Enquiry into the Direction of the Campaign Needs to be Undertaken by the Conservatives

It took Jeremy Corbyn some time to ensure that he set out an Inquiry into Antisemitism which will be headed up by Shami Chakraborty. The Inquiry is needed given the charges of antisemitism that should be looked into and given the fact that the Labour Party has a proud history of tackling racism. (For those who believe that antisemitism is not racism, let us put this bizarre argument to bed, it is racism and legally seen as such).

But there are questions to be asked of the campaign of Zac Goldsmith and let us not forget that towards the end of the campaign, the theme consistently put out was the link between extremism and Sadiq Khan. Some within the Conservative Party must have known that this would be read negatively within Muslim communities at a time when many Muslims are tired of their communities being framed solely through the lens of extremism. This was also expressly stated by Baroness Warsi in tweets that she put out.

These impacts would therefore have been known, but someone in the campaign made the decision to run on the extremism narrative and to push it through repetitively. Who was that individual or individuals is the question to be asked? How could this have been the main theme of Zac Goldsmith’s campaign is another question to be asked? Who authorised the campaign and who agreed to it? These are legitimate questions to be asked.

If we are to have a London united, then the public also need answers to these questions. In fact, over 1 million Londoners voted for Sadiq Khan. At the very least 1 million people would surely like an answer to these questions. We hope that the Conservative Party does show transparency and order an Inquiry into what went so disastrously wrong with the campaign that they had to resort to the lowest common denominator – innuendos about how the Labour candidate met someone over 10 years ago who was extreme and by default must have tendencies towards extremists. This is the narrative that was weaved and it was a toxic narrative. It is a narrative that has been soundly rejected by Londoners. However, now the questions must be asked about the Conservative campaign.

The post Labour Did the Right Thing on AntiSemitism, Now the Conservatives Must on Islamophobia appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Mayoral Campaign Was Run on the Basis of Smears, Innuendo & Negativity

The Conservative Mayoral campaign that has been run fixating on extremists and past associations with extremists may well have put off voters from listening to the public policies of Zac Goldsmith. Zac Goldsmith himself is a man who cares about issues affecting communities and is someone with a genuine desire to make a positive change for communities. Yet the campaign placed around him may well have also damaged his public reputation in the way that it constantly sniped at past events in the life of Sadiq Khan. It gave the impression of Goldsmith as being aggressive and playing to the lowest common denominator, of placing extremism with a Labour Muslim Mayoral candidate with no real tangible evidence.

Stories even went back to 2004, as a way of placing a question mark in the minds of voters, as though he was somehow secretly ‘one of them’. What ‘one of them’ meant was left to the reader, though it was a subtle attempt to suggest that people could not trust Sadiq Khan.

It looks like the people of London have rejected the attacks and the negative campaigning against Khan’s character. Also, let us be honest and say that whilst associations which politicians had should be questioned since they are in the public eye, the constant focus on who Khan met sometimes over a decade ago showed that the Tory campaign was solely based on pressing the button on extremism and Khan. They were playing to this core campaigning theme with little regard of the damage that it was doing to its image in Muslim communities. We believe that this will have short and medium term implications for the Conservatives as many Muslims remember and associate this campaign with them. This in itself is sad since this Conservative Government has ben strong on tackling anti-Muslim prejudice and ensuring that this is pushed through at a national and local level. This should also not be forgotten.

We hope that such a campaign is assigned to the past. It is clear that Londoners have rejected the negative campaign and in significant numbers. We also welcome the new Mayor of London and hope that he unites Londoners rather than dividing them.

The post Never Again Should Such a Torrid Campaign Be Run for the Mayor of London appeared first on TELL MAMA.

The latest circular for money by Britain First is another frenetic set of calls for money, though on this occasion it is to, “devastate Sadiq Khan’s campaign and alert hundreds of thousands of Londoners to his Islamic extremism.”

So what is new for this group which attempts to use the public as its ongoing purse in order to run bizarre schemes and to promote its extremism and anti-Muslim bigotry? Well, according to Britain First their media team have come up with “a short powerful video exposing Sadiq Khan and his Islamic extremism.” Have we not heard this campaign tactic used before? It is a tactic that we believe Londoners dislike – negative campaigning.

The ‘media team’ that Britain First talk about, is probably a man who has spent his life alone and who has watched too many of their extremist videos spending nights in with his computer and Airfix model set. So their e-mail pitch for last-minute cash states:

“Specifically, we want to push the video as an advert on Facebook, with a budget of around £2,500.

Doing this will cause Khan damage, real damage.

With a budget of around £2,500 we can hit hundreds of thousands of London voters.”

