Turn on thread page Beta

How many people on here would vote for the BNP? watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I couldn't, in principle. But the 'main' parties really need to start addressing the issues that cause the BNP to gain so much support.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    As the child of an East European immigrant, I would most likely get kicked out, so that's a no for me. :top:

    But seriously, their policies are disgusting. It's not even just the racism I object to, it's the reinstation or capital punishment, the legalisation of firearms, the homophobic legislation...there is an awful amount within their 2005 election manifesto which, when I read it, made me want to be sick. Even leaving the EU - you can tell they don't have even a basic understanding of how this country's economy functions. :facepalm:

    As for being disillusioned with the main parties...erm, there are other options? Personally, should a candidate be available in my area, I would vote for the Alliance for Green Socialism. Yes, no one has heard of them, but I've done what most people choosing a political party should do, which is find one that represents their views. Failing that, I'd go for Green - they're a rational party, and they have good policies, in my opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mattyjonesuk)
    That is why i only said you should consider the other countries. Im not saying that there wasnt a lot of bad stuff that has happened because of the british empire. Im only saying that you cant come to a valid conclusion without considering all arguments and understanding that it was not all bad.

    this isn't an English essay, it's logic.
    what the BNP stand for is stupidity and ignorance. The fact that one would discriminate against those who helped build their empire is baffling.

    I get what you're saying, but still, who helped build this country? And what did they get in return?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex003)
    this isn't an English essay, it's logic.
    what the BNP stand for is stupidity and ignorance. The fact that one would discriminate against those who helped build their empire is baffling.

    I get what you're saying, but still, who helped build this country? And what did they get in return?
    Im not saying its an english essay... however regardless of your opinion of the BNP, the fact is they are now more politically successful than they have ever been and there is a very good reason for that. Some of what it stands for, I expect, is supported by the vast majority of this country. I very rarely meet someone who does not want the immigration - both EU and outside of the EU - sorting out. For decades we have had problems managing our borders and lack of control, especially with Eastern European movement has caused many people to leave the place they have spent their lives. These are real issues and at the moment the BNP, and possibly UKIP, are the only parties that want to make a real change.

    Whilst I would hate for the BNP to come to power and I think their racist attitude is wrong, you cannot continue to ignore the growing animosity against foreign nationals as the main parties are doing. People need an alternative party to voice their concerns, and at the moment i dont see one?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I shall definitely be voting BNP.

    For all of those using the term "racist", perhaps you should educate yourself a little first about the history of the word which currently restricts your thought process.

    http://newrightamerica.blogspot.com/...ssrs-leon.html



    The reasons to vote BNP are clear; on every issue of importance they are on one side, and the political establishment is on the other. On the demography of the country/mass immigration, on the European Union and globalisation as a whole, on materialism/consumerism and the atomized individual, on the bank bailouts, on the financial system we currently operate within( debt based capitalism and perpetual growth), on the management of the society(death penalty,minority rights,abortion et al),on the Zionist/American led foreign wars we should stay out of etc..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kates:))
    It's news to me that Britain has a national debt of £800 billion...
    (Original post by telegraph)
    According to projections in the Budget, public sector net debt, the accumulated stock of outstanding Government borrowing, will reach £1,370 billion in 2013/14.

    When Labour took office in 1997, debt was £350 billion.

    In November, Mr Darling said borrowing would peak at £118 billion during this financial year, falling to £105 billion next year.

    But in his Budget yesterday, the Chancellor admitted that collapsing tax revenues meant he would now have to borrow £175 billion in 2009/10. That is 12.4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), the biggest annual deficit ever recorded in peacetime.
    ..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    For all of those using the term "racist", perhaps you should educate yourself a little first about the history of the word which currently restricts your thought process.
    Well, since no one else seems to want to reply to you, I'll take on the mantle.

