Share |

Friday, 30 March 2012

Alleged Fraud and Intimidation in Bradford West

A source close to one of the candidates in the Bradford West by-election has revealed that as newsworthy as yesterday’s victory for George Galloway proved to be, there is much more of interest that will shortly be forthcoming. Not only was the result itself unusual, but so was some of the behaviour that attended the campaign. For example, I have been informed that
“Labour supporters had to have a police escort out of Odsal Sports Centre last night after threats from Respect supporters.”
How strange. Why would Respect supporters threaten their Labour equivalents, and what was the nature of these threats? Were they simply a display of an overly vigorous partisan verbal aggression, or something more substantial and sinister?

Unsurprisingly, given the demographic makeup of Bradford West, there have also been serious allegations of postal vote rigging, with the claim being made that residents at some addresses had voted over 100 times. Apparently, The Daily Telegraph is conducting an investigation into these allegations so we should hear more about this in the days or weeks to come. If these allegations prove to be true, this will not be the first time that widespread abuse of the postal voting system has taken place in Bradford West, for such misconduct occurred in the constituency during the 2010 General Election.

Whilst the journalists at the BBC purport to be puzzled by the result of this election, any objective observer can see that the Islamic factor was key to determining its outcome. As such, it highlights the reality that Respect is an emergent Islamist party, irrespective of the fact that Galloway himself is not a Muslim. Galloway has thus far proven to be adept at saddling and riding the Islamist tiger, and has been willing to employ inflammatory oratory to stir up Muslim emotions as illustrated in this video of one of his speeches made in Tower Hamlets. Now that he has successfully demonstrated the appeal of Islamic demagogy, how many others might follow in his footsteps? Labour have sown the seed of identity politics, and now they are reaping the Islamist whirlwind. Galloway certainly hopes to capitalise upon his success by fielding Respect candidates in each of Bradford's wards during the May 2012 elections, but will they win seats?

As you can see from the video of his victory speech below, Galloway was rather pleased with himself. For full election results and commentary, click here.

“By the grace of God” - Galloway’s Bradford West Victory

"By the Grace of God we have won the most sensational victory in British political history" tweeted Galloway upon winning the Bradford West by-election. The bizarre five-word opening of this tweet is not so much indicative of Galloway’s belief that he is some contemporary Cromwell, but of the fact that he fought a campaign in a non-English seat, dominated by the Muslim bloc vote.

Galloway’s win was undeniably dramatic, overturning a comfortable Labour majority and bagging just under 56% of the vote (55.89%). Not only did the Labour vote collapse, but so too did that of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, as illustrated by the following shares of the vote: Labour – 24.99% (-20.36%); Conservative – 8.37% (-22.78%) and Liberal Democrat – 4.59% (-7.08%). The other smaller parties had no cause for celebration either, for the Greens won only 1.47% (-0.85%) and the Democratic Nationalists 1.05% (a marginal fall on the 2010 result). The UKIP and Loony candidates were the only others to increase their share of the vote slightly, with UKIP taking 3.31% (+1.31%).

How and why did this happen? Quite clearly, we should not expect a repeat of such a result for Respect in other constituencies that are not of this type, for Galloway actually took votes from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, whose supporters would never normally dream of voting for Respect, a party that lies firmly to the Left of Labour. Unlike other candidates, he chose to concentrate upon the issue of Afghanistan and calling for the return of our troops (a policy that I happen to agree with) but this would not resonate to such an extent elsewhere.

So, the question has to be asked: why did it resonate here? It did so for an obvious reason, but one which the BBC has not mentioned and would not wish to highlight: the Muslim bloc vote; Muslim voters possess a distinct collective identity and set of policy concerns that are at variance with those of the rest of society. Could Galloway’s victory yesterday represent the ‘maturation’ of a new Muslim confessional politics that sees Muslims willing to vote for a party that represents their specific interests rather than those of the wider society? Galloway may have stopped short of exclaiming “Allahu Akbar!” upon winning the seat, but his “By the grace of God” comment came perilously close. 

Tuesday, 27 March 2012

Ziggy Stardust and the Councillor from Mars

This morning got off to an otherworldly start as Radio 4’s Today Programme announced that it was the fortieth anniversary of the release of David Bowie’s Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, which in itself was a reasonably prosaic statement of fact, but later I felt compelled to check the date of the paper twice to ensure that it was not already April Fools’ Day. Why? Quite simply because of some alleged weird goings on in Whitby.

Now, Whitby may be renowned for its associations with Captain Cook, Dracula and more recently its annual Goth festival, but now it may have another addition to its hall of fame: Simon Parkes. Simon Parkes, if you were to believe his testimony, did not arrive in the town on a ship that would have been familiar to either Cook or Stoker, but on a craft of an altogether different type, one that was out of this world.

It has not been made clear whether Councillor Parkes (for he serves Whitby under the Labour flag) possesses living relatives or a wife, but if his poor mother is indeed living today, one can have nothing for her other than profound sympathy, for Parkes believes that his “real mother” is a 9ft alien. The Metro states:
Parkes believes a 2.7m (9ft) lifeform stood next to his cot when he was a baby and ‘two green stick things’ appeared.

‘I thought “they’re not mummy’s hands, mummy’s are pink,’ Mr Parkes said in a YouTube video.

‘I was looking straight into its face. It enters my mind through my eyes and it sends a message down my optic nerve into my brain, saying “I am your real mother, I am your more important mother”.’
Oh dear. Poor Mrs Parkes (the one with pink hands rather than “stick things” that is). When she no doubt was trying to look after her son as he suffered from chicken pox at the tender age of three, he remembers not this maternal affection but a
2.4m (8ft) ‘doctor’ dressed as a waiter [which] offered to help after Mr Parkes’s mother left him at home, it is claimed.

Three years later his ‘real mother’ took him on board an alien craft.

‘The reason why extraterrestrials are interested in me is not because of my physical body but what’s inside – my soul,’ he said.

Mr Parkes, a Labour member elected to Whitby town council in North Yorkshire last month, says his beliefs have not interfered with his work.

‘For many of the people who don’t experience it, it’s very hard to accept.
‘We are taught to only see and believe what we can touch, but it’s acceptable to believe in religion,’ he said.

‘I’m more interested in fixing someone’s roof or potholes.’

He added: ‘I get more common sense out of the aliens than out of Scarborough town hall. The aliens are far more aware of stuff.’
Is this man really a councillor in Whitby, or is this whole story some Brasseye style stunt? Still, as he points out, his beliefs are no more absurd than those sanctified by religions of various sorts, which can be said to differ from his beliefs insofar as they are collective rather than individual delusions, sanctioned by time, tradition and social consensus. If he does a good job at sorting out problems with roofs and potholes, then perhaps his eccentricity can be overlooked. After all, it could be argued that his beliefs are little further removed from reality than those of the Labour Party with respect to many matters.

Another report in today’s Whitby Gazette would almost seem to suggest that there’s something odd in the town’s water, such as LSD perhaps, for not only has it highlighted the sighting of a large black cat-like creature (not in itself beyond possibility; for another recent report see The Shepley Lion) on 29th February, but also a UFO the following night
by a Staithes resident, who did not wish to be named, but claimed to have spotted a UFO in the skies above Port Mulgrave.

She said: “I was coming out of Boulby Potash last night and had just pulled up at the junction.

“I saw orange lights going round in a circle and I said to my daughter in the back of the car ‘Blimey that’s a UFO’.
With all of this weirdness going on, the locals of Whitby must be looking forward to the normality of this year’s Goth Weekend. That said, David Icke and his followers must be disappointed that Councillor Parkes has not chosen to ‘confirm’ their paranoid interdimensional Lizard Conspiracy Theory. How will the local Labour Party react?

