H&D Video Podcast #1

H&D has posted our first video podcast, recorded on 13th July.

Assistant editor Peter Rushton reflects on the extraordinary elections in the UK and France. Were these turning points for ‘nationalism’? In what ways can Farage’s and Le Pen’s parties be termed ‘nationalist’?

And where does our movement go from here?

H&D is of course primarily a print magazine and will remain so: we don’t intend to become frequent video streamers.

But we shall occasionally post video podcasts, in addition to articles on our website and social media posts – as part of our contribution to the essential reassessment and rebuilding of racial nationalist politics.

The new video podcast is also now available with Spanish subtitles.

No Le Pen government: what went wrong? And what could still go right?

Jordan Bardella, president of Marine Le Pen’s party National Rally, after learning last night that he would not be Prime Minister

On 7th July, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (Rassemblement National – RN) secured the greatest vote in its history, but paradoxically one which was immediately seen as a setback! And in this case, both the pessimists and the optimists have a point.

While populist anti-immigration parties in other countries (including Le Pen’s allies in Austria and the Netherlands) have already been part of several coalition governments, and while the RN has steadily become more ‘moderate’ in many policy areas to a point where some readers might no longer recognise it as having any ideological relationship to our cause, the remaining aura of Le Pen’s father Jean-Marie (founder of the RN’s predecessor Front National) and the national obsession with its Second World War history, combine to make French nationalism a special case.

The previous National Assembly elected in 2022 was deadlocked, with both the far-left and the RN refusing either to back President Emmanuel Macron’s ‘centrists’, or (needless to say) to work with each other. Macron called a snap general election, believing that he had nothing to lose, but the RN polled very well in the first round, leading to speculation that Le Pen’s party might just about achieve an Assembly majority, or come close enough that they were able to form a minority government. The RN’s president Jordan Bardella (who will be 29 in September) was to be the party’s candidate for Prime Minister.


In the event the RN and allies obtained 143 seats – up from 89 two years ago – after polling 37% of the second round with over ten million votes. But this left them far short of a majority, and they are not even the largest group in the new Assembly, as had been widely predicted. In fact they ended up in third place, behind the far-left ‘Popular Front’ on 182 seats, and Macron’s centrist bloc on 168 seats.

The remnants of the French centre-right – the Republican party – now total just 46 seats, with another 14 Assembly members being conservatives unaligned either to the Republicans or to Le Pen’s bloc.

Bardella’s first reaction was to denounce the RN’s opponents for their opportunistic and unprincipled alliance. So it was: but arguably Bardella and Le Pen had been equally inconsistent, spending the past few years ditching traditional nationalist attitudes and latterly making alliances with conservatives who favour shrinking the French state, whereas the RN seeks to expand it! (Seventeen of the Le Pen bloc’s 143 seats belong to these conservatives, led by the former leader of the Republican party Éric Ciotti, and one is an independent right-winger outside the party, but whom the RN backed.)

Moreover, the RN leadership is itself arguably to blame for organisational failures that became evident during the campaign. Most notably, despite having themselves called repeatedly for an early election, Le Pen and Bardella had failed to prepare a full list of candidates in advance. The RN was caught out by Macron’s snap election, and had to scramble to recruit last minute candidates, some of whom proved inadequate.

To some extent this reflected a long term problem with the Le Pen movement. Although French nationalism has a far stronger intellectual tradition than its British equivalent, it has been the case for years that a large part of this elite disliked the FN and RN. Many of the best and brightest of the movement stayed outside or broke away from Le Pen’s parties: this is a problem that the RN leader will hope to fix by reuniting nationalism in alliance with her niece. But arguably the ultimate logical outcome of the ‘de-demonisation’ process is for Marine Le Pen herself to fall on her sword, and for the movement to choose a leader from outside the Le Pen dynasty.

Yet although these problems have to be acknowledged, Le Pen is in other ways ideally placed to take advantage of what seems sure to be a period of chaos and confusion as the various leftist and ‘centrist’ factions attempt to find a common agenda for government. In her first comments on the results, Le Pen said she “sees the seeds of tomorrow’s victory in today’s result”.


Ultra-left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon was quick to claim victory after the second round, but while he is the most visible leader of the ‘New Popular Front’, it seems likely that other elements in that coalition will favour a deal with President Macron’s ‘centrists’.

Under the French constitution, there cannot be another parliamentary election during the next twelve months, so it will not be possible to resolve deadlock in the manner of the 1910 or 1974 elections in the UK, nor is it possible for Macron to repeat the threats deployed last year by Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to hold a second election within months – threats which greatly strengthened his hand in coalition negotiations.

A year or two of chaos should be an ideal build-up to Le Pen’s next (and probably final) attempt to win the French Presidency in 2027.

However, it cannot be denied that the two-round system used for all French elections is likely to continue to be an obstacle. It has consistently worked against the RN/FN and was an important factor in Le Pen’s decision to ‘de-demonise’ her party. Candidates can be elected outright by polling more than 50% in the first round, but if no-one achieves this then the top two candidates in each constituency, plus any third-placed candidate supported by more than 12.5% of the electorate, goes into a second round.

In practice, especially this year, there has been a tendency for these third placed candidates to withdraw in favour of the main anti-Le Pen candidate, which makes it all the more difficult for RN to achieve a majority. This year 37 RN candidates (including Le Pen herself) were elected outright in the first round, plus one from the faction of the conservative Republican Party that supported the decision of its now ousted leader Ciotti to ally with Le Pen.

This Ciotti faction is close to Marion Maréchal, Marine Le Pen’s niece, who at the start of the election campaign broke away from the rival nationalist party Reconquête.

France is one of the few European countries that for a short time had not just one but two electorally credible ‘far right’ parties. In fact, until Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it had seemed likely that Reconquête would overtake the RN and that its founder, Jewish journalist and anti-Islam polemicist Éric Zemmour, rather than Le Pen would be the main dissident candidate for the presidency in 2027. However, while Le Pen swiftly condemned Putin, Zemmour found it much more difficult to escape the electoral consequences of his earlier Putinism, and his party swiftly declined. The precise timing of that decline makes it impossible even for those who might agree with Zemmour’s stance to deny that this policy area was the critical factor undermining him with French voters.

Maréchal was elected only a few weeks ago as a Reconquête MEP and in recent years has been effectively its deputy leader, working with Zemmour. However, after Macron called this year’s snap election, she repaired relations with her aunt and proposed negotiating an electoral pact. This led Zemmour to expel Maréchal and her supporters.


In 2022 Éric Zemmour seemed set to overtake Marine Le Pen as leader of the French anti-immigration movement: but two years later his political career seems over.

Zemmour was left with only one MEP rather than five: his surviving ally is his partner, Sarah Knafo. It’s a strange irony that the most ‘hardline’ French nationalist party (among those who contest elections) is led by Jews whose families came from Algeria and Morocco – while the vast majority of French Jews remained ‘loyal’ to parties of the centre and left, which are now in de facto alliance with the Corbyn-style anti-Zionist leftwinger, Jean-Luc Mélenchon!

Reconquête is/was both harder line than RN against immigration (especially against Islam) and more traditionally conservative (in an Anglo-American, quasi-Thatcherite sense) on economic matters, while Le Pen has taken her party onto quasi-socialist turf and has become the natural leader of French workers.

Due to being more conservative than her aunt where economic and welfare policies are concerned, Marion Maréchal was a natural emissary from Le Pen to affluent voters who share her anti-immigration stance but who also (unlike Le Pen) hope for tax cuts.

In the first round of the Assembly elections, Reconquête‘s decline was obvious: their 330 candidates polled a total of 238,934 votes (0.8%). It’s difficult to see how Zemmour can be politically relevant again, other than as an anti-Islam journalist and a mouthpiece for pro-Moscow views.

The stunning success of RN in both the European election and in the first round of the Assembly election led to exaggerated hopes that the ‘de-demonisation’ strategy had succeeded and that the French bourgeoisie would rally behind Le Pen (despite her pro-worker stance on tax and state spending), so as to be sure of excluding Mélenchon and the ultra-left from power.

In fact the second round demonstrated the strength of what some have called the ‘glass ceiling’ or ‘cordon sanitaire‘ excluding Le Pen’s party from power. Old-fashioned British psephologists would have called this a ‘plateau effect’: a party can make rapid growth, but then reaches a stage where further progress is near impossible without some seismic shock to the electorate – a serious split in a rival party, an economic catastrophe, or racial conflict verging on civil war.

This ‘glass ceiling’ is evident when one looks at the detailed results, where it is obvious that the RN had ‘maxed out’ its appeal to conservatives in the first round. It’s astounding to see the extent to which, time and again, the RN failed to increase its first round vote significantly – despite the fact that its opponents were ideological opposites whose votes should not easily have transferred to each other.

To give just a few examples (UK readers will note that French constituency names follow the soulless pattern of French and American revolutionaries, with each region being divided into numbered constituencies rather than traditional names like ‘Ribble Valley’ or ‘Chelsea & Fulham’):

  • Ain, 4th constituency (in east-central France, near the Swiss border). This seat had already been won by the RN in 2022, and after their Assembly member Jérôme Buisson took 46% in the first round, his victory might have seemed a formality. But in the end he won the second round only very narrowly, 51-49, against a Macronist candidate who secured almost all the second choice votes of Greens, ultra-leftists, and conservatives.
  • Aisne, 2nd constituency (based around the city of Saint-Quentin, a once prosperous textile producing area in northern France). In the first round it seemed that the Republican Assembly member Julien Dive, on 35.7%, was in grave danger of losing to the RN candidate who polled 47.1% – especially because a Reconquête candidate had stood and his 1.2% might have been assumed to go to RN. Yet in fact Dive (part of the Republican faction that had rejected their former leader Ciotti’s advice and opposed alliance with Le Pen), won second round backing from an odd assortment of far leftists with whom he has nothing in common, and defeated the RN, 50.6% to 49.4%.
  • Allier, 1st constituency (based around the central French town of Moulins, most famous as the childhood home of French fashion legend Coco Chanel). This was another first round result where an incumbent – this time a Communist, Yannick Monnet, seemed in danger of losing to the RN. Monnet polled 28.8% in the first round, to the RN candidate’s 38.6%. However, in the second round an odd assortment of conservatives and centrists rallied behind the Communist, so he defeated the RN by 50.6% to 49.4%.
  • Alpes-Maritimes, 7th constituency (includes the city of Antibes on the French Riviera, in the south-east corner of France). Incumbent Assembly member Éric Pauget was part of the Republican faction that rejected the advice of their leader Éric Ciotti, who represents a nearby constituency, and ousted Ciotti from the Republican leadership after he recommended alliance with Le Pen. In the first round it seemed that this stance had cost Pauget his seat: he polled 24.9% behind the RN candidate’s 36.3%. Note also that this is an area where Reconquête would once have expected to be strong, but collapsed to 1.4%. Yet in the second round various leftists and centrists rallied behind Pauget, and he defeated the RN by a very comfortable margin: 58.7% to 41.3%.
  • Charente-Maritime, 3rd constituency (south of the city of La Rochelle, on the central west coast of France). The Macronist Assembly member Jean-Philippe Ardouin was decisively defeated in the first round, with an RN candidate in first place on 40.8%. But in a second round run-off against a Socialist allied to the far-left ‘Popular Front’, the RN candidate lost by just 63 votes, 50.1% to 49.9%.
  • Paris, 2nd and 12th constituencies. These form the 7th arrondissement, long known as the most affluent area of the French capital, but the Ciotti faction of the Republicans failed to carry the haute bourgeoisie with them into their alliance with Le Pen. In the first round, an RN candidate polled 11% in the 2nd, and a pro-RN Republican candidate 14.4% in the 12th (where the old Republican vote split almost evenly between pro- and anti- Le Pen factions). The outcome was that the second round contests in this ultra-affluent district were between Macronist and leftist ‘Popular Front’ candidates – in the 12th the latter was a Communist (!) – with the Macronist of course winning in each case.
  • Var, 1st constituency (based around the port and naval base of Toulon, on the Mediterranean coast). The Macronist Assembly member Yannick Chevenard seemed to be in trouble on the first round, polling 31.4%, behind the RN candidate’s 42.3%, with just 2.6% having gone to Reconquête. It seemed unlikely that Chevenard would have been able to rely on second preferences from the ultra-left Popular Front candidate from La France Insoumise (led by Macron’s fiercest enemy Jean-Luc Mélenchon), but in the event that’s what happened. With the help of the far left, the Macronist defeated Le Pen’s candidate, 52.9% to 47.1%.

There are some regions of France that have become undoubted strongholds for the RN. For example, they hold all six seats in the Gard department (in the southern region of Occitania); and ten of the twelve seats in the very different region Pas-de-Calais, where Marine Le Pen’s appeal to French workers has entrenched her support.

In the new Assembly, the first task for Marine Le Pen will be to maintain party discipline, as she waits for the inevitable splintering of the nascent leftist-centrist-Green coalition.

But the second task will be much harder. Should she maintain her pro-worker, traditionally French ‘big state’, stance while hardening her position on racial or semi-racial questions – in effect giving up hope of extending her appeal to affluent voters, and choosing instead to solidify the RN’s base and appeal to the disillusioned third of the French electorate who abstained in both rounds this year?

Or should she try to trim towards the middle class, toning down anti-immigration rhetoric still further, expelling the remaining traditional nationalists from her party, and becoming more like an Anglo-American conservative?

H&D readers will be unsurprised to learn that we would lean heavily towards the former option. We shall soon know which course Marine Le Pen has chosen.

General Election 2024: the end of the Tory Party?

Defeated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in his Yorkshire constituency

Yesterday’s General Election has demonstrated beyond doubt that our country is a profoundly Disunited Kingdom. There should be no whinging from the ‘right’. We have always known that the electoral system produces gross distortions. But until that system changes, we have to focus our campaigns accordingly.

That’s the message of the “ladder strategy” outlined in recent issues of H&D by nationalist veteran Ian Freeman. In yesterday’s election, Nigel Farage and Reform UK thought they could ignore that strategy and use American-style celebrity grandstanding to win seats from nowhere. Much of the media (and many voters) fell for Farage’s chicanery, but five seats for Reform UK are no basis for a revolution – given that Farage’s various vehicles have made no effort over many years to build a serious grassroots structure.

On the Richter scale of political earthquakes, 2024 ranks high. Excitable social media personalities on the ‘right’ – mostly people with little or no experience of electoral politics – spoke in ludicrous terms of “zero seats” for the Tories. Opinion polls encouraged the hype, suggesting the Tory total might fall as low as 50. In fact it will be just over 120.

Nevertheless, this is a staggering repudiation of the party that has been in government since 2010, typified by the stunning defeat of former Prime Minister Liz Truss in the formerly ultra-safe SW Norfolk.

While Labour will now be in power for at least five years, Starmer should be aware of critical faultlines running through the nation he seeks to govern.


Nigel Farage after his victory in Clacton

Reform UK were the most obvious recipients of protest votes, but there were also stunning successes for (mainly Asian) Gaza-focused independents, as well as for the Greens.

While H&D readers will not need reminding that the racial nationalist movement in our country has been in the doldrums for well over a decade, and remains in a state of transition, there have been discernible signs of recovery. These were never going to be evident in tonight’s results. Rather, they represent hope for the future.

In Leigh & Atherton, for example, an excellent local candidate – PA activist Craig Buckley, standing for the English Democrats – polled 376 votes (0.9%). Most of the voters who agreed with Craig’s arguments voted instead for the fake anti-immigration prospectus offered by Reform UK, who finished runners-up to Labour with 26.9%. A very similar phenomenon occurred in the neighbouring Makerfield constituency, where Tom Bryer (another excellent PA activist standing for the EDs) also polled 0.9%.

By far the best result for any racial nationalist candidate was achieved by British Democrat candidate Frank Calladine, who polled 3.7% in Doncaster North – greatly helped by this being one of the few seats not contested by Reform. A similar advantage enabled William Highton to poll 4.0% for the English Democrats in East Grinstead & Uckfield. Elsewhere it was inevitable that, in the short term, other nationalist candidates would be overshadowed by the Farage circus.

Instead of reacting with despair, we should react with optimism. The good news in Leigh & Atherton was the total collapse of the Conservative Party, who fell from first to third place. In Makerfield and many other constituencies they fell from second to third.

H&D’s Peter Rushton joined Lancashire candidates Craig Buckley and Tom Bryer on the campaign trail

The Conservative Party has been a dominant force in British politics since the 1840s. Ever since the transformation of the UK into a multiracial society, beginning in the late 1940s and accelerating since the 1960s, the Conservative Party has been the biggest single obstacle to development of a serious movement for racial and national renaissance.

It’s now apparent that this obstacle – the great Tory monolith – has crumbled nationwide at today’s election. Numerous ministers were defeated, including Defence Secretary Grant Shapps in Welwyn Hatfield, and Justice Secretary Alex Chalk in Cheltenham.

In the so-called ‘left behind’ areas of North East England, Reform UK made significant advances, overtaking the Tories to become clearly runners-up behind Labour, but the exit poll that predicted thirteen Reform gains was a gross exaggeration. We should recognise that Labour directed its campaigning resources away from its ‘safe’ seats. These are areas where the BNP polled well in the 2000s, and where if Reform UK were capable of building on their undoubted potential, they would by now have large groups of councillors.

The exit poll suggested that a candidate already dropped a week ago by Reform UK for ‘racism’ – Robert Lomas in Barnsley North – stood a good chance of gaining a seat. In fact Labour very easily held on to this constituency. Perhaps if Nigel Farage and his colleagues hadn’t sabotaged their own candidate, he would have stood a chance? Similarly in Hartlepool, the exit poll predicted a Reform gain and inexperienced Reform UK representatives at the count added their own hopelessly inaccurate assessments, but Labour easily held on.

Lee Anderson, the Tory MP who defected to Reform, easily retained Ashfield to become the first Reform success of the night. Nigel Farage easily won Clacton, but will he be looking forward to having Lee Anderson as a colleague for the next five years? Another of Reform’s big names, millionaire businessman Rupert Lowe, won Great Yarmouth to become Reform’s third MP after the Tories collapsed from first place to third. While in a tighter contest in Boston & Skegness, the even wealthier Richard Tice (who until Farage’s return was Reform UK leader) took the party’s total to four.

It wasn’t until late on Friday afternoon – long after Keir Starmer had become Prime Minister and started appointing his Cabinet – that Reform gained their fifth and final seat – South Basildon & East Thurrock – which they won by 98 votes after a recount. The Tories fell from first to third place in this Essex constituency. The winner James McMurdock is by far the youngest of Reform’s MPs, and is local to Basildon.

Adnan Hussain in Blackburn was among four Gaza-focused independent MPs elected

Elsewhere there were several indications of just how divided multiracial Britain has become. On a generally disastrous night for the Tories they managed a handful of successes based on racial and religious divisions. In Leicester East a Hindu Conservative, Shivani Raja, gained the seat from Labour, whose vote was split by two non-White former Labour MPs, Claudia Webbe and Keith Vaz. Shadow Cabinet member Jon Ashworth lost Leicester South to a Gaza-focused independent. In Chingford & Woodford Green, veteran Conservative Iain Duncan Smith survived because a Muslim candidate split the Labour vote.

It’s now clear that the Muslim rebellion against Labour has been more effective (in terms of seats) than the White rebellion. Asian independents won Blackburn, Dewsbury & Batley, Birmingham Perry Barr and Leicester South – and very nearly took even more sensational scalps, finishing close behind the ambitious Labour politician Wes Streeting in Ilford North and the celebrity backbencher Jess Phillips in Birmingham Yardley. After Jeremy Corbyn retained Islington North, the total strength of Gaza-focused independents will be five MPs in the new Parliament, the same as Reform UK.

There will be four Green MPs (up from one in the previous Parliament), after Greens gained Bristol West from Labour, and Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire from the Tories, adding to their old stronghold Brighton Pavilion.

Jim Allister became the first North Antrim MP for more than half a century from outside the Paisley family.

The UK’s greatest political earthquake was in North Antrim, where Jim Allister – leader of Traditional Unionist Voice – defeated Ian Paisley, Jr., of the DUP, despite Mr Allister having been shamefully betrayed by Nigel Farage at the start of the campaign, when Farage unilaterally tore up a deal between Reform UK and TUV.

Jim Allister’s stunning success, and the parallel victory of TUV-backed independent Alex Easton who gained North Down from the much hyped Alliance Party, will surely signal the long overdue realignment of Unionism.

This website and the next edition of H&D will analyse the results and the new Starmer government further during the next few days.

We shall play our part in the necessary examination of where we stand as a movement, and how we can best move forward in a new political era.

Rearranging the deckchairs

Larry the Downing Street cat will have a new master very soon, although his master’s masters will (for the time being) remain the same.

Polls have opened in today’s General Election, and one of the H&D team was at his local polling station to vote at 7.05 am.

In a small number of constituencies around the UK, voters will have a genuine patriotic option to back candidates from the British Democrats, English Democrats, Traditional Unionist Voice, or a handful of anti-immigration independents.

But for most of us, this election is important not because we are able to cast a positive vote, but because we can rejoice at an impending political earthquake that will destroy the Conservative Party.

This has been a dominant force in the affairs of our nation since the 1840s, but it has long since ceased to be the Conservative & Unionist Party of Chamberlain and Bonar Law.

Today’s Tories are an obstacle to building the nationalist revolution.

That obstacle is crumbling into dust, and for that alone, this week’s epochal election will be cause for rejoicing.

Best of luck to all genuine patriots standing today.

You will obtain no short-term reward, other than the knowledge that you have played your part in laying the foundations for national and racial renaissance.

And that is a reward beyond price.

In Belfast, the election counts will take place at the Titanic Centre. An appropriate symbol for the election that will see Starmer replace Sunak, in charge of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic as the sham of parliamentary ‘democracy’ approaches the iceberg.

1964–2019: And then there were none. H&D editor Mark Cotterill examines the end of a nationalist era

Michael Salt the NF Elections Officer (and candidate for Battersea North) addresses the 1978 NF AGM (which was in fact held on 19th/20th January 1979) at the huge Seymour Hall, which was located in London’s West End. The AGM was the start of the NF’s 1979 General Election campaign in which it fielded 301 official candidates, including five of the seven on the top table: from left to right – Andrew Brons (Bradford North); Andrew Fountaine (Norwich South); John Tyndall (Hackney South & Shoreditch); Michael Cowley – meeting chairman; Martin Webster (Bethnal Green & Bow) and Richard Verrall – head of the Publicity Dept and editor of Spearhead magazine.

While out in downtown Preston earlier this week for lunch with a couple of H&D subscribers – one of whom had travelled up from Leicester on a family matter – the main matter of conversation was (of course) the General Election and whom we would – or should – be voting for. As none of us happen to live in a constituency with British Democrat or English Democrat candidates, our group was mixed with one going for ADF, another for UKIP, two for independents and three for Reform UK. The conversation got round to the fact that the once mighty British National Party (BNP) and National Front (NF) were not standing any candidates in this year’s General Election.

My colleague from Leicester – knowing I’m an “anorak” on such matters – asked: “Mark, how far back do you have to go to find a GE where neither the BNP nor NF (in any of its forms) had even a single candidate”?

Now even though I class myself as a “smarty pants” on movement history, I was not sure, but guessed at 1966. However, after “Googling” it, I found that I was wrong (shock, horror!). The start of the era of BNP and NF candidates turned out to be the election before in 1964 – where former H&D subscriber John Bean (now sadly deceased) contested Southall for the BNP (mark II), polling 3,410 votes – 9.1%.

At the 2019 GE, David Furness contested Hornchurch and Upminster for the BNP (mark IV), polling 510 votes – 0.9%, which will in all probability be the last time the BNP ever contests a GE.

Nationalist veterans at one of H&D‘s John Tyndall Memorial Meetings: (left to right) Pete Barker (former BNP and NF organiser in Rochdale); Dr Jim Lewthwaite (former Bradford City Councillor and now Chairman of the British Democrats); our US guest Martin Kerr (now leader of New Order); Keith Axon (former West Midlands regional organiser of the BNP); and Peter Rushton (assistant editor of H&D).

Fun Facts For Anoraks – from previous General Elections

In 1966, the BNP fielded three candidates: John Bean again in Southall, 2,768 – 7.4%; Gerald Rowe in Deptford 1,906 – 7%; and Robert Stanley in Smethwick 508 – 1.5%.

In 1970, when the NF contested ten seats, this was the last General Election when candidates appeared on the ballot paper without a party name. The best result being the Rev. Brian Green in Islington, who polled 1,232 – 5.6%.

In February 1974 the NF fielded over 50 candidates and so qualified for the first time for a 5-minute TV and radio broadcast. The best result was Gordon Bowen in West Bromwich West who polled 3,107 – 7.8%.

In October 1974, the NF increased their number of candidates to 90. The best result was Robin May in Hackney South & Shoreditch with 2,544 – 9.4%.

In 1979 even though the NF fielded over 300 candidates, they were still only given one five-minute TV and radio broadcast. The best result was John Tyndall in Hackney South & Shoreditch, who polled 1,958 – 7.6%.

In 1983 both the NF and BNP contested over 50 seats, so were given one TV and radio broadcast each. The NF fielded 60 candidates. Their best result was Ian Anderson, in Newham South, who polled 993 – 3.7%. The BNP fielded 54 candidates, their best result was Charles Parker (Tyndall’s father-in-law) in Walsall South, who polled 632 – 1.3%.

National Front activist Derrick Day addressing a party activity at Hoxton market in East London, alongside NF national activities organiser Martin Webster.

In 1987, both the NF and BNP decided not to contest the GE due to a shortage of both manpower (due to the recent splits) and funds (the cost of a deposit had recently gone up from £150 to £500). However, Mike Kingston still contested Bristol East for the NF Flag Group, and two BNP candidates – Mike Easter in Tonbridge and Malling, and Alfie Waite in Ravensbourne – stood, against the strict orders of John Tyndall, who expelled them both shortly after the election. (Though both Mike and Alfie were later readmitted, the latter working at the BNP’s bookshop/headquarters during the 1990s.)

In 1992, all fourteen NF candidates were from the NF “Flag Group”. The “official” NF faction had ceased to exist, and its few remaining members had joined the Third Way or the Third Position. The best NF result was George Cartwright in Dudley East who polled 675 – 1.2%. The BNP fielded thirteen candidates (just one fewer than the NF). The best result was Richard Edmonds in Bethnal Green & Stepney with 1,310 votes – 3.6%.

In 1997, nationalist votes started to increase for the first time in over twenty years. The BNP fielded 56 candidates. The best result being in Bethnal Green & Bow where BNP candidate, Dave King polled 3,350 – 7.5%. The NF fielded six candidates. Their best result was George Cartwright in Dudley North, who polled 559 – 1.2%.

In 2001, the BNP fielded 33 candidates. Their vote went up further with six candidates saving their deposits. The best result being Nick Griffin in Oldham West & Royton who polled 6,552 – 16.4%. The NF fielded five candidates. Their best result was Mick Shore in Birmingham Erdington, who polled 681 – 2.2%.

In 2005, the BNP fielded a record 119 candidates, 34 of them of saving their deposits, the best result being in Barking, where Richard Barnbrook polled 4,916 – 17%. The NF fielded thirteen candidates. The best result was Graham Kemp in Feltham & Heston, who polled 975 – 2.6%.

In 2010, the BNP fielded an incredible 338 candidates – the highest number ever – beating the NF’s 301/303 in 1979. 74 of them saved their deposits, the best result being again in Barking, where Nick Griffin polled 6,620 – 14.6%. This was the last election where the BNP beat UKIP, even though their average vote went down to 1.9%. The NF fielded seventeen candidates. The best result being Chris Jackson in Rochdale who polled 2,236 – 4.9% (failing to save his deposit by just twelve votes).

In 2015, the BNP only managed to field eight candidates (330 down from the previous election). The best result being in Charnwood where Cathy Duffy polled 489 – 0.9%. The NF fielded seven candidates. The best result being Kevin Bryan in Rochdale with 433 – 1%. This was the last GE the NF contested.

In 2017, the BNP fielded ten candidates. The best result being in Bishop Auckland, where BNP chairman Adam Walker polled 991 – 2.3%.

Young activists in the early 1980s NF: Joe Pearce (twice imprisoned for thought crimes during the 1980s) with then-comrades Richard Lawson, Nick Griffin and Steve Brady

Quiz Time

Finally, a quiz for those of you who think you are as smart as me on movement history!

In 1979 the NF officially contested 301 seats; however, a lot of the Mainstream Media always state it was 303.

The discrepancy of two seats is because the NF directorate (i.e. Martin Webster) disowned two of their candidates that year.

If you can (a) name those two candidates and the constituencies they were standing in; and b) tell me why they were disowned, you will win a free year’s subscription to Heritage and Destiny magazine – or if you are already a subscriber we will extend your current subscription for a further 12 months or 6 issues.
Please email your answers to – heritageanddestiny@yahoo.com

Please note that former members of the 1979 NF Directorate cannot take part as they will probably already know the answer – that is if any of them are still compos mentis! 🧐

Mark Cotterill – Editor/Publisher – Heritage and Destiny

Farage shows his true colours: a spiv and a traitor

During the past 48 hours Nigel Farage has shown why no true nationalist should support Reform UK.

Regular readers will know that we were already disgusted by Farage’s blatant betrayal of Traditional Unionist Voice, the party with which Farage’s Reform UK struck an electoral pact at the start of this year’s General Election campaign, only to see Farage unilaterally tear up the deal within weeks.

Reform UK went on to betray one candidate after another, throwing them under a bus at the slightest hint of anti-woke opinions, and in effect kneeling – BLM-style – in obeisance to ‘anti-racist’ lobby groups.

Yesterday one of the party’s major donors addressed Reform UK’s largest rally of the campaign. Zia Yusuf – a former executive director of Goldman Sachs, whose parents came to the UK from Sri Lanka in the 1980s – is the most public face of Farage’s multiracialism.

Another facet of Farage’s City spiv values – revealing that Reform UK is a true Goldman Sachs party, not a nationalist party – was his response this morning to the success of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (Rassemblement National – RN).

Now, let’s be absolutely clear. Le Pen’s movement is not racial nationalist. Even in its previous incarnation as the Front National, under Marine’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen, this was a multiracialist party. I twice attended the FN’s main rally in Paris, where Jean-Marie Le Pen was introduced by a half-African singer.

The entire tradition of French nationalism has always contained a stronger element of multiracialism than our equivalent traditions in the UK. The FN (and to a lesser extent the RN) were always ‘broad church’ parties: they combined Pétainists and Gaullists; racial nationalists and non-Whites; Catholics and pagans. That looks strange to a British nationalist, but that’s how they have always been.

Whereas many H&D readers would criticise Le Pen for not being sufficiently pro-White, Farage criticises her from the opposite angle! He showed his true colours long ago when he said that Le Pen’s movement’s “roots were deep in Vichy” and that “anti-semitism was embedded in its DNA”.

This morning he went further, choosing this moment to denounce Le Pen’s party and proclaim that he preferred the approach of her ‘centrist’ rival Emmanuel Macron.

Farage went so far as to say that a victory for Le Pen’s party would be a “disaster” for France. In effect Farage’s Goldman Sachs party is a natural ally of Macron’s Rothschild party.

The Le Pen dynasty is reunited in 2024 – but Nigel Farage regards their entire political tradition as rooted “deep in Vichy” and with “anti-semitism embedded in its DNA”.

The one difference is that Farage wobbles all over the place when he is asked about Ukraine and Russia.

As we have previously exposed, Farage has a long history of making some token reference to Putin being a dictator, but then effectively spreading softcore Putinist propaganda, before flipping back to ‘cover’ himself by making some meaningless anti-Putin statement.

He has continued this policy during the past fortnight. It’s difficult to say whether this reflects Farage’s lack of formal education – he went straight from school to become a City spiv – or whether there is a more sinister agenda at work.

The one certainty is that Farage’s response to Le Pen does not reflect any ‘responsible’ attitude on his part to fiscal matters. Reform UK’s manifesto is by far the most irresponsible document of the entire election campaign, making a string of impossible, uncosted pledges.

Farage’s underlying values, however, remain those of a City spiv. He has absolutely no interest in working people. While we can criticise Marine Le Pen for many things – multiracialism, Zionism, abandonment of some French nationalist traditions, betrayal of her comrades – we must admit that she has aligned the RN strongly with the interests of French workers who have consistently been betrayed by the political and financial ‘elite’.

Farage and Reform UK are the opposite. They stand for crony capitalism, not British workers – and this is the main reason why their immigration policy would simply continue the Great Replacement, which serves the interests of global capitalism.

H&D readers should avoid Reform UK like the plague.

This week’s election will signal the death of the Conservative Party, but Reform UK represents no improvement, and if anything serves to discredit the broader nationalist cause.

We are in a time of transition, but the positive development is that a small number of genuine patriots are fighting for a real anti-immigration policy. These are the candidates of the British Democrats and English Democrats, plus independent candidates in some constituencies such as Dr Andrew Emerson in Chichester and Joe Owens in Liverpool Wavertree.

Of course these are only ripples of resistance compared to the tidal wave that is crashing down on the French political establishment. But we have something to build on, in the new political era that will dawn on Friday.

The message is simple: reject Farage, and start building a radical alternative above the ruins of the old order.

French voters’ revolt against multiculturalism takes Le Pen’s party to brink of power

Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) has made huge gains in the first round of the French parliamentary elections.

While it is obvious that there has been a tremendous swing in favour of the RN (and against ‘centrist’ President Emmanuel Macron), the two-round system used in France means that anti-RN voters will again have the opportunity to strike deals in next Sunday’s decisive second round and block nationalist victories.

The ‘right-wing’ of the conservative Republicans (a party seemingly in terminal decline) had already struck a deal with Le Pen by which they were allowed a free run in more affluent areas, including parts of central Paris.

However, it’s difficult to imagine that these people would be reliable allies of an RN government, since their economic ideas are at the opposite pole to Le Pen’s. (It’s already clear that Le Pen herself will concentrate on campaigning to succeed Macron eventually as President: the Prime Minister of any potential RN government would be her young colleague and party chairman, Jordan Bardella.)

Complete results from the first round will not be available until tomorrow, but the two most reliable projections give the RN 33% or 33.5%; the broad left-wing ‘popular front’ 28.5%; Macron’s ‘centrists’ 22%; and the Republicans around 10%.

Éric Zemmour, the Jewish journalist lionised until two years ago as the future of post-Le Pen French nationalism, is politically dead after yesterday’s results.

One of the few certainties is that Éric Zemmour’s party Reconquête, which until early 2022 seemed poised to overtake the RN as the main force in French anti-immigration / nationalist politics, has been destroyed, polling only about 0.5%.

Zemmour expelled the majority of his own MEPs (including Le Pen’s niece Marion Maréchal) in a row over whether to negotiate with the RN. His party now seems to consist only of himself, his girlfriend Sarah Knafo, and a tiny faction of Putinists and irreconcilable enemies of Le Pen.

H&D will examine the French results and the emerging transformation of European nationalism in further analyses on this website (once detailed results are available), and in the next edition of our magazine.

A real alternative for Lancashire voters

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton was out on the campaign trail yesterday in the Lancashire town of Leigh, working with Craig Buckley (English Democrat candidate for the Leigh & Atherton constituency) and his team.

As regular readers will know, Craig and two other Lancashire ED candidates (Thomas Bryer in Makerfield and Paddy McGrath in Bolton West) are activists with Patriotic Alternative who have reached an electoral pact with the English Democrats. PA itself is not yet registered with the Electoral Commission. A further ED candidate in Lancashire, Steve Morris in Bury South, is a longstanding English Democrat who has fought many elections.

Contrary to ‘anti-fascist’ hype, there has never been any secret about this electoral pact, there are no ‘false flags’, and indeed Craig was proudly wearing a ‘Free Sam Melia’ badge (produced by H&D editor Mark Cotterill) during our campaign work!

Leigh & Atherton parliamentary candidate Craig Buckley in the town centre yesterday.

We began the day in Leigh town centre, handing out leaflets and speaking to local voters. It was very encouraging to find that so many voters were enthusiastic about Craig’s campaign and about the central issues raised in his leaflets.

After a quick break for lunch, we moved on to canvass an estate just south of the town centre, where again local residents were keen to show their support. There is clearly a powerful reaction building in towns like Leigh against the years of betrayal by the major parties, especially on the central campaign issue of immigration.

We don’t yet know how this reaction will be expressed at the ballot box, in the short term. But as H&D readers will realise, this isn’t about short term results: it’s about building the campaigning infrastructure required for a new era in British politics.

The old gang parties are dying: the future belongs to racial nationalism.

Patrick McGrath, ED candidate for Bolton West, crossed the border into Leigh yesterday to campaign for his fellow candidate Craig Buckley

Casino politics and lack of honour – Sunak’s Tories and Farage’s Reform UK show they are unfit for office

Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives and their main challenger on the ‘right’ – Reform UK leader Nigel Farage – have dragged UK politics to a new low: a level of dishonour that combines farce and tragedy.

First the farce. Every day now brings a fresh story of senior Tory officials, MPs, or others in close contact with the Prime Minister, having placed bets on the election date. Now of course all this could be pure coincidence and they might not have been acting on inside information! Police investigations must eventually establish the truth.

What we already know for certain, is that had these people been professional footballers or involved in the management of a football club, and had placed bets on football, they would automatically face a lengthy ban, regardless of whether it could be ‘proven’ that they had cheated in any way.

The reason should be obvious. But for those close to Rishi Sunak, their first thought as the election approached wasn’t “how can I apologise to the British people for the mistakes of the past five years, and promise to do better if re-elected?” No – their first thought was: “how can I line my pockets for one more time, before being turfed out of office?”


The Prime Minister with his Parliamentary Private Secretary, Craig Williams, who is among those under investigation for betting on the election date

With the Tories in total collapse, it’s understandable that many lifelong Tory voters are turning to Nigel Farage and his apparently radical ‘right-wing’ party, Reform UK.

But the truth is that Farage himself is dishonourable on a level that dwarfs the petty cheating and incompetence of Sunak’s team.

During and immediately after the Second World War, a new stereotype entered British culture and was often portrayed in comedy shows of that era. The “spiv” was a man who sought to make a fast profit out of others’ misfortunes, in an age of rationing and shortages. In real life, a disproportionate number of “spivs” were Jews – as was well known to the public at the time and has been established by modern historical research.

Following the so-called “big bang” liberalisation of the City of London in the mid-1980s, a new generation of spivs entered British life. While most of these operated within the law, they also operated with absolutely no regard for the UK’s national interest. The young Rishi Sunak profited from hedge fund speculations against UK banks during the financial crisis of the 2000s. And long before that, Nigel Farage’s first career was in the London Metals Exchange: his career was only modestly successful compared to Sunak’s, and eventually his commodities brokerage Farage Limited went bankrupt.

Farage’s blatantly dishonest spivvery has been in the political rather than the financial world.

His biggest con is his pretence of being anti-immigration. The slavishly pro-Farage channel GB News and much of the press have collaborated in this deception – but the truth is that Farage has always “welcomed immigration”, as he once told the European Parliament. Farage’s team promoted the idea of Brexit to UK-based Indians (including restaurant owners) on the basis that leaving the EU would mean that the UK could replace European workers with Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani workers.

And so it has turned out: with an extra helping of Africans added on top.

Farage and Reform UK now promise not to end immigration, still less to reverse the tide of immigration, but only to have a “one in, one out” policy: which of course would mean for the most part replacing White Britons and Europeans with non-White immigrants. Last year, for example, this Reform UK policy would have meant admitting 600,000 migrants.

