Since I have been the subject of attacks and misrepresentation from Eddy Butler who is seeking nomination as British National Party (BNP) Leader together with the Red Fascists at ‘Lancaster Unity’ I thought I would put the record straight. Please note the similarities in approach between Butler and Lancaster UAF on a number of issues which has brought them into effective alliance objectively.
Leader of a rival Party?
Although I am on the National Executive of the National Liberal Party (NLP) I am not its Leader and all day-to-day decision-making falls to the National Secretary Cllr David Durant. The party represents in the UK the National Liberal tradition which fused liberalism and nationalism throughout 19th century Europe. It is a political alternative to the BNP (and indeed all other Parties) but it is also a Libertarian party respecting the rights of all political viewpoints to practice. The NLP believes in consensus politics. The NLP will work with all for the ‘greater good’.
The NLP therefore involves itself in alliances where suitable. One such is an electoral one known as the “Peoples Alliance”. At the last election one of our members approached rival parties/independents in the South Hornchurch ward in Havering to see if they would stand down in favour of the Alliance (on behalf of the Local Independents). Apart from the main parties all the others agreed to do so (including the BNP). The price of the latter was for the Alliance not to put up against them in their strong areas (and not to put up a full slate in Elm Park). This was agreed. It transpires that this didn’t go down too well with some of the local branch who set about undermining the agreement that had been made. They announced via glossy leaflets shortly before nominations that they were to stand anyhow. As it turned out their unit imploded and the candidates stood down. Four Alliance candidates were elected and the BNP lost their one councillor (but they were not stood against as the Alliance honoured its part of the agreement).
I wasn’t involved in the above discussions and actually most of my work involves the think-tank Third Way (created earlier) which supports the NLP.
Why do we need Solidarity?
The Trade Union Solidarity was formed in 2005 by one or two BNP members (but independent of that party) but did nothing for a couple of years. I got involved and became appointed General Secretary. Within the space of two years I and a newly elected Executive were able to expand membership from 35 to several hundreds. Most of those members are not members of any political party and those that are represent all persuasions. We have ethnic minority members including Asians and South East Asians. We support and defend the rights of our individual members above all. We have won notable settlements and cases on behalf of our members and have a proven track record of effective representation.
The interest to some members of the BNP is two-fold. First, we believe in the phrase ‘British jobs for British workers’ as we oppose the off-shoring of labour and capital to cheap labour economies or the importing of cheap migrant labour (thus undercutting local wages). Solidarity is a Union with a Nationalist ethos.
Second, unlike the establishment Unions we don’t discriminate politically in membership and have thus represented BNP members at disciplinaries including ‘politically’ motivated ones.
“Solidarity would collapse without BNP support” – Butler and the UAF
I can state categorically that the Union does not rely upon any political leadership to survive. It operates largely upon funds derived from membership subscriptions. We are grateful to any promotion any outside bodies give us (and the present BNP leadership does this from time to time).
BNP members are more likely to be involved in workplace disputes than non-BNP members of our Union. As such our non-BNP members (including NLP members) effectively help to subsidise their representation. They are happy to do so because they believe that no one should face discrimination at work on account of their political beliefs and the rights of freedom of association and expression are universal.
Of the four BNP leadership contenders, three are in fact members of our Union and one (Derek Adams) has acted as a Rep winning cases for other Union members. Eddy Butler is not a member of our Union and is hostile to it.
The idea promoted by Eddy Butler that a non-TU body can aid BNP members (or anyone else) better than a Trade Union is fallacious. Employment legislation specifically enshrined Unions as the ‘workers representatives’ and apart from a work colleague provide the only Rep allowed into disciplinary/grievance meetings. Anyone of course can give unofficial advice outside but a TU does build up knowledge, experience and contacts that an amateur is unlikely to rival.
The Barking and Dagenham Sentinel
Solidarity was asked if they wanted to put adverts in the so-called ‘Third Party’ newspaper which was distributed in the Barking constituency in the General Election to expose the Labour candidate Margaret Hodge as not being the ‘best friend’ of the British worker. We were happy to do this and to give interviews to that paper.
Employed by the BNP/ Engaged in Benefit Fraud
Contrary to assertions by the Red Fascists and supporters of Eddy Butler I do am not in receipt of benefits and I do not work for the BNP. I am self-employed as a consultant. Any contractual relationship I may have with the BNP (as with any other group) would be or is purely on a personal professional basis. Any comment I make on the internal workings or politics of the BNP are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the position of Solidarity, the NLP or any other group I am involved in. Neither Solidarity or the NLP has taken any official stance regarding the nomination process.
Richard Barnbrook
Both Lancaster Unity and Eddy Butler have pushed the line that I have somehow tricked Richard Barnbrook into entering his name for nomination as Leader. Richard has made his own decisions. I have certainly supported Richard doing this as I feel that his idea of a Caretaker leader for one year who is independent of the current backbiting has much merit. Richard tells me that he wants reform in his Party but sees the need to deliver this in a way which doesn’t cause disunity and factionalism. That seems to me to be a legitimate and sensible point of view. Why shouldn’t he put his name forward on that basis?
I have expressed my opinion about Eddy Butler because he has attacked the Solidarity Trade Union, sought to hinder and obstruct the work we do and because some members approached me requesting guidance. He is seeking to sow discord and set one political group against another. I regard him as a wrecker. I don’t think any member of Solidarity or anyone who values the work we do should nominate him or give him any support. That’s my opinion and I have every right to express it. I will continue to do so.
