British National Party

Election Manifesto for 1992

Printed & published by BNP, PO Box 117, Welling, Kent DA16 3DW

bnp logo

BRITAIN heads, through ever recurring crises, towards total collapse. Whether the collapse comes during the present year, or the next year or later we cannot predict exactly; what is certain is that it will come soon. And when it comes it will not come merely throughout the failure of one particular government; it will be a failure of the whole political system, rooted in institutions which have long outlived their usefulness to the nation. It is the system that has given us one inept government after another, one disastrous national leader after another, one failed policy after another.

The failure does not lie either on the left or on the right; it lies in the system itself, of which the polarised politics of left and right are merely symptoms. It is a system which frustrates reform and paralyses action at every juncture of national affairs, a system which raises a host of nonentities and incompetents to office after every election, whichever party wins.

Britain emerged from the Second World War as one of the victorious powers, and at the head of an empire containing every resource necessary to provide a life of abundance for countless generations to come. In a few decades, the fruits of this victory, and all the vast opportunities of our post-war position, have been thrown away. Now Britain is in the lower league among the advanced nations of the world- industrially and technologically backward, plagued by division, torn apart by crime and disorder and racked with inefficiency at every level of government and industry. An empire has been thrown away, the only legacy of it remaining being the burgeoning coloured population of our towns and cities- brought here, without the consent of the British people ever been sought, into an island already embarrassed by overcrowding, and at a time when its countries of origin were supposed to have renounced their colonial ties to Britain.

It is against this background that the British National Party has come into being. This party has been created by people who have finally abandoned the hope that by means of the old political institutions a new way forward for Britain might be found. The purpose of the party's founders is to build a new and modern political movement adapted to Britain's needs in the coming century, and which will provide a source for the dynamic leadership that our nation must have if it is to survive in the future, rebuild the foundations of its prosperity and regain the ground it has lost among the nations of the world.

This Manifesto outlines the policies on which our party will be fighting the 1992 general election. It is a manifesto fundamentally different from those of the other parties: theirs have been cobbled together in cheap and artful bids for instant popularity, full of promises and bribes that will be forgotten just as soon as expediency dictates; ours, by contrast, is a declaration of principles that are unchanging and which we are not prepared to sacrifice for the sake of any momentary advantage. The same principles have in fact already been set out in a policy document entitled A New Way Forward, published last year. We see no reason to alter them for this election but present them here unchanged and unabridged, except for a new title which has been chosen to express the mood in which we enter this contest of 1992. Our struggle against the old parties is indeed perfectly expressed in a call to the British people to 'fight back' against the politicians and parties that have betrayed them for so long.

The reader will immediately recognise that what is being proposed in these pages is a series of reforms far more radical than anything yet put forward by any individual or party within the mainstream of British politics in modern times. At the centre of this programme for reform is a call for the overhaul of the entire political system by which Britain is governed, and for a reappraisal of some of the most basic attitudes towards that have been traditional to this country in recent history. We make no apologies for this; so deeply entrenched has our national sickness that we can find our way to recovery only by the adoption of entirely new approaches and new ways of thinking. At the heart of the sickness is the doctrine of liberalism, which has atrophied every healthy national instinct for survival and growth. This doctrine of decay and degeneration contaminates almost every aspect of our national life — not only in the field of politics but also in those of religion, education, philosophy, the arts and much else. Our way out of the sickness and our way back to national strength and vigour must incorporate, in the words of T.S. Eliot, "a struggle against liberalism."

The British National Party was founded exactly ten years ago. For a long time it struggled to make progress in a climate of national mass apathy and trust in the old political institutions and remedies. Just in the last two or three years it has begun to make a real national impact — as people in the country have at last begun to awaken to the need for fundamental change. We enter this election confident that our campaign will mark a further leap forward in the dramatic progress we have experienced in recent times. Whoever actually wins in 1992, we know for certain that it is to us that the future belongs!



WE ARE NATIONALISTS, while the other parties are internationalist. We seek to preserve Britain's national identity by preserving the traditional character of her people; they seek to destroy that identity by the policy of multi-racialism. We seek to preserve Britain's national freedom and sovereignty by keeping control of all British affairs in British hands; they seek to destroy our freedom and sovereignty by surrendering that control to a supra-national authority in Europe. We seek to preserve all the assets and resources of Britain, economic and otherwise, under British ownership; they are willing to sell out our assets and resources to any foreign bidder.


NATIONAL UNITY is the first requirement if Britain is going to summon the effort to grapple with the grave crises now threatening her on all fronts. To this purpose, a system of government must be created which will mobilise the entire resources of the nation's leadership towards one common purpose, instead of those resources being dissipated in party warfare. Likewise, the nation as a whole must be wielded into a single and solid community, dedicated to a common patriotic purpose, instead of being torn apart by political, ethnic, religious, class and regional conflicts. The old political parties, created to serve sectional interests and with the minds of their leaders imprisoned in the outworn dogmas of the party game, are quite incapable of carrying out these unifying tasks.


THE PRESENT SYSTEM of government in Britain achieves the worst of both worlds: it combines inefficiency with tyranny; it is unable to maintain either order or freedom.

Two major political parties compete regularly for the people's favour. In the frenzied scramble for votes, all principles are forgotten, all consideration for the higher national interest discarded. The victor is usually the party that has been the more successful in lying to the people. Elections are squalid contests of bribery and corruption, with the parties toadying to every selfish whim on the part of the voter. The latter, for the most part completely unable understand the issues on which the contest is fought, relies for information and advice on the mass media "“ which belong to self-perpetuating oligarchies owing their power and control almost wholly to money. Thus is enacted to the charade of 'democracy', under which the poor bemused elector labours under the pathetic illusion that he has a 'free' choice, and is the master of the nation's destiny.

But once in parliament those who have been elected proceed instantly to ignore all the wishes of those who have put them there, and enact legislation which on many major issues runs wholly contrary to the will of the majority — as is evidenced by the Single European Act, the continued promotion of immigration and multi-racialism, the rejection of capital punishment and much else.

And the party gangs get away with it because their rivals coalesce with them in the carrying out of the same policies, so that the voter has no realistic alternative. On the major issues the parties think with one mind and speak with one voice, while on the minor issues they trade insults with each other in a never-ending party war which occupies most of the time, energies and thoughts of the participants concerned.

In the meantime there can never be any proper co-operation between political leaders in grappling with the nation's problems, for nearly half of the players of the party game — those members of parliament who are in opposition — have a positive vested interest in government not succeeding in its tasks. Its failure, and the nation's resulting misfortunes, are essentials to the furtherance of their own political ambitions!

Under such a system there can never be national unity; there can never be a paramountcy given to the national interest; there can never be a conscientious application on the part of political leaders to great national problems; there can never be a true government.

At the same time, government does not even have the virtue of being representative of the governed — for on a wide range of vital topics the people's opinions are contemptuously ignored.

What today in Britain passes for 'democracy' is nothing better than a racket, operated by a mafia.

The system cries out for reform, and we are pledged to reform it. Such reforms must reconcile two vital principles, respectively concerning Order and Freedom.

Order must be achieved by the creation of a strong executive, with real powers to govern and with a period of government sufficiently lasting to make possible the taking on of vital long-term national development tasks. Such an executive must be enabled to concentrate wholly upon the priorities of national government, and to that purpose must be separated entirely from the arena of party warfare and from the minutiae of constituency affairs.

To this purpose we favour the election of a Prime Minister by direct vote of the people. In any such election, the contestants should stand purely as individuals and should not carry party labels. In the event of the winning contestant not obtaining an absolute majority over all the others, there should be a final election involving just the two most successful candidates in the first (primary) election.

The Prime Minister, once elected, should have full executive powers — within the limits of the law and subject to the rule that he may be permitted to carry out no policy which runs contrary to pledges he gave to the people prior to his election — unless this by means of consent obtained in a national referendum.

The Prime Minister should be elected for an indefinite period of office — subject to the right of parliament to call him to account in a vote of censure, in which case he would be required to seek re-election.

Members of parliament must be elected by a process under which the voter makes his or her choice from a standpoint of knowledge and understanding, as opposed to ignorance. To achieve this, we advocate the replacement of the present area franchise by an occupational franchise, with doctors voting as doctors, engineers as engineers, miners as miners, farmers as farmers, housewives as housewives, and so on. The elected representatives of these occupational groups should perform much of their work within sub-parliaments, concerned with debate and legislation on matters specially pertaining to their own spheres — thus relieving the national parliament of much of its workload. The latter would then confine itself to debate, criticism and legislation on a limited number of major national issues of general popular concern. As with elections to prime-ministerial office, elections to parliament would be carried out on a non-party basis, with each candidate standing as an individual, bearing no party label and free to speak and vote as individual conscience and judgement dictate.

