TSR General Election 2005/6

Allow me to answer (despite not being as eloquent as cosmik, nor the party leader):

Currently, Labour spends £138 million a year on benefits, this figure is rising each year. It constitutes around a third of all public spending. Some of this money could be used.

Another source could be the millions that we give each year as 'aid' to LEDC's - this is unnecessary expenditure considering the state of Britain. Why spend millions trying to help (but being unable to) LEDC's when Britain is in its current state?

Finally, we've wasted millions of pounds, not to mention soldiers' lives!, on a pointless war in Iraq - rather than spending money on following the yanks into ludicrous wars the BNP could use the money to much better effect on our shores.


Just a few of my ideas.

So the government only spends £410m a year? Forgive me for being a little skeptical here.

So the government only spends £410m a year? Forgive me for being a little skeptical here.

oops...billion £'s - my mistake.

Your mistake or the BNPs mistake? Have the BNP been thinking the Government only spent millions of pounds a year and hence thought they could safely increase spending to maybe a whole billion or two and have so much extra cash to afford to pay for all their crazy ideas which under normal circumstances could no way be afforded?

No, it was my mistake (read my signature).

That figure didn't come from a BNP source anyway.

I gave examples of how.

Blair and his marxist cronies seem intent on 'saving the world'. This is, of course, expensive and futile but still he persists. If we cut back on these unnecessary expenditures we'd have the money.

I doubt it and I don't see much of what you call unnecessary spending as unnecessary- much, if not all, of it is necessary expenditure to some extent in my eyes, or spending which cannot be regained once it's spent in the past (and so will not give you more money in the futute).

Criticising Blair's international aid policy is to target the strongest part of New Labour ideology. Have you not read the report of Blair's Commission for Africa? We need to double or triple targeted aid for a few years (like the Marshall plan to Europe) in order that more will stick and communities will benefit. There's nothing "unnecessary" about it.

No we don't!

Why should we give them money? The billions we pour into these countries is a waste because most is 'absorbed' by the government over there, and the rest is not sufficient to improve the country as a whole. We cannot afford to give enough money to turn around the whole of Africa, it wouldn't matter how much we gave because it wouldn't do any good and we'd cripple ourselves trying. But, the same money could be used here where visible changes could then happen and this country would actually be improved.

...and not try and sort out what we messed up in the first place?

It costs an awful lot more to set up a hospital/school in Britain than it does in Africa.

They rejected British imperial colonialism, they rejected the stability that accompanied it, our former dependancied wanted independance and that is what they got. We should wash our hands with Africa once and for all.

That would require practically infinite amounts of money, and is impossible.

That would require practically infinite amounts of money, and is impossible.



But will one hospital/school change Africa? No. It will not change Britain either, I know, but the money should still be used for other things here.

As are alot of your promises regarding the economy

Will one hospital/school change Britain, no. That's not the point, one school or one hospital will change lives. Its still a difference even if its not a very big one. And before you say it... we already have plenty of relatively good schools and hospitals, they don't.