Thou shalt love thy enemy

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 28 October 2007 13:07.

Instead of regressing to narrow xenophobia, it is time to build on the Human Rights Act. The aim of our British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities will be to clarify and explain the obligations which come with rights

Jack Straw, writing in the Telegraph subsequent to Gordon Brown’s speech on Thursday announcing this forthcoming Bill of Rights and Duties.

Because liberty as it is pursued today contains not a single seed of European survival, I spend a good deal of my thinking time trying to undermine its centrality to political life. The problem, of course, is that Man is not perfect, and the least perfect of men seem to proliferate among those ambitious for power. Some restraint on power, then, is essential for an equitable life. In feudal Germany there was the Comitatus. In our time there is democracy, and there are the Bills of Rights.

But democracy has spawned a traitorous, internationalist power elite that authors all our political misfortunes. It denies us recognition of who we are or what unites us, so thereby it can remove from us ownership of that true guarantor of survival: our homelands.

In Britain, as Jack Straw states, this treachery is to be codified in a redefinition of the rights enshrined in the English constitution since the Bill of Rights of 1689. Crucially, this redefinition will be cast from the Human Rights Act 1998 - specifically, one expects, from the qualifications to Article 10 on freedom of expression and to Article 11 on freedom of association and assembly, and from Article 14 on prohibition of discrimination.

This will be a highly positive (or governmentally prescribed) dispensation of rights, there being little or no sign of the negative rights enshrined in America’s Bill of Rights. Straw’s reference to responsibilities is perfectly clear. Big government will coerce us to deny our true self as the people of England, and to be, instead, the MultiCult. This is a duty to die – eagerly if possible or, at worst, unknowingly.

Keen to discover more about our forthcoming new duty I consulted the words of the Prime Minister Who Is Not Tony Blair, as they were spoken at the University of Westminster, Thursday 25 October 2007, and appear now on the Labour Party website.

The speech is quite refreshingly free from the usual political-aspirational double-talk. It makes a serious play for academic learning but, happily, is a little too self-serving and reverse-reasoned to succeed. Its historical references are there solely to represent British history as the midwife not only of liberty but all the exotica of postmodern tolerance. Everyone from John Milton to Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs gets pulled into the effort. Thereby the dour son of the manse steadfastly dilutes the heady, 70% proof intoxicant of real liberty - after all, drunkards tend to be free with their tongues, and freedom of speech is something no postmodern Prime Minister can allow. He establishes to his own satisfaction, at least, that England is the home of happy anti-racism and, naturally, we all want much more of it.

Here, in his own words, is how he picks his path to that goal:-

A passion for liberty has determined the decisive political debates of our history, inspired many of our defining political moments, and those debates, conducted in the crucible of great events, have, in my view, forged over time a distinctly British interpretation of liberty one that asserts the importance of freedom from prejudice, of rights to privacy, and of limits to the scope of arbitrary state power, but one that also rejects the selfishness of extreme libertarianism and demands that the realm of individual freedom encompasses not just some but all of us.

... for me certain key themes emerge over and over again through the centuries to characterise the British conception of liberty.

First, I trace the historical roots of liberty in Britain to a struggle for tolerance, by which I mean also a gradual acceptance of pluralism – a notion of political liberty that would allow those of different denominations and beliefs to coexist peacefully together.

... And down the centuries the British people have come to demonstrate a shared belief that respect for the dignity and value of every human being demands that all be given the freedom and space to live their lives by their own choices, free from the control and unjustified interference of others.

So we need to recognise, for example, that it took until 1829 for Catholic emancipation, even later for legislation ending discrimination against the Jewish community. It is true that in 1914 our franchise was more narrowly restricted than nearly all other countries in Europe. It was only in the second half of the twentieth century that Parliament took action to combat discrimination against women and ethnic minorities and there is still much work to do in these areas and against discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, disability and religion.

But the single most powerful thread that runs though our history is a succession of chapters in the defence of liberty and toleration. We gave refuge to Huguenots fleeing persecution in the 1600s. By the eighteenth century, London was arguably already the world’s most diverse city - a situation which we can remain proud of in Britain to this day.

