Talk:British Democratic Party (2013)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Hope not Hate = anti-nationalist

I think it is clear by anyone checking the hope not hate website that they oppose any kind of ethnic nationalism. What is it with the mindless reverts? "Anti-fascist" is a pretty label for some groups, but it does not tell any information about the real agenda of the group.

It is relevant because the party does not spouse any fascist policies (the platform does not involve anything like totalitarian control of the economy), and the criticism against them is in ethnic nationalist grounds. -YourCognitiveDissonance (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think describing the precise kind of organisation is all that relevant. I've removed "antifascist" (that's what the source used) and just left it blank. I've also removed your "has received criticism" line. I don't really see what it's adding; neither is explicitly criticism as such, they're both predictions. A prediction of how they'll fare against the BNP, and a prediction of the kind of policies they'll be putting forward. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is at all "clear by anyone checking the hope not hate website that they oppose any kind of ethnic nationalism". Seeing as the phrase "ethnic nationalism" is nowehere on the site, we must presume that
original research. Emeraude (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Why does an article about the BDP contain extensive commentary and even speculation by Hope Not Hate, an organisation which is obviously biased? Why should we care what Hope Not Hate think? The article about Hope Not Hate doesn't have commentary and speculation from Nationalist parties. KillerBoogie (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you declaring a personal position here? Emeraude (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. KillerBoogie (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The speculation from Hope Not Hate has been referred to by reliable sources. This article also contains quotes and views from far-right publications. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing whether or not the sources are reliable, I'm disputing the importance of an anti-Nationalist organisation's speculations. I could go onto the Hope Not Hate article and write a huge paragraph about what Nationalist parties think of Hope Not Hate, and what they speculate Hope Not Hate might do in the future and cite it with reliable sources, does that mean it's appropriate? At least let's get rid of the speculation, it's superfluous. KillerBoogie (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not disputing that the sources are reliable you really haven't a leg to stand on. Emeraude (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm going to edit in something about the average rainfall in Siberia, and cite it with reliable sources. And that will be okay, right? Just because something is a reliable source doesn't mean it's an appropriate or relevant reliable source. The source is for the opinions and speculations of Hope Not Hate, and the source is Hope Not Hate. So saying it's a reliable source is tautological because the source only proves that Hope Not Hate did say that. I don't dispute that Hope Not Hate said that, I dispute that we should care that Hope Not Hate said that, especially in such detail. You might as well have a paragraph from Pepsi speculating about Coke. The British Resistance recently wrote an article about the BDP, shall we include that too? KillerBoogie (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not superfluous when we still don't really have any sources saying what the policies of the party are. Perhaps once we have that, your argument will be a little stronger. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MEP?

Do we have a source saying that this party has a seat in the European Parliament? Yes, Brons is a member, and yes, Brons is an MEP, but I see no reason to believe that Brons does not remain an independent in the European Parliament. Certainly, the official site still does not list him as a member of the BDP. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. In my view, it is not relevant that the the European Parliament website does not list him as BDP; I imagine it is not updated in this respect unless an MEP instructs them to do so, and I suspect Brons has just neglected to inform anyone. As to its degree of officialdom, who knows? It's certainly the case that Brons is in the BDP and that he's an MEP, as everyone agrees. Ipso facto, the BDP has a representative in the European Parliament and it's certainly the case that all the publcity from Brons/BDP mentions he's an MEP. I'd have thought that was sufficient. Granted, he wasn't elected as BDP, bu then he wasn't elected as independent either, or, as the EP website has it, "-". (Technically, you could argue that any MEP who was the only representaive of their party was, in European terms, independent in the EP, but that just confuses the issue.) Personally, whether or not it's in the infobox is not important to me - I find they frequently confuse when a good sentence of text makes things much clearer - but for consistency it makes sense. Emeraude (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It's certainly the case that Brons is in the BDP and that he's an MEP, as everyone agrees. Ipso facto, the BDP has a representative in the European Parliament and it's certainly the case that all the publcity from Brons/BDP mentions he's an MEP. I'd have thought that was sufficient." I don't think it necessarily follows that Brons is in the BDP and Brons is an MEP to the BDP has an MEP. I believe an independent can still be a member of a party, just not representing that party in their role. As it's an interesting question as to whether this new party that next to no one has heard of has a seat in the EU, I think it's best to not include the claim until we have a source confirming it. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the article states (sourced): "The party was established by Andrew Brons" and its president is Brons. I think it does therefore follow that Brons is in the BDP! (Unless he founded it and immediately left....) Emeraude (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming that Brons is not a member of the BDP, I'm proposing that it is possible that he is not representing the BDP in parliament. Certainly, this is an unusual case. Again, I'd rather wait until a reliable source lists him as a BDP MEP before we do. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I wasn't arguing. As you say, it is an unusual case. Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

County Councillor

The BDP has a defected county councillor in Leicestershire named Graham Partner who will be standing for the BDP in the 2013 English County Council elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Founders

Regarding the contested use of the source for the description of the BDP founders in the article lead:

The source is purposefully misquoted. It does not say, as Wikipedia has it, "The party was established by Andrew Brons..... along with a number of others from nationalist, Conservative, UKIP and Labour party backgrounds." That phrase is taken from where the article reports the speech by Kevin Scott (a long time fascist, leading member of BNP, Civil Liberty): Scott told the audience that the BDP aims to be a broad church from the Conservative right, UK Independence Party, National Front and even old Labour, saying “we must form a union with all other nationalists”.

