The UK Election explained to US readers

The following article By Director of the Libertarian Alliance Sean Gabb and published at the highly recommended VDARE.com was written last weekend before the formation of the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government (otherwise known as the Con-dem s- or condoms if you prefer) however, it gives an excellent explanation of that strange beast which is British democracy which may help our overseas friends understand how we go to where we are.

_____________________

Everyone Loses In Britain’s Election. Could be A Good Thing.

By Sean Gabb

I have been asked to write for VDARE.COM’s mostly American readership about the British general election of May 6 2010. In trying to do this, I am at a double disadvantage. First, most Americans naturally know little about Britain. Second, this is a drama unfolding by the hour. Whatever I write now (Sunday evening, May 9) will be out of date shortly.

I will arrange my comments under three headings: How the System Works in General: How the System Worked on This Occasion; What the Meaning of All This Might be for Liberty and Tradition.

1. How the System Works in General

The House of Commons is the central body of British government. It is made up of 650 Members, including the Speaker. Each Member of Parliament [MP] represents one geographical district of roughly equal population, called a "constituency". He is elected by the "first past the post system", which means that the winner of the seat needs to gain a majority of one over any other candidate. In other words, it is elected on the same basis as the U.S. House of Representatives—which, however, shares power with the U.S. Senate and the President.

Theoretically, this election process can lead to overall outcomes in which one of the main parties gains a majority of the total votes cast, but another wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons. This happens rarely in Britain. But over the last half-century or so, the British political party system has fragmented to a much greater degree than has happened in the U.S. (yet). As a result, it has become common for a party to get a small majority in overall votes cast, but a large Commons majority. Thus in the last general election, Labour won 356 seats and a substantial Commons majority with 36.9 per cent of the vote—which, on a turnout of 61.3 per cent, meant that it won with just over 22 per cent of the total possible vote.

A further consequence of this system: small parties are effectively blocked from the House of Commons. For example, in the 2010 general election, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) got around a million votes and the British National Party (BNP) got over half a million votes. (Both are fiercely opposed to immigration). But these were votes picked up across the country as a whole. Because neither party won a majority of the vote in one specific constituency, neither party has any seats in the House of Commons.

Indeed, even the smallest of the three main parties is at a disadvantage. In the 2010 general election, the Liberal Democrats won 23 per cent of the votes cast and got 57 seats, while Labour won 29 per cent, and got 258 seats.

There are about a dozen nationalists from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—referred to in Britain as the "Celtic" fringe. Otherwise, every seat is held by the three main parties—Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat.

For all they squabble over secondary issues, these are what may be called parties of the Regime—they are committed to the present order of things.

Whatever the democratic legitimacy of the outcome, the party that wins an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons is allowed to form the Government. That is, the leader of the largest party becomes Prime Minister, and then appoints all the other Ministers.

And whoever controls the House of Commons has absolutely unlimited power over the life, liberty and property of everyone in the United Kingdom.

Britain has no written constitution, no entrenched bill of rights, no counterbalancing institutions. Back in 1776, the British Constitution was regarded as a balance of Crown, Lords and Commons, each able to check the other. Many judges and politicians also believed that there were certain fundamental laws that the courts could uphold against combined attack by Crown, Lords and Commons. This was the template for the American Constitution.

Since then, however, the Lords have lost their blocking veto. The Crown—especially during the reign of "Elizabeth the Useless" (1952-)—has given up all attempt to preserve the Constitution from attack. The courts have accepted the doctrine of the absolute legislative supremacy of Parliament—which means of whoever controls the House of Commons.

In theory, an Act of Parliament—even passed by a majority of one in a Commons where the governing party received perhaps ten per cent of the total possible vote—could order the execution of every man in the country with red hair. It could make it an offence to whistle in the streets of Paris. It could repeal the Government of India Act 1947, and try sending out a new Viceroy to govern India. It could declare that three plus five equals nine. Regardless of its morality or physical means of enforcement, such an Act would be regarded by the courts as absolutely binding within the United Kingdom.

For a long time, this peculiar doctrine was allowed to do little harm. The House of Commons was dominated by members of the old ruling class, and these made sure to govern as if constrained by an entrenched constitution. By a process of gradual change during the 20^th century, however, the old ruling class was displaced first in its personnel and then in its values.

