I often think that it’s a pity politicians aren’t held personally liable for their actions whilst in government. At least then we would have the satisfaction of seeing them suffer along with the rest of us when things go wrong. As it is, 13 years of Labour misrule has left this country almost bankrupt, while Gordon and his cronies swan off to tranquil waters, leaving the rest of us to face the vicissitudes of the looming storm.

Remember Gordon’s former boast of ‘no more boom and bust’? The media and leading politicians of the day were almost falling over themselves to reassure us that his were the ‘safe pair of hands’ of a ‘prudent’ chancellor. On becoming PM, he was also obsequiously hailed as the ‘man from the manse’ who was set to change the political climate by ushering in the ‘government of all the talents.’ Meanwhile, New-Labour had consistently and deliberately drained the national coffers dry in a frantic attempt to placate the voters and delude us all into thinking we could get something for nothing, while simultaneously pursuing policies which were and continue to be in direct conflict with the national interest.

The fact is that it was all done with borrowed money- but that didn’t concern them. Brown and the New-Labour government were happy to brush the muck under the carpet because they knew for certain that by the time it came to pay-back day, they would all be out of office. Even if they had won another term, they would have made damn sure, by borrowing yet more, it wouldn’t be their government that would have to do the paying back. It’s easy to be generous with someone else’s money; more especially if you know that you won’t be the person called upon to return it.

The former government has turned the wasting of tax-payers’ money into an art-form! Membership of the EU stings us for millions of pounds a day. Those wickedly unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us dearly too in money- not to mention the lives needlessly squandered in a pointless cause. The price of keeping those who resolutely refuse to work is another drain on the national purse. And for those who want to work, jobs are few and far between because the heavy tax-burden and plethora of unnecessary rules and regulations which have forced small businesses to the wall. As for the vast amount expended on the criminal justice system that specialises on processing malefactors instead of punishing them thus encouraging them to re-offend…. I could go on at length, but you get the drift.

And now, heaven help us, it’s pay-back time. We’re all going to have to pay the price for this continuing madness. Someone the other day quoted me a figure for the national debt liability working out as something in the region of over £30 000 per individual tax-payer. I’m not sure if this includes everyone who pays tax, ie VAT, or whether this is just confined to earners. Even so, it is indicative of a frighteningly penurious scenario to come which we are all going to have to face. Meanwhile, the irresponsible perpetrators will come out of it more or less unscathed with their index-linked pensions, the book deals, the speaking engagements, the directorships and the like. Mr Blair for one seems to be coining it! Obviously, socialism for him is something to be preached and not practised.

But then I suppose if we, the electorate, are so gullible as to have voted these charlatans into power in the first place, we really only have ourselves to blame. And remember where you read it first- the long term economic prospects under the new coalition won’t be any different. Because they won’t change tack on Europe, jobs, the wars, and a host of issues which would make a real difference to the health of our balance of payments. The only remedy as they see it will be cuts, cuts and more cuts. And as always, it won’t be at the top, but rather at the coal-face where the blows will fall. It will be front-line services and the people that so depend on them that will have to bear the main brunt from the blows of the repeatedly falling axe.

Richard Barnbrook http://www.richardbarnbrook.com/

Share this post:

Hide Sites

If you believe the MSM you may well think that the British National Party is gone for good.

Well this is not the case, and it may explain why Margaret Hodge, almost a month after she said it is time for BNP members in Barking & Dagenham to pack up and leave. In the Daily Telegraph she feels the need to write an article explaining why the only way to defeat the BNP is through open debate.
[1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/bnp/7776363/How-to-beat-the-BNP-and-make-sure-they-dont-come-back.html

Nationalists may find her intervention upsetting but the fact that she was forced to write such an article in the first place shows that the BNP are now a political force powerful enough to make the three other parties confront issues like immigration that they have neglected for too long.

Indeed a debate is going on in left-wing circles about the need for Labour to be tougher on immigration.

David Goodhart, editor of Prospect magazine, argues that Labour must become an anti-immigration party and it uses good arguments that should resonate with anyone claiming to represent the interests of the working class.
[2] http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/05/18/labour-must-become-the-anti-immigration-party-david-goodhart/

However the split in the ranks of NuLabour are apparent when we read this from Daniel Trilling in the New Statesman disagreeing from his cloud cuckoo land with Mr Goodhart.

According to Mr Trilling Barking has experienced a relatively low level of immigration compared to the rest of London. And nationally, support for the BNP is strongest in areas with low, rather than high numbers of immigrants. (of course it is strongest in less enriched areas, immigrants won’t vote for the goose that lays the eggs will they you idiot.)
[3] http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/05/immigration-labour-bnp

This position is echoed by Anders Lustgarten, the author of the play “A day at the racists”

According to Mr Lustgarten the cheap labour of some of those people, immigrants, was a key element of New Labour’s “economic miracle”, yet the state never acknowledged the role they played — so when times went bad, nobody remembered what they had done to make them good. Instead, Miliband, Balls, Burnham et al seem intent on scapegoating immigrants to distract us from the real causes of hardship.
[4] http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/05/touch-labour-immigration-shows

Clearly he doesn’t know what the word hardship means but nationalists can take comfort from the fact that those left-wing intellectuals, with all their nonsense words, and detachment from the real world, can only help the cause of nationalism because ordinary people that have suffered 13 years of Labour misrule will surely feel insulted and offended by their claim that immigration is good for them.

Of course Labour will never be tough on immigration or the cause of immigration and will never listen to people, but the fact that such a debate is taking place means that the BNP is becoming more powerful by the day and many in the Labour party are feeling the pressure we are putting on them.

ps: Compare the comments in the Telegraph article and the ones in The New Statesman, even the lefties are worried about mass immigration. We are not going away you Fabianites, you will be exposed for what you are. Traitors!!

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share this post:

Hide Sites

From The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/21/labour-immigration-daft-strategy

They are all sorry for ignoring the ‘Common Man’, well I have news for them, we are not sorry because they are playing into the hands of the only party that cares or understands what the ‘Common Man’ has suffered for the last 37 years, The British National Party.

John Harris
One week into the Labour leadership contest, all is atonement and apology. Andy Burnham reckons the last 16 years found his party being “too cautious and controlling”. Ed Balls offers a reductive version of a conversation he endlessly heard on his campaign rounds: “You have lost touch with us, you are not our side, you are not in it for us.” David Miliband says much the same, while his brother builds a modest bonfire of New Labour vanities: “The New Labour combination of free markets plus redistribution got us a long way, then reached its limits a few years back,” he reckons. “Saying globalisation is good for you … is a good answer for economists but it is no answer for the people of Britain.”(It is good for big business as well you idiot)

One element of New Labour theology, however, remains securely in place. You hear it in the pronouncements of the supposed leading candidates, and in anxious chatter around Westminster. The C2s – skilled manual workers, whose loyalties play a crucial role in so many marginals – have deserted Labour in droves, particularly men. Their key complaints are about supposed welfare malingerers, and new arrivals from abroad; and this is where Labour must focus that time-honoured ritual known as “listening and learning”.(More bloody weasel words) So it is that the future of centre-left politics occasionally threatens to come down to kicking the dispossessed, and parroting the early summer’s big Labour mantra: immigration, immigration, immigration.

All this is currently a matter of broad-brush rhetoric (strange how men so steeped in the forensic stuff of policy seem so hesitant about coming up with ideas of their own), but the signs are clear. When announcing his leadership bid on Wednesday, Ed Balls mentioned the “I” word endlessly, and praised a politician whose sour countenance and self-styled toughness have long embodied the most dried-up school of Labour politics: Phil Woolas, this week heard bemoaning the fact that Labour failed to make more of the policy whereby benefits are refused to those seeking indefinite leave to remain (which would have made for very uplifting posters).

As well as obligingly claiming that Labour has been deaf to worries about immigration, Andy Burnham has admiringly cited voters who thought that “money and help was going to people who were not, like them, trying to do the right things” – and he didn’t mean your Bob Diamonds and Fred the Shreds. The Milibands, to their credit, have been much quieter on this stuff, though Ed saw fit to leaven his first leadership bid speech with the obligatory mention of an unidentified working-class voter who thought his benefit-claiming neighbours were swinging the lead. “We have hard thinking to do,” he concluded, ominously.(This Balls man has had ours in his hands for 13 years and now only when his snout has been barged aside from the trough is he pleading that he was hoodwinked by the Snotgobbler and his was a small dissenting voice in the corridors of power)

Elsewhere, plenty of Labour people are truly ablaze. At a meeting of the parliamentary party at the end of last week, voices who last had their chance when Hazel Blears made her doomed bid for the deputy leadership reportedly piped up, talking about benefit claimants getting “something for nothing” and the need to sound strong notes on immigration controls. One myth is already doing the rounds: that Margaret Hodge’s victory over the BNP in Barking was down to her strident line on somehow putting “indigenous” people ahead of new arrivals in the queue for public services,(good grief does the woman actually believe her propaganda? She has been an MP for the area since Adam was a lad and only in the GE was any consideration for the C2s shown.) whereas Jon Cruddas’s failure to romp home in Dagenham and Rainham came from his refusal to do anything similar. In fact, Cruddas’s narrow margin of victory was down to boundary changes. Moreover, Cruddas’s is actually the whiter of the two seats, which makes his achievement all the more remarkable.(apart from postal votes that is)

Yesterday, one more leadership candidate came up with a no-brainer quote, though this one cut to the heart of this week’s unpleasantness. “One of the things that made me run was hearing candidate after candidate saying that immigration lost us the election,” said Diane Abbott, who is starting to take on a very unlikely air of saintliness. “Rather than wringing our hands about the white working class and immigration, we need to deal with the underlying issues that make white and black people hostile to immigration: things like housing and job security. We need to be careful about scapegoating immigrants in a recession. We know where that leads.” This from a known racist, witness her latest both feet in the mouth remark. “Two posh white boys from the home counties”.’

We certainly do. And on these most fundamental of issues, Labour’s danger is not that long-imagined lurch to the left, but an ugly and reactionary step in the opposite direction. (And still the bleeding heart Liberalista aparatchnik Guardian journos stick to the NUJ guidelines, ignore the facts and carry on abusing the Common Man)

Share this post:

Hide Sites

We Nationalists have always known that NuLabour, Conservatives, and Lib-Dems are the real fascisti.
At last confirmation of this has come from an unlikely quarter.
Nathalie Rothschild, an article published on ‘Spiked’ accuses the left of betrayal and hypocrisy.
She is, naturally of course against the BNP but this gives her words more credibility. In her message she clearly sees that the three main parties are introducing fascism through the back door.
Reading of this article should be compulsory for all the brainwashed students/idiots who joined the anti-BNP campaign in the last local and general elections.

Nathalie Rothschild
Who made the BNP into free-speech martyrs?
It is only because liberal activists have ditched the cause of freedom that the far right can claim it as its own.

A rally in defence of free speech and the right to hold and express any political opinion. A demonstration where freedom of expression will be upheld as a universal right that trumps all other interests. Those are the values being promoted by a group called Civil Liberty, which is holding a protest in Birmingham, England, later this month.
So is this an occasion where defenders of liberty and openness will get together to reverse the growing proclivity for banning, silencing and toning down any view which does not fit into polite society, which is unconventional or which can be deemed to be insulting?
It does sound like a welcome clarion call after 13 years of New Labour rule, when free speech has been trampled over by laws like the Terrorism Act 2006, which criminalised ‘glorifying terrorism’, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, under which offensiveness effectively became an offence.
Historically, the kind of values Civil Liberty is espousing would indeed have been cornerstones of progressive politics. Yet Civil Liberty is made up of… nationalist right-wingers, who believe they are being sidelined and crushed by a society in the grip of political correctness. It spends most of its time defending ‘victimised’ members of the far-right British National Party and other ‘indigenous’ Brits.
So how can a bunch of right-wingers and BNP sympathisers pose as the defenders of freedom? Because the cause of freedom has been so spectacularly abandoned by other political activists, in particular the left, which has allowed the far right to claim the cause as its own. The reason why Civil Liberty’s followers can claim to be defending free speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience is because liberals and self-proclaimed progressives have given up on, and even attacked, those freedoms.
By blowing the BNP’s significance out of proportion, obsessing about the ‘rise of fascism’ and treating leader Nick Griffin’s appearance on BBC TV’s Question Time as the end of civilisation as we know it, mainstream liberals have helped the likes of Griffin fuel their image as free-speech martyrs. But more importantly, they have shown, on the one hand, the limits of their own tolerance, and, on the other, how deeply disrespectful they are of people’s right to think, believe, and listen to whatever they want.
Take the campaign, spearheaded by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), to prevent BNP members from working in British schools. This is about banning certain individuals from taking up teaching, not because they lack relevant skills or training, but because their private views are deemed unacceptable and because they are seen as a potentially poisonous influence on children and on society at large.
No wonder, then, that Civil Liberty’s Birmingham rally is being organised in support of the BNP member and former technology teacher Adam Walker, who posted comments on an internet forum during working hours about Islam, asylum seekers and immigrants. The General Teaching Council (GTC) deemed Walker’s comments, published under a pseudonym and using a school computer, to be ‘suggestive of racial and religious intolerance’. Walker was charged with unprofessional conduct.
Discriminating against people who hold ‘the wrong views’, views that go against a particular ethos, is no more legitimate than the exclusionist, racist views of the BNP itself. What gives certain individuals the right to deem certain beliefs, opinions and outlooks as being beyond the pale, dangerous, illegal? And who is to say that your opinions or mine won’t be seen as unacceptable in the future? Accepting the GTC’s charge against Walker – no matter what you make of his views on Muslims and migrants – is to agree that the powers-that-be should have the authority to exclude people from public positions on the basis of their beliefs and thoughts.
Even a brief survey of the kind of words, opinions and behaviours that have either been banned or have come to be regarded as socially unacceptable shows that no one can presume to be safe from censorship these days. Across commercial, governmental, political and public spheres, an array of ideas and attitudes are being forced out by formal and informal regulations and pressures.
In what Mick Hume has labelled today’s ‘You Can’t Say That’ culture, it is generally believed that the gaffe-prone and those with unconventional views – whether on race, politics, religion, climate change or civil liberties – should be silenced, muffled or banished from polite society rather than openly argued against, agreed with, ridiculed or celebrated.
Far from defending people’s right to hold and express any view they want, so-called progressives have backed the ‘You Can’t Say That’ culture – and they have done so in the name of liberalism, in the name of safeguarding tolerance and diversity and protecting what they regard as a sensitive and impressionable public from unhealthy views and lifestyles. Anyone who stands up for the right to believe whatever you want, to speak your mind, to listen to any views, to read any books and observe any art, tends increasingly to be regarded as an irresponsible, dangerous extremist.
Freedom has become a dirty word, regarded as a harmful cause that only weirdoes would organise a demonstration around. It has been devalued and cast off as a luxury that a decent, responsible society cannot afford. And it is this – the mainstream and left-wing disdain for freedom – which has allowed the right to pose as warriors for liberty. It’s a strange state of affairs indeed when self-proclaimed progressives are acting like censorious reactionaries and right-wing extremists are posing as freedom-lovers. It’s time we claimed freedom back.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8896/

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share this post:

Hide Sites

From the blogsite of AM Richard Barnbrook.

http://www.richardbarnbrook.com/

Margaret Hodge’s comments on the election platform to fellow BNP contender Nick Griffin are an indication of the arrogance of New-Labour now that they have attained what is in effect a one-party state here in Barking and Dagenham.
Regrettably, despite all prior indications, she won! But her arrogant and gloating response to Nick at the very moment of her victory that the BNP should ‘pack their bags and go!’ was ill-judged and ungracious, to put it kindly. Let me make it clear now, we have no intention whatsoever of packing up and leaving this borough. In fact our intentions are to dig in, and on every occasion, we will contest Labour by petitioning, being active and focusing on the real concerns and issue that affect the good people of Barking and Dagenham.
What she didn’t see fit to take into account was that the BNP vote showed a marked increase on that attained in the last election. Over 6000 people voted for Nick. That’s a lot of people, if you tried to squeeze them all into the village hall! And we got our votes by legitimate means. Some people are wondering how the Labour party got theirs! But then rumours are only rumours, aren’t they? Like some that still persist in maintaining that rampant knife-crime doesn’t happen.
Many will be observing future political developments in Barking and Dagenham with great interest. Because now, Labour have managed to attain unprecedented success in taking every single council seat and have set up what is in effect, a one party state, which does not reflect the true will of the electorate, by any means. From whichever end of the political spectrum one views this, such a totalitarian state of affairs can’t be healthy. Indeed, for Labour to now be in a position of such unchallenged power is very concerning.
As for Margaret Hodge, she too will have her day. Her record as a politician is far from unblemished. And she is a member of the liberal political elite, all of whom have no real affinity with the people that they represent. It is only a question of time until the electorate see through her. Because it’s true as they say- you can take in some of the people some of the time. But you can’t dupe all the people all the time!

Share this post:

Hide Sites

From our friends at Wigan Patriot:

Nick Griffin’s decision to stand against Margaret Hodge really seems to have ruffled her feathers.
She is now to some degree copying BNP policies which she has up to now deemed racist, and recognising the resentment of voters in the unfettered immigration policies of her government and their treatment of British people as seciond class citizens.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248364/Margaret-Hodge-says-migrants-EARN-benefits-takes-BNP.html

She says it is time “to lance the boil” of growing discontent over the wave of economic migrants entering our country.
No Margaret it is time to “lance the boil” of New Labour your corrupt party which has presided over the most disastrous demographic changes in 10,000 years of British history for purely party reasons, not to mention bankrupting the country while borrowing £billions to give away in foreign aid and the EU.

If you did not see this self inflicted disaster you should have, or were you shielded from people’s views by your draconian PC speech laws which prevented people from speaking out for fear of being criminalised for being “racist”?
To paraphrase Nick Griffin “you can prevent us from speaking out but you can not control the way we think”
Your “vibrant, diverse multicultural society” is turning to bite you on your fat bottom which has been thus far shielded from reality by your champagne socialist lifestyle paid for by us.

You had no mandate to impose these changes on us and have sought to silence us by dubious legal practices and depriving us of our historical right to free speech.
Now you and your slimy party will reap the whirlwind and slither into oblivion.
It seems however you may just survive as the Tories have offered you a lifeline (how ironic a loony lefty like you being offered help by the Tories) It just shows how alike, treacherous and anti British both your parties are.

After the next election and the Tories get in they will be no better as their policies are identical to yours and our support will grow as a result.
The following election will be our BIG breakthrough when we will be able to begin the task of rebuilding our country culturally and financially.

The danger is that civil unrest will lead to conflict between the multiple groups and allegiances you have encouraged here, as you can’t have a united and a diverse country at the same time. They are incompatible at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Let’s hope the people have enough patience to go through the coming hard times until a party,the BNP which has the interests of the British people as a priority comes to power.

In the meantime, even without MPs we are having an influence on government thinking even if it is only an attempt to save their subsidised skins.

A BNP vote is thus proved again to be worth more than a vote for any other party as it really makes them sit up even if we do not get in.

Share this post:

Hide Sites

Source : http://www.the-latest.com/gun-guard-at-mps-home

Officers with machine guns guard Jacqui Smith’s £450,000 three-bedroomed terraced house, where she lives during the week. As Home Secretary she is in charge of the UK police, security and counter terrorism.

An angry neighbour, who declined to be named, said: “I think the armed police are more about status than protection. It is a waste of tax payers’ money and puts us all in danger because if a suicide bomber decided to attack we’d all be blown up.”

An armed Response Vehicle (ARV) guards Smith round the clock. The heavily-armoured car is manned 24/7 by three specialist firearms officers on permanent patrol outside her address. It is in addition to her current minders from Scotland Yard’s elite Diplomatic Protection Group. A squad of 12 minders guards her home to prevent a terrorist attack. The annual cost for this is almost a million pounds.

This is absolutely shocking as people who can remember the days of the Tories will testify, some ministers were going to work on their bikes despite the IRA bombing campaigns. In those days, the home secretary certainly wouldn’t have been protected by that many people, if any.

Jaqui has nothing but contempt from her neighbours and who can blame them? If you don’t feel safe, in a normal terraced street, in an area which is basically in “Del Boy’s” neck of the woods, surely not it’s best to move to some gated community rather than impose a whole bunch of armed cops on your neighbours, making them feel unsafe in their own homes?

Does this woman not feel guilty at the fact that instead of helping or being an asset to her local community, she’s an absolute liability instead?

Share this post:

Hide Sites