BNP Manifesto GE2010: Foreign policy

April 29th, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

The BNPs’ foreign policy is quite simple: Neutrality.

Fair enough, there’s both pros’ and cons to being an officially neutral nation, but when it’s worded…

We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. In this regard, a BNP government will:

– Reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be; and…

… you know that it isn’t just about not getting involved in others affairs.
Excess population? The muslims that have come to live in Britain aren’t ‘excess’ people from their own country. They haven’t been called in front of a local official, told that their country is full and handed a one way ticket to Blighty. Muslims have come here for many reasons, just like all the other immigrants of other colours and religions. They have also come on their own initiative, not on the orders of some mysterious Arab officialdom. I would guess that most of the muslims in this country are British born, too. Once again, we’re back to deporting British people because of the colour of their skin.

Only once poverty and deprivation amongst British people has been eliminated, can any thought be given to foreign aid — and even then, a BNP government will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, in terms of which those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning.

Foreign aid, when it is given to a country that needs it in return for taking people off our hands, isn’t aid. It’s a bribe to take some people off us.

Capitalism through the medium of roadsignage

April 29th, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

(Image ripped from Google)

BNP Manifesto GE2010: Defending Britain: BNP Defence Policy

April 28th, 2010 § 3 comments § permalink

The first thing I noticed was that the first policy in the BNPs manifesto is the defence policy. The Conservatives and Labour feature defence in the last sections of their documents, the LibDems have it near the middle, page 57 of 104. Read into that what you will.

Apparently our armed forces are in disarray and they intend to avoid the UK coming close “to the brink of destruction”, as apparently happened twice in the twentieth century, because of not spending enough.

The BNP intends to remove ourselves from collective security arrangements, presumably NATO and the EU and spend all the money that we have on developing and supplying British Weapons for British Soldiers.

The BNP aims to have an independent British military, equipped by British factories in all the essential needs of modern warfare.
Our independent force must include an independent nuclear deterrent and capability. These weapons would remain under British control.

So that’s light, medium and heavy guns that aren’t already British made. Tanks and aeroplanes. Oh, and all the ships, helicoptors, and other heavy machinery that the modern war machine needs. That’s all got to be developed and then made.

Then there’s all the communications gear. Y’know, radios, sat nav (which includes the satellites themselves), radar equipment. The list is endless and it will all have to be paid for by the taxpayer. Is it really necessary to have everything home made? Of course it isn’t.

Our independent force must include an independent nuclear deterrent and capability

I wouldn’t trust these clowns with a spud gun, never mind a big red button labelled ‘In an emergency, PUSH’.
Where is all this money coming from? Develop and make a whole independent arms industry and develop and make a new nuclear weapon. Boy, someone’s gonna have to work some overtime.

Britain must be prepared to launch limited operations where it is necessary to protect our citizens abroad and not be deterred by ‘world opinion’.

and it can.

The Falklands campaign was an obvious example where Britain needed to act, but more recently there were clear grounds to rescue people of British descent from the murderous regime in Zimbabwe

What? Did I just read that right?

… there were clear grounds to rescue people of British descent from the murderous regime in Zimbabwe.

What that statement says is that they BNP are prepared to go into a foreign country and “rescue” citizens of that country based on their colour. Not rescue British ex-pats or holiday-makers but Zimbabweans because some of their relatives might have come from Britain. Would they have checked out the geneology of the people they would rescue? No, of course not. It would’ve been a case of the white man gets on the boat and fuck the rest. I’m surprised They’re not calling for Zimbabwe to be renamed Rhodesia as it used to be.

We shall restore many of the historic regiments, particularly those from Scotland, which were disbanded by the Labour government.

Why? Would it reduce costs or improve the abilities of the forces? I understand that the military is feircely loyal to their regiments, but keeping any structure just for the sake of history when function is more important than form is just plain stupid.

We shall renegotiate our presence in NATO to ensure that we maintain independence and neutrality.

Ah, there it is. I wondered when that would come up. By ‘renegotiate our presence in NATO’ they mean leave NATO. A nation cannot be in NATO and be neutral. We leave NATO we can count on no one to come to our aid.

