Patriotic Alternative

1. Callum Martin
2. Laura Towler
3. Sam Towler
4. Dr Andrew Emerson
5. Dennis Whiting
6. Kevin Dixon
7. John Bean
8. Christopher Bateman
9. Julian Leppert
10. Roger Robertson
11. Lawrence Rustem
12. Michael Jones
13. Jayda Fransen
14. Tony Martin
15. Derek Beackon
16. Bob Bailey
17. Jordan Pont
18. Andrew Brons
19. Adrian Davies
20. Chris Jackson
21. Christopher Canham
22. Michael Newland
23. Dr James Lewthwaite
24. Andrew Moffat
25. David Furness
26. Rod Law
27. Adrian Romilly
28. Kevin Scott
29. Kevin Bryan
30. Mike Newland
31. Christopher Willett
32. Adam Lloyd
33. Mike Cooper
34. Neil McIvor
35. Robert Batten
36. West Mids organiser Steve Edwards
37. Sharon Edwards
38. Simon Darby
39. Mark Cotterill
40. Steven Smith
41. Andrew Spence, the very successful Sedgefield parliamentary candidate, praised all over the Party newspaper. He is alleged to have said, "He couldn't get on with the sleazy people close to Griffin."
42. Simon Smith, Sandwell Councillor and Black Country organiser. Left because he queried BNP accounts and expenses. Are the Party Accounts still overdue with the electoral Commission?
43. Clive Potter, President of Solidarity union. Expelled because he insisted on receiving the union accounts.
44. Scott McLean, resigned as Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the disciplinary committee, in particular, because Nick prevented him doing his job and disciplining Mark Collett. I understand that Scott has remained an ordinary member.
45. Jonathan Bowden, Advisory Council member, for similar reasons to Andrew Spence
46. Eddy Butler
47. Ashlea Simon
48. Richard Lumbey

https://web.archive.org/web/20090316014738/http://www.thenationalparty.org.uk/constnf.htm

“We hold our land in trust from our forefathers for our children and our children’s children”.

### **1. INTRODUCTION.**

Patriotic Alternative is a British nationalist movement made up of a confederation of semi-autonomous branches. The primary objective of the Patriotic Alternative is to raise awareness of issues such as demographic decline of native Britons in the United Kingdom, the environmental impact of mass immigration and the indoctrination and political bias taking place in British schools. Compliance with the terms of this Constitution shall be a necessary condition of membership of PA.

The name, “Patriotic Alternative” can be changed if agreed by a supermajority.

Any British White Cis citizen no younger than 14 years of age shall be eligible for membership. Homosexuals only if they're celibate, and bisexuals who exclusively dates the opposite sex can join

### **2. THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF PA.**

PA consists of a confederation of branches co-ordinated by a National Directorate. Additionally a Central Tribunal appointed by the National Directorate is responsible for acting as a final court of appeal in internal disciplinary matters and for acting as a disciplinary tribunal for cases brought directly against individual party members by the National Directorate.

### **3. BRANCHES.**

A) INTRODUCTION.

A Branch is any group of PA members who have:

1. Elected a committee of no fewer than 3 and no more than 5 of their number.
2. Registered the names and addresses of the committee with the National Branch Liaison Officer.
3. Signed the Articles of the Confederacy comprising Annexe 2 of this Constitution
4. Are currently accepted as an affiliated Branch of PA by the National Directorate.

B) RIGHTS OF A BRANCH.

Except where specifically limited by the terms of this Constitution a Branch shall have complete control over its internal affairs and property.

C) BRANCH PROPERTY.

All cash and other assets of a Branch shall be wholly and exclusively the property of that branch and may not be taken from that branch without its permission.

D) BRANCH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGS.

It is a condition of affiliation to PA that every Branch calls an Annual General Meeting. All current members of that Branch must be given reasonable notice in writing of the AGM and shall have the right to attend it and vote on all motions and in elections for Branch Committee provided that the AGM is not the first meeting of that Branch which they have attended. The entire Branch Committee shall stand down and new elections shall be held in which all current members, save as specified above, may vote and stand for election. All Branches shall inform the Branch Liaison Officer of the time, date and venue of their AGM.

E) THE BRANCH COMMITTEE.

The Branch Committee shall consist of 3 to 5 members who have been duly elected by their branch. The names and duties of the committee posts shall be determined by each branch as it pleases, save that one person must be elected as Organiser and a different person as Treasurer. Members will only take up their duties and privileges as a committee member when their name has been registered with the Branch Liaison Officer.

If, at any meeting, a vacancy arises on the committee either through resignation or by vote of no confidence (when the committee member must stand down), then their place may be filled by election at the meeting. Should however a majority of places on the committee become vacant then no elections can take place at that time.

Outgoing committee members must, on request, surrender all properties, lists, etc, which belong to the branch.

F) RIGHTS OF THE NATIONAL DIRECTORATE.

The National Directorate must be given the time, date and venue of any meeting of the branch or committee and any member of the National Executive or Central Tribunal has an absolute right to attend as an observer - they have no other additional rights at that meeting unless they are also a member of that branch.

G) BRANCH LIABILITIES.

In no case may a branch incur any liabilities on behalf of another constituent part of the National From without prior written approval. In the event of a branch disbanding, the committee shall be jointly and severally liable for any branch liabilities and debts which cannot be settled out of branch assets.

H) BRANCH MEMBERSHIP.

Members will be issued with an official PA membership card issued by the National Directorate. 50% of all subscription payments goes to the central administration of PA, 50% remains with the branch, only if they have a PA bank account. No affiliated branch may admit to membership any person expelled from the party by the Central Tribunal or persons deemed by the National Directorate to be unsuitable for Party membership.

I) THE CENTRAL TRIBUNAL

The Central Tribunal may be invited by either the National Directorate or by a branch to intervene

in any dispute between branches. In such cases, its rulings shall be accepted as final and binding.

### **4. REGIONS.**

A) REGIONS OF PA.

A Region of PA consists of branches in a geographical area. These regions are :-

1. Channel Islands
2. Northern Ireland/Ulster
3. Isle of Man
4. Scotland
5. Wales
6. Cornwell
7. East Mercia
8. East Anglia
9. Essex
10. Kent-Sussex
11. London
12. Lancashire
13. Northumbria
14. Yorkshire
15. Wessex
16. West Mercia

Any change to this must be approved by a party Annual Conference or an EGM or by unanimous decision of the National Directorate.

B) REGIONAL REPRESENTATION ON THE NATIONAL DIRECTORATE.

A region, as defined above has the right to be represented by their Regional Organiser at Directorate meetings if 3 or more affiliated branches exist in that region. If there are less than 3 branches, this right may be conferred on individual regions by decision of the National Directorate.

C) THE REGIONAL COUNCIL.

If there is more than 1 branch in a region then they shall establish a regional council made up of branch organisers who shall elect a regional organiser from their number, normally annually. The regional council shall be responsible for co-ordinating activities and fostering the growth of PA in that region.

D) ASSETS.

Assets held by the region collectively shall be owned by the constituent branches in that region. Any dispute about which branch owns what share of regional assets shall be determined by the central tribunal.

### **5.  THE NATIONAL DIRECTORATE.**

A) COMPOSITION OF THE NATIONAL DIRECTORATE.

The National Directorate shall be made up of 6 people elected annually by postal ballot of all paid up members of the party and the regional organisers of the party to number not less than seven and not more than 18. The operation of the postal ballot will be as follows:

* a) Invitations to submit nominations will be published in Organisers and Members Bulletins.
* b) Any paid up member may stand.
* c) Nominations must be in by the 1st Saturday in August.
* d) The candidate must be proposed and seconded.
* e) The proposer and seconder must be paid up members of the party.
* f)  Ballot papers will be sent out by the 2nd Saturday in August.
* g) Ballot papers must be returned by the 1st Friday in September.
* h) The count will be conducted by officers of the party not contesting the election.

B) THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE.

The National Executive shall be, the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and 4 other members of the Directorate selected by the National Directorate.

C) DIRECTLY ELECTED MEMBERS.

Members of the National Directorate who have been directly elected by postal ballot of the membership may only be expelled from the party by a majority vote of the Central Tribunal after a motion to bring disciplinary charges against them has received a 2/3 majority at a National Directorate meeting

They may then appeal at the next Annual Conference or EGM, for reinstatement, for which a simple majority of delegates shall suffice, whereupon they may stand for election to the Executive,

D) RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY OF THE NATIONAL DIRECTORATE.

The primary responsibility of the National Directorate shall be the co-ordination of the branches and regions of PA.

It shall also be responsible for determining party policy between Annual Conferences subject to the basic principles comprising annexe 1 of this constitution, and the decisions of the party conferences, although it shall have the right to modify such policies in the light of changed political circumstances, events, etc.

Branches and individual members shall be answerable to the Directorate for their general conduct.

Accordingly the Directorate can instigate disciplinary proceedings against members where it believes they have acted or are about to act either contrary to the best interests of the party or in a manner liable to bring the party into disrepute.

Pending the outcome of such disciplinary proceedings the Directorate shall have the right to suspend their membership of the party. Such disciplinary proceedings shall be brought before the Central Tribunal within 42 days of the decision to instigate proceedings. The party must then accept the decisions of the Central Tribunal.

Property owned by the party nationally shall be held by the National Directorate.

E) THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE - RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

The National Executive is responsible for the day-to-day co-ordination and running of the party between Directorate meetings. The National Executive shall exercise the authority vested in the Directorate between Directorate meetings except that it must abide by Directorate decisions. The Executive may suspend a member, but such suspension must be ratified by the Directorate before being brought before the Central Tribunal.

The Executive shall meet frequently and decisions will be made by simple majority vote with the Chairman having the casting vote in the case of an equality of votes on a motion. All decisions of the Executive must be communicated in writing to other members of the Directorate within seven days unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so; such reasons are to be put to the directorate at its next meeting,

F) DIRECTORATE DEPARTMENTS.

The Directorate may set up Directorate departments at its own discretion but these must include a Branch Development department. The Directorate may also appoint a Chairman to these departments who shall be answerable for their conduct to the Directorate. The powers of these departments may be determined by the Directorate.

G) THE BRANCH DEVELOPMENT (DEPARTMENT).

This is responsible for the day-to-day contact between the Directorate and the branches of the party and the department(s) must maintain a register of committee members of all branches.

H) DIRECTORATE MEETINGS.

These shall be held at least 4 times per year. The date of the next Directorate meeting will normally be fixed at the previous one, however the National Executive may call a meeting if it is needed. If any three regional organisers ask for a meeting then the Chairman must call a meeting as requested and must give reasonable notice of such a meeting. Directorate meetings shall be held, so far as possible, in locations convenient for the majority of Directorate members.

### **6. THE CENTRAL TRIBUNAL.**

A) COMPOSITION OF THE CENTRAL TRIBUNAL.

The central tribunal shall be made up of three sitting members and two reserve members, each member appointed by a two-thirds majority, of the Directorate. Once appointed members may only be removed by two thirds majority vote of delegates at an Annual Conference or EGM or by unanimous decision of the Directorate or as a result of disciplinary proceedings (see below). If a member of the Tribunal is referred for disciplinary action to the central Tribunal by a two-thirds majority of the Directorate, he or she may be tried by three other Tribunal members and will be bound by their verdict.

B) ELIGIBILITY FOR THE TRIBUNAL.

Members of the party, at least 30 years old and who have been active in the NF for at least 10 years shall be eligible for appointment to the tribunal.  No member of the tribunal may also be a member of the Directorate. No two members of the tribunal may be members within the same region.

C) FUNCTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL.

It shall be the final court of appeal within the party in all disciplinary proceedings, and a court of arbitration for any dispute within the party referred to it by either of the disputing parties or by the Directorate. It will also act as a disciplinary tribunal. Its decisions shall be made by majority vote and its decisions shall be binding (except where an appeal is allowed in this constitution to the Annual Conference (or EGM). The tribunal may only discuss matters referred to it, it may not instigate its own investigations.

Normally the three sitting members will visit together to decide on matters referred to it. However, if for any reason e.g. Illness, conflict of interest, etc, one or more sitting members cannot be present, then they may be replaced by reserve members. In an urgent matter and with the consent of all five members, any two members of the tribunal may hear the case. Should any tribunal member fail to attend five successive tribunal sittings, then he or she will be deemed to have resigned.

E) CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Should any tribunal member be accused of a conflict of interest by all any participant in a tribunal case then the other two sitting members may, by unanimous decision, decide to replace him or her with a reserve member.

F) The 3 sitting members shall elect one of themselves to be chairman of the tribunal. All correspondence for the tribunal shall be sent to the address of the chairman of the tribunal. Such address to be made known to the membership of PA

G) RIGHTS OF THE TRIBUNAL.

The tribunal may instruct any member of the party to give relevant evidence before it or to produce any evidence which he or she may have in their possession. Such, instructions must be obeyed by party members.

H) HEARINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL.

The hearings of the tribunal shall be in places and at times reasonably convenient to the tribunal and those people appearing before it. All persons involved must be given at least seven days notice of such a hearing. All defendants, and both sides in a dispute, shall have the right to appear before the tribunal in person and state their case and to call any reasonable witness or evidence. The other party or the prosecution shall have the right to cross examine witnesses and challenge evidence.

The tribunal may devise its own procedures subject to the provisions of this constitution and the rules of natural justice.

### **7. THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE.**

A) INTRODUCTION.

The Annual Conference of PA shall normally be held in September or October, unless the executive decides differently or a general election interferes with such arrangements in which case it may be delayed only up to the end of the following February.

B) NOTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE.

At least one calendar months prior to the date of the Annual Conference all registered branch officials shall be informed in writing of the date and approximate location of the Conference; they shall at the same: time, be invited to submit resolutions for debate at the conference. Such resolutions must be received by the Directorate at least three weeks before the Conference date. Such resolutions must be proposed and seconded by party members.

At least two weeks before the Conference a list of resolutions for debate together with the venue or re-direction points of the Conference shall be circulated to all Branch officials. The Directorate shall use its discretion to select resolutions for debate at the Conference. However any resolution endorsed by at least five branches (decided by majority vote at branch meetings) shall be included on the agenda. Emergency resolutions may be included on the agenda at any time up to the close of Conference at the discretion of the Executive.

D) All paid up members of the party bearing a valid membership card have the right to attend the Conference and, if called upon by the Conference chairman, to speak in debate. But only branch delegates may vote. Branch delegates will be issued with official voting cards on their arrival at the Conference. Delegates shall consist of all registered committee members of affiliated branches plus two additional branch members for each committee member present. Such additional delegates must be from the same branch as the committee member and must present themselves at the entrance to the Conference with the committee member. Thus if all committee members attend the Conference each branch will have between nine and fifteen voting delegates. Any disputes about eligibility shall be decided on the spot by the Central Tribunal members, or in their absence, by the Executive.

E) CONFERENCE STANDING ORDERS.

The standing orders and the chairman of the Conference will be agreed by simple majority card vote at the opening of the Conference.

F) VOTING.

Ordinary resolutions shall be determined by simple majority vote of the delegates. Constitutional amendments and motions to challenge Central Tribunal rulings or to remove Tribunal members require a two-thirds majority of delegate votes.

### **8. EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETINGS.**

A) POWER TO CALL AN EGM.

An Extraordinary General Meeting of the party may be called at any time by a majority vote of the Directorate, by unanimous demand of the sitting members of the Central Tribunal, or by resolution demanding an EGM being carried by majority vote of members of at least five affiliated branches from more than one region.

B) CALLING AN EGM.

Upon receipt of a valid demand for an EGM as detailed above, the Executive shall organise an EGM within not more than two months and not less than one month from the date of the receipt of the demand. At least two weeks before the EGM all branch officials shall be informed of the date and venue (or redirection points) for the EGM together with any resolutions for inclusion on the agenda submitted by those demanding the EGM, such resolutions must be included on the agenda. EGMs shall he conducted in the same way as the Annual Conference save that the resolutions from five or more branches which must be included on the agenda must be received at least seven days before the EGM. The agenda for the EGM will be circulated at the EGM.

### **9. PARTY DISCIPLINE.**

A) INTRODUCTION.

The sole disciplinary offence shall be that of behaving contrary to the best interest of the party or in a manner liable to bring the party into disrepute, as determined in both cases by the Central Tribunal. The Directorate shall have power to convene a tribunal to consider the expulsion of a member when, in their opinion, it would not be in the interests of the Party for him to remain a member.

B) INSTIGATION OF PROCEEDINGS.

Disciplinary proceedings may be instigated against a member only by a majority vote of the Directorate, however a member of the party may have his or hers membership suspended pending disciplinary action by decision of any Directorate member, provided such decision is notified to and ratified by the Executive Council within three days. Members of the Directorate may only be suspended by decision of the Directorate. The accused person shall be tried directly by the Tribunal Members of the Directorate who have been directly elected by the membership shall have the right to appeal against a verdict of the Tribunal at the next EGM or Annual Conference which ever comes sooner.

A member shall not be expelled unless he is given 15 days' written notice by Registered or Recorded Delivery Post to his last known address to attend a meeting of a tribunal of three members appointed by the regulatory officer and written particulars of the complaint or complaints made against him. The tribunal shall use all reasonable endeavours to convene at a location convenient to the member whose expulsion it is to consider.

C) NATURAL JUSTICE.

All disciplinary proceedings within the party shall be conducted according to the laws of natural justice.

(c) Such member shall be given an opportunity to make representations in writing and/or to appear (i) in person or (ii) by his solicitor or counsel (whether or not a member of the Party and whether admitted in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, or called to the bar of England and Wales or of Northern Ireland, or a member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland) or (iii) by any other member of the Party (whether or not admitted as a solicitor or called to the bar) before the tribunal to answer complaints made against him, and shall not be expelled unless at least two of the three members of the tribunal vote in favour of his expulsion.

(d) The tribunal will state its reasons for expelling a member to the regulatory officer and the Secretary within five days. The Secretary shall state the tribunal's reasons for expelling a member in writing despatched to such expellee by First Class Registered or Recorded Delivery Post no later than ten days after the date of the tribunal at which such member was expelled.

(e) A member so expelled shall have a right of appeal to the Council, on condition that he lodges notice of appeal no later than fourteen days after the date of his expulsion either by handing a copy to the Secretary or by sending a copy to the Secretary by First Class Registered or Recorded Delivery Post.

(f) It shall be sufficient for the member to give notice by writing thus: "I appeal against my expulsion from the Freedom Party by a disciplinary tribunal held on the [ ] day of [ ] [20[ ]]". The member shall be entitled but not bound to state his grounds of appeal with particularity.

(g) Any expelled member lodging notice of appeal in accordance with these rules shall be deemed for all intents and purposes to have been suspended only and not expelled from membership pending the hearing of his appeal. Such member will however be debarred from exercising any of the privileges of membership or office pending the hearing of his appeal, save for the purposes of Clause 18, in respect of which he shall enjoy the same rights as a member in good standing. Any expelled member lodging notice of appeal in accordance with these rules shall be given not less than fifteen days' written notice by Registered or Recorded Delivery Post to his last known address to attend a meeting of the Council, to be convened not more than one hundred days after the holding of the tribunal appealed against.

(h) On appeal the member shall be given an opportunity to make representations in writing (to be read to the Council by the Secretary) and/or to appear (i) in person or (ii) by his solicitor or counsel (as defined by clause 6 (c) above, and whether not a member of the Party) or (iii) by any other member of the Party (whether or not admitted as a solicitor or called to the bar) before the Council to answer complaints made against him, and to show cause why he should not be expelled from membership, and unless a majority of the members then present and voting vote to reverse the tribunal's decision to expel, he shall forthwith be expelled from membership of the Party.

(i) There shall (subject always to clause 3 (b) above) be no further appeal, save on points of law, which, for the avoidance of doubt, shall include questions of construction of these rules, and the question whether any decision to expel was so unreasonable that no tribunal deliberating in good faith could rationally have reached it.

### **10. PARTY POLICY.**

A) DETERMINATION OF POLICY.

Party policy shall be determined by motions carried at an Annual Conference or EGM, by the Directorate and by the Executive in order of precedence. However the Directorate may modify policy adopted at an Annual Conference or EGM in the light of changed circumstances, subject to ratification at the next Annual Conference or EGM whichever is sooner.

B) BASIC PRINCIPLES

Notwithstanding the above, no policy may be adopted by the party which is contrary to the basic principles contained in Annexe 1 of this Constitution, nor may any resolution which seeks to do this placed on the agenda of the Annual Conference or EGM. (This over-rides the provisions of Section 7C).

C) MISREPRESENTATION OF THE PARTY.

No member of the party may present as “PA policy” any policy which has not been validly promulgated as detailed above. Doing so is liable to be construed as harmful to the interests of the party contrary to Section 9 and renders the offender liable to disciplinary action.

However, branches may adopt and publicise policies on local issues at their own discretion, provided these do not conflict with national policy or the party’s basic principles.

Internal debate is also permissible within the framework of the basic principles, including criticism of national policy; provided that when aired in public such debate is clearly identified as such and distinguished from official policy, e.g. by portraying it as deeply divided and liable to split.

D) PARTY PUBLICATIONS.

Independent publications produced by party members and proclaiming support for or identification with the party have a duty to fairly represent the official policies of the party on all issues, whether they personally agree with them or not.

The use of independent publications for internal factional ends within the party by their editors shall be deemed liable to render editors subject to disciplinary proceedings.

The annual subscription shall be £15 (fifteen pounds sterling), but pensioners, students and unwaged members shall be eligible to pay a reduced subscription of £6, and married couples shall be eligible to pay a joint subscription of £20, or £10 if both are pensioners, students or unwaged. Members' subscriptions shall be due on joining the Party and thereafter on the 1st day of July 2002, and on the 1st day of July in each subsequent year.

The Directorate shall not be permitted to refuse the subscription of any member otherwise in good standing if it is tendered no later than 31st August, save by expelling such member pursuant to Clause 6.

It is the Party's intention to contest elections to all levels of government. However, in order that the election campaigns reflect creditably upon the Party and to ensure that the campaigns are contested within the law, all candidates who wish to contest seats under the Party name must first obtain the written approval of the Campaign Director.

No member may make public statements in the name of the Party unless that member has been first authorised to do so by the Directorate.

### **ANNEXE 1. - STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES.**

1. PA is the movement of British Nationalism. It is committed to preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and recognises that the nation must be mostly of European and predominantly British heritage.
2. PA is a “distributist” movement, ie. distributed ownership of property. Consequently we are opposed to both Communism and Capitalism because they lead to ownership and control by the few. All British economic; concerns must be owned as directly possible by British people.
3. PA believes in the right of the British people to national self-determination. Consequently we believe Britain must seek to have a totally independent capability to defend itself against any aggressor nation.
4. We believe it is morally and economically wrong and politically dangerous for credit to be crested by private institutions as interest bearing debts. Consequently we believe that the right to create credit should be solely vested in the Government and be spent not lent into circulation.
5. PA believes in respect for nature and is determined to end the destruction of our environment. We believe in a regeneration of our rural communities while preserving the heritage of our countryside.
6. We believe in the preservation of our cultural heritage and the encouragement of our own folk cultures.

### ANNEXE 2. THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.

The confederacy of PA branches is based upon the belief that power within the PA must reside with the members and not with unrepresentative and out of touch cliques, this is being so, the eight Principles of the Confederacy are as follows:-

1. PA is a confederation of semi-autonomous branches united in common nationalist ideology.
2. Branch funds and all other locally owned assets shall be the property of that branch alone.
3. The Directorate shall be responsible for issuing membership cards.
4. The cost of joining and renewing membership of PA shall be decided at the Annual Conference.
5. Each branch shall be run by a committee comprising paid up members of that branch. Branch committees shall be elected on an annual basis at Annual General Meetings at which all paid up members of the branch may vote.
6. PA shall be governed by a National Directorate comprised jointly of Regional representatives elected by the branch committees at regional council meetings and 6 members elected by national postal ballot.
7. The majority of places on the National Directorate must always be filled by regional representatives and the National Executive must be answerable at all times to the National Directorate. Thus the Directorate will always be controlled by elected representatives from all regions of the country.
8. Branches who wish to be part of the confederacy must act in a way that furthers the cause of PA. Branches which bring the party into disrepute shall be expelled from the confederacy by a majority vote of the National Directorate.

### **Offices**

(a) The officers of the Party shall be a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman, a Treasurer, a Campaign Director, a Regulatory Officer and a Secretary. All must be members of the Party, and the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and the Treasurer must be members of the Council. It shall be permissible for one person to hold more than one office excepting that neither the Chairman nor Deputy Chairman may also be the Treasurer, and the offices of Chairman and Deputy Chairman may not be held by the same person.

(b) The officers shall be proposed, seconded and elected by the members of the Council for the time being.

(c) The Annual General Meeting, if it thinks fit, may elect a President and Vice- Presidents. A President or Vice-President need not be a member of the Party but on election shall, ex officio, be an honorary member of the Party.

**(9) Annual General Meeting**

(a) The Annual General Meeting of the Party shall be held on not less than twenty-eight days' notice to the members of the Party in 2002 and then in each calendar year, and not before 1st October, nor later than 24th December, to transact the following business:

(i) to receive the Chairman's report of the activities of the Party during the previous year;

(ii) to receive and approve the accounts of the Party for the previous year and the Auditor's report on the accounts and the Treasurer's report as to the financial position of the Party;

(iii) to elect the Auditor, or confirm that he should remain in office;

(iv) to record who has been elected to the Council;

(v) to decide on any resolution which may be duly submitted in accordance with Clause 9 (b).

(b) Notice of any resolution proposed to be moved at the Annual General Meeting shall be given in writing to the Secretary not less than fourteen days before the meeting.

(c) If the Secretary certifies that not less than thirty-five days before the date fixed for the Annual General Meeting, she sent notice to each member of the Party at his last notified address by ordinary second class post (but by air mail for members not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom), such notice will be deemed good and sufficient notice for all intents and purposes.

**(10) Special General Meeting**

(a) A Special General Meeting may be called by a majority of the Council at any time but on not less than fourteen clear days' notice, and shall be called within twenty-eight days of receipt by the Secretary of a requisition in writing signed by not less than one hundred members, stating (in general terms) the purposes for which the meeting is required and the resolutions proposed, and tendering a deposit of £250 towards the expenses of a Special General Meeting.

(b) Notice of any resolution proposed to be moved at a Special General Meeting shall be given in writing to the Secretary not less than seven days before the meeting.

(c) If the Secretary certifies that not less than fourteen days before the date fixed for a Special General Meeting, she sent notice to each member of the Party at his last notified address by ordinary second class post (but by air mail for members not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom), such notice will be deemed good and sufficient notice for all intents and purposes.

(11) Procedure at the Annual and Special General Meetings

(a) The Secretary shall not less than thirty-five days before the date fixed for the Annual General Meeting nor less than fourteen days before the date fixed for a Special General Meeting send to each member at his last known address written notice the date of the General Meeting and will in the case of the Annual General Meeting further send notice of the resolutions to be proposed thereat not less than seven days before the meeting.

(b) The Chairman, or in his absence the Deputy Chairman, shall take the chair. If both the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman are absent, the members present will elect a chairman of the meeting. Each member present shall have one vote and resolution shall be passed by a simple majority. In the event of an equality of votes, the chairman of the meeting shall have a casting or additional vote.

(c) The Secretary, or in her absence a member of the Council, shall take minutes at Annual and Special Meetings.

**(12) Alteration of the Rules**

(a) The rules may be altered by resolution of the members at an Annual or Special General Meeting, provided that the resolution is duly proposed and seconded in accordance with clause 9 (b) above, and carried by a majority of at least two-thirds of members voting at the General Meeting.

(b) No alteration shall be made to these rules without the unanimous consent of the Council until the Annual General Meeting of the Party for 2002.

**(13) Finance**

(a) All monies payable to the Party shall be received by the Treasurer and deposited in a bank account in the name of the Party.

(b) All the assets of the Party, except monies deposited in the Party's bank account, shall be vested in three trustees, as to whom see further clause 15 below. The first Trustees shall be Mrs S. Edwards, Mr J.A.D. Bowden and Mr N. Phillips. Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution, the trustees may be removed from office only by a majority of at least two-thirds of the members voting at an Annual or Special General Meeting, or by order of the Court.

(c) No sum shall be drawn from the Party's bank account except by cheque signed by two of the four signatories who shall be the Treasurer and the three Trustees.

(d) Any monies which in the Council's opinion are not required for immediate use may be invested as the Trustees in their discretion think fit.

(e) The income and property of the Party shall be applied only in the furtherance of the objects of the Party.

(f) The Council shall have power to authorise the payment of remuneration and/or expenses to any officer, member or employee of the Party and to any other person or persons for services rendered to the Party.

(g) The financial transactions of the Party shall be recorded in such manner as the Treasurer thinks fit, subject always to the provisions of the Act.

(h) The Party's financial year shall run from 1st July to 30th June, and the first accounts will be made up to 30th June 2002.

(i) The members in an Annual or Special General Meeting shall have power to appoint an Auditor to scrutinize the Party's accounts and report to the members in general meeting. The Auditor may be but need not be a member of the Party. Once appointed the Auditor will hold office until the next Annual or Special General Meeting. For the avoidance of any possible doubt, neither the Council, nor any officer of the party, nor the Trustees will have any power to remove the Auditor, which is reserved to the members in general meeting.

**(14) Borrowing**

(a) The Council with the concurrence of all the Trustees first had in writing but not otherwise may borrow money on behalf of the Party for the purposes of the Party from time to time.

(b) When so borrowing the Council shall have power to raise in any way any sum or sums of money and to raise and secure the repayment of any sums or sums of money in such manner or on such terms and conditions as they think fit, and in particular by mortgage of or charge upon or by the issues of debentures charged upon all or any part of the property of the Party.

(c) The Council shall have no power to pledge the personal liability of any member of the Party for the repayment of any sums so borrowed without that member's consent first had in writing.

**(15) Property**

(a) The property of the Party, other than cash at the bank, shall be vested in three trustees (who may be, but need not be, members of the Council). They shall hold the property upon trust for the members of the Party in accordance with the rules a constitution thereof.

(b) The Trustees shall deal with the property in their own discretion but subject always to the lawful directions of the Council and of the members in general meeting.

(c) The Trustees shall hold office until death or resignation unless removed by a resolution of at least two-thirds of the members voting at an Annual or Special General Meeting, or by order of the Court.

(d) Power to appoint new trustees will rest with the continuing trustees, subject however to the approval of at least two-thirds of the members voting at an Annual or Special General Meeting. A new trustee or new trustees shall be appointed by deed and the provisions of the Trustee Act 1925 shall apply to any such appointment. Any statement of fact in any such deed of appointment shall in favour of a person dealing bona fide with the Party or the Trustees be conclusive evidence of the fact so stated.

(e) The Trustees shall serve without remuneration, but shall be entitled to an indemnity out of and a lien over the property of the Party for all expenses and other liabilities properly incurred by them in the discharge of their duties.

**(16) Branches and Regions**

(a) The Council may establish local units of the Party to be known as branches. The Council may authorize any branch to administer its own funds. In such a circumstance the branch will be a local accounting unit of the Party, for the purposes of the Act.

(b) Branches, once established by the council, may select their own local officers. These officers will work under the authority of the Council and must follow all lawful directions of the Council.

(c) The Council may establish geographical groupings of branches into regions. Regions may also be formed where there is no Branch structure. Regional officers are to be appointed by the Council and must follow all lawful directions of the Council

(d) The Council may authorize any region to administer its own funds. In such a circumstance the region will be a local accounting unit of the Party, in accordance with the Act.

**(17) Dissolution**

(a) A resolution to dissolve the Party shall only be proposed at a Special or an Annual General Meeting and shall be carried by a majority of at least two-thirds of the members present.

(b) The dissolution shall take effect from the date of the resolution and the members of the Council shall be responsible for the winding-up of the assets and liabilities of the Party.

(c) Any property remaining after the discharge of the debts and liabilities of the Party shall be divided equally among the members of the Party, or as they shall direct.

**(18) Definitions**

In these rules references to "he, him and his" shall be construed as including "she, her and hers" and vice versa, as the case may require. The "Act" means the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000, and any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof.

**(19) Choice of Law**

This constitution is to be governed by and construed in accordance with English law, and no action shall be brought upon it save in the courts of England and Wales, save in the case of members of the Party domiciled in Scotland or Northern Ireland, who may sue or be sued in the Scots or Northern Irish courts.

## **Code of Conduct**

The purpose of this document is to provide a clear set of standards that must not be breached, to guide members and non-member volunteers in how they are expected to conduct themselves. In the rest of this document where ‘members’ are mentioned, nonmember volunteers are also included.

It also applies to all activities carried out for or on behalf of PA, for which PA members or non-member volunteers are responsible, including informal social activities and any other forms of interaction at which Green Party members are present. Members are expected to display the same high standards of conduct in their interactions with staff.  The Party has in addition a set of policies specifically for paid staff and how to deal with matters arising within employment situations.

This Code of Conduct stands alongside and complements other organisational Party documentation, such as the Anti-Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination (& Whistleblowing) policy and Safeguarding Policy. However only documents formally appended to this Code may be considered a part of it for disciplinary purposes.