This was a gradual process, and no single year can easily be chosen to mark the transition. Whatever year is chosen, despotic laws can be adduced from before, and successful insistences on the old norms can be adduced from after. But perhaps the two most important dates were the election years of 1979 and 1997.

In the first of these, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government was elected at a time of crisis. It believed its agenda of economic and political change should not be limited by any constitutional norm.

In the second, Tony Blair’s Labour Government was elected. It used the precedents set by the Thatcher and Major Governments to carry out a Politically Correct coup d’état.

Since 1997, Britain has been turned from a reasonably free country into a police state. I have a good legal background. Even so, I no longer know what the laws are or how they are enforced. Indeed, it probably no longer matters what the laws say, as the police and administration often make them up as they go along.

Around 5,000 new criminal offences have been created. In the name of "equality" and "anti-racism", government power has been imposed into every area of private life. Call someone a "bloody immigrant", and go to prison. Refuse to accommodate homosexuals in your hotel, and go to prison. Refuse to employ an atheist in your religious school, and be shut down. Smoke in your own business premises, or allow others to smoke, and go to prison. Photograph a police officer while he is breaking the law, and go to prison. Upset a police officer, and be arrested, and have your DNA taken and stored on a database that is shared with several dozen foreign governments. Keep a firearm in your home for self-defence, and go to prison for five years.

Since 1997, habeas corpus has been abolished. We have serious criminal trials without juries. [First trial without jury approved, BBC News, June 18, 2009] The rule against double jeopardy has been abolished. Hearsay and similar fact evidence can be introduced. The police and 20,000 civil servants have the right to conduct warrantless searches of our homes. The police can authorise each other to break into homes to plant listening devices. Despite solid opposition, Labour is about to force to carry biometric identity cards that will give the authorities the ability to spy on—and therefore to control—every aspect of our private lives.

Nobody knows how many Third World immigrants have been encouraged to settle in the country. The official population of the United Kingdom is about 60 million. Based on sales of basic foodstuffs, the supermarkets believe the true population to be closer to 80 million. . [City Eye: Facts on a plate: our population is at least 77 million, By Martin Baker, October 28, 2007]It is impossible to say, as the true figures are either not collected or are hidden.

We know that the great majority of immigrants who have been granted citizenship vote for the Labour Party. There is also much anecdotal evidence—though this is not mentioned in the Main Stream Media—that illegal immigrants and "asylum seekers" are being registered to vote so that they can increase the Labour share of the vote.

Our registration laws date back to a time when nearly everyone in the country was a citizen. Registration to vote was a formality for when someone reached the age of majority or moved house. The law is based on trust—and this trust is easily abused by a little perjury that is then connived at by the pro-Labour administrators who control most of local government.

As a libertarian patriot, I take a less pessimistic view of immigration than other patriots. However, what we presently have is state-sponsored mass-immigration. This has been a deliberate policy of the British ruling class to break up resistance to despotism—recently admitted by Andrew Neather, one of Tony Blair’s speechwriters. When people are sufficiently balkanised, they will suspect each other more than the authorities.

None of the Regime parties will do anything about immigration. It must be said, though, that of the three the Conservatives have dropped the strongest hints that they might.

Oh—and the country has been formally enslaved to the centralised, bureaucratic European Union, which now makes most of the laws not mentioned above. And the country’s foreign policy has become a matter of slavishly assisting in whatever act of imperialism and mass-murder the U.S. Government may see fit to begin. The Iraq and Afghan Wars serve no British interest. They have resulted in perhaps millions of deaths. They were opposed by solid majorities of British opinion. They went ahead nevertheless.

3. How the System Worked on This Occasion

How any main opposition party could fight an election campaign against our Government of unindicted traitors and war criminals, and not win an overall majority of 300, is a cause for astonishment. But that is what the Conservative party has just managed. It got 36 per cent of a 65 per cent turnout—that is, it won just over 23 per cent of the total possible vote.

The Conservatives did emerge as the largest single party in terms both of votes and seats. But of course a party needs 326 seats in the House of Commons to have an overall majority. The Conservatives got 306 seats, making them twenty short of a majority.

