Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

The final opinion poll is in - in fact, it’s the only council-dedicated poll that has been done - and the British public, or at least that section who will be voting in the local elections tomorrow, are poised to deliver their verdict for real.  There is, of course, huge speculation about the fortunes of the United Kingdom Independence Party.  Will its support be spread too thin to deliver the seats it deserves - the enduring penalty of the First Past The Post system?  Or is this going to be the election when the party jumps forward and announces itself as a truly broad-based, national party of, if not yet renewal, certainly protest?

We will start to find out about this time tomorrow night.  Meanwhile, the smear tactics of the mainstream parties and their friends in the media leaves little doubt that UKIP’s rise is real and significant.  We are in for a very interesting next 36 hours.

A good result for UKIP would be to win 100 new council seats across the areas where voting will take place (mostly Tory shire counties).  The Comres poll in these areas produced a 22% voting intention for the party.  It should be remembered that protest voters are motivated voters, so that 22% could punch above its weight.  But I think it’s wise to temper any such expectations with the knowledge that UKIP is a young party without a political history in many of the wards it is fighting.  Electoral politics, at least in Britain, is not a five-minute packet soup, and elections at local authority level frequently favour well-regarded personalities, and hinge on particular local issues.

But ... if the present, very exciting signs are borne out by the ballot box, we may be at the start of a genuine challenge to the parties of the mainstream - something we might have hoped, a few short years ago, would come from the BNP.  But better UKIP than nobody.

I will post interesting results and commentary on the thread.

Yesterday, the United Kingdom Independence Party, a collection of “nutcases, fruitcakes and closet racists”, to quote David Cameron from 2006, ran the Tories into third in the Westminster by-election at Eastleigh.  Today the quality press is resisting offering the usual excuses (ie, it’s mid-term madness ... a mere protest vote, etc).  It is asking a few significant questions about UKIP, in particular.  The most interesting is: how much of its support expresses that exasperation and exhaustion with the professional political class that is now known by the term, anti-politics?

Anti-politics is a completely normal response on the part of any electorate confronted with a self-referential elite that has forgotten even how to feign representation of the people.  Lower order politicians are only too well aware of this failing. After the Eastleigh result Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, told the London Evening Standard:

“Unless things are demonstrably different in terms of public perception by the early summer he [David Cameron] will have great difficulty in persuading the electorate that we can win a general election.

“He is out of touch with the party. Both gay marriage and EU migration feed into a narrative that too much emphasis is going to the liberal metropolitan elite and not enough to the blue-collar working vote that Margaret Thatcher had the support of.”

So while the speed of UKIP’s rise might surprise some, the rise itself shouldn’t.  The straws were in the wind for both right and left with the early Tea Party movement and, later, the Occupy Movement.  Now we have the rise of, among others, Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece, the youth identitarian movement in France, the astonishing success of Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Party in Italy ... all non-Establishment or anti-Establishment movements.  Has the grand political project of The Globality reached the stage where it is no longer possible to advance its agenda and affect an interest in the opinions of their supporters?  Are electorates of European descent finally awakening to the nature of modern political elitism and internationalism?

If so, Eastleigh offers little encouragement to British nationalists beyond the unsatisfactory proxy that is UKIP.  The BNP did not stand.  The fatally civicist English Democrats, to which the Butler retinue decamped, did stand.  Its candidate polled just 70 votes in a constituency of 79,004.  The Elvis candidate finished above them.

It looks very like UKIP is our only horse in the race, and must be supported accordingly.  We have to hope that there will be no electoral pact with the Tories in 2015 but, on the contrary, Nigel Farage’s party will literally kill the Tory Party - just as it did in Eastleigh - as the political right’s natural party of power.  Beyond that we must hope that no new alignment of the right in Britain takes place along the lines of that which brought Stephen Harper’s Canadian conservatives into existence in 2003.  Nationalists must find some way to influence a realignment process so that any new party will, first and foremost, be loyal to our people rather than to a set of easily “liberalised” and corrupted, petty principles about self-improvement or personal liberty.

To do that we have to work from within.  We have to join the party if we can (and former BNP members can’t - they are pre-banned), and stay in the party.  I wonder how many nationalists have the requisite degree of focus to pull off something like that.

One of the arguments I am disseminating regularly these days is that a vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party, notwithstanding the obvious deficiencies of its platform, is the most productive for a Brit who loves not just his country but his people.  As usual this argument is framed within the English context.  It goes something like this, as posted this evening on the thread to Janet Daly’s current DT piece, The Tories can win if they put real people first:

There are two issues arising from Janet’s analysis.

