 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
Problems with the Policies of the British National Party
I did this a few days ago after seeing their website. For me at least, it seems their attempt to make themselves respectable is a veneer, and a pretty bad one at that.
All quotes are from the Policy page of the British National Party website (www.bnp.org.uk) as of 8th April, 2004.
Immigration
quote:
“On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question. We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.”
|
This argument relies upon a faulty assumption that is a theme throughout much of the BNP’s rhetoric. That is of the notion of “Britishness”, a British national identity and the notion of a homeland. The problem here is that a definable British people is a fallacy, since this history of this nation has been one of multiple immigrations, it is an ethnic conglomerate. This is a history of immigration and cultural diversity stretching back over 10’000 years, the entire history, in fact, of human population on these Isles. This would seem to go against the BNP’s idea of a static, defined and yet encompassing national identity that is under threat. It is my opinion that what they refer to as British national identity is merely a romanticised “Little Englander” mentality, whose unrealistic and nostalgic views of “Britain of old” take the place of consideration, when there are faced with “Johnny Foreigner”. Inclusion and integration, the only candidates for any definition of British culture are cast aside in favour of partition, intolerance and favour along “ethnic” lines. Unfortunately for the BNP’s view of national identity, Britain is not about cricket, discipline, rolling green fields or cultural hegemony. Given the history of this nation, a culture of tolerance and individualism does not bear well with the exclusive political agenda of the BNP.
One must also consider the economic implications of the BNP’s fallacious proposal. Britain, like much of the West in the post-modern era is afflicted by falling birth rates. The “baby-boomers” of the interwar and 1940’s era are retiring and require state support for survival. As a nation, Britain is aging, and at this rate it will reach a point where those in work will be unable to sustain the retired through social security and healthcare costs without drastic increases in tax, which will cause the economy to implode. However, this nation is blessed by an influx of young, able bodied and often well educated immigrants and asylum seekers. This is a terrific economic opportunity, for if they were allowed to work, the wealth generated would help to fuel the economy, and the taxes raised would make it easier for the government to support the grey population. This does beg the question of space, which though sidetracking somewhat from the argument, is the authors opinion that assuming efficient and sensible housing policies, Britain is by no means approaching saturation point.
Law and Order
quote:
“The BNP will crack down on crime and restore public safety and confidence. We will free the police and courts from the politically correct straitjacket that is stopping them from doing their job properly. The liberal fixation with the ‘rights’ of criminals must be replaced by concern for the rights of victims, and the right of innocent people not to become victims. We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute, as by DNA evidence or being caught red-handed.”
|
While the BNP’s argument here may appear to make sense, and is indeed emotionally potent, it is an ill-considered and populist sham. The foundation of the criminal justice system is a presumption of innocence before guilt, and an objective, critical process; a trial, used in order to establish guilt and impose an appropriate and proportionate sentence. This inherently requires an objective, and thus equal distribution of rights among all citizens even those accused of a crime, until they have been proved to be guilty. By no means is it perfect, however it is the safest method we have of punishing only those proved to be guilty, and not arbitrarily accused as such, and a fair, reasoned punishment to allow them to re-pay their debts to society.
While nobody doubts the genuine emotional suffering and material loss of the victims of crime, it is an erroneous belief that they have any logical say in the fate of those convicted of the crime to which they are a victim. The opinions of both respectively are subjective, and furthermore as subjective as each other, since they are not independent to the crime concerned. An independent judge is the best means of resolving such a dispute. If that were not the case, the legal system would degenerate into a ***-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye institution of revenge, where constructive measures taken against criminals are replaced by the vengeful whims of the angry, and state-sponsored vigilantism. This resolves to become very much like a witch-hunt, or a Jew-hunt, or a Communist-hunt of old, and this is not justice. History views these episodes of cruelty, vengeance and subjective imposition with great anguish, as it does for all unnecessary suffering for whose justification, time renders meaningless.
It is my view that the BNP’s passion for vengeance has no place in a modern, civilised, educated society and that the legal system should be considered, objective, logical and proportionate, unaffected by the prejudiced, emotional whims of those who wish retribution upon those who have wronged them.
