ukiprule

Yes NIgel does get out and deliver leaflets.

__________________
Membership of the European Union costs Britain £60.1 billion per annum UKIP wants to leave the European Union and spend the money here in Britain.

To put this figure in perspective, just £1 billion would pay for:

222,000 hip replacements
Or 46,893 nurses
Or 38,782 teachers
Or 34, 585 police officers

Agree? Join UKIP
www.ukip.org

Wowbanger TIP

All we can do as spectators is look at the facts and try and make sense of them.

So lets take a look at Crewe. Here we have a small town consisting largely of classic de-industrialized working class people. The town was held up recently as the standard example of the consequences of large scale Eastern European migration, causing severe strains on local state infrastructure and on the labour market (courtesy of our friend in Brussels of course).

The town's location could hardly have been better positioned for a BNP campaign. Immediately adjacent to the elite Stoke unit which supplied no less than a third of this years local election victories and hold, if I am not mistaken, nine of the BNP's fifty or so elected councilors. Moreover as Crewe is on the M6 corridor it was easily accessible (within a couple of hours or so of most) to around half of the BNP's most established units. Certainly as compared to Sedgefield last year Crewe was infinitely more accessible and convenient.

It was almost on the doorstep of Griffin's home in Welshpool.

Looking at the by-election in its political context. Here we have an electorate entirely bent on administering a savage beating to the Labour Party on behalf of us all. However, as victims the Thatcher years, they were not particularly keen to back Cameroon. With a huge working class protest vote to be had, quite apart from the intrinsic attractiveness of the BNP's message to this particular electorate, the BNP could scarcely have failed to achieve a significant result.

So we had a ideally positioned target in terms of demographics, political context and of location.

The BNP had declared the Sedgefield election a success, and indeed a very respectable forth was a significant achievement, particularly on that political terrain. Therefore the precedent had been established that fighting parliamentary by-elections was a viable and effective tactic. Not that any fool could have failed to see that such elections offer the BNP its best chance as the dedication of its core activists and the limited geographical area over which the by elections are fought are ideal for the Party's strengths. Griffin constantly talks about the asymmetrical nature of the BNP's contest, here he had the best chance the BNP has yet had to apply the principles of asymmetrical combat. Particularly the concentration of resources in confined areas of operation in order achieve local supremacy, or at least as close to equality as you can get.

With hindsight be can see that the Lib Dems failed badly in this election gaining only 14.5% or 6000 ish votes. It is entirely possible that the BNP could have achieved third place, inflicting a damaging blow on some of the most repulsive members of the Establishment as well as achieving a victory which would have been one of the more significant in nationalist history. 14%is the rough average that BNP candidates achieve in local elections, most of which are paper candidates. In London a few weeks earlier the BNP achieved a vote of around 11% of the indigenous population in the Assembly elections, and that constituency included Islington among other notable nests of middle class PC fanatics.

Finally its worth pointing out that the BNP is a political party and political parties exist to fight elections. There was no excuse what-so-ever for failing to contest this election on that basis alone. If gaining 10% - 15% of the vote is not enough for the BNP to be bothered with then its is effectively out of business. The definition of defeat is the point at which you can no longer contest the opposition for fear of losing.

Without a shadow of a doubt the BNP had at least as good prospects in this election as they could possible hope to have in 90% of the English constituencies. The failure to fight it requires quite some explanation so lets look at the proffered reasons.

First the the Party was so denuded of resources following the London campaign that it could not have afforded to contest Crewe. This is not an adequate or acceptable reason. The best the BNP could have hoped to do under any circumstance would be to leaflet Crewe and maybe a few of the outlying villages. The constituency only contains 100,000 people just like all (nearly) British constituencies, assuming normal population density that equates to about 40,000 front doors. At most a repeated leaflet campaign could only have cost a few thousand pounds, maybe ten at most. Even if the BNP had the manpower resources to run a canvass campaign then this would have added nothing to the total cost. The five grand deposit was all but guaranteed to be repaid. In the worse case the campaign would have cost maybe twenty grand, 3 or 4% of the BNP's stated yearly income and a fraction of the amounts lavished on "consultancy fees" and "entertainment" according to the Party's own accounts.

Therefore to say that the Party could not afford to contest Crewe is to state that it is in such a mess that it is almost bankrupt. The argument is not a justification for failure but an admission of incompetence on a grand scale.

The second argument, that the Party's manpower resources were exhausted by the GLA elections is also spurious. The fact is that the vast majority of the activism undertaken in that cause was drawn from the Southern units of the Party. Those in the North, within range of Crewe, played no significantly role in that election. They had certainly taken part in their local elections but under ordinary circumstances this would have simply meant that units were still in a "mobilized" state, in other words had formed election teams out of people who were prepared to make the effort and had placed themselves in a position in which they could. Again if the leadership consider themselves incapable of motivating their people to fight under these circumstances then what is that if not an admission of incompetence?

Moreover the exact problems suffered by the BNP in mobilizing people to fight the election would have been equally felt by all Parties. The BNP would have suffered no more than anyone else and would have been overcome in the same way, by "busing in" activists on weekends as was done in Sedgefield. The opposition could have done little more. The fact the campaign only lasted three weeks would have lent itself to such tactics admirably as well as limiting the amount of cash resources needed to be expended. Snap by-elections favor the BNP as they limit the resource advantage of the Establishment and maximize the superior determination and commitment of the BNP's activists.

So we have a situation is which the BNP have spurned a golden opportunity, broken with its own tactical doctrine, and offered transparently nonsensical excuses for doing so. Indeed if their explanation is correct then they have effectively confessed to grotesque mismanagement which has literately brought the Party to its knees. We therefore need an alternative explanation.

And when we look a the wider context what do we see?

A Party in crisis, given the situation if you were Nicholas, and could trust none but those yoked to you by complicity, would you want the BNP's core activists meeting up over a pint?

A leader who appears to spend no more than one day a week on the job and dare not leave his house without six men dressed as cheap nightclub bouncers. This being the case is it any wonder that he did not fancy leading a high intensity campaign in direct contact with the Establishment's representatives?

Obviously is any of those conclusions drawn directly from the events we are observing are anywhere near correct then we have to ask another question. "If the BNP is so badly damaged as that, why are the leadership clinging to the helm with such extraordinary tenacity and at such a cost to the Party?"

And there are only two sensible explanations. One that they are hell bent on getting themselves onto the Euro gravy express regardless of any other consideration. And they have not ceased to publicly salivate over exactly that for the last two years. Or two any outsider gaining access to the evidence of their actvities over the last decade is simply unacceptable to them. Which is some rumours have any basis in fact is entirely understandable.

Either way its not very good news for anyone who is sympathetic to the BNP's cause.

NB.

The first of those quotes describes the Establishments standard model for dealing with BNP beachheads as described by the Roundtree Trust among others. The second describes the long standing lack of support for BNP elected officials which has been a common complaint and resulted in the loss of several. I'm a great fan of Richard and regard him as the best hope for the salvation of the Party. However there is evidence that he will need a good deal of support and the strong suggestion that he isn't getting it. Entirely consistant with the theory that Griffin would be just as glad to see the back of Barnbrook.

Don't really see the point your making.

Populist Lee

Who says I refuse to contest elections?

__________________
ENGLISH POPULISM
Stands as the only obstacle in the path of the Plutocrats
who seek to reduce all the Peoples of the World
to Economic and Political Slavery under Globalism


POPULISM MEANS WHAT YOU WANT IS WHAT YOU GET