The founders, their background and speeches are described in some detail in the source, and all of them have a rich history in neo-Nazi, fascist and other extreme right wing groups. That some of them may also have been in Labour or the extreme wings of the Conservative Party does not mean they were not fascists, neo-Nazis or whatever!

The source states that "Named positions are held by Kevin Scott (chairman), Adrian Davies (treasurer) and Ken Booth (national nominating officer). The others on the committee are Dr James Lewthwaite, Brian Mahoney, Andrew Moffat, Kevan Stafford, Sam Swerling and John Walker. All except Davies are former BNP members, and of those, all except Swerling were BNP officers." But just to be absolutely clear, here's a breakdown from the source for the founders of BDP:

Bean - Union Movement, League of Empire Loyalists, the National Labour Party, the 1960s version of the British National Party, National Front, BNP
Brons - National Socialist Movement, National Front, BNP
Bennett - BNP, BFP
Scott - BNP, Civil Liberty
Davies - founded The Freedom Party, prominent on the Tory right on the council of the Conservative Monday Club and the executive committee of Tory Action, secretary of the right-wing pressure group, the London Swinton Circle. (The only one with no direct overtly fascist past?)
Booth - BNP
Mahoney - BNP
Moffatt - NF, UKIP (not fascist), BNP
Swerling - Monday Club, League of Empire Loyalists, BNP
Strafford - BNP

(Most of these have individual Wikipedia articles.)

So that's the organisers - every one of them, as the source says, with a history of fascist politics. So let's see what the source says about the audience: "The audience included many well known former BNP supporters and other racists, among them:..." and it goes on to name 23 specifically. Nine are identified as ex-BNP; three as ex-NF

Given all the above:

1 As it stands, the sentence based on this source is simply untrue.
2 My version,, including "most of whom have a history of involvement in fascist and neo-Nazi groups" is totally accurate and a fair reflection of what the source actually says. Emeraude (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The 1970s National Front cannot be considered the same as the National Front of today. The only two of the steering committee that had previous links to direct and open fascist based movements are John Bean (Union Movement) and Andrew Brons (National Socialist Movement). Many of the steering committee namely Davies, Stafford, Swerling, Mahoney and Moffatt have spent longer in non-nationalist parties than nationalist parties around 4 years on average each with the British National Party excluding Davies.

The statement along with a number of others from nationalist, Conservative, UKIP and Labour party backgrounds is correct as the definition explains the full backgrounds of the steering committee. The article lists each members background and this was taken from the article and not from Kevin Scott on Civil Liberty. The article refers to members former NF and BNP backgrounds but fails to class them broadly as either fascists or neo-Nazis, the only person referred to directly as such is John Bean.

Therefore the term 'along with a number of others from nationalist, Conservative, UKIP and Labour party backgrounds' is actually far more accurate than 'most of whom have a history of membership in fascist and neo-Nazi groups' this implies that everyone belongs to these groups if they have ever been members of the National Front or British National Party. At a similar level would be state that everyone in the Labour party has a history of communism and trade unionism, which is of course untrue. As stated most of those mentioned have spent longer in non-nationalist groups. (User:Truenature12), 25 August 2013.(UTC)

No, it's not, and the source does not say that. It says that a speaker wanted to attract those sorts of people, not that those sorts of people were the founders! To say otherwise is simply dishonest.
You are right that the NF at the time of Brons et al is different in many respects from today's NF; however, it was fascist. All of the groups I mentioned above - BNP mk1, BNP mk2, LEL, UM, NF, NSM, NLP, NSM - were fascits, some more openly than others, some more explicitly Nazi than others, so to say only Bean and Brons qualify is silly.
And where on earth do you get your "around 4 years on average" - that's not in the article, so it can only be your conjecture or original research, neither of which is acceptable. Emeraude (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The article clearly states members previous backgrounds. To quote some extracts from the article:

On Davies 'The Freedom Party, formed in 2000, went nowhere and petered out in 2006. Davies has also been prominent on the Tory right on the council of the Conservative Monday Club and the executive committee of Tory Action, and was secretary of the right-wing pressure group, the London Swinton Circle'.

