Vanity politics: MP defects to ‘Reclaim’ party
This morning we saw a perfect example of this, when the MP for North West Leicestershire, Andrew Bridgen, defected to the Reclaim Party.
Bridgen has been a Tory MP since 2010 but was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative Party in January this year and expelled from the party three months later, after endorsing a series of bizarre conspiracy theories about the CoViD pandemic.
Some readers whose political knowledge depends on a social media echo chamber might be tempted to regard Bridgen as an anti-establishment hero. In fact aspects of his record indicate fairly clearly why Richard Tice and Reform UK (the main civic nationalist party) chose not to welcome him, despite the fact this would have given them an MP, and why he ended up joining a tiny vanity project like Reclaim.
Last year Bridgen was found repeatedly to have broken parliamentary rules on paid lobbying, including failure to declare financial interests. This included payments of £12,000 per year from a company based in Ghana.
Among many other questionable incidents, Bridgen has been involved in a long running financial disputes with his own relatives over his family business, which resulted in a High Court judge stating that the MP had “lied under oath and behaved in an abusive, arrogant and aggressive manner”, was “an unreliable and combative witness who tried to conceal his own misconduct”, and “gave evasive and argumentative answers and tangential speeches that avoided answering the questions”.
Some might think this is the sort of behaviour one should expect from Members of Parliament – but it is tragic that one of the few MPs to have broken with the mainstream should be someone of this sort, and that the defection should have occurred on a fringe, crank issue rather than on one of the many serious issues where the political establishment has betrayed our country.
Reclaim is not even a serious political party. There were over 8,000 local council seats contested at last week’s elections, and Reclaim had precisely zero candidates. It is an online vanity project, not a serious political party. So perhaps it is ideal for Andrew Bridgen.
Reclaim was created during 2020-2021 by the actor Laurence Fox, based on a pro-Brexit party founded during 2019 by Fox’s main donor, billionaire financier Jeremy Hosking.
Ex-BNP official suspended by Tories
A former senior official in Nick Griffin’s BNP has been exposed in Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party. The Tories have suspended Andy McBride from party membership, but he remains a Conservative candidate on the ballot paper for Bracknell Town Council in Berkshire.
During the late 2000s McBride became notorious as an especially factional and obstreperous BNP official. As regional organiser for South East England, he was a bitter enemy of H&D and sought to obstruct or even purge Griffin’s enemies from BNP ranks. His targets included well known supporters of former BNP leader John Tyndall, including the late Richard Edmonds and Warren Glass.
Now it is McBride himself who is being purged from his new party. He is accused not only of past roles in the BNP and Britain First, but of allegedly ‘racist’ posts on social media.
In 2011 McBride and his close ally, Ulster businessman Jim Dowson, resigned from the BNP and formed Britain First, together with former BNP official Paul Golding. Three years later, Dowson and McBride quit Britain First after a dispute with Golding. McBride made his way into the Conservative Party, while Dowson operates a series of Ulster-based fundraising enterprises alongside Nick Griffin.
McBride has written several garbled, ideologically incoherent replies to recent exposés by local newspapers. In his way, McBride is probably a sincere Christian whose politics are fundamentally reactionary and anti-Muslim rather than racial nationalist, but who ventures into colourful language and politically incorrect metaphors on social media.
The sad end to his political career shows that old-fashioned reactionaries have no future in today’s ‘woke’ Conservative Party. But equally, the fact that someone as ideologically vacuous as McBride ever became a BNP regional organiser is a damning indictment of the Griffin era.
The legacy of St Patrick – two H&D articles from our archives
H&D wishes all our Irish, Northern Irish and Ulster Scots readers a very happy Saint Patrick’s Day – whichever part of the world you are in.
Editor’s note: The first article – “Saint Patrick the Patron Saint of the USA” – was written several years ago, but the same issues are still being discussed in Loyalist circles today – now mainly on internet forums. So, it was fitting that we republished it (in hard copy in issue #77 of H&D) on St Patrick’s Day 2017.
It was America that spawned the St Patrick’s Day parade, not Ireland, and its origins are both Protestant and British…
As March 17th approaches, the annual debate has reignited on whether Unionism should embrace St Patrick and the day set aside for his commemoration. Over the last five years there has been a slow emergence of Protestant participation on the date, though that has been via the creation of new events rather than involvement in existing ones. This article examines the origin of St Patrick’s Day parades, this new emerging trend, its motivation and where it may possibly lead.