Those affairs relating to the interests of individual constituents that presently fall within the responsibility of MPs under the existing system would be transferred to the sphere of local government, with which we deal in a later section.

Such a system of occupational franchise, by enabling the elector, as stated, to vote from a standpoint of proper knowledge and understanding, would confer upon the people greater freedom of the kind that really matters: freedom to choose while knowing the nature of the choices, not being almost wholly reliant for information on external sources, such as the mass media.

Where the mass media does become necessary to guide public opinion on matters of vital national concern, such as in elections to prime-ministerial office, they should be required by law to offer equal facilities of communication to all candidates. And at all other times the law should oblige all organs of the mass media to give a hearing to every shade of political opinion, with no exceptions. In this way will the people be granted a further freedom which is denied many of them under present conditions, in which a largely invisible media censorship effectively excludes certain opinions which the mass media-owners have an interest in suppressing. (Further comment on the mass media can be found in a later section).


WE TOTALLY REJECT the Tory concept of the nation as merely an aggregate of so many millions of individuals, motivated only by avarice and self-interest. Instead, we envisage Britain as a true national community, whose purpose will work for each other and for the nation as a whole.

This does not rule out individual ambition or the quest for individual betterment, but it does seek to establish a harmony between individual goals and the wider communal interest. Rewards for individual endeavour and achievement should, as far as possible, be commensurate with the individual's contribution to the community and the nation.

Within the national community we are resolved to establish a proper equilibrium between individual rights and individual duties, with the first earned by fulfilment of the second, in contrast to the liberal-democratic concept of society, in which nearly all the emphasis is on rights and very little on duties.

We do not join with John Major in his vision of a 'classless society'; no social order can ever function without some differences in status based on diversity of aptitudes and skills. What is important, however, is that it is these aptitudes and skills, together with degrees of contribution to the national welfare that determine an individual's social position.

We are not against the concepts of aristocracy and inherited wealth, but we maintain that the rights and advantages that go with these things must be earned by a level of service to the nation that is commensurate with them. In place of the present aristocracy of money, we advocate a new aristocracy of quality, maintained by rules of selection which regularly cast out what is useless in the old stocks and admit what is valuable in the way of new ones.

While we recognise the need for some social stratifications based on the foregoing considerations, we totally repudiate the idea that these stratifications should form the basis for political and class conflicts, founded on the supposition of a rivalry of interests — as is the case in Britain at present. Different classes there may be; but all must share one interest in common: that of the nation.


BRITAIN'S MEMBERSHIP of the European Community has brought no advantage to us, only economic decline and political servitude. It must be ended.

This does not preclude friendship and co-operation with the states of Europe in areas where common interests make such things practicable. What it does do is bring to an end the policy of Britain surrendering economic and political sovereignty to European supra-national authorities and permitting foreigners to make our laws.

Some politicians among the parties of Westminster have maintained the delusion that Britain can remain a member of the European Community while not being a party to its drive towards a single currency, a central bank and eventual political federation. It is time that this delusion was brought to an end. Either we participate in Europe on the terms laid down by the majority of the Community's member-states, or we get out. We believe that all Britain's vital interests require that we get out.

We believe that in the longer term the European Community as it now stands is destined not to survive. German dominance and the Gulf War, accompanied by numerous manifestations of incompatible economic interests and irreconcilable concepts of the future political structure of Europe, have underlined this probability. What is important is that we now look beyond Europe to a realistic vision of a future in which Britain will stand on her own feet, and as part of that form new associations around the world which best serve her unique and special national interests and traditions.


WE BELIEVE that Britain's best alternative to immersion in Europe lies in a re-establishment of close trading, cultural and family relationships with members of the Old Commonwealth, formerly known as the 'Dominions'.

At the same time, we believe that the Commonwealth in its present form serves no British interest and should be radically changed. Most of the Third World countries comprising its present membership should be required to leave, with Britain disclaiming any further responsibility towards them, either in the way of subsidising their eternally bankrupt economies or of providing right of abode for their migrant peoples.

A new Commonwealth should be formed around a central nucleus comprising the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada; and these states alone should be permitted a voice in Commonwealth councils. Associate membership might be granted to certain other states, if it is to our and their mutual advantage from the standpoint of trade of if their territories are required by us for economic, strategic or other vital purposes.

While respecting the rights of self-government of every member of such an association, we should strive to establish a mechanism which achieves the greatest possible co-ordination of policy in major affairs, such as Foreign Relations, Defence, Trade and Economic Development.

In the case of the now run-down and misgoverned country presently known as 'Zimbabwe', we believe that it is in the long-term interests of all concerned that this country eventually be restored under its old name of Rhodesia, under white leadership and sovereignty. Should this happen, we would favour that country being part of the Commonwealth as a full member.

The Falklands Islands, peopled by British stock and paid for in British blood, must be retained as a permanent British possession.

We should exploit the vast treasure house of British Antarctica, while preserving its natural habitat, so as to provide Britain with abundant and cheap raw materials.

We firmly believe that the community of states formed through a close partnership between Britain and the Old Commonwealth could become a world power of the first rank and one of the strongest combinations of the 21st century.


WE BELIEVE that the multi-racial experiment has proved disastrous to Britain and must be ended. All further non-white immigration to the United Kingdom should be stopped, while in the meantime the Government should initiate a massive programme for the resettlement overseas of those non-Whites already here.

Britain should use a leverage presently offered by her financial aid to Third World countries to negotiate agreements for the absorption by those countries of ethnic minority groups required to leave the UK. This programme of resettlement should be carried out by a phased process and by the most humane means possible, with those affected being given ample time to secure homes and jobs in the countries they settle and to wind up their affairs in Britain. All should be given generous resettlement grants, as well as having their air or sea fares to their overseas destinations paid in full by the British Government.

Pending the repatriation of non-white residents of this country, all current 'race relations' legislation, which stifles the right of native-born Britons to speak out against the evils of the multi-racial society, should be repealed. So also should all 'positive discrimination' in favour of ethnic minorities in jobs, housing and social services be ended.


THE DAWN of the Thatcher era was heralded by promises of 'revolutionary change' in the manner in which the British economy was to function. By the end of that era, eleven and a half years later, it had become clear that the 'revolution' was pure illusion: very little had changed, and the state of the economy was even worse than when the era began. What is needed now is the real revolution that Mrs. Thatcher talked about but never delivered, the revolution that will challenge the deeply entrenched interests which over the decades have constantly resisted change: the interests of the City, of International Finance, of the Stock Market and of Usury. Though Mrs. Thatcher has now gone, there is no sign that the power of these interests has abated; on the contrary, it increases by the week.

The City of London, and the financial institutions of the nation as a whole, must cease to exist as self-serving entities and must be harnessed and mobilised by government to act as the handmaidens of the productive sectors of the economy, most of all of manufacturing industry and of agriculture. We intend to put an end to the practice of the free movement of investment capital whereby British money is used to build up the industries of our foreign competitors while foreign money is permitted to buy up the industries of Britain. Investment must be firmly regulated so as to ensure that it serves the real needs of the British economy. Our financial institutions must become national rather than international.


THE PRODUCER of real goods and services must be given primacy in the British economy of tomorrow; money, on the other hand, must become the servant of the economy and not its master.

We see a massive resurgence of British manufacturing industry as the first requirement of the economic revolution at which we aim. We believe that all past evidence proves that this cannot be achieved by adherence to the theories of the international free market. British industry must be given protection in the home market, in the same manner as has happened with Japanese industry in its rise to its present massive strength. Then, under this protective barrier, our industry must be systematically built up so as to enable Britain to produce everything she needs in the way of manufactured goods. We see this as the proper way to conquer unemployment in Britain.

We believe a strong farming industry is vital to this country. British farmers should be protected from foreign competition and encouraged to expand production so as to cater as far as possible for national needs in food products. Then the food we need to import should be obtained, where possible, from Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Those same countries should be given preference in the import of minerals.

The BNP broadly supports the private enterprise system as the one which functions with the greatest dynamism and efficiency, and in consequence we favour a policy under which most parts of the economy operate under private ownership and control. We do not, however, like the Tories, make a religion of this principle, and we have been opposed to many of the doctrinaire privatisation schemes introduced by the Thatcher Governments and continued under the Major Government, whereby essential national resources and services have been transferred from public to private ownership. We intend to reverse this policy, except in those cases where there is clear evidence that privatisation has resulted in genuine improvement in the services concerned.

We regard the private ownership of land, industry, commerce and other resources, not as something which exists by divine right, but as a form of trusteeship conferred upon the owners on condition that such assets are properly used in the national and public interest. We would reserve the right to authorise government intervention in the workings of any part of the private sector of the economy where this condition is not met.

We believe it essential to achieve regional balance between all parts of the United Kingdom in the way of economic development, prosperity and job-opportunity, and we are resolved to take all steps necessary to bring this about.