None of this should come as any surprise. Farage is fundamentally committed to the toxic ideology of “free market” capitalism, which is essentially anti-nationalist, pro-immigration, and anti-White.

Those who are serious about ending immigration have two parties who fortunately are not standing against each other, and who in a small number of constituencies are offering voters a genuine patriotic alternative – the British Democrats and the English Democrats. Each of these parties is run by honest leaders who are genuinely committed on the immigration issue. Unfortunately they are standing in fewer than twenty constituencies, but they are sending a clear signal of the direction that UK politics could and should take in the post-Conservative era.

Could Farage and Reform UK be at least a step in the right direction?

No: because they are basically crooked.

Even aside from the immigration issue, Farage has shown himself to be untrustworthy on two other central issues of 2024.


Richard Tice and Jim Allister announcing the pact between Reform UK and TUV, which within weeks was torn up by Nigel Farage, demonstrating that he cannot be trusted on any level.

Just a few weeks ago, Reform UK entered a pact with Traditional Unionist Voice, the party led by Jim Allister KC which promises to take Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK into a genuine Brexit, rather than allowing a border in the Irish Sea – a trade barrier separating one part of the UK from the rest.

This sea border has come about because of a treacherous deal negotiated by Rishi Sunak’s government with the misnamed ‘Democratic Unionist Party’ earlier this year. At first it seemed that Reform UK agreed with TUV on a common platform of a real Brexit and no sea border. A pact was publicly announced on this basis.

But no sooner had the campaign begun than Nigel Farage unilaterally tore up this pact. In two constituencies – including the one being contested by TUV leader Jim Allister – Farage instead endorsed DUP candidates and betrayed his supposed TUV allies.

Quite incredibly, Farage was thus endorsing two of the very people who sold out Brexit and sold out the people of Northern Ireland.

He was able to do this because Reform UK has no genuine existence as a political party. It is a business rather than a constitutional party, and as the owner of that business, Farage can do whatever he likes.

He can issue a manifesto whose tax promises are the most dishonest and innumerate of any party; he can recruit or expel candidates on a whim; and he can make up policy as he goes along, to impress his gullible target audience of ageing reactionaries.


Nigel Farage campaigning with Rabbi Shneur Odze, one of the then-UKIP leader’s European Parliamentary candidates

And now Farage has committed his foulest betrayal. Not content with betraying White Britons over immigration, and not content with betraying his erstwhile allies in Ulster, Farage now betrays those who are fighting at Europe’s frontier, those who are paying the ultimate price to defend their nation from Kremlin aggression.

Again, this came as no surprise to long-term Farage-watchers. He has for more than a decade been the most dangerous type of Putinist propagandist.

As serious historical students of propaganda know, the most insidious propagandists are not those who blatantly endorse every aspect of those whose interests they (deliberately or otherwise) serve.

Whether in the Second World War or the Cold War, the greatest success for a professional propaganda agency was to get someone to parrot treachery without it being obvious treachery. Thus, communist dupes in the West didn’t openly call for surrendering to Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev – they called for “peace”. Moscow’s front organisations often had names such as “World Peace Council”.

Moreover, it’s been a longstanding practice of invaders and their proxies to call for “peace”, once their initial advances have ground to a halt. “Peace” of this sort rewards the invader and allows his forces to become firmly entrenched.

Those propagandising for an aggressor will do anything to avoid the central issue. They will point fingers in every direction, sometimes contradicting themselves, but always seeking to undermine firm action against the invader. And they will ignore basic historical and political facts.


So it has been with Farage. During 2010-14 (at a time when he was a relatively minor figure in UK politics) the then UKIP leader appeared seventeen times on Putin’s propaganda channel Russia Today.

RT itself was proud to claim that Farage “has been known far longer to the RT audience than to most of the British electorate”.

And he swiftly rewarded his Moscow friends. During an earlier Ukraine crisis in 2014, when Putin grabbed Crimea, Farage typically maintained that the Kremlin despot had been “provoked” and absurdly insisted that the European Union had “blood on its hands in Ukraine”.

The reality was (and is) that NATO and the EU had been far too weak, and it was their unwillingness to risk “provoking” Putin a few years earlier, when they failed to respond to appeals from Ukrainian nationalists for an alliance against Moscow, that encouraged Putin’s imperialism.

Ever since then, Farage’s cynical tactic has been to utter a few words distancing himself from Putin’s dictatorial behaviour, but then going on to endorse his foreign policy.

In 2014, asked which world leader he most admired, Farage replied: “as an operator”, Putin.

His short-lived successor as UKIP leader, Diane James, went further, describing Putin as one of her political “heroes”. Yet another UKIP leader, Paul Nuttall, agreed that Putin was “generally getting it right in many areas”.

In 2017 Farage again made token comments distancing himself from Putin’s imprisonment of journalists, etc., before saying that Putin was “a strong national leader”.

In 2018 speaking to an interviewer from Newsweek magazine, Farage was even more explicit in his policy of surrender to the Kremlin: “We would have done better to recognize that there are some big issues on which we have a shared interest with Russia. Instead, our foreign policy approach to Russia has been very confrontational.”

Following Putin’s notorious interview with Tucker Carlson earlier this year, Farage argued that the West should have discussed a “deal” with Putin immediately after the invasion. In other words, right from day one, Farage’s policy was not to resist the invader. His policy instead was one of craven surrender: a “deal”.

Absurdly, Farage’s argument was (and remains) that “our foreign policy approach to Russia has been very confrontational.” Not that the Kremlin was being “confrontational” by invading its neighbour, but that others had been “confrontational” in not bowing to Putin’s expansionist agenda.

Last week during his interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson, Farage expanded on this theory.

We must remember that Farage is a man of limited formal education. He has never studied Russian or Ukrainian history; he has no personal experience of the region; and he has absolutely no academic training in military history, intelligence history, or strategic studies.

Yet like golf club reactionaries everywhere, as they prop up the bar and regale their fellow Rotarians, Farage is an instant expert and never admits that he might ever have been wrong about anything important.

Once again (as he has repeated since that interview) Farage made token, insincere, and weak comments distancing himself from Putin’s invasion. But he then went on to claim that the invasion had somehow been “provoked” by the West.

Essentially, therefore, Farage’s message can be paraphrased as – yes, the war is unfortunate and wrong, but the basic fault lies not with Putin but with the West: we should have given Putin most of what he wanted without war, and then the invasion wouldn’t have been necessary!


True strategic genius from the man who went straight from school to the London Metals Exchange without pausing to obtain an education.

When faced by an aggressor, says Nigel, don’t “provoke” him; don’t stand up him; instead – surrender in advance!

What Farage has never understood (or in his contrarian pursuit of American-style conspiracy theory, simply doesn’t want to understand) is that Putin was responding to a perception of Western weakness, not Western ‘provocation’.

The Kremlin misread signals and misread the determination of Ukrainian patriots.

Putin was correct that the Western response to his invasion would be slow. What he didn’t realise was that Ukrainian resistance would be so effective that his troops would grind to a halt, far short of their objective, and that an alliance of his neighbours, stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea, would put some backbone into the cowardly ‘West’.

Farage – the ultimate political spiv – will never understand true patriotism. His ‘free market’, quick-profit mentality is fundamentally anti-nationalist and anti-White. He betrays his own political allies without a second thought.

To Farage, all this is ‘clever’ politics. To the rest of us, it is rank treachery which confirms that he is unfit for office.

Nigel Farage and Reform UK will doubtless play their part in destroying the Conservative Party – but if he and even a tiny group of Reform UK MPs are elected to Parliament, they will rapidly self-destruct.

Farage and his ilk are not and never will be part of a ‘transition’ to a better, patriotic politics. They are part of the problem: wholly unfit for office.

Ireland’s anti-immigration revolt fizzles out

As H&D predicted a month ago, Ireland’s much-hyped anti-immigration movement turned into a divided and mostly feeble electoral challenge last week. (Though Ireland voted on Friday, results weren’t declared until the following Thursday.) Two right-wing independents were elected as MEPs and a third (in Dublin) narrowly failed, but these were conservatives rooted mainly in anti-abortion and other Catholic social conservative movements, rather than in the anti-immigration protests.

While H&D readers can celebrate the fact that Sinn Féin has lost many votes due to its pro-immigration stance and general wokeism – and SF’s former Westminster MP Michelle Gildernew hilariously failed in her bid for a European seat – it would sadly be wrong to conclude that any coherent anti-immigration movement has yet emerged.

In the European elections, the tragi-comic National Party’s competing factions polled 0.8% and 0.7% of first preferences in the Dublin constituency; and 0.6% and 0.5% in the Midlands/NW constituency. In the South constituency neither faction put up a candidate.

(Bear in mind that in both the European and local council elections in Ireland, the STV electoral system helps smaller parties to maximise their support, because there is no such thing as a “wasted vote” – unlike in the UK’s first-past-the-post system where smaller parties usually struggle for credibility.)

In the local elections, the deputy leader of the Reynolds faction of the NP (Patrick Quinlan) did manage to win one of the five seats in the Blanchardstown-Mulhuddart ward of Fingal County Council, to the west of Dublin. Parts of this area have suffered serious deprivation and crime problems for decades: some of the background to recent anti-immigrant riots involves conflict between native Irish gangsters and imported criminals.

Patrick Quinlan (above left), deputy leader of one of the bitterly divided National Party factions, won a local council seat on the outskirts of Dublin but polled only 0.7% in the European Parliamentary seat.

But this was the only success for either National Party faction across the whole of Ireland.

The Irish Freedom Party – which is the main voice of the ‘Irexit’ movement and has also adopted a milder version of anti-immigration policies – also won just one council seat in the entire country. This was in the Palmerstown-Fonthill ward of South Dublin County Council.

In the Lifford-Stranorlar ward of Donegal County Council, the independent anti-immigration campaigner Niall McConnell (known to some H&D readers for his online broadcasts where he has interviewed several prominent figures on the right) polled 7.7% of first preferences. He picked up about one-fifth of the transfers from the more ‘moderate’ conservative party Aontú, and a few transfers from a protest vote party that campaigns on housing issues, but these transfers were nowhere near enough to gain Mr McConnell a seat.

In the European elections, the Irish Freedom Party polled 0.9% in Dublin, 2.0% in Midlands/NW (where their candidate was the party leader Hermann Kelly, once associated with Nigel Farage), and 1.8% in South.

A smaller fringe party involved in the anti-immgration protests, ‘The Irish People’ fared even worse with 0.7% in Midlands/NW; 0.7% in South; and 0.5% in Dublin.

Veteran Marxist and ‘Official IRA’ activist Malachy Steenson has recently become an anti-immigration independent and won a Dublin City Council seat. It’s not clear how much of this old leaflet he still endorses.

In most of the country, the more substantial electoral challenges came from longer-established parties and independents who combined an element of anti-immigration politics with traditional Catholicism, and in several cases had a background in the IRA or other anti-British, republican terrorist causes. British patriots should be very careful indeed in welcoming these successes, since regardless of their stance on immigration, many of these Irish ‘nationalist’ individuals and parties are fundamentally our enemies.

Aontú, led by a former Sinn Féin activist and including defectors from both Sinn Féin and the traditional conservative-republican party Fianna Fáil, polled 2.8% in Dublin; 6.0% in Midlands/NW (where their candidate was party leader Peader Toíbín); and 2.1% in South. They retained several local council seats.

The strongest results for the Irish ‘right’ were obtained by Independent Ireland (a party created last November by reactionary conservative businessmen who had fallen out with the old gang parties) and by various other independent candidates who became well-known for their roles in the recent referendum campaign, where Irish voters resisted demands for wokeist changes to their country’s constitution.

Two independent candidates were elected to Dublin City Council, including Malachy Steenson who describes himself as a ‘republican socialist’ and was a veteran activist in the ‘Official IRA’ and its Marxist political front, the Workers Party (known as ‘the Stickies’), but now associates with a jumble of anti-woke causes as well as versions of Marxist republicanism.

In Dublin’s four-member European constituency, Independent Ireland’s candidate – radio celebrity Niall Boylan – finished fifth after transfers from other conservative and anti-immigration candidates just failed to gain him a seat. Boylan had taken 8.1% of first preference votes.

Peter Casey, a wealthy right-wing conservative, polled 3.1% in Midlands/NW, where the strongest broadly ‘right-wing’/conservative candidate was Independent Ireland’s Ciaran Mullooly with 8.4%. Mullooly, who like his colleague in Dublin is a former journalist and broadcaster, was eventually elected in fifth place, while Sinn Féin lost their seat. This means that Michelle Gildernew, who gave up her Westminster post as Sinn Féin MP for Fermanagh & South Tyrone to contest this European seat in the Republic, is now unemployed!

Similarly in South, barrister and independent candidate Michael McNamara (a former Labour politician who was one of the leaders of the anti-woke ‘No’ campaign in the recent constitutional referendum) eventually won one of the five European seats after polling 8.2% of first preferences and picking up many transfers from defeated ‘right-wing’ candidates. The far-left Putinist MEP Mick Wallace lost his seat, as did his fellow Putinist Clare Daly in Dublin.

Unsurprisingly, reactionary conservative forces whose main concern is preserving Ireland’s traditional Catholic social values, have proved to be a far stronger political movement than those who are mainly concerned with immigration.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers