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 Whatever I write now (Sunday evening, May 9) will be out of date shortly.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

March in London Tomorrow against Crime in South Africa

I know nothing about this, but it is being promoted through Facebook

Here is the link

Message to Americans - if you are free on June 12 - Support Arizona

"We want Americans from all states to converge on Arizona with us on the weekend of June 12 to shop in the state and show our support for local police enforcing our immigration laws, SB 1070, and the brave people in Arizona that have spoken out for the American public on immigration." - William Gheen President of ALIPAC

Full article here

Comments at this blog

Over the last few weeks I have noticed an increase in the number of aggressive and abusive comments being made in response to postings. Although I welcome a robust exchanges of views in future it will be necessary for me to censor messages which become too personally abusive of other commentators.

You can say what you like about me and my posting, but please do not abuse other commentators.

I am also unhappy with the recent increase in the amount of homophobic and anti Semitic language being used. I do not necessarily share the views expressed by some posters, but I believe in free speech and commentators are welcome to express views which differ from mine, even when they become somewhat tedious. However, the use of offensive language is a different matter and I would be grateful if commentators would make an effort to temper their language and avoid some of the more unpleasant epithets, such as those which have been appearing recently.

Please continue to comment but try to resist some of the more adolescent impulses which some of you have recently given way to.

I try to apply a light touch to comment moderation and am grateful for your cooperation

Sarah

Unaccompanied ... uh ...... juveniles?

Asylum seeking "juveniles"

The individuals in the picture above are a small number of those recently granted residency in Sweden after having claimed to have arrived in the country as unaccompanied juveniles who, because of their youth and vulnerability must by law be granted protection by the Swedish state and can not deported to their country of origin. From a brief glance at the picture it would appear that either these little moppets have had quite a tough journey or they were lucky enough to encounter an immigration officer who had not been to Specsavers.

According to the Swedish Blogger Cavatus the so-called “unaccompanied refugee children” regulations are nothing more than a ruse by the Swedish government which is covered up by an even more compliant media than our own whereby young men from Asia, Africa and the middle east, many aged up to 30 who have no legitimate grounds to claim asylum even under Sweden’s exceptionally liberal immigration rules are able to gain residency in Sweden by posing as “juveniles”. Apparently it is the easiest and quickest way of getting into Sweden and access to Swedish welfare benefits, after trying to murder a Swedish cartoonist

Of course, as soon as the hirsute juveniles have gained residency they are joyfully reunited with their “lost” relatives, who arrive in significant numbers who are able to claim the right to stay in Sweden on the strength of the residency granted to their man-child relative.

I seem to have read news stories about unaccompanied children arriving in the UK seeking asylum, has anyone seen any photos of these little tykes?

In another post Cavatus lists various examples, together with case numbers, of the successful asylum claims which expose how laughable are the Swedish government’s pretense at imposing even the most rudimentary of controls, these include:

• A Sudanese women who might be ostracized by her own community because she had a child
• A family from Yemen who claimed that al-Quaeda were “after them”
• An Iraqi man who, although he had no actual reason to claim asylum, was granted it all the same because otherwise he might worry about being expelled.

Sweden is a country even further down to road to cultural oblivion even than we are, a country long known for it tolerance and liberalism, has become a bastion of intolerance against its own people, whom their government seem even more maniacally determined to replace than our own are to replace us, this introverted genocide is supported by a controlled and politically correct media who routinely suppress and misreport news so as to hide any evidence that a multicultural society is anything less than Utopian whilst silencing all dissent beyond that we have seen with our own press.

I am told that Sweden’s version of the UAF is even more aggressive and violent than our own and that so called dissidents, that is to say people like us are ofter subject to violent intimidation and attacks in their own homes.

Sweden somewhere we should all be watching for evidence of where we are likely to be in a few years time. Cavatus’s blog with its regular postings in well written English about every day events in Sweden and written from a Swedish perspective is a very interesting and informative place to start.

Obama's Monstrous Regiment

If anyone was in any doubt, following the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court, that Obama had an unfriendly agenda, will have been disabused of that doubt by the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stephens.

