How can the BNP improve its electoral Prospects?

As I write this evening, David Cameron has become the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and we await confirmation that the proposed coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats has been approved by the parliamentary membership of the latter party. This arrangement may hold, but then again, it could quite readily fail. We shall have to see. There thus exists the possibility that the country will have to return to the polls before the natural term of a parliament has elapsed, and the BNP needs to be prepared for this eventuality. The BNP needs to learn some lessons from its performance last Thursday so that it can up its game and make a substantial advance.

Yes, it is true that Nick Griffin managed to win an historic high in terms of the overall number of votes won in Barking last week, netting a total of 6,620, but alas, this was accompanied by the fact that overall turnout in the constituency increased and the BNP’s share of the vote fell. Granted, there may well have been some irregularities with postal votes which acted to the detriment of the BNP’s performance, but there were also deeper factors at play. Some of these it will be possible to address, others unfortunately, such as the changing demographic composition of areas like Barking arising from the outmigration of indigenous residents and large-scale immigration coupled with higher birth-rates amongst immigrant descendents, will remain beyond the party’s influence.

Some BNP members and supporters have highlighted that if the Liberal Democrats were to realise their long-cherished dream of introducing proportional representation for Westminster elections, this could work in the party’s favour. Had a ‘pure’ version of this system been in place last week, the BNP could have secured 12 or possibly 13 MPs with its national share of the vote. However, the Conservatives have been discussing the possibility of a referendum on the single transferable vote and have not mentioned proportional representation as a potential option. If the single transferable vote system were to be adopted, this would in all likelihood make it harder for the BNP to win seats than under the present first-past-the-post system. Irrespective of whether proportional representation is introduced or not, if the BNP is to realise its potential as a political force, it needs to finally get to grips with some internal issues that in the eyes of most electors have accorded it pariah status.

Yes, it is true that the BNP is opposed by a truly mind-boggling united opposition: all of the mainstream political parties, the entirety of the mainstream media, the trade union movement, fringe leftist parties such as the SWP and Respect, and third-party organisations and campaigns such as Searchlight, Hope Not Hate, Love Music Hate Racism, the UAF and Nothing British as well as the anti-British quango the EHRC (Equalities and Human Rights Commission). All of these are united in a visceral hatred of the BNP, and their combined might brings to bear immense propaganda resources that the party itself cannot hope to effectively counter. However, there is one quite straightforward thing that the BNP can do to draw the venom from this attack and render it largely impotent: rid itself of the shadow of the Tyndall years and accusations of neo-Nazism and ‘Holocaust denial’. The party could achieve so much if it honestly and openly distanced itself from the continuous stream of 'Nazi' allegations and concentrated on driving home the message that the BNP is a 'moderate nationalist party'. Without doing so, it'll never be able to achieve a breakthrough, even if our country were to be in such a dire position as to be on the brink of civil war.

Of course, the relentless barrage of negative propaganda about the party from the aforementioned organisations may not have had an impact upon the allegiances and views of staunch party members and supporters, but we would be foolish to think that the general public's perception of the BNP has not been very negatively affected by this attack. Besides the propaganda, a number of genuine internal issues in recent months haven’t helped either. The peculiar affair surrounding Mark Collett; the violent physical ejection of a Times journalist from a party meeting; the loss of a number of prominent figures such as Alby Walker who then went on to attack the BNP and Simon Bennett taking out the party website two days ahead of the election were all priceless gifts to the party’s opponents which fed genuine public mistrust and suspicion. If the BNP wishes to be taken seriously as a party fit for government, party members need to behave impeccably. Mark Collett and others of his ilk must thus never be readmitted.

There needs to be a debate about how to neutralise this opposition and alter public perceptions (i.e. alert them to what the BNP actually stands for, rather than what it is said to be) beginning now. There is no time to be lost owing to the rapid and increasing pace of demographic and cultural change and displacement within our country. Whenever the next election comes, the men and women who speak on behalf of the BNP must be able to confidently, politely and robustly rebut opposition smears relating to neo-Nazism and sundry related matters.

There are many ways of presenting the nationalist message, and how this is communicated requires serious re-examination if the party wishes to be viewed as credible by an educated middle-class audience. The general tone of rhetoric employed hitherto might well go down well in the convivial atmosphere of a pub, but it sounds out of place in the general public arena. I in no way advocate that the party should ditch any of its core policies and principles or seek to abandon any one class in favour of another, for as nationalists we by definition wish to afford the best opportunities for all to realise their potential, and we should not neglect the welfare of our less fortunate compatriots who languish in poverty, unemployment and squalor. Nonetheless, our message needs to be communicated in a way that resonates with a middle-class audience and readership, as well as with those whom our political elite have readily confined to the margins of society and who have to date been subject to the worst effects of mass immigration, Islamisation and multiculturalism.

In terms of policy, I agree with a good 90% of the BNP manifesto, but some elements, I have to say, appear just plain outlandish and alienate voters. Honestly ask yourself: how much appeal do policies such as liberalising gun ownership laws and opening a penal colony in South Georgia possess? Why insert these into a manifesto brimming with good ideas? It just turns people off and leaves the party open to ridicule. Who wants to be thought of as a neo-Nazi gun-obsessed wacko who’s turned on by the idea of opening a sub-Antarctic labour camp? I’m not saying that that is what the typical BNP member is, but this is the sort of impression that most non-supporters possess. How many people out there want more liberal gun laws? How often have you heard someone say that this is a serious issue of concern? This is not a vote-winning issue and vote-winning issues are what the party needs to concentrate on if it wishes to grow and gain elected representatives. There are plenty of vote-winning policies in the BNP’s manifesto, but liberalising gun laws is definitely not one of them: it is a definite vote loser. If some members of the party have a particular penchant for firearms, this sort of measure can be discussed at a later date after the BNP has won MPs, but certainly not before such a time.

A number of presentational gaffes need to be avoided in future. I realise that having someone appear in costume on St George’s Day and inserting the Marmite image in the initial version of the party political broadcast were light-hearted affairs, but unfortunately the mainstream media picked up on these to portray the party as being just plain daft and amateurish. Moreover, the Marmite fiasco has resulted in an unnecessary court case which will drain the party of much-needed funds. As for the content of the final election broadcast, I realise that the BNP is a small party with very modest resources which relies upon the enthusiasm and dedication of its members to make these stretch a long way, but please re-shoot scenes which do not work. If the BNP wishes to screen broadcasts which ostensibly feature interviews with party members and supporters telling the voters about why they support the party, never have them reading in stilted robotic fashion from cue cards. If they are to be scripted, at least get them to rehearse ahead of shooting and ensure that they can deliver their lines naturalistically. Furthermore, make sure that they speak to camera, so it looks as if they are addressing the viewer instead of some random location in the street out of shot.

There is also time to avoid a PR disaster in the making which relates to a comment recently made by Nick Griffin in which he stated that after the election all BNP literature would feature a Christian cross to emphasise the party’s ties to our country’s Christian heritage. Why? This is not the USA. British (and I mean indigenous here) people are not overly bothered about religion (except Islam, which all true Britons rightly despise if they become acquainted with its reality), and to overtly associate the BNP with Christianity will only serve to make it seem totally out of touch and irrelevant. If it wants to succeed in Ulster or the US Bible Belt then fine, but if it purports to be a nationalist party in England and the other constituent nations of the British mainland, then it had better realise that we are no longer living in the seventeenth century. If anyone needs objective proof of this fact, just look at the abysmal performance of the Christian Party in this election.

This is a particularly odd tack for Nick Griffin to take given that he himself is not a Christian. As British nationalists we should be secular, but publicly celebrate our national festivals that arise from a combination of Christian and pagan traditions. Many of us are atheists and agnostics, so kindly leave religion out of the equation unless you are attacking Islam which is absolutely essential, for it sees no divide between the temporal and the ‘spiritual’, which is why it is completely incompatible with our culture and others. Otherwise, people’s religious beliefs and affiliations or lack of them are a matter for personal conscience.

Another recent policy tack which will possess only a limited degree of electoral traction, and runs the risk of backfiring badly, pertains to ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’. Calling all of the science a ‘hoax’ or a ‘scam’ might well be music to the ears of oil company executives, but once again, it jars with most people and certainly with the overwhelming majority of scientists. Just because ‘climate change’ is being used by our mainstream parties to justify ramping up foreign aid, domestic deindustrialisation and introducing ‘green’ taxes doesn’t mean that the science is necessarily being invented to justify policy. All it means is that our government, as well as the governments of many other countries, sees this as a useful pretext for implementing other agendas that they already possess, such as creating transnational institutions of political and economic governance. The BNP should therefore not adopt a strong position either way on the scientific basis of ‘climate change’, but should constantly and unfailingly highlight the political abuse of the ‘climate change’ rationale for implementing undesirable policies that work directly against the national interest.

As our domestic oil reserves are declining and international supplies are growing less secure and more expensive, developing new technologies not dependent upon oil are good in and of themselves, for they reduce national vulnerability to external geopolitical factors and will be cleaner. If other countries are convinced of the necessity of introducing such technologies, why shouldn’t we profit from this by selling such new technological expertise and products? Furthermore, moving away from an oil dependent economy will help to undermine the source of vast wealth underpinning Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia which ultimately funds global jihad and Islamic proselytisation, including in the UK.

There is a genuine environmental crisis and the BNP should highlight this. It however, is not ‘climate change’, for if anthropogenic climate change is indeed a reality, it is simply a by-product of global overpopulation. This must be constantly reiterated along with the corresponding fact that the UK has no further ‘carrying capacity'. Thus to take further immigrants is both irresponsible and, in the long term, dangerous.

The BNP needs to concentrate on a few core positive messages which will enable it to broaden its base of support and appeal. These must be communicated using temperate language to emphasise its moderate nationalist agenda. Always refer to the BNP as a “moderate nationalist party”. The words ‘moderate’ and ‘nationalist’ must appear together as frequently as possible, so that listeners become accustomed to pairing the two, instead of ‘far-right’ which is currently the undesirable descriptor habitually associated with the noble terms ‘nationalist’ and ‘nationalism’. Who could possibly object to a moderate party with a moderate agenda?

The term ‘anti-globalist’ must be used as frequently as possible. The Conservatives, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Greens must all be referred to as ‘globalists’. ‘Globalists’ and ‘globalism’ must be transformed into pejorative terms by highlighting the very real and negative aspects of this ideology and its attendant processes. Nationalists and nationalism on the other hand, stand for freedom, self-determination and democracy. Our ideology is positive, which is why globalists and the globally owned media hate us and our values: we are the little people standing up against the lies and vested interests of corporate power. We, as nationalists, are the real anti-globalists, not the Greens. Only nationalism and national stewardship can guarantee respect for national natural resources and ecosystems. A respect for our natural environment, on land and at sea, should be an integral part of our nationalism. The landscapes, flora and fauna of our isles and surrounding seas are ours in trust to be tended and passed on to future generations in good condition.

We need to stress the following key messages: the BNP is a party of peace and wants an end to unnecessary wars; the BNP is a party of neutrality that seeks to maintain good relations with neighbouring countries; the BNP seeks to preserve the best of British heritage and culture, whilst developing a dynamic hi-tech science focused manufacturing economy; the BNP believes in upholding individual liberties and the right to free speech; the BNP believes that the British people, like all peoples, are sovereign and possess the right to self-determination; the BNP seeks to enhance the quality of life of the British people through focusing upon per capita rather than aggregate economic measures; the BNP recognises that sustainable development requires a sustainable demographic policy.

The above are just a few suggestions, but as you can see, you don’t need to lapse into the language of ‘race’ or even overtly mention ‘immigration’ to adequately defend our way of life, sovereignty and demographic integrity, for the solution to these issues is implicit in the arguments themselves and the language used to express them. Nonetheless, it will be important not to neglect directly referring to the unsustainable nature of immigration and its very real negative impacts upon our economy, housing, environment and culture. Also ensure that a clear differentiation is made between those immigrants who have been assimilable, and those who have not (i.e. Muslims in particular).

Multiculturalism, Islamisation and the colonisation of our country can all be effectively blocked and reversed adhering to the aforementioned principles and can be communicated as genuinely ‘progressive’ for our people and our voters. Islamisation can be countered by vigorously adhering to secularist arguments but, importantly, Islam must be singled out as different from all other religions because of its refusal to sever the temporal from the spiritual. Islam must never be referred to in a false (i.e. favourable) light. Furthermore, never miss the opportunity to stress the fact that Islam is incompatible with British and wider Western civilisational norms as well as being deeply misogynist.

The New Left has successfully undermined longstanding cultural norms and nullified rational thought through its perversion of language. We can defeat it through using language to gradually move public perceptions towards our position. However, we have an advantage, for our position does not rest upon a fabric of lies. Our language must rest upon truth and rational argument, and if our voice is allowed to be heard, eventually a large section of the public will come around to our way of thinking. When debating with opponents, either verbally or in writing, we should concentrate upon the facts and not make ad hominem attacks. When they use ad hominem attacks against us we must calmly highlight what they are doing, and ask them to address the ‘facts’ of the issue under discussion.

There is plenty of corroborating evidence from politically neutral organisations such as Migration Watch, the Optimum Population Trust and Civitas that we can use to back up our policies on immigration, the environment, economics and education. We must always seek to make good use of non-partisan sources of information.

Alas, the nationalist vote remained split last week. Although the BNP beat UKIP in the majority of cases where the two parties fielded a candidate apiece in the same constituency, UKIP still gathered a greater national vote share than the BNP owing to its larger number of candidates: 917,832 votes (3.1% +0.9% compared to 2005) versus 563,743 (1.9% + 1.2% compared to 2005). Furthermore, although a very small party, the English Democrats also tucked into a 0.2% share of the national vote winning 64,826.

If the next General Election were to happen in the next year or two, it is unlikely that the BNP would have sufficient resources to field candidates in every seat with the requisite funding and feet on the ground to make this a worthwhile effort. If such an eventuality were to occur, it would make good sense to come to a temporary nationalist pact with UKIP, whereby the BNP could concentrate its resources on those constituencies (typically urban) likely to provide the largest return for effort invested, and for UKIP likewise to devote its resources to large rural seats where the BNP’s appeal is comparatively weak. Such a pact has been mooted previously, but unfortunately was rejected by UKIP. However, such an agreement should be explored afresh if resources are limited.

If the BNP can rid itself of the media ‘Nazi’ tag this will be an achievement which should help to destigmatise the party and open up the opportunity for more members to join. Unfortunately, as one anonymous visitor to this site has commented, the mass media and all politically correct organisations will never be able to accept the respectability of an ethno-nationalist party, so the inappropriate term ‘far-right’ is just something we’ll have to put up with. After all, this is also a label that our hostile ignorant media (the BBC, Guardian, etc) also apply to Geert Wilders and the PVV as a smear intended to place him and his party beyond the pale of respectability. UKIP itself is stigmatised as ‘extreme’ even though in reality it is a moderate, conservative civic nationalist party.

The above are just some observations on how the BNP might attempt to extend its appeal through communicating key nationalist messages in a palatable fashion to the British public. These are offered in a spirit of friendly criticism, and are not meant to detract from the very real progress that has been made by the party in recent years and the central role that Nick Griffin has played in this process. Nonetheless, the BNP now needs to shift up a gear and to avoid the pitfalls of the past.

BNP Performance in the May 2010 General Election

As the BNP is not fielding a candidate in Thirsk and Malton which has yet to go to the polls owing to the death of the UKIP candidate, results for all of its 338 contested seats are now in. These provide a clear and completely unambiguous message: the BNP has stood still since 2005. If we strip out the gross increase in the BNP vote and look at its average share in constituencies contested, we see that there is next to no difference. In my article of 14 April entitled BNP 'Top 10' General Election Targets I gave an outline of what we should expect to see if we were to claim that the BNP had made progress. To this end I wrote:

Taking into account the aforementioned figures, what might we expect in terms of a likely overall result for the BNP in May 2010? General elections are not EU elections and thus parties that appeal specifically to nationalism and anti-EU sentiment tend to do better in the latter than in the former. I will therefore start with the most conservative estimate of the BNP vote, projecting a repeat performance of 2005 with an average of 1620 votes per candidate which would yield 528,120 votes. If we assume (simply for the sake of direct comparison, for the situation will not repeat itself) that the total number of votes cast for all parties nationally came to the same sum for 2005, this would give the BNP a 1.9% share of the vote.


As the party would have achieved this result by standing in only circa half of the available Westminster seats, this would equate to a rough national share of 3.8% which would match the party’s position in many polls. Although the sum total would thus be far more impressive than 2005’s tally of 192,746, it would mean that the BNP would have been treading water. It therefore needs to achieve substantially more votes and a correspondingly higher share of the national total to indicate that it has achieved a significant breakthrough. When considering the current combination of toxic factors - mass immigration, economic crisis, Islamisation, the war in Afghanistan, the expenses scandal, multiculturalism and the loss of sovereignty to the EU - which have made large swathes of the electorate either hostile towards the mainstream political parties or apathetic about politics in general, and the lack of willingness on the part of the said parties to discuss any of these issues other than the economy, the threshold of success, I would suggest, needs to be set at a minimum of 970,000 votes. This would equate to roughly 7% of the vote. If the BNP manages to garner in the region of 1.5 million votes or above, it will truly have emerged as a political force with serious prospects.

The actual national result for the BNP was as follows: total votes received 563,743; share of vote 1.9%; average vote per BNP candidate 1,668. This result is startlingly close to that of 2005, with the aggregate tally almost directly correlating with the increased number of seats contested.

Many BNP members and supporters have tried to portray this as an ‘advance’ and a good result of sorts, but they really should not fool themselves into thinking that this is the case. Given our national circumstances, this showing was, to put it mildly, less than adequate. Furthermore, if one digs a little deeper and examines BNP performance in the ten key target constituencies that I singled out last month, we see that in those in which it has previously done well, its share of the vote has generally dropped. Furthermore, the BNP’s performance in the local elections has been woeful: rather than taking control of the council in Barking, it has lost all of its councillors.

The results for the ten aforementioned target seats are as follows:

Barking                           6,620 14.8% -2.1% 3rd place

Stoke-on-Trent Central   2,502 7.7% +0.1% 4th place

Thurrock                         3,618 7.9% +1.8% 4th place

Keighley                          1,962 4.1% -5.0% 4th place

Salford & Eccles        2,632 6.0% +6.0% 4th place

Stoke-on-Trent South      3,762 9.4% +0.4% 4th place

Burnley                            3,747 9.0% -1.3% 4th place

Dagenham & Rainham 4,952 11.2% +6.8% 3rd place

Dewsbury                        3,265 6.0% -5.2% 5th place

Dudley North                   1,899 4.9% -6.0% 5th place

No MPs, no second places and only two third places. Of the ten results detailed above, the vote decreased in five constituencies and increased in the other half. However, the BNP had not previously stood in Salford and Eccles, so Tina Wingfield’s reasonable 6.0% vote share cannot be counted as a real increase. The results in Barking, Keighley, Dewsbury and Dudley North are undeniably bad. To see the BNP beaten into fifth place in Dewsbury by a Muslim Independent candidate is particularly galling. In Dudley North, despite the controversy surrounding the recently cancelled mega mosque and associated protests, the BNP came in behind UKIP and lost over half of its share of the vote compared to 2005. According to UK Polling Report, the BNP saved 72 deposits.

These are not results befitting a nationalist party on the verge of a breakthrough into the mainstream. What they demonstrate, along with the poor performances of UKIP (917,832 votes with a 3.1% share) and the English Democrats (64,826 votes with a 0.2% share), is that there exists the need for a single credible nationalist party in British (more particularly, English) politics. My next article will examine the reasons underpinning the BNP’s failure to make a breakthrough at this election together with some suggestions as to how it, or a nationalist successor party, could make genuine headway in British politics through articulating a clear, credible and moderate nationalist programme.

Burnley: BNP Target Seat Number Seven

Burnley has provided a strong showing for the BNP in recent years. Last June Sharon Wilkinson won its first county council seat, building upon its previous success which has seen four councillors elected at the local government level. Like many of England’s northern towns, Burnley has issues arising from the presence of a significant Pakistani and Bangladeshi population. Although traditionally a Labour bastion, Labour were wiped out at the county level last June losing all of their six Burnley county seats: one to the BNP and five to the Liberal Democrats. This demonstrates that Labour’s Julie Cooper could see her party’s majority eroded significantly, with the seat prospectively offering a tempting prize for the Liberal Democrats.

The BNP polled strongly in Burnley in both the 2001 and 2005 General Elections, taking 11.3% (4,151 votes) and 10.3% (4,003 votes) of the vote respectively. It is likely that its dip in vote share in 2005 was connected to the strong performance of Harry Brooks, who ran under the banner of Burnley First Independent, taking 5,786 votes (14.8%). Brooks would have attracted the votes of many disgruntled electors, some of whom would probably have voted BNP. The other significant change between 2001 and 2005 which provides a pointer to a possible surprise in the seat on Thursday was a significant decrease in the Labour vote and corresponding rise in that of the Liberal Democrats, with the former falling from 49.3% to 38.5%, and the latter rising from 16.2% to 23.7%. Admittedly, this still leaves a large gap between the two parties, but the electorate’s dissatisfaction with Labour conjoined with the Clegg surge and the eclipse of Labour in Burnley by the Liberal Democrats at last year’s county elections must make this a strong target seat for the latter party.

Paddypower.com offer odds of 33/1 on the BNP taking the seat, but what will be the likely BNP performance this time around? As in 2005, two independent candidates are standing, but Harry Brooks is not one of them. Normally, independents take a low percentage of the national poll, and the other independent candidate to run in 2005 – Jeff Slater – won only 1% of the vote. On this occasion I would not expect either independent to poll more than 1-3% of the vote. This should leave scope for the BNP to increase its share of the vote, particularly when considering their advance last year.

The full slate of candidates standing is as follows: Richard Ali (Conservative); Gordon Birtwistle (Liberal Democrat); Andrew Brown (Independent); Julie Cooper (Labour); Andrew Hennessey (Independent); John Wignall (UKIP); Sharon Wilkinson (BNP). This seat is most certainly not a Conservative target, as in 2005 the Tories took only 10.8% of the vote, only just ahead of the BNP. The BNP must therefore be looking to beat the Conservatives into fourth place this time around, and I think that this is a realistic objective. Labour will either hang on by the skin of their teeth or lose the seat to the Liberal Democrats, with the BNP taking third place, possibly on 15% of the vote, with the Conservatives sinking back into fourth and UKIP battling it out for fifth place with the two Independents. UKIP fielded candidates in both the 2001 and 2005 elections, but performed weakly attracting only 2.3% and 1% of the total respectively.

Dewsbury: BNP Target Seat Number Six

Dewsbury, as many people know, is the parliamentary constituency of the repellent expenses abusing Labour Islamic supremacist Shahid Malik. Like many other seats, Dewsbury has seen boundary changes since 2005 which leaves Malik in the position of defending a reduced notional majority owing to the loss of traditionally Labour Heckmondwike and the acquisition of the traditionally Tory Denby Dale and Kirkburton wards.

The BNP polled very strongly here in 2005 with David Exley taking 13.1% with 5,066 votes, hot on the heels of the Liberal Democrats who secured 14.6%. However, the UK Polling Report blog notes that one of the strongest BNP areas has been lost to Batley and Spen owing to boundary changes. Still, we can expect the BNP to do very well here, as Dewsbury is home to a large colony of Deobandi Muslims concentrated in the Saville Town and Ravensthorpe areas. Over the past year there have been a series of attacks on the local white population by Muslim youths which is symptomatic of the long-term social dislocation in the town caused by the refusal of the Islamic incomers to acculturate to English social norms. They have instead adhered to their imported fundamentalist Deobandi interpretation of Islam.

This time around Roger Roberts, a BNP councillor for Heckmondwike since 2006, is the party’s Dewsbury candidate. Mr Roberts joined the BNP in 2004 after 45 years in the Conservative Party. It is probable that the Conservatives will take the seat from Labour, but the BNP should be battling it out with the Liberal Democrats to take third place. If they can achieve this and take 15% of the vote, this would be a solid achievement. However, it is difficult to tell what impact the Clegg surge will have on the Liberal Democrat vote here. The BNP took many votes from Labour in 2005, and I suspect that this time around they’ll take a few more, but the Liberal Democrats could also take a good chunk of Labour’s support. This may make it harder for the BNP to take third place, but then again, the local specificities within the constituency (i.e. the well-publicised attacks on the local indigenous population by Muslim youths) may play in their favour.

Unlike in 2005, Dewsbury electors will also be able to vote for another nationalist party, although of the civic nationalist variety and far smaller and less serious than the BNP – the English Democrats. It is a great pity that they have also chosen to run in this seat, as they could shave a percentage point or two off of the BNP total. The full list of candidates standing in Dewsbury is: Adrian Cruden (Green); Michael Felse (English Democrats); Andrew Hutcheson (Liberal Democrat); Khizar Iqbal (Independent); Shahid Malik (Labour); Simon Reevell (Conservative) and Roger Roberts (BNP). Hopefully part of Labour’s Islamic bloc vote will also sheer off and attach itself to Khizar Iqbal. Whoever wins this Thursday, I shall relish seeing Malik turfed out of his seat. Hopefully this will bring an end to his political career. Paddypower.com have odds of 28/1 on the BNP taking the seat.

Salford and Eccles: BNP Target Seat Number Five

Tina Wingfield is contesting Salford and Eccles for the BNP taking on Labour's Hazel Blears. Salford and Eccles is in effect a new seat, as there have been extensive boundary changes since 2005, with the old Salford seat losing Broughton but gaining part of the former Eccles seat. Both Salford and Eccles had returned Labour MPs, but as the BNP only stood candidates in two of the constituency's wards in the last local elections in May 2008 it is not possible to make any baseline projections vis-a-vis the BNP vote. The BNP stood in neither constituency in 2005, but UKIP scored 4.8% in Salford and 4.9% in Eccles.

Nonetheless, this will be a seat to watch, as Blears was a high profile abuser of the expenses system, flipping between properties to maximise her financial return. Her reputation and standing suffered accordingly, with an opinion poll carried out in May 2009 by the Express in her then constituency of Salford suggesting that the BNP would win the seat with 38.4% of the vote. Voters will still be angry with Blears, but to what extent will this anger have abated since last year? Whatever the case, we should expect the BNP to make a strong showing in the seat, especially when considering that Blears's campaign has been beset with undesired controversy following last week's revelation that one of her campaign team volunteers - a Nigerian named Rhoda Sulaimon - had overstayed on her visa and was due for deportation after the election.

Tina Wingfield, wife of senior BNP member Martin Wingfield (Communications Officer for Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons and parliamentary candidate for Workington) is a solid candidate who should stand the party in good stead. She has a Degree in Social Sciences and possesses expertise in housing and mental health-related issues.

BNP Candidate Tina Wingfield

Unfortunately, two other nationalistically-inclined parties - the English Democrats and UKIP - are standing in Salford and Eccles, so this will probably shave a few percentage points from the prospective BNP vote. The full list of candidates is: Hazel Blears (Labour); Richard Carvath (Independent); David Henry (Trade Unionist and Socialist); Stephen Morris (English Democrats); Duran O'Dwyer (UKIP); Norman Owen (Liberal Democrat); Matthew Sephton (Conservative); Tina Wingfield (BNP). As this is in effect a new seat, it really isn't possible to estimate shares of the vote, but as it incorporates wards taken from two solid Labour seats, this is very much Labour home territory. The election in Salford and Eccles will therefore be very much a judgement on the (un)popularity of Hazel Blears. The BNP should be looking to score a minimum of 15%, probably much higher. Paddypower.com is currently offering odds of 50/1 on Tina Wingfield taking the seat.

Thurrock: BNP Target Seat Number Four

Emma Colgate is standing as the BNP parliamentary candidate for Thurrock. She was elected as a BNP Councillor to the Tilbury Riverside and Thurrock Park ward in May 2008 and stood as the BNP parliamentary candidate for Basildon in 2005 where she polled 4.8% of  the vote securing fourth place ahead of UKIP, the Greens and the English Democrats.

In the 2005 General Election Labour candidate Andrew McKinlay was returned as the MP for Thurrock securing 47.2% of the vote. It has traditionally been a Labour seat although the Conservatives did take it in the 1987 election. Nick Geri, BNP candidate in 2005, came in fourth place winning 5.8% of the poll with 2,526 votes. Although there have been subsequent boundary changes calculations by the UK Polling Report blog suggest that these would not have had a significant impact upon the previous result.

If Emma Colgate were to take this seat it would be a remarkable achievement; a genuine political earthquake. So, what can we realistically expect by way of a good result for the BNP? The 2005 results were:

• Labour - 20,636 (47.2%)
• Conservative - 14,261 (32.6%)
• Liberal Democrat - 4,770 (10.9%)
• BNP - 2,526 (5.8%)
• UKIP - 1,499 (3.4%)

This time around, the following candidates are standing: Arinola Araba (Christian People's Party); Clive Broad (UKIP); Emma Colgate (BNP); Carys Davis (Liberal Democrat); Jackie Doyle-Price (Conservative) and Carl Morris (Labour). As with my previous post on the Morley and Outwood parliamentary constituency I am going to allow the most recent set of results from the May 2008 local elections to inform my projection of the BNP vote share in Thurrock. I do so in the belief that the actual number of votes received by the BNP in 2008 will represent the minimum baseline upon which they should be able to build. I have aggregated the results from Thurrock's constituent wards to arrive at the following actual totals for May 2008:

• Conservative - 8,168 (34.6%)
• Labour – 8,108 (34.4%)
• BNP – 5,500 (23.3%)
• Liberal Democrat (contested 9 wards) – 1,429 (6.1%)
• UKIP (contested 1 ward) – 207 (0.9%)
• Independent (contested 1 ward) – 192 (0.8%)

As can be seen, the actual number of votes taken by the BNP was more than double the number secured in the 2005 General Election. At an absolute minimum therefore, the BNP should take circa 12% of the vote in Thurrock. However, I think that both their vote share and the number of votes received will be higher than this owing to the fracturing of traditional party loyalties that we have witnessed in the past year or so. There should also be some positive fallout for the BNP from Gordon Brown's bigot gaffe in Rochdale last week.

As Thurrock is a high-profile BNP target seat, third-party anti-BNP campaign literature produced by Searchlight, Hope Not Hate, UAF, etc is likely to be deluging local homes, so Colgate will have a hard fight on her hands to overcome this negative propaganda as BNP resources are very modest in comparison. If the BNP secure 12%, this will be a disappointing result; 15-20% would be a respectable outcome, with anything beyond 20% a good result. Above 25% and a second or third place would be excellent. Could Colgate take the seat? I think that it merits better than the 20/1 odds being offered by Paddypower.com Still, their odds suggest that the BNP will come third ahead of the Liberal Democrats but behind the triumphant Tories and Labour.

The Christian People's Party is likely to shave a percentage point or two from the Labour vote by attracting black evangelicals. My projection (which will be wrong of course, but by how much?) for the likely result therefore is:

• Conservative - 32%
• Labour - 28%
• BNP - 20%
• Liberal Democrat - 16%
• UKIP - 3%
• Christian People's Party - 1%

I shall be eagerly awaiting the result from Thurrock, for it should be one of the most interesting of the night. I wish Emma and her team good luck. If you're an undecided Thurrock voter, why not watch the following video in which she discusses her experience as a councillor and see for yourself whether she really is the 'demon' that the opposition like to portray her as:

Simon Hughes: Dhimmi Traitor

If you are considering voting Liberal Democrat and you are not a Muslim, think again.Watch this video of leading Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes prostrating himself before Islam. The man is demented. As he is a self-declared bisexual, he'll be finding himself thrown off of the nearest 'mountain' should the Muslims he is sucking up to take power during his lifetime. He gushes emotionally before his audience, praising Allah and Islam. The Liberal Democrats wish the UK to be Islamised. They want a deluge of Muslim immigrants. Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes in particular, hate political borders: "We must end this nationalism. . .  We are God's people, and God knows no boundaries. . . You are not strangers, you are not aliens, you are part of this country."

His speech gets even worse: "We want you to be the leaders. . . . We need you to lead our politics and we want you to come forward to be part of that political leadership in this country." He wants to see Muslim ministers and a Muslim Prime Minister. We expect this sort of Islamic supremacism from a Muslim politician such as Shahid Malik, but from a Liberal Democrat? Simon Hughes has lost the plot. If the Liberal Democrats do hold the balance of power in a week's time (which in all likelihood they will) brace yourself for a rapid upping of the tempo in the Islamisation of our country, for whichever of the mainstream parties form the Government, there will be more legislation privileging Islam and removing our right to self-defence from this predatory totalitarian ideology.

Kerry McCarthy: a Tweet too Far

Labour parliamentary candidate for Bristol East - Kerry McCarthy - is quite rightly under police investigation following her tweeting to supporters about the preliminary results revealed in counting 300 postal votes. This episode demonstrates once again that the postal voting system is wide open to abuse. By leaking this information today, McCarthy can be seen as trying to influence the outcome of the election in the constituency that she is contesting. She should be disqualified from her candidature having revealed that she is willing to abuse the democratic process.

As with Brown's comment yesterday, McCarthy's abuse of the voting system shows that many Labour politicians hold the general public in contempt. Metro reports that

Ms McCarthy, who is defending Bristol East and is the party’s media czar, said she was ‘kicking herself’ after sending the outcome of 300 votes to her 5,700 followers on the site.

It is illegal to reveal votes cast before the end of polling day because this may influence the outcome of the election.

The post has since been removed from Twitter.

An Electoral Commission spokeswoman said candidates who see the front of a ballot paper ‘must maintain the secrecy of voting’.

Releasing the information early can lead to a fine of up to £5,000 or six months in prison in England and Wales. In Scotland, the offence carries a maximum jail term of 12 months.

Ms McCarthy, who won the Bristol East seat at the 2005 general election, said she had been to a ‘training exercise’ in which staff verified personal identifiers on the postal votes.

On publishing the results, she added: ‘I was pretty silly. It was thoughtless. I was being overexuberant.’

In her blog, she later described herself as ‘another penitent sinner’ – the phrase by Gordon Brown on Wednesday after he apologised to a grandmother for calling her ‘bigoted’.

A 'penitent sinner'? What rot. What we have here is an embarrassed unprincipled candidate who is now rattled by the fact that she has been found out. If you are a voter in Bristol East, show your displeasure at McCarthy's attempt to undermine democracy by voting for Brian Jenkins, your local BNP candidate. Whatever you do, don't vote for McCarthy!

Gordon Brown's Rochdale Gaffe

Gordon Brown says that he’s “mortified”. Of course he’s “mortified”, as the stupid cyclopean git has just realised that he has effectively nailed the coffin shut on Labour’s electoral chances in the forthcoming election. He is “mortified” not because of the things he said about Rochdale pensioner Gillian Duffy, but because these things were caught on air and broadcast for all to hear. What he said is what he and his party believe about ordinary English women and men such as Mrs Duffy: Brown et al think that we’re all ‘bigots’. Anyone who questions the political elite's deliberate policy of swamping the UK with immigrants is branded a 'bigot', at best. The usual epithets cast at us are 'fascist', 'Nazi', 'far-right', etc. The BBC reports that

As he went to get into his car, Mr Brown told her: "Very nice to meet you, very nice to meet you." But off camera, and not realising he still had a Sky News microphone pinned to his shirt, he was heard to tell an aide: "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..."


Asked what she had said, he is heard to reply: "Ugh everything! She's just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous. I don't know why Sue brought her up towards me."

When she was quizzed as to what she thought of Brown’s Comments she stated:

"I'm very upset. He's an educated person. Why has he come out with words like that? "He's supposed to be leading the country and he's calling an ordinary woman who's come up and asked questions that most people would ask him... It's going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt, and he's calling me a bigot."

Having returned home late this evening, I caught Channel 4 News. One of the insulted woman's relatives was interviewed, and she too said that she was once a Labour voter, but as of today, was so no longer. "Will you vote Conservative?" she was asked. "No" came the reply. "Will you vote Liberal Democrat?" She was evasive and wouldn’t say yes or no, but the expression on her face told me that the penny had finally dropped for her and other former Labour-voting members of her family. She realised what our establishment politicians think of ordinary English people. In her eyes I glimpsed an angry, knowing and mischievous look which suggested "We know where we are now. We know whose looking out for us, and it's not you." A harvest of votes for the BNP is there for the gathering. How many, no-one can know, but at the minimum it will be in the tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands.

It may be too late in the campaign for the party to overcome the continuous barrage of assaults, court cases and negative spin from its opponents, but the sons and daughters of Albion are beginning to stir, and I feel more hopeful today then ever hitherto, that we will not have to wait long to see the BNP make its much-needed Westminster breakthrough. Only the BNP will speak out for the native people of Britain. The other parties, particularly Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, actively hate us. On Friday 7 May, what surprises await us?

Why you ‘should’ vote for Nick Clegg

‘Cleggstasy’ is a freshly-minted neologism, and as the word suggests, indicates a collective public mood that is euphoric, frenzied and hallucinatory, for how otherwise would a party with policies which directly contradict the will of the majority of the people in the UK be riding so high in the polls? Let me elucidate. Apparently, Clegg is popular because he looks better on TV than Gordon Brown. Well, who wouldn’t? He is popular because he speaks with conviction, unlike marketing man and plastic Tory David Cameron. Once again, who wouldn’t (well OK, Gordon Brown perhaps)? He is popular because of that borrowed meaningless phrase ‘it’s time for change’ and the Liberal Democrats are ‘outsiders’. No they’re not, they’re in Westminster and are part of the tripartite party consensus on the EU, immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness, globalism and Islamisation. He has an attractive wife. True, but what’s that got to do with anything?

The majority of the electorate wishes for immigration to be drastically reduced if not choked off altogether, whereas the Liberal Democrats see nothing wrong with the population skyrocketing beyond 70 million and care not from where the immigrants come. The majority of the electorate wished for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, whereas the Liberal Democrats wish to see the UK completely submerged within the nascent EU superstate and for the pound to be replaced by the Euro.

So, if you’d like to see Islam in Ilfracombe, minarets in Minehead, Afghans in Ayreshire, yashmaks in Yeovil, Pakistanis in Penrith and Somalis in Stroud, vote Liberal Democrat. If you’d like to lose your sovereignty to an EU that the Liberal Democrats and Labour wish to see include Turkey and then the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, then vote for the party of Clegg and wait for your country to fall to Islam. If you think that your quiet shire town needs ‘enriching’ with an admixture of Nigerian knife-crime, yardie turf wars or Muslim misogyny, then vote Liberal Democrat. If you are indigenous British, hate yourself, your family, your culture, your nation, your ethnic group, your race and your civilisation, then vote Liberal Democrat. To paraphrase David Steel in a bygone age, Clegg’s message to Liberal Democrats might be: ‘Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for shariah!’

If you want to stop the above nightmare from unfolding, then do not vote Labour or Conservative, for they will both tread the same path as the Liberal Democrats although not quite as quickly (yet admittedly, Labour are trying their damnedest). The only way that you can stop this nullification of nationhood, this removal of our rights and our culture is to vote BNP. Granted, if there’s no BNP candidate in your area then vote UKIP, or failing that, English Democrat; but on no account vote for the three main parties or the suicidal policies of the Greens, for the latter are akin to those of the Liberal Democrats but on steroids, except with respect to freedom of speech (they would outlaw criticism of Islam) which they wish to see removed. Vote for the Green Party if you’d like to embark on a bad acid trip from which you’ll never come down.

Pat Condell's Voting Guide 2010

Pat Condell is in the mood for a rant again, but this time it's the EU in the firing line rather than Islam. I agree with just about every word of what he says, other than the fact that I'd recommend voting BNP rather than UKIP. Naturally, if there's no BNP candidate standing where you live and you care about the future of our democracy, vote UKIP.

Stoke-on-Trent Central: BNP Target Seat Number Two

With odds of 12/1 at Paddypower.com Stoke-on-Trent Central represents, at least from the perspective of the prospective punter, the BNP’s second best prospect of winning a parliamentary seat. The candidate is Simon Darby, the fry-up loving Deputy Leader of the BNP. In recent weeks he has spent much time canvassing in Stoke and has produced a series of video messages on his blog. Unsurprisingly, the Labour Party, mainstream media and various anti-BNP groups have been fulminating against the BNP in an attempt to bolster Labour’s flagging appeal to the electorate.

Stoke-on-Trent, like many of our large towns and cities was once a hive of industry, jobs and prosperity, now reduced to a state of post-industrial marginality in which it is hard for people to find employment. It has long been a Labour Party stronghold, but at the local level Stoke Council which was once dominated by Labour has experienced a radical change in recent years with the BNP making a strong showing. At its peak, the BNP possessed 9 local councillors, but earlier this year Alby Walker and his wife left the party to become independents. Mr Walker himself is standing as an independent, and his reasons for leaving the BNP have been widely publicised by the media and anti-BNP communist campaign outfits such as Searchlight and its sister campaign Hope Not Hate.

In 2001 the census data for this seat indicated that it possessed a population of 80,996, with 4.7% of this total having been born outside of the UK. In all, it was recorded as being 93.7% white and 3.4% Muslim. Many people lived in rented accommodation, with only 59.75 of the population recorded as living in owner-occupied housing. As elsewhere, Stoke has witnessed a growth both in the Muslim population and in its vociferousness. This prompted the town to be chosen as the location of a 1500-strong EDL demonstration on 23 January 2010 which on this occasion was confronted by a little under 300 UAF-organised counter-demonstrators. The problem of Islamisation is one of those great unmentionables that the mainstream political parties will not even countenance to acknowledge exists. The BNP however is certainly not shy of highlighting this issue, and Simon Darby has drawn attention to the pittance paid to the local council by Stoke Muslims for a site on which they have been constructing a new mosque.

Simon Darby detects a degree of “panic” in the Labour camp owing to their recent appeal to Muslim voters to all vote Labour in Stoke irrespective of their party affiliation so as to “stop the BNP”. He comments that judging by the number of Liberal Democrat posters displayed in Muslim homes in the constituency, Labour are worried about much of their support deserting them and joining Nick Clegg's bandwagon. The usual anti-BNP message has been driven home by extensive leafleting in the town carried out by Searchlight, which the Guardian reports has having produced “80,000 Hope Not Hate newspapers to be distributed across the city.” Similar operations are being conducted by Searchlight elsewhere and were also characteristic of campaigning against Nick Griffin’s bid to take Keighley in 2005.



Stoke-on-Trent has its own political dynamics which stand outside of the national mainstream, not only in terms of the BNP’s relative local strength and issues connected to the recent departure of its most prominent local councillor, but also in terms of Labour Party politics. Lord Mandelson recently managed to parachute into the borough his favoured candidate – television historian Tristram Hunt, upsetting the local party and precipitating the decision of Gary Elsby, former Chairman of the Constituency Labour Party, to stand as an independent candidate. Thus, although the BNP might have its own issues with a degree of recent disunity in Stoke, Labour has been confronted with something far more serious. The question is: will Labour’s woes allow the BNP to mount a significant challenge? Could Simon Darby take the seat?

Although the BNP has a strong base in Stoke, its percentage vote share at the 2005 General Election was a modest 7.8% (2,178 votes) for its then candidate Michael Coleman. This placed it in fourth place, but ahead of UKIP which secured 3.3% of the vote (914 votes). Labour on the other hand, won with a whopping 52.9% of the vote, although this in itself was a decline of 7.7% on 2001. This time around, four independent candidates have been added to the mix as well as a ‘Trade Union and Socialist’ candidate. The other confirmed parties contesting the seat are: Conservative (Norsheen Bhatti); UKIP (Carol Lovatt) and Liberal Democrat (John Redfearn).

This General Election is shaping up to be the most unpredictable in decades following Nick Clegg’s well-received performance in last week’s televised party-leader debate. It is unlikely that this will provide the Liberal Democrats with the opportunity of winning Stoke, but it should give a fillip to their candidate’s prospects and secure additional votes. Where will these votes come from?

The Conservatives are fielding a young Pakistani woman named Norsheen Bhatti who presumably is intended to appeal to Stoke’s Muslim voters, but many ‘orthodox’ Muslims do not find this young woman a very appealing prospect, as she is also renowned for working part-time as a belly dancer and is not averse to a flirtatious flick of the hair and showing a good measure of leg. She is no ‘modest’ burqa-bound or niqab-muffled Muslim, and has been supported in her canvassing by Sayeeda Warsi. She will in all likelihood pick up a few additional votes from ‘moderate’ Muslims (i.e. those individuals who have had the misfortune to have been born into Muslim families but who do not really believe in their religion and its obnoxious teachings), but will not give the Tories an overall boost owing to the national resurgence in the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats. Bhatti may prove to be the most telegenically appealing of the Stoke candidates, but her chance of taking the seat is next to zero. The Conservative vote is likely to shrink slightly.

Norsheen demonstrates her non-political Talents

UKIP’s candidate will be overshadowed by Simon Darby, so its share is likely to fall from 3.3% to circa 2%. Similarly, although well-known locally, Alby Walker cannot be expected to pick up anything more than a percentage point or two, although unfortunately this will be at the direct expense of the BNP. Likewise with the Labour Party, it is unlikely that splinter independent candidate Gary Elsby will attract more than a couple of percentage points from disgruntled local Labour diehards.

Simon Darby will have done well if he is able to pick up 15% of the vote or above. A second place would be an outstanding achievement, but in reality, securing third place seems a more realistic although significant challenge. My finger-in-the-air predictions for the Stoke result are thus: Labour 38-40%; Liberal Democrat 25%; Conservative 16%; BNP 14-15%. Many former Labour voters are likely to shift support to the BNP and the Liberal Democrats, but as the Liberal Democrats are the primary challengers for the seat, some Tories may vote tactically in an attempt to get Labour out. If this were to occur on a significant scale, Simon Darby could take third place. Still, keep up the good work Simon, as the higher the vote you receive, the stronger the message that will be sent to Westminster.

Barking: BNP Target Seat Number One

Much has changed in recent years, so this seat, which once would have been considered solid Labour territory, now provides the BNP with its best prospect of securing its first MP. Those members of the traditional white working class who remain have been abandoned by a Labour Party that has long since embraced corporate globalism and the cause of ethnic minority special interest groups to the detriment of its own people.

Can Nick Griffin take Barking? That is for the voters to decide. But what proportion of electors in the seat can we now safely describe as English? It is well known that the mass influx of immigrants over the past decade in particular has caused an exodus of those indigenous inhabitants willing and able to find a home elsewhere. Those who remain have felt increasingly alienated and marginalized, but will they vote BNP?

The census figures for 2001 detailed Barking and Dagenham’s ethnic profile as follows: 78.2% white; 10.5% black; 7.2% Asian; 2.4% mixed race and 1.7% Chinese. Almost a decade has since elapsed, so we can anticipate that the white proportion will have diminished by at least 10% owing to native outmigration and the arrival of immigrants. We are also safe to assume that the ethnic minority vote for the BNP will not be significant.

The BNP made an electoral breakthrough on Barking and Dagenham Council in 2006, securing the election of 12 councillors making it the second largest party behind Labour. Subsequently however, one of these seats was lost in a by-election. As for the parliamentary constituency of Barking, its boundaries have changed since the 2005 General Election, but UK Polling Report notes that whilst these changes “appear to reduce the BNP’s support in the seat, the BNP returned councillors in all three of the new wards in 2006 and they are likely to prove fertile territory”.

Looking at the 2005 results, we can see that then BNP parliamentary candidate Richard Barnbrook came close to taking second place to Labour from the Conservatives: he secured 16.9% of the vote, just 27 votes short of the Tories’ 17.1%. Margaret Hodge, the winning candidate, won the seat with 47.8% of the vote and a majority of 8,883. Can Nick Griffin leapfrog his way to the top? It is a daunting task.

Hodge has played up “the BNP threat” considerably during recent years, but this can be seen as a standard Labour tactic employed in an attempt to mobilise erstwhile supporters who cannot be bothered to vote any longer as they feel (correctly) that the Labour Party no longer listens to them or represents their interests. Hodge, a multimillionaire, has little or nothing in common with traditional Labour supporters. Griffin and the BNP on the other hand, offer the prospect of real hope to the beleaguered indigenous inhabitants of Barking.

The mass media have worked themselves up into a lather about the BNP challenge in Barking, much more so than in Keighley where Nick Griffin stood in 2005. Although the BNP has changed its constitution and won a popular mandate in elections to the Greater London Assembly and the EU Parliament, the mass media and other political parties remain inveterately hostile. Still, the reality of rapid demographic change, a chronic housing shortage and economic dislocation will cause many voters to see through the media lies peddled about the BNP. The real reason underpinning the Establishment’s hatred of the BNP is the fact that it is the only political party in the UK to stand up against globalist corporatist interests in favour of ordinary people.

As in 2005, UKIP are fielding a candidate, so we can expect a small percentage of nationalist votes to be siphoned off by Frank Maloney. However, UKIP only managed 2.8% of the vote last time, and it may be the case that on this occasion some nationalists will hopefully switch to the BNP. Margaret Hodge affects concern about the fact that the Christian Party is fielding a candidate in the person of George Hargreaves, for she along with some other commentators believes that Hargreaves could successfully attract many black evangelical Christians away from the Labour Party. Realistically, can he expect to secure more than 2% of the vote?

Ideally, Nick Griffin will win this seat. However, if he does not, he must secure second place with at least 25% of the vote for the BNP to retain its momentum. I am confident that he will be able to push the Conservatives into third place, but taking the seat from Hodge is a tall order. If we assume that Hodge loses 2% of the vote share to the Christian Party and a further 8% to the BNP, that would still leave Labour with a total of 38% and the seat in their hands. However, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the voters of Barking will express their displeasure with the mainstream parties and Labour's promotion of mass immigration by giving them a bloody nose by electing the UK’s first BNP MP on 6 May 2010. Paddypower.com is currently offering odds of 7/2 for Nick Griffin to take the seat.

BNP 'Top 10' General Election Targets

On 5 April it was announced that the BNP would be fielding a record 326 candidates in the forthcoming General Election. It is likely that this total would have been even higher had it not been for the financial strain placed upon the party by the recent EHRC court case which was quite clearly brought in an attempt to destroy the BNP following its electoral success in the EU elections last June. Thankfully, this attempt has failed, but it means that the BNP will be fighting to secure representation at Westminster on a very tight budget.

In 2005 certain Labour candidates used the alleged BNP ‘threat’ in a cynical attempt to mobilise disillusioned Labour voters, persuading them to vote for a party that they no longer believed in and which long ago had abandoned them. Paradoxically, many who then cast their votes for Labour will have voted against a party – the BNP – whose policies they would have benefited from and approved of had they had been properly informed of the content of the BNP manifesto. Then, as now, the mass media were united in their hostility to the BNP, but unlike in 2005 the dissemination of information this time around has been democratised. Thanks to the growth in public internet access and the burgeoning of political blogs and online social media, the stranglehold of the National Union of Journalists and its explicit guidelines enforcing distorted reporting has to a certain extent been circumvented. Nonetheless, those of us of a nationalist bent who are favourably disposed towards the BNP constitute a very modest force when pitted against the power and wealth of the mass media. It is very much a David versus Goliath scenario.

What then, are the prospects for the BNP in 2010? Can we realistically expect to see the party secure its first Westminster MPs? If so, which constituencies offer the most likely prospects, and which candidates should we be following with the keenest interest? Over the coming week I shall be writing a series of articles dealing with those constituencies in which I think the BNP will perform strongly. Whether or not this translates into elected MPs or a number of second and third places we will not know until 7 May, but if the odds at Paddypower.com are anything to go by, some seats should yield some very interesting results indeed.

In the 2005 General Election the BNP fielded 119 candidates and won a total of 192,746 votes. This represented 0.7% of the total with each candidate winning an average of 1620 votes. In last June’s EU elections the BNP won a total of 943,598 votes representing 6.26% of the vote which was a 1.3% increase on their 2004 figure of 808,200. The mass media have often deliberately lied about this most recent result, claiming that the BNP vote had fallen in numerical terms since the 2004 EU elections, but as the figures demonstrate, this was not the case.

Recent opinion polls tend to place the national level of support for the BNP at anywhere between 2 and 4%. This however masks considerable regional variations with the party scoring consistently better in England, for it barely registers in Scotland and Wales. It is probable that the reported level is lower than the actual level of support, for it has been observed that people are often reluctant to state that they are considering voting for the BNP, particularly when questioned over the telephone.

Taking into account the aforementioned figures, what might we expect in terms of a likely overall result for the BNP in May 2010? General elections are not EU elections and thus parties that appeal specifically to nationalism and anti-EU sentiment tend to do better in the latter than in the former. I will therefore start with the most conservative estimate of the BNP vote, projecting a repeat performance of 2005 with an average of 1620 votes per candidate which would yield 528,120 votes. If we assume (simply for the sake of direct comparison, for the situation will not repeat itself) that the total number of votes cast for all parties nationally came to the same sum for 2005, this would give the BNP a 1.9% share of the vote.

As the party would have achieved this result by standing in only circa half of the available Westminster seats, this would equate to a rough national share of 3.8% which would match the party’s position in many polls. Although the sum total would thus be far more impressive than 2005’s tally of 192,746, it would mean that the BNP would have been treading water. It therefore needs to achieve substantially more votes and a correspondingly higher share of the national total to indicate that it has achieved a significant breakthrough. When considering the current combination of toxic factors - mass immigration, economic crisis, Islamisation, the war in Afghanistan, the expenses scandal, multiculturalism and the loss of sovereignty to the EU - which have made large swathes of the electorate either hostile towards the mainstream political parties or apathetic about politics in general, and the lack of willingness on the part of the said parties to discuss any of these issues other than the economy, the threshold of success, I would suggest, needs to be set at a minimum of 970,000 votes. This would equate to roughly 7% of the vote. If the BNP manages to garner in the region of 1.5 million votes or above, it will truly have emerged as a political force with serious prospects.

I have no doubt that the vote received by the BNP in a number of constituencies will be in excess of 15%, but it is likely that its prospective impact in many instances will unfortunately be blunted by the presence of other candidates who are likely to dilute the nationalist vote (i.e. UKIP and the English Democrats). This will be a great pity, for it may deny the prospects of office to a number of BNP candidates. Such a situation, I hope, will not arise at future parliamentary elections, for we cannot afford for the nationalist vote to remain split any longer. Our very survival as a nation depends upon a unified British nationalist party which can fight for office against its globalist dhimmi opponents.

Over the coming week or so I will therefore be writing about my BNP ‘Top 10’ target constituencies. This is simply a personal selection, but I do believe that the best prospects for the party lie amongst their number, and I shall be avidly glued to the screen waiting for these results on election night. These are (in no particular order): Barking (Nick Griffin); Stoke-on-Trent Central (Simon Darby); Thurrock (Emma Colgate); Keighley (Andrew Brons); Salford and Eccles (Tina Wingfield); Stoke-on-Trent South (Mike Coleman); Burnley (Sharon Wilkinson); Dagenham and Rainham (Michael Barnbrook); Dewsbury (Roger Roberts); Dudley North (Ken Griffiths).

Labour Manifesto Pledge: Civil War for Your Children

Today, the Labour Party launched its latest manifesto, and judging this 'book' by its cover you could be forgiven for thinking that it was touting for the blue-, red- and mauve-skinned vote looking at the stylised  family staring into the bright light of Labour's tomorrow. Presumably, this group of alien beings felt at home in their psychedelic-tinged landscape of symbolic fields illumined by a Sun that bears an uncanny resemblance to a detonating hydrogen bomb. If you think that the cover looks bad, delve into the contents and amidst the sloganeering sludge you will be able to divine that their intent is to completely snuff out the last vestiges of our national statehood, social cohesion and identity.

In the section entitled Meeting the challenges of the new global age the Labour Party demonstrates once again that it is intent on nurturing the preconditions for civil war in the UK by importing millions of hostile aliens. As I have written before, these will not be our culturally close cousins from Eastern Europe who generally speaking came with only positive intent, but the Muslim hordes from Turkey and the wider Middle East. Take a look at the following excerpt, and open your eyes:

"We support the enlargement of EU membership to include Croatia, and believe that all Western Balkan states should open negotiations on EU accession by 2014 – one hundred years after the start of the First World War. Turkey’s future membership is a key test of Europe’s potential to become a bridge between religions and regions; there must be continued progress on its application to join the EU. In its foreign policy, Europe should play a key role in conflict resolution and the promotion of security, and work bilaterally to achieve its goals with the leading global powers in each region of the world."

You have been warned: the Labour Party is intent upon implementing policies which unchecked will bring war to its own people. If its plans eventually come to pass, we will be forced into a situation where we either submit to a new Islamic political elite and live a squalid unequal life of persecution, or we take up arms and take our country back. This, I hope, will be a choice with which we are never confronted, for such an eventuality is neither desirable nor inevitable. We can choose to follow the policies necessary to restore social cohesion now (i.e. withdraw from the EU, ban Muslim immigration and encourage resident Muslims to leave), or we can watch our world fall apart and our children and grandchildren be reduced to a state of dhimmitude. If war were to come, the bloodshed would dwarf that which was witnessed in the former Yugoslavia. I am a peaceful individual who abhors war and conflict. I never want to see this happen, but if a Muslim elite were to take control, we would have little option but to fight or be murdered in the manner that millions of Jews and Poles were murdered by the Nazis.

Vote for peace and for hope on 6 May: vote BNP.

Gordon Brown's Empty Battle Cry

What do you think of Gordon Brown’s electoral battle cry?

'We will fight for fairness at all times. We will say to the British people, our cause is your cause. The future is within our grasp, it is a future fair for all. Now, all of us, let's go to it.'

A superficial reading of these words doesn’t reveal much. A deep reading of them reveals even less. They mean nothing. Nothing at all, other than “re-elect me and I’ll carry on just as I please, just as I have done since I became Prime Minister.” Gordon Brown’s notion of ‘fairness’ is one that is selective, and is fairer to some than it is to others i.e. to ethnic minority and aggressive faith (i.e. Islamic) groups to the detriment of the English in particular.

His notion of “the British people” means nothing more than the collective of whoever happens to be accidentally resident or applying for residence in the United Kingdom at a particular given time. It is a contentless conception that neither implies common descent, common values, common history, common aims nor even a common language. All that we share is the necessity of paying an increasing proportion of our incomes in taxes to Gordon. For him, this is the definining essence of “the British people”: we are all taxpayers, little better (possibly worse) than serfs.

With Gordon you get plenty of taxation with next to no representation. As he is so intent upon ruling a third-world country, I would like to suggest to him that he and his party decamp en masse to somewhere such as Pakistan as they obviously find it so much more agreeable than our hideously white olde England. There he’ll be able to use his moral compass to guide him through the desert to the Taliban, where he can engage with all of those lovely moderate people who share his puritanical distaste for anything pleasurable. After all, surely being such a champion of ‘fairness’ he would like to see a greater proportion of the Pakistani or Afghan governments comprised of white Europeans, as for some reason they don’t seem to contain any at the moment. Must be the result of discrimination I guess. I’d love to see him ‘enrich’ their social and political fabric. Go for it Gordon! We’re right behind you in your bid to join the Pakistani administration! After all, your party has repeatedly demonstrated its immense popularity with Pakistani voters.