The cause of this astonishing failure was the leadership of David Cameron. It would be hard to think of anyone who could not have led the Conservatives to victory after thirteen years of what we have had. The problem is that Mr Cameron is just that person. He refuses to discuss Europe or immigration except in the mildest and most plainly fraudulent terms. He claims to be a fanatical environmentalist. He has accepted nearly the whole of the Labour Revolution.

His disagreements with Labour have not been entirely cosmetic. He and his party are better than Labour on many issues. But these are not issues critical to national survival.

And there is no doubt that several million people who would have voted to save their nation decided it was not worth the effort of voting for a Conservative Government led by someone who looks and tries to sound depressingly like Tony Blair.

Why bother voting for a different man to front the same policies of treason and destruction?

And so no party can be said to have won the election. Here, for the sake of completeness, are the results so far:

	Seats	Change	Vote %
Conservative	306	+97	36.1
Labour	258	-91	29.0
Liberal Democrat	57	-5	23.0

It will be seen that, while the Conservatives did not get an overall majority, the Labour Party was badly hit, and the Liberal Democrats lost seats. Nobody won in the usual sense. So far as this is possible within a zero-sum game, they all lost.

Continue reading here

______________

Hat Tip: Alamo Guy

Deeper into the Void

As I write Gordon Brown is just leaving the Palace after handing in his resignation to the Queen, so we have the first Conservative / Liberal coalition government in 70 years.

I suspect that, at least in the short term this outcome is going to be even worse than what we have lived with in the last two decades, even worse than the last thirteen years.

I think it is going to be very grim time. The government will have to do lots of very unpleasant things and the Liberals will not go along with it, it didn't bode well that the Libs major demands were that the Tories drop symbolic policies like increasing the inheritance tax threshold and not recognising marriage in taxation. The economy is on the brink of collapse and they are fretting about the candy floss.

Not a promising start

Cooked Sausages (Undemocratic Aliance - an Update)

Amongst the flotsam left bobbing about after HMS Britain sunk into a hung parliament comes the satisfying news that Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones, the arrogant twit who markets the "Black Farmer" range of sausages, and who refused to attend the hustings in Chippenham unless the BNP candidate was banned, was another of Cameron's special 'A' list of Politically Correct Tory candidates who failed in his attempt to be elected.

Cooked sausages

As reported here in April, Emmanuel-Jones and his Labour compatriot, the handsome, but deeply stupid Greg Lovell, who saw the already tiny Labour vote fall by almost 10%, and also refused to debate with the BNP, were soundly defeated by the Liberal Democrat candidate Duncan Hames. Mr Hames you may recall was the only member of the three main parties who had a sufficient respect for democracy and free speech to share a platform and debate with Michael Simkin from the BNP.

Duncan Hames

Mr Hames took over 43% of the vote and became one of the 57 Liberal Democrats who managed to make it through the deeply unfair voting system into Parliament. Despite his silly politics, I am sure we all wish him well. (He's a Liberal prat, but at least he believes in democracy)

Meanwhile, in addition to the pleasure of seeing the party's vote triple since 2005, BNP supporters can take satisfaction from seeing two arrogant sausages cooked.

The Morning After

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.

A Polling Ditty

Over the last few days, as I make my way to or from work, or wonder around Sainsbury’s pushing my trolley, I have been singing a little song to myself. It is a simple little ditty, sung to the tune of the old Cockney pub song “Knees up Mother Brown”.

Usually I just sing the first verse which goes as follows:

I’m voting BNP
I’m voting BNP
I don’t give a toss what you think
I’m voting BNP

The second verse enables me to improvise, usually by singing something unkind but apt about the other parties and their leaders. Examples being:

Clegg’s a little teaser
With Tofu in his freezer
I’m voting BNP

Or

Brown’s a total bigot
I’m telling him to fr### it
And voting BNP

I am sure you can all make one up about Cameron given that there are so many rhyming options which go with twit.

I plan to sing as I vote tomorrow, as I truly believe we have every reason for optimism, and that tomorrow will see a significant breakthrough and set us on course to take back our country. Most of the work has now been done, what remains is to go and put a bold ‘X’ in a box and make sure that anyone you know who is considering voting BNP damn well does so.

