NF holds successful AGM

On Saturday 28th September 2019, the National Front held a most successful AGM.

This Annual General Meeting of the National Front took place at a key social and political moment in our country’s history: we are all witnessing a potentially major shift in political power in Britain. Parliament at Westminster is in turmoil as the MPs of the Remainer faction seek to sabotage the Referendum result and betray the winning seventeen million plus votes cast by the patriotic majority of Britons who want out of the hated European Union..

Speaker after speaker at our AGM focussed on the – unprecedented in our lifetime – events at Westminster. The basic question addressed by each and every speaker was: how best do we respond to the blatant betrayal of the Brexit vote that is openly being planned and committed by the anti-British party politicians of the old failure parties.

Step One: Never trust a word of the Tories. Theresa May never kept her promise to take us out of the EU; one would be very naive to think that BoJo, as he is known to friend and foe alike, will do any better.

We had an impressive line-up of speakers:

Burnley nationalist Steven Smith

– Steve Smith of Burnley, the man who got the BNP onto the winning streak in the 2000s. Steve told us how to win and how to rebuild British Nationalism. Steve said that everything kind and beautiful is being poisoned by the multi-racial nightmare forced onto us. It is possible to to win, Steve assured us.

AGM guest speaker Andrew Brons, Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and Humber 2009-2014. A founder member of the National Front, and more recently a senior official of the British Democratic Party, Mr Brons achieved one of the best parliamentary election results in NF history at the Birmingham Stechford by-election in 1977, polling 8.2%.

– Former NF chairman and former MEP Andrew Brons, as guest-speaker, cautioned us that the Establishment in its desperation to hold on to its illegitimate power will get increasingly vicious. Andrew said that it is our duty to maintain our racial-nationalist principles: never to sell out to civic/ multiracial nationalism, but equally never to break the law: but to tread carefully the narrow patriotic path, ignoring the blandishments and the traps of criminally intentioned agent-provocateurs. Always keep it legal, was Andrew’s much appreciated contribution to our AGM.

– Richard Edmonds, NF press-officer, reminded the audience of our past achievements: The NF had shown in its earlier years of the 1970s that the NF could build a nation-wide movement in record time; and the British nationalist activists of the BNP in the 2000s showed that we could successfully win elections up and down the country and see dozens of our brave men and woman candidates elected to public office. The turmoil and political turbulence at Westminster give us the opportunity to resurrect our nationalist movement.

Richard Edmonds with framed photograph of the 1977 Lewisham NF rally

At this point, a guest speaker from New Zealand addressed us. We are in a global fight to save the White race, Chris confirmed. Chris then informed us of the massive damage done to our movement in New Zealand by the criminal actions of the terrorist who attacked the mosque at Christchurch. This part really emphasised Andrew Brons’ advice. Our guest from New Zealand stressed that we Nationalists should get serious, because our opponents, the Globalists, are very serious.

Deputy chairman, Jordan Pont, called for more activism on the ground; Jordan thanked all those who had helped him campaign in the Spring council and parish elections in Sheffield. Jordan said that he could never sit at home and do nothing. Our Deputy chairman called for nationalist unity. Unity is the key, he declared. Both Jordan and NF Chairman Tony Martin, called for supporters to travel down to our capital to support the National Front Remembrance Parade to the Cenotaph at Whitehall, on Sunday afternoon the 10th November.

Deputy Chairman Jordan Pont addresses the 2019 NF AGM

The concluding speaker was NF chairman, Tony Martin, who thanked all those members, activists and supporters who had helped to make 2019 yet another year in which the NF kept the flag flying. Tony was able to give us the political background to the shutting down of our web-site, which Tony assured us would be only temporary. In his report, Tony informed us that the NF had deliberately abstained from putting up candidates at the 2017 General Election, because we wanted it to be a straight fight between the Leave vote and the Remainers of the corrupt anti-British Establishment. Tony emphasized our primary opposition to mass-Immigration, “Britain has not got a housing crisis, Britain has got an Immigration crisis.” Tony’s final point here was that Repatriation should be promoted by us in a positive sense, with respect for and understanding for the ethnics.

Brexit crisis: will Johnson and Farage bury party differences?

Today’s unanimous verdict by the Supreme Court, ruling that Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in obtaining the prorogation of Parliament, throws the entire Brexit process into doubt.

