evildrneil Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Racist no. Parochial, small minded, xenophobic little Englanders yes. That being said Farage was trumpeting the fact that he thought that a third of BNP voters would vote for UKIP a few days ago which implies that both he is happy to have BNP support and that his party would appeal to people who would vote for a racist party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron77 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 How do you know someone's an immigrant merely by looking at them? your asking a question, hoping for an answer your not going to get. regarding Australia - we are talking hundreds of years ago when the country had the resources to cope with immigration, if they opened up their ports to Malaysians/Asians what mass effect would it have on the country in the long run. who knows? but its a route they don't want to take and the whole world respects that. why is it different here? please answer this boyfriday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Cynical people might suggest that the UKIP provides a vehicle to harness the BNP vote and bring it into the mainstream. They use that line to scare voters away from the English Democrats too. ---------- Post added 04-05-2013 at 11:18 ---------- Racist no. Parochial, small minded, xenophobic little Englanders yes. Parochial, not a word that I use very often. Does it mean wanting my own taxes to be spent on providing housing, health and education for UK born and tax payers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 As from what I understand UKIP is the only party that denies membership to anyone who has been a member of the BNP or other racist parties. Is that so? Good policy. Xenophobic is the word I would use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Parochial, not a word that I use very often. Does it mean wanting my own taxes to be spent on providing housing, health and education for UK born and tax payers? It means having a narrow scope or vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 There is a danger that large-scale immigration might drastically change the way the people of a country live. The immigrants are raised with certain beliefs and attitudes, which may seriously offend the "native" people. For instance, Australia once had weak immigration control. So a large number of "boat people" descended on its shores, many of them known criminals. Soon, they had destroyed the native culture, and driven the remaining natives to the wilderness. It was about 1788 AD or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 It means having a narrow scope or vision. So I am not allowed to be worried about the lack of housing now, because when David Cameron promises more houses, he can deliver his promises, unlike Gordon Brown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron77 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Racist no. Parochial, small minded, xenophobic little Englanders yes. we have taken in our fair share and helped where we can, we now run the risk and see it today of this country being sunk by its own self beliefs that we owe the world everything, I wish we could accommodate and provide for the world, but we cant, its a simple statement, we are now seeing our own countrymen, black white and blue struggle, because we simply keep on throwing money at foreign aid and immigration issues. That being said Farage was trumpeting the fact that he thought that a third of BNP voters would vote for UKIP a few days ago which implies that both he is happy to have BNP support and that his party would appeal to people who would vote for a racist party. it goes without saying that bnp members will vote for the party tackling immigration, if lib/lab/con took the issues seriously their would be no BNP or quite possibly no UKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted May 4, 2013 Author Share Posted May 4, 2013 from the guardian which is a con/lib paper ---------- Post added 04-05-2013 at 10:16 ---------- the media will dress it up as anything the want you to see, depending on which party they are behind. did you see the sun when Maggie thatcher died, 10 page pull out about how good she was for the country. I don't want to get drawn on the whole Maggie Thatcher debate, but Radio 4 did a bit about Thatcher and her legacy and if the accusations against her stand up to statistical analysis. Only one did, while the rest, and those that many use to attack her were completely false. Have a listen its very interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s4vf8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Cynical people might suggest that the UKIP provides a vehicle to harness the BNP vote and bring it into the mainstream. UKIP know this is an issue. It's why they need such a draconian membership procedure. It doesn't mean the party is racist though. They're not even anti-immigration. Farage is currently reviewing their policy to have a 50,000 person annual cap. He's thinking of increasing it. In answer to the OP's question:- "Because it is, quite frankly!" And yes, I1L2t3... the UKIP are basically the BNP, but in suits and ties, without the shaven heads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.