Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As I said, this is why I will hold judgement until they start to try and implement these amazing ideas, like with every other party which say they will do one thing but then have to do something completely different or go back on their word.

UKIP has no real policies beyond 'kick out the foreigners and leave the EU', The rest of it is all just speculative twaddle about what they would do if they had an unlimited budget. The Liberal Democrats used to do the same thing, until they got into power and realised that they actually had to deliver on the airy promises made in opposition. Which of course proved to be impossible.

The fact that their core membership is heavily comprised of people with extremely far right leanings also does not help their cause.

The whole "if you're going to move there, learn the language!" thing makes me laugh, because I work with lots of british people in Germany, many of whom have been there for years, and many of whom don't speak a word of german even after all those years.

There are of course many who speak fluent german and integrate well, but every population of immigrants will have problems with this sort of thing. The British are no exception. I also wonder what will happen to all my british co-workers should the UK leave the EU. It will be complicated for them, and for all the other ex Pats.

As for UKIP, I reckon it's mostly a protest vote, something like Sinn Féin's increased popularity in Ireland, though more right wing because the UK, or at least especially England, is quite a right wing place by EU standards.

 dæl wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:

Would you mind saying who supports the UKIP and BNP? I would be interested to find out who they are as this affiliation should be stomped out.

UKIP claim that former membership of other far right groups such as the BNP or NF mean people are not allowed to become members, but there have been some high profile exceptions.

John Brayshaw was exposed as being Chairman of UKIP's Vale of York branch and the BNP's National Treasurer at the same time.
Trevor Agnew was a UKIP parliamentary candidate and a well known BNP activist, he was expelled from UKIP in '99 and then allowed to rejoin, after which he pledged his support to the BNP in the '03 elections.
Andrew Moffat was a UKIP parliamentary candidate, and was a member of the National Front.
Martyn Heale is Chairman of UKIP's Thanet South branch, and was also a member of the National Front and stood as an NF candidate in Hammersmith in the late 70s.
Plus this week, Alan Ryall was disowned by the party for previous membership of the BNP, but remained on ballot papers as it was too late to remove him.

And Harriet Harman once floated the idea of decriminalising incest, child pornography and lowering the age of consent to 14 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html). What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?

 Albatross wrote:
What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?

Generally speaking, if a party is made up of people of a certain type of belief or leaning (unsavoury or otherwise), that's usually a firm indicator of the sorts of beliefs that party actually has, regardless of what may be printed on the manifesto. And those beliefs will usually dictate what sort of policy would be followed if that party was in power.

 Ketara wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?

Generally speaking, if a party is made up of people of a certain type of belief or leaning (unsavoury or otherwise), that's usually a firm indicator of the sorts of beliefs that party actually has, regardless of what may be printed on the manifesto. And those beliefs will usually dictate what sort of policy would be followed if that party was in power.

So is the argument that a handful of people are an indicator of the beliefs of the whole? Because I can name several members and former members of the Labour party who should probably stand trial for war crimes, use of torture etc.

 Albatross wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?

Generally speaking, if a party is made up of people of a certain type of belief or leaning (unsavoury or otherwise), that's usually a firm indicator of the sorts of beliefs that party actually has, regardless of what may be printed on the manifesto. And those beliefs will usually dictate what sort of policy would be followed if that party was in power.

So is the argument that a handful of people are an indicator of the beliefs of the whole? Because I can name several members and former members of the Labour party who should probably stand trial for war crimes, use of torture etc.

Note the wording, 'made up'. If it's one member in a hundred, no, probably not. If its three in every five? Different ball game. Even if those last two have differing beliefs, not only are they outnumbered, but they odds are that they will stand along similar ideological grounds, or they wouldn't be part of the party in the first place.

Although this is pretty much common sense, so I'm not entirely sure why you're debating the concept.

 Ketara wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?

Generally speaking, if a party is made up of people of a certain type of belief or leaning (unsavoury or otherwise), that's usually a firm indicator of the sorts of beliefs that party actually has, regardless of what may be printed on the manifesto. And those beliefs will usually dictate what sort of policy would be followed if that party was in power.

So is the argument that a handful of people are an indicator of the beliefs of the whole? Because I can name several members and former members of the Labour party who should probably stand trial for war crimes, use of torture etc.

Note the wording, 'made up'. If it's one member in a hundred, no, probably not. If its three in every five? Different ball game. Even if those last two have differing beliefs, not only are they outnumbered, but they odds are that they will stand along similar ideological grounds, or they wouldn't be part of the party in the first place.

