According to the British National Party websites Economic Policy document the BNP will try to achieve the following if they gain power at the 2010 general election: Britain’s survival depends on a technology-intensive manufacturing base, protected from globalisation and rampant internationalist exploitation – the core of the British National Party’s plan for rebuilding this nation’s […]
Continue Reading BNP Policies : BNP Economic Policy
“To that end the BNP will restore our economy and land to British ownership…”
How will the BNP restore our land to British ownership?
I guess this means if a foreign company or individual owns some British land (a property, a farm, a business for example) the BNP will acquire it back.
Lets dismiss the illegal option of just taking it back and not pay for it (I hope that’s not the plan?), that means they plan to pay for it.
Where is this money coming from, a heck of a lot of British land is not owned by British nationals?
David
View Comment
Maybe they will buy it under a compulsory purchase and then sell it back to the indigenous population…
Or do a Zimbabwe and just take it and give it someone else perhaps…
Being a white British born citizen I might like to buy ASDA after it is compulsory purchased (currently owned by a US company, Walmart).
I wonder how much ASDA would be sold for under a BNP government? I’m indigenous, so maybe I can get a good deal, wink, wink :-)
Whether compulsory purchase or stolen this will seriously damage investment from foreign investors into Britain which would severely damage our economy!
Who are going to invest in a country where the government might take your business away because you aren’t born in that country!
Before China opened it’s country to Western investment the Chinese people starved, is that what the BNP want for Britain? An inwards looking, protectionist country that can’t feed its people!
If BNP supporters think it’s bad now, get ready for food rationing under a BNP government.
Unfortunately we are over reliant on foreign imports, foreign investment and yes foreign workers. It’s a reality, we can’t jump back to the 1950s and rewrite history so the country hasn’t lost much of it’s manufacturing base, it has, accept it and move on. We are now a services (in particular financial services) country, I don’t like it, but there you go.
David
View Comment
The actual plan is to ONLY buy shares back from Individuals or Pension Schemes the rest will just be taken (so if any company owns shares etc) they will basically be stolen.
Which is against EVERY law of this country and every other country of the world.
So the Government would be dragged through every court in the world (where people own shares) and would end up costing billions in Lawyers and Legal fees etc.
So clever BNP get us in to worldwide legal battles that will last years.
View Comment
“will take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants.”
Supermarket giants include Tescos, ASDA, Sainsburys etc… how on Earth are the BNP going to legally break up these massive companies?
Don’t get me wrong, if the economic crisis we are going through right now was because of a war (like World War 2), what the supermarkets have done (record profits during a recession!!!!) would be considered war profiteering. The supermarkets should be ashamed, I have no loyalty for the likes of Tescos and ASDA, they rip us off and British producers (British dairy farmers in particular) because they can.
That being said I see no legal way to break them up and go back to the days of local butchers etc…
This BNP policy document reads like the sort of conversations you get in almost any British pub after a few pints: Tescos is screwing us over, I know lets break it up, that’ll teach them to mess with us.
Would it not be better to promote smaller businesses through government schemes like lower NI contributions for small businesses (fewer than 10 employees), promote cooperatives through tax breaks so farmers have better negotiating positions when dealing with the supermarkets?
How are the supermarkets “politically damaging”? I can to a degree see they are economically damaging, but politically!
David
View Comment
“The Labour government recently introduced legislation to discriminate against white males in the job market.”
Which legislation are the BNP referring to?
David
This one is Harriet Harmon’s baby, I think it’s referring to the Positive Discrimination amendment to the Equalities Bill.
It allows companies to discriminate against white MEN in favour of women (any colour I assume, I haven’t read it in full) and ethnic minorities in terms of employment and benefits.
I don’t agree with this at all; a company should be able to employ on best value only, what they need for what they can afford. Best person for the job regardless of colour, age, gender or sexual orientation.
It’s PC crap.
View Comment
Actually, what I have said is not quite correct.
“In 2008 the government announced proposals to allow limited positive discrimination. Under the Equality Act, employers will be allowed, but not required, to select recruits or candidates for promotion from under-represented groups, where they are equally qualified as the other candidates.”
http://law.jrank.org/#ixzz0Z631dOUK
On the face of it, it generally favours women or ethnic groups however the wording used implies an “under-represented group” so, theoretically, you could argue in a female dominated environment that preference could be made for a man instead. Whether this would happen in practice, who knows.
It covers race, religion, age, gender and pay between these groups.
View Comment
At least it’s not an affirmative action type policy like the BNP suggests it is.
I don’t like discrimination positive or negative in the work place, however I do appreciate there is certainly negative discrimination in many sectors and as you say this legislation could benefit almost anyone under the right circumstances.
I doubt it will make much difference to be honest, it’s a bit wishy washy with no teeth (fortunately, positive discrimination is still discrimination).
It’s more a statement of positive intentions, no minority should be under represented if the world was fair, than legally enforceable legislation, you must hire X number of disabled people, disabled women, disabled bisexuals…
Hire the best person for the job, period.
All that being said I do run a business and would never hire a smoker, nothing personal (if someone is dumb enough to smoke, feel free, could help with the pensions crisis we’ll be facing soon!) but they stink and it gives me a migraine being around someone who stinks of cigarettes! I literally couldn’t physically work with a smoker. I also don’t want to be subjected to the long term damaging effects from being near smokers for extended periods, even when they smoke outside a business they do ‘give off’ harmful substances during the day.
Is that discrimination?
As a teenager I had to give up a well paid factory job (well paid for a 17 year old with no responsibilities :-)) because smoking was allowed within the workplace. Where I worked was a couple of meters from the break room and cigarette smoke drifted from the room to where I worked all the time! I also couldn’t use the break room.
David
View Comment
“The reintroduction of the married man’s allowance”
How does this promote the British economy?
I understand the moral argument for this to promote marriage, but not the economy.
I don’t agree with penalising unmarried people though, so tend more towards their being no overall benefit either way. Marriage should be about love not money and so if there’s little difference between being married/single couples will marry for love and not because they get tax incentives!
Why would a government want to encourage couples who don’t love one another to stay together for financial gain?
Make it a neutral decision financial and lets not discriminate against any groups in society.
David
View Comment
DOH! I thought you were referring to the Conservative Policy, I forgot this was the BNP Policy page!
Do you want to shift my post to Conservative policy for me??
Anyway, BNP Policy on reintroduction of the Married Man’s Allowance is a contradiction as they have pledged to abolish Income Tax;-)
As requested moved the comment to the Conservatives Family Policy page at https://general-election-2010.co.uk/conservative-policies-family/
ROFLOL at your last comment :-)
I have to say the BNP policy documents are really easy to pick apart, I was going to try to do the same with the Conservatives Economy policy and though I’ll never vote Conservative I couldn’t find anything that really jumped out at me as “what the heck was you sniffing when you wrote that!”.
The Conservatives Economy policy sounds costly, but if it generates growth may work: I don’t know, not an economist, but at least it makes some sense, unlike what the BNP puts out as a serious policy document.
What serious political party makes up words like banksters, I’d expect to read something like that from the Monster Raving Loony Party which deliberately make up stupid policies for fun.
Bankster definition from Urban Dictionary:
Maybe I’m getting old, but I don’t expect to see phrases from an urban dictionary in a serious political policy document!
Dude, that’s too rad man :-)
David
View Comment
Sorry to be thick, what does ROFLOL mean??
ROFLOL = Roll On Floor Laughing Out Loud
LOL = Laugh Out Loud
David
Only the Conservatives can get the economy back on track,
The BNP are finished three council by-elections this week the BNP LOST all three one of which was their own seat which they lost so people soon realise how bad they are and take the first opportunity to get rid of them.
Dalton by-election result
Dan Martin (Labour): 344 votes
Mike Ashburner (BNP): 56 votes
Turnout: 26.5 per cent
Nuneaton and Bedworth
1. Labour 670 = 47.1%
2. BNP 478 = 33.6%
3. Con 275 = 19.3%
So no big take over in the polls they are being pushed back to where they belong with the rest of the racist bigots like their friends in the National Front which we all know is exactly where they came from.
View Comment
[[ Mussolini said: “Fascism (and communism) is the state collaborating with large corporations to defraud the people.” That is exactly what we have seen while we’ve been in the EU. ]]
You know that’s really weird, I can’t seem to find an original source for that quote anywhere! The only places I can find are anti-EU groups and David Icke’s website. A bit like the made-up “When fascism returns it will be as anti-fascism” supposedly by Churchill. Why would an anti-fascist (Churchill) say anti-fascism is fascist?
Mussolini = fascist. Why would a fascist be on record as saying fascism defrauds the people? Communism ISN’T the same as fascism, because communists don’t collaborate with large corporations, they take them over! Mussolini would’ve known that, so why the hell would he have said a statement that was so utterly stupid?
If you want to know how fascism collaborates with large corporations here’s how.
Fascism
An inherent aspect of fascist economies was an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence. Fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state. Fascism opposes many capitalist tenets, such as support of free trade and free international movement of capital.
BNP
The British National Party is pledged to the maintenance of a private-enterprise economy operating within a broad framework of national economic policy. It is opposed to international monopoly capitalism and to laissez-faire free trade and free movement of plant and capital.
Aside from using different words the BNP is exactly the same as fascism when it comes to the economy!
View Comment
Foreign goods are generally bought because they’re cheaper. If we stop importing them and produce all our own goods prices will rise for all consumers. We’l all be worse off.
We should not rely on technology, as most is researched, designed and built outside the UK. How would Britain supply the parts that we can’t make? Parts that use rare metals for instance?
View Comment