[UK] Yet ANOTHER far-right party launches in the UK

Post Reply New Topic

Bloody hell, how many has that been over the years?

Let me count:

Since 1945 alone we've had:

• British Democratic Party (1979-1982)
• British Empire Party
• British Freedom Party
• British National Party (1960s)
• British National Party (present)
• British People's Party
• England First Party
• Freedom Party
• National Democratic Party
• National Democrats
• National Front
• National Independence Party
• National Labour Party
• National Party
• National Socialist Action Party
• Nationalist Alliance
• Nationalist Party
• New Britain Party
• November 9th Society/British First Party
• Official National Front
• Patriotic Party
• White Defence League
• White Nationalist Party

And that's without all the other organisations that haven't gotten themselves involved in electoral politics.

I don't troll far-right webpages (I found this on Digital Spy) but I thought it would be good for a laugh.


I mean, do these people ever really give up? Andrew Brons is a current MEP, who resigned from the BNP after feeling completely overshadowed and alienated by Nick Griffin's obsessive personality cult-style leadership of the party. He's a more convincing speaker than Griffin is but he's a nasty piece of work. I suspect that Brons will lose his seat next time so he won't have anything to lose by allying himself with policies he actually believes in - like Holocaust denial and the like.

This People's Front of Judea-type stuff seems to be a big of a problem - if not worse - on the far-left too.

Still, as long as the far-left and the racists are divided and split amongst themselves, the better it is for all of us.

its a good thing that UKIP are helping to divide both the centre right and far right vote, too.

In fact the 'moderate' right have their own share of in-sectarianism as well. Didn't Kilroy Silk break from UKIP to form the 'Veritas' Party? What a joke that was. Still, it is healthy for social justice for the toffs to undermine themselves. Bring on more of them I say.

It's not really like that. Not all UKIP voters are right-wingers, and the Conservative Party has ceased to listen to many of its own rank-and-file. (A number of former Labour voters, especially in places like Rotherham, Hartlepool and other forgotten industrial towns, have deserted Labour for UKIP. So UKIP isn't simply a Tory Party pressure group.)



That's because Kilroy was under the delusion that he was gifted the leadership of UKIP as of right, rather than having to go through a leadership contest like everyone else. And who can forget that speech he made (replete with violent hand gestures) where he said he wanted to 'kill' the Conservative Party?

And Kilroy himself was hardly a toff. One thing that I have noticed with all the UKIP people that I've actually met is that very few of them are upper middle class types (in fact, I looked aghast at my local count when I saw all the posh Tory pretty boys out in force, the wankers). Having Malcolm Pearson - as well-meaning as he was - was a mistake though. He gave the air of being very upper class and out of touch with the average UKIP voter.



Or, rather, it's because of the fact that the Conservatives have disregarded their own voters that UKIP has been gathering steam. What is this left-wing obsession with branding all right-wingers 'toffs'? Their representatives might be like that but their voters certainly aren't.

You might say the same if Labour had completely alienated a sizeable section of their voters and a left-wing party based on a very important issue to Labour voters was allowed to gain steam. We're not talking about the far-left for example - imagine a party founded on the principle of defending the NHS, for instance.

A significant number of people from working class estates don't identify with specific parts of the left-right strata so UKIP have been able to win their votes through the same opportunist politiking as the tories and the BNP by concentrating on inter-class issues such as appeals to nationalism and playing on fears regarding immigration, whether valid or not. When it comes to real bread and butter issues like austerity and access to public services though, none of them really have a leg to stand on.

Its of coiincidence that the BNP are also able to appeal to people from various social backgrounds through the same means and that BNP deserters from their moderate wing have flocked to parties like UKIP in droves.

Probably like the EDL, started by a hidden third party in order to water down the vote so there will never be a danger of a Nationalist party gaining any power.

If there was only one Right wing party, all the right wingers would vote for it and they might actually get a seat!

Luckilly they aren't that organised.

Most British neo fascists are less blackshirts and more slapheads in England tops arguing over who is going to get the next round in. They don't have the gumption or political articulation to be serious contenders.

That is one of the disadvantages of proportional representation (or single transferable vote) systems.

The first past the post system filters out the less popular parties (but discriminates against medium-popularity parties).

I don't see what's so terrible about any of that. Isn't the bold more or less what you support?

A complete halt to all immigration would be disastrous. Not only because the UK needs the inward flight of foreign skills but also because it serves to divide families.

The market will take care of that. If there is a dearth of computer programmers in the UK, salaries will rise for that occupation and attract indigenous talent. No one is forced to live in the UK. Divided families can always go back where they came from. If not, their relatives can visit them in the UK.

I'm not calling for a complete halt to immigration, but there is no reason why entire families of people should be let into the UK just because some members of their family are already here. It's not our fault that they decided to move to the UK. If you take that attitude, you might as well invite the entire world here. Everyone is family to someone.



No - I don't support the bit about a complete halt to immigration. I support a moratorium on it and tighter controls on it (and greater use of work permits), but not a complete end to it. I support leaving the EU, but I also support a continued close relationship with European countries.

I don't seriously trust the party when they say that they will let legal immigrants remain in the UK without fear or hindrance due to the nature of the people involved in the party and their histories. Brons has been in parties that want to kick out non-white people their whole lives (whether 'voluntarily' or with force) so I'm not about to trust a party that he helped set up now.

The comments box on the site seems to be replete with the usual racists and anti-gay people.

I'm sorry, but this new party isn't credible. It's filled from top to bottom with veteran racists, Holocaust deniers and other types. I don't think the BDP will last long.

The Swiss political landscape is very busy for a country of its size (and there are several right-wing parties), but the SVP is much like that. All those people worried about immigration and law and order generally vote for those guys. They're a civic nationalist party too. There are, I'm told, some racists in the party (one or two poster campaigns that local parties have produced probably didn't go down well with the national party) but they are kept on a tight leash and if they make a public nuisance of themselves they are kicked out. It's worth noting that although 'populist' right-wing politics is very popular in Switzerland, there is almost no demand at all for far-right parties. People in CH simply aren't interested in National Front style idiots.

Perhaps that would be considered better than simply having a bland centre-right party that didn't listen to everyone and everyone else being either ignored or in an ethnic nationalist party?

There simply aren't enough people who will vote for that kind of party at the moment anyway.

And the EDL wasn't (and isn't) a political party. The British Freedom Party is the EDL's political arm. It's going nowhere.

If I may say so, these guys are not far-right wing. They would be far-left wing, in my opinion. The idea that fascists are right-wing is a fundementally flawed idea, that fails to recognize the totalitarian-freedom divide of the political spectrum. Maybe I'm just looking at it like an American, but far-right would be Libertarianism, not racism. The further left one goes, one finds control (what this party advocated), and the further right one goes, one finds more freedom (i.e. Voluntaryism, anarcho-capitalism, etc.). At least, that's how I view it.

I think you need to take each case on its merits. What would you do about instances where the person immigrating is fleeing ethnic, homophobic or political persecution or a warzone? What if its on medical grounds and only have family in the UK or other compassionate grounds? For example, my mother in law was denied entry despite the fact that she was a landowner with good credit and the funds to support herself that wanted to spend her twilight years with her grandchildren. Sadly she died before she had a chance to meet them. In my view at least there was no valid reason not to grant her a visa.




Right wing does not equal freedom. Freedom is a loaded concept with different interpretations, depending on what side of the spectrum you are sitting on.

Left wingers see freedom in greater government protection against co-ercion and exploitation from the private sector. In many cases, big business is more adept at removing and undermining freedoms through wage slavery and barring of union assocation rights than the government are. You cant therefore say left wing does not equal freedom. Also racism is an exclusively anti-marxist, right wing phenomenon. If anarcho capitalism became a reality you would eventually see wages dropping to near slavery levels. This is what happens in economies where there are no government enforcement to protect the living standards of the least well off. Trickledown economics are a nonsense, wealth does not move downwards, it gravitates near the top. The rich are rich because they hoard wealth.

If you want to see hands off government in action, go to one of the private enterprise compounds in china where companies are having to install nets around the building perimeter to stop workers throwing themselves off the top floor.

I think you're both wrong here.

The "left-right" axis is misleading. We could better represent political alignment in a 2D plane, with one scale representing "liberty" and one representing "capitalism", "corporatism" or similar.

Françoise Hollande is a socialist, libertarian (in the classic sense of the word) politician.
Ron Paul is a capitalist, libertarian politician.
Josef Stalin was a socialist, totalitarian politician.
Benito Mussolini was a capitalist, totalitarian politician.

Here is a diagram to help display what I mean: http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/ ... lchart.png