Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

The website:

http://bnpreform.com/

The video :

Richard Barnbrook has announced on his blog that he has resigned the BNP whip in the GLA because of the persistent allegations of financial impropriety at the top of the party:

... The serious nature of these allegations are such that they must be the subject of an internal independent and transparent BNP investigation to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations.

I have decided therefore that until these allegations are investigated fully by an independent panel of British National Party officers and members and are revealed as either true or false, that I cannot continue to represent the BNP in the Greater London Assembly.

I am therefore resigning the BNP whip with immediate effect and will now sit as an independent member of the London Assembly.

I am not resigning my British National Party membership.

I remain a loyal British National Party member and continue to serve the party and its members that I hold so dear to my heart.

Once this internal and independent British National Party investigation reports back its findings, and I can go back to my constituents and fellow party members and report that the allegations are not true, then I will immediately recommence representing the British National Party on the GLA.

Barnbrook’s gesture followed hard on the heels of another elected BNP councillor, Graham Partner, resigning the whip to sit as an independent on Leicestershire County Council and for North West Leicestershire District Council.  It appears that there is a continuing impetus for reform inside and outside the party.  This has to be allowed to run its course.  If it does not produce change ... if Griffin and his aids retain their grip on the party, then minds will turn to the necessity of establishing an alternative party.

The next few months are going to be critical for nationalism in this country.

The scale of the change to British politics effected by the ejection from office of the Labour Party is now unfolding.  I am not just talking about the dawn of the pragmatic centre or the imminent demise of “the database state”, or any of the policy outcomes and accommodations that so preoccupy the media, welcome though some of these are.  We are nationalists and we have a higher purpose to which we are faithful, and it is in relation to this that the historical moment has meaning for us.

What is that meaning?  Well, there are plainly two emergent factors that pose challenges to the development of nationalist politics.  The first of those is the decline of cutting-edge race politics which has been such a feature of discourse over the last thirteen years.  Is it too early to conclude that such a decline is in train?  I don’t think so.  As a dedicated follower of political fashions on the liberal-left, and a CiF junkie, I am already suffering withdrawal systems from the paucity of anti-English racism on display at the aforementioned temple of correctness.  Amid the after-shocks of rejection and executive powerlessness, I can feel an inchoate horror among the politically fashionable that fashion no longer affords them the opportunity to visit their hate on the white of skin.  They know they have to recoup and re-invent themselves to survive, and the instinct for both will, among leftists, unfailingly involve an internalisation of the kind of Pacman activity that these creatures ordinarily project upon us. They are going to devour the old, fearful egalitarian aggressivity and regurgitate it as something else.  It is too early to say what.  A solidifying of ground gained, perhaps, in preparation for an anticipated new assault.  But nothing along those lines can be accomplished now, when all the talk is inevitably of “reconnecting” and “learning from the mistakes of the past.”

The Labour Party will likely be out of power for at least eight years.  Its critics repeatedly observed that the rise of the BNP was an inevitable consequence of government policy.  A symbiotic relationship existed, and now the balance has been disturbed in a major way.  Race politics is going to have to do a lot of adjusting to the new centrist reality.  The question is, will nationalism adjust also.  Or will it continue to lazily rely on the disaffection of the traditionally Labour-voting white working-class … a disaffection which Labour will certainly now endeavour to correct?

If the uncertainties in this scenario are too numerous for us to make any firm conclusions at this early stage, uncertainty is no less a factor in and around the BNP following the disappointments of election night.  There have been the regulation happy noises about increasing vote share and saving deposits, and the usual sage advice about setbacks along the road.  But none of that can soften the impact of the setbacks in Barking and Stoke at both national and local level.  They have punctured the illusion that, under Nick Griffin, the party is on an irresistible upward swing.  The PR debacles in the run-up to the election and the rumours about the role of Jim Dowson have “last straw” written all over them.  A future no more certain than that of the party’s symbiotic twin is beckoning, with the exception that the Labour Party has an efficient mechanism for replacing its leader.

These are not the good times nationalists expected at this point in the struggle to save the English people.  The change in the political game has caught them out.  The nature of the party is being tested and if it turns out, under Griffin and Dowson, to be something other than what the members always thought it was, it will die.

So we have arrived at the end of the campaign road.  Judging from the final round of opinion polls, the Conservatives may win sufficient seats to govern with Unionist help.  If so, there will be no electoral reform to genscherise British politics and install the Liberal Democrats permanently in government - or to help the minor parties achieve a presence at Westminster.