We believe that recent governments have been wholly wrong in squandering Britain's precious domestic oil resources by allowing unrestricted exports so as to maximise their own revenue from oil sales. We advocate the careful conservation of British oil, both offshore and inland, so as to enable Britain to enjoy near self-sufficiency in oil products for as far into the future as possible.


THE NATION'S monetary system must be taken out of the hands of the private banking interests and made a national resource to be controlled according to national needs.

An expanding economy needs a constantly expanding monetary supply. As long as the second is increased at the same rate as the first, money can be 'printed' by government without consequent inflation. If, on the other hand, the expansion of the money supply is allowed to remain the prerogative of private banks and 'lent' into circulation at interest, inflation will be the inevitable result.

It is by the operation of the latter system — which none of the parties of Westminster challenges — that we have a conflict between the need to provide money for the economy and the need to combat inflation. Interest rates are kept high in order to discourage borrowing, on the presumption — quite correct under the existing system — that with lower rates borrowing will increase and inflation will increase with it. But this is only the case because with every loan that is made to the borrower new money is created which is not matched by increases in real national wealth. With the supply of money kept constantly commensurate with the increase in the national product, and with borrowing and lending amounting only to the transfer of money from one agency to another, that process will not create new money, and cannot therefore be inflationary.

Our solution to this constant problem of interest rates and inflation is to rule that private banks will no longer be permitted to lend money in excess of real cash reserves. The creation of all new money must become the sole prerogative of government, and must occur in a manner that renders the new money debt-free and, as stated earlier, issued in a quantity equated to the expansion of real national wealth. This money should regularly be created as a portion of public expenditure, thus making possible a vast reduction of taxation without necessitating public cuts; at the same time it will enable wages to be regularly increased, as production increases, without any inflationary result.


AS NATIONALISTS, we do not recognise that there are employers' interests or employees' interests; there is only a national interest. That interest requires total harmonisation between all sectors of industry and their united effort to increase national prosperity.

Our present trade unions are hopelessly ill-adapted to this purpose, as also are employer's associations. Both breed industrial conflict and class war.

We are pledged to introduce revolutionary reforms in the whole structure of industrial relations whereby the cause of workers, employers and the nation becomes one. To accomplish this we shall amalgamate all trade unions, on the one hand, and all employers' associations, on the other hand, into a single national body whose purpose it will be to co-ordinate all economic activity in Britain in a programme for national prosperity. That body will adjudicate in all matters of industrial dispute without special favour either to labour or management. Its decisions in such matters will have the force of law and any organised opposition to those decisions — whether by labour or management — will be regarded as a breach of the law.

We see much merit in profit-sharing schemes within some industries as in inducement to better performance. We believe, however, that the initiative to introduce these should be left to the discretion of the heads of the respective in question, rather than their being imposed on all industry by the decree of government.


WE ARE RESOLVED to provide Britain with a system of public transport equal to any in the world. This will require massive subsidies, but the money spent will be an investment leading to greater national economic efficiency as well as environmental improvement. Our aim is an integrated national transport system through a radical upgrading and overhaul of the existing road, rail, air and waterways structure.

We should launch a nationwide programme that will discourage private motor traffic from town and city centres. Part of this will involve the provision of better and cheaper public transport facilities. Another part will consist of the provision of car parks at outer town and city limits. Local and national coach and bus services should be fully integrated and services improved in order to provide the desired incentive to use public transport for the whole or part of daily journeys to work.

International air traffic routes should be spread more evenly over the country rather than being concentrated excessively in the South East, and provincial airports should be further developed to meet this need.

The national waterways network should be enhanced to provide greater transportation for both commercial and leisure purposes.


OUR SYSTEM of social welfare in Britain has run into insuperable difficulties because it has been based from the very start on a false understanding of what should be the fundamental goals of society. In our own conception of these goals, the requirement to care for those genuinely in need must be balanced by the necessity to produce a healthier, sturdier, more capable and more self-reliant population. This is best expressed in the dictum that we do not help the weak by undermining the strong.

Social services should not be regarded as an absolute right available to all without any conditions; they should be seen as part of a contract between state and people in which there is an emphasis not only on rights but also on responsibilities.

Too many of the traditional party politicians are at pains to demonstrate how 'caring' they are — to the point at which that admirable quality has lost much of its meaning and become identified with softness and a sickly and misplaced sentimentalism, exuding benevolence towards the degenerate and criminal sediment of society as much as towards the genuinely needy and deserving.

We must care for those who are too old or too young to look after themselves, as we must also do for all categories of the disabled.

But for the rest of the population social welfare should be regarded as a service to be earned by the demonstration of real need, and not as a substitute for individual effort and resourcefulness. In particular, we must dispense with the idea that all seeking social welfare should be granted it as an automatic entitlement, especially when the circumstances leading to the request are of the seeker's own making and could have been avoided by more responsible behaviour.

As an instance of this, we might cite the case of the 'single-parent family', a concept that has been created by sociologists to include all categories of family in which either a father or mother are absent. In cases where this is the result of the death of the missing parent, of the parent caring for the child being abandoned by the other or of the child being conceived as a consequence of rape, it is right for such a family to receive social welfare benefits and services; on the other hand, when such a 'family' situation is the result solely of licentious behaviour we think it utterly wrong that it be put in the same social category as the others mentioned. The present willingness of the social services to do this constitutes just one among many examples of the tendency to encourage the breeding of the least responsible elements of society, making for a dysgenic process that, generation by generation, lowers the quality of the population.

By contrast, an equally alarming phenomenon of modern times is that the more responsible and worthy elements in our society — those whom we should most wish to breed — are not producing enough children even to maintain the population and guarantee national survival. One disastrous consequence of this is that the average age of the British population is increasing year by year.

An essential step towards achieving a more nationally advantageous code of social services is that we reverse both these tendencies: social service benefits should be adjusted so as to give the greatest encouragement to larger families among our more valuable people (the majority) and less encouragement to procreation among our least valuable people (a minority).

A large number of those presently in need of social help are to be found in the ranks of the unemployed. We are confident that the economic programme which we offer will almost wholly eliminate unemployment in Britain. However, in instances where absence of work does lead to a need for social welfare benefits over and above normal unemployment benefit, and where the applicant is perfectly capable of work, such benefits should be granted in return for work performed, and not as 'something-for-nothing'. With this in mind, we favour the establishment of a 'workfare' system, on the model of those operated in a number of American states, whereby local authorities organise work schemes to be engaged in by unemployed in return for social service payments.


WHAT has been said earlier about the need to encourage a responsible approach to family life, and to reverse the dangerous downturn in the birth rate, requires a very basic review of those conceptions of the role of women that have been in popular vogue over the past two or three decades.

We have no wish to withdraw from women those fundamental rights under the law that they have won in the course of their emancipation during the 20th century.

At the same time we wholly oppose the liberal-leftist doctrine which holds that women are, on average, biologically fitted for the same roles as men and should be represented to the same degree as men in all walks of life.

Much is said by feminist agitators about the so-called 'rights of women'.

Much less is said about the right of our women truly to be women . A clear majority, if given the conditions that allowed free choice, would naturally and voluntarily choose to be mothers and home-makers.

It is our policy to honour women in these roles, which are functions basic to the survival of our people.

Those women who are determined to make carers for themselves should have no legal barriers placed in their way, except in particular occupations to which women are clearly unsuited, such as combat roles in the armed forces.

At the same time we should depart from the concept of the career woman as our national and social ideal, and instead should encourage our womenfolk to regard home- and family-making as the highest vocation for their sex. Education should be directed towards this objective, as well as towards the more general objective of developing the qualities of femininity in the female and masculinity in the male members of rising generations.

Housewives and mothers should be prominent among those occupational groups granted representation in the new parliament, for they represent a role in society more important indeed than any other: that of ensuring the maintenance of our future life as a nation. Under present conditions, and after all the great sacrifices of the suffragettes, women have a vote which is just as useless to them as it is to their menfolk. Under the conditions that we should bring about, women would in fact have a power and influence in national affairs far greater than those afforded by the prevailing swindle known as 'democracy', but these would be a power and influence of a kind far more beneficial to women because thoroughly suited to their special attributes and understanding. In this way they could play a role in society that is equal in importance to that of men, though fundamentally different.


IT IS common knowledge that Britain has now become one of the worst-educated nations in the advanced world. Even the Tory Party, and at least elements among the other parties of Westminster, recognise the need for sweeping reforms that will restore basic disciplines and traditional teaching methods to our centres of learning, instead of the permissive and 'child-centred' approaches that have retarded British education during the past two or three decades.