    First, on the idea that the word 'racist' is inextricably tied to Trotsky: There are a few fallacies you stumble into in making this implication. Citing a blog written by very, very polarized analysts is hardly scientific proof, and is actually pretty circular. Second, even granting the argument that Trotsky was indeed the first to articulate the word "racist", the racist dialogue existed many decades before Trotsky's writing. Despite his usage of the word, the creation of a binary, hierarchical society with "insiders" and "outsiders" exists in pre-Marxist thought, namely in late 18th-century French philosophy. So regardless of who used the word first, racism as a concept long precedes Trotsky. Finally, even granting That implication, that the concept originates with him, it still doesn't mean that it's a bankrupt concept, nor does it mean that the term doesn't apply to the BNP as a political entity. It also, incidentally, doesn't make it any less despicable.

    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    The reasons to vote BNP are clear; on every issue of importance they are on one side, and the political establishment is on the other. On the demography of the country/mass immigration, on the European Union and globalisation as a whole, on materialism/consumerism and the atomized individual, on the bank bailouts, on the financial system we currently operate within( debt based capitalism and perpetual growth), on the management of the society(death penalty,minority rights,abortion et al),on the Zionist/American led foreign wars we should stay out of etc..
    For starters, any generalization as broad as "the political establishment" is going to be parsimonious to the extent that it's a useless concept, and you gave a fantastic example. The only issue they stand out on is actually the demography, and only for racist reasons. Globalization and the EU they mimic UKIP and, to an extent, the Tories. Materialism and consumerism, they follow, oddly enough, Green elements of various parties. The bank bailouts -- again, they don't stand opposed to the rest of this nebulous political establishment. Punishment and rights, all that is the same. Merely a more extreme articulation of views prevalent in differing elements of mainstream politics.

    Moreover, their views are almost completely misguided. Closing the UK's borders -- economically terrible policy. Reinstating the death penalty -- inhumane and not in accordance to basic human rights concepts. Debt-based capitalism (I suspect a note of Marxism in your writing, no?) is a lovely way of hinting at Lenin's work on the "highest stage of capitalism" without the bad taste in your mouth, but it's still naive to think the BNP will be willing to -- much less be able to -- change the nature of economic relations in the UK.

    In short, not only are they not as "lone-wolf" as your idealized conception of them dictates, but the policies they've cherrypicked from various demands of British voters are poor and likely to end in "common ruin," to pick a phrase I imagine you're familiar with. They've radicalized mainstream ideas while acting as though they're representing the average Brit. They're not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)

    The reasons to vote BNP are clear; on every issue of importance they are on one side, and the political establishment is on the other.
    Of course this is a presumption that the "establishment," a mass of political opinion, has identical values (i.e. social values - it is more than just naive to say there is uniform opinion on the death penalty and the legality of abortion), and that by opposing this the BNP are viewed as renegades, representative of controversial opinion, rather than being the populist bigotted opportunists that they are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xica Da Silva)
    huh?
    I never heard this news that non-muslims will be subject to sharia courts.

    the Beth Din has been operating for centuries in the uk but no-one cares.
    There are 85 sharia law courts in Britain today and muslim women are forced into using them. The home office says they are only used in trivial civil matters, but they deal with child custody where the religious needs of the child come first and not it's welfare, divorce is difficult and young girls are told that there marriage is legitimate and their marriage stands. Even matters of inheritance are decided by these courts and under sharia a women is worth less than a man.

    Voting BNP won't make any difference as like all politicians they are in it for themselves and that is why we in the EDL have taken to the streets so that we can force politicians to listen to the concerns of the people, to kick start a debate.

    The BNP want to take England back to a time when it was only white, they live in the past and it has gone forever.
    We now live in an England that is comprised of many different races and we have to all learn to live alongside each other and the different races have to integrate and become English and be proud to be English.
    You don't have to be white to be an English patriot, you just have to love England.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's hard enough to trust Politicians as it is.. With them I think they'll be the type 2 say one and thing and then completely do the other (But then again isn't that what's happening at the moment?!) And people say religion and politics don't mix.. neither should race and politics.. Immigration is getting a bit crazy but do we really want to put our nation in the hands of some pro-nazi minded people(I say some because not all of them are like that!) Anyway.. to answer the question.. HELLLLL NOOOOOO!! If England is Bad now.. they would make it 100 times worse. And could you imagine their Foreign policies.. we would be at war in less than 4months! BUT better them then George Bush right!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Fascist scum
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    credit where credit is due, they have said one thing that makes a genuine bit of sense. The definition of Asylum is to seek safety and shelter, so why is it that asylum seekers come from all over the world to the uk? for example lets say an asylum seeker from asia has to leave their country, they'd essentially have to travel by germany and france (to name only 2 countries) before reaching the UK, shouldnt they seek refuge in the first safe place?

