Stop (talking about) the BNP
April 8, 2008 by Damian Hockney · Leave a Comment
Leader of the One London Party at the London Assembly Damian Hockney wonders why politicians and the media give endless coverage to attacks the BNP by politicians who themselves are not very popular. It is counterproductive and arrogant, he says. And he suggests that coverage of the BNP in a negative way, together with failure to cover the positive aspects of other small parties, is more reminiscent of Zimbabwe style electoral processes than those of a democracy.
We KNOW that endless regular drip drip media coverage for a product or person gives branding and public recognition. Why else do L’Oreal and Ford spend millions on tv advertising?
We KNOW that ‘bad’ publicity is not an absolute definition. What would be bad publicity for a church leader might be good for a rock star. When the mother of the Oasis Gallagher brothers said in an interview that the little scallywags had spent their youth up the wooden hill by 9pm with a cup of cocoa and a copy of the Good Book, this was regarded as catastrophic publicity to be suppressed at all costs. By 1997, their reputation and earning power lay in creating and maintaining an entirely different impression.
So can no-one in public life grasp one thing? That when a bunch of not-that-popular politicians from what the BBC calls “the main parties” spend large amounts of energy and provide hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of media coverage attacking a small political party like the BNP…well, you can surely see where I’m coming from – all that’s going to happen is that they help build that party’s brand, whet the appetite for information on the party of the horned ones, and give them the oxygen of that hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of media coverage
Of course no-one ever gives the horned ones the opportunity to really respond…hence the BNP can claim the most viewed political website. Because where can we all go get information on this valuable brand being built so assiduously by the press and the “main parties”.
Media coverage has immense value. It is fought for by an army of highly paid publicists using every trick in the book to get volume mentions. Anyone who believes that tv and radio have no value are not living in today’s world.
I pulled out of the Mayoral race precisely because the state radio and television guidelines were such an attack on small parties that they will remain invisible for the course of the campaign – because of those guidelines and the way they have been designed. And of course I am being proved right. Among the hours of tedious tv and radio coverage of Ken and Boris (and a bit of the other bloke), how many mentions have you all seen of the English Democrats? Or the Left List? Probably none. And all because of those state guidelines.
And of course the best advertising of all is third party recommendations. Which is why those companies pay millions to celebs to tell you how brilliant their shampoos are.
And that process works in reverse. If an unpopular person attacks you, that too makes good brand building. Just think of this. Ken Livingstone was first choice of only 15% of London’s voters at the last Mayor election and is liked/disliked by a substantial proportion of the electorate. That’s the nature of politics and is no reflection on the Mayor. Considerably less than 20% (one in five) voted for him when you combine first and second choice votes. If he stands up and attacks you as an opponent, he gives you more branding and more coverage with the over 80% who did NOT vote for him. If you can’t stand “that Red Ken” and he’s seen having a rant at his bogeyman, then aren’t you just going to think: “maybe these BNP boys have got a point”? And for those who think Boris is clueless, to hear him spluttering on about not wanting the votes of those who have the temerity to vote BNP…well there again, more branding, more memory jogs for May 1st.
Had I had Ken standing up berating “that Damian Hockney and his evil One London Party” a few weeks ago I should never have retired from the race. I would have been guaranteed a decent vote and at least our Assembly seats back. With Boris chiming in as well, I’d have been looking at making serious inroads.
But there seems to be a strange belief in the media and indeed among the politicians of the “main parties” that if they give loads of coverage to these supposedly “respected” politicians berating a small party, that everyone will listen and say “Oooh that nice Mr Livingstone says don’t vote for the BNP so I won’t”. That’s not how it works. Isn’t a typical BNP voter more likely to respond to this welter of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of third party ‘recommendation’ and memory joggers by simply remembering to actually go out and vote BNP? Doesn’t it just remind the average voter endlessly that the BNP are standing…while indeed reinforcing the impression that others like UKIP, the Christian Alliance, English Democrats et al are not actually in the race?
I have to give politicians and media the benefit of a doubt and assume they have some grasp of modern marketing. After all, by their guidelines on tv coverage for the Mayor elections, state radio and television in collusion with the “main parties” has effectively strangled at birth any challengers from outside the “main” contenders.
But I think that arrogance on a grand scale means that they really think that by their demonisation of just one small party they will knock it on the head. That everyone hangs on their words to such a degree that mass revulsion will set in with a few carefully edited and distorted clips. A few choice cuts using maximum editorial licence, maximum lack of balance and the most distorted mirror possible to reflect diverse politics.
Another important point is the linking of the fortunes of other small parties with the BNP by broadcast guidelines. Because the BNP are so demonised, broadcasters wish to give them limited platform. But the guideliens say that all these small parties must be treated equally. Nick Ferrari said to me on LBC when I pulled out of the Mayoral race that the absurd rules mean that they could have me on ONLY after I pulled out! Because of the rules whereby they have to have all what are called the “minor” candidates on, it is just too much to do and sometimes impossible. And of course among those candidates they must have on are…the BNP. So they all actively close down the spots available for all “minor” candidates because of both the logistics and of course the bogeyman.
Is it possible that there is a hidden agenda for these attacks and the demonisation then? Because they have set up state rules on coverage which place many candidates on an equal footing with the BNP…and then actively discourage any coverage of the BNP, which in turns invokes “balance” and “fairness” rules and we are all prevented from appearing – because unless the BNP do as well, those rules would be broken. Catch 22? Or Soviet election rules c 1952?
Damian Hockney is Lead Candidate for the One London Party on the London Assembly List elections , May 1st
I worked at City Hall and Damian was always very good at explaining inconsistencies and unfairnesses and this is an excellent summing up of the problems with the Mayor elections. I now work in another part of government and I’ve recently become aware that those who worked on the election system are deeply unhappy with the way in which government and media have manipulated it to avoid explaining the election properly and to avoid mentioning candidates outside of the charmed circle. Good on you for being the only part of the media in London that would run a piece like this. The Standard wouldn’t and the BBC wouldn’t.
Sorry passingthrough, I didn’t intend my article to reflect the reasons I pulled out of the Mayor race, which have been well covered on mayorwatch and indeed in a couple of very fair articles on the BBC website. As a magazine publisher, journalist and someone who knows the way of PRs only too well, I wrote the BNP piece from that perspective. I actually had to give back the £10k deposit to a donor, and if you look at the guidelines for state radio and tv coverage they are clear about small parties. You do not see those parties mentioned now do you? Clive, I’d like to know who the university professor was and I’m not sure anyone would have made such a sweeping claim (but I may be wrong) – they are not usually good at understanding media either!! The endless coverage of the BNP – and remember Margaret Hodge in Dagenham and Barking – led directly to the avalanche of seats that the BNP won. That’s why the BNP gave her a bunch of flowers for her efforts towards their campaign. Banning propaganda? It is as much propaganda to exclude or marginalise candidates as to misreport or report favourably. So do you stop all coverage period? And as I said, what is ‘favourable’? To achieve this state, you would have to go back to the 50s when reports about what was due to be debated in parliament were excluded from tv and radio for a number of days beforehand. And on print media, you cannot stop the Standard (a private company) from campaigning for Boris, can you? And would it be right to do that? Who would monitor the ban? State Radio and TV I would think…and thanks Stephen. I too have heard that the academics behind the voting system are unhappy with the way in which it has been not explained properly.
There is a multi-faceted test to legitmacy in the very public arena of democratic representation, which this article concedes, but doesn’t admit.
It is about constituency, and the ability to indentify, shape and unify it – what constitutes the prime factor of any political appeal, a factor strong enough to place all other considerations aside and will voters to make their X in that box.
Either you’ve got it, or you haven’t. And even if you’ve got it, how much have you got?
Isn’t it strange how you and your ilk use any opportunity to berate the BNP, yet we see no reasons (founded in fact) that explain why yours (and others) words instinctively and without explanation place them in a negative light. Almost as if all and sundry should share your views of the “horned ones” …. (because it must be unquestioningly accepted that YOU ARE RIGHT).
Well, no thanks, Lefties. Your “common purpose” days are numbered.
Not guilty myself on that front, Tom R. I wasn’t berating the BNP, but simply saying that it’s clear that those politicians who ARE doing so are achieving the opposite of what they say they want to. I also think it wrong that ANY parties are demonised without the opportunity to explain themselves, and my use of the phrase horned ones was meant ironically…I actually also use it to describe myself when I advocate no to amnesties for illegal immigrants, and argue yes to control over our borders outside of the EU. Think Dick Emery…”Ooh you are awful…”. And thomask I think I agree with you…but am not sure how it aplies to the BNP! It’s strange this, because I have had a more responses to this piece on my london.gov.uk e-mail address than anything else – about 40 this morning alone. It shows that mayorwatch is being very widely read!
Hmmm I think in the long term it IS good to talk about the BNP. The BNP are very good at misrepresenting their policies to suit the current times. They’ll be anti Black when needed, anti Jew and now anti Muslim.
Their very public line is on themes such as NO IMMIGRATION, which could be quite popular. However, other policies on their website include voluntary repatriation of all non European races, which is way more extreme than the stuff on the doorstep.