Monday, 26 March 2012

Skylarks or Somalis: The Real Housing Crisis

The song of the skylark shall be stilled, and the land once farmed will lie untilled; the pipistrelles no longer flit through the dusk, for Cameron has decreed it thus. A new city is to rise upon what was once countryside, between Coventry and Birmingham. Some 100,000 new homes will be built as part of a plan to resolve an avoidable crisis, brought about by this government and its predecessors: a crisis of overpopulation and consequent housing shortage.

This proposal however, relates to but a fraction of the building deemed necessary to address the needs of a population explosion engendered by what is effectively an open borders policy. If, it is claimed, these ‘needs’ are to be met, then two million homes will have to be built between now and 2020. Two million homes in a mere 8 years: 250,000 homes per year. Is this not insanity, when we have recourse to the straightforward and logical alternative of zero net migration?

The population of England in this short period is projected to rise by 4.4 million. Whence comes this unprecedented increase? According to The Daily Telegraph:
Most of the population growth will come through an excess of births over deaths — including a rise in longevity — rather than through direct immigration. Many of the fastest-growing areas are those that have seen an influx of migrants in recent years, and are now seeing higher birth rates.
This is disingenuous, for the rate of immigration remains at near record levels, and is changing the character of our country far more than superficially suggested by the raw net figures, for there are also hundreds of thousands of indigenous people who leave our country every year. Moreover, as the Telegraph notes, the birth rates are highest amongst immigrant groups. Amongst the English, the birth rate is at sub-replacement levels. Why then should we cover our precious countryside in concrete and tarmac for the sake of a governmental obsession with the global free movement of labour, and a denial of our indigenous birthright to determine our own fate, and who may and who may not reside in our own land? This crisis is not of our making, but has been brought about by the globalists of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, and the advocates of globalism in both big business and the trade union movement.

We do not have a housing crisis - we have a population crisis; rather than requiring more homes, we require fewer people. Will the Conservative Party acknowledge let alone address this problem? No. Why not write to your MP and let them know that we have a population crisis and not a housing crisis. Does the destruction of our countryside for no real reason add to the quality of our lives, or detract from it? The answer seems clear enough to me. What is it to be: skylarks or Somalis?

Saturday, 17 March 2012

Interlude: Susanna Rigacci and Ennio Morricone

Good evening readers. This blogger apologises for needing to take a few days, possibly a week, away from online life. Please feel free to leave comments in the interim though, as I would welcome your opinions on the recent ‘Beyond the Fringe’ series in particular. However, as I will be absent from my increasingly outdated computer for a while, I will neither be reading nor publishing comments until I return, so do not take it as an affront if your words do not appear over the coming week, for they will do so when I am next able to log on in seven days or so.

Meanwhile, given that a recent comment brought to mind spaghetti westerns, it reminded me of this energetic uplifting piece by Ennio Morricone – The Ecstasy of Gold – here sung by the stunning soprano Susanna Rigacci. Muse's Knights of Cydonia would have made a suitable companion piece, but for some reason I was unable to embed the code of the accompanying video.

Friday, 16 March 2012

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

In Part I, the author considered the recent history of nationalist politics in Britain, examining the underpinning causes of failure, the weaknesses of existing parties contending for the nationalist vote, and the consequent need for a new nationalist party. In Part II, discussion shifted to the rather more difficult task of offering concrete proposals for a positive and viable policy alternative. In this final instalment, consideration moves to addressing the question of how to go about the practical task of communicating policy to the public and winning support. As such, it will be divided into the following sections: 1) the potential baseline of support for a nationalist party; 2) strategy; 3) tactics; 4) language, tone and focus and 5) party organisation and conduct. Should the suggestions contained within the ‘Beyond the Fringe’ series be positively received, thought will then need to be given to making this vision a reality, which can only happen of course, with your support and participation.

As the goal of a new party should be to advance the interests of members of the national community, indeed, of all loyal and culturally assimilated citizens, its supporters and activists should have the following at the forefront of their considerations: how is political office to be achieved? Without office, a new party will not be able to do anything to advance the interests of our people. Not every reader will concur with this judgement, yet if that should prove to be the case, there is much that can be done outside of the realm of party politics, whether that should be involvement in a protest movement such as the EDL, campaigning in pursuit of changing a specific aspect of policy such as bringing about an end to inhumane methods of religious slaughter, or cultural activity of various types such as writing, the visual arts and music.

To win the trust of voters, both a new party’s policy and approach must be: positive; focused; appealing; resonant and distinctive. Both the party and its candidates must embody probity, transparency, honesty and accountability. This of course is a tall order, particularly in the sphere of politics, but it is an ideal towards which we should seek to strive. To win elections trust of course is not enough, for a party also needs to be able to offer people the credible prospect of a better future. This, a nationalist programme can truly achieve, through focusing upon the economic, environmental and cultural benefits that it can confer, as illustrated in Part II.

The potential baseline of support for a nationalist party

What are the grounds for concluding that a credible nationalist party would be able to exert mass appeal in Britain? What indicators can be called upon to demonstrate the latent appetite for nationalism? As readers will be well aware, our national demography has been changing rapidly owing to mass immigration and differential birth-rates, but the following figures taken from the last EU and General Elections of 2009 and 2010 respectively, should provide an approximate baseline of the core nationalist vote for each type of election. It is important to differentiate between the two (and indeed, to separate them from local elections), as radically different dynamics are at play in each.

EU elections
In defining the potential core support of a credible, moderate nationalist party, votes cast for the following parties must be considered to be potentially available: the BNP; the English Democrats; UKIP and United Kingdom First (of this latter party the author knows next to nothing, other than that it secured 0.5% of the vote in the last EU elections). All of the aforementioned parties have enjoyed greater success in EU rather than Westminster elections, partly because party political tribalism tends to be weaker in the former, and partly also because they serve as the only means in which an emphatic rejection of the EU can be delivered at the ballot box. Moreover, the system of proportional representation used when electing MEPs enables candidates from other than the big three established national parties to break through and gain seats in the European Parliament. Thus UKIP returned a respectable number of MEPs in 2009, and the BNP won its first ever seats which were taken by Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin.

The national shares of the vote enjoyed in June 2009 were: UKIP – 16.5%; BNP – 6.2%; English Democrats – 1.8%; UK First – 0.5%, coming to a total of 25%, just shy of the Conservative Party’s winning share of 27.7%. The potential nationalist vote thus outstripped both that of the Labour (15.7%) and Liberal Democrat (13.7%) parties. However, it was not uniformly spread, and England was the country in which this vote was concentrated, unsurprising given the presence of other local nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This ballot also coincided with the height of the parliamentary expenses scandal, so voters were more inclined than usual to lend their votes to other parties, with the consequence that Labour experienced its worst drubbing in a national election since before the Second World War. Nonetheless, the fact that UKIP managed to gain MEPs in this and previous EU elections, thanks to the system of proportional representation employed, demonstrates that it should be possible for a new party to field candidates and win seats in the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament in 2014.

General elections
Turning now to the question of baseline support in general elections, this is, as one would expect, far lower. In May 2010 for example, in which the broadly defined nationalist parties performed far better than hitherto, the national shares of the vote secured broke down as follows: UKIP – 3.1% (917,832); BNP – 563,743 (1.9%); English Democrats – 0.2% (64,826). This brings the total to 5.2%. Once again however, these figures hide considerable variation in performance across the country, as these parties faired relatively poorly (or not at all in the case of the English Democrats) outside of England. What they also mask is the fact that in the majority of constituencies where both the BNP and UKIP fielded candidates, the BNP secured a higher share of the vote, but the BNP was unable to stand as many candidates as UKIP. Both UKIP and the BNP had hoped to make a Westminster breakthrough in 2010, but neither came near to winning a seat. Winning under a first past the post system is an extremely difficult task, especially when the nationalist vote is split.