... And as the chapters have unfolded and the battles have been won, tolerance in Britain has evolved from a passive defence of free speech and freedoms of press and assembly into a positive assertion of their place in our progress.

Indeed today one of the qualities British people say they admire most about our country is our tolerance, and the characteristic that makes them most ashamed is any intolerance.

And in the mid to late 20th century, this idea of liberty increasingly became the foundation of a new international order where the right of everyone - human rights - should be respected by everyone. On an island off Newfoundland in 1941, Churchill and Roosevelt together drew up the Atlantic Charter, and by beginning the system of international law based on the fundamental rights of all human beings, Britain led the way in asserting the inviolability of individual rights, irrespective of race or nationality and made the freedoms so dear to Britain the cornerstone of a new international order.

... ... we need a more rounded and realistic conception of liberty. In a world of increasingly rapid change and multiplying challenges - facing for example a terrorist threat or a challenge to our tolerance - democracies must be able to bring people together, mark out common ground, and energise the will and the resources of all ...

And so on.

The key (Orwellian) phrase is: “... tolerance in Britain has evolved from a passive defence of free speech and freedoms of press and assembly into a positive assertion of their place in our progress.”

This sentence encapsulates Brown’s entire outlook. The “positive” here, of course, means “prescriptive”. He is saying that in order to grant liberty to the many victims of our shocking white male prejudice, and free ourselves from ignorance in the process, we are to obey the directives of our moral betters in the Labour Party.

This vain and coercive mindset readily perceives tolerance as a self-imposed duty to grant equality, and thus freedom, to difference ... indeed, there is no end to the difference that we must, by this means, free. The underlying presumption here is that the tolerant and the different are equally valid, equally human, and there are no other values - such as kinship – which might qualify that. It isn’t true, of course. All healthy and normal peoples who are not beset by liberalism instantly recognise Self, and discriminate accordingly.

Further, tolerance as it is understood by Brown is not an accurate description of the human action involved here. Properly speaking, this action is forbearance. This is all we are fitted by Nature to accomplish, and it is highly restrictive in effect. Forbearance does not see the Other as equal. It is completely discriminatory but, by choice, suspends the normal outcome of that discrimination even if no obvious benefit or reciprocity will flow from doing so.

Thus, the Protestant tolerance of Catholics in the England of Charles II did not involve the conviction on either side that their beliefs were equally valid. But a choice was made to forebear Catholicism and end the tumult England had suffered in trying to expunge it since the Dissolution. The vital point here is that forbearance did not demand loss to the Protestant majority. The Church of England was Established. It was not equal.

The historical meaning of tolerance, then, is not that of Brown’s toxic, progressive egalitarianism. Historically, tolerance was never a vehicle for any kind of dispossession of the English, never mind their physical displacement and deracination. It is, to any normal, healthy, thinking person, completely outrageous to claim the Bill of Rights and the later Act of Settlement as antecedents to a soft genocide. These were Acts to secure and garland the lives of Englishmen. What sickness, then, inhabits our body politic that a successor Act is being framed to achieve the complete and final opposite?

Perhaps, being charitable, the answer is that modern politicians simply think there is an infinite amount of liberty to be got for us. As I’ve said before and Brown sort of says in his speech, liberalism has an inconstant, leftward-shifting focus. Freedoms once won, like the freedom to a territorial homeland, have a habit of falling off the table as new and ever more exotic freedoms hove into view.

But if this is a human law ... if the glorious, brazen freedom of the Viking raider is always counter-balanced by the loss and suffering of the pillaged Saxon, then there can be no increase in freedom to be got from a Brownite hyper-tolerance, and we are justified even by liberal lights in cleaving to the great freedoms that matter to us alone.

Tags: British Politics

Comments:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:45 | #

“a distinctly British interpretation of liberty, one that asserts the importance of freedom from prejudice, [...] one that also rejects the selfishness of extreme libertarianism [...].” (—from Gordon Brown’s speech as excerpted in the log entry)

All liberty, including all “distinctly British” versions, entails the freedom to harbor prejudices and to espouse “the selfishness of extreme libertarianism.”

“First, I trace the historical roots of liberty in Britain to a struggle for tolerance, by which I mean also a gradual acceptance of pluralism – a notion of political liberty that would allow those of different denominations and beliefs to coexist peacefully together.”

“Tolerance” is the Jewish euphemism for not protesting against the ethnic cleansing of Euros (as “prejudice” is the Jewish code-word for any protesting). In the (Jewish?) speechwriter’s choice of that word “tolerance” and throughout the rest of that sentence is seen the bought-and-paid-for voicing of the central diaspora-Jewish preoccupation with dismantling the national racial/ethnocultural identities of the populations Jews live amongst, dismantling highly desired by them so they’ll feel more comfortable around the hated/feared/envied goys and less irritated by them.

“And down the centuries the British people have come to demonstrate a shared belief that respect for the dignity and value of every human being demands that all be given the freedom and space to live their lives by their own choices, free from the control and unjustified interference of others.”

You can see what the Jewish speechwriter is building up to here: a call for acceptance by Brits of their own race-replacement. The British people in fact have not “come to demonstrate a shared belief” that inappropriate volumes of the racially/ethnoculturally unlike be given large swathes of Britain in which to live, if that’s what he means — and it is. The British people are for fair treatment of everyone, not race-replacement for themselves.

“So we need to recognise, for example, that it took until 1829 for Catholic emancipation, even later for legislation ending discrimination against the Jewish community.”

And with good reason in both cases. In fact, arguments can be made in retrospect that taking those two steps may have been ill-advised, and prior restrictions should have been left in place, as corresponding sorts of restrictions are currently in place in Israel and are working as intended in maintaining in control those who ought to be in control, Jews. Jews not Englishmen should be in control in Israel, and Englishmen not Jews in England — especially Jews who don’t know how to behave in diaspora host countries but the minute they have the chance begin trying to weaken and destroy them (then, incredibly, start to wail and moan about people not liking Jews).

“It is true that in 1914 our franchise was more narrowly restricted than nearly all other countries in Europe.”

Right and it’s no coincidence Britain was at its peak exactly at that moment: it wisely excluded the wrong sort of people from the voting booth.

“It was only in the second half of the twentieth century that Parliament took action to combat discrimination against women and ethnic minorities and there is still much work to do in these areas and against discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, disability and religion.”

All the irrelevant neurotic solipsistic diaspora-Jewish obsessions are there, packed into that sentence. (Solipsistic means acting as if no one but you exists in the universe: you and your needs and wants, and no one else’s, are all that exist. Solipsistic: that’s the Jews.) If this speech wasn’t written by a Jew it was written by a gentile taking word-for-word dictation from one. Which is certainly plausible as the Jews likely own seventy percent of the Labour Party as they own seventy percent of the Democrat Party (and forty percent of the Republican). When you own seventy percent of something you can tell its people seventy percent of what to say: you’ve bought them.

“But the single most powerful thread that runs though our history is a succession of chapters in the defence of liberty and toleration. We gave refuge to Huguenots fleeing persecution in the 1600s.”

No, needless to say that’s not the single most powerful thread running through British history, not by a long shot, but that’s how solipsistic Jews see things. They see nothing but themselves. Is further proof needed regarding by whom or at the dictation of whom this speech was written?

“By the eighteenth century, London was arguably already the world’s most diverse city - a situation which we can remain proud of in Britain to this day.”

Need I say “QED” or is it already obvious after that last bit? Whose neurotic solipsistic obsessions is this speech giving vent to? Go on, take wild guess.

And the excerpt continues in the same vein, every single sentence aimed at disarming future protestations against the race-replacement of the British people. Hey when you pay the piper you call the tune, and you-know-who is paying the piper, big time. Here’s the rest of the excerpt without comment — it’s so stereotypically Jewish none is needed, I trust.

”... And as the chapters have unfolded and the battles have been won, tolerance in Britain has evolved from a passive defence of free speech and freedoms of press and assembly into a positive assertion of their place in our progress.

Indeed today one of the qualities British people say they admire most about our country is our tolerance, and the characteristic that makes them most ashamed is any intolerance.

And in the mid to late 20th century, this idea of liberty increasingly became the foundation of a new international order where the right of everyone - human rights - should be respected by everyone. On an island off Newfoundland in 1941, Churchill and Roosevelt together drew up the Atlantic Charter, and by beginning the system of international law based on the fundamental rights of all human beings, Britain led the way in asserting the inviolability of individual rights, irrespective of race or nationality and made the freedoms so dear to Britain the cornerstone of a new international order.

... ... we need a more rounded and realistic conception of liberty. In a world of increasingly rapid change and multiplying challenges - facing for example a terrorist threat or a challenge to our tolerance - democracies must be able to bring people together, mark out common ground, and energise the will and the resources of all ...”

Can the Jewish brazenness of it be believed? Sorry, gentiles simply are not obsessed with promoting race-replacement in this way. This obsession, obsession, obsession over “discrimination” and the rest of it is trademark Jewishness, a dead giveaway as to the Jewish source of this race-replacement propaganda which no gentile wrote — you’ll have to prove the contrary as far as I’m concerned. Even as Jewish propaganda it beggars belief — and that takes some doing. After I post this I’ll go back and read GW’s commentary on the speech, which I wanted to postpone till after I’d set my own thoughts on paper.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:08 | #

The minute James Watson opened his mouth in the U.K., the Brits called for a criminal investigation of his words, reneged on all his speaking engagements, libelled him profusely, and finally couldn’t hound him out of the country fast enough — probably for his own good, as, had he stayed, he ran the risk of being arrested and jailed for hate speech. Here’s how Gordon Brown summarized it in the speech:

”tolerance in Britain has evolved from a passive defence of free speech and freedoms of press and assembly into a positive assertion of their place in our progress. Indeed today one of the qualities British people say they admire most about our country is our tolerance”

Now ... is it just me, or ... does it strike others that ... Oh forget it, it’s probably just me ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:41 | #

At the risk of getting in trouble for hijacking a thread not about Jews and turning it into one, I’ll post one more comment along those lines (because I believe there’s a connection):

It’s insanity to allow Jews power over Euros when they want them genocided as payback — today it’s “payback for the Nazis” but before the Nazis it was payback for something else (at the linked page click on Glossary, then Graetz Legacy): they always wanted them genocided.

Unfortunately, some Americans realize that Europe is in for a disaster [resulting from Moslem immigration and Islamization] but seem to think that it is only getting what it deserves. Europe has to be destroyed by the Muslims as a punishment for the Nazis’ crimes during WWII. Last year, I was invited to speak about the situation in Europe at one of America’s major universities. For two days my host subjected me to the most terrible accusations. [Scroob note: bear in mind as you read, that this host who harbored a murderous hatred against Europeans is some professor at one of America’s major universities, doubtless teaching his venom to students.] He told me I would have to suffer for what my ancestors had done to his ancestors. “One cannot respect the Europeans,” he said. “America should have nuked Europe during WWII instead of Japan. If ever things turn nasty in Europe I will make sure that neither you nor any white European will be allowed to seek shelter in the US. I would rather invite the Muslims in than you and your lot, because one can respect Muslims but not Europeans.” Since my host was Jewish and had lost his family in the war I could understand his anger, but not his short-sightedness. I think he did not mean all he said, though it was an upsetting experience and one of the most unpleasant moments in my life.

Euros perceive a Jewish problem. Jews perceive a Euro problem. The solution to both problems: Euros and Jews must live in separate countries because what makes one happy makes the other miserable and vice-versa. Euros like the idea of separate countries. Jews don’t. Jews want to be able to live in Euro countries. This is because Jews aren’t free-standing. They feel that in order to thrive they have to be permitted to live in Euro countries. The only problem with that is as soon as they can they try to destroy the Euro countries that have welcomed them, so their presence there sooner or later becomes intolerable.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:58 | #

On my long march to ‘get a handle’, on this subject, the term ‘many headed hydra’ frequently came to mind, as soon as one head was chopped off, two more appeared.

I suppose what I’m saying is, my circumstances do not allow time to digest the copious complex comment and plethora of information provided - plus of course, the time required to formulate a reply. (even if I had the ability to do so.)

All I can do is cherry pick items of which I have some views and maybe something to contribute.

In Britain, the Ruling Old Order were quickly shown the door in the immediate years after the end of WW II, ‘never again’ I suspect the cry. In essence, the accumulated sum of expertise and experience of over a thousand years of rule was disposed of in less than a decade, no nation could hope to survive that. The end result, as it turns out was inevitable, we of our generation could write the book.

In fact, we (older generation) have had a ringside seat at the decline and demise of Britain. (and the West) My earliest recollections are of living and being a part of a nation that was supremely confident in itself, law abiding, harmonious, well ordered (one might even say disciplined) but above all a very pleasant place to live and grow up.

For me the 1950’s coincided with my youth, so with the exuberance and optimism of my age, these years for me were the best. From the 1960’s on, it was all downhill.

It really is ironic that these times are remembered with much fondness, this is because throughout this whole period, the Western world was, perceived (by me) as most agreeable, not realising the ‘real’ situation was that the USSR and the Western world was in a state of M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction) as they called it. East and West were in a nuclear stand off - but oddly, it produced an era of stability almost unheard off. But make no mistake, it was for real, when JFK replied to the Russian threat of missiles heading for Cuba (1961?) peoples blood ran cold.

Actually, this decline could easily be plotted in real time, but the ultimate consequences (as seen to-day) were never remotely foreseen (especially by me.)

The Hippie ‘60’s, the industrially disruptive Leftist ‘70’s, Thatcher’s ‘80’s, the legacy of Thatcher in the ‘90’s and the post-modernism of the new millennia. I suppose what people of my generation have lived through is the oncoming death throes of Western civilisation, I have no problem with saying this, when a civilisation has entered the age of depravity, then surely, the end is not far away.

The New Elites…...........I first came across the new Elites during the early ‘80’s (I actually commented on them in my jottings I kept at the time.) I called them the ‘New Breed’ by which I meant, Harold Wilson’s ‘White Heat of Technology’ new standard bearers.

Wilson’s vision foresaw the need of tens (hundreds) of thousands of a new breed of worker that only advanced learning could provide, engineers of all disciplines to oversee the new technical revolution.

All of this thinking required a massive expansion programme of the university and college system, trouble was, this new breed was light years away from the age old traditional university type material, these new students were drawn from mainly working class background and did not aspire to the ‘well rounded’ end product of the ‘Oxbridge type.’

So a new type of education system was tailored to meet this need; however, it can be seen that over a period, many of this New Breed percolated to the top of the British establishment and indeed, many became the New Elite, the result of which we can see only too well to-day.

Tolerance…... I’m perplexed how Blair, Brown (and ilk,) can bang on about tolerant Britain in such gushing terms and still remain straight faced. Even to the uninitiated it is palpably clear that the British can hardly be any other than tolerant when the have ranged against them a whole raft of sanctions in the event they (British) choose not be tolerant.

The British white male has been stitched up like a kipper, He cannot defend His very being, He cannot defend what He is or who He is, He cannot defend His nation (home) His history, His values, His kith and kin, He cannot defend His property, His physical being, His religion, His thoughts, His speech, He is not even allowed to present a case for not acquiescing to His own forced suicide. He has been trussed, bound and gagged and thrown onto the spider’s web of what Brown calls the new British Liberty. All in the name of tolerance.

Tectonic plates…...... I’ll stick my neck out and say the Elite’s tectonic plates are starting to groan, I get vibes that in many Liberal areas the scale is falling from their eyes, perhaps most of all that the middle classes can sense that they are not going to get away from the effects of what has been unleashed. Millions (yes - millions) of new homes are too be (already?) commenced building soon.

The enormity of the requirements to house the increasing population stagger the imagination, the cheerleaders are now blanching at their folly, but it’s too late, they should have connected the dots long ago.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:20 | #

“The British white male has been stitched up like a kipper, He cannot defend His very being, He cannot defend what He is or who He is, He cannot defend His nation (home) His history, His values, His kith and kin, He cannot defend His property, His physical being, His religion, His thoughts, His speech, He is not even allowed to present a case for not acquiescing to His own forced suicide. He has been trussed, bound and gagged and thrown onto the spider’s web of what Brown calls the new British Liberty. All in the name of tolerance.” (—Bill)

Well put and truer words were never written!

“the cheerleaders are now blanching at their folly, but it’s too late, they should have connected the dots long ago.”

