So what will Nick Griffin be doing next month ?

The view Nick Griffin will have on his way to work next month.

by johnofgwent

My God, it's a slow news day today. Wherever I look, I see nothing but images of contrite MP's fishing in their jackets and handbags for cheque books signing away large chunks of ill gotten gains either to their Parliamentary Quartermaster or H M Revenue and Customs. Now contrition is a good thing in an MP, but I see that even now Gordon Brown still can't do the job right.

HE wants his chums to dig deep into their pockets and pay back the loot they've raided over the past four years whereas in the interview between any other British worker and HMRC over such outrageous conduct would be a choice between paying back everything over the last seven years plus a 100% penalty plus interest and Prison so Hazel Blears is getting off lightly with her "donation" of the Capital Gains Tax she should have paid on the sale of her last second home but three, or was that four, Hazel ?

But enough of that, we have more important things to sort out.

We all know Peter Hain advocated a return to the violent confrontations his Anti-Nazi League "pioneered" under his leadership (or so he says) and Norman Tebbit recently urged voters to tell "all mainstream party candidates" to get on their bikes. But the "d'Hondt Formula" has created associations of most uneasy bedfellows whose sole common aim in life is to prevent the Chairman of Our Party from having to ride a tram past the Atomium on his way to work next month

Vote Green for unfettered immigration

Now the ramifications of the mathematical formula behind the decision of who gets in and who doesn't are enough to satisfy the most tedious geek but for those interested i recommend The Cumbrian Patriot's explanation as a starting point.

But I thought I'd do a quick compare and contrast to show anyone thinking of using the Green Party as a way to stop Nick Griffin what they're actually voting for. And let's go take a look at an academic analysis shall we (it would not do to giove the greens false hope by boosting their site's hit rate to fetch their manifesto commitments would it)

On population the Greens have at least seen sense as we in the BNP have done. In their manifesto they say :-

The biggest challenge in politics is how, peacefully, to make available the necessities and good things of life to an ever increasing number of people from a finite and diminishing resource base and the natural environment. This growth in human numbers is probably the greatest long-term threat to achieving ecological stability either locally or throughout the world.

The quality of life of all, except for that of a very rich and powerful minority, will decline. It becomes easy for authoritarian regimes to gain control and to impose draconian solutions.

But what then of their stance on immigration as a means to control access to our scarce and ever dwindling resources ? Ah well, that's another kettle of fish isn't it.

MG204 Communities and regions should have the right to restrict inward migration when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied:

a) The ecology of the recipient area would be significantly adversely affected by in-comers to the detriment of the wider community (eg. National Parks, Antarctica);
b) The recipient area is owned or controlled by indigenous peoples (eg Australian aboriginal people) whose traditional lifestyle would be adversely affected by in-comers;
c) The prospective migrants have, on average, equal or greater economic power than the residents of the recipient area and they or their families were not forced to leave the area in the recent past.

MG205 Migration policies should not discriminate directly on grounds of race, colour, religion, political belief, disability, sex or sexual orientation. Preference should not be given to those with resources or desirable skills.

MG206 The Green Party is opposed to forced migration and forced repatriation.

What an interesting little "curate's egg".

"I'm afraid you've got a Green Manifesto , Mr Jones";
"Oh, no, my Lord Bishop, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!"

Let's just take a look at that Green Manifesto commitment again shall we, and remember the fact that our enrichers are allowed to claim state benefits for each of their four wives and every one of the brats spawned from such unchristian unions.

• MG204(b) Communities and regions should have the right to restrict inward migration when the recipient area is owned or controlled by indigenous peoples whose traditional lifestyle would be adversely affected by in-comers
• MG205 Migration policies should not discriminate directly on grounds of race, colour, religion, political belief, disability, sex or sexual orientation. Preference should not be given to those with resources or desirable skills.

Well that seems clear enough. Restrictions are allowed where an indigenous population that currently owns the land is under threat.

Bu as soon as they say that, they go on to destroy any credibility in the enforcement of that statement by saying they will make it so no immigration control, not even the pithy shambles our current apologists of a government have in place, will be permitted.

I guess that is what you get when you vote for crackpots who would cheerfully see our country's people freeze to death when Putin turns off the Russian Gas , Qatar stops sending the tankers or the pirates of Somalia hijack them, because the alternative, nuclear reactors as built by the french in droves to ensure they can never be held to ransom as we can be, is "unthinkable"

The sooer these green jokers are chucked out of brussels and replaced with people with the interests of the British voter at heart, the better.