If there is good news to be had from last night it is the fact that the British National Party's share of the vote increased more than any other party other than the Conservatives. However, despite all the work it was nowhere near enough. With 615 of the 650 seats counted, it is clear that the BNP will not be sending any MP's to Parliament after this election.It may be true that, as Nick Griffin puts it, the BNP is no longer a large small party, it is a small large party, however, it is difficult to put a positive spin on yesterday's results, we are moving in the right direction, but we have a long way to climb, and time is short.
The unfairness of our system is exposed by the fact that the BNP have won more than twice as many votes as the Greens, yet it is they, not us, who have their first member of Parliament.
Beyond the fortunes of the BNP what is most striking about this election is how the Conservatives seem to have failed to achieve a majority, despite the almost total non-appearance of the anticipated boost to Liberal Democrat support, it is quite possible that Clegg's crew could end up with less seats than they went in with.
I wonder how many Tories will be secretly contemplating the manner in which they have complacently stood by over the last 13 years and allowed the Labour party to import an socialist friendly third world electorate and indulge in outrageous levels of social engineering both of which may prevent any party other than Labour from ever achieving anything approaching a landslide majority again.
Labour almost certainly avoided the humiliation of coming third, as they surely should have done after their disastrous period in government, on the strength of the immigrant vote. As that demographic grows, a day may dawn when a future socialist party with be kept in office purely by the will of non-white voters.
Readers from other countries, such as the USA, may wish to consider how similar pr-immigration policies followed by their own governments may have a similar impact on the future of democracy in your own country.
It also remains to be seen (if it is ever exposed) to what extent electoral fraud effected the outcome, it was certainly a huge problem in parts of London and Birmingham, together with Barking, where BNP leader Nick Griffin sadly failed to dislodge multi-millionairess Marxist Margaret Hodge.
It was also disturbing to hear of irregularities at various counts, such as the fact that voters in an area with high proportions of immigrant voters, such as Lewisham, were allowed extra time to vote, whereas queues of voters in other (whiter) areas were turned away.
To be fair, the BNP did not always help themselves, for instance, allowing a dispute with the hyper-sensitive webmaster of their website, the most popular political website in the country, to boil over on the day before the election, resulting in it being taken down and replaced with a list of sensational, and somewhat dyspeptic allegations, on the night before the poll did not help. Neither did widely circulated film of a senior BNP candidate exchanging blows with a group of Asian youths, no matter how much he was provoked (which I fully accept he was).
As for the event in the weeks before the election when a well known writer of fiction for the Times was violently ejected from a meeting in front of a malevolent, camera lens flashing ,media, I can not start to tell you how damaging that was, or how angry it made many of those who had been working so hard for a BNP victory. I did not allude to it at the time, as I was incapable of doing so in a temperate manner.
However, even without those events the BNP was seriously hampered my a controlled and maliciously dishonest media who spent the entire campaign inventing blatant lies about the BNP and misreporting the truth. In the face of a criminal dishonest media onslaught, to have increased its vote was a significant achievement for the party.
However, as I said at the beginning, it was not enough, and this was not the result any of us hoped to wake up to.
17 comments:
Sorry to hear that and as I have said, I am not clued up on UK politics, but in your opinion, what are the implications of the results?
'Good' morning Sarah. I agree with you that it's been a disappointing night. Although I've not managed to trawl through all of the stats yet (I needed at least some sleep and it's going to take a few days to collate and analyse this information properly), it's becoming clear that in most constituencies where it stood in 2005 the BNP vote, both in terms of share and absolute terms, has decreased. Overall of course, the national aggregate figure has risen owing to the party standing in so many other seats, but we should have expected more than this.
Given that we're in the depths of a recession that's only going to get much worse, and immigration is the second most important issue for voters, the time should have been ripe for the BNP to make a proper breakthrough and seize an absolute minimum of 5% of the vote nationally with at least one or two MPs. On current projections, it looks set to take just under 2%.