Do not fall for the media tricks, the election may or may not be on a knife edge, but whatever you do, do not vote tactically. Those encouraging you to do so are only trying to get you to vote for the lesser of three evils. Do you really think a hung parliament run by Baroness Wasi's buddy Cameron would be better than one run by Bigot Brown?

It doesn’t matter if you are in a target seat or not, if there is a BNP candidate standing in your seat, vote for them. This is a psychological game as much as it is anything else, and the size of the BNP vote is as important as the number of seats won.

It is the size of the vote the media and the Lib/lab/Con politicians will be looking at. The fact that we ended up with two MEPs in the Euro elections worried them, that almost a million people voted for us terrified them.

That was a European election, if we can do the same at a general election (and we will) and if we can do even better then we will really scare them. Their fear is our power, and it will make people sit up and notice us.

The time has come my friends, go out and do your duty, we have a country to take back.

_______________________________

Update: Those in constituencies with no BNP candidate should vote in whatever way is required to punish Labour, for Labour must be punished.

What even Mr Paxman might understand

It seems that despite adjudicating over University challenge in his spare time, Newsnight anchor Jeremy Paxman (pictured above) struggles for a definition of an indigenous or native Briton, or so the disingenuous and obscenely over compensated old poser tried to pretend in his unsuccessful attempts to discomfort Nick Griffin during his interview with him this evening.

Well, in that case, lets give him a fact which will not challenge his Panten Super Hold spray addled brain and one which will not even require him to grasp a definition of either native or indigenous which would be quite clear to 99% of the population. Indeed it will not even be necessarily for him to pontificate superciliously about a tiny group of French Huguenots or an even smaller group of Lithuanian Jews, but which might just give him an inkling of the size of problem we are facing.

It is an indisputable fact that, if current immigration and immigrant birth rate numbers continue, within less than 50 years, the descendants of those British born people who celebrated VE day in 1945 will be in the minority within the British Isles.

Is that clear enough, even for you Mr. Paxman?

An undemocratic aliance

The man striking what I assume he imagines is a suitably arrogant pose for a British land-owner is Jamaican born farmer and businessman Wilfred Emanuel-Jones, otherwise known as the black farmer behind the "Black Farmer" range of food products. Despite the immigrant invasion of Britain, black farmers remain very rare in this country (as they once were in America until the government decided to compensate black farmers for the "racist" reluctance of banks to lend them money, at which point their numbers increased by many thousands) and Mr. Emanuel-Jones gained some celebrity status, together with his own Channel 4 TV series, which saw him taking a group of inner city school leavers from ethnic minorities to work on a scholarship program on his Devon farm.

It would of course have led to a Channel 4 exposé, and probable police action, had a white farmer offered a scholarship program exclusively to native whites. However, that is the way "equality" works in these Orwellian islands.

Emanuel-Jones is also one of the ethnic minority candidates, which Tory leader David Cameron is so excited to be fielding in this year's general election and is standing as the Conservative candidate for rural Chippenham in Witshire.

However, it seems that both Emmanuel-Jones and his Labour counterpart Greg Lovell have some difficulty understanding the concept of democracy and demanded that the BNP candidate
for Chippenam Michael Simpkins be excluded from any hustings event they attend.

Sadly, those organising the Hustings event at Corsham on Friday, Corsham Community Area Network (CCAN), appeared to share the Emmanuel-Jones / Lovell Soviet style approach to democracy, and banned the BNP from attending the first half of the event, when the other candidates would be speaking. The BNP were invited to attend the second half, at which stage, those not wishing to share the stage could leave.

Naturally at half time Emmanuel-Jones and Lovell departed like a pair of ugly sisters rustling their crinoline and waving their fans in disgust at being in the presence of the lower orders.

To his credit the Liberal Democrat candidate Duncan Hames did not join in with the Tory and Labour histrionics and demonstrated respect for democracy by remaining on stage. Let us hope, that, if the BNP do not win Chippenham themselves (it is a rural seat and not one of the party's main targets) Mr. Hames is one Liberal Democrat who does benefit from the Cleggmania currently stirring up the British electorate.

Meanwhile with luck Emmanuel-Jones can return quietly to making sausages I will never buy, and Lovell can return to running his ethical "free trade" shop, just so long as neither of them get anywhere near a democratic process which they clearly find difficult to understand.

