Metropol

Sput wrote:

GNiel wrote:

Sput wrote:I don't know how we've managed, but in you we seem to have found someone with even less of a clue about politics than James!

I got a 1st class honours in politics back in 1988, and I am now doing a phd.

Fair enough, I do specialise in German politics, but I think I have a bit of a clue as far as british politics goes!

I think the right honourable Nick Harvey has a good point, what the BNP/NF used to stand for and stand for now are two different things.

Then again I would sooner have shot myself than vote for foot or kinnock, and I would sooner shoot myself than vote for new labour... so perhaps it makes no difference! :roll:

I presume your thesis will be on the comic value of extremist leaders?

Close.

It is actually on whether the 1993 reforms of the Italian electoral system had an impact on partitocrazia, and to what extent this impact transformed Italian politics.

It doesn't negate the fact that your post the other day is clueless though! I'm sure we both know enough about academia to realise that a PhD is the art of knowing a great deal about very little.

Sput wrote:It doesn't negate the fact that your post the other day is clueless though! I'm sure we both know enough about academia to realise that a PhD is the art of knowing a great deal about very little.

Explain how my post was clueless?

I do agree with you about the phd thing though!

I think it's clueless because it's reactionary "they wouldn't stand for this" which betrays any serious forethought about the consequences of such a stance and implies that Nick Griffin in charge of the UK wouldn't be a pretty dire situation.

Jamez wrote:

Johnny wrote:...Labour haven't effected me badly...

Sorry to pull you up over this, but the word is AFFECTED.

No worries Jamez my grammar is crap, East End gene unfotunately. Soon I'll be replacing "my" with "me" and dropping "H's" all over the place

all new Phil wrote:So to summarise - are you going to vote for them or not?

Hmm, let me think about that!

Nick Harvey wrote:To ever find a party where you agree with every one of their policies, one hundred percent, would be extremely unlikely.

You, therefore, vote for the party which has more policies you agree with than the others; and the fewest of those you totally disagree with.

I agree, the real shame is that parties so often compromise on policies to get a sly dig into another party or even for less honourable reasons...

Nick Harvey wrote:The fact is that, with my naturally right wing views, the BNP are coming up with more and more policies that I agree with and less and less that I disagree with.

Ah, you see - this is what I find interesting. Lots of people say that their policies are moving in the right direction but which ones. I'm not so arrogant as to believe that i'm unequivocally right and everyone else is wrong but what is actually appealing about their policies/direction?

I really don't want to turn this into a BNP race discussion (frankly i'm much more interested in lambasting their economic policies) but they do claim that there would be voluntary repatriation... voluntary... they also want to give preference to "native britons" (who they define as Anglo-Saxon) preference in the labour market (rather than British Citizens), return land and labour to British ownership (although they do omit native from this)... not really very voluntary if you can't get a job or own a house (although I accept that is a little leap).

Sput wrote:I think it's clueless because it's reactionary "they wouldn't stand for this" which betrays any serious forethought about the consequences of such a stance and implies that Nick Griffin in charge of the UK wouldn't be a pretty dire situation.

The hilarity of the totally hypothetical situation, that has almost no chance of happening under the FPP system is provided by the fact that a pure and simple racist would actually be a much, much better Prime Minister than the current Prime Minister.

Mich wrote:..."native britons" (who they define as Anglo-Saxon)...

That's the thing though, isn't it? We're all "bloody foreigners" somewhere along the line - the term 'Anglo-Saxon' can't be used to describe 'native Britons' since neither the Angles or the Saxons were indigenous tribes of the British Isles, and they colonised most of England, not Britain as a whole. They weren't even here 'first'.

Katnap wrote:That's the thing though, isn't it? We're all "bloody foreigners" somewhere along the line - the term 'Anglo-Saxon' can't be used to describe 'native Britons' since neither the Angles or the Saxons were indigenous tribes of the British Isles, and they colonised most of England, not Britain as a whole. They weren't even here 'first'.

You are quite correct of course Katnap. But then again it's very difficult to say "who was first" anywhere.

In terms of the British Isles (including the whole island of Ireland) then from 5000BC onwards:
I believe the first "English" were Celts, which are now confined largely to Cornwall, Republic of Ireland and Wales.
Scotland (Alban as was) was populated by immigrants from Ireland prior to 900AD, forcing the indigenous Celts out. Ireland was in turn populated by Scandinavian Vikings.
Northern Ireland was largely populated by immigrants from protestant Scotland (but that is more recent - ie 500 years ago).

None of us are really indigenous in terms of race, which makes the whole issue somewhat pedantic. You are basically who you are, your home is where you make it, which is not necessarily where you were born.

We should actually welcome and celebrate the fact that as a species we have been successful in creating such a diversity and genetic mix unsurpassed by any other intelligent creature on the planet.

I think people often confuse the comments of those who wish to protect the established rights and benefits of those who have worked and paid for them in any sovereign state, with a racist agenda to exclude individuals who do not have the same rights by virtue of inidgenous birth.

Katnap wrote:

Mich wrote:..."native britons" (who they define as Anglo-Saxon)...

That's the thing though, isn't it? We're all "bloody foreigners" somewhere along the line - the term 'Anglo-Saxon' can't be used to describe 'native Britons' since neither the Angles or the Saxons were indigenous tribes of the British Isles, and they colonised most of England, not Britain as a whole. They weren't even here 'first'.

Well i suppose the fact my bloodline is as follows. Alot of English and alot of welsh mixed with a bit of Oirish and a bit of Russian and a dash of Scots makes me a foreigner. I always knew i was a genetic outcast. No wonder some of my relatives fled to Australia yonks ago.

miss hellfire wrote:Well i suppose the fact my bloodline is as follows. Alot of English and alot of welsh mixed with a bit of Oirish and a bit of Russian and a dash of Scots makes me a foreigner. I always knew i was a genetic outcast. No wonder some of my relatives fled to Australia yonks ago.

Indeed mine alot of English, but French influence in Norfolk, then moved to Derbyshire c1300s, where we stayed then some went to Ireland, others to Oz (prob did something wrong), we got our coat of arms, so can't be that bad!