Share |

Friday, 4 May 2012

British Freedom Party storms to success in Liverpool

The British Freedom Party made its first electoral outing this week, fielding a total of five candidates in Liverpool and one in Basildon. There can be no denying that the BFP's results were remarkable, and they will forever remain seared into my memory. Anyone who has heard of the BFP and set eyes upon the figures will never be able to forget them, proving as they do, just how much potential there is in the party's current strategy and approach.

Taking the results ward by ward in alphabetical order, we first come to Clubmoor, where Andrew Edward Philip Harvey secured a startling 26 votes, some 0.78% of the total. In County ward, Peter James Stafford won a truly memorable 17 votes, or 0.6% of the total. Everton however, was to provide a slightly more encouraging result with a whopping 50 votes (1.7%) won by its female candidate Jacqueline Stafford. This was enough, as was also the case in Clubmoor and County, to gain her an unchallenged last place. Did Fazakerley buck the trend? Well, to a certain extent yes! Peter Stafford managed not to come last by taking 50 votes and a 1.51% share. However, it was Norris Green that was to play host to the BFP's strongest showing in Liverpool, where its candidate Peter Squire achieved 2.77% with 78 votes and came third. As for the party's performance in Basildon, this was to be the BFP's most 'impressive', which was still very weak indeed: Tony Harris polled 87 Votes, securing a 4.2% share and fourth position out of five.

Given that the BFP currently claims 724 members, has its own website, is supported by a number of bloggers, possesses links with the EDL and has been covered in the national press (e.g. The Independent), should not the expectation be that it ought to fare better electorally than a party of circa 60 members that possesses a rudimentary website, no supporting network of bloggers and has zero visibility? Well, such a party does exist, and it is called the Democratic Nationalists. Despite the fact that to all intents and purposes it is invisible, its five candidates clocked up the following results on Thursday (the first three wards being in Bradford, the fourth in Doncaster and the fifth in Pendle): Royds - 453 votes, 15.1%; Tong - 276 votes, 11.5%; Wyke - 313 votes, 9.6%; Stainforth and Moorends - 410 votes, 16.6%; Waterside - 92, 7.8%. If the Democratic Nationalists could achieve this, why did the BFP poll even more abysmally? The DNs even managed to beat both the Respect and Liberal Democrat candidates in Wyke. Overall, the DNs averaged 309 votes per candidate with a 12.1% share, whereas the BFP equivalent figures were 51 and 1.93%.

What do these results prove? It would seem safe to conclude that were Ken Dodd to choose to stand any of his Diddy Men at the next round of local elections, they would be sure to beat the BFP. Neither however, could beat this party here.

 Ken Dodd and his 'Diddy Men': the BFP's primary challengers


  1. I remember when the BFP came to fruition, you were very supportive of them. In fact you even seemed to have some inside information of what was going on.

    Then over the past 6 to 9 months, I've seen you gradually get more and more critical of them.

    I take it, today is your final nail in the coffin regarding your support for them.

    My comment is meant to be neutral.

    1. Right on all counts Road Hog. It's sad to say, but sometimes people won't listen to constructive criticism or look at themselves through others' eyes, and insist upon stopping up their ears to friendly advice. Thus it is with the BFP, which now finds itself in a complete muddle when it comes to both policy and strategy. I know of others who were initially sympathetic to the party, but who now view it as a dead duck. Assistance was offered and yet . . . something went awry. You will see more on this appearing elsewhere shortly, but not originating from me. On a brighter note however, work is continuing on the new party project. It won’t be making the mistakes of the BFP.

    2. Or hopefully the BNP. However, any new party must try and wake-up the British to realise that yes they are a nation and yes that isn't a crime because so many of them seem to be utterly ashamed to even exist and still don't realise that the Lib/Lab/CON/UKIP party wants them dead. I see the vile rag the Guardian are celebrating the demise of the BNP and the brainwashed contributers to its laughable 'comment is free' are also rejoicing. God, do I HATE ( a strong word I use very rarely) these people for destroying my country.

      Anoymous (Barry)

    3. I think that the current situation offers the opportunity of a completely fresh start with a blank slate. This is therefore no time for despondency. The BNP demonstrated that it was unable to run itself, and thus was not fit to run a council let alone the country. Its many mistakes, and those now being made by the BFP, serve as object lessons in what not to do politically.