Although this is pretty much common sense, so I'm not entirely sure why you're debating the concept.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me at all, unless you actually believe that UKIP is made up of BNP supporters. Which would be very silly.

I think it depends on the position of these few 'bad apples,' normal folk who support BNP and want UKIP in power would not bother me. However because it is those in power who define policy and such, their beliefs and agenda will anchor itself in policy.

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf

I found this very interesting reading. I believe that there may be an intentional movement of BNP/NF membership into UKIP and that UKIP may soon become a trojan horse/5th column for the fascists as it's infection grows from within.

If the founder of UKIP is now saying the party is no longer what it was and that there are fascist elements on the rise within it, then it may be cause for concern.

For my part, watching UKIP send a ripple across the political establishment over the last year has been amusing. I think that they are essentially being used by the British public to express frustration with the three main political parties.

While the views of their individual members may vary wildly (as it will in many political parties), I think it's unsavoury members are very much in the minority, though if I intended to vote for them, I would closely investigate the individual I was voting for.

As for the whole Europe question, we need a very open debate where the whole EU is taken apart piece by piece so the British public can see what it does and how it operates warts and all. Then and only then, should we have a referendum. I believe in the EU in principle, but the current system is broken and rotten and all Europeans (not just Brits) need to see it for what it is.

I'll leave you with this...

Charles Moore wrote:Some of you may not have heard of Lady Ashton. She is the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. I am not aware of anything she has ever done that has benefited this country. When she leaves her post in 2014, she will have served five years at an annual salary (currently) of £287,543 (roughly twice what our Prime Minister earns). For this fairly short stint, she will then have a pension of £61,000 pa, and a “transitional allowance”, payable over three years, of £400,000.

 Flashman wrote:

Charles Moore wrote:Some of you may not have heard of Lady Ashton. She is the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. I am not aware of anything she has ever done that has benefited this country. When she leaves her post in 2014, she will have served five years at an annual salary (currently) of £287,543 (roughly twice what our Prime Minister earns). For this fairly short stint, she will then have a pension of £61,000 pa, and a “transitional allowance”, payable over three years, of £400,000.

Holy gak that's disgusting.

The EU needs reform, but leaving it is not a way to accomplish that reform.

There are many flaws with how the EU is run, and a desperate lack of accountability, but there are also many positive aspects to the Union.

EU is the next rising nazi regime unless it gets a total rework and fast.

UKIP are essentially a massive pressure group for the far-right, the whole of the UK was built on expansion, and it worked (to a certain extent), now the EU is trying to expand, but in the eyes of the British it is unacceptable (only a little hypocritical). In addition to this there was also the "Nazi salut" by a UKIP candidate.

 Flashman wrote:
we need a very open debate where the whole EU is taken apart piece by piece so the British public can see what it does and how it operates warts and all. Then and only then, should we have a referendum. I believe in the EU in principle, but the current system is broken and rotten and all Europeans (not just Brits) need to see it for what it is.

I agree with this entirely. There is a lot of hand waving on both sides over what the EU does and doesn't do for us, what is can and cannot do, how it does and doesn't work. I think it will be good for Europe as a whole to have far more transparent political and administrative forces.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/396218/Nigel-Farage-claims-Nazi-salute-Ukip-Candidate-was-actually-imitating-a-pot-plant


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22359298
(watch the video)


Come on guys get you'r storys straight, plant pots and mobile phones do not look alike (unless the picture is from the 1960's).

I think it will be good for Europe as a whole to have far more transparent political and administrative forces.

That won't coincide with their underhanded agenda though.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

I think it will be good for Europe as a whole to have far more transparent political and administrative forces.

That won't coincide with their underhanded agenda though.

I agree it is unlikely, but it would still be better for Europe as a whole to have

 Flashman wrote:
For my part, watching UKIP send a ripple across the political establishment over the last year has been amusing. I think that they are essentially being used by the British public to express frustration with the three main political parties.

Yes I think so too. Certainly, Nigel Farage (the UKIP leader) came across quite well when he has been on Newsnight or similar shows, simply because he sounded like a rational (albeit argumentative) human being, rather than the usual political archetype of smarmy salesman who is unable to give a firm answer about anything.

That being said, I think their ascendancy will halt the moment that the general election looms, and it becomes more widely publicised that UKIP plan to scrap the NHS if they ever get into power.

