By the end of May there will have been several national-direction relavent events.

The Royal Wedding is in April so by early May we will know if that passed peacefully or if trouble was caused by 'anarchists', 'foreign elements', or 'tiny minority of extremists' from a certain alleged 'religion of peace'. If bad things happen at the wedding it could galvanise the public. There is a practical limit to what the police (and other government bodies) could stop if the public got angry and took matters in to their own hands in the (then belated) defence of the country. Simple and quick actions would be most effective. The hard part will be being despised afterwards by the very fellow countrymen you acted to protect if they are not also enraged by actions against our country. If it comes to that, which it may not.

The alternative vote (AV) referendum will be in early May. The result will show public opinion of politics to an extent. The referendum will show whether public's opinion is obeyed by government. Will there be a second referendum to get the 'right answer this time' as Ireland had? Could it be a wedge forming a crack, making room to push for a further referendum on other matters (terminating european union membership, end to race replacement immigration, etc)? If AV passes, then people will feel they have more choice. Whether the statistics reported after elections will report tallies for all the choices, or just winners, remains to be seen. Assuming the status quo is not compromised, the current mainstream parties will still likely end up with the majority of seats regardless of whether the public voices a 'yes' or 'no' on May 5th.

Various local government and council elections will show whether political means have any remaining viability. Vote results would give show if the footwork done has worked. The elections can also bring to light new smear campaign approaches used against candidates. Expose the dirty trickery to the public by anonymous leaflets to let them know the skullduggery the candidates (and their parties) used against friend and foe alike (thought hate each other almost as much as they hate us).

Although I agree that the weather would be better by summer!

The sooner Britain is set back on a non-downward direction the less pain will be needed to save the country.
It seemed to me that the BNP would not get elected by the population soon enough to minimise pain.

Discredited, hated by the media, with people believing bad things about the party.
Sometime the greater good, the quickest way to achieve longer term goals, is needed.
What better way than to secure assets, dissolve the BNP, it's have membership and leadership publically bemoan the BNP's dwindling fate, the media would jump all over it and make the public believe that the BNP were gone, and more importantly that the media-fueled negative stigmas were gone.

A new nationalist party then arises. Not called the BNP for obvious reasons.
It would need a name that evoked national pride (probably without mentioning 'nationalism' to prevent enemies replacing it with negative words beginning with the letter n).
A name that included "Britain", "British Isles", and / or "British".
A name not too complex, nor silly sounding, nor with media exploitable acronyms.

A fresh party has no history (niether good nor bad), stewarded with no figureheads with a past the media can easily fling mud about.
Likely requiring the BNP's public figures to NOT play a connectable public part, else risk the media saying 'this is just the new BNP'. Perhaps keeping non-traceable advisor roles, supporting in spirit, and votes.

The BNP supporters would see the new party's "Britain first" spirit and approach, naturally liking it. Quite possibly they would be aware what it was in all but name and form what they have already supported.
The rest of population could take one look at "Britain first" and compare with the current state of affairs in the country (destruction of family, morality, industry, prospects, and so forth).
What reason would they have to not vote for the new party, unless they despised Britain and its people?

Sadly whether waiting for next general election is a good idea is a different matter entirely.
For the greater good, things may need to be brought forward. The situation that requires that would likely be external.
Do any of you reading this honestly believe that another 4 years of the current approaches is safe given the state of the country and the rest of the world? But that is a different matter.

The same Barclays that, to avoid taking money from the UK government, was bailed out by Middle Eastern investors?

Perhaps this green and pleasant land should have financial institutions with eyes (and ears!) closer to home. A bank is liable to shareholders and interested (no pun intended) in vast profit, so a building society would probably be a better choice.

British Isles Building Society.

Serving communities by employing local people.
Paying staff sensible and decent wages (no £2/hr exploitation or £15M/pa nonsense).
Financial policies which add up, are transparent (could be done by any family with a pocket calculator), and don't use word tricks like 'sub prime' to hide when they've messed up their numbers.
Sensible lending (eg. don't let people borrow more than they can repay, at fair rates - no need for 30% interest when no shareholders to drink champagne)
Financial gains used to pay costs (staff, premises, B2B services, etc), provide capital to boost lending capability, and surplus to give a modest return to savers (ultimately, if you can put £10 in and be able to take £10 out again, at least you havn't lost anything unlike with some banks nowadays), again with transparency for members and the public.

Perhaps a kind reader with experience of the finance world could see what the Financial Services Authority and Building Societies Association would require for it to become a reality?

I also noticed an audio link missing from the Analysis pages, but a google search found the audio for me. At time of writing (07 Oct 09 01:08) audio is available at www.bbc.co.uk/i/b00mw2nh

(I linked the audio in an comment earlier this evening, repeating here in case Revisionist missed it, and for others browsing through to hear if they prefer listening to reading)

Link to audio: www.bbc.co.uk/i/b00mw2nh

Congratulations Andrew.

I wonder how many public services you could buy back if you took the money back from the execs, top bankers, corrupt politicians (2nd house allowance? should more like shared accomodation with other MPs methinks - or do they revile their own kind too much?) and other head-in-the-clouds city types. Include all the money the illegal immigrants and benefit cheats are swimming in, and you could probably even the odd train arrive on time!

If people are so worried about BNP policies why doesn't the BNP make it's policies publically known and legally binding? Then people can't keep turning round and playing the same old cards against the BNP - because the policies won't match the accusations. Draw out clearly worded documents, leave them with a solicitor, and agree that if the policies are willfully breached without very good reason then the gov't forfeits it's time in office and a new election is called. Not a bad idea to apply that to ALL political parties really...

10 planes out to 1 plane back. Would be a step towards reverting to sensible population balances.

It would only take one person to cause chaos. They wouldn't even need real nuclear material. A few of the ubiquitous radiation symbol amongst the debris would set off panic. It would take only a short time with suitable equipment to see there was nothing extra beyond normal background radiation radiation. Even if authorities later told the public that no nuclear material was present, would the public believe it or would they think there was a cover up?