After having first appointed a Hispanic feminist with a history of racist judgement and anti (white) male rhetoric, Obama now seeks to foist another radical feminist on the American public, this time one with a very unfriendly attitude towards the free speech provisions of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Elena Kagan is, of course, also politically correct right to the tips of her wide fitting pumps and served as White House Council during the Clinton administration. However, it is her attitude towards free speech and her writings on the subject which will give many pause for thought, Whilst a tenured professor at University of Chicago Law School she published amongst other things a law review article on the "Regulation of Hate Speech”, which she linked with pornography in the manner with which a dishonest politicians will link an agenda driven issue with an otherwise unconnected but emotive subject, so as to merge the two concepts in the public mind.

(We await the “Love immigration hate paedophiles” initiative with bated breath)

In this she wrote”"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the vital importance of protecting free speech amplified when that speech goes against the popular orthodoxies of the day?

Of perhaps greater interest was "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," an article Kagan also wrote whist at Chicago. Obama's power base, discussing governmental regulation of speech in general. In that article Kagan went further and argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or indeed to the government.

Once can imagine Stalin nodding with approval at such an assertion

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens,which chillingly states: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

The US Supreme Court is the highest judicial court in America, it is the final appellate court, its decisions can impact upon US society and beyond for generations.

The fact that Obama's first two nominations for the Supreme court have been such extreme examples of radical feminist, anti male any white pro-affirmative action anti free speech repressive political correctness tells us as much about him and his mission as it does about these two rather unpleasant women.

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

Grisly details emerge of Terre'Blanche killing

A grisly picture of the killing of right-wing leader Eugene Terre'Blanche was painted in court at a bail hearing on Monday.

The Ventersdorp Magistrate's Court heard he was hacked and beaten with a panga and iron rod 28 times while sleeping - and nearly dismembered.

Chris Mahlangu, 27, a slender man, listened impassively as investigating officer Tsietsi Mano testified how the brutality of the Easter Weekend murder had disturbed him.

"He (Terre'Blanche) was sleeping, so he never saw it coming," said Mano, to murmurs of agreement from the late AWB leader's elderly brother, Andries, who sat with hunched shoulders in the front row of the public gallery.

"The brutality was a bitter pill to swallow - he was totally unrecognisable."

Bragged about killing

The court heard how Mahlangu, who shielded his face from photographers with his black Nike tracksuit top, bragged about the killing afterwards. The court outlined how Mahlangu and his co-accused, a 15-year-old youth, broke into Terre'Blanche’s farm house outside Ventersdorp, hacked him to death, pulled his pants down and stole his cellphone.

"They struck him several times in his face, head and body with the iron rod and a panga."

After the murder, "they met three people and accused number one (Mahlangu) told them that he is now their boss because they have killed Mr Terre'Blanche",

Confessed several times
The court was told that Mahlangu confessed to the murder several times and that "the evidence against the accused is overwhelming."

Not only did Mahlangu allegedly brag about killing Terre'Blanche to several farm workers, but he also pointed out the murder scene to police and the blood on his clothes matched that of Terre’Blanche.

Mahlangu also told Mano he would confess.

This led Mano to take him to a magistrate in Klerksdorp where he started making a confession, but was interrupted by his lawyer, Puna Moroko, who burst into the magistrate's office.
Mano read out the report written by the magistrate, Sophia le Roux, who noted that Mahlangu seemed "calm and very at ease with himself".

Also, the report said he did not have any obvious injuries to the body, despite claiming through his Defence Council that he killed Terre'Blanche in self defence.

Click here to read the rest of the story

______________________

From Dina and Jennifer

Entry to Greece

As an aside to the brave and prolific Rugfish's excellent article at the Green Arrow yesterday, in which he referred to the nightmare facing the Greek public, who, as we may soon find ourselves, face the prospect of decades of hardship in order to repay crippling debts, it is worth mentioning what the Greek government did in January 2007. For, it was then that they made a number of changes to to their already very liberal immigration rules, in order to grant MORE residence permits to foreign workers.

Amongst other things, the new provisions, ominously entitled ‘Entry, residence and social inclusion of third country nationals in Greek territory’, enabled non-EU residents working in a number of (you guessed it) “low paid” occupations, such as nurses and construction workers, to renew their residence permits without having to produce trifling documents such as proof of employment.

The changes also enabled immigrants to purchase additional employment stamps, rather than actually earning them. Accumulating sufficient employment stamps was another requirement of renewing residence/work permits, so this was yet another change designed to make it easier for (low paid) foreign workers to remain in Greece.

