UKIP crashed to a double defeat in two Rotherham by-elections yesterday. This is of course the council that was disgraced by its multiple failure to deal with the scandal of child abuse by Pakistani-origin residents. So bad was the scandal that Whitehall commissioners were appointed to oversee with most of the council’s affairs, and every councillor had to face re-election last May, leading to the election of 14 UKIP councillors as the main local opposition to Labour.
Yet far from building on this breakthrough, the party (now under the supposedly more northern-focused leadership of Paul Nuttall) seems to be in reverse gear.
In Dinnington ward, UKIP councillor Ian Finnie (first elected when he gained the seat from Labour in 2014, then re-elected in second place as part of last year’s all-out Rotherham election) had stepped down from the council claiming ill-health and family issues.
Labour hammered UKIP in the consequent by-election.
ROTHERHAM Dinnington (Lab gain from UKIP)
VJESTICA John (Labour Party) 670
HUNTER Lee James (UKIP) 303
MIDDLETON Christopher Norman (Conservative) 238
SMITH David (Independent) 232
HART Jean (Independent) 180
SCOTT Steven (Independent) 81
FOULSTONE Charles David Dowsing (Green) 78
THORNLEY Stephen James (Liberal Democrats) 75
The other by-election was in Brinsworth & Catcliffe ward, where the infamous Cllr John Gamble (later of the NF and EFP) was elected for the BNP in 2008. This ward went two Labour, one UKIP at last year’s elections. One of the (White) Labour councillors was forced to resign before Christmas after being found guilty of a sexual assault – nothing to do with kids this time: he ‘groped’ a female colleague at an official function. We assume alcohol was involved.
One might have thought this situation was made for UKIP, but again they polled very badly. Surprisingly the Lib Dem won by a landslide: apparently he’s a well known local doctor and they did one of those typical intensive Lib Dem local campaigns. Labour didn’t help themselves by putting up a (female) Asian candidate in a 90% White ward! Fair enough, she had won the ward in 2012 (when the main opposition was the BNP, who were damaged by the Gamble fiasco and generally dying). But in 2016 she was the one out of three Labour candidates who didn’t get in: UKIP beat her to get the third spot. I assume she will now retire from politics…
ROTHERHAM Brinsworth and Catcliffe (Lib Dem gain from Lab)
CARTER Adam Jonathon (Liberal Democrats) 2,000
AHMED Shabana (Labour Party) 519
WEBSTER Steven (UKIP) 389
OLIVER John Lester (Conservative) 91
WHYMAN Rebecca Louise (Green Party) 30
A Financial Times survey of Labour councillors in some of its traditional heartland areas reveals demands from the party’s grassroots for Jeremy Corbyn to take a tougher line on “hard Brexit” and immigration controls.
Labour is increasingly divided between young liberals in inner London and other major cities, who typically supported the EU and favour Corbyn’s policy of unrestricted immigration, versus more socially conservative but traditionally pro-Labour voters in outer London and old industrial areas of the North and Midlands.
Peter Chand, a Labour councillor in River ward, Dagenham, said “the feeling on the doorstep is mainly about migration”, and suggested that his party should not insist on free movement when most voters had rejected this by voting for Brexit. Cllr Chand (who seems to be of Asian origin himself) says that the party should ease voters’ concerns by supporting “some kind of cap” on immigration.
Another Dagenham Labour councillor, Lee Waker of Village ward (where the BNP won a seat in 2006), told the FT that he favoured “hard Brexit” because for his voters “the quicker the EU is gone the better”.
Some of the councillors surveyed believed that UKIP remained a serious electoral threat in traditionally Labour-voting areas, while others felt that the Conservative Party remained a more realistic challenger in most of the country.
As it happens, most of the local elections in 2017 will be in Tory-dominated county councils. There are no scheduled elections in London, and most of the Labour-dominated metropolitan boroughs have no council elections, though new “super-mayors” will be elected in seven regions. If UKIP’s new leader Paul Nuttall is serious about challenging Labour in their traditional heartlands, his party will be concentrating on these – especially the new Tees Valley region which includes Hartlepool, one of his party’s growth area.
However local by-elections during 2016 (regularly analysed in each issue of H&D) have shown UKIP failing to make a serious impact in White working class areas that ought to have great potential. One recent example was Higher Croft ward, Blackburn with Darwen. At a by-election on December 15th, UKIP finished runners-up with 25% – at first sight a good result. Yet this is a ward where the BNP polled almost 30% at their peak a decade ago. If UKIP (post-referendum and post-Trump) is going to win Labour seats in northern England, it should certainly be winning Higher Croft (or at least coming a lot closer).
UKIP has just over four months to get its act together: failure in 2017 would surely mean the party’s over.
In a video posted online following the BNP’s recent lost deposit at the Batley & Spen parliamentary by-election, party chairman Adam Walker blatantly tried to mislead members and viewers by pretending that the BNP had taken control of a council in Essex.
Mr Walker was desperately trying to deflect attention from the fact that the BNP vote in Batley & Spen had fallen from more than 7% to 2.7%, despite major parties including the Tories, UKIP and the Liberal Democrats not putting up candidates in this latest by-election.
So he claimed that on the same day the BNP had achieved a great success, gaining control of Heybridge Council.
The truth – as H&D has regularly reported – is that the BNP’s Heybridge organiser Richard Perry also runs a local pressure group campaigning against plans to build additional housing in his area.
It is this group, under the label ‘Fighting Unsustainable Housing – Because We Care’, that has won several parish council seats during the past year, and with two further victories last week, now has a majority on Heybridge Council.
These victories reflect great credit on Mr Perry, but unlike his party leader he does not pretend that the parish councillors represent the BNP in any way. Quite the opposite, Mr Perry very honestly told his local newspaper this week that “we are not really pushing the party political issues. …Everyone knows what my political beliefs are but most people just say ‘we don’t care, you’re a good councillor’. We are more interested in fighting the unsustainable housing. It is about local issues not national issues.”
Mr Perry added: “Anyone who wants to join our group is welcome, no matter of their political party, affiliation or religion. …Parish councils are non-political; if I’m standing in a district council election, it is a different matter but we’re not involved on that basis.”
It couldn’t be clearer: Mr Perry’s parish council group campaigns solely on the local housing issue, and if a Muslim Labour Party member or a Jewish Communist wanted to join and become one of their councillors, they would be most welcome. This is not a BNP victory, and Mr Walker should stop his fraudulent pretence.
With Hillary Clinton now almost certain to become U.S. President at next month’s elections, we’ve been short of some good news from the other side of the Atlantic!
But today we learn that the brave White Rights and free speech campaigner David Duke has shocked the establishment by qualifying for a televised debate in the race for a U.S. Senate seat in Louisiana.
The state of Louisiana has a unique ‘open primary’ system in which a large number of candidates compete in a first-round election (on November 8th, the same day as the Presidential election and many other Senate and Congressional contests). The top two candidates from this first round then go into a run-off on December 3rd.
From 1989 to 1992 David Duke was an elected member of the Louisiana House of Representatives and is by far the most successful nationalist candidate of modern times in U.S. politics. In 1990 he was runner-up in a U.S. Senate election in Lousiana, polling 43.5% statewide (607,091 votes)! Then in 1991 he was again runner-up in the contest for Governor of Louisiana, polling 31.7% in the first round and qualifying for the run-off against Democrat Edwin Edwards, the most powerful figure in Louisiana politics at the time. In the 1991 run-off Duke polled 38.8% (671,009 votes).
In the 1996 Senate primary Duke stood again, this time finishing in fourth place with 11.5% (141,489 votes).
In 2016 it has proved more difficult for Duke to raise funds and campaign, for all of the usual reasons that H&D readers will understand. Yet he has again shocked the establishment by meeting the 5% opinion poll threshold to qualify for a primetime televised debate which will be broadcast across Louisiana on November 2nd.
Arguably our movement’s most effective media performer (certainly in the English-speaking world), David Duke is sure to make the most of this opportunity. As he posted on Twitter yesterday: “I can’t wait to tell truth nobody else dares!”
One of the strangest by-elections in British history was held yesterday in the West Yorkshire constituency of Batley & Spen.
This constituency contains several wards which were (just a few years ago) solid nationalist targets. Best known is the Heckmondwike ward which was won by the BNP at several elections in the early 2000s and was one of the strongest nationalist areas in England.
Even without winning a single seat in 2008 (only eight years ago) the BNP polled 36% in Heckmondwike; 20.4% in Cleckheaton; 19.1% in Liversedge & Gomersall; 15.7% in Birstall & Birkenshaw; 15% in Batley West; 13.6% in Batley East (the constituency’s most Asian ward, and in 2008 therefore the weakest nationalist vote).
Sadly the political landscape has been transformed during those eight years. Most obviously, this by-election was caused by the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox – a murder which the media cynically blamed on the “far right”. We cannot comment fully on this crime for legal reasons, but we are 100% confident that when the full facts are known, there will be no negative impact on the racial nationalist movement.
Yet for the time being, even racially conscious voters were understandably scared by the establishment lie machine. The establishment parties (Conservative, Liberal Democrat, UKIP and Green) united to support Labour – hypocritically implying that no decent politician should oppose Labour here because of Jo Cox’s death. This is a novel constitutional theory: several MPs were victims of IRA terror, without anyone suggesting that rival parties should stand aside in the ensuing by-elections.
A second obvious factor is the collapse of the BNP across Yorkshire since 2010. Although the party fielded a candidate – former London mayoral candidate Dave Furness – the BNP no longer has any activist base anywhere in Yorkshire.
And this leads to the third factor: our movement is in a chaotic state. The first, broadly nationalist, candidate to launch his by-election campaign was Jack Buckby, of the tiny Liberty GB party. This is effectively a political arm of the rapidly declining English Defence League, and its leader Paul Weston has explicitly allied himself with Jewish terrorist groups. (See our fully documented report, dating from 2012 when Mr Weston was attempting to launch the British Freedom Party: he has since moved on to Liberty GB.)
After long consideration (and despite several private discussions with journalists) Heritage & Destiny decided not to advertise Mr Weston’s hypocrisy to the press during the campaign, despite the grotesque irony of his candidate describing himself as “no to terrorism”, while his party leader eagerly endorsed terrorist platforms.
Quite rightly, the National Front decided that Mr Buckby (though himself a decent and honest young nationalist) could not be allowed to present himself unchallenged (given the disgraceful conduct of his party leader) as the nationalist standard bearer in Batley & Spen. Therefore nationalist veteran Richard Edmonds volunteered to convey a more acceptable nationalist message as NF candidate.
What no-one expected was that the BNP would enter the race. Everyone in nationalism recognises that the BNP still (from the ordinary voter’s standpoint) has the best known political “brand name”. Yet equally we all known that in reality the BNP is dead.
Political reality takes some time to percolate through to voters. The BNP vote collapsed to just 2.7% – but the vast majority of racially conscious voters simply stayed at home
Unsurprisingly Labour’s candidate was elected in Batley & Spen with more than 85% of the vote, in what amounted to an exercise in mass illusion, assisted by our own failures. This week’s by-election is just one more step in the long process of rebuilding a credible nationalist movement.
Batley & Spen by-election 2016
Lab 17,506 (85.1%)
ED 969 (4.7%)
BNP 548 (2.7%)
Ind 517 (2.5%)
EIP 241 (1.2%)
LGB 220 (1.1%)
Ind 153 (0.7%)
Ind 118 (0.6%)
NF 87 (0.4%)
One Love 34 (0.2%)
Richard Edmonds of the National Front will contest the parliamentary by-election in the West Yorkshire constituency of Batley & Spen. Polling day is October 20th.
Mr Edmonds began his involvement in British nationalism following an impressive NF result at another famous by-election, at Uxbridge in 1972 where the NF polled 8.7%, convincing many patriots (including Richard) that they represented a serious alternative to our corrupt and treacherous political establishment.
Some years earlier Richard graduated with a first class honours degree in Electronic Engineering. After working as a schoolteacher and later with the telecommunications company Cable & Wireless, he devoted a large part of his life to nationalist politics, including most of the 1990s as proprietor of a nationalist bookshop and party headquarters in Welling. He achieved the best racial nationalist result of the 1992 General Election, polling 3.6% in Bethnal Green & Stepney.
During the early 2000s Richard returned to teaching for a few years, before rejoining the struggle to reclaim Britain for the British, as a National Front activist.
Launching his campaign earlier today, Richard Edmonds pointed out that “one quarter of all the births in this country are to mothers themselves born overseas, …it is time and it is legitimate to put the interests of our people first.
“It is time for a British voice to speak up loud and clear: Put the British people First. That British voice is the voice of the National Front.”
It’s been a tough summer for Britain’s anti-racists. First Searchlight had its website sabotaged; then its editor’s former partner in crime Manny Carpel was jailed for drug trafficking; then Hope not Hate‘s funding from George Soros foundations was exposed in a massive data leak.
Now another disaster for ‘anti-fascism’. Transport union official Sam Tarry was campaign organiser for Hope not Hate in Barking & Dagenham, once the BNP’s flagship borough, where Tarry no doubt believes he played an important role in turning back the fascist tide.
In fact that had already been achieved by the BNP leader himself, scuttling his own party, but at least Sam Tarry managed to get a seat for himself as a Labour councillor in Barking, where he has received £20,000 in council allowances.
Sadly this meteoric political rise might be about to end in yet another crash and burn. The main headline in today’s Sunday Times exposes an “electoral fraud row” involving Cllr Tarry.
In order to stand for Barking & Dagenham council, he had to be registered as living at an address in the borough (or work there). Yet according to the Sunday Times he actually lives 70 miles away in Brighton.
Tarry is presently director of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaign.
As the Sunday Times points out:
Councillors are required by law to live or work in the borough they represent and must sign an official declaration to that effect. Making a false declaration is punishable by up to six months in prison. Making a false registration to vote carries a penalty of up to 51 weeks in jail.
Richard Smalley, formerly a Tory member of Derby city council, was last week sentenced to two months in jail for claiming he lived in Derby while living outside the city.
Note: The original story is behind a Times paywall so the full report can only be seen by subscribers. However a later version of the story can also be seen on the Telegraph website.
Tarry has denied the allegations, and his lawyers suggest that “any suggestion of criminality or breach of election law is defamatory and inaccurate”.
A network of organisations run by billionaire George Soros (notorious for his profitable speculation against the pound on ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992) has been successfully targeted in a massive leak of confidential documents, published online today.
One organisation lavishly funded by Soros was the British “antifascist” group Hope Not Hate, which in one of the leaked documents is shown receiving $93,740 for just one of its projects – Hope Camp – in advance of the 2014 elections.
This was part of a series of Soros-funded projects intended to influence those elections. According to the leaked documents, Hope Camp’s “purpose is to provide a community organizers’ training program for local anti-hate organizations, especially those wanting to engage in the 2014 European elections. The training model will combine the experience, the organizing and campaigning skills developed and used by HOPE not hate in the UK and by United We Dream in the US.”
UK political parties are of course prohibited from receiving overseas donations from people not on the UK electoral register. It will be interesting to see whether the Electoral Commission takes a close look at foreign, non-party intervention in the electoral process.
Although Soros & Co. might have been well pleased with the BNP’s defeat in 2014, the truth is that this had little to do with “antifascist” campaigning. Nick Griffin had already effectively destroyed his own party’s chances years earlier.
Moreover, another of the leaked Soros documents – a review of the European campaign, written in November 2014 – showed that not everything went the billionaire’s way. The document makes clear that the Soros foundations “concentrated a large amount of resources and energy to try and bolster the groups and campaigns which could, in some ways, mitigate the feared populist surge in the EP elections.”
This involved “exposing the weaknesses of the extreme right”.
However, while some projects “far exceeded our expectations”, others “surprised us in a negative way. The grant to UNITED, for example, was a clear disappointment. While the proposal was well written and the cooperation with ENAR and HOPE not Hate, two OSF grantees which generally deliver great work, seemed promising, not much was achieved on the ground. …Arguing that the HOPE not Hate approach could not be applied in other countries due to particular sensitivities, the project ended up with five very different projects on the ground, with little coordination amongst them. …It was a typical case of a project which looked great on paper, but was an unexpected disappointment in practice.”
H&D looks forward to analysing these leaked documents further: but two points are already evident. Firstly, there was massive financial intervention by George Soros and his foundations in a covert effort to influence European elections. Secondly, despite lavish funding, many of these interventions failed and are continuing to fail, as European nationalist movements continue to advance!
The One Nation party – headed by Australia’s best known anti-immigration activist Pauline Hanson – won four Senate seats at the Australian federal elections on July 2nd. Full results have only recently been published – a month after polling day – due to Australia’s complicated voting system. One Nation polled 4.3% nationwide, and 9.2% in Queensland where they are the third largest party.
In addition to Mrs Hanson herself, One Nation’s new senators are her fellow Queenslander Malcolm Roberts (best known for his climate change scepticism); former lecturer and architectural design consultant Brian Burston, elected in New South Wales with 4.1%; and ex-farmer Rod Culleton in Western Australia, where One Nation polled 4.0%.
Mrs Hanson first achieved political prominence in 1996 when she was elected to a House seat, despite having been ‘disendorsed’ by the Liberal Party before the election, following controversial comments about the level of state assistance for Aborigines. She lost her House seat in 1998 and her One Nation party collapsed in acrimonious personal/factional divisions during the early 2000s. Predictably new disputes over party finances have erupted even before the new senators have taken their seats.
In recent years Australian voters have become increasingly concerned about immigration and related issues: in the absence of a credible alternative (and helped by recent changes in electoral law) Mrs Hanson has been able to stage a comeback, despite her limitations. The most credible anti-immigration Australian politician was Graeme Campbell, a House member from 1980 to 1998 who was expelled from the Labor Party for his stance on racial matters, but Campbell is now aged 77 and semi-retired.
Alongside One Nation, a new party called Australian Liberty Alliance fought this year’s elections. The ALA is almost exclusively focused on opposition to Islam, and had the Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders addressing its inaugural rally last October. However its results were insignificant compared to One Nation, with 1.1% in its best state – Western Australia – and tiny fractions of 1% elsewhere, including 0.6% in New South Wales, despite having a celebrity candidate, veteran rock singer Angry Anderson.
Similarly celebrity status did not help Queensland independent candidate Kim Vuga, who polled less than 0.1% for the Senate after her anti-immigration campaign was overshadowed by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
Jim Saleam, leader of the Australia First Party, polled 1.2% in Lindsay, a House seat in the outer Sydney suburbs. This was up 0.5% on the last election, but below the 2.4% polled by the new ALA. In another Sydney suburban seat, McMahon, the AFP’s Victor Waterson polled 2.0%.
Preferences cast by One Nation voters generally helped Labor candidates against Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s ruling coalition, a phenomenon analysed in a post-election article in The Australian.
Turnbull’s government seems likely to survive with a wafer-thin majority, but his authority has been severely weakened: a development which many Australian patriots will welcome! Sadly the patriotic cause in Australia remains weakened by poor leadership, with the only substantial alternatives being the shallow and opportunistic Hanson, the anti-British (though in other respects ideologically stronger) Saleam, and the Islam-obsessed ALA.
Meanwhile the Australian version of the EDL – Reclaim Australia – has been targeted by anti-terrorist police, who arrested several leading activists in the Melbourne area.
Voters across Australia head to the polls on Saturday (July 2nd) after a bitter and close fought federal election campaign. For the first time since 1987, both the House of Representatives (elected in constituencies on a British style first past the post system) and the Senate (elected proportionally via statewide party lists) are being contested.
There are three rival parties in Australia which could be described as ‘nationalist’ in the sense that H&D readers would use the word: i.e. they are similar to either the NF, BNP, EDL or the right-wing of UKIP.
By far the most closely linked to our movement is the Australia First Party led by Dr Jim Saleam, a traditional racial nationalist whose policies include rebuilding Australia’s manufacturing industry, abolishing multiculturalism, and controlling foreign ownership of Australian financial and economic assets.
The AFP has a slate of Senate candidates in Western Australia, and candidates for two House seats in New South Wales (including Dr Saleam himself in a western suburb of Sydney), one in a Victoria constituency (a Melbourne suburb), and one in the constituency covering an area centred on Darwin in the Northern Territory.
Australia First’s traditional rival is the One Nation party headed by controversial former senator Pauline Hanson. One Nation is anti-immigration and pro-White, but its policies are far more vague than Australia First. Pauline Hanson’s earlier political career ended in disappointment and recrimination, but she is now attempting a comeback and has a reasonable chance of winning one of the Queensland seats. One Nation also has slates of Senate candidates in Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales.
The newest semi-nationalist party (in some ways similar to One Nation) is the Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) which has a mainly anti-Islam focus and has hosted Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders as a guest speaker at the party’s official launch in October 2015. The ALA has grabbed some headlines by recruiting veteran rock singer Angry Anderson as one of its Senate candidates in New South Wales. Some have suggested that the ALA and One Nation have agreed electoral pacts in most Australian constituencies: there is just one House seat where the two parties are standing against each other. However there is bitter opposition between ALA and One Nation on the one hand, and the more hardline traditional nationalist AFP on the other.
An ALA candidate is standing against Jim Saleam in Sydney, one of four ALA House candidates in New South Wales. There are also ALA Senate slates in most states, a House candidate in Western Australia, and five in Queensland.
In Queensland the AFP has endorsed Kim Vuga, a well known independent Senate candidate whose anti-Muslim, anti-immigration views have received wide media exposure.
Most analysts assume that the only one of the above candidates with a strong chance of winning is Pauline Hanson, who is in a close fight for one of the Senate seats in Queensland.
Myriad small Christian and populist parties are standing in various parts of Australia on platforms including opposition to abortion and gay marriage. The latter issue is likely to be put to a referendum, whoever wins the federal election. Present Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who heads the supposedly conservative Liberal-National coalition, is a notorious supporter of both gay marriage and the anti-monarchy, anti-British movement for an Australian republic. Since the republican cause was defeated in a referendum in 1999, it might be considered to early to push for a second poll on the issue, but we can assume that Turnbull and his devious allies such as newspaper tycoon Rupert Murdoch will have a strategy to resume their campaign as soon as practicable.
Strange though it might seem, the best of the realistic results for Australian nationalists might be to see Turnbull defeated by Labour, in the hope that Australian conservatism might then acquire more decent leadership.