The British National Party

[C0ckney]

I dont advocate culture wars, but integration and not assimilation into a hegemony is the way to go imo. That way, not only do you get the best of both worlds but you avoid alienating the people you should be embracing. The latter certainly isn't an option with people in any greater numbers than isolated cases.

i'm not entirely sure what you are saying here but like i said, i think if people come to england they should be english. if you think that they do things better in your home country then bloody well stay there, we're doing alright without you

Ah, no hence net benefit. You have X amount of land. 100% of that is currently used for farming. That has a worse effect than 30% of that used for housing, with 70% left to develop naturally. That is what I am saying.

i think PA was right when he said you can't think of it like that. it is (and this is a candidate for understatement of the year ) a bit more complicated than that.

British farming, except the speciality stuff that can't be produced anywhere else (like wendsleydale cheese ), is superfluous because of the amount we could be importing from the third world, leading to cheaper food for us and a better deal for them. Instead we are subsidising ours (and Frances) farmers while those in the third world starve. I don't think that makes sense to me. Speaking in a utilitarian sense, the needs of people who are starving outweigh those of a relatively small number of people who can be found new jobs, while the economy benefits . And ignorant.. it's probably the only economic issue I spent a serious amount of time considering . Hence I used the word superfluous, instead of malevolent.

well i agree about the common agricultural policy (which is what you are on about wrt french farmers) but that's another thread don't you think

i'm not a utilitarian so i'm not that bothered about what would be best for 3rd world farmers, i'd rather worry about our own. our farmers produce good quality food and as long as there is a market for it then farming will not be 'superfulous'. british farmers also do the job of looking after the countryside, one wonders who would do that if the 'relatively small number of people' who farm the land no longer did so.

i think this talk about the teaching of our history is a bit much. if i'd just taken in what i was taught in school i wouldn't have known we'd ever had an empire, never mind the good and bad things about it :/

[Agathon]

I love this thread!!! On reading it I knew that if I scrolled down far enough I would see PA defending the policies of a party whose prime constituency is skinheads, neo-nazis and people who don't like people who are "different".

Re: the last - why don't they like them? Cause they're different.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
but I don’t base a political theory on a pipe dream

You're a libertarian. Isn't that basing political theory on a pipe dream pretty much by definition?

[Solly]

Whaleboy, you exude the usual arrogance from a big fish in a small pond (ie, probably cleverest in your school/college). I've seen your ilk before. Don't think you know it all.

You haven't reasonably explained to me why the advantages/disadvantages of immigration to this country is of any concern to you. You don't care about the well-being of this one country in particular (so you say), so please explain why you support it.

[Az]

i'm not a utilitarian so i'm not that bothered about what would be best for 3rd world farmers, i'd rather worry about our own. our farmers produce good quality food and as long as there is a market for it then farming will not be 'superfulous'. british farmers also do the job of looking after the countryside, one wonders who would do that if the 'relatively small number of people' who farm the land no longer did so.

Here comes a disagreement.

[Whaleboy]

You're a libertarian. Isn't that basing political theory on a pipe dream pretty much by definition?

Libertarianism is essentially alien to this, since I'm not using libertarian arguments. Note that my libertarianism is based upon a set of different premises to familial libertarianism. My arguments are utilitarian and could be held by pretty much any political view to the left of the BNP (not that there's a great deal to their right ).

Whaleboy, you exude the usual arrogance from a big fish in a small pond (ie, probably cleverest in your school/college). I've seen your ilk before. Don't think you know it all.

Making presumptions about my background (and very inaccurate ones at that) are not going to help you in this argument. Now if you have a problem with the manner in which I express myself and put forth my views, then please feel free to say so, best via PM or email so as not to spam. However you well know that if I'm faced with a superior argument, I'll quite happily drop my own and adopt it, Thus far you have been unable to provide me with one. If you're willing to continue this debate without resorting to psychoanalysis or attemting to classify my into one of your "ilks" based upon nothing more than a few threads, then I am willing to continue discussing. If you continue you're really just showing yourself to be a *****.

You haven't reasonably explained to me why the advantages/disadvantages of immigration to this country is of any concern to you. You don't care about the well-being of this one country in particular (so you say), so please explain why you support it.

