The British National Party

[Derekrage]

Lets just hope the BNP never come to anything resembling power. The possible consequences are fairly obvious, it's not rocket science.

The 'consequences' would be a stronger Britain.

Since we don't know all the consequences yet still must be held responsible for them (as no one else can be responsible for the results of our individual actions), the best a safest route is to level the playing field for everyone. Help those worse off than us, no matter who they are, and we can be sure that the high ground we occupy doesn't end in a cliff. Act not in purely national interests but in terms of overall benefit and let everyone try to make the most of their life.

I dont agree, how can we be sure that in the end it will help Britain. The only thing that will help Britain is and 'us' and 'them' attitude.

Utilitarianism, greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

But you can't be sure it will help the British people who our government is there to serve.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Derekrage
The only thing that will help Britain is and 'us' and 'them' attitude.

I agree with that statement. However I'd be an "us" while you'd be a "them".

[Derekrage]

Thats ok with me.

[Whaleboy]

The 'consequences' would be a stronger Britain.

Lovely propaganda. The consequences would be weaker foreign economies who are linked to us, who would then either retaliate or wait for us to have a down-turn. In the long term, the BNP would severely damage the national economy.

I dont agree, how can we be sure that in the end it will help Britain. The only thing that will help Britain is and 'us' and 'them' attitude.

Partly true. In the immediate sense, you are correct, but in the long term, it would be disastrous. Like I said, economics does not respect national borders, unless you want to make this country economically self-sufficient, which is of course plainly ridiculous.

But you can't be sure it will help the British people who our government is there to serve.

Us and them. It wouldn't allow a fall in its mandated peoples utility, but not gain at a disproportionate loss to others. You are proposing, on the other hand, a kind of blind and selfish policy that would eventually fire back anyway, rendering it pointless.

I agree with that statement. However I'd be an "us" while you'd be a "them".

I choose all of us . The line between us and them is a fallacious one, and I have yet to be shown otherwise.

[Derekrage]

Lovely propaganda. The consequences would be weaker foreign economies who are linked to us, who would then either retaliate or wait for us to have a down-turn. In the long term, the BNP would severely damage the national economy.

I still do not agree with this for 2 reasons.
1. There are ways to make sure that they do not retaliate (diplomatic pressure, economic incentives) If we think they will retaliate that simply do not implement the policy.
2. Every country in the world is not linked to us and most of them can not hurt us. Take the outsourcing of jobs to India, if law was put in place to prevent it why would would the Indian government have any ill feeling towards us, when it is British companies in the first place. These are the kind of small protectionist measures that imo will become increasingly neccassary in the future.

Partly true. In the immediate sense, you are correct, but in the long term, it would be disastrous. Like I said, economics does not respect national borders, unless you want to make this country economically self-sufficient, which is of course plainly ridiculous.

Why in the long term would it be disastrous? We have had a nationalist foreign policy since the start of Empire and I'd say it's turned out quite well for us so far.

Us and them. It wouldn't allow a fall in its mandated peoples utility, but not gain at a disproportionate loss to others. You are proposing, on the other hand, a kind of blind and selfish policy that would eventually fire back anyway, rendering it pointless.

It is not a blind and selfish policy, it's a bloody sensible one. MP's are elected to serve in the best interests of their constituents and when making decisions should always take into account their interests first, that is what they are there for.

I choose all of us . The line between us and them is a fallacious one, and I have yet to be shown otherwise.

Actually it's not, Britain is us eveyone else is them

[Whaleboy]

2. Every country in the world is not linked to us and most of them can not hurt us. Take the outsourcing of jobs to India, if law was put in place to prevent it why would would the Indian government have any ill feeling towards us, when it is British companies in the first place. These are the kind of small protectionist measures that imo will become increasingly neccassary in the future.

And yet companies are benefiting economically from that. It's the nature of the free market. The market is a device for generating wealth and growing the economy, not social support. Ultimately, if you leave it, it ends up taking a Darwinian approach which is much greater for Britain anyway!

1. There are ways to make sure that they do not retaliate (diplomatic pressure, economic incentives) If we think they will retaliate that simply do not implement the policy.

