Hhas there been any polling that postdates last Friday’s announcement of GDP for Q2? The 0.4% fall was unexpected and led to falls in the pound and the stock market. Together with today’s announcement of a rise in the US economy over the same period, this news cannot be helpful to Labour’s image.

I guess the Government is treading water because it no longer has time to get legislation through before the election, and voters are treading water because they have made their minds up. And of course many MPs are demoralised and distracted by expenses problems.

This is very worrying to many people, as reflected in the opinon polls, because there are desperate needs to address economic problems – but none of the three major parties are offering anything remotely sufficient – and plenty of other issues such as the environment. But we’ve been very worried for a year now.

I suspect there are plenty of people who realise that the BNP are not the answer but who would look in desperation to a more plausible new option, as is hinted at by stated intentions such as low propensity to vote and weak loyalty to the party currently preferred.

Aye, but that’s ‘cos we’re yet to rid ursels o’ the sassenachs! Once they’re gone, who else will there be to blame for all the smackheads, neds, and doleys?

Frank Field, a Labour MP, said pretty much the same thing as I did. Is he spouting “BNP garbage” as well? I guess you find it bizarre why a native people do not want to see their country populated by foreigners. To me it’s blindingly obvious. This is what Enoch Powell said : “…we have an identity of our own, as we have a territory of our own … the instinct to preserve that identity, as to defend that territory, is one of the deepest and strongest implanted in mankind”.

(By the way, I’ve never voted BNP, nor would I.)

I think your post does highlight the semantic problems with politics.
These words: democracy; liberal; racism, are all quite ill-defined and can conjure up quite different images in different people’s minds.

My understanding is that Liberalism is meant to be a description of ideology in terms of economics; as opposed to Libertarianism which is an ideological descriptor of the opposite of Totalitarianism; Democracy is merely a vehicle for delivering a mandate – China operates “democracy” at local levels; but certainly not Liberalism or Libertarianism.
My understanding is of a cubic spectrum of personal liberty; political liberty; and economic liberty, where various ideologies, parties, and personalities can be adequately located and described.
Frequently the Brit NP is described as “far right”, which doesn’t really adequately or accurately describe their left-of-Labour economic perspective… and gets them muddled up with UKIP and the Tories… this kind of muddled way of depicting them is to me a sign that they are, as a phenomena, not properly understood by their opponents in the establishment.
“Liberalism” is not meant to be about social issues: that’s Libertarianism. The Brit Nats, are not a “far right” party (as right is supposed to describe laissez-faire economics), they are a centre-left palaeo-conservative ethnocentrist group – but no-one wants to hear that, because it doesn’t trip off the tongue as well as shorter epithets do.

The QT “event” was a foolish debacle on the part of the establishment. Because what they did is dispelled any pretence of their impartiality towards the Brit NP, polarising the situation into a “them and us” struggle; in doing so, they have also effectively (i.e. in deeds rather than words) made a statement to the effect of confirming that the BBC/public sector and the main parties represent a united establishment. The reason why this is unwise, is that it is these uptilnow unlinked institutions that have been progressively alienating much of the public; hence what we have now is an emergent new ideological conflict, where there was none.

Recent news along the lines of: immigrant reproduction rates will push the population to 70m in a decade or so; and Mr Neather’s recent leak that Labour consciously hid a policy of deliberate ethnic demographic engineering over the last 10 years are serving only to play into the hands of one side in this; and incidents such as the QT event in context look more like impatient outbursts of exasperation from the establishment at it’s failure to keep the Brit NP out of official politics.

Frankly, I think the whole Brit Nat thing is a red herring… they are simply being used to draw fire from the main parties so that they can depict themselves as morally upright, after the expenses scandal has put that into question. I think the Brit Nats also serve another useful function for the main parties: of enabling them to pursue watered-down versions of their policies, all wrapped up in fluffy PC language.
For the media – well, 8.3 million viewers never came so easy did they!
The Brit Nats are not the story here… don’t take the bait.