A statement of truth

There is one statement in the BNP's 2010 election manifesto which the party and every one of its supporters must ensure is made known to the wider public at every possible opportunity. It is a statement which I urge the BNP to find space for in their forthcoming election broadcast and repeat every time they are given airtime on any major TV or radio outlet, particularly when they are being broadcast live, so that it can not be easily edited out, as the controlled media will certainly seek to do.

They must repeat it on door steps and shout it out at hustings, for it is a truth which must be spoken.

That statement is:

At current immigration and birth rates, indigenous British people are set to become a minority well within 50 years. This will result in the extinction of the British people, culture, heritage and identity.

It is a statement of truth which the wider public must be made to confront. It is also a truth which the establishment does not want to be told.

Do not forget how Nick Griffin was immediately attacked and silenced by the other panellists when he attempted to reveal the truth on Question time, and, in any event, it would certainly have been edited out of the broadcast version of the show had he managed to say it.

They don't want it said because they have no answer to it, they can not deny it, and even they can recognise the truth it describes for the act of evil which it is. That is why they refuse to acknowledge it, they know that, to succeed, their victims must remain ignorant of their fate until it is too late for them to save themselves from it.

However, the white majority must be made aware that they and their children will become a minority in their native land by the middle of this century and what that will mean to them and to their children.

We, who gather here, tend to think they must all know what is happening because we know it so well, but, in fact, they do not know. It is a truth never spoken when they gather, it is not mentioned on the TV shows they watch, the websites they visit or in the newspapers they read, so why would they know?

Some may suspect it, but whilst it remains a secret they need not acknowledge it, as to do so might seem racist, and also very scary.

However, they must be made to acknowledge it, for otherwise it will destroy them.

Sadly some may think it fine, as democrats we must accept there are those who will cheerfully welcome the day upon which their race is disinherited in their homeland, that is their choice, but it a choice which they must be allowed to make for themselves, not one which is imposed upon them.

Until now none of us have been given the choice.

Our leaders have, for their own political ends, taken up down a path which must inevitably lead to the the day when our people will become a minority in the islands where our forefathers have lived, and which they have defended with their lives for millennia, yet they have never given us the chance to say “No” (or indeed, for that matter even to say “Yes”)

It is not scaremongering to acknowledge the inevitable outcome of what is being done, it is certainly not racist, it is a mere statement of truth, a truth the public must be told.

What is being done to us if of far greater significance than our membership of the EU, or who rules us for the next five years, for when this comes to pass, at a date which is ever more rapidly rushing towards us, it will be forever and there will be no going back.

The unavoidable result of our leaders treachery, embodied within that truth, has never before been acknowledged, and we have never before been allowed to vote on it.

This time we have a vote but the people must be made to know what they are voting for and what will happen if they don't.

UAF - a threat to Democracy

Ignored by the controlled media, across the country the violent thugs of the fascist UAF are attempting to smash democracy by attacking election meetings attended by BNP members, already hustings have been threatened or invaded in Essex and in Blackpool and now we hear of further meeting in Harborough has been cancelled following threats of violence.

The media must appreciate that these are the tactics of a totalitarian state. The UAF, who call themselves "Unite against Fascism" in rather the same manner in which a group of rabbits might say "Bunnies against cottontails", are supported by the three main political parties, which effectively makes this state sponsored political violence. Yet they remain silent and refuse to report what is going one.

Is there no journalist left in this country with a remaining iota of honour and decency to truthfully report the news, if only in memory of a democracy which millions of our grandfathers' generation died for?

Billy's New Number

Tonight's news tells us that the very old and largely forgotten one time punk rocker and far let agitator Billy Bragg is heading towards his long abandoned birthplace in Essex, together with various theatre lovies and assorted anarchists, all intent on convincing the local population of Barking not to vote BNP by the means of performance art and ethnic nose flute recitals.

However, news has just reached me that the crumbly old poser is secretly planning to release a new single in the hope of having a hit in the current century.

A draft of the lyrics were found scribbled on the back of a napkin from London's Mezzo Restaurant (the place to be in 1992) and left in a gents lavatory in Dagenham together with a carton of Lapsang souchong, a heavily thumbed copy of Das Kapital and an expired but unopened packet of condoms.