First, the Conservative Party is a party of the City, big business and, like the other two mainstream parties, global elitism.  These are the interests Conservatives serve today.  They cannot turn to serve the people without turning away from their present beneficiaries.  They will never willingly do so.

The only event that can produce change here is the confiscation of any potential Conservatives possess to form another government.  If Conservatives are sufficiently electorally degraded, the political right will re-form - it must.  And that’s where the people’s interests come into the equation, for no party will gain support by openly declaring for narrow elite interests.

That is why a vote for UKIP is the most valuable vote you have.

The second question arising from Janet’s article is this: who are these people she refers to?  We no longer live in an England of distinct class interests; we no longer live in a white England but in a slowly browning England.  The immigrant populations do not have the same interests as the English - the exact opposite, in fact.

So the problem for the right is this: it can serve a people but not the people ... not all the people.  It cannot serve two masters.  Thus the will to political power necessarily becomes entrapped in the rising racial consciousness of the English people. The more awake are the English, the more the right must reflect that in its politics.

In the absence of a nationalist revolution, this is the way to the future life of ethnic England.  It is deliverable.  It may be the only possible result of all the dynamics in play at this time.  If not ... if it fails, the next grab for English freedom and life in the MultiCult will be the final one; and it won’t be political at all.

Now, if one accepts the logic here the next thing to watch for is how successful UKIP is in the run up to the 2015 election.  If the support achieved at the last round of by-elections is maintained or increased the destruction scenario can become a reality for the Tories. Yes, general elections are a much more difficult ask for a minor party than mid-term by-elections.  Yes, David Cameron will be able to nibble away at the softer end of UKIP’s support by his “negotiations” over a new relationship for Britain within the EU.  But still, the damage that has been done by Cameron to his party is unprecedented - he truly is to Conservatism what Tony Blair was to Labour.  I find it hard to believe that he will not pay some substantial electoral costs.

Of course, I may only be grasping at a few nationalist straws.  What else is there for an Englishman to do, frankly?

As well as the publication of the Leveson report, tomorrow sees three parliamentary by-elections - in Middlesborough, Croydon North and Rotherham (all currently Labour-held). Of these, it is the latter that Labour is concentrating resources on.  A combination of factors - the date (which will reduce turnout), the child grooming scandals, Denis MacShane’s resignation over false invoices, a divided local party and, most recently, the UKIP fostering row - means that the result is increasingly hard to predict.

The opening paragraph of a New Stateman article on the forthcoming by-election in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.

About this time tomorrow night we will know something new about a question which nationalists ask themselves whenever conversation drifts onto electoral politics.  What does it take - indeed, is it even possible - for a minor party to win a Westminster seat under First Past The Post?  The United Kingdom Independence Party, a one issue party of disaffected, golf-club Tory Eurosceptics, is thought by some to be in with a shout of overturning the disgraced Denis MacShane’s majority in one of the safest Labour seats in the country.  That is unlikely, and probably highly so.  But there appears to be a tide flowing for change in the constituency.  The Labour Party has taken an enormous knock in the town, and to continue voting for it requires either a considerable act of political faith or pig ignorance.  In the past the party has always been able to rely on a heavy supply of both.

Anyway, I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread on the by-election.  A solid result for UKIP would be third.  But it would not surprise anyone if they finished one place higher, ahead of the Tories.  They don’t have to win to provide at least a partial answer to the question, “What does it take ...”  But they do have to get close.  That, though, would require both a collapse in the Labour vote (currently running nationally at 43%, while UKIP is at a record 11%) and a major shift of Tory, Libdem and Labour votes to the challenger.

Leicester is the tenth largest city in England, and the first, it is said, in which the English natives have been tipped over into minority status (though that is not officially confirmed).  It is also the burial place of “the last English king”, and of the arising of the first English Community Group.

The group was formed last year with the help and guidance of the English charity, The Steadfast Trust.  Its first significant project has been a poll of local opinion in areas like Braunstone where there is a high proportion of English people resident.  Some 5,000 questionnaires were sent out, and 112 were returned completed.  That’s a 2.24% response rate.  Now, that’s not a high rate, and probably doesn’t exceed the average vote in the city (these days) for the BNP.  But if one doesn’t pay too much heed to the number, there is some pretty startling stuff here.

The question, of course, is how far from representativeness the results are for the English of Leicester.  A YouGov study conducted in 2006 showed that 55% of respondees agreed with BNP policies when the name of the party was not attached to them, falling to 49% when it was.  So I wouldn’t write it off merely as an exercise in assorting the BNP supporters from the good folk of Leicester.

Here, anyway, are the survey results.

READ MORE...

... discussed at the British Democracy Forum in a post titled somewhat more speculatively than it would seem, “Message to Nick Griffin’s Special Branch handlers”.