Net benefits. It is my view that immigration (within limits of course) benefits the economy and culture of the host nation, and of course benefits the immigrants by moving from a poor nation to one where there is more opportunities. It thus benefits all that are directly concerned. Now you may respond by pointing out that immigration is reducing the workforce of the source nation. That is of course true, though because there are multiple sources, the impact upon one, relative to the numbers received here is far smaller. Needless to say, the more we do to improve the economy of the third world (including measures like the cessation of farmer subsidies) the less economic difference will be created between populations, so like current between a positive and negative charge, if you reduce the potential difference, the current decreases.

As a result, immigration can be controlled (long term) so current trends are not generalisable.

Let us of course also consider that it is the individuals choice whether or not they emmigrate from their home nation and economic grounds are not sufficient in my opinion to keep them prisoner in their own nation.

And let me clarify, I do care about the well being of this nation, but no more so than any other merely because I was born and live here. I see human life of equal worth, I don't place more value upon a British life than a Pakistani life.

i'm not a utilitarian so i'm not that bothered about what would be best for 3rd world farmers, i'd rather worry about our own. our farmers produce good quality food and as long as there is a market for it then farming will not be 'superfulous'. british farmers also do the job of looking after the countryside, one wonders who would do that if the 'relatively small number of people' who farm the land no longer did so.

British farmers ply the ground with artificial chemicals, destroy hedgerows and drain the ground of naturally occuring nitrates. The imbalances created eutrophicate small rivers, ponds and lakes that are essential for many forms of life, bird life is at an all time low, native wild flowers are a rarity and the ground exudes more CO2 than it absorbs. That is not good for the environment.

If much of the farm land was converted back to its original state: forest and woodland, with some being developed of course, that would be a blessing to the environment.

With regards to your piece about food, there is a market for food, regardless of the source. However, there is a greater market for cheap food. I'd rather pay 40p for a loaf of bread than 70p or whatever. That is good for the economy and gets much of the third world out of its straitjacket, especially if other nations adopt this approach too.

[Solly]

Net benefits. It is my view that immigration (within limits of course) benefits the economy and culture of the host nation

But you don't care about this since you're not a "nationalist".

and of course benefits the immigrants by moving from a poor nation to one where there is more opportunities.

I don't think there's many doubting this right now.

It thus benefits all that are directly concerned. Now you may respond by pointing out that immigration is reducing the workforce of the source nation. That is of course true, though because there are multiple sources, the impact upon one, relative to the numbers received here is far smaller.

Wtf? They don't just come here, they go to many nations - your point here is fallacious.

Needless to say, the more we do to improve the economy of the third world (including measures like the cessation of farmer subsidies) the less economic difference will be created between populations

A good way of also doing this would be to ban immigration and create an incentive for third world countries to invest more heavily in education.

As a result, immigration can be controlled (long term) so current trends are not generalisable.

Meaningless waffle.

Let us of course also consider that it is the individuals choice whether or not they emmigrate from their home nation and economic grounds are not sufficient in my opinion to keep them prisoner in their own nation.

What would you say if all of Africa wanted to move here? Would you welcome them? Why/why not?

And let me clarify, I do care about the well being of this nation, but no more so than any other merely because I was born and live here. I see human life of equal worth, I don't place more value upon a British life than a Pakistani life.

Fine, I do.

[C0ckney]

slighty OT but did anyone read this morning about the afgan football team. they were due to play verona in italy to raise money for a hospital in kabul. only 9 of them went and did a runner last night and are now thought to be headed to britain to claim asylum

[MikeH]

At least people like PA are in the vast minority in this country. Thank goodness for the "silent middle class".

[Solly]

At least people like PA are in the vast minority in this country.

You're joking right?

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Whoha
The thing to ask about immigration is: are you assimilating them into your culture? If the answer is no, then you need to shut it down, because just about everywhere where there are 2 different cultures there is fighting.

Like the Irish in Scotland? Or even worse, the Maori in New Zealand? Sometimes these things work out.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


You're joking right?

What percentage of the vote did the BNP get at the last election?

[Solly]

"What percentage of the vote did the BNP get at the last election?"

Where did I say I vote for the BNP or would ever?

I do support some of their policies though. At least they take a better line on immigration than any other party (none of which have an outlined immigration strategy anyway).

[MikeH]

Even you wouldn't vote for them?

[Solly]

Well I might do, only because I know they wouldn't get in and every vote might make the mainstream political elite take note of their more realistic policies.