Beyond the Fringe: building a credible nationalist Politics (Part I)

Introduction

This article and a subsequent piece will endeavour to provide an outline of the reasons for the failure of nationalist politics in contemporary Britain, more specifically, in England, and suggest a means of breaking out of this impasse. In this initial instalment, the focus will be upon the weaknesses of the BNP and other aspirant nationalist parties, teasing out those factors that inhibit them from exerting popular electoral appeal. The second piece, to follow within the next week or so, will forward a concrete proposal for creating a popular credible nationalist politics in our country, outlining the policies and tactics required to realise the as yet largely untapped potential of nationalism.

The old Westminster parties are discredited, mistrusted and unpopular, offering voters nothing more than variations upon the same set of failed policies; our economy is in protracted and serious decline; our national independence is being hollowed out by the growing strength of transnational political and economic institutions and predatory transnational capitalism. Mass immigration continues apace, and the material and cultural fissures in our society grow ever wider. Against this backdrop, surveys reveal that nationalist policies are popular, but nationalist parties are not.

The time would thus appear ripe for nationalist politics to make a breakthrough, and yet nationalism in our country lies fractured and weak, beset with internal feuding and held back by excessive egotism. A myriad of small parties and groupuscules each pronounce their own way forward, and whilst the BNP continues its long and painful death under Nick Griffin, almost all bar the BNP remain unknown and invisible to the public at large; a near-eccentric irrelevance. In this context, it is understandable that a concept such as the Centre for Democratic Nationalism (CDN) should have arisen. However, from the perspective of the author, the CDN has made a strategic error, for it is clear from what has occurred thus far that it runs the risk of becoming a forum for the concerns of the small parties of the nationalist fringe, rather than serving as an incubator for a coherent and credible nationalist programme. Moreover, it needs to foster not an alliance of the obscure and the unknown, but the development of a professional and publicly palatable party. It is the contention of the author that no political breakthrough can be secured by pandering to the preoccupations of those on the margins, but that instead, nationalists should address themselves to the central concerns of the general public, and fashion their policies and strategies accordingly.

The Failure of the BNP

A few years ago, the BNP looked as if it held out the promise of breaking into the mainstream of British politics and becoming a credible nationalist party. This is certainly what its opponents feared. Looking back, 2009 marked its high watermark, with its first MEPs being elected in the June of that year, and party membership reputedly peaking at some 14,000. At that time, it possessed an opportunity of cultivating for itself not only a better public image, but also a strong base of public support. It could have, had it chosen the right tack, transformed itself into a significant political force with the potential for real mass growth and appeal. History however, was to determine otherwise.

Despite the protestations of its Chairman – Nick Griffin – and his apologists, the subsequent collapse in the BNP’s fortunes was not primarily due to concerted media and political opposition, but to problems within the party itself. These included a lack of internal party democracy; bad strategic decisions; the adoption of a number of outlandish policies peripheral to nationalist concerns, and the presence of some equally outlandish individuals with an inexplicable fetish for German National Socialism. This latter fact provided opponents of the BNP a very large stick with which to beat the party and its members repeatedly. Nick Griffin’s own failure to distance the BNP from Holocaust denial and his attempt to defend David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan on the BBC’s Question Time were both gratuitously unnecessary and disastrous for the image of the party. Then there were the avoidable and expensive court cases brought by Marmite and the EHRC, together with the repeated failure to submit party accounts on time, leading to the BNP’s contemporary indebtedness to the tune of somewhere between £850,000 and £1,000,000.

As a direct consequence of the excessive concentration of power in Griffin’s hands, the party was (and still is) bedevilled by clientelism, with promotion to the higher reaches of the party predicated more upon a slavish devotion to the person of the Chairman, than upon talent. The consequence of such a system has been that talent has not been recognised and utilised to best effect to forward party fortunes. Instead, mediocrities and oddballs have often been promoted to Griffin’s inner circle, Griffin himself seemingly being mistrustful and fearful of building a capable, talented and dedicated team of nationalists. Indeed, the situation is now such that a non-party member – Patrick Harrington – wields an undue degree of influence. Quite clearly, as pointed out by Andrew Brons and many others, Griffin has no intent of going anywhere. Providing that he can make a living out of his chairmanship of the party, it matters not to him whether it prospers electorally or otherwise.