Of course, the relentless barrage of negative propaganda about the party from the mass media, political opponents and third-party organisations may not have had an impact upon the allegiances of staunch party members and supporters, but we would be foolish to think that the general public's perception of the BNP has not been very negatively affected by this. A number of genuine internal issues in recent months haven’t helped either. If the BNP wishes to be taken seriously as a party fit for government, party members need to behave impeccably. The peculiar affair surrounding Mark Collett; the violent physical ejection of a Times journalist from a party meeting that you mention; the loss of a number of prominent figures such as Alby Walker who then went on to attack the BNP, and the failure to adequately distance the party from the genuine Nazi elements of its past all led to genuine public mistrust. The party therefore needs to deal honestly with these issues and their causes before it can genuinely move ahead. This will constitute the necessary first step in countering opposition and winning support. Party members must at all times be civil and polite and stress that they stand for moderate nationalism against globalism.
The debate about how to neutralise this opposition and alter public perceptions (i.e. alert them to what the BNP actually stands for, rather than what it is said to be) must begin now, for as we are heading into a period with a hung parliament, and either a coalition or a minority Conservative administration, who knows when the next election will take place. Further massive economic shocks will soon hit us. We must be prepared for next time, and we cannot afford not to make a breakthrough next time and get members elected.
One possible outcome is that the LibDems will push for proportional representation. That will, of course, help the BNP.
If this election had been fought on a basis of proportional representation, as it would have been in most European countries, we would have MP's this morning.
The bad news is that none of the parties will do anything about immigration.
Sarah
Yes you are right there, proportional representation would have delivered you a few M.Ps what is also forgoten is that there is usually a cut off percentage which means depending upon the country if you do not get over a certain % of the vote, no M.P.s. What proportional representation does eradicate is tactical voting. The more votes your Party gets the more M.P.s which means that you don't vote to try and keep out the party you dislike most. An interesting point is the disparity of some of the swings, it would be interesting to know what percentage of the vote in those constituencies was from postal votes, which as you well know can be fiddled. If a correlation could be found between high postal vote percentages in constituencies with a low swing against labour then there might be a good case of election fraud. I wont hold my breath. The elections are in full swing here in Holland and the opinion polls are showing a fall in support for Geert Wilders by that I mean the official polls although unofficial ones on the internet tell a different story we will just have to wait and see.
I am sorry but this was been predictable for a long time and comes down to lack of tactical ability.
There is a theme to the negative publicity and to be fair this should have been dealt with by now but they seem to just put up with it.
When you have people who have had to abandon their communities and join he "White Flight" but will still not vote BNP because thy think they are Nazis, something is seriously wrong and needs correcting. The first step of this is to examine weaknesses in the party not look to blame other forces.
At some point British nationalism will have to turn its back on the political process as unwinable. It will have to also turn its back on the majority of the British people who are fundamentally uninterested in our message for whatever reason.
The future lies in attempting to build 'facts on the ground' - our own communities, small but ideologically united where we can try to live outside the British-EU state as far as it will permit.
At the moment I see no glimmer of even the beginnings of such a movement and time is running out even for this modest aim. Frankly I am tired of giving good money to the BNP for it to waste on playing the political game when all the cards are stacked against us.
Sad news, Sarah. We were all hoping for much better results than this.
Sarah , given that the Greens got half the votes of the BNP but got a seat in parliament, what is the answer?
The answer is Proportional Representation, which is the system which they have in most of Europe.
It has been calculated that with PR we would have got 12 MPs because it is a much fairer system
How can it be fair that a party which got 42,000 votes won a seat, while the BNP got 13 times that and failed to get a seat.
It was unfair to the Liberal as well, they got 27% of the vote and only won 57 seats, whereas Labour only got 2% more and they got 258 seats.