The weakening of traditional party loyalties
What then, has changed since 2010, besides the implosion of the BNP? Most importantly perhaps, the Conservatives are now the main party of government, and despite having promised a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty and to drastically reduce immigration, they have done neither. Moreover, David Cameron is deeply unpopular with many grassroots Tories, which is why UKIP has seen a slight fillip in its fortunes. Although like Labour voters many Tories are deeply tribal in their party political affiliations, might it not be possible, given the deep fissures that now run through the Conservative Party, to deliver a few well-aimed strategic blows which could cause it to fracture? A certain percentage of the Conservative vote should therefore be considered as potentially up for grabs, owing to widespread disillusion with the ‘Cameroons’.

Likewise, many traditional Labour supporters find themselves without a political home, having seen their party vigorously promote economic policies that have facilitated globalisation and hollowed out those sectors of the economy that have traditionally provided a living for members of the working class as well as courting ethnic minority bloc votes. Many of them are patriotic, and have had to bear the brunt of some of the less savoury aspects of communal behaviour displayed by certain immigrant populations, hence the popularity of the EDL. As with disillusioned Tories, there are votes that can be picked up from disaffected indigenous Labour voters, as well as from the significant percentage of adults who abstain from voting because they believe, with some justification, that “voting will change nothing because the parties are all the same.”

In conclusion, a new credible nationalist party should be able to make ready headway in EU elections given that perhaps 30% of the vote could potentially be available. This figure could be still higher, given the growing anti-globalist sentiment arising from increasing lack of economic security amongst not only working, but also middle class voters. Depending upon the number of seats in a given EU region, it could be possible, as has been demonstrated in the past, to win electoral representation with 10-15% of the vote. At the local level too, often owing to low turnout, it should be plausible to win seats in elections, as demonstrated by the BNP and English Democrats.

Implications for Strategy
One of the clear messages to arise both from electoral experience and from other indicators of the public mood, such as opinion polls, is that there is no longer a single national political stage in the UK, but four, and that the separate dynamics at play within each are becoming ever more pronounced.

This naturally poses the question: to whom should a nationalist party address itself? On the British mainland, there are three, arguably four nations currently sharing one state: the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Cornish. If taking into consideration the United Kingdom as a whole, an entirely separate political situation pertains in Northern Ireland, and although the proposal forwarded here is based upon unionist principles and assumes that it would be preferable for the UK to remain as a single state, each nation must possess its right to self-determination and thus the right to secede should a majority of its people choose to do so.

In terms of practical politics therefore, although a new party should seek to be inclusive of the separate nations within the existing state, its efforts should be directed primarily towards England and the English, for it is in England and amongst the English that the demand for national expression is least catered for in electoral and constitutional terms. The devolutionary muddle created by the last Labour Government has bolstered the rise of nationalist sentiment in Scotland, and has allowed Wales to enjoy a certain degree of autonomy in policy making, with both being subsidised by England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all possess nationalist parties of various types that can count upon considerable support from their electorates, so the likelihood of a new nationalist party exerting much appeal within these parts of the UK is slim. Moreover, polls seem to indicate that many people are re-evaluating their identities in light not only of constitutional, but also demographic changes; thus, a YouGov survey conducted in October 2011 yielded the following results: only 20% of respondents in the UK described themselves in the first instance as British, and in England, 63% of the sample thought of themselves first and foremost as English. This latter figure represented a 41% increase since 2008.

Electoral Tactics
Thus far the following has been ascertained: the pool of potential support for such a party is highest in England and can most readily be tapped in EU elections, and in appropriate circumstances, in local contests too. The likelihood of making a Westminster breakthrough however, is extremely slim, at least until a party has established widespread public recognition and has conclusively demonstrated that it is not the belligerent bogey that its foes will claim it to be.

Initial efforts during the party’s early period of growth should thus be devoted to judiciously identifying suitable target seats in the May 2013 local elections and concentrating all efforts on these few. This should prove to be both affordable and practicable. Local knowledge should be utilised to create carefully crafted campaign literature that addresses key concerns amongst constituents that directly mesh with party policies. Generic leaflets in such a context are useless. All activists involved in canvassing should be fully briefed in advance, so that they are aware of the key issues to be highlighted on the doorstep, and adopt an appropriate tone and register when dealing with householders of different backgrounds with often different primary concerns. Such campaigning will also be enhanced by knowledge of rival candidates’ positions and specific pledges that can be picked apart in advance. One approach suggested by regular blog reader Cygnus, which although particularly appropriate to Westminster elections could also be employed in a local context, involves directly challenging voters over their choice of party. In this approach, the campaign team would identify say five policies apiece core to the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, and unfavourably juxtapose these with five policies offered by the party candidate.

The local elections of May 2013 will serve as a trial run for the elections to the European Parliament in June 2014, and should hopefully yield at least a few victories that will afford the party publicity. The scale of the effort mounted in 2014 will by definition depend upon the extent to which the party has grown by that point and the resources that are available to it. However, its priority target regions should be: Yorkshire and the Humber; North West England; North East England; East Midlands and West Midlands. By the time of the May 2015 General Election, a new party should aim to be in a position whereby it can field a sufficient number of candidates to secure a party political broadcast. However, in order to maximise impact, party finances and activists should be used in a targeted fashion, with complex campaign plans devised for those seats most likely to yield a return. Such parliamentary constituencies should receive 80% of the party’s efforts, whilst allowing candidates to stand elsewhere with minimal backing. A symbolic Westminster breakthrough in 2015 is required, and given the manifest bankruptcy of globalism and its attendant system of economics, a new credible nationalist party pursuing a campaign focused upon economic policy stands a decent chance of achieving this.

Language, tone and focus: shifting the discursive terrain
One key aspect of strategy that nationalists have up to this point neglected is the most powerful political weapon of all: language and the honing of a credible appealing message. There are many ways of presenting the nationalist message, and how this is communicated requires serious thought to ensure that a new party is also viewed as credible by an educated middle-class audience. The general tone of rhetoric employed hitherto in nationalist circles might well go down well in the convivial atmosphere of a pub, but it sounds out of place in the general public arena. This is not to imply that a new party should abandon any one class in favour of another, for as a nationalist party it should by definition transcend class divisions and seek to represent the interests of all sections of society. Nonetheless, its 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, multiculturalism and imported misogynist cultural attitudes and practices.

A new party will need 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 party 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 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 in relation to the party’s stance. The Conservatives, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Greens must constantly 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. The party and its position on the other hand, stand for freedom, self-determination and democracy. This must be emphasised repeatedly, and juxtaposed with the innately anti-democratic structures of transnational political and financial governance, as well as with the particularistic interests of transnational corporations which are the stuff of globalism and globalisation. We, as nationalists, are the real environmentalists, 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.

The following key messages should be stressed: it is a party of peace and seeks an end to unnecessary wars and the policy of military interventionism pursued by Labour and Conservative alike; it is a party of neutrality that seeks to maintain good relations with neighbouring countries; it seeks to preserve the best of British heritage and culture, whilst developing a dynamic hi-tech science focused manufacturing economy; it subscribes to upholding individual liberties and the right to free speech; it affirms that the peoples of the United Kingdom, like all peoples, are sovereign and possess the right to self-determination; it aims to enhance the quality of life of our people through focusing upon per capita rather than aggregate economic measures; it recognises that sustainable development requires a truly sustainable demographic policy.

These suggestions illustrate that it is not necessary to lapse into the language of ethnicity or even overtly emphasise 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 is essential not to neglect directly referring to the unsustainable nature of immigration and its negative consequences for our economy, housing, environment and culture. A clear differentiation must also be made between those immigrants who have proven to be upright culturally compatible citizens, and those who have not.

Wherever possible, a credible nationalist party should seek to validate and bolster its position through reference to data and arguments derived from respected non-partisan sources of information, such as Migration Watch, the Optimum Population Trust and Civitas. These conduct much research that can be put to good use in backing up policies on immigration, the environment, economics and education, and possess added weight precisely because of their the absence of any party affiliation.