Let us hope that Londoners do cause damage to fascists tomorrow, by ensuring that they elect in a candidate who will do everything in their power to maintain the diversity of London and the heritage of different communities in our trail-blazing city. That is the best response we can give to fascists when we see, hear or smell them.

The post ‘Operation Lionheart’ by Britain First Shows the Level Far Right Extremists Will Stoop To appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Britain First deploys ‘self-victimisation‘ to reinforce group identity and support online. This strategy extends to a recent outrage with the Electoral Commission.

On March 9,  an article headlined ‘Electoral Commission: “Keeping London British! Is Offensive Slogan’ made bombastic claims of censorship. But it sounds familiar.

The party made similar claims against Royal Mail in 2014.  Royal Mail can refuse to deliver election materials if they consider it threatening or abusive. Paul Golding ignored this detail as Britain First were ‘victims’ of a greater perceived injustice.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Section 29 2b), the Electoral Commission can reject ballot emblems if they deem it ‘obscene or offensive’. The Electoral Commission reiterated this point to the party. But Britain First accused them of acting as the “Commissar for Political Correctness” in elections. Again, the party reinforces accusations of censorship to party faithful.

This strategy serves a dual function: policies in the age of multiculturalism and ‘PC culture’ have a detrimental impact on the party and its supporters. Britain First rejects the label of ‘racist party’. And argues that they are victims of ‘job stealing’ and ‘welfare stealing’ migrants.  Britain despite Muslims making up less than 5 per cent of the total population in England and Wales. These contradictions are never addressed. Britain First tailors their language and output to reflect the anxieties of those who ‘like’ their page. Reinforcing these anxieties are not always enough.  Presenting solutions can build group identity and raise the potential of donations.

A strategy of targeted donations has paid off in the past. Britain First topped the Electoral Commission’s donations league table for smaller parties last year. In 2014, the party had tripled its donations from 2013 to £159,516 – but spent most of it on campaign work. This is a strategy that extends to supporters in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Like other far-right parties, Britain First seeks mainstream credibility. Jayda Fransen, deputy leader, sought that in the Rochester and Strood by-election. It mattered little that the party achieved just 56 votes. Fransen had posed for a photo with the BBC’s Nick Robinson (who later apologised for his error). The extra media attention had little to do with local issues in the Rochester and Strood area. Britain First wanted national attention for their anti-mosque campaign in the neighbouring constituency.

Jayda Fransen also admitted that the mayoral campaign is a PR move to increase their public profile. Fransen wrote:

‘The benefits to standing in the London Mayoral Election will be immense: Each Mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.

Each Mayoral candidate will no doubt receive a lengthy Daily Politics interview and a plethora of other high profile media attention.

Contesting this election will cement Britain First as a powerful force on the “Right” of politics and will massively increase our public profile.’

Some of the top comments from some Britain First supporters to Electoral Commission story had the intended outcome. And it included:

‘OFFENSIVE? I don’t live there but such an insipid attitude offends me. If London isn’t British, then what is?’

‘London IS British. Whoever objects to that slogan is obviously some left-wing pond life.’

‘well if you guys don’t tell people to say it you are not breaking the law … so … Keep London British … stop the dismantling of the Westminster system and only recognise British law …’

The post How Britain First uses ‘victim narratives’ to boost support appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Britain First deploys ‘self-victimisation‘ to reinforce group identity and support online. This strategy extends to a recent outrage with the Electoral Commission.

On March 9,  an article headlined ‘Electoral Commission: “Keeping London British! Is Offensive Slogan’ made bombastic claims of censorship. But it sounds familiar.

The party made similar claims against Royal Mail in 2014.  Royal Mail can refuse to deliver election materials if they consider it threatening or abusive. Paul Golding ignored this detail as Britain First were ‘victims’ of a greater perceived injustice.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Section 29 2b), the Electoral Commission can reject ballot emblems if they deem it ‘obscene or offensive’. The Electoral Commission reiterated this point to the party. But Britain First accused them of acting as the “Commissar for Political Correctness” in elections. Again, the party reinforces accusations of censorship to party faithful.

This strategy serves a dual function: policies in the age of multiculturalism and ‘PC culture’ have a detrimental impact on the party and its supporters. Britain First rejects the label of ‘racist party’. And argues that they are victims of ‘job stealing’ and ‘welfare stealing’ migrants.  Britain despite Muslims making up less than 5 per cent of the total population in England and Wales. These contradictions are never addressed. Britain First tailors their language and output to reflect the anxieties of those who ‘like’ their page. Reinforcing these anxieties are not always enough.  Presenting solutions can build group identity and raise the potential of donations.

A strategy of targeted donations has paid off in the past. Britain First topped the Electoral Commission’s donations league table for smaller parties last year. In 2014, the party had tripled its donations from 2013 to £159,516 – but spent most of it on campaign work. This is a strategy that extends to supporters in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Like other far-right parties, Britain First seeks mainstream credibility. Jayda Fransen, deputy leader, sought that in the Rochester and Strood by-election. It mattered little that the party achieved just 56 votes. Fransen had posed for a photo with the BBC’s Nick Robinson (who later apologised for his error). The extra media attention had little to do with local issues in the Rochester and Strood area. Britain First wanted national attention for their anti-mosque campaign in the neighbouring constituency.

Jayda Fransen also admitted that the mayoral campaign is a PR move to increase their public profile. Fransen wrote:

‘The benefits to standing in the London Mayoral Election will be immense: Each Mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.

Each Mayoral candidate will no doubt receive a lengthy Daily Politics interview and a plethora of other high profile media attention.

Contesting this election will cement Britain First as a powerful force on the “Right” of politics and will massively increase our public profile.’

Some of the top comments from some Britain First supporters to Electoral Commission story had the intended outcome. And it included:

‘OFFENSIVE? I don’t live there but such an insipid attitude offends me. If London isn’t British, then what is?’

‘London IS British. Whoever objects to that slogan is obviously some left-wing pond life.’

‘well if you guys don’t tell people to say it you are not breaking the law … so … Keep London British … stop the dismantling of the Westminster system and only recognise British law …’

The post How Britain First uses ‘victim narratives’ to boost support appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Britain First deploys ‘self-victimisation‘ to reinforce group identity and support online. This strategy extends to a recent outrage with the Electoral Commission.

On March 9,  an article headlined ‘Electoral Commission: “Keeping London British! Is Offensive Slogan’ made bombastic claims of censorship. But it sounds familiar.

The party made similar claims against Royal Mail in 2014.  Royal Mail can refuse to deliver election materials if they consider it threatening or abusive. Paul Golding ignored this detail as Britain First were ‘victims’ of a greater perceived injustice.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Section 29 2b), the Electoral Commission can reject ballot emblems if they deem it ‘obscene or offensive’. The Electoral Commission reiterated this point to the party. But Britain First accused them of acting as the “Commissar for Political Correctness” in elections. Again, the party reinforces accusations of censorship to party faithful.

This strategy serves a dual function: policies in the age of multiculturalism and ‘PC culture’ have a detrimental impact on the party and its supporters. Britain First rejects the label of ‘racist party’. And argues that they are victims of ‘job stealing’ and ‘welfare stealing’ migrants.  Britain despite Muslims making up less than 5 per cent of the total population in England and Wales. These contradictions are never addressed. Britain First tailors their language and output to reflect the anxieties of those who ‘like’ their page. Reinforcing these anxieties are not always enough.  Presenting solutions can build group identity and raise the potential of donations.

A strategy of targeted donations has paid off in the past. Britain First topped the Electoral Commission’s donations league table for smaller parties last year. In 2014, the party had tripled its donations from 2013 to £159,516 – but spent most of it on campaign work. This is a strategy that extends to supporters in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Like other far-right parties, Britain First seeks mainstream credibility. Jayda Fransen, deputy leader, sought that in the Rochester and Strood by-election. It mattered little that the party achieved just 56 votes. Fransen had posed for a photo with the BBC’s Nick Robinson (who later apologised for his error). The extra media attention had little to do with local issues in the Rochester and Strood area. Britain First wanted national attention for their anti-mosque campaign in the neighbouring constituency.

Jayda Fransen also admitted that the mayoral campaign is a PR move to increase their public profile. Fransen wrote:

‘The benefits to standing in the London Mayoral Election will be immense: Each Mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.

Each Mayoral candidate will no doubt receive a lengthy Daily Politics interview and a plethora of other high profile media attention.

Contesting this election will cement Britain First as a powerful force on the “Right” of politics and will massively increase our public profile.’

Some of the top comments from some Britain First supporters to Electoral Commission story had the intended outcome. And it included:

‘OFFENSIVE? I don’t live there but such an insipid attitude offends me. If London isn’t British, then what is?’

‘London IS British. Whoever objects to that slogan is obviously some left-wing pond life.’

‘well if you guys don’t tell people to say it you are not breaking the law … so … Keep London British … stop the dismantling of the Westminster system and only recognise British law …’

The post How Britain First uses ‘victim narratives’ to boost support appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Britain First deploys ‘self-victimisation‘ to reinforce group identity and support online. This strategy extends to a recent outrage with the Electoral Commission.

