“I’m not racist, but…”
“I can’t be racist, some of my best friends are black…”

You make a fundamental mistake if you think that Labour have been using that kind of working class language in their rhetoric. Very few Labour MPs, with the exceptions being the old school, non-cabinet variety, are interested in pursuing a socialist agenda for the country simply because state ownership agendas are neither fiscally possible or ideologically acceptable to swing voters.

Did you think that New Labour won in 1997 on a platform of public ownership and a promise to renationalise? Or do you think they embarked on one of the largest programmes of private involvement in public sector capital projects and services in British history? Do you think that disaffected Tory swing voters ran to Blair because they saw an old-school socialist, that capitalism was a failure and democratic socialism was the way to go? Or do you think he harped on for three years about a Third Way and then promptly got together with the same private industry people he’d been schmoozing out of power and then carried on the Conservative programme of nationalisation?

You won’t find the correlation you’re looking for. The main reason you won’t find is because the BNP have an incredibly small share of the vote anyway, and so you can’t find the correlation to see if Lab-BNP is a direction. A more likely direction, despite loud fluffing on the internet, is Lab-Con, Lab-Lib or Lab-Green – or, in fact, Lab-Null. In June, the Tories, UKIP and the Libs all increased vote share across the board whereas the BNP had a marginal national increase pushed up primarily by the North West and Yorks and Humber.

A second reason you’re wrong is because the BNP, in their style guide, explicitly mention that their language should be modified to catch voter dissatisfaction. Specifically, they target working class areas with working class language, catching Labour and Lib voters, and traditional Tory and UKIP voters with language to suit them. It’s because the BNP don’t have any real policies aside from no more immigration (which is narrow-minded on a practical scale the UK needs immigration on many different levels) and out of Europe – which is narrow minded on an economic and geopolitical scale, because the BNP don’t have the experience or foresight to appreciate how much tarif-free trade within the EU benefits us and how complicated and lengthy free-trade agreement negotiations with their preferred Commonwealth partners of NZ, Canada and Australia are.

Oh, bright move Batman! – ever considered that the data on Wikileaks might not be reliable? Ever thought it was put there so that sloppy freelance writers would refer to it and give it credibility? Didn’t they teach you to get two independent sources while you were at Oxford?

Anyway, back on topic.

You totally misunderstand my comments so I will try again, this time in simpler terms, I’ve even typed slower so that you might understand. Shame I can’t write on the screen with crayon to help you out! ;)

The maps show both BNP membership and where the large non white populations are held. You are reading into these maps that the BNP membership is worrying about nothing because their areas of popularity are not where there are high levels of non white population.

My point is that membership of the BNP is not limited to racists and many members (40% were the last figures I saw) do not even consider themselves racist. What I would like to see is how closely the map of BNP membership follows the areas of popularity of the labour party.
I have found a map here, http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/projects/electionmap/ It sort of follows the theory, but there is too much information to be able to break down to a simple yes / no answer.

It really does come down to the BNP just being another flavour of socialism – one the urban elite just don’t like!

That’s just about it. :)

I read the article by Christopher Hart today regarding the Abbot and Portillo show, and agree with practically every word. I also watched the Channel 4 show on Monday “Race and Intelligence” and made two observations.

1. According to scientists, I a genetically inferior to other races, but you know, it does not bother me one bit if that is proven to be the case
2. The reason given by the programme presenter for the “lack of intelligence” in the black population had nothing to do with IQ tests, but more to do with associating academic achievement with whites. In fact one very bright black was beaten to death because of this.

Am I wrong or is this openly rampant racism by the black population? This seems acceptable by all. If a whites refused to enter the 100 metre sprint because it is associated with blacks, I think there may possibly be some kind of backlash.

Seriously, if you read the notes on the map it’s not that hard to understand.