Economy
quote:
"Globalisation, with its export of jobs to the Third World, is bringing ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities that depend on them. Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers. When this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish, at last getting our people back to work and ending the waste and injustice of having more than 4 million people in a hidden army of the unemployed concealed by Labour’s statistical fiddles. We further believe that British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people. To that end we will restore our economy and land to British ownership. We also call for preference in the job market to be given to native Britons. We will take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants. Finally we will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes.”
|
The BNP here are advocating a policy of protectionism, which involves the protection of a nations industry by its government by excluding imports or raising tariffs upon those imports, to stimulate economic growth at home. However, this encourages retaliatory measures to be introduced by other nations against the protectionist, effectively destroying that nations export sector. This occurred during the economic bubble of 1920’s America, served as a major factor in the bursting of that bubble. In a smaller nation such as the UK, protectionism after the export sector has been destroyed would result in higher prices for the same industrial output, meaning higher prices on the street.
As for the job market being opened to the “native” Britons, this is a further inefficiency that would be introduced to businesses by the BNP. In a flexible and competitive labour market, and in particular with a service-driven economy such as that of the UK, employee skills have never been valued so much. When offered the choice of two potential workers asking the same salary, it makes sense that a business would employ the one best suited and best skilled for the job, in order to create the greatest return on the investment of that salary. Forcing businesses to prefer to employ those who aren’t recent immigrants despite the fact that some immigrants may be better able to do the job is unfair on the business and unfair on the individual whose economic worth is defined by the skills they have to offer, not their place of birth.
Agriculture
quote:
“We see a strong, healthy agriculture sector as vital to the country. Britain's farming industry will be encouraged to produce a much greater part of the nation's need in food products. Priority will be switched from quantity to quality, as we move from competing in a global economy to maximum self-sufficiency for Britain. We will ensure a major shift to healthier and more sustainable organic farming. We are pledged to ensure the restoration of Britain's once great fishing industry with the reimposition of the former exclusion zones around our coast.”
|
Whether or not the writer of this ridiculous policy is aware of the notion of economic prudence is a question that could be easily overlooked, when one compares the output, and potential output of third-world nations and the essentially frivolous luxury of the British agricultural sector. Farmers in the third world could supply food for the West cheaply, in great quantities and with good quality. In the meantime, farming communities and entire economies could be benefiting from the Western money used to pay for their produce. However, in an absurd policy that afflicts Western Europe, farmers here are subsidised by governments and the European Union to produce food that is more expensive than food grown in the third world, and those that would otherwise be filling our breadbasket are starving. It is my view that this current situation be scrapped, instead of strengthened further. By buying most of our food from the third world, all, except a tiny (but vocal) minority of farmers would benefit economically. Those few that are redundant can either specialise in the production of speciality foodstuffs, or easily move into another sector of employment, an option that is currently unavailable for millions of people in the third world.
The idea of British self-sufficiency hasn’t been used seriously since the early half of the twentieth century, when food shipments from the British empire were under the threat of German U-Boat attack. I can think of no possible economic, political or social reason why self-sufficiency is important, unless Britain is preparing for war, international disrepute, or a party in government is more concerned with its own opinion-poll rating than the welfare of people, voting or otherwise.
Northern Ireland
quote:
“Britain has shamefully allowed the terrorists in N.I. to come close to winning when the IRA could have been destroyed years ago. Government weakness has led to hundreds of deaths and given those same terrorists a share in government. We would end all attempts to force the people of Northern Ireland to accept foreign interference in their affairs and deal with terrorism – from whatever side – once and for all. No one with links to a terrorist organisation that refuses to lay down its arms should be allowed to enter government. We would abolish state-supported segregation in education. In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles.”
|
The history of the Northern Ireland conflict is something of a red-herring to this piece, however this woefully skewed version of its history is almost self-evidently ludicrous to anyone with even a basic grounding in the struggle! However, since my knowledge of the conflict is little beyond that grounding, I would move on. However, a farcical idea that would effect the fate and future of another nation (Eire); specifying membership of something as outlandish as a “federation of the nations of the British Isles” is not the policy or the thinking of a serious political party with considered or at least partially reasoned policies.