Little or nothing can be expected, however, from present Tory schemes for the 'opting out' by schools from local education authority control. The schemes are already resulting in an intolerable clogging up of waiting lists for entry into the more favoured schools, and can only benefit a part of the student population; they leave unattended to the faults in other schools, and amounts in effect to an abdication of the duty of government, which is to ensure that all schools in the country are brought up to the required national standards.

We are under no delusion, however, that success in this latter objective can be achieved within the limits of those policies and procedures which the politicians of 'liberal-democracy' regard as acceptable. The rot in the educational establishment has gone too deep for this, and that rot is only part of a wider process of degeneration in the entire intellectual climate of British society, 'Liberalism', which has paralysed the thinking of most of Britain's educated classes, must be abandoned both in precept and in practice; and this is going to require revolutionary approaches that are entirely beyond the capacity of our present system.

Put simply, the correction of the faults in British education must proceed in the form of a series of directives from government that our contemporary climate would designate as 'authoritarian' and utterly out of keeping with the laissez-faire traditions of the British academic world as most of us know them. Government talk of a 'national curriculum' is all very well, but no sign whatever exists that present Government has the will, or is prepared to adopt the necessary methods, to enforce that curriculum in the face of the opposition that it is certain to encounter in educational circles. One necessary action in this field is the complete eradication of left-wing influences in the classroom by whatever methods are required; another is the arbitrary dismissal from their posts of literally thousands of schoolteachers and university lecturers who could not possibly be replaced except by means of a totally reformed teacher-training and higher-education system. The whole undertaking requires a fundamental restructuring, not only of British education, but first of all of British politics. The present crisis in our educational system is a classic example of the truth that we are not going to achieve desirable national changes until we first create the political mechanism by which they can become possible.

This having been said, we must not presume that all will be well if we are able to revert to the educational procedures of the pre-war and early post-war period. Those procedures were in many ways totally inadequate in equipping Britain with the aptitudes and skills needed for national survival in the modern world, and must be cited as a major reason why we started getting behind our competitors in industrial efficiency and technology long before the 'permissive' tendencies in British education as we know them today began to reveal themselves. These shortcomings in our traditional educational system must be made good in the future. Schooling for economic efficiency and technological excellence must enjoy facilities in this country that are at least equal to any found elsewhere in the world.

However, British education must not only strive to produce people with the academic capabilities stated above; it must aim to produce the whole man and the whole woman: citizens possessing the desired combination of mental development, sound health and physique, strong character and a sense of patriotism and civic responsibility. With these needs in mind, we advocate the formation of a national youth movement which will supplement the educational syllabus and provide our young people with a solid grounding in such extra-curricular forms of training.


WE INCLUDE a section dealing with policy towards the mass media immediately after one dealing with education because today the two have become inextricably linked together: the press, radio and, in particular, television have assumed the character of public educators, and as such they cannot simply be left to go their own way without any responsibility to the nation of which they are part.

It is not an exaggeration to say that a large part of the mass media has today become little better than an enemy fifth column in the heart of Britain, promoting doctrines conducive to national disintegration. Any government that fails to take account of this, and shirks the action needed to remedy it, is a government that is abdicating its duty to the nation.

A lot is spoken about the virtues of mass media that are free from government interference. But the question must be asked: should the mass media be responsible to nobody? Should we tolerate the existence of an institution in our midst that in many ways exercises more power than government itself but whose owners and controllers are entirely unelected and for the most part unknown and unseen? We would reject such a proposition.

The whole issue of 'freedom of the media' has in fact become a big red herring; there is no freedom of the media as the ordinary man in the street would understand it. All mass media, by their very nature, are going to be subject to control by someone. The only relevant question is whether that control is exercised for patriotic and nationally beneficial purposes or not. In Britain today it definitely is not.

We are pledged to ensure that Britain's vastly powerful mass communications industry is brought within the ambit of those institutions that have responsibilities to the nation and are made to fulfil those responsibilities. This does not mean that this industry should become, as in some totalitarian countries, merely a tool and mouthpiece of government; it does mean, however, that it should be obliged to observe certain standards of morality and decency, that it should be made to function as a proper public service and not as a merely one for the benefit of a small clique of billionaire communicators, and that, like every other powerful and influential body, it should not be permitted to use its power and influence in anti-British causes.


WE ARE PLEDGED to provide the highest standards of health treatment in a national health system in which no discrimination will be made between private and public provision. The approach to illness must be primarily through preventative measures, which will emphasise the need for health to be attained by attention to personal hygiene, physical fitness and the consumption of nutritious and wholesome food. Greater attention must be paid to dietary habits and to the need to combat the harmful influence of the drug industries, the breweries and the tobacco companies.

We are opposed to the policy of the present Tory Government of introducing 'market forces' into the National Health Service by encouraging some hospitals to compete with others in bidding for patients. This will create intolerable congestion in some sections of the service and a waste of resources in others, and it is a substitute for a programme that will raise the standards of all medical establishments throughout the country.

Stress plays a vital part in causing ill-health, and that is why we attach great importance to improving living and working conditions.


BELIEVING as we do in importance of the correlation between health and physical exercise, we are pledged to encourage and promote active participation by the population in every field of sporting endeavour, physical activity and recreational pursuit. To this end, we advocate a vast increase in the provision of sporting facilities and leisure centres so as to cover every area of the country. Emphasis in schools should be placed, from a very early age, on the importance of physical fitness and bodily health, and participation in physical training and hard sports should be obligatory for every school pupil, except the physically disabled.

While we are pledged to give greater help to sport and recreation in Britain at every level, we shall give very high priority to raising the performance of British sporting teams in Olympic and other international competition. In modern times, prowess in international sport is taken by the world as an indicator of the vigour or feebleness of nations. We are resolved that in this regard Britain will not be counted among the feeble.


IN HOUSING, our ideal is home ownership for the largest possible number. To realise this, we must keep property prices within reasonable reach of the ordinary wage-earner, and this we can do only by changing the present financial system which creates built-in inflation. In a non-inflationary economy, property prices can rise only within the limits to which the prices of other commodities can fall. Such a non-inflationary economy will also render redundant the property speculator, who acquires land and buildings only to keep them in disuse in expectation that later they can be sold for a large profit.

The reforms in the financial system which we have outlined earlier will create a non-inflationary economy. The same changes will also enable building societies to compete fairly with banks for depositors, and this will bring down the cost of mortgages.

In the privately rented sector we must create a just and effective balance of interest between landlord and tenant, so as to ensure an adequate supply of rented accommodation at reasonable prices. If property-owners are given little incentive to let, rented accommodation will be in short supply and consequently more costly.

In council housing we are pledged to eliminate, again by the financial reforms explained elsewhere, the huge burden of local government debt, which accounts for the largest proportion of the increased cost of council housing schemes and rent rises. This will eventually allow council housing subsidies to be eliminated without rent increases being necessary.

In slum clearance, there must be a greater concentration on the renovation of old housing where this structurally practicable, so as to assist the preservation of community life. We regard high-rise flats as not only damaging to communities but an environmental eyesore, which should be gradually phased out.


NO MORE of Britain's countryside must be sacrificed for building purposes except where essential to national security. Where new land is required for building it must be found in urban areas by means of stricter rules governing the use of urban property. Privately owned urban land that is not in use but is being retained purely for purposes of speculation will be subject to compulsory-purchase orders where necessary.

The hideous disfigurement of our towns and cities must cease. Development in these areas must be strictly controlled and in accordance with the wishes of the local populace. We are pledged, where necessary, to order the demolition of urban structures which disfigure the landscape and are objectionable to local inhabitants. We are pledged in the future to build towns and cities of beauty and symmetry in accordance with traditional architectural styles that have proved their merit across the ages.

We are in favour of a much more highly concentrated national campaign against dirt and litter, aided by public education and by much higher penalties against offenders.

We will undertake a root and branch clean-up of all land and waters that have been polluted by individuals and business alike under the tax free-for-all of liberal democracy.

Pollution comes in many forms, and existing legislation to control this threat to the environment has been inadequately implemented. Noise from transistor radios and amplified hi-fi systems in homes and public places should be as rigorously dealt with as should noise from industry and commerce.

Our waterways must be thoroughly cleansed of industrial waste and other pollution. The quality of our water supply must be greatly improved, and the practice of fluoridating our drinking water must be stopped.

On 'green' issues generally, we recognise that today most of the population is 'green-orientated' to some degree or another. The dispute is not so much about the desirability of 'green' ideals as over the methods by which they can be achieved. In contrast to other parties which profess 'green' programmes, however, we do not believe that the attainment of a better environment is compatible with 'liberal' institutions and policies. Such an environment is possible only through the introduction of a greater element of national discipline — as applied both to industry and commerce and to the individual citizen.