Johnson no longer controls the House of Commons, which at any time during the run-up to the October 31st deadline could have thrown a spanner in the works, preventing either a “no deal” Brexit or whatever new terms Johnson himself might negotiate.

Neither was he able to seek a fresh mandate at a General Election: since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 makes an early election impossible without the opposition’s consent – and there was no chance of such consent until Brexit had been delayed or frustrated. So Johnson’s team believed they could put Parliament out of action for a few weeks, leaving MPs with insufficient time for Brexit-blocking.

That cunning plan has badly misfired.

Amid the confusion one thing is clear: Brexit will be dead unless Prime Minister Johnson and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage can work together.

Leading government adviser Dominic Cummings is the main block to any deal between Johnson and Farage

Today such cooperation looks unlikely. The PM’s chief aide Dominic Cummings loathes Farage (which is the main reason why there were two rival pro-Brexit campaigns at the 2016 Referendum). That split didn’t matter during the referendum: in fact it might have been an advantage, but it would be fatal at a General Election. Farage reciprocates the loathing: his main reaction to today’s judgment was not to defend the Brexit process but to attack Dominic Cummings.

H&D readers are themselves divided on the merits of Brexit itself. But for Brexiteers the imperative is clear: Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage must not turn on each other, or the entire process will be derailed.

National Front News

Latest issue of the NF journal The Flame just published.

The National Front, which is now led by former soldier Tony Martin (Chairman) and Jordan Pont (Deputy Chairman), recently had their main website – nationalfront.info – taken down by the host. Around the same time, they also had their PayPal account closed (as we did at H&D 2 years ago). However, they are working to get a new website up and running soon, as well as alternative online payment system for memberships etc. We are informed that the alternative website – nationalfront.org – is still up and running.

On a more positive note the NF have published (after a long gap) another issue of their glossy 12-page magazine The Flame (issue #48), edited by longstanding UK nationalist Mike Easter. The colour cover has four photos of top Tory government ministers, who make up “The Occupation Government”.

The Flame writes: “All four of the top government positions filled by non-English/Welsh/Scots or Irish. This is truly an occupation Government”.

NF Directorate member Richard Edmonds writes:

“Yes, we are an occupied country. We have a government run by foreigners for the benefit of foreigners. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid Javid, is the son of an immigrant bus-driver from Pakistan; the Home Secretary, Ms Priti Patel, is the daughter of East African Asians let into this country by the Tory traitor Ted Heath; the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, is the son of a Czech Jew. Meantime we now have a Prime Minister Boris Johnson, born in the USA in New York City and who boasts that his grandfather was a Turk, and that on his mother’s side his great-grandfather was a Jewish dealer in old clothes in Moscow, Russia.

“Those of us who live in Britain’s major cities witness every day that we live in an occupied country: a country occupied by millions of ungrateful and arrogant foreigners strutting around in our towns and cities: a country occupied by criminal Asian grooming gangs who for years raped and abused children across the whole of the North of England with impunity and in full knowledge of the authorities; a country occupied by terrorists, muggers, murderers and illegal immigrants: and all let into our country by the traitorous politicians at Westminster and all against the clear and decided opposition of the majority of Britons. Well the National Front was set up over fifty years ago to oppose the betrayal committed by the party politicians.”

National Front chairman Tony Martin
with his predecessor Kevin Bryan.

Jordan Pont recently visited the H&D office in Preston, and met both H&D Editor Mark Cotterill, and Assistant Editor Peter Rushton, for talks on how H&D and the NF may work closer together in the future.

The National Front will again be holding their annual parade to the Cenotaph, in London, on Remembrance Sunday, 10th November. All nationalists are welcome to attend (form up at Bressenden Place, Victoria, SW1E at 14:15 hours and move off at 14:45 hours to march to the Cenotaph).

For full details please email – enquiries@nationalfront.org – or call – 07539-225620 – or write to: The Secretary, BM Box 4630, London, WC1N 3XX.

Brexit Party continues alliance with terror apologists

James Heartfield – Brexit Party candidate, lifelong Marxist and IRA apologist

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage has often seemed to have a blind spot when it comes to Northern Ireland, and H&D has previously highlighted the disgraceful decision to field IRA apologist Claire Fox – a lifelong Marxist – as his party’s number one candidate for North West England at the European elections in June.

