just been reading it, and i have to say in the main it all sounds pretty good...most of their policies make sense...even some of those regarding immigration etc
then you come to the...dodgy ones
my point is whoever wrote this obviously isnt too bright when it comes to wording things cleverly... because it seems they just blurt things out, rather than considerin the ramifications of their words...they come across often as the pub bore ignorantly mouthing off and generally talking crap, and given the nature of the comments they seem to have given no consideration to 'softening the blow'
seems to me that with a bit of clever wording, many of their policies would not get such a hostile reaction
if they had perhaps hired someone with 'a way with words' to soften and almost hide their sentiments...could they even have stood a genuine chance of winning?
what go you think?
just to say, i in no way support the BNP - i am pretty 'left' in my thinking...i am just asking this question in a purely curious way, and because words have power, i am surprised that they have worded the document this way and appear to have given little thought to how they could have created a linguistic 'smokescreen' and got more votes.
( i havent looked at the other parties yet and i have no doubt that some of them do the smae)
this is not a BNP bashing post, so please no rants etc - just stick to the question please
i also will not respond to anyone who doesnt read the post properlty and decides to have a go at me or accuse me of somehting...this is purely and totally a question about usage of clever wording and its power...
thanks
http://www.general-el...NP-Manifesto-2010.pdf