Defence
quote:
“Successive cuts in defence spending have left Britain’s armed forces perilously weak. We will boost Britain’s armed forces to ensure that they are able to deal with any emergency, and defend our homeland and our independence. We will bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO, since recent political developments make both commitments obsolete. We will close all foreign military bases on British soil, and refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peace-keeping’ missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake – a position of armed neutrality. We will also restore national service for our young with the option of civil or military service.”
|
This argument demonstrates a very poor understanding of the nature of military strategy, or indeed the changing international tactical situation. The military is something of an economic black hole. Money that goes into the military has no return, since those resources are spent on creating equipment that does not generate a return. In this respect, it is rather like a child’s toy. Though increased military spending may expand the industrial sector for the life of a specific order, that money is coming directly from the taxpayer. Furthermore, the military requires a large supply of young people to fight and die, to maintain the equipment, to perform the myriad roles that a modern military machine requires. These are young people at their most active and productive age, yet they are being taken out of a system where they could generate wealth, and are instead reducing it. Needless to say, their salaries are also paid for by the taxpayer. My argument here could be twisted and turned around to say that logically, I must oppose healthcare and education spending increases. This is not the case of course, since both of these, and other areas of government spending have conceivable returns upon their investment. An educated and healthy population is generally productive, healthy and happy. Politically, they must also be safe, which means that any military spending must be linked closely to an evaluation of the current and future likely threats.
In this era of terrorism, we are a world away from that of a few decades ago, where global superpowers would take on other superpowers and the industrialised slaughter of hundreds of thousands of young men were an accepted part of warfare. Today, much smaller, better equipped, trained and deployed groups of young men are being asked to fight, and no longer is a vast budget required to keep a nation safe while maintaining limited offensive capacity. Yet the far right, including the BNP and other conservative elements want to increase the flow of resources wasted in the military, which harms the economy and does little to increase the effectiveness of a modern fighting machine, horrific though it is, in my opinion, it would seem apparent that it is a political necessity in this day and age.
Democracy
quote:
“The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in recent years the British people have been denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by a Politically Correct ‘élite’ which thinks it knows best. On immigration, on Capital Punishment, on the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other areas, democracy has been absent as Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems conspire in election after election to offer the British people no real choice on such vital issues. The BNP exists to give the British people, that choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, not just at national but at regional and local level. Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them. We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive Governments over the last 40 years. We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people. We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.”
|
The British National Party are succumbing here, so it would seem, to what is known in Critical theory as “The Democracy Fallacy”. Democracy is a well applied liberal idea that allows the people some say in how their nation is run. This serves as a check on latent tyrants and encourages such civil liberties as freedom of speech, freedom of association and a fair, reasoned justice system. All of these are beneficial. By appealing to the people to decide many more major issues, the BNP will turn democracy into a fallacy, where decisions are made upon the basis that they are popular, and not that they are correct. Fortunately for the BNP, the type of decisions that will be popular, assuming you tell them that they are under attack from without and within (as the BNP has been doing thus far), will tend to be nationalistic, totalitarian, and involve the creation or extension of scapegoats, be they Jews or asylum-seekers. It is for this reason that more equable political parties are careful with the application of democracy, using the opinion of the people carefully where it is best applied and most valid. It is ironic that checks on the extent of democracy are required for its continued existence, though I suspect that point may be lost upon the BNP who seem to assume it be some form of “magic bullet”. Needless to say, and like all political philosophies, it is not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
Conclusion
To conclude, it is clear how many of the stated policies of the British National Party clearly suck. That is not to say that they are all poorly thought-out ideas, for example, their stance on Europe is sensible. Though it is undoutably inspired for erroneous reasons like blind nationalism, it does make economic sense to stop pouring millions of pounds of taxpayers money into subsidising French farmers.