In addition, immigrants would in future be able take up positions in regions other than the one where the original residence permit was issued. (Remember, Nick Clegg's promise to ensure immigrants were send immigrants previously non-”enriched” parts of the nation?!!)

The most significant change in the regulations was in relation to illegal immigrants, with regard to whom those drafting the new regulations had noted with horror that under previous regulations “hundreds of thousands of immigrants were not able to obtain residence permits”. To address this lamentable situation, the law would in future merely require illegal immigrants to provide evidence that they had been in the country prior to 31st December 2004 (i.e. for three years) in order to obtain residence status. (What's the word for “amnesty” in Greek?)

Odd they chose the three year gateway, given that those changes were only made three years before Greece found itself in its current predicament.

It doesn't take long for the benefits of immigration to start trickling through does it?

When is it going to occur to the great and good that mass immigration and economic collapse clearly go hand in hand?

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.

Message from BNP Chairman Nick Griffin

I appreciate that everybody is feeling very tired after this bruising campaign and some disappointing headline results. In fact, as you will see later in this message, behind the media's sneers, there is real concern about the progress that we have made in this extraordinarily hard-fought contest.

With the result now in, Britain faces its first "hung parliament" since 1974 and the next Government - if there is to be one and not a new election in a few months' time - will be a coalition of two of the main parties.

Ironically, this provides the British National Party (which spectacularly almost tripled its vote from 2005, jumping from 192,746 to a healthy 563,743 in yesterday's contest) with its best window of opportunity yet.

The kingmaker in any coalition will be the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg. Their key demand for participation in a coalition is electoral reform, and in particular the abolition of the current "first-past-the-post" election system. The reason why the Liberal Democrats oppose the first-past-the-post system is that it clearly puts a smaller party (which is what the Liberal Democrats are) at a hugely unfair disadvantage.

The figures tell the story: yesterday the Liberal Democrats won around 23 percent of the vote, but will end up with only 7 percent of the seats in Parliament. The BNP, which polled close to a million votes in June 2009, and over half a million yesterday (despite only fighting half of all the available 650 seats), will end up with no seats at all.

In effect, the first-past-the-post system simply throws millions of votes onto the rubbish heap where they are ignored. As a result, the Liberal Democrats have argued for the introduction of proportional representation (PR) in Britain.

Under a PR system, if a party gets 10 percent of the votes, it gets 10 percent of the seats in Parliament. If it gets 32 percent of the vote, it gets 32 percent of the seats, and so on.

It is an obviously fairer way of allowing all votes cast in an election be reflected in Parliament. In fact, a slightly amended system of PR is used in European Parliamentary elections, which allowed the BNP to win its two seats in that body in June 2009.

If the Liberal Democrats are involved in a coalition with either Labour or Conservatives, it is inevitable that they will set the demand for a PR system as one of the preconditions for their cooperation.

In fact, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has already made this demand in public - and both Labour and Conservatives have announced their willingness to consider it or, at the very least, hold a referendum on the topic.

What does this mean for the BNP? The tripling of the BNP vote on 6 May has some important implications.

Firstly, where we went head-to-head with UKIP and the Greens, we thrashed them. We outvoted UKIP in 178 seats and they beat us in 123. We outvoted the Greens in 134 seats for the Greens 23. UKIP had a huge budget and their campaign was backed by 13 MEPs, in it must not be forgotten that both UKIP and the Greens enjoy favourable treatment at the hands of the controlled media.

Secondly, while all minority parties were pushed out to the edge by the 'big boys', our vote not only held up but proportionately increased when compared to our June 2009 Euro election results.

When put into perspective, yesterday's result becomes even more interesting:

- In 1983, the BNP fought 54 seats and polled 14,000 votes.

- In 1987, the BNP fought 2 seats and polled 563 votes.

- In 1992, the BNP fought 13 seats and polled 7,000 votes.

- In 1997, the BNP fought 54 seats and polled 35,000 votes.

- In 2001, the BNP fought 33 seats and polled 47,000 votes.

- In 2005, the BNP fought 117 seats and polled 192,746 votes.

- In 2010, the BNP fought 339 seats and polled 563,743 votes.