The question ‘where is the biggest St Patrick’s Day parade in Northern Ireland?’ at first glance would appear easily answered. Belfast most would say, with a few probably suggesting the Cathedral City of Armagh or even where he was allegedly laid to rest, Downpatrick. What will surprise many is that the largest parade for the last few years by sheer number of participants has been in the small County Armagh village of Killylea. It is here since 2005 the Cormeen Rising Sons of William Flute Band have held their annual band procession and competition. Last year the Cormeen parade saw 42 bands take part (in comparison to the seven that paraded at the Dublin event), amounting to approximately 1800 band members. Thousands of spectators stood along the route, despite it being a bitterly cold evening.
Cormeen Rising Sons of William chairman Mark Gibson explains that the bands original motivation for the parade came more out of necessity than anything else. “The band season is very busy, and when trying to find a date for our parade it was difficult to define one that didn’t clash with other bands locally.” Some members suggested March 17 as a solution to the problem, but the band was nervous. “We were concerned about how a St Patrick’s Day parade would go down in our community, the parade in Armagh never was very welcoming, but we made a decision to try it and it has been a success.”
From that initial year where thirteen bands took part, the parade is now among the largest in the Province. It’s not only the number of bands participating that has increased, but also the crowds attending to watch, and the event is increasingly becoming a fixture in the calendar for many Unionists. Another band, the Ulster Protestant Boys Flute Coleraine, have started a similar event on the date that too is growing. The ever increasing scale of both processions indicates clearly that there is certainly a willingness within the PUL (Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist) community to be involved in St Patrick’s Day. Where the schisms emerge are with the issues of why and how.
It is generally acknowledged that in the distant past Patrick was not a controversial figure for Protestants in Ireland or beyond. His ‘sainthood’ was never conferred by the Pope and pre-dates the reformation, so he was never seen as being the possession of ‘Rome’. St Patrick was seen as an evangelical Christian who had made personal sacrifice to spread the gospel in Ireland. The anniversary of his death was observed and commemorated by all Protestant denominations to different degrees, with the Church of Ireland in particular very active.
The shift from an anniversary of religious significance towards an ‘Irish’ event however first took place in the United States in 1737. In Boston that year the Irish Charitable Society, made up of Protestant immigrants (some of whom were British Soldiers), held their first meeting and dinner. The purpose was to both honour Patrick in the context of their Protestant faith and to reach out the hand of friendship to other Irish immigrants. The exercise obviously struck a chord and the practise spread, with the first recorded parade in New York in 1766, with again British Soldiers of Irish blood heavily involved. It was America that spawned the St Patrick’s Day parade, not Ireland, and its origins are both Protestant and British.
During that period in history the vast majority of Irish immigrants were Presbyterian, however from 1830 it was Catholic arrivals who were in the ascendancy. With that change began an emphasis towards anti-British sentiment in the demonstrations. In the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War anything portrayed as anti-colonial was well received, with even the many original Protestant immigrant descendants non-antagonistic of this motivation. Many British ‘Loyalists’ had left for Canada, and effectively the descendants of the original Protestant Irish settlers remaining saw themselves as primarily American in identity, with all that was left for their original ‘homeland’ of Ireland simply folk memory and sentimentality.
Mike Cronin, author of A History of St Patrick’s Day, states that whilst this tradition was developing, back in Ireland the first parades didn’t take place until the 1840’s and even then they were organised by Temperance societies. Mike emphasises the lack of public celebration “The only other major events in nineteenth century Ireland was a trooping of the colour ceremony and grand ball held at Dublin Castle.” So even as late as 1911 the largest St Patrick’s Day occasion in Ireland was still rooted in a joint Irish and British expression of identity. Protestant churches and some Orange Lodges throughout the island appear to have held minor functions on the date, but these were very subdued affairs, and essentially even post-partition very little changed. Catholic observance of the day continued to different degrees in different areas, as did the Protestant nod to Patrick.
Right up until the 1960s the primary theme of St Patrick’s Day in both Northern Ireland and the Republic still remained religious observance, with even from 1923 to then public houses and bars in the Republic of Ireland closed by law. A poll conducted in 1968 suggested that 20% of Northern Irish Protestants at this stage still considered themselves Irish. The onset of civil unrest in Northern Ireland coincided however with the importation of the American style to St Patrick’s events in Dublin and elsewhere. Now whilst a violent conflict was being waged in the name of all things Irish, St Patrick’s Day parades were starting to display the features that had developed in the United States. On these parades Irish identity was perceived by Northern Protestants as being defined as aggressively anti-British and anti-Protestant, with the disjointed and casual nature of the parades and the now integral alcohol element alien to PUL parading traditions and customs.