1. While PA activists are free to spread the flame in radical, imaginative ways of their own choosing, they must not deviate from the truth in their message.
2. PA members should avoid unwarranted, hostile dialogue with other individuals or groups.
3. PA members and officers must not undermine the work of fellow PA members, behave overbearingly or demoralize their fellow party members.
4. PA Officers are appointed on the basis of merit, diligence and confidence, therefore PA Officers who undertake certain responsibilities must fulfil those to the best of his/her ability.
5. PA members must treat all information regarding other members, events, etc. in strict confidence and not divulge those facts unless cleared to do so.
6. PA members also have a duty to inform party HQ of anything compromising party security or our overall reputation.
7. PA propaganda, bearing the name and emblem of the party must not be released unless expressly sanctioned by the PA leadership administration.
8. PA members, as far as the law will allow, are expected to NOT disclose information to the State authorities which puts the party or any of its members at risk.
9. PA members must not willingly take part in, (or co-operate with) any event or project which undermines Racial Nationalism or PA.
10. PA members must avoid excessive drunkenness and under no circumstances take part in the usage of illegal narcotics.
11. Racial slurs must not be used (context will be important when determining this)
12. Be warm, kind and welcoming to all people outside the party (unless they show no respect to you)
13. Do not commit any acts of violence towards anyone unless it is to defend yourself
14. Do not commit any crimes, we will not accept people who commit crimes unless they showed maturity, remorse, growth and accountability
15. Do not join any hooligan groups
16. Members have a general duty to respect decisions made by the National Party, any local or Regional Party or any other Party body or group through democratic process. This includes, but is not limited to, internal organisational guidance and procedures on: ethics and conduct, as well as legal responsibilities relating to safeguarding, financial accounting, data handling and electoral law.
17. Members should maintain civilised standards of conduct towards each other and others such as political opponents or non-members when acting in a Party capacity, or when identifiable as a PA member.
18. Members should take care to not bring PA into disrepute by engaging in unethical conduct.
19. Members’ right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief should be respected.
20. Members who dissent from a decision or an official policy must ensure they make it clear that they are expressing disagreement as an individual and not as a representative of the Party or any part of it. However they must take care to maintain civilised standards of conduct and to not bring the Party into disrepute while doing so.
21. When formally representing the Party, members must ensure that their communications about PA political policies do not conflict with PA policy before these are communicated to members or non-members. If there is dissent from political policy, members should state the PA policy as well as their personal view.  They should also take care not to add to formal PA communications their personal opinions and criticisms of others.
22. Unless an authorised communication is being made on behalf of the Party, members should make it clear their views are their own and not necessarily those of the Party. Members who use social media or online platforms and mention their membership of, or role in, PA (or it is known to those viewing the member’s online activity) should post an adequately prominent online disclaimer to this effect.
23. Members who express opinions in a situation in which their membership of PA is known must take care to not bring the party into disrepute.
24. PA should be an organisation in which people can feel comfortable, feel welcome and enjoy being a member and taking part in its activities. Members' behaviour towards each other and non-members should therefore be: tolerant, considerate, respectful and civil.
25. Members should in all their interactions with colleagues, assume the best of them.
26. Members should not: shout at someone; be aggressive in their manner; make belittling, derogatory or disparaging remarks about another member; insult a member or disrupt a meeting or discussion.
27. Members should be inviting and inclusive to ensure members feel confident to join in and get involved.
28. Members should ensure that all members are encouraged to contribute to discussion and decision-making at meetings and that everyone is listened to properly, without being interrupted unnecessarily. Decisions should be made by consensus wherever possible.
29. Members should work collaboratively with all members of the Party.
30. Members should help other members develop skills to fully participate in democratic processes and Party activities.
31. Members should trust other members and supporters in the discharge of their responsibilities, allowing them room for initiative and judgement.
32. Members should seek support when they need it and offer it when appropriate.
33. Members should communicate with others with due consideration to time, place and manner. Acknowledge communications from others swiftly and give an expected time-scale for a full reply.
34. Members should thank or praise colleagues when appropriate for the time and effort spent on behalf of you or the Party.
35. Members should communicate sensitively and courteously at all times with other members, whether face-to-face, by phone, by email, letter or in social media.
36. Members should be aware when contacting other members that they may have jobs, family or other constraints on their time and be patient in expecting a response. Members should also not put undue pressure on others to volunteer their time or overburden them with work or responsibility beyond their capacity.
37. Members organising or chairing events and activities have a responsibility to be aware of the needs of those involved and a duty of care to act sensitively, civilly and inclusively. They also have a duty of care towards those participating in such events or activities that they not be put in harm’s way through negligence or failure to assess risk.
38. In addition, members should be afforded adequate and timely access to information about planned meetings or activities that they could take part in or observe; and equal access to information or papers being used during a meeting or activity they are taking part in, including minutes, that would enable them to participate on an equal basis with other members present. This requirement does not apply where a legitimate disciplinary sanction has removed these rights from a member.
39. Members must not behave in a discriminatory manner towards someone on the basis of their gender/sex, age, pregnancy, familial status, disability status, veteran status, marital status, religion or creed or belief, class, height, matriculation, financial status, place/type of residence
40. As PA welcomes people from a wide range of backgrounds, members may encounter people who hold differing political or philosophical worldviews. Freedom of belief and the right to change that belief is a fundamental human right. Members should therefore show tolerance and respect towards people that hold political or philosophical worldviews that differ from their own.
41. The Philosophical Basis and the Constitution of PA require that the legitimate interests of all people be taken into account and that decisions be made by consensus if possible. Any time a group of people gets together members should expect - and not be intolerant of - differing ideas regarding how to approach problem solving, objective setting and work methods. This is not in and of itself a bad thing and should be managed by members in a cooperative, inclusive and collaborative manner. Positive dialogue should be encouraged and angry abuse must be prevented.
42. When a dispute exists members are expected to take special care to behave in a civil manner towards other members and take even greater care than normal not to indulge in behaviour that could be perceived as provocative, intimidating or offensive.
43. Members should not use criticism to hurt, humiliate or belittle, undermine or otherwise attack someone. 'Attack the argument, not the person' is an approach that should be followed in debating situations.
44. Members are entitled to disagree but should not treat others adversely or with discourtesy or open hostility due to political opposition.
45. Members should refrain from criticising other Party members publicly, including any situations where non-members may be present. If criticism is felt to be necessary, it should be done sensitively and constructively by those given that responsibility. Criticism should be of actions and behaviour or statements etc., not of the person. Avoid labels, name calling and stigmatising a person.
46. Making a clearly vexatious or malicious complaint; using a complaint as part of a pattern of harassment; clearly abusing the complaint system to attack a personal enemy or political opponent or another person within PA are all forms of unacceptable behaviour
47. Members must not spread malicious rumour or unfounded negative gossip or hearsay about other members.
48. Members must use the appropriate internal procedures to address concerns, grievances and complaints. The Party also has a Whistleblowing procedure. Complaints should be dealt with through a proper complaint procedure and not discussed as part of an ordinary meeting agenda, nor made publicly, nor used to bring the Party into disrepute.
49. Members should take care to not commit a disciplinary offence in the course of responding to a disciplinary offence committed by another member. Members should not resort to unacceptable conduct in any circumstances.
50. Members should respect the constraints of confidentiality when it is agreed by all parties to the matter under consideration, or when confidentiality has been imposed by the appropriate person(s) or body via due procedure. Challenges to confidentiality must be made via appropriate channels. This duty does not override member's whistleblowing rights.
51. Members should remember that as elected PA representatives their actions in their private lives can affect the reputation of the party both positively and negatively.
52. Members should disclose anything in their personal history that could potentially bring PA into disrepute before they stand for election to any office within the Party or for selection as a candidate to represent PA externally in any capacity. This includes opinions that are incompatible with PA ethics or philosophy. Disclosures should be in confidence and via appropriate procedures. The duty to disclose is an ongoing duty that persists after being selected or elected.
53. Members, who are involved in any way in arranging the selection, appointment, co-option or election of someone to either hold office internally or represent PA externally, must ensure disclosures are obtained as set out in the preceding clause.
54. Members who take office internally at any level of PA must do what is needed to meet the legal obligations of the Party and to that end keep adequate records of their decisions and communications. Failure to provide records of decisions and other information to members, as required by the GPEW Constitution, is unacceptable conduct.
55. Decisions should be recorded and kept for future reference and should either be adhered to and implemented or changed democratically and the change recorded. Members must follow agreed procedures. It is not acceptable conduct for a member to ignore or to seek to abuse or subvert due procedure (as interpreted by Standing Orders Committee).
56. Records of which responsibility or authority has been allocated to which people must be clear. Members must have the requisite authority when acting on behalf of any part of the Party and must not exceed it. It is unacceptable for a member to pass themselves off as acting as an authorised representative of the Party if they do not have the authorisation and have not followed the approved procedure for this.
57. Members must check with the relevant budget holder before committing Party resources other than those for which they have responsibility.
58. Members breach this Code if they approve expenditure or financial commitments that put their local party, or any other part of the Party, at risk of insolvency or engage in false accounting.
59. Members breach this Code if they break electoral law or allow members or supporters to.
60. Procedures agreed by members must be fair and transparent, in line with requirements set out in the PA Constitution.
61. Members have a duty to make themselves familiar with all procedures and policies relevant to their role in PA.
62. All written communication sent ‘on behalf of PA’ must not be for personal gain or in conflict with PA core values. This applies to e-communications as well as paper-based material.
63. The use of Party headed notepaper and the Party logo whether on paper or in e-communications should only be for legitimate PA communications agreed by the appropriate body.
64. Members should take great care when accepting offers of money from, or entering into financial transactions with, members or supporters, friend or relatives and should record carefully the exact terms on which an agreement has been reached, as well as ensure the process is as open and transparent as possible.
65. Members must not take part in a decision that benefits them personally or financially.
66. Members have a duty to consider recusing themselves from a decision in which they have an interest and must also declare that interest. For example, candidate selection, target ward selection, disciplinary process, awarding a contract to supply goods or services, recruitment or any other decision.

Anti-Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination (& Whistleblowing) policy

Safeguarding Policy

Any member found in breach of the rules, codes of conduct, policies and/or guidelines of PA will be dealt with according to the rules and procedures of PA, and this may include being investigated and becoming subject to disciplinary action.

## **FAQ**

### Section 1. WHAT IS PA?

**1. WHAT IS PATRIOTIC ALTERNATIVE?**

A. Patriotic Alternative is a community building and political movement. Our aim is to raise awareness of issues such as the demographic decline of native Britons in the United Kingdom, the environmental impact of mass immigration and the indoctrination and political bias taking place in British schools.

**2. ARE YOU A POLITICAL PARTY OR JUST A RIGHT-WING PRESSURE GROUP OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY?**

A. We are an independent political movement. We have no connection with the Tories or any other political organisations.

**3. BUT DON'T YOU INFILTRATE OTHER PARTIES?**

A. No. All these parties are internationalist, they all believe in multiracialism and they put the interests of international trade and finance before the wishes of the British people. Consequently we have little connection with them. This makes infiltration a nonsense. PA is a British nationalist movement which believes in the absolute rights of British sovereignty and the principle of distributism. This is something quite new in British politics.

**4. WHY DO YOU KEEP REFERRING TO YOURSELVES AS A 'MOVEMENT' RATHER THAN A PARTY?**

A. Because PA is more than just a party. While we are interested in gaining power at both local and national level we are interested in a much wider range of matters as well. PA is calling for a truly National Revolution whereby the British people adopt a quite different way of looking at a whole host of issues. This would affect not just the level of taxation, but peoples' attitude to each other and to the rest of the world.

We believe that decisions being made by British people are heavily influenced by wrong assumptions made by the people who influence opinion in this country. We are also a community-building movement too.

**5. CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THIS?**

A. Yes. It is almost unheard of for a television commentator, an establishment politician, a church leader or anyone else in a position of influence to question the wisdom of having a multiracial society. Yet if you asked the ordinary British man or woman in the street whether they prefer living with non-whites or whether they would prefer to live in a mostly monoracial societies, a significant but unknown proportion are almost certain to opt for the latter. Why is there this imbalance between ordinary people and the opinion formers of society?

**6. DOES PA EXIST WHERE I LIVE?**

A. Very probably. PA has branches in most parts of the country, although we are better represented in some areas than others. Rural areas are not as well covered as cities but no-one should be far from an organised branch or group.

**7. BUT I THOUGHT YOU ONLY HAD BRANCHES IN ENGLAND?**

A. No, we have branches in Ulster, Wales, Scotland, the Isle of Man, there are even members in the Channel Islands. In fact we are better represented in terms of membership in Ulster than we are in England.

**8. WHO RUNS PA?**

A. The members. They elect local committees and the party leadership is elected by the party to the National Directorate in a postal ballot. The party has a chairman who is elected by the National Directorate. Party policies are debated and decided at party conferences.

**9. HOW LONG AS PA BEEN IN EXISTENCE?**

A. PA has formed in 2012. Since then it has grown into a nationwide movement and is a household name.

**10. WHAT DOES PA DO?**

Our aim is to build up our membership and support so that we can put our ideas and policies into practice. Consequently our energies are largely devoted to publicising our views as much as possible. This involves the distribution of literature about our ideas, public demonstrations and marches.

**11. BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOUR PUBLICATIONS IN THE SHOPS.**

A. No, very few shops are prepared to stock our literature because of attacks from left-wing groups and immigrants. We get around this by selling our papers on the streets to the people and distributing our leaflets door to door.

**12. WHY DO YOU HOLD MARCHES, THEY CAUSE TROUBLE DON'T THEY?**

A. Because we are denied access to the television and press interviews are rare. Our comments are always edited and twisted by the media anyway and we use marches and public demonstrations to bring public attention to what we have to say. Any trouble is always caused by the red rentamob who attack, or try to attack, our parades. PA always keep order on our demo's yet when violence occurs the media always blame PA even though we never cause the trouble. We will defend ourselves when attacked which is our legal right to do and we refuse to be bullied into silence by the criminals of the Marxian left.

**13. DOES PA CONTEST ELECTIONS?**

A. Yes, PA is committed to gaining power through the ballot box and we fight elections when and where we are able to.

**14. ARE THERE ANY PA MEMBERS IN PARLIAMENT?**

A. No. We have not had any members elected to Parliament. The political system in this country is not one that gives new parties much of a chance but the Labour Party was once without elected representation in Westminster, now they are in government (but with only 26% of the electorate giving them their vote - is this democracy?). PA will abolish the undemocratic 'first-past-the-post' system and replace it with a  Greek-system whereby they have a mixture of proportional representation with a majority bonus system

**15. HOW DO I FIND OUT ABOUT THE IDEAS OF PA?**

A. Elsewhere on this site you will our 'Policies' section as well as finding the e-mail address of PAHQ or your nearest branch. There are telephone numbers listed that you can ring for further information and PO Box addresses to write to.

### **Section 2. WHAT DOES PA BELIEVE IN?**

**16. WHAT DOES PA BELIEVE IN?**

A. Personal liberty, social justice, national independence and racial integrity.

**17. WHY DO YOU TALK ABOUT DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE? WHY DOES IT MATTER?**

A. Because a 'nation' is define as a "large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory". The British people are made up of the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh. These are the indigenous peoples of the UK and only they have an ancestral claim to it. The UK is the only place where the British people, and they alone, can realise their natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination. As such, we will pass a Nation State Law to enshrine this principle and ensure the British people never become a minority or 2nd class citizens in their ancestral homeland. There will be a government commission to identify and overturn all policy that discriminates against the indigenous people.

Since large scale non-White immigration to Britain began, in the years following the Second World War, the damage wrought by this immigration to the social fabric of the nation has been obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Over the decades, sincere attempts to sound a warning bell have been made, both from outside the Establishment and occasionally from within it – most famously in the late 1960s by the renegade Conservative parliamentarian Enoch Powell. And between 1966 and 1970, Powell's party, then led by Edward Heath and

sitting in opposition to Prime Minister Harold Wilson's Labour government, made half-hearted manifesto gestures toward curbing further inflows of migrant workers and their

families, and introducing a policy of voluntary repatriation.

**18. DOES THIS MEAN THAT YOU ARE IN FAVOUR OF JUST ONE RACE?**

A. No. With each race there are considerable cultural differences which, as well as geographical considerations should form the basis of national boundaries.

**19. CAN A NATION EVER HAVE A POPULATION DRAWN FROM MORE THAN ONE RACE?**

A. They could but most countries succeed where a race/ethnicity has a 'super majority'. A nation that is to maintain its integrity the people must be united by ties of race and culture. Nations such as the USA which have significant populations drawn from more than one race become tense, violence becomes prevalent, and racial groups separate out. A good example is the situation today in the UK with Oldham, Bradford and other cities becoming war zones. There have been grooming gangs, grenade attacks, acid attacks and ethnic conflict like no other ever since huge waves of non-White immigration occurred

**20. DOESN'T YOUR POLICY INEVITABLY LEAD TO WAR BETWEEN NATIONS?**

A. No, quite the reverse. Nationalism involves pride in one's own race and nation and respect for the races and nations of other countries. Consequently nationalists are totally opposed to any form of imperialism because it denies these basic rights to other peoples. Wars are normally caused by those forces in a nation bent on economic imperialism. Racial violence is a result of enforced multiracialism and multiculturalism, nothing else.

**21. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU HATE NON-WHITES, PERTICULARLY THOSE WHO LIVE IN THE UK?**

A. Absolutely not, however respectfully Britain is not their country, if you ask 2nd or even 3rd generation immigrants whether they belong here, they will say no (this is regularly confirmed by opinion polls that have been carried out by a number of national newspapers, etc). We do not hate the non-Whites in this country - they are as much the victims of multiracialism as we are. We do however hate the people who are responsible for bringing the immigrants here in the first place and have thus caused this tragedy.

Blacks, as well as other races have a right to enjoy, maintain and protect their own races and cultures - in their own countries. Blacks are also human and do not deserve contempt or hatred unless they show hatred or contempt for us, we believe in equality of dignity and equality under the law. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. We are not white supremacists.

**22. BUT WEREN'T THE BLACKS BROUGHT HERE TO DO THE JOBS THAT WHITES DIDN'T WANT?**

A. Yes, but that was wrong. Non-White immigrants were first brought to this country in the 1950's because there was a shortage of labour which was allowing workers to demand higher wages. Industrialists and politicians connived to bring in non-White immigrants to keep the White workers' wages low. If immigration had not been allowed then industries would have been forced to become more efficient by investing in labour-saving machinery. This would have allowed workers to earn good wages which they could spend on British goods. Don't forget that Japan had a far more devasting effect from World War 2 and barely had any immigration

**23. BUT WASN'T ENOCH POWELL ONE OF THOSE MINISTERS WHO ADVOCATED BRINGING IN THESE BLACKS?**

A. Yes and as he admitted himself, he was wrong.

**24. WOULD THERE STILL BE PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER A PA GOVERNMENT?**

A. Yes, there would be a lot more freedom in the UK than there is today. We would institute a Bill of Rights which would guarantee the rights of Freedom of Speech, Assembly, etc. and personal liberty for all citizens.

**25. DOES THIS MEAN YOU WOULDN'T BAN COMMUNIST GROUPS?**

A. Yes. We do not believe there would be any need to ban such groups. We know we can demolish such groups by force of argument. After all, if we cannot persuade people that our views are right then we have no right to put them into practise.

### **SECTION 3 RACE**

**26. WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THE NON-WHITES THAT WERE BORN IN BRITAIN?**

A. It is going to be a bit long but stay with me. PA's plan is to generously pay several million ethnic minority citizens of the UK to return to their homeland (or, if they chose, another non-White country). An examination of the existing body of UK policies reveals a clear precedent in the form of a voluntary return program for visa holders, asylum seekers, people who have visited and overstayed, and other persons of temporary or unsettled residence.

The UK also routinely checks whether or not UK citizens of questionable standing qualify for citizenship in other countries; famously, in the case of Shamima Begum, dubbed the 'Isis Bride' by the British media, determining that Miss Begum was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship prior to stripping her of her British citizenship for her involvement with the Islamic State terrorist militia.

To expand these programs to meet the goals of a PA government, a parliamentary bill would be required. Such a piece of legislation would enable the government to launch a program of much greater scope whereby any citizen of immigrant descent would be able to turn over their British passport in exchange for residency in another

country and a generous financial settlement from the British treasury. Though the amount per capita of this proposed settlement is unspecified in the PA platform, it is the recommendation of White-Papers that it be approximately double the average yearly income in the UK, which currently stands at £31,285 ($41,945/€37,209); those who elected to return home would receive a figure somewhere around £63,000, including relocation costs.

To put this sum in perspective: it is equivalent to approximately 38 years-worth of salary in Pakistan and India (states where over 2.5 million residents of the UK have ethnic roots), 8 years worth of salary in the Caribbean, while in some African States the amount would equate to 80 years of earned income: in any case, granting the people so gifted with an excellent quality of life in their respective homelands, where they and their co-ethnics will also benefit enormously from the education and skills training received during the immigrants' time spent in the UK.

The financial provision of this policy could be supplemented with other forms of support as appropriate to the individual's circumstances. For example, the 8% of senior citizens who belong to an ethnic minority could, in principle, continue to receive their British State Pension after they return to their place of origin; likewise, those who have served in the British armed forces could retain the standard benefits granted to ex-servicemen. There is no moral incongruity between wishing to restore the native British as the dominant ethnic group in their homeland, and frankly acknowledging that some immigrants have worked in our economy for decades, or performed military service for the Nation, and that accordingly the British State should guarantee certain privileges to them.

But what of the cost to the taxpayer? The good news is that the enactment of this policy would not break the bank. If we estimate that roughly 5.8 million people are eligible, and for the sake of argument assuming that the most of that number would take the money on offer, the exchequer of the United Kingdom would have to find roughly £363 billion ($486.5 billion/€431.6 billion) to fund the programme. Spread over twelve years, this would amount to £30.2 billion a year, or roughly one quarter the amount we currently estimate is spent on ethnic minorities each year by the UK's Welfare State, according to a House of Commons report on public spending per capita. To pay one individual the £63,000 relocation benefit would be equivalent to approximately 4 years of public expenditure on them and save the British public a total of £1.086 million pounds were said theoretical individuals to reside in the UK for the full 81 year life expectancy the country currency enjoys.

Furthermore; there should be no worries about an economic collapse caused by removing so many people from the system. The 12-year transition allows enough time for the training of new doctors and nurses, and the replacement of blue collar workers with native Britons through apprenticeships.

What about the consequences of reducing the tax base? Let's find out: studies in New Zealand have shown that the only net tax payers are men; while in USA, a country with a White population share 21.1% lower than Britain, the White population pay 83% of all taxes in a normal fiscal year. It is safe to assume that the male British population will continue to dutifully pay their taxes after the immigrants go home; a return to a White Britain will NOT create the dire economic misfortune that the Establishment and its cheerleaders cynically prophesy whenever it suits their propaganda purposes.

Financial incentives would be PA's preferred way of persuading the 'settled' immigrant, or his descendants of multiple generations, to leave Britain. Other measures would be more appropriate for those who only have looser or more recent ties to the country (or in the case of criminals, terrorists, and other disturbers of the peace, have already forfeited any and all ties).

All are not only legal within the British Constitution as presently understood, but also ethical relative to the norms of the common man (in Britain, a traditionally peace-loving entity). 2.1 million people belonging to an ethnic-minority currently hold residential visas in the UK. This group represents around 22.5% of the total ethnic minority population of the UK, (which, as already noted, is roughly 9.4 million people). The bureaucratic purpose of the visa system was NOT to provide one link in a chain inevitably leading to citizenship and permanent residency. Rather it is a permit allowing the holder a temporary period of legal residence. A PA government will implement thecancellation and non-renewal of visas, and in doing so would be acting entirely within the bounds of the British Constitution, and indeed the norms understood anywhere in the civilised world.

What about immigrants who have been naturalised? An analysis has shown over 50% of Asians and 40% of Africans in the United Kingdom are liable for or already possess dual nationality. Is it just politically impossible for the British State to revoke citizenship once it is conferred? It turns out that laws are already on the books that, in some circumstances, provide extensive powers for the State to undo what has been done: in cases of dual citizenship, legislation exists which currently enables the Home Secretary to denaturalise any dual national of the UK, or person able to attain another nationality – determining that an individual is legally subject to denaturalisation is achieved by applying one or more of 3 criteria: **a)** should it be considered that doing so is conducive to the public good; **b)** if the person obtained their citizenship through fraud, false representation or concealment; or **c)** if the persons has conducted himself or herself in a manner which is, quote: “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”. These existing powers could be utilized to begin the process of de-naturalising and deporting some of the over 1.6 million people in the ethnic minority population who possess a criminal record.

So it can be clearly seen that there exists within the British system, ample law and precedent to, in the case of nearly 4 million persons of either temporary residency, or of whom the State can reasonably deem their 'citizenship in good standing' is questionable, either revoke citizenship or residency permit; and in the case of perhaps 5 million or more 'settled' foreigners, provide generous financial incentives in return for voluntary repatriation.

**27. WOULD OTHER COUNTRIES TAKE THEM BACK?**

A. In most cases, yes. We would facilitate this by making the granting of overseas financial aid dependent on them taking back their own people. We believe this would cover the vast majority of coloured people in this country. People covered by such an act would, of course, be given the freedom to choose to go to any country that is prepared to accept them.

**28. WHAT ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO LEAVE?**

A. We believe that the vast majority of non-Whites in this country would leave voluntarily once a PA government is elected. If anything we would expect a rush of Blacks wanting to leave quickly to be at the front of the queue in the countries to which they want to go. However if they do not wish to leave, we cannot force them to leave, they can stay if they don't want to accept the packages.

**29. WOULDN'T PA TRY TO FORCE THEM OUT VIOLENTLY?**

A. No, everyone will be made fully aware of the fact that non-Whites will be leaving. There is no reason for any individual to engage in stupid acts. Non-Whites will still be under the protection of the law pending their repatriation.

**30. WHAT ABOUT THOSE OF MIXED-RACE PARENTAGE?**

A. In normal circumstances they would be expelled from Britain in the same way and would be given the choice of where to go.

**31. WHAT ABOUT WHITES MARRIED TO NON-WHITES?**

A. The Black partner and offspring would be subjected to the repatriation law. It would then be up to the spouse to decide what to do, whether to stay or leave.

**32. ISN'T THIS A VERY CRUEL POLICY?**

A. No, quite the reverse, relatively little suffering is involved, especially compared with the increasing level of racial violence which is spreading across Britain. It is quite simply a question of humane phased repatriation or RACE WAR. We believe that only our solution offers a relatively peaceful way out of this situation which has been forced on Black and White alike by the decisions of previous governments and the urgings of big business

**33. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO ACCUSATIONS OF  'RACISM', 'XENOPHOBIA' AND 'WHITE NATIONALIST'?**

A. We say "Thanks for noticing", we don't care about being called these terms, the term "racist" is meaningless and made up by Jewish Communist Leon Trotsky to browbeat all of those who dissented against Communism. The term "White Nationalist" is non-controversial, and immigration has been a disaster for Britain, we can provide multiple evidence to prove this, calling us a "xenophobia" is just a cop-out or a quick way to try and win an argument through means of ad hominem

### SECTION 4 NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

**34. WHAT ELSE DOES NATIONALISM INVOLVE?**

A. Amongst other things it means that nations must be independent of each other, not just politically but economically as well.

**35. BUT AREN'T ALL NATIONS INDEPENDENT?**

A. Very few nations are completely independent, but over the last thirty or so years Britain has progressively lost its independence. Our economy has become increasingly reliant on other countries. Our defence forces are often incapable of acting without the approval of other governments. For example, the Falklands War was only possible for our forces because of American assistance. Such an expedition is no longer possible because of the collapse of our merchant fleet. Our armed forces have become reliant on imported parts and equipment, and many strategic items are simply not made in this country. This economic dependence on other countries inhibits our ability to act freely in defence of our own people.

**36. BUT WASN'T THE FALKLANDS JUST AN EXCEPTIONAL EXAMPLE?**

A. No, the Anglo-Irish Agreement signed in 1986 was only produced with the full knowledge and approval of the United States government. If that government had been vehemently opposed to such an act an act they could threaten us with withdrawal of the supplies of spare parts for weapons we use to protect ourselves, they could cripple us economically and by refusing to supply a whole range of manufactured items and spare parts they could bring this country to a halt.

This would not be possible under a PA government because we would make sure Britain had a truly independent defence capability and be economically as self-sufficient as possible.

**37. DOES THAT MEAN PA WOULD WITHDRAW FROM THE UN?**

A. Yes, the UN has regularly interfered in the internal affairs of sovereign nations - sometimes by means of aggressive force. The debates at the UN have become a stage for every tin-pot dictator and presidents of 'One Party States'. We believe in friendly dialogue with other nations but we do not approve of the expensive and malicious posturing that has become prevalent in this organisation.

**38. WHAT ABOUT OTHER INTERNATIONAL BODIES SUCH AS THE IMF AND THE WORLD BANK?**

A. These have attempted to impose economic slavery on sovereign nations, mainly Third World countries, but also Western nations including Britain. Many Third World countries now have to tailor their policies to suit these international bankers. We believe that the only people who should decide on the policies of a country are the people of that country. Yes, we would withdraw from them as well.

**39. DOES PA AGREE WITH BREXIT?**

A. Yes. The Treaty of Rome seeked to override the independence of its member nations and replace it with rule from Brussels. The EU, formerly the EEC/EC, has also undermined our economy with the loss of factories which are now being re-sited in other EU nations. Britain is being reduced to a small offshore, derelict wasteland. We are on the way to losing Sterling and idiotic Euro-laws are being forced upon us. Yes, we would take Britain out of the European Union as soon as we can.

### **SECTION 5 DEFENCE**

**40. FROM WHAT YOU'VE SAID, DO YOU MEAN THAT PA IS AGAINST AMERICAN BASES LIKE MENWITH HILL IN BRITAIN?**

A. Yes. If Britain is to be independent we must have total control over military establishments in our country. Menwith Hill is a spy station used by the USA to intercept ALL telephone calls, e-mails, etc. and is used by the USA, in conjunction with the British State, to monitor everyone and anyone who is a potential threat to their system. We need our own nuclear deterrent, the equivalent of France's "Force de Trappe" - enough to deter potential enemies without the capability to destroy the world several times over. This deterrent must be British designed, British built and British controlled. We are not the USA's 51st state, the Yanks will be sent packing from the UK when PA take power.

**41. DOES THIS MEAN THAT A NUCLEAR DETERRENT WOULD PLAY A GREATER PART IN BRITAIN'S DEFENCE?**

A. No. The nuclear deterrent would be kept as small as is consistent without security requirements. It would not form part of an American global umbrella. Because of this we would be able to devote more money to conventional arms.

**42. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ROLE THEN OF BRITAIN'S DEFENCE FORCES?**

A. Primarily it is to defend the British nation - our people and our land. Obviously this means defending the British Isles. It also means having the capability to defend British interests abroad. We should retain the ability to come to the aid of other nations which are linked to us by ties of race and culture if they should be threatened by larger nations or alliances/blocs, or by other aggressors.

**43. WOULD PA KEEP BRITAIN IN NATO?**

A. No. NATO is an organisation that is under the control of the USA. It seeks to replace the independent defence capabilities of independent Western nations such as Britain. NATO demonstrated its deadly capabilities in the war against Serbia in 1999. On the orders of the USA, a sovereign nation was viciously bombed by a variety of European nations, led by their US masters under the NATO banner in direct contravention of international law that bans the meddling by foreign powers in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Now that the Soviet Union no longer exists there is no real need for an alliance such as NATO - except, maybe, against the United States!

**44. DO YOU CONSIDER DEFENCE TO BE AN IMPORTANT POLICY?**

A. The first job of a state is to ensure that its people are safe from aggression - both external and internal. Consequently defence is a vital part of the policy PA.

### **SECTION 6 LAW AND ORDER**

**45. DOES PA AGREE WITH THE CONSERVATIVES IN HAVING A STRONG LAW AND ORDER POLICY?**

A. Unlike the Conservatives, PA believes in carrying out whatever measures are needed to protect the citizens of the UK, particularly the sick, the young and the old. The Tories talk a great deal about law and order, but in practice do very little. The Labour government makes promises also but crime rate continues to rise. Asian rioters have been allowed to escape punishment and the amount of drugs related crime is rocketing. Our people no longer feel safe in their own homes and many people dare not venture out even in the daytime. Ethnic conflict is on the rise, and non-White murderers are still free to walk the streets out of fear of being called a "racist". Britain is the base for some of the world's most wanted Islamic terrorists - and the Lab/Lib/Con government refuses to extradite them. The old parties talk a lot about law and order but only PA will create a society where everyone feels safe.

**46. DOES PA WANT TO RESTORE THE DEATH PENALTY?**

A. As a party we are unsure, we believe we should be strong and strict against premeditated murder, sexual crimes against our children, violent rapists and people involved in the manufacture, importation or distribution of lethal drugs, terrorist offences such as the planting of bombs with intent to kill etc. but we also believe in consistent ethic of life which expresses an ideology based on the premise that all human life is sacred and should be protected by law, we also fear that someone could be wrongfully killed

**47. WOULD YOU INCREASE THE POWERS OF THE POLICE OR EVEN TURN BRITAIN INTO A POLICE STATE?**

A. Absolutely not. The powers of the police are quite sufficient in most cases and in some areas they are too great and open to abuse. The great change would come when someone is found guilty of a crime, they would then suffer penalties appropriate for that crime. We will also introduce mandatory sentences for certain crimes unlike in today's society where in some areas people receive totally different sentences to people in other areas who have committed exactly the same crime. We would also make sure that the decision whether to prosecute someone for a crime is not subject to political pressure or media interest as has been the case with crimes of fraud in the City of London and with 'racially sensitive' crimes such as the Bradford Riots of 1995 where, in the interest of 'community relations', not one rioter was even charged never mind convicted.

### **SECTION 7 UNEMPLOYMENT**

**48. HOW WOULD PA SOLVE BRITAIN'S UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM?**

A. There are 3 basic causes of Britain's unemployment problem: Foreign imports, the export of capital and the way industry is owned in this country.

**49. HOW DO THESE CAUSE UNEMPLOYMENT?**

A. A huge proportion of the goods sold in our shops are made abroad. Britain's other political parties are all internationalist - this means that they believe that Britain's factories should be capable of competing with factories in Korea, Uganda, Bolivia or wherever. Yet workers in those countries are paid a pittance, whereas British workers have fought for generations to achieve a decent standard of living.

**50. COULDN'T OTHER COUNTRIES BAN OUR EXPORTS?**

A. Yes, but so much is being imported into Britain at the moment that our industries would receive a vast amount of extra work by making British washing machines, motorcycles, cars, computers, furniture, chemicals, etc., etc. that it would be worth much more than any export losses.

**51. WHY DOES THE EXPORT OF CAPITAL CAUSE UNEMPLOYMENT?**

A. Ever since the days of the British Empire, the City of London's financiers have been investing British money abroad. Millions of ordinary people hold quite large sums of money in the form of pension funds and insurance investments. Even trade union pension funds are controlled by the financial institutions of 'The City'.

Instead of this money being invested in new factories, new machinery and better housing in this country, a large proportion of it is invested in building factories abroad. These produce goods which are then sent to Britain - putting more workers out of work.

We think it is obscene for these financiers to use the wealth of British people in such a way that puts them out of work.

PA would ensure that the wealth created by British workers is invested back in Britain to create more jobs for British people.