Though one of her fellow candidates quit in disgust, Ms Fox is now a Brexit Party MEP, and the party’s dalliance with fanatical supporters of Republican terrorists continues.

For perhaps the first time H&D readers will have found themselves agreeing to a large extent with Observer columnist Nick Cohen this week, when he pointed out that “Farage supports the old cadres of the Revolutionary Communist party, which hugged the most extreme elements in Irish republicanism”.

In fact these RCP veterans consistently pursued a pro-IRA agenda that was even worse than that of Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Ken Livingstone. They were also conspiracy-minded apologists for Serbia during the Yugoslav civil war, apparently because the Serbs were fighting the Croats, who had been allied to the wicked Nazis during the Second World War!

IRA apologist Claire Fox (now a Brexit Party MEP) with party leader Nigel Farage.

One of these old Leninists, James Heartfield, will be the Brexit Party candidate for Islington North, standing against Corbyn, at the next general election. Heartfield was a Revolutionary Communist party organiser in Islington and Manchester. His wife Eve Kay-Kreizman was also an activist in the RCP and the pro-IRA Irish Freedom Network, but has since enjoyed a 20-year career as a television producer.

Other ex-RCP / Living Marxism candidates for the Brexit Party have included Alka Sehgal Cuthbert (daughter of Indian immigrants and a candidate on the Brexit Party’s London slate at the Euro elections), and Stuart Waiton (on the Scottish slate).

After the IRA murdered two schoolboys (12-year-old Tim Parry and 3-year-old Johnathan Ball) in Warrington in 1993, Heartfield’s publication wrote: “We defend the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures are necessary in their struggle for freedom.”

Nigel Farage’s struggle to free the United Kingdom from the European Union would be a lot better off without these Leninist/Fenian relics.

Secret tapes show politicians once dared to speak about race

President Richard Nixon (above left) in conversation at the White House with Prof. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

In July this year the US National Archives released a previously secret tape recording of then President Richard Nixon and future President Ronald Reagan speaking frankly about racial differences.

Today two American scholars writing in The Atlantic reveal that these forbidden views were not held only Reagan and Nixon, a man who of course has long been demonised by the political establishment, but by an ultra-respectable academic.

The President was conversing in October 1971 with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Harvard professor who had previously been an adviser to Nixon but was more closely associated with the Democratic Party. Indeed despite his bipartisanship, Moynihan was for decades an icon of America’s liberal intelligentsia.

Yet on this White House tape and in an earlier memorandum, Prof. Moynihan explicitly recognised racial realities. Commenting on an article on race and IQ by Richard Herrnstein published earlier that year, Moynihan wrote: “Herrnstein is, of course, very much worth reading. The findings of intelligence testing, which he summarizes, have profound implications for social policy. …Psychologists now think they know something of the ranking of the major races. Asians first; Caucasians second; Africans third.”

Prof Richard Herrnstein was co-author of The Bell Curve, a book that pointed out the differences between black and white IQ.

Moynihan agreed with the President that in implementing federal programmes to promote black education, he had to bear in mind their fundamental weaknesses – that because of their IQ blacks would basically be at a disadvantage “when you get to some of the more, shall we say, some of the more profound, rigid disciplines”.

His memo to Nixon concluded with pragmatic advice that no doubt influences even those few politicians today honest enough to address racial realities: “Finally, may I plead that you say nothing about this subject, nor let anyone around you do so. There is no possibility of your concern being depicted for what it is, a desire to respond to knowledge in a responsible and prudent manner.”

Moynihan died in 2003, but he would not be surprised that 21st century journalists and scholars are using these newly revealed tapes not to challenge their own liberal multiracialist dogmas, but to demonise Moynihan himself.

Foreign Secretary dismissed London Holocaust memorial as “preposterous”

Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Carrington, who had won the Military Cross for his bravery during the Second World War, wrote of the original plans for a London Holocaust Memorial: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

Following extensive research at The National Archives, Heritage and Destiny can reveal that the original proposal for a London Holocaust Memorial was strongly opposed by three senior Cabinet ministers and by Britain’s leading diplomats. Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington wrote to colleagues: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

This original memorial was first mooted in the spring of 1979, and was a far more modest proposal than the gigantic project presently being discussed by the planning committee of Westminster City Council.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton has submitted a detailed report to Westminster’s planning committee, revealing the full story behind the original memorial plans, and the reasons for senior ministers’ objections, which are even more valid in relation to the vast project now under consideration.

Leading proponent of the latest Holocaust memorial, Lord Pickles (ex-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel) seen here with former Prime Minister Theresa May

The record also reveals that the Jewish community itself was deeply divided over these plans. Their original proponent Greville Janner (later ennobled as Lord Janner and disgraced in a series of ‘paedophile’ scandals) wrote secretly to Tory ministers attacking his fellow Jewish Labour MP Reg Freeson (a former editor of the ‘anti-fascist’ magazine Searchlight).

Earlier sketchy and inaccurate reports about the original London Holocaust Memorial have mentioned that Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington opposed the plans, but the true story – reflecting a consensus among Britain’s senior diplomats against the plans – can only now be told.

Click here to read H&D‘s report.

“The whole idea is preposterous”: the true story behind London’s Holocaust Memorial

The ‘Holocaust Memorial’ presently being considered by Westminster City Council is on a far vaster scale than anything contemplated in 1980 – but even then the proposals were dismissed as ‘preposterous’ by the British Foreign Secretary.

In April 1980 Michael Heseltine, Environment Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, wrote to his colleague Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary, to consult him about plans that Heseltine had been discussing for the past year with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, “to erect a memorial to those of all faiths who died in the Nazi Holocaust.”

This triggered more than 18 months of strong opposition by Lord Carrington, some of his fellow ministers, and the most senior officials of the Foreign Office to the proposal for a London “Holocaust” Memorial, even though both the Board of Deputies and Heseltine regularly stressed its “modest” scale.

Understandably, Carrington felt that “any monuments in the area concerned should be of a British national character.” He added: “It is by no means self-evident that Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. In addition, a long time has passed since the events which the proposed Garden would seek to commemorate.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin – who consistently sought to use the ‘Holocaust’ as a diplomatic weapon against Britain – had been boss of the Irgun terror gang that butchered two British sergeants, causing international revulsion in 1947.

Reflecting wider Foreign Office concerns, Carrington also suggested that “some Arabs might see the monument as endorsing Mr Begin’s point that the fate of the European Jews in the ’30s and ’40s should influence British policy on the Arab/Israel question in the ’80s.”

This was a reference to then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former leader of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun, who during the early 1980s persistently used the Holocaust as a diplomatic weapon against British, French and German governments.

Archival records show that Carrington was echoing the views of senior diplomats including the Foreign Office Political Director Julian Bullard (later British Ambassador to West Germany).

Julian Bullard, Political Director of the Foreign Office, was one of the most eloquent and well-informed opponents of the Holocaust Memorial project.

A memo by Bullard (whose father and several other relatives were also senior British diplomats) explained:

“I continue to see no particular reason why Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. The lapse of time (now 35 years) prompts the question why, if a memorial in Britain was desirable, it was not organised at the time, when the memory was greener.
“I continue to suspect that at least some of the sponsors of the project are hoping that, if realised, it would strengthen the idea that Britain has some sort of special responsibility towards Israel on account of the events of 1933 to 1945, and that these events are or should be still a factor in British policy in the Middle East. A perhaps even more unworthy thought is that some of the sponsors may be deliberately throwing down a challenge to anti-semitic elements in this country.”

Bullard’s colleague Sir John Graham, then Deputy Under-Secretary for the Middle East, agreed:
“I fully share Mr Bullard’s doubts. Why should not the Jewish Community buy a site and erect a memorial if they wish? Would we permit a monument to Deir Yassin in a Royal Park? And yet our responsibility for that massacre was as close (or as distant) as for the massacre of the Jews by Hitler.”

In a later memorandum, Sir John (a baronet and career diplomat who later served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to NATO) repeated and amplified this argument:
“The possible followers of the precedent include the Armenians (Turkish massacres), the PLO (Deir Yassin), the supporters of Allende and so on. Of course it is a free country and people may erect monuments, subject to planning permission, but they ought to do it on their own land and at their own expense.”

