Here me out on this, before you jump in.
Its interesting to note that the BNP existed before 1997 but go next to no votes. Yet between 1992 and 1997 the party made a lot of headway, gaining 7.5% in one of the areas they stood a candidate. In 2001 they doubled that success in several constituency. And maintained this level of success in some constituencies in the 2005 and 2010 elections. They never did anything great on a national level but it showed there was an appeal to part of the population that started between 1992 and 1997.
The same period Labour shifted its political position.
I also note here that this predates free movement of people from Eastern Europe which started in 2004.
Why is the BNP relevant? In 2005 it was widely felt that the BNP and UKIP were competing for the same part of the electorate - estimated at around 20% of voters. There was talk for a while of a pact between the two but this was kicked out by Farage who had just become head of the party in 2006. As were people advocating this approach.
What happened in 2015, wasn't just about disaffection with the current government. Nor was it necessarily about the Labour Party doing more wrong than it had in previous years. Nor was it about the collapse of BNP directly. It was a mix of everything coupled with UKIP being more organised and having the ability to stand candidates in similar areas, to tap into this 20% of the electorate they hadn't before and offer an alternative that hadn't been there before.
In the eyes of those watching, it looks like the rise of the far right - and it is - at least in part. This naturally scares people. But its about a section of society that was left behind by New Labour and were forgotten and were not given an alternative. Its been capitalised on in a big way, and focus has been drawn to certain things.
I feel for Corbyn. He IS the best shot to step back into that position we have. But I think he was right not to vote for Leave and instead focus on what the issues really are, be honest about his luke warmness for the EU and take the long road.
Otherwise he steps into the immigration argument and would end up legitimising a certain amount of the hate that is out there, rather than the battle being about all the underlying issues that will still be there even if low skilled immigrants aren't. We didn't need that as part of the national debate. We didn't need any more voices talking about how migrants are to blame for everything. We need an alternative to that. A credible one. For politics as a whole to cover the full spectrum of the electorate and offer alternatives and choice.
I hope Corbyn does play the long game he seems to be and is given a proper chance to do it. Not that I would necessarily vote for him, but because its needed to redress part of the imbalance of political voices in this country.
I do think Corbyn, recognised the danger of going with Leave on this. He was between a rock and a hard place, and which ever he did wouldn't please everyone. He had to do what was the best option overall, for the long game. Labour's 'Core Voters' still covers a wide range of bases and Corbyn is treading a fine line and more so if, it wants to retake some of the ground furthest to the left.
Where Labour really cocked up, was Scotland.
I think the EU referendum turned into a battle of them versus us on both sides. Those afraid (quite rightly and understandably) particularly of the tone and emphasis by the far right which is grabbing all the headlines and then several groups on the Leave side, which are distinct in places but also do have blurred boundaries - those who have been seduced by the right and those who have capitalist ambitions and those who are just fucked off with it all. The trouble is that isn't clear to all those on the Remain side from the top down. Especially when certain parts of the Leave side have been more vocal and have been given more media coverage.
I think Corbyn may perhaps have been one of the few that has seen beyond that polarisation of debate and problems that has caused and will continue to cause for some time.
He has treated the electorate with a respect for being able to make a decision on balance rather than going for a more divisive message. I don't think he has attracted the media well though - it doesn't work for them to sell newspapers as its well, a bit bull in comparison to the flashy headline grabbing soundbites and very lazy but strong slogans. I think its a slow burner.
The post mortem on all this will be interesting. I don't think it will come properly for years sadly. What happens on Thursday will colour it, but I don't think the result is now necessarily the most important bit.
What is more important is how quickly we can all start listening and understanding each other better. I don't think that's going to be a quick or easy process. Yet people will be looking for quick and easy solutions. Therein lies part of the danger.