**52. BUT HOW CAN THE OWNERSHIP OF INDUSTRY AFFECT UNEMPLOYMENT?**

A. Companies in Britain can be bought and sold at the Stock Exchange - even Britain's biggest companies which employ tens of thousands of people can be bought and sold like second-hand cars. In many cases independent companies end up being bought by large multinational organisations.

But even when they are bought by another British company, the new owner may then decide to close down part of the works, or may simply sell off the company's assets and then close down the whole works, especially if the companies had been competitors.

In some case whole industries have been bought by foreign corporations and then closed down when they centralise their production in one European country.

**53. WHAT WOULD PA DO ABOUT THIS?**

A. PA believes in a system of distributist ownership. This means that we would strongly encourage workers to directly own the factories, farms or other places of employment. In this way people are more likely to take pride in, and enjoy, their work; they also cannot be thrown out of work at the whim of some whizz-kid in the City of London.

This would also break down the traditional divide between workers and management - they would truly be a team and only by working together would the company be successful and all the employee-owners reap the rewards.

**54. DOES THIS MEAN YOU ARE AGAINST PRIVATE ENTERPRISE?**

A. No, quite the reverse. We are strongly in favour of people setting up and running their own businesses. As the business grows and the number of employees increases we would encourage the company to become a co-operative venture with all the workers buying a stake in the company.

**55. BUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE COMPANY BECAME BANKRUPT?**

A. Britain is supposed to have one of the most comprehensive insurance industries in the world - we are sure that insurance companies can devise schemes to protect workers' investment.

**56. IS THIS A COMPLETELY NEW IDEA?**

A. No, it has been proposed by a number of people in the past, most notably, G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, and while it has never been put into widespread practice in Britain it has been tried elsewhere. In the Mondragon region of Spain it has become the dominant type of ownership and it has worked very well. It is also  based upon Catholic social teaching principles which we strongly believe in.

**57. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO FOREIGN-OWNED FIRMS?**

A. Legislation would ensure that all foreign owned firms come into the ownership of their British employees.

**58. WOULDN'T THIS PROVOKE RETALIATION?**

A. Yes, but we don't want Britain to own factories in Korea and Bolivia. Companies in those countries should belong to the nationals of those countries.

**59. DOES THIS SORT OF SYSTEM MORE CLOSELY RESEMBLE COMMUNISM OR CAPITALISM?**

A. It resembles neither. Both communism and capitalism concentrate control of companies in the hands of either finance houses or state bureaucrats. Distributism gives direct ownership and direct control to the people who actually create the wealth: the people who set up the businesses, the management and other workers.

**60. IS IT TRUE PA WOULD DISSOLVE PRVIATE BANKS?**

A. Yes. Distributists disagree with the profit-making basis in charging interest Merchant banks have also grown to hold positions of tremendous power (their employees and members sit on the boards of all Britain's major industries) largely by their ability to move money around the world. We believe this leads to 'money power' controlling local factories and thus local jobs - we are opposed to this.

One of the greatest forces for the unjust accumulation of property is this fractional reserve banking system, which grants a monopoly privilege to a small group of people, namely the bankers and their allies. These private citizens have the power to create out of thin air nearly all the money in circulation. Such a system is intolerable on both moral and economic grounds, and must result in periodic credit crises, as greed and necessity moves bankers to create more money than the economy needs or can be reasonably “repaid.” That last word is in quotes because you can't “repay” what was never paid in the first place, to repay in real goods a “debt” that was only an accounting entry on the books of some bank.I do not believe that an ownership society can be reconciled with such a money system. The creation of money is a public power, and the public ought to take it back. Coining money into being ought to be the sole authority of the federal government, or even the states that wish to do so (although this is not currently allowed in the Constitution).There is no reason why the federal government should not create its own money and spend it into circulation for capital projects. Capital projects, in the main, create more wealth then they cost, hence there would be little inflationary effect. The Federal Government could also act as a banker to the states and cities to lend them money, at little or no interest, to finance their own capital needs. This would shift the power inherent in capital projects back to the states and cities. In any case, control of the money supply should not be in private hands; it is a public power, and the public should take it back.

**61. SO WHAT WILL REPLACE PRIVATE BANKS?**

A. Credit unions, building societies, mutual banks and friendly societies, we would encourage competition between them.

**62. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE STOCK EXCHANGE?**

A. It would be irrelevant to a distributist economy where employees own the factories and farms in which they work. Consequently the Stock Exchange - the world's greatest casino - would close down. People wishing to invest their savings will be given a wide choice of schemes including the direct investment in their own and other companies. But this investment would not give them control of the firm with which they have no working relationship.

**63. BUT DOESN'T THE 'CITY OF LONDON' EARN LOTS OF FOREIGN MONEY FOR OUR BENEFIT?**

A. It is quite true that ever since the days of the British Empire the 'City of London' has been taking the savings of British people and investing them abroad - this earns foreign money - but how much better it would be if the money had been invested in this country to build new factories and modernise old ones, to purchase new machinery and to invest in new technology? If this had been done we might not have the unemployment problem we have today and our youngsters would have a decent future. In addition to this we think it is quite wrong for British money to be used to buy the companies in foreign countries which should belong to the people of that country.

### SECTION 8 OTHER POLICIES

**64. WHAT SORT OF EDUCATION SYSTEM WOULD PA IMPOSE ON BRITAIN?**

A. We believe that education policy must be adaptable to local needs. Thus, a particular type of school structuring which is quite suitable in a densely populated urban area may be quite unsuitable in remote rural areas. Waldorf education and Finland's education system are both education system we hope most schools adopt

The structure of schooling is best decided at local level by the joint decisions of school governors, parents and pupils.

University places would be on merit and not on the ability to pay.

**65. WOULD THESE PEOPLE DECIDE WHAT IS TO BE TAUGHT IN BRITISH SCHOOLS?**

A. We believe it is necessary to have an agreed 'core curriculum' which would include the basics of reading, writing, etc. and also of certain other subjects such as the constitution of the UK. This would be common to the whole country. However, beyond this there would be wide scope for regional and local variations which we would encourage.

**66. DOES PA HAVE POLICIES ON ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE IN BRITAIN?**

A. We have many more policies than are described here, we have policies on a Bill of Rights, on Conservation, on Housing, on Agriculture, on Transport, on Energy, on the banks, etc. but we do not cover every area of life, because we strongly believe in personal freedom coupled with civic responsibility.

**67. HOW DO I FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THESE OTHER POLICIES?**

A. Contact PA and ask for an information pack with which you'll receive a copy of our Statement of Policy, party publications and a membership application form. Alternatively you can contact one our local organisers and speak to them. The telephone numbers are on this website or the main PA one.

### SECTION 9 THE IMAGE OF PA

**68. THE PA HAS AN IMAGE OF VIOLENCE, HOOLIGANISM AND GENERALLY CAUSING TROUBLE  - WHY IS THIS?**

A. First of all you must realise that in all probability what you have heard about PA will not be from PA members or from our publications. Most of it, if not all of it, will have come from television, newspapers or left-wing opponents, who are all hostile. We do not create our own image, it is created for us by a biased media over which we have no control.

**69. BUT WHY DON'T OTHER PARTIES RECEIVE THIS TREATMENT?**

A. Because those parties offer nothing that is not in line with the State enforced policy of national decline and racial ruination. The media work for everything that the PA opposes and they do not want the British people to know that there is a REAL alternative.

**70. BUT THERE MUST BE SOME TRUTH IN THIS IMAGE THE MEDIA HAVE GIVEN YOU, I'VE SEEN PICTURES OF SKINHEADS ON YOUR MARCHES.**

A. Yes, it is quite true that we do have some members who have skinhead haircuts, we also have OAPs, doctors, married couples, etc. But when, for example, a press photographer takes photographs of a PA activity with members of all ages and types, the only pictures that are published are of skinheads. You then get the impression that we are all young males with short hair. We welcome any White Britons into our movement, young or old, short or long haired, as long as you're British and prepared to stand up and fight for our country, your place is with us whatever your hairstyle.

**71. SO WHAT CAN YOU DO TO IMPROVE YOUR IMAGE?**

A. By showing the public who see us on our activities with their own eyes that we are not what the media like to portray us as. We can write letters to local newspapers about the PA's stance on a certain subject, we can get our literature out to the British people on a larger scale and we can increase the amount of activities we hold. We have also made it very clear to our members, that our and your image is important and you should take care. We also have a code of conduct, safeguarding policy and anti-bullying and harassment policy.

**72. HAS THIS ACHIEVED ANY SUCCESS?**

A. Yes, more and more people are seeing the media lies for what it is. By refusing to let NF spokesmen have their say, many people are actually seeking information about the party. For example, after the Bradford Riots in July 2001, PA were blamed for causing the riot yet we were never once invited to give our version of events. The people are not stupid, no matter what garbage is pumped into their heads from the TV and as a result of inquiries via stickering and door-to-door leafletting which have risen all over West Yorkshire, we have gained many more new members.

### SECTION 10 MYTHS ABOUT PA

**73. IS PA A FACIST OR NAZI PARTY?**

A. No. PA does not like Fascism or Neo-Nazism nor Fascist and Nazi symbol or flag. Fascism was Italian. Nazism was German. We are British. We will do things our own way; we will not copy foreigners. The term "fascism" is simply a smear that comes from the far left; the term should be reserved for groups that engaged in "political violence" and desired a state that "should impose its will on people", we do not believe in either of them. We believe in Social Justice, National Freedom and the introduction of a Bill of Rights for everyone.

**74. DO YOU HOLD HITLER BIRTHDAY PARTIES?**

A. No. We don't celebrate the birthdays of Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, General Franco, Diane Abbott or any other dictators either.

**75. DO YOU INCITE FOOTBALL VIOLENCE?**

A. No. We attempt to involve as many people as possible, including young people, in positive political action. We distribute our literature anywhere people gather. No doubt the media will have a story about us organising shoplifting gangs because we sell our papers on shopping precincts next.

**76. BUT I'VE READ IN THE NEWSPAPERS DETAILING NF INVOLVEMENT IN FOOTBALL VIOLENCE.**

A. Several National newspapers have smeared PA by attempting to implicate us in football violence. No evidence has ever been produced and police reports have always cleared PA of any involvement. The same tabloid rags that smear PA are always in the courts for libelling individuals but unlike these celebrities we don't have the funds to sue them or we would.

**77. ARE ALL YOUR MEMBERS SKINHEADS?**

A. No, but as we've said earlier, if you're White, British and proud of it, you're welcome to join the PA.

**78. DOES PA ENCOURAGE ITS MEMBERS TO ATTACK BLACKS AND ASIANS?**

a. No, we strongly oppose violence unless in self-defence so if anyone says that we do, it is an outright lie and I would ask for evidence because they won't find any. They are as much victims of this multiracial nightmare as we are. If our members hate anyone it is the White politicians in positions of power who brought non-Whites here.

**79. WHY DOES PA CAUSE TROUBLE BY MARCHING THROUGH AREAS LIKE BRADFORD AND OLDHAM?**

A. PA does hold marches to publicise our views on a number of subjects. The location and route of any such march are determined by our wish to be seen by as many potential supporters as possible. While this often means that we wish to march through urban areas, an area with a large non-White presence holds no attraction for us. In the case of Bradford our proposed march was to go through the city centre, an area with little housing at all. The reason that we hold marches anyway is because all normal methods of communication with the public - TV and newspapers - are denied to us.

**80. WHY DOES THE HOME SECRETARY BAN MOST OF YOUR MARCHES THEN?**

A. For purely political reasons. PA threatens the status quo and the government attempt to marginalise us by putting into the public mind the lie that we are an organisation that is acting against the law. Home Secretary banned NF march, but has not banned drug-inducing social disorder events like the Notting Hill Carnival and other similar events around the country are encouraged.

**81. IS IT TRUE YOU ARE FUNDED BY FOREIGN ORGANISATIONS LIKE THE KU KLUX KLAN AND RUSSIA?**

A. No. PA, or any other political party in the UK, cannot receive funding from a foreign source. We have no connection at all with the KKK. We also are not a fan of Putin or Russia. We support Russian nationalist who oppose Putin. Whilst we agree with a few things Putin has done he has allowed Russia to be run by Zionist oligarchy and Russia is a multicultural, strongly supportive of Islam (such as building a super-Mosque in this supposed Christian nation), has high amount of abortion, alcohol abuse and prostitution. We also strongly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and support Ukraine defending themselves as they are a White Christian Nationalist nation, however we also do not like Ukraine's government as they too are run by Zionist oligarchy. We oppose the KKK, do not accept funding from them and do not allow its members to join for the purpose of changing the party to align with the KKK.

**82. DO YOU HAVE LINKS WITH TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS?**

A. No. I again ask for evidence as to which terrorist organisation we are link to. We oppose acts of terrorism and violence, we strongly condemn Order of the Nine Angles not just because they are Nazis but because they are Satanic which we strongly oppose.

**83. WHY DON'T YOU JOIN OR UNIFY WITH THE BNP, YOU'VE GOT THE SAME POLICIES HAVEN'T YOU?**

A. Nationalism in the UK has, in my opinion, been a mess from the start and has been led by persons more interested in self rather than the nation. In fact, this self interest could be said to go back as far as pre-war and Moseley. This article is meant to start the process of sorting out the mess and to point people in the right direction so that unity becomes possible. Many of the remarks are generalisations

Whilst it is true that BNP's policies are somewhat similar and its party chairman, Callum Martin, copied elements from the BNP. The reason we don't is because of policy disagreements. The BNP is in terminally decline. The purpose of a National Party is to rule the UK. Unfortunately, the leaders of the BNP have lost sight of this simple fact.  The only way that a National Party can come to power is to have the majority of Members in the House of Commons.  It follows, therefore, that the major effort and the majority of resources available should be expended to that aim.  Huge sums of money and millions of hours effort have been expended over the last 35 years without gaining a single MP.

In this respect, money collected by local Party members should be kept in a local account controlled by the local Treasurer and primarily used to support and promote the local candidate. This is in sharp contrast to the current BNP where there is an expensive ‘top heavy’ system that bleeds the local organisations dry.

Under no circumstances could it be worthwhile to spend time and money on European elections. Even if a candidate was elected he will have no power in the UK and his voice would be swamped in Brussels. The BNP, under its current leader is putting the main party effort into the Euro elections at the expense of fighting Parliamentary elections. Why?

In our view, the Party must have a proper structure. It must have a number of the key officials directly elected by the members, in particular, the offices of Vice Chairman and Party Treasurer must be directly elected. The Party Chairman would be bound to discuss and agree with the majority of the other elected officials, matters of policy and discipline.

The Party should make an effort to unite all genuine nationalists into one party. Griffin is unable to do this. He is an ex-chairman of the National Front and is now persona non-grata in that direction. Similarly, he is unacceptable to the Freedom Party, other nationalist groups and the many people who have left the Party either directly or indirectly because of him. He is also the ex-leader of the International Third Position.

The reasoning behind the policies of the BNP needs to be agreed and written down. Outsiders may think that BNP members have a single idea of the fundamentals of  belief.  However, this is just not true and in practice there is a wide spread of belief. “The 6 Principles.” are published to focus discussion about this very vital issue.  Stating the principles clearly will help the Party explain its position and be a positive aid to recruitment.

The BNP started life as the New National Front (The original National Front having split up into many parts). The Party name was later changed by a very narrow majority, primarily at the behest of Ray Hill, who was later found to be an infiltrator/agent provocateur. The past leader of the BNP was not English, nor is the current leader. Neither appear to appreciate just how, to put it politely, off-putting the word “British” is to an Englishman and, I believe, to Scots. The name BNP is a positive liability to recruitment in English areas.  Another reason is that to describe the party as British is a form of illiteracy.  In the United Kingdom we are, “The National Party”, we do not need to describe ourselves further

We believe that we should make every effort to unite the various nationalist parties and encourage members who have left the BNP to re-join (It should be noted that the main reason for the existence of the various parties is the fact that many people could not work with John Tyndall and now with Nick Griffin). There are not great differences in policy between the groups. A new Party Chairman was required who has a rounded personality and the ability to get on with all members.

**84. WHY DON'T YOU JOIN OR UNIFY WITH NATIONAL FRONT, YOU'VE GOT THE SAME POLICIES HAVEN'T YOU?**

The problem with the NF is that, in effect, there are 2 parties. One part of the Party believes that the Party is a normal UK political party, whilst the other part believes the Party is part of some world-wide white movement that includes liaison with foreign political parties of dubious make-up. Worse still some of these members are tainted with admiration for Adolf Hitler. Again, many of these members wear black clothing as per the original fascists (Mussolini’s men), the SS and Oswald Moseley’s BUF. This makes it hard to refute the jibe made by the hooligan opposition that the NF are “Fascists!”. They also believe in forced repatriations, something we don't agree with, as well as being tainted with Fascism, Holocaust denial, biological racism, support of violence, football hooliganism and genocide, eugenics and white supremacy (Tyndall and many other NF leaders believed the white British and the broader Nordic race to be superior to other races), stuff we don't agree with. We also oppose Strasserism and National Bolshevism, both factions have taken over the NF.

The NF must make up its mind whether it is a UK political party working in the democratic system to select and support candidates in UK elections, or that it is clandestine re-incarnation of military dictatorship with Hitler as its hero. The NF needs to openly state that it is not tainted with Hitlerism otherwise there is no chance of unification. The National Front is also tiny and lacks the resources to become larger at any meaningful rate and is also in a terminal decline since the 1980's

That being said, elements have also been borrowed from NF including its constitution and organization

**85. WHAT ARE PA'S THOUGHTS ON OTHER RIGHT-WING PARTIES SUCH AS BRITAIN FIRST, UKIP, RECLAIM OR ENGLISH DEMOCRATS?**

UKIP and Reclaim Party are both superficially nationalist and are 'Civic Nationalists', they believe that anyone can be British, which is false. Both parties also concede the moral framework to the left by continually proving they are not a "racist, xenophobic, far-right" party by allowing non-Whites and LGBTQ+ people to join , and yet despite this, they are still called "racist, xenophobic, far-right", these parties have also attacked us in the same way the left attacks us. They are also Zionists. Reclaim Party leader, Laurence Fox, said that "racism is worse than child porn" and is supportive of racial diversity and supportive of immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, abortion and are socially liberal.

Whilst we like some people and policies of Britain First, they too are also "civic nationalists", they also have a close relationship from Tommy Robinson who is a pro-immigration Zionist that has done damage to our movement by constantly getting himself into trouble. Their leader, Paul Golding, is also troublesome and is a domestic abuser. They also are strongly "anti-racist", again conceding the moral framework to the left

The English Democrats are not a UK party and its party leader Robin Tilbrook has stated that party members are expected to pledge their opposition to racism, however we aren't strongly against the party

**86. WOULDN'T PA BAN TRADES UNIONS IF IT TOOK POWER?**

A. No, we recognise that unions are essential to maintaining the rights of workers in industry. However, in the long term we would like to see most industries become workers' co-operatives with all the workforce jointly owning the factories. Under such circumstances the unions would have to adapt to a new role which, in order to safeguard the rights and wages of the workers, will also mean safeguarding the future of the firm. This will prevent the senseless and destructive 'us and them' attitude between workers and management.

**87. IS IT TRUE THAT IF PA HAD ITS WAY WOMEN WOULD BE CONFINED TO THE HOME? IS IT A SEXIST PARTY**

A. Absolutely not. We fully support the changes in society over the last 30 years or so which have allowed women a full and equal role in society. However we do recognise that some women do not want to engage in a full time career and we would make sure that economic and social factors do not force women into careers which they do not want. We believe women are best as mothers and homemakers

Also no we are not a sexist party, we believe men and women are equal in dignity and women should not be mistreated for being women. We also strongly oppose men who use their position and power to abuse women.

**88. DOES PA WANT TO RESURRECT THE BRITISH EMPIRE?**

A. Definitely not. As explained earlier, PA believes in the right of every nation to its own independence. We most certainly do not want to run countries such as India, Pakistan, Uganda and Kenya. We do hope to foster cultural links with other countries with which we have links of race and heritage such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

**89. DOES PA INCITE ITS MEMBERS TO ATTACK COMMUNISTS?**

A. We do not incite our members to attack anyone but they are encouraged to defend themselves if under attack by anyone whilst on party activities. On various occasions communists have physically attacked our members and supporters and our people have defended themselves which they do quite expertly. Tariq Ali, one-time leader of the 'International Marxist Group' and now media personality, once said that if joining PA means broken bones then support will be lost. NF members obviously need to know who these people are that say they want to 'smash' us.

**90. WHAT HAPPENS IF A PA MEMBER DOES INCITE VIOLENCE OR COMMITTS A CRIME?**

It will go to the disciplinary panel who will first look at the context of the "violence incitement", if it is agreed that no violence was incited or it was taken out-of-context or misquoted, nothing will happen and we demand an apology from whoever said it.

If it did turn out they do, they will be banned. Same process for if a PA member commits a crime, it will go to the disciplinary panel who will first look at the context. The reason we look at context is because PA members have been wrongfully arrested and jailed/punished for their crime.

Part of our code of conduct is for PA members not to join hooligan, terrorist groups that advocate for violence. As well urging members not to advocate acts of violence towards anyone unless it is to defend yourself and not commit any crimes, we will not accept people who commit crimes unless they showed maturity, remorse, growth and accountability.

**91. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO DO WANT TO COMMIT VIOLENCE/CRIME, AND BELIEVE THERE IS NO POLITICAL SOLUTION?**

I would urge them not to do it. It is not only a bad look for us, it is a bad look from the individual and his family & friends. If you were to murder someone and you are a Christian you have broken the 5th Commandment of the 10 Commandments so God will not be happy. Also it is better to find God, a wife, have many beautiful White children and a job (if you are a man) then to throw your life away rotting in prison for life. I can understand people believing there is no political solution which is why we don't just focus on winning elections or just being a 'party', we are a movement and community building group.

### **SECTION 11 WHO BELONGS TO PA?**

**92. CAN ANYONE JOIN PA?**

A. Anyone who is Straight, White and British and who believes in our basic aims is more than welcome to join PA.

**93. SO WHO DOES JOIN PA?**

A. Virtually every type of person is represented in PA, we have people from all walks of life, young people, old people, men, women, country folk, people from the cities, etc.

**94. DO MANY WOMEN JOIN PA?**

A. There are more men than women in PA, however this imbalance has been slowly decreasing and we hope that this will continue to be the case.

**95. HOW OLD TO YOU HAVE TO BE TO JOIN THE PA?**

A. 14 years of age.

**96. DO YOU HAVE MANY OLDER MEMBERS?**

A. We have quite a number of old-age pensioners who are members. Our Chairman Tom Holmes is a pensioner and one of our most active members.

**97. DO MANY CHRISTIANS JOIN PA?**

A. Yes, in fact we are Christian Nationalists and support Christianity entirely. Quite a significant proportion of our members are Christians of various denominations and there is a Christian Council of Britain. We also have members who are atheists, agnostics, Odinists and Pagans. No Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus though.

**98. WHAT WOULD I BE EXPECTED TO DO IF I JOINED PA?**

A. As much or as little as you wish. There is no obligation to do anything once you become a member, although, of course, we will encourage you to be as active as possible so that the movement continues to grow rapidly. You will be asked if you would be prepared to attend branch meetings, paper sales, leaflet drives, marches, demo's, etc. However if you do not wish to be active you are still most welcome to join.

**99. HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO JOIN?**

A. The annual subscription is £18 per annum (£12 for students, OAPs and wageless). You will receive local and national bulletins and be kept informed of what is happening in the party.

**100. HOW DO I JOIN PA?**

A. CLICK HERE

## The purpose of the party

Patriot Alternative is radical, traditionalist and pro-British party whose activities are based on the ideal of an independent, vibrant and independent Britain, which was created to serve and defend the culture, living environment and lifestyle of the British people. The party bases its worldview on the principle of the nation state, according to which Britain is the homeland of the British and it will remain the homeland of the British only if it is still inhabited by the British people in the future. The politics we pursue is radical and ethnofuturist. We want to get out of the yoke of modern society and globalism that destroys our values, our community and our country. We want to create a new and better future society without forgetting our roots or the fact that the living conditions of our society are the result of the work of generations. We want a vibrant and sustainable society,

The party strives to make this goal possible

1. To promote British cultural work and educate British about their national roots;
2. To defend the special position of the English language as the country's only official language;
3. To promote the idea of ​​a British nation as a whole and to preserve Britain as ethnically British;
4. To defend the ideal of a natural and traditional family, a healthy family life and opportunities for families with children;
5. To emphasize the importance of soul and blood in the birth of national identity;
6. To fight relentlessly against the multiculturalism and rootless global mass society that threatens the national existence of Britons;
7. To keep Britain away from all transnational management systems;
8. To promote our country's self-sufficiency and independent monetary policy;
9. To defend Britain's nature and the diversity of its nature;
10. To promote national defense work and an active national defense spirit.

### The party's value base

**Radical**

We are radical because we want to see a clear change in almost every aspect of society. We want to build a country that is strong and vibrant, with equal hope and justice both today and tomorrow.

Radicalism means a way of thinking where the desired goal dictates the appropriate methods in the political field. Our goal is to create a spark for a wider national awakening. In order to achieve the desired change, it is necessary to get rid of the corrupt system built alongside the current political system and working completely behind the backs of the people, so that we can create a truly just state through increasing transparency and inclusion.

Our aim is also to eliminate the capitalist exploitative system and disposable culture that exploits people and nature, and to break the power of the perverted and non-national media. We don't see the superiority of society as automatically based on the ideology of continuous economic growth, where the value of things is measured only in money, where everything is for sale and the worker can always be exchanged for another in pursuit of greater profits. In our opinion, an advanced society is built on a principle where nature and people can live in balance and which strives to implement only changes and processes leading to sustainable development.

We are also radicals because our political activity is not based only on elections held every few years, but on actions and inflexible and uncompromising activism, the goal of which is to secure our national existence. At the core of the movement are not political opportunists, but unyielding people who see fellow activists as a family united by blood ties in a common struggle for national goals. Our national existence is not negotiable.

**Pro-British**

The goal of our party is an independent nation in an independent state. We see that the nation is the most effective common denominator between the individual person and all of humanity. This enables the formation of a sense of togetherness within the community, which is necessary for social capital, while at the same time it has a large enough number of members to be able to organize constructive activities and credibly defend itself against external threats. At the core of the nation is the assumption that a person has more in common with their own inner group than with people outside it. Man's natural desire to join his own ranks is based on man's biological tendencies, which nationalist politics seeks to refine and strengthen with its activities.

Our party's worldview is based on the ideal of a nation as a whole, where relationships between people and groups of people are evaluated from the perspective of the ethnicity they represent. Our party opposes incitement to class hatred and also other social phenomena that tend to divide the British people into competing artificial interest groups. From the point of view of our party, there is no other interest group than the British, to whom every Briton is linked through his bloodline. From the point of view of the nation as a whole, it is of the utmost importance that Briton's are able to feel solidarity towards each other, regardless of people's level of education, wealth, place of residence/property, gender (male or female), religion/belief (Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Agnostic or Atheist), age, marital status, disability, class, income differences or other issues related to their life situation.

Our party defines the Britons as a nation whose heritage consists mainly of the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon tribes that have migrated to the territory of present-day Britain in prehistoric times and who speak the native language characteristic of this nation and feel that the culture formed by the British community is the most natural way of life for them. Being British is a biological, historical, linguistic and cultural entity. The goal of our party's policy is an ethnically homogeneous Britain, where there are no ethnic conflicts of interest between different minority peoples and the general population. The party not only criticizes the mild phenomena created by the lax immigration policy, but opposes non-British immigration in principle. Our party's priorities include the immediate abolition of current immigration and the immediate reconsideration of the right of residence of foreigners already in the country. In addition to this, our goal is to protect British identity, Britons' national history, culture, British nature and national property.

From the point of view of our party, the current division into right and left is based on a false opposition, because despite their secondary differences, both of them promote policies that threaten our national existence and state independence. As pro-British people, we oppose the transnational capitalism and extreme individualism supported by the political right, which aims to put the needs of the individual above the interests of the community. At the same time, we oppose the political left, because the egalitarianism it promotes does not recognize the importance of one's own people and the inherent differences between people. Our party renounces the current ideal of equality, and wants to replace it with the idea where every person has his own place in society, based on his own abilities.

**Traditionalist**

Our party sees the current generations as part of an endless chain, which obliges us to defend the legacy of the work of previous generations, as well as to ensure a good, clean and safe country for future generations. Our party does not support individual choices that contradict this principle. The continuation of national tradition is our strength, which has carried our nation for centuries, and it builds a healthy sense of nationalism, which is the pillar of a healthy community.

We take a critical view of the secularization of society and encourage the normalization of the definition of sacred in British society. We seek to recognize holiness as a unifying spirit embodying tradition and customs in its most basic sense, devoid of any religious concept. Thus, we recognize the special importance of sacred areas, both pre-Christian places of worship, as well as present-day church lands and cemeteries, for the British people. We do not equate British holy places as just buildings and places among others, let alone accept their use for any kind of profit-making purpose. The strength of every Briton, no matter what religion he belongs to, is the recognition of the higher purpose created by the continuity of the motherland and nation. All Britons should have their own place in society, where this is able to move society forward as part of the chain of continuity. This chain is strongest when each link is strong and in the right place.

Our party does not identify with the often-used term "conservative", because we think that term refers to the need to maintain some prevailing state of affairs, as well as a cautious approach to social change in general. The conservative movements after the Second World War have shown well with their actions that they are not able to slow down cultural change in the first place, let alone preserve things that are important to them as this change progresses. As an idea, conservatism can be equated to an endless series of procrastination battles, where, after each lost battle, the conservative accepts the changed operating environment as it is, and defends it again as a state of affairs to be preserved in the next confrontation against an actor more radical than himself.

Unlike conservatives, we, as nationalistic traditionalists, believe in the eternal justification of the natural order and our national existence, and we do not see these goals as things tied to an era or trends. If the political and cultural status quo threatens the realization of these rights, we are not in the least afraid of defying it. Stability is not an absolute value for us, if the price of stability is the fate and life circle of an entire nation. Unlike the conservatives, we will row boldly against the current and shape our environment to be better suited to our own world of values. Instead of following from the sidelines, we strive to be active facilitators of nationalistic change. Unlike the conservatives, we will oppose the phenomena we consider harmful just as strongly now,

## **Reunification of BNP and National Front**

This article is written by a nationalist who has been an official of the NF and BNP continuously since 1977 and has been at the centre, or just off centre, of many of the formative events within the movement and met many of the leading personalities.

Nationalism in the UK has, in my opinion, been a mess from the start and has been led by persons more interested in self rather than the nation. In fact, this self interest could be said to go back as far as pre-war and Moseley. This article is meant to start the process of sorting out the mess and to point people in the right direction so that unity becomes possible. Many of the remarks are generalisations.

Some of the suggestions may appear harsh and require major changes in outlook for some members. One could not expect these members to make immediate changes to their outlook but one hopes for gradual change. What must not happen is for people to march off in a huff leaving the main body of nationalists and forming yet another midget party.

In the article below there are references to other articles. I would suggest that on a first reading these are ignored, as there is too much detail to take in at one go.

From time to time people make pleas for the unification of all nationalist parties. However, in general, these pleas for unity have been pointless as they have not been accompanied by a plan showing how to deal with the current differences between parties and key individuals.

It is axiomatic that rather than being separate parties that the BNP and NF united would stand a much better chance of growing and being able to find and support candidates for election as Councillors and MPs. And then, just as importantly, maintaining that support when they are elected. It can be assumed that the forces destroying our Nation are delighted at the split between the BNP and the NF and will encourage the continuance of that split.

2 questions need answering, if a serious attempt is made to unite these two parties:

1. Why did the original National Front split?
2. What are the major differences between the parties?

There is no doubt that a major reason for the break-up of the original National Front was the demand by John Tyndall for more power for the Party Chairman, that is, himself. There were other reasons, such as the discovery by Party members that Martin Webster, the Party’s Activity Organiser, was an overt homosexual. However, John Tyndall breaking away and forming a new party – the New National Front - was the principal cause. He then went on, despite advice to the contrary, to rename that party as the BNP and thus put off many English and Scots who don’t see themselves as ‘British’.

The split then was primarily a split caused by personalities rather than policy.

John Tyndall wrote a Constitution for the BNP that gave him autocratic powers. This Constitution has caused major problems particularly with John Tyndall’s successor, Nick Griffin.

The BNP, especially since the time of Nick Griffin as leader, has fudged important matters of policy, for example, it has allowed non-whites to join the Party and it states that foreigners already here may stay. Under its Constitution Nick Griffin was able to quarrel with and expel leading members and it was alleged on many occasions that Party money has been ‘squirreled’ away unaccounted for.

As a generalisation, current BNP members are mainly those who wish to be seen as reasonable and nice.

Turning to the NF, the problem here is that, in effect, there are 2 parties. One part of the Party believes that the Party is a normal UK political party, whilst the other part believes the Party is part of some world-wide white movement that includes liaison with foreign political parties of dubious make-up. Worse still some of these members are tainted with admiration for Adolf Hitler. Again, many of these members wear black clothing as per the original fascists (Mussolini’s men), the SS and Oswald Moseley’s BUF. This makes it hard to refute the jibe made by the hooligan opposition that the NF are “Fascists!”.

To bring the 2 sections together, these major differences need to be removed. This will not be easy, but must be done.

BNP members need to toughen up – they should take a look at many of our inner cities and see the huge concentration of fast breeding foreigners. Allowing them to stay is a death sentence for our nation. They have to learn that we are fighting an undeclared war against a nebulous but powerful enemy ( See para 4). The BNP Constitution is a nonsense and must be ditched.

The NF must make up its mind whether it is a UK political party working in the democratic system to select and support candidates in UK elections, or that it is clandestine re-incarnation of military dictatorship with Hitler as its hero.

The National Front needs to openly state that it is not tainted with Hitlerism otherwise there is no chance of unification.

On the good side, the NF has a simple written policy, see Leading policies. And although needing detailed update, its Constitution is of a federal nature and does not allow the Party to be run by a dictator. The ultimate authority within the NF is the members in Conference.

Both the BNP and NF should bear the above facts and suggestions in mind when taking future actions.