Bear in mind the that German government court papers of a year or two back indicated that out of 200 leading NPD functionaries, 30 were working as undercover agents.

The interesting part of the conversation begins with a response to another BDF member who had observed that, “There is a great willingness - indeed, an enthusiasm - to believe that Griffin is “state” or an “agent”. To do so allows one to exculpate the mind. It is a nonsense. Griffin is nothing more nor less than a failed would-be businessman with a penchant for dubious practice, like most pyramid salesmen.”

Mike: Fair point for general membership but others knew well what was going on and blanked it from their minds for convenience. The ords look at the tops and say well they are still there so the rumours must be false. The tops are guilty parties.

It’s the same with state plants. They can scream to high heaven ‘I’m a plant’ and people blank it as something which only happens in books - like bank runs. There is one at the moment outside the BNP who screams it. As someone said to me of followers ‘They’ve been told and it goes over their heads’. Now you can never be 100% sure so the correct thing is to be wary of what they are up to and where it might lead not ignore it.

View the operations of Mark Kennedy elsewhere. Appears from nowhere and very helpful plus provides facilities. People like that you keep an eye on. If they are plants they’ll let it slip somehow. It’s only human. Look out for sabotage or luring you into situations which can be used against you but not necessarily involving anything illegal. And keep in mind that the state is obsessed with building databases of ‘enemies of society’. MI5 had files on FOUR MILLION people some years ago. Even they admitted this was a little excessive. A lot of these plants are name and address collectors. Anyone opposing state policy - even writing to a newspaper - is an ‘enemy of society’.

I think these guys must be soft minded. They’ll be dumped as soon as not useful. It’s not worth it.

Mill: The problem is that such a large proportion of prominent nationalists have been labelled “State Plants” at some time or other, that it becomes difficult to separate the fiction from the reality.

READ MORE...

I had a brief online exchange today with Paul Weston, leader of British Freedom, the post-LJB party of cultural nationalism.  Paul frequently comments at the DT, cutting a capable and clued-up figure.  Today, he arrived on the thread to an Ed West piece on the maverick George Galloway’s rather remarkable by-election victory in the hitherto safe Labour seat of Bradford West.

There have been opinion pieces galore on Galloway’s triumph.  Most, like West’s, have talked about the implications it may hold for a new politics of identity.  Galloway, of course, appeals to the Moslem electorate.  An ethnic sundering of voting habits may be in train, and that would spell destruction for the big three parties and a huge opportunity for the minnows.  Paul Weston, as the new leader of a very new minnow, certainly understands that, and took the opportunity to expand upon it on the thread.  My replies follow suite.  I may have been a little hard on him.  But I just don’t believe in this necessity to disavow our true purpose.

READ MORE...

It’s really one question that hangs over political nationalism, though it has many forms.  How do we make politics amid all this hostility?  How do we get this movement moving?  How do we make our people wake up?  How do we get them to turn away from near concerns and act at last in their own ethnic interest?  Is it better to be accommodationist, civicist, expedient and dishonest?  Or principled?  Isn’t “principle” the problem?

And so forth.

For weeks the BNPIdeas website, which is centred on Andrew Brons, has been filled with inventive ways to ask this question.  Inevitable I suppose, given last October’s failure to launch a new party and the non-appearance of the “parallel party structure” that was promised in its stead.  It is apparent now that action of any profitable kind is beyond the power of nationalism in Britain.  Fear of moving forward, disdain at staying put, the impossibility of going back, spill out all over the page, and over it all hangs the big red sign declaring triumphantly, “You lost!”

Which is all too possible as things stand.  No surprise then, to see yet another agonised article, this time penned by a William Shakespeare (of no evident poetic leaning), deploring the division in nationalist ranks, and proposing “the way forward” thus:

I also appeal TO YOU – YOU who are reading this article – because, like any proposal, it requires a display of support and the posting here of as many messages of general support and agreement as possible.

The plan I put to you is this. In order to advance the prospect of Nationalist Unity, without which nothing on a national political front can ever be accomplished, I propose that a simple petition, or plebiscite to use an old term, of ALL Nationalists and supporters of Nationalism is undertaken.

Every individual would submit their name and some address detail to distinguish them (if not a home address, an email perhaps) and – this is the really important bit – each person would include a brief summary of what THEY consider to be the most vital pieces of policy and constitutional requirements that a single, united, nationwide major Nationalist Party ought to have.

That is the ineluctable product of an absence of leadership and clear principle.  But, then, nationalism in Britain has ever been a cut flower ideologically, and no leader could compensate for that, as I tried to explain in a comment to the bard’s article:

READ MORE...