  2. I see what you mean.
    Even though the BNPs results were devastatingly bad they don't compare to Zionist BFP/EDL party.

    What ever happened to Jim Dowsons political party it wasn't called Britain First, did they stand any candidates and if not why not.
    Oh, how silly of me, Dowsons only in it for the MONEY.

    Off topic but in relation to Dowsons gang, it looks like the British Resistance blog has now become Dowsons new forum. They don't support Nationalism as a whole now but support Dowsons lot.
    There must of been a few bob to made and GA seems happy enough, money must be good.
    One thing I don't understand is why they keep asking for donations to the keep the site going, it costs us nothing for Wigan Patriot, GA even said that sending bulk emails costs money.
    Now that must smell like a rat.

    I read Andrew Brons comments on your Beyond the Fringe articles.
    He seems to like interpreting his way by saying that you didn't mean this when you said that but he meant this (Brons interpretation).
    To be honest I now think Brons should be forgotten about as a New Leader for the BNP or a new Nationalist Party.
    After watching the stasi attacking Mike Whitby made me realise that he is willing to take the consequences for standing up for himself and Nationalism. Maybe he could be the person we are looking for to kick start Nationalism into life.
    He comes across excellently when he gives talks to branches and groups and I have told him on many occasion that he is an asset to Nationalism.
    What do you think ?
    Another one could be Richard Edmonds, he should of put himself forward at last years meeting in Leicester even if it was just a temporary position till the party got up and running and a new leader could be found, if one was needed.
    Were losing ground daily through Griffins destruction of the BNP.
    We were climbing up the Electoral and political ladder until we got him elected to the EUSSR. Then he crashed the party train, deliberately in my opinion.
    Why would he want to kick the ladder away from under us when we climbing ?
    I don't trust him now, the uaf/lib/lab/con couldn't and didn't cause the BNP to implode Griffin did.
    I wonder if his income is not just from the party or his mep salary ?
    Another who keeps nagging at my brain is Simon Darby, he is supposed to be Deputy Chairman yet if you go and check his blog out up until 2010/11 it was mainly about him and the BNP only ever got a passing mention if he drag himself away from photographing supermarket chickens, telling us how much it cost and that he was having it for his tea, as well as his "anecdotes" about his fishing and wildlife escapades.
    Not really political for someone who is a high ranking BNP official.
    Nationalism has been betrayed by those who think of themselves as the NATIONALIST ELITE.
    Time is running out and we don't have the time to debate what we should do, instead we should be doing.
    Ahh well, we might as well wait for the civil war to kick off which could be avoided if there was a credible Nationalist political alternative to the lib/lab/con.
    I know one thing for, when it does kick off the blame rests fairly and squarely on those in Westminister. It is their actions and inactions that have allowed and encouraged 3rd world savages to come here.

    The real focus on how we were Betrayed should start with Britains security services.
    Do you remember the mull of kintyre chinook helicopter crash in the 90s which wiped out the CHIEFS of Britains security services, what knowledge they had that would have been used to stop New labours betrayal went with them to the grave.

    Sorry about the rant. =)

    1. SK, thanks for your lengthy comment. My response to Andrew Brons's piece on my Beyond the Fringe series will be forthcoming shortly. This will address many of the themes that you touch upon here.

      It is odd that some sites ask for money to keep running, for as you note, blogs cost nothing other than our time, and standard websites cannot cost that much to keep online. I have to agree that Simon Darby's habit of posting pieces on bargain meals he's found in supermarkets is unusual, and not the sort of thing that you'd expect to find on a political blog.

      I do recall the crash you mention, which took place due to pilot error in poor visibility. Quite what significance this event had for subsequent history we will never know.

      I remain confident that the creation of the credible party that we require is perfectly practicable.

    2. The Mull of Kintyre crash wiped out the Heads of Britains security services.
      The Security Services has certain precautions against such accidents being able to wipe out all the chiefs of the Security and their 2nd in command, they never traveled together for security purposes, and as soon as they decided to all travel back to the UK on the same helicopter it crashes killing everyone.

      Britains Security Services were left with no leaders and deputy leaders.
      They were replaced by who ?

      As you know Blair ended up as PM and set about destroying our country with impunity, the chiefs of our security services took a great deal of knowledge on the security and safety of Britain with them to the grave.

      New Labour committed TREASON and was able to carry out their TREASONOUS actions with impunity.
      If our security services are supposed to do anything it would be to protect Britain from those who would commit Treason or Betray us.
      We see their acts of Treason being reported on the news but it is never called Treason by the media it is called progress and reported in such away as to hide the truth and putting spin on their Treasonous Acts to make it look as though it is in Britains interest, an example is Multiculturalism.

      So, why were the Traitors allowed to continue the Treason and Betrayal of our country and people with impunity ?

      The security services are not there to protect the Government but to protect the country. They should also protect the country from Traitors and Betrayal from within, to root out 5th columnists and protect us from Betrayal and Treason from within the Lib/Lab/Con and others from abroad.

      But they did nothing.

      The knowledge they took with them to the grave may have been knowledge that would/could have been used to stop Blair and his band of Traitors (New Labour MPs, Common Purpose, Civil servants, Police etc) from ever getting anywhere near the reigns of power.

      The Traitors are now dismantling our Military to such an extent that we could not defend ourselves
      if we were invaded militarily by a foreign power or from the immigrant Soldiers of Islam within Britain.

      But they have done NOTHING to stop the Betrayal of OUR COUNTRY by Traitors from within.

      Why ?

  3. Britain's security services are a disgrace. In normal countries, they try hard to protect the nation from internal subversion whilst here they do the opposite. Apart from Winston Churchill in the early 1950's, every PM since (especially Bliar)has severely damaged our country. Where were M15/Special Branch/M16?

    Anonymous (Barry)

  4. Duro

    You have made an error stating 'I do recall the crash you mention, which took place due to pilot error in poor visibility. ' The aircraft crashed because the digital control system fitted to the engines of that early version of the Chinook could not cope at the limits of the performance envelope. Rather than admit that the entire fleet of Chinooks, of that model, flying for the RAF, at the time, were faulty the Court Martial blamed dead pilots. The pilot's famillies and various people with technical knowledge of the subject have demanded that the verdict be quashed. Richard North's has covered the subject. The RAF has recently restricted that model of helicopter from flying in adverse conditions and an application has been prepared for the pilots to have a Royal pardon.

    Ivan Winters
    Democratic Nationalists

    1. Thanks for the correction and clarification Ivan. I wasn't aware of the important details that you detail here.

  5. Who expected great results on our debut?

    Morons and the politically illiterate, that's who.

    Certainly not those of us with the experience of actually running a political party.

    If you look at the early results achieved by the BNP and other fledging nationalist parties, these results gain a recognised historical context.

    The first few years are ALWAYS slow.

    I know a few people are keen to pressurise Brons into making a move, it won't happen. The man has planned his retirement, his 'exit strategy', for years prior to the current predicament.

    What is interesting is that there are probably two or three people hawking the 'answer', in the form a new political party that will of course meet everyone's expectations.

    Ok, good.

    You register a political party.

    You trademark its image.

    You build its media profile.

    You write its constitution.

    You commit it to an ideology.

    You present a policy package that is both ideologically compatible and populist.

    You build its membership.

    And Finally,

    You defend it against the sneering contempt and criticism that emanates from the same old faces.

    As for British Freedom, we are the only party that has repeatedly made public appeals for ideas regarding the direction of the party.

    The leadership - of which I am not a member - can't be expected to be influenced by musings on a blog. If you have ideas, and Durotrigan does, they need to be presented.

    Thank You.

    1. "Certainly not those of us with the experience of actually running a political party."

      Is that what BF are, a political party ?

      How hard is it to set up a Political party?
      It is not hard at all.

      BF has been around for a few years and have done what to better our lot ?

      Bf and their Zionist friends will never be classed as a Nationalist party.
      You could always go to Israel and set up a Friends of Britain group as you do flaunt the Israeli flag and Friends of Israel at EDL (ENGLISH not Israeli or Jewish)) defence league.
      What has Israel got to do with BF and EDL ?

      By the time BF is large enough to do anything for our country and people it will be too late. But it is more likely to disappear.
      BF was created to take divide Nationalism again.

      "As for British Freedom, we are the only party that has repeatedly made public appeals for ideas regarding the direction of the party"

      It sounds like that was a failure too.

      It's no good trying to get True Nationalists to join BF as its leaders (who shall remain anonymous)
      Betrayed Nationalism in the run up to the Elections a few years ago, and one who is foul mouthed and a few more besides.
      the Brent Group have now abandoned you and left BF, could you tell us why ?

      And, could you tell us about Iftikhar Ahmad a member of the BF.

      The BFP, BFP (Britain First, British Freedom) and other small parties are their to soak up votes that would have gone to the BNP.


    2. Michael, thank you for your comment. As for expectations, the results were pretty much in line with what I anticipated for reasons previously enumerated in a number of articles on this blog. I do think however that the relative performances of the British Freedom Party and the Democratic Nationalists do merit some comment for the reasons outlined.

      I am aware of the significant effort that you and others have put into devising, launching and building up the BFP, which has been no small task and you must be applauded for taking this initiative, yet the fact remains that what was its apparent raison d’être at its launch seems to have become lost in recent months, and its mission, other than anti-Islamisation, is not clear to me. Its message appears to be increasingly tailored to appeal to Middle America rather than to Middle England (or indeed to any other section of our society), with an anachronistic emphasis being placed upon Christianity. For those of us who do not subscribe to the doctrine of resurrection and the life eternal, we would rather that God were returned to the role of Aristotelian ‘Prime Mover’, and for the secular realm to be left untroubled by sect, schism and dogma. Those who would have it otherwise are closer to the Islamists than they think.

      As Cygnus has pointed out, elements of the 20 Point Plan contradict each other – points one and fifteen - and, as I discovered yesterday, there are even two versions of this plan extant on the BFP website with differing content. For example, the version that was critiqued on this blog recently possessed no reference to the tightening of censorship, whereas the one that is now on your website’s landing page has either had it reinstated as point 15, or it is the older version of the 20 Points. What are people supposed to think when there are two versions of the party’s mini-manifesto displayed on the website? Does it believe in tighter censorship, or not? This is a matter of no small import. Moreover, as has been pointed out previously, the 20 Point Plan sits uneasily atop BFP policy, and what has deeply alarmed me and others is the following statement contained in the plan: ‘Diminish the public sector and government interference in the private sector.’ This is Thatcherism pure and simple, which pushes a failed economic approach that has wrecked our national economy and will wreck it still further. As there is no mention of combating globalisation in the 20 Points, this unfettered approach to ‘free-market’ capitalism combined with the party’s recent distinctive Atlanticist voice would open the doors to the privatisation and takeover of the NHS and other public services by US companies.

      All in all, what I see being pushed by the BFP today is the following: God, anti-Islamisation and privatisation, and two of these goals are anathema to my ethics and politics. Can you in all honesty say that you are happy with this approach? Will this emphasis make life for our people better, more prosperous and secure? Do you think that it possesses wide-ranging appeal?

      Let us not drag Andrew Brons into this. He is his own man and, understandably, he is looking forward to a well-earned retirement in a couple of years’ time.

      I can understand that the sarcastic tone of what I have written above must smart a little given the personal investment that you and many others have put into building up the BFP, but perhaps you will understand a little more why I find what has happened particularly frustrating when you have read the following.

    3. You appear to think that I am being negative, standing on the sidelines and carping, not wishing to make any positive contribution, whereas in fact this is far from the case. Like Cygnus, I was hopeful when your new party emerged, and for a fleeting moment around the time of its relaunch thought that it might actually work. Indeed, my assistance was personally sought out by your current chairman and I rendered it precisely as requested, going so far as to write a couple of articles to order, one of which was for publication on your party site. I also offered to provide input to policy and strategy and had a lengthy one-to-one meeting. Yet, what happened? I got a couple of high-traffic blogs on the other side of the Atlantic to come out in favour of your chairman and party, wrote the pieces and published them here, forwarding one for republication. Not only was it not republished, but its receipt was not even acknowledged. There was silence. It quickly became clear to me that the reason for this change in relations was rooted in clear and fundamental policy differences between myself and your chairman. Moreover, I am not the only one who has made initial contact, offered assistance and then been stonewalled and ignored.

      I hope that what I have written provides a clear context for my position, and perhaps helps to clarify where you think you should stand in relation to your current party.

    4. I wonder if there is any chance of sensible nationalists building-up the Democratic Nationalist Party into a viable force? The DN's have a very good name that neatly summarises in just two words what a good nationalist party should be all about.

      Anoymous (Barry)

    5. I'll tell you what, Silly Kuffar, you go and set up a political party and we'll see how well you do.

      As for the same old Zionist jibe, I remind you that it was the BNP that was named as 'the most pro-Israel political party in the UK.' I remind you that we were both members of that party when it was described as such.

      Again, we return the supposed 'treachery' during the 2010 General Election.

      You weren't there behind the scenes, I was, as member of the BNP web-team. EVERYTHING Simon Bennett recounted of that period is correct.

      I notice you are still sporting the BNP logo on your Twitter profile - which you have blocked me from viewing (haha) - does this mean that you're still aboard the stricken HMS Griffin? If so, I really haven't the inclination to try reasoning with somebody such as yourself.

      British Freedom was not created to 'divide the vote'. I suppose you're one of these people that still believes that bullshit of UKIP being formed to steal BNP votes. (If so, you need to read some modern political history, particularly Maastricht era.)

      Finally, I remain an ethno-nationalist despite belonging to a party that was founded to be 'culturally nationalist' and a direct response to cultural Marxism.

    6. I understand your position, Durotrigan. Thanks.

    7. Grow up Micky boyo. You silly little party is no more then a facebook page and website run by batty Bennett, designed only to keep Tommy in coke.

  6. I would have expected a better showing from the BFP's debut campaign. Does that make me a moron or politically illiterate?

    I was initially very interested in the British Freedom Party, even more so when Weston became Chairman. Unfortunately what I've seen since has done nothing to convince me that it has any kind of clear direction or cohesive policy plan.

    I am not someone who snipes at the efforts of others from the sidelines and I appreciate the task it must have been to get where you are. I am not a rampant anti-Zionist and nor do I have an issue with you welcoming gay individuals into the party.

    But please tell me how point 1 and point 15 on your 20 point plan are compatible with each other? Its something that has puzzled me for a while.

    1. Easy, you can say what you want, but that doesn't give you the right to broadcast it.

    2. Anyway, point about regulation has been removed following response from supporters.

      (Though I would point out that America has very strict regulation, despite having the actual first amendment as a constitutional guarantee.)

    3. What does that reply actually mean?

      Just what haven't I got the right to broadcast?

    4. Actually American policy on censorship varies from state to state (hardcore pornography for instance is legitimate in some places), and even large stores have some say in the matter (Wal Mart and Blockbuster refuse to stock certain titles in certain localities - wouldn't want to upset the bible belt).
      As for what is censored were you aware that the violence in most censored titles is left intact while nudity and sex is removed?
      On top of all this they have the NC-17 rating that means any film can be released in its original form.

      Do you really feel comfortable with someone telling you what you can and cannot watch on TV or listen to?

      As long as its not illegal then any adult should be left to make up their own mind.

      We have existing laws in this country that purport to protect children from watching unsuitable material or playing 18 rated video games and I wholeheartedly agree that this is correct.
      New censorship laws are not needed, better enforcement of existing protection is. Irresponsible parents need education and the threat of prosecution.
      But nobody has the right to make my choices for me.

  7. God help us all
    We English - and I use the word English advisedly - are mere spectators in the demise of our own country.
    The formation of a new Party with all true patriots getting behind it, is surely our last chance.
    But its appearance has been something like waiting for the Second Coming - will it really happen and will it be too late anyway?

    1. Anonymous, matters are in hand. Now that the local elections are out of the way, things will start to move. An announcement will be made here within the month, and you will of course be welcome to join if you find the new party to your taste.

  8. How does the sufing rabbi Shifen, hatered for gays fit in with the BFP policy on gays?

    1. Is Rabbi Shifren British? Does he even have a vote here? Is he a member of the BFP?

      Indeed, more to the point, can you actually prove that he hates gay people? When that charge came up a couple of years back I remember that only the looney left believed it. I have seen Rabbi Shifren talking convivially on a number of occasions with openly gay people. Hardly the behaviour of someone who hates them now, is it? But I'm happy to have you prove you know more than I do about him. So, put up -- or remain in the twilight of the perpetually bewildered liberal-left.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.