The BNP needs 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. Who could possibly object to a moderate agenda? We need to stress the following key messages: the BNP is a party of peace and wants an end to unnecessary wars; the BNP is a party of neutrality that seeks to maintain good relations with neighbouring countries; the BNP seeks to preserve the best of British heritage and culture, whilst developing a dynamic hi-tech science focused manufacturing economy; the BNP believes in upholding individual liberties and the right to free speech; the BNP believes that the British people, like all peoples, are sovereign and possess the right to self-determination; the BNP seeks to enhance the quality of life of the British people through focusing upon per capita rather than aggregate economic measures; the BNP recognises that sustainable development requires a sustainable demographic policy.
The above are just a few suggestions, but as you can see, you don’t need to lapse into the language of ‘race’ or even overtly mention ‘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. Multiculturalism, Islamisation and the colonisation of our country can all be effectively blocked and reversed adhering to the aforementioned principles and can be communicated as genuinely ‘progressive’ for our people and our voters. The New Left has successfully undermined longstanding cultural norms and nullified rational thought through its perversion of language. We can defeat it through using language to gradually move public perceptions towards our position. However, we have an advantage, for our position does not rest upon a fabric of lies. Our language must rest upon truth. When debating with opponents, either verbally or in writing, we should concentrate upon the facts and not make ad hominem attacks. When they use ad hominem attacks against us we must calmly highlight what they are doing, and ask them to address the ‘facts’ of the issue under discussion.
There is plenty of corroborating evidence from politically neutral organisations such as Migration Watch, the Optimum Population Trust and Civitas that we can use to back up our policies on immigration, the environment, economics and education. We must always seek to make good use of non-partisan sources of information.
Forgive me for possibly seeming overly critical, but I want to see the BNP succeed, and it will not do so unless it successfully neutralises and removes accusations of neo-Nazism and concentrates on positive nationalist messages using appropriate language. If it does not do this, it will never succeed, for professional people sympathetic to the party will continue to be de facto barred from joining for the genuine reason that they will be dismissed from their jobs and ostracised by friends and colleagues alike if they do so. If my political sympathies were to be known, my employer would dismiss me instantly and I’d lose my home. The BNP has a future, but it will be one different from, and better than, its past.
Misterfox, I completely agree with your comment. The party could achieve so much if it honestly and openly distanced itself from the continuous stream of 'Nazi' allegations and concentrated on driving home the message that the BNP is a 'moderate nationalist party'. It needs to lose the shadow of the Tyndall inheritance, otherwise it'll never be able to achieve a breakthrough, even if our country were to be in such a dire position as to be on the brink of civil war.
There are many ways of presenting the nationalist message, and how this is communicated requires serious re-examination if the party wishes to be viewed as viable. The general tone of rhetoric employed hitherto might well go down well in the convivial atmosphere of a pub, but it sounds out of place in the general public arena.
I agree with a good 90-95% of the BNP manifesto, but some elements, I have to say, are just off the wall and alienate voters. Honestly ask yourself: how much appeal do policies such as liberalising gun ownership laws and opening a penal colony in South Georgia possess? Why insert these into a manifesto brimming with good ideas? It just turns people off and leaves it open to ridicule. Who wants to be thought of as a neo-Nazi gun-obsessed wacko who’s turned on by the idea of opening a sub-Antarctic labour camp? I’m not saying that that is what the typical BNP member is, but this is the sort of impression that most non-supporters possess. How many people out there want more liberal gun laws? How often have you heard someone say that this is a serious issue of concern? Perhaps it's just the circles I move in, but it’s not an issue that I’ve ever heard mentioned.
Just what was going on with that Marmite fiasco? When I saw that video, I thought it was a bad joke. Similarly, what precisely is Nick Griffin thinking when he talks about the BNP focusing more on Christianity after the election and putting crosses on party leaflets? This is not the USA. British (and I mean indigenous here) people are not overly bothered about religion (except Islam, which all true Britons rightly despise if they become acquainted with its reality), and to overtly associate the BNP with Christianity will only serve to make it seem totally out of touch and irrelevant. If it wants to succeed in Ulster or the US Bible Belt then fine, but if it purports to be a nationalist party in England and the other constituent nations of the British mainland, then it had better realise that we are no longer living in the seventeenth century. If anyone needs objective proof of this fact, just look at the abysmal performance of the Christian Party in this election.
As for ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’, calling all of the science a ‘hoax’ or a ‘scam’ might be music to the ears of oil company executives, but once again it jars with most people and certainly with the overwhelming majority of scientists. Just because ‘climate change’ is being used by our mainstream parties to justify ramping up foreign aid, domestic deindustrialisation and introducing ‘green’ taxes doesn’t mean 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, see this as a useful pretext for implementing other agendas that they already possess, such as creating transnational institutions of political and economic governance. Besides, developing new technologies which are not dependent upon oil are positive in and of themselves, for they make us less vulnerable to external economic pressures and the hostile intent of oil-rich Islamic states. Why should we fill the coffers of the Saudis and other such nations so that they can fund global jihad and Islamic proselytisation?
The real problem is not ‘climate change’, but global overpopulation, and this we must constantly reiterate 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.
I think some of you are starting to realise that the bnp are a spent force. Time and time again they give ammunition to their opponents, as alluded to in some of the previous comments. Unfortunately time is not on our side, and we can not afford to sit and wait for the break through which is always around the next corner. To make any inroads, British nationalism has to grow up and discard the childish baggage. The MSM will always bring up Griffin's anti-semitic quotes, his criminal record, the ridiculous Christmas video (shown on channel 4's alternative election coverage last night), Collett's nazi-boy documentary...it goes on and on and on. The bnp are a laughing stock. When Griffin says (to para-phrase) that he doesn't like watching two men kissing in the high street 'coz it's creepy, he seems to think he is speaking for the man on the street and has his finger on the pulse of the nation; in reality most of us are cringing with embarasment at his comments. Some people may well be a little uncomfortable with the thought of two grown men kissing and cuddling in full view of young children, elderly ladies and startled horses; but what sets Griffin apart from seasoned politicians is his inabilty to not say the first thing that comes in to his fuc*ing head when goaded by a tv hack, its a bit like political Touretes. Honesty is not always the best policy. He should realise that deeply felt beliefs however sincere should not be aired in public let alone live on national tv, such is the current PC mindset. Also more importantly he should remember he is just pissing off a considerable ammount of potential gay allies who can be a little right of centre (Bruce Bawer?)Sorry guys but the only hope is to disband the bnp and form a progressive right wing party along similar lines to GW's PVV. If you carry on as you are it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the MSM. What do you want to do? Carry on as you are moaning and groaning and being the victim, or form an all inclusive politiclal party to defend the West i.e. Liberal parliamentary democracy and defeat the evils of globalisation? Your call.
I think some of you are starting to realise that the bnp are a spent force. Time and time again they give ammunition to their opponents, as alluded to in some of the previous comments. Unfortunately time is not on our side, and we can not afford to sit and wait for the break through which is always around the next corner. To make any inroads, British nationalism has to grow up and discard the childish baggage. The MSM will always bring up Griffin's anti-semitic quotes, his criminal record, the ridiculous Christmas video (shown on channel 4's alternative election coverage last night), Collett's nazi-boy documentary...it goes on and on and on. The bnp are a laughing stock. When Griffin says (to para-phrase) that he doesn't like watching two men kissing in the high street 'coz it's creepy, he seems to think he is speaking for the man on the street and has his finger on the pulse of the nation; in reality most of us are cringing with embarasment at his comments. Some people may well be a little uncomfortable with the thought of two grown men kissing and cuddling in full view of young children, elderly ladies and startled horses; but what sets Griffin apart from seasoned politicians is his inabilty to not say the first thing that comes in to his fuc*ing head when goaded by a tv hack, its a bit like political Touretes. Honesty is not always the best policy. He should realise that deeply felt beliefs however sincere should not be aired in public let alone live on national tv, such is the current PC mindset. Also more importantly he should remember he is just pissing off a considerable ammount of potential gay allies who can be a little right of centre (Bruce Bawer?)Sorry guys but the only hope is to disband the bnp and form a progressive right wing party along similar lines to GW's PVV. If you carry on as you are it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the MSM. What do you want to do? Carry on as you are moaning and groaning and being the victim, or form an all inclusive politiclal party to defend the West i.e. Liberal parliamentary democracy and defeat the evils of globalisation? Your call.
