Can Anybody Find Any Significant Difference Between May’s Policies and the British National Party Manifesto of 2005? 90

I was struck by how entirely similar Theresa May’s discourse is to that of the British National Party candidate I fought in Blackburn in 2005. That led me to turn to the BNP 2005 Manifesto, and I can see little significant difference between it and current Tory policy.

The British National Party in 2005 advocated:

– Severe cuts in immigration
– Leaving the EU
– Bringing back grammar schools
– Increased military spending
– More “security” and “strong leadership”
– Foreign policy driven by “British national interest” not human rights
– Reduce development aid

Indeed, the few differences I can find between the BNP 2005 manifesto and the current Tory platform are in areas like the NHS, where the Tories are more right wing than the BNP were.

Thankfully it was still considered by most people socially beyond the pale to support the BNP in 2005. Today the media portray anyone perceptibly to the left of those positions as mad. Society has changed markedly – and not for the better.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

90 thoughts on “Can Anybody Find Any Significant Difference Between May’s Policies and the British National Party Manifesto of 2005?

1 2
  • Dave

    WWI caused a social revolution and many aristocrats became front line socialists. This happened to Sir Oswald Mosley who became a Labour Minster, but resigned due to a lack of state action to reduce unemployment and formed the New Party, before forming the British Union of Fascists after a visit to Italy.

    Fascism (Catholic Socialism), never progressed in UK, outside Catholic areas, as being too European/foreign, but was attacked by the Communists (Jewish Socialism) for being too British. Instead UK got One Nation Conservative Socialism (Protestant Socialism) that promoted public works and tariff protection called Imperial trade preference! A tradition that May, at least in speech, is trying to resurrect with the help of her Joseph Chamberlain admirer, Nick Timothy.

  • .Roy Stevenson

    Well, 1 and 2
    This was what the electorate democratically voted for. The then leader of the conservatives was against it. So was Mrs. May. She’s now doing what was voted for.
    Military spending had been cut by both parties for years. We now have carriers in mothballs and without ‘planes, poor kit for our troops, regiments axed et cetera. Unless you’re talking about replacing Trident which has been around for so long it’s hardly a deterrent any more. Have you tried using a computer system thats 20 or 30 years old. That’s the sort of kit the submarines have.
    More security – please yourself. We have a guerilla threat from radicalists that needs to be addressed. Does it hark back to unlimited immigration – look at the problems the French, Germans, and Swedes are having with terrorists
    Strong leadership – now that we’re on our way out of the E U , we need democratically elected strong leadership to get us a good deal. Can you imagine, say, a John Major in the front row of negotiations ?
    Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that you’d want us to invade a country because it had a poor human rights record? China for instance? Or are we better off using a trading partnership with them to try to bring change? Why did Mrs Thatcher – a really strong leader – go to the Falklands? Was it just ‘British Interests’ for any oil that might be kicking about there? Or might not be. Or was it to help defend our people from the Argentinians? Surely that comes under ‘human rights’ ? Mrs. May would, I hope, defend us similarly. Surely that’s the first priority of any government?
    She’s promised to keep overseas aid the same , at 0.7 %., although many people, of all political persuasions, are opposed to helping 3rd world countries get their acts together. There’s a good element of ‘human rights’ too, in the monies we give them. Mrs. May is right, though, when she says it must be targeted more effectively.
    Apart from grammar schools, – which could easily have a good case to defend – you don’t really have a case at all.. Why not just come out and shout, ‘get rid of the Tory bitch’ because yshe’s conservative and a woman – and say you’d rather have a far left man of high principal, but too weak to pull the party together, and who is dependent on the momentum of the unions to get him possibly elected. Will you turn on him if Labour get thrashed in June? Principles not power is the ethos of permanent opposition

  • nevermind

    all those who have cheated at the last elections, whichever party should be banned from standing again. Every marginal constituency should be under international observation as our very own party political electoral Commission is unable to do the job, unwilling, off the ball, not that interested.

    I’m sure the OSCE could help us find our cheating party politicians and point them out to the EC and the police, which is not really interested in electoral fraud either, well they weren’t in 2010, when they were asked to monitor the Blackburn shenanigans.

  • nevermind

    A little list of what they could do to stop our cheats repeating what they did at the last GE.

    Advising election commissions;
    Application of international standards and good practices;
    Improvement of electoral administration;
    Technical reviews of elections;
    Reform of electoral codes;
    Consultations among stakeholders of the voting process;
    Training, performance reviews and evaluations;
    Supporting and engaging with international networks;
    Strengthening the participation of women in elections;
    Awareness-raising campaigns on voter rights and electoral procedures;
    Supporting NGOs observing local and national polls; and
    Establishing voter lists.

  • Sharp Ears

    Lovely stuff from the Wee Ginger Dug as he snaps at the heels of Our Dear Leader.

    The Prime Ministerial Parrot
    April 29th 2017

    The Prime Ministerial Parrot visited Aberdeenshire on Saturday to squawk a few sound bites at some business where the employees were instructed to stand in silence, then repeated them before an invited audience of Tories who clapped like trained seals. Strong and stable! Coalition of Chaos! Precious Union! Now is not the time! Theresa wants a cracker! Then the entire charade will be reported in the press as though the Prime Ministerial Parrot had made an intervention in Scotland and had bravely dared to take her squawks, sorry, message, into the SNP’s heartland. At no point in the process will she be confronted by any Scottish person who might dare to say to her, “No Theresa, ye cannae get a cracker.”

    Theresa May represents the final apotheosis of the trend that was begun by Margaret Thatcher in the 80s, when the Tories’ other female leader started the transformation of the office of Prime Minister into that of an elected dictator. A dictator moreover, who was elected on a deeply unrepresentative electoral system. The trend was strengthened under Tony Blair with his sofa government, in which all power was concentrated into the hands of Tony and a small group of his associates. The most notable power struggle throughout the Blair years being that between Blair and his former ally Gordie Broon. Under what passes for a constitution in the UK there were never any real checks and balances against the concentration of power in the office of the Prime Minister, and throughout the last few decades successive PMs have taken full advantage of that fact. Parliament has been reduced to process of rubber stamping by a mass of minions. The supposedly collegiate cabinet in which the PM was once merely the first amongst equals has transformed into a yadda-yadda of yespersons. Whatever a PM with a majority wants, a PM with a majority gets.


1 2

Comments are closed.