Forum menu
God is this thread still bleating on about the BNP?
If you like a good Balti you cant vote BNP - Simples!
God is this thread still bleating on about the BNP?
Well since the title of the thread is : "Voting BNP.....?" it's really hardly surprising, is it ?
No its not really - fairly rotten subject, and one that may need raising, but I have more faith in the British public to behave with some dignity when it actually comes to the Poll day. Vote for the crooks not the Nazis! 😉
Vote for the crooks not the Nazis!
lol .... you pinched that slogan from the French presidential election of 2002 didn't you ?
Well it worked in 2002 when the French flocked to the polls to give a dodgy crook 82.21% of the vote.
Obviously a dodgy crook is always more desirable than a nasty racist scumbag 8)
Remember once in the voting booth you can vote for who you like, even the party you can't own up to supporting. So vote mass murder vote Labour and lets kill a few hundred more muslims. BNP are going to have to get lessons from Blair and Brown on killing people.
Regardless of who the people are coming into the country we need to face facts that's there is too many of us. A population of 54 million when I was a kid has now swollen to a jaw dropping 70 million. Is this really sustainable growth? I've no problems with anyone as long as they come here and simply fit in.
On the subject of BNP - I think people seem to forget we fought a war against Nazis thugs.
A population of 54 million when I was a kid has now swollen to a jaw dropping 70 million
Gosh ....... you were born a long time ago and you now live in the future !
You are Doctor Who and I claim my five pounds.
will labour get back in.....
Ask the Doctor ton.
Also ask him if I ever manage to do the Wall of Death in Woldingham.
....... and what bike I use.
A hell of a lot of people I have spoken to and not prompted have told me they are voting BNP so it seems people are fed up with the mass immigration we have seen over the last few years and also the rise of the Islamic faith in the country. So for me you cant blame the BNP, if immigration was kept in check and Islam wasnt continually in the news people wouldnt vote for them. I'm from Leicester, we have one of the biggest Indian populations in the country and the funny thing is they have been moaning about all the Polish and Somalians coming in so something really must be wrong!
Its a crazy old world!
So who you voting for Oxboy ?
Thanks ernie
O.K. 1970 U.K. population (yes I'm that old) 55million
Mid 2007 population 61.410 million
The issue still remains there is too many of us taking up too much space - its called over population. 70 million quoted will not be reached until around 2025 barely 16 years from now. So knock yourself out - build more, hospitals, create more infrastructure - it's still unsustainable population growth.
Me? Conservatives are a safe bet in my neck of the woods so I may throw a curve ball, not decided 100%. Although I'm sure you have drawn your own conclusions about my vote!
And where will your vote go Ernie?
too many of us taking up too much space
What do you think of that ton ?
Are you saying ton is on the large side ernie? 😆
So why were you urging STW users to vote BNP or UKIP Oxboy ?
Change your mind ?
See ....... STW forum works !
not saying anything slapper....
So over-population can be sorted by cutting down on the pies?! And here's me worrying over how to cram everyone in! 🙄
hang on Ernie I havent had my beer quota yet my 'swingometer' may change within the hour!!!
😆
lol .... you pinched that slogan from the French presidential election of 2002 didn't you ?
Yes - I confess, Ian Hislop has the credit for that!
Why wouldnt you vote BNP after hearing this,
'Labour Party MP Shahid Malik has predicted the total Islamification of Britain and a Muslim prime minister, “Allah willing”, within the next thirty years.'
and after reading this:
http://bnp.org.uk/tag/islamification-of-britain/
Scaremongering? I think not, just because the media doesnt report it it doesnt mean its not happening!
You lot go on about being disgusted at the BNP being Racists etc, I'm disgusted at the state of our Country our MP's and the massive influx of immigrants and the drain on our taxes. Were we asked if this was ok? No they just did it and made a law if you didnt like it and spoke out you are inciting racial hatred and could go to jail. I've said it before if the BNP rises in poularity they only have themselves to blaim and anyway whats the worse that can happen???
It's interesting reading about the BNP, being in Aus.
I think there's been a disconnect with being patriotic (as folk over here are) and having an issue with skin colour (as folk over here haven't).
The former can be a good thing, national pride and all that.
But to link into someone with cultural differences, even if they've lived in the UK for generations is utter shiat.
I think that the BNP has ended up being a dumping ground for anyone who needs to prey on people different from themselves. Not worth talking about and certainly not worth voting for...
and having an issue with skin colour (as folk over here haven't).
What really!