WHERE culture and the arts are concerned, two views have always existed in this country: one is that there should be minimal state involvement in cultural affairs, with these left to private forces to finance in accordance with the free-market rules of supply-and-demand; the other is that it is the duty of government to sponsor the nation's cultural and artistic development to whatever degree is necessary to elevate the cultural and artistic awareness of the people.

We hold firmly to the second of these two views. As nationalists, we want to see cultural and artistic standards in this country as high as anywhere in the world. Also, as nationalists, we want to see cultural and artistic productions in our country bear a distinctly national stamp. We may recognise the value of the cultural and artistic productions of other nations and races, and like or dislike them according to our preference; but it should be our purpose to ensure that the productions of our own nation and race are shaped by our own unique national and ethnic character.

On cultural matters, the consensus taste in our own movement is overwhelmingly in favour of the traditional and classical and against the modernist. However, we do not dispute the right of those whose preferences are for modern styles to enjoy those styles if they wish; we object only to their tendency to impose such preferences on the whole of society. For this reason, we are resolved to challenge and eliminate the dominance of the modernists over British cultural and artistic life and to put an end to the vast allocations of public money to cultural and artistic productions that are incomprehensible, if not repulsive, to the vast majority of taxpayers who are expected to fund them.

Furthermore, we do not believe it is the duty of the British taxpayer to provide funds for the promotion of artistic ventures that belong to alien cultures which are no part of our tradition. Ethnic minority communities in this country, pending their eventual resettlement overseas, should supply their own funding for the maintenance of their cultural and artistic life.

We believe that it is entirely wrong for talented British artists, whether they be painters, sculptors, novelists, playwrights, poets, composers, singers, musical instrumentalists or film-makers, to have their development and creativity stifled by commercial limitations. Where such talent reveals itself, money should be no object in bringing it to full flower. We particularly deplore the present absence of a vigorous and viable British film industry due to lack of adequate financial support, and the resulting need for British film products to be financed by foreign money, as well as the excessive importation of American and other foreign films for showing on British television and in British cinemas. In a cultural sphere where this country has always bred an abundance of talent, it is lamentable that foreign products should so dominate the viewing time of the British people.


OUR PARTY is against the Community Charge (sometimes known as the Poll Tax) on the grounds that it is unjust, expensive and unworkable. In its place we favour a return to the rates system, not because that system is perfect but because it is the best alternative on offer.

We do, however, hold that the rates system can be made much fairer than in the past. The most important step in achieving this is to reduce, and if possible entirely eliminate, the gross inequalities in rate-paying burden between the single occupant of a property and the member of a large working family occupying property similarly rated. This can be achieved only by giving greater housing benefit to the former at the expense of the latter. Housing benefit should also, as in the past, be available to those living on lower incomes, bringing the levels of contribution to local government services into line with the local resident's ability to pay — something that the Community Charge totally fails to achieve.

We favour much firmer supervision by national government of local government policies and expenditure. In the ideal world, local government is elected by local residents to govern in accordance with those residents' will. In the real world of British politics today, many local councils, once elected, launch hare-brained schemes that do not enjoy the support of more than a tiny fraction of the local community. Examples of these are the provision of lesbian and 'gay' meeting centres and 'switchboards', the naming of streets and parks after left-wing cult heroes, including terrorists, and the provision of large public funds for the support of cultural activities on the part of ethnic minorities (while the same support is not forthcoming for cultural activities involving the indigenous British population). Indeed so thoroughly have many local authorities in Britain succumbed to the dominance of the so-called 'loony left' that the towns and cities under their control have assumed the character of miniature Soviet republics. Some councils have even gone so far as to forbid the armed forces carrying out recruiting campaigns in their localities — an action that would not be tolerated by any national government properly in charge of affairs.

These abuses of local government power underline the need for a drastic reappraisal of the whole concept of what should be the privileges and prerogatives of local councils. We believe that to elect a government for the whole nation, and then to permit the existence of local bodies which are able wilfully to defy the authority of that government, is contrary to all logic. The proper role of local government is to supervise the provision of necessary local amenities and services; it is not the proper role of local government to set itself up as a 'state within the state' and thence to pursue political aims which are wholly at odds with those of the national leadership for which the nation has voted.

With these considerations in mind, we are pledged to bring in legislation which will reduce local government essentially to an administrative and management function, and prohibit it from exercising power in the field of politics.

The other vital need in the sphere of local government is to eliminate the huge burden of municipal debt, which constitutes the hidden factor accounting for the excessive charges levied on local residents. We believe this to be perfectly possible within the framework of the monetary reforms outlined in a previous section. The sum total of charges that local residents are required to pay should equal the sum total of the cost of local amenities and services; those same residents should not, in addition, have to provide for the interest payable on local government loans from the banking system.


BRITAIN is collapsing into anarchy, with crime figures hitting new records in almost every sector. Government, police and the judicial authorities have totally lost control. From the left and from the centre comes the cry that we must seek remedies through 'understanding' the criminal, through mollycoddling him and through rectifying the economic, social and educational disadvantages that, according to theory, lead him into crime. From the right comes the demand for tougher penalties, heavier policing and the restoration of hanging and flogging. We believe that both of these approaches to the problem are based on oversimplification which is the result of excessive attachment to ideological tradition and of unwillingness to engage in new thinking.

Unlike those of the left and the centre, we do not reject draconian penalties on grounds of their 'inhumanity' to the criminal; on the contrary, we support them to a far greater extent than any Tory Governments of recent times have been prepared to go. We favour the restoration of both capital and corporal punishment as options available to the courts for the offences for which they were formerly administered; and we go a stage further in advocating that drug-dealers also should, in certain cases, be executed. In the case of terrorism, we believe that the death penalty should be instituted to deal, not only with those actually found guilty of direct participation in terrorist acts, but also with those involved at top level in the organisation of terrorism, even when they do not themselves pull the triggers or plant the bombs that complete the job.

Furthermore, we are against current moves to make HM prisons places of ease and comfort where the criminal lives under conditions which often amount to an improvement on those he has known outside. For convicted inmates, though not for those on remand, prisons should remain what they were always intended to be: places of punishment and not of rest.

In other words, we strongly believe in the deterrent factor as one of the essential planks in a programme to fight crime, and indeed we seek to give that deterrent factor much greater force than in the recent past. Where we differ from some traditionalists is in our belief that the deterrent factor alone is clearly not enough.

We will not succeed in the war against crime until we begin to appreciate its growth as a symptom of a whole society that is diseased and disintegrating. The disease and disintegration do not lie, as the left and the 'bleeding heart' brigade suppose, in 'unjust' social and economic conditions or in lack of advantage in education; those factors may here and there have some peripheral influence, but they are not central to the problem.

Central to the problem are two dominant causes in the face of which conventional opinion prefers to look the other way.

One of these is genetic, and until it is faced and recognised we are going to continue losing the battle against crime. The lowering of the quality of any population will inevitably result in a rise in the breeding of criminal types. We must identify the causes of the decline in Britain's population quality, and we must set about tackling and eliminating these causes — quickly and urgently.

But over and above this is the fact that there exists in Britain today no firmly established moral authority. From government downwards, there are neither personages nor institutions or values that are able to command universal respect.

Most of us want a society in which people respect the law. But people respect the law only when it is representative of a ruling power, and of social and political ideals that the population can recognise as beneficial to the country in which they live, which can be seen to function wisely, justly, capably and with integrity in the management of the nation's affairs. It is the tragedy of Britain that in modern times no such backing to the law, or to our system of ethics and morals, has been visible.

This deficiency is then compounded when the communications media, which play such an enormous part in shaping a nation's concepts of right and wrong, are in the hands of entrepreneurs and controllers who have long rejected any responsibility to uphold decent moral standards, and who have become, in effect, part and parcel of the very anarchy that is bringing society to collapse.

All that this means is that the battle against crime is not going to succeed unless it becomes part of a wider battle against the whole edifice of moral rottenness and corruption which now occupies the commanding heights in British society.

And law and order will be re-established only when they become a law and an order which British people can identify as guardians of their true interests and as upholders of their loftiest ideals.


AS the foregoing section on law and order will have indicated, we see the fight against crime as something inseparable from the task of moral regeneration of the whole nation. We are pledged to wage war against all those influences that are making for the disintegration of our society. This is a war in which traditionally minded Christians have a role, but it is not one that should concern Christians alone; we believe that the issues involved in combating the collapse of Britain's social and moral fabric are ones which transcend questions of religion. Both the religious and the non-religious should be capable of understanding the ethical and social conventions which over the centuries have served to shape a cohesive society in this country, and should be able to reach common ground in seeking to restore them.

Our party is a strictly secular movement that does not tie itself to any particular religious denomination. Nevertheless, it has attracted the support of many Christians from all denominations, who see in it a vehicle for the re-establishment of the sound and healthy moral order that prevailed in the days of Britain's greatness. Today, the leaders of the established church condemn us on the grounds that our nationalist and racially-centred views are 'unchristian'. But we would maintain that the society at which we aim comes much closer in its rules and conventions to the precepts of true Christianity than that championed by today's 'trendy' Bishops, who, we believe, have entirely lost sight of the original underpinnings of their faith.

First comes our commitment to the family, which has been alluded to earlier. With this is our belief in the sanctity of marriage and the need to discourage the breeding of children out of wedlock. Aside from the adjustments in social welfare that are necessary to this purpose, we also favour legislation that would render divorce more difficult than at present and an absolute last resort when marriages have broken down irretrievably.

Then there is our consistent opposition to perverse sexual practices. Alone among the parties, we have called for a restoration of the laws forbidding homosexual acts and for the complete prohibition of all advertisements, artistic and stage products and subsidies by public authorities which serve to promote homosexuality. For this we have been branded as 'totalitarians', but all we have been doing is upholding conventions that were accepted as standard morality by the churches for hundreds of years, until they were abandoned in the headlong flight from responsibility that engulfed the British clergy in the second half of the 20th century.

From the beginning, the British National Party has opposed the legalisation of abortion, which every year is resulting in the lawful murder of hundreds of thousands of mostly healthy and normal British children. We believe that the Abortion Law should be repealed and the practice once again made illegal, except in cases where pregnancies are due to rape or when medical evidence indicates either that the child would be born with serious physical handicap or that childbirth might seriously endanger the life or health of the mother-to-be.

In addition to these things, there is the stand we have constantly made against the obscenity, depravity and dirt now served up as staple diet by the mass media. But whereas some campaigners, such as Mrs. Mary Whitehouse, seek only to combat these tendencies by appealing to the worthier instincts of 'public opinion', we are prepared to follow our convictions to their logical conclusion by demanding that the full force of the state be brought down upon the pedlars of this filth so as to give them the criminal status that they deserve. It amounts to this: that we are prepared to take whatever measures are necessary to bring about the wholesale clean-up Britain that is required — even if these unleash upon us the demented fury of all 'liberals', 'progressives' and upholders of moral and sexual 'freedom'.

In fact, it is in this very concept of what are the desirable freedoms that we hurl our challenge against 'liberal-democracy'. To the liberal-democrat, the freedom to do anything should be upheld as long as it does not harm another living being. But to us, human behaviour needs to be regulated by much more than this: it needs to be regulated by our debt to the past, to our ancestors and to the heritage they have handed down to us, as well as by our obligations to the future, to the unborn generations of our race to whom we in turn are bound to pass on what we have inherited. Behaviour, which harms ourselves, is behaviour which damages our people and our nation, when seen in this perspective. That was an old Christian view, even if the older Christians arrived at it by a route somewhat different from the one we have taken. It is, at any rate, a view that strikes at the very heart of the sanctified decadence that represents 20th century liberalism.


WE ARE DEDICATED to maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We oppose any devolution schemes which threaten to loosen ties between the component lands of the Kingdom, and we oppose any bargaining over the future of Northern Ireland with the forces of Irish Republicanism. We deplore the weakness of both Conservative and Labour Governments during past years in dealing with Irish Republican terrorism.

In Northern Ireland we support all efforts to achieve reconciliation between Protestant and Catholic communities, but only on the basis of a common recognition of the British status of the province and of a common loyalty to the United Kingdom. We do not support the participation in the administration of Northern Ireland, in whole or in any part, by people who are not pledged to this loyalty; and in this regard we completely repudiate the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which should be formally scrapped.

The British Government must make a declaration, without qualification, that Northern Ireland will remain British for all time, and that the only conceivable basis for Irish unification would be the re-entry of the remainder of Ireland into the United Kingdom — a development which we favour as the best long-term solution to the Irish troubles.

In the meantime, we advocate that Britain should recognise that she is engaged in a war in Northern Ireland, and that she should employ every method necessary to prosecute that war to a successful conclusion — including a fully authorised shoot-kill policy against known leaders and activists of the Republican terrorist movement.


BRITAIN'S ARMED FORCES must be brought up to, and sustained at, a level of strength and efficiency which at all times will be adequate to the defence of the United Kingdom and of British interests throughout the world.

Our party, while it supports collaboration in defence between Britain and her genuine allies, is opposed to all policies that makes us dependant on those allies. All British forces should be solely under British command and equipped with weapons made wholly in British factories. These weapons should include a nuclear capability adequate to deter attack by any other power.

We are opposed to the stationing of any foreign forces or weapons systems on British soil.

Recent developments in Eastern Europe demonstrate that NATO has become completely redundant. In consequence, we demand British withdrawal from that organisation. In addition, we call for the withdrawal of all British forces from Germany.

We recognise the traditional British regimental system as one of the most important foundations of this country's military strength and fighting capability. For this reason we are wholly opposed to recent cuts in our armed forces which have resulted in the elimination of some of our most famous regiments, and we are resolved to reverse those cuts and where necessary restore the regiments that have been disbanded.

We are in favour of the restoration of compulsory military service for all young British males for a period to be fixed in accordance with the needs of any future war. We believe that such a period of service is desirable, not only from the standpoint of military training, but also as a preparation for citizenship. In addition to this, we believe that, for the same young males, pre-service military training should be given as part of the curriculum of a national youth movement in which both boys and girls would participate.


THE FIRST PRIORITY of all British foreign policy should be the defence and furtherance of British interests. Our relations with foreign states should be based solely on that principle and not be conditional on our approval or disapproval of other states' internal politics.

While we desire friendship with the American people, we are wholly opposed to British subservience to the United States — as has been encouraged by every post-war British Government — and we demand an entirely independent British foreign policy, not one that follows slavishly on the heels of US policy.

We believe there is a need for a fundamental reversal of British policy in the Middle East, whereby Britain should abandon its support for the state of Israel and do everything possible to cultivate the goodwill of the Arab world.

We believe that it was a disastrous mistake for Britain to become involved in the Gulf War. The states in that region should have been left to sort out their own differences without our or the Americans' intervention, since neither Britain nor the United States had any interest in the outcome of the conflict between Iraq and her neighbours. In the future we should avoid any repetition of involvement in such disputes.

We acknowledge no obligation on the part of the British people to make economic sacrifices in order to subsidise the so-called 'undeveloped nations'. Overseas aid should only be given where it is to our own advantage and where we receive concrete favours in return, an example of the latter being the agreement of the recipient countries to provide homes for the resettling of Britain's non-white ethnic minorities.

Our party is opposed to all forms of international organisation which diminish British sovereignty or grant to outsiders the right or facility to interfere in British affairs. In this category we place not only the European Community, which has already been mentioned, but also the United Nations Organisation, from which we also advocate British withdrawal.

We repudiate the fashionable leftist notion that nationalism is the cause of international discord and war; on the contrary, we regard mutual respect between nation-states for each other's sovereignty as providing the best foundation for international peace.

Some questions answered

In letters of enquiry about the British National Party we receive a number of questions, some of which arise out of the distorted image of the party given by reports in the mass media. Here we have selected a few of the questions that occur most frequently, and we follow them with our answers.

Q. What do you say to the allegations of your opponents that you are 'fascists' or 'Nazis'?

A. Fascism was Italian; Nazism was German. We are British. We will do things in our own way; we will not copy foreigners.

Most people's perceptions of fascism and Nazism are that those creeds involved a suppression of freedom, in that their rulers did not tolerate the views of anyone who disagreed with them. No-one would accuse us of these attitudes or practices: at our party meetings opponents are welcome to use question time to put from the floor any point of view they please — so long as in doing so they do not do anything prejudicial to the orderly conduct of such meetings. In the Britain at which we aim, free speech would be guaranteed to all — a right that does not exist in the Britain of today, where our party is forbidden by most local authorities to hire publicly-owned meeting halls. The BNP is in fact far more the victim of totalitarian practices than it could ever be accused of advocating or operating them.

Q. But in your statement of policy you include the call for a strong leader who would be above party politics, who would possess full executive powers and whose period of office would be indefinite. Does this not, in effect, mean that you advocate a dictator?

A. The ultimate test of whether a person is a dictator or not is the question of whether he can be dismissed constitutionally or can only be removed by force. The proposals that we have set out for governing Britain provide for the removal of the country's leader by a vote of no confidence in parliament, followed by one on the part of the people in a national election, if he should be seen manifestly to fail. That is not dictatorship.

Nevertheless, we most certainly do believe that the condition of Britain today calls for leadership of a much stronger nature, and with much firmer powers, than we have been used to in modern times. The purpose of giving a Prime Minister an indefinite period of office and removing him from the arena of party warfare, is to provide him with the tools necessary to govern effectively — without constantly having to tailor his policies and actions to every momentary gust of public opinion or being swayed by the temptation regularly to bribe the public with 'goodies' and 'sweeteners' in expectation of coming election time, which under the present system is never far off. Neither should such a national leader be encumbered by the distracting requirements of what we have called the 'party game' — that is, the need always to be engaging in a party war in which he must daily be seen scoring points off the opposition parties instead of doing his job of governing. Such a Premier should also be enabled to choose his ministers and advisers from a pool comprising the best brains and talents available across the whole spectrum of political opinion, not just from the ranks of one party.

At the end of the day, however, there has to be a mechanism by which such a leader can be removed if he falls down on the job. A parliamentary vote of censure, followed by a national election in which the people as a whole decide, is the procedure we offer whereby this can be done.

Basically, our formula is simple and direct: give to the nation's leadership the powers necessary for it to govern effectively; give it long enough to show real results; and then dismiss it if it fails.

Q. You have said that you do not believe that the average voter is capable of understanding the great national issue on which elections are decided, and in consequence you have called for a new electoral system based on occupational franchise, so that each elector will vote from knowledge of his or her trade or profession rather than ignorance of broader national questions. But how does this square with your proposal that a Prime Minister should be chosen by the whole electorate? Would not the factor of voters' ignorance operate equally in that situation?

A. There would be a vast difference between an election for Prime Minister under the system we have proposed and the customary parliamentary elections under the present system. Such a prime-ministerial election would not be a regular habit but would occur infrequently and as a last resort in a situation in which nationwide confidence in the leadership had clearly broken down. Of course there would be the danger that then, as now, the outcome of such an election could be affected by ignorance on the part of many voters of the issues involved. However, no nation's leadership, however sound its policies may be in theory, can continue to govern if it is opposed by the majority of the people — and such leadership will indeed be opposed by the majority of the people if it has demonstrably failed in the task of governing the country to the people's benefit. When a nation is run down, economically stagnant and in a general state of chaos, it does not require a professor in political science to recognise that condition; the man in the street can recognise it quite clearly and will express that recognition in a vote against the leadership responsible for bringing it about.

It is in the matter of deciding what alternative leadership is suitable that there will exist the danger of the voter not understanding the issues and therefore not being able to use his or her vote prudently. As long as we have representative government of any kind, this danger can never wholly be avoided. What we can do is minimise it to the greatest extent practicable. Here is where it is necessary, as we have proposed, to ensure that the mass media providing the information on which people vote do so with absolute impartiality with regard to giving space and coverage to all candidates and their policies, and where it is essential to remove such an election from the arena of party warfare so that candidates and policies can be judged absolutely on merit. A further necessity in such an election would be to impose strict limits on the money any candidate may spend on his campaign, thus as far as possible removing the power of money from political influence.

Q. If elections to parliament are on an occupational basis, and the issues on which a person may vote are thus restricted within the limits of his or her trade or profession, what happens in the case of a person whose interest in, and understanding of, politics extends beyond this and who wishes to influence national politics generally?

A. Such a person can become involved in politics actively by joining organisations that are occupied in influencing the course of national affairs, and working within them in some kind of public service of his or her choice. It would be entirely just that such people would have greater influence in political life than the average member of the public who does nothing in political terms. We should have a say in the affairs of our country to the extent that we are prepared to put something into it.

Q. Your party has been accused by its opponents, and sometimes in the media, of being 'anti-Semitic'. What is your answer to this charge?

A. Let us use the correct term here, which is 'anti-Jewish'. Semites include Arabs, and we are not involved in Arab questions. The simple answer is that we have no quarrel with the ordinary Jew who goes about his own business and does not attempt to influence national affairs in the interests of his racial group. We do have a quarrel with certain Jews, in particular Zionists , whose activities in pursuit of the interests of their own co-racialists here and around the world can sometimes bring them into conflict with British interests. We are especially opposed to those Jews who place their allegiance to Zionism, and to the state of Israel, above any allegiance to Britain.

Most certainly, we intend to put an end to the state of affairs whereby Zionist influence is allowed to determine the course of British politics, whether internally or externally. That is not being 'anti-Semitic' or 'anti-Jewish'; it is simply being pro-British .

We believe it wrong for Jews to be attacked merely because they are Jewish. Equally, however, we believe it wrong for Jews to be immune from all criticism merely because they are Jewish. There are some in our society who actually would approve of such immunity on the part of the Jews, and we believe that to be dangerous.

Q. Some people believe that by voicing opposition to coloured immigration and multi-racialism, as the BNP does, they are breaking the law. Is this true?

A. No, it is not true. It is against the law, when voicing opposition to coloured immigration and multi-racialism, to use language that might be construed as 'insulting' or 'offensive' to particular racial groups as a whole — as distinct from individual members of such a group. We believe this is a bad law because we believe that a racial group should be able to withstand unpleasant things said about it without requiring legal protection. If uncomplimentary things said about a racial group are justified, people should not be prohibited from saying them; if they are unjustified, the majority will see them as such and will reject them. That is all the protection that racial groups should need: the protection contained in the British public's sense of fairness and rational judgement over such matters. A law which renders it impermissible for a racial group to be spoken of in uncomplimentary language is one that we believe to be dangerous, for it can lead to gross violations of free speech — and the violation is particularly bad in cases where a racial group may justify strong condemnation on account of the behaviour of many of its members.

As long as this is the law, however, we have no alternative but to obey that law and advise others to do likewise — until such time as the law can be changed. Nevertheless, we must make this clear: it is not illegal to attack the policies of immigration and multiracialism that have been carried out by successive governments and are still being carried out. British people should not imagine that they are banned from saying things that are strongly critical of these policies, for they are not banned from saying such things at all. The politicians who introduced the racial laws would like people to think there is such a ban — for the consequence of that would be that no-one would feel able to say anything on the subject of race whatever. British people should not fall into this trap. They still have the right to oppose immigration and multi-racialism — and to speak of their harmful consequences, and we as a party shall continue to exercise that right.

Q. Notwithstanding what you have said about the laws governing what people may say on racial matters, it has been claimed of your party that by speaking out strongly against immigration and multi-racialism you could cause distress to members of ethnic minority groups. What is your answer to this?

A. In speaking against immigration and multi-racialism we always endeavour to stress that we see as the main culprits in the catastrophe the politicians who have brought these things about. We do not attack the individual members of ethnic minority groups, who are just as much victims of the catastrophe as we are.

If, however, as some unintended consequence of what we say about immigration and multi-racialism some members of ethnic minority groups feel distressed, we regret this but we cannot allow it to deflect us from our duty to speak out against those policies. At the end of the day, our obligations are to our own people and our own country, not least to the yet unborn generations of native British people who stand to suffer from the effects of a disastrous experiment which they had no part in bringing about. We simply cannot desist from speaking out on a matter that is of vital consequence to our nation and its whole future — indeed to the question of whether it has any future — because of the fear that we may hurt some people's feelings. Far more people, white and non-white, are going to be caused distress if something is not done to end these ghastly experiments soon. That is the reality that we face.

Q. Those who support immigration and multi-racialism will say that Britain has always been a country to accept newcomers and that the British have always been in a mixture of races. What do you say to this?

A. We say that this claim is based on a lie. The past mixtures of which such people speak have never been more than tribal mixtures within the same basic racial family. The Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans who settled this country in its early days, and then the Flemings and Huguenots, who came in later centuries, were all branches of the same European (mainly Northern European) racial stock. Crossings between tribal groups within the same race are usually harmless — indeed they can sometimes even be beneficial. On the other hand, crossings between vastly dissimilar races, such as is the case with Europeans and non-Europeans, have never produced good results. Latin America, in all its backwardness and squalor, is a perfect example of this.

From the point of view of their tribal origins, the British may indeed be considered somewhat heterogeneous, but in racial terms they were, until recent migrations, one of the most homogeneous of all the larger populations of the world, and this was one of their great strengths. Today probably the most homogeneous among the larger populations of the world is the Japanese, and we believe it no coincidence that that nation is one of the most powerful and successful on earth at the present time — despite losing a world war and inhabiting a land with few natural resources. We, having lost the homogeneity we once had, have fallen behind the Japanese in most things.

Q. Because the BNP has advocated a controlled economy, as opposed to a laissez-faire one, this has led some Tories to claim that it is 'socialist'. What is your answer to this? And do you not think that the evidence indicates that controlled economies have failed?

A. There is a world of difference between the economic system we advocate and that which normally answers to the description 'socialist'. Unlike the Labour Party and most other socialists, we are in favour of a large degree of private enterprise — in fact, as we have stated in this booklet, we believe that the private enterprise system is the one which, broadly speaking, works the best. We even endorse free market principles — up to a certain point.

Ultimately, however, there has to be a directing power over the economy which ensures that it functions in the national interest. The Tory Government that took office in 1979 has totally failed to provide that directing power; it has abdicated all its duties of economic leadership and left the British economy at the mercy of an unrestrained free-for-all. The results are there for all to see: massive unemployment, record bankruptcies and the continuing decline of British manufacturing industry.

