Britannist

Just off the official UKIP website:

UKIP ‘main opposition to Labour and BNP in Barking wards’

26-04-2006

The UK Independence Party confirmed today (26.4.06) that other than Labour, it was the main opposition to the BNP in five wards in Barking and Dagenham. In the 2004 elections for the GLA in Barking, Labour won eight of the 17 districts, UKIP seven and the Tories only one.

While Labour was contesting all 21 seats in the wards the BNP was fighting, UKIP was contesting 10, the BNP 13 and the Tories and Lib Dems four each.

UKIP candidate Pat Manley, a former Labour councillor for the Eastbury ward and Mayor of Barking in 2000, said that UKIP’s presence meant that voters had an opportunity to support Britain and local democracy without supporting the far-right.

“I am concerned that the disproportionate publicity gained by the far-right will make the dire predictions of BNP success a self-fulfilling prophecy. UKIP are a moderate party committed to local democracy, which is why large numbers of former Labour Party members and supporters are attracted to it.

“UKIP are the main opposition to Labour here, a situation which has not been reflected by the media coverage.”

UKIP Leader Roger Knapman MEP said that the media hype surrounding a relatively small number of BNP candidates was in danger of giving them a credibility which they did not deserve.

He continued: “There appears to be a media obsession with the BNP in local elections which is not warranted. In 2003, UKIP, the Greens and the Socialist Alliance contested 2,500 wards between them, and yet this went unremarked while considerable coverage was devoted to the BNP, who had 96 candidates.

“If we are to stop the rise of the far-right, this can only be done with fair, reasoned coverage, not hysterical over-reaction.”

Suthers

UKIP the main opposition in barking and dagenham....riighttt, time to wake up to reality guys. If we are to go by local and general election voting you are the 5th larget party behind BNP which is 3rd largest in barking and 4th in dagenham. So id have thought they were the main opposition. Hmm, things have moved on so fast i dont think its a good idea to go by 2004 political diagrams.

Tom Wilde

Why so modest, Suthers? It is obvious from a glance at any politics discussion board that the BNP has far more barking supporters than all the other parties put together!

Good to see that the main UKIP website is focussing on the nitty-gritty of the local elections. I'd love to see the BNP lose every single seat they are contesting, and I agree with Knapman's comments, but we shouldn't forget that our main target for the moment is Labour - they are the ones running the country and a lot of the town halls.

Suthers

Modest? Ha, believe it or not i actually dont support the BNP, i used to be UKIP, but now they just dont hold any appeal anymore. I was simply stating the facts, which is tantamount to support in most peoples eyes. :roll:

girlfriday

Tom, if the BNP were to:
a) not win any seats;
b) lose all remaining seats;

then it would almost certainly mean a nose dive in support across the board for ANY anti-immigrant party, as like it or not, it is virtually impossible to remove the tarnish of being called racist if you are against immigrants (from whatever viewpoint). It is highly unlikely that UKIP would miraculously gain support from the BNP, unless the BNP itself folded as a party, which is almost certainly not going to happen unless they tried o ban it, and consequently a new named group would start up again in its absence.

Unfortunately for UKIPers, to some extent the fortunes of UKIP are directly related to the fortunes of the BNP and other patriotic "rightist" parties, as they attract voters from roughly the same political perspectives, differing only on matters of economics, race (and that is almost impossible to separate from the immigration issue no matter how hard you try) and global viewpoints.

This does not mean that where the BNP does well, UKIP will not necessarily or vice-versa, it simply means in terms of that much quoted term 'public opinion', support will materialise in support for one party or another from similar leanings depending on, if you like, social status groups, with white working class leaning towards the BNP, and white middle-class,/self employed/professionals tending towards UKIP. This could be why there is such a disparity with UKIP urban support and BNP rural sympathies.

Tom Wilde

Suthers, I remember that on March 11 in another thread you said:

I'm delighted to hear that you have now given up your support for the dismal BNP. I hope you are part of a trend.

Like I say, I think that despite the media hype the BNP have peaked. They may pick up a few additional council seats but are likely to lose some of the ones they are defending. 2004 was their big chance, and they blew it. Thank God.

GirlFriday, it may be true that the BNP losing all their seats would be bad news for any "anti-immigrant party" - I hope so, at least. UKIP is not such a party, and never will be. We have a policy of zero net immigration - ie the numbers allowed to immigrate in a given year kept roughly the same as the number who chose to emigrate in the same year. This policy would hopefully remove immigration as a factor in planning for housing and social services, which would be a great thing. But that isn't the same as being anti-immigrant. UKIP aren't anti- anybody, and a significant number of UKIP members and candidates are either immigrants or the children of immigrants.

