I confess to a currently fashionable perversion – I do occasionally sneak a late night look at ’stat porn’, the web record of how many people are reading your blog, and where they come from. I try to restrict myself to two minutes once a week, I am scared of becoming addicted, and the last two days I have only peeked with my eyes closed – I suffer from vertigo.

However, before the recent furore, I was always interested in how readers in New Zealand, Dubai, Angola (!) and places like Kazakhstan had been led to my blog door. Now the fellow (I hope it is a fellow) in Kazakhstan was easily explained, night after night, at around 4am, he had clicked on a Google link that led him to my unfortunately named blog post ‘The ‘all you can eat’ Pussy Club. Either he is fascinated with the tale of how the economic downfall in Germany had had unusual consequences, or he was hoping that it was a ‘front’ and eventually he would click on the secret link that would admit him to a wonderful world of porn…..

Click, click, click. Poor man, and he has to live in Kazakhstan. I pity him.

However, the remaining overseas links would invariable come via a link through ‘Total Politics’. Somehow, and I have no idea how, for I neither knew that the competition was running, nor advised my readers to vote in it, I ended up as 13th in the top 20 Libertarian blogs.

I quite possibly came third in the annual camel racing contest in Dubai, and second in the goat curry cooking competition in Barbados, I didn’t enter them either, but the organisers of those competitions haven’t resulted in any links to my blog.

Anyway, back to Total Politics. The details that ’stat porn’ provides of these visitors is that they come predominantly from servers owned by universities, and large news organisation; from which I construe that there are large number of people around the world who are genuinely interested in the British political scene, and are quietly munching their way through the lists of blogs of all hue, gaining a representative view of all opinions at to what is happening in Britain. As well they might – they don’t want to end up in the same mess we are in, do they?

Yesterday, in the middle of all the Hogan excitement, a blog post flashed up on my screen from that perennial old favourite of mine, the big girl’s blouse, ‘pauline-in-Lancs’. On initial reading it seemed that Pauline was merely huffing and puffing, trying to persuade his readers that anyone who even spoke to, or about, the BNP was racist. Nothing unusual in that. Nothing unusual in his antipathy towards Iain Dale and the influential Total Politics magazine – it has been that way ever since the ‘demon’ himself, Lord Ashcroft, bought a share of the magazine.

This was different though, now that I have had the time (and inclination) to re-read the piece. For it seems that the big girl’s blouse wants nothing less than a total boycott of ‘Total Politics’ by all ‘decent’ – i.e. left wing – blogs. He is calling for, amongst others, the Unite (Charlie Whelan) financed blog, Labour List to boycott the Ashcroft financed Total Politics. Nay, he is offering bribes in the form of links from his blog to anyone who will help turn Total Politics into Un-Total Politics.

I have always argued that if you disagree with the BNP policies, you should be out and about, rebutting their arguments. If you seek to silence them instead, what you are actually seeking to do is silencing democracy, not silencing Nick Griffin.

Listen to their argument.

Publication of an interview by Total Politics, which will be distributed to every parliamentarian, peer, political journalist and to councillors across the country, does the opposite. It is a further acquiescence to the BNP message being accepted as a normal part of British political discourse. It is not.

Yes it is, Pauline. Listening to views you don’t like, or don’t agree with, is very much part of British political discourse. The idea of debate is that you think up opposing arguments, better arguments. Unless of course, you truly believe that British political discourse has already descended to the level of Stalin’s Russia –

“There is a person – there is a problem, there is no person – there is no problem.”

If the Big Girl’s Blouse is successful in his call for a boycott, Total Politics will no longer be accessed by academics and journalists around the world, looking for a wide range of informed opinion on British Politics, it will, in his own words, risk a ‘negative impact on its business’.

Or to paraphrase Stalin.

“There is a magazine – there is a problem, there is no magazine – there is no problem.”

Never have the totalitarian instincts of the hard left been more obvious. Democracy is what they are attacking, not Nick Griffin.

1
Dave Semple March 11, 2010 at 15:47

Pauline? Really?

