Anthony Butcher

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3555786
http://www.politics.co.uk/party-politics/labours-european-head-rounds-on-ukip-$3485451.htm
If we are anti-immigration, why is our policy not to block all immigration? The fact that we want to change the way immigration is handled doesn't mean that we are against it.

And what on earth does "anti-foreigner" mean? Is it even a word? How can we be against foreign people? This is a propaganda attack, pure and simple.

It seems to me that Mr Titley's grasp of the English language, and logic for that matter, is somewhat lacking.

Lafayette

A combination of propaganda and using some of the concerns of UKIP members against them. When people began to express concern over a flood of Eastern Europeans after the recent additions to the EU, this was labeled as xenophobia and hate-mongering, rather than a legitimate issue of a people who felt that a distant bureacracy was telling them to open the gates without thought for how the cheaper labor would impact their own jobs. It is an old technique to paint one's opponent as ignorant, backwards, and filled with old-fashioned beliefs If they are successful enough at it, it will cost UKIP possible future supporters and some of the present ranks too.

Are there debates in the UK, where members of various parties argue on national television to help the public become aware of their platform? Something like that might be helpful to crush the stereotype of the UKIP member that they are trying to create. Also, does the UKIP have spokespeople of different race? Adding more faces to the party to go along with the traditional "British" might be good, a way to declare that Britain is not only not opposed to immigrants, but that it welcomes them from anywhere, as long as they enter the country according to the rule of British law and not that of the EU.

I know BNP supporters will disagree with me, but from across the ocean it looks like they are hurting far more than they are helping. Just the very mention of their name gets people going with denials of any affiliation, so I would say they are within an inch of becoming political poison.

Anthony Butcher

The BNP are a malicious bunch. They regularly post articles on their website designed to incite racism in Britain, and reinforce some of the nonsense that their supporters believe.

A common tactic is to build a tale of evil asians getting away with all kinds of crime and violence while innocent white people are victimised. They paint a picture of a government hell-bent on supporting ethnic groups to the detriment of white people. BNP is then presented as the saviour of the repressed white citizens. While occasionally there are elements of truth, their stories are the equivalent of the worst kind of tabloid journalism.

A good example of this was discussed here:
http://www.ukipforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=16

shadbolt

I am sure the references were to BNP. UKIP is a very respectable party which drew major support from the electorate at the last round of elections.

I think that our mainstream parties have become so focussed on their own navels that they have lost the plot, that is to serve the country as a whole. Any mainstream party that can pull only less than 50% of the electorate has no mandate to say its value set is any better than anyone elses. When Blair tells protestors to leave his conference he is clearly saying that some British people are not welcome in his definition of Britain.

On the foreigner issue, one I like very much, i like to repeat the definition that can be found ina book in Waterstones the bookstore. Xenophobia: the irrational fear of anything foreign, always understandable and usually justified.

I speak for myself, not UKIP, when I say that I am an Islander, and as such I am entitled to be a xenophobe, if I so wanted to be one.

__________________
God Bless England

LP-2004

I think everyone has encountered small mindedness. In my eyes Mr titley doesnt understand the subject he is talking about.

I think if there isnt people from ethnic decent naturally promoting UKIP, why promote ethnic spokespeople? Isnt that insulting, using people as a publicity token? UKIP is non racist, why worry about small minded people who have some hidden agenda?

I think it would just highlight this subject even more, as if there is anything to be ashamed of.

Anthony Butcher

Far too often the very genuine concerns that people hold are brushed under the carpet by being labelled as racism or xenophobia. Many people are actually scared in their towns and villages. They feel that they have been invaded by foreigners. Some of this is justified, some of it isn't, but the fear itself is a problem that needs to be addressed. That isn't happening at the moment.

The BNP makes the whole situation worse because not only do they fuel the fears of people unnecessarily, they have managed to associate themselves with the whole issue of immigration and racism. That makes it much harder for parties like the UKIP to have a sensible debate about the problem. Anyone recommending change is lumped in with the BNP or called "extremist".

Perhaps one day we will be able to establish a more adult political system where issues can be discussed without the pathetic name calling so widely used by all of the main parties.

mkpdavies

Unfortunatly a lot of Joe public currently believe a lot of what is printed in our "News" papers, and the estaablished parties use any cheap shot they can to put down smaller parties.

Thankfully, I believe the British public are becoming more and more aware of the way media is controlled by the establishment. While I don't believe a lot of stuff on the internet, I find I can form a much more rounded view, by reading all sides of an argument from various sources.

I don't know anyone who is racist in the UKIP, which doesn't mean there are not any racists, but I KNOW there is no more than any of the other parties out there.