## **Reform**

One aspect of this lack of balance is the current Party Constitution. It places all power in the hands of the elected leader and means that the Party is effectively run as a dictatorship. There are no ‘checks and balances’. Griffin appoints all Party officials and consequently, many are ‘yes’ men. Opinions, other than those of Griffin, lead to dismissal from Party positions and even dismissal from the Party. Over the years Griffin has held widely varying political views. This means, in our opinion, that his political judgement is very poor, for example, he wished to allow non-Europeans to join the Party! He has made some serious errors in his appointment of personnel, most particularly the appointment of the unstable character, Tony Lecomber, as his chief regulating officer. Further it should be noted that Griffin has had a poor history concerning money. No prudent organization would allow someone with his history to be responsible for Party funds.

We believe that the Party Constitution should be changed to one that is a recognizable as normal for a corporate body under English law.

In our view, the Party must have a proper structure. It must have a number of the key officials directly elected by the members, in particular, the offices of Vice Chairman and Party Treasurer must be directly elected. The Party Chairman would be bound to discuss and agree with the majority of the other elected officials, matters of policy and discipline.

The new Constitution will provide for a compulsory AGMs at which all paid-up members are entitled to attend, propose resolutions and vote. We believe that the Party belongs to the members and that Party officials should be accountable to the members. This election gives members the chance to question the current leadership and management of the Party. However, we believe that the very short time allowed for this election is an attempt by the current Leader to stifle this process

The Party should make an effort to unite all genuine nationalists into one party. Griffin is unable to do this. He is an ex-chairman of the National Front and is now persona non-grata in that direction. Similarly, he is unacceptable to the Freedom Party, other nationalist groups and the many people who have left the Party either directly or indirectly because of him. He is also the ex-leader of the International Third Position.

Lastly we would like to comment on the suggestion made by the current Leader that the Party is more successful than under the previous Leader. How can you compare starting a Party from scratch with taking over a Party already in existence? This is not like for like. Can having 50 councillors be regarded as a success for the current leadership bearing in mind the conditions in the country? No progress was made in the May elections – in many areas we lost seats. Is Griffin offering more ‘success’ like this?

The BNP, despite its current tactical success, needs to reform in a number of ways in order to avoid the current momentum petering out. It also needs to address the problem of the growing number of little nationalist parties. Reform should make it attractive for these parties to merge with the BNP into a united single “National Party”. Mentioned below are three areas that definitely need attention:

1. Leadership structure. The current BNP constitution makes the Party leader a dictator.  This is clearly unsatisfactory and becomes more unsatisfactory as the Party grows.  Many people are reluctant to join a Party so structured and are doubly reluctant to make donations when there appear to be no safeguards on how the money is spent.

•The old pre-1979 National Front suffered in the other direction by having 20 equal “Directorate members”.  This meant that the meetings of that Directorate were often indecisive and always time consuming. As a talking point, a system is required that is sufficiently broad based to give confidence that the Party is not a one man dictatorship, but not so broad that decisiveness is lost.  The current National Front system has much to commend it. A small number of people are elected by the members. These elected members then elect a leader.  A similar system could be adopted by the BNP: say 5 members elected to a Directorate and from that 5 the leader is elected but remains subject to the majority vote of the Directorate.  The Freedom Party has a similar system.

1. The reasoning behind the policies of the BNP needs to be agreed and written down. Outsiders may think that BNP members have a single idea of the fundamentals of  belief.  However, this is just not true and in practice there is a wide spread of belief. “The 6 Principles.” are published to focus discussion about this very vital issue.  Stating the principles clearly will help the Party explain its position and be a positive aid to recruitment.
2. The Party name. The BNP started life as the New National Front. (The original National Front having split up into many parts.)  The Party name was later changed by a very narrow majority, primarily at the behest of Ray Hill, who was later found to be an infiltrator/agent provocateur. The past leader of the BNP was not English, nor is the current leader. Neither appear to appreciate just how, to put it politely, offputting the word “British” is to an Englishman and, I believe, to Scots. The name BNP is a positive liability to recruitment in English areas.  Another reason is that to describe the party as British is a form of illiteracy.  In the United Kingdom we are, “The National Party”, we do not need to describe ourselves further.

The Reform Group of the BNP came into being because many members, particularly established members, were concerned by the way the Party was run. The current leader, Nick Griffin has, and the founder leader, John Tyndall had, enormous talent in some directions but it seems none in others.  This has meant the Party has not been developed in a balanced manner. Reform Group members do not believe the propaganda put out in the Party literature that the Party is doing well. In particular, we mention the large number of activists who are leaving the Party and being replaced by inexperienced people with little idea of our policies and the enormous pressure that can be put on activists by the State. The Major Differences between the Reform Group and the ‘Griffin’ BNP:

1. We believe the Party should have a Constitution and structure that is normal for an association. This would mean that the principal party officials would be elected and that there would be Annual General Meetings when all members could propose resolutions and vote.  In particular, the Treasurer would be elected by the members and the Auditor would report to the members.   There would be an end to the current ‘dictatorship’ whereby the Party Chairman appoints all officials of the Party.
2. We believe that the Party should not waste precious resources, and the time and energy of its members, in participating in the European Parliament. MEPs have no power. We believe that the purpose of the BNP is to gain power. It is MPs at Westminster that have the power to make laws.  All our resources should be used to gain MPs.
3. We believe that the Party should be organised as strong, semi-autonomous, local constituency associations responsible for their own funds.
4. We believe that we should make every effort to unite the various nationalist parties and encourage members who have left the BNP to rejoin.  (It should be noted that the main reason for the existence of the various parties is the fact that many people could not work with John Tyndall and now with Nick Griffin.)  There are not great differences in policy between the groups. A new Party Chairman is required who has a rounded personality and the ability to get on with all members.

The Reform Group mounted a Leadership Challenge in 2007.  Stood aside to allow another group to stand in 2008.  The Reform Group is currently informally discussing, with a wide range of nationalists, a major challenge to the system of dictatorship, which is the current BNP.

## **Organisation and structure**

On its formation, the PA avoided the National Front's committee-rule system of collective leadership in the hope of evading the infighting and factionalism that had damaged the NF.

Griffin tried to build a more professional party machine by educating and training BNP members, providing them with incentives, establishing a steady income stream, and overcoming factionalism and dissent. He launched an "annual college" for activists in 2001 and formed an education and training department in 2007. In 2008 and 2010 he oversaw the establishment of "summer schools" for high-ranking officials. The party also began employing full-time members of staff, having three in 2001 and 13 in 2007.

To incentivise members to remain committed to the party, Griffin followed the example of the Swedish National Democrats by implementing a new "voting membership" scheme in 2007. This meant that those who had been BNP members for two years could become a "voting member", at which they would go on a year's probation. During this year they were required to attend educational and training seminars, to engage in a certain amount of activism, and to donate a specified amount of money to the party. Once completed, they were allowed to vote on certain matters at general members' meetings and annual conferences, to participate in policy debates, and to be eligible for intermediate and senior positions. This policy ensured that those who reached the higher echelons of the BNP were fully trained in the party's ideology and electoral strategy.

**Sub-groups and propaganda output**

Martin borrowed elements from BNP and National Front in the hope to build a wider social movement around the BNP by establishing affiliated networks and organisations. Martin introduced a variety of internal departments to help manage the party's activities: In many cases, these were presented to the public in a way that concealed any direct connection to the BNP.

* Great White Records, a radio station
* Solidarity – The Union for British Workers, trade union.
* Young PA, restricted to 14 to 25 years olds. YPA issued a newsletter, Bulldog, and organised a football competition between YPA teams
* A Land and People group, to recruit support in rural areas
* A Family Circle to recruit women and families
* A Veterans Group, and an Association of British ex-Servicemen: For former military servicemen.
* Families Against Immigrant Racism was established to counter perceived racism against white Briton
* Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA) was established to promote PA's view of British culture and identity.
* British Students Association was founded to promote the party's views among schools and university students.
* Albion Life Insurance was set up in September 2006 as an insurance brokerage company established on behalf of the BNP to raise funds for its activities.
* The Christian Council of Britain (CCB), a group designed to rival the Muslim Council of Britain and oppose the growing "Islamification" of inner city areas. The CCB was established and run by BNP member Robert West, who claimed to have been ordained by the Apostolic Church, a claim that the church denies. West is a Calvinist and espouses a theology of nations which is influenced by Calvinist theologians like Abraham Kuyper, holding that God wishes every race and nation to remain separate until end time.
* Annual Red, White and Blue festival, which was based on the 'Blue Blanc Rouge' organised by France's National Front. The festival brought party activists together and aimed to promote a more family friendly image for the group, although it also provided a venue for white power skinhead bands like Stigger, Nemesis and Warlord.
* Rock Against Communism (RAC) which PA held concerts featuring pro-white bands and any band that endorsed or supported PA's message.
* Trafalgar Club, private dining club.
* Launched a record label and music promotion network, White Noise Records
* A legal department to deal with any cases against the party or its members
* A security department
* Online marketing platform, Excalibur, through which to sell its merchandise
* The party's branches and local groups were referred to as "units" within the party. These were designed to recruit followers, raise funds, and campaign during elections.
* The administration and enquiries department,
* Department for group development
* Communications department

PA zealously embraced the use of alternative media to promote itself in a way different from the negative portrayal that featured in the mainstream media. On its website—it created an internet television channel, 'PAtv'. It has created blogs that cover different themes without being explicitly political in order to promote the party's message.

It encouraged members to infiltrate other groups, such as the Hunt Saboteurs Association and ratepayers' and residents' associations, through which to promote PA.

In his writings, Griffin acknowledged that much of his 'modernisation' was an attempt to hide the BNP's core ideology behind more electorally palatable policies. Griffin stating that "Of course we must teach the truth to the hardcore... [but] when it comes to influencing the public, forget about racial differences, genetics, Zionism, historical revisionism and so on... we must at all times present them with an image of moderate reasonableness". The BNP has eschewed the labels "fascist" and "Nazi", stating that it is neither. In its 1992 electoral manifesto, it said that "Fascism was Italian. Nazism was German. We are British. We will do things our own way; we will not copy foreigners".[145] In 2009, Griffin that the term "fascism" was simply "a smear that comes from the far left"; he added that the term should be reserved for groups that engaged in "political violence" and desired a state that "should impose its will on people", claiming that it was the anti-fascist group Unite Against Fascism—and not the BNP—who were the real fascists.[146] More broadly, many on Britain's extreme-right sought to avoid the term "British fascism" because of its electorally unpalatable connotations, utilising "British nationalism" in its place.[147]

After Griffin took control of the party, it made increasing use of nativist themes in order to emphasise its "British" credentials.[66] In its published material, the party made appeals to the idea of Britain and Britishness in a manner not dissimilar to mainstream political parties.[148] In this material it has also made prominent use of the Union flag and the colours red, white, and blue. BNP's form of British nationalism is "Anglo-Celt centric"

When Griffin took power, he sought to banish overt anti-Semitic discourse from the party. He informed party members that "we can get away with criticising Zionists, but any criticism of Jews is likely to be legal and political suicide". In 2006, he complained that the "obsession" that many BNP members had with "the Jews" was "insane and politically disastrous". In 2004, the party selected a Jewish candidate, Pat Richardson, to stand for it during local council elections, something Tyndall lambasted as a "gimmick". References to Jews in BNP literature were often coded to hide the party's electorally unpalatable anti-Semitic ideas. For instance, the term "Zionists" was often used in party literature as a euphemism for "Jews". As noted by Macklin, Griffin still framed many of his arguments "within the parameters of recognizably anti-Semitic discourse". The BNP's literature is replete with references to a conspiratorial group who have sought to suppress nationalist sentiment among the British population, who have encouraged immigration and mixed-race relationships, and who are promoting the Islamification of the country. This group is likely a reference to the Jews, being an old fascist canard

## **Manifesto**

Supporting families

Strong families make for a strong nation

As well as being a great source of joy, family life underpins our society. In the family, care and love are embodied, and resources are shared freely. The state should not seek to supplant the fundamental role of the family in bringing up children and should refrain from interfering in family life. Instead, the state should be supporting families to enable them to provide for themselves, structure their family life according to their priorities, and bring up their children according to their values.

We value parenthood. Bringing new life into the world and then caring for and nurturing children as they grow into adulthood is one of life’s noblest endeavours. It is of immeasurable value to society and this huge contribution should be recognised by the state. Our culture should also honour and celebrate parenthood as a high calling, instead of glorifying career and diminishing the value of home life.

Of course, fulfilling, purposeful and valuable paths through life don’t have to involve bringing up children, and our experiences of relationships and family life don’t always work out the way we hoped. However, that doesn’t detract from the central importance of family life to society.

Scotland faces many apparently intractable problems: poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, youth mental health issues, and cycles of crime. Family breakdown fuels these and many more problems. It’s not the whole story, but promoting family stability is a policy avenue that needs to be explored. It would pay dividends out of all proportion to the costs. Prevention is better than cure.

Family autonomy

The family is a private realm into which the state should only reluctantly intrude out of necessity. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed that parents care for their children with love and commitment, devoting themselves in a way that the state cannot begin to emulate.

The Named Person Scheme legislation has been abandoned, but the philosophy of seeking to inject state ‘wisdom’ into families lives on and the continuing non-statutory Named Person Scheme will still present a challenge to the integrity of family life.

This dangerous philosophy has seven elements:

Distrust of parents,

The imposition of “expert” parenting approaches on all parents,

The undermining of parental authority and the elevation of child autonomy (often in the guise of Children’s Rights),

An excessive assessment of the vulnerability of children to everyday events and interactions,

The assumption that parents who punish their children are damaging them (the Smacking Ban is just the first step),

A desire to “protect” children from the values and beliefs of their parents, where these diverge from those of the state,

Viewing parents as subordinate members of a larger team of adults looking after a child.

The tight knit world of Scottish Government, education, social work and children’s charities is dominated by this philosophy. In some areas, this spirit will be embodied in non-statutory Named Persons, but everywhere the same insidious philosophy infuses professional attitudes.

Lowering the threshold for intervention from abuse or neglect to vague and allencompassing “wellbeing” concerns opens the door to families being judged according to highly subjective and value-laden criteria. Trivial deviations from parenting ‘best practice’ can be recorded, accumulated and presented as a case against parents. There are many ways to be a good parent, and, with few exceptions, parents should be free to raise their children according to their own values.

When the Scottish Government publishes guidance for parents, it reflects a narrow parenting style and must be seen as an indication of the criteria that state agents will use to assess parenting. It should be remembered that the Scottish Government is undertaking a project to remove all punishments from schools and always wants children’s views to be given more weight. Parents will be judged from such a standpoint. What happens when pupils are taught at school that punishments are ineffective and counterproductive, and then dad sends a boy to his room for being rude to mum?

The Government’s obsession with “Children’s Rights” further undermines parental authority.

Particularly in schools, staff can present themselves as an authority figure above parents, inviting children to complain about the service offered by their mum and dad. Subsequent interventions “to help resolve the issue” erode parental authority.

Incessant enquiries into every child’s wellbeing invite criticism of parents by children, undermining the parent/child relationship.

Parents who smack their children should not be criminalised. We would seek to repeal the smacking ban legislation. The previous legislation was adequate to protect children.

We are extremely concerned by the Scottish Government’s proposals to redefine Child Abuse to include highly subjective criteria such as “make the child feel that their opinions, views or feelings are worthless”, “expose a child to… anger”, “ridicule the child” and “make them feel that they are useless.”

These vague descriptions would lead to increased unnecessary intervention in family life and make parents wary of challenging children or denying their wishes.

Medical confidentiality should not be granted to under 16s, unless there are credible allegations of parental abuse or neglect. Parents should be fully informed and involved, instead of the current culture of offering to keep secrets from parents.

Teaching children that they can choose their gender is extremely harmful. Steering children and young people towards puberty-blocking drugs and sex reassignment surgery is grossly irresponsible, given that a clear majority of children will naturally outgrow gender confusion. Parents should be free to overrule interventions by government agents when guiding their children on such matters. Parents are best placed to understand their children and have primary responsibility for their care and wellbeing.

Abortion and abortifacients should not be available to under 16s without parents being informed beforehand.

The legal Age of Consent should be sixteen, without exception. The current legal acceptance of sex involving 13 to 15-year-olds fails to protect young people from the possible negative consequences of sex at such a young age and communicates to young people that society approves of such behaviour. Many parents are urging their children to wait until they are older before having sex, but the state currently undermines this message.

A small number of parents find it challenging to coordinate and communicate with the range of professionals involved with a child with more complex needs. In this case, a parent should be able to approach a school and ask that someone be appointed to take on this administrative task for them and to be a single point of contact thereafter. This meets a genuine need without undermining parental autonomy in any way.

Parents who are under the eye of the social services should be able to access a child psychologist/welfare expert to advise and represent them in any review of their parenting.

Family relationships

We promote marriage as the best foundation for stable family life, benefitting adults, children and wider society.

The current Holyrood parties regard the prevalence of family breakdown as beyond their influence and remit. They focus instead on “picking up the pieces” by supporting those adversely affected, particularly children. This is laudable, but the harms are often irremediable. Only the Scottish Family Party seeks to get to the heart of the matter and reduce family breakdown.

Schools should teach the facts about marriage and its rationale. The tax and benefits system should recognise marriage and ensure that it is never penalised. SFP MSPs would exercise cultural leadership by promoting marriage in the media, the debating chamber and through special events.

Steps to make the legal process of divorce easier undermine the status of marriage as a solemn, lifelong commitment.

The introduction of civil partnerships for heterosexual couples will further undermine the culture of marriage by offering an alternative that does not include a vow of sexual fidelity. We will oppose any further attempts by the state to redefine marriage, such as to include multi-partner or incestuous relationships.

Marriage and relationship counselling should be provided and funded to aid relationship stability.

Family Courts should ensure that parents are not denied fair access to their children without substantiated serious grounds. Claims that a parent is unsuitable must be supported by convincing evidence. Long term decisions to prevent a parent from seeing their child or to remove a child from the family home should be made by a jury. This would recognise the gravity of the decision and bring a breadth of perspective.

Failures to cooperate with child access arrangements should be dealt with swiftly and effectively.

Domestic abuse law should not cover vaguely defined “psychological abuse”. It is too imprecise and open to spurious application. For example, laws relating to making a person “dependent on another person” or “feel ... humiliated or degraded” could be interpreted to cover behaviours far short of “abuse” and risk bringing the threat of legal sanction into more superficial relationship conflicts. Such laws are also vulnerable to exploitation for vindictive reasons. There should be no gender-based assumption of blame, but a balanced assessment of the facts.

Organisations supporting abused men should be proportionately funded instead of being entirely neglected.

Childcare and finances

Scotland’s fertility rate is far too low to sustain the population. Falling population causes many problems for a nation, not least with regard to the financial support of the retired. Many families would like to have more children, but financial and practical pressures deter them. We seek to reduce these barriers.

For decades, government policy has had the aim of encouraging both parents to work instead of committing full time to caring for their children. We reject the philosophy that regards it as desirable that men and women approach family life and career in identical ways. We believe that each family should make its own decisions in this area, and the state’s role is to facilitate these choices. There is currently generous support for those opting for the twin income model, in the form of subsidised and free childcare. However, those favouring full-time parenthood are penalised rather than supported, paying high taxes to subsidise childcare for other families while receiving no help themselves.

Our policies are intended to redress the balance. The Government is doubling the hours of nursery care provided for 3 and 4 year olds. We would offer cash in lieu of this additional provision for families deciding they do not want their young child to spend so long away from a parent. A family wanting their child to go to nursery in the morning but not the afternoon as well would be entitled to a substantial payment instead.

Instead of treating married couples as two individuals for tax purposes, we should move to a system that assesses them as a family. Tax allowances would, therefore, be fully transferable. Beyond that, we also would consider additional tax allowances while dependent children are living with parents. Variants on this system are common in European countries which do not have the same structural anti-family bias as the UK tax system. This is a reserved matter, so we would press this case at the Westminster level, and urge that the necessary powers be devolved so that Scotland can lead the way in treating families fairly.

Child benefit payments should be increased, and be available regardless of family size.

Those without dependent children may need to pay more tax to balance out these changes. This is justified because each generation relies on upcoming generations to pay for their care in retirement. It is unfair if those producing these vital new generations are not compensated for their expense in doing so.

The need for a large, and therefore more expensive, home correlates with family size. Therefore, property-based Council Tax tends to penalise families with children. We would seek to offset this by either a Local Income Tax or Council Tax discounts for all families with dependent children. Council Tax is a devolved matter, so we would press this case at Holyrood level.

Government agency and Council-run attractions, such as historic sites, museums and swimming pools, should give free entry to accompanied children.

Public transport providers should be encouraged to reduce children’s fares.

These measures would remove factors that may discourage parents from having more children. Scotland’s population decline could be addressed by such policies that would encourage larger families.

Adoption, fostering, fertility treatment and care

Ideally, children should be brought up by a mum and a dad, providing a male and female role model and complementary qualities.

The SFP does not support the use of NHS resources for any fertility-related treatment apart from for a man and woman in a long-term stable relationship. There must be an intention of a child being brought up by a mother and father.

We disagree with government-funded Stonewall’s “co-parenting” advice (available through the NHS website). For example, it suggests children be conceived by adults, each of whom is already in a sexual relationship with another person, or by two single people. Adults should not choose to bring children into arrangements without a single stable home.

Preference should be given to married couples, husband and wife, in fostering and adoption decisions. Good parents should not be turned away from fostering or adoption because assessors disagree with their political, moral or religious beliefs.

A family home is the best context for a child, but when this is not possible, placing children in boarding schools instead of children’s homes could be cost-effective and beneficial for the children. The schools could make arrangements for holiday periods as well. This might only be feasible for small numbers of children without particularly complex needs but should still be explored.

Older people

Extensive care at home services should be available as an alternative to living in a care home where possible.

Care for the elderly is becoming increasingly difficult for Councils to provide. Where older people choose to pay for their own care through private care services or a private care home, this relieves the pressure on the system. To encourage and broaden this sector, tax breaks should be offered, similar to those associated with charitable status, and the inspection and regulation regime should be streamlined to become less of a burden on care providers.

Those with an elderly relative living in their home should be entitled to a substantial Council Tax reduction and/or tax allowance. Practical and financial support to enable people to care for relatives should be provided.

The government should explore voluntary insurance systems to mitigate the risk of high care home fees, through either a payment on retirement, regular payments through retirement or a fixed payment from one’s estate at death.

Maintaining fruitful family relationships is more challenging when families are scattered geographically. Older people are particularly affected when younger generations are distant. We would seek to enable extended families to stay closer together through measures to make local university education more attractive, housing more affordable and to encourage employers to make it possible for

employees to pursue careers without moving far from home.

Insurance and utility company regulation should ensure a transparent and stable pricing structure. The price charged to existing customers should always be the same as that for new customers or customers who ask for a discount. This would simplify the decision-making process for all customers and prevent the exploitation of vulnerable customers who do not check their payment level regularly.

Reforming education

Schools

Academic curriculum

Schools should focus on academic rigour, with options for more vocational training where appropriate. Currently, the curriculum provides insufficient challenge for the academically strong and forces the less academic to persevere with abstract study when more practical courses would be more beneficial.

There are two basic philosophies of education: progressive and traditional. The progressive approach emphasises skills, group work, exploration and creativity. The traditional focuses more on discipline, knowledge, formal teaching, and objective testing. Most would see some value in each approach, seeking a sensible balance. Education Scotland and the Scottish Government, however, are convinced that the solution to every problem is to move ever further in the progressive direction. We propose a more balanced approach.

The so-called Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) should be abandoned. It draws on all of the worst aspects of fashionable educational ideology. It elevates subjective learner experience over teaching, undermining the intellectual authority of teachers, and uses student motivation and enjoyment as the measure of what is worth knowing. It attempts to blur the boundaries between subject disciplines and is founded upon the idea that education is to build pupils’ confidence and selfesteem, rather than their knowledge and understanding.

The CfE changed the objective of Scottish education from ‘academic education for all’ to a checklist of personal qualities. The purpose of education is now to produce; “successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors.” This new curriculum was said to give children more choice, that their education could be ‘personalised’ and that they would take ownership of their learning through educational portfolios and personal-development plans. The reality is that pupils have fewer subject choices; the only personal element of the new regime relates, not to the academic programme, but to a therapeutic agenda.

A simpler curriculum specifying what to teach when, including a system of standardised tests and a definite requirement to offer a minimum range of subjects to study, should replace CfE. The internally assessed National 4 qualification system is open to widespread and systematic corruption, so it should be discontinued. Properly invigilated and externally assessed examinations should form the core of every qualification.

Objective feedback and grading that enables pupils and parents to understand their level of attainment should be available. Data should not be withheld from parents.

Scottish Qualifications Authority examinations should move from May into June, allowing fruitful study through all three terms. The inefficient system of starting new courses in June would then be unnecessary. SQA would face the challenge of marking papers with a tighter deadline, but this is not insurmountable.

While an emphasis on helping those with some educational disadvantages is justified, “closing the attainment gap” between rich and poor areas is now emphasised to the exclusion of aiming to raise attainment for all. The educational system should aim for the highest possible standards for all pupils, not an artificial equality target. Excellent students, in excellent schools in prosperous areas, are to be celebrated, encouraged and replicated, not resented for causing an “attainment gap”.

Many educationalists and politicians are seeking to use the COVID examination cancellations as a springboard to dispensing with all independent objective student assessment permanently. When teacher grading replaced examinations in 2020, grade inflation was most rampant in schools in poorer areas. In desperation, having achieved little with other schemes to close the attainment gap, the educational establishment is now seeing unreliable and over-optimistic teacher assessment as the solution. When faced with an intractable problem, politicians will always be tempted by means to obscure the real situation, but we oppose the sacrificing of the integrity of young people’s educational certification on the altar of political ideology.

Lessons in critical thinking and logic, unrelated to contemporary political and social issues, should be provided for all high school pupils. Intelligently navigating the current deluge of contradictory, unreliable, biased and superficially persuasive content will be a vital ability if we are not to descend further into tribalism, ignorance and confusion. This teaching of how to think would contrast with the current emphasis on telling pupils what to think.

Behaviour

Schools should instil a proper respect for authority, expecting obedience, courtesy and good manners.

Standards and expectations should be high, from dress and punctuality to a positive attitude and hard work.

Teachers should never feel that pupils are out of control. Education Scotland’s moves to remove punishments from schools, replacing them with “restorative” processes, is misguided, based on an over-optimistic view of human nature. Boys, in particular, tend to need clear boundaries and defined consequences and flourish when these are provided.

As behaviour problems reach crisis point in many schools, staff must be listened to instead of idealistic schemes being imposed from above. Teachers are leaving the profession in the face of routine defiance and pupils’ learning is being disrupted by unchecked bad behaviour. We believe that punishing children is necessary, fair, justified and effective.

Replacing punishments with contrived mini-counselling sessions disempowers teachers and leaves children with the (justified) impression that miscreants continually “get away with it”.

The ideological drive to leave appallingly badly-behaved pupils in mainstream classes is unfair to teachers and other pupils. Attempts to educate and support such aggressive and uncontrollable pupils should be made in a more appropriate context.

Character education

While caring for children, schools should also expose them to challenges. It is through a taste of adversity, struggle and failure that character develops. Competitive sports and activities have a place for all ages.

The wellbeing emphasis in Scottish schools is leading to a therapeutic approach that leaves children with the assumption that professional emotional support is required to face the ups and downs of daily life.

It can also undermine the role of families as schools constantly have to present themselves as alternative carers. While children should know that they can speak to school staff about problems at home, schools should not invite children to assess their parents through wellbeing discussions and questionnaires. Schools should positively encourage gratitude, respect and obedience towards parents and a respectful attitude to adults in general.

While it is good to listen to pupils’ views and inform them of their rights, pupils should not be led to believe that the school exists to give them whatever they want. The ubiquitous emphasis on teaching children about their rights can lead to a demanding and selfish mindset, regarding adults as service providers whose primary function is to fulfil their wishes. Teaching children that they are entitled to freedom from adult instruction undermines discipline both in the home and at school.

A national certification in character qualities such as good manners, punctuality, personal presentation, trustworthiness and industriousness should be available to all pupils before they leave school. This would be rigorously assessed against objective criteria over a period of several weeks. This could help pupils focus on these vital qualities and thereby prepare themselves for successful employment. It could also assist schools in maintaining high standards. Failure to gain the certificate could have negative implications for state benefits. Opportunities to complete the assessment could also be available after leaving school.

Values education

Virtues such as courage, integrity, faithfulness, loyalty, gratitude, politeness, prudence, temperance, generosity, compassion, humility and tolerance should be at the heart of character formation in schools.

Instead, most Scottish schools tirelessly promote a liberal/progressive/leftist agenda, taking every opportunity to present this perspective on issues such as climate change, sexism and feminism, race, inequality, gender, sexuality and the like. The extent of this promotion of particular perspectives amounts to indoctrination. Once children’s views have been moulded, a charade of “listening to children” then enables the adults to claim that they are merely following the direction of the children.

If a ‘one size fits all’ education system is prescribed, then it needs to include diverse perspectives and engender open debate on controversial topics. Currently, a uniform philosophy is presented, to the exclusion of all others.

The so-called “harm reduction” approach to drugs education is counterproductive. Young people should not see decisions regarding using illegal drugs as mere personal risk assessment. The impact on family, employers, neighbours and state-funded services take such decisions out of the realm of personal preference and firmly

into the arena of moral responsibility. Conspiratorial "we’re here to help you stay safe when using drugs" style presentations should be banished from schools. Parental concern and the wellbeing of wider society should take precedence over the irresponsible, amoral liberalism that currently underpins drugs education.

As well as information about alcohol, pupils should hear the case that drunkenness is inherently irresponsible and should not be socially acceptable, and the case for teetotalism. Having heard these points of view, they will be better able to form their own opinion.

The “harm reduction” approach to sex education is also harmful. Evidencebased sex and relationships education that includes the presentation of moral perspectives should be implemented instead. Young people need to be aware of the statistical correlations between multiple sexual partners, types of relationship, physical health, mental health, relational stability, marriage, cohabitation, various sexual practices, sex at a young age, sexual promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases. Armed with the full range of relevant facts, young people will be better equipped to make decisions.

The Scottish Government’s official sex education resources are grossly indecent, positively promoting pornography and masturbation, presenting as valid some disturbing and dangerous sexual practices, and endorsing illegal under-age sex. The tone is often trivialising and the content is too explicit at younger ages. We would require schools to publish all relationship, sexual health and parenthood resources used, so that parents could see for themselves what is being taught and, if they wish, withdraw their children from these classes (which would remain a right in law).

The moral arguments and emotional consequences relating to abortion should be discussed, instead of the current presentation of abortion as the obvious solution to unwanted pregnancy.

Natural family planning techniques should be discussed alongside other contraception methods in sex education.

We oppose the LGBT Inclusive Education programme that mandates the indoctrination of schoolchildren into a radical ideology of sexuality. Civility and tolerance should be shown to all, and bullying in school and criminal activity targeting LGBT people should be dealt with vigorously. However, promoting a certain philosophy of sex and relationships and denying alternative views is not necessary to combat bullying.

The insertion of LGBT content across the entire curriculum is intended to deprive parents of the option of withdrawing their child from it.

The drive to normalise and endorse any and every sexual relationship and family form begins at the nursery stage and continues unabated. For example, we disagree with the message that procreation just requires a sperm, egg and uterus, with no regard to the source of each element. We believe instead in the ideal of a mother and father having and rearing their own children.

Pupils are inducted into LGBT activism from primary school, as familiar campaigning symbols and slogans are presented in lessons.

The philosophy of gender fluidity is dangerous to young people, leading to confusion and unhelpful experimentation.

Parents should have a strong voice in determining how these issues are approached in schools. Indoctrination into the fashionable philosophy of gender is not appropriate and will lead more children down a difficult road that could seriously undermine their wellbeing for the rest of their lives.

The dangers of indebtedness should be elucidated clearly to school pupils. The assumption that personal consumer debt is routine and unavoidable should be challenged and the moral implications of lending and borrowing discussed.

On all these issues, young people should be made aware of arguments from different perspectives.

Special needs

Provision and support for children facing particular difficulties is important. This should be provided in the most appropriate context to meet their needs, avoiding excessive disruption to the education of others.

Overdiagnosis and labelling of children can lead to low expectations. A culture of personal responsibility and development should prevail where possible.

Alternative education

Independent schools should enjoy charitable status automatically, as educating children to a high standard is an obvious good to society. Independent schools should be free to operate according to their own principles and methods, guided by their traditions, leaders and parents. Instead of enforcing ideals that have had a dubious record in maintained schools, an attitude of sharing best practice should prevail. For example, where independent schools outperform state schools, attempts should be made to replicate the ingredients for success. And vice versa.

Catholic schools should not be squeezed into the mould of other schools by government pressure. They should be free to embody and promote their distinct values and ethos as they wish.

We support the right of parents to educate their own children outside school. Resources should be made freely available through local schools to parents who home educate. Local schools should include home educated children in assessment programmes when parents request it. We support flexi-schooling, where parents can place their children in school for a portion of the weekly programme, alongside educating them at home.

Where parents wish their children to be educated according to their values but feel that mainstream schools are failing to do this or, worse, are attacking these values, the government should be willing to fund alternative schools. These schools would follow standard academic curricula, but the state should not seek to impose its own values. Where such schools already exist on an independent basis, they should be offered state funding.

Education scotland and GTCS

The national agency, Education Scotland, faces a fundamental conflict of interest. It inspects and evaluates policies and practices it has itself largely developed. Currently, schools have to enthusiastically embrace the latest Education Scotland diktat and proclaim its wisdom and effectiveness, on pain of a bad inspection report. This has to be remedied. The policy development aspect should be minimised, as the people who know best about what will work in a certain school are the leaders, staff and parents of that school. Expensive centrally imposed programmes, laden with jargon and driven by the latest educational fashion, seldom bear fruit.

Inspections should be carried out by teams of teachers and parents, led by a professional inspector from a new independent inspectorate. Their role should be to assess the effectiveness of the school, not its adherence to current fads. They could also provide unbiased feedback to Education Scotland on the efficacy of their directives to schools.

The General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) places unnecessary obstacles in the path of teachers wanting to teach in Scotland, restricts freedom of speech, administers an unnecessarily bureaucratic Professional Update scheme, and publishes a magazine that is more government propaganda than professional journal. Also, GTCS is highly politicised, imposing a distinct political philosophy onto all teachers. It should be wound up, and its critical functions, such as teachers’ registration, dealt with by the Education Department directly.

Higher and further education

The University sector should be reduced in size. While many pursue semiacademic personal interest degree courses, there are shortages in vital vocations and trades. University course funding should better reflect the needs of the economy and society.

Vocational Further Education and apprenticeships should increasingly be promoted and financed as a positive alternative to university.

University courses should include an element of assessment common across universities. This would enable those at less prestigious institutions to demonstrate their ability relative to all students. Merit would then weigh more than institutional reputation when assessing a student’s academic record. The possibility of gaining excellent qualifications at a more local university could also help family members stay more local to each other, to the benefit of family life in the longer term.

Concentrated shorter degree programmes with less holiday time should be available.

The current system of postcode dependent entrance requirements, favouring those living in poorer areas, is unfair. Universities should be free to select those students they assess as the most able.

All non-UK students should pay fees.

Students persisting in using illegal drugs should lose funding for their studies.

Universities should be centres of open debate and stimulating exposure to diverse arguments, not giant “safe spaces” where views judged to be undesirable are driven underground. The government should make it clear to universities that this is what is expected of them. Universities should expose students to a diverse crosssection of opinions. Academic staff should remain free to reflect their own political, religious and philosophical views in their teaching and other academic work. Concern arises, however, when the views of academic staff overwhelmingly lean in one direction, leading to impressionable young students concluding that this view is the only academically respectable one.

Steps should be taken to ensure that students engage with proponents of a wide spectrum of views. Bringing in academics from other institutions, or other thinkers, to debate publicly with university staff could be helpful in this regard. Where whole departments seem dedicated to a specific ideology, as might be the case with Gender Studies, for example, any form of public funding should be reconsidered. Such ideological think tanks promoting political activism should not be funded as university departments.

Valuing life

Life is precious. All human life has intrinsic worth and the measure of a civilised society is how we treat those who are most vulnerable.

We affirm the value of human life in the womb. Abortion as a means of birth control is morally unjustifiable. Ultimately, we would like to see the law reflect this, but immediate steps could include offering independent counselling to those considering an abortion, reducing the current 24 week limit for abortions and preventing abortion on grounds of disability after 24 weeks. We would ensure that young people are presented with the facts about abortion and the possible emotional consequences when the subject is discussed in schools. No organisation which provides abortions should be entitled to charitable status. We would seek to involve potential fathers in the decision-making process.

We would invest in support for women facing unwanted pregnancy, helping them to establish a strong network of support and encouraging alternatives such as fostering or adoption.

Those who currently don’t have a strong view about abortion might still agree that this important topic should be discussed openly as a party-political issue. Currently, no Holyrood or UK party is willing to start the debate by standing up to the pro-abortion consensus.

The Greens, Labour and Lib Dems in Scotland are pushing for the full decriminalisation of abortion. This entails abortion on demand up to full term. The SNP government funds organisations that campaign for this as well. The Conservatives have no policy, but they are certainly not a pro-life party and votes for them will not defend the lives of the unborn.

Without abortion, births would exceed deaths in Scotland. The problem of population decline could be addressed by restricting abortion.

We oppose the introduction of assisted suicide and euthanasia. If choosing death is seen as a valid option, this will inevitably lead to vulnerable people experiencing pressure, real or imagined, to end their lives. We want everyone to feel valued and worthy of the highest degree of care throughout their life. Suicide should not be promoted as a valid response to difficulties.

The Scottish Parliament has voted twice against assisted suicide, but a desire to avoid controversy may have been the key factor, rather than a principled defence of the value of all human life. Party leaders’ comments on the issue are very guarded and seem to leave room for a change of position in the future. The Green Party and the Scottish Lib Dems have Assisted Suicide as party policy. The SNP, Labour and Conservatives have no policy, so a vote for them is a vote for indifference. The Scottish Family Party can be relied on to provide principled opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia, regardless of public opinion.

The “opt-out” system of organ donation is wrong. The state should not claim rights over our bodies when we die. Organ donation should be a choice. Consent should not be assumed. We believe that our mortal remains do not belong to the state, but to the family, seeking to carry out the wishes of the deceased. An “opt-in” system, with wide participation, is best.

Defending Freedom

We cherish political, intellectual, religious, artistic, journalistic, academic and professional freedom.

Our fundamental freedoms are under attack.  Freedom of speech is being eroded by those unwilling to countenance the existence of decent people who disagree with them.  Professional and even legal consequences await those who speak their mind on certain topics. Society progresses by open debate, seeking the truth.  So, to prevent injustices against the unorthodox, and to facilitate a flourishing society, we must defend freedom.

Hate speech legislation will lead to increasing censorship and self-censorship.  The Police should not be threatening to prosecute those who are “offensive” on social media, for example.  No one has the right not to be offended. We oppose all hate speech legislation. We also oppose the “Hate Incident” system under which incidents are recorded with no evidence or investigation at all, leading campaigning groups into an unseemly quest to rack up numbers of incidents recorded in order to further their own agenda.

The Equality Act’s section on “harassment” should be repealed.  Again, “offence” should not be a matter for the law, nor should such vague concepts as “violating your dignity.”  The Equality Act has led to many injustices and serves to enforce a political philosophy by threat of legal consequence.

Government regulatory agencies should not seek to enforce the government’s philosophy and silence dissent.  Other employers should respect the right of employees to express diverse opinions.

People should be free to criticise and ridicule any belief system without fear of state intervention.

The government should not intervene to censor news sources that deviate from the mainstream media narrative, nor should they pressurise social media companies to manipulate access to different viewpoints, or ban or financially undermine political and social commentators that challenge the progressive establishment philosophy.  The internet must remain a space for open debate.

Regulation should prevent monopolistic social media corporations from acting individually or as a cartel to skew public debate.

We are supportive of the concept of a national broadcaster producing high quality programmes, helping unify the nation around a common culture. However, the BBC's ‘progressive’ bias renders it unfit to fulfil its function. News reporting tends to be one sided, often including stories that are obviously included to promote an idea such as transsexualism and assisted suicide. The overwhelming cultural bias evident in other programming, including children’s, is even worse.  The BBC’s influence skews national debate and leads to widely held and reasonable views being regarded as dangerous extremism. The BBC should begin to compete with other media companies on a level playing field. The licence fee should purchase access to BBC output, but not paying the fee should not restrict access to other TV channels.

The requirement that broadcasters be neutral should be removed.  Broadcasters are not neutral now and it would be preferable to have a choice of news and current affairs from a range of perspectives rather than pretending that the BBC and other existing TV news services are unbiased.

In careers and businesses, where matters of conscience arise, reasonable accommodation should favour the employee where possible.  The aim should be tolerance and understanding, not a desire to teach ‘heretics’ a lesson. Freedom of association should be protected.  There is nothing wrong with, for example, golf clubs for men or societies for people with similar beliefs.

People should be free to seek private counselling as they fulfil their life vision, regardless of whether or not the therapy is intended to maintain or desist sexual desires.  Moves to prevent such support are ideologically driven and an attack on individual freedom.

Unifying society

We cherish political, intellectual, religious, artistic, journalistic, academic and professional freedom.

Our fundamental freedoms are under attack. Freedom of speech is being eroded by those unwilling to countenance the existence of decent people who disagree with them. Professional and even legal consequences await those who speak their mind on certain topics. Society progresses by open debate, seeking the truth. So, to prevent injustices against the unorthodox, and to facilitate a flourishing society, we must defend freedom.

Hate speech legislation will lead to increasing censorship and self-censorship. The Police should not be threatening to prosecute those who are “offensive” on social media, for example. No one has the right not to be offended. We oppose all hate speech legislation. We also oppose the “Hate Incident” system under which incidents are recorded with no evidence or investigation at all; this leads campaigning groups into an unseemly quest to rack up numbers of incidents recorded in order to further their own agenda.

The Equality Act’s section on “harassment” should be repealed. Again, “offence” should not be a matter for the law, nor should vague concepts such as “violating your dignity.” The Equality Act has led to many injustices and serves to enforce a political philosophy by threat of legal consequence.

Government regulatory agencies should not seek to enforce the government’s philosophy and silence dissent. Other employers should respect the right of employees to express diverse opinions.

People should be free to criticise and ridicule any belief system without fear of state intervention.

The government should not intervene to censor news sources that deviate from the mainstream media narrative, nor should they pressurise social media companies to manipulate access to different viewpoints, or ban or financially undermine political and social commentators that challenge the progressive establishment philosophy. The internet must remain a space for open debate.

Regulation should prevent monopolistic social media corporations from acting individually or as a cartel to skew public debate.

We are supportive of the concept of a national broadcaster producing high quality programmes, helping unify the nation around a common culture. However, the BBC’s ‘progressive’ bias renders it unfit to fulfil its function. News reporting tends to be one sided, often including stories that are obviously included to promote an idea such as transsexualism or assisted suicide. The overwhelming cultural bias evident in other programming, including children’s, is even worse. The BBC’s influence skews national debate and leads to widely held and reasonable views being regarded as dangerous extremism. The BBC should begin to compete with other media companies on a level playing field. The licence fee should purchase access to BBC output, but not paying the fee should not restrict access to other TV channels.

The requirement that broadcasters be neutral should be removed. Broadcasters are not neutral now and it would be preferable to have a choice of news and current affairs from a range of perspectives rather than pretending that the BBC/existing TV news is unbiased.

In careers and businesses, where matters of conscience arise, reasonable accommodation should favour the employee where possible. The aim should be tolerance and understanding, not a desire to teach ‘heretics’ a lesson.

Freedom of association should be protected. There is nothing wrong with, for example, golf clubs for men or societies for people with similar beliefs.

People should be free to seek private counselling as they fulfil their life vision, regardless of whether or not the therapy is intended to maintain or desist sexual desires. Moves to prevent such support are ideologically driven and an attack on individual freedom.

Identity politics

Prosperous and harmonious nations share a strong sense of unity and common identity. States comprising factions competing against each other are often beset with problems.

The political arena should not be dominated by special interest groups battling to gain favourable treatment from the state, each bearing its own set of purported grievances, with parties competing to curry favour with them.

Such identity politics leads to resentment among those observing the special treatment of other groups, a passive mentality among those in allegedly victimised groups, and a never-ending spiral of competing claims from special interest groups. Once the grievance arms race has begun, it is in the interests of each special group to seek out ever more evidence of injustice against them. This ‘evidence’ is usually in the form of statistical differences that a show a special group seeming to do less well on some indicator. The complex array of factors involved is then overlooked, and the distinction is blamed on prejudice and discrimination. Where statistics show the allegedly oppressed group doing better, they are ignored.

Identity politicians target sex, sexuality, gender, nationality, race, religion, income and age, always-arguing that a group is getting a raw deal somehow.

In the same way that Marxism divided the population into economic oppressors and the oppressed, those fueling identity politics seek to divide society into the oppressors and the oppressed on other grounds, breaking down allegiance to family and nation by diverting loyalty to identity groups instead, each feeling an aggrieved sense of victimhood and looking to government intervention to resolve these problems of “inequality.”

None of this is to say that genuine discrimination does not exist: it should be tackled as necessary, but not every statistical distinction shows an injustice.

We do not support Hate Crime legislation. Criminal activity should be punished according to its seriousness, not its motivation. All should be equally protected by the law. Anyone contemplating assault, for example, should fear the law equally, regardless of their motivation and intended victim. The proposed misogyny offense will create a crime of sexist behaviour towards a woman by a man, but equivalent behaviour by a woman towards a man would not be a crime. This is plainly unjust and reflects the use of legislation to appease favoured campaigners.

The 2010 Equality Act mandates “positive action,” stating that a candidate can be selected for a job because of their race, sex etc in order to meet statistical targets. This is unjust and discriminatory and should be repealed.

The Equalities Act also makes harassment based on protected characteristics an offence. This is unnecessary. The law should apply equally to all. This provision actually makes some employers reluctant to employ applicants with certain “protected characteristics,” fearing that they will use their special protection to raise complaints and manipulate.

Gender equality

Feminists in the past fought some grave injustices in the UK, as they do in many other countries today. However, much contemporary ‘gender equality’ campaigning in Scotland is misguided.

Men and women, on average, tend to have different priorities and interests. This diversity is positive and creative, not a problem to eliminate. We do not want to squeeze the sexes into uniformity, but to support men and women as they fulfil their own vision for their lives.

Gender imbalances in many areas of study and lines of work are not a problem to solve, but a natural manifestation of men and women freely following their own inclinations and ambitions.

Compared to women, men tend to work longer hours, are more willing to sacrifice job security for career advancement, do more dangerous jobs, and take fewer career breaks. Women often want to devote themselves more to family life. The “Gender Pay Gap” is by and large a reflection of the natural differences between men and women, and no government action is required to address it.

We do not support gender quotas in business, education or politics and would seek to repeal legislation that already discriminates in this way.

So-called “equal pay” claims, where women claim to have been underpaid for doing different work than men are unjust. Councils should not have to dissipate their limited resources following these unjust claims. Similarly, businesses should be secure from such opportunistic attacks.

Immigration

Scotland and the UK should be prepared to welcome refugees. The alternative of helping displaced people nearer to their country of origin can be fairer and more positive for all concerned, and so should always be considered.

As well as contributing economically, immigrants bring much to our culture, often including positive values of family, responsibility, education and industry that have been eroded somewhat in Scotland. However, immigration should be carefully controlled and illegal immigration minimised.

A strong sense of shared national identity and common culture is important in sustaining a healthy and wealthy democratic nation. The government should promote traditional Scottish culture and unifying national events.

Immigration can have a negative effect on poor countries as they lose able and educated citizens. UK immigration policy should be formed in consultation with countries of origin.

It can be easier and cheaper to import qualified workers than to train locals. However, it is unfair and short-sighted to neglect education and training and systematically rely on immigration to fill skills gaps.

Economic migrants currently fill many entry-level jobs. Meanwhile, the state pays benefits to people who cannot find work. These job seekers need to be brought into employment, for the benefit of themselves, their dependents and the taxpayer. They must be helped to develop the skills and attitudes necessary to successfully perform such roles, and, if necessary, competition from economic migrants should be eased.

Immigration works best when immigrants assimilate and diffuse geographically, otherwise social, economic and community relations problems can emerge, to noone’s benefit. The larger and less integrated an immigrant community is, the faster the rate of immigration into that community will tend to be.

It is important that the rate of immigration does not outpace the rate of assimilation, so the level of immigration into existing diaspora communities should be carefully controlled.

Our nation is founded on values and principles that have made it prosperous and free. It is our responsibility to pass on these benefits for our children and grandchildren.

Free online English classes should be provided as learning English must be a priority.

The Scottish Government sees mass immigration as the only available solution to population decline. Reducing abortion and increasing family sizes could also lead to a sustainable population level.

Extremism

We oppose any ideology or movement that seeks to undermine our democratic tradition, restrict our basic rights and freedoms, stir up hatred between sections of society, employ violence or terror, or engage in physically intimidating behaviour.

Democratic ideals must be defended. An increasing number seem unwilling to accept democratic decisions, feeling that the system is failing if it fails to yield their desired outcome. We will encourage democratic engagement and promote the philosophy of democracy.

Enhancing democracy

There are currently many issues on which elected representatives do not represent the spectrum of views in society.

Referenda can enable the genuine voice of the people to be heard and prevent the political and media establishments from giving a false impression of public opinion. The reluctance of the government to hold referenda when challenged to could convey a message in itself. The SFP would call for a referendum on an issue if we believed that the government was acting against the will of the majority of the population in a matter of serious consequence. A reluctant political establishment might seek to obstruct the implementation of referenda results, but better that than the majority view remaining unexpressed.

We would explore the possibilities of digital democracy, allowing the public the opportunity to express views through votes on individual policies and legislative proposals routinely as they arise.

Election campaigns in Scotland are routinely dominated by issues not relevant to that level of politics. We will endeavour to point this out when necessary and will encourage the media to focus on the relevant issues.

Local engagement in politics is important. In each election campaign, in every constituency and region, a hustings event should be filmed and made available online, along with a filmed message from each candidate and an online discussion forum.

The Holyrood election Regional Lists should be replaced by a National List. The proportional representation element is undermined by regionalisation. The current regional system unjustly rewards geographical concentration of support, while setting the bar unnecessarily high for viable, smaller parties. Furthermore, we are open to full proportional representation in the longer term.

There are four problems with Local Government:

Councils areas are too big, and so lose community engagement. They could be split, or district councils reinstated;

Councils increasingly just have to implement central government policy in many areas. More decisions should be devolved;

Council spending is not linked closely enough with Council Tax level, so there is a lack of accountability;

Lack of public awareness. Again, a single website of films of candidates, online hustings etc. could help.

Democracy in Scotland is seriously undermined by the government abusing its power by giving taxpayers’ money to organisations and charities that are very influential in public debate. Such ‘sock puppet’ charities present themselves as grassroots movements, while they actually are paid by the government to advance the government’s agenda. This injection of funds skews public debate as other views lack the organisational and staffing resources to compete. As well as promoting the government’s philosophies, these organisations often praise and give positive publicity to government officials.

We propose that a large number of such organisations are defunded, regardless of the controversy. Organisations in receipt of state funding should be restricted in their campaigning. For example, Scottish Women’s Aid should not be free to argue for liberalisation of abortion law while receiving taxpayers’ money. All charities that engage in any campaigning or public communication should have to declare their direct and indirect government funding clearly and prominently. We list some organisations whose funding we question in our Public Finance policies.

Educational institutions should offer the opportunity for students to hear a diverse range of viewpoints, especially as younger people are now able to vote. The current all-pervasive promotion of a particular political outlook in schools must be challenged.

The highest standards of integrity, openness and honesty should be demanded of politicians and government at all times. Every temptation to bend the rules or the truth in pursuit of political goals and ambitions must be resisted and exposed.

If politicians show themselves to be dishonest and dishonourable in their personal lives, for example by having an affair, this insight into their character is not irrelevant to their public role. Respect for politicians would be enhanced by higher expectations of integrity and faithfulness.

If a politician is demonstrating moral failings, the electorate should know about it. Elected politicians and those seeking election should not be able to use legal means to prevent the publication of facts about their behaviour and lifestyle where these would be relevant to assessing their integrity and character.

We seek to model civil and respectful debate, refraining from insult and mockery.

We seek to model civil and respectful debate, refraining from insult and mockery.

Drug abuse blights families, communities and individuals, while also burdening the state. Some are drawn into drug abuse in the most challenging circumstances, while others are just seeking a new experience. Support to help all addicts free themselves from dependency is vital.

As a society, we have agreed, with good reason, that we are unwilling to tolerate the damage and cost incurred by the use of certain drugs, so we have removed them from the array of choices open to people and made them illegal. Illegal drug use is not just a matter of personal risk assessment; it affects family, friends, employers and the state. The availability of illegal drugs leads to increased experimentation and progression to drug addiction. We would not support any liberalisation of drugs laws, but instead ensure vigorous policing and sentencing that deters effectively. Most parents would prefer their children to grow up without the temptation of a ready supply of illicit drugs. The state should aim to bring about this state of affairs. We oppose the long-term provision of addictive drugs to addicts that currently takes place. The state should not provide facilities for illegal drug abuse in the form of “safe” injecting rooms.

The solution to Scotland’s hugely damaging alcohol problem is not more laws or factual education. What is needed is a cultural shift away from the social acceptability of drunkenness. While other parties shy away from moral leadership, we will press the case that drunkenness is inherently irresponsible, leading to relational damage, accidents, unemployment, violence, intimidation and sexual misadventures. Politicians should show moral leadership in this area.

Moral issues in society

Prostitution harms prostitutes, clients and their families, leads to coercion to meet demand and trivialises sex, eroding the proper respect with which sexual intimacy should be regarded. Buying sex should be criminalised. This deterrent would decrease the demand for sexual services and therefore reduce the number of people abused or damaged through prostitution. It would also protect potential clients from the harm to their own wellbeing and that of their family that can result from the use of prostitutes. Some prostitutes enter into this work through their own uncoerced choice and freely choose to continue in it, however many others are forced into it through human trafficking, debt and drug addiction. This is a great social evil that requires to be addressed by legislation.

It is illogical to make it illegal to buy something that is legal to sell, so selling sex should also be criminalised. While punishments might be appropriate in some cases, help to move women on from prostitution would be available.

Pornography undermines the wellbeing of our society. We support schemes to prevent children from accessing online pornography. Fact-based education and public information campaigns are needed to highlight the dangers of addiction, detriment to existing relationships, undermining future relationship prospects, guilt, and progression to more extreme and perverted forms, including child porn. Channel 4, a government agency, should refrain from producing semi-pornographic content.

Other policies

It beggars belief that the Scottish Government presents pornography as a valid, normal and natural option for children through sex education in schools. We would fight this evil.

Public finance

Our budget deficit and national debt amount to current expenditure being funded by the taxes to be paid by future generations. Massive government borrowing should be the last resort in times of national crisis, such as the Coronavirus pandemic, not a routine way of insulating the electorate from the consequences of their elected government’s profligacy. Family members often make passing on resources to the next generations a priority - a noble expression of solidarity and selflessness. But our governments do the opposite. The SNP’s immediate maximising of their new borrowing power has set Scotland on the path to even greater indebtedness than that created by Labour and the Conservatives at a UK level. As a matter of integrity, we should not be burdening future generations financially without their consent.

The temptation to finance impressive new facilities, such as schools and hospitals, in ways that increase the total cost and inflict a burden on future public finances should be resisted.

National Insurance payments should be invested to meet the needs of the generation that paid them.

If this obvious and fair approach had always been taken, there would never be a shortfall when the number of retired people increased relative to the number of taxpayers, for example. Shifting to this system would be difficult in the current climate, but initial steps need to be taken.

As foreign aid is a matter reserved for the UK Government, we question the wisdom of the Scottish Government also giving aid - especially while itself borrowing. In particular, the decision to send Scottish taxpayers’ money to nuclear-armed Pakistan, with its dubious human rights record, is perplexing.

The Scottish Government pours money, directly and indirectly, into a vast array of organisations and charities. Many of these serve to reinforce the Government’s messages, creating an illusion of broad support.

We are not convinced that taxpayers’ money should be given to organisations such as Young Scot, Children and Young People’s Commissioner, Equality Network,

Scottish Trans Alliance, Creative Scotland, Scottish Human Rights Commission,

Equality and Human Rights Commission (Scotland), Amnesty International

(Scotland), White Ribbon, Engender, Crew, Alcohol Focus Scotland, Stonewall,

Friends of the Earth, National Parents Forum of Scotland, LGBT Health & Wellbeing,

LGBT Youth Scotland, Obesity Action Scotland, Interfaith Scotland, One Scotland,

Score Scotland, Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, Culture Republic, Scottish

Alliance of Regional Equality Councils, CEMVO, BEMIS, Steve Retson Project,

Children in Scotland, Amina (Muslim Women’s Resource Centre), Fast Forward, Starcatchers,Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights) and the Scottish Book Trust. Do we need both Cycling Scotland and Sustrans?

We oppose the concept of a Citizen’s Income or Universal Basic Income. It would subsidise self-indulgence and laziness while undermining the proper sense of responsibility to provide for oneself and one’s family.

NHS

We wish the NHS to be well-funded and efficiently managed.

The higher education system should train medical staff in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of all health care in Scotland. Relying on taking medics from poorer countries is ethically questionable and denies our young people opportunities.

Currently the NHS spends significant amounts of money on compensation claims and associated legal costs. We would explore alternative systems to ensure that failures are investigated in an open and constructive manner while those who have suffered can be treated fairly without expensive and lengthy legal wrangles.

Drug companies are a valuable source of medical innovation, but they should compete for NHS business purely on the basis of the independently verified effectiveness and cost of their products. Marketing and promotion should have no influence. This would make prescribing more rational and drugs companies more focused on genuinely fruitful research.

The NHS’s existing database of medical records could be further exploited for the purpose of medical research, with robust anonymisation procedures in place.

Planning for further pandemics, logistically and scientifically, should be a priority. The threat of antibiotic resistance also needs to be taken seriously.

Those criminally mistreating NHS staff should be arrested and prosecuted vigorously. Any intimidating or aggressive behaviour should result in a firm response from security staff or police, with no recourse to law in the event of those later found guilty having missed treatment as a result of such action.

Considerable saving could be made by discontinuing all politically correct “equality, diversity and inclusion” programmes and staff.

Medical confidentiality and decision-making powers should be granted at 16 instead of the current 12 years old.

Transgender “treatments” for under 16s should be stopped, and thereafter only offered where sound evidence justifies it and the patient is fully aware of the likely long-term outcomes.

Cosmetic surgery should only be provided to rectify obvious problems, not to meet claimed psychological needs.

Addiction treatments should focus on cure rather than perpetual management.

Freedom of conscience of NHS staff should be respected.

The Scottish Government promotes the Social Model of Disability: “Unlike the medical model, where an individual is understood to be disabled by their impairment, the social model views disability as the relationship between the individual and society. In other words, it sees the barriers created by society, such as negative attitudes towards disabled people, and inaccessible buildings, transport and communication, as the cause of disadvantage and exclusion, rather than the impairment itself.” The SFP fully supports measures to help disabled people and commends the government for progress in this regard. However, we do not believe that the social model of disability is truthful or helpful. Some of the challenges that disabled people face do stem from their disability and blaming “society” in every case is clearly misguided.

Policing, justice and law

The politicisation of the Police must stop as it undermines confidence in the impartiality of the Police, can lead to the Police acting unjustly, and can expose the Police to unnecessary criticism and even ridicule. The Police should be pursuing criminals instead of pedalling politically correct slogans and attempting to ensure people are being kind on Twitter.

We would re-establish more regional autonomy for Police services, with power of appointment of leaders in the hands of local authorities and not Holyrood.

Sentencing should be driven by justice, not artificial targets for prison numbers. While there is utility in some discretion to shorten sentences where behaviour has been good, the current systematic slashing of prison terms has made a mockery of custodial sentences.

Sentences should be just. Criminals deserve punishment, so their rehabilitation is not the only consideration. There ought to be a punitive and deterrent element in sentencing.

Restorative justice approaches can be valuable, but victims of crime must never feel obliged or pressurised to interact with perpetrators as part of restorative justice programmes.

Men and women should be equal before the law. The Scottish Government’s policy of special treatment for female offenders must end.

There should be no presumption or implication that accusers will be always be believed. Corroborated evidence should always guide assessment of guilt.

Prisons should induct inmates into an austere and formal environment from which they can, in the case of excellent behaviour, quickly progress to a more amenable regime of purposeful and transformative activity. Prisons must be free of illegal drugs.

Following a failure to convict in a criminal court, it should not be possible for the same incident to then be pursued in a civil court. No one should have their reputation impugned by being found responsible for a serious crime in a civil court, where the standard of proof is much lower.

Steps should be taken to protect the identity of the accused where possible, especially where the accuser has been granted anonymity, until charges are brought, at the earliest.

All legislation should be free of imprecise, ambiguous or easily misinterpreted wording. The crime must be clearly defined. Vague laws undermine our freedom.

There are invaluable principles embodied in Human Rights declarations. However, they can be open to spurious and unforeseen interpretations. Rights intended to enshrine protected choices can be interpreted as entitlements. Rights also often give scope for judicial activism, thus undermining democracy. We would be alert to these problems and seek to address them.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is commonly used as a pretext for wider ideological campaigning, often undermining the authority of parents. Signing up to this convention will hand power to the UN undemocratically, as they interpret the text as they wish in the future and impose demands on the Scottish Government. We oppose the incorporation of the UNCRC into Scots Law.

We oppose the proposed Gender Recognition Act. Officially changing sex/ gender should not be possible merely at the request of an individual.

Even the current system of recognising gender change undermines the right of women to same sex spaces, makes a mockery of women’s sport, and communicates a harmful understanding of sex and gender.

So, we propose that there should be no provision to change gender legally. The only exception to this should be for intersex people, though we would allow those who have already changed gender to remain in their new legal gender.

Transport

While cheap and efficient public transport is desirable, car use is the only practical option in many cases, particularly for families and in rural areas. Government policy should make provision for ongoing affordable car use.

Safe cycleways should be extended by integration into pavement areas where this is possible. We would explore the potential of river transport on some of Scotland’s great waterways.

Housing

Currently, house prices are too high for many. More new housing developments on brownfield sites should be facilitated through the planning system.

Some looking to buy a home are priced out of the market by buy-to-let landlords, and thereafter are unable to invest in an asset for themselves and their family. We support the Additional Dwelling Supplement introduced to counter this problem and would consider increasing the supplement if necessary.

Planning permission for extensions should be granted where possible, and certainly not restricted by school capacity considerations.

Environment and energy

The natural beauty of Scotland, its flora and fauna, should be conserved.

Measures to tackle carbon emissions must be practical, sustainable and carefully costed.

Debate in this area should be led by expert opinion, accompanied by intelligent analysis, open to diverse views, and not dictated by activists and protestors.

Every means of energy generation should be considered on its merits and none dismissed on ideological grounds.

Family breakdown leads to more households and, therefore, more energy consumption. Our policies promoting family stability would, therefore, help reduce carbon emissions.

Scottish culture

The riches of Scottish culture should be cherished, promoted and supported. This gives Scotland a distinctive and strong personality internationally and can unite the population around shared experiences.

Where government funding is provided for the arts, priority should be given to the beautiful, the uplifting and the accessible.

Gaelic language should be sustained as a crucial element in Scotland’s cultural heritage.

If more young people experienced life in rural and island communities, more would be keen to live in these areas later in life. This could be facilitated by offering free bus, train and ferry travel to young people undertaking work experience, community projects or extended tours in more remote areas. Local organisations that could benefit from youth involvement could advertise opportunities through a central system. Some young people might then decide to broaden their horizons by exploring Scotland, rather than flying further afield.

Covid 19

We acknowledge the complexity of the challenge presented by the pandemic, but we advocate a swift removal of restrictions and return to normality. Our freedoms are precious and our economy fragile. Children need to be taught properly in school. People must be trusted to make their own decisions going forward.

Scottish independence and the EU

We are neutral on the benefits or otherwise of Scottish independence. Respecting the previous result, we do not support holding a further Scottish Independence referendum during the next parliament. If support for independence is above 50% for a period of several years, we would not oppose another referendum in the future.

We are also neutral on the issue of EU membership, but respect the 2016 referendum result.

Though these issues are important and have dominated recent political debate, we believe that the foundational values that underpin our society are of greater consequence than constitutional questions. Constitutional change would not bring about the change in political values that is so desperately needed.

What about other policy areas? SFP MSPs would enter into these debates as well - not from a preconceived ideological stance, but with an open mind, seeking the outcomes that we all desire.

It’s time to vote for what you believe in.

### The goal is zero immigrants

British people are currently witnessing an unprecedented demographic change in their daily lives, which fundamentally threatens our national existence. 100% of Britain's current population growth can be explained by immigration, while the number of ethnically British people has decreased continuously for several years in a row, due to a higher death rate than birth rate (which is in serious decline). The situation in which the number of Britons is decreasing year after year at the same time as the number of foreigners is increasing is completely unsustainable, and it cannot be solved by cosmetic tightening of our country's current immigration policy.

As long as the number of us British people grows more slowly than the foreign population staying in our country, we risk becoming a minority in our own country. During a period of negative population growth, even moderate immigration is enough to accelerate population change, so the only sustainable solution is the abolition of permanent residence rights, as well as a zero line for such immigration, which aims at permanent residence in our homeland.

The primary task of British immigration policy is to ensure that Britain remains a supermajority white, European country in the future as well. The relative share of British people in our country's total population should be increased from the current level, and we should strive to always be close to 80% through political means as possible.

The few immigrants who could be offered residence permits in the future should be other Europeans, and their presence must not pose a threat to the British nation either. In order to stop immigration, Patriotic Alternative supports the following measures:

**1) Ending "humanitarian" immigration**

Britain should not become a "humanitarian" superpower that attracts non-European so-called "asylum seekers" within its borders. Asylum seekers must be isolated in separate processing centres that have no contact with British society. An "asylum seeker" from these centres can return to their home country at any time during the processing of their application, but not among Britons. The grounds for granting asylum take into account , for example, the racial origin of the person in need of help. The protection granted to asylum seekers is always temporary, and it can be decided based on, for example, the criminality of the refugee.

**2) Ending work-related immigration**

Britain should tighten the current availability assessment, and extend it to all forms of work assignment. In the public sector, strict language skills requirements must be adhered to, especially in healthcare and social work positions, and British job seekers should be preferred even when equally qualified European applicants are available.

Efforts should be made to reduce the attrition of labour from outside Europe by tightening the current permit procedures, as well as by waiving permanent residence permits. The use of foreign labour must not threaten the universal service obligation operating in the English (or Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Irish, Scottish Gaelic) languages, even in the private sector.

**3) Eradicate illegal immigrants**

There are currently millions of undocumented migrants living in Britain who do not even have a sufficient reason for being in the country from the point of view of the liberal democratic system. Illegal immigrants are a security threat to British society, and have committed a crime, which is why they should be deported immediately to their own country. Police allocations to eradicate illegal immigration must be increased.

**4) Combating foreign organized crime**

As a result of multicultural population development, ethnic subcultures have formed in Britain, which significantly increase the current crime statistics in our country. The current lenient sentences do not serve as a sufficient deterrent for these people from foreign countries to prevent crimes, which is why Britain should negotiate with these real homelands about punishing the foreign population.

If the punishment of the perpetrator of a crime from a foreign country would be harsher abroad than in Britain, the person should always serve his punishment in prisons in his home country. The death sentence awaiting the perpetrator of the crime outside of Britain must not be a reason for non-return. The British police must have the necessary tools to combat ethnic crime, which is why ethnic profiling should be allowed.

**5) Stricter citizenship**

Nowadays, Britishness has been watered-down and rendered meaninglessly with everyone qualifying as British. If anyone qualifies as British, as long as they internalize a few customs and pay their taxes to Britain, how does being British differ from membership in a hobby club? However, the recognizable features of Britishness come from our heritage, which has shaped us over thousands of years into a unique nation among European nations. Today's Britain still reflects the characteristics of this heritage, but as the British blood diminishes, Britain also changes irreversibly. In order to preserve British Britain now and in the future, Patriotic Alternative promotes the following measures.

**a) You are born British**

Nowadays, anyone living in Britain can get British citizenship more and more easily, as a result of relaxed requirements for language skills and integrity. Citizenship should not be a reward for adaptation, but a document proving descent. Pat Alt government would make citizenship granted only to a child born to British parents. We also want to re-evaluate all British citizenships granted to foreigners and their descendants. From the Windrush Generation of the 1950s to those who came after the 2015 refugee avalanche must be re-examined.

**b) 2 pieces of paper – divided loyalties**

Dual citizenship is a huge risk for national security. Dual citizenship itself degrades the whole concept of citizenship by enabling "picking raisins from the bun". All those with dual citizenship and ethnic Britons have to choose which of the citizenships they prefer in Patriotic Alternative Britain. All foreign dual citizens lose their British citizenship. With these measures, the British passport will continue to be a reliable and respected travel document in the world.

**c) Society consists of people**

Society is made up of people, and at Patriotic Alternative Britain we want to know what kind of people. The continuous decrease of British people and the growth of foreign ethnicities are a threat to the future of British Britain. At the moment, the real population development is hidden from all of us, because there is no accurate data. We want to implement the ethnic register used in countries like Israel and United States, in which not only other personal data but also their ethnic background would be displayed for all persons living in the country. With the help of the register, we are able to monitor the development of British's various populations better than the current assessment based on the mother tongue and take the necessary measures to preserve the British majority.

**d) New Finns? - We make them ourselves!**

The birth rate of Britons is at a record low. Young adults at their most fertile age are the most reluctant to start a family. Starting a family is considered to be a hindrance to studying and working, too expensive, old-fashioned, restricting the individual's freedom of choice and sexuality too much, and it is seen to affect climate change in a negative way. With its politics, Pat Alt aims to restore natural population growth, which is the lifeblood of our nation's survival and continuity. We place the well-being of the British family at the centre of our population policy.

**i) Support measures related to increasing the birth rate**

The family loan must be registered in the law. The establishment of nuclear families should be supported by all possible means in our society. Pat Alt presents a state-guaranteed family loan as an incentive for young families (i.e. a loan that is reduced as the number of children increases). After the 4th child, the loan would not have to be repaid. Housewives are the most important resource for future generations. The political decisions of the past decades have weakened the social and economic status and attractiveness of stay-at-home motherhood. Staying at home must be made more valued and attractive, including financially. Pat Alt proposes a basic income "mother's salary", where the basic income of every child under the age of 18 is primarily paid to the mother.

Child care fees must be reduced. As the number of children in young families increases, the costs of various support services also increase significantly, such as daycare and healthcare costs. Pat Alt proposes reductions for these expenses according to the number of minor children in the family.

**ii) Family-oriented attitude education**

Increasing the birth rate alone is not enough to increase support measures. We also need a fundamental change of attitude towards family-centeredness, which can be seen in all areas of our society.

Pat Alt wants to highlight the good aspects of starting a family and encourages every British person to start extended families. We think that motherhood, fatherhood, starting a family, community and the continuation of our generations are positive values ​​in our society. Our goal is that in the future this country will be populated by satisfied and happy, ethnically British families with children.

**iii) A healthy society is built on traditional gender roles**

Pat Alt supports traditional gender roles. Gender is based on a biological reality that has a clear function in terms of a species that reproduces by family. The roles of mother and father are different, but complementary. This cannot be replaced by other forms of relationship. We do not believe in the diversity of the sexes and we are against having children of the rainbow population through gay adoption or artificial insemination.

**iv) The idealization of childlessness must be stopped**

The lack of children is often justified by population overgrowth, which, of course, happens in Africa, not here. Today's society allows numerous sexual relations without fear of pregnancy, and as a result, an artificial gap of up to 10 years can be created between the most fertile age and starting a family. A significant proportion of British' pregnancies currently end in abortion. There are also many families who are unable to have children. Infertility treatments for these families must be subsidized by the state. Pat Alt wants to stop idealizing British' childlessness and ban free hormonal contraceptives from childless people. We also want to ban anti-puberty medications and other forms of medicine and treatment used for "gender correction".

**v) Child protection must not be a source of funding**

The goal of child protection must be to set well-being, traditional families. Heavy and expensive foster care is prevented, for example, by a municipal home service not tied to child protection, which helps families cope with everyday challenges. Unfortunately, foster care often seems to be based on the good financial support of foster care. Unfounded custody must be reduced and the immoral trampling of the child's rights must be prevented. Child protection needs additional resources so that each family's situation can be assessed quickly and by more than one social worker. Child protection measures should primarily be organized in cooperation with the child's own family, close relatives and social services with. Children in foster care should meet their biological family as often as possible and in as natural conditions as can be arranged.

**vi) LGBTQ+ propaganda must be cleaned out of the public eye**

Mainstream media coverage, radio and television programs and advertisements, social media platforms, media channels and various streaming services have been harnessed to promote rainbow propaganda on a daily basis. LGBTQ+ propaganda and the oversexualization of our culture is especially harmful to children and young people in the developmental stage.

Pat Alt wants to clean up the LGBTQ+ propaganda from all public media publications. In addition, homoerotic Pride events organized by cities and drag queen fairy tales aimed at children should be removed from the streetscape and public spaces. Exposure of minors to gay propaganda must be prevented by the political authorities. We would remove e.g. The mandate of SETA and other sexual minority interest organizations to participate in the preparation of curricula. As an example, Hungary's law that entered into force in July 2021 prohibits making content about homosexuality, paedophilia, gender reassignment and deviant gender identity available to minors in all media publications and school curricula, Russia is also doing the same.

**vii) No English mind without the English language - Britishness to be seen and heard**

Pat Alt considers it harmful that foreign languages is increasingly used (instead of) or mixed with colloquial English, which erodes our language and thus our national identity. Our youth in particular have been exposed to this phenomenon. Most people's mother tongue language is not English. English is the most spoken language in the world, so our language is worth protecting.

**Nationalist BBC**

BBC is financed by British taxpayers through a license fee (which we'll scrap and privatize it along with Channel 4), but the content it shows and produces attacks this part of the population. Instead of reality TV series, BBC Radio's program should be developed in a healthier and more nationalistic direction. The programs should emphasize community spirit, public health, Finnish history through time, the importance of nature, and healthy hobbies and lifestyles. The news is only shown in English, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Irish and/or Scottish Gaelic languages, not in any other language

**Britishness must be visible**

Today's mainstream media normalizes and glorifies multiculturalism and rainbow ideology in its movies and TV series. Historical films and TV shows are intentionally miscast by ethnically by giving the roles of famous whites to other races, but never the other way around. Also, instead of the majority population, racial aliens appear in the advertisements to an increasing extent, which does not reflect the real structure of the population. We will support the film and TV industry, which reflects Finnishness both in its stories and roles.

The production must reflect traditional values, community spirit and give young people strong male and female role models, as well as positively bring out ancient virtues, such as courage, loyalty and self-sacrifice, instead of the self-centred and hedonistic values ​​of today's liberals. In Pat Alt Britain, companies use only native Britons in their advertisements. For example, Nigeria has just banned the use of foreigners as advertising faces. We also support the production of films and TV series about the great men and women of our history who have had a significant impact on Britishness. At the same time, we will invest in locality. TV production should not only focus on big cities, but also on small municipalities around Britain. When a British person sees a film that was made in his place of residence, he can relate to it in a completely different way.

**Force foreign language away!**

A united nation speaks one language, in our case English or Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Irish, Scottish Gaelic. The majority is not supposed to serve the five percent minority in their language, but the opposite. In order to reach the aforementioned state, we will push for the removal of compulsory foreign language from all levels of education and the requirement of knowledge of the foreign language from civil servants.

**General service obligation in English also in the private sector**

*"I wouldn't consider it out of the question that there would be an employee at the checkout who would communicate in another language. It's wealth in the direction of customers."* says Tiia Pitko, human resources manager of S-markets, in the Helsingin Uutiten article on 29 September 2022. A Finn must always receive service in Finnish.

Private companies would be obliged to serve their customers in English, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Irish, Scottish Gaelic. The working language of companies would be English, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Irish or Scottish Gaelic. Advertisements in foreign languages ​​must always have a English, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Irish, Scottish Gaelic translation. Most words in foreign languages such as from the Romance languages will be removed.

**The crumbling of media morale and fixing its consequences**

The general sense of decency has been blurred by the media. People are not aware that exposing children to sexual material is a crime. Pat Alt wants to ban all public distribution of pornography in all its forms. Too sexually tinged media should also be removed from public spaces and platforms. For example, a family with children traveling in a car should not have to listen to radio ads from a sex shop.

**From a federal state to a Europe of Nations - UK out of the EU**

In the opinion of Patriotic Alternative, the EU has been created to serve the political and economic interests of transnational entities at the expense of independent nations since its foundation. The Union's ideals of multiculturalism, economic solidarity and the free movement of people and capital are in conflict with British national interests. Pat Alt supports the abolition of the current EU and its replacement with a cooperation body of national administrations - the Europe of Nations, whose task would be to act as a military and economic cooperation organization, whose existence is centered on securing the existence of the European race and European peoples now and in the future.

**Out of the EU**

Pat Alt supports Finland leaving the EU and the currency union, as well as increasing cooperation with Conservative governments in Europe. From the point of view of our party, Britain's spiritual home can be found among those states that have actively tried to fight against the military threat posed by American liberalism and the Russian Federation. Britain should remove the mention of EU membership from its constitution, and return decision-making outsourced to the EU to the national administration. These include e.g.

**Own currency**

We strongly reject the Euro and strongly support maintain the British Pound Sterling

**Own border control**

As an independent country, Britain should have the right to decide under what conditions people are allowed to enter our country, and how long they are allowed to stay in our country. If our national administration wants to expel representatives of certain nationalities from its borders, it should also have the full right to do so. British immigration policy should only serve the national interests of Britons, which include labour policy, demographic and economic interests.

**Independent economic policy**

Finland must be able to defend domestic production with public subsidies and protective tariffs. British companies and employees should not be forced to compete against the entire surrounding world. British professional expertise must be protected from cheap foreign labour and production.

**Disconnecting from the burden sharing mechanism**

Britain should immediately leave the EU's burden-sharing system, which enables coloured lucky anglers to be placed in Britain. Britain must also actively reject the EU's immigration policies, and develop only national solutions to population policy challenges.

### **British Work is the privilege of the British**

During the next few decades, the government has driven industry out of Finland, and it cannot be expected to return. Governments have not been able to respond to the problems of the situation they have caused, instead they have created a bloated labor bureaucracy that lives for itself. It has also brought about an ever deepening division of the people between the poor and the wealthy. Instead of the government trying to solve, for example, the lack of resources in the nursing sector with a satisfactory wage solution, it tries in many ways to facilitate the entry and import of foreign labor into low-wage sectors.

With the rapidly changing economic structure, the challenge for future decision-makers is to respond to the changes with quick and effective actions. The work and the workers must be made to face without disciplining the unemployed who are already in distress or the employed who cannot get by on their salary. The TE service must not be a useless, expensive and self-employed bureaucracy like it is today, but rather promote recruitment, retraining and entrepreneurship in a genuinely changed labor market .

In the Finnish labor market, the questionable import of foreign cheap labor is rampant , for example in the construction and care sectors. The official resources are not sufficient to monitor the activity, and there are no sanctions for violations. From third countries and Eastern Europe imported workers without language skills are underpaid and thus undercut the wages of Finnish professionals.

Working-age and able-bodied Finns outside the education system have the right to work and participate in the maintenance and building of society. The task of the state's employment policy is to promote and support securing employment and entrepreneurship throughout the country. Work must be balanced with free time, so that people have time for hobbies and to take care of their own well-being and that of their loved ones. The goal for the near future should be shorter working hours without affecting the salary level. Encouraging work production in a shorter period of time should be encouraged.

**Work is the basis of Finnish well-being**

You must always get a living wage for your work. In Finland, such a salary level should not be allowed

that the working person has to apply for income support in order to live. The definition of the salary level and other

working conditions should not be left to the agreements of employee and employer organizations or to local agreements

, but they must be bound by law and sanctions should be imposed for violations, and

sufficient resources should also be set aside for supervision. The salaries of nursing staff and other low-wage sectors

must receive increases corresponding to the demands of the work.

Lack of professional skills, on the basis of which wages can be suppressed, should not be accepted

in Finland, but citizens who are outside of working life and education must be obliged to

qualify for fields where there is a need for labor.

The well-being of the workforce must be taken care of. The central government must be able to support, for example

through taxation, employers to encourage employees to take care of their health and

exercise. Employers could receive, for example, a VAT-type

tax credit when they offer exercise and wellness services to their employees.

A healthy population has a great impact on coping and productivity at work.

Thanks to the basic income, people would have the opportunity to reduce their working hours if they so desired.

Our basic income model is presented in the section Towards the national economy.

**Finnish entrepreneurship serves Finnish society**

The main reason why companies move production abroad is the costs in Finland, the

biggest of which are labor costs. The biggest reason for moving production back to Finland is quality.

The usual way of thinking that a Finnish product is of high quality and lasts better than

products made elsewhere is therefore known to companies that move their production away from Finland.

The company lives only by making a sufficiently positive result, so its strategic decision to move

its production away from home is always based on production costs and profitability. Companies

that return to Finland should be rewarded with various supports and benefits, for example through taxation

, so that production in Finland would be profitable.

The change in the definition of the earned income of the entrepreneur's pension insurance must be cancelled. The YEL payment basis cannot

be defined according to the average salary of the industry, only the entrepreneur himself can define his own income

regardless of the industry. Finland cannot afford to lose a single company due to unreasonable payments and

obligations.

Our party wants to promote the profitability of start-up businesses by raising

the upper limit of VAT-free turnover to 35,000 euros. The differentiation of food processors from producer

cooperatives to listed companies affects the price of Finnish agricultural products compared

to cheap foreign imports and puts Finnish agricultural entrepreneurs in a predicament. The state should

promote cooperative activities and support producers' direct sales. In addition to the large chains in a monopoly position, the

creation of new Finnish retail networks should be supported in Finland

. Finland must not rely on foreign food producers and raw materials,

but the state must in every way promote the vitality and growth of its own production, and secure

Finnish security of supply

**Instead of a stick, a carrot - employment services to pass on jobs**

The current government reformed employment services with the aim of supporting quick access to work and

re-employment. For the reform, 70 million officers were hired to discipline

job seekers, but even this increase is not enough. The task of the officials is to monitor that each

unemployed person sends four job applications every month. In addition, the officers must be in contact with the new

job seeker within five business days and then meet the job seeker every two

weeks for three months, and continue the intensive service period if unemployment has

continued for six months. Closer supervision and quick sanctions for negligence will not help if the

job and the person do not meet, or there is no job suitable for the applicant's skills. Applicant willing to work

even goes to work unsupervised if a suitable place is found. Those who are unwilling and unable to work do not get

employed despite the sanctions, a

solution should be found for them that corresponds to their ability to work, rather than intensifying supervision, which will be expensive for society. TE services

, instead of expanding the bureaucracy, should focus on the right job placement and, if necessary, guide the client

to retraining and make sure that it is available for those sectors where

there is a need for labor. Apprenticeship training should be made effortless for the employer and

attractive for the job seeker.

**The Finnish language and the Finnish workforce are the number one priority**

There are tens of thousands of trained nursing professionals in Finland who do not work in

their own field. In addition, according to Tehy, about half of those working in the field are considering a

change of field. The reason for this is known nationally, as the fight over the poor

working conditions and pay of nursing staff has continued for a long time and visibly. Instead of fixing the

so-called shortage of nurses by importing foreigners with no language skills, the salary and

working conditions of nurses must be quickly improved and nurses must be motivated to return to their profession.

Language proficiency requirements must be tightened, especially in the nursing sector and other sectors where

misunderstandings can lead to health or safety-threatening situations. Alan

knowledge of professional vocabulary must be demonstrated in an exam if the mother tongue is not Finnish. The requirement of language skills

is not only a matter for the public sector, but it must also be demonstrated in the private sector.

The conditions of work-based residence permits must be tightened and

sanctions imposed for violating the conditions. More resources must be available for supervision. Finland should not pay

social security for foreign workers and their families.

Foreign seasonal work is a comparatively significant factor, especially in Northern Finland and

Lapland. It is likely that the alleged labor shortage is the result of poor

wages for seasonal work and lame working conditions or the lack of them. It is attractive for companies to

use foreign labor, which is

available in abundance for seasonal work, especially from Eastern Europe and third countries. Although the work is of a seasonal nature, it helps to

take advantage of Finnish social security and stay in the country with its protection.

Seasonal work must be encouraged to use Finnish labor and

an appropriate wage must be paid.

**Legal and tax evasion to be eradicated - more resources for the authorities and effective sanctions**

In the Finnish labor market, for example in the construction industry, everyone must have the same law and

there must be significant sanctions for circumventing it, for which the

main contractor is responsible according to the client's responsibility. In order to implement effective supervision, resources must be increased for the regional administration and

other supervisory authorities. Sanctions for violations must be so effective that

companies are not tempted to commit violations. The availability consideration must be adhered to.

Foreign labor should not be used if it is available in Finland. Non-EU

labor should not be used if it is available in the EU area.

### **SAFE FINLAND**

**Finland's eastern border is blue and black**

The core mission of every state is military national defense. If the state is unable to

defend itself against external threats, it is vulnerable to political pressure and has

to bend to the will of other countries. Finland's defense relies on

a large reserve trained through conscript service, whose combat ability is maintained through refresher exercises.

In addition to mandatory refresher exercises, voluntary reservist activities are also needed, which

plays a very important role in developing the reserve's capabilities.

Our conscript service works, but an unfortunately small percentage of reservists participate in

voluntary reservist activities.

In our national defense program, we emphasize the means by which voluntary reservist activities

can be supported.

**Reimbursement of reservists' equipment purchases**

The equipment, weapons and cartridges needed for reservist activities are expensive, and their price can

be an obstacle to participating in the activity. The state should support voluntary reservist activities by reimbursing 30 percent of

the weapons, ammunition and equipment purchases of those actively participating in reservist activities .

This would encourage reservists to increase their skills

through voluntary training, and would send a clear signal of state support for reservists. Getting support

would require spending a certain number of hours annually on voluntary exercises

and training.

**Facilitating the gun licensing process**

Marksmanship is one of the most important skills of reservists. Starting a shooting hobby that develops this skill

is currently difficult and expensive. Getting permits for

reserve rifles takes a long time and the permit fees are expensive. Starting a shooting hobby

must be made easier. The starting point must be that a blameless reservist

without a criminal record or mental health problems can get a license for a reservist rifle easily and with

reasonable license fees. This change would encourage more reservists to start

shooting as a hobby, which is important for the reserve's combat capability.

**Supporting shooting ranges**

Developing the reserve's shooting skills requires a sufficient number of high-quality shooting ranges throughout the

country. This is not the case now. Compared to the 90s, the number of shooting ranges has dropped to about

a third. A significant reason for this is the expensive surveys required by environmental permits.

Permit practices must be simplified, and the state must participate in the

costs of environmental studies. In addition, the criteria for municipalities' state grants must be changed so that the municipality

benefits financially if there is a sufficient number of shooting ranges per resident in its area.

In this case, the municipality would consider the need for shooting ranges in its zoning.

**National Defense Day for schools**

National defense is everyone's business, and getting to know it should start even before

conscript service. We propose that vocational schools and high schools have a national defense day

organized once a year, during which the defense forces and reserve

organizations present their activities. With this, national defense and conscript service would become familiar even

before the call-ups.

**National defense-related physical education course**

We suggest that vocational schools and high schools add an optional physical education course,

in connection with which at least one weekend is spent in the garrison getting to know the military

national defense and conscript service. The course would also include shooting at the garrison

shooting range. We hope that this course, like National Defense Day, will introduce young people to

national defense and reservist activities.

**National defense reduction**

Voluntary reservists' activities are an important part of reservists' skills development and

maintaining their fighting ability. Reservist activities support military national defense and

we believe that activities should be financially encouraged.

We propose that those who actively participate in voluntary reservist activities or civil defense be given a deduction of two

percentage points in the earned income tax rate called national defense deduction.

**There are more restrictions on the purchase of real estate by foreigners**

The purchase of real estate, especially in strategically sensitive areas, can pose a threat to national

security, and this type of activity must be limited. We propose that all

real estate purchases made by persons or entities outside of Finland always require a special permit.

In addition, the state should have the right to expropriate any real estate, if a

foreigner or Finn who has received a permit is found to be acting as a pawn for

an actor dangerous to national security.

**In blue and black Finland, criminals don't party**

Crimes must be punished justly. Even the old judge's instructions say "what is

not justice and fairness cannot be law either". Unfortunately, Finnish jurisprudence has

long emphasized the rights of criminals. The punishments given by the courts and suffered in practice

, especially for violent and sexual crimes, are generally considered to be

against the people's sense of justice. Punishments that are too small do not act as a deterrent, and in addition,

punishments that are considered unfairly short reduce

the legitimacy of the legal system in the eyes of the public.

Punishments must be severe enough to deter crimes and be perceived

as fair. The rights of ordinary citizens must always come

before the rights of criminals. In order to remedy the matter, we propose clear stiffening of

the punishments for the victims.

**Fix the penalties**

In the case of several violent and sexual crimes, the minimum and maximum penalties should be

increased. For example, in the case of aggravated assault, the minimum sentence of one year

and the maximum sentence of ten years should be increased. A prison sentence of more than ten years

would come into question, for example, when serious permanent harm is caused,

such as brain damage or blindness.

Today, a single crime can be sentenced to a maximum of 12 years in prison, and multiple crimes to

a maximum of 15 years in prison. For example, a criminal who has committed three murders

would today receive a maximum of 15 years in prison, of which he would

in practice serve half or two thirds. In order to correct the shortcoming, we propose that the

maximum sentence for a single offense be increased to 25 years and for multiple offenses to 60 years.

Inmates who are not first time offenders serve only two

-thirds of their sentence in prison, after which they are released on parole. This is

rarely deviated from. We propose that the sentence is initially served in full and that release

after two-thirds is an exceptional reward for good behavior, not

automaticity.

**Mandatory community service**

In Finland, short prison sentences are given for many crimes, which

in practice are suspended. A conditional prison sentence is not a real punishment, but

on the other hand, a large number of short unconditional sentences, for example drunk driving, would cause

considerable costs to society.

We propose that mandatory community service be imposed along with short conditional sentences . Anyone who refuses this would have to suffer the

punishment in prison unconditionally.

**First timers only for real first timers**

According to the current law, a person can be a first-time offender several times, even for heinous crimes,

if there is enough time between convictions. A first-timer will suffer

only half of the sentence. We propose that a first-timer can only be one time, after which this

relief is no longer available. By first-time offender, we mean a person who has not previously had

conditional or unconditional prison sentences.

**Lower age limit for criminal responsibility**

The minimum age of criminal responsibility should be lowered to 13 years. At this age, he already understands

the consequences of his actions well enough. It is unreasonable and contrary to common sense of justice that a 14- year-

old can kill or permanently injure another person without being held responsible for this crime.

In addition, the high age limit for criminal liability gives criminal organizations the opportunity to

use those under the age limit in their activities.

### No privacy protection for criminal activity

The crime title dissemination of information that violates private life should be changed so that it does not apply

to the dissemination of information about criminal activity. In its current form, on the basis of this crime title

, for example, an entrepreneur who published pictures of a shoplifter and a person who spread the public verdict of a convicted

pedophile have been sentenced. This is clearly the

protection of criminals against common sense of justice. We believe that criminals must bear full responsibility for their actions, and their

privacy should not be protected in this regard.

**Ethnic profiling for police use**

In Finland, there is a significant amount of crime committed by ethnic minorities today.

For example, many non-Finns are involved in street-level drug and gang crime.

For this reason, the ban on ethnic profiling significantly hinders the operation of the police. For

example, if almost all the drug trade in the area is in the hands of ethnic minorities,

today the police are not allowed to use this information to profile the perpetrators. We therefore propose that

ethnic profiling in policing be allowed.

**In blue and black Finland, citizens can defend themselves**

Finnish jurisprudence regarding emergency protection is generally considered unfair.

Courts expect that those who defend themselves, other persons or property will

judiciously use the mildest possible force. In practice, the courts interpret the

emergency protection section of the criminal law in a way that constantly produces decisions that are contrary to the common sense of justice.

In our program, we want to radically change the legislation related to emergency protection, so that

citizens do not have to fear sanctions when defending themselves, others or their property.

The changes would send a clear message that society puts the

rights and well-being of law-abiding citizens ahead of criminals. The reforms would also encourage bystanders

to intervene in the crimes they observe, as they would no longer have to fear being

sentenced themselves.

**Legal right to use deadly force**

The law should include a list of crimes to stop which it is permissible to use lethal

force, unless it is clearly unreasonable. Such crimes would be, for example, murder,

aggravated assault, robbery and rape. In addition, it should be written into the law separately that to prevent serious

bodily injury or death, it would always be permissible to use lethal force,

unless it is clearly unreasonable.

These two reforms would ensure that citizens do not have to fear legal

consequences when they defend themselves or others. In order to defend one's life and health,

one could always use the most effective means, instead of having to evaluate what is

mild enough in the eyes of the court

**Raising the threshold for judging the exaggeration of emergency protection**

In addition, the threshold for condemning emergency protection for exaggeration must also be clearly raised in general. The law

needs to be modified in such a way that those who are the target of an unjustified attack do not have

to hesitate when defending themselves due to fear of the consequences, but can effectively and quickly stop

the attack. In this case, there would be no danger that, for example, if the abuser falls and hits

his head, the target of the unlawful attack would have to pay fines and compensation.

**Home peace to be secured**

Home peace is an important right, and we believe that the right of citizens to defend their home should be guaranteed

by law. It should be written into the law that a person breaking into a home can basically be assumed

to aim to either kill or seriously injure the people staying in the home. In this case,

domestic peace could be defended within the framework of the reforms we are proposing, using lethal force such as

firearms.

### **EDUCATION SHOULD SERVE NATIONAL PRINCIPALS**

Finland has long been considered a model country for the school system, but the problems of today's society are

reflected in both students' and teachers' nausea, inability to cope, weakened

results and insecurity. The Pisa results of Finnish schoolchildren have been

declining for several years. Competence in natural sciences, mathematics and reading have weakened

, especially among boys. The educational institution is used to shape values ​​and norms to an ever-increasing

extent, for example through rainbow propaganda and minority political views,

at the expense of teaching skills and knowledge. The number of students with a foreign background in schools in big

cities has grown explosively in the 21st century. For example

in the capital region, the number of foreign languages ​​in schools was still less than 5% at the end of the 90s.

Today, the corresponding figure is more than 30% in schools in several regions. In this situation, Finnish children

become the underdogs both socially and in terms of the distribution of educational resources. Elementary school has

become a kind of unstable social experiment, the failures of which will be reflected in

society far into the future.

**Primary schools and secondary education**

Technology, not cultural Marxism! Basic education fails to serve

the needs of Finnish society through the current curricula. We want to fundamentally reform the curricula

in such a way that they improve the competence, productivity,

competitiveness and self-sufficiency of Finns in the long term. Teaching must be based on researched

knowledge and science and emphasize natural sciences, technology, art and

mathematics throughout the year classes. Liberal indoctrination must be completely removed from school education, just as

participation in ideological demonstrations (e.g. Pride or climate demonstrations) is not

part of the school's teaching image. Our language policy goal is to strengthen the Finnish language, and

we see the national compulsory education of elementary schools as an educational activity that has wasted resources for decades

and should be abandoned as soon as possible. The task of a Finnish

primary school is to give children and young people the best possible chance for life,

and for its part to raise them into well-balanced citizens.

• Compulsory Swedish should be removed from teaching. Instead, we present a new subject, technology,

where teaching focuses on the history of technology, examining the relationship between man and society with technology

, and technical implementation work. Both technology teaching and

natural science teaching should include a lot of experimental work and hands-on activities.

• Liberal brainwashing should be removed from school teaching and the school's social

environment.

• Sex education should emphasize traditional family values ​​instead of

encouraging promiscuous relationships by handing out contraceptives. The sexual education organized by the school

should not include learning and

adopting sexual perversions.

• Native religion should be taught in schools and the teaching should be based on

researched knowledge. Due to the lack of information in question, research on indigenous religion

should be increased and supported.

• Secondary education institutions should increase social mentoring to increase students'

life management skills. Flexible

solutions for studies must also be developed, so that vocational schools in smaller towns can be kept alive

and attractive, and to increase the diversity of teaching and professional skills.

**The role of the teacher and peace at work**

About 60% of the teachers have considered a change of field, the leading reasons being the workload and the

increase in workload. Large group sizes and special arrangements increase the workload, but

also take away from the student's time for personal teaching and lower

the quality of teaching in many ways. Finnish schools must have high-quality teaching, and this

is aimed at with a sufficient number of teachers, as small student groups as possible,

special pedagogical teaching environments and better teacher in -service

training arrangements.

• The teacher must have the necessary authority to use force to

maintain discipline and order in the school class and to remove disruptive students.

• Insults, threats and harassment directed at a teacher or physically

resisting a teacher in a disruptive situation should be equated with resisting a civil servant or harming a civil

servant, for which criminal liability may be incurred.

• Small classes and special education must be available for children and young people who need special pedagogical arrangements (including

neuropsychological diagnoses related to functional ability or basic language skills and

disruptive behavior).

Special pedagogic options must be found nationally also for the second level

in education.

• Continuing education for teachers, especially in the field of special pedagogy, should be supported and

increased so that there are enough special education teachers and so that subject teachers can also provide

competent subject teaching for special/small classes.

• Teaching groups should be small so that the teacher's time is also sufficient for individual

teaching and guidance in both basic education and secondary education.

**Universities**

Finnish universities and polytechnics play a significant role in the development of Finnish

high-level education, scientific research and financial self-sufficiency

. However, the current political system has taken higher education institutions in a direction

where the number of study places is increased based on the attractiveness of the degree program and not on the

usefulness of the field or the need for manpower. This creates a situation where more and more

young adults who have graduated from higher education end up either unemployed or already

full-time academics. Higher education funding and starting places must be allocated

more precisely to those sectors with a shortage of workers, and which serve Finland

self-sufficiency and national economy. These include, for example, health care, the energy sector,

industrial production, the chemical industry, natural sciences and medicine, and teacher training.

Correspondingly, study places where graduates have poor employment opportunities

should be reduced.

The educational programs and course offerings of higher education institutions should fundamentally promote the student

's capabilities to perform well in working life. Instead of a student completing his degree

with, for example, courses on "gender diversity" that promote the rainbow ideology, he should

be directed to study, in addition to the courses in his own field, generally useful subjects on economic

management, entrepreneurship and leadership. Courses that take up wasted resources should be

removed, including compulsory official Swedish for Finnish-speaking students.

Finnish students must continue to be offered full free higher education.

The Federation of Finnish Student Unions is a politicized organization whose forced membership

university students pay hundreds of euros during their studies. This compulsory membership should be

dissolved. Exchange students arriving from abroad should not be offered complete degrees, but

in accordance with the current exchange student programs, they can come to complete part of their

degree in fixed periods. In return, Finnish students also get

the opportunity to study abroad as exchange students.

A centralized innovation-promoting organization should be created in higher education institutions, which should organize free of charge

startup trainings and guidance for innovation companies. The internal innovation activities of universities

should be promoted with the employees' increased freedom to do business and with the employees'

own patent rights.

• Allocation of starting places and funding for higher education institutions to

the needs of self-sufficiency and the national economy, with the main focus areas being health care, energy,

industrial production, chemical technology industry, natural sciences and medicine, and

teacher training.

• National bilingualism is a non-functional solution. Restructuring official Swedish

, for example, as a separate, free course-style

teaching for those who need it.

• The mandatory membership of the Finnish Student Union must be abolished. SYL has declared e.g.

as a feminist organization and its membership fee is charged to university students of hundreds of

euros for the entire duration of their degree.

• Centralized innovation activity, which also offers free startup mapping and

training for innovation companies.

• For university staff, the right to use working time for

innovative business activities linked to research.

Patent rights for research-related innovations belong to the employee.

• A more open opportunity for course-based study as free courses

for the supplementary and retraining needs of the adult population. For this,

online studies aimed at the adult population must be developed and they should be

free of charge for Finnish students.

### **TOWARDS THE NATIONAL ECONOMY**

The goal of our party's economic policy is a safe, national and prosperous Finland,

where the uncertainties caused by the global market economy are actively

prevented by political solutions, and to offer Finnish families and descendants

a stable and predictable economic environment that is not threatened by mass layoffs,

outsourcing, upheavals in the global economy, let alone constant competition to increase productivity,

which often happens at the expense of the individual's own coping and well-being.

**Basic income - Social security for Finns**

Sinimusta Liike supports tying social security to Finnish ancestry,

like citizenship. The Finnish social security system should not channel

the limited resources produced by Finnish work and entrepreneurship into the maintenance of ethnic groups visiting our country.

The internal solidarity of the people in the form of strong social security serves the

ideal of a united nation that the movement seeks.

The bureaucracy and incentive problems of the prevailing social security system have raised

concerns across party lines. The structural changes in the

labor market caused by the technological revolution require the social security system to be increasingly flexible and

predictable. Sinimusta Liike supports

reforming the Finnish social security system by moving to a basic income paid to every Finn. The basic income would replace

the current forms of support, such as labor market support, study allowance and general housing support. The purpose of the shop's

basic income model is to guarantee a minimum income and to encourage accepting work

in all situations. Due to its predictability and permanence, the basic income would lower the threshold

accept part-time or low-paying work. Also, for example, running

a business of a gig nature would become easier if bureaucratic traps were removed. Students could

reduce their debt and work more freely alongside their studies, which would

make the transition to working life smoother.

In Sinimusta Liikkei's basic income model, every citizen is paid 750

euros every month. For minors, half of the basic income is paid to guardians, primarily to the mother, which

would replace the current form of child benefit. Earned income does not determine the amount of the basic income to be paid.

Flexible and encouraging social security would offer more and more Finns the opportunity to

participate in the maintenance of society within the limits of their abilities and life situation.

**From transnational chaos towards a self-sufficient national economy**

In its economic political thinking, Sinimusta Liike represents distributism, a market economy where productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated based upon Catholic social teaching principles. From our party's point of view, economic policy is subordinate to national and environmental interests, and thus to the political guidance of the state. We oppose state socialism, which does not allow individual income differences to occur and socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers' control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. In a blue- black society, a person has the right to try, to succeed and, if necessary, also to fail.

Our party supports an inclusive economic policy, where as many Finns as possible participate in the running of our national economy with their own labor input. Our party opposes the policy of centralization, where people, jobs and services are built around only a few big cities. The state's task is to secure national well-being and its basis, such as infrastructure, social safety net, and the education and health care sectors, which are equally accessible to every citizen and which are maintained with tax funds.

Finnish well-being is based on Finnish professionalism, hard work and reliable political guidance. The task of the Finnish central government is to curb the flow of money outside of Finland, as well as to prevent such production from entering our country, which do not meet the domestic requirements for the environment and the working conditions of the employees.

In terms of the functioning of society, the service structures that are essential for the functioning of society must remain under national control in the future, and they should not be outsourced to foreign operators who transfer the profits from their business operations outside of Finland. The principle of locality should influence the background of every financial decision, i.e the profits generated from the business should benefit the people living in the area, and not the faceless big owners living outside Finland.

The Finnish national economy must serve only Finns. At the moment, however, Finland pays more than a billion euros every year for development aid, and giving aid has not produced the desired result in fifty years. The beneficiaries of development aid are rich donor countries and the elite of developing countries. The situation in the destination countries has not changed, but in many destinations has even worsened. Sinimusta Liike would completely stop non-functional development aid, and invest it in the well-being of Finns in Finland.

* The Finnish economy must be protected from cheap production from outside. The consumption of products made in China and other similar countries should be combated, e.g. with protective tariffs
* The previous reform of the Taxi Act should be repealed – the current troubled taxi bazaars should return to Finnish professionalism
* Finnish national assets should not be sold to transnational operators. The object of special protection must be critical commodities, such as groundwater
* The transfer of money out of the Finnish national economy must be curbed by public regulation: taxes on transnational monetary transactions must be raised
* The state must establish business and agency essential companies. The state must also win nationalize those private companies that have a clear security political significance
* People who have been imprisoned for debt today threaten to be completely excluded from society - the possibility of personal bankruptcy should be possible, so that the person's chance to return to a productive part of society would speed up.
* Our party supports a tripartite model, in which the state negotiates together with employer and employee organizations in separate long-term strategies for economic and social policy. Whereas employees and employers represent their own interest groups, the state must represent everyone in negotiations Finns, including the underprivileged, whose voice normally cannot be heard.

### **ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY – A DEEP ECOLOGICAL OPTION**

**Energy self-sufficient Finland: towards a green transition under the conditions of technology and self-sufficiency**

A large part of Finland's energy is imported energy, which increases dependence on other countries and creates threats in crisis situations. Finland's energy policy should aim for full energy self-sufficiency, where energy production and distribution networks are domestically owned. The world's energy production is in transition: we are moving from fossil fuels and other non-renewable natural resources towards the use of renewable and low-emission energy resources. Finland must be at the forefront of this development and actively strive to develop new and more efficient technological solutions. The use of these energy resources must be developed and increased with public resources. The green one described above the transition must be a concrete future goal, but it must take place in a sufficiently long term to achieve a sustainable and effective result.

• Households should be encouraged to self-sufficient electricity and heat production (e.g. solar energy and geothermal heat). Current tax deductions should not be reduced.

• Self-reliance must be increased in energy production and related technology must be developed. The production capacity of the existing production plants must be increased from the current one.

• The taxation of renewable fuels must be lightened. The price of fuel should be determined based on environmental friendliness.

• Local energy production solutions must be developed with, for example, strategically placed wind power, biofuel production plants and atomic energy.

**Nature is our heritage and national property**

Clean Finnish nature, water and soil is a fundamental condition for the future of our nation and our most important national asset, which must be preserved for the generations that follow us. Citizens should have easy access to green areas and nature. Everyone's rights, free access to nature and natural diversity must be cherished. Endangered domestic species must be protected, diversity must be increased and the spread of alien species must be prevented.

• The state must preserve, develop and increase nature reserves, national parks and hiking trails, as well as actively grow, monitor and develop habitats that are particularly important for diversity and their protection program.

• Efforts should be made to increase the age structure of the forest and the amount of rotten wood should be increased, if necessary, with financial incentives. The amount of open felling must be reduced.

• The number of traditional habitats must be increased and the living conditions of endangered species must be defended

• Promoting the diversity of the bird population with habitat programs is important, for example with the help of the Sotka project. The white- cheeked goose population must be regulated by easing hunting restrictions, in which case the hunted game must also be allowed for food.

• Invasive invasive species must be identified and subject to the same mandates as invasive alien species. • Motorways must have enough frequent crossings for forest animals, so-called "green bridges"

• New hydropower plants should not be built, but efforts must be made to increase their capacity. Fishing lanes and spawning grounds must be built and developed in the vicinity of hydropower plants

• The Mining Act must be changed in such a way that mining will be permitted only for domestic, partially state-owned companies. The mining company must have sufficient capital set aside in advance for environmental restoration activities. Mining must be completely prohibited in nature conservation areas.

**Every person should adopt deep ecological thinking**

Finns should have a strong relationship with nature. Civic activities related to nature must be supported and encouraged. Society should strive to emphasize people's responsibility for maintaining their own environment. Facilitating the accessibility of national parks and other nature sites.

• From a young age, schools should emphasize a deep ecological view and an understanding of diversity, such as knowledge of species, both in environmental studies and in biology.

• Public summer camp activities related to nature must be organized for children and young people.

• Investments must be made in renovating and developing the hiking infrastructure. The accessibility of camping areas, hiking trails and national parks must be developed.

• The zoning of cities must be directed in such a way that there would be space for parks and outdoor recreation areas within the urban structure. For example, there should be stricter restrictions on land use in urban environments and in their vicinity, so that nature areas converting to asphalt and concrete must be more difficult or the land area must have a sufficient percentage of green space.

## **Policies**

**Immigration**

* Deport all illegal immigrants, bogus asylum seekers, unlawful jihadists and their relatives, hate preaching imams, and overstayers no exceptions. Reject and deport all so-called 'asylum seekers' who do not originate from countries bordering the United Kingdom. Asylum seekers who travel through a peaceful country will not be eligible to claim asylum. Any asylum seekers who travel back to the country they claim to have been forced to flee from will be automatically rejected for asylum. As a general rule, if granted asylum in the UK, asylum seekers will be expected to return to their country of origin within 12 months once peace is established in that country.
* Deport all foreign-born criminals who are currently incarcerated in UK prisons once their prison terms expire. Immigrants to the UK will be expected to abide by our laws, no exceptions. This retroactively includes all foreign-born criminals currently serving prison terms or have served prison terms in the past.
* Completely halt any further immigration except in special cases such as genuine marriages where strict citizenship criteria has been met. Britain as a nation is overpopulated and therefore cannot accept any further immigration. The former Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand - and current Crown Dependancies - will still be permitted the right to settle in the UK if certain criteria is met, such as the absence of a criminal record. Citizens of other states will have to prove their British ancestry to be able to settle in the UK.
* Short term visas to work in specific cases will be granted only after strict criteria is met. The criteria will include proof of employment, medical insurance, criminal record checks, and the absence of native labour to fill the void in question.
* Make it an act of treason to implement any policy or measure, or sign any political agreement, that facilitates and/or results in significant numbers of foreigners entering the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom with the aim of settling. Any attempt to alter the demographic makeup of the British Isles will resulted in stiff prison terms.
* Restore the primary purpose rule abolished in 1997
* Repeal the Human Rights Act 1998
* Withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights
* Withdraw from the UN’s Refugee Convention 1951, which makes borders porous to all migrants, including economic migrants, who claim asylum. This convention, which was originally intended to resettle displaced Europeans after the War, and which was then adapted as an instrument of Cold War policy is no longer fit for purpose
* Withdraw from the Global Migration Compact, which when approved by the UN in 2018, was rejected by five countries that recognised the importance of national borders: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, and the USA (under Trump).
* Establish a strong and dedicated Border Protection Force with prosecutorial powers, in addition to police powers to arrest, detain and charge immigrants who enter our country illegally, or attempt to do so, or who illegally overstay, or contract sham marriages with British citizens for the purpose of circumventing immigration law
* Ensure primacy of UK law over all undemocratic laws and directives issued by global institutions and make the UK Appeal Court the final judicial arbiter on human rights and immigration cases.
* The Party will further legislate, if necessary, to ensure that our immigration policy can withstand all legal challenges from the migrant support industry.
* Establish a system of voluntary repatriation whereby immigrants, or citizens of overseas origin, will be assisted financially to return to their country of origin, or a new country of their choice, if they wish to do so. This system will be entirely voluntary.
* Efficiently and with the aid of modern genetic profiling, racially assess all people who have acquired citizenship after 1975 and their descendants. Those who have arrived before 1975 could lose their citizenship if they are convicted of malicious activities.
* Would make it an offence to enter Britain illegally and remain without permission
* Cracked down on FGM and ensured that those who commit it will be prosecuted
* Imposed a permanent lifetime ban on re-entry into Britain, enforced by instant deportation, for anyone found guilty of having violated British immigration laws
* Ban dual citizenship (except if citizenship is British and other British Overseas Territories)
* Tightened British citizenship to make it harder to obtain a British citizenship, ended automatic birth right citizenship and moved the principle of citizenship from Jus soli (right of soil) to Jus sanguinis ('right of blood')
* Ensure the only languages permitted will be English, Welsh, Irish, Manx and Scottish Gaelic, where applicable. The employment of native languages on the part of ethnic minorities in their own homes, schools and institutions will be encouraged.
* Rescinded Britain's ascension to the Barcelona Declaration (1995) and the Marrakesh Declaration (2018)
* Introduced Operation Sovereign Borders similar to Australia
* Abolished British Protected Person (and converted them to British subject) and British Overseas citizen
* Scrapped British National (Overseas)
* Converted British subject to British citizenship
* Introduced punitive fining and possible withdrawal of trading rights of companies, company directors and other employers who employ illegal immigrants
* Scrapped all expenditure relating to immigration, such as translation costs etc.
* Make procuring the forced marriage of any British citizen a crime, punishable by imprisonment. Arranged and 'mail-order’ marriages from outside Britain will no longer be permitted
* Made cross-national adoption strictly limited
* Revoked citizenship for anyone who gives aid and comfort any proscribed Islamic terrorist group
* Make procuring the forced marriage of any British citizen a crime, punishable by imprisonment. Arranged and 'mail-order’ marriages from outside the UK will no longer be permitted
* Introduce the Danish “24-year rule" but increase it to 28-years
* Deported Islamic fundamentalists and their families. Deport anyone supporting proscribed Islamic terrorist group and stop anyone (including British citizens) who has fight alongside or support terrorist jihadist or militias groups to re-enter the country
* Detain and deport all illegal migrants and asylum seekers. Where possible these migrants should be detained in reception centres away from the British mainland, a policy adopted by Australia and currently being considered by the Danish.
* Ending the untold billions spent subsidising the immigration swindle and all its ancillary costs (benefits, court and jail services, counter-terrorism measures, the “race relations” industry and a host of others)
* Deport foreign criminals, and where possible to have agreements with foreign states whereby their citizens can serve their sentences in their own countries. It would be cheaper, and might also act as something of a deterrent. Such criminals would be have a life-time ban on re-entry to the UK.
* The independent special intelligence unit will also be responsible for identifying radical Islamist clerics for detainment and expulsion from Britain under the classification of ‘persona non grata’. They will be detained for the duration of negotiations and until a deal can be made with their country of origin or a Muslim nation which will take them. Once a deal is made, they will be deported. Any appeal on the grounds of ‘human rights’ is to be repealed and no exemption will be given to whether they happened to have been born on British soil or not.
* Revoke citizenship for anyone who gives aid and comfort any proscribed Islamic terrorist group
* End all citizenship grants/welcome programs
* Ended the Global Business Mobility visa
* Ended the Health and Care Worker visa
* Ended the Global Talent visa scheme
* Ended the Entrepreneur visa
* Ended the High Potential Individual (HPI) visa scheme/program
* Ended the Start Up Visa scheme/program.
* Ended the Youth Mobility Scheme visa
* Ended the Investor visa
* Ended S2 Healthcare Visitor
* End overstaying with a hostile environment towards illegal immigration which would include regular checks on communities, institutions,  and workplaces to remove illegal immigrants. The hostile environment would be proportionate to the extent of the problem and some estimates put the number of illegal migrants in Britain at over one million.
* The deportation of all illegal immigrants. There should be no amnesties. Illegality should not be rewarded by the granting of citizenship. Nor should organised crime rackets be allowed to profit from people smuggling. Discovered illegal immigrants should be offered the choice between cooperatively returning straight home or sent to a distant offshore holding centre during the processing of their repatriation case.
* Making a American-style E-Verify system mandatory for employers
* End remittance
* Deny migrants the right to claim social housing or benefits until they have been a tax-paying resident in the UK for 10 continuous years.
* Deny citizenship to migrants until they have worked in the UK for 10 continuous years and have fully assimilated into the country with fluent spoken and written English
* Allows visa-free travel for temporary visitors (business, tourism, while in transit and international artists and academics visiting the UK for sports events, cultural events (such as church), talks, temporary exhibitions, concerts or artists’ residencies) for up to 15 days
* Introduced a skills test (i.e. IQ test) for new immigrants
* Include a free written response portion to citizenship exam
* Ending the untold billions spent subsidising the immigration swindle and all its ancillary costs (benefits, court and jail services, counter-terrorism measures, the “race relations” industry and a host of others)
* Introduce immigration policy similar to America’s (former) Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (also known as the McCarran–Walter Act) to safeguard the country from Communism, Zionist interests, and undesirables that he deemed as external threats to national security, included restrictive measures such as increased review of potential immigrants, stepped-up deportation, and more stringent naturalization procedures. The bill also placed a preference on economic potential, special skills, and education. The 1952 Act had a quota system for nationalities and regions. Eventually, the Act established a preference system that determined which ethnic groups were desirable immigrants and placed great importance on labour qualifications. The Act defined three types of immigrants: immigrants with special skills or who had relatives who were British citizens, who were exempt from quotas and who were to be admitted without restrictions; average immigrants whose numbers were not supposed to exceed 10,000 per year; and refugees. Also "good moral character" was important and measured by a person's ability to behave morally and honour the Constitution and laws of the UK.
* Repealed the Human Rights Act 1998
* Abolishes the 'New Entrant' route which allows employers to bring in young workers from abroad earning over £20,480
* Develop the UK Border Force into a Migration Control Department directly responsible to a Minister. This department will oversee the immigration system and border control and repatriation of illegal immigrants
* Created Office of Demographic Change — an independent body established along the lines of the Office for Budget Responsibility — is suggested to undertake a comprehensive transparent analysis of all aspects of demographic growth
* All British jobs will only be advertised to British citizen
* Create British passport holders only sections at arrival in the British airports. The Brits today have no benefit of ease through passport security in either their own country or any EU country they visit. At a minimum we need our own GB passport section for arrival back to our own country. Treatment is not reciprocated and I have been told very clearly I cannot queue with EU passport holders when I travel abroad. This is about fairness and ease of travel.
* Improve passport tracking information so accurate, detailed and real-time information is available online for all passport applications and allow the option to fast-track any passport application (for a fee) for any reason.
* Ensure that everyone who have been prevented from travelling due to delays in processing their passport application is automatically reimbursed for their losses
* Scrapped 'indefinite leave to remain'
* Grant asylum to racial kin who are being persecuted elsewhere in the world.
* The Party will create the post of Secretary of State for Migration and Population. This cabinet member will oversee the balance of immigration and births with emigration and deaths to maintain a stable UK population and to generally oversee the above policies.
* We shall abolish the costly anti-English quango known as the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

**Government**

* Abolish the hated Human Rights Act which is being widely abused and which was forced on the UK by the EU. Replace the Human Rights Act with an American-style 'Bill of Rights' guaranteeing freedom of speech, assembly and expression for all shades of political belief.
* Give England its own national parliament, to be based at Winchester, with powers over English domestic affairs, to create parity of esteem within the UK. Continued support for the national parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The political institutions at Westminster to govern foreign affairs, economics and defence. We support the idea of a united, federal United Kingdom, with the capital city in London.
* Support the transition to 'Proportional Representation' (PR) at all levels of UK elections. Hold a national referendum on the issue of Proportional Representation following a robust debate.
* We would introduce a policy of fiscal parity within the United Kingdom, in that the constituent nations must live within their means, rather than being unfairly funded by English taxpayers. The Barnett Formula will be scrapped.
* Introduce a 'Treason & Sedition Bill' that prohibits politicians from entering into any agreement that infringes upon the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, such as the transfer of sovereignty to any foreign institutions.
* Introduce a 'Democracy & Freedom Bill' that makes it a criminal offence (that carries a prison sentence) to refuse services (especially financial services) to constituted political parties and their office holders.
* Increase the penalties for corruption for those in public office and widen the scope for prosecution for those who benefit post-office from decisions while incumbent.
* Abolition of the corrupt system of parliamentary expenses and its replacement with a capped allowance system which is reviewed and audited.
* Complete overhaul of the civil service. Civil service obstruction of office holders will result in incontestable dismissal. Civil servants must remain strictly politically impartial and neutral.
* Outlaw practises such as postal and proxy voting which are facilitating corruption and fraud in our democratic system.

**Culture**

* Make Saint George's Day and Saint David's day a public holiday respectively in England and Wales and make it law that local authorities promote these holidays to their fullest extent, including public displays of flags, culture and history.
* Continued support for Saint Andrew's Day and Saint Patrick's Day as public holidays, with legislation passed to ensure that local authorities promote these holidays to their fullest extent, including public displays of flags, culture and history.
* Promote the full celebration of Trafalgar Day, Independence Day (Brexit), Guy Fawkes Day, Battle of Britain Day, Burn's Night (Scotland), the 12th of July (Northern Ireland), Armed Forces Day, Commonwealth Day, and all Christian events, such as Easter and Christmas. Legislation will compel local authorities to promote these cultural celebrations to the fullest extent.
* Full support and promotion of indigenous cultural traditions, such as Morris and Maypole dancing in England.
* All public buildings must display the relevant national flags as well as the Union Flag. This includes local councils, educational centres, libraries, government ministries, community centres, and any other taxpayer-funded institution.

**Religion**

* Continued support for the Anglo-Catholic principle of religious freedom for all citizens, protected by law.
* Introduce a ban on the use of non-stun religious ritual slaughter. The practice of, for example, Halal and Kosher slaughter, goes against the innate British concern for the welfare of animals. We oppose exceptions being made to animal cruelty legislation for any religions.
* Introduce a ban on religious courts that conflict with the powers of the British legal system. We support the primacy of the British legal system as the final arbiter in all legal matters. Any attempt to circumvent or usurp the British legal system will be vigorously opposed. One nation, one legal system.
* Introduce a ban on the use of religious face coverings in public on security grounds. Any instances of religious extremists forcing women to wear face coverings will be prosecuted. Women will not face compulsion to wear religious clothing.
* Close down religious institutions caught preaching extremist concepts, such as slavery and hostility towards non-believers. Implement closer inspections of religious institutions connected to terrorism or extremism.
* Oppose the enforcement of LGBT polices by the state on religious institutions i.e. same sex marriage and transgender ideology.
* We shall prohibit the commissioning of any further mosques. There are already more than 1,500 and this number is sufficient for the declining Muslim population we anticipate.
* All unlawful jihadists and their relations shall be deported.
* The wearing of the burqa, hijab and niqab in public will be prohibited.
* All forms of ritual slaughter will be banned, as inhumane methods of slaughter, on the grounds of animal welfare. Where such meat is imported and sold retail it must be clearly labelled halal or kosher, as the case may be.
* Public institutions, such as schools, colleges, hospitals and prisons, shall be prohibited from providing halal or kosher meat in their catering, other than as an alternative which is clearly identified as such on menus.

**Health**

* Britain First will always keep the NHS free at the point of need but allow greater flexibility and top-up funding and require a return to high standards. Introduce an 'NHS Protection Bill' that prohibits the privatisation of any part of the National Health Service and guarantees public ownership. Britain First will scrap all existing PFI contracts.
* Move away from the system of Westminster careerist politicians running the NHS, and appoint the best person from within the NHS to run the organisation. Try, as far as possible, to remove politics from the running the NHS and move to a system that focusses on efficiency and performance.
* Take firm action to combat excessive NHS bureaucracy and replace unnecessary managers and pen-pushers with frontline doctors, nurses and dentists.
* Britain First would remove all vaccination mandates for diseases with high survival rates, and prohibit punishments for those who refuse these vaccinations.
* Britain First would ban all societal medical lockdowns for diseases with high survival rates.
* Oppose the introduction of vaccine passports in any form.
* Oppose the gradual closure of A&E units. As a general rule, all hospitals should operate an easily accessible A&E and maternity unit.
* Introduce harsh, prison-based punishments for fraud within the NHS. Millions of pounds go missing each year in fraud cases. We will put a stop to this.
* Provide world-leading services for mental health, especially for veterans of the Armed Forces with PTSD. Massively increase the number of crisis teams within local communities. Increase the number of secure units for people suffering with mental health episodes.
* Ban all services that facilitate, or relate to, transgender ideology, including reassignment surgeries, medications and therapies. Introduce a mental health department that caters specifically for gender dysmorphia.
* End the scandal of foreign health tourism which drains our NHS. NHS services will only be available to British citizens. Overseas guests will have to pay for NHS services and treatment, either directly or via insurance.
* Massively boost the recruitment, training and pay of native doctors, nurses and dentists instead of looting the Third World of these skilled workers. Pass legislation that limits the recruitment of foreign healthcare professionals where native labour can fill the void.
* Implement a national scheme to promote healthy ways of living to tackle the root causes of our poor health as a nation. Widen and broaden the implementation of taxes on junk food, with the proceeds going specifically, and only, to the NHS. Taxes on native wholesome food industries should be removed to encourage healthy eating and lower market prices. The removal of taxes on healthy food industries of any kind must be commensurate with lower prices for the consumer.
* Increase the number of doctors & nurses employed by UK Health by 25% over 3 years, increase the number of hospital beds by 25% over 5 years
* Introduce maximum surgery wait times as regulatory requirement for Vic Health
* Publish figures on ratio of bureaucrats to doctors in UK Health over the last 20 years and introduce regulatory required maximum ratio of bureaucrats to doctors.
* Increase university places to study medicine by 25% with a ban on foreign students studying medicine to ensure all practice in Australia.
* Create a publicly searchable on-line register of complaints against medical practitioners and actions taken against them
* Establish after hours outpatient clinics next to hospitals for non-urgent patients to slash Hospital Emergency Ward waiting times
* Increase funding and resources to public hospital emergency departments to allow one hour maximum wait times to be mandated as performance benchmarks.
* Mandate minimum nursing staff and doctors to patient ratios in public hospitals.
* Provide government financial assistance to private hospitals to set up their own 24 hour emergency departments. (e.g. grants equal to 50% of set up costs)
* Increase resources to public ambulance service to allow performance benchmarking of response times
* Increase recruitment and retention of ambulance staff by introducing a defined benefit Emergency Service Workers (Ambos, Fire and Police) superannuation scheme that pays a defined benefit pension after 20 years service.
* Provide grants to private ambulance providers (e.g. St Johns & St Andrews) to set up in competition with public ambulance services to increase ambulance availability and improve service.

**Education**

* We will implement a 'back to basics' scheme in education focusing on discipline and traditional teaching methods (e.g maths, English and technical skills). Introduce a greater focus on real trades and skills as demanded by a modern, technological and manufacturing economy and the removal of state indulgence in phoney 'social' education subjects.
* Create more grammar schools to boost excellence in education. Oppose the left-wing drive to eradicate centres of advanced learning in education due to their ideological obsession with 'equality'.
* Reintroduce a variety of competitive sports in all levels of the education system, including combat sports, such as boxing and martial arts. Oppose the left-wing ideological 'soft' approach to competitive sports in schools which dictates that everyone must be a winner, therefore no competition must be allowed.
* Reintroduce Christian assemblies, Christian hymns and Christian prayers at all levels of the education system. Replace the present 'multi faith' religious education curriculum with a new approach that focuses predominantly on Christianity, including the important subjects of traditional marriage and family values. Other religions should be taught in schools, but to a much lesser degree than Christianity, which has been our national faith for over a millennium.
* Reintroduce the teaching of British history throughout all levels of state education. British history must be a compulsory, long-term subject for all pupils and students. Replace the current cursory and limited history curriculum with a broad and in-depth study of British history from pre-history to the current day.
* Greater influence of the Armed Forces, the police, the prison service, the fire brigade, and the NHS, in the education system, including seminars, training events and careers advice.
* Strongly prohibit the teaching of left-wing ideological doctrines which are harmful to children and young folk. These include multiculturalism, modern feminism, gender ideology, white privilege and critical race theory.
* Introduce a new subject in secondary education entitled 'citizenship', which teaches the British democratic political system, the importance of voting, and other traditional British values, such as free speech and civil liberties.
* Introduce strict rules for the political impartiality of teachers, professors, lecturers and tutors. As a general rule, we support the de-politicisation of education, with a re-focus towards skills, achievement and learning. All forms of political indoctrination will be opposed.
* Teach all pupils and students the skills of 'critical thinking' to move away from the current left-wing approach of conformity, group-think and intolerance of differing views and opinions. All citizens should be taught to think independently regardless of political beliefs.
* Introduce strict rules for political impartiality and free speech at all levels of higher education. Remove the current stranglehold on debate and speech at universities of the radical Left.
* Introduce free meals, milk and orange juice for all pupils in primary and second education. Overturn the scandal whereby the taxpayer pays more to feed criminal prisoners than they do for school children.
* Reduce the teaching of 'sex education' in secondary schools to a bare minimum and ban it completely at primary school level. Sex education will be limited to school nurses and will remain optional for parents.
* Responsibility for the education of children resides primarily in the family. Families should be free to home-school their children or send them to public or private schools.
* We call for public support of both public and private schools, with a preferential option for economically disadvantaged students and an emphasis on making teaching a well-paying occupation.
* Teachers should be free to design their own curricula within general parameters set by local authorities. Standardized testing should not be the most significant factor in measuring the success of students and schools.
* Local school systems should reconsider the overuse of technology in the classroom.
* Local school systems should undertake initiatives that expand education beyond reading, writing, mathematics, science, social studies, and the arts. Additional subjects should include virtue and citizenship, understanding of the natural world, agriculture, trades, life skills, and useful crafts.
* State governments should increase public investment in higher education, resulting in a reduction of tuition at public institutions. To improve the consistent quality of higher education, for-profit educational enterprises must be more strictly regulated. The government should consider proposals for partial forgiveness of student loans, along with more opportunities to work off debt.
* Sex education classes, when offered, should be required to include accurate information on prenatal development, the risks of hormonal contraceptives, and the scientific evidence that abortion takes a human life.
* Outlaw the teaching of radical social values in public schools such as the so-called “safe schools” child sexualisation program.
* End other politicisation of education – including all teaching on supposed “global warming”, all teaching of gender and race related material, end bogus non0White ceremonies etc.
* Introduce education credits (vouchers) by which all parents get an equal share of education funding and are free to allocate it to the school (public or private) of their choice and to remove it from the school if they elect to send their child elsewhere. Such credits to be also provided to home schooling parents.
* Review and redesign education curriculum to focus on academic rigor and to eliminate left-wing political bias.
* Curriculum to include skills for being a successful employee and how to start and run a small business and not just prep for university.
* Abolish extreme left wing dominated teacher training colleges and outsource teacher training to private organisations, including on-the-job training
* Introduce performance benchmarks for public school teacher performance, with termination of employment for teachers who consistently fail to measure up but salary bonuses for those that do.
* Require appropriate minimum Diploma scores for those applying to become teachers.
* Introduce independent examinations for the Diploma with children leaving before the Diploma required to have successfully demonstrated a minimum educational standard before leaving.
* Introduce “majority parental sanction” to schools by which they are required to hold a vote on any curriculum matters, staffing or other administration issue requested by at least 5% of parents of children at the school and a majority vote to change the curriculum or to sack an individual teacher must be implemented.

**Spending**

* Scrap the entire 'foreign aid' budget and re-direct the funds saved to urgent domestic problems. Any foreign assistance should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but only after domestic issues of concern are rectified, such as mass homelessness, child poverty, food bank usage etc, and only when the national debt has been brought down to under £500 billion.
* Scrap all expenditure relating to mass immigration, such as translation costs, benefits, migrant hotels and accommodation, migrant education, immigration advisors, immigration solicitors, migrant legal aid, telecommunication expenses for migrants, and so on.
* Halt all further payments to the European Union (EU). We would cease any further payments to EU projects such as the European Space Agency, the European Court of Human Rights, and so on.
* Slash the entire welfare budget by 50% by curtailing spending on undeserving recipients and causes, saving the taxpayer approximately £150 billion. The welfare system should be available only to the genuine needy and vulnerable, not those who choose welfare dependency as a lifestyle.
* Pass legislation forcing all future governments to spend within their means, to de-rail the current practice of chronic state overspending, i.e. the socialist model. This will halt the rapid expansion of the national debt and allow it to be gradually paid off. All governments should create budgets that do not involve relentless borrowing. Borrowing should be reserved only for national crises.

**Social**

* Remove all state benefits, housing and assistance available except for those who have physical and mental disability. Anyone found to abusing the benefits system will be urged to pay back all the benefits they receive. End the scandal of billions of pounds being spent on foreigners who come to Britain to exploit our generous welfare system.
* Implementation of a genuine 'workfare' scheme whereby productive work is required in return for state benefits. This will destroy the culture of entitlement and dependency that is ravaging this country.
* Retain the 'right to buy' scheme for social/council tenants to facilitate first time buyers who are struggling to make it onto the housing ladder.
* Stamp out the national scandal of thousands of pensioners freezing to death each winter. This situation is a terrible stain on our credibility as a nation. We would implement a raft of measures to ensure our elderly live in dignity.
* Decisive action to eradicate the scourge of homelessness that is blighting our country, especially among homeless veterans. Homeless veterans would go to the top of local housing lists after their service to the nation concludes.
* Massively increase the number of youth organisations and youth clubs across the nation to alleviate the scourge of anti-social behaviour on our streets. Children left to their own devices in a degenerate society become feral. We will give our young folk purpose and direction.
* Greater promotion of church groups and organisations within our communities to promote Christianity and community cohesion. Christianity alone has the power to overhaul our selfish, liberal society and replace it with a new society of morals and decency.
* Ban the production, sale or streaming of pornography. This will include pornography sites such as 'Only Fans'. Pornography promotes unhealthy and unrealistic sexual behaviours, degeneracy, promiscuity and increased levels of sexual violence. It promotes the sexualisation of women and young girls. It destroys the moral fabric of civilised societies. Laws against prostitution should focus on removing those participating from the cycle of exploitation, mandating penalties primarily on those who buy sex or arrange for its purchase. Closely tied to this is the need to aggressively combat human trafficking. It is also vital to recognize the social costs of pornography, which is inseparable from human trafficking, the promotion of pedophilia, and rape. We therefore support laws which criminalize the production and sale of pornography and deny categorically that pornography is protected speech.

**Law & Order**

* Implement a radical reversal of the legal and policing focus on the 'rights' of criminals and its replacement with the traditional focus on putting the victims of crime first. All remnants of woke, politically correct policing must be removed. We must get back to the basics of fighting crime.
* Greater use of National Service for habitual offenders. Anyone who breaks the law repeatedly will be sent to endure the discipline of the Armed Forces. This will break the cycle of repeat offending.
* Make prisons a place of hard labour rather than cosy holiday camps. Prisons must become productive institutions that contribute to society, preferably with on-site manufacturing or off-site agricultural work. Games consoles and other perks and luxuries must be removed and replaced with a 9-5 regime of work and education. With these reforms, sentences could possibly be reduced.
* Remove the automatic release from prison at 50% of each sentence, and instead extend the parole system to all prisoners. Release of prisoners within the total time-frame of a custodial sentence should be dependent on behaviour, hard work and improvement during the time served.
* Implement new laws guaranteeing citizens the right to protect their own homes. This would end the scandal whereby frightened citizens who protect their own homes and families from intrusions are punished when doing so. Deadly force should be legal for all residents to protect their families from intruders. We believe in the old saying, 'Every Englishman's home is his castle'.
* A major and decisive clamp down on street-level Islamist grooming gangs which operate across the UK. All civil servants and police officers that are found to have facilitated - or covered up - the scourge of Islamist grooming gangs to be prosecuted and sent to prison.
* Reintroduce firearms for law enforcement and border agencies, with rolling reviews occurring every five years based on crime levels.
* As public servants, law enforcement officers should be supported and held to the highest standards of professionalism. We support strict accountability for the use of lethal force.
* We are alarmed at the increasing rates of conflict between police and communities, and call for local governments to institute measures that will increase transparency and trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve, including the use of body cameras, civilian review boards, and expansion of community policing.
* We believe that our court system systematically disfavors the poor. We call for an increase in state-level funding for our public defender system, and an end to cash bail, court fees, and programs that allow records to be expunged in exchange for paying higher fees.
* Mandatory sentencing requirements for non-violent criminals, must be overturned.
* We believe that prisons are designed for dangerous criminals. We oppose the imprisonment of those who are simply mentally ill, homeless, or too poor to pay fines.
* We believe that our prison system should be focused on restoring lawbreakers to their community. We support increased funding of programs meant to prepare prisoners for life outside the prison.
* We call for an end to the use of prisoners as slave labor. Prisoners must be remunerated at the minimum wage for work performed.
* Drug addiction remains a social harm. It is vital to find ways of ending mass incarceration while not removing all laws against drugs and other vices. Drug enforcement should focus on distribution and production. Funds currently expended on the “war on drugs” should be directed toward prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation.

**Economy**

* Our goal is to create conditions which allow single-income families to support themselves with dignity.
* We support policies that encourage the formation and strengthening of labor unions. Efforts by private entities to use public power to prevent union activities or to retaliate against workers who organize for their rights ought to be resisted at every level.
* We call for the repeal of corporate welfare policies, for shifting the tax system to target unearned income and reckless financiers, and for changing regulations to benefit small and locally-owned businesses rather than multinational corporations. Economic rentiers and speculators who produce nothing but only take from workers through gimmicks allowed by corrupt relationships with public power need to pay their fair share through taxes on land, capital gains, and financial transactions.
* We will work to restore the requirement that corporations must serve a public good in order to be granted the benefit of limited liability. We support the prohibition of corporate bylaws and the repeal of state legislation requiring shareholder profit to trump considerations such as employee wellbeing and environmental protection.
* To deprive workers of their wages is a “sin that cries out to heaven.” The Department of Labor must investigate all cases of wage theft and fraud in a swift manner.
* We support mechanisms that allow workers to share in the ownership and management of their production, such as trade guilds, cooperatives, and employee stock ownership programs. Rather than consigning workers to wage slavery under far-away masters, such ownership models respect their essential dignity.
* Industrial policy and economic incentives need to be re-ordered to place human dignity first and to recognize that the family is the basic unit of economic production. We are committed to policies that emphasize local production, family-owned businesses, and cooperative ownership structures. Measures that prevent large corporations from passing on their transportation costs to local communities will help re-energize local production and local enterprises.
* The bloated, “too big to fail,” multinational economic concerns which dominate the economic landscape need to be brought to heel and concerted antitrust action must be taken to break up the oligarchies that use their private power to corruptly influence public governance. The monopolistic power of corporations, especially in the area of patent and copyright law, allows them to price-gouge workers and families. We call for a restructuring of intellectual property laws to encourage innovation rather than rent-seeking.
* We support and encourage measures which allow local communities to limit the power of outside interests in managing their land. Tenant unions, community land trusts, and community-oriented development are to be supported in the effort to ensure the availability of affordable and inclusive housing. Allowing local communities more flexibility will allow for more diverse and innovative solutions to local problems rather than imposing them from a far-off central authority.
* We advocate for social safety nets that adequately provide for the material needs of the most vulnerable in society. These programs need to also help the most vulnerable find a path out of poverty by providing them with the tools they need in order to fully participate in their communities with dignity, and not trap them as subsidized labor for private interests.
* To restore long-term solvency to the Social Security trust fund, we call for an end to the FICA tax cap.
* Unemployment benefits need to include the option of allowing beneficiaries to take their benefits in the form of start-up capital to start or purchase businesses or create cooperative enterprises that help them to escape poverty on their own terms.
* Natural monopolies and the common inheritance of the natural world need to be closely managed and protected by the public and not surrendered for a pittance to private greed. Our support of private property rights does not mean that we should surrender our common property into the hands of private oligarchs. Policies that deliver citizens their fair share of our common wealth and inheritance of natural resources are to be encouraged in the form of a citizen’s dividend and baby bonds.
* Predatory practices which care more for stockholder value than human life must cease. We call for community-oriented lending practices and mutual aid organizations to replace predatory lending agents that target poor people and working-class communities. We must reject a financial system based on saddling workers with debt and interest payments that merely fuel consumerism and instead embrace one that encourages productive activity. We call for student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

**Foreign affairs**

* Just war theory is the foundation of a moral foreign policy. It means that war should always serve as a last resort against grave acts of aggression and must be undertaken with clear goals and due regard for unintended consequences. The conduct of war must be governed by norms of proportionality and respect for human life.
* Most of the recent military interventions by the United States have not complied with just war principles. Overreliance on the military to achieve foreign policy goals has ultimately been counterproductive. The United States should end unilateral military intervention in foreign countries except as a response to an actual or imminent attack on the United States or to a catastrophic threat to international security for which there is no multilateral response. Wars of choice must end.
* A non-interventionist foreign policy must also reject the use of lethal drones against civilian populations or in neutral countries and the fueling of foreign conflicts through American arms sales.
* In order to prevent interventions prompted primarily by presidential power, Congress should reassert its war-making powers granted by the Constitution and the War Powers Act. It should reject overly broad authorizations for the use of military force that have given presidents of both parties legal cover for launching new conflicts without checks and balances.
* Our military involvement throughout the world over the last several decades has left some regions dependent on the relative security the United States provides. While this arrangement is not desirable in the long term, we cannot simply retreat immediately from some regions where a rapid exodus would cause further instability. Instead, a deliberate withdrawal is needed to ensure that American allies or clients are not left isolated and at risk by our departure. A reduction in military bases abroad should occur as part of this policy shift, except for those required to protect diplomatic missions or to meet explicit treaty obligations.
* We recognize the sacrifices of our fallen military personnel and of veterans. At a time when heavy burdens have been laid on an all-volunteer force for nearly a generation, all necessary resources must be devoted to fulfilling our collective obligations to veterans and their families.
* Nuclear weapons signal a failure to create a world that values peace over warfare. Our nation must lead the effort to rid the world of these terrible weapons through the use of arms control initiatives, non-proliferation treaties, and, where doing so does not diminish national security, unilateral steps to reduce our nuclear weapon stockpiles. In particular, the UK should rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and should negotiate an update to the lapsed Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty with Russia. Further, as a nation we should reject first use of nuclear weapons and should not seek first-strike capabilities.
* UK should seek peaceful resolution of global environmental problems through cooperation with foreign nations, including maintaining participation in current treaties. We should vigorously encourage all nations to meet ambitious climate goals.
* While trade agreements can be mutually beneficial for the UK and its international partners, UK should avoid or seek to renegotiate trade agreements that privilege corporate interests over labor rights and environmental protections or that encourage the hollowing-out of domestic industries. Favourable trade status should be removed from countries where worker exploitation is unaddressed.
* UK should seek whenever possible to remedy the human and environmental consequences of British intervention, both past and present. We must avoid actions which sustain corrupt governments or exploitative practices by American corporations. To truly make a positive impact throughout the world, the United States should focus on long-term economic development aid to produce self-sufficient local communities.
* UK must end participation in international agreements and regulatory frameworks which favour international corporations over local producers. This effort includes the banning of lending practices that put smaller nations into financial stress, and of the use of international financial pressure to restructure the economies of debtor nations. It further includes the reform of intellectual property laws that allow corporations to control seed life, and thus monopolize a disproportionate amount of food sources, especially in developing countries. International economic institutions such as the WTO, World Bank, and IMF should be reformed or replaced in the interest of transparency, accountability, and fairness to all nations.

**Environment**

* We are committed to building an economy using models of production and distribution that are local, responsible, and sustainable. We call for the repeal of subsidies that encourage urban sprawl and discourage local farming and production, and we encourage local media outlets and chambers of commerce to promote buying locally.
* We must all take personal and familial responsibility for stewardship of the environment. We must teach habits of conservation to our children both at home and in our schools, and we must put them into practice ourselves.
* Local governments should consider the health of the environment along with human solidarity when considering business development strategies, housing strategies, and other key decisions. As one example, transportation planning should look for opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint, while enabling the free movement of those unable to afford private vehicles.
* Even in urban settings, there is much we can do to build a healthier environment. We oppose neighborhood policies that incentivize chemical-saturated lawns, or forbid outdoor clotheslines. We oppose the use of street lights so bright that they disrupt natural circadian rhythms or migration patterns.
* We must make every effort to ensure that no home in Britain lacks access to clean drinking water in the home and fresh foods in the neighbourhood.
* Federal and state government subsidies for reckless oil and mineral extraction (such as “fracking”) must be eliminated and replaced with funding for research into renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind, and nuclear power. At the same time, states need more economic development initiatives, such as job retraining and direct family aid, in those regions adversely affected by the transition to planet-friendly fuels and modes of production.
* Strong regulations are required to conserve our nation’s great natural resources and to protect our land, air, and water from man-made pollution and degradation, including maintaining current laws meant for that purpose. We also insist on the direct accountability of illegal polluters to their victims in the courts.
* The federal government can institute pollution taxes and cap-and-trade systems to incentivize transitioning to renewable and non-polluting production systems. Revenue from pollution taxes should be used to fund carbon sequestration by farms, businesses, and individuals, and returned to the people through a carbon dividend.
* We must do more than protect our current nature preserves; we must also actively rebuild the natural habitats necessary for a healthy environment. Federal government agencies should take all necessary measures to preserve and protect our natural wetlands, which provide an ecologically-healthy form of flood control. More trees should be planted as a natural carbon sink and to combat deforestation and desertification. Natural meadows and wildflowers are also essential for threatened populations of pollinators such as bees and butterflies.
* UK government should prioritize new distribution technologies for waste, with particular concern for the oceans which are vital to a healthy earth.
* As part of our stewardship of the natural world, we have an obligation to humanely care for animals. We support the strengthening of laws against animal abuse and neglect, including stricter regulation of factory farms and stockyards and the repeal of food disparagement laws and so-called ag-gag laws that prohibit free speech regarding animal agriculture.

**Other**

1. Encourage water firms to reverse cuts and improve infrastructure investment, build more large new water reservoir
2. Scrap standing charge
3. Scrap wholesale price in favor of much lower CFD price
4. Get rid of Ofsted and introduce a slimmed down body only concerned with basics not woke rubbish.
5. Build some nuclear power stations, own them and for gods sake use British engineers and talent.
6. Protect our key national infrastructure from overseas ownership.
7. Build edge of town static homes parks with cheap rent for those in need.
8. Overseas aid to India and China should end.
9. Reintroduce the technical schools. Proper job led engineering based schooling.
10. Treat public spending with the responsibility of her own savings (as opposed to a bottomless vat into which you could scoop your fill).
11. Bin all unnecessary spending- ie cut HS2.
12. Cut 50% of the highly paid NHS managers- that would fund a fully staffed hospital every year.
13. Cut university places for low grade degrees and make more places for apprentices and technical trainees.
14. Cut 5% VAT.
15. Start refining fuel in the UK again as opposed to buying it from bloody Russia!!!
16. Start manufacturing in the UK as opposed to shipping cheap Chinese tat from the opposite side of the world.
17. Stop illegal immigration- escort/tow them back to France.
18. Stop spending money we don't have would be a good start.
19. Burn red tape right across the board.
20. Ditch the 100's of Quangos and NGO's we all pay for.
21. Introduce health insurance immediately for elective surgery.
22. Recruit MP's who have at least 5 years genuine work or business experience and ban anyone who has a 'politics' degree or 'fine art' for life.
23. Reduce house of Lords on same basis and cut by 50% this year.
24. Let teachers teach.
25. Let Policemen police.
26. Scrap Ofgem and Ofwat
27. Stop BBC license fee and privatize BBC and Channel 4
28. Increase the use and remit of anti-trust laws to limit ownership of media outlets. This would deter unhealthy monopolies and therefore increase the diversity of opinion and debate across the entire media.
29. Introduce a ban on foreign ownership of UK media institutions and companies to minimise foreign influence on our democratic process.
30. Extend BBFC to TV, to become BBFTVC with warning and rating shown before a TV programme, similar to Australia.

### **Housing Affordability**

#### Buying

Facilitate home ownership by:

* Fast tracking the development of land for residential housing, with the aim of fully meeting all new home buyer demand within 5 years;
* Establishing a First Home Buyers register guaranteeing offer of vacant land within 12 month at a set price per sqm;
* Pass law capping the total state and local government fees, charges and taxes applicable to newly developed land to 25% of sale price;
* Offer public housing for sale to its tenants, crediting the last ten years rent as a deposit for purchase.
* Encourage co-operative housing purchases with establishment of co-op development board to advise and not-for-profit state Development Bank to lend for the establishment of co-ops at cost outside APRA guidelines;
* Legislate to mandate council approvals of the construction of granny flats if to be occupied by elderly relatives of home owners
* Build very high speed rail links between Melbourne and major regional towns to allow people to buy cheaper homes in country areas while working every day in Melbourne
* Free up houses for sale to Australians by discouraging sales to foreign buyers (1. a new tax on foreign property developers; 2. doubling the stamp duty on residential property purchases by foreign buyers and 3. Introducing an annual foreign owners property tax of 10% of assessed value.)

#### Renting

* Introduce “family rent assistance” for lower income working families equal to that provided for the unemployed
* Encourage higher density re-development of inner urban areas with concessions on land taxes, state government re-zoning laws
* Facilitate cheaper renting in regional areas with very high speed rail links to Melbourne
* Increase spending on public housing funded by a new “vacant property tax” on owners of properties left unoccupied for more than six months.
* For public housing eligibility, prioritise 1. Australian citizens and 2. those in low income employment (plus age pensioners) over working age welfare recipients.
* Improve the quality of life in public housing by evicting those convicted of criminal offences and those who repeatedly demonstrate anti-social behaviour (including illegal graffiti) and establishing a prohibited tenants list of same.
* Criminal conviction (including any drug offence) to permanently disqualify from public housing eligibility.

### Supporting Families

* As a traditional family alternative to subsiding institutional child care, introduce a Homemaker Allowance equal to cost of childcare (up to $35,000 pa) for stay-at-home mothers/fathers with dependent children, who are not otherwise entitled to income replacement welfare – means test free.
* Gives families the option of having the state pay for mothers to stay home and look after their own children instead of only paying for institutional childcare and forcing all mothers out into the workplace.
* Promote the establishment of co-operative childcare centres with advice and assistance from the new Co-op Development Board and funds from the new state Development Bank.
* Affordable Housing (as above) to allow one partner to afford to stay home to look after children
* Emergency Department Medical Care – increase funding and resources to public hospital emergency departments to allow one hour maximum wait times to be mandated as performance benchmarks
* Introduce a medal similar to Cross of Honour of the German Mother
* States should repeal policies that penalize couples for getting married or that encourage divorce. At the same time, such reforms should not come at the cost of helping single parents.
* States must repeal no-fault divorce laws, which effectively undermine the permanence of marriage. At the same time, it is vital to continue efforts to prevent and prosecute domestic violence.
* In opposition to the commodification of children and the reproductive process, gestational surrogacy contracts and sperm banks should be prohibited. Adoption and fostering should be encouraged as a redemptive alternative, but with the understanding that the separation of children from their biological parents is never the primary goal.
* Federal and state governments should allow public funding for services that promote stable, healthy marriages and the flourishing of children, even when such services are provided by religious institutions with religious values.
* Pregnancy, childbirth, and neonatal care should all be fully covered by all healthcare plans so that no family need worry about the expenses of bringing a child into the world.
* Workplace accommodations for parents, including paid parental leave, flexible scheduling, and affordable child care should be available to as many families as possible. Further, no family should be forced to have two full-time incomes just to survive, and thus policies subsidizing child care by parents staying at home should be enacted. Funding and services should also be provided to encourage families to care for elderly and disabled family members at home without being impoverished by lost income. This could include preferential housing options, tax credits, and respite care.
* We reject the idea that surgical or hormonal treatment to circumvent the natural, healthy development and function of the body is necessary health care. In particular, we vigorously defend the right of parents to protect their minor children from such treatment. We call for legislation prohibiting any form of gender reassignment surgery on children.
* To create a more pro-family culture and strengthen the social fabric of neighborhoods, we favor efforts to make public spaces child-friendly, encourage outdoor play, and reform legal and administrative practices that unfairly penalize parents for giving children a reasonable degree of independence.

### Cost of Living Taxes and Charges

* Slash petrol and diesel vehicle registration fees by 50% and drivers licence charges by 25% (paid for by 1. reducing the CTP insurance requirements with a legislative cap on TP settlements; 2. introducing stamp duty on sales of aircraft and boats over $5,000; and 3. Doubling electric vehicle registration charges to offset their failure to pay for road costs through fuel taxes.)
* Cut public transport fares (rail, bus and ferry) by 25% (paid for by using funds from rail freight to cross subsidise passengers, and abolishing concessions for adult students and the extended families of transport employees)
* Pay cab owners back 75% of the cost of their licences (paid for by introducing a 5% levy on Uber fares and introducing an Uber driver licence.)
* Reduce payroll tax by 50% immediately and phase out completely in five years.
* Cap fees, charges and taxes on new residential land developments, including developer charges at 25% of sale price, (offset by 1. a new tax on foreign property developers; 2. doubling the stamp duty on residential property purchases by foreign buyers and 3. Introducing an annual foreign owners property tax of 10% of assessed value. )

### Protecting Age Care Residents

* Outlaw casual employment in age and nursing care and require all employees to be permanent part-time or full-time to ensure that all employees have access to sick leave to stay away from work when they are unwell.
* Outlaw individual employment in more than one age or nursing home facility at any one time.
* Legislate to require at least one nurse be on duty at all nursing homes 24 hours a day.
* Legislate minimum ratios of staff to patients.
* Introduce a mandatory training certificate course for all aged and nursing home workers not medically qualified.
* Mandate minimum standards of spoken and written English for all age and nursing home workers to ensure competence and avoid worker errors.

### Restoring Agriculture

* Enshrine the right to farm in law to prevent climate extremist driven requirements to reduce areas under cultivation.
* End all state government controls on tree clearing and other similar interference in the use of private property.
* Create a new offence of “politically motivated trespass” to prevent left wing activists occupying farms and disrupting primary production.
* Create farming apprenticeships to train city kids to be farmers.
* Re-establish collective bargaining in agriculture (Orderly Marketing) by re-establishing statutory producer controlled boards (and/or grower co-operatives) to buy and sell all agricultural products and guarantee fair prices to producers (starting with dairy industry)
* Outlaw foreign purchases of agricultural land and legislate to require divestment of lands already owned by foreigners within 12 months.
* Prevent foreign owners of farms (eg dairies) from simply exporting their products by requiring them to be sold along with all other agricultural goods to statutory boards or producer co-ops
* Establish a not-for-profit state government Development Bank to provide interest free loans for the establishment of new co-operatives and to lend to farmers outside of APRA guidelines.

### Infrastructure Development

* Develop a dam building program to drought proof the whole of Victoria within 10 years
* Build very high speed train lines between Melbourne and regional Victorian cities
* Build three new coal fired power stations (using modern low emissions super ultra-critical design.)

### Rebuilding industry

* Re-build manufacturing by creating a “re-industrialising partnership” of government, business and the unions following European post-war model including a new model of collective bargaining.
* Support the re-building of manufacturing by mandating government procurement of locally manufactured goods if available.
* Legislate “limits to local government” to prevent local councils venturing into areas outside their responsibility to pursue radical political agendas and prevent industry and agriculture operating.

### Supporting Life

* Federal and state governments must enact constitutional and legal measures establishing the right to life from conception until natural death. These measures specifically include a constitutional amendment clarifying that there is no right to abortion, as well as laws that prohibit or restrict abortion. Because human life begins at conception, the intentional destruction of human embryos in any context must end.
* Federal, state, and local governments must end taxpayer funding of organizations that provide, promote, or facilitate abortions, and of health-care plans that include abortion coverage. Such funding should be redirected to organizations that promote healthy pregnancies and prenatal care.
* We support efforts to help prevent the tragedy of suicide, including universal access to affordable mental-health care and the destigmatization of mental illness. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are a violation of disability rights, medical ethics, and human dignity, and must be prohibited in every state.
* Federal and state governments should collaborate to guarantee universal healthcare by diverse means, including single-payer initiatives, direct subsidization of provider networks, subsidized education for medical professionals willing to work in rural areas, support for cost-sharing programs and mutual aid societies, home care grants, simplified regulation, and the easing of restrictions on the importation of prescription drugs.
* Health policy must include protections for those with pre-existing, chronic, and terminal conditions. We must include those who have no means to save for an emergency, people at every stage of life from prenatal care to hospice care, and people who find themselves in need of medical assistance while away from their home network.
* The federal government needs to negotiate pricing to end corporate exploitation of the captive audience of patients.
* Repeal current abortion laws (see Abortion)
* Repeal euthanasia laws
* Repeal “anti-conversion” laws
* Facilitate adoption with 90 day approval process
* Establish a Pregnancy Support Fund to fund organisations which support women through pregnancy (eg Caroline Chisholm Society)

### Small Business

* Increase award wages for major retailers to the same level as small businesses (they are currently 25% less)
* Require the provision of seats for retail staff when not serving customers
* Increase penalty rates for large retailers for Sunday and Public holiday trading to double and triple time respectively for all employees who work on those days.
* Abolish weekend and public holiday penalty rates for small businesses with a turnover of less than $1m (but only for staff who have worked less than 40 hours in a week)
* Exempt small businesses with a turnover of less than $1m pa from “unfair dismissal laws.”
* Through the establishment of the new state Development Bank, provide small interest-free start up loans for first small business starters.
* Assist small business employment with an initial wage offset payment equal to 25% of the minimum wage for the first staff member employed for the first two years of operation.
* Oppose the concentration of retail outlets in shopping centres by limiting ownership of retail freehold premises to a maximum of 25% per corporation statewide and 50% in any one local government area.
* Support small retailers by introducing model leases which small business operators are legally empowered to elect to sign in preference to those provided by landlords. Outlaw shop lease provisions requiring retailers to provide details of their takings to shopping centre managers, outlaw the charging of retail rent based on turnover and outlaw the requirement to relocate within a shopping centre while a lease is current.
* Outlaw the imposition of opening hour requirements on individual shopkeepers by shopping centres, including outlawing shopping centres compelling shops to trade on Sunday and Public Holidays.

### Race and Gender

* Treat all Australians equally.
* End all race and gender preferences in government employment.
* End all “acknowledgement of country” recitations by government employees.
* End unfair sporting competition by transgender athletes by mandating that athletes may only compete as the biological sex based gender they were born with.
* End efforts to remove “women” from medical descriptions
* End the cultural Marxists personal pronoun war, with biological sex determining titles.
* Outlaw the teaching of race and gender issues in schools.
* Legislate to only allow the British and/or Scottish/Welsh/county flags to be flown from or displayed in government offices and on public property.
* Oppose the racist “Voice to Parliament”
* Repeal “Anti-Conversion” laws.

### Promoting Freedom

* Hold public inquiry into erosion of freedoms during COVID including lockdowns, vaccine mandates, silencing of critics of government, brutal political enforcement actions of police.
* Restore all freedoms curtailed or abrogated since commencement of pandemic.
* Legislate to prohibit any further vaccine mandates and lockdowns
* Repeal other state restrictions on free speech (eg “likely to cause offence” as an crime etc)
* Repeal laws that prevent parents counselling their children (eg “Anti Gay Conversion” laws)
* Repeal unpopular victimless crime nanny state laws (eg compulsory bike helmets for adults, bans on vaping as a quit smoking aid, banning of fireworks etc.)

### Law and Order

* End so-called “affirmative action” in police recruitment and promotion, introduce minimum height and physical strength requirements without gender bias,
* Introduce defined benefit superannuation scheme for police that pays a pensions after 20 years service
* Introduce a legal right for police to refuse immoral or politically motivated orders
* Introduce a charter of citizens rights including freedom of speech, conscience and protest
* Outlaw the use of gratuitous violence by police against peaceful protestors
* Increase minimum penalties for property crimes with mandatory jail terms for repeat offenders
* Introduce mandatory jail terms and 75% of sentence minimum non-parole periods for violent crimes
* Introduce mandatory life sentences for three-time violent offenders
* Abolish so-called “safe injecting rooms” and introduce mandatory choice of prison or rehab for drug users.
* Prohibit convicted criminals from living in public housing.

1. The introduction of a proper Constitution and Bill Of Rights for the freedom and security of the British people
2. The ending of all non-European immigration and the introduction of a voluntary policy of repatriation of all non-White immigrants and their descendants
3. The rebuilding of British capital industries by putting British industry first and ending cheap imports that undermine our British manufacturing base
4. The dissolution of the private banking system. All banks and financial institutions to be placed in mutual or co-operative rather than private hands
5. The dismantling of our enforced multi-racial society in a lawful and orderly fashion
6. A major crack down on all types of crime especially those involving drugs
7. The abolition of all types of usury and financial speculation
8. The abolition of Public Order Acts and Race Laws. The restoration of freedom of speech, thought and action
9. The outlawing of the IRA and other anti-British terror organisations
10. The withdrawal of Great Britain from the EU, NATO, the UN and all the other arms of the New World Order
11. The rebuilding of our pride in our racial and national heritage
12. The education of our young folk into being dutiful members of society through a re-organised educational system and the building of a national youth movement
13. The restructuring of the National Health Service by training and employing British doctors and nurses as opposed to importing cheap labour from abroad. The goal of making the National Health Service the best in the world
14. The immediate stopping of all foreign aid to so-called "Third World" countries
15. The revocation of Community Tax on small businesses. The abolition of VAT. The promotion of Britain's small independent businesses and the dismantling of multi-national ones
16. The ending of all monopolies and the breaking of the stranglehold that the International Bankers have on the United Kingdom
17. The encouragement of the stable family unit as the basic building block of a healthy and resurgent nation. As a Christian nation we are committed to discouraging all things which distort the family unit. The reintroduction of Clause 28.
18. Complete opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel as weapons of the New World Order
19. The replacement of all multi-cultural and alien art with natural, traditional British art forms
20. The building of a powerful Army, Navy and Air Force so that our country does not rely on NATO and can truly defend the national interests of Great Britain
21. The banning of gross pornography and the creation of a morally correct society where our children and safe from vileness and perversion.
22. The encouragement of British agriculture and an emphasis on our rural heritage as opposed to International Cosmopolitanism
23. The reduction of unemployment by boosting Britain's industry to create real jobs and not fake "job creation schemes"
24. The ending of allowing fake "asylum seekers" into Britain and the immediate expulsion of those already here, together with all other illegal immigrants
25. A moral, spiritual and physical revolution in the hearts and minds of the masses so that all become part of a healthy, clean and energetic folk state
26. We will secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
27. We will Establish Personal Pension Pots (P.P.P.s) along the lines of the Australian Superannuation Fund. For all individuals in the UK under 45 this would replace the basic state pension. Those between the ages of 45 and 55 will have the option to join the P.P.P. or remain in the basic state pension. Those over 55 will continue to remain in the basic state pension. BENEFITS: This policy will ensure that most individuals will be able to build their own personal pension pot that will be fully funded, and that can be leave to their heirs whilst not being a burden on future taxpayers. Movement from the basic state pension to a personal pension pot in the manner we favour will, we estimate, save tax payers £2.7 billion by 2040 and £11.8 billion by 2050.
28. Employment legislation disproportionately reduces demand for the unskilled and those at the tail of the worker profile i.e., older workers. Those most likely to need to top up their pension provision. A Libertarian government will free workers over 55 years of age from subjection to some of the employment legislation that discourage employers from hiring them
29. Phase out winter fuel allowance

### **Energy**

We support the use of biodigesters they get rid of waste more efficiently than landfill, produce green energy and the residue is good fertiliser

The energy market should operate in the private sector, competing in an environment of limited regulation which does not seek to pick winners.

In a vigorous, competitive energy market with all sources competing on the basis of price, quality and social factors (including environmental impact).

The price of energy must take account of its ‘whole of life’ costs and should not transfer any costs to others through any means other than price.

Believes the proper role of government is to establish consistent, objective rules for environmental impact consistent with community values. This includes the emission of pollutants by coal-fired power plants, the storage of waste by nuclear power plants, and noise pollution by wind farms.

In the establishment of a National Grid Authority to promote a well-informed market so that decisions to invest in energy distribution facilities are based on a thorough understanding of supply and demand.

In the establishment of nuclear power generation plants provided they are not subject to differential taxation or regulatory policies compared to other energy sources.

In the establishment of a uranium enrichment industry in the UK, subject to market forces.

Policy to reduce greenhouse emissions in the UK should reflect the benefits and costs to British people from reductions in British emissions. The benefits will depend on various factors including the extent to which British action affects action by more significant emitters, and scientific and economic assessments of the likely impact on the UK of reductions in global emissions.

If you put a hard limit on the retail price, then wholesale prices rise massively, any idiot can see that suppliers will go bust without some assistance.

### **Abortion**

It's morally wrong to murder a child yet people are acting like it's great. If you don't want a child then give it away for adoption or abstinence from sex. Don't murder an innocent baby and strip it of a chance at life just because you're selfish.﻿ According to a 2008 study, approximately 98% of abortions are performed because of reasons relating to “personal choice”. In other words, they are not performed because of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.

Of those in the 98%, almost 32% choose to have an abortion because they feel they are too young and not ready to take care of a child, approximately 30% because of economic pressures and other major reasons include wanting to take on a major life change, not being in a strong relationship, and feeling that one already has enough children.

We will change the 1967 Abortion Act to outlawed abortion in all but the most extreme cases: Medical examination proves that pregnancy will endanger the mother’s life

**10 scientific distinctions between a parasite and a fetus (bolds & italics added for easy perusal):**

1. A parasite is an organism of ***one*** species that lives in or on an organism of ***another*** species and receives nourishment from the host.
2. Parasites are invasive organism that come from an ***outside*** or external source. A fetus comes from an ***inside*** or internal source (ie fertilized egg)
3. Parasites are generally ***harmful*** to the hosts, fetuses may make a pregnant woman experience adverse health effects, but not nearly to the same level that a parasite generally does.
4. A parasite makes ***direct*** contact with the host's living tissues. A fetus lives in the ***placenta***, fed by the umbilical cord, both of which are fetal tissue (ie the cells come from the baby).
5. When a parasite invades a host, the host tissue will usually respond by encapsulating the parasite in order to ***cut it off*** from other surrounding tissue. In the case of a fetus, the mother’s tissue will create a lining tissue that ***connects***, rather than cuts off contact with other tissues (placenta lining).
6. Parasites usually evoke a ***surge of antibodies*** as to immunize them. With the fetus, however, a mother’s trophoblast (the shell of cells surrounding the embryo) will naturally ***block these antibodies*** so as not to reject the fetus. This reaction is only found in the embryo-mother relationship.
7. A parasite will generally ***weaken the cellular reproductive capacity*** of the host. For a fetus, the effect is the ***opposite***.
8. Parasites generally ***stay with the host for life***, a fetus leaves ***upon birth***.
9. Parasitical relationships are mostly ***harmful and unnecessary*** to the host, generally damaging the host in a variety of ways. A newborn (fetus post-birth) is ***very healthy for the mother***, bringing benefits of an emotional, cognitive and chemical nature.
10. The most obvious one, a fetus is a ***human being*** in development. It will never become anything other than human. Even a first trimester fetus will have fully developed arms, legs, ears, facial features, sex organs and a functioning heart, as well as sufficient neurological development to feel pain. A parasite is ***not a human*** and never will be.

Sources with links:

* Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite
* General Parasitology Thomas Cheng
* The Embryo As a Transplant
* The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life: Scientists of Life: 9780937930021: Amazon.com: Books
* Is the Fetus a Parasite?

### **Links**

* The New Right Denmark
* https://web.archive.org/web/20040803005636/http://www.nfse.co.uk/manifesto/manifesto.htm
* BNP Manifesto 2010
* https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/11/24/russian-lawmakers-pass-expansion-to-gay-propaganda-ban-a79489
* https://patria-uk.com/manifesto/
* English First Party
* http://www.protectionist.net/primary-polices/
* https://konfederacja.pl/program/
* https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/805256707/just-plain-ugly-proposed-executive-order-takes-aim-at-modern-architecture
* Norway Progress Party
* Denmark Democrats
* https://dksamling.dk/omds/grundsyn/

Finns Party

* Five main concerns
* Economy
* Defence and Security
* Immigration
* Language

## **Taxation – Children and “The 3 child rule”.**

For a nation, it’s axiomatic that over any period of time the number of newborn children must, at least, equal the number of deaths if the nation is to survive. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the UK and the strength of our Nation is rapidly decreasing.

It has been calculated that each married couple needs to have 2.4 children if the nation is to remain at its current size. In practice this gives rise to the “Three child rule”.

Each newborn child should automatically benefit from the infrastructure of the UK and the accumulated knowledge and skills of its ancestors. (The invading foreigners also benefit from this infrastructure but bring nothing). An important part of the infrastructure is housing. The sole reason for the housing shortage is that foreigners are inhabiting houses that should go to members of our Nation. Over the last 25 years, governments have sold off much of the publicly owned infrastructure into private hands and also taken on a huge public debt. Further under the current system of taxation, married couples pay tax on virtually an equal basis to the unmarried and the childless. The heavy burden of taxation on the young means that marriage and the ‘production’ of children are severely inhibited. In fact, it is probably only strong instinct rather than logic that today makes for marriage and children.

The current system is rapidly leading to a crisis. There are now too few children to support the massive number of retirees and the massive and growing public debt.

The following is an outline of a policy that could reverse this situation.

The weight of taxation will be moved from the young to the old and to the non-breeders.

Each newly married couple will receive a loan from the state that will enable them to buy a house. Note this is unlike the ‘Council House’ system as the couple would own their house and the scheme would be open to all citizens. The loan would be interest free and repayable on death of the couple.

Unmarried people and people in later life would be subject to increased taxation and death duties would increase markedly.

The above system allows couples to marry much younger than at present (our fathers and mothers married in their early 20s, now it is frequent for marriage to be postponed until the 30s). Couples would not have their life dominated by the need to save for, and then service, a mortgage. Money would be available to bring up children and for a decent social life.

Conversely, ‘unmarrieds’ would pay markedly increased taxes to compensate for their inability (or perhaps selfishness) that prevents them having children.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-child\_policy
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax\_on\_childlessness

## **Other**

https://www.concordatwatch.eu/salazars-concordat-1940-text--t38751

The latter text is explicitly mentioned in the first principle of the party, where it is stated that the SGP strives towards a government totally based on the Bible. This first principle also states that the uncut version of the Belgic Confession is meant, which adds the task of opposing anti-Christian powers to the description of the government's roles and tasks. The party is a strict defender of the separation between church and state, rejecting "both the state church and church state". Both church and state are believed to have distinct roles in society, while working towards the same goal, but despite this, some accuse the SGP of advocating for theocracy. The SGP opposes freedom of religion, but advocates freedom of conscience instead, noting that "the obedience to the Law of God cannot be forced".

The SGP opposes feminism and concludes, on Biblical grounds, that men and women are of equal value (gelijkwaardig) but inherently different (verschillend). Men and women, so the party claims, have different places in society. This belief led to restricting party membership to men until 2006, when this restriction became subject to controversy and was eventually removed. It has traditionally opposed universal suffrage, seeking to replace this with a form of "organic suffrage" (Dutch: huismanskiesrecht, "suffrage of the pater familias") restricted to male heads of households.

In controversial discussions in the Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer), the SGP often stresses the importance of the rule of law, parliamentary procedure and rules of order, regardless of ideological agreement. The party favours the re-introduction of the death penalty in the Netherlands. They base this on the Bible, specifically on Genesis 9:6, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man", and Exodus 21:12, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."

The party also supports a ban on the burqa in certain public places, but argues this from a security rather than religious standpoint. In foreign policy, the SGP calls for a radical reform of the European Union and opposes any further political or geographical expansion of the EU. It also calls for only the Dutch flag to be flown from official government buildings, a cut in Dutch financial contributions to the EU and opposes the potential accession of Turkey to the European Union.