In the merciful absence of Mr. Bragg to perform himself, you will need to improvise and imagine the following sung by a very aged and rather scuzzy vintage 1978 punk rocker suffering from stomach acid and raging haemorrhoids:

I'm Billy Bragg

I'm Billy Bragg, I'm one of you, don't you all own a mansion?
I'm Billy Bragg I'm one of you 'cept I won't need a a pension
At election time I'm round you way, I'm even drinking shandy
I'm Billy Bragg, I'm one of you, even though I'm friends Wiv' Mandy.

I don't give a toss about your jobs, or who just raped your daughter
I'm Billy Bragg, a Labour Man, supporting Halal slaughter

I'm Billy Bragg I'm one of you, even though I live in Dorset
I'm Billy Bragg I'm one of you, Hey man, I only own three horses
I'm here to tell you who you should and who you shouldn't vote for,
I'm Billy Bragg, I'm one of you, .... 'ere don't touch my new motor!!

The BNP might stop our plans to create a new world order
I'm Billy Bragg, and I plan to scrap this ancient nation's border

I'm Billy Bragg, I'm one of you, despite the sums I'm earnin'
I'm Billy Bragg I'm one of you even if I think you're vermin
I may be a tired old tosser, but I still think I'm cool
I'm Billy Bragg, I'm one of you, Now bring on Sharia rule

I'm here to do Searchlight's bidding, because they are shit scared of you
I'm Billy Bragg, I'm Commie scum, and I'll do what they tell me to

I'm Billy Bragg, I'm one of you, at least that's what I like to boast
I'm Billy Bragg and if I get my way, this country's future's toast
I hate the natives of this land, I hate them wiv' a passion
I am Billy Bragg, but I'm not like you and its your hopes that I'm trashing

Don't vote BNP I say, don't vote them into power
I'm Billy Bragg, and all my hopes and dreams are swiftly going sour

I'm Billy Bragg, I'm one of you, and a has been old punk rocker
I'm Billy Bragg and if you listen to me, you're a has been too you sucker
I'm here to tell the voters what to do, but they don't give a damn
I'm Billy Bragg but no one under 50 knows who the f##k I am!

Political Values 2010

As anyone in Britain, who has not been in a coma for the last month, is aware, last night we had first ever US style "leaders debates" to be staged in this country, as part of the 2010 general election campaign. It was not exactly an inclusive affair, involving only leaders of the ruling Lib/Lab/Con troika and noticably excluding leaders of the “smaller” parties such as Nick Griffin, lord fudge of Ukipper and that woman who looks like a pomeranian who runs the Greens.

I watched the first half of it, and then began to lose the will to live, so I caught the highlights later on NewsNight, together with a general assessment of the performance of the three contenders and analysis of the viewer polls taken during the show. It is rather indicative of the depth to which our values have sunk that the guy with the yellow tie and bag of unworkable, Narnia style, policies is generally considered to have won, most likely on account of being slightly prettier than the other two.

There was however one advantage to the event, which was that we got to compare the proposed and (they imagine) BNP defeating, immigration policies of the three main parties, which, on my analysis amounted to the following:

Labour immigration policy 2010 – as presented by Gordon Brown:

“According to NuLabour's revised method of calculating immigrant numbers, which involves counting one new arrival out of every four on the basis that the other three might, die, go home or decide to give France a try at some point in the next 40 years, and then dividing by the number you first thought of, immigration into Britain is beginning to slow down. However, once the election is over we will fix that!!!”

“Meanwhile, we are planning to introduce a points based system, rather like that used in Australia, but with our own unique NuLabour twist based on the current politically approved means of incentivising students within the education system better known as “All must win prizes” albeit in this case, it would be better entitled, “All must gain points”. That way after the election the victorious New Stasi .... er ... cough .. New Labour Party will be able to carry on with our open door policy of flooding the country with foreigners almost as if there had never been a BNP threat in Barking or Stoke! and I am sure cute little Nick agrees with me on this”

Liberal Democrat immigration policy 2010 – as presented by "cute little" Nick Clegg: “

Naturally the Liberal Democrat party will not seek to curb immigration, as that might appear a tad racist. However, we will tell the new immigrants that they must move to places like Tiverton, Prestatyn and Builth Wells, where there aren't many immigrants yet, and then, being liberals, we will trust them to stay there .... er .... um ... that's it really” (Nick ends his statement with an empathetic, but still delightfully boyish, grin at the audience and a wiggle of his enchanting little bottom.)

