David Cameron's reluctance to come clean on a referendum as promised on the EU and the reason he gives do not hold water.
I think he hoped Ireland would get him off the hook by again voting NO but that was not to be.
Cameron does not want to commit himself to hold a referendum if the Tories are the next government, his excuse being that he does not want to pre empt the Polish decision or influence the Czech decision.
What a whimp. The Irish seem according to his argument to have pre empted our right to a say on our future as will the Poles when they as they will do when they vote to join.
No Cameron is afraid of his Europhile Tory colleagues more so than his concern for the rights of the British people. He just wants a peaceful conference without disagreement.
It is no use him saying he will re negotiate if we have become part of that Soviet grouping.
If he had any guts he should say that any treaty which involved our country without the promised referendum will be considered void if the Tories take power and we will withdraw from it He tries to portray himself as a tough patriot but he is really a self serving chicken.
He will regret this as our party and UKIP will possibly prevent his party from being elected with a working majority.
At the next election a BNP vote will count for far more than in previous elections as all the other parties apart from UKIP are committed to give our sovereignty away either by design or default and the latter are only a one trick party with no policies on economics or immigration.
It's not in the bag yet Cameron!
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
NO CHAMPION OF SKEM
An article in the Skelmersdale Champion on 30/9/09 has the headline "BNP SLURS TOWN".
This is a reaction to a post on the BNP website criticising new towns which mentioned Skem.
Of course with the New labour slant on all they print they try to suggest that we are criticising the people of Skem.
THAT IS NOT SO.The post sympathised with the people obliged to live there who were duped into believing they were going to be housed in a new Utopia.
The post criticised the general architecture of the town and compared the moving of people there into Soviet style houses was akin to moving Scousers to a reservation as was done to native Americans.
The houses are ill designed and cost a fortune to heat and the general layout of the town does not address peoples need for community.
The town is constructed around the car with little pedestrian consideration and the houses have communal car parking and often little privacy.They were built as a social experiment and took more notice of archtects grandiose plans than people's needs.
The fact that over the past 20 years expensive modifications had to be put in place proves this.
Tenants who complained of damp in the poorly insulated houses were told it was condensation and to open the windows, a rather expensive remedy.
Of course the local Labour councillor was trotted in to voice her disgust as is typical of this rag.
No response was asked from our party.
The fact that Skem is ill built is no refection on the people obliged to live there. Our post showed our sympathy with the people who have suffered by this experiment.
A final word on the Skem Champion rag and a way to judge its quality and accuracy. THEY GOT THE DATE OF THE BNP POST WRONG.
The post was on SEPTEMBER 26th and not August 26th as stated in the article.
This is a reaction to a post on the BNP website criticising new towns which mentioned Skem.
Of course with the New labour slant on all they print they try to suggest that we are criticising the people of Skem.
THAT IS NOT SO.The post sympathised with the people obliged to live there who were duped into believing they were going to be housed in a new Utopia.
The post criticised the general architecture of the town and compared the moving of people there into Soviet style houses was akin to moving Scousers to a reservation as was done to native Americans.
The houses are ill designed and cost a fortune to heat and the general layout of the town does not address peoples need for community.
The town is constructed around the car with little pedestrian consideration and the houses have communal car parking and often little privacy.They were built as a social experiment and took more notice of archtects grandiose plans than people's needs.
The fact that over the past 20 years expensive modifications had to be put in place proves this.
Tenants who complained of damp in the poorly insulated houses were told it was condensation and to open the windows, a rather expensive remedy.
Of course the local Labour councillor was trotted in to voice her disgust as is typical of this rag.
No response was asked from our party.
The fact that Skem is ill built is no refection on the people obliged to live there. Our post showed our sympathy with the people who have suffered by this experiment.
A final word on the Skem Champion rag and a way to judge its quality and accuracy. THEY GOT THE DATE OF THE BNP POST WRONG.
The post was on SEPTEMBER 26th and not August 26th as stated in the article.
ENGLAND v UKRAINE
Anyone else out there feel they know the REAL reason that the England match will not be shown in any pubs and clubs and will only be shown live on the internet on Saturday evening?
Friday, 2 October 2009
THOUGHT PROVOKING
This blogger is not a nationalist, but I read his blog every day - both because he writes very well indeed, and because he is frequently thought-provoking. I recommend others do the same :
"
Imagine an island populated only by cattle. These cattle do what they want all day long - okay, what they want doesn't amount to much but they do it, and they're happy doing it.
One day, some people arrive. They see the cattle and think 'We could sell the milk and get rich.' So they take the milk from the cattle and sell it to other islands. Since they only take a small amount of each cow's milk, the cattle don't mind too much. The calves still get most of the milk.
Some people milk more cows than others. Some get up early and work hard while others sit around most of the day and produce a couple of pints, if anything. Therefore, some people are getting richer than others. At this point, the people start arguing. They split into two groups. One group argues that those who do more work are entitled to more profit. Others argue that everyone should get the same, no matter how much work they do.
Further, the first group argues that the most productive of the cattle should be rewarded. The second group argues that the least productive cattle should be compensated.
Since there are few people, and many cattle, the cattle get to decide who should run the island. One group wants to let the cattle produce as they can, and reward the high milk-produers along with the humans who work to milk them. They also believe that letting the cattle keep most of their milk is a good thing, because the cattle then invest that milk in strong calves which is good for the future. The other group believes that the milk belongs to every cow, no matter who produced it, and that they, as the island's rulers, should collect it all and redistribute that part of it they don't keep for themselves. All calves should be treated as being exactly the same, no matter their potential.
So the cows must decide.
All they hear by way of argument is 'The other side will be worse'. They hear no promises to let them keep more of their milk because both sides need to take the cow's milk in order to profit from it. They hear, from each side, that the other side will either take all their milk and then treat their calves as communal property, or that the other side will cut the heat in the milking sheds and use ice-cold milking equipment out of a malicious insistence on profit.
Through all this, the argument is not 'Look what we will do for you', but 'Look what they will do to you'.
The cows are confused. They don't know which side to choose. Most of them abstain. Some listen to a third group which promises to remove the people altogether and return the island to cow rule. Around a third of the cows feel strongly enough to decide one way or the other but most have noticed something important in all the people's posturings.
"They are not fighting for us. They are fighting over us. We are just the source of the milk they want and neither side cares about us at all. We are cattle. We produce milk. They produce nothing and yet they will take our milk and profit from it. Why vote? They are all the same."
Reading the latest political pronouncements from either side made me feel like one of those cattle. Labour, Tory, Lib Dem are not fighting for us. They don't want to rule the country for the good of its people. They are fighting over us. They are fighting each other for our votes, not by promising us anything, but by telling us what terrible things the others will do. They want to rule the country for their own benefit and in order to do that, they must impose strict controls on their cattle.
There's a saying that was once light-hearted, but no longer. "It doesn't matter who you vote for. The government always gets in". It has never been more true.
Low voter turnout is not about disinterest in politics. It is because people are increasingly realising this one simple truth. Politicians of all parties are fighting each other for power over us and it really doesn't matter any more which of the major parties wins. Labour's manifesto is the clearest on this point. It amounts to 'We can't let the Tories win' and that really is it. There is no more to it than that at all. The other parties are arguing along much the same lines - not 'what we can do for you' but 'whatever we do, they'll be worse'.
They want power. They have no intention of weilding that power on our behalf. It's for them, not for us. Power for the sake of power. Power as an end in itself, not as a tool to improve our lives. They will make promises but they will not keep those promises once they have what they want - power - because it is all they want. Once they have it, they can take whatever we produce for themselves.
In their eyes, we are cattle to be milked.
So should we all stay home on polling day? I say no, because that would guarantee the milking continues, and the cattle pens get smaller still. Look at the independents and the smaller parties. Vote for them. You will be browbeaten with 'It's a wasted vote'. Ignore that. It is the sound of fear from the current controllers. The only truly wasted vote is one that is not used.
Sixty-odd percent of the electorate don't vote. If they all turned out and voted for the smaller parties, the big three would vanish overnight. Remember, they don't even have all of the thirty or forty percent of votes from those who do turn up on polling day. Not even when all their votes are added up.
It is possible, with your vote, to wipe all the current parties from government.
You who voted gave them that power and those of you who don't vote are allowing them to keep it. You can take it from them. A vote is a weapon, the only real weapon we have left. Use it.
Otherwise, the milking continues as usual."
http://leg-iron.livejournal.com/229547.html
"They are not fighting for us. They are fighting over us. We are just the source of the milk they want and neither side cares about us at all. We are cattle. We produce milk. They produce nothing and yet they will take our milk and profit from it. Why vote? They are all the same."
That's as good a description as I've ever heard of the LibLabCon party.
Or you could vote BNP, of course.
Morg
.
"
Imagine an island populated only by cattle. These cattle do what they want all day long - okay, what they want doesn't amount to much but they do it, and they're happy doing it.
One day, some people arrive. They see the cattle and think 'We could sell the milk and get rich.' So they take the milk from the cattle and sell it to other islands. Since they only take a small amount of each cow's milk, the cattle don't mind too much. The calves still get most of the milk.
Some people milk more cows than others. Some get up early and work hard while others sit around most of the day and produce a couple of pints, if anything. Therefore, some people are getting richer than others. At this point, the people start arguing. They split into two groups. One group argues that those who do more work are entitled to more profit. Others argue that everyone should get the same, no matter how much work they do.
Further, the first group argues that the most productive of the cattle should be rewarded. The second group argues that the least productive cattle should be compensated.
Since there are few people, and many cattle, the cattle get to decide who should run the island. One group wants to let the cattle produce as they can, and reward the high milk-produers along with the humans who work to milk them. They also believe that letting the cattle keep most of their milk is a good thing, because the cattle then invest that milk in strong calves which is good for the future. The other group believes that the milk belongs to every cow, no matter who produced it, and that they, as the island's rulers, should collect it all and redistribute that part of it they don't keep for themselves. All calves should be treated as being exactly the same, no matter their potential.
So the cows must decide.
All they hear by way of argument is 'The other side will be worse'. They hear no promises to let them keep more of their milk because both sides need to take the cow's milk in order to profit from it. They hear, from each side, that the other side will either take all their milk and then treat their calves as communal property, or that the other side will cut the heat in the milking sheds and use ice-cold milking equipment out of a malicious insistence on profit.
Through all this, the argument is not 'Look what we will do for you', but 'Look what they will do to you'.
The cows are confused. They don't know which side to choose. Most of them abstain. Some listen to a third group which promises to remove the people altogether and return the island to cow rule. Around a third of the cows feel strongly enough to decide one way or the other but most have noticed something important in all the people's posturings.
"They are not fighting for us. They are fighting over us. We are just the source of the milk they want and neither side cares about us at all. We are cattle. We produce milk. They produce nothing and yet they will take our milk and profit from it. Why vote? They are all the same."
Reading the latest political pronouncements from either side made me feel like one of those cattle. Labour, Tory, Lib Dem are not fighting for us. They don't want to rule the country for the good of its people. They are fighting over us. They are fighting each other for our votes, not by promising us anything, but by telling us what terrible things the others will do. They want to rule the country for their own benefit and in order to do that, they must impose strict controls on their cattle.
There's a saying that was once light-hearted, but no longer. "It doesn't matter who you vote for. The government always gets in". It has never been more true.
Low voter turnout is not about disinterest in politics. It is because people are increasingly realising this one simple truth. Politicians of all parties are fighting each other for power over us and it really doesn't matter any more which of the major parties wins. Labour's manifesto is the clearest on this point. It amounts to 'We can't let the Tories win' and that really is it. There is no more to it than that at all. The other parties are arguing along much the same lines - not 'what we can do for you' but 'whatever we do, they'll be worse'.
They want power. They have no intention of weilding that power on our behalf. It's for them, not for us. Power for the sake of power. Power as an end in itself, not as a tool to improve our lives. They will make promises but they will not keep those promises once they have what they want - power - because it is all they want. Once they have it, they can take whatever we produce for themselves.
In their eyes, we are cattle to be milked.
So should we all stay home on polling day? I say no, because that would guarantee the milking continues, and the cattle pens get smaller still. Look at the independents and the smaller parties. Vote for them. You will be browbeaten with 'It's a wasted vote'. Ignore that. It is the sound of fear from the current controllers. The only truly wasted vote is one that is not used.
Sixty-odd percent of the electorate don't vote. If they all turned out and voted for the smaller parties, the big three would vanish overnight. Remember, they don't even have all of the thirty or forty percent of votes from those who do turn up on polling day. Not even when all their votes are added up.
It is possible, with your vote, to wipe all the current parties from government.
You who voted gave them that power and those of you who don't vote are allowing them to keep it. You can take it from them. A vote is a weapon, the only real weapon we have left. Use it.
Otherwise, the milking continues as usual."
http://leg-iron.livejournal.com/229547.html
"They are not fighting for us. They are fighting over us. We are just the source of the milk they want and neither side cares about us at all. We are cattle. We produce milk. They produce nothing and yet they will take our milk and profit from it. Why vote? They are all the same."
That's as good a description as I've ever heard of the LibLabCon party.
Or you could vote BNP, of course.
Morg
.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
THE LABOUR CONFERENCE
Gordon Brown's speech at the Labour conference yesterday was the usual waffle about change and portraying himself and his party as the ones to save our country from its dire situation while not mentioning the part he played in causing the present disaster. Little mention of Afganistan and the price our soldiers are paying, nor immigration. He really is thick and to promote "change" when he has been in power for 12 years shows a disconnect with reality.
His announced clampdown on teenage mothers was another policy stolen from the BNP (the other slogans were "Operation Fightback" and "British Jobs for British Workers").
However his statement that the policy would be implemented "immediately" begs the question of where this teenage accomodation is to be found. The policy needs fleshing out and can not be put in place immediately,but some deterrance to teenage pregnancy could be in place very soon such as cutting benefits for the young mothers.
We were all teenagers once but in my time the reason why I did not get anyone pregnant was fear of the consequences. Then the pregnancy rate was very low in spite of abortion being a criminal offence and the pill not being available.
The fear of the consequences is the only way that these pregnancies can be curtailed. That way we would have fewer feral children, less crime and a smaller underclass which would be of great benefit to the country.
So Gordon, you have stolen a good policy from us but have no idea how to implement it. Never mind you will not be in power for long and we will see what the useless Tories do.
SCUM AT THE CONFERENCE.
The politicians who will not share a platform with Nick Griffin showed their contempt for those killed by the IRA by inviting Martin McGuinness to their conference in the very hotel where his cohorts set their bomb off during the Tory conference killing some and injuring others including Lady Tebbitt who is paralysed to this day.
While I have no time for the Tory Party I think Labour have plumbed the depths inviting Mc Guinness.
How many people has Nick Griffin or any BNP member killed or injured?.
I hope Nick will use this outrage in his forthcoming session on Question Time if he is asked about things he may have said in the past, I'm sure he will. Ex Communist Jack Straw has certainly drawn the short straw this time. Nick will anihilate him. If there is audience trouble it will show the Left's contempt for democracy.
So there you have it. Labour members willing to share a platform with a murderer but not an elected politician who happens to have a different view.
WHAT DEMOCRATS!
AN INTERFERING FOREIGNER.
I of course have no time for Labour but I think the Sun's headline supporting the Tories, released just after Brown's speech shows the power of one rich man, Murdoch to influence events.
This is neither democratic nor healthy. No one elected Murdoch and his wealth should not give him so much political power. I think that is the reason why he is so against our Party as he knows that our views on multinational companies, if implemented would hit his business hard.
The Tories may be chuckling today but do they really want our country to be influenced by a foreign media tycoon?.
His announced clampdown on teenage mothers was another policy stolen from the BNP (the other slogans were "Operation Fightback" and "British Jobs for British Workers").
However his statement that the policy would be implemented "immediately" begs the question of where this teenage accomodation is to be found. The policy needs fleshing out and can not be put in place immediately,but some deterrance to teenage pregnancy could be in place very soon such as cutting benefits for the young mothers.
We were all teenagers once but in my time the reason why I did not get anyone pregnant was fear of the consequences. Then the pregnancy rate was very low in spite of abortion being a criminal offence and the pill not being available.
The fear of the consequences is the only way that these pregnancies can be curtailed. That way we would have fewer feral children, less crime and a smaller underclass which would be of great benefit to the country.
So Gordon, you have stolen a good policy from us but have no idea how to implement it. Never mind you will not be in power for long and we will see what the useless Tories do.
SCUM AT THE CONFERENCE.
The politicians who will not share a platform with Nick Griffin showed their contempt for those killed by the IRA by inviting Martin McGuinness to their conference in the very hotel where his cohorts set their bomb off during the Tory conference killing some and injuring others including Lady Tebbitt who is paralysed to this day.
While I have no time for the Tory Party I think Labour have plumbed the depths inviting Mc Guinness.
How many people has Nick Griffin or any BNP member killed or injured?.
I hope Nick will use this outrage in his forthcoming session on Question Time if he is asked about things he may have said in the past, I'm sure he will. Ex Communist Jack Straw has certainly drawn the short straw this time. Nick will anihilate him. If there is audience trouble it will show the Left's contempt for democracy.
So there you have it. Labour members willing to share a platform with a murderer but not an elected politician who happens to have a different view.
WHAT DEMOCRATS!
AN INTERFERING FOREIGNER.
I of course have no time for Labour but I think the Sun's headline supporting the Tories, released just after Brown's speech shows the power of one rich man, Murdoch to influence events.
This is neither democratic nor healthy. No one elected Murdoch and his wealth should not give him so much political power. I think that is the reason why he is so against our Party as he knows that our views on multinational companies, if implemented would hit his business hard.
The Tories may be chuckling today but do they really want our country to be influenced by a foreign media tycoon?.
BADGE OF PRIDE BAR BAR BAR BAR
Morg has just been banned from the Guardian for the fifth time.
I'll leave it for a bit, then I'll get a new email address and new identity, to sign back in. My ISP regularly changes all its IP numbers around routinely. So that wont be a problem.
Morg
.
I'll leave it for a bit, then I'll get a new email address and new identity, to sign back in. My ISP regularly changes all its IP numbers around routinely. So that wont be a problem.
Morg
.
Monday, 28 September 2009
A TALE OF TWO FACT FINDING TRIPS
Got back last night from our trip to London where I accompanied my wife while she saw Cliff Richard at the O2 arena (obviously I didn't go to the show). I enjoyed some of the sights of London including the Greater London Council building where Richard Barnbrook fights our corner.
It was all very pleasant only marred by the fact that proper English beer was unavailable. There were not too many foreigners there and many of those were obviously tourists.
I returned to my brother's place in Ealing by tube arriving at 9 PM. What a contrast there was. I counld have been in another country with about 80% of the people round the station of ethnic minority origin. No that's wrong, I was the minority in that street.
A few hundred yards away in the more affluent area where my brother lives it was completely different and there was no feeling of intimidation on my part, and little evidence of "diversity".
There were few people out on the street and I feel this is the reason why so few of the more prosperous inhabitants worry about the take over of our country.
They are all shut up at home and are not affected by this invasion and only see it when on the tube,(I suppose many appreciate the cheap labour these people provide so long as they live a distance away)
I was told about council housing estates where 80% of the inhabitants were ethnics (mainly Somali) and doctors have to allow twice as much time per patient to allow for translation of symtoms.
My brief stay gave the lie to those who say that there is no strain on housing or medical services and I did not get to discussing the effect on education.
Our fact finding trip cost for two of us about £120 including petrol and food which of course I had to pay. It gave me an insight in to the situation in our metropolis which I will use in future campaigns.
The same can not be said for Neil Turner our illustrious MP who featured on a Channel 4 documentary tonight on an all expenses paid trip to the South Pacific to discuss "Global Warming" on a trip which must have added to this effect (if the "science"is to be believed which I don't) and that is before all the hot air generated by his discussions. Fortunately the latter would not amount to much as far from discussing much, dining out and watching dancers seemed to take up much of their time.
What Neil Turner's expertise in this matter is far from obvious and its relevance to his constituents even less so.
Even if he gained an insight into the issue his announced resignation from his MPs job in a few months time renders any contribution he could make of no consequence.
Even a thick Labour MP (too thick to be promoted and too supine to rebel) will realise that the trip was just a "jolly", meaning "I'll have my all expenses paid trip while still on the gravy train and sod my constituents, the people of Wigan who have contributed to the cost along with my other expense claims".
He was never fit to represent Wigan and his going will be no loss.
It was all very pleasant only marred by the fact that proper English beer was unavailable. There were not too many foreigners there and many of those were obviously tourists.
I returned to my brother's place in Ealing by tube arriving at 9 PM. What a contrast there was. I counld have been in another country with about 80% of the people round the station of ethnic minority origin. No that's wrong, I was the minority in that street.
A few hundred yards away in the more affluent area where my brother lives it was completely different and there was no feeling of intimidation on my part, and little evidence of "diversity".
There were few people out on the street and I feel this is the reason why so few of the more prosperous inhabitants worry about the take over of our country.
They are all shut up at home and are not affected by this invasion and only see it when on the tube,(I suppose many appreciate the cheap labour these people provide so long as they live a distance away)
I was told about council housing estates where 80% of the inhabitants were ethnics (mainly Somali) and doctors have to allow twice as much time per patient to allow for translation of symtoms.
My brief stay gave the lie to those who say that there is no strain on housing or medical services and I did not get to discussing the effect on education.
Our fact finding trip cost for two of us about £120 including petrol and food which of course I had to pay. It gave me an insight in to the situation in our metropolis which I will use in future campaigns.
The same can not be said for Neil Turner our illustrious MP who featured on a Channel 4 documentary tonight on an all expenses paid trip to the South Pacific to discuss "Global Warming" on a trip which must have added to this effect (if the "science"is to be believed which I don't) and that is before all the hot air generated by his discussions. Fortunately the latter would not amount to much as far from discussing much, dining out and watching dancers seemed to take up much of their time.
What Neil Turner's expertise in this matter is far from obvious and its relevance to his constituents even less so.
Even if he gained an insight into the issue his announced resignation from his MPs job in a few months time renders any contribution he could make of no consequence.
Even a thick Labour MP (too thick to be promoted and too supine to rebel) will realise that the trip was just a "jolly", meaning "I'll have my all expenses paid trip while still on the gravy train and sod my constituents, the people of Wigan who have contributed to the cost along with my other expense claims".
He was never fit to represent Wigan and his going will be no loss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)