By BNP Councillor Chris Beverley:
An article on the BBC website today concerning a deal offered by UKIP to the Tories not to stand against them in the General Election demonstrates once and for all what an utterly worthless party UKIP is.
The proposed deal, given by the new UKIP leader Lord Pearson to Lord Strathclyde, the Tory leader in the house of Lords, consisted of an offer not to fight seats in the General Election if the Tories promised to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty should they win the General Election. (As if a promise from the Tories on this matter is worth very much in any case).
This proposed deal is nothing spectacular in itself and could actually be regarded as a good strategic move by UKIP. It is highly unlikely that they will win seats at the general election, perceived as they are by most people (very rightly) to be a single-issue party with no relevance whatsoever in local or parliamentary elections. Were the Tories to accept this deal, UKIP could save themselves the embarrassment of performing poorly in the general election and claim full credit for any ensuing referendum and its consequences.
It is fairly unthinkable that Cameron's Tory party would accept such a deal of course, so UKIP can now claim that their selfless offer shows a genuine desire to put the interests of the country first, ahead of party political consideration, and its rejection by the Tories shows them to be utterly out of touch and unsympathetic to people's genuine concerns about the rise of the EU-superstate.
What is of greater relevance is the statement by the UKIP leader that; "...when we had the referendum - which we believed we would win - we would then be out of the European Union and then at that point UKIP...would probably have disbanded because its major point would no longer be in existence."
In other words, despite pretending to be more than just a single-issue pressure group, UKIP's leader has admitted quite openly that the party that claims to have a manifesto on a wide range of issues would actually disband should there be a referendum on one particular EU Treaty.
We therefore have proof that the party that is cynically wheeled out at election time by the Establishment to parasitically feed on votes otherwise destined for the British National Party could not care less about the many issues facing our people that have nothing to do with our membership of the EU, such as mass immigration from the Third World, the disastrous war of aggression being fought in Afghanistan and the one being planned against Iran, the deliberate erosion of law and order in this country and its replacement by a system in which the rights of criminals are elevated above the rights of its citizens, or any of the other various problems that our nation continues to face.
UKIP are not interested in lifting a finger, for example, to address the scandal of the UK taxpayer having to pay for new identities for the vile individuals who tortured to death Baby P, in order to save them from receiving the justice that the British state is unwilling to serve on them itself.
UKIP has nothing to say about any of these things and the above statement by its new leader shows just what a shallow and worthless party it is. It is the duty of all patriots to oppose this establishment pressure-valve party and vote it out of existence.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Sunday, 8 November 2009
Censored PPC Letter
The following letter by our Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) for York Central, Jeff Kelly was sent to the York Press two weeks ago, and a number of times over the following week.
Despite it being a perfectly reasonable and sensible letter on a local issue, the York Press has refused to publish it (hence it getting sent a number of times in an attempt to make the editor / letters department change their mind.)
This is in contrast to the way the York Press regularly publish letters from other PPCs - most notably York Outer candidate James Alexander, who seems to get at least one per week.
If you thought the York Press was an apolitical / unbiased paper, think again!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recently received a copy of the council’s “Your City” newsletter through my letterbox.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The front page article entitled “city makes every penny count,” talks about how the council aims to use its money more wisely to make savings and improve services.
It states that the council is “redoubling its efforts to make every penny of taxpayers’ money count by embarking on an ambitious plan to improve services and make significant savings,” (with the overall aim of saving £15 million over 3 years.) These measures are being taken because of “funding being cut and demand for local services rising.”
An area where money could be saved can be found on the back of the newsletter – where translated versions of it are offered in 5 different languages, from Polish to Cantonese. (This is offered on almost all council newsletters / leaflets.)
Not only will 5 different translators have to be employed to write the alternative leaflets at taxpayers’ expense, from working in the printing industry I know that the unit costs for small batches of leaflets / ‘one-offs’ are far higher than the main edition.
In my opinion, if the council is serious about saving money, then they should only print newsletters in English – after all, we are living in England. Also by printing translations, migrants aren’t being encouraged to learn the host population’s language.
The money saved could be transferred from the council’s “marketing and communications” budget, to those of ‘front line’ service departments.
I admit that the amount saved may not be huge in comparison to the desired £15 million, but as the newsletter says – “every penny counts!”
Jeff Kelly
British National Party Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for York Central
c/o PO Box 699
York
YO32 2WB
Feel free to discuss this bias issue with the York Press by writing to:
The Editor
PO Box 29
76-86 Walmgate
York
YO1 9YN
Readers are encouraged to forward any responses to our PO Box address. (See contact details section.)
Monday, 26 October 2009
Labour Exposed
This article in the Daily Mail is worth a read.
We've kept it the same, minus a paragraph because despite writing what is basically a Labour exposé that proves what the BNP has being saying for years is correct, the writer still feels the need to attack the one party that was right all along. - We're not going to repeat anti-BNP smears on our own blog!
........................................................................................................................
So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.
Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?
The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate.
There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.
This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.
In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised 'firm control over immigration' and in 2005 it promised a 'crackdown on abuse'. In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages.
But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote that until 'at least February last year', when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.
This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year.
Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some seven million more will be added to Britain's population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the Eighties.
Such an increase is simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government's 'driving political purpose', wrote Neather, was 'to make the UK truly multicultural'.
It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.
It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.
Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was 'to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'.
Even Neather found that particular element of gratuitous Left-wing bullying to be 'a manoeuvre too far'.
Yet apart from this, Neather sees nothing wrong in the policy he has described. Indeed, the reason for his astonishing candour is he thinks it's something to boast about. Mass immigration, he wrote, had provided the 'foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners' without whom London could hardly function.
What elitist arrogance! As if most people employ nannies, cleaners and gardeners. And what ignorance. The argument that Britain is better off with this level of immigration has been conclusively shown to be economically illiterate.
Neather gave the impression that most immigrants are Eastern Europeans. But these form fewer than a quarter of all immigrants.
And the fact is that, despite his blithe assertions to the contrary, schools in areas of very high immigration find it desperately difficult to cope with so many children who don't even have basic English. Other services, such as health or housing, are similarly being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers.
But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain's identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country's.
A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.
It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.
In Neather's hermetically sealed bubble, the benefits of mass immigration were so overwhelming he couldn't understand why ministers had been so nervous about it.
They were, he wrote, reluctant to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all to Labour's core white working class vote. So they deliberately kept it secret.
They knew that if they told the truth about what they were doing, voters would rise up in protest. So they kept it out of their election manifestos.
It was indeed a conspiracy to deceive the electorate into voting for them. And yet it is these very people who have the gall to puff themselves up in self-righteous astonishment at the rise of the BNP.
No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty on last week's Question Time when he was asked whether it was the Government's failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP.
Now we know it was no such failure of policy. It was deliberate. For the government of which Straw is such a long- standing member had secretly plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity.
This more than any other reason is why Nick Griffin has gained so much support. According to a YouGov poll taken after Question Time, no fewer than 22 per cent of British voters would 'seriously consider' voting for the BNP.
The core reason is that for years they have watched as their country's landscape has been transformed out of all recognition - and that politicians from all mainstream parties have told them first that it isn't happening and second, that they are racist bigots to object even if it is.
Now the political picture has been transformed overnight by the unguarded candour of Andrew Neather's eye-opening superciliousness. For now we know that Labour politicians actually caused this to happen - and did so out of total contempt for their own core voters.
As Neather sneered, the jobs filled by immigrant workers 'certainly wouldn't be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone?'
So that's how New Labour views the white working class, supposedly the very people it is in politics to champion. Who can wonder that its core vote is now decamping in such large numbers to the BNP when Labour treats them like this?
Condemned out of its own mouth, it is New Labour that is responsible for the rise of the BNP - by an act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation.
We've kept it the same, minus a paragraph because despite writing what is basically a Labour exposé that proves what the BNP has being saying for years is correct, the writer still feels the need to attack the one party that was right all along. - We're not going to repeat anti-BNP smears on our own blog!
........................................................................................................................
So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.
Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?
The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate.
There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.
This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.
In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised 'firm control over immigration' and in 2005 it promised a 'crackdown on abuse'. In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages.
But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote that until 'at least February last year', when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.
This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year.
Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some seven million more will be added to Britain's population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the Eighties.
Such an increase is simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government's 'driving political purpose', wrote Neather, was 'to make the UK truly multicultural'.
It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.
It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.
Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was 'to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'.
Even Neather found that particular element of gratuitous Left-wing bullying to be 'a manoeuvre too far'.
Yet apart from this, Neather sees nothing wrong in the policy he has described. Indeed, the reason for his astonishing candour is he thinks it's something to boast about. Mass immigration, he wrote, had provided the 'foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners' without whom London could hardly function.
What elitist arrogance! As if most people employ nannies, cleaners and gardeners. And what ignorance. The argument that Britain is better off with this level of immigration has been conclusively shown to be economically illiterate.
Neather gave the impression that most immigrants are Eastern Europeans. But these form fewer than a quarter of all immigrants.
And the fact is that, despite his blithe assertions to the contrary, schools in areas of very high immigration find it desperately difficult to cope with so many children who don't even have basic English. Other services, such as health or housing, are similarly being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers.
But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain's identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country's.
A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.
It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.
In Neather's hermetically sealed bubble, the benefits of mass immigration were so overwhelming he couldn't understand why ministers had been so nervous about it.
They were, he wrote, reluctant to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all to Labour's core white working class vote. So they deliberately kept it secret.
They knew that if they told the truth about what they were doing, voters would rise up in protest. So they kept it out of their election manifestos.
It was indeed a conspiracy to deceive the electorate into voting for them. And yet it is these very people who have the gall to puff themselves up in self-righteous astonishment at the rise of the BNP.
No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty on last week's Question Time when he was asked whether it was the Government's failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP.
Now we know it was no such failure of policy. It was deliberate. For the government of which Straw is such a long- standing member had secretly plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity.
This more than any other reason is why Nick Griffin has gained so much support. According to a YouGov poll taken after Question Time, no fewer than 22 per cent of British voters would 'seriously consider' voting for the BNP.
The core reason is that for years they have watched as their country's landscape has been transformed out of all recognition - and that politicians from all mainstream parties have told them first that it isn't happening and second, that they are racist bigots to object even if it is.
Now the political picture has been transformed overnight by the unguarded candour of Andrew Neather's eye-opening superciliousness. For now we know that Labour politicians actually caused this to happen - and did so out of total contempt for their own core voters.
As Neather sneered, the jobs filled by immigrant workers 'certainly wouldn't be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone?'
So that's how New Labour views the white working class, supposedly the very people it is in politics to champion. Who can wonder that its core vote is now decamping in such large numbers to the BNP when Labour treats them like this?
Condemned out of its own mouth, it is New Labour that is responsible for the rise of the BNP - by an act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