Albatross wrote:
And Harriet Harman once floated the idea of decriminalising incest, child pornography and lowering the age of consent to 14 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html). What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?

Can you honestly not see the difference between a human rights lawyer supporting an unsavoury group and standing as a candidate for the National Front?

Albatross wrote:
I'm not sure why you're arguing with me at all, unless you actually believe that UKIP is made up of BNP supporters. Which would be very silly.

Numerous studies have shown that both UKIP and the BNP draw from the same pool of support.

SilverMK2 wrote:we need a very open debate where the whole EU is taken apart piece by piece so the British public can see what it does and how it operates warts and all. Then and only then, should we have a referendum. I believe in the EU in principle, but the current system is broken and rotten and all Europeans (not just Brits) need to see it for what it is.

Well one good thing that the EU provides is that it keeps the cost of living artificially low in Britain, with such things as the Common Agricultural Policy making food far more affordable than it would otherwise be.

 dæl wrote:
Numerous studies have shown that both UKIP and the BNP draw from the same pool of support.

Then a surprising number of Brits have turned racist overnight.

Perhaps they always were.

That said, my father has joined UKIP for reasons I don't quite understand.

He hates arabs owing to experiences in Egypt and Aden in the early 50s, but he is more than happy with my Japanese wife.

I don't think he realises that a vote for UKIP is a vote for kicking his granddaughter out of the country.

It doesn't seem like racism, it seems like a kind of anti-thing-ism without proper definition.

Am I the only person who wants Britain to stay in the EU?

I don't and probably never will have a vote (Norwegian Citizenship), but one of the distinguishing features of Britain is the sheer cultural variety and integration. Unlike many countries, most communities actually function together really well.

And I feel that UKIP doesn't understand the purpose of the EU; it's really a huge support and governing network across Europe, not just a money sink.

Sure, but what it's supposed to do (massive support network/governing body) and what it does (money sink) are two very different things. I'd theorize that a lot of the opposition to EU comes from individuals who aren't particularly fans of England lowering her neck to the concept of a unified Europe and want to maintain independence. As it stands now from the current economic issues it's pretty clear the EU is either going to eventually dissolve or form into an actual state

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Am I the only person who wants Britain to stay in the EU?

It's very grey for me. If we are to stay, I want the EU to put its house in order.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
One of the distinguishing features of Britain is the sheer cultural variety and integration. Unlike many countries, most communities actually function together really well.

Indeed, it's a reason to be proud of the UK.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
And I feel that UKIP doesn't understand the purpose of the EU; it's really a huge support and governing network across Europe, not just a money sink.

Then the pro Europe crowd need to start making these points in a clear manner and sort out the latter issue. If the UK get's a referendum in the next 5 years, then with the current prevailing atmosphere, we (as a country) will vote out.

Oh, good.

It's probably a better idea to stay in the EU and try and fix it rather than just bail...

 dæl wrote:

Albatross wrote:
And Harriet Harman once floated the idea of decriminalising incest, child pornography and lowering the age of consent to 14 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html). What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?

Can you honestly not see the difference between a human rights lawyer supporting an unsavoury group and standing as a candidate for the National Front?

That unsavoury group went on to become Liberty, incidentally - she didn't just support them, she worked for them. Please look into their attitudes towards paedophila, there is some pretty shocking stuff in there. This gem, for example: "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage...'

I guess it depends which you think is worse, paedophila or racism. And she was a central part of the last Labour government, not just some local whack-job who wasn't vetted properly before being allowed to stand.

Albatross wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Albatross wrote:
And Harriet Harman once floated the idea of decriminalising incest, child pornography and lowering the age of consent to 14 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html). What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?

Can you honestly not see the difference between a human rights lawyer supporting an unsavoury group and standing as a candidate for the National Front?

That unsavoury group went on to become Liberty, incidentally - she didn't just support them, she worked for them. Please look into their attitudes towards paedophila, there is some pretty shocking stuff in there. This gem, for example: "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage...'

I guess it depends which you think is worse, paedophila or racism. And she was a central part of the last Labour government, not just some local whack-job who wasn't vetted properly before being allowed to stand.

While I honestly don't have the full context here, isn't there a difference between a party hiring someone with questionable views, and a party hiring someone with questionable views in order to gain the votes they bring? That is, did the Labour party utilize that person to go after the "pedo vote"? Because I do get the impression that the platform of the UKIP seems to be capitalizing on loose BNP ties in order to go after a vertain voting block.

Again, not much context and reference here, just editorial speculation.