Party Conduct
One way in which a new party should bear no resemblance whatsoever to the BNP is in its general conduct, for on a number of occasions members of that party behaved in a disgraceful manner towards representatives of the press. Even if an interviewer or camera crew prove to be hostile both in manner and intent, this is no reason for treating them in an uncivil fashion, thus there must never be any of the unjustifiable scenes of violent manhandling of journalists that have been witnessed beforehand. This is not a question merely of presentation, but of principle. Anyone found to be in breach of codes of good conduct should be expelled from the party. It is crucial that representatives of a new party should conduct themselves in a professional and civil manner. A new party should not be blighted by the taint of thuggery.

To grow and prosper, a new party will need to reach out to people from a variety of social backgrounds, bringing together different perspectives and skills that will provide it with broad-based experience and support, and the requisite communicative abilities to ensure that its message and policies reach their target audiences in the manner intended. Hitherto, people from the professions have been deterred from involvement in nationalist politics both because of a perceived social stigma, and the real threat to career and reputation posed by membership of, or support for, the BNP. It will be one of the tasks of a new party to break down this stigma, and to ensure that active support for and membership of the party does not pose a threat either to career or to reputation.

In calling for such a party to be seen to be worthy of support by people from professional backgrounds, this is in no way meant to signify that they should play a dominating role in the new party. The entire system of party politics in this country has come to be controlled by individuals from a middle (frequently an upper middle) class background, with the consequence that the concerns and conditions of working class people have often been ignored. This is one of the great sources of disaffection with contemporary politics, and it needs to be addressed. The Labour Party no longer represents our working class; a new party should seek to actively recruit from amongst it, and to give a platform to its representatives.

Unless a situation should arise whereby it looks as if the proposals outlined in the Beyond the Fringe series attract significant support, it would be superfluous to devote much attention to outlining party organisation, structure and procedure. With this in mind, the following brief overarching observations ought to be seen as applicable to any new party that wishes to be taken seriously.

It should be fully democratic and open to all people who support its fundamental goals and values. Whereas it should possess a clearly identifiable and effective leader, it is essential that the party should never become the creature of any one individual or property of a small clique (although of course in its initial stages it may of necessity consist of nothing more than a small core of founding members). The leader will need to be complemented by a talented team, each member possessing a specific function relating to internal party affairs, as well as a distinct policy brief, creating an equivalent of a shadow cabinet. Checks and balances will need to be embedded within its constitution to ensure that all senior members of the party remain accountable to the membership. As such a party grows, authority needs to be delegated accordingly, to allow regional and local branches a certain degree of autonomy over their day-to-day functioning. The party leadership should always be open to suggestions from the general membership, and seek to maximise to best effect the talent and enthusiasms of all of those who comprise its body.

No party will be viable without effectively handling its accounts, and to this end, an especial effort should be devoted to maintaining financial transparency and ensuring that all accounts are submitted in good time.

A latent pool of support for a credible nationalist party exists in Britain, in particular, in England, one sufficiently large as to promise the return of many MEPs and local councillors. In time, this could even lead to a Westminster breakthrough. Through adopting an intelligent, flexible and tailored approach to electioneering, as well as an effective and focused use of language to convey a cohesive and appealing message, a new party has the potential to win support. Not only that, but it could also succeed in affixing deservedly negative labels to those parties that advocate globalism and globalisation, thereby inflicting lasting damage on the existing mainstream parties. The way should lie open to shifting the entire discursive terrain in a nationalist direction.

Winning public trust and confidence are key, and good conduct on the part of party members, as well as a democratic, transparent and fully accountable organisational structure, are essential preconditions for both. This approach, when combined with the policy programme outlined in Part II of this series, ought to make for a potent combination. Having come to the end of this analysis of what is wrong with nationalist politics in our country today, and what needs to be done to turn failure into success, the ball now lies in your court as much as mine. Where do we go from here? Do you support the concept of a new party as outlined in these proposals? If so, would you be interested in helping to make it become a reality?

Thursday, 15 March 2012

EDL protest against Luton’s Discover Islam Centre

Unfortunately, you would have had to have spent the last twenty years in a coma not to have discovered Islam in England today. Its apologists are granted an almost ubiquitous presence on our airwaves, and nobody in polite company is permitted to say a bad thing about this ideology for it is always deemed to be ‘worthy’ of respect thanks to its designation as a religion. Such an attitude of submission and deference to a system of belief that embodies, advocates and codifies some of the ugliest cruelty and bigotry known to man is little other than craven. It is an ideology that has no place in the eighteenth, let alone the twenty first century. Its gratuitously cruel punishments and systematised hatred of women are an unnatural and unwelcome graft onto our body politic. As such, the national body is displaying signs of rejection, and thus the EDL turned up to protest against Tuesday’s opening of Luton’s ‘Discover Islam Centre’.

Why does Luton need such a centre? Who has provided it with backing and finance? What are its objectives? With respect to the first question the answer is straightforward: Luton does not require such a centre. Nowhere in England needs a ‘Discover Islam Centre’ any more than anywhere needs a ‘Discover the Inquisition Centre’. In their ideology and conduct the two are very much akin, with their irrational religious fanaticism being a phenomenon that until recent decades we thought had long since passed forever from our island home. Alas, contemporary reality demonstrates otherwise, for the advocates and enablers of obscurantism seem intent upon reintroducing barbaric practices in the name of tolerance.

Depressingly, the presence of certain local dignitaries at Tuesday’s opening suggests that even at this time of deep cuts in public spending Luton Council may yet be devoting scarce taxpayers’ money to promoting this centre for Islamic proselytisation. Luton Today reports that the “mayor, council leader, council chief executive and Luton in Harmony co-ordinator Sarah Allenwere all in attendance. Why? Is it the job of a mayor and senior council figures to promote Islam? Why is this considered acceptable?

As for the purpose of Luton’s ‘Discovering Islam Centre’ that is transparent enough: to promote Islam. What benefit does this afford to anyone in Luton other than to those Muslims keen to push their dogma upon the rest of the population? None. It is therefore apposite to ask the question afresh: why were Luton’s mayor, council leader and other senior council personnel at the opening of this propaganda centre yesterday? Why were they not instead attending to real council business for the benefit of all of the people they purport to represent? Luton residents should write to the mayor and the council to complain about this official backing of a centre created with the explicit intent of propagating a backward ideology, demanding an explanation for their actions and position. The ‘Discovering Islam Centre’ should be closed, as its existence does nothing other than deliberately exacerbate tensions in the town. 
The EDL’s leader Stephen Lennon (alternatively known as Tommy Robinson) has declared that the intent of the protest is the closure of this centre. It transpires that the manager of the centre is a man named Yusuf Bonner, a Muslim convert who in a former life was a Catholic monk. According to Luton Today, Bonner is a blogger said “to have links to an organisation connected with Islamic extremists” who has called for the mass conversion of our people to Islam. Why therefore, are senior members of Luton Council complicit in promoting this agenda?

As for who has funded the centre, it is claimed that all of the money has originated from within “Luton’s Muslim community, including from Bury Park businessman Mohammed Nadeem.” Really? No Saudi cash kicking around then, or “community cohesion” grants?

The following video shows the EDL protest together with interviews with Stephen Lennon and one of the centre’s trustees, Sufian Sadiq.

Monday, 12 March 2012

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

When writing, it frequently happens that the author’s intent changes as a piece evolves, and whereas Beyond the Fringe was originally intended to consist of two parts, it has in fact become three. Thus, in this second instalment, the author provides a sketch of the main policy focus that a new party should adopt, without intending to in any way provide a full manifesto. What follows is still very much a work in progress, and the lack of elaboration relating to some key points that will only be alluded to is not meant to signify their lack of importance, for they are key to any nationalist party’s programme, but to indicate that the general public will know them to be a given, so it will not be necessary to belabour them.

Much of what follows will be in tune with the thinking of most nationalists, although some of the general approach to macroeconomic policy may polarise sentiment to a certain extent. The peripheral and damaging concerns held by a minority of nationalists will not be addressed here, not because the author thinks it expedient not to mention them, but because such policies and attitudes are held to be ill founded and not conducive to the public good.