Blanching at their folly for sure. But it’s not too late. It’s never too late. Let them come join us, those who awaken to the horror of what they’d been sleepwalking through all this time — better late than never — and we’ll get this mess straightened out together. I was sleepwalking my whole life until one day in October, 2000, while innocently learning to explore the internet on my family’s first-ever computer, which Santa had brought the previous Christmas but I hadn’t touched till a month or two before, I happened to see a tiny ad in the left-hand margin of the home-page of NewsMax.com asking if the reader had concerns about immigration and if so, to click. It was a link to Vdare.com and little did I know that with that click I was leaving an entire world behind me and entering a whole new one, the world of truth, rightness, and the future, the world of what was really going on and of fighting the good fight. With one click it was good-bye fog, hello crystal clarity, and “Oh so you’re allowed to actually think that! My whole adult life I didn’t think you were actually allowed to think that, but you are! There’s nothing wrong with thinking it! I don’t have to keep repressing it in my brain, don’t have to keep having this deep feeling of unease, of vague dread even, that I’m not allowed to dwell on, not allowed to think about! I don’t have to keep dismissing errant thoughts with ‘Stop thinking about that, the people in charge know what they’re doing!’ Now I see! The people in charge DON’T know what they’re doing, and this is something we finally have to look at! It’s all fallen into place!” With that one click I emerged from a fog and never till the day I die will I forget reading Steve Sailer and his archives for the first time, at Vdare.com.

Never lose heart. That’s exactly what the other side wants. With the help of good men like you, Bill, we’re going to win this.

Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:39 | #

Christ did say ‘love thine enemy.’

But such statements cannot be taken out of context.
The same scriptures that state the former, also state the latter:

“Do I not hate them, O LORD, that hate Thee? And am I not grieved with them that rise up against Thee? I hate Thy Enemies, O LORD, with a Perfect Hatred-I count them my enemies”
-Psalm 139: 21-22

A great saint of the Church clearly articulated how far that ‘loving of enemies’ should go.

St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves Lavra noted:

“Live in peace not only with your friends, but also with your enemies;
But only with your personal enemies, and not with the enemies of God.”

Clearly, any ethnic group that is avowedly anti-Christian, that seeks via Noachide Laws to stop worship of Christ as Messiah, falls into that ‘enemies of God’ category…

and all the works of their father, that they do [John 8:44] are actually DESERVING of our utmost hatred. Such as Patriot Act, ACLU decisions, SPLC lies and disinformatia, media ownership, book/magazine distribution, etc. etc. etc.

Indeed, one could make the case that to be a true Christian, one ‘has’ to be a [sic] ‘anti-semite, to follow the evangelical counsel of Christ, the Psalms, and St. Theodosius…..

Have a nice day….

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:55 | #

Look what Ruth Dreifuss, Jewish member of the Swiss Federal Council, said:

“It isn’t really necessary to know whether or not there will continue to be a Switzerland [...] Whether or not Switzerland as a nation survives within a larger unity isn’t so important to me personally. [...] Suppose Switzerland survives: it will be a multicolored Switzerland, colored like the rainbow, as in the example set by France [...] There will be many more mixed couples. That’ll do us good.”

One feels certain Madame Dreifuss wishes the same future for Israel.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:14 | #

Yeah, Fr John, what today’s Euromen need more than anything is a good dose of old Jesus.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:48 | #

The British white male has been stitched up like a kipper…

The British man has an option. The British woman has an option. The bizarre thing is why they don’t exercise it. A nationalist party has existed in the UK for at least thirty years. The British do not have to voice dissent for the folly of mass immigration; the British do not need to speak of criminality or race or IQ or miscegenation. All they need do is mark a secret ballot. A simple little X placed properly will start the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction. No one will know what they have done. No one will cry racist or ant-semite or hate monger. A new government will simply take control of parliament.

But they won’t do it.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:19 | #

Desmond, even in the happy event of a majority of Brits voting for every BNP candidate, there would still only be 119 seats out of 646 held by that party, based on the number contested in the last election.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:35 | #

And if they could muster more than 5% of the vote, many more candidates would stand, Al, because they would get their £500 back.

Posted by Robert Reis on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:51 | #

Interesting post and followups.
Cheers,
RER

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:41 | #

Enoch’s other speech: more than a little à propos.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments