It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it

It seems at first sight to be a paradox. Yet the explanation, as with many things in this world, is really very simple. The electorate judges a political party, not merely by its policies, but also by its public image, which is predominantly determined by the public image of its leader - who is almost invariably its main spokesman.

Observing the physical appearance of the party leader, the non-verbal, often unconscious, cues they give off via their body language, as well as things like the tone, and pitch of their voice, and the words they choose with which to express their thoughts, gives the public an insight into the personality of the leader.

Of course, the content of what is said is also very important but there is something in Marshall McLuhan's dictum that "the medium is the message", the medium in this case being the party leader, through whom, or rather, in whom, the party's message is embodied.

A leader who lacks the ability to impress in debate, and who looks uncomfortable in front of the TV cameras, is a tremendous handicap to any party, but even more of a liability to an ethno-nationalist party, which is in the position of an outsider, needing to break the mould of the status quo in order to make electoral progress.

On all the foregoing counts, Mr Griffin, has been weighed in the balance, by the electorate, and found wanting.

Mr Griffin's holocaust-denying baggage is also something that turns off the public, not so much because they actually care about it per se, but because it suggests to them that Mr Griffin's judgement and personality are flawed, and that consequently he is not someone who could, or should, be trusted with the levers of power.

With a new leader, who possessed the X factor which Mr Griffin lacks, and who lacked his electorally debilitating holocaust-denying baggage, the BNP would be forging ahead, would see off UKIP without any trouble at all, and soon have MPs in Westminster.

All over the rest of Europe parties similar to the BNP are making stunning progress, challenging seriously for government in some cases. Only in Britain is the nationalist cause in apparent decline.

If Mr Griffin has the best interests of the British National Party at heart he should resign as leader, and concentrate his efforts on the European 'parliament'.

It is no use asking "Who else could do the job?"

We know what happens to BNP members who incur Mr Griffin's jealousy or displeasure.

Let Mr Griffin resign, and his likely successors will then appear.

They may then present their wares to the party's membership in a free and fair leadership election, and the members may choose the person they feel would be best for the party.

The alternative is a continuation of the progressive wasting disease that is currently afflicting the party, more electoral humiliation, and more embarrassing gaffes, and ineffectual thrashing around, by the party's beached whale of a leader.


Nearly 80% of People Want Lower Immigration, Yet They Continue to Vote for More

Sat, 15/01/2011 - 17:24 | Web Admin, www.bnp.org.uk.

Nearly four out of five people in Britain want to see a reduction in immigration, a Government survey has revealed.

The poll, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government, shows that 78% of people in England and Wales want to see immigration into the UK cut back. Twenty-four per cent of participants said they would like to see immigration reduced a little, while 54% said they wanted it cut “a lot”. Conversely, only nineteen per cent said levels should stay the same, and just three per cent said there should be more.


These statistics are all the more remarkable considering that in addition to the 10,000 participants from England and Wales, the survey also added the views of two “boost samples” of 5,000 “ethnic minorities” and 1,200 Muslims, suggesting that it is not just the indigenous people of these islands that want to see immigration slashed.

This begs the question as to why such high numbers of people continue to vote for parties that have created the mass immigration problem in the first place and will only continue to worsen it.

Unfortunately, many may have been fooled by Prime Minister David Cameron’s posturing on the promise of an “immigration cap”, an impossible pledge for a country that is open to unlimited immigration as a member of the European Union.

Mr Cameron’s loophole-riddled promise of reducing visas for less skilled workers from outside Europe by a pathetic 6,300 a year is a pointless drop in the ocean for a country that lets in nearly 600,000 immigrants annually. It is made all the more insignificant by his scrapping of limits on intra-company transfers, his commitment to the EU/India Free Trade Agreement, which will ensure another 20,000 Indians per year gain access to work in Britain's IT sector alone, and his febrile desire to hasten Turkey’s accession to the EU.

The British National Party is the only party that promises to halt all immigration into Britain, with no misleading talk of caps, quotas or politically correct “moratoria”. If this policy is “racist”, then so is the majority of the population.