Policies in and of themselves are all very well, but they will be worthless if nobody gets to hear of them. In the third and final instalment of this series therefore, attention will be turned to the potential baseline of support for a nationalist party; strategy; tactics and communicating a consistent message employing language of an appropriate tone and focus.

In Part I it was noted that UKIP, the English Democrats, the BFP and the National Front had each come to be associated in the public mind with one particular policy concern which limits their prospects for electoral success, but the focus proposed for a new party here will, if it does lead to it being identified with any one policy, serve only to assist it, for it should focus upon economic nationalism. If it is to hold genuine mass appeal, it must offer a credible prospect of prosperity, as well as personal liberty and security. The cracks in the globalist economic system are becoming ever more apparent, so much so, that even some mainstream politicians are now playing with the rhetoric of national interest and “rebalancing the economy”, with a greater focus upon domestic manufacturing. However, their policies and proposals continue to entrench and accelerate globalisation, whereas the task of a new party should be to reverse this process.

Focusing on the economy
Dogmatic hostility to state intervention in economics is as myopic as dogmatic hostility to all forms of private enterprise. A new party should not pursue an economic policy based upon Thatcherite ideology, but upon pragmatism, learning from the successes of the East Asian developmental state, as well as seeking to draw upon approaches offered by distributism.

Whereas the interests of the nation have been subordinated to the state, those of the state must in future be subordinated to the nation. Likewise, a new nationalist party should set out to reorder the economic foundations of the nation, making economic policy subordinate not to the imperatives of transnational financial institutions and corporations, but to the needs of the nation. As such, a National Investment Bank (NIB) should be established that focuses upon raising funds for investment in the following undergirding key aspects of infrastructure: energy, new technologies and transport. To raise capital, encourage savings and ensure that the public has a stake in this undertaking, future tax-exempt investments in the form of stocks and shares ISAs should be restricted to the financing of national projects funded by the NIB.

A credible nationalist party therefore will focus upon economics: the need for energy security; opposition to offshoring; the promotion of domestic manufacturing; legal obligations to privilege nationals in the sphere of employment; crackdowns on corporate tax evasion; the revitalisation of our countryside through the promotion of rural employment in agriculture, conservation and afforestation; the promotion of social enterprises and mutuals with a focus upon increasing the well-being of local communities and the nation as a whole. Given the anti-globalisation sentiment of many members of the younger generation, nationalists should aim to tap into this and show them that nationalism, rather than other ideologies, offers the positive solutions to the economic problems that we face.

One criticism of the BNP’s last General Election Manifesto that any new party needs to take seriously relates to budgetary costings, which its detractors correctly noted did not add up. Any party that hopes to win the trust of voters must not make budgetary commitments based upon spurious assumptions about the amount of money that can be saved through decommitting from foreign aid and leaving the EU. Budgetary proposals must be robust and able to withstand the scrutiny of critics. If they are not, any party forwarding them does not deserve the trust of the public.

Securing national energy supplies
This is vital both in ensuring national prosperity and security, and so can legitimately be considered to be an integral part of both economic and defence policy.

North Sea oil and gas production are in long-term decline, and as a consequence, we are importing a growing percentage of our energy requirements from abroad, not only worsening our balance of payments deficit, but also making ourselves more vulnerable to fluctuations in international prices as well as to potential disruptions in supply. Clearly, new domestic energy resources need to be developed, and existing renewable technologies are not fit to meet the demands placed upon them. Moreover, carbon taxes and the renewable levy on domestic energy users are inflating our national costs of production, thereby undermining our international competitiveness and placing a strain on domestic budgets. Thankfully, real alternative energy sources exist, and others should become available in the coming decades.

As the existing mainstream parties are dragging their heels with respect to energy policy, this offers a contemporary forward-thinking nationalist party the opportunity to champion a genuine alternative course, thereby capturing the public’s imagination and exerting mass appeal. The party should pledge to research the non-fossil fuel energy resources of the future such as nuclear fusion, thorium reactors and hydrogen, whilst in the immediate future examine the feasibility of both fracking for natural gas and the relative merits of revitalising our national coal industry utilising either carbon capture and storage in power generation, or coal gasification. In the 1980s it was estimated that we possessed circa 300 years worth of coal reserves beneath our feet; moreover, diesel can be synthetically produced from coal if need be, thereby providing an alternative to oil imports. The aim of energy policy should be to provide for maximum self-sufficiency, and to utilise available reserves of coal, gas and oil for national use rather than sale on the international market which would lead to their rapid depletion.

Revitalising our domestic energy sector would generate tens of thousands of new jobs bringing wealth back to areas of our country that have been blighted since the pit closures, creating spin-off employment in the heavy-machinery supply chain and in other businesses required to support the sector. Prosperity could thereby be restored to areas of long-term unemployment and deprivation, creating a virtuous circle of development. It would also help us to choke off the flow of capital to Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia that use their money to spread Salafist Islam in our country and others. Without oil, these theocratic rentier states would count for next to nothing politically, and their malign global influence would collapse into insignificance.

In the interim, one of the factors feeding through into inflation and increasing general costs for business and consumers is the high price of petrol and diesel, the bulk of which is accounted for by tax. Planned increases in duty should be scrapped and the existing level reconsidered. High fuel prices have a particularly negative impact upon the lives of low-paid rural workers, who have no option but to drive owing to the absence of public transport.

Embracing cutting edge technologies
A key element of economic policy should be the creation of conditions in which new technologies and industries can establish themselves and thrive. The potential of biotech needs to be harnessed to improve health, develop new fuels, deal with pollution and increase productivity. Stem cell therapies hold massive promise. The development and application of new advanced materials, such as graphene, must help drive a new industrial revolution. Science and technology must be at the core of policy thinking. If they are not, then other nations such as China will take the lead.

Some take a mistrustful view of science, arising from the particularistic interests of lobbies, whether they are corporations, governments or transnational political actors. However, whilst there can be no doubt that certain corporations have sought to dangerously abuse GM technologies by attempting to patent seeds and livestock, this is a separate issue entirely from the science itself. It should be illegal for companies to take out such patents, but research into the prospective benefits of aspects of GM should be encouraged, whilst ensuring that strict safeguards are drawn up in relation to any subsequent introduction of resultant products into the food chain.

Environmental Policy
There is a genuine environmental crisis and a new party 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.

Although a new party should certainly highlight where the climate change issue is being abused by political parties and the Government to further objectives which are against our national interest, it should not therefore draw the erroneous conclusion that the science is basically bogus. After all, why should the ‘sceptics’ be adjudged to be any less partisan or more objective than those who possess a mainstream position, given that the former are often funded by powerful oil companies that have a vested interest in opposing the current orthodoxy? Simply because climate change is being used by our mainstream parties to justify ramping up foreign aid, domestic deindustrialisation and introducing ‘green’ taxes does not imply 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 party 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 should we not profit from this by selling 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.

Demographic Policy and Immigration
A popular nationalism will address and solve the problems of an overburdened transport infrastructure, a shortage of housing and pressure upon our countryside by implementing policies that will at first stabilise and then encourage a reduction in our population. This can be achieved through a combination of strict immigration controls and facilitating the departure of those who lack ethnic roots in the UK who actively identify against the native population. Additional resources should be devoted to combating illegal means of entry to the country such as sham marriages, organised people trafficking and general lone entry by foreign nationals. Punitive sanctions should be put in place for those who organise both sham marriages and people trafficking, with the costs incurred in the expatriation and resettlement of illegal immigrants being funded by the liquidation of the assets of those found guilty of these crimes. If the individuals involved in the organisation of such activity also happen to lack ancestral roots in the United Kingdom, they and their families should be expatriated to their ancestral familial homeland with no right of appeal.

