Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

Nick Griffin To Stand For East London Seat At Election

Recommended Posts

Thanks BritPat. That is interesting. It is also good to be able to debate such important issues.

 

I agree totally about the regulation of the banking sector especially their appalling leveraging. I'd hope to see similar sentiments in the manifestos of the major parties.

 

I can't see how we can possibly grow our economy using protectionist measures and bilateral agreements. In our highly connected world that is surely an impossible dream. The BNP policy calls for the "selective exclusion of foreign made goods" and says that "we will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories". Now, I'm old enough to remember British Leyland. I've owned a few of their cars. I can honestly say that I prefer my German one.

 

Most of my favourite things come from elsewhere in the world. We cannot make electronic items as cheaply, or as well as far Eastern countries. It is simply impossible to put this policy into practice. Ban German cars from sale in the UK, I'll go to Germany and get one. Ban the Ipod and you would have a revolution on your hands. I understand that the policy says "wherever possible", it is my assertion that it is not really possible in many areas.

 

Similarly, renationalisation of the Utilities and centralisation of Education won't work. Huge, publicly owned organisations breed sloth. Look at the Civil Service for your modern example. The cost would be horrendous and the result would be a decline in the quality of service we receive. If the economy is to truly be our servant, it needs to run efficiently, but its spoils need to be shared more equitably.

 

It simply isn't possible to turn the clock back 40 years.

 

The spoils to be shared more equitably : I agree

 

Renationalisation : Publicly owned organisations have been notoriously inefficient in the past, they needn't be in the future.

 

Instead of appointing a political board and or averagely paid senior management we could adopt a management model based on the private sector, reward driven management the shareholder(s) being the Treasury and thereby the taxpayer.

 

Protectionist policies as you point out are not without problems, non protectionist policies could be worse, unless we can manage to get market shares in new markets, we are destined to become victims of the free market in the sectors that we are already active in.

 

We cannot compete with the labour costs that massively impoverished Nations that China India and even Brazil can impose on those facing starvation lest they work 100 hr weeks for salaries calculated in 10's of £

 

 

Should tariff based protectionism be required you can of course buy your car in Germany but as soon as it crosses the border at Dover you would be liable to a charge on the car.

 

So what are the Parties/Economic policies that are favoured by the rest of the forum ? more of the same? or is this to be a one sided exchange?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

 

 

 

Should tariff based protectionism be required you can of course buy your car in Germany but as soon as it crosses the border at Dover you would be liable to a charge on the car.

 

 

In which case, I might decide to stay on the other side of the border. My skills are in demand, you see. I can work anywhere. And if you restrict my right to buy the finer things in life, I'll go.

 

Good luck with the meatheads:hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In which case, I might decide to stay on the other side of the border. My skills are in demand, you see. I can work anywhere. And if you restrict my right to buy the finer things in life, I'll go.

 

Good luck with the meatheads:hihi:

 

Your view on changes in economic policy if any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your view on changes in economic policy if any?

 

I wouldn't change any of the Labour Party's economic policy actually. I think everything is going just fine:hihi:

 

Did you see where MirandaDart went to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BNP economic policy rejects neo liberal laissez faire capitalist model favoured by the LibLabCon Party, A model that commodifies everything, a house becomes an ever appreciating asset (pure fantasy) instead of a home, body parts and surrogacy are even seen as commodities and services to be traded on the open market, jobs are to be effectively sold to the bidder willing to sweat the most for the lowest wage, hence immigration and a permanent pool of unemployment to drive down the cost of labour. Public services sold off to the private sector by a so called 'Socialist Government' while their operating costs are guaranteed by taxation and the unprofitable sections remain in the public domain. Transport sold off to the private sector to farm the fares when the sector should be regarded as a strategic sector that influences the greater economy. The overwhelming reliance on the financial services sector for our national income, a sector the collapse of which was not merely forseeable but inevitable.

 

Banks with leverage factors of 10 - 50 ! The Banks knew it was unsustainable the regulators knew it was unsustainable Government knew that it was unsustainable, however, the profits while the mirage persisted were fantastic and there is no down side !!! when the mirage fades and the reality returns and turns to panic the Banksters are bailed out with our money by the Banksters wholly owned politicians.

 

We have to regulate the Banksters (Mandelson and Osborne yachting with Rothschild and Foreign oligarchs gives the lie to our mainstream politicians being in opposition to each other and in control of the Banksters and Oligarchs).

 

We need to organise the economy tight regulation of strategic sectors and or their public ownership.

 

Protectionist trade controls if in the National interest should be imposed, bilateral and multilateral trade agreements should be invoked instead of EU and GATT restrictions which bind us in a so called global optimisation at the expense of National optimisation.

 

A distributist economy with the greatest number of people having an interest in the economy rather than a handful of multinational global corporations having an overwhelming interest and influence on our economy.

 

A change in emphasis from Financial Services to High Technology industries

and manufacturing in collaboration with Academia and the research councils.

 

 

 

The economy is to be the servant of the Nation and not its master.

 

Some of this sort of thing is workable,there is certainly still a relatively favourable agricultural Pd to sustain elements of this model but I'm not sure how it ties in with CAP etc...,given that they'd probably circumvent that particular piece of legislation,I don't suppose it matters anyway.

