BNP on Question Time

Martin. yes, it should be stopped altogther. I am not much interested in "i saw this and I saw that" stories, but I made clear reasons why the payments to any recipient are simply wrong
 
Crikey, Clivex - I'm agreeing with your post again! (The one made at 2:56.) Doesn't the civil service work 40 hours a week? I didn't realise they were such short-timers if they don't! I'd like to see a return to proper 'technical colleges' where usable vocational skills are taught, not endless posturing 'colleges of excellence' and Banded class 'universities' churning out endless sociology or graphic design students, all heading for low-grade jobs which will have no bearing on their studies. Anyway, yes, once you start digging around in the funding of useless projects category, there's loads and loads - quangos and committees galore, duplications of work, and truly useless nobs working in jobs which were invented in order to service quota-driven goals. The few quid given back by MPs for their venality is nothing to the millions squandered yearly on non-performing, inept, time-wasting junketry, nepotism, and unaccountable, invisible 'teams'.
 
martin said:
So are you saying it should be stopped for everyone, is that what you and others suggested higher up the thread? I actually agree with you guys on it for the most part I think. Anyway, here's an article in my local paper for you to digest and give your opinion on.
Click to expand...

Well, again, you have misread my postings! I haven't suggested anything of the sort; what I actually said was - after someone else suggested limiting number of children per family eligible to draw benefits for - is that particular suggestion might possibly not be such a bad idea. I then made observations -no more than observations - on some of the comments posted on the thread.
 
"after someone else suggested limiting number of children per family eligible to draw benefits for - is that particular suggestion might possibly not be such a bad idea."

I don't think it's a bad idea either.

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you've said, apologies for that. The profundity of the thread probably got the better of me.
 
Last edited:
So, if I've got this right, the white working class who are too lazy to work and are a drain on the benefits system are also the ones voting in increasing numbers for a racist fascist party?

Can we deport them?
 
You'd have to test their DNA, bets, to see whether to return them to their Norman or Scandinavian roots, or whether the majority would be shoved on board Alitalia, to reconnect them to their Roman heritage. Norfolk folk might be okay, though, if one could prove their Icenian blood hadn't been tainted by the overpowering Romans. Tricky one.
 
betsmate said:
So, if I've got this right, the white working class who are too lazy to work and are a drain on the benefits system are also the ones voting in increasing numbers for a racist fascist party?
Click to expand...
A point not to be forgotten in the context of this debate is the fall in the Labour vote is not just from this grouping. I'm sure we all agree that the fall in the Labour vote has come from all colours, creeds, social backgrounds etc. The difference with some white people being that some have decided the BNP is a sound vote for them instead of Labour, whereas perhaps other groups who've abandoned Labour might have decided to go with Clegg or Cameron I suppose.

Shows how selfish and narrow-minded a lot of the 'indigenous population' can be, but also shows how marginalised many feel - to only vote for a party in their own dwindling social and economic self interests and not what they think is best for the country at large.
 
Last edited:
............but don't governments "govern" on a self-interest basis rather than what's good for the country.

Their goal once they get elected is to be elected next time.......if "governing" the country for the good of the country gets 'em in next time all well and good..but I don't think that is the case most of the time. Any policy that is a vote loser is spiked. Hence no rise in taxes (edit: direct taxation) and a cowardly transport policy.
 
Last edited:
Colin Phillips said:
............but don't governments "govern" on a self-interest basis rather than what's good for the country.
Click to expand...
Good point. To me, there are good eggs and bad eggs in all walks of life including politicians. A good comparison between what I just said about the 'indigenous population' and the actual government of the day though; got me thinking!
Colin Phillips said:
Any policy that is a vote loser is spiked.
Click to expand...
The exception to the rule here being the immigration policy which has apparently (according to some) lost Labour its core white vote (see article by Andrew Neather in The Spectator last week). That was one example that was certainly a vote loser amongst their own core vote; why they upset their own core vote I don't know. Possible as you say, because of some own self interest which probably had something to do with stimulating and letting the economy grow to the fantastic state it is today via immigration?
 
Last edited:
Shows how selfish and narrow-minded a lot of the 'indigenous population' can be, but also shows how marginalised many feel - to only vote for a party in their own dwindling social and economic self interests and not what they think is best for the country at large.
Click to expand...

As if they are the only ones...


I would suggest that its the small minority of voters in any democracy who do not vote with an element of self interest.
 
krizon said:
You'd have to test their DNA, bets, to see whether to return them to their Norman or Scandinavian roots, or whether the majority would be shoved on board Alitalia, to reconnect them to their Roman heritage. Norfolk folk might be okay, though, if one could prove their Icenian blood hadn't been tainted by the overpowering Romans. Tricky one.
Click to expand...

Good points, I thought this is why we own Australia though?
 
Oooooh.... bets! :lol: Dangerous, dangerous ground - and no smart remarks about not being able to see the scars on their ankles any more!
 
Walsy was away in his Vannus Bedfordus at the time, anyway, overpowering ancient gate staff at not-yet sacked campsites.
 
Originally Posted by Colin Phillips
............but don't governments "govern" on a self-interest basis rather than what's good for the country
Click to expand...

Colin... Not true ...well not always

Thatchers first term was certainly not an exercise in pandering to the voters and arguably the second term too. Thats not to say we all agree with everything she did, but it was a radical agenda by anyones standards and fairly high risk ..as the polls often showed

She was helped by the most incompetent oppostion imaginable though

Back to the BNP, it was found that their support amongst whites was actually less than average in afro carribean areas and about national average( ie very small) in areas with a large hindu/indian population.
 
Back
Top