Membership of UKIP is growing, and the more people see that we are not the rabid, wide eyed loons that some like to portray, the harder it will be for others to spread the pathetic lies.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Lafayette

I think the reason there is a shortage of ethnic people naturally promoting UKIP is because of the atmosphere of debate concerning integration that at least seems as much of a concern as the UK out of the EU. Of all the forums and lists to which I belong, this one is alone in having an predominately positive attitude regarding different cultures. So many of the others have come to UKIP or unfortunately the BNP with the thought of fully restored British sovereignty of second most importance to them. They worry most about the effect that immigrants have on the traditional British way of life, I guess the term would be "British-ness", and see the opened borders of the EU as being an abettor of this. If the European Union said that it was willing to preserve the culture of Britain, hunting, etc., and place limits on immigration in return for Britons handing over self-government to the superstate, you might find some people willing to take them up on their offer. It is this worry about British-ness that so often leads discussion down the road of accusations about racism and the like. British society is far older than mine and I know I cannot begin to either appreciate or understand how much it means to the average Briton, the history and tradition of it, but if it means letting go of it as an issue to gain momentum for the overall cause of British independence, then so be it. I would say it is more exploitative than insulting to use people as a publicity token, but sometimes that is necessary. I fully believe that the UKIP is non-racist and applaud it for being so, but as long as it exists solely in the realm of white Britons, then the small-minded people with hidden agendas will keep turning the debate away from the EU and the future of Britain and making everything INTO phpbb_a charge of racism. Diversify the party and you take from them that weapon. You keep the focus on self-rule for Britons of all colors, religions, and cultures. You can say that your oppostion to the EU is based on an original promise of free trade being broken and replaced with the idea of European unity and federal government in Brussels, not that you fear free and open contact with other people. And for those who worry about the loss of British identity, I am not saying that it isn't a valid concern. We have a similar debate in my own country regarding immigrants. We take in around 1,000,000 immigrants a year and in some estimates even more than that enter illegally. By the year 2040, some say that the US will be mostly Hispanic with white Americans as a minority. This has people fretting about the future of the country, but I am of the opinion that as long as the country survives, I don't care if it is populated by blue people, much less Latin Americans. Again, Americans have nowhere near the history that you do, but if it means the survival of Britain, it may eventually become valid to exploit people for the sake of opening the party to them with sincere good intentions. Britain has in the past been hurt by an unwillingness in such areas. Britain gave some measure of self-rule to various parts of the empire, but if they had been willing to give seats in Parliament to some of the colonies, a part of the empire might still exist. Why weren't those seats given? Because those in the colonies weren't from Britain, properly British, and Britons were unwilling to believe that they shared a common interest with foreigners.

You have the right to be whatever you wish to be and I salute you for it. You have a great deal for which to be proud in being an Islander. I'm not even an Anglophile and I can clearly see and respect your rich heritage. If any of my posts have been offensive to you, I offer my apologies. I may have said it in my introduction to the forum, but in case I didn't, I shall repeat that it is my desire to help, not offend, even if that desire is motivated by no small amount of self-interest.

Anthony Butcher

This issue brings to mind the frequently repeated mantra that we need more women MPs and more "ethnic" MPs for Parliament to be truly representative.

Each constituency has a single MP in parliament. For the vast majority of areas the most representative (i.e. the median) racial characteristic is a white person. There are very few constituencies where there are more than 50% of non-whites (are there any?). Therefore, based on the principle of "representation", we actually have the most racially appropriate MP for most constituencies.

I also believe this to be racist nonsense.

The whole criticism of Parliament and political parties is based on the presumption that a white male MP is incapable of representing the women and ethnic minorities of his constituency. Yet, apparently, an asian woman would better be able to represent men and white people. That is a racist and sexist view.

If an MP isn't capable of representing their constituents completely, then they aren't fit for the job - it is as simple as that.

An equal and fair society has to be based on merit. The best person for the job should be chosen. A minimum requirement must be the ability to represent everyone regardless of sex or race. The race or sex of the MP is completely irrelevant.

By constantly bringing up race and sex, the establishment is directly endorsing both racism and sexism. It also undermines the professionalism of those MPs already elected.

Anyway, bringing it back to the topic of the last post, UKIP shouldn't need more members of any race or sex, as long as our party policy is to treat everyone fairly. What we need are a lot more high calibre candidates.

LP-2004

I totally agree with anthony, He basically said what I was trying to say.

My parents are always refering to MP's in the past who were servants of the people, and were willing to show their views without being scared of being to unconventional.