Kevin W
USA
I am disappointed but not totally surprised - seems a corrupt voting system , rigged from the top and I read of numerous allegations of voting fraud. Here in the U.S., once you're in the queue by the allotted time, they generally let everyone vote no matter how late the time -everyone has a chance. Not to say that our entire Presidential voting system may be rigged as well [ I suspect ] but the Congressional elections seem mostly fair. Could be wrong - have no proof.
I posted on Green Arrow I would tithe some money every month to the BNP if they won any seats but now I guess I have to re-think it.
@Durotrigan - I saw a video from Britain where it was reported an estimated 10,000 people marched to get their gun rights back. Evidently SOME people do want more liberal gun laws!
At this rate you may need them in the future ...
@Sarah You are so right - I personally
DO reflect a lot on the issue of voting
by people whom are not necessarily pro-American.Actually it frightens me to some degree.
Even though I organized a Tea Party here in 2009, the turnout was disappointing as an activist [ only 500 or so turnout ] and I now believe we should forget trying so hard to influence either WhiteHall or Washington, and try our best to get OUR people in key local positions. Not give up nationally, but re-focus closer to home. It's one thing to raise a sign against an abstract power, and quite another to project your influence in your own community. It's quite a bit more face to face.....
At some point a nation simply becomes too diverse to rule without the jackboot of the law on everyone's throat. We can begin to see this already in the U.S. And most people just don't want ANY trouble in their lives, either real or perceived. So much easier to swill the popular propaganda and shake one's head.
I agree with the AgainstTheLaw poster about our own communities but I do not believe the E.U. will let you alone....
nor will the State lack for busybodies here...
I don't have a lot of answers either, I appreciate you letting me post here, there are a lot of intelligent people on this blog,maybe I can get an idea or share one.
I am pretty well disgusted by the election results,but am rooting for the BNP; hey if the USA falls apart I need a place to flee to that isn't down the tubes. :)
Do you suppose I can get some sort of exemption for all my guns when I come?!
We must try to smile now and just keep fighting. It's only our children's future at stake, we must sacrifice now
and at least we can say we did our best for God & country.And that's all we can do - we cannot shake our fellow countryman tho we might like to...
Thanks all,
Kevin
We need to take the iniative and make the running not follow the Establishment as the main site does by just reacting to newstories. I have written consistantly for ears that we do not need new ideologies called based on race because we have all that in our own tradition of Conserving our homogeneity going back to Queen Elizabeth.I.
Churchill was an enthusiastic eugenicist, and was a sponsoring vice president — as were the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Bishop of Ripon — of the first International Eugenics Conference, which took place in London in 1912. Arthur Balfour delivered the opening address with Leonard Darwin — Charles Darwin’s son — presiding.
This is dreaming. The Establishment will use a system of PR to keep the BNP out not get them in. We are in a war of tactics not fair play and decency.
Hey Durotrigan you are a very perceptive writer and your analysis is correct. There were weird things in the BNP manifesto which the media pick out quickly. The South Georgia penal colony was nuts; it reminded me of the plan for every family to have their own gun which was in the 2005 manifesto. The marmite, Simon Bennett saga well that was bizarre. Sometimes I think the BNP leadership is actually a state run honeytrap with the absurdities it does.
The BNP needs to appeal to the middle class professionals; it needs some rebranding, a decent web site and good community activity.It should have got 5% of the vote this time .
Post a Comment