Conservative Party immigration policy 2010 – as presented by David Cameron

“I visited a local tavern for a pint of Krug, Clos du Mesnil 1995, like any other ordinary bloke might do and I met a noble black-a-moor who told me how proud he was of Britain, his country, and how much he loved Britain, his country. 'David' he said to me 'I really love this country, and I am so proud to be a black Briton' he then went on to tell me how much benefit he and his immigrant family had brought to Britain. He explained he had started out making money from 'steaming', Which, as we all know is vital when the old top hat gets dented at Ascot, as it does. He even told me he did his steaming on tube trains, which I thought was extremely innovative, people could go straight from Ascot to Glyndebourne with a perfectly steamed topper thanks to my new immigrant friend”

“Then after a brief career in 'rap' (he didn't say what fillings) he joined the Clapton Boyz Sqd., not a part of the air force I am familiar with but I am sure they did great work in Iraq and Asfghanistan, after that [checks script] he became a paramedic where he would regularly pick up injured little white babies from the street in his strong black arms and carry them to hospital administering artificial respiration as he did so, before donating his own black blood to save all these dozens of white children........ uh, where was I? Oh yes, then this noble black man, who had contributed so much to the fabric of this country, said to me 'However, David I do think we may be letting a few too many immigrants in, especially those f######g Africans who keep stabbing us West Indians' so I said to him 'Don't worry Chalkie, when we Tories are in power we will reduce the numbers down to the equivalent of a town the size of Carlisle of Grimsby each year ..,.. Hey what did you think 'tens of thousands meant Suckers? And if we don't succeed, we'll use New Labour's calculation method, so, at least, it will seem that way whether its true or not”

There you go folks, the 2010 immigration policies we can expect from the three main parties. I guess you know which way to vote!!
_______________________

Related article: BRITAIN GATHERS ROUND FRESH PILE OF STEAMING HORSES##T

The lies of frightened men

Anyone who has not spent the last few months out of radio range either in a submarine beneath the ice caps, searching for signs of global warming, or making a wild life documentary about Amazonian termites, will have noticed that for the first time which anyone not currently drawing their pensions can remember, senior politicians have actually started to talk about immigration at a time when a general election may be less than six months away.

Conservative leader David (call me Dave) Cameron has recently announced that the Tories will introduce a cap on immigration, which would reduce the number allowed in each year to “Tens of thousands”. Tens of thousands of immigrants would of course be an improvement on the current situation, (if Cameron really meant it – which he doesn't) but only in so far that, instead of allowing in numbers equivalent to the population of Newcastle each year (I say Newcastle based on “official figures” - the population of Bristol is closer to reality) we would still be “welcoming” a new Carlisle, Wigan or Grimsby year after year after year, not to forget the anchor babies they would immediately start breeding after they arrive.

It is a mark of how out of touch politicians, such as Cameron, are that he seems to think people will believe that such tinkering would even come close to solving the problem.

In the red corner, Labour Communities Secretary John Denham attempted to reassure the public by cooing disingenuously that "We don't think population is going to go to 70 million, so there is a bit of a straw man there".

Of course, most experts agree a rise to over 70 million is inevitable unless something is done to fundamentally change current policy, however, Denham continued his fairytale by adding "We have got tight immigration control - the points-based system that is now in place means that people can only come here if what they are going to give to this country is something we need."

However, Denham then argued against Cameron's cap saying, with the dishonesty which only a trained politician can achieve with a straight face: "Suppose the first person after the cap was an international heart specialist?" suggesting that Britain should act rather like the gambler who keeps buying the same lottery numbers in the hope that now and then they might win a tenner back.

According to Denhem's logic the country should continue to take in thousands upon thousands upon millions of immigrants in the hope that one or two of them might benefit the country. Has it not occurred to the pureed brained zealot that billions of pounds would be saved, and untold levels of social damage avoided, had we trained a few home grown heart specialists instead of importing millions of people in the hope of finding a few foreign trained ones among them?