Senior Foreign Office diplomat David Gladstone compiled a summary of the arguments against a London Holocaust Memorial

A summary of the argument against the memorial was drawn up by David Gladstone, head of the Foreign Office Western European Department. He wrote:
“Mr Begin and other members of his government refer frequently to the Holocaust to justify their current security policies and to demonstrate, in the absence of convincing rational argument, why Europe is necessarily disqualified from any role in peace efforts and is not entitled to challenge Israel’s own view of her security needs. The Israeli Ambassador in London has taken a similar line in two recent speeches here, in which he has also suggested more or less explicitly that the motives for our policy are purely commercial. A memorial in London on government land might prove an irresistible stick with which to go on beating HMG from time to time.”

An aide memoire drawn up for Carrington before a Downing Street meeting on the project read:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”

Julian Bullard once again weighed in: “This incorporates my views, which have strengthened with the passage of time. It cannot be wise to contemplate authorising the proposed memorial at a time when Arab-Israeli problems, and Britain’s attitude to them, is constantly on the front pages. But the Secretary of State will want to be sure that his colleagues support him, given the likelihood of press stories.”

Arguments against the Memorial were “strongly endorsed” by the Permanent Under-Secretary himself – Sir Michael Palliser, Head of the Diplomatic Service.

Two of the senior ministers opposed to the Holocaust Memorial were Home Secretary William Whitelaw (above left) and Minister of Defence Francis Pym (above right), seen here attending the Thanksgiving Service after the Falklands War in 1982. Both Whitelaw and Pym had been awarded the Military Cross for their bravery under fire during the Second World War.

Carrington and his Foreign Office advisers received support from other senior figures. Francis Pym, Minister of Defence, wrote that a Holocaust memorial “would be rather a strange newcomer to a part of London where the existing memorials – whether one thinks of the Cenotaph itself or of the military leaders commemorated in Whitehall or around the Ministry of Defence Main Building – relate very much to the British national tradition and to our own victories and sorrows. Indeed I am afraid that I am still not entirely clear what is the object of the proposed memorial.”

Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister William Whitelaw agreed: “I have strong reservations about the erection in Whitehall of such a memorial. …I am also puzzled about the purpose of the memorial.”

It is worth pointing out that the three senior ministers with reservations or objections had all seen active service during the Second World War, and all three had been awarded the Military Cross, granted for “an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land.” Carrington spent a decade with the Grenadier Guards from 1939 to 1949, eventually with the rank of acting major, and was awarded the MC in March 1945 for his bravery while commanding a tank crossing the Rhine, capturing and holding a bridge at Nijmegen. Pym served in the 9th Lancers in North Africa and Italy, also to the rank of major, and was awarded the MC after being twice mentioned in despatches. Whitelaw was with the Scots Guards, and later the 6th Guards Tank Brigade, commanding tanks during the Battle of Normandy in the summer of 1944. His MC was awarded after the 26-year-old Whitelaw took over from his battalion’s second-in-command who had been killed in front of him.

The future Lord Carrington (centre) with his fellow Grenadier Guards

However on 12th November 1981 Prime Minister Thatcher – for largely political reasons – overrode these objections and a “modest” Holocaust memorial was eventually erected in Hyde Park, officially unveiled in June 1983.

The full story of this memorial, and the planning arguments involved – highly relevant to the present battle within Westminster City Council’s planning committee over whether to approve a far more grandiose memorial – is told in a detailed report submitted to Westminster City Council by H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Click here to read this detailed and fully documented report.

Gross dishonesty of Murdoch press attack on British nationalist

We have become used to the gross dishonesty of the British press when attacking racial nationalists. A prize example is in today’s Sunday Times, which devotes half a page to the supposed ‘scandal’ that Mark Collett, a former BNP official now prominent in the ‘Alt Right’, has made money from YouTube videos.

The fact that these profits were entirely legal and normal makes no difference to Rupert Murdoch’s scandalmongers.

Today’s Sunday Times attack on Mark Collett

Typical of their sly distortion is a passage towards the end of the article:

He was tried over race-hate claims in 2006. He had reportedly said Asian men “are trying to destroy us” and had pledged to “show these ethnics the door”. The jury failed to reach a verdict.

Collett was later arrested for threatening to kill Griffin as part of a “failed coup” in 2010, but again walked free.

The truth is that the British state twice brought Mark Collett to trial at Leeds Crown Court under the race laws, in relation to secret recordings made with the help of BNP turncoat Andy Sykes for a BBC programme, The Secret Agent, but both prosecutions failed.

