What really winds me up
Is the complete lack of manifesto. All the BNP want to do is "kick darkies out." OK (that's immoral, and you are a retard, but let's say you do that). Then what? What exactly are they planning on doing once they've kicked out half the working population and are just left with a bunch of dole scum with absolutely no idea of how to run a country. No idea of what's really going on. The only people voting BNP are so mentally subnormal it's questionable whether they should even have the vote!*
*controversial, I know.
(, Mon 18 May 2009, 16:37, Reply)
I feel ashamed for forgetting names
But the earliest liberals said that you should only be allowed to have the vote if you owned property.
Now, this wasn't, as people seem to think, an elitist move, but was a move designed at removing the vote from those that could be co-erced. Only those wealthy enough to stand on their own two feet and hard to be bribed by those who would likely be only as wealthy as them should, in this school of thought, wield democratic power.
It does, however, raise some points of where does democracy really stop being democracy, or where does it become some insane free for all? Are those who have lost their jobs due to economic chaos in a too vunerable position to vote? Now, that's taking it to an extreme, and is too far in my opinion, but there are shades inbetween which do bring up debate, prisoners, those who have turned jobs down whilst signed up, those who still live with their parents past voting age, etc.
(, Mon 18 May 2009, 16:50, Reply)
yes but are you talking about the victorian era
or lloyd George time?
in the early days, only the rich could vote, so it was basically a hegemony to keep the poor out. even lloyd george was against votes for all, especially where women were concerned
(
Avast is still alive!!!!, Mon 18 May 2009, 16:55,
Reply)
I'm trying to remember specifics
it was more political science than political application.
You know, the difference between an academic in their study and a politician in their throne.
Much like Thatcher's use of monetarist economics to justify authoritarian moves. A liberal theorist may say one thing, and the politicians may enforce it for all the wrong reasons.
Abstract ideologies are more my thing than late 19th-early 20th century British history; which is a problem, as that was a moment of time so key in their development, even internationally.
For this reason I got sucked quite firmly into feminism, as I see it as one of the few political forces, or forces on politics, which isn't THE SAME AS ALL THE OTHERS. Also, the one that stands out more independently from early British democracy in its modern form; something which I'm just not interested enough in to read up on enough to learn enough about, I'd much rather read up about Near Eastern languages, and really, really want to learn Arabic, preferably Levantine.
(, Mon 18 May 2009, 17:00, Reply)
Guys, I think the choice is obvious...
...I must become autocrat of our fair land! All hail your despot!
(, Mon 18 May 2009, 17:03, Reply)
I posted a review of their main policies on the guardian comments
Reposting here
- Immigration - no comment (none needed)
- Law and Order - Usual stuff about reducing crime up to paragraph 3 then it gets interesting, beating up and killing people - sounds fucking great
- Economy - Protectionism which will lead to the end of unemployment - looks like they didn't speak to an economist at any stage of writing this
- Education - 3 paragraphs of nothing - No policy to comment on
- Agriculture - Quality before quantity and self-sufficiency instead of competing globally - Doesn't sound economically viable
(, Mon 18 May 2009, 22:10, Reply)