Deceiving the electorate is clearly John Denham's latest brief, as he even went so far as to make a pretence of expressing concern for the white working classes, stating that, sometimes the white working classes suffered more from discrimination than many ethnic minorities, as if this was some new phenomenon, which only he had noticed.

Given NuLabour's visceral hatred and contempt for the white working class, who's interests so often conflicts with those now much preferred groups, many observers would have assumed that Denham was either making a bad joke and had forgotten the punchline, or was suffering from some catastrophic mental breakdown, had they, that is, not realised that an election is imminent.

Attempting to sooth the electorate's concern over the third world masses engulfing our boarders with a few half hearted lies, appears to be the latest wheeze plucked from the NuLabour lexicon of spin and deception, as they seem to be all at it.

Back in November, Home Secretary Alan Johnson went so far as to admit that “Labour has made mistakes on immigration” yet, against all the evidence, Johnson then went on to claim that Labour had not operated an open door immigration policy ( Ed: lets put it this way, if they occasionally closed the door, they certainly didn't lock any windows) and went so far as to say “I do believe that the UK is now far more successful at tackling immigration than most of its European and North American neighbours".

He followed this by wittering on about “the introduction of biometric visas, ID cards for foreign nationals and dealing with new asylum applications within six months, including" (yes he actually said it) “returning failed applicants”, on the apparently deluded assumption that anyone with a quota of brain cells necessary to master their remote control would believe that any of that had the slightest effect on the tsunami of immigrants which has swamped our homeland in the last thirteen years.

This was, of course, the same Home Secretary, who only months before had refused to contemplate a cap on immigration and chortled that he did not “lie awake worrying about a population of 70 million”

His arrogance and contempt for the public steaming like a newly dropped cow pat on a winter morning, Johnson actually seemed to believe that a mere admission that the government had been “maladroit” would convince the potential electorate that any administration in which he served, or, if he gets his wish, ran, had any intention of doing any better in future.

The most recent politician to come out of his corner with the “we will do something about immigration” lie was the pugnacious and aptly named Schools Minister Ed Balls who has this week been accused of campaigning in the vulnerable constituency of Morley West Yorkshire using letters, leaflets and surveys to portray Labour as tough on immigration. a proposition so ludicrous that it would be laughable were it not for the fact that there are some out there who might actually believe such twaddle.

For decades now the main parties have had an unwritten pact not to mention immigration anywhere near an elections, it has been the one subject politicians have deliberately prevented the public from voting on. There is a reason for this, were democracy to to impinge on the project, then the project might not succeed, and, therefore, democracy must be denied.

However, this time it is different, and we all know why that is. For the first time the public might just have the chance to vote about immigration, and the politicians have begun to realise the eggs they have laid over the last 40 years may soon begin to hatch and release something very dangerous indeed, dangerous to them that is.

The new strength of the BNP could mean that the men and women who have done so much to destroy this country and her people over the last half century, and particularly in the last 13 years, might get their comeuppance, and their project might fail, they will do anything in their power to prevent that.

To prevent it they, together with their apparatchiks and ideological catamites in the controlled media, are combating the threat with a two pronged approach. Firstly they slander and vilify the BNP and anyone who supports them, and secondly they will lie and lie and lie to disguise their own true policies and position.

Be under no illusion, any claim which the shower of crooks and charlatans currently in government or in the two main opposition parties make, suggesting that they will do anything to control immigration into this country or any other western nation, is a lie which will be forgotten and denied the day after the votes are counted.

For a member of any of the main political parties to promise they will do anything about about immigration is no different than a serial rapist claiming he's gone gay and can now be trusted with your daughter, their past actions expose the dishonesty and cynicism of their lie.

Their credibility of those within the LibLabCon troika died with their honour many years ago, and these promises of action are the handkerchiefs behind which they struggle to hide their gross and unappealing nudity.

These are the same multiculturalist zealots and cynical globalists who have spent decade undermining our country and our people, these are the same ideological gangsters who have stolen our history, robbed us of our land and denied our children their heritage. They hate us now no less than they ever did, they have not changed.

They lie out of fear that they may be found our and that their malevolent plans for us may be thwarted. Do not believe them, or you may have a lifetime to regret it.