Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
Also, please show me the evidence about who Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews are most likely to vote for. This is very valuable information and I have no doubt we could make a fortune out of it as we approach a general election.

Thanks.

Christians. In the UK Christianity is not a serious political force or a particularly useful predictor of political affiliation. Catholic's seem to have a preference towards Labour, although the overlap between class and religion makes the influence difficult to quantify. "Dissenting" Christians such as the methodists are particularly likely to vote Labour (they did after all construct the damned thing in the first place). And of course there is a long association between the CoE and the Conservatives, (famously the CoE was once described as the Conservative Party at prayer). However these trends are easy to over estimate since in reality there are very few serious Christians in the UK.

In societies where Christianity is a minority it tends to be a better predictor of political affiliation. Also in countries with a history of religious intervention Italy and the USA for example (where the Republicans are dominated by the radical Christan movement).

Jews, Jews are of course famously associated with the Left everywhere outside Israel. Although I'm delighted to be able to report my very favorite ethnic minority play a massively disproportionate part in all intellectual movements.

Sikhs, In the UK Sikhs are associated with strong community political groups invariably operating under a "flag of convenience" of any of the major Parties, Labour in particular as like Catholics there is a considerable economic element involved.

In India of course Sikhs are strongly associated with one or other of the main parties (BJP?). Being a good example of religious political polarization much to the detriment of democracy.

Hindus, see Sikhs.

Muslims. Once again we see the standard "flag of convenience" system in place (one Birmingham councilor has been a member of all three major Parties as well as Justice for Kashmir). However we have a massive predisposition towards Labour, challenged only by Respect and the Lib Dems.

I don't think you will get particularly useful odds on the outcome of the next general election, but since I like you here's my hot tip (*whisper*) the conservatives have got a pretty good chance.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
As with many others, you assume, wrongly, that the BNP would deny basic rights to anyone who is not of the indingenous population of Britain.

Let me quote the BNP constitution to you. This thread, after all, is about the BNP constitution:

Originally Posted by :
The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined ‘racial group’ this being ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ and defined ‘ethnic groups’ emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) 1 ALL ER 1062, HL

BNP Constitution, Ninth Edition, September 2005, available from the BNP website here

The BNP makes a point of not allowing anybody but Indigenous Caucasians to join, which means that anybody who is not Indigenous Caucasian cannot join the BNP and shape the policy and direction of the party. How then, will non-Indigenous Caucasians be able to realistically rely on the party to meet their needs?

Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the BNP "represents" Indigenous Caucasians and that any other race will take second place. If the BNP wanted everyone to be treated equally, it would be a party that represented more than just the Indigenous Caucasians.

Originally Posted by Hunter:
If you're standing in a queque and someone steps in front of you, it's odds on that someone will complain about it.

You have a point here.

Originally Posted by Hunter:
Similarly, if anyone joins a Company and that Company closes a few weeks later, that person shouldn't expect to get the same redundancy payment as the older staff.

If by 'older staff' you mean staff with a longer service than other staff, then yes you are right. If you mean staff who are older in age, then no, I don't think people should get different redundancy payouts based on their age, although I understand that this is not the case right now.

Originally Posted by Hunter:
Or what about a hospital waiting list for, say, a hip replacement or an organ transplant - should it go to the person at the top of the list? Or do you, perhaps, think it's OK for someone who wasn't even on the list to get it instead?

Help should go to the person in most medical need at the time. If there is a waiting list, I don't care who is at the top if somebody new comes along who has a greater or more urgent need for medical assistance, the help should go to that person first as if other people on the list are physically more able because they are in a less advanced state of medical urgency there is no need to treat them before treating the newer, more urgent, medical case.

If a new urgent medical case comes along and is simply put to the bottom of the waiting list on a matter of principle, that is wrong. Furthermore, it may be a case of false economy as the more urgent case will require more help from GPs, nurses, and probably more drugs which will undoubtedly cost more to the NHS than if you just bumped them into the next available operating theatre because of the urgency of their compliant.