You simplify: To every action there is a consequence. In few areas is that more true than in economics. If you have a general policy of protectionism, you are going to have a problem. In an individual case, perhaps you are correct wrt the outsourcing, however it sets a bad precident to restrict that in my opinion, an inconsistent law in any case, particularly with a private company, and a restriction on the equalisation of wealth. Furthermore, outsourcing some jobs to India benefits India to a greater degree than it makes Britain suffer, so on balance it is an action whose consequences gain the most utility. You rid nationalism from economics, and you see that is the best outcome.

Why in the long term would it be disastrous? We have had a nationalist foreign policy since the start of Empire and I'd say it's turned out quite well for us so far.

But we haven't though. The economic policy during the age of empire was far less nationalistic than it was post WWII. Most activity was taken on the basis that if something benefits the colonies or the locality then indirectly, but significantly, it will reverberate and benefit Britain. Same thing applies here.

It is not a blind and selfish policy, it's a bloody sensible one. MP's are elected to serve in the best interests of their constituents and when making decisions should always take into account their interests first, that is what they are there for.

And that is why the politics of limited span of sympathy severely sucks. When taking actions that affect more than the people you are mandated to consider, one should also consider the other people it affects.

Actually it's not, Britain is us eveyone else is them

You are merely reiterating the distinction. I am saying that distinction is fallacious and you are not addressing that.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Derekrage
I dont agree, how can we be sure that in the end it will help Britain. The only thing that will help Britain is and 'us' and 'them' attitude.

Why shouldn't Suffolk put tariffs on imports from Norfolk to help protect Suffolk jobs and industries? Because that's crazy. Suffolk may lose jobs to Norfolk but it gains cheaper goods. Goods that require importers, sells, sales assitants, stores to be built to be sold in, blah blah blah. The lose of a few dozen direct manufacturing jobs creates several hundred jobs.

Or to put in another way, economics is not a zero sum game. If the playing field is level and everyone has to follow the same rules, then the best one wins. However, to be the best means you've got to have several nearly equally good partners playing the game as well. Overall, everyone benefits.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Derekrage
Lazarus - The Vikings never really settled in the Danelaw apart from a few town, they were simply the ruling class. Ireland is not a part of Britain, also I should have said England instead of Britain as Britain as state didn't exist until a few centuries ago .
As for the rest on the list like Pictish Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, that is not really multi-culturism in the way that I mean. They all had their own lands and eventually got conquered/assimilated into a more powerful country.

You haven't of course defined what this common culture is- or indeed what constitutes 'British' culture. Nor indeed why being conquered would necessarily lead to the elimination of cultures in Cornwall, Scotland or Wales- as was said of the Roman Empire, the Greeks being vanquished, conquered Rome. The Scottish cultural contribution to British 'culture' is so much a part of what is thought to be a British experience it's a cliche-Kenneth McKellar and Moira Anderson on New Year's Eve television, bagpipes for the Queen Mother's funeral, tartan on Japanese tourists in London and Dundee marmalade for breakfast.

If anything, British culture is a magpie of other cultures- just like the English language borrows whole phrases and words from other languages.

Your notion that the Vikings 'never settled' in the Danelaw outside of selected towns, is so wrong it's laughable.

The 'assimilation' of Cornwall seems to have taken a long time- I lived there, so I think I'd know.

As for Wales having been assimilated- I take it that's somewhere you don't visit often? The native Welsh language has shown the greatest growth of all the old Celtic tongues of the British Isles. Undoubtedly due to all that assimilation. I'm sure P.A. is doing his very best to assimilate to Wales and learn Welsh, no doubt trying to eat laver bread and enjoy 'Pobol y Cwm' too- just like a good foreigner would.

As to Ireland not being part of Britain- Eire may not be, but the Irish contribution to what you might deem to be 'British' culture is considerable, from Regency drama, to 'English' satire and children's stories and the modern novel and poetry and even Great Britain's military history- not to mention all those lovely canals and buildings of the Industrial Revolution and Victorian times.



If you're an example of an ex-BNP cadre then the country's safe. I still think you should consider the Rockall option.

[Solly]

Whaleboy

"Utilitarianism, greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."

Every pound spent on health care would provide much more utility if spent say on treating AIDS in Africa. Should Britain do without healthcare so that a greater number of Africans can enjoy a greater good than we can (with the same money)?

And as for nationalism, you're being nationalistic in saying that we should have more open borders to trade and immigrants because it helps us.

[Whaleboy]

Every pound spent on health care would provide much more utility if spent say on treating AIDS in Africa. Should Britain do without healthcare so that a greater number of Africans can enjoy a greater good than we can (with the same money)?

In answer to your latter question, yes. A pound per capita in Britain might buy an extra syringe per person. For the same amount, you have the possibility of far greater healthcare out in the third world, because conditions are worse there, the same money would go far further in improving things, whereas the same money would improve things less here.

And as for nationalism, you're being nationalistic in saying that we should have more open borders to trade and immigrants because it helps us.

No, I am saying that it does help us, but that there are other concerns than that. I would still support immigration even if there was no nationalistic argument for it, because there are other arguments for it that I support. I avoid nationalistic arguments for myself because they are generally fallacious, inconsistent, emotive and simplistic. Nonetheless, to convince those that are afflicted with national socialism, one can show how their agenda isn't incompatible with what I purport.

[Az]

Every pound spent on health care would provide much more utility if spent say on treating AIDS in Africa. Should Britain do without healthcare so that a greater number of Africans can enjoy a greater good than we can (with the same money)?

Maybe so, but it's not the most utilitarian solution, as well.



To all the 'national economy' supporters: I have a question:

what products would you rather buy. Products of a British company manufactured elsewhere, or products of a foreign company manufactured in Britain?

[Derekrage]

You haven't of course defined what this common culture is- or indeed what constitutes 'British' culture. Nor indeed why being conquered would necessarily lead to the elimination of cultures in Cornwall, Scotland or Wales- as was said of the Roman Empire, the Greeks being vanquished, conquered Rome. The Scottish cultural contribution to British 'culture' is so much a part of what is thought to be a British experience it's a cliche-Kenneth McKellar and Moira Anderson on New Year's Eve television, bagpipes for the Queen Mother's funeral, tartan on Japanese tourists in London and Dundee marmalade for breakfast.

The common culture of Britain is simply our language, customs and way of life.
I never said being conquered would lead to the elimination of a culture, I said that their culture was assimilated, which it was. Wales was treated like a part of England by English and British rulers for a long time and their language was almost killed off.

As for Wales having been assimilated- I take it that's somewhere you don't visit often? The native Welsh language has shown the greatest growth of all the old Celtic tongues of the British Isles. Undoubtedly due to all that assimilation. I'm sure P.A. is doing his very best to assimilate to Wales and learn Welsh, no doubt trying to eat laver bread and enjoy 'Pobol y Cwm' too- just like a good foreigner would.

I've actually been to Wales on holiday quite a lot, the differences between England and Wales are no more than the differences between Newcastle and London, which is to say not a lot. Britain is made up of three countries England, Scotland and Wales but we all have nearly the same culture.

As to Ireland not being part of Britain- Eire may not be, but the Irish contribution to what you might deem to be 'British' culture is considerable, from Regency drama, to 'English' satire and children's stories and the modern novel and poetry and even Great Britain's military history- not to mention all those lovely canals and buildings of the Industrial Revolution and Victorian times.

I don't really know what you're arguing about here, but I agree the Irish contribution to our culture is considerable, as is our contribution to theirs.

If you're an example of an ex-BNP cadre then the country's safe. I still think you should consider the Rockall option.

I prefer Newcastle if you dont mind

what products would you rather buy. Products of a British company manufactured elsewhere, or products of a foreign company manufactured in Britain?

Azazel- I'd rather buy the best product. British companies ahould manufacture in Britain though and have a responsibility the community where they are based.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Derekrage


The common culture of Britain is simply our language, customs and way of life.

Which language? We have five active ones.

Which customs?

Which way of life?

[Solly]

Whaleboy

"In answer to your latter question, yes. A pound per capita in Britain might buy an extra syringe per person. For the same amount, you have the possibility of far greater healthcare out in the third world, because conditions are worse there, the same money would go far further in improving things, whereas the same money would improve things less here."

See. This is where utilitarian arguments get you.

[Derekrage]

Lazarus-

Which language? We have five active ones.

English, everybody speaks English

Which customs?

British customs.

Which way of life?

British way of life.



Lazarus, I understand what you're getting at, I used to get this question a lot when campaigning for the BNP. Compare Britain to Italy, what sets us apart? It is our language, customs and way of life. That is what makes a country different and unique, do you really believe that there is no such thing as a British or Scottish, English and Welsh culture?