[Page 18] Owing to the ceaseless hard work put in by rank and file members and the ever-expanding organisation of our Party machine, the National Front has grown to the stage where we were able to put up first 54 and then 90 candidates during the two General Elections of last year.

I have examined the attempts being made to attack the National Front's dramatic progress through the hire of Red mobs, the production of smear literature, and making the Race Relations Act really repressive. Other tactics are also being considered, including changing the British Constitution so as to hamper our participation in elections.

A report in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus of the 22nd October 1974 stated: "Mr. Paul Rose, Labour MP for Manchester Blackley, wants to increase the deposit put up by general election candidates from £150 to £500 to discourage fringe candidates."

Paul Rose is so frightened by the rising support for the National Front amongst the electorate, that he is plotting to actually frustrate and suppress the democratic aspirations of our people, by making it possible only for those backed by a lot of money to contest elections.


The Houghton Committee meanwhile is examining the proposal that taxpayers' money should be given to subsidise political parties, thereby further reinforcing the status quo. Were such payments to be adopted I have little doubt that the National Front would be one party that did not receive any.

As two Tory MPs. pointed out to the Committee: "If the criteria allowed subsidies to be paid to extremists such as the... National Front that would add to the unpopularity of the scheme."

Though these two Tories were against any subsidies, Ron Hayward, general secretary of the Labour Party, has made it clear that his party intends to submit evidence to the committee in support of the proposal. Equally disapproving of the National Front, Hayward probably believes that subsidies should go to all parties except racialist ones!

Parallel with these moves to institutionalise Establishment political parties, there have long been moves afoot to demand subsidies to Establishment newspapers.

As in the Soviet Union, the ruling Establishment allows you the illusion of democracy providing you always vote for its own candidates. In the Soviet [Page 19] Union they only have one label, while in Britain they have several, but vote for a party that threatens their vested interests and you will immediately be denounced as 'a threat to democracy' and get suppressed.

These ploys do at least have the function of alerting us to the fact that as long as the State is controlled by our enemies, its courts, its laws, and all the other organs under its command can only be regarded as potential weapons that may one day be used against us. This does not mean to say that we should be hostile to ordinary individuals who serve in the army, in the police, or elsewhere. On the contrary, it means that we must make an effort to win sympathy and support amongst these people.

On the other hand we must harbour no illusions that the Establishment will simply allow us to step into power, and may well use these institutions if we fail to neutralise them. The lesson taught by the Communist Armed Forces Movement in Portugal is plain for all to see.

The Establishment's moves to deny us the normal use of the constitutional Parliamentary road to power stresses the importance of our simultaneously building up an industrial base that will give us real democratic power along the lines of the Ulster Workers' Council which organised the highly successful general strike in Northern Ireland.