    that acknowledged the rest of what they say is utter rubbish, propaganda fuelled with no real value. for example one of their policies is to cut immigration, but in a campaign poster (reminiscent of wartime propaganda) they show a polish spitfire, completely contradicting their point
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...on-poster.html

    No i dont think i'd vote for them, but then again voting for any party is fairly futile, as Will Self put it "we no longer live in a Democracy, we live in an electoral dictatorship"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lol @ thinking the empire is a good thing

    idiots

    did you know that over 30 million indians starved to death while the british government controlled their country?

    that in 1940s the british gov allowed 1.5 million indians to starve to death in a famine?

    ppl need to actually look at the facts before making stupid statements like that
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be voting for them if i could but doubt they will be offering a candidate where i live. So not decided yet.

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    For starters, any generalization as broad as "the political establishment" is going to be parsimonious to the extent that it's a useless concept, and you gave a fantastic example. The only issue they stand out on is actually the demography, and only for racist reasons. Globalization and the EU they mimic UKIP and, to an extent, the Tories.
    The tories don't oppose the EU. and ukip are merely a tory spinter group, a safety valve. Lots of people vote UKIP when really they should be voting BNP as ukip offer nothing coherent, they just rant about the EU whilst being pretty much tory on everything esle.

    Materialism and consumerism, they follow, oddly enough, Green elements of various parties.
    Huh? what other parties oppose materialism? maybe the greens because they are tree-huggers! BNP oppose it because they know it is unsustainable and doesn't make us happy.

    The bank bailouts -- again, they don't stand opposed to the rest of this nebulous political establishment.
    Huh? they PREDICTED that the financial crisis would happen, at least give them credit for that, AND they have a policy for sorting it out. I.e reduce debt and create real jobs producing real things that people want. Not casino gambling and non-job public sector work.

    Punishment and rights, all that is the same. Merely a more extreme articulation of views prevalent in differing elements of mainstream politics.
    Hmm, it is more 'extreme' but thats not a bad thing when under labour murderers can do 'half time' and what not for 'good behaviour'.

    Moreover, their views are almost completely misguided. Closing the UK's borders -- economically terrible policy.
    Why do you think that? because the labour lies say we rely on it for prosperity? so many immigrants are on benefits and tbh the problems with our economy are more deep seated. (debt based capitalism)

    ] Reinstating the death penalty -- inhumane and not in accordance to basic human rights concepts.
    Its not that radical. is the USA 'unhuman and in violation of basic human rights'? also what sort of world do you live in where murderers have a 'right' to life. All this human rights stuff is nonsense/

    Debt-based capitalism (I suspect a note of Marxism in your writing, no?) is a lovely way of hinting at Lenin's work on the "highest stage of capitalism" without the bad taste in your mouth, but it's still naive to think the BNP will be willing to -- much less be able to -- change the nature of economic relations in the UK.

    In short, not only are they not as "lone-wolf" as your idealized conception of them dictates, but the policies they've cherrypicked from various demands of British voters are poor and likely to end in "common ruin," to pick a phrase I imagine you're familiar with. They've radicalized mainstream ideas while acting as though they're representing the average Brit. They're not.
    They don't cherry pick policies - thats the tories and nu labour! BNP manifesto has hardly changed in years, that tells you something. They are honest and stick to their word.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arminius)
    x
    I appreciate the point-for-point response, despite disagreeing with practically every word you wrote. In any case, I don't really wish to spend the time going through the whole thing, so I'll just point out a few bits:

    What you wrote about UKIP and the Greens being similar but inferior to the BNP on certain issues doesn't in fact refute what I was arguing. The post I had replied to held them out as being a party separate 'the establishment.' I showed that this isn't the case.

    As for their economic policies: Saying 'reduce debt and create real jobs' isn't a set of policies. They're goals. There's a clear difference, namely, strategies to achieve the goals set forth that involve difficult decisions that frankly the party doesn't have the ability to manage. With regard to closing borders being bad for the economy, I suggest the Hecksher-Ohlin theorem. Follow that with Nobel-winner Krugman's work on ideas and cultures across borders.

    Is the USA inhumane? As an American, yes, yes we are. We execute targeted killings and drone attacks, both of which are completely immoral to me. Human rights isn't pie-in-the-sky ideals. It's an ethical position that I adhere to. Why do murderers retain their rights? Because you're confusing civil liberties and human rights. Civil liberties can be taken away, ie, a convict losing the ability to vote. Human rights are nonderogable. They cannot be ignored under any circumstance. Remember, the Nuremburg trials were stacked in favor of the Nazis specifically so no one could later say that their rights were violated. They were given access to unbiased judges, fair counsel, and the burden of proof rested on the Allies' prosecutors.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vroom9)
    Of course this is a presumption that the "establishment," a mass of political opinion, has identical values (i.e. social values - it is more than just naive to say there is uniform opinion on the death penalty and the legality of abortion), and that by opposing this the BNP are viewed as renegades, representative of controversial opinion, rather than being the populist bigotted opportunists that they are.
    Their values are not identical, but they are so close together that their difference is basically irrelevant. They all buy into the liberal left social ideology, to slightly varying degrees. All across the political establishment, the issue of the death penalty or stricter restrictions on abortion, to use the two issues I mentioned, are not even considered. They all agree on everything that is primal and of vital importance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Arminius has replied quite succinctly, but I'll elaborate a little.


    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    First, on the idea that the word 'racist' is inextricably tied to Trotsky: There are a few fallacies you stumble into in making this implication. Citing a blog written by very, very polarized analysts is hardly scientific proof, and is actually pretty circular.
    True, but whether he was the very first to use the word or not is not incredibly important. It is important to note how the word was used by Trotsky and how it is used today to come to conclusions about the word which seems to imprison the minds of so many.

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    Second, even granting the argument that Trotsky was indeed the first to articulate the word "racist", the racist dialogue existed many decades before Trotsky's writing. Despite his usage of the word, the creation of a binary, hierarchical society with "insiders" and "outsiders" exists in pre-Marxist thought, namely in late 18th-century French philosophy. So regardless of who used the word first, racism as a concept long precedes Trotsky.
    "Racism" is a concept so loose and vague that I do not doubt you could find evidence from various historical periods of discourse regarding the concept. However, that a word exists to cover this grey and uncertain area is the most interesting thing of all. Where has it come from, and what is its purpose? These are questions clearly pertinent when you consider the sway that the word holds today.

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    Finally, even granting That implication, that the concept originates with him, it still doesn't mean that it's a bankrupt concept, nor does it mean that the term doesn't apply to the BNP as a political entity. It also, incidentally, doesn't make it any less despicable.
    It is interesting however, that modernity/liberalism has borrowed or extended a concept beginning with communism, especially as it seems to be used to follow a similar agenda and with similar connotations.

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    The only issue they stand out on is actually the demography, and only for racist reasons.
    The most important one. The one which threatens the British people's very existence.

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    Globalization and the EU they mimic UKIP and, to an extent, the Tories.
    Not really. UKIP and Thatcherite economics contribute to the globalisation process, but both of these parties do not hold a specific "anti-globalisation" stance on the concept as a whole,or it's possible streamlined manifestations.

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    Materialism and consumerism, they follow, oddly enough, Green elements of various parties.
    As has been pointed out, the greens don't really question materialism or consumerism, which serve to pacify and dumb down a population who seek material gain above all else. Civilisational value should not be determined by what car you own or how big your house is alone.


    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    The bank bailouts -- again, they don't stand opposed to the rest of this nebulous political establishment.
    Yes they do, alongside elements of the far left perhaps.

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    Punishment and rights, all that is the same. Merely a more extreme articulation of views prevalent in differing elements of mainstream politics.
    They actually believe in punishment as a deterrent for crime,for a start, as well as to allow justice to be done.

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    Moreover, their views are almost completely misguided. Closing the UK's borders -- economically terrible policy.
    Under the current economic system, it would be bad for major corporations looking for cheaper labour,perhaps. The effect on the economy would be more problematic in some areas than others, but labour shortages are temporary, immigration is permanent.

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    Reinstating the death penalty -- inhumane and not in accordance to basic human rights concepts.
    Human rights is an artificial construction. I don't believe in human rights for some of the scum who walk our streets. I believe in natural law, and on a micro level or in the past, this means removing from your tribe those committing atrocious acts. In a modern context, it means justice for the victims of rape and murder through the death penalty.

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    Debt-based capitalism (I suspect a note of Marxism in your writing, no?) is a lovely way of hinting at Lenin's work on the "highest stage of capitalism" without the bad taste in your mouth, but it's still naive to think the BNP will be willing to -- much less be able to -- change the nature of economic relations in the UK.
    They have an economic policy totally in oppostion to debt based capitalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    x
    I appreciate the response, and to an extent I understand your position. However, it simply boils down to the fact that I completely disagree with ethical (though its a stretch to call them that) positions such as being in favor of the death penalty and wishing to eliminate debt-based capitalism. Of course, I think my opinions are better-evidenced, but that's the nature of things.

    A quick note: Racism the concept isn't quite as ephemeral as you argue, and in fact it does precede communist dialogue by a good hundred years.

    I would point out that "natural law" you cite is more of a construction than anything you've disparaged (ie human rights). In fact, Marx's entire economic analysis is based on the vapidity of the idea of natural law and a state of nature.

    And finally, where you say the issue of demography threatens the British population's very existence, that's the part that's pretty indefensible. Britain is brown. Britain is black. Britain is white. Britain is an ever-changing spectrum of colors, and the BNP misunderstands the nature of history in attempting to freeze the color of the population at this particular time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    A quick note: Racism the concept isn't quite as ephemeral as you argue, and in fact it does precede communist dialogue by a good hundred years.
    It probably has, but the concept is very vague and difficult to define these days. If you have the time, I would recommend the following documentary, which discusses the issue of race,or racism, and peoples various perceptions of it :

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4769627714346#

    An article I read yesterday on the terms "racist" and "racism" :
    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/...st_and_racism/

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    I would point out that "natural law" you cite is more of a construction than anything you've disparaged (ie human rights). In fact, Marx's entire economic analysis is based on the vapidity of the idea of natural law and a state of nature.
    That is the fundamental flaw in his ideas. I can agree with some of the points he makes regarding the nature of capitalism( to a degree, but I think capitalism can be controlled to be more beneficial) and exploitation, whilst not subscribing to his view of history, but the solutions he offers and the premises he works on are anti-nature and fail to understand the human condition.

    "Karl Marx, who spent most of his life in the reading room of the British Museum Library, probably came as little into contact with nature as it was possible to do and still stay alive. The result was that his philosophy ignored everything not human absolutely completely. He was aware (just) that food came from the country. He was aware that there must be some people out there somewhere who grew it. It was his object to rescue these imaginary people from what he called 'the idiocy of rural life'. What is that to the idiocy of spending all your life in the British Museum Library?"
    - John Seymour

    (Original post by bawlmorian)
    And finally, where you say the issue of demography threatens the British population's very existence, that's the part that's pretty indefensible. Britain is brown. Britain is black. Britain is white. Britain is an ever-changing spectrum of colors, and the BNP misunderstands the nature of history in attempting to freeze the color of the population at this particular time.
    Humanity is split into different races, and within those, different ethnicities. The British ethnicity, as an umbrella term for the English,Irish,Scottish and Welsh ethnicities, is under threat from mass immigration and demographic trends. Their very existence 100 years into the future hangs in the balance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    id vote BNP becuase they have balls. To many immagrints on this forum s**it there pants becuase there afraid of getting booted out the country,
 
 
 

1,302

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.