Originally Posted by Hunter:
Or what about a pensioner who has contributed to the system all his or her life and is now living a frugal life because the pension no longer meets the needs it was designed for, having to turn off gas and electricity to make the money go a little further. How do you think that person feels watching an immigrant move in next door and get everything for free? And I mean everything. I have the list to prove it, as some folk on here can confirm.

Hopefully, this is the generation that will realise that the state pension will be worth less and less as time goes on. That is no comfort for existing pensioners, and I agree wholeheartedly that pensioners should be given a better living pension, linked to inflation.

With regards to the list of things that an immigrant gets, I'd love to see it, and I'd love for you to explain the circumstances under which an immigrant can claim for all this stuff. If you are saying that anybody can come into this country, with not two pennies to rub together, but are then given British citizenship and a home (they won't own the home of course) and benefits, etc, then you have a point. If you are saying that people come here seeking political asylum and are then given homes and support, that is a different matter altogether.

Again, as with patients in the medical example you gave above, it entirely depends upon the circumstances of the immigrant. I would like to see the numbers of how many immigrants came to the country and immediately applied for and were given this list of items you have. What percentage of immigrants receive the help that you are saying they all receive? 100%? 50%? 25%? It is all very well saying it happens, but to what extent does it happen?

Originally Posted by Hunter:
This is where the problem lies, not in the colour of someones skin, but on what we, as a people, are entitled to from our own government.

By 'we as a people' you can only be referring to Indigenous Caucasians, as those are the only people that the BNP represents, are they not?

Originally Posted by Hunter:
When the BNP talks about closing the borders, we mean that for EVERYONE, black, white, or any shade in between, until we get this mess sorted out.

I understand that bit. Unfortunately, closing the borders completely will mean that those workers and business owners and investors who come to Britain to run businesses and make money will also be kept out. This alone, I fear, will cripple London as a financial centre of the world.

Originally Posted by Hunter:
Once the mess NuLabour have got us into is sorted out

So, you will sort out 'the mess' by closing the borders to all new immigrants, asking non-Indigenous Caucasians to leave nicely, and by deporting illegal immigrants. Is that it?

Originally Posted by Hunter:
The BNP policy has nothing to do with racism,

Let us recall that section of the Constitution again.

Originally Posted by :
The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined ‘racial group’ this being ‘Indigenous Caucasian’...

If you are outside the 'racial group' of 'Indigenous Caucasian', the BNP does not represent you. It is very clearly about race, otherwise, why make a point of listing 'Indigenous Caucasian' as the only racial group that the BNP represents?

Originally Posted by Hunter:
We believe that if you put into the 'pot' for years, you're entitled to get back from it when the need arises. Not sit and watch someone who has never put into the 'pot' get the benefits and you get nothing because the 'pot' is now empty.

Many moons ago, I was student. I'd never paid anything into the system, but I got a student grant (remember them?). Once I finished my studies, I had a short spell of work but it was only a contract and so after a while I found myself on the dole and claiming housing allowance to cover my rent. Before I'd even started a proper full time job, I'd taken thousands of pounds out of the system. If the principle is that you must pay in for years before you can take anything out, I would never have got a higher education and I would have been homeless within months of finishing my studies.

Clearly then, there should be a balance between allowing people to claim what they need when they need it, regardless of if they have paid anything in, because we expect to get a return on this investment later on, and clamping down on people (immigrants or not) who simply get through life by claiming benefits.

Originally Posted by Hunter:
For years Britain has been a haven for people coming here - on holiday - only to become 'suddenly' ill and get the free treatment. Granted, there have been a few genuine cases, but it is well documented that many, many non-British people have benefited from OUR National Health Service without having to pay a penny for it. You try going to any other country and get medical treatment for free and see how easy it is.

Of course, I wouldn't consider going on holiday without travel insurance, and The European Health Insurance Card exists to prove that European citizens(!) are entitled to free or reduced cost of healthcare within Europe at least.

Additionally, anyone who is not ordinarily resident of the UK is subject to the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989. These regulations place a responsibility on NHS hospitals to establish whether a person is ordinarily resident; or exempt from charges under one of a number of exemption categories; or liable for charges.

Originally Posted by :
All treatment given by staff at a hospital or by staff employed by a hospital may be subject to a charge with the following exceptions, which are free to all:

Treatment given in an accident and emergency department (excludes emergency treatment given elsewhere in the hospital);
Treatment given in a walk in centre providing similar services to those of an accident and emergency department of a hospital;
Treatment for certain communicable diseases (excluding HIV/AIDS where it is only the first diagnosis and connected counselling sessions that are charge free);
Compulsory psychiatric treatment.
Family planning services

Eligibility for free hospital treatment under the NHS : Department of Health - Health care

It seems that the tools are in place to reclaim expenses incurred from medical tourists. If the tools are not being used, that is another problem. Do you have any data regarding how much medical tourism costs the NHS and how much is claimed back by the NHS from non-resident citizens?
[Rep]

The BNP is not a civil nationalist party and recognises that being a member of a nation is not the same as being a citizen of the state. The BNP is a true nationalist party as it put members of the nations first with as much democratic representation as possible with all factors included.

If you want all people to be treated as equal despite of any historical background then UKIP would be the answer. Although UKIP would promote the National culture, religion and traditions while not promoting differences. UKIP is more flimsy in its nationalism and occasionally looses site of its purpose especially when it plays along with political correctness.

It makes sense for English to be put first in England, Welsh in Wales and so on while still supporting ethnic minorities especially when they work hard to fit into that nation. Britain is made up of many nations and cultures but believes that nations should be promoted and put first with its own people represented.

Mixed backgrounds and cultures do have an effect on a nation’s future and democracy as they will want to have there own representation and there own goals protected with conflict resulting in a not so happy compromise. The result being that people can not have there views represented and the governing elite will decide for them leading to the corruption of democracy and suppression of public opinion.

There are some benefits of a nationalist government to different historical and cultural groups as the BNP offers more local powers and representation so a town with a high concentration of Muslim or Hindu ect could have there views represented locally with there interests seen to unlike with the governing elite that offers little representation.
[Rep]

Does the UKIP constitution (or any other UK political party constitution) have a clause which states:

"If an outgoing National Chairman is a paid employee of the party and either does not wish to remain as such or is not required as such by the new incumbent, he shall receive severance pay in line with the statutory requirement, plus one month for each year served up to a total of eight years, and one week extra for each year thereafter."

?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
The BNP is not a civil nationalist party and recognises that being a member of a nation is not the same as being a citizen of the state.

Please explain the difference between being a member of a nation and being a citizen of the state.

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
The BNP is a true nationalist party as it put members of the nations first with as much democratic representation as possible with all factors included.

From this, I take it that you mean that Indigenous Caucasians (a BNP term from the BNP constitution) of Britain will be put first, with all other people given only as much democratic representation as possible with all factors included. Is this what you are saying?

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
If you want all people to be treated as equal despite of any historical background then UKIP would be the answer.

No. Democracy would be the answer. Democracy is:

Originally Posted by :
a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Get it? Ideas about what do do with the country can come and go, but democracy is required for all people to be treated as equal. The Nationalism you are thinking of seems not to be compatible with democracy.

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
It makes sense for English to be put first in England, Welsh in Wales and so on while still supporting ethnic minorities especially when they work hard to fit into that nation.

But that is clearly not what the BNP is proposing. The BNP wants to remove people from Britain who cannot be classified as Indigenous Caucasians. Irrespective of the fact that this would be a voluntary 'repatriation', it is not 'supporting ethnic minorities' when a government effectively says, 'we don't want your type in our country'.

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
Mixed backgrounds and cultures do have an effect on a nation’s future and democracy as they will want to have there own representation and there own goals protected with conflict resulting in a not so happy compromise.

Guess what. Democracy in any country is like that. Has there ever been any country in which differing viewpoints did not sometimes require a not so happy compromise? Do you seriously think that if only 'Indigenous Caucasians' lived in Britain that there would some how be a sort of hippy-like harmonious society because the only people walking the streets are white (sorry, I meant 'Indigenous Caucasian')?

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
The result being that people can not have there views represented and the governing elite will decide for them leading to the corruption of democracy and suppression of public opinion.

People can have their views represented by supporting and voting for the party that most suits their own ideology. It has worked so far. It isn't perfect, but that is not because the system itself is bad. Governments (or rather, the people in them) lie and cheat, but I ask again, has there ever been a government in history that has not lied or cheated it's own population?

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
There are some benefits of a nationalist government to different historical and cultural groups as the BNP offers more local powers and representation so a town with a high concentration of Muslim or Hindu ect could have there views represented locally with there interests seen to unlike with the governing elite that offers little representation.

But the BNP aims to remove the Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims (unless they are Indigenous Caucasian) from the country (voluntarily, of course), additionally, it is the stated aim of the BNP to bring back Christian assemblies in school, could local decision makers overrule a policy like that if they felt it was not in their interests? I'd take a stab in the dark and say, no, probably not. So this argument for Nationalism is of no use, where, in effect, the Nationalism you (and the BNP) describe is limited to a narrow category of people (Indigenous Caucasians) and is specifically designed to exclude people who are currently recognised as equal citizens of the Nation State.

Additionally, and I've said this before, the BNP itself is organised as a form of dictatorship, why on earth do you expect people to believe that the leadership of the BNP would want to implement policies that move powers down to a local level when they obviously have placed more faith in the top-down authority model for actually running a political party? Why does the leadership of the BNP not practice what it preaches?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
Please explain the difference between being a member of a nation and being a citizen of the state.

One of the factors of being a member of a nation means that you share a common ancestry with people of that nation. Other factors include culture and language.

Being a member of a state can apply to anyone even if they don’t speak a language or have a different history, culture, religion and traditions.

Originally Posted by :
“A system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens.”

Nationalism directly reflects national interests of the people and gives them as much representation as possible. The current political system suppresses many public concerns and removed the political sovereignty of the people and gave it to others. England does not have a parliament to reflect national interests and the Scottish and Welsh can decide on our laws. With the EU the whole of Europe can decide on issues that affect us removing the political sovereignty retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens.

Originally Posted by :
People can have their views represented by supporting and voting for the party that most suits their own ideology. It has worked so far. It isn't perfect, but that is not because the system itself is bad. Governments (or rather, the people in them) lie and cheat, but I ask again, has there ever been a government in history that has not lied or cheated it's own population?

Giving more powers on a more local level reduces corruption and enables the local people to elect a party that best represents them and not just the whole of Europe.

Originally Posted by :
But the BNP aims to remove the Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims (unless they are Indigenous Caucasian) from the country (voluntarily, of course), additionally, it is the stated aim of the BNP to bring back Christian assemblies in school, could local decision makers overrule a policy like that if they felt it was not in their interests? I'd take a stab in the dark and say, no, probably not. So this argument for Nationalism is of no use, where, in effect, the Nationalism you (and the BNP) describe is limited to a narrow category of people (Indigenous Caucasians) and is specifically designed to exclude people who are currently recognised as equal citizens of the Nation State.

Interests of a nation changes so I can not say what the public in the future will want and we should not decide for them. If a policy does not reflect national interests then it can and should be overruled and there is not one religion in Britain in past or present. Many common values that enable a community to work together better is a good thing for all and it should be promoted.
[Rep]

As for the exclusion idea of people, I don’t think that is very fair as the system would enable members of the state to become members of the nation through better integration.

Nationalist organisations try and encourage people to fit into its community and not just change others around them. By deliberately not following national values and embracing the existing culture of the nation you exclude yourself and will always be recognised as an outsider by those who you live with despite of being a citizen of that state. Having all factors that identify you as a member of that nation other than historical background will cause great acceptance you are an insider and race alone does not define a person. The BNP has often stated that those who immigrated before 1950 or so are recognised as true integrated members of Britain.
[Rep]