For one minor party, the campaign began with the rebellion of the jilted Alby Walker in Stoke Central and progressed via the dark affair of Mark Collett’s arrest, concluding with a red-misting Bob Bailey doing a Prescott in Romford and the party’s website manager, Simon Bennett, resigning and briefly taking the site off-line.  His motive may be, as he himself states on the BNP section of British Democracy Forums, “several botched attempts” by “Nick’s industry experts” to steal his “legally owned designs and work”, or it may be his exposure to prosecution over the Marmite debacle.

The preponderant majority of nationalists avert their eyes from this endless train wreck.  They think instead about the cause, believe in it, work for it, fund it.  Most are huge and uncritical fans of Nick Griffin.  But the truth is that for those who aren’t, and who put their loyalty to nation and nationalism before electoral progress, convincing members and even prospective members to withhold subscriptions and donations long enough to break the power of the Griffin clique is logistically difficult to impossible.  The protesters do have a powerful case, but no power at all to influence anybody.

I will simply say what I have said before.  To stand any prospect of mounting a serious political challenge to the Establishment, the party has to be run by educated, intelligently radical, visionary and articulate people who look, sound and behave like national leaders.  The boots and fists Nazoid skinheadery of the past had to go, and so does the current fascination with low-brow PR disasters.  But movement in that direction may be impossible if, as friends and enemies of British nationalism claim, the BNP has effectively become the property of this fellow, Jim Dowson.  A lot of people would like to know what the real situation is and why this man is now so powerful in the party.

We all hope for the sake of our people that the results in Barking and Stoke Central surpass expectations, and produce BNP MPs.  We hope the party’s performance in all the other 337 constituencies where it is putting up a candidate, and in the tranche of council elections, shows beyond any doubt that history is with us, and we are going to win.  But can we, in all honesty, with a party like this?

We will get the first indications of the party’s electoral progress quite quickly, because it is putting up candidates in all the seats which traditionally declare early.  I’ll blog on this thread as results are announced.

Here’s a little bit of Conservative Party election propaganda ... lavishly done, as one would expect when they don’t have to put a penny into fighting the marginals.  But it demonstrates how little Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition can actually say in its mock arraignment of the Prime Minister.  Or how little are the things it has to say in comparison to the real political crimes taking place in our age.  So there is:

1. No charge of treason relating to the “social objectives” which animated Tony Blair, who is not a Jew, Jack Straw, Barbara Roche and Jonathan Portes to maximise race-replacement immigration in 2000 (mind you, there was no mention of these objectives in the 2001 election manifesto, which merely logged a need for immigration rules to reflect skills shortages).

2. No charge of criminal deception for the 2005 election manifesto promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution.

3. No charge of conspiracy to commit treason for taking the country into a war in Iraq on falsehoods.

4. No charge of criminal deception for Dr John Reid’s “hope” that British forces would be in and out of Helmand within three years without a shot being fired.

5. No charge of criminal deception for the Home office estimate prior to May 2004 that between 5,000 and 13,000 migrant workers would arrive per annum from the new accession countries.

6. No charge of treason for political loyalty to the money power (just a mention of “doubling the national debt”) and to organised Jewry (no mention at all, naturally).

7. No charge of being in breach of the Race Relations Act for considering the white working class “bigoted” - for confirmation of which the Conservatives can hardly have needed Gordon Brown’s gaffe in Rochdale.

And so on.

Well, it’s all part of the Inevitable.  Domestic politics conducted between three parties of neoliberalism + neo-Marxism, equally for the raising up of the international class and, therefore, equally for the dissolution of old Europe, cannot have much to say beyond the dramatisation of tax and spend.  We have reached the stage where political substance automatically implies nationalism.  I wonder, though, if the miniaturisation of people’s political lives might pressage a neo-fascist solution in the same way that Weimar + Versailles pressaged the well-known precedent.

With the Labour-pushing press dragged reluctantly behind, after a fashion, the whole of the British media are feasting on the red-hot certain defining moment of Election 2010.  By the unparticular nature of his conversation in the back of that car, the Prime Minister has let us know that not just him or even those around him but the Labour party and the wider left considers the indigenous British to be bigots.  And it is a settled decision.  Even the mildest criticism of immigration, uttered by a 66-year old lady and lifelong Labour supporter, is morally reprehensible and inadmissable, and exemplifies yet again why diversity is the only solution to racism.  There is no other way.  Apparently.