So I think its right to make sure that people understand the full extent of them. Yes it may garner votes, but once the full truth of what they believe is outed (say, by rigourous interviews by Paxman etc) then people will know their true nature.
Self-censorship of talking about the BNP only contributes to their martyrdom.
We need to rip off the plaster to get to the maggots insdie…
I believe Damian should be re-elected. He has brought a fresh vision into London Politics. He was never afraid to voice the opinion of the man and women on the street – to the High and Mighty! He is a fighter and politics will be the loser without him.
The UKIP man above ought to consider just why that god awful party lost such good people. It was because of the leadership (although leadership suggests they LED!) of that awful party did not want a democratic election for the man ‘leading’ ukip.
Now they have got a man who is a legend in his own mind!
Damian Hockney is his own man. I do hope he is re-elected.
The BNP stealing your thunder are they, Damien?
We were prepared to advise our members to vote for Boris Johnson for London Mayor until he gave his support for an amnesty to allow all illegal immigrants gain British citizenship. That really was too much. When is someone going to have the courage to speak up for ordinary, indiginous Britons? Certainly not the Tories it would seem!
As a consequence we have withdrawn our support which will cost Boris Johnson a good few hundred votes in London. What does he care? Like the rest of them, he’ll say and do anything to get elected. English folk, meanwhile, patiently wait for someone to emerge in the future who will truly represent their interests. That day surely cannot be far off?
Passing Through, How come when someone who does not share the “view through rose tinted spectacles” slant of multi culti Nu Britain voices an opinion they are deemed either ,Fascist, Nazi, or Maggot (Thats a new one by the way).A huge amount of normal disgruntled people are now actively voting and joining the BNP. We would love to have our day against the likes of Paxman et al but due to either no platform ( great democracy isn’t it!)or the FACT that the beeb are scared of interviewing the likes of Griffen or Barnbrook, we just have to keep doing what we are doing and doing well to make the BNP a viable long term alternative to the LibLabCon Party. Yes we are the fastest growing political party, look at the great website!!!!!
The people of England nead common sence decency fair play for all!! including the poor victimised whities.Richard seems to be the most honest should be given a fair hearing and a fair chance without being intimidated by the communist party
…and of course, today (15th April)the Standard have done it again – given a full half page having a go at the BNP for having a candidate who reads tarot cards and another who stormed out of a jury…it simply reinforces the branding, makes people aware which is not what the Standard are intending I am certain…and isn’t all of life to be found in all the party lists? Might there not be someone into tarot card readings on another list? Or someone who had walked off of a jury in disgust? Might in different circumstances these things be celebrated as examples of diversity, and commitment to justice? I also again worry that the only real coverage for ‘minor’ parties is attacks upon one. Where is the half page coverage of UKIP policies? Or balance through a piece on the English Democrats views on running London? Or the same on Lindsey German and the Left List? Or even, bless him, Winston Mackenzie?
I agree with Damian there is no such thing as bad publicity, Besides Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone & Brian Paddick no other candidates or parties get anywhere near as much press coverage except for the BNP and this is because are always being talked about by the aforementioned three. I should think the BNP are relishing this fact as it is essentially free advertising
If I wanted political power and decided that getting in bed with the Civil Service agenda (of status quo apathy) was the best way to go about it, I would not just flip a coin as to whether I joined the Labour or Tory Party, I would also set up a small party (such as the BNP, UKIP etc.) to “bleed off” any sections of the electorate that might get in the way of main stream apathetic parties.
But oops, isn’t that just what has happened? All the “trouble makers” are happily buzzing around in small parties and the fat lazy duopoly have split power between them. The Civil Service is happy presiding over this decay and onlly has to concentrate on tripping up the ministers they don’t like while the rest of us snooze away.
Bread and Cicuses have become telly and takeaways. That’s how Empires always seem to end.
Mr. Hockney has misunderstood the nature of the British media. A few months ago a university professor on the BBC stated that the only reason the BNP are not in political power is due to negative media publicity.
The answer to this problem is simply to prohibit the media from propagandising and supporting individal political parties and politicians.
That way we have a democracy based on what the people want, rather than what the media want.
Face it, no-one cares about One London. No-one even voted for One London, they voted for UKIP, you had a quarrel and formed One London after the vote. People aren’t talking about you because they don’t care about you. You have no influence. The Left List has no influence. So they don’t care about you. They barely know you exist.
They court the Greens because they are gaining in power/popularity. They fear the BNP for similar reasons.
You pulled out of the Mayoral race because you realised you wouldn’t get your deposit back and you’d lose £10,000.
Hahahaha….