We will raise spending on defence by one percent over the rate of inflation for the next five years so that our forces may never again be committed to any conflict short of equipment or kit, as has been the case with the shameful deployment in the Tory/Labour war in Afghanistan.

Now, bear in mind what has just been said about an independently kitted British war machine, with nukes and everything, tell me, because I don’t know the figures, just roughly, is that one percent going to cover it? Nah, didn’t think so.

This last subsection in the defence section seems a little out of place. Surely it should be in the Culture, Traditions and Civil Society section?

We will introduce a Community Award Scheme for our young people which will take the form of a compulsory one year period for all school leavers during which they will work in the community as the final element of their education.
This scheme will allow young people to choose between a variety of community service options which might include, for example, caring for the elderly or disabled people, environmental or heritage restoration projects or military training

That’s a nice name for compulsory service, isn’t it. At least the youths will be able to choose what they’re forced to do.

The final choice of direction in this regard will be dictated by the school leaver’s scholastic record, preferences and suitability.

So the bullies get the guns and the bullied wipe arses, huh?

Service in this scheme would entitle each individual to receive something back from the society to which they have learnt to contribute, such as free university education, a properly supported apprenticeship or business training.

Instead of receiving guidance and help when you’re young and need it, you first have to earn it. You have to be taught how to contribute to society. You can’t just contribute in your own way, you have to be taught to BNP contribution way.

So what do have so far? We’re going to be neutral. We’re going to build and supply everything our forces needs, from nightvision goggles to aircraft carriers, ourselves. It’s going to be paid for by raising spending one percent over inflation for five years and our kids are going to be taught one particular way how to contribute to society.

Already things are all over the place… and this is just the first section.

BNP Manifesto GE2010

April 26th, 2010 § 4 comments § permalink

The BNP Manifesto is now out.

I intend to go through it and have a laugh at it. I’m not expecting to get it all done and anway, I’m not sure how much I’ll be able to do due to real-world stuff going on as well so I could really do with some help with it.

If you fancy picking a policy area to take apart let me know and I will stick a link in my posts to your post on it.

I’ve got a copy here (pdf), if you need it, so you don’t have to wade through the sewer of the BNP site.

Policies and excerpts to various posts are below the fold.

» Read the rest of this entry «

New to the blogroll…

April 25th, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

Chris Christostomou, A.K.A. Mou.

Once again, as always with blogroll additions, should’ve been there a while ago.

Chris is also active on Twitter as Chrismou

on hung parliaments

April 25th, 2010 § 4 comments § permalink

Does anybody want a hung parliament? We know they’re a bit rubbish and can lead to all sorts of sorry things happening and all sorts of good and necessary things not happening due to squabbles and back room deals.

We know all this. Stop fucking telling us. What are we supposed to do about it?

The electorate isn’t a single being that has one mind. We’re not all thinking that the best way to show the political classes how unhappy we are, with how Westminster politics has degenerated, is to give the third place guys some power and see what happens.

Some people will be party loyalist and will be voting for who ever is their parties candidate, never mind who it is. Some people will be voting for a candidate because of who he or she is, not what party they belong to. There will be some tactical voting, but it is not going to be on a large enough scale to affect the national outcome.

Personally, I don’t have any party allegiance, but my choice of voting for LibDem Dr Evan Harris is because of him as an MP. Not because I want to stick to Labour or I think the Lib Dems will save the country, but because of his voting record. But I shouldn’t be voting for Evan Harris because that’ll cause UK plc to go into meltdown. Apparently.

So. What are my choices? A tin pot party that’ll get bugger all done and wouldn’t know their arse from their elbow (which would probably be the prefered option according to Labour and the Tories if I wasn’t voting for them two) which is going to achieve nothing. Then there’s Labour who, well, look at the last thirteen years. Whatever good they’ve done has more than been undone by the bad bits.

And finally Conservative, To which I reply like this.

I’m not gonna vote in a way just to avoid a hung parliament. For a start who do I vote for? How do I know which party needs my vote to avoid a hung parliament? I don’t.

People are split and the result is most likely a hung parliament for many reasons, but because the people want it is not one of them.

If there’s a hung parliament, it won’t be ‘the peoples’ fault. It’ll be the politicians.

Julian Lewis on teh gays

April 22nd, 2010 § 2 comments § permalink

Tory MP Julian Lewis on the lower of the age of consent for homosexuals…

When it comes to legalising practices that involve serious risk, I believe the higher limit should apply,” he said. “This is the reason we no longer allow 16 and 17-year-olds into frontline situations in the armed forces, for example.”

Lewis highlighted that “one of the criticisms commonly made of gay relationships is that very often they do not last”.

OK. Fine. Do marriages/relationships between 16 & 17 year olds last any longer? No, they don’t. If it’s such a concern about young people why not raise the age of consent for hetersexuals instead?

Good ol’ Julian. His bigotry is only out of concern for the youth.

Search Lib-Dem: Get…

April 14th, 2010 § 3 comments § permalink

After searching for Labours’ Manifesto and getting a load of Conservative results, I thought I’d do the Liberal Democrats today (I did do the Torys’ yesterday but didn’t get chance to post it).

I know the Libdems get a rough time of it sometimes, getting overlooked and stuff, but I never expected Google to be so harsh…

Search Labour: Get Conservative

April 12th, 2010 § 3 comments § permalink

I just had a look for Labours’ manifesto. As I typed Google suggested ‘Labour manifesto 2010’ so I went with that. A very poor show from Labour, I must say (click to enlarge) …

Nothing from Labour, who came in at seventh and a bit of a WIN for the Conservatives coming in with the front page of fourth and a link to the Telegraphs’ article about the Conservative manifesto in third place.

A badly written braindump on brainwashed cheerleaders

April 9th, 2010 § 3 comments § permalink

Day two of the election campaign. Or is it three? It’s still early days, anyway and what’s already getting right on my nerves is the bloody party cheerleaders.

Are they brainwashed or something? They’ve never got a bad thing to say about their party of choice. Anything that one of their heroes does it brilliant or put the opposition in their place.

I realise that it’s part of politics, especially on Twitter, but it makes you look an arse. It really does. If you’re a member of a party sure, sing the praises of that party but don’t forget it’s faults or it’s history.

Labour might have done some good in the thirteen years it’s been in power, gay rights, minimum wage and erm, some other stuff. Yeah, well done. Have a big pat on the back. Then you get some twat on Twitter that comes out with the equivalent of ‘Yay! Labour’s the best party in the world!’ or some such tripe and I’ve gotta wonder what is going through that persons head. Because Labour/Gordon Brown/Harriet Harmann and the gang not only have done some good but they’ve also done some horrendous stuff too which seems to have slipped the brainwashees memory.

With the ‘so-and-so stuck it to them’ type of comment, is usually just rubbish. There are exceptions, but the cheerleader pounces on any minor thing and it brings the whole show down to the level of nit-picking and sniping. It’s not big, it’s not funny and it’s not clever. As I said earlier, it makes you look an arse.

Then there’s the ‘witty’, moral-booster. Don’t do it. Really, just don’t. The cheerleader will usually be over stretching themselves with the effort of a witty moral-booster. One I saw went along the lines of…

In a nuclear winter even cockroaches won’t survive but Gordon Brown will carry on because it’s the right thing to do!

I’ve paraphrased a little there, but there was the post nuclear war/nuclear winter scenario and cockroaches, which ok, given a bit of artistic licence, is ignorable easily enough. The part in bold is exactly what was tweeted. It doesn’t even make sense. Gordon will carry on not because he will be elected, not because he’s hard as nails but because it’s the right thing to do. WT & F? I realise it was Twitter, I realise it’s just supposed to be a bit of rabble rousing, but still. Because it’s the right thing to do? This particular outburst of joy and enthusiasm was a month or two ago, not even during this period of official electioneering.

If you want to do your party a favour, don’t be a twat and go overboard with the praise when something goes right, or someone says an amusing throw away gag or what ever. Be realistic with the praise. It doesn’t do anyone any favours. Use your brain instead and think for yourself.

Note: I may have mentioned Labour, but that’s because I come across their cheerleaders the most. Every party has them and I’m quite sick of them already. So nur.

Where am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for April, 2010 at Sim-O.