In its potential to uncover an unpalatable truth about the state of the body politic this affair, already dubbed Bigotgate, is a companion piece to the MP’s expenses scandal.  Now we know out of their own mouths that our elected representatives are established in opposition to us, their electorate, their own people, on two fronts.  Out of sheer cynicism they are exploiting us financially, and out of pure hostility they are warring against us ideologically.  They do not represent us in any way.

That is the message the BNP needs to force ever deeper into the public consciousness.  This morning the party responded to Bigotgate with the announcement of a last-minute newspaper advertising campaign in Barking and Dagenham, Leicestershire, Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester and Barnsley.  At present the focus is woolly. Griffin said:

“For Mr Brown to have then dismissed her as a bigot just because she asked him about immigration shows the utter contempt with which the Labour Party regards even their own voters,” he said.

“The poor woman did not use any epithets and simply asked why he was not doing anything about immigration. There was no justification at all to dismiss her in the derogative way he did. “Furthermore, the admission that all of Mr Brown’s interactions are stage managed explains at last why his previous public appearances are almost always with children and not adults.

“Children cannot ask the sort of pointed questions which adults can, and when Mr Brown was presented with an unscripted questioner, he immediately revealed his true agenda,” Mr Griffin said.

“Furthermore, the fact that Mr Brown used the adjective ‘old’ to describe the voter, shows that there is a clear disregard for people who have spent a lifetime voting Labour,” Mr Griffin continued. “This puts the deaths of an estimated 40,000 pensioners from fuel poverty over the past winter into perspective. Clearly these people do not matter anymore to the Labour Party.

First, Brown did not use the word “old”, and that must not find its way into the forthcoming run of advertisements.  Here is what was said on the street:

READ MORE...

Just as we saw in the run up to last May’s European Parliament elections, the media is cranking up its BNP “coverage”.  Yesterday we were treated to a nearly balanced opener from the Sunday Times.  Today we were given articles in the Telegraph here and, pathetically, here, in the Mail here and, obliquely, in the Independent here.

I suspect that the attack will take on a different, more focussed form this time.  The BNP are standing a record 326 candidates.  But that’s little more than half the constituencies throughout the country, and the constituencies where the party has a chance of doing well are limited to three or four, all with a current big Labour majority.  The two most realistic chances are Barking and Dagenham, where Richard Barnbrook “agreed” to stand aside for Nick Griffin, and Stoke Central, where Alby Walker did not agree to stand aside for Simon Darby (but had to anyway).  Emma Colgate could poll respectably in Thurrock, notwithstanding the fact that nobody is totally sure whether she is in or out of the party following the last (and let us hope it is the last) Collett affair.  Roger Roberts may do likewise in Dewsbury.

As for the rest, including the council elections on the same day, the objective has to be to show a presence, to increase support (in terms of second and third places where fourths and fifths were had previously), to save deposits, and to build, build, build.  To that end, it is a little strange that the party is campaigning on three principal issues: withdrawal from Afghanistan, a halt to the immigration invasion, and an end to the ‘Global Warming’ conspiracy.  The voting public’s first concern is for the economy and jobs.  But the BNP seems not to understand how to address that (bringing some economic literacy on-board would seem a good start).  Also high on the list of concerns is the related issue of the unaccountability of Westminster and corruption of the political class.  But, again, it is not a major issue in party thinking.

Personally, I would like to see them campaign hard for freedom of speech and association, and an end to cultural warfare in public life, most especially in education (it will have to do so anyway if it wants to attract support from the Conservative/UKIP voting middle-classes).  All told, there is an extraordinary opportunity for the party to sculpt a powerful, attractive and wholly unique ideological niche for itself, and one that the left cannot reply to with the usual smears.

As Simon Heffer noted last week of the mainstream parties:

the choice of voting for staying in Europe or staying in Europe, massive immigration or massive immigration, an enormous and unnecessary public sector or an enormous and unnecessary public sector and more mind-numbing political correctness or more mind-numbing political correctness.

Heffer is a right-wing Tory, and is appealing for a right-wing Tory platform.  But his point holds true for the BNP as well.  Does anyone feel that it is responding appropriately?

Perhaps part of the problem is that, regardless of what they do, growth in support for the party is “inevitable”.  In 2005 it achieved 0.7% of the vote, totalling 192,746 votes, a performance which was three times better than in 2001.  General elections tend to see the votes of minor parties squeezed.  But a performance that is very far adrift of the 940,000 votes in May’s Europeans, or around 3.5% of the 2005 total of 27,110,727, will be taken as a disappointment in the circumstances.

Of course, the media may have something to say about that as well.