Tag Archives: BNP

Noelinho.org Electoral Endorsement: It’s Time For Change

It dawned on me this morning that this week is election week. Yes, I hadn’t really twigged until now that we are forty-eight hours away from the closing of polls in an election race that, if you read everything that’s been written in the media, is too close to call, the three party election, whatever nonsense they feel like writing (I say this – it’s blatantly obvious the Conservative Party will win, with comfortably the most seats, and with a tiny majority, I predict).

Anyway, the point is, there are the three main parties – Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – and the sideshow parties – the SNP, the BNP, UKIP and the Greens. So, as the election draws, who will Noelinho.org endorse? You’re about to find out. So, here is, in brief, a quick run-down of the minor parties:

  • SNP: Nationalists. Don’t like that. Alex Salmond / Nicola Sturgeon – don’t like them either. Their education policy in Scotland has been a disaster. Although they do want to get rid of Trident, which I fully agree with. Unless I can have the red button, and then it’s a different story…
  • BNP: Err…Nick Griffin? Oh, ok, I’ll give a better opinion. I’m not a Nazi, I don’t deny the Holocaust, I quite like Jewish people and I don’t have much of an issue with black people either. I’m not really sure what their policies are apart from deporting people they don’t like, but I doubt I would fit their idea of an Aryan anyway…
  • UKIP: I quite like their policy of getting out of Europe – I can’t stand the European Union. Having said that, it’s about the only thing I agree on, and they’ve not been purer than pure in the Europeam Parliament either…(although did you see the berating of a poor, war-wounded Belgian Prime Minister? That was good!)
  • Greens: Statist, authoritarian eco-chumps. No thanks. On yer bike, preferably off the cliff.

Oh well, that’s four parties down, so we’re half way through! So, the major parties, in a little more depth:

  • Labour: Leader isn’t wonderful, but probably the best of the three main party leaders. Like him or not, he does carry gravitas, especially in the international community, and he definitely has a better grasp of what he wants to achieve and how to achieve it – whether you agree with that plan or not. On the other side of the coin, he is volatile and comes across as detached from the people. Labour’s team, as a whole, is the most impressive. They have done a lot through the tax credits system to try and redistribute wealth and have invested heavily in the NHS with fantastic results. Yet, at the same time, civil liberties have been slowly eroded, power has seeped to the European Union and equalities legislation has turned almost into creating thought crime.
  • Conservatives: Would you trust a front bench of Cameron, Fox, Osbourne and Eric Pickles? Me neither. I wouldn’t trust Pickles with a pie, let alone the country. The party also wants to encourage / reward / bribe people into marriage. Not with my money, thanks. Whatever they like to say, they are authoritarian. They want to renew Trident, wasting more money, and like to tell us at every opportunity that Britain is wrecked / burnt to a crisp / broken / about to be swallowed up into middle Earth unless we vote for Dave and Dave only. I’d rather take the risk. Oh yeah, and “hug a hoodie”?
  • Liberal Democrats: Ah, led by the petulant schoolboy. How many Liberal Democrats would have any clue how to govern? Two, perhaps? I’m counting Charles Kennedy and Chris Huhne, if you’re wondering… See, I thought Liberal Democrats were meant to be Liberal in ideology, but apparently they aren’t. They have thrown their own weight behind thought crime legislation too. All rather illiberal. Still, they are against Trident, but they seem to want to spend the budget twice over. They do want to raise the Personal Tax Allowance to £10,000 though, which would be a great move. Aside from this, they have little to offer, other than amusement when their volunteers get arrested for breaking the law, or for when Nick Clegg says he’ll be Primer Minister, or that the Liberal Democrats will hold the balance of power. They won’t.

So, the moment you’ve all been waiting for…who is Noelinho.org endorsing in this election? Well, after much consideration, angst and heated debate amongst the editorial team (with a few others chipping in), we (I) have decided that it is indeed time for change. Radical change. Change that puts a real smile on your face – and there’s only one party than can do that. The Monster Raving Loony William Hill Party. Why? Here are the policies that did it for me:

  • It is proposed that The European Union end its discrimination by creating a “Court of Human Lefts” because their present policy is one- sided – that got the left-handed vote!
  • Make it illegal for super heroes to use their powers for evil (sensible, no?);
  • Ban tractors from driving on roads, they can drive across their fields (why has no-one ever done this?);
  • Sell shares in Northen rock, buy shares in Blackpool rock – it must be worth more!
  • The Loch Ness Monster should be added to the endangered species list;
  • Everyone in England should buy one hundred square meters (or be subsidized to do so) of France. The English would then own France, saving a lot of arguments, and winning us another UN veto… After owning France, It is proposed that we should rent it back to the French.