In the alleged ‘Griffin murder plot’ case in 2010, Mr Collett was never even charged. This arrest again stemmed from a secret recording: Mr Collett’s fellow BNP official David Hannam – a tragically weak and easily manipulated individual – recorded his telephone calls as part of an internal BNP feud. No charges were brought against Mr Collett because police forensic experts quickly discovered that the tapes had been edited, and Mr Hannam refused to provide the unedited originals.

(The reason being that the unedited originals revealed evidence of financial corruption inside Nick Griffin’s BNP.)

Titanic elects new Captain

Adam Walker won this month’s BNP leadership election, unsurprisingly as he had many life member proxy votes in his pocket!

It would once have been big news for H&D readers that both UKIP and the BNP held leadership elections this week. The fact that many readers wouldn’t even have known these elections were happening is testimony to these parties having sunk into irrelevance.

The decline of these two parties has taken two very different forms. The BNP now exists only as a means of obtaining legacies from the wills of elderly patriots, many of whom would have drawn up their wills at a time when the BNP seemed a genuine challenge to the multiracial establishment.

Cynical BNP chairman Adam Walker and his right-hand man, party treasurer Clive Jefferson, have faced two challenges this year.

One is a continuing court case seeking to reverse their abuse of the party constitution: this case is continuing and it would not be appropriate for H&D to comment further.

Those BNP activists who still want to see a campaigning political party backed David Furness’s dommed challenge for the leadership.

The other was a leadership election, in which North London activist and former mayoral candidate David Furness challenged Walker. It was obvious that Mr Furness had the backing of almost all the party’s remaining serious activists, including Brian Parker (the longest serving councillor in the party’s history); East London organiser Paul Sturdy; and Bexley activists Mike Jones and Nicola Finch.

Yet his campaign was crippled by two factors. Firstly, many who would have backed Mr Furness have already quit the BNP in despair. Secondly, it seems that Walker and Jefferson had the proxy votes of unknown numbers of life members safely tucked in their pockets.

The official result was 308 votes for Adam Walker and 161 votes for Mr Furness. This in itself indicates a significant decline in membership since the previous leadership election in 2015, when Mr Walker polled 523 votes to Paul Hilliard’s 145.

And of course if you go back to the 2011 election (only eight years ago) the BNP was unrecognisably larger: at that very close contest Nick Griffin polled 1,157 votes to 1,148 for Andrew Brons.

What now for those few true patriots in the BNP? Logically they should be seeking a new political home, perhaps in alliance with the National Front.

This week’s other leadership election was in UKIP, whose decline has been due to general crankiness and simple lack of ability, rather than the cynicism and corruption that have pervaded the BNP’s hierarchy since the Griffin years.

UKIP ex-leader Gerard Batten (left) with EDL founder Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (alias ‘Tommy Robinson’) whose increasingly close relationship with the party prompted Nigel Farage to resign.

Under outgoing leader Gerard Batten, UKIP drove away Nigel Farage and many other former MEPs and senior activists by pursuing an extreme and obsessive form of anti-Islam campaigning, and by building alliances with eccentric YouTube ‘stars’ such as Carl Benjamin, aka ‘Sargon of Akkad’.

Batten had promised only to be a caretaker leader after the scandal that ousted his predecessor Henry Bolton, but despite disastrous local and European election results he tried to seek a new mandate by standing in this year’s leadership election.

UKIP’s national executive refused to allow the retiring leader to stand. In a circular to members issued on July 30th, they wrote:

The NEC’s decision to exclude Gerard Batten from the ballot paper was a difficult one, and one which the NEC members knew would cause controversy whichever way they voted, and I have been asked to provide this explanation to our members.

All candidates for the leadership election were required to attend a vetting interview after which any recommendations and observations may be passed onto the NEC. The NEC had hoped to receive assurances from Gerard over his engagement with Tommy Robinson, over future “personal advisors” unapproved by the party’s governing board, whether he would be willing to engage with television and radio stations to get our message across, and whether he was willing to stand for more than a single year. Gerard knew that his candidacy would be challenged, but nevertheless chose not to attend the interview. The NEC found that Gerard had brought the party into disrepute and had failed the vetting element of the candidate requirements.

