Originally Posted by HM:
I despise this backward-thinking denunciation of previous governments and the people who shout "treason!" whenever they say anything about the Tories or the EU. You should be judging the present Tory party on their policies, beliefs and actions and not previous ones. After all, different party leaders have different policies and beliefs and act differently so it would make sense to rubbish and denounce Cameron and Hague rather than denouncing completely different people who have either retired from politics completely or have since died.

In a nutshell: don't look backwards at what happened in the past; people are different so diss Cameron's lot rather than Heath's retired lot. Ya?

Ok, I take your point. The BNP should be critical of today's Conservative Party as Cameron's lot have the worst features of Thatcherism and Ted Heath's social liberalism combined.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by HM:
No. Many of their voters do reside in impoverished areas like Stoke and Dagenham, though. Not that that's a problem. Just rubbishing the suggestion that the BNP is going to make a huge breakthrough in tapping into mainstream support in 2009. It's just not gonna happen.

Strangely enough, it has been found that the BNP tends to do best in 'upper working-class'/'lower middle-class' areas ie the C2 demographic group which helped Mrs Thatcher win three successive general election victories. Basically, the BNP vote is an 'aspiring' vote and the 'sink estates' which the snobs of the Daily Mail think are hotbeds of BNP support tend to either not vote at all or vote Labour.


The BNP could do well next year but only if the party can put across to the people that it is a party that isn't just concerned about mass immigration but has a firm anti-EU policy too. I think a lot of people are aware the BNP is a 'Eurosceptic/Europhobic' party but too many aren't. Also, in defiance of conventional wisdom, a high turnout helps the BNP as many BNP voters normally abstain if a BNP candidate isn't standing.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by HM:
No. Many of their voters do reside in impoverished areas like Stoke and Dagenham, though. Not that that's a problem. Just rubbishing the suggestion that the BNP is going to make a huge breakthrough in tapping into mainstream support in 2009. It's just not gonna happen.

I think it might happen if it can tap into it's support in all kinds of areas.
Ballerina and ex-tourist chief 'are BNP recruits' - Telegraph
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Independence Now!:
Strangely enough, it has been found that the BNP tends to do best in 'upper working-class'/'lower middle-class' areas ie the C2 demographic group which helped Mrs Thatcher win three successive general election victories.

Found by whom? Please prove this. From what I can see the BNP's two favourite areas (Stoke and Dagenham) are very poor. See the national census statistics for further information.

Originally Posted by Independence Now!:
Basically, the BNP vote is an 'aspiring' vote and the 'sink estates' which the snobs of the Daily Mail think are hotbeds of BNP support tend to either not vote at all or vote Labour.

Proof?

Originally Posted by Independence Now!:
The BNP could do well next year but only if the party can put across to the people that it is a party that isn't just concerned about mass immigration but has a firm anti-EU policy too.

It will never, however, put itself across as non-racist. Because that is what it inherently is.

Originally Posted by Independence Now!:
I think a lot of people are aware the BNP is a 'Eurosceptic/Europhobic' party but too many aren't. Also, in defiance of conventional wisdom, a high turnout helps the BNP as many BNP voters normally abstain if a BNP candidate isn't standing.

It doesn't matter to many people because they are fundamentally against the BNP's racism and proposed anti-liberty policies. And it is a low turnout at the Euros. Prove that "many BNP votres normally abstain if a BNP candidate isn't standing".
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Shaun:
I think it might happen if it can tap into it's support in all kinds of areas.
Ballerina and ex-tourist chief 'are BNP recruits' - Telegraph

Cruddas' seat is barely "all kinds of areas". And that report merely shows two individuals who have joined the BNP. William Hague and Ian Duncan-Smith are both Tories. Does that make the whole Tory membership a pack of baldies? I think not.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by HM:
Cruddas' seat is barely "all kinds of areas". And that report merely shows two individuals who have joined the BNP. William Hague and Ian Duncan-Smith are both Tories. Does that make the whole Tory membership a pack of baldies? I think not.

I didn't mention Cruddas's seat and nor did that article.

Kensington and Belgarvia are not in his constituency.

The article draws attention to the growing number of middle-class recruits that are joining the party,not just two individuals.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe:

Question is, what will be their level of support in th Euros next year? UKIP will almost certainly lose support to the Tories, but there is a real chance that the BNP could actually beat the Labour Party, and if that is combined with winning 1-3 MEPs as well, it will really be the start of years of growth for the party.

Swansong,you are entitled to dream of your party's future success,we have all done it,however,the bnp will have to get their skates on if they are to do as you say in the next 11 months.

MEP ELECTIONS 1999.

bnp 0%
UKIP 6.5%

mep elections 2004.

bnp 4.9%
UKIP 16.1%

If we are to be realistic on what an MEP means to our country we should look at the facts,which are as follows:

2004,UKIP 12 ELECTED MEPs,FROM EU TOTAL OF 785 MEPs. These 12 MEPs gave UKIP only 1.5% of the vote in the EU Parliament.

So,if the bnp get the 1-3 seats that you speak glowingly of,the bnp will have an EU Parliamentry voice of between 0.127%-0.382%,hardly worth mentioning is it?

The new allocation of MEPs with regard to the UK in 2009 is 73 seats from a total of 750 seats/MEPs.

Even with UKIP having the good fortune to win say 25 (over one third of those 73UK seats),their EU Parliament voice would only be 3.333% of the votes,which just shows what a big con it all is that the EU has in operation.

Even in todays EU Parliament the all powerfull Conservative Party only have 27 MEPs,which gives them only a 3.439% voting voice in the EUP.

Yes we know,its absolutely ludicrous to be a member of anything so huge and undemocratic as the EU,but we have been sold into it by our three main political party's for decades,and they will keep on selling the EU to the country because of the huge financial payments and pensions they are in reciept of.

It is not reasonable to expect our political leaders ever to change this system because it would be to their future detriment,it is easier for them to just carry on,to the continued detriment of the people.

Those who say they are anti or pro EU are to be respected,but those who continue to say they are Eurosceptic should always be watched and scrutinised,closely.
[Rep]

How In Heavens Name Is Ukip Going To Win 25 Seats.it Did Well Because Of The Daily Mail,express Etc Getting On Its Bandwagon.i Dont See The Same Next Time.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by alfred the great:
How In Heavens Name Is Ukip Going To Win 25 Seats.it Did Well Because Of The Daily Mail,express Etc Getting On Its Bandwagon.i Dont See The Same Next Time.

Alf,try to keep up.The 25 figure was used as an example to show how ludicrous the whole EU Parliamentry MEP votes are,they mean next to nothing.

By the way,the same bnp figure of 1-3 MEP seats was also just an example as set by Swansong in his post.

Try to read my post again,without your preconcieved ideas on what it contains this time.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by alfred the great:
How In Heavens Name Is Ukip Going To Win 25 Seats.it Did Well Because Of The Daily Mail,express Etc Getting On Its Bandwagon.i Dont See The Same Next Time.

Nor do I! Talk about living in cloud cuckoo land! The Daily Mail/Daily Express only hyped-up UKIP last time around because the CONServative Party was in a far weaker position than it is now and they didn't want to see some Tories peel-off to the BNP in an unmitigated 'up yours'protest vote to what seemed then to be an invincible Labour government with no opposition. They WON'T be repeating this next year. UKIP-inclined Tories will vote Tory when the day comes. The BNP's voters are more solid behind the BNP because the vast majority of them don't give a tinker's cuss for ANY of the Establishment's parties of treason.
[Rep]