'Then came Andrew Moffat, another man with a long history on the far right. A member of the young NF in the 1970s, he stood as a candidate for UKIP in the general elections of 2001 and 2005 and for the BNP in 2010'.

'The final steering committee speaker was Kevan Stafford, former organiser of the BNP’s Charnwood branch and a Labour Party member until 1999'.

It's also easy to find evidence of Sam Swelling being a Conservative party member and councilor and member of the Monday Club.

You clearly don't understand the difference between nationalism, fascism and neo-Nazism all of which are different ideologies. Some of those parties you listed would not have been classes as fascist.

Four years and was not in the entry and was never going to be anyway; Stafford was not listed as a BNP member before 2006 and left around 2010-11 same for Mahoney, Davies has only been a Tory and Freedom Party member and was never in the BNP, Moffatt as stated in the article stood for UKIP in 2001 and 2005. He joined the BNP just before the 2010 General Election. (User:Truenature12), 07 September 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truenature12 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: with a first degree in political science and later research into extreme right wing and fascist parties/groups, I certainly do understand the differences between nationalism, fascism and neo-Nazism. (And, incidentally, fascism and Nazism are themselves types of nationalism, and Nazism is a type of fascism!) I've not said that the Tories, UKIP or Monday Club are fascist - they're not - though that does not preclude their members being fascist. The other paries mentioned are - NF, BNP, etc. So, to take just one of your examples, Stafford, he has been a member of Labour (not fascist) and the BNP (fascist), so he quite clearly has a history of membership in a fascist group. The sentence you are quibbling about says "The party was launched .....by a 10 member steering committee including Andrew Brons ..... along with a number of others most of whom have a history of membership in fascist and neo-Nazi groups." Well, that's true isn't it, regardless of whther or not some have also at some time been a member of the Conservatives, Labour, Lib-Dems, UKIP or the Tufty Club. Emeraude (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Democratic Party (2013). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations from Hope not Hate activists

Emeraude, I am puzzled by your edit. On the Nick Lowles quotation, it is from 2013, which is why “In 2013, Nick Lowles... believed” is plainly better than “Nick Lowles... believes”. I shall revert that. I have raised no objection to including what he believed, although as he is a political opponent his opinion is hardly a neutral one. But on the Collins quotation, my point was that mere speculation seven years ago by an opponent about what might later happen is completely unencyclopedic, especially in a section titled “History”. So I shall revert that and copy this to the Talk page. If you have more to say, please add it there. Moonraker (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. 1) The fact that someone is a member of one organisation does not make them a "political opponent" per se. Neither Lowles nor Collins are specifically opponents of the BDP, but are opponents of racism and fascism. And both are higly respected commenators/academics in the field who can be accepted as informed. 2) It's silly to accept a quote or view from Lowles, but not from Collins, given that the source for both is Collins' article in the New Statesmen. Both are giving their considered opinion of how the the BDP will develop, based on thei experience and academic background. Emeraude (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the British Democrats party logo should be on the infobox, but I'm not too sure how to upload images on Wikipedia properly. The logo is on their website. Could someone please upload it? Thanks! Alistair McBuffio (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move page to
British Democratic Party

The specification of this article as being the version of the British Democratic Party that was founded in 2013 seems to be rather unnecessary, because the

British Democratic Party redirect page, and that this page be left behind as a redirect instead. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Removal of Information

I made a large removal of content from this page for reasons that can be defended by policy and was recently undone.

1 - Removal of Policy Section

Information is unencyclopaedic, instead it is an unnecessarily detailed outline of its policy slate backed solely by an out of date snapshot of the party's website. It has had a warning template for a non-primary source for more than a year and hasn't been improved, suggesting it can't be. This effectively leaves it to function as an advert for its policies and falls afoul under

WP:NOTADVERT
.

2 - Reduction of "notable persons"

Very few of the individuals named are actually notable, as evidenced by a lack of articles on those individuals and heavy reliance on self-published social media sources by the party to promote their joining. Falls afoul of

WP:SPIP

3 - Removing of sections of Electoral Performance

Most of the section was removed as it was little more than an indiscriminate listing minor party candidates who failed to be elected in local elections. Easily falls afoul of

WP:SPIP
. I kept the sections on elections that were won (notable events) and a failed General Election bid.

4 - Misc

Throughout removed

WP:OR
violations that were either dead links or completely unsupported by any sources, such as the claim they had three total parish councillors and that made them the most supported Far-Right party in the UK.

Overall all these reductions meet policy and guidelines for wikipedia, and unless it can be shown in policy/guidelines the material should be kept I will revert back again. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:ONUS emphasizes that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This is clearly disputed content; if you believe that Rambler's case is refutable, then we can continue the discussion here. Cheers, ——Serial 16:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Democratic_Party_(2013)&oldid=1216331706"