This started off life as a short response to GA’s article "Where are our generals?" but then just took on a life of its own.  It’s just thinking out loud. Some of the ideas might already have been discussed and dismissed but here we go.

Bloody good post, and quite right to ask the awkward questions.  And yes! Where the hell is the truth truck? It should be zipping about all over the place.

Anyway first the simple things.
1)    I agree that the party seems to have lost some of its revolutionary edge. In the run up to the European elections it seemed that some officers were more worried about “corporate image” than anything else. Is that a consequence of playing in the top league? I’m not sure. I understand the party is on a very steep learning curve, but I don’t think that people vote for the BNP because of its smooth slick image. A few rough edges are not the problem.

2)    If people have been promoted beyond their abilities it’s right they should go and do things more suited to their ability level. Everyone can be useful. But the wrong person in the wrong job can be fatal.

3)    Real authority should be delegated to regional and local levels where officers could initiate and sign off on local and regional initiatives, and be encouraged to do so. This would achieve a level flexibility that our enemies don’t have and not unimportantly would lighten the burden further up the command chain. It would also give the youngsters, our future leaders, the chance they need to develop real political and organisational skills.  It would also show that the BNP practices what it preaches when it says that democracy should flow down to the most local level.

4)    I disagree with you GA about Nick and Brussels. Having told the voters that the party will be doing everything it can in the European parliament if elected, both Nick and Andrew need to fulfil at least their minimum obligations there, which means a certain time in Brussels. The European election was also important because it gave us genuinely senior politicians.

Nick is our biggest asset and it would be wonderful to have him FT at home, but I’d rather assumed that the party had a plan to deal with the fact that he had a realistic chance of being elected and would be available much less once he took up his European post. If not it was a monumental miscalculation.  There needs to be someone with a high profile up there anyway, but I don’t see that person.  And that, in my opinion, is a real problem.

And then the brainstorming.
1)    For me the real issue is that despite all the efforts that have been put in by street activists, writers, bloggers  etc and the overwhelming strength of our arguments the British people are still barely waking up. Some are, but not enough. They are not just sleeping but have been totally anesthetised by the establishment. Unfortunately the vast majority of the great British public are in a political coma and it’s nearly impossible to get to them.

2)    This is where the young guns should be given their head to go out and make some noise. And this is how they, in my opinion, should be doing it:

The Lee Barnes’ post “Options when the constitution is changed” gave us a real gem in point 5 “QANGO's outside the party”. When I read this it was like someone turning a light on in a dark room. I quote:

The nationalist political parties are the tips of the spear, the QANGO's are the organisations that generate the masses that propel the spear forward.

In order for nationalist political parties to increase in size and power then the masses must be NATIONALISED.

I really love that.

The idea is basically for small nationalist outreach programmes that the target voters would be drawn into and then politicized. The original point was made as a possibility for hard core nationalists who just couldn’t stomach the new membership rules that the party will be required to accept to carry on the struggle. However the brilliance of the idea is that it can actually be used as a tactic by the party whatever the situation.

And it would by definition be local.

And it is entirely legal.

The start up phase would be tough, which is why we need out toughest and the bravest to do it.

If we’re looking for a way to politicize our potential voters and drag them from their comatose state and create a mass following this way must surely be a winner.

The reds are certainly discussing it as a method to bring the working class “back into the fold”, so if we don’t they will.

3)    I also think that the party should make an up to date inventory of what the skills base is within the membership and see how this matches the requirements of a modern nationalist party. I know this question is asked when you join, but things change. Every one who can do something should be doing it.

This is actually more complicated than it sounds because while any old idiot can ask the questions you need to be able to properly analyse the response and apply the outcome. It would be worth it though.

4)    And while I’m about it how’s this for a bit of kite flying? The party should fight the next general election only in a very limited number of seats where there is a genuine chance of upsetting the establishment parties and NOT fight a large scale campaign. I know this sounds like heresy but I do not think that the breakthrough will happen in 2010 for two reasons:
•    The next election will be a massive scrap between the Tories and Labour in which Labour will be wiped out and the remnants of the party will move to union led socialist parties. (Spot the opportunity)
•    The first past the post system will do us no favours until our local base is very much stronger.

I’m not saying the party should withdraw from national level politics, but restrict it FOR THE TIMEBEING to a few targeted areas.

The target for the next few years should be local and targeted unashamedly at politicizing white communities.