A New Party

Having ascertained that neither Griffin nor Harrington are interested in necessarily either promoting the growth of the BNP or its electoral viability, it is clear that there is no point in simply waiting for Griffin to leave of his own volition. We do not have the luxury of time. Although Andrew Brons has forwarded a credible case against the formation of yet another nationalist party, it is the view of the author that this is in fact precisely what is required, whether or not our venerable MEP for Yorkshire and Humber would wish to assume the mantle of leadership himself. One thing however is clear: it would stand a much greater chance of success were he to provide it with his blessing. There are many good and dedicated nationalists who remain within the BNP or its penumbra, whose skills and enthusiasm should be put to positive and productive use in forwarding our cause. Without a practical goal to work towards, the risk is that they will leave nationalist politics altogether, or select a party that is not a good fit for their beliefs and principles. Besides these people, there are also those who have joined other parties who could be tempted back were a suitable vehicle to emerge.

Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to provide a straightforward definition of our cause. It is this: to gain recognition of the existence of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, and in accordance with such recognition, to assert our right to national self-determination as set out in the UN Charter. Sovereignty inheres not within the person of the monarch or in parliament, but in the body of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles themselves, whether they should so choose to define themselves collectively as British, or separately as English, Scots, Welsh and Irish. Our purpose is to defend and forward the interests of our people, with a view to securing their social, political and economic well-being.

To join a new party it should only be necessary for the prospective member to pledge to forward the cause of establishing recognition of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, and their right to political self-determination. This would constitute the sine qua non for admission. As such, the party should be open to all citizens of the United Kingdom irrespective of their background. Upon this one principle, all nationalist politics are predicated. Irrespective of differences in other spheres of policy, this is the one principle around which all nationalists can surely unite.

There has been much discussion concerning the toxicity or otherwise of the BNP brand. Certainly, Nick Griffin is as politically toxic as a politician can be, and under his leadership the BNP will never be anything other than a pariah party that people lend their vote to as a protest, holding their noses whilst they do so. As he will not relinquish control of the party, there is no alternative but to form another. The question therefore as to whether or not the BNP brand is permanently tarnished is not a relevant one. It is at this point, that many readers will cry “but what of other existing parties?! Might not they provide us with the vehicle that we require?” My answer to this is a categorical “no”.

Recently, the leadership of the Brent Group announced its decampment to the British Freedom Party, and others, as Brons has enumerated, have left at various times over the past 18 months to join the English Democrats and the National Front. Some have also managed to gain membership of UKIP, despite a formal ban on ex-BNP members, and others have joined smaller parties that realistically nobody outside of nationalist politics or those who closely observe it, such as its fervent opponents and a few academic specialists, has ever heard of. Moreover, the micro-parties on the fringe of the fringe would not attract public support if they were to be known, for after all, how much genuine appeal would a party that displays an SS Death’s Head on its homepage exert? Does an answer really need to be provided to that question? If it does, the proposal that will be outlined in the article subsequent to this one will not be to your liking, and it would be better for all concerned if you were to remain pursuing your current specialist personal interests at a far remove from the political fray.

The Weaknesses of existing Parties

Returning to the question of why none of the existing parties constitute suitable vehicles for our purpose, the reasons are numerous, yet each of the candidate parties possesses a distinctive weakness rooted in its core ideology which means that it will either never reach out beyond a certain level of support to gain electoral success at Westminster, or contains values at variance with our core principle: the recognition of the right of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles to political self-determination.

UKIP is the largest of the parties popularly perceived as to some extent possessing a nationalist, or at least patriotic, orientation. However, it proves to be unsuitable for our cause for many reasons. Ideologically it is nothing more nor less than a breakaway Thatcherite Atlanticist wing of the Conservative Party, and as such, can at best be considered a civic nationalist party; it is a class-based party that looks to the interests of transnational capital with a North American colouration. As such, its model of economic development is literally bankrupt. Furthermore, it does not recognise the concept of indigenous British peoples; its activist base is weak; its membership is highly aged; it is dominated by the person of its Chairman Nigel Farage; its MEPs do not serve the national interest when they have the opportunity to do so, and as mentioned earlier, ex-BNP members are banned. Most importantly, the general public see UKIP as a single-issue party standing for departure from the European Union, and thus do not consider voting UKIP other than in EU elections.

The English Democrats could to a certain extent be characterised as a little Englander version of UKIP, but with a more rounded economic policy and drawing a clear distinction between “the English” (ethnic) and “the people of England” (civic). Despite possessing a degree of public recognition in a handful of locations across the country – such as Doncaster where the Mayor is an English Democrat – they remain generally unknown, and their membership is small. Although some well-known former BNP members such as Eddy Butler and Chris Beverley have joined, the EDs have not experienced significant growth over the past year. The party appears to be treading water, and those voters who have heard of them tend to associate it with a single issue: an English parliament and a solution to the West Lothian Question. This is predictable enough, given that this is what Robin Tilbrook and most EDs seem to be most passionate about and to concentrate upon.

The British Freedom Party experienced a painful birth that led to the creation of a smaller entity without an ideological raison d’être named the Freedom Democrats. Nonetheless, the BFP attempted to formulate its own nationalist response to contemporary demographic realities through forwarding the concept of cultural nationalism, which in essence could be described as a form of beefed-up civic nationalism. Many of its other policies, good, and in some instances bad, were directly carried across from the BNP. As such, it did look as if it possessed some potential for growth and popular appeal. However, for a number of reasons this did not occur.

After almost a year in existence, BFP meetings with figures in the counter-jihad movement led to its relaunch under the chairmanship of Paul Weston last November, with caretaker leader Peter Mullins standing down. This shift however seems to have created an even greater ideological muddle, with the BFP issuing a seemingly random melange of ‘policies’ in its 20 Point Programme, a number of which were mutually incompatible. In addition, this ‘programme’ appeared to be an unnatural graft onto underlying BFP policies, and must therefore be assumed to have sprung from the imagination of the new Chairman. Owing to Weston’s personal preoccupation with Islamism and Islamisation, the BFP has fallen into the trap of fixating upon Islam, with little attention being paid to other policy issues. Whilst this focus has lent itself to a natural yet awkward tactical tie-up with the EDL, such a narrow focus will not yield general electoral success.

Weston too has acknowledged that his new model BFP is essentially “UKIP but we will talk about Islam”. That, primarily, is why Weston left UKIP: other than Lord Pearson it did not take a clear position against Islamisation. Were it to do so, my opinion is that Weston would fold the BFP tomorrow and return to UKIP. If the Tories were to ever become anti-Islamisation and pro-EU withdrawal, he would in an instant join the Conservative Party. The BFP is thus driving itself into a cul-de-sac. There remains room for party growth, but ultimately it will stall and fail, stunted by its narrow vision. It does not represent the way forward for nationalism, for although the concerns of the counter-jihad movement and nationalism overlap to a certain extent, they each represent a distinct position. The BFP is at risk of becoming a small British Neocon party.

The BFP, if people have heard of it, has thus come to be thought of as “the anti-Islam party”, just as UKIP is known as the “anti-EU party” and the EDs “the English parliament party”. All three overly fixate upon a single issue which hamstrings their electoral prospects. As for the National Front, its brand is more toxic than that of the BNP, and in public perception is simply known as “the racist party”, thus signifying electoral suicide. Any further discussion of the NF is superfluous.