On March 9,  an article headlined ‘Electoral Commission: “Keeping London British! Is Offensive Slogan’ made bombastic claims of censorship. But it sounds familiar.

The party made similar claims against Royal Mail in 2014.  Royal Mail can refuse to deliver election materials if they consider it threatening or abusive. Paul Golding ignored this detail as Britain First were ‘victims’ of a greater perceived injustice.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Section 29 2b), the Electoral Commission can reject ballot emblems if they deem it ‘obscene or offensive’. The Electoral Commission reiterated this point to the party. But Britain First accused them of acting as the “Commissar for Political Correctness” in elections. Again, the party reinforces accusations of censorship to party faithful.

This strategy serves a dual function: policies in the age of multiculturalism and ‘PC culture’ have a detrimental impact on the party and its supporters. Britain First rejects the label of ‘racist party’. And argues that they are victims of ‘job stealing’ and ‘welfare stealing’ migrants.  Britain despite Muslims making up less than 5 per cent of the total population in England and Wales. These contradictions are never addressed. Britain First tailors their language and output to reflect the anxieties of those who ‘like’ their page. Reinforcing these anxieties are not always enough.  Presenting solutions can build group identity and raise the potential of donations.

A strategy of targeted donations has paid off in the past. Britain First topped the Electoral Commission’s donations league table for smaller parties last year. In 2014, the party had tripled its donations from 2013 to £159,516 – but spent most of it on campaign work. This is a strategy that extends to supporters in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Like other far-right parties, Britain First seeks mainstream credibility. Jayda Fransen, deputy leader, sought that in the Rochester and Strood by-election. It mattered little that the party achieved just 56 votes. Fransen had posed for a photo with the BBC’s Nick Robinson (who later apologised for his error). The extra media attention had little to do with local issues in the Rochester and Strood area. Britain First wanted national attention for their anti-mosque campaign in the neighbouring constituency.

Jayda Fransen also admitted that the mayoral campaign is a PR move to increase their public profile. Fransen wrote:

‘The benefits to standing in the London Mayoral Election will be immense: Each Mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.

Each Mayoral candidate will no doubt receive a lengthy Daily Politics interview and a plethora of other high profile media attention.

Contesting this election will cement Britain First as a powerful force on the “Right” of politics and will massively increase our public profile.’

Some of the top comments from some Britain First supporters to Electoral Commission story had the intended outcome. And it included:

‘OFFENSIVE? I don’t live there but such an insipid attitude offends me. If London isn’t British, then what is?’

‘London IS British. Whoever objects to that slogan is obviously some left-wing pond life.’

‘well if you guys don’t tell people to say it you are not breaking the law … so … Keep London British … stop the dismantling of the Westminster system and only recognise British law …’

The post How Britain First uses ‘victim narratives’ to boost support appeared first on TELL MAMA.

After the public hammering that Britain First took in the last week on the BBC documentary entitled, “We Want Our Country Back“, this far right extremist group has gone back to its victim mentality comfort blanket, blaming the whole world for the ills and the ‘conspiracies’ that supposedly range against it.

Their latest begging bowl of a mailshot shows how extreme the rhetoric of this extremist group is becoming. “Traitors” who “give away our homes, jobs and heritage,” will according to them, find “good old fashioned British justice at the end of a rope.”

The mailshot then goes onto suggest that Britain First is a “Declaration of War against the establishment.” They go onto state that they are, “poised for battle“, with their tin pot saucepans on their heads.

And just to complete the fact that Britain First base their policies on race, this statement sums it up: “Each Mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.” Britain First reverts back to the ‘lineage’ fascist ideology, much vaunted by the Nazis in Europe.

Not to be outdone in the smear stakes, the mailshot then turns its fire on Sadiq Khan,  the Labour Party’s candidate, with the following statement, “Labour has chosen a career politician Muslim with strong sympathies for his fellow radicals and extremists – Sadiq Khan.” The link – well you have to stretch it quite a great deal. By advocating for the release of Babar Ahmad and representing a constituents family, Sadiq Khan is now supposedly an Islamist sympathiser. There is truly no level that this group will not stoop down to.

And finally, at the end of this rabble rousing ode to Goebbels, what do Britain ask for? Your time? Your efforts – oh no, that will not do. You can guess what they ask for. A whopping £30,000, all accounted and costed for as though it was done on the back of a fag packet. If they aim to govern London, we think that all Londoners should give them a short sharp shock and put any of their literature where it belongs – in the recycle bin.

The post Hanging, Give us Your Money & Sadiq Khan – A Cacophony of Hate From Britain First appeared first on TELL MAMA.