So we only differ in our views on economics, race and global worldviews?

girlfriday

Like it or not, it is a generalisation, if you think otherwise, fine, please say otherwise. I still believe that a fall in support for the BNP would be part of a wider collapse of the "right" minority party vote, and UKIP would also see a collapse in its support - oh I forgot, that has already happened since 2004!

It would also fair to say that 2005 was UKIP's big chance and THEY blew it, would it not?

(oo, bitchy!

However you write it, opposition to immigration on ANY grounds, will ultimately come back to the changing racial make-up of this country, you can wrap it up in any other guise you wish, EU, housing problems, water supplies - whatever, but UKIP literature leaves an indelible stain that the party is anti-immigrant and therefore to MANY people's eyes is like the BNP, hence accusations of "closet racists".

mkpdavies

The BNP are firmly on the left, as Nick Griffin freely admits and Lord Tebbit also suggested.

Of course Labour and the Libs will deny this, but it's basicaly the truth.

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

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

David Holland

I am sorry but you are wrong. My children will be mixed race but I still want to control immigration because otherwise this country will be too crowded. It is nothing to do with race it is space !!!
I think a lot of people vote for the BNP because of this not because they want an all white UK.

The BNP is very similar to the Lib Dems they also believe any control of immigration is due to race, how strange.

__________________
More people + no new homes = housing shortage.

girlfriday

David, I am not wrong in my assessment, that is your opinion.

The fact that your children are (or will be) for this argument's sake, 'conveniently' mixed race, (notice I use the word "conveniently" as you seem to think this gives you an "edge") and support immigration controls is purely irrelevant. At which point in the last 60 years would they control immigration? When there was enough Asians, West Indians, or whoever?
Maybe once their other-race parent had arrived? I find the argument over "space not race" is one of those "let us think of a new (non-racist) slogan to get us out of a quagmire that we are being accused of getting stuck in" type debates, that is largely laughed at by the likes of the BNP on one side, and regarded as feeble by those on the left.

If space was the issue, there simply would not be any immigration per se, as national policy would be guided towards what level of populaton can the present land area of the UK support, which is probably around HALF of its current size based on food dependency at present concumption levels. That means we would be encouraging mass EMIGRATION of the unskilled masses.

I would go further and suggest that the majority of those that voted, are members of, or show any level of support for, UKIP, would run a mile if the essense of your argument was explained to them. Namely, that we will allow a fixed number of migrants INTO phpbb_the UK, but would be happy if they were mainly West Indian/Asian in any one given year, as these are more desirable than whites from say, the nasty EU. UKIP is to some extent trying its best to get around the "racist image" by effectively doing just that by demonising east Europeans, whilst actively encouraging non-white ethnic minorities to support them and stand for them as candidates.

Read the UKIP article on the website dated 03.04.06 regarding: "new migration fear as EU opens door to 30 million". If that isn't scaremongering racist language (as it would be in the eyes of the left), I don't know what is.

UKIP must just love those mixed race members as it creates the image of this all encompassing non-racist party, but I imagine they would feel rather awkward if loads of legal Gypsy asylum seekers from Bulgaria or Romania suddenly expressed an interest in party membership.

Many of those that support the BNP would almost certainly not say they want an all white Britain, as the majority of its supporters have arrived in recent years from other parties, and would deny any connection to the views that you accuse them of. One BNP supporter I spoke to some years ago after the 2001 General Election, said he was happy with West Indians "cos they speak like us and eat the same foods as us and generally dress like us, but them muslims, are a different thing altogether". Rubbishing the support base for the BNP fails to identify peoples genuine fears of cultural assassination by newcomers.

Many people are unable to enter the whole debate on immigration - which has been a race issue for the 58 years since the 1948 British Nationality Act was passed - because of the constant sense of guilt or ridicule they are expected to endure if they have the audacity to oppose the deliberate re-evaluation of what "British", English, or whatever, is supposed to mean, once the term "racist" is thrown at them. Nothing more makes the hairs stand-up on the back of necks and electrifies the atmosphere of any debating chamber or audience, than the issue of race and immigration.

This has been caused directly by ridiculous immigration laws passed by Labour AND Tories alike since the war, in their JOINT efforts to globalise the nation state and create a "corporate" universal identity. The EU is just another stepping stone for them to achieve that goal. Re-defining what people believe as their sense of community belonging is perfectly achieved by unlimited and unrestricted immigration designed to break down any sense of ethnic consciousness, and polarise those minority communities to support whatever party has either let them in, or will support legislation to protect them from "discrimination" by the nasty native majority.

It has been spoken and written about by politicians and political commentators alike for decades.