Sympathy for UKIP?

British Dissident · 24-02-2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by English Democrat

What I don't understand is surely it is in the Labour Party's interest to keep UKIP going to damage the Conservative & Unionist Vote ?

As I wrote earlier: “it may be worth considering that from Labour’s perspective it’s better to have a permanently weak, ineffective Tory party on the scene than a Tory party that will eventually collapse and might be replaced by a radical alternative.”

If (and it is a big ‘if’) UKIP were to capture a large enough section of disillusioned voters it could well precipitate the demise of the Tory party.

Cameron’s attempt to ‘re-brand’ the Conservative party into an imitation of NuLabour has alienated its grassroots support and nearly all of its dwindling band of elderly activists and constituency workers. If they were to defect then organisationally the Tories would have fallen between two stools.

The rump of the party might well tear itself apart with in-fighting and recrimination. In any event what would remain wouldn’t seem credible as an alternative. People might then start to look outside the establishment consensus for solutions……

Hereward77 · 24-02-2007, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by English Democrat

Quote:

Edward Longshanks

For those who don't know, Edward I "Longshanks" was the Plantagenet king who expelled England's entire Jewish population.

Yes and Henry VIII I recall killed a load of Catholics, this sort of comment adds nothing to this thread.

The forum member "Edward Longshanks" is a BNP member who celebrates a vicious anti-Semite. Do I need to spell it out?

Internationalist · 24-02-2007, 11:56 PM

This thread seems to have taken a bizarre turn into who has Anglo-Saxon roots and whether the royals descended from Normans have any legitimate authority.

The fact is that 1066 happened and it is part of our history like anything else. Get over it. Claiming a pure "Anglo-Saxon" heritage would be like Britney going back to the Silver Ring Thing.

And the fact that forum member "Edward Longshanks" is named after Edward I who expelled the Jews? Now, as one of the strongest supporters of Jews and Israel on the forum I might be offended. But has EL said anything that might be construed as anti-Semitic? His explanation for the pen name sounds reasonable and we should accept it unless there are reasons to think otherwise.

I realise that I am in danger of agreeing with "English Democrat" on this point so I will quit now.

Alex McKee · 24-02-2007, 11:59 PM

Not to mention you're defending one of the BNP trolls

However well said, very well said.

claire stone · 25-02-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward Longshanks

It would be easy for someone to revel in his political rivals misfortunes. This has obviously been a bad week for UKIP, but now at least you know what it feels like for those of us in the BNP. I've no doubt that you would immediately react to the last part of the previous sentence by saying well you deserve and we don't. In my view neither of us do. There are actually some sympathetic statements on both the BNP and English Democrat websites regarding the supposed abuse of permissable donations. The cant and hypocrisy in the way UKIP have been dealt with over the issue of donations in contrast to that of the Lab/LibDem/Con consensus is staggering and obnoxious.

They would come down on us like a ton of bricks and there is an underlying more insidious agenda at play here. Leaving apart other conspiracy theories, I am of the opinion that the growth in support for minor parties has resulted in various Labour apparatchiks meeting in smoke filled rooms to work out all manner of smear campaigns and disinformation exercises. Whether they stop your publications, deny you the right of lawful assembly and hack into your website is another matter, but on this matter at least you will find sympathy from what you may perceive as surprising quarters.

But didn't your own BNP have trouble getting it's accounts in?

Hereward77 · 25-02-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unionist

And the fact that forum member "Edward Longshanks" is named after Edward I who expelled the Jews? Now, as one of the strongest supporters of Jews and Israel on the forum I might be offended. But has EL said anything that might be construed as anti-Semitic? His explanation for the pen name sounds reasonable and we should accept it unless there are reasons to think otherwise.

This forum is being infiltrated by an alliance of government 'plants' (Unionist) and BNP neo-Nazis (Edward Longshanks).

Internationalist · 25-02-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hereward77

This forum is being infiltrated by an alliance of government 'plants' (Unionist) and BNP neo-Nazis (Edward Longshanks).

Well on another thread you called me a Trotskyist, which is way off the mark but rather quaint, then said I supported the "realist" school of foreign policy when I said exactly the opposite, then you implied I was in favour of the establishment view of foreign policy when I was clearly against and finally you suggested that I was not a genuine Eurosceptic despite everything I have said on the EU. Not bad for one thread.

Now you have gone a step further and said that I am a government plant. What you really mean is that I have disagreed with your analysis and rather than deal with the argument fairly you are going to make ridiculous accusations. But if it really is your view rather than a diversionary tactic then it says a lot about the poor quality of your judgement on other issues too.

Britannist · 25-02-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Unionist wrote (regarding 'Hereward 77'): Now you have gone a step further and said that I am a government plant. What you really mean is that I have disagreed with your analysis and rather than deal with the argument fairly you are going to make ridiculous accusations. But if it really is your view rather than a diversionary tactic then it says a lot about the poor quality of your judgement on other issues too.

I support what you have written Unionist. 8)

Hereward77 · 25-02-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unionist

But if it really is your view rather than a diversionary tactic then it says a lot about the poor quality of your judgement on other issues too.

My judgments are sound and are based on my Christian beliefs. You, on the other hand, are making lame excuses for the corrupt anti-British establishment here and the anti-American, pro-North American Union (NAU) establishment in New York and Washington, and, you have now aligned yourself with vile neo-Nazi.

Hereward77 · 25-02-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

I support what you have written Unionist. 8)

Says it all.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

24-02-2007, 11:56 PM	#23 (permalink)
Internationalist Moderator Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,235	This thread seems to have taken a bizarre turn into who has Anglo-Saxon roots and whether the royals descended from Normans have any legitimate authority. The fact is that 1066 happened and it is part of our history like anything else. Get over it. Claiming a pure "Anglo-Saxon" heritage would be like Britney going back to the Silver Ring Thing. And the fact that forum member "Edward Longshanks" is named after Edward I who expelled the Jews? Now, as one of the strongest supporters of Jews and Israel on the forum I might be offended. But has EL said anything that might be construed as anti-Semitic? His explanation for the pen name sounds reasonable and we should accept it unless there are reasons to think otherwise. I realise that I am in danger of agreeing with "English Democrat" on this point so I will quit now.

24-02-2007, 11:59 PM	#24 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,666	Not to mention you're defending one of the BNP trolls However well said, very well said.