Conclusion

Having thus surveyed the field of existing contenders for the nationalist vote in Britain and England, it is time to draw this piece to a close. The true conclusion to this article will be provided in the next two instalments, in which the focus will shift to providing a positive proposal that it is hoped readers will find both appealing and practicable. Part II will deal with policy, whereas Part III will deal with practical matters relating to strategy, tactics and tone. After a period of dispiriting setbacks, there is a basis for cautious optimism grounded in a realistic analysis of the challenges that we face. Success yet lies within reach.

British Nationalism on the Web: Who's up and Who's down

As mainstream media outlets are intrinsically inimical towards nationalism it is not surprising that the Internet has become the medium through which nationalists have in recent years sought to propagate their message and to establish channels of communication with others of a similar outlook. To members of the public at large who do not take it upon themselves to investigate this area of politics beyond reading what is printed in the press or broadcast on the airwaves, ‘nationalism’ in the contemporary United Kingdom is associated with two parties only: the BNP and UKIP, although the latter would not primarily define itself as a nationalist party. At the level of local media, the English Democrats have received minimal and fleeting coverage, but the other micro-parties that would seek to assume the mantle of nationalism are practically invisible. The British Freedom Party evinced momentary media interest when Tommy Robinson announced the EDL’s tie-up with the former, but since then, it has slipped from public purview back into the nationalist mists.

Nick Griffin’s catastrophic mismanagement of the BNP has reduced the party from a position in which it was on the verge of achieving an electoral breakthrough, to one in which it is caught in a terminal tailspin. This is well-known both in nationalist and anti-nationalist circles, but not to the general public, which is why opinion polls keep citing a residual 2% of respondents as intending to vote BNP at the next election. This of course does not in reality represent support for Griffin’s corrupt machine, but for the idea of a democratic British ethno-nationalist party. Nonetheless, it is to the world of British and English nationalism that I turn my attention in this piece, and to the relative visibility and strengths of the different contenders for the nationalist crown. The BNP is dead, long live . . . which party exactly?

Before looking at the statistics associated with the smaller contenders for the nationalist crown (taken from Alexa Rankings on 9th January 2012), it is worth bearing in mind that despite its many troubles the BNP website commands a very respectable amount of traffic allowing it to clock in as the 2023rd most popular in the UK. Likewise, it has a considerable Facebook following, with some 78,437 followers. Although far more successful electorally and possessing much greater media coverage and financial muscle than the BNP, UKIP’s presence on the internet is by contrast rather modest, with its party site clocking in as the 17,345th most popular in the UK and its Facebook page commanding a paltry 2,111 followers. Given the high average age of UKIP supporters though, this shouldn’t perhaps be such a great surprise.

Although not a political party, the EDL has been rightly trumpeted as the most successful nationalistically-inclined grassroots movement to have emerged in recent decades. It therefore seems fitting to include statistics relating to its web presence given this popularity and its wider influence on the nationalist scene. Its website attracts a significant amount of traffic, more than UKIP’s in fact, clocking in at number 12,064 in the UK and 234,946 globally, whilst its Facebook page has 27,111 followers. However, when considering the EDL’s presence on Facebook, it should be borne in mind that previous pages have been hacked and rendered defunct on more than one occasion, so it is possible that had this not happened the total would now be considerably higher. Clearly though, as with all nationalist sites, it will also be attracting visits from its opponents as well as from its supporters. Its high hit rate could thus also be an indication of the EDL’s unpopularity. There are also a number of Facebook pages associated with the EDL’s divisional structure which are in themselves popular, such as Leicester that boasted 3,123 followers when I last checked the statistics.

Another significant factor to consider when looking at the popularity of the EDL is Tommy Robinson’s recent endorsement of the British Freedom Party. Although both he and the BFP leadership anticipated that this would lead to a sizeable segment of the EDL’s membership lending its support to the party, debate on the EDL Forum indicates that opinion on this alliance is far from united, with a majority of those expressing their views on this subject backing UKIP rather than the BFP. It would take something significant on the part of the BFP to change this preference. Nonetheless, since the party’s relaunch last November its web traffic has received a noteworthy fillip, edging slightly ahead of the EDL clocking in at 9,666th in the UK and 223,423rd globally.

In contrast, traffic to the BNP Ideas site – attracting contributions and support from the thoughtful and democratic members (or recent ex-members) of the party outside of the Griffin clique – is higher in the UK at 7,645 but lower globally coming in at 239,166th position. Nonetheless, it strikes me as preferable for a British nationalist site to seek to attract most of its traffic from within the UK rather than from without. Quite what will happen to BNP Ideas now that Andrew Brons has announced the formation of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism and the abandonment of the idea of setting up another ethnonationalist party remains to be seen. According to Brons “The primary aimof the Centre for Democratic Nationalism will be to facilitate the emergence of a united British Nationalist Movement.” The only party to have affiliated to it thus far is The Democratic Nationalists, and it is clear that this recent announcement has driven traffic to the party’s rather basic website taking it to 74,025th position in the UK. 

Another party to have emerged from a BNP breakaway is the Freedom Democrats formed from expelled members of the BFP. Despite claims by the Freedom Democrats to be the true British equivalent of the European freedom parties and to enjoy positive relations with its continental counterparts, the figures do not seem to lend this assertion credibility. The Freedom Democrats website doesn’t possess a UK Alexa traffic ranking, but clocks in at 24,336,810th globally, and its Facebook page features 16 ‘friends’. Evidently, the party is a non-starter and has less political clout than my blog, which isn’t saying much. Its members, if they wish to be involved in politics, would be advised to stand as independents or to join another party. Despite what some disaffected BNP members may mutter, the National Front is effectively dead, commanding no UK traffic ranking and a global position of 3,006,831. Its Facebook page boasts 457 friends.

Although having some electoral representation – including the Mayor of Doncaster – the English Democrats possess a modest web presence, despite their recent website revamp which has left it looking far more appealing and professional. At the time of writing, the EDs’ website ranked at 1,540,656th globally, a little behind my blog which enjoyed a ranking of 1,508,640th globally and 85,579th in the UK. The EDs are certainly ahead of Durotrigan on Facebook though, for Durotrigan has no Facebook presence; in fact, they score relatively well with 6,149 ‘friends’, coming in ahead both of UKIP and the BFP.

Lastly, turning to Britain First (I couldn’t find a site for its spinoff National People’s Party) championed by the Green Arrow, I was surprised to see that despite the trumpeting their internet presence appears to be weaker than the BFP, BNP Ideas and the EDL. UKIP manages to outstrip them on Facebook, but not in terms of its British traffic. The figures for the Britain First website are 13,524th in the UK and 352,736th globally; Facebook – 1,170 followers.


Conclusions
What does all of this say about the different nationalist parties, factions and movements operating in Britain today? Evidently, it serves to underscore the seriously fragmented nature of the nationalist scene, and the possibility that any one of a number of what could be termed “post-BNP parties”could emerge to eclipse the BNP. Will it be whatever might emerge from the Brons plan with his Centre for Democratic Nationalism? Will it be Paul Weston’s BFP, or the English Democrats or Britain First/National People’s Party? What implications could Scottish independence have for the whole of the nationalist spectrum?

Evidently, UKIP will for the foreseeable future continue to be the most publicly visible and least pilloried of the parties and movements mentioned above, but it remains an Atlanticist Tory party rather than a nationalist party, and thus whilst a UKIP administration would be less damaging than any put in place by the current big three in British politics, it is not what we need in the long run to turn our country around. We need a single credible and viable party to emerge in the very near future and for nationalists to agree to unite around whichever vehicle it may be. Time is growing short. Websites, blogs and general internet activism will have their role to play, but this is only part of the story if a viable nationalist politics is to be born in our country. Some bloggers/website contributors have already taken their views to the comment threads on major national newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph so as to attempt to sneak nationalist views past the moderators, and in some instances, this appears to be enjoying some success. Will it work? If we don’t try, we won’t know.