I am not going to succumb to the arguments used with the best of intentions against the BNP, in calling them a party of racists, since I see only limited evidence in their list and explanation of politics that that is the case. Their policies are, however, worryingly defective and inconsistent with menacing implications were they to be implemented. It is my opinion that they are the result of a whitewash by those who have neglected to create a thought-out political system. An explanation lies in the membership of the party, that while it is not a racist, thuggish party, many of its members abide by that description. The BNP has even issued a warning* on an article on its website to its members not to succumb to the fearful tactics and violent behaviour of its long-term ideological cousin, the National Front, which would seem to imply that the party is concerned by the prospect of being embarrassed by the racially motivated violent tendencies of some of its members. A party is best defined by its members and its voters, not by a list of shaky policies most likely penned over the head of a half-pint of Stout. It is not ad hominem to suggest that should this party achieve any real power, the veneer of respectability that these policies aim to achieve would be under the greatest pressure from within, and like the beast within, cause the party to metamorphosis from Jekyll to Hyde.
*http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/2004_april/news_apr10.htm
Last edited by Whaleboy on 13-04-2004 at 02:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:35
|
|
There's been a lot of mention of BNP around here, but are those guys even politically significant in any way? It's always been my impression that the populist right to be reckoned with is found in France and a couple minor countries on the mainland.
Edit: Oh, I just saw your last sentence there...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Park Avenue
|
 |
Liberal and defender of freedoms for the people
Oct 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
This argument relies upon a faulty assumption that is a theme throughout much of the BNP’s rhetoric. That is of the notion of “Britishness”, |
There is no Britishness?
quote:
This is a history of immigration and cultural diversity stretching back over 10’000 years, the entire history, in fact, of human population on these Isles. |
So what? Mistakes in the past do not excuse mistakes in the present.
quote:
This would seem to go against the BNP’s idea of a static, defined and yet encompassing national identity that is under threat. |
Maybe the BNP prefers the snapshot of community that was enjoyed before the recent waves of immigration, which are amongst the largest this land has ever experienced.
quote:
The “baby-boomers” of the interwar and 1940’s era are retiring and require state support for survival. As a nation, Britain is aging, and at this rate it will reach a point where those in work will be unable to sustain the retired through social security and healthcare costs without drastic increases in tax |
A fairer answer would be for each generation to pay - either privately or via the state - for its own retirement, rather than cross-generational subsidy. There is a problem, but bringing in hordes of immigrants to sort it out is not the first-best, or fairest, solution. If the immigrants pay for someone else's retirement, who pays for their own? Or do they have to pay both? You're really fair on immigrants aren't you.
quote:
This is a terrific economic opportunity, for if they were allowed to work, the wealth generated would help to fuel the economy, and the taxes raised would make it easier for the government to support the grey population |
Tell me, if 5 million more immigrants wanted to come here every year to work and "fuel the economy", would you support it? Why (not)?
How would you know when to decide that too many were incoming?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Park Avenue
|
|
Liberal and defender of freedoms for the people
Oct 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
While the BNP’s argument here may appear to make sense, and is indeed emotionally potent, it is an ill-considered and populist sham. The foundation of the criminal justice system is a presumption of innocence before guilt |
Nowhere did they say they would do away with this. What they might just do away with is the possibility of someone having committed 72 offences (ie, one man crime waves) and still being on the street every night.
quote:
While nobody doubts the genuine emotional suffering and material loss of the victims of crime, it is an erroneous belief that they have any logical say in the fate of those convicted of the crime to which they are a victim. |
Why is it erroneous?
quote:
An independent judge is the best means of resolving such a dispute |
Not if they live in their mansion far away from reality.
quote:
If that were not the case, the legal system would degenerate into a ***-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye institution of revenge, where constructive measures taken against criminals are replaced by the vengeful whims of the angry, and state-sponsored vigilantism. |
Not at all. You're using the slippery slope argument here.
quote:
It is my view that the BNP’s passion for vengeance has no place in a modern, civilised, educated society and that the legal system should be considered, objective, logical and proportionate, unaffected by the prejudiced, emotional whims of those who wish retribution upon those who have wronged them.
|
What on earth is this pompous rubbish? We need to return to a decent society where we actually punish people rather than sending them on trips to Florida or watch Man United.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Derekrage
|
|
Newcastle Upon Tyne
May 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
As a former member of the BNP I had to respond to this. What is meant by native Britons is white people who's family have lived here for generations, who all have a common christian and western/european heritage. We have not had large scale immigration for nearly a millenium so do you not agree that a common British culture had emerged and any immigrants that arrived in Britain quickly adopted the "British way of life".
The problem with the current mass immigration is that most of these people are not being assimilated into our culture it is just like picking a street up out of the middle east and planting it in the middle of one of our cities. This leads to a segragated society and "no white zones" in our cities where people who have lived there all of their lives find that they are no longer able to walk down some streets without fear of being attacked because they are white. We have seen where this can lead with the race riots a few years ago.
What is the benifit of multi-culturism? kebabs? I am not claiming that this isn't rascist according to the liberal elite but all multi-culturism has brought is conflict and problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
One must also consider the economic implications of the BNP’s fallacious proposal. Britain, like much of the West in the post-modern era is afflicted by falling birth rates. The “baby-boomers” of the interwar and 1940’s era are retiring and require state support for survival. As a nation, Britain is aging, and at this rate it will reach a point where those in work will be unable to sustain the retired through social security and healthcare costs without drastic increases in tax, which will cause the economy to implode. However, this nation is blessed by an influx of young, able bodied and often well educated immigrants and asylum seekers. This is a terrific economic opportunity, for if they were allowed to work, the wealth generated would help to fuel the economy, and the taxes raised would make it easier for the government to support the grey population. This does beg the question of space, which though sidetracking somewhat from the argument, is the authors opinion that assuming efficient and sensible housing policies, Britain is by no means approaching saturation point. |
This is a bit off the topic, but it seems to me that by importing younger workers to pay for the pensions of the old you are only postponing the problem. Eventually all those young workers you brought in will retire, and also burden the pension system. If you solve that problem by again importing more workers, the cycle repeats. Evenually there just isn't any room left to bring in new people. Then what do you do?
It would be far more sensible to encourage more self-reliance wrt saving for retirement. If government pensions were phased out and replaced with individual savings then aging populations would surely be less of a problem.
Last edited by Caligastia on 13-04-2004 at 20:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Park Avenue
Cali - left-wingers = short-term, ill-thought out "solutions". |
Does the BNP propose phasing out govt pensions in favor of encouraging individuals to save for their own retirement?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
on a semi-related note, i don't know if anyone has been watching the BBC series 'if' but they had a program the other week about the aging population. in it one of the experts on there said that if we relied on immigration alone we would need to raise our population to around 85 million to support the 'baby-boomers' when they retire.
does anyone seriously think that britain can take that many more people, especially as most immigrants settle in london and the south east?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
From what I've seen, Britain is pretty packed already. Not that I've seen an awful lot mind you. I've seen a fair amount of London, some of Dorset, some of Cornwall, and a little town up north called York.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Derekrage
|
|
Newcastle Upon Tyne
May 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
The Stinger, what makes you say that? The BNP are a democratic party that works within the political framework of the country there is no evidence to suggest that they are anything like the nazis. I believe they are the only political party to promise a bill of rights in their manifesto - (taken from the BNP website)
"We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people. We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it."
There are members of the BNP that would like to see a Nazi like party in Britain but I assure you they are a very small minority and there are surely people like them that are members of the 3 main political parties.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Derekrage
|
|
Newcastle Upon Tyne
May 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
I agree Park Avenue the amount of propoganda that the BBC, who are supposed to be an independant organisation, spew out against the BNP is unbelievable. Unfortunately a lot of people do believe it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
What has the BBC said about the BNP that is demonstrably false?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Park Avenue
They're too clever for that, Cali. You must know how the media spin and twist things, without actually "lying". |
Sure, I see things spun that way over here all the time.
Regarding the BBC's comments on the BNC - can you show me an example of biased opinion being dressed up as objective reporting?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2004 02:43
|