The British National Party (sickens me, but it's here, and it has something to say)

I am, of course, sickened by Nick Griffin and his moral policies, but, at the same time, his party has touched on a few, but not many, key issues that the current government is ignoring (whether it's due to incompetence or a full plate, we may never know). For example, exponential population growth is a real and unavoidable issue. The house-building boom cannot go on forever, and, at the moment, it is continuing largely due to immigration.

I, unlike the BNP, however, am not targeting Britain's immigrants as the centre of all British woes. I, unlike the BNP, do not support deporting immigrants who do not pass scrupulously examined legitimacy tests. I simply want to see Britain's fast-growing population slowed by the introduction of some much-needed immigration control policies. That would not entail preventing truly desperate asylum-seekers from seeing a new life in the UK come true. In fact, I believe that all asylum-seekers to any country should be granted a basic, five-year-minimum leave of residence before any question of their legitimacy is brought up. When it is, they should be given a fair interview and all aspects of their reason for seeking asylum should be examined. Private security firms should be removed from the job of deporting failed asylum-seekers because, as the media has quite plainly unveiled, they are doing a horrible job.

Another point that the BNP manifesto for this year points out is the much-reduced educational standards that are still declining - and not just in Britain. The United States is, and has been experiencing for some time, this decline. Of course, being a National party, the BNP unfairly targets immigrants as the cause of this decline.
Immigrants from poor (or poorer) countries typically have lower standards for education, so, when the immigrate to a rich country in large numbers, their expectations for schooling are lower than those of people who have been living in rich countries for multiple generations. HOWEVER, this does not inherently bring down the standards. If citizens of rich Western countries, who have been enjoying high educational standards for many years, decide to lower those standards in the name of fairness to all, they are only hurting themselves. Standards can be kept up - it only gives those lower-standards immigrants reason to catch up. If drop-out numbers increase because of this, then individual programmes within individual schools can find ways to give those certain kids with lower standards incentives to stay in school and complete their secondary and post-secondary education.
And again, most immigrants are not poor, especially since they are choosing Britain to live in. With its exceptionally strong pound sterling and high cost of living, someone moving from a poor country with a weak currency would logically most likely not choose to make a permanent or long-term move to the UK. Therefore, the immigrants that Britain does see (although, of course, people from poor countries do move to the UK; I'm not saying they don't, but...) are not at the bottom of the world financial pyramid. I don't believe that all, or even most, immigrants have low standards of education, and it's the fact that their children have to grow up in poor neighbourhoods in bad areas that causes them to lose all focus in school, and in doing so, bring down education standards simply to keep those miscreants in school.
Closing borders and deporting millions of people will not cause Britain to improve, only its people can do that [cause Britain to improve], and bringing back "O" level exams and grammar schools will keep standards up while giving parents more choice in where to have their children educated. The government's current practice of ending the grammar-school tradition that Britain has long enjoyed will not make, and is not making, parents happy when their only choice for their children's schooling is a crowded, government-run secondary school (by crowded I mean 30+ kids per classroom).

If you're reading this, saying to yourself, "This guy is a looney. He's saying exactly what the BNP wants him to say. They've just seeded another follower", think again.
Recall (or maybe you have read that post, so don't recall) that I am gay. How could a gay person, even a gay white boy, possibly play into the hands of the hard-right? They don't even want to recognise that I'm a person, so how could I possibly feel any inclination to support them?
I don't support the BNP or the National Front, or any racist, constitutionally discriminatory political parties anywhere. My point here is that certain elements of the BNP manifesto for this year highlights items that should be more visible in Western (mostly British, since I feel that the US is doomed to collapse... or at least partially) politics, such as educational reform, immigration control (but not the end of immigration), greater focus on the environment (because this earth is all that we have, and anyone standing in the way of modernised nuclear power is a dumbshit), reform of public services, including NHS reform, decongestion of airports, and reduced building of houses in hazardous places, such as flood plains, and places where the natural beauty of the land would be destroyed.

Worrying about "losing British identity" and sub-standard immigrants should not be any British Government's main concern, or even a concern at all. What the Government needs to do is see where the country needs help, and fix it. Not for the sake of re-election or politics, but for the greater good of the nation as a whole. A government represents its people and their best interests, not itself or its electability. If a government can truly better a country, they should not need to worry about whether or not they will be re-elected.