Curfews, knee-length skirts and no cleavage will save the world as we know it

Another fine British tradition for the BNP to bring back - the workhouse

Don't you sometimes wonder what kind of lunacy goes on at BNP conferences? Not the bits where they're all falling out with each other or just standing around talking about the 'plight of the indigenous people of Britain', but the parts where they actually sit down and try to formulate policies. Not that the BNP does much of that but to keep up the pretence that it's a real political party, they have to have a go every now and then.

So where do these policies come from? I'm told the model is based on that of (shock, horror) the Labour Party. That is, someone at a branch will suggest a policy, the branch will vote on it and if it approves it, the policy goes through a number of similar stages until it reaches conference level. There, it is spoken to - that is, presented to conference - amendments are made or rejected, it's voted on and, if approved, it becomes party policy.

The BNP varies that slightly, in that only voting members (the BNP elite) can attend the conference and the Advisory Council will chop the number of proposals down from two per region to a single proposal to go on to the conference.

Fair enough. But what are the policies that are presented to the BNP conference? We're never told because, unlike the Labour/Conservative/Lib-Dem and Green conferences, the BNP's is a closed event. And why would that be? Because they talk a load of shite, frankly.

Take a look at the conference proposals from the London region of the party. The first is to demand a fixed-term Parliament. Okay, I agree with that and I'm sure a lot of other people will, too. The third regards nuclear fusion but gets off to a bad start by stating 'I believe that global warming is real...' Well, Nick Griffin doesn't, so that one will almost certainly fall flat on its arse. The second of these proposals is a classic though:

'Teenage mothers - the problem and the solution

Any amount of sexual health education is not going to reduce Britain’s high teen pregnancy rates, whilst the ‘rewards’ for becoming an unmarried teen mother remain so [relatively] attractive. The cycle of girls getting pregnant by man A, then being allocated a council flat & welfare benefits, then getting pregnant by man B, and being allocated a bigger council flat & more benefits, then getting pregnant by man C, and being allocated a council house & yet more benefits has got to STOP. It leads to all sorts of social problems, resulting from mothers who are not mature enough to parent effectively, and end up raising dysfunctional families in poverty. It also costs tax payers a lot of money, to fund these ‘alternative’ lifestyles.

Furthermore, people who have been on housing waiting lists for several years, and who conduct themselves in a responsible manner, find themselves being ‘queue-jumped’ by these feckless members of society.

So, I suggest that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures. The homes should not be ‘institution’ like, but at the same time there will be rules which must be adhered to; such as a curfew of approx 9pm, a dress code which states skirts must come to at least the knees & no cleavage to be on show. Failure to comply with the homes’ rules will result in the mother being sent to prison, and the baby being taken in to care.

This is not a short-term remedy, but a long-term solution. Eventually I believe the implementation of this policy will result in a vast decrease in teenage girls becoming pregnant – as the consequences will be positively unattractive. Of course, teenage pregnancies will never be completely eradicated, and the homes will allow for the girls who do still become teen mothers to learn how to be good parents, whilst not being fast-tracked to the top of the housing queue.

If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.'

From the first sentence, this proposal is a crock. Sexual health education clearly does reduce teen pregnancy rates (and incidentally cuts down on the spread of sexually-transmitted infections) and there are very few attractive rewards for single teen mothers, apart from the joy of having a child. But this isn't really the problem. The Mail-esque quality of the next sentence is startling:

'The cycle of girls getting pregnant by man A, then being allocated a council flat & welfare benefits, then getting pregnant by man B, and being allocated a bigger council flat & more benefits, then getting pregnant by man C, and being allocated a council house & yet more benefits has got to STOP.'

This statement seems to assume that a pregnant 'girl' is immediately offered council accomodation and has money thrown at her from the benefits agencies. Not so, and let's get this straight for the more narrow-minded BNP morons who might be reading this - council housing is offered solely on NEED. Nobody gets a council house simply because they would like one, they get one because they need it. In many cases, young mums are hived off to Bed and Breakfast accomodation - hugely expensive, entirely unsuitable and frequently dangerous - until somewhere suitable becomes available. That something could be council, Housing Association or even private, but the single mum won't even get as far as the B&B unless she can prove to the local authority that they have an obligation to house her because of her personal circumstances.

'It leads to all sorts of social problems, resulting from mothers who are not mature enough to parent effectively, and end up raising dysfunctional families in poverty. It also costs tax payers a lot of money, to fund these ‘alternative’ lifestyles. Furthermore, people who have been on housing waiting lists for several years, and who conduct themselves in a responsible manner, find themselves being ‘queue-jumped’ by these feckless members of society.'

On the three worst council estates in Lancaster, there are around a dozen families who are extremely well-known in the area as a pain in the arse to the entire community. Some of these are drug dealers, most are drug or drink-addicted and they are responsible for 90% of the crime, pit bulls, general violence and sheer bloody nuisance that takes place in those areas. All of these families own their own (ex-council) houses, all of them have several cars outside and satellite dishes on the wall and all of them have two parents - some (though God knows how) even hold down jobs.

It isn't only single-parents who bring up dysfunctional families (look at the Windsors), nor is it only single-parent families who live in poverty. Far from it. And yes, it does sometimes cost money to provide for the needs of teen parents. So what? We live in a civilised society (largely) - isn't that what we should be doing?

As for the comments on 'alternative' lifestyles and 'feckless members of society', they're beyond contempt. I doubt if a young woman struggling to bring up a small child has any time or energy to think much about her 'alternative lifestyle' beyond wondering how the hell she's going to pay her next electric bill. Much like the rest of us really.

So what's the solution, as imagined by London BNP? To build more and better local authority housing? To make people pay a little more tax to cover the costs incurred by these billions of feckless young women? To force the young father's to make a decent and regular contribution to the mum and child? No, it's to take away all local authority housing and benefits and to place teen mums in 'homes' run by authoritarian matrons (who no doubt look and act like Nurse Ratched), complete with education, classes for parenting and 'social development', a curfew and a severe dress code. It sounds like prison to me but apparently isn't because the next step if these poor young mums choose not to comply with the rules, is to bang them up in a real prison and put the child into care. Fook me.

I'm not going to do the maths here but I'd be willing to bet that the difference between stopping housing and all benefits from teen mums comes out at a roughly similar amount to the cost of building and staffing these pris - homes all over the country, plus the cost of real prisons to house these recalcitrant young women and the enormous cost of children in care that will inevitably result from such a staggering poorly thought-out policy.

Who thought this lunacy up? That fruitloop Robert West? The vile Nick Eriksen? And what precisely has the amount of cleavage a woman wants to show or how much leg she wants to flash got to do with the government?

Whoever is responsible for this nonsense hasn't even managed to think it through to the next stage. What happens when the young mum reaches the age of twenty-one, leaves prison or the so-called home and gathers her child up from wherever the poor little sod's been for the past couple of years? Where is she going to go - or more to the point, where is she going to live? Presumably, London BNP will now allow her to claim some benefits so she's able to feed herself and her child but she still needs to be housed. One assumes she's going to go to the local authority...

There's a curious side-issue to this which only emerges in the last sentence:

'If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.'

Ah, so the minimum age for marriage should change too? And if the young mum has a husband (note, not partner - no same-sex relationships here, if you don't mind) who is working, she stays out in the real world rather than being banged up in the BNP home? Okay, so what if her husband is working but loses his job when she is still young enough to be banged up? What if they separate when she is nineteen years old? What if she's not only a single young mum in a council property but she's working (it happens frequently)? Does she still cop for the prison/hostel?

Like all BNP policies, this proposal is garbage - ill-considered, unworkable and incomplete even within its own limitations. But the author ends on a relatively high note:

'Eventually I believe the implementation of this policy will result in a vast decrease in teenage girls becoming pregnant'

Personally, I believe that the implementation of this policy would result in a vast increase in suicides among pregnant teenage girls.

Quite frankly, if this is the only three policy proposals that the London BNP can get together for its party conference, it's tragic. Even more tragic is that these idiots believe they're capable of running the country.

[Thanks to Jain for the heads-up]