The first need in the way of controls is to ensure that the British economy supports its own producers by buying British. This means, very simply, protection. Ideally, the quality and competitiveness of British goods should ensure that our people buy them in preference to foreign goods on merit alone. However, that is not happening at the present time — despite the theory, beloved of Tory economists, that the free market should provide the stimulus to British industry to compete successfully with the best in the world. Free market economics, as they have operated over the past decade or so, have been a spectacular failure where Britain is concerned. We believe that before our industries can achieve the competitiveness that is desirable they must be systematically built up — that is to say, thoroughly modernised where necessary and then enlarged so that they can, like their leading competitors, achieve economies of scale. This will require massive financial resources, and those resources can only be obtained if the industries in question have an assured market in which to sell their produce. The only place in which we can provide that assured market is in the United Kingdom itself. Hence the need for protection. That protection will at the same time enable us to put back to work virtually all of the millions presently unemployed in this country.

Controls are also needed in the matter of the location of British industry. In this booklet we have spoken necessity for regional balance. Every part of the United Kingdom should be able to share equally in the prosperity of the United Kingdom. Free market policies have constantly led to the impoverishment of certain regions and the excessive congestion of other regions. This must be reversed.

Finally, there must be controls on investment. The profits from the British economy should flow back into the British economy, not be exported to where they are used to build up our foreign competitors. Controls on monetary movements are also vitally necessary to keep interest rates in Britain at a stable level.

The controlled economy that we advocate can in no way be compared with that envisaged with the Labour Party policy because under Labour any attempt at real control becomes pure farce. Labour is committed to internationalism, to the principle of the 'world economy' under which British industry is at the mercy of imports and of the free movement of international finance. Controls can only operate effectively within a framework of economic nationalism, which is what we advocate and which Labour will never accept because it is contrary to that party's whole doctrine.

As for the claim that controlled economies have failed, this depends whether one looks to the Soviet example or the Japanese example. In the Soviet example, controls have most certainly failed because the state has attempted manage the whole economy down to the minutest detail, with no scope given to individual or private initiative whatever. In the Japanese example, however, controls have brought dramatic success. Private forces are given considerable scope, but overall there is a leadership and a direction that ensure that those private forces work for Japan, and not for foreigners. Despite Japan's overwhelmingly powerful position as a world trader, very few foreign-made manufactured products are to be found in Japan itself. It is not only superior Japanese competitiveness that has kept them out; they have been kept out as a matter of deliberate national policy. It is in the Japanese example that we can find the model for the way the British economy should work.

Q. As an alternative to the European Community, you have called for a renewal of trading, cultural and family ties with the Old Commonwealth. Many will say that in proposing this you are living in the past. Is it not the case that the nations of the Old Commonwealth have been steadily moving away from us in recent decades and have now set out on destinies of their own? Is it not also true that, with massive foreign immigration, their populations are much less British than in days of old? So how can you persuade them to comply with the arrangements you seek?

A. Ah, that phrase 'living in the past'! How beloved it is of those who have been leading us into the present chaos and who do not wish us to consider a change of direction! But could not the same phrase 'living in the past' be applied to those who have been seeking to integrate Europe? European Union has been a recurring dream across the centuries, and Napoleon Bonaparte, just to mention one, tried hard to bring it about. Could it not be argued that attempts to revive this Bonapartist concept involve living in a past much more distant than any that we have sought to recall?

Let us get the facts straight. Yes, the nations of the Old Commonwealth have indeed been moving further away from us in recent decades — and that has been in no small part due to policies originating here in Britain, which have amounted to abandonment of our own overseas kinfolk. But despite this trend of the last thirty-odd years, beginning perhaps with the first moves towards Europe initiated by the McMillan Government of the late 1950s and the early 1960s, the nations of the Old Commonwealth are still a hundred times closer to us than those of Continental Europe in every sense but the geographical.

Australia, for instance, still has a population that is about three quarters of British descent out of a total of nearly 17 million. In the New Zealand population of 3 ¼ million an even larger portion is of British stock. British-descended people do not form the majority in Canada but they are still the largest single ethnic group, totalling around 9-10 million. How many ethnic British are there in Continental Europe?

The 'kith-and-kin' factor apart, the three Old Commonwealth countries mentioned are all substantial exporters of primary products: dairy farming products in the case of Australia and New Zealand, wheat in the case of Canada and the minerals in the case of Australia and Canada. Any country that is willing, as we should be, to give preferential terms of entry for these products into its own market would put itself in an extremely powerful position to negotiate reciprocal trading agreements. Sheer self-interest would make it madness for these Old Commonwealth countries not to take advantage of such favourable opportunities. At the same time, such a trade would not seriously damage the British economy. We have to import most of our minerals anyway — except for coal, which should be protected. We also need to be large-scale food importers. While Old Commonwealth food products should not be allowed to damage our own farmers, they most certainly can replace most of those we now import from Europe.

The fact is that between Britain and the countries of the Old Commonwealth economies are in great part complementary, whereas between Britain and Continental Europe economies are mostly competitive. A large trade with the Old Commonwealth can be sustained without the British economy being damaged. As events have proved, this is not the case with our trade with Continental Europe.

None of this is to say that the restoration of close trading ties with the Old Commonwealth would be a simple and straightforward matter, with no obstacles. Much patient negotiation would be required, and we would certainly face obstacles and setbacks on the way. What we maintain is that such difficulties would be many times less than those we have encountered in trying to sort out mutually acceptable trading terms with our neighbours in Europe.

As one final point, our withdrawal from the EC and our pursuit of the kind of trading area that we have proposed would in fact improve our relations with Europe, as it would render unnecessary all the bickering in which we have been engaged in EC councils over the past years over trade, currency arrangements, harmonisation of laws, political integration and much else. Let this be made clear: our party is not 'anti-Europe'. We want a Europe living in friendship and peace. We simply believe that ours is the better way to achieve it.

Q. Nationalist parties like the BNP have been around in Britain for some time but have not been electorally successful. Why should people believe that the BNP is going to fare differently?

A. It is not true to say that nationalist parties of the kind represented by the BNP have not had any success electorally. In the 1970s nationalist candidates were beginning to record some extremely impressive votes in both parliamentary and local government elections, particularly the latter. In the North of England two such candidates did in fact get elected in a couple of wards in Blackburn municipal area. In other places nationalists came extremely near to getting elected, and would have done so had the upward trend in support for British Nationalism continued.

The trend did not continue — mainly because with the accession of Mrs. Thatcher as Tory leader and later as Prime Minister large numbers of British people were persuaded, quite wrongly, that the Tories would remedy many, if not all, of the wrongs that were besetting Britain at the time. British Nationalism experienced huge defections by voters to the Tories, and it was doomed — for a time — to languish in political limbo while these electors learned the error of their ways through the disastrous performance of the Tories in office and their increasingly manifest failures in remedying the nation's ills. Through this period we waited patiently for events to prove us right in our diagnosis of Britain's problems, to discredit the Tories to whom so many people had looked for salvation, and to bring back the masses of voters who had deserted us.

This has now started to happen, and our performances in elections have dramatically improved in recent times. We are still some way away from the stage of getting people elected, but if present trends continue this might not be so far off.

Because of the British electoral system of 'first-past-the-post', many voters are deterred from supporting the candidates and parties of their first preference because of the belief that they cannot win. In the past we have suffered from this tendency, but as our candidates gradually improve their performance the belief that we can never win elections begins to diminish, as happened in the 1970s, and those who previously declined to vote for us on those grounds then pluck up the courage to do so. By this snowballing effect, we can then become genuine contenders for political power.

It is very doubtful that the Tories can ever again get away with such a deception of the British people as they did in 1979 and in the years following. We are therefore confident that what happened then will not happen the next time.

In the world of politics, great changes have a way of coming about at their appointed time, and that time is conditioned by the moment at which the old order of things — the order that so badly needs changing — finally reaches the point of collapse and cannot endure any longer. Parties and leaders who campaign for great change, though the stand they make may be wholly right, will not succeed in coming to power until that moment of collapse of all that they oppose finally dawns. This was what happened to the opponents of communism in Eastern Europe. Because for years — decades indeed — they were impotent in political terms, it did not mean that they would always be so; it meant only that the moment of collapse of the communist system had not yet arrived. It did finally arrive, as we now know; and those who had previously been powerless became the ones to take over power.

As with the final nemesis of the Soviet system the other side of Europe, a situation will be reached in which those who have been excluded from power in the past will not by that token be considered incapable of attaining power in the future. Quite the contrary — the record of having had no part in the shambles and corruption of the old order will be a vital qualification demanded of those who are going to build the new one!