Dear Mr Griffin
You know as well as, if not better than, I, that all is far from well with the British National Party. In fact, the BNP is slowly dying: from insolvency; declining membership; the largely self-inflicted loss of its most capable and dedicated officers, elected representatives, and activists; and plummeting morale consequent upon the foregoing factors, as well as upon the growing inability to contest elections effectively, and upon the disappointing results obtained in most of those few that are fought.
This is probably not an exhaustive list.
Well, leaving aside for a moment the question of responsibility for all these woes, what is to be done to turn the situation around?
You may point to the reforms outlined at the recent party conference.
They are superficial, with the exception of the proposed change in the constitution to allow the national chairman a four year term of office, eliminating even the theoretical possibility of a leadership election. None of it really addresses the root of the problem.
What is the root of the problem?
Well, a large part of it is your style of leadership, I'm sorry to have to say. You want the public, the electorate, to believe that the BNP is a democratic, and respectable, political party, and that you personally are a democrat, rather than a fascist, yet your every action as leader belies the party's and your own pretensions in this regard.
You seem to get very twitchy if anyone so much as asks a question about the accounts, for example. Are there not questions to be answered, though?
Of course there are. Why have you been unable to appoint, and retain, a party treasurer who is able to maintain adequate financial records? This is not a complex task. It merely requires a certain basic knowledge of book-keeping, rather than advanced accountancy. The party has a number of members with skills, qualifications, and experience, in this discipline, yet you seem to be unwilling to use them, preferring to keep pliant and incompetent yes-men in the nominal position of party treasurer. This naturally begs the question: for what reason?
Then again, why do you become so twitchy at the prospect of a leadership election, when, as the incumbent, the odds are in your favour anyway? Why do you feel it necessary to victimize, and to treat so unfairly, and harshly, not only any serious challenger, but his supporters as well? One might conclude that you dare not take even the smallest chance of being ousted democratically, for fear that your successor would be in a position to discover facts which you wish to remain suppressed.
You cannot imagine that the disquietude within the party, since its poor showing at the general election, has gone unnoticed by the media. If they have largely held their fire up to now, that is no guarantee that they will continue to remain silent. Can you imagine how damaging to the party's electoral prospects an expose by the BBC of the party's oppression of its own activists, and bilking of its suppliers, (many of whom are loyal members who now regret having trusted the party) would be? The lack of proper financial record-keeping would also do more than raise eyebrows, I can assure you.
If you are interested in reuniting the BNP, rather than presiding over its terminal decline, I suggest that you reply publicly to this letter, as the beginning of a dialogue between yourself and those, such as Eddy Butler, and myself, who wish for reform of a more substantive nature than was outlined at the recent party conference, which as you know we, with others who have criticized your leadership, were prevented from attending.
While I cannot speak for Eddy, in this regard, I can assure you that my interest in and involvement with the BNP will not end in the event of my unjust expulsion from the party. John Tyndall was right when he said, at the 1998 party rally, that all progress comes from struggle.
Since BNP membership has been held to be valueless by the party's legal representative in open court, non-members of the party are appointed to senior positions within it, and considered as candidates for important parliamentary by-elections, some might wonder why I would wish to remain a member of a party that treats its own members so badly.
You know the answer to that though, don't you? It's because I have a vision of what the party could be, and achieve, were it to be properly led. I used to believe that you too had the same, or a similar vision.
Was I wrong to have once believed in you?
Dr Andrew Emerson