These sanctions should serve as an exemplary deterrent to all who would consider engaging in crimes of this type, as well as provide a means of humanely resettling those individuals who have found themselves victims of the international sex trade. Other illegal immigrants who have often paid a great deal of money to traffickers frequently find themselves in a miserable position once in the UK, often living in squalid sheds erected in back gardens and leading a twilight existence because their papers have been purposefully destroyed. They should be humanely expatriated using funds acquired from the liquidation of the assets of their landlords or gangmasters. Their experience and the headlines generated by their removal would send the desired message to others considering the same route: you will be sent back, papers or no papers.

Criminals of foreign extraction should be routinely deported to their countries of origin, for their crimes are only compounded by the taxpayer having to fund their incarceration here.

Another undesirable and dubious phenomenon that is currently legal but underpins the growth of parallel societies separate to the host nation, is chain migration, whereby relatives of those who have acquired citizenship are then able to settle in the United Kingdom and in turn gain citizenship themselves. Often this is said to be in accordance with their "human right" to a family life. Any such right to "family reunion" should apply only in the ancestral ethnic homeland of the parties in question.

Deportation should be the fate of those individuals (together with their families) who advocate and agitate for the undermining of our freedoms and system of law, by either calling for the recognition and operation of parallel legal structures and exemptions, or for the imposition of their preferred legal system upon the host society. Clearly, the views of such people are at variance with the country in which they currently reside, and thus it would be preferable for all if they were to be returned to their ancestral familial homelands, where legal and social codes are in accordance with their cultural preference. Similarly, those few indigenous members of the population who have gone over to this way of thinking should also be encouraged to leave.

Legitimate new arrivals ought to contribute to society before being able to claim full citizenship rights, such as the vote or the right to state benefits (e.g. housing benefit, unemployment benefit and free medical care). A qualifying period could thus be introduced, say three years for someone from within the EU or from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and five years for those from elsewhere. Whereas in an ideal world of infinite resources it would be good to provide such entitlement for all, in practical terms, particularly during our current era of economic contraction and mass indebtedness, native citizens themselves are not being provided with the services that they deserve. Given that the number of prospective immigrants is many times the size of the existing population of the United Kingdom, measures must be put in place to ensure that this human tide is turned.

Provision for the Elderly
Many of our old people have been ill rewarded for their years of labour, and have nothing more than the state pension as a means of subsistence. Although additional benefits can be claimed, it is demeaning that their incomes should be topped up in this fashion. A new party should therefore pledge to increase the basic state pension to a level that renders claiming for top-up benefits obsolete, the precise figure to be ascertained following a review of overall budgetary expenditure and taxation.

In recent years, many people of working age and those yet to enter the workplace have been notified that they will have to work longer than the current generation before qualifying for a state pension owing to an increase in general longevity. However, at the same time that people are being compelled to work for longer, millions of young people lack employment. A situation is therefore being created in which millions wish to retire, but cannot, whilst millions who wish to work, cannot. An obvious solution would be to return the standard retirement age to a uniform 65, which would please both the old and the young, for although longevity has increased, the number of healthy years spent in retirement has remained roughly the same. People should therefore be given the opportunity to retire at 65, but their right to continue working, should they wish to do so, ought to be protected. The money saved on benefits currently paid to the young unemployed would pay for returning the pensionable age to 65.

Freedom of Speech and Expression
One of the most notable characteristics of life in the contemporary United Kingdom is the degree to which traditional freedoms relating to thought, speech and expression have been systematically eroded under successive governments irrespective of their party political complexion. Thus we have seen laws introduced against "hate crimes" defined in such a manner as to make them almost all-encompassing, particularly with the catch-all term of "racism", which has come to be defined as existing if the victim of a particular crime perceives the intent of the perpetrator as emanating from, or being intensified by, a "racist" motive. In practice, together with its twin nebulous concept of "institutional racism", allegations of "racism" can be deployed by non-indigenes to stigmatise and destroy the reputation of any indigenous citizen. Such laws need to be replaced with legislation that guarantees the physical security of the person, and penalises only concrete threats or the real intent to instigate violence against an individual or group.

The Human Rights Act should be repealed, owing to the widespread abuses that have taken place in its name. It should be replaced with legislation that contains adequate provision for guaranteeing the rights and physical safety of citizens.

All legislation relating to "religious hatred" and the promotion of "diversity" needs to be repealed. Individuals should be protected by the law, but religious systems of belief and other ideologies should be open to full public criticism and ridicule; it should not be a crime for someone to be offended. A new party should be secular, which is to say, committed to keeping religion and politics separate, but advocate the public celebration of our traditional national festivals that have deep roots in Christianity, paganism and the natural passage of the seasons. People of any religion and none can share in these; otherwise, people’s religious beliefs and affiliations, or lack of them, are a matter for personal conscience.

Employment Law
Selection in the workplace should be based exclusively upon the relative merits of candidates providing that they are citizens of this country. Skin colour should not come into it, for after all, if someone capable of a non-indigenous background is singled out for preferential treatment does this not feel demeaning? Does not the existing legislation actually patronise such people, and create potential mistrust and ill feeling between them and indigenous colleagues where none need exist if it were not for such legislation? Would it not be better for all concerned if the nagging thought that “they only got that job because of their ethnicity” were to be removed from the equation?

Constitutional Matters
The United Kingdom in its current form may not exist by 2015, depending upon the outcome of any referendum on Scotland’s independence. However, irrespective of the result, the West Lothian Question does need to be addressed. At a minimum, Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs should not be able to vote on matters at Westminster – such as education – that concern only England.

Of more pressing concern than the above however, is the UK’s membership of the European Union. In order to regain sovereignty and effective border controls, a departure from the EU is essential.

A formal written constitution would include recognition of the existence of the indigenous peoples of the United Kingdom and their concomitant rights to national self-determination and primacy within their own homelands.

Foreign Policy
A non-interventionist neutral foreign policy should be advocated which would entail leaving NATO as it no longer meets our national security requirements. Positive and close relations should be maintained with European countries, as well as with our daughter societies – Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Defence Policy
This should be determined strictly by the need to protect the homeland, overseas British territories and shipping. All armed forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, and a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states should be adopted. Military interventionism as an instrument of foreign policy as employed under recent Labour and Conservative administrations should be abandoned. Islamism should be tackled by the intelligence services and the police. A review of defence requirements should lead to the creation of a military better adapted to the future direction of foreign and domestic policy outlined above.

The suggested policy focus could be summed up in three words: prosperity, liberty and security. This should provide the basis for a popular and resonant nationalist programme that would allow a newly constituted party to exert considerable public appeal. No such programme could be implemented without the UK’s exit from the EU, although it would be crucial for a new party to reiterate that it is anti-EU but not anti-European, for the two are quite distinct.

The globalist parties – Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat (as well as the Greens) – have all advocated and promoted the hollowing out of our democracy and sovereignty by using the state to further the interests of transnational corporations and finance, none of which can be held to account by our people. It will be essential to introduce legislation that removes the possibility of foreign takeovers of viable businesses, and the large-scale foreign direct investment that does take place must be subject to in-depth scrutiny. Some, such as by Nissan and Honda, is productive for the country, unlike the recently announced Arab financing of housing and infrastructure in Liverpool, which is parasitic. The latter needs to be curtailed.

In sum, focusing upon a distinctive nationalist economic agenda would present a new party with the most effective means of making headway. Whilst still retaining policies committed to ending mass immigration and multiculturalism, solutions to our economic problems are key. Much has been left out of this policy discussion, including pivotal areas such as health, education and law and order, but these will be revisited at a later date. The primary intent of this piece has been to forward the case for focusing upon the economy as a viable strategy for gaining public support, rather than providing a fully-fledged overview of policy. It is now up to readers to consider the points raised here, and to decide whether these suggestions possess merit.

