The Student Room Group

The BNP have lots of good policies - should non racists join and transform the party?

The Democrat party in the US used to be racist and look at it now. Do you think non racists could turn the BNP into a good sounding alternative to the political mainstream?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I think they have to bad of reputation to come back. But you are right, but I can't see it happening.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 2
They do have some good policies - however I don't see them leaving their racism behind.
Reply 3
Even if you agree with some of their policies, they are a nationalist party - if there's one set of policies and ideologies that aren't going to radically change, it's those concerning nationalism, immigration, race/religion.

It's like saying you don't care about the environment but you could join the Green Party, promote their social justice policies whilst trying to have them leave their environmental policies behind.
Original post by DarkWhite
Even if you agree with some of their policies, they are a nationalist party - if there's one set of policies and ideologies that aren't going to radically change, it's those concerning nationalism, immigration, race/religion.

It's like saying you don't care about the environment but you could join the Green Party, promote their social justice policies whilst trying to have them leave their environmental policies behind.


Agreed. It would be more effective to try and create your own party.
The thing is, the whole membership thing was done because of anti-white discrimination in these other organisations so I can't really blame the BNP for protesting that.
Reply 6
Original post by ImNew
The Democrat party in the US used to be racist and look at it now. Do you think non racists could turn the BNP into a good sounding alternative to the political mainstream?


The Democrats were already a massive mainstream party however, and thus easier to influence and change (like how Labour party in the UK went from socialism to neo-liberalism).

Changing the ethos of a small party whose reputation is already in tatters is nigh on impossible because not only do you have the challenge of changing the party itself, but you also need to attract substantial numbers of new voters at the same time. The BNP brand is toxic, despite multiple rebrandings, staff changes etc, the public are, by and large, still repulsed by them. It would never work.

That's not even going into the fact that their policies are all, well, utterly ****e. Like seriously, exactly which alternative niche would the BNP fill?
Reply 7
The ones that determine who wins elections aren't the candidates, the party members or the public.

The ones who determine the winners are the big sponsors of politicians...

Interestingly they play both sides so whoever gets in their views are represented above all else.
Reply 8
Original post by Democracy
The Democrats were already a massive mainstream party however, and thus easier to influence and change (like how Labour party in the UK went from socialism to neo-liberalism).

Changing the ethos of a small party whose reputation is already in tatters is nigh on impossible because not only do you have the challenge of changing the party itself, but you also need to attract substantial numbers of new voters at the same time. The BNP brand is toxic, despite multiple rebrandings, staff changes etc, the public are, by and large, still repulsed by them. It would never work.

That's not even going into the fact that their policies are all, well, utterly ****e. Like seriously, exactly which alternative niche would the BNP fill?


So it would be better to just change the Labour or Conservative party to have more BNP policies?
Reply 9
I'm sorry, but what single good policy does this bunch of imbeciles have?

I'd rather vote Monster Raving Loony.
Reply 10
Original post by Selnec
I'm sorry, but what single good policy does this bunch of imbeciles have?

I'd rather vote Monster Raving Loony.


- Ending the £4.5 billion a year wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
- The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors.
- The encouragement of savings, investment, worker share-ownership and profit-sharing;
- Reject ID cards, intrusive surveillance and the retention of DNA samples of the innocent;
- Grant anonymity to those accused of crimes until they are convicted;
- The reversal of the programme to close special needs schools which penalises the most vulnerable;
- Develop renewable energy sources such as wave and sea currents energy, tidal and solar energy;
It's like a psychiatrist going in and changing a serial killer. Yes, he may have changed but he will never be hired for a job or accepted into society.
Reply 12
Original post by ImNew

- The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors.


There's some serious issues with that...........if you don't compensate the others what that'll do is push large amounts of investment away from firms which investors suspect of being nationalised........but also cause a panick and mass selling of shares in those certain companies and those companies may bust under that pressure.

There is also a strong reason for such companies being stripped of assets........you only need to look at the royal mail, far too complacement with money, etc private companies do that to get rid of pointless and unnecessary assets to cut costs, improve efficiency and end up getting rid of debt thats built up in companies under a perfect free market economy and make it profitable. Why should taxpayers end up paying for such costly nationalisations and long term debt.


Lets look at the reality of the situation, these policies are similarly popular views to get people on their side and attention, but when it comes to actually applying such policies I very much doubt the UK is in such a position to make it possible, hence why you don't see other parties doing such things.........let alone some of their own policies they want which are smaller compared to some of what the BNP have and these smaller ones are still nonviable.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 13
Original post by ImNew
- Ending the £4.5 billion a year wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
- The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors.
- The encouragement of savings, investment, worker share-ownership and profit-sharing;
- Reject ID cards, intrusive surveillance and the retention of DNA samples of the innocent;
- Grant anonymity to those accused of crimes until they are convicted;
- The reversal of the programme to close special needs schools which penalises the most vulnerable;
- Develop renewable energy sources such as wave and sea currents energy, tidal and solar energy;


Most of this is just common sense populism and certainly not exclusive to the BNP, and otherwise just leaves you wondering how they plan to fund these ideas, especially when they want to waste taxpayers' money paying immigrants and pretty much anyone who isn't white to leave the country.

The party is a joke. A broken clock is right twice a day but it's still useless.
Maybe, but people associate the BNP with its racist past today, which can make people feel uncomfortable about voting for them.

They vote UKIP instead, they have similar policies but have tactically swerved away from racial hot-ground.

May I also add, that a racist is literally someone who excersises discrimination based on race. Immigrants are not a race. It's not about skin colour, as so many people like to think.
Reply 15
nick griffin get mustache.


den he will be like his friends a hitler stalin and saddam hussein
Original post by ImNew
- Ending the £4.5 billion a year wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
- The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors.
- The encouragement of savings, investment, worker share-ownership and profit-sharing;
- Reject ID cards, intrusive surveillance and the retention of DNA samples of the innocent;
- Grant anonymity to those accused of crimes until they are convicted;
- The reversal of the programme to close special needs schools which penalises the most vulnerable;
- Develop renewable energy sources such as wave and sea currents energy, tidal and solar energy;


The Socialist Labour Party stands for that sort of stuff and isn't racist.
Reply 17
Unfortunately the recession,loss of jobs,low salaries and poverty give food to parties like the BNP in the UK,NPD in Germany,Forza Nuova in Italy and Golden Dawn or Chrisi Avgi in Greece.The common of all of them trying to show the immigrants as the root of the problem.The easy solution.

The BNP although they claim to be true British and that they fight for their country most of them are uneducated fools.They are highly racists and they exceed simple nationalism.

To be nationalist by protecting your country's history,customs,way of living and having a strong diplomacy it is good.

But to point at the immigrants and put the blame on them for the bad policies and corruption of the government.No.

Of course the people decide.But please be careful where you give your vote because a bad vote and a wrong decision may be a boomerang against the voters and the country
What is good about their policy? It seems like a watered down version of National Socialism, just, without the gas chambers.

Seriously. Their leader, the guy they chose to represent them as a respectable face to the public, is an "ex"-Holocaust denier. The BNP gaining any seats would be a disaster almost as bad as Respect or the loony SWP gaining seats.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 19
I hate quoting television shows, I really do, but I think Stewart Pearson (The Thick of It) really summed it up brilliantly: "Changing this party has been like renovating an old building. You can remove the odd racist beam here, the odd homophobic roof tile there, but at the end of the day you realise that it's been built on a solid foundation of *****."

The problem with the British National Party is that those who support it and those that operate it are nasty, right down to the foundations. You can change the policies and you can change the elite, however, those foundations will remain. Even if you purge the entirety of the party to ensure a clean break in terms of people, the association alone is problematic. A brand so engrained cannot be removed by a simple policy change or re-branding exercise. This particular political party would need demolishing.

Quick Reply

Latest