The attack on democracy accusation is pretty standard fare for you libertarians. I could point out til I was blue in the face that the editorial decisions of a magazine have nothing to do with democracy. Actually I could point out that when they are taken as a result of popular pressure, it’s probably closer to democracy than when they are taken simply to be controversial, or as a result of individual political bias. But whether or not I have a point, you’re not going to be persuaded.

I will make the point that satire is one thing, mean little remarks about how Paul tried to bribe bloggers by offering links are pointless and untruthful. In actual fact, the links were put up with no quid pro quo offered, as a means to attract attention to the issue – and Paul says exactly that.

2
Pat March 12, 2010 at 08:45

Since the BNP, to judge from its website, is essentially the labour party of 1920, perhaps the left is more worried about losing working class support than anything ellse.

3
Chris’ Wills March 12, 2010 at 09:31

Socialist sees succesful, private business owned by people he doesn’t like.

Automatic response, how can I destroy a succesful business and put more people on the dole.

All must be controlled by me and mine seems to be the concept

4
Dave Semple March 12, 2010 at 11:25

@Pat – did the Labour Party of the 1920s advocate “repatriation” etc?

@ Chris’ Wills – is it a successful business? I gather it’s owned by Ashcroft but I’ve no idea if it makes money. I thought, like the Staggers or Tribune, it sucked in money rather than making any.

5
Billy Barnett March 12, 2010 at 13:58

Dave Semple it would seem that you consider only one component of the BNP’s platform to be relevant to their outlook. There is more to them than repatriation – and I’m with Pat on that one. They are old school socialist.

As to whether Labour advocated repatriation in the 1920s, I suspect they didn’t if only because there was no reason why anyone should have done given the ethnic mix at that time. What they would have made of todays Britain is anyone’s guess. For my guess I’d say that given the mores of the day the rank and file at least, if not the Webbs, Attlee etc, is highly likely to have thought along today’s BNP lines.

6
Alan March 12, 2010 at 19:14

Dave Semple said:

“The attack on democracy accusation is pretty standard fare for you libertarians. I could point out til I was blue in the face that the editorial decisions of a magazine have nothing to do with democracy. Actually I could point out that when they are taken as a result of popular pressure, it’s probably closer to democracy than when they are taken simply to be controversial, or as a result of individual political bias. But whether or not I have a point, you’re not going to be persuaded.”

Neither am I. ‘popular pressure’. By what metric – big-ness of gob? Number of eggs thrown at Nick Griffin? Far more people seem to not give a stuff about the BNP than get worked up about them. Total Politics could merrily discount any complaints from people who insist the BNP are terribly right-wing because they aren’t. They are as statist and socialist as any.

Either say editorial decisions have nothing to do with democracy or say they have. ‘I could point out…’ but I won’t. ‘Or I could point out…’ but I won’t do that either. You can’t have your cake and eat it. Do you actually have a view or not?

Why is the left in particular so afraid of letting the BNP put their feet firmly in their mouthes? Their policies are more socialist than Labour and I suspect that has something to do with it. Labour stormed to victory in 1997 in part due to insisting the ‘centre ground’ was important and insisting it was them who occupied it. Since then the Conservatives have tried to ape Labour to displace them in this magical ‘centre’.

Politics tends to be focused on a narrow section of the spectrum. This consensus whereby Lib/Lab/Con all largely speak with the same media and state friendly forked tongue is very much at risk if other political parties from the BNP to UKIP, LPUK to Jury Team had more exposure and thereby put the mainstream political parties into a better, wider context. Can’t have that now can we.

7
John77 March 12, 2010 at 19:43

Dave Semple asks whether the Labour Party in the 1920s advocated repatriation: he is presumably unaware that the State of Israel was not founded until 1948 and so it impossible for Mosley and other members of the Labour Party to call for repatriation to a state that did not exist

8
Vimes March 12, 2010 at 23:14

BNP – “old school socialists”? Bollocks to that – my dad was an “old school socialist” and he wouldn’t have pissed on the BNP if they were on fire.