Saturday, 10 March 2012

Galloway's Bradford West By-election Adventure

The by-election was precipitated by Labour MP Marsha Singh’s recent decision to step down owing to “serious illness”. The seat looks to be solid Labour, with Singh having retaken the seat with an increased majority in 2010, securing 45.6% of the vote with the Conservatives trailing a distant second with 31.1%. Although the Labour Party would have been the first to be aware of Singh’s intentions, it has yet to select its candidate from amongst a shortlist that includes individuals with no links to Bradford (but then again, that’s the case with many of its electors too these days).

Despite Ed Miliband’s awkwardness, dreadful oratory and inability to devise credible or appealing policies, the running average of polls shows that nationally the Labour Party is slightly ahead of the Conservative Party leading by 39% to 37%. Admittedly, the ConDem Government does not offer us anything palatable, so the contest looks as if it is going to be a mere rubberstamp for the Labour succession, which is the probable reason underpinning the Labour Party’s laggardly attitude towards selection.

Why then bother to even comment upon this lacklustre and dull campaign? Is there really anything of note that could possibly happen? Probably not, but then again, the declaration of one particular media pussy (this title is appropriate I am informed by people who have watched Big Brother, and as I have just discovered by watching the ludicrous video clip below) that he is to stand as a candidate has elicited a little interest in the national media: George Galloway, the fellow who fawned upon Saddam Hussein and who has courted the Islamist vote as a member of Respect since 2005. Indeed, a video showing him addressing a crowd of several thousand Muslims in Tower Hamlets in June 2010 reveals that he is quite happy to play the religion and race cards, which accounts, presumably, for the Glaswegian turning up in Bradford West to once again stand for Respect. ‘Respect’ has always struck me as an odd name for a party, particularly the one of which he is a member, for it would be more appropriate if it were to be named ‘Submit’.

Who else will be entering the electoral fray? Have any of the other candidates ever given such embarrassing televisual performances as Galloway? The junior partner in the ConDem Coalition is fielding Jeanette Sunderland who belongs to Bradford Council and at least possesses local links and roots, whereas the senior partners have chosen Jackie Whiteley from Rotherham. UKIP is forwarding Sonja McNally, a local woman and former Green Party member who has done much work for a homeless charity in the city, whereas the Greens have chosen Dawud Islam, who is as local as his name would suggest, having stood in Brent at the last General Election.

The small amount of interest that will arise from this contest will thus centre upon the performances of Galloway and McNally. Will Galloway manage to lure away a sufficient number of Labour supporters to allow the Tories to take the seat? Will his Muslim magic prove potent, or will Galloway’s mischievous genie remain firmly trapped inside its lamp? 

McNally on the other hand might pick up some votes from those who previously threw in their lot with the BNP – who polled better than UKIP in the seat in both 2005 and 2010 – and possibly the Democratic Nationalists in 2010. Neither of the latter two parties have declared any intent of standing on this occasion, but if their supporters know much about some of McNally’s other activities, they might desist from voting for her, as she  
Feversham College can be adjudged to be a forcing house for Islamic fanaticism, for it will not allow any male to set foot within the school grounds. Moreover, according to UKIP, “Sonja is also on a Hate Panel - an initiative that sees local residents meeting up regularly to discuss how police deal with reported cases of a hate crime.” I wonder if it bothered to look into the hate directed against white Catholic pupils at St Bede’s by their Muslim classmates and elder relatives from amongst the Muslim ‘community’ last September? It would seem unlikely. If ever proof were needed that UKIP is not a nationalist party, this must be about as compelling as it gets.

Labour's Candidate? Bungdit Din

Friday, 9 March 2012

Islamist Threat to Queen Mary College?

Google the University of London’s Queen Mary College and you will happen upon a piece of publicity in which it declares itself to be situated ‘in London’s vibrant East End’. For seasoned decoders of such euphemistic terminology, the word ‘vibrant’ immediately alerts the reader to the fact that it is actually located in a socially Balkanised milieu, that despite being in England, most certainly lacks an English character. Brutal testimony to this fact was provided in January this year when a Muslim male entered a lecture theatre on campus and threatened to murder anyone present, including members of their families, if they should say anything that he deemed insulting to his beloved ‘Prophet’. Despite filming audience members and being supported by an Islamist mob, he, to the best of the author’s knowledge, has not been apprehended for this sinister threat.

The aforementioned audience had gathered to debate the question as to the relationship between human rights and Sharia Law. Irrespective of the recent bastardisation of the concept of human rights by the no-borders movement and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, Sharia is clearly not compatible with anything other than itself; it is not compatible with any concept of human dignity. Nonetheless, despite the earlier threats a decision has been taken to try and run the event again, this time on the evening of 14th March with additional security being laid on. Although the event is free, pre-registration is necessary for anyone who is not already a student or staff member at Queen Mary’s. The question is: will the Islamists once again appear and threaten participants, and if they do so, will they be arrested?

Wednesday, 7 March 2012

Nicolas Sarkozy: erase the French; respect the Arabs

Nicolas Sarkozy has talked tough on the question of immigration and on dealing with rioters (coincidentally mainly of Maghrebian origin) on a number of occasions, whilst serving either as French Prime Minister or President, whilst repeatedly not matching his words with action. As the presidential race is now effectively underway, the BBC reports that he is now stating that there are too many foreigners in France, and that the country’s system for integrating them is increasingly failing. Thus, offering the French people a message somewhat familiar to British voters from the ‘promise’ of David Cameron to reduce our mass immigration to the “tens of thousands” per annum, Sarkozy has stated that he wishes to reduce immigration from circa 180,000 to 100,000 a year.

Clearly, Sarkozy is making a cynical ploy to undercut support for rival candidate Marine Le Pen of the Front National, who is enjoying a degree of popularity with French electors, but is unlikely to win the presidential race. The issue of mass immigration is becoming increasingly acute for the French because of the serious Islamisation that it is now being inflicted upon French society, for last month it was revealed that all Parisian abattoirs used only halal slaughter. This fact has rightly shocked the native French.

Sarkozy however, is no friend of the French. His ethnic roots of course are not French, so it should come as no surprise that he is a keen advocate of an attenuated and insipid civic version of French national identity. Indeed, if you have not seen it, the video below should give an insight into the true thoughts of Nicolas Sarkozy. Here he can be seen calling for obligatory “métissage”, that is, the interbreeding of the French with non-Europeans, whilst at the same time calling for obeisance to be displayed towards the Saudis and other Arabs. Clearly, Sarkozy is not fit to lead the French people, whom in reality he wishes to see wiped from the pages of history. Hopefully, French electors will realise this, and will not cast their ballots for him in the forthcoming presidential election.

Saturday, 3 March 2012

British Freedom’s 20 Point Plan: a cohesive blueprint, or a misguided muddle?

Following the British Freedom Party’s relaunch under the chairmanship of Paul Weston last November, the party’s website declared that a review of policy was being undertaken, and members of the public were solicited to volunteer their opinions as to what those policies should be. However, at the same time, something new appeared on the BFP’s website: a ‘20 Point Plan’. The speed with which it was posted suggests that responsibility for the formulation of the 20 points lay with Weston himself. Clearly, he wished to stamp his mark upon the party and indicate that the BFP was making a fresh start under his leadership, but the ‘Plan’ that appeared sat uneasily with the party’s general policy platform, and continues to do so. Moreover, a number of its individual elements to a certain extent contradict each other, and as a whole, it resembles more a melange of specific policy pledges and general vague moral statements, than a cohesive thought through political programme. Woodrow Wilson forwarded only 14 points for the reordering of the entire international order in post-WWI Europe, whereas the BFP have chosen to provide us with 20. This is too high a figure.

The criticisms that follow are necessary, for it pains the author to see people joining a party that is potentially setting off on a very unsound footing, which could thereby lead to disappointment for all. If not addressed, the BFP is likely to have its electoral chances hamstrung by misjudged strategic decisions taken during its initial stages of development; it will continue to increase in size, for a time, but its membership will in all likelihood plateau at a relatively low level. Another party will then be required to address the issue which the BFP makes its primary focus – Islamisation – as part of a broader and more balanced policy mix, for the BFP will not be able to do so because of electoral failure.

Turning to the '20 Point Plan' itself, which is dealt with point by point below, it contains pledges of widely varying degrees of significance and scope, with the minor and highly specific – ‘19. Allow pubs the choice of operating as smoking or non-smoking establishments’ – sitting alongside the major and general – ‘12. Diminish the public sector and government interference in the private sector’ –  and the general and vague – ‘20. Live by Christianity’s Golden Rule: “Do unto others as thou wouldst be done by.”’ What is immediately striking about this is its total lack of focus and undergirding ideological foundation; it reads like a random wish list, with no indication as to the party’s ultimate purpose and the relative importance of each of its constituent points.

Point 1: ‘Introduce a US style First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech’.
This is good, but earlier in its incarnation the plan included a pledge to increase censorship that thankfully has been dropped. It begs the question however: does the spirit of censorship still lurk within the BFP?

Point 2: ‘Leave the profoundly undemocratic European Union’.
As with point 1, this position is to be commended, although perhaps the statement could be trimmed back to ‘Leave the European Union’ which makes it sound rather less like an indignant Peter Hitchens.

Point 3: ‘Abolish the Human Rights Act, which benefits only foreign criminals/terrorists’.
The Human Rights Act as it exists does need to be abolished, but it is incorrect to state that it ‘benefits only foreign criminals/terrorists’, for this is manifestly not true. A pledge to simply ‘Abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with legislation not open to abuse as is the case with the current act’ would be more appropriate.

Point 4: ‘Halt any further immigration for a period of five years.’
It is true that we are overpopulated and growing increasingly so by the day, and that a strict immigration policy needs to be put in place. However, why is the pledge only for five years? The rationale for halting immigration needs to be made explicit. Does this include, hypothetically speaking, a respectful Japanese Honda executive and his family taking up temporary residence to oversee a new project creating jobs in a productive sphere of our manufacturing economy? Would it apply to expats who had emigrated to Australia, Canada or New Zealand who wished to return to Britain? This statement needs to be clarified and rewritten.

Point 5: ‘Deport foreign criminals, seditious dual nationality Islamists and illegal immigrants.’

Point 6: ‘Abolish all multicultural and equality quangos.’
Agreed. However, as with point 3 consideration needs to be given to the legitimate welfare of some people – specifically those with disabilities – who could be adversely affected by such a blanket statement. Safeguards should be put in place to ensure that where practicable those suffering from disabilities who wish to work and are capable of working, are able to do so.

Point 7: ‘Halt and turn back all aspects of the Islamisation of Britain, including Sharia finance.’
Agreed. It would be strengthened if it were to include a pledge to abolish inhumane religious slaughter.

Point 8: ‘Drastically reduce crime – criminals should fear the consequences of their behaviour.’
This has the ring of ‘Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime.’ It is just about as credible, and is not a policy statement. Does it really mean anything? There is a certain unappealing tub-thumping windiness about it, which almost makes the reader ponder: does the BFP wish to introduce Shariah?

Point 9: ‘Repair the damage wreaked by the progressive educational establishment.’
Define the ‘damage’ and ‘progressive educational establishment’, as well as make clear what it is that you intend to do. This statement, as with a number of others, highlights the uncertainty as to what the 20 Point Plan actually is. Is it, a) a statement of moral principles; b) a statement of general political intent; c) a list of specific policy commitments.

Point 10: ‘Promote British values and assimilation, rather than multiculturalism and division.’
Insert the word ‘cultural’ before ‘assimilation’.

Point 11: ‘Rebuild Britain’s Armed Forces to 1980 levels.’
Why? Our security environment is now completely different to that which existed during the era of the high Cold War. We need a proper strategic review of our armed forces, and for them to be reprofiled to create a defensive force that is capable of meeting the needs of defending our homeland and specific interests at a further remove.

Point 12: ‘Diminish the public sector and government interference in the private sector.’
This statement can be used to conceal all manner of ills, and provide cover for potentially axing services required by, for example, the elderly. Given that the plan makes no mention of foreign capital or economic policy other than this, it suggests that services such as the NHS could be threatened by profit-making US transnational corporations. This should be a cause of some disquiet, and presents the most glaring mismatch between the BFP’s position pre-Weston, and its position today. The BFP’s economic direction of travel is now a matter of serious concern, and represents a major flaw in its approach. Weston recently announced that only ‘Capitalism’ was compatible with ‘Western Civilisation’, thereby revealing a doctrinaire adherence to a failed model of economics that has led us to the current globalised mess in which we find ourselves.

Point 13: ‘Withdraw troops from all areas where we are not directly threatened.’

Point 14: ‘Cancel foreign aid to countries which do not deserve or need it.’
Agreed, although this could benefit from being rephrased.

Point 15: ‘End welfare payments to immigrants; they must pay for their housing and children.’
This statement is somewhat vague. How are ‘immigrants’ defined? This requires clarification. Moreover, should this not be considered a subsidiary, although important element of, immigration policy?

Point 16: ‘Ensure no elderly person lives in fear, and can afford both heat and food in the winter.’
The sentiment is fine, but what does it mean practically? It sounds like something taken from a rewritten version of the New Testament. Given the party’s proposed attack on the public sector, how are the large numbers of pensioners on low incomes going to be provided with lives not bedevilled by poverty? An explicit statement regarding pensions, minimum incomes and home care is required, otherwise this is meaningless.

Point 17: ‘Ensure that a no class-A drugs policy is enforced.’
The author is of the opinion that such drugs, along with alcohol abuse, unhealthy diets and lack of physical activity, are all potential causes of early death and psychological problems. Whilst not advocating the use of class-A drugs, the author subscribes to a non-prohibitionist stance and supports decriminalisation for individual users. The current drugs problem should be viewed from within the wider context of public health and education and should be approached accordingly. A punitive approach needs to be directed towards the criminal gangs that often target young girls, get them hooked on heroin and then pimp them out, not at the users themselves. 

Point 18: ‘Promote morality, marriage, the family, the community and the nation state.’
How? This is not really a policy, and these matters should simply be embedded within specific policies. The first two words smack of potential cant.

Point 19: ‘Allow pubs the choice of operating as smoking or non-smoking establishments.’
A fair suggestion, but why does this point rank alongside leaving the EU and halting immigration for five years as a policy priority? Although perfectly fine as a policy, it is not a first rank concern.

Point 20: ‘Live by Christianity’s Golden Rule: “Do unto others as thou wouldst be done by.”’
Once again, fine sentiments, but leave religion out of the equation: this is Britain, not the US Bible Belt. Is it a statement of policy? No. So, how would this imply the BFP should treat young people who find themselves in the miserable position of having become addicted to heroin or crack? Would the party punish them for this ‘sin’ by criminalising them, or would it treat them with compassion by helping them to overcome their addiction through treatment and rehabilitation?

The BFP needs to decide what it is for and to develop a clear and cohesive plan with a handful of core objectives rather than the above list which is disjointed and chaotic. It needs to define its ideology, and to include those elements of its '20 Points' that it wishes to retain in its manifesto. Has it failed to do so because there exists a significant split between its founding principles and those of its new leadership? Currently, its '20 Point Plan' appears to be a Neocon graft onto a nationalist body, speaking with the voice of Peter Hitchens. As such, its tone at times drifts into cant, which grates on the nerves of many people.

It seems odd that nowhere amongst these points is there any criticism of globalism and globalisation. How many nationalists who have recently joined feel at ease with this omission, as well as the lack of focus on industrial and economic policy? Might they not find their views better accommodated within a new, democratically accountable and forward-looking nationalist party? If, as someone with a degree of sympathy towards the BFP, the author has managed to find so many flaws with its '20 Point Plan', how many will its opponents find? How would the general public perceive it? Overall, it needs a serious rethink. It would benefit from addressing the questions and concerns raised here.