Talk:Far Right in the United Kingdom

What is this article for?

I'm not quite sure what tag to put on this article. It seems to confuse British nationalism, the dying embers of British imperialism and Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom, which already has an extensive article. I think it needs either a serious NPOV re-write or maybe even a candidate for deletion? Sceptic 12:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you feel its non-neutral, try and write through it; I am the only substantial contributor and I dobut my (or any editor's) ability to write a politically neutral article without imputs from others. For example, one thing that you corrected (Quite rightly) in the opening paragraph you labeled as a 'pov correction'; (re-reading it) I can see why you said that, but the non-neutrality had only been created through poor writing on my behalf (I hadn't meant to say that groups such as UKIP had campagined against the break up of the British Empire; I had meant that the nationalist strain of the center-right had done so in the 1950s, and those at a simialr place in the 'political spectrum' some 50 years later now campaing against the EU).

I created it, quite simply, because I created a link to 'British nationalism' and found it was red. We have a 'British National Party'; ergo, we must have some sort of 'British Nationalism'. I'm not sure why euroscepticism and imperialism should be 'confused' with British nationalism - those are inherent parts of it, or at least the way in which it is usually considered. At the moment, the page does a decent job of explaining the main strain of British nationalism that has existed in British politics since the end of WWII, and its history. Indeed, the article could probably be extended into the past to discuss more of Imperialism, and also Britain's rule over Ireland and the Anglo-Irish War.

Perhaps a section on British nationalism in center politics or left politics is needed to balance the tone? --Robdurbar 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my initial comment was a bit scathing, Robdurbar. Your further edits are helpful. Having thought further, and having looked at the article Nationalism I think my reservation is that the article is not just about British nationalism in its literal sense, but about several different strands of thought

those who bemoan the loss of Empire;
those such as the BNP and National Front with basically a racial purity angle
those who object to loss of national sovereignty to the EU

For what it's worth, my pov is that only the last category are British nationalists in the literal sense of the word (ie. they want national self-determination), but that the BNP have hijacked the label for their own ends. Ironically, UKIP hate being labelled as British nationalists because the phrase has such negative connotations. I would argue that British nationalism was born in the 1960s as a reaction to the Macmillan government's plan to join the EEC. Before that there would have been no point because Britain was a sovereign nation. I'm not sure where that leaves the article. Edit war, anyone??? ;) Sceptic 14:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK - and if there are anyother points that stand out to you, bring them here - like I say, it could just be badly expressed.

Your comments there all hang on whether one believes that sovereignty has been lost to the EU (I personally do not think that it has - I think 'pooled' is the phrase some use). Furthermore, I would claim that it is difficult to argue that british naitonalism was invented in the 1960s when we had a 'British National Party' in the 1950s. More generally, there is a clear inheritence of personnel and policies from the League of Empire loyalists of the 1940s/50s and the nationalist parties and anti-EU parties of the 60s/70s.

I do understand your interpretation of 'British Nationalism', but I don't think that nationalist ideology or policies need necessairily exist just as a reaction to some threatening supra-national body, or as a reaction to another nation's control.

My opinion on how this article could be improved/expanded is:

More on the 'benign' side of nationalism - to stop lumping the likes of UKIP with the BNP (I have tried to avoid this in the article). In paticular, there could be sections in here on British identity and its development, or on left-wing nationalists
A section explaining in more detail how the phrase 'British nationalism' is most commonly used. The fact is - as you indicate - that British naitonalism is generally taken to mean the far-right BNP/NF side of it; which, really, is just one 'stream' of nationalism, if you will.

So I would say that the article at the moment needs expanding to include more on the UKIP/Tory-Centre-Right nationalism, British identity, and left-wing nationalism. If you feel that more clarification is needed in the article, seperating BNP/NF and UKIP/Conservative, then I suggest pointing out the relevant parts here or doing it yourself ;) Robdurbar 16:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intro from an article in 'Political Quaterly' in 2000 by Bhiku Parekh on British idenity - a similar topic - justifies the inclusion of the three topics in this article (end of empire/friction with ethnic minoritis/eu): 'The so-called `problem of British national identity' has been a subject of agonised debate in Britain since the early 1960s, triggered initially by the loss of empire, then by the rise of the welfare state, postwar black and Asian migration and entry into the European Community' Robdurbar 16:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me why it is inappropriate to consider Gordon Brown a British nationalist?

He denies the existance of the constituent countries of the UK. He mentioned "Britain", "British" etc ... over 80 times in his Labour Party conference speech. He utilises phrases such as "British jobs for British workers" without shame. He is a British nationalist, it does not fit with the article as it stands currently (which focuses on ethnic nationalism) - but he is a British nationalist.

I agree. This article seems to confuse British nationalism (as in Scottish nationalism), with white nationalism. Yes the article should mention the ethnic-driven political movement, but shouldn't be primarily concerned with it. In this capacity, I'm going to tag the article with a "re-write" template. Jza84 13:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all UK politicians are British nationalists! Woblosch 10:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-title

Just a note that I've renamed the article from British nationalism to Far right in the United Kingdom. This is in keeping with other such articles, like Far right in Switzerland, and Unionism in Scotland etc etc. I have about five sources in front of me stating that British nationalism is nothing to do with what was written here, and in this capacity, I hope thats a fair enough rationale for the renaming. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of UKIP and Eurosceptic groups

From reading the talk page of this article, it seems that it was originally written about British nationalism. In terms of British nationalism, it may well be correct to refer to parties such as UKIP. However, it has now been moved to "far right in the United Kingdom". It should therefore not cover parties such as UKIP, which is not a far-right party.

The article implied that Euroscepticism is right wing. This is not true. There are both left and right wing Eurosceptic parties - take for example No2EU, a left wing, trade union movement that is running in these European Parliament elections. It is not within the scope of an article about the far right to talk about Eurosceptic groups and parties such as UKIP. I have therefore removed all references to UKIP and similar parties and groups, and to the assertion that to be Eurosceptic is to be far right. ^Tom _Phil 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed renaming

It is bad wikipedia practice to rename an article without discussion. Can this be debated please?BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be moved back because "radical nationalism" is more inclusive and what connects all the groups indisputibly. The term "far right" is generally used by the fifth collumn. For instance some groups, like the Conservative Monday Club and Springbok Club are on the far-right by any measure and the earlier imperial leagues were too. While its completely debated whether the fascists are (Mosley was a Labour Party socialist just before creating the BUF) many consider them a third way. And the working-class radical nationalist movement in Britain during the 1950s-1980s seem to be left-national socialist Strasserism forms. Such group are not some sort of "exotic Tories", and do not fit the universal classification of right; monarchists, aristocrats, theocracy. All groups are however, radical nationalists. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide citation evidence for the use of the term "radical nationalism" in respect of these various groups. Your opinion about an appropriate name does not really count. --Snowded ^TALK 10:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]