier around the entrance to clear a space. One by one, the protesters were peeled off from the blockade at 2023. (Image below) Most of them came quietly, and were ‘released into the wild’ with everbody else. A few of them decided to put up a bit of a struggle, but the police carried them out.

Though there were cries of “pigs” and “fascists” and other insults (like what they saw covered by the G20 protests) directed towards the police, I think it’s worth pointing out that the Bath Police did a really good job at what was clearly a very difficult situation. They weren’t equipped for dealing with crwods and it seemed like nobody was sure what to do, but in my opinion it was handled very well.

As the BNP group was admitted, at 2031, it became apparant that the meeting was not really going to happen. Ricky Knight from the Green Party took the stage by shouting face-to-face at the BNP candidate, there was chanting of “Shame on you” (presumably they were unaware of Al Murray’s comedy catchphrase)  seen in this video:

By 2040, Liberal Democrat Graham Watson MEP was fed up and went home. Inside the building, the speaker sfrom the BNP and the English Democrats were ready to speak. A vote was taken and it was decided that they would be permitted to give their speech.

Back outside, somebody had got hold of a megaphone and was passing it around as every randomer suddenly had something to say”Um, er, you know. Fascism is bad.”  Next.  I was waited patiently for my turn. It didn’t come. Glyn Ford got to the mic to explain his position. Here he is talking about Jean-Marie Le Pen:

At 2048, the few people inside, now including Libertas, began to speak, though the crowd was mostly BNP. There were no questions. The protesters didn’t know this (I had a friend on the inside) and left as it got dark , probably time for dinner anyway.

Some police dispersed and traffice was reopened at 2051. Only a few people stayed behind and a group of policemen stayed around the door.

So, by way of a conclusion: Sadly, democracy was obstructed. Glyn Ford specfically said that although he was taking a ‘No Platform’ stance, he was no there to prevent the meeting from taking place, but the various other groups didn’t take this line. I don’t know what the teenagers thought they were doing, but it didn’t work anyway.

The BNP spoke, which some of the protesters tried to stop (and failed) and it was another own-goal for them because now there was nobody inside to listen and challenge them.

In my opinion, though I think it’s good there were so many demonstraters around from very diverse organisations, it was wrong to stop the meeting. I can totally understand why people operate a “No Platform Policy” but I, like many others, prefer to challenge and question. Chances are they’re damned out of their own mouth anyway.

All very messy.

In light of the wave of walkouts lead by Labour’s Glyn Ford MEP, followed by Lib Dem Graham Watson MEP and Green Party Ricky Knight who all refused to share a platform with the British National Party candidate Jeremy Wotherspoon.

Conservative Dan Collier then jumped on the bandwagon. As a result of the boycott of the all three major parties, the format of the event has changed from a typical panel debate to that of a “job interview”.

Graham Watson MEP of the Lib Dems, while understandably (and respectably) keen to debate, quickly changed his position, justifying the U-turn with a cop-out; “I only said I wouldn’t share a platform with a BNP representative.”

The Conservatives are now are “considering [their] options in light of the changing circumstances” and the Green Party candidate has said that “It seams a very surreal compromise, and I am not really sure what action we will be taking.”

Glyn Ford has remained result, stating that “”It is vital to mobilise people to combat the threat of the British National Party. Unfortunately, we are in a position in the South West, which could well see a member of the BNP being elected to the European Parliament in the elections on 4 June this year.”

Far-Right French MEP, Jean-Marie Le Pen, of the Front National (You might call it the French BNP) has previously described Glyn Ford as “one of the seven most dangerous left-wing men in Europe.”

Also on the ballot will be Katie Hopkins “the really evil one from The Apprentice” who is running as an Independent.

I was invited to a Facebook group recently called “Students voting against the BNP on the 4th of June”. I declined to join, as I will not be voting against anybody, I will be voting for someone. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you who.

Students’ Union Policy Resolves:
1. All Students’ Union Meetings, where buffet food is provided, should have a 60% – 40% vegetarian – meat (and fish) offering.

I’m not sure where they got the 60:40 figure from, but even if it’s true that “Meat products have a significantly higher carbon footprint than vegetarian food” you will still have to raise cattle for things like cheese and even the milk that might go into bread, so they’ll still be producing methane. You’ll need eggs as well, and I don’t think they come from eggplants! The initiative is made in the name of the worthy cause of environmentalism, but I would be interested to find out what the ratio was before this vital policy was drafted, consulted, redrafted, debated and passed.

Though it looks like I’ll never know since, in a later meeting, they decided to get rid of sandwiches all together: (my emphasis added)

Student’s Union Council Notes:
That at present a number of internal meetings, including Academic Council and Union Council, are provided with sandwiches.
That these sandwiches have been a point of previous internal discussion regarding reducing costs and green issues.

Student’s Union Council Believes:
That these sandwiches are provided both as an incentive to attend meetings otherwise held over lunch times, and as a reward to those who volunteer their time to participate in these meetings.
That such meetings should not need to be incentivised in such a way.

Student’s Union Council Resolves:
To discontinue providing sandwiches or similar catering at all union meetings.

However, councillors need not fear. If they are REALLY hungry, “under certain circumstances it may be appropriate to provide sandwiches” so all the bases are covered. I can see why MPs’ expenses are so carefully discussed. Although it doesn’t state whether the options will be fairly balanced 60:40 meat:vegetarian, I’m not sure the original policy applies in said circumstances.

This is too funny to be an accident; we really are 40 years away from May 1968.