Saturday, May 10, 2008

A time for focus - how can our Party become greater?

A great deal has already been written and spoken about this years Leadership Challenge, and the overall effects it will have or could have on the British National Party.

There have been a great many indicators to suggest that the swell of members and supporters that back this challenge, are growing daily.
One such indicator which stands out amongst many, is the reaction from the current chairman and a few close officials around him that believe that their positions may come under threat from the potential of an open and more accountable chairmanship.

Accountability needed

With a new and wholesome leadership put in place, accountability will become the pivot from which all positive changes will be made to the British National Party.
Full, fair and ethical accountability cannot and will not be found anywhere were corruption has been allowed to cultivate freely.

We only need to study the Establishment of Lib-Lab-Con, anywhere from the council chambers across the country to the House of Parliament and the European Parliament, in order to realise that large-scale deception and lies, are always followed by destruction in one form or another. Under such a yoke, as we all know, it is those of us without a voice and sway that always pay heavily for the privileges and treachery of the greedy and the sycophantic that know exactly in whose pocket the buttered-bread can be found.

Do we as nationalists allow ourselves to be convinced, that it is only the fault of those that seek to destroy the British National Party such as Marxists, the mass-media and the Labour Party etc, that we have not made any major political breakthroughs into Parliament or Europe?

How easy is it to pin blame elsewhere instead of looking at ourselves in the mirror for a full and honest explanation?

If we remain as political amateurs, our cause is lost

We all know in our heart of hearts, that any party that is impotent and ill-equipped, will simply not be able to seize an opportunity should such a prospect for a major election breakthrough present itself in the future.

As a Party we currently have no cabinet whatsoever; we have no waiting shadow ministers or department heads able to accurately observe and articulate comment on current affairs that fall within their sphere of expertise.

There is no accountability within the various branches and groups that often operate outside of Party policy, sometimes ending in terrible embarrassment for us.
Quite unbelievably, there is the total lack of any criteria whatsoever for candidates that wish to stand in elections that represent the Party in the eyes of the British electorate.

Our shining lights

Many times our prospective candidates and actual elected councillors have let us all down terribly, and on investigation it has transpired that they had little idea at all about what we as Party represent and didn’t even have the most rudimentary knowledge of the Party manifesto! The fault of such incompetence lay squarely on the shoulders of the Party organisation, or lack of, which leads to these Party own-goals. Inexperienced Party activists, that act only with the best of intentions cannot be held responsible.

The loose, almost anarchical state of general disorganisation within the Party election machinery, creates for itself stumbling blocks. After all, how can we expect the British people to trust in something that fails to prove itself truly different from the negative media image of our Party as being inept and disorganised? When we hand it on a plate to the media, they are hardly likely to turn them down. This is far more than just the argument of us ridding the Party of DM boots and shaven heads. This has now been achieved and it must be said, aided largely by Mr Griffin.
We need to expand this thinking now into real politics and earning respect within the eyes of the British people and consolidate our best and most viable vote areas. It can be done; we already have had some outstanding shining lights. Councillors such as Colin, Rod Law, Sadie Graham (suspended), Chris Beverley, Len Starr, Sharon Wilkinson, have all worked ceaselessly hard under the most hostile of circumstances for the benefit of their electorate and the Party as a whole. Such people deserve far better.

The rule of one man

The situation is thus, the Party is ruled by one man. He is a man that effectively makes every important decision by himself in every area, from finance, to staff recruitment and the appointing of people into positions of responsibility. From national media interviews and national events through to disciplinary ‘procedures’ and fund-raising; he has the final say on absolutely everything.

Advisory Council – toothless and powerless

Some members and supporters are under the impression that the Party’s Advisory Council is in place to ensure that authority within the Party is shared among the various department heads and regions; however this not the case. When the Advisory Council actually does meet, which is rather sporadically, the meeting itself is not an open discussion about how to take the party forward.

Accurate meeting minutes are not taken, actions are never accounted for or followed up, and all financial matters are refused discussion outright.

The AC should be transformed into a sitting body, an 'Executive’ that runs the affairs of the Party. Full reports should be put forward to this new Executive and no person that sits on it should be a paid member of Party staff. This new model would be an extremely essential cog in the Party machinery. Our new Executive should be made up of elected representatives from the different regions, elected by the members of those regions. All department heads, financial department, the Party Manager and the Party Chairman would all be accountable to this regionally elected Executive body.
The present AC is simply nothing except a toothless and powerless paper-tiger.

Elections first – leadership challenges second

There is currently an array of tactics being used, both inside and outside of nationalist circles, to try and disparage this year’s democratic leadership challenge. This attempt to slander and smear Mr Auty’s challenge is ranging from misinformation to outright lies.

One such lie is that this year’s leadership challenge has been arranged by hostile elements, intent in scuppering our Party’s chances in the 2009 European elections, as well as attempting to stop Richard Barnbrook successfully winning his seat on the GLA along the way.

Such nonsense can easily be countered when we consider that Colin and his team purposefully ensured two important factors where adhered to prior to lunching the challenge.

Firstly, that any challenge for leadership must only take place after the 2008 elections, as energy from the Party membership must not be diverted away onto any domestic issues that could potentially waste recourses and harm campaigns.

Secondly, Colin and his supporters have time and time again promoted and supported all our Party candidates in their various elections around the country, including Richard’s in the London campaign.

These are not the actions of ‘splitters’ or people seeking to sabotage or ‘derail’ the Party. They are simply the actions of Party members and supporters that seek to save the Party from the hands of a person that does not deserve to treat it as a personal play-thing. Colin’s supporters feature largely among the thousands of activists that distributed hundreds of thousands of pieces of Party literature this year and canvassed many homes. These are the people that are able, and should be allowed to choose a leader who actually listens to them with an open mind, instead of that leader abusing his position, by acts such as re-writing the Party’s constitution to fit himself and cater for his impulses.

All of us are corruptible!

Every single human being on the planet has the potential to become corrupted in some way or another. It is built into our genetic make-up and we cannot escape the fact regardless to how pure and ingenuous we regard our intentions and beliefs.

Democracies are put in place in order to remove the risks of one person abusing a position of power for his or her own ends. This works even if a leaders original motives were sound at the outset. Of course democracy itself is largely a charade in most ‘free’ countries today and it is often abused and harassed until it becomes every bit as corrupt as despotism itself. There are endless examples of this happening throughout history right up to this very day. There is no great revelation in this, but when one seeks a path through such a mire with hope of something better and decent for their families and themselves, the vehicle we choose must be greater than the sum of its parts if it is to succeed.

Within our Party, freedom of expression, choice and initiatives must be fully investigated, challenged, exercised and nurtured by the membership if we are to truly offer the other side of the coin to the British people.

The temptation of corruption will always remain, however it must be disabled entirely from ever being able to be exercised by any leader of a truly democratic Party.
A new Party structure must run all the way from the newest Party member with their first membership card; to the Party leader themselves with no exceptions and with full answerability.

No one person within our Party should ever again be able to stifle the voice of the member stood next to him, regardless to how important to the Party that person believes themselves to be.

The Party chairman must never again be allowed to gag people – [for telling the truth].

11 comments:

Marcia said...

This statement is so very accurate and eloquent. NOW what are members going to do about it? They have to act on mass to make this happen and for the BNP to flourish. Colin Aulty's legitimate challenge is being ignored by Mr. Griffen and Co. and why because I am convinced the personal prize for Mr. G is a seat in Europe. He really must not be allowed to use this Party so blatantly for his own selfish financial ends. There is a challenge to your inept Leadership Mr. Griffen - don't you dare ignore Members rights to a fair campaign and choice.

Marcia said...

P.S. I did mean a seat in Europe for himself, b..... the Party.

Richard - south east said...

Great post, spot on. We are not even close to being able to take any real power. Nick is a political dinosaur and he is not using the support to get us any real wins now. He wants to get himself into europe and sod the rest of us!
Good luck Colin, you have lots of support in the south east.

martin from manchester said...

Gri$$in, the bus is leaving and you should be on it. Colin has a heart and belief in our cause. You have a beief that you should be special and should have power and nest-eggs while the rest of us donate money into them!
Do us all a favour and go now.

Anonymous said...

More interference in the democratic process

From: Edward. Butler.
To: xxx@xxx
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 6:13 PM
Subject: Statement on the so-called Leadership challenge


Anyone in the Party who has more than five years continuous membership
has the Right to stand for the leadership of the Party. The only limit
to the exercising of this Right is that in the case of officers ten
nomination signatures of members of two years standing must be obtained
and for non officers a hundred signatures are required. This is to
ensure that frivolous candidates do not stand.

As I said this is a Right that members have. And it is an important
Right – it is a declaration of our Parties openness and commitment to
democracy. However with Rights come responsibilities and duties. A
Right without a duty is an abomination in any society. It is a recipe
for chaos. Indeed in our modern society it is the incessant claiming of
Rights by groups that shown no sense of duty or responsibility that is
one of the key components of the undermining of the civic order of our
country.

So in the instance of standing for leadership of the Party, the Party
as a whole should expect anyone who has the temerity to wish to stand
for leadership only to uphold their Right to do so after that person
had carefully weighed their duty to the cause and the Party and their
fellow members. We as members should expect that a candidate would only
put themselves forward if they were of sufficient stature and ability
to potentially be able to lead the Party if they were to win. Otherwise
why would someone wish to challenge for the leadership? It is a duty of
other members not to sign the nomination papers of any potential
candidate unless they seriously think that that person is a viable and
serious leadership contender. That is the whole point of the
requirement for signatories.

A leadership challenge is not an excuse to air grievances. It is not
there for disgruntled people to act out their personal bitterness about
things – no matter how ‘justified’ they may think their grievances are.
It is an abuse of the process to misuse it in that way. It is an abuse
of their Constitutional Right.

And that is precisely what we are seeing this year. We are seeing a
candidate pushed forward by people who themselves admit, has absolutely
no chance of winning, and admit would never be up to the job of
chairman anyway and they admit that the sole reason they are doing it
is to air their own personal grievances. In other words their sole aim
is to raise issues which have already been fully aired and which could
be raised at a variety of different forums such as the Summer School
(where there is always a session for all participants where they can
bring up matters they are unhappy about) or the Annual Conference.

What is the likely outcome of this leadership challenge? The
challengers (there may in fact be two!) will be comprehensively
defeated. The leadership challenge process as it currently stands in
the Constitution will be brought into disrepute. There will be
pressure, perhaps unstoppable pressure, to change the rules so that
leadership challenges can only take place every four years.

I would not normally comment on a leadership election. It should
normally be up to the membership to make their own minds up without
non-participants trying to influence the process.

But the backers of this ridiculous bid should reconsider their aimless
tactic. People should refuse to sign the nomination papers. It is a
distraction and a waste of time and effort and it will end up almost
certainly with the constitution changed in a way that destroys the
important Right of the possibility of a yearly election. Standing a
no-hoper is stupid, mindless and fatally undermines our Constitution.
It is a pitiful and moronic – a bankrupt tactic by people who can only
be described as having gone giddy to the extent that they are now
without the imagination to think how they can raise issues in a
legitimate way.

This election, if it goes ahead, should be carried out in the most
rapid manner possible with zero publicity allowed for the joke
candidate (who may in lother circumstances be described as a decent
and 'nice' bloke etc) and the least disruption to our continued
efforts. That is the best way to minimise the harmful effects.

Eddy Butler

National Elections Officer

So wrong said...

I am horrified that this could happen. Democracy? Not in Griffin’s BNP.
All those people outside Leed’s Crown Court chanting ‘freedom, freedom!’ For what exactly? A hypocritical dictatorship every bit as wrong as New-Labour?

Anonymous said...

I agree with Colin's list of objectives, his manifesto if you like, in particular the need to democratise the party, for there to be an an elected executive council, and for a shadow cabinet. However any new structure must guard against outsiders, such as Searchlight moles, being able to use any such greater democracy to join the party and destroy it from within. This is clearly a genuine threat.

I would therefore like to ask Colin what safeguards he would propose to incorporate in the amended party constitution to prevent this. The present rules governing who can attend and vote at the AGM would seem to be a sensible measure in this respect (although I think there are some practicalities in its implementation that need improvement). Would you seek to retain this rule, amend it, or extend it? Alternatively would you seek to replace it, and if so with what?

neil craig bradford said...

Am I in England or Mugabeeland.In Mugabeeland you know it is not a democracy, Mugabee insists he won the elections and demands a re-run (time to make sure he wins next time) but at least he allows an election. Mr Butler insists with rants and raves that it is YOUR DUTY not to sign any nomination forms unless it is a viable and serious leadership contender, who is he to say who that is, only the members of the BNP with a true election process can determine that. He then threatens to change the period between challenges to 4 years. Where will members be allowed a vote on that.
I have been to Summer schools, Winter Schools and Annual Conferences and can assure you that you are simply feed propoganda, there there is no time to discuss policies or failings within the party.
The BNP have no intention to give Colin a fair crack of the whip they are not following any electoral rules and will threaten to do many things. Please take off the gloves and show Gri££en for what he is, The message must be got across with whatever means it takes.

Marcia said...

Mr. Eddie Butler let me make sure I’ve understood you correctly by briefly covering just some of your points re. challenging the leadership; in a positive manner of course.

1. Right to Stand – non-officers need 100 nominees – who personally selects officers? (Oh it’s alright I know the answer to this one)
2. To Save Order in our Country – (a little presumptuous, lets get some representation first shall we!)
3. To have status and ability to stand– who gets to decide who gets status or not? (Oh it’s alright I know this one as well)
4. To challenge the Leadership is not an excuse to air grievances – (what, only challenge if you are perfectly happy with the Leadership - um, you’ve lost me on this one.)
5. Air your grievances at Summer School or the Conference – (if you’re allowed in of course, let alone speak.)
6. There should only be the right to challenge every 4 years – (then one can be where one wants to be by then, after the EU elections perhaps, brilliant.)
7. Don’t stand a no-hoper or moron – (once again obvious, we’ve already got one of those.)
8. If the challenge goes ahead – (stand two challenges and split the vote, ah. skulduggery afoot, or what Holmes.)
9. Challenge rapidly and quietly – (of course then members don’t know about it. Bloody brilliant.)

Anonymous said...

Mr Griffin will win again! The vote will be split, people who don't like Griffin will have a three way split vote, want a change of leadership, then talk, to each other, withdraw your challanges.

Those wanting change, who do they vote for, Barnbrook, Auty, or Jackson?

Anonymous said...

Whilst agreeing with the bulk of what is said here by the leadership contender, I do query the section headed If we remain as political amateurs our cause is lost. For us to have shadow ministers in waiting is not necessarily a good idea. It is all too redolent of the two–party system and waiting for Buggin’s turn.

The establishment politicians and pundits address themselves to the symptoms of our national malaise but they contrive to ignore its root causes: the elephant – or rather the whole family of elephants in the living room. These disregarded elephants being:

1. Our British national identity is based on race.

2. We are being outbred by foreigners in our midst.

3. The driving force behind almost all the initiatives supposedly taken by our government is the EU or other globalist forces.

4. There is a deliberate run-down of a healthy manufacturing and agricultural economy in Britain.

5. Our family life is deliberately being destroyed.

6. Normal moral standards are being turned upside-down.

7. Modern society is adrift: we are no longer anchored to our Christian civilization and history.

There is a crying need for the principles of British national identity to be established: if the present corrupt political system is ever overthrown these principles could perhaps be guarded by a new Constitutional Court and not be subject to the cut and thrust of everyday politics.