My support is not total, for there are some less well-thought policies, such as:

  • It is proposed that the Isle of Man be renamed to “The Isle of Men, Women, Children and some Animals” as not just men live there (equalities legislation gone too far);
  • The Isle of Wight should be changed to: “The Isle of Mixed Races, and Cultures Located off the Coast of Britain” (for the same reason);
  • Government Whips will only be used if a politician has been really bad. Minor offences should receive the political slipper (Parliament is already in enough disrepute);
  • Cricket will be made more interesting by eliminating the use of padding. (and possibly cricket bats) – err, leave my sport alone!

Still, these minor quibbles aside, Noelinho.org does believe that The Monster Raving Loony William Hill Party does present the best vision for Britain.

Unfortunately, they are only standing in twenty-seven seats, though it could be twenty-eight next time around…

Why The BBC’s BNP Policy Is The Right One

The BBC have, understandably, caused quite a stir in the past few days with their announcement that the BNP may be invited to field a guest on Question Time.

The controversy is between those people who take the view that the BNP should not be allowed a voice and those who believe they should. Funnily enough, both arguments are (apparently) arguments built up from the principle of free speech.

On the one hand, you have the people who argue that whilst the BNP is – as some would put it – a scar on our country’s liberal ideals, they should not be denied a platform to speak, but instead should be encouraged to share the same platform as the mainstream parties and defeated by reason as their policies are exposed and unravelled.

On the other hand, there are those who argue that the BNP is a revolting party and so shouldn’t be given the light of day.

I have to say, I have never agreed with the latter argument – although I admit am in the minority when it comes to those on my side of the political spectrum – why does that not surprise me?  I am no fan of the BNP, let’s be clear about that. I don’t agree with very much of their policy platform. Their approach to immigration goes against the entire history of the British Isles and immigration. However, the BNP is not a banned party, they have been democratically elected and thus constitute a legitimate political voice, and, like it or not, they should be represented as such.

It really is as simple as that, no matter how deeply and personally uncomfortable that is. Yes, they may not allow people who are not “ethnically British” to join their party, and that may rest uncomfortably with people, but as it stands, such a policy is not against the law. Furthermore, no matter how much I dislike that policy, it should not be outlawed either, for that would set a dangerous precedent; for we allow black-only membership or certain organisations, we allow women-only membership of others and we allow trade-only membership of yet more. If you say that is is not acceptable to have white-only membership of a particular organisation, then where do you draw the boundaries? What do you do with the National Black Police Association? Are they racist? No-one would call that unfair. What do you do with the Women’s Institute? Is that sexist, and therefore unacceptable? Few would seriously argue that. Should churches allow non-Christians as members? It defeats the point of such an organisation or community!

I can imagine the counter-argument – these are minority organisations. However, that in itself is not a legitimate reason to disallow an organisation. All organisations have a purpose. All groups, whether we agree with them or not, have their own aims. Quite often, completely open membership is not appropriate. With community organisations, we do not have a problem with requirements for membership.

So, the question is, should it be any different for political entities? I can see that many would argue that it should – after all elected politicians are there to represent the people – and that is a fair point.

I, however, do not agree that it should be any different. Labour MP’s have to represent Conservative-voting constituents, and they manage to represent those people even though they will not always agree with their constituents. But, as a representative, you don’t need to. Your legitimacy does not derive from agreeing with everyone, but from the fact that of all the candidates who stood, you won the most votes. At this point, you have more legitimacy than any of the other candidates. That is the nature of our voting system.

That, as far as I am concerned, is a true “progressive” view. I can disagree, but still allow. I can put faith in the people to decide for themselves. I have faith in the ability of people to make up their own minds, faith in the victory of sound reasoning. Thus, as long as political entities work within the constraints of the law as it stands, they should be allowed the right to be heard on an equal platform to others. For anything that is legal under the law should be treated in other instances in the law as value-neutral. Whatever we think. Thus, when the BBC is committed to unbiased coverage, then the BNP should, as a legitimately elected party, be entitled to their moment in the spotlight to be scrutinised.

Let them have it. Let them lay their platform down. Then see how long they last.