British Freedom’s 20 Point Plan: a cohesive blueprint, or a misguided muddle?

Following the British Freedom Party’s relaunch under the chairmanship of Paul Weston last November, the party’s website declared that a review of policy was being undertaken, and members of the public were solicited to volunteer their opinions as to what those policies should be. However, at the same time, something new appeared on the BFP’s website: a ‘20 Point Plan’. The speed with which it was posted suggests that responsibility for the formulation of the 20 points lay with Weston himself. Clearly, he wished to stamp his mark upon the party and indicate that the BFP was making a fresh start under his leadership, but the ‘Plan’ that appeared sat uneasily with the party’s general policy platform, and continues to do so. Moreover, a number of its individual elements to a certain extent contradict each other, and as a whole, it resembles more a melange of specific policy pledges and general vague moral statements, than a cohesive thought through political programme. Woodrow Wilson forwarded only 14 points for the reordering of the entire international order in post-WWI Europe, whereas the BFP have chosen to provide us with 20. This is too high a figure.

The criticisms that follow are necessary, for it pains the author to see people joining a party that is potentially setting off on a very unsound footing, which could thereby lead to disappointment for all. If not addressed, the BFP is likely to have its electoral chances hamstrung by misjudged strategic decisions taken during its initial stages of development; it will continue to increase in size, for a time, but its membership will in all likelihood plateau at a relatively low level. Another party will then be required to address the issue which the BFP makes its primary focus – Islamisation – as part of a broader and more balanced policy mix, for the BFP will not be able to do so because of electoral failure.

Turning to the '20 Point Plan' itself, which is dealt with point by point below, it contains pledges of widely varying degrees of significance and scope, with the minor and highly specific – ‘19. Allow pubs the choice of operating as smoking or non-smoking establishments’ – sitting alongside the major and general – ‘12. Diminish the public sector and government interference in the private sector’ –  and the general and vague – ‘20. Live by Christianity’s Golden Rule: “Do unto others as thou wouldst be done by.”’ What is immediately striking about this is its total lack of focus and undergirding ideological foundation; it reads like a random wish list, with no indication as to the party’s ultimate purpose and the relative importance of each of its constituent points.

Point 1: ‘Introduce a US style First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech’.

This is good, but earlier in its incarnation the plan included a pledge to increase censorship that thankfully has been dropped. It begs the question however: does the spirit of censorship still lurk within the BFP?

Point 2: ‘Leave the profoundly undemocratic European Union’.

As with point 1, this position is to be commended, although perhaps the statement could be trimmed back to ‘Leave the European Union’ which makes it sound rather less like an indignant Peter Hitchens.

Point 3: ‘Abolish the Human Rights Act, which benefits only foreign criminals/terrorists’.

The Human Rights Act as it exists does need to be abolished, but it is incorrect to state that it ‘benefits only foreign criminals/terrorists’, for this is manifestly not true. A pledge to simply ‘Abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with legislation not open to abuse as is the case with the current act’ would be more appropriate.

Point 4: ‘Halt any further immigration for a period of five years.’

It is true that we are overpopulated and growing increasingly so by the day, and that a strict immigration policy needs to be put in place. However, why is the pledge only for five years? The rationale for halting immigration needs to be made explicit. Does this include, hypothetically speaking, a respectful Japanese Honda executive and his family taking up temporary residence to oversee a new project creating jobs in a productive sphere of our manufacturing economy? Would it apply to expats who had emigrated to Australia, Canada or New Zealand who wished to return to Britain? This statement needs to be clarified and rewritten.

Point 5: ‘Deport foreign criminals, seditious dual nationality Islamists and illegal immigrants.’

Agreed.

Point 6: ‘Abolish all multicultural and equality quangos.’

Agreed. However, as with point 3 consideration needs to be given to the legitimate welfare of some people – specifically those with disabilities – who could be adversely affected by such a blanket statement. Safeguards should be put in place to ensure that where practicable those suffering from disabilities who wish to work and are capable of working, are able to do so.

Point 7: ‘Halt and turn back all aspects of the Islamisation of Britain, including Sharia finance.’

Agreed. It would be strengthened if it were to include a pledge to abolish inhumane religious slaughter.

Point 8: ‘Drastically reduce crime – criminals should fear the consequences of their behaviour.’

This has the ring of ‘Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime.’ It is just about as credible, and is not a policy statement. Does it really mean anything? There is a certain unappealing tub-thumping windiness about it, which almost makes the reader ponder: does the BFP wish to introduce Shariah?

Point 9: ‘Repair the damage wreaked by the progressive educational establishment.’

Define the ‘damage’ and ‘progressive educational establishment’, as well as make clear what it is that you intend to do. This statement, as with a number of others, highlights the uncertainty as to what the 20 Point Plan actually is. Is it, a) a statement of moral principles; b) a statement of general political intent; c) a list of specific policy commitments.

Point 10: ‘Promote British values and assimilation, rather than multiculturalism and division.’

Insert the word ‘cultural’ before ‘assimilation’.

Point 11: ‘Rebuild Britain’s Armed Forces to 1980 levels.’

Why? Our security environment is now completely different to that which existed during the era of the high Cold War. We need a proper strategic review of our armed forces, and for them to be reprofiled to create a defensive force that is capable of meeting the needs of defending our homeland and specific interests at a further remove.

Point 12: ‘Diminish the public sector and government interference in the private sector.’

This statement can be used to conceal all manner of ills, and provide cover for potentially axing services required by, for example, the elderly. Given that the plan makes no mention of foreign capital or economic policy other than this, it suggests that services such as the NHS could be threatened by profit-making US transnational corporations. This should be a cause of some disquiet, and presents the most glaring mismatch between the BFP’s position pre-Weston, and its position today. The BFP’s economic direction of travel is now a matter of serious concern, and represents a major flaw in its approach. Weston recently announced that only ‘Capitalism’ was compatible with ‘Western Civilisation’, thereby revealing a doctrinaire adherence to a failed model of economics that has led us to the current globalised mess in which we find ourselves.

Point 13: ‘Withdraw troops from all areas where we are not directly threatened.’

Agreed.

Point 14: ‘Cancel foreign aid to countries which do not deserve or need it.’

Agreed, although this could benefit from being rephrased.

Point 15: ‘End welfare payments to immigrants; they must pay for their housing and children.’

This statement is somewhat vague. How are ‘immigrants’ defined? This requires clarification. Moreover, should this not be considered a subsidiary, although important element of, immigration policy?

Point 16: ‘Ensure no elderly person lives in fear, and can afford both heat and food in the winter.’

The sentiment is fine, but what does it mean practically? It sounds like something taken from a rewritten version of the New Testament. Given the party’s proposed attack on the public sector, how are the large numbers of pensioners on low incomes going to be provided with lives not bedevilled by poverty? An explicit statement regarding pensions, minimum incomes and home care is required, otherwise this is meaningless.

Point 17: ‘Ensure that a no class-A drugs policy is enforced.’

The author is of the opinion that such drugs, along with alcohol abuse, unhealthy diets and lack of physical activity, are all potential causes of early death and psychological problems. Whilst not advocating the use of class-A drugs, the author subscribes to a non-prohibitionist stance and supports decriminalisation for individual users. The current drugs problem should be viewed from within the wider context of public health and education and should be approached accordingly. A punitive approach needs to be directed towards the criminal gangs that often target young girls, get them hooked on heroin and then pimp them out, not at the users themselves. 

Point 18: ‘Promote morality, marriage, the family, the community and the nation state.’

How? This is not really a policy, and these matters should simply be embedded within specific policies. The first two words smack of potential cant.

Point 19: ‘Allow pubs the choice of operating as smoking or non-smoking establishments.’

A fair suggestion, but why does this point rank alongside leaving the EU and halting immigration for five years as a policy priority? Although perfectly fine as a policy, it is not a first rank concern.

Point 20: ‘Live by Christianity’s Golden Rule: “Do unto others as thou wouldst be done by.”’

Once again, fine sentiments, but leave religion out of the equation: this is Britain, not the US Bible Belt. Is it a statement of policy? No. So, how would this imply the BFP should treat young people who find themselves in the miserable position of having become addicted to heroin or crack? Would the party punish them for this ‘sin’ by criminalising them, or would it treat them with compassion by helping them to overcome their addiction through treatment and rehabilitation?

Conclusion

The BFP needs to decide what it is for and to develop a clear and cohesive plan with a handful of core objectives rather than the above list which is disjointed and chaotic. It needs to define its ideology, and to include those elements of its '20 Points' that it wishes to retain in its manifesto. Has it failed to do so because there exists a significant split between its founding principles and those of its new leadership? Currently, its '20 Point Plan' appears to be a Neocon graft onto a nationalist body, speaking with the voice of Peter Hitchens. As such, its tone at times drifts into cant, which grates on the nerves of many people.


It seems odd that nowhere amongst these points is there any criticism of globalism and globalisation. How many nationalists who have recently joined feel at ease with this omission, as well as the lack of focus on industrial and economic policy? Might they not find their views better accommodated within a new, democratically accountable and forward-looking nationalist party? If, as someone with a degree of sympathy towards the BFP, the author has managed to find so many flaws with its '20 Point Plan', how many will its opponents find? How would the general public perceive it? Overall, it needs a serious rethink. It would benefit from addressing the questions and concerns raised here.