There were no Aborginies left on the island of Tazmania the Ozzies killed the lot - the treatment of those native people by the Australians today is still an utter disgrace - massive social divide! you need to dig around a bit on you local history mate.
oxboy you are a paranoid fantasist, obviously naive enough to believe the rubbish pumped out by the bnp
what exactly is wrong with immigrants?
they work in your hospitals, bars and farms doing the crappy labour intensive jobs that your average bnp voter would never do for minimum wage or below, their taxes are propping up the welfare state of our ageing population
the sadest part of you beliefs is that you have no concept of your own history, your ancestors were immigrants, whether they were norman,viking, roman, saxon, celt etc etc go back far enough and youll find that they originally came from the rift valley in ethiopia
Oxboy - I just don't know where to start after your last post.
Virtually all of us are descended from immigrants. they are not swamping the country, they are not a drain on our taxes. All facts
The BNP are closely involved in inciting racial hatred, holocaust denial. Are allied to various unspeakable racists and are a very nasty bunch of fascist thugs
fiddlesticks - double post
The only problems with immigrants is the sheer number, this little island cant take it.
rich
are you not aware that as we have stopped having so many children that our welfare state will collapse, without inviting immigrants in at a working age
the island is plenty big enough, you just have to learn to share, its a basic human concept we learn as children
fiddlesticks - double post
Because the original didn't show up (as it was the first post on a new page and there was no link to the new page)? If so, I'm glad I'm not the only one getting that - was told I was imagining it when I commented!
kimbers - no dis mate but that's just tosh. With population growth at current levels we resemble a plague of locusts as opposed to a model for future sustainability....
aracer - Member> fiddlesticks - double post
Because the original didn't show up (as it was the first post on a new page and there was no link to the new page)? If so, I'm glad I'm not the only one getting that - was told I was imagining it when I commented!
Yep - seen that one too.
Aracer - thats exactly what happened
Kimbers is correct in that we need the immigrant workers to sustain our economy as we do not have enough workers of our own
Tnakslapper is also right but restricting immigration would mean no retirement for folk or shooting everyone over the age of 70.
A sustainable population of these islands would be far lower than is current
Population density of England 392 per sq km (according to Wiki) - that's quite a lot.
France is 110
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density ]Pop density[/url]
When the immigrants who have looked after us in our decrepitude are old - what then - more immigrants to look after them. Is that the future a never ending population spiral to look after us as we're "rich"?
What is the population density of the low countries?
Sorry can't be arsed to read the whole thing but has anyone posted this yet?
Much of the BNP's recent success has been down to its ability to shake off the patina of far-right extremism that has alienated most voters since its inception. But this month the veneer slipped when it emerged that a Salford-based BNP candidate in the European elections had set his Facebook status to read "Wogs go home". Eddy O'Sullivan, 49, wrote: "They are nice people - oh yeah - but can they not be nice people in the ****ing Congo or... bongo land or whatever?" O'Sullivan, who also joined an internet group called "**** Islam"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/31/bnp-european-elections-facebook-expose
Tnakslapper is also right but restricting immigration would mean no retirement for folk or shooting everyone over the age of 70.
An interesting question though - given increasing longevity, is it sustainable to have retirement age set such that 50% of population (the supposed target for those going to university) work for less than half their lives?
What is the population density of the low countries?
395
All foreigners should go home!
That's:
Celts
Saxons
Franks
Angles
French
Irish
etc
etc
Would that just leave the Picts or are they foreign too? 😉
[i]When the immigrants who have looked after us in our decrepitude are old - what then - more immigrants to look after them. Is that the future a never ending population spiral to look after us as we're "rich"? [/i]
yep it is, do you have a better suggestion?
[i]yep it is, do you have a better suggestion? [/i]
Yes, a sustainable population with the same numbers entering and leaving. 😉
yep it is, do you have a better suggestion
Yup, managed population decline.
I think "Make Room! Make Room!" warped me when I read it as a teen
tj/tankslapper what is a sustainable population?
how many millions of people would you have to forcibly eject to reach sutainability?
or alternatively we could just raise taxes massively build all the power stations we need and all become vegetarian (this require 7 times less land than being a meat eater)
we could all live in a perfect unchanging world our gene pool becoming ever shallower, everyone could have the mandatory 2 children per couple (infertile parents would have to be ejected too) and we could get back to our cultural roots, morris dancing anyone?
[i]how many millions of people would you have to forcibly eject to reach sutainability?[/i]
None - this would be a long term exercise in population remodelling - here is what Jonathan Porrit has to say on the matter (BTW I'm not his biggest supporter)
[i]So let’s just start all over again – here’s the logic, in 12 easy steps.
1. The more human beings there are on the planet, the bigger our collective impact. There were about 3 billion of us in 1950, and there will be about 9 billion by 2050 – if we just carry on as usual. That’s an extra 6 billion in 100 years!
2. Our impact is felt in many different ways – in terms of soil erosion, over-fishing, deforestation, water shortages, loss of species and habitats, and so on. Most particularly, it’s felt in terms of the rising emissions of C02 and other greenhouse gases that we’re putting into the atmosphere, with the prospect of horrendous consequences by the end of the century if we can’t turn this around.
3. Each individual is responsible for their own carbon footprint. Here in the UK, it’s about 12 tonnes per person per annum. In China, it’s about 4 tonnes per person per annum. It soon mounts up. Were it not for China’s ‘one child family’ policy (which is certainly very controversial), there would be as many as 400 million additional Chinese alive today – with a combined annual carbon footprint of around 1.6 billion tonnes of C02!
4. Population and environmental impact are therefore inextricably intertwined. New technology (around energy efficiency and renewables) can do a lot to help reduce that impact. But at the moment, the efficiency gains it gives us are not even keeping up with the combined increase in human numbers and economic growth.
5. Here in the UK, we have adopted some extremely ambitious targets to reduce emissions of C02 and other greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050. On a per capita basis, that means going from around 12 tonnes per person per annum today to around 2.5 tonnes per person per annum by 2050 – if our population remains the same in 2050.
6. But it’s not going to! Current projections indicate that our population is going to grow from 61 million today to 77 million by 2050. Logically, that means there’s a lot less C02 to go round (in terms of our per capita allocation), making it all the harder to achieve that 80% target. (A target, incidentally, which many scientists now see as the absolute minimum which will be required in rich countries like ours).
7. It also means a lot more overcrowding, a lot more pressure on housing, on water supplies, on our trains, on our already congested roads and so on.
8. If you accept that this is a not very attractive proposition, and that it would be better to aim for a lower, rather than a higher population, there are two things that have to happen here in the UK.
9. The first is to allow into our country no more people than leave it on an annual basis. That’s called “net zero immigration”. This is not xenophobic, let alone racist. It’s just common sense.
10. The second is to see if we might persuade (please note, persuade, not coerce!) the 26% of women in the UK who are currently expected to have more than two children to ‘stop at two’. (The other 74% already do stop at two, or have one child or none.) If we did this, we would be able to cut our forecast population by around 7 million people.
11. Combine both policies (neither of which, I think you’ll agree, are that extreme, let alone threatening, let alone totalitarian!), and the consequences are enormous: instead of a population of 77 million, we’d have a population of around 55 million – 6 million fewer than we have today.
12. Amazingly, if we then applied ourselves to doing more or less the same for women the world over, during the course of the next 20 years or so, by the tried and tested means of improving education for all (but particularly for girls), including healthcare for all (but particularly for women), and ensuring a choice of contraception for all women so that they are free to manage their own fertility, without fear of oppressive religious and male-dominated constraints, then we might just be able to stabilise world population to something closer to 7.8 billion instead of 9.2 billion. And just work out what that means for climate change, the planet and all future generations.
So that’s the logic. Of course, it isn’t as easy as that. The barriers are still huge.
Many religious people still think the use of any contraception other than abstinence or the ‘natural method’ runs counter to the will of God. Many economists still think that a declining population will create an increasingly problematic imbalance between those at the end of their working lives and those whose taxes will be needed to support them.
But there seems to be little reason, on either count, to declare that population must remain for ever a taboo subject, beyond rational discourse, worthy only of the rantings of Daily Mail columnists and religious extremists.
So I shall stick to my guns on this one! As a Patron of the Optimum Population Trust, I shall be keenly supporting their ‘Stick at Two’ campaign. And as an environmentalist with a bit of a track record, I shall continue to point out to many of my colleagues that their continuing silence on the links between population, climate change and social justice is actually a betrayal of everything that they stand for – however ‘politically correct’ they may imagine it to be.[/i]
The question of over population (the world over) and how to deal with it is common sense - you can't long term ecologically damage from over population.
In this country we are far too good at compartmentalising everything - people live here - animals live there (SSSIs, National Parks, AONB's and all the other designations) etc etc Government policies in line with the Kyoto Treaty has pushed us all into everything from saving water and conserving energy sources to recycling yet the morons in power talk of building more houses in the Thames basin (John Prescott 2005 '£850 million to improve quality of life, provide 120,000 new homes and create around 180,000 new jobs.') In short they're talking out their backsides! They want us to save water so they can build more houses - where are your veggies now?
This is all part of the expansionist capitalist system which depends on growth, whatever the cost.
The bald fact is sustainable growth will only be achieved through the creation of a stable population model.
If there is a party out there that preaches this message and encourages people to participate regardless of faith, colour, class or creed then I'm interested.
If not then I'm going to waste my vote on those sheep shaggers in Plaid!