Ukip 'Most Favourably Regarded Party'

I don't view all non-white people as 'immigrants'. I have a problem with the terms 'white' and 'immigrant' anyway.

Nobody is 'white'. White simply refers to skin colour, and people born in the same country have different skin colours. Different people on the same continent have widely varying skin colours and tones. We're all a spectrum of skin colour.

There is no biological category of 'white'.

Secondly, we are also all immigrants. The 'British' are composed of Ango-Saxon and Normal immigrants. We are all emigrants from Africa. There are many British citizens who are both non-white and who immigrated two or more generations ago.

What counts as an 'immigrant'? A recent immigrant? Why should new immigrants not be allowed the opportunity previous immigrants had?

Most people wouldn't agree with you that they are fascist. It's your opinion, obviously not shared by everyone, Britain is not a fascist country.

'Compared with UKIP, whereby the large majority of voters are conservative older males'

That doesn't seem to be the case in this election does it?

I am a bit shocked that you would regard all non white people as 'immigrants'. Even if they are second or third generation? Even if they would describe themselves as British? Even if they are concerned about the rapid, unequaled changes in the population? That's divisive, and nasty.

What are your views?? How would you control immigration? Or would you not? Genuinely interested.

There are non white people who are concerned about mass immigration, and who, I am sure, voted for UKIP.

Non-white people tend to be immigrants themselves. Non-white UKIP voters are a small minority.

In fact, most English people are immigrants, it's just a matter of how far back you want to go, which is why the whole debate is stupid.

I didn't vote for them but your myopic reaction is typical of the problem in having any kind of debate.

It's myopic to vote for fascists out of reaction to current situation. History should have taught us that lesson.

Aren't all the parties?

The 'gender gap' for the three main parties is not that large:

www.britishpollingcouncil.org/pdf/nick-moon.pdf

Compared with UKIP, whereby the large majority of voters are conservative older males:

d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/r1b80k12tw/UKIP-profile-Feb-2013.pdf

Though I will grant you that there is a large gap in representation in politics of people who are not older white males.

True, still no debate about mass immigration.

I dont want any more any colour, including white.
I think that 79 million or whatever it is [I dont think any party knows accurately anymore] is enough. Probably more than enough.

But the public doesn't even know what most of their policies are and it doesn't really care as long as they are different from the policies of the puppets.

I think that that is it in essence.

Which is dangerous. Hopefully the other parties will now change.

Not sure that they are going to though.

Cameron say that he gets it, but I dont think that he fully gets it.
He still thinks for intance that if he amends Europe, or whatever he said or meant about what he wants to do before a supposed referendum, that that will be enough.
I doubt it.
I doubt it a lot.

'Both parties are supported primarily by White, Christian, older european men.'

Aren't all the parties?

There are non white people who are concerned about mass immigration, and who, I am sure, voted for UKIP. I didn't vote for them but your myopic reaction is typical of the problem in having any kind of debate.

Nigel Farage has said he would never share a platform with a fascist party.

People are concerned about the scale of immigration. Where is the debate about that?
Screaming racist and fascist just makes the problem worse. You are also trivialising the horror of fascism by bandying it about to make a political point.

In every way.
You'll find it harder to find similarities. Have a look into it instead of ranting.

I have had a look.

Both parties are right-wing populist, proto-fascist parties.

Both parties seek to divert blame for people's economic woes and insecurity about their future on immigrants and immigration, when the real problem is the rise of neo-liberal economic policies in europe.

Both parties are supported primarily by White, Christian, older european men.

Both parties have councillors who make racist and bigoted statements towards people of different colour, nationality, or sexuality.

Both parties are dangerous insofar as, if they were ever to gain power, there would most likely be a surge in violence towards immigrants and minorities, as the establishment legitimises persecution towards these people deemed 'the other'.

squid-

They also placed a firm emphasis on putting British citizens first, which strikes a chord with those who feel hard done by with the current state of things.

First of all, a large percentage of British citizens were recent immigrants - if only one or two generations ago. Britain, historically, has always been a place of large immigration and emigration.

Most 'native' White Christian 'Britons' are immigrants from France, Germany, and other nothern European countries.

Dividing people this way doesn't make any sense.

Squid: I know that you were just pointing out the thought processes that went on. This isn't aimed at you. I just wanted to reply to highlight the absurdity of it all.

multiculturalism is not the problem. It's the scale of immigration over the last decade.

I didn't vote for UKIP but I feel there are people scaremongering and suggesting the UK is fascist and racist. England is anti fascist but also largely eurosceptic.
Things aren't as black and white as you are painting them.

'Exactly how is UKIP different from the National Front?'

In every way.
You'll find it harder to find similarities. Have a look into it instead of ranting.

UKIP are the only party who have actually been open and frank about this issue, while all the other parties skirt around it with mumbo-jumbo such as 'it's good for the economy' and 'multiculturalism is great' which we all know is BS.

How sad.

Both are true statements. It's a shame you don't realise how much multiculturalism has contributed to British society. It has always been multicultural.

During the height of the empire, the British invaded and colonised the majority of the planet. This brought in culture in the form of customs, traditions, religions, literature, music, food, art, philosophy, and science. Trading (and slavery, of course) made Britain wealthy.

Without multiculturalism, the British isles would be a small, insignificant island in the North Sea. No more a player in global economic and political scene than Madagascar.

ttosca
your point about UKIP supporting the same neo-liberal economic policies as all the other parties is a good point, as it's our raging capitalist (anti-socialist) system that is at the root of present day social problems.

Voting UKIP can't change this. It's a monumental shame that UKIP was the only alternative for people to go for.

If only labour hadn't turned their back on their founding policies. We desperately need something like the Labour party, but how they were originally not this horrendous mutated version.

tiggytape
I agree with what you have said, people aren't permitted to discuss the effects of mass immigration without being branded 'racist' which completely kills involved debate stone dead.

UKIP are the only party who have actually been open and frank about this issue, while all the other parties skirt around it with mumbo-jumbo such as 'it's good for the economy' and 'multiculturalism is great' which we all know is BS.

They also placed a firm emphasis on putting British citizens first, which strikes a chord with those who feel hard done by with the current state of things.

The fact that they also say a whole load of utter rubbish seems to have been overlooked. People are that desperate for change. It's amazing they have won. It's a two fingers to the other lot that's for sure.

How many racist comments from councillors and party members does it take to make it a racist party?

You are telling people that voting for UKIP is not a protest vote. Would you like to supply a list of "ttosca approved" protest vote parties?

Yes, it's called debate and argument.

You say that you can't tell people who to vote for but you just have.

No I didn't, but I am telling you that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

For those who did so with genuine concerns in mind, the Conservatives and even Labour were carefully spelling out last night that UKIP is not the same as the French National Front for example - UKIP is mainstream and not a racist party.

Exactly how is UKIP different from the National Front?

Why is UKIP 'mainstream' and the NF not 'mainstream'?

The NF in France just won just over 25% of the vote:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638965/Massive-victory-French-far-right-National-Front-record-quarter-vote-Euro-elections.html

And why do you think that a party cannot be simultaneously mainstream AND racist?

There needs to be this line drawn so that all parties can discuss our role in Europe and our immigration policies without it automatically attracting accusations of racism. If anything it is stifling political debate to make key issues so taboo.

There is a debate to be had about immigration (which is overwhelmingly positive), but UKIP are not the ones to foster this debate.

Discussing immigration policy is not racist. Making racist and bigoted remarks about foreigners, as UKIP councillors and members have repeatedly done, is absolutely racist.

ttosca

"Sun 25-May-14 13:20:49

Voting for UKIP is not a protest vote."

You are telling people that voting for UKIP is not a protest vote. Would you like to supply a list of "ttosca approved" protest vote parties?

You say that you can't tell people who to vote for but you just have.

You can't be more pro establishment than by telling people who they can't protest vote for

This is just silly. It's part of the democratic process to debate politics and political parties. I obviously have no power to stop anyone voting for whatever party they choose.

I wonder if they will drop the 'racist' argument now.

They won't, because UKIP are a racist party and are full of racists.

I agree that some, or even many, people who vote UKIP aren't racist and voted for them as a protest vote (like stabbing yourself in the eye), but the UKIP party itself has racist policies, and many of its councillors are racists and bigots.

No, they'll try to make UKIP out as racist as people are less likely to vote for a party if they mistakenly believe it to be racist

UKIP are racist. How many racist comments from councillors and party members does it take to make it a racist party?

So far, in Denmark, France, Greece and the UK the anti european, anti immigration parties are soaring ahead. Can we dismiss all these voters as 'racist and thick' are are we ready to face up to the fact that there are problems that are being brushed under the carpet and the electorate have had enough?

We should face up to the fact that in the EU, including every other Western Capitalist country in the world, is being subject to neo-liberal economics. A process which started in 1979 during the Reagan-Thatcher era.

It is during this time that the 'problems' to which you refer took hold. Mass privitisation of public services, deregulation, soaring cost of living, cuts in public services, unprecedented wealth inequality, stagnating wages, job insecurity, etc.

Nobody doubts that there are huge problems in society, politically and economically. Unfortunately, voting for a racist party is not going to solve these problems.

In fact, UKIP support the very same policies.