Based on yesterday's impressive vote totals, the BNP would win in excess of 60 seats in Westminster under a PR system.

Some of the more perceptive Conservative journalists, such as Norman Tebbit, have already realised this as a possibility and have written about it in national newspapers.

In addition, many political commentators have already remarked that, on a night which saw all the smaller parties squeezed - including the Lib-Dems, who lost five seats - the strong showing and turnout of the BNP vote was "a source of great concern."

They have seen how the public hostility towards us is fast disappearing. I felt it on the streets and I'm sure you did too.

Compare this with a few years ago when we endured frequent confrontations and 'screamers'. This election we enjoyed a very friendly response on the streets and no aggravation (apart from the exception of activists from Labour's far left thuggish allies).

I have heard reports from all over the country, and have experienced it for myself, that the 'screamers' who used to pop out of the woodwork in almost every street, have all but completely vanished.

The shift in the public's perception of us now is really very encouraging. Unfortunately in this much hyped General Election, people voted for a change in government and have (some with gritted teeth) reverted back to the old parties.

Our adversaries recognised this probably before us and have done everything to keep us as a small fringe party. Under PR we could easily fill a bus with BNP MPs.

As the coalition negotiations begin, let those who might feel disappointed at the BNP's failure to secure a parliamentary seat yesterday reflect on what might happen in a short while.

The introduction of PR to Britain will dramatically change the face of British politics and propel the BNP into the mainstream political debate once and for all.

Unfortunately, the high turnout generated by the General Election hype meant that we were also squeezed severely in local elections nationwide.

Our vote remained rock solid but the percentages were against us.

Perhaps the most sobering reality we must now face is the demographic disaster unfolding all over the country, but especially in Barking & Dagenham and London generally. The simple fact is this: we have been swamped by immigrants.

Labour is carrying out a policy of gerrymandering through immigration. This has meant the death of the old East End and by the time of the next General Election, London will be completely unassailable, colonised and in truth no longer part of Britain.

We need to develop a new strategy to protect our dispossessed and marginalised people in these 'occupied territories.' As our people are pushed first into political impotence and then into absolute minority status, to continue fighting first-past-the-post elections and securing an ever-dwindling vote is simply a recipe for demoralisation and failure.

We will instead develop a new strategy for these areas, based on civil rights agitation and legal challenges to the authorities whenever they marginalise our white minority.

I know how hard everybody worked and I know there is a positive change in the public's attitude towards the BNP. You must have felt it too. This tended to lead to raised expectations which, while they have not been this time in the ballot box, do truly reflect the undercurrent of ever growing sympathy for our party and our message. We all know the feeling is there and growing.

At the end of the day, we tripled our vote and we can now build on the huge experience we have gained through fighting two national elections in less than a year.

The glaring item lacking in the BNP armoury is our underdeveloped Elections Department. This will now be the focus of a huge overhaul and re-structuring, bringing it into line with the very best and almost futuristic election machines of Labour and the Lib-Dems.

The BNP has the courage and determination and some of the best politically motivated people of all the parties. However, our methods, tactics and electioneering apparatus are basically 20 years out of date.

This was discussed at a leadership meeting in February and while we recognised the urgent need for modernisation, there was no way we could start to reform and modernise before the election.

Through a substantial investment in administration, fundraising and logistics, the BNP possesses a finely tuned administrative regime. As an example of what the administrative staff can do is illustrated by the fact that all of the 8,000 inquiries received centrally in the six weeks of the campaign, have already been sent information packs.

Some 6,000 have already been databased and passed on to the regional organisers so that follow-up work can start immediately. This is a very rapid and efficient turnaround of an absolutely crucial job.

We do however need to acknowledge that there were very serious problems in the campaign, particularly in the Publicity Department. The new team which took over - Clive Jefferson, Alwyn Deacon and all others involved - did a fantastic job under the most difficult of circumstances in rescuing that situation by the skin of our teeth.

Now we need to focus all of our attention and energies in harnessing and utilising the very best in modern electioneering practices. This will start immediately and this month will see the first event in our new training programme being rolled out.

We need to grasp the huge potential in exploiting postal votes, tele-canvassing and other modern methods and techniques. We also need to equip ourselves to perform well in community politics.

Although the Greens were practically wiped out in this election, they still managed to secure their first MP. How did they do this? They invested heavily on the ground by being fully involved in local community politics. This afforded them 'credibility' through an effective presence in community politics. Minority parties can overcome obstacles by producing effective councillors. To do that we need to invest heavily in training for our people who are at the 'coalface '

We are now stronger than ever and have proven ourselves capable of planning, fighting and financing two national election campaigns on the largest scale ever, one after another.

We will now focus on a massive overhaul of our political machinery.

External attacks disguised as internal friction will be a common feature as our political enemies spin their web of lies and deceit designed to prevent us from reaching our true potential. Our enemies' weapons will be disharmony, conflict, misinformation and never-ending legal warfare.

They will not succeed, but we all must remain ever vigilant. If someone tells you a piece of 'shocking' internal gossip which clearly is aimed at undermining the people now working to propel the party forward, then you need to treat such lies with the contempt they deserve. Don't believe, let alone pass on, any such disinformation without telling the target about the allegation and hearing the truth. Our enemies have huge resources at their disposal and will exploit the slightest chink in our armour to inject their poison amongst us.

So let us build on the lessons of the last two years of spectacular growth and advances. We have all worked incredibly hard and I know the price our families pay. Take a break; spend time with your family - because we will have all this to do again in a very short time.

This election has been a shambolic farce for our democracy. However, this is an opportunity for us and now is the time to re-structure, modernise and invest in this party's election machine and that's exactly what we ARE going to do.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Griffin, MEP
Leader, British National Party

An Unfair system

It should be noted that the BNP won more votes than any of the parties which came from 4th place to 10th place, Because of our unfair voting system they all got seats but the BNP didn't.

The BNP won more than 50,000 more votes than the Scottish National Party yet they have six seats! The BNP got more than three times as many votes as Plaid Cymru and they got three seats, the BNP got none.

In terms of the number of votes we received we were in 5th place.

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.

Pandora’s Apartheid Box

I highly recommend a set of postings by Mike Smith examining the myths, truths and lies about Apartheid, which can be read at South Africa Sucks by clicking here.

Another victim of Multicuture

Another innocent victim died last night. 16 year old Nick Pearton lay cradled in his distraught mothers arms after he had been viciously and stabbed stabbed by gang of black youths who had chased him across a park in Sydenham South London, armed with knives and baseball bats.

Bleeding heavily Nick, who had been studying maintenance at college, ran into a shop crying for help, and his mother Kim, who lived nearby was called to the scene.

Nick was pronounced dead shortly hater when he arrived at hospital.

A number of black youths have been arrested and are being questioned.

When this crime was reported in the BBC earlier this evening, as usual details of the race on Nick Pearton's attackers was suppressed.

News source

This horrible situation will continue, and will get worse, until we take our country back.

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.

Farm Murder Update and request

Further information on the Farm Murder I posted about last week. The victim was 4i year old Dirk Human who was found tied up in his home less than 300m from Boschkop police station. Mr Human had been repeatedly stabbed and hacked about the face, before being shot.

It is possible that his two year old son Jake witnessed the murder from his cot in the same room.

The attack happened shortly after Yolanda Human, shown being comforted in the picture above, had left their home to deliver an older child to school.

It was evident that Mr. Human had put up a struggle before he was subdued, and would have attempted to protect his child.

Apart from the torture and murder of Mr. Human it is not clear what the motive was for the attack, however, it followed an earlier attempted burglary

Full report here

Unreported attacks?

I have been advised of a further farm attacks , but we have been unable to find news reports confirming these. The details we have so far are as follows:

• The weekend of 24 April, a family was attacked in Kwazulu Natal. A woman and a 5 year old were allegedly killed, and the rest of the family hospitalised.

• That same weekend there was an attack on the house of Jurie Steenberg (47) on a smallholding in Kameelfontein north east of Pretoria,who begged attackers to spare his wife, Suna (43) who was shot in the head. She last heard to be fighting for her life in hospital.

• On the 29th April on Smallholding near Kameeldrift, west of Pretoria. 80 year old Mr Jan du Toit, was attacked in his home and shot in the stomach and arm he managed to reach his children living on the same property who took him to hospital.

If anyone can supply news links or further information about any of the above, please write to me at sarahmaidofalbion@gmail.com

_____________
From Dina

The Lib/Lab/Con alliance