 

 

I think that with any degree of protectionist economics then absolutely excellent foreign relationships must be developed and carefully maintained,invade Poland,or Afghanistan for that matter,and you're buggered.

Edited by muchtoofair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this Telegraph article called-Nick Griffin for Barking: Has the BNP made a mistake?

 

My bold:

 

Nick Griffin’s decision to stand against Margaret Hodge in Barking at the next general election might, just might, turn out to be another example of the BNP’s legendary capacity for unforced error.

 

True, in 2005 Barking gave the BNP its best parliamentary result ever – its candidate, Richard Barnbrook, got 16.9 per cent, and was just 27 votes away from coming second. True, nine of the 30 councillors in the wards which make up the seat are BNP – and there would probably be more if they had stood candidates in every ward at the last local elections. This part of London is the heartland of the British far right, something metropolitan liberals often forget when congratulating each other on the capital’s multicultural tolerance.

 

And true, Hodge has been a weak MP. Until only a few years ago, she didn’t have much of a presence or a proper office in her constituency. She is loathed by many in her own local party. She has said some incredibly stupid things that have played straight into the racists’ hands.

 

But if the BNP’s secret weapon is the behaviour of some of its opponents, its saving grace is its own incompetence. Griffin may not realise that things have changed in Barking since 2005. Hodge has upped her game organisationally, opening an office, campaigning quite hard on the ground and ruthlessly purging her local party enemies (though this last could still backfire – many of the people she has got rid of are rather good, and justifiably very unhappy with her).

 

More importantly, Barking is now a good deal more ethnically mixed than it was four years ago. Griffin’s opponents have a larger anti-BNP vote to call on, if they can get it to the polls. BNP support is often strongest in places where the ethnic presence is comparatively small, or comparatively new. That was the case in Barking in 2005; it is less the case now.

 

If I were Nick Griffin, I would have skipped Barking and gone for next-door Dagenham and Rainham, which is demographically at the stage Barking was when the BNP started to make headway there.

 

Yes, Dagenham does have an excellent Labour MP, Jon Cruddas – who really gets it about how Labour, particularly London Labour, has stopped talking to the white working class. And yes, Cruddas has been an active ground presence in his seat far longer than Hodge has in hers. But against that has to be set the work of the Boundary Commission. In the new redrawn Dagenham, some of Cruddas’s best wards have been taken out of his seat and some classic Essex Tory country in Rainham has been added in.

 

The BNP will be hindered in both Barking and in Dagenham by the general expectation that the Tories will win nationally, which usually tends to depress the far Right vote. In Dagenham, the risk, with a big name like Griffin, was still probably not that the far Right would win the seat, but that they might take enough votes off Cruddas to let the Tories through the middle. It could still happen – Labour has a tough fight here – but the man breathing slightly easier today will probably be Jon Cruddas.

 

has Andrew Gilligan missed his own point here or what?!

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100016933/nick-griffin-for-barking-has-the-bnp-made-a-mistake/

Edited by Aim4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume that anywhere the BNP does well has more uneducated people than places where it doesn't.

 

On the basis of what we see on this forum alone, I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption to make.

 

Oh yes, it's obvious from the badly spelt, grammatically poor drivel of many BNP supporters that they are pretty thick. I made a thread about this some time ago where I showed that BNP types make 17 times more errors per formum post than the non-BNP types. It's quite an entertaining thread.

 

The theory is that the BNP supporters are fairly thick people who didn't pay attention at school and now wish to blame others for their own failure to make anything of their lives.

 

Hatred is strongly linked to ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps the people of Barking are a little less impressed with the BNP since they've had Richard Barnbrook as their Greater London Assembly member. He's currently suspended for inventing some murders to complain about. His hearing had to be postponed several times while he was suspended on full pay because he had a 'stress-related illness'. On top of which he's done and achieved nothing during his stint http://torytroll.blogspot.com/2009/09/richard-barnbrook-suspended-for-murder.html

 

BNP councillors are generally as much use as a crack in a glass eye - the ones in Burnley and Keighley had useless records of attending meetings, voting etc.

 

I think they get quickly disillusioned when they find the job doesn't entail;

a) Strutting round giving people orders.

b) Organising rallies, book burnings etc.

c) Invading Poland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BNP councillors are generally as much use as a crack in a glass eye - the ones in Burnley and Keighley had useless records of attending meetings, voting etc.

 

I think they get quickly disillusioned when they find the job doesn't entail;

a) Strutting round giving people orders.

b) Organising rallies, book burnings etc.

c) Invading Poland

 

My Bold

 

Where as its ok for The Polish to invade us ,as has happened over the last few years :loopy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Bold

 

Where as its ok for The Polish to invade us in their thousands ,as has happened over the vlast few years :loopy:

 

The Nazi invasion of Poland led to at least half a million deaths.

 

Grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how Barnbrook feels pushed out of the seat he probably thought would be his chance of becoming an MP?

 

He was doing so well, he was in the assembly for nearly half a year before going off sick with stress after he was caught out making up murders to score political points, and his adviser got suspended for racist comments about the Archbishop of York... trifling matters surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Bold

 

Where as its ok for The Polish to invade us ,as has happened over the last few years :loopy:

 

And you wonder why people make a connection between BNP members and ignorant fools...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.