For the first time as a General Election looms, we hear the Labour and Conservative parties actually mentioning immigration. Mind you, you have to listen carefully, as the dreaded word is usually only a fleeting reference or embarrassed mumble among the secondary issues of the election campaigning. The guilty parties – and there's little to choose between Labour, Conservative and LibDem on this score – obviously hope that their remarks about 'addressing' immigration will be enough to divert voters from the BNP. But as we all know, these same parties have allowed (where they have not actually encouraged) the invasion of this country by several million aliens, and are now relying heavily on their votes.

Under pressure on the doorstep, on TV, radio or conference platform, the most any of their party representatives are now ready to say is that "firm but fair controls" are being or will be applied. To be sure, there has also been mention of a possible annual immigrant quota, but even here the idea has provoked gasps of horror from many of their own party members (the size of this quota has been quoted as "perhaps not more than 100,000"). Stirring stuff, this 'addressing', though somewhat unlikely to evoke memories of King Alfred, Sir Francis Drake and the Battle of Britain!

Of course, the fact that immigration is being mentioned at all is down to ominous rumbles in the constituencies and recent BNP successes at local elections. And so the three main parties are adopting a two-fold response: first, vilify the BNP at every opportunity as 'extremists' and 'racists'; second, assure the voters that "we are not unaware" of their concerns on this issue and will be 'addressing' it, even to the extent of 'considering' annual immigration quotas.

So to paraphrase the party conference speech of a fatuous Liberal leader some years back, the message is "Go back to your constituencies, and prepare to consider and address the immigration issue." And of course the practical outcome will be about the same as on that occasion.

The Lib/Lab/Con message to electors will therefore be that there's no need to vote BNP since immigration is now being, or about to be, 'tackled' by these other parties in a more or less convincing manner. In other words, the three main parties, along with UKIP, will be trying to siphon the anti-immigration votes from the BNP in their campaigns.

And make no mistake about it, this could well succeed (as in the notorious instance of the Thatcher government) in greatly reducing the impact of the BNP campaign.

Only one response

There is only one sensible response the BNP can make to this very real threat, and that is to make repatriation, not just immigration, the key element of its own election campaigns.

Adoption of the LIFO (last in, first out) repatriation rule automatically stops immigration, so the word becomes redundant. Some of our towns and cities are already on track to being alien-dominated within a couple of generations; and demographers are agreed that, even given zero immigration, the high immigrant birthrate alone will make white people racial minorities in much of their own homeland by the end of this century. So what the present Westminster coalition is really saying to the British people is: "We're going to be a bit stricter on immigration; but you'd better reconcile yourselves to the fact that your children or grandchildren will be a racial minority."

In these circumstances it becomes downright silly for the BNP to talk about immigration in its election campaigns while ducking the crucial matter of repatriation, as this leaves it in the same camp as its political opponents for all practical purposes and thereby reduces its own appeal to potential voters. For that appeal to warrant these voters' support, the BNP cannot afford vague remarks about merely 'encouraging' repatriation; there must be a bold commitment to reducing the alien population by a given percentage over a given number of years.

That this campaign message alone will provoke the most clamorous hatred in the opposition camp and mass media is all the more reason to adopt it. At a stroke, it leaves the opposition starkly exposed to voters' questions on what their policies on immigration really amount to in measurable terms.

Most of the time, all we get from politicians and the media is a spurious dialogue in which media-censored questions are fitted to pre-prepared answers; especially in the chummy first-name setting of the TV or radio interview.

The only question worth asking in this context is this:-

What is the maximum acceptable percentage of Third World immigrants in British towns and cities?

Anyone unwilling to give a percentage figure in reply is at once revealed as totally untrustworthy in any position of power or influence in British society.