When we get a ruling from the Royal Courts of Justice on the re-count of Burnley Council's Rosegrove with Lowerhouse ward, and if the outcome vindicates the BNP for taking the action to overturn the result, I hope visitors to this blog will post a comment on the 'Politic Site' which advertises on this page. (See link on left).
Its administrators are highly sanctimonious and cannot believe that the BNP might be victims of election fraud, so let's hope, if the result is in our favour, their forum gets swamped by posts setting the record straight. Someone should also tell them about the vote in Barking last year when one of our successful candidates had his vote announced wrongly by the Returning Officer and the seat was given to Labour. The BNP had to go to the High Court again to get that result overturned and give the BNP its 12th councillor on Barking and Dagenham Council.
Best of luck today for our BNP candidates, Peter Copper in Waltham Abbey Honey Lane Ward for Epping District Council and Michael McDermott in Manor Ward for Sefton Council. Whereas last week I had been informed that a good result was expected in Church Gresley, this week I have heard absolutely nothing. I know it will be hard for us in a big ward in Sefton with only a small unit there, but in Epping, if our elections guru Eddy Butler is involved, I know it will be a thoroughly professional campaign so hopefully we might be able to improve on our 20% vote in the ward last May. On the plus side, immigration and Britain's rising population has been in the news this week and if voters in these two wards are worried about it they will have the chance to vote for a political party that will stop immigration.
And talking of stopping immigration, no one did so this morning on Radio 4's Today programme. It was reporting that councils, police forces and fire services have raised concerns that they are being short-changed by inaccurate population estimates - which lead to smaller grant settlements from Whitehall. The authorities say the imbalance between funding and actual migration is placing a huge pressure on basic services such as transport, schooling and health.
In the past, only councils at the forefront of migration pressure, such as Slough and Westminster, have spoken out about the controversial figures. But now the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) has revealed that 41 councils, two police forces and two fire services have "made specific representations regarding population data".
The leader of Slough council was interviewed and she talked about how the figures for her borough were wrong back in 2001 even before the latest tidal wave of immigrants, refugees and bogus asylum seekers swamped Slough. She said that back then there had been a miscalculation by the Office for National Statistics on the borough's birth rate! Anyone who has been to Slough will know what she is talking about, but anyone not in the loop about the demographics of that town would be mystified as to why population experts could get its birth rate so horribly wrong. Sadly, the council leader did not elaborate on it. She could have mentioned that it was the immigrant population that was responsible for the birth rate boom in Slough, but she didn't. Neither did she mention stopping immigration. She acknowledged that the services within her borough were close to breaking point because of the huge number of immigrants arriving there, but all she wanted was more money from the taxpayer to help cope with this.
It seems nowadays no one is prepared to say on the national media that there must be a complete stop to any further immigration - no one expect for the British National Party. And that is where our strength lies. Let the other parties and the establishment 'safety valve' pressure groups talk about their points systems, their managed migration, and their 'strict' limits. To an increasingly frustrated British public such terminology is becoming meaningless. Our simple message will be 'Not one more', and I'm certain that is what they want to here.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Ever thought about stopping immigration?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Martin
"but all she wanted was more money from the taxpayer to help cope with this."
The government is clunking to a complete halt here, because of their enormously wasteful spending over the last 7 years or so they are now running short, and having to rein back as it is.
There is little more scope for squeezing the tax payer give that he/she is having to service the record and extraordinary level of personal debt(the vibrant economy) whilst coughing up for Nulab's Dystopia at the same time.
Perhaps most importantly this further gives the lie to Nulab propaganda about the alleged £6bn benefit to the economy of immigration. As the excellent David Coleman has pointed out the costs are never factored in - he recently calculated these costs to total £8.8bn.
The more of these immigrants who have not been included in the statistics then the greater the costs, for it is GDP/capita that matters if we are looking at matters from the economic standpoint.
Coleman previously calculated that the net economic benefit of migration was worth about a Mars Bar/week each. This isn't much compensation for the environmental, social and cultural devastation such "enrichment" brings in its wake.
Indeed we are probably well into reverse Mars bars in bare economic terms in reality.
Post a Comment