BNP Manifesto 2010 : The Economy: Putting Britain Back on the Road to Recovery
• A BNP government would tackle the national debt problem by cutting expenditure on all projects which do not serve British interests.
• These expenditures which will be cut include the annual costs of £18 billion spent on “global warming,” the £13 billion spent on immigration, the £4 billion spent on asylum, the £15 billion spent on EU membership, the £9.1 billion spent on foreign aid, the billions spent fighting illegal and immoral foreign wars, and the billions spent on “politically correct” social engineering projects.
• The BNP undertakes not to reduce front-line public services while billions of pounds continue to flow out of the country to foreign interests. British people must benefit first from British tax income.
• The BNP aims to relieve the tax burden by raising the personal non-taxable allowance to £12,500.
• The BNP will encourage the family unit by reintroducing the married man’s allowance by as much as £2,500, depending upon the presence of children.
• The BNP will raise the inheritance tax level to £1 million.
• The BNP will work for a reduction in council tax through the slashing of all politically correct council functions and “diversity” schemes.
• The BNP would take some of these savings and invest them in rebuilding British industry and skills through an active protectionist policy as many other European nations already do.
• The BNP will rebuild Britain’s skills base — lost through decades of deindustrialisation caused by successive Tory and Labour regimes — by offering generous subsidies to students who study engineering and science and to institutions offering such education.
• The BNP will ensure that globalist corporations pay their fair share of the tax burden. We will close down the legal loopholes which allow tax evasion through Transfer Pricing and the outsourcing of jobs to foreign nations.
• The BNP will therefore introduce legislation to ensure that a foreign acquisition of any significantly-sized British company is judged to be in the public and national interest before it can proceed.
• The BNP will pass legislation to separate utility (high street) banks from the investment banking sector to prevent a repeat of the credit crisis.
• The BNP will oppose the privatisation of natural monopolies such as Royal Mail.
How Britain’s Industry and Economy Has Been Destroyed
Britain’s economy today is built upon a foundation of unsustainable rising debt and record trade deficits.
The Lab/Lib/Con alliance long ago abandoned any attempt to run the British economy for the benefit of the nation and have surrendered it to the dead hand of EU regulation and a rootless, amorphous globalist philosophy.
Inept governments, trades union militancy during the ’60s and ’70s and the increasing momentum of globalisation have combined to wreak extraordinary damage to the British economy, our industry and technology.
Britain, which was once a world leader in many technological and scientific fields, has had entire industrial sectors of our economy extirpated.
Factories, long closed or transferred overseas, cannot be re-opened when vital technical skills have been lost. ‘White flight’ or indigenous emigration, estimated to be in the region of half a million per year, has meant the loss of many of our skilled technical workers.
Any policy designed to repair this damage will take many years to complete and must involve governmental restructuring of both the educational system and the economy.
The tiger states of East Asia, such as South Korea and Singapore, operate their economies and industries in the national interest and that is the economic model which Britain should emulate.
Education’s Key Role in Rebuilding Britain
Official figures show that our country lacks engineers and scientists, a sad indictment on a nation that has produced approximately 50 percent of the world’s inventions.
These and other skills, which have been permitted to decline, will be invigorated under a BNP government.
We shall offer generous subsidies to students — both in terms of their coursework and accommodation — who embark upon such study.
Only in this way can new industries, skills and inventions be created upon which the manufacturing, engineering and scientific base of our nation can be reinvigorated.
We shall also increase funding to the research, scientific and technological departments of our universities, tripling it in the first two years and progressively raising this investment as results accrue.
The BNP fully endorses the “Manifesto for Physics” issued by the Institute of Physics which, independently of our party, calls for an increase in funding for the scientific community’s educational programme.
Reinventing and Rebuilding British Industry
It is nonsensical that Britain exports it know-how and many of its most talented people to overseas competitors so that they may develop their industrial base and then undercut and undermine our industries at home.
Our task will be to redevelop our industrial, scientific, technological and manufacturing base and, in so doing, reinvent our economy.
In pursuance of this aim, we shall place significant criminal penalties on the export of technology and inventions, which will be permitted only by government license.
Cutting Government Expenditure
With the current budget deficit at record heights, it would be grossly imprudent to increase Government borrowing, except in a case of dire emergency.
Fortunately, a British National Party government would find considerable scope to raise revenues without increasing the tax burden.
Unlike the other parties, the BNP plans to cut all expenditure which is not in the national interest, rather than cutting front-line services to the British people. These cuts would include:
– The Climate Change Scam
The cost of so-called man-made climate change is estimated at some £18 billion per annum.
The BNP has highlighted the nonsense that has been employed in support of this fraud, visited upon the electorate by the three old gang parties in order to facilitate international governance and opportunistic corporate profit.
The £18 billion levy is made up of subsidies and the ‘green levy’ that is charged to current energy bills. Consumers pay these disguised costs often without even being aware.
– The Immigration Racket
The cost of the multicultural society (which has been imposed without any debate whatsoever by the three old gang parties and promoted by the Greens, UKIP, the SNP and Plaid Cymru) is estimated to be in the order of £13 billion per annum, according to MigrationwatchUK.
This embraces the cost of social security, crime, health tourism and NHS costs, translation expenses, unemployment, equalities legislation, education, related bureaucracy and much else.
The asylum swindle costs Britain in the region of £4 billion per year in terms of benefits, housing, support and legal fees.
– EU Membership
The cost of the EU for Britain in membership fees falls a little short of £15bn. Whilst a portion of this flows back to Britain, it may only be spent in such a manner as is prescribed by unelected EU officialdom.
The costs related to EU membership are in reality far higher.
The Taxpayers’ Alliance has estimated the savings to the economy of withdrawal from the EU, largely in terms of the regulatory burden, at £118 billion, and this does not even count the cost of damage inflicted upon our agricultural and fisheries industries.
While the halting of this cash haemorrhage will not immediately accrue to the Treasury, it will boost the British economy and ultimately enhance the taxable revenue base.
According to Open Europe, the expense of complying with EU rules cost each British household £4,912 over the past 11 years.
– The Foreign Aid Scandal
The cost of overseas aid is currently at some £9.1 billion per year. This cash goes directly to nations who very often are not in need of such aid (China and India, both of whose economies are larger that Britain’s), or to utterly corrupt states where it serves no good at all.
To make matters worse, it is the declared intention of all the other parties to increase foreign aid to around £13 billion per year.
The BNP would halt all foreign aid while there is poverty and deprivation inside Britain.
– Quangos and Politically Correct Social Engineering Schemes
Billions are spent every year funding assorted quangos such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the myriad of ethnic organisations.
By cutting funding to these schemes and eliminating waste, bureaucracy, inefficiency, and unnecessary jobs in these quangos, we anticipate saving at least some £10 billion per year.
– Illegal and Immoral Foreign Wars
The BNP will immediately end British involvement in all illegal and immoral foreign wars into which the Tory/Labour regime have plunged Britain.
The cost of the war in Iraq is estimated to have been some £49 billion, while the cost of the war in Afghanistan is set to rise from £3 billion to £5 billion per year.
Revenues and Taxation
The UK Treasury forecasts that the nation’s debt will exceed 75 percent of gross domestic product by 2014 (£167 billion), up from 43 percent just a few years ago.
Worse still, a recent paper by the Bank for International Settlements forecast that the UK’s debt will rise to 300 percent of the GDP by 2040.
Current government fiscal policy has borrowed growth from the future which must be repaid. In particular, the vast cost of bailing out the banking sector will be paid by the next generation.
It is estimated by the Institute of Fiscal studies that within four years, more than 10p in every pound of tax Britons pay will go towards the servicing of the Government’s ballooning debt interest bill.
Many of the ratings agencies regard a country as entering fiscal crisis and a likely downgrade in its credit rating once its debt interest payments exceed 10 percent of tax revenues.
Whilst we appreciate that a certain amount of debt is required by the Government, especially during recession, our view is that debt crowds out private investment and should be minimised.
As a result, the BNP sets itself as a goal the reduction of the debt to GDP ratio of some 30–40 percent.
Such a ratio will compare favourably with our competitors and will also reduce the debt burden and servicing costs to future generations.
It will also free up money for investment into infrastructure and services of direct benefit to the British people.
Stimulating the Economy: Lower Taxation Must Be the Ultimate Aim
Excessive taxation reduces productive activity and Britain has already reached a point at which further increases in tax rates will yield no meaningful revenue.
The BNP aims to lower taxation rates, both immediately and over the long term.
Immediate cuts which can be made which are feasible, affordable and especially desirable:
– A rise in the personal non-taxable allowance to £12,500
The BNP will raise the personal non-taxable allowance to £12,500. It is ridiculous that the lowest and poorest section of the community should be taxed on subsistence wages.
To offset this, repeated governments have introduced a myriad of credits, for which those affected must apply and at a vast cost to bureaucracy.
In other words, the Government increases taxes on the one hand, and then employs a bureaucracy to supplement the living standards of the poorest section of the community on the other.
The BNP will halt this double-edged spending madness by simply raising the personal allowance to £12,500 before any tax becomes payable. The savings in bureaucracy alone will more than compensate for this move.
– Reintroduce the Married Man’s Allowance
To encourage and reward the family unit, the BNP will reintroduce the married man’s allowance by as much as £2,500, depending upon the presence of children.
This, in conjunction with the £12,500 above, will raise the point at which tax is payable by married couples.
This change may result in some off-setting upward movement in the basic rate at which tax will commence.
Our aim is to maintain revenue neutrality, remove an enormous burden of bureaucracy and, not least, to incentivise the lowest earners in the community.
– Increase the Inheritance Tax Threshold to £1 million
Inheritance tax (IHT) is, in effect, a double tax as it taxes the already taxed income of a deceased person. We do not believe that an individual’s life work should be appropriated by the state.
The BNP will therefore raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.
Corporate Taxation: We believe in dynamic, profitable companies
Taxation in essence makes the Government into the equivalent of a shareholder in private undertakings by withdrawing a “dividend” in the form of tax revenue.
The greater the profit achieved by the corporation, the greater the tax income which accrues to the government for the benefit of the nation.
We therefore believe in creating an environment which is healthy for businesses and consumers alike though dynamic competition.
However, it is of great concern that globalist corporations are able to effectively circumvent their tax burden by exploiting legal loopholes known as transfer pricing and by outsourcing jobs to factories and call centres overseas.
To combat the latter phenomenon, the BNP will introduce a special ‘level playing field’ charge on companies that evade taxes in Britain by outsourcing.
Transfer pricing is the practice whereby assets, services and funds are exchanged within globalist corporations through their various subsidiaries.
The transfer price can be manipulated to affect the “profits” and therefore taxes paid by the international arms of a large corporation.
In essence, profits are transferred through this internal process to countries where taxes are low.
Globalisation has enabled, for instance, a microchip company to design products in one country, manufacture in another, hold patents in another and assign marketing rights to a company elsewhere.
This structure provides enormous discretion in allocating costs to each country and shifts profits through international trade.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), some 60 percent of world trade consists of internal transfers within multinational corporations.
That, in turn, provides opportunities to transfer profits across borders.
By weighting their costs to the UK, where taxes are relatively high, corporations are able to reduce their taxes to the Exchequer.
The effect of this process is two-fold: the shortfall in taxes must be made good elsewhere and, secondly, domestic corporations — especially Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SME) — are placed at a disadvantage because they must pay corporation tax at the full UK rate.
A recent media report revealed that three leading banana companies, which control two thirds of the worldwide banana trade, generated $50 billion in sales and $1.4 billion in global profits over a five year period — but paid only 14 percent taxes on profits.
In the UK, these companies reported combined sales of over £400 million but paid a paltry £128,000 in tax.
Nearly a third of the UK’s 700 largest businesses paid no corporation tax in the year 2005–6, according to figures from the National Audit Office.
This situation is untenable. The BNP will scrutinise, very carefully, the activities of the multinational corporations and the accounts of their various subsidiaries so as to ascertain their tax savings.
We oppose the view that the international profit and market share of the globalist corporation, facilitated by laissez-faire economics, should assume priority over the interests of the nation state, British companies and their employees.
Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
One of the most important inhibiting factors on SMEs — which provide the larger part of Britain’s employment — has been the vast layer of regulation which emanates from the EU.
A BNP government’s withdrawal from the EU will enable us to alleviate the onerous weight of regulation that is so harmful to SMEs. This encompasses well over 100,000 different laws and regulations, all created since the Conservative government signed the Treaty of Rome in 1973.
Many of these regulations are onerous to business, job creation and profitability. They undermine employment opportunities, especially for part-time and older workers.
The working time directive is but one example and, inter alia, it imposes a strain of record keeping required for compliance purposes.
For the larger company, the cost of regulation can more easily be absorbed as an overhead but this is not always viable for SMEs.
A BNP government will balance the interests of SME employer and employee rights by repealing burdensome rules and regulations on companies employing 20 persons or less.
Relieved of excessive regulations and bureaucracy, SMEs will thrive and this will stimulate private sector employment.
Foreign Investment and British Companies
The BNP welcomes inward investment. There is, however, a difference between ‘replacement’ investment and ‘additional’ investment.
By ‘replacement’ investment, we refer to the takeover of British companies in a process which has been ruthlessly encouraged in the name of laissez-faire economics and globalisation by the old gang parties.
In the past decade or so, such great names as these have fallen to foreign takeovers: Cadbury, BOC, ICI, Corus, Hanson, Abbey National, O2, Scottish Power, BAA, P&O, Scottish and Newcastle, Lucas, Plessey, Rolls-Royce motor cars, amongst others.
By ‘additional’ investment, we refer to the establishment of new investment and technology, such as the creation of the Nissan plant some years ago in Sunderland.
When a large British company is taken over by a foreign concern, several things occur.
First, the revenue streams from these companies flow overseas.
Secondly, the corporate headquarters usually follows likewise.
Similarly, the vital function of research and development is likely to pass abroad, along with the technological know-how of the company concerned.
Not least, the corporate and employment taxation revenues, previously available to the British government, become jeopardised, especially when British factories are closed and jobs transferred abroad.
The recent disgraceful closure of the Corus plant is a case in point. This caused thousands of redundancies and the transfer of vital strategic manufacturing to India.
This activity, in our view, equates to criminal economic vandalism.
When Jungheinrich, for example, bought Lancer Boss, the German company replaced the British banks with German banks; the company’s insurance passed to Allianz and SAP became the computer system. British component suppliers were replaced by continental suppliers.
We propose to deal with them by differentiating between ‘additional’ investment and ‘replacement’ investment, as follows:
– ‘Additional Investment’: The UK provides a large affluent market. The BNP welcomes ‘additional’ investment, and the skills, expertise, technology, capital and machinery generally associated therewith.
– ‘Replacement Investment’: The BNP welcomes overseas investment in British companies which might otherwise fail.
However, the BNP deprecates the takeover of great British companies by overseas concerns which in recent years, has embraced much of our commercial, manufacturing and commercial base.
We shall therefore introduce legislation to ensure that each acquisition of a significant British company is judged to be in the ‘public and national interest’.
It will be the task of the bidding company to demonstrate that their takeover fulfils these requirements.
In situations where a takeover is deemed to satisfy the ‘public and national interest’ requirement, we shall legislate to ensure that, in certain situations, a minimum equity stake will also remain in British possession, either privately or in terms of a stock market flotation.
Finally, we must register our particular dismay at the takeover of British utilities by overseas concerns.
Utility companies provide a reliable income stream and we shall require the divestment of foreign ownership thereof in an appropriate and orderly manner.
The BNP is further committed to ensuring that natural monopolies such as the national rail network be returned to state ownership as this is the only manner in which the necessary infrastructure investment is possible.
Globalisation and the Protection of British Industry
The BNP opposes globalisation which is extremely harmful to our nation for two reasons:
– It results in the importation into the West of millions of immigrants (in the form of “cheap” labour) from the Third World; and
– It transfers technology, manufacturing and industry to the Third World. This in turn causes the exploitation in labour in those nations and ultimately the collapse of our own living standards due to the inability of our industries to compete with that “cheap” labour.
The BNP also objects to the existence of disagreeable practices in the Third World, often tolerated by globalist corporations in the pursuit of international profit.
Such examples include the employment of child labour, the use of political and other prisoners to produce goods, lax environmental rules that would not be tolerated in the West, poor protection for workers, the absence of trades unions and employees’ representation, onerous working hours, an absence of social security systems, health insurance and so on.
Clearly, this places overseas enterprises at a considerable commercial advantage and facilitates cheap competition.
We are also aware of the restrictions many countries impose to protect their home industry, either in the form of red tape or direct tariffs.
We shall therefore impose selective tariffs on the import of goods from the Third World. Only those foreign nations and corporations who agree to abide by our strict social, environmental and ethical trading policies will be permitted to export their goods freely into the United Kingdom market.
To allow industry and commerce to adapt, tariffs will be imposed gradually through the years of our first term in office.
We are wary of the burden this may place on British consumers. In consequence, to avoid any general upward price movement, we shall reduce VAT (or such equivalent as we may introduce) with a view to securing revenue neutrality.
As already observed, some 60 percent of the world’s trade occurs as internal transfers within multinational corporations. This is detrimental to the environment and the measures outlined in this manifesto will diminish this proportion.
Not least, the option of closing down British manufacturing or services in favour of the Third World will become an unattractive proposition.
Finally, whilst we oppose globalisation, we would observe that the process creates disequilibrium within developing countries where self-sufficiency is eroded in favour of cash-crops, for example, at an expense to the environment.
Financial Markets and the Banking Crisis
The rebuilding of the British economy will generate attractive conditions for investment and it will be necessary to harness the skills and expertise that the city of London and its regional hubs provide.
A healthy stock market will form a part of our strategy to raise and attract capital.
The BNP differentiates between the numerous valuable activities within the City, such as investment, fund management, insurance, etc, and the recent excesses within the banking sector.
These excesses were recently described by Lord Turner, Chairman of the Financial Services Authority and a banker himself, as “economically useless,” and he also described the ‘bonus culture’ as having created “excessive risk-taking.”
Traditionally, banking was regarded as an important utility to oil the wheels of the productive economy.
Today, departments within the banking sector have become speculative vehicles where vast bonuses are earned in financial markets, at no risk of personal loss to the traders concerned.
Monies are being gambled, in the knowledge that shortfalls will be borne by the bank but any profits will be richly rewarded.
We recognise that when the economy is healthy, the banking sector provides significant tax revenues to the Treasury.
By contrast, during recession, difficulties within the banking sector often cause dire difficulties in the real economy.
The bankers then expect the Government to stand behind the sector — a process known as ‘moral hazard’ — which excuses even greater risk-taking in the good times.
This is unacceptable and creates misery, not least to the taxpayer, which has to make good the price of overconfidence and short-term profits.
To obviate these widespread concerns, we propose the following measures:
– A rigid separation between the utility (high street) banks and the investment banking sector.
The former will no longer be permitted to invest in derivatives, private equity or speculative instruments.
The latter will not be permitted to engage in retail or corporate deposit taking.
– The elimination of the short-term bonus culture. All bonuses to be paid in instruments connected to the underlying departmental profit, over a three to five year period.
– The restoration of the authority of the Bank of England (which will be renamed to the Bank of Great Britain) to oversee the regulation of the City and banking sector.
– The removal of the assumption that any institution is too big to fail. Whilst the Government should properly guarantee the savings of retail and corporate depositors within limits, the Government will not act as a bailing mechanism for shareholders or bondholders.
This applies particularly to banking failures. Rather than bailing out the reckless individuals who cause such collapses, the state would be far better off picking up the pieces to form a national reconstruction bank where individual savers would have their savings protected and guaranteed.
– The increase of minimal capital ratios to 10 percent of assets, with downward flexibility permitted in times of recession, as determined by the Bank of England.
– The doubling of capital required by banking institutions engaged in proprietary trading.
– The division of Lloyds Banking Group, which has clearly exceeded an appropriate size in a competitive economy, following its recent ill-judged takeover of HBOS.
We are also sceptical of the presence of vast international banking corporations, whose political, economic and global ambitions are very different to our own.
We shall not hesitate to introduce legislation to break up these financial combines, if necessary, to require their British activities to be divided into national subsidiaries, either with local partners or via a flotation on the London market.
We shall strictly forbid their intrusion into the political domain.
We expect the measures above to address the imbalances created by the bankers’ bonus culture. Where this does not occur, we shall employ the taxation regime accordingly.
Finally, we applaud the recent discussion of the introduction of a ‘Tobin Tax’ on spot conversions of one currency into another. Its application, however, would only be feasible by international agreement and we suspect there is an absence of determination to apply it.
Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Schemes
We are deeply sceptical about PFI, both in terms of the public interest and their efficiency, methods and operations.
The small print of the 2009 Budget revealed the costs of PFI projects would rise to over £10 billion a year between 2014–18.
PFI ensures that private sector consortiums build and run major public infrastructure projects. The consortium raises the funding and the Government pays this back plus profit over the contract, which typically lasts between 25 to 35 years.
While private investment may well have a useful role to play in the financing of certain public services, we regard the present PFI system as one of the great corruption scandals of an era in which financial corruption in political and business life is regrettably endemic.
PFI as it stands is a recipe for the corporate looting of Britain’s national common wealth, a mechanism for turning essential public services into private profit centres.
We would halt all such schemes and institute a wide ranging audit into all existing projects.
The inquiry will include extensive police investigations into the business interests and subsequent directorships and similar rewards enjoyed by the politicians who have voted to facilitate the largest theft of the ‘commons’ since the Enclosure Acts.
Assets and payments reclaimed for the public purse following successful prosecutions would be returned to the control of democratically elected political bodies, ranging from councils to Parliament as appropriate.
There are several truisms that should be observed in any oversight of the economy:
1. Not all aspects of material well-being are measurable within the economy. Thus, a child may be better cared for at home than in a day-care centre, but the economic statistics record merely the latter activity.
This creates the illusion that we possess a higher material standard of living when we purchase things that were formerly produced within the traditional family.
There are other examples of how the obsession for Gross National Product misrepresents our material well-being. Social and environmental degradation do not show up in the figures.
A safe neighbourhood that requires no private security guards shows a lower level of economic output than a dangerous neighbourhood, where every business must hire such protection.
Numerous lawyers settling disputes by expensive litigation provides another example.
We therefore reject the thesis that economic output is necessarily connected with material well-being.
2. Related to the above is the misconception that because immigration increases GDP, it must be favourable to the economy.
Immigration merely raises economic activity. It does not raise GDP per capita; instead it undermines wages and productivity.
If immigration increased the GDP and general wealth of a society, then logically it would be far better for mass immigration to take place into Third World countries to boost the economies in those nations.
3. Immigration creates environmental pressures, congestion, the concreting over of the rural landscape and severe housing shortages.
Housing shortages create upward pressure on property prices and lifelong debt for the average family. Our supply of land is finite.
4. Sustainable income is relevant. As trustees, we hold an obligation to future generations of Britons.
Economic “quick fixes” abound, but they exact a price in the long run.
Thus, unions that exact wage increases which their employers cannot afford, produce corporate bankruptcies and redundancies.
Similarly, governments that spend borrowed money oblige future taxpayers with repayments plus interest.
5. Capital investment is sound economics. Long-term prosperity depends upon capital investment and provides the dividends for those in retirement.
The BNP supports policies designed to raise the national savings rate and the reconstruction of a broadly based, profitable and sustainable British economy.
Similarly, we support incentive schemes designed to encourage employee financial participation in their company’s activities, via the taxation regime.
6. The taxation system is in urgent need of overhaul. Far too many professional people are involved in administering the complications within the tax code or advising thereon. Far too many businessmen struggle with complex record keeping.
7. Our views of the economy are founded in pragmatism. We believe in low taxes, commensurate with running efficient, productive and superlative services.
The reforms we introduce will be gradual, to permit evidence of the efficacy and operation.
8. Where national or local government makes investments, tenders should be given to British companies unless there are exceptional and compelling reasons not to.
Given our intention to develop essential infrastructure, especially in energy generation, we envisage the creation of new industry and we shall specially favour new companies in this regard.
9. We also favour workers’ co-operative and workers’ ownership schemes within industry and commerse which have worked well for companies such as the John Lewis Partnership.
The party’s economic policy supports the principles of Distributism, whereby ownership and control of the economy should be distributed as widely as possible.
Council Tax is Too High
The BNP intends to cut council tax significantly by eliminating the expensive network of politically correct social engineering projects and the unnecessary, often EU-imposed bureaucracy which all councils are forced to maintain.
To this extent, we shall abolish all politically correct council functions, including those appertaining to ‘climate change’.
We will conduct a full audit of the extent and cost of these typically superfluous operations once we take control of our first Unitary Authority council, from which we shall prepare a general assessment.
Furthermore, we deprecate the outrageous salaries paid to council employees at taxpayers’ expense.
We shall limit council salaries to a maximum of £100,000 per annum. This will generate vast savings for local taxpayers and limit the profligate pension schemes which many senior council officers fund for themselves with public monies.
The fact that the banking system has been able to increase the supply of money electronically has confirmed the long-held nationalist interpretation of money creation, namely that it is possible to generate ‘valid’ banknotes quite literally out of nothing.
This new money has been employed to purchase gilt-edged stock, with a view to lowering interest rates. We would have employed at least a significant element of the new funding to create capital projects and investment in new infrastructure in the energy and transportation sectors — which would also have created real jobs.
Currently, new money — excepting for the very small fraction of money that comprises notes and coin — enters into circulation as an interest bearing debt from the activities within the banking sector.
The banking sector is undoubtedly efficient in allocating credit but the question is whether the nation’s credit should, in part or in whole, be created under Crown authority?
In such an event, would it not best be employed to finance the public sector, thus enabling a reduction in taxation?
The right to issue money should ultimately rest with the state, and not with a consortium of private bankers.
Quangos and Public Services
The estimated cost of Quangos (quasi autonomous national government organisations) varies between £46 billion to upwards of £150 billion.
Chief executives and others, often favoured in terms of their appointments, receive exorbitant salaries from the public purse.
Meanwhile, the average voter is painfully aware that the quality of public services such as those in the NHS, educational sector and public transport has not improved.
Clearly, Labour has directed increased public spending towards tiers of bureaucrats. It is no accident that these public administrators of the state are the core supporters of New Labour.
Our primary programme for the reform of public services will be the elimination of bureaucratic positions and the reallocation of funds to direct providers of services.
Generally, privatisation is a solution only where real competition demonstrably produces better services and prices for the consumers of those services.
Where there are natural monopolies in operation, however, privatisation is generally unacceptable.
We therefore oppose, for example, the privatisation of the Royal Mail, which, along with the Post Office, we shall safeguard, as both provide essential public services.
With regard to Royal Mail, the BNP will oppose the cherry-picking of its most profitable routes by private contractors. This causes a shortfall in revenue streams and an inevitable inflationary price rise in service costs to the public.
The public’s right to a universal service is a paramount consideration.
Within this consideration, we also deprecate the transfer of essential governmental functions to overseas commercial enterprises, who benefit from a guaranteed stream of taxation-funded revenues.
The Legal Profession
Law is perhaps the one remaining profession that has yet to be subjected to the bracing wind of competition.
Legal fees comprise a significant cost to private individuals and SMEs.
It should be possible for enterprises such as banks and building societies to employ legal advisors to advise the public directly — a process that has been described as ‘Tesco-law.’
We shall scrutinise very carefully the restricted practices observed within the legal profession and remove them unless they specifically work in the interests of consumers, rather than lawyers.
We shall also insist on greater price transparency and competition.
We note that the Law Society oversees the functioning of the legal profession but we shall ensure that competing legal bodies, properly regulated, are established to compete with the present monopoly institution, as already occurs in the accountancy profession, for example.
These new bodies may specialise generally or in chosen fields.
The BNP’s Objective
It is our desire to rebuild and encourage a strong, vibrant, dynamic, innovative and competitive economy and industrial base, predicated upon the demand that it operates in the national interest.
It is a primary responsibility of government to create such a framework.
It is also our wish:
• To provide our people with the opportunity to attain a high, rising, secure and dignified standard of living; and
• To protect the nation from influences that might damage this opportunity.
Copyright ©, The British National Party, PO Box 1223, Belfast, BT4 9DD. All rights reserved. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.