A later post will look at the internet presence of the major campaigning foes of nationalist parties and politics, and I am sure that you’ll be pleasantly surprised to learn that in terms of traffic, the nationalists appear to be winning. However, given that the web is the only place where a nationalist position is freely articulated this should not be a surprise, for those of a multiculturalist pro-mass immigration bent have plenty of mainstream media organs, as well as political parties, advocating and pushing their message in every sphere of life. 

Nick Griffin and the BNP or, more accurately, Nick Griffin is the BNP

This evening’s Panorama was rather interesting and revealing. It is perhaps hard to disagree with the sentiments of one female interviewee who described Nick Griffin as: “An absolute scumbag. I wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire.”

For years, there have been questions connected to the financial probity of the BNP, and the joint ‘response’ of Griffin and Simon Darby to the arrival of a BBC camera crew to ask questions connected with the abuse of EU funds and other financial irregularities seemed to do little other than confirm that the allegations possessed a firm basis in fact. Why else would Griffin have read a feeble statement to the BBC before promptly fleeing, leaving Darby to handle the questions by not answering them and instead making a fool of himself by thrusting a microphone into the interviewer’s face? The rough ejection of the BBC from the venue underscored that the BNP luminaries within were not looking for reasoned debate or discussion.

Granted, the BBC is intrinsically hostile not only towards the BNP, but towards anyone with the vaguest whiff of British or English national sentiment, but this should not have served as reason for refusing to address the set of questions being fielded on this occasion, which were reasonable enough. What we were effectively treated to was the BNP mimicking the ‘no platform’ policy of UAF by refusing to engage with a hostile interviewer in reasonable terms.

Some nationalists, despite this and numerous other gaffes and structural faults within the BNP’s Constitution, still cleave to the party. It’s about time that they realised that Nick Griffin has absolutely no intention of relinquishing the reins of leadership and that there is only one way that the party will head under him: forever downwards. All decent nationalists still left in the BNP should acknowledge the bitter reality that they now find themselves in, quit the party and select other political vehicles within which to advance the nationalist cause. The BNP has degenerated into a cult of personality, and of a deeply flawed personality at that. It acts as a block to realising our nationalist aspirations, and as such, should be left to die a natural death.

Barnsley Central By-election Result: Winners, Losers and the Future of the BNP

Dan Jarvis has emerged as the victor of the Barnsley by-election. This is the dull headline result. However, beyond the ritual return of the Labour candidate, something more interesting took place in Barnsley yesterday. True, the turnout was a lacklustre 37% on an equally uninspiring day punctuated by chilly drizzle, but the ramifications of the result for all of the parties other than Labour are rather interesting.

Labour may have achieved a confident win, but what will have discomfited all of the other candidates will have been UKIP’s strong showing. Their candidate – Jane Collins – leapfrogged the BNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives into second place. The biggest losers of the day however, were without a doubt the Liberal Democrats, beaten into sixth place trailing behind not only the BNP, but also an Independent.  
 
The primary lessons that can be gleaned from yesterday’s by-election are: 

• Barnsley remains a Labour bailiwick
• Liberal Democrat participation in government has finished the party as an electoral force
• Voters dislike Cameron’s globalist, multicultural Toryism
• Space exists for a popular, credible, moderate nationalist party
• The BNP in its current incarnation has long since passed its peak, and must either fully jettison its negative baggage, or forever remain an irrelevant presence on the national political scene functioning as little more than a unifying bogey for the Left and an impediment to the emergence of a popular moderate nationalist party

Barnsley represents a missed opportunity for nationalists, as taking the combined vote of UKIP, the BNP and the English Democrats we end up with 4,960 votes, or 20.5% of the vote. True, this is a long way short of Labour’s 60.8% share in this case, but it is significantly ahead of the Conservative’s 8.25%. Moreover, if a credible nationalist party did exist, a number of automatic Tory voters who dislike Cameron would shift their votes to the former. In areas which are not Labour strongholds, the potential for nationalist politics is thus very substantial. Although UKIP may see themselves as the party to assume this mantle, their Atlantacist globalist stance makes them little more than Eurosceptic Tories, with the same set of failed Thatcherite economic policies pursued by successive Conservative governments.

The BNP’s performance was underwhelming, its share of the vote slumping from 8.9% to 6.04%. This is less a of reflection upon the character of the candidate – Enis Dalton – than upon the toxic public image of the party Chairman – Nick Griffin - seared into the nation’s consciousness by his refusal to categorically distance himself from Holocaust denial on Question Time. He had the opportunity to forward the cause of the BNP, and he blew it in a spectacular way. Thereafter, the party never recovered its momentum and fell into gradual and inevitable decline, sealed by its feeble showing in last year’s General Election. Griffin’s Question Time appearance was but one of a number of blunders that has led many decent and dedicated nationalists to find their efforts squandered by their self-aggrandising leader. My dissection of these many mistakes and recommendations for their remedy can be found here. Unfortunately, they have not been acted upon.

 

Today Programme is Barking Mad

This morning's report on the electoral campaign in Barking was as far removed from the BBC's obligation to be impartial as could be imagined. The Today Programme reporter did his utmost to talk up Margaret Hodge's prospect of winning the seat and sought out as many voters as possible who had something negative to say about the BNP. He also made the most risible comment of the parliamentary campaign that I have heard so far - that many in Barking may be considering voting Liberal Democrat in order to deal with its housing problem! As the Liberal Democrats wish to provide an amnesty to an estimated 1.1 million immigrants and would wish to see many more immigrants flood into the country, any indigenous voter considering casting their ballot for this party should have their head examined. The Liberal Democrats would give priority in housing allocation to any immigrant family/individual which they deemed to have greater legitimate needs than the local population, leaving the latter to rot.

Unsurprisingly, owing to the BBC's unrelenting hostility towards the BNP and its associated tendentious distorted reporting of the party, Richard Barnbrook refused to allow the Today Programme the opportunity of interviewing Nick Griffin or any of the BNP team working in the constituency. The manner in which this report was conducted could readily be interpreted as an attempt by Radio 4 to subvert the democratic process in Barking. My message to the disgruntled voters of Barking is this: if you want your situation to change for the better, vote BNP and return Nick Griffin to Westminster, for the other parties don't give a damn about you and will definitely place the needs of immigrants before yours.

Keighley: BNP Target Seat Number Three

Andrew Brons was recently selected as the BNP candidate for Keighley. Having acquited himself well since he became the party's MEP for Yorkshire last June, Brons is fighting for the seat contested by Nick Griffin himself in 2005. This time around, veteran Labour MP Anne Cryer is standing down, with the Labour candidature falling instead to Jane Thomas. To be fair to Cryer, she did at least acknowledge that there were problems specific to some elements of the Muslim population in Keighley, but unfortunately, she and the local Labour Party at first claimed that the BNP were lying when the latter drew attention to the serious issue of Muslim males grooming local native schoolgirls; plying them with drugs (heroin in particular), and sexually abusing them amongst their family networks. It took the BNP's honesty to force the issue of this Islamic paedophile pimping into the open, but sadly, as more recent cases in Rotherham and other northern towns attest, this is a problem which has yet to be eradicated.

Keighley is a demographically diverse constituency which includes not only working-class Keighley and its outlying Pennine villages, but also the wealthy town of Ilkley in neighbouring Wharfedale which is natural Conservative territory. Keighley itself contains a significant Muslim population comprised of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (officially circa 15% in 2001 but now higher, yielding an estimated total of 7,000 voters in 2005 according to Muslim News). The seat has thus swung from Conservative to Labour and back again.

Anne Cryer took the seat for Labour in the 1997 General Election with 50.6% of the vote. However, in the subsequent elections of 2001 and 2005 her share shrank first to 48.2% then 44.7%. With Cryer's departure and Labour's general malaise in the polls, it is likely that Jane Thomas, a career politician very much in the New Labour mould (studied Politics at Swansea University, worked briefly for Sheffield Newspapers then spent 16 years as a university lecturer teaching Politics and Public Policy Management) will secure no more than 35% of the vote at best. The seat is likely to turn Tory and fall to Kris Hopkins.

Although Andrew Brons is an excellent candidate, like other BNP members he has a hard task on his hands trying to make significant inroads in the constituency in the face of bitter opposition. When Nick Griffin stood there in 2005 the national media were up in arms and Searchlight and Hope Not Hate ran an intensive operation in Keighley barraging its voters with anti-BNP propaganda. This is probably being repeated today. The other Nick ('Saint' Clegg) recently chose to vent his morally indignant spleen upon the BNP whilst pandering to the Muslim bloc vote on the BBC Asian Network stating "I feel really strongly about this. The BNP is an evil, vile, fascist organisation." Strangely, this generic rant agains the BNP was reported by Keighley News. The Liberal Democrats are once again standing Nader Fekri as their candidate, and it is my guess that he could lure a goodly proportion of the Muslim bloc vote away from Labour. Although Fekri secured only 11.8% in 2005, I would anticipate something in the region of 16% next month.

Nick Griffin managed to poll 4240 votes, some 9.2% of the total. He did this in competition with only the three main parties, but this time around both UKIP and, bizarrely, the National Front (an historical throwback) are also fielding Paul Latham and Steven Smith respectively. If anything, UKIP will take as many if not more votes from Eurosceptic Tories as from the BNP, whereas the National Front is more or less an irrelevance which is unlikely to secure more than 1% of the vote. Given that Brons will be subject to a significant black propaganda effort and will not receive favourable coverage in the local print and electronic media, I would be surprised if he was able to better Griffin's share of the vote. Although I think Brons deserves to win, and has been given odds of 20/1 by Paddypower.com to take the seat, my guess is that the final result will look something akin to the following: Conservative 36%; Labour 33%; Liberal Democrat 16%; BNP 9%; UKIP 5%; National Front 1%.  If Andrew Brons is able to secure more than 15% of the votes cast he will have done extremely well.

Watch the following clip of Andrew delivering a recent speech in the EU Parliament. This man speaks sense, and gives the lie to the false media claim that the BNP is comprised of illiterate knuckle draggers.



Brons is one of the most eloquent members of the BNP and can be seen in the following interview providing his perspective on the June 2009 EU elections.

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).

UKIP Targets Barking

The Times reports that UKIP is to stand a parliamentary candidate to contest the Barking constituency at the upcoming General Election. Paul Wiffen is said to be its favoured choice, and with Lord Pearson at the helm as UKIP's newly elected leader, it is hoped that it will exert a greater appeal by focusing upon attacking Islamism following Lord Pearson's recent comments on this issue. However, UKIP's decision to stand in Barking with the expressed intention of confronting Nick Griffin is in reality a myopic move, for it will only serve to split the nationalist vote and in all likelihood allow Margaret Hodge to cling to power.

UKIP should not stand in Barking. Its expressed intention of doing so is detrimental to the national interest, and indicates that UKIP is willing to place narrow party interests before those of the nation. If UKIP were truly  interested in confronting Islamism, it would step aside to allow Nick Griffin a clear run at this parliamentary seat, for he stands a real chance of winning and would certainly not be afraid to speak out on this issue at Westminster. A vote for UKIP in Barking will in effect be a vote for the treacherous millionairess Margaret Hodge.

If any of you are thinking of voting UKIP, I would urge you to cast your vote for the BNP instead if the latter are standing in your constituency. If there is a UKIP candidate but no representation from the BNP, then by all means vote for the former, but do bear in mind that only a vote for the BNP will guarantee that your ballot will be counted towards the election of a true nationalist candidate who will not sell out your interests as an indigenous Briton. Vote BNP in 2010.

Reference: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6935779.ece