As the IRA campaign escalated, many Protestants simply could not divorce the fact that these celebrations displayed an exclusive form of Irish sentiment whilst a campaign was being waged against them in the name of Ireland. As the years progressed, in Northern Ireland in particular it became apparent that the day was being deliberately used in many instances as an extension of the Irish Republican war against Unionism.
Grand Orange Lodge Director of Services Dr David Hume reiterates the view that in the recent past it has been the nature of the parades and commemorative events that turned Protestants away. “The perception among Unionism is without doubt that Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism has used St Patrick’s Day parades as a weapon, effectively using the ‘shield’ of Patrick to express obvious militant anti-British and therefore anti-Unionist sentiment.” David believes that the manner and focus of these events is totally at odds with the purported motivation. “St Patrick’s Day should be used as a day of reflection on the religious significance of Patrick, something far removed from the aggressive and confrontational use of symbolism; and the huge emphasis on alcohol consumption that currently seems to be the case.” David bluntly states that the date isn’t an important one on the ‘Orange’ calendar, but recognises that it does have a place in society.
There remains one annual Orange Order parade related to St Patrick’s Day, which is held each year in Ballymena. One of the participating Lodges is The Cross of St Patrick LOL 688 which was founded in 1967. A lodge spokesperson describes the motivation behind its formation as being “to reclaim the heritage of Saint Patrick” explaining that “Brethren were concerned that Patrick’s heritage was being hijacked by Roman Catholicism and Republicanism.” The lodge’s concerns would appear to have been reflecting the growing sense of alienation the PUL community was feeling regarding St Patricks events.
There is no doubt that this alienation effectively forced many Protestants into an automatically negative position regarding St Patrick’s Day. With the advent of the IRA cessations of violence and the ongoing political process however, it has become apparent that many within Unionism have been able to reflect much more on the meaning of St Patrick’s Day for them. The ending of a violent ‘Irish’ physical campaign has given space to examine the date, with many now realising that it once was a date of relevance that they were forced into denying, and there is a willingness to make it relevant again. Nevertheless this reflection and willingness has not as yet manifested itself into significant participation in civic St Patrick’s Day parades.
With a few exceptions, such as the participation of an unashamedly Loyalist Blood and Thunder band in the 2003 Limerick St Patrick’s Band competition, Unionism still does not feel comfortable taking part in the modern version of a St Patrick’s parade. Concerns still exist regarding the involvement of militant Republicanism in such events along with the aggressive use of flags and symbols, but the problem seems to go much deeper.
Iain Carlisle of the Ulster Scots Community Network has a very straightforward and unambiguous answer regarding Unionist involvement in St Patrick’s Day events. Iain states very clearly “I don’t think there has to be ANY justification given for Protestants or Unionists marking Patrick’s day”, but goes on to say that “there is however a fundamental difference of approach to both Patrick as a person and the means of celebration within the Unionist community”. Iain’s comments would appear to reflect not just a general uncomfortable position with the overtly ‘United Ireland’ underlying St Patrick’s Day theme, but the actual motivation and method of celebration.
All historical examinations of Protestant Irish and their approach and relationship with Patrick indicates that for them he has never truly deviated from having a purely theological relevance. On St Patrick’s Day however the majority of Catholics, Irish Nationalists, Republicans, those of Irish descent and indeed anyone who wants a day out, St Patrick’s significance as a religious icon is purely tokenistic. St Patrick is merely a figurehead for overt Irish nationalism and a holiday. In turn the Unionist tradition of parading has developed from a military perspective and the American style parades are an alien concept, being perceived as being undisciplined and overtly casual.
Whilst new events have arisen, it is obvious that Unionism has no desire to abandon its central belief of Patrick’s religious relevance, and in addition is reluctant to embrace what it sees as an alien approach to parades. Even with the emergence of band parades on the date, they in themselves are a much more disciplined and subdued practise than their counterparts on the day. Whatever the future holds, it is clear that the PUL community is going through an ongoing examination of Patrick and his relevance to them. As journalist Chris Ryder recently pointed out “there will be no going back to the view that St Patrick was a Catholic, and a saint only for Catholics.”
The second article “Enoch Powell’s Suppressed Article Rediscovered”, on St Patrick, was published by us in March 2016 (in hard copy in issue 71 of H&D) it certainly added fuel to the (Loyalist) bonfire!
Enoch Powell’s Suppressed Article (on St Patrick, Ulster and the Scots Irish Identity) Rediscovered – with introduction by Peter Rushton, H&D Assistant Editor
After the Conservatives returned to government under Margaret Thatcher in 1979, Enoch Powell hoped Ulster’s status as an integral part of the United Kingdom would be reaffirmed. Some of the leading figures on Thatcher’s wing of the Conservative Party were Powellites, and until the eve of the 1979 election the Tories’ Northern Ireland spokesman had been Airey Neave – a strong and determined Unionist. Tragically Neave was murdered by a car bomb at the House of Commons in March 1979, and his successors pursued a very different policy: commitment to Ulster’s identity was progressively weakened through the 1980s.
Powell came to believe that the CIA had a hand in Airey Neave’s murder, and it is now established that MI6 and CIA operatives had been pursuing a deal with the IRA since the mid-1970s.
In January 1981 however (still believing that Thatcher’s government would defend the Union) Powell proposed that the Foreign Office should produce articles and booklets for the American public to explain Ulster’s distinct identity. It was agreed that Powell would write a brief article to be published in U.S. newspapers on St Patrick’s Day (17th March 1981) and that a 1965 booklet – Scotch-Irish and Ulster – would be reprinted, both with Foreign Office support.
Although Powell submitted the article and welcomed republication of the pamphlet, both were sidelined: the anti-Ulster faction in Whitehall and Washington triumphed. The article and related official correspondence remained classified until February 2015, and H&D now reveals the story for the first time after I obtained the documents from the National Archives.
If St Patrick has a Member to represent him in Parliament, I must surely be that man. My constituency in the House of Commons is Down South, the southern half of the county of Down, which looks across the Irish Sea beyond the Isle of Man to Cumberland and Galloway. From that southern half there projects a peninsula which the ancient geographers were already calling Dunum, or Down; and Downpatrick, the town which stands at the isthmus of that peninsula, happily combines the name of the place and that of the British missionary with a late Roman surname who we believe brought Christianity from the largest to the second largest of the British Isles.
The peninsula where he landed, baptised his first converts, built his first church and laid his bones to rest has still a palpable individuality. When I drive into it – its traditional name is Lecale – from some other part of my constituency, I am always conscious of crossing a threshold. But the same is just as true of the whole north-eastern part of Ireland to which that peninsula is attached: it is distinct and separate from the rest, as if by a decree of nature. Geographically and geologically it had its own pattern, a mountain ring enclosing an inner central plain, long before man came there at all; and its earliest inhabitants were linked by blood and intercourse with the neighbouring mainland. The passage which St Patrick made was no voyage of exploration: he took a ticket on a two-way traffic route rather like that across the English Channel between Dover and Calais (which in point of fact is somewhat longer).
This north-east part was called “Ulster” centuries before Henry VIII (no friend of St Patrick’s!) used the word to dub one of the four administrative provinces into which he divided his Irish kingdom. Whatever elements, across the centuries, came to Ulster were drawn into its distinct identity. The Norman baron who, with a handful of knights and the king’s permission, rode north from Dublin into Ulster in the 1170s founded an independent principality – the earldom of Ulster, which is today held by the Queen’s cousin, the Duke of Gloucester. Into Ulster flowed settlers from England and Wales as well as from Scotland, long before the Plantation of James I; and the separateness of the province claimed and enveloped them all.
That happened pre-eminently to those Scots who were the major element in the settlement of the forfeited lands at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Research has proved that they by no means displaced the earlier Ulstermen so comprehensively as was intended and is often believed. It is also true that they only represented one, albeit the largest, of a series of contingents earlier and later who returned across the narrow North Channel to the land from which the ancestors of many of them had originally come in remote, even prehistoric times. The great fact, however, is that, like the rest, they became part of Ulster.
The vocabulary of American history has called those people Scotch Irish. The truer name is that by which they liked, and still like, to call themselves – Ulster Scots. For they were indeed, and remain in virtue of many ties, Scots; but above all they were Ulstermen. This therefore was the Ulster, unique from its beginning, which contributed a disproportionate share – including at least ten presidents – to the foundation and to the spirit of the American nation right from the origins of its independence. It is a contribution as distinct from the rest, and as distinctive, as any other, whether Irish, English or Scots.
The modern search for national roots is, I believe, as healthy as it is popular and expanding. It has already brought many Americans, and not only those with demonstrable ancestral ties, to Ulster, to learn on the spot – the only sure way – the truth about its past and its present. Those who come are coming to the place which, of all spots on the globe, is peculiarly and forever St Patrick’s. On his day America is remembered in Ulster, as Ulster ought to be remembered in America.
Editor’s note: J. Enoch Powell (1912-1998) was Ulster Unionist MP for South Down, 1974-87, having earlier been Conservative MP for Wolverhampton South West, 1950-74. His career in Conservative politics ended when he was sacked as the party’s defence spokesman in April 1968, following his famous “Rivers of blood” speech which criticised Britain’s racial transformation, which can be read online here.
Historic RAF site to be demolished for ‘refugee centre’: will Gary Lineker intervene?
During the past week, BBC presenter Gary Lineker has deployed wartime rhetoric to condemn government policy on immigration. He suggests that ‘asylum seekers’ are similar to refugees from 1930s Europe. As with so many liberal arguments in favour of immigrants, all the usual ‘anti-Nazi’ rhetoric is mobilised. Lineker suggests that Britain’s ‘heroic’ wartime record implies that we must roll out the welcome mat for those disembarking on our coast daily in small boats.
Yet a story has since emerged that might give even Lineker pause for thought.
RAF Scampton is one of Britain’s most historic wartime sites. In May 1943 Wing Commander Guy Gibson and his 617 Squadron led the famous ‘Dambusters raid’ from this airfield. In recent years it has been used as a base for the Red Arrows, the RAF’s aerobatic team.
A £300m deal had been agreed with the local council earlier this year that would preserve a museum at Scampton, restore the Officers’ Mess into a hotel, and provide 1,000 jobs to local residents.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman is keen to make propaganda about immigration, hoping that the Conservative Party can again deceive British voters. Yet it is her department that is committing this vandalism at Scampton, destroying listed buildings and riding roughshod over British heritage.
Can we expect any word on Twitter from Gary Lineker about this issue?
RAF Scampton was of course also the home of Wing Commander Guy Gibson’s famous dog ‘Nigger’, whose name has been removed by censors from all recent broadcasts of The Dambusters film. Even YouTube now restricts a video featuring this famous dog!
Nigger featured in the film partly because of the coincidence that the dog (a much loved mascot of 617 Squadron) was killed in a car accident on the very night of the Dambusters raid: he was buried at midnight as his owner was en route to Germany. Nigger is buried at RAF Scampton, but in 2021 following ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests, his original gravestone was destroyed. Paying tribute to the black American criminal George Floyd was judged more important than Britain’s own wartime history.
Gary Lineker and immigration hypocrisy
This weekend the British government, our national broadcaster, and our national sport have been caught up in a hypocritical circus over immigration. Television’s best known sports programme – Match of the Day – and many other football programmes have been severely disrupted.
Gary Lineker, the former England international who has presented Match of the Day since 1999, has been increasingly vocal in his left-liberal political views during recent years, especially regarding ‘racism’ and immigration.
In effect, Lineker is only taking to its logical conclusion an obsession with ‘anti-racism’ that has been forced on football. Ever since the start of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ campaigns, paying tribute to the black American criminal George Floyd, Premiership football teams (and especially the England team) have religiously ‘taken the knee’.
So it probably seemed to Lineker that he was merely being consistent when he criticised the British government’s new, supposedly ‘tough’, immigration policy. In doing so he made an obligatory reference to ‘1930s Germany’. (No one imagines that Lineker, who left school at 16 and has shown no sign of being especially studious since then, has any advanced knowledge of Third Reich history! He was merely parroting the usual left-liberal slogans.)
What Lineker didn’t realise is that the UK’s Tory government under Rishi Sunak – son of immigrants and married to the daughter of an Indian billionaire – aims to play its usual hypocritical games over immigration. These games have been typical of the Conservative Party ever since its then leader Margaret Thatcher played a con trick on British voters in January 1978, hinting that she shared their concerns about our nation being “swamped” by immigrants.
Today’s Tories aim to be ‘anti-racist’ in practice – presiding over an increasingly emasculated police force, housing illegal immigrants in hotels across the UK at public expense, and extending the definition of ‘harmful extremism’ and even ‘terrorism’ so as to harass active patriots – but also seek to deploy ‘dog whistle’ tactics by sending signals to racially concerned voters that really they are on their side (or at any rate are more pro-White than the Labour Party).
It seems odd to describe Lineker – one of the country’s best paid broadcasters – as a victim: but to an extent he has at least tried to be consistent, and as a man of limited education he is probably genuinely mystified by the hypocrisy of his employers and the governing party.
Most H&D readers are likely to agree that Lineker is entitled to his own opinions. We would not object to people with whom we happen to disagree politically, being allowed to present sports programmes – provided that this latitude is applied consistently. If someone with strong, publicly-expressed, pro-immigration views is allowed to present Match of the Day, then the same should apply to those who express strong anti-immigration views.
Sadly this is not the case. Anyone of even mildly nationalist views faces a witchhunt to remove them from public life. This weekend The Times – once the world’s most respected newspaper – harassed a prominent businessman because of views expressed by his son, not even by the businessman himself! To be vocally anti-immigration is to risk not only demonisation and marginalisation, but even criminalisation.
Polling evidence on racial questions is very difficult to analyse, because much depends on how the questions are phrased, and the general public are sometimes unwilling to associate publicly with any position that is deemed ‘extreme’.
But there is increasing evidence that large numbers of voters have had enough. If and when racial nationalists can get their act together, it seems clear that there is huge potential support for a movement of national resistance, whether at the ballot box or on the streets. H&D looks forward to reporting on the growth of this national resistance in the coming weeks and months.
CoViD and race – leaked files reveal how nationalists missed the epidemic’s true story
This morning’s edition of the Daily Telegraph, continuing its publication of leaked WhatsApp messages exchanged by senior ministers and officials during the CoViD pandemic – thoroughly vindicates H&D‘s stance published as early as the summer of 2020.
It was clear to us that these early stages of the pandemic proved the failure of our multiracial, multicultural society. Certain minority groups showed no respect for our laws and no respect for the interests of Britain’s wider community. Instead they either selfishly pursued their own profit (while risking public health) or became obsessed by primitive voodoo superstitions.
As a consequence, the government was seeking to enforce lockdown within law-abiding indigenous British communities, while unable to act against blatant flouting of pandemic regulations among minority communities.
On the basis of leaked WhatsApp messages, today’s Telegraph alleges: “Ministers feared that Covid was spreading more rapidly among non-compliant communities but were worried they would be
labelled ‘racist’ if they highlighted the issue.”
H&D first exposed this issue on 20th July 2020, adding further details on 12th August and 18th August, followed by an analysis of the broader pandemic issues by one of the very few leading British nationalists with serious scientific qualifications – our correspondent Ian Freeman – on 3rd October 2020.
Meanwhile, we now know (thanks to the Telegraph‘s revelations this morning) that the Health Secretary Matt Hancock and junior health minister Nadine Dorries were privately discussing some of the very same issues.
On 20th August (two days after H&D‘s publication of its third article on this topic) Dorries wrote to her boss Hancock that the government could not credibly “put whole towns and villages with extremely low R rates in lockdown (our voters) and deprive those people of work and family, because of the behaviour of non-compliant communities.”
Hancock expressed disbelief that local council leaders had failed to act, and Dorries emphasised that this was a matter of racial politics. Andy Burnham (Labour Mayor of the Greater Manchester region that includes Oldham) “will not agree”, wrote Dorries, “nor will any of the MPs or any of Oldham leaders. They [would] be locking down their voters and setting ours free.”
In other words, exactly as H&D wrote at the time, pandemic rates were rocketing in Asian areas of Oldham (packed with Labour voters) but much lower and in some cases negligible in White areas in and around Oldham (more likely to vote Conservative in 2019-2020 but where nationalists achieved very high votes in the early 2000s).
Dorries reminded Hancock about the 2001 race riots, before her days as an MP but when she had been working as special adviser to a Tory frontbench spokesman. She warned that such towns remained a tinderbox, and gave the Pendle area of Lancashire as an example. “The town ward of Colne, 18 pubs, white working class, would be like a tinder box if its pubs closed because of non-compliance and infection rates in Nelson, 2 pubs, Pakistani community next door.”
Dorries was correctly echoing H&D‘s arguments, but while ministers understood the facts, they ignored one important aspect. Twenty years ago nationalists in Lancashire had high quality leadership, before Nick Griffin chose to wreck his own party. Yet in the 2020s nationalist leaders totally failed to observe those political aspects of the pandemic expertly laid out for them by H&D. Once again, British nationalists were lions led by donkeys. A political open goal was missed, and many nationalist activists continued to pursue ridiculous voodoo obsessions rather than serious analysis.
The May-June edition of H&D will examine these leaked WhatsApp messages: we hope it is not too late for our movement to relearn some of the basics of political and racial reality.
Home Secretary plays the ‘Holocaust’ card in migrant row
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been the first to play the victim card in an ongoing row with the BBC over the UK government’s immigration policy.
Speaking to Nick Robinson’s podcast Political Thinking this morning, Braverman (who is herself a Buddhist of Goanese ancestry) said that she had been “personally offended” by the comments of Gary Lineker, the former England footballer who has been presenter of Match of the Day for more than twenty years.
Braverman added:
“My husband is Jewish, my children are therefore directly descendant from people who were murdered in gas chambers during the Holocaust. And my husband’s family is very – feels very – keenly the impact of the Holocaust, actually.”
Lineker, one of the highest-paid broadcasters in Britain, has repeatedly expressed politically-correct views on Twitter and recently criticised the government’s immigration policies. Replying to an opponent this week, Lineker tweeted:
“There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.
“This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”
Predictably the row has degenerated into both sides playing the ‘nazi’ card, and Braverman clearly feels that her tangential connection to the ‘Holocaust’ gives her some advantage in the victim stakes.
Lineker’s comments were stupid and should be criticised for their foolishness, not because they might offend someone married to a Jew.
The underlying point of course is that St Gary is another symptom of the crude political correctness that can be expected from the football industry after several decades of relentless ‘anti-racist’ indoctrination.
In earlier generations, ‘racism’ when expressed by people within football was inevitably crudified, and so is ‘anti-racism’. No big deal either way, and not grounds for sacking – provided that (within reason) football commentators are also allowed to express anti-immigration sentiments. Provided it is not obligatory to kneel in memory of black criminal George Floyd, and provided it is permissible for BBC broadcasters to assert that White Lives Matter, none of us should be too worried about Lineker and his ilk expressing their opinions.
The problem is that only one side of the political fence is considered acceptable.
Perhaps the case should be put to Mr Lineker in those terms, and that would I think silence him rather more effectively than attempts at straightforward censorship!
Reform UK’s ballot box failure continues
Yesterday’s local by-elections offered further confirmation that Reform UK is not making any impact in real contests (as opposed to opinion polls and friendly promotion on GB News).
In Belgrave ward, Tamworth, RefUK’s Ian Cooper polled 40 votes (4.1%), finishing fourth of five candidates. The protest vote seems to have gone instead to an Independent candidate who finished a strong third with 25.8%. On a split vote, the Tory just about held on to the seat with 34.8%.
This is a ward that UKIP contested six times during 2014-2021, on three occasions polling over 20%. It has tended to be a Con-Lab marginal, and the intervention of an Independent cost Labour what would otherwise have been a probable gain in present circumstances.
Further evidence from our movement’s standpoint that there is a substantial public mood of “plague on both your houses”, and that unlike UKIP and the Brexit Party in their day, RefUK is failing to mobilise that mood.
In the Watling South division of Staffordshire, which includes Belgrave ward but is usually a safer Tory seat, RefUK’s Barry Gwilt polled 110 votes (6.0%), finishing 4th of 4. Gwilt is a borough councillor in Lichfield, elected as a Tory, who defected to RefUK last month, so you would expect him to be far better than the average RefUK candidate (his borough council ward is adjacent to this county division). Therefore, although his 6% is in line with national opinion poll scores for RefUK, it actually suggests that RefUK’s true nationwide position is considerably below 6%. (Again the Tory held on, with a sharply reduced majority over Labour.)
Meanwhile the strange case of the Mosleyite who became a Tory county councillor ended in a fairly respectable vote for ex-Cllr Andy Weatherhead in Hythe West, Kent. After being ‘exposed’ a few months ago as a former activist in New British Union (a party inspired by the legacy of Sir Oswald Mosley), Mr Weatherhead resigned from the council and contested this week’s by-election as an independent, which readers might consider either brave, principled or foolish since there was nothing to prevent him serving out his term until May 2025, even after the Tories had thrown him out.
Mr Weatherhead finished bottom of the poll, but was far from disgraced, polling 237 votes (6.6%). Voters were faced with a confusing ballot paper, because there was another Independent – a former UKIP candidate, Ian Meyers, who finished fourth with 306 votes (8.6%).
It’s interesting that Meyers had not chosen to join RefUK or any of the other UKIP splinters but has ploughed a lone furrow, and that both he and Mr Weatherhead achieved votes that RefUK might envy. Again this suggests that the RefUK brand name doesn’t really add much to a dissident/populist campaign.
The big headline in Hythe was that the Greens gained the seat from the Tories, with a 12.5% swing. This has for some years been a Con-Green marginal – the Greens won it in 2017, only for Andy Weatherhead to take it back as a Tory in 2021 – so in present circumstances the result was no great surprise, though for the Green to win it by almost 500 votes was pretty impressive.
This is part of Michael Howard’s old constituency Folkestone & Hythe, presently held by technology minister Damian Collins, and it’s difficult to imagine it being anything other than Tory at the next general election. It’s surprising that the nationalist movement (racial or civic) hasn’t made more impact in these coastal areas, given the migrant crisis. Perhaps locals dislike ‘nationalist’ protesters arriving in their area from London, even more than they dislike immigrants?
Another Reform UK lost deposit: when will the Farage-Tice party achieve anything?
Within the past hour the result of yesterday’s parliamentary by-election in West Lancashire was declared.
Predictably it was an easy victory for Labour, and the swing between the two main parties was broadly in line with trends in other recent by-elections and national opinion polls, confirming that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his Conservative Party are on a path to defeat at the next General Election, which must be held within the next two years.
But for H&D readers a lot of attention will have focused on Reform UK, the rebranded version of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, led by Farage’s close ally Richard Tice.
Reform UK’s candidate Jonathan Kay polled 994 votes (4.4%): the party’s seventh successive lost deposit in parliamentary by-elections, despite months of hype from their allies at GB News and from academics such as Dr Matthew Goodwin, who continue to insist that the party’s brand of post-Thatcherite populism will achieve significant support from British voters.
On this occasion (unlike many of those earlier by-elections) Reform UK had no competition from any other candidate to the ‘right’ of the Tories. There was no candidate from UKIP or any of its many splinters, other than Reform UK.
This West Lancashire constituency is very divided socially, including some very poor areas in Skelmersdale but also some affluent and traditionally Tory-voting villages. In 2015 UKIP candidate Jack Sen (who became a very controversial figure within nationalism and has since disappeared from politics) polled 12.2% here (6,058 votes), despite having been expelled and denounced by his own party before polling day for ‘anti-semitism’!
Yet this week UKIP’s successor party Reform UK polled only 994 votes (4.4%), despite the Tory vote having collapsed to a record low for this area. Most of the previous Tory voters (and pro-Brexit voters) stayed at home rather than backing Reform UK, even at a by-election. This suggests that the party needs a fundamental rethink if it is to pose any significant challenge at the next general election.
The truth is that Farage, Tice and Reform UK have little of any relevance or interest to offer to the voters of West Lancashire, or to other Britons (especially those in impoverished areas).
The Farage-Tice agenda of a US-style largely privatised economy, with ‘free markets’ (i.e. global capitalism) very much dominant, is a recipe for internationalism, mass immigration and continued impoverishment for the White British working class.
Farage and his fellow City spivs always intended Brexit to turn London into Singapore-on-Thames, with other British towns and cities as its satellites in a small-state, low tax, low spending, ultra-capitalist, Disunited Kingdom.
The only serious challenge to that vision will come when racial nationalists abandon their recent cranky obsessions and factionalism, and unite with a clear and credible vision for national and racial renaissance. There are some signs that such a renaissance will not be too long delayed, and H&D looks forward to reporting more positive news later this year.
A telling result in a historic Rotherham council ward
There have been some doubts as to whether Labour’s revival under Sir Keir Starmer would extend into White working class areas of the North, and tonight’s by-election gain for Labour in a working-class Rotherham council ward hasn’t quite resolved those doubts.
It now seems pretty clear that Sunak’s Tories are in big trouble in the ‘red wall’ (formerly solid Labour areas where the party declined sharply in or before 2019). But neither Reform UK, nor any of its civic nationalist rivals, nor (needless to say) any racial nationalist party, has yet even laid the foundation for a serious electoral challenge any time soon.
Tonight Labour gained Keppel ward, Rotherham, from the rebranded local branch of UKIP, the Rotherham Democratic Party,
For our readers, this is a ward that will evoke poignant memories.
The late Marlene Guest fought Keppel ward three times for the BNP, polling 16.4% in 2004, then finishing a close second to Labour in 2006 and 2007 with 27.7% and 28.5%. A few years after the collapse of Griffin’s party, UKIP were the beneficiaries, gaining the ward in 2014 and 2015, and holding on to two of its three seats in the 2016 all-out election.
Following Rotherham council’s well publicised problems and reorganisation, Labour took two of the three seats in May 2021, but the third was retained by one of the surviving UKIP councillors now rebranded as a Rotherham Democrat.
This Rotherham Democrat was thrown out for non-attendance at the end of last year and his party didn’t even field a candidate in this week’s by-election.
Neither was there a candidate from any other civic nationalist party, though an ex-Labour councillor stood as an independent and the Yorkshire Party (regionalist populists) had a candidate who took 15%. The Brexit Party polled 17.2% in the Rotherham constituency in 2019, but its successor Reform UK again showed no interest in contesting a local by-election, even in such a promising area.
Labour ended up with a majority of 300 tonight, with an Asian Liberal Democrat in a surprisingly close second. The Tories also put up an Asian candidate and slipped to fourth place with a truly appalling vote, down from 24% to 5.8%.
Lab 36.1% (+4.6)
LD 21.6% (+14.7)
Ind 18.5%
YP 15.2% (+3.5)
Con 5.8% (-18.2)
Grn 2.9%