Against the NEC’s advice and wishes, he associated the party with people who did the party great electoral harm, and had, in effect silenced UKIP at a time when Brexit is and was the most pressing political issue of the day. Everyone tasked with getting the party’s message out in the European elections was stifled by questions about Gerard’s appointees. It was clear that we would be further marginalised in the future while the Party’s direction was turned from Brexit and was being dominated by people like Tommy Robinson. So unequal was that relationship, that the leader did not distance himself from Tommy Robinson, even when he stood against UKIP in the European elections.

Gerard’s strategy gave others the excuse needed to found the Brexit Party. The Brexit Party has since drawn not only millions of voters away from us, but also many of our longstanding members and elected representatives. This year might have been UKIP’s year had it not been for this leadership decision made in defiance and against the advice of the NEC. The result was that UKIP, the original party of Brexit, suffered its worst ever election defeat in recent years.

Further, it was felt that the party had greatly suffered from Gerard’s refusal to engage with TV, radio and press, thereby denying us a voice.

Finally, there was no confidence that Gerard would continue to stand as leader, having since the European elections repeatedly said that he would not, having had both his deposit paid and his nomination papers completed by Tommy Robinson supporters, and having made it clear, even at the time of the vetting interview, that he was still uncertain as to whether he would withdraw his application to stand in the election.

As is manifestly clear from our constitution, the NEC has a clear duty to safeguard the long term future of UKIP. That was the NEC’s sole intention.

These are important times for us, and the political climate is changing rapidly. UKIP needs a fresh start which will begin with the leadership election.

Alan Craig outside one of ‘Tommy Robinson’s court appearances. Craig was the main backer of former UKIP leader Batten and newly elected leader Richard Braine

At first Batten’s fellow anti-Islamist Alan Craig (former leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance) threatened to bring a legal action against the national executive on the former leader’s behalf. However this was soon dropped. Batten and Craig changed their strategy to endorse West London UKIP branch chairman Richard Braine.

And UKIP’s members went on to slap their own executive in the face and endorse Batten’s failed strategy! Braine was elected with more than 50% of the vote, ahead of three rival candidates. The full result was:

Richard Braine 2,935 votes (53%)

Freddy Vachha [London regional chairman] 1,184 (20%)

Ben Walker [Royal Navy veteran and former South Gloucs councillor] 753 (14%)

Mike Hookem [former deputy leader and ex-MEP for Yorkshire & Humber] 717 (13%)

The UKIP Titanic’s new captain is likely to order full steam ahead, and will probably appoint Batten as his deputy, surrounding himself with many of the same anti-Islam obsessives who courted disaster at the polls earlier this year.

No doubt the big winners from all this will be Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party, who can expect many new recruits from the anti-Batten wing of UKIP, though if the Conservative Party will accept them, many might prefer to join up with Prime Minister Boris and his new, supposedly pro-Brexit party.

Italy heads for ‘post-fascist’ coalition

Steve Bannon with Giorgia Meloni at a conference of her ‘post-fascist’ party Fratelli d’Italia

Matteo Salvini – the leading anti-immigration politician in Europe – is set to realign Italian politics with a new, ‘post-fascist’ coalition.

As interior minister and deputy prime minister in the present Italian government, Salvini has already pursued radical and highly popular policies to protect Italy from tides of immigrants crossing the Mediterranean.

However – as H&D has consistently argued – the coalition between his Lega party and the anti-establishment (but essentially liberal) Five Star Movement was always incoherent and unlikely to last.

Though it is obvious that Salvini is now deliberately looking for an excuse to break up the coalition, this should be seen not as an unscrupulous bid for personal power, but as an attempt to create a more ideologically stable coalition, probably with the Fratelli d’Italia (‘Brothers of Italy’) party, one of several movements that grew out of the postwar fascist party MSI.

Fratelli and their leader Giorgia Meloni have for several years been allied to the British Conservative Party in the European Parliament, an inconvenient fact that doesn’t get mentioned in the alarmist analysis published today in the Sunday Telegraph.

Nevertheless a Lega-Fratelli alliance would be a bold challenge to the postwar European consensus, and would probably succeed in winning a solid majority for an explicitly anti-immigration, pro-White government, whenever new Italian elections are held.

The biggest short-term problem is that Italy’s constitution allows all sorts of delays which might involve the President appointing a ‘centrist’ government that could hold power for many months without elections.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter