Is UKIP a bigger threat than the BNP?


UKIP's 'respectable' image is a façade....

Labour does like a bit of a ruck against the BNP. It tends to motivate activists and often galvanise support too; this was especially true in the last General Election. Of course, there are issues about how far the BNP’s agenda tends to permeate through to Labour campaigns as we saw in the case of Phil Woolas and often see, I would submit, in our leaderships attitude towards immigration and sometimes other issues.

This is not the only problem however, this article on Conservative Home got me wondering if we might also be missing who the real threat is from the right. It’s an interesting and thoughtful piece. Certainly, like the authors, I think it would be naive in the extreme to rule out the rise of a radical right party in Britain. This is one way a crisis in democracy (which I believe we are currently in) could negatively resolve itself; in a anti-democratic alliance of the dispossessed and disenfranchised around a radical right party.

The article rightly recognises the similarities between UKIP and the BNP and that the former is more ‘acceptable’ and therefore has broader electoral appeal. Worryingly for Labour it shatters the illusion that UKIP voters tend to be more middle class fellow travellers of the Conservatives. It argues there are essentially two kinds of UKIP supporter:

On one side are ‘strategic defectors’, who vote UKIP at European elections, but then return to the Conservatives at domestic general elections where more is at stake. These voters tend to be more economically secure, more middle class and motivated mainly by their Euroscepticism. On the other side, however, are the ‘core loyalists’ who vote UKIP in Westminster elections as well as European Parliament polls. It is the ‘core loyalists’ who have most in common with BNP supporters: they are poorer, more working class and more dissatisfied with the main parties. This electorate resembles those voting for far more successful radical right parties elsewhere in Europe.

If we take this as being broadly true you can easily imagine how UKIP’s support could quickly rise. The economic security of the first kind of voter is being shattered into a thousand pieces and what is more this isn’t by a Labour government but by a conservative Coalition one. It’s possible that some of the second kind are coming over too Labour through fear but the question has to be asked still if we represent their concerns. My submission is we don’t; when we engage with them all we do is reflect their prejudices back at them rather than give them a positive agenda for change.

I think the leadership prefers fighting the BNP because its so much easier. Essentially, all you have to do is demonise them and shout Nazi at them, mobilise campaigns like Hope Not Hate and its pretty much job done. Fighting UKIP however, would probably require alot more and this something the leadership doesnt want to do  because it would involve filling the empty hole left by the abandonment of socialism that not even Tony Blair in the prime of his electoral omnipotence could manage to fill more than temporarily with the vaporous ‘third way’.

My feeling is that the problem in general with radical right movements is they sometimes struggle to sustain long-term electoral challenges. This stems from the fact that they become too reliant on becoming a party of Parliamentary/electoral protest and they fail to gel this with a ‘street movement’ outside of Parliament.  However, in UKIP’s case the problem seems to be currently very different; it’s  unable to muster a truly credible record in Westminster elections and severely under-performs as even a vehicle of electoral protest.

However, UKIP  benefits from the fact it is not targeted and mobilised against in the same way the BNP is. No Hope not Hate campaigns run against UKIP in the way they do against the BNP. It’s pretty much allowed to tootle on and go quietly about its business. If we are to face the threat from the radical right then not only do we need to start offering a positive programme for the radical transformation of society we need to also, without letting the battle against the BNP slip, make sure we are targeting UKIP too. A failure to do this could have serious consequences not just for Labour but for our entire society…

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

About darrellgoodliffe

n.a

42 responses to “Is UKIP a bigger threat than the BNP?”

  1. Doktorb says :

    There is certainly increasing electoral and opinion poll evidence which points to UKIP cementing itself as the “4th party”.

    (You could say they are, to some extent, taking the place of the LibDems as ‘the party of protest’, indeed as a largely libertarian sort [ish], UKIP are broadly taking the same space on some parts of the political spectrum]

    For almost as long as I can remember, my point about the BNP and the organised protests against them has always been, to paraphrase the Good Book, by their words shall they be judged. Sharing a platform with the BNP isn’t really that stupid an idea; their candidates usually drag their knuckles or chew their foot before the first half-hour is up. As we are now witnessing, the BNP are deflating like a pin-pricked balloon. In the end, they destroyed themselves, our protests against them helped, they adminstered the self-harm.

    UKIP are a different prospect. People from across class and social divides have an opinion on their main schtick (Europe) and the new brand of anti-Establishment, quasi-libertarian stuff Farage is trying to promote. Suddenly UKIP are taking stronger and firmer places in local council by-elections, with glossy leaflets and smart candidates (in Manchester last night, UKIP beat both LibDems and BNP into third).

    Labour and left-leaning folk generally tend to be very slap-dash with their enemies. UKIP is a problem because they are collect a much wider array of people. “Power to the people” seems to be the rallying call for so many across modern British political opinion these days; when all three main parties seem obsessed with Westminster village, why not feel attracted to a party with “independence” in its name?

    Like

  2. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Dortokb,

    I think your right though there is a serious question mark over whether they can translate that as I say. Maybe they are, yes.

    I am not for ‘no platforming’ the BNP. I agree actually that its better to let them speak and damage themselves rather than make them ‘victims’; something that only helps them.

    Your right. I think UKIP are a different kettle of fish. What you point too is that they have more coherency than the BNP who when they are seriously challenged end up sounding as patently ridiculous as they actually are.

    Your right, they can be and again your right. This is a problem because Labour is too electoralist in its focus. I have no doubt of the potency of the rallying call for ‘power to the people’;- that’s why I bang on about democracy so much and the need for the left to reclaim it.

    Like

  3. John Reid says :

    Robert Kilroy silk a former Labour M.P went on to be a UKIP MEP and the press is full of articels about at least 2 labour m.P.s who may join them, I thought he tory home article over looked the fact that Ukip want a flat tax adn BNP want to renationalise everything

    Like

  4. Paul Perrin says :

    The conservative home article misses a very important change.

    If there was a section of UKIP support that was borrowed from the Conservatives, it returned to the Conservatives because they believed that Cameron and Hague truly were EU Sceptic. Those supporters believed the claims that *once in power* Cameron and Hague would show their true EU Sceptic colours and save the UK.

    However, now that Cameron and Hague can show their true colours, it is clear those colours are no more EU Sceptic than Labour were or LibDems are.

    Feeling betrayed, and taken for fools, the flood gates are open and EU Sceptics who had stuck with the Conservatives now know that they only have one option – UKIP.

    Like

  5. Robert says :

    John mate you mean the nBNP are like old labour?, both the BNP and UKIP are more to do with a protest vote, then have any real chance of becoming a ruling party.

    We talk about the evil of the BNP yet it’s the Tories that had to stop immigrants women and children being placed in interment camps, not labour. Thirty years ago it was Labour that fought for the immigrants, but of course when the Swing voters labour loved moaned about immigration you had Brown running around. I mean the BNP came out with British Jobs for British workers, three days later Brown stated the same thing.

    Go back forty years ago and you would never have gotten labour to go to war, now we are in two and we have a millionaire labour leader who made his money in America telling them how seriously difficult it was to get his labour movement to back him in the war.

    we all know the BNP are not going to get elected to rule, but a few MPs might wake up some of the labour party.

    Like

  6. Gillig says :

    As a “core” UKIP voter I would like to give my reasons.
    UKIP is non racist/sectarian.
    UKIP wants the UK government to make its own rules on; Immigration, the Economy, Foreign Policy. Agriculture, Industry, Law and Human Rights.
    These sovereign decisions have been handed to the EU. Quietly and drip feed, over a succession of parliaments.
    The Queen has sovereign powers in the UK. Bless!
    This government do not want sovereign powers, as evidenced in the current, ridiculous, referendum lock debate.
    What are we paying this government for?
    To decide whether to make a decision?
    The AV referendum is a perfect example. Why pay politicians to spend our money on referendums? To decide things they are employed to decide? What is the excuse for leaving; voter’s right to sack MP’s; out of the referendum? It was in the Lib manifesto!! It was in UKIP’s manifesto first.
    If any non racist/sectarian party declared its intention to pull out of the EU as a stand or fall policy, no referendum, they could get my vote. Only if you don’t value your vote enough to use it on principle will you see UKIP as dangerous.

    Like

  7. Robert says :

    Not to sure because the EU is very good at taking over peoples minds, a new sign has just gone up my my small backwater, with a new Town center it says this is a EU funded project.

    Wales Scotland and Ireland have made a fortune out of the EU, sadly Ireland was living off this funding very dangerous.

    Like

  8. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Gillig,

    Thanks for your comment. Sadly, none of what you said explains the above poster now does it nor does it address itself to UKIP’s immigration policy…

    Like

  9. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Paul,

    Not so sure you are being fair on Conservative Home there. You might be right about the second type of voter it identifies but you have to factor in the more complicated range of things which determine peoples voting behaviour. The article acknowledges the Euroskeptic influence but doesn’t see it as the sole determinant of UKIP’s support and lets be honest, if it were then they wouldn’t have a chance in Westminster elections which are still overwhelmingly determined by peoples views on other issues most notably the economy.

    @Robert,

    I too miss the days when Labour defended immigrants. It’s immigration policy is a disgrace…

    Like

  10. Gillig says :

    darrellgoodliffe .
    Where did you get this image from?
    UKIP’s immigration policy is to take back control of our immigration , quantity and quality from the EU. Our present puppet government can only limit non EU immigrants, they are keeping too many good people out. I find most voters are unaware of the open door policy to the EU and the EU ethnic ghetto’s deleloping around our city’s. They should certainly be told that Cameron was in Turkey last year, campaigning for it’s entry to the EU, much to the dissatisfaction of other European nations. Another potential 80 million people at the open door!

    Like

  11. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Gillig,

    Can’t remember the website but its obviously a UKIP poster.

    You reference everything to the EU but that’s not quite the full story now is it? It’s also to halt *all* immigration for at least five years. The notion that admittance of Turkey to the EU will lead to 80 million immigrants is complete and utter nonsense and you know it. This may shock the demagogues of UKIP but somebody having a right doesn’t mean they exercise it automatically.

    I have no problem with an open door. In fact, I say sling the door wide open. This is the only consistently democratic response to peoples basic human rights which include complete freedom of movement without restriction. You try and sell them your racist, bigoted myths and socialists will tell them the truth about this rubbish.

    Like

  12. Gillig says :

    Calm down darrellgoodliffe .
    I suspect you made this poster yourself.
    Look up potential in a dictionary.
    Close the door when you grow up.

    Like

  13. Gillig says :

    Darrell Goodliffe
    Regarding your digital image.
    All genuine UKIP templates are traceable back to source. If you cannot remember where you found it, we will have to assume you made it. It would be sensible, and good manners, for you to remove it from your blog until you can prove provenance.
    If you are trying to quote from UKIP’s policy statements, please use the whole sentence:-
    “ UKIP has proposed an immediate five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. “ Not “ALL IMMIGRATION”.
    This is your article, your blog, you raised the question with me on UKIP, s immigration policy. Please explain Labors racist policy of allowing EU members an open door, and limiting the rest of the world. You are the expert, you say; “You try and sell them your racist, bigoted myths and socialists will tell them the truth about this rubbish.”
    Your personal policy of unrestricted freedom of movement answers your opening question. Yes UKIP are a bigger threat, as is anyone who has read “Noddy does politics.” When you get elected, send my tax bill to; Number 1. The Pavement, Planet Earth.

    Like

  14. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Gillig,

    I didnt make it myself. I found it on a site called MunkeyWebs but since its hard to tell the precise nature of the website I took it down. Nonetheless I wont apologise because it doesnt change the fact your a party of racist bigots.

    Since most immigration is for permanent settlement (the only exception I can think of off the top of my head are overseas students) that is a false dichotomy.

    The precise question you raise is to do with the nature of the agreements within the EU as a political body. I agree they don’t go far enough. I agree the rest of the world should have the same rights but then again I am a consistent democrat – you are not.

    See how you mock democracy and human rights. Says an awful lot about your politics I would say…

    Like

  15. Paul Perrin says :

    @darrellgoodliffe

    You claim ‘most immigration is for permanent settlement’, but the official figures here say rather different…
    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=260

    For each year it shows over half as many people leaving as arriving – exactly the opposite of your claim (which is about as accurate as your assessment of UKIP generally)

    The freeze UKIP proposed at the last election was for settlement – people coming here to work would have been subject to work visas and race/nationality/creed/colour would have been irrelevant.

    UKIPs colourblindness is in contrast to LibLabCon who are happy for white Europeans to come and go as they please, but have pretty much frozen all immigration (for work and settlement) for black, brown and yellow people from Africa, India and China etc…

    The current mad LibLabCon consensus policy is damaging the city – by excluding desperately needed skilled finance workers from outside the EU, while leaving the door open for unskilled and un-needed labour from the EU.

    Like

  16. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Paul,

    It gets so much worse doesn’t it? You do realise how stupid you have just made the UKIP claims we are being ‘swamped’ due to immigration look aren’t you?

    So, you are basically happy to exploit peoples labour but not give them any fundamental rights? What brilliant people UKIP are.

    Your not racially blind. You ignorantly blame immigrants for ‘our problems’ and then when it suits you expose the totally bankrupt logic of your own argument.

    More rights for capital and capitalists; that’s just what we need after they have brought the economy to its knees. Good luck arguing that on the doorstep. I am sure bringing in more bankers will really impress the voters.

    Like

  17. Paul Perrin says :

    @darrellgoodliffe You can build straw men, hold them up and knock them down if you like – but you are only fooling/impressing yourself.

    You were clearly clueless on immigration figures but cast aspersions all the same. If immigration was mainly for settlement you slag off UKIP, if they weren’t you slag off UKIP.

    One has to conclude that slagging of UKIP is your purpose regardless of any facts/figures – because the facts/figures are (as you demonstrate) irrelevent to your position.

    I see the title of your blog is ‘Moments of Clarity’ – should you have one may be there would be something to discuss – but your blind, rabid approach based on ignorance doesn’t suggest this is likely.

    Like

  18. Gillig says :

    Darrell Goodliffe
    Thank you for the new picture.
    I am interested to hear from you and any other Lab/Lib/Con contributors, how you can justify to yourselves, giving your vote, to parties with a blatant racist immigration policy.

    Like

  19. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Paul,

    Ok then I did make a generalisation. One you effectively argued against. However, in doing so you destroyed the whole premise of UKIP’s argument that we are being ‘swamped’ by immigrants and therefore destroyed the case for a restriction did you not? How, given the figures you produced justify the assertion that with so many people not settling the UK has an immigration ‘problem’?

    I don’t think any supporter of the disgrace of a Party that is UKIP is really in any position to lecture anybody about ignorance do you?

    Like

  20. Gillig says :

    Has anyone got an answer to this simole question?

    Like

  21. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Gillig,

    Your welcome.

    It’s quite simple really. Labour’s leadership and policies are not things I 100% agree with. I quite openly deplore the immigration policies of our leadership and oppose them openly.

    You may well come back that the same is true of UKIP and maybe it is to some degree. Maybe there are members of UKIP whose views on immigration are not the same as the leaderships. When I make my comments I am commenting on the programme of UKIP as a Party. However, I will say this. The smaller parties are, the less broader churches they tend to be. It’s also the case that smaller parties tend to attract more ‘single issue voters’ so I would wager more within Labour oppose the leadership on immigration than their are within UKIP who do the same and that’s partially due to the nature of the beast.

    Like

  22. Paul Perrin says :

    @darrellgoodliffe You are clearly going for cheap shots in the hope of provocation – but it wont work.

    You are making things up attributing them to UKIP and expecting me to defend them… They are *your* strawmen – nothing to do with me and nothing to do with UKIP.

    You did actually look at the graph didn’t you? Read the figures? Understand them? If so you will see that the number of people settling in the UK is growing.

    I don’t see a shortage of people in the UK – do you? If not, what are these new settlers going to do here? How are they to be supported? Where are they to live? Where are they to work? Where are their children to go to school? If they get sick where are they to be treated?

    Its got nothing to do with race, creed or colour. Our bit of rock sticking out of the north sea, off the coast of europe could be a land of plenty for all its citizens – but the golden goose is sinking. And the people who will suffer most are those whom see it as their home and have nowhere else to go.

    Like

  23. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Paul P

    I’m making things up am I? I suggest you look at the picture at the top of this page.

    Shock, Horror, more people. How will we ever cope? They will be supported by the state and a society that is actually driven by need and necessity and things are produced as needed, not as and when they become profitable. A society like that would have no problem coping with as many people as you care to throw at it.

    No, it will never be a land of plenty for all except the few under capitalism and thats where your very much mistaken and all you say is bunk to be honest. Funny, I could swear there was such a thing as emigration so saying they have nowhere else to go is a lie isnt it?

    Like

  24. Gillig says :

    Darrell Goodliffe
    I don’t understand why you do it, but I accept your right to vote for a racist party.
    Perhaps we could move on to another doorstep favourite, the health service.
    Now that the EU is proposing an open door policy on my NHS, and the acceptance of this by Lab/Lib/Con will probably be sneaked through. Would you oppose Labours adoption of this policy, on the grounds that our NHS should be open to the rest of the world?

    Like

  25. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Gillig,

    Your calling them out for the wrong reasons though. Yes, there are disturbing overtones in some things the leadership says. However, the reason they allow immigrants from the EU is because of the progressive open borders policy that polity has. I welcome that as a step forward towards a world wide opening of all borders. I accept its limitations but call for the extension of that policy not condemn and dismiss it.

    No I wouldn’t oppose it on those grounds at all because its a step in the right direction. If somebody takes one step in the right direction it would be remiss of me to tell them to turn around. I rather encourage them to move forward….

    Like

  26. Gillig says :

    And free at the point of need?

    Like

  27. Gillig says :

    Darrell Goodliffe
    Perhaps that is a bit of a hard one.
    Let’s stay on the doorstep and do economy.
    Gordon Brown gave billions of my tax money to failing private businesses. Would a Labour government do the same again?
    Would Labour accept a PM who has not been leader of the party at a general election?
    The EU wants to impose a Euro tax on me. Would you say no?
    I have paid in to the NHS all my working life. Will I be in the queue for an operation behind people from countries with no NHS?

    Like

  28. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Gillig,

    Ok. Probably yes because its wedded to preserving capitalism.

    Yes probably though I think like in this as well as the other instance they would be wrong too.

    No, probably not. Id like to see the consolidation of the European polity and the dissolution of the national one.

    Depends who arrives first doesn’t it? Under capitalism we pay into a myriad of things which we do not actually own nor do we have an automatic entitlement too. I would like to see a European wide NHS and indeed is it not the case that our status affords British citizens benefits when it comes to healthcare on European shores?

    Like

  29. Gillig says :

    Knock knock: Who’s there?
    My name is Darrell Goodliffe, I invite you to vote Labour because: – We would allow unrestricted immigration from the EU, while discriminating against the rest of the world.
    “You are racist.”
    It’s quite simple really. Labour’s leadership and policies are not things I 100% agree with. I quite openly deplore the immigration policies of our leadership and oppose them openly.
    “You are a hypocrite.”
    We would give your NHS to the EU, and hope to hear from them soon about how much this will cost you.
    “I have paid in to the NHS all my working life. Will I be in the queue for an operation behind people from countries with no NHS?”
    Depends who arrives first
    “Is that a yes?”
    BLA! BLA! Under capitalism we pay into a myriad of things which we do not actually own nor do we have an automatic entitlement too. I would like to see a European wide NHS and indeed is it not the case that our status affords British citizens benefits when it comes to healthcare on European shores? BLA!
    “Yes Little Noddy.”
    We will run the economy just like Gordon did, and let the EU impose a new tax you.
    “The EU is an authoritarian dictatorship, ruled by unelected bureaucrats, to the detriment of national sovereignty. What right have they got to tax me?”
    We will run the economy just like Gordon did, and let the EU impose a new tax you, and offer a referendum.
    “I really like the banner, and I agree that we need sensible restrictions on immigration.”
    *Goodbye*

    Like

  30. John Reid says :

    gillig ,Darrell doesn’t speak for the labour party, I’ve been a member for nearly 24 years, i supportedd them through the 87 election, come election day io just couldn’t bring myself to vote from em, So i’m not knocking Darrell for joing labour t the election last year ,having left the lib dems, but it would take 20 years of trotskyite style infultration to get Labour to where Darrell wants it, no i dont think he’s a real trot either

    Like

  31. Gillig says :

    John Reid
    Sir

    Answer on behalf of the Labour party then!
    The policies still stink!
    Lets hear you defend racism and uncontrolled immigration.
    The National Debt and the EU healthcare con.

    Like

  32. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Gillig,

    How many times do we have to go through this? Until you engage with reality? If you dont like the fact that these immigration controls ‘discriminate against the rest of the world’ the solution is simple – join me in the fight for open borders. If you dont then I think its fair to say people will question your complaints on these grounds. In fact, they may well rightly conclude your only making the point to score political points and they would be right and would ignore you are the opportunist you are.

    No, i’m not. Do you agree with every dot and comma of what the UKIP leadership says? If you do then your more likely to be a drone than a real human being. Most members of political parties disagree with their leadership on something.

    No, it is what it is.

    I agree there is a democratic deficit within the EU but this is something I would like to end and its not what really concerns you so dont pretend it is.

    I don’t agree with any restrictions on immigration and dont agree with Gordon Browns economic policy though I have to say its better than what Dumb and much Dumber are currently offering us so I would take it over that.

    @John,

    There are literally so many contradictions within that paragraph its hard to know where to start…

    Like

  33. Gillig says :

    We will have to use your version of reality.
    You now have free movement in and out of the UK.
    How do you hold an election?
    Who is eligible to vote?
    How do you collect tax?
    How do you control movement of goods and money?

    Finally, you say;
    “I agree there is a democratic deficit within the EU but this is something I would like to end and its not what really concerns you so dont pretend it is.”
    I am not pretending. I vote for what I believe, and UKIP value my vote.

    Like

  34. John Reid says :

    you don’t know where to start, How about Labour still supports crap things like the DNA database, I assume you don’t ,
    contrary to Aj leaving the shadow chacellor Job, EB hasn’t said anything differnet, so we still would eventually like to get rid of the 50p tax rate, I assume you’d like it kept,
    Troops out of Iraq only when the jobs done, whats your view on that Darrell,
    Has The shadow cabinet criticised Jacks straw “Some Asian Muslim men groom white women” comments.

    look at Laurie penny, Sam Tarry and Sunny Hundal, all of them want to take labour to the Left, Rod Liddle a laobur member who supports Andy Burnham ,can’t stand them,
    Ken Livingstone wants to get Luftur the Tower hamlets mayor back in the party, Ed M and the NEC don’t

    Like

  35. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @Gillig,

    Everybody who is resident in this country is eligible to vote. Err the same way you always do….opening the borders doesn’t mean the automatic end of the nation state. It just seriously undermines it in favour of of transnational and global governance which like it or not is the future.

    You do pretend because you raise it as an objection to my points when for you its not a problem.

    @John,

    Indeed, its a long list.

    Our troops are out of Iraq. Id like them out of Afghanistan too.

    I’ve addressed that issue before. You may feel that way. I think Luftur will be back sooner or later much in the manner Ken was.

    Like

  36. John Reid says :

    Blair only got Livingstone backas he needed to do things hte party didn’t really want but the electortate did to try to help him win the 2005 election, same as Fox hunting ban, might to appeal to people who were going to vote libdem otherwise,

    Will Ed M feel that getting Luftur back increase people to vote labour, seeing as there are a couple of people who left for the SDP 30 years ago whowere thinking of rejoining now, but since seeing Ed M’s record aren’;t going to ,if anything Ed M is more likely to try to want to get David Owen bacxk than Luftur, remeber livingstone didn’t even endorse LAbour at the 2001 election and it took him 4 years to rejoin, despiter being 10% ahead in the opinion polls nationally ,Boris is still about 5% ahead of Ken in who’s gonna be major in 2012.

    Like

  37. darrellgoodliffe says :

    @John,

    Maybe but Blair didn’t win the 2005 election with a ringing endorsement now did he.

    If Ed is serious about healing the self-inflicted wounds in Tower Hamlets then Lutfur should be allowed back.

    Like

  38. John Reid says :

    O.k then get Ed to slam Tony Benn for beign so bloody minded after the 83 election fo saying labour lot it s it wassn’t left wig enough and say that after that eelction laobur should have junked tax and spend ,being anti rio police and stop and search, should have got rid of the closed shop polict sraight away rather than 6 years later.

    Like

  39. Gillig says :

    darrellgoodliffe
    World government will happen, it nearly happened 70 years ago.
    It is human nature to seek a leader, as you personally are doing.
    The EU is corrupt, or as you say “democratically deficient.”
    I want quality, not quantity, in government.
    Liblabcon/EU lost a generation of voters at the last election. You will never be world leaders.
    World government will happen despite you, it is ridiculous to waste your vote trying to speed it up. You are in the meantime, by your own admission, supporting a racist policy that is distorting the global ethnic mix of my country.
    You have stated twice that I should not be concerned about the EU.
    1/ “I agree there is a democratic deficit within the EU but this is something I would like to end and it’s not what really concerns you so don’t pretend it is.”
    2/ “You do pretend because you raise it as an objection to my points when for you it’s not a problem.”
    Arrogant, condescending, patronising, ignorant, hypocritical racist. Pick your labels; while you are trying to work out the answers to the simple questions you are avoiding.
    You clearly have no allegiance to Liblabcon and see them and the EU as a vehicle for your own poorly thought out, schoolboy vision of World Government. You have no respect for the value of your vote, while thinking it is more valuable than mine.
    As for the “points you raise”, I have read back through this blog, and I can’t find any. The title ” Is UKIP a bigger threat than the BNP?” remains unanswered.

    Like

  40. John Reid says :

    Ukip has now come out in favour of AV, Bnp still agaisnt,

    Like

  41. Gillig says :

    The prevailing mood within UKIP as far as I have detected is “who cares”.
    If Liblabcon want to publicly confirm their detachment from reality, by holding this referendum, my main objection would be that it is a waste of money. If parliament can’t decide a small matter like this, what are we paying them for?
    Real voting reforms will be in the next UKIP manifesto, and will send a shiver through the complacent political classes.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: