.... there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.
Turning on my radio on Saturday, I heard ranting right-wing rhetoric and a demand for a freeze on immigration. I could easily have mistaken the speaker for a member of the British National Party (BNP). But it turned out to be a report on the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which came second in last year’s European elections and hopes to gain seats at Westminster.
So what’s the difference between the BNP and UKIP? The BNP is described as far-right, racist, fascist. It’s regarded as beyond the pale and many politicians refuse to share platforms with its members.
UKIP is seen as basically mainstream. It may be regarded as firmly right-wing and perhaps a bit wacky, but its members are not treated as pariahs. UKIP representatives regularly appear on BBC Question Time without demonstrations or record viewing figures.
As I considered this, I knew that my dislike for both parties might have led me to overestimate the similarities between them. So I decided to compare their policies. And I found that I had in fact underestimated their similarities. On most issues, the policies of UKIP and the BNP are largely indistinguishable.
Race and immigration
UKIP want “an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement”. They say that “any future immigration should not exceed 50,000 per annum”. The BNP want to “stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases”. Both parties would reject asylum-seekers who had passed a “safe” country on their way to the UK. To aid this, they would both withdraw from the UN Convention on Refugees.
Until very recently the BNP spoke of ending “non-white immigration”. This seems to have been re-worded, perhaps partly because Polish immigrants are mostly white, but also as part of their feeble attempts to appear less racist.
To be fair to UKIP, I must admit that they have never displayed the same concern with skin colour that has obsessed the BNP. They say they believe in “civic nationalism, which is open and inclusive” rather than the “ethnic nationalism of extremist parties”.
Nonetheless, UKIP insist that “a significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents in Britain are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society”. They say that “UKIP opposes multiculturalism and political correctness, and promotes uniculturalism - aiming to create a single British culture embracing all races and religions”.
Despite their reference to all religions, UKIP wish to ban the niqab (Muslim full face veil) in certain private buildings as well as in public. Their position is more extreme than the BNP, who want a public ban only.
Most people affected by this severe restriction are likely to have a different skin colour to the average UKIP candidate, but I admit that UKIP does not show the same blatant racism as the BNP, who refuse to admit that any non-white person is “ethnically British”.
These different approaches to race should not be dismissed; they could make a considerable difference if either party gains power. There is no prospect that either will form a government after this general election, but a serious possibility that they may gain one or two seats. Given the likelihood of a hung Parliament or a government with a small majority, those seats could be significant. And would it make any difference whether they were held by UKIP or the BNP?
Shoulder to shoulder
Consider education. UKIP wants schools to “teach about Britain's contribution to the world, such as British inventions, promoting democracy and the rule of law and the role of Britain in fighting slavery and Nazism”. The BNP believes that schools should “instil in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain”. Neither party suggests that there might be anything negative in Britain’s history.
What about the environment? UKIP describe themselves as “the first party to take a sceptical stance on man-made global warming claims”. This is odd, because the BNP “firmly rejects the ‘climate change’ dogma”.
Both parties would repeal the Human Rights Act. UKIP promise “forthright law and order policies” from “a government with the will to punish”. The BNP also “seeks a return to traditional standards of law enforcement”. But they almost sound more moderate than UKIP when they add that this would be “combined with social reform directed at addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour”. On the other hand, the BNP back capital and corporal punishment, whereas UKIP would restrict themselves to introducing “boot camps for young offenders”.
Both favour “workfare”, obliging people to work for benefits. However, economics seems to be one of the few areas in which they significantly differ. I found the old difference between the statist far-right (as seen in traditional fascist regimes) and the free-market far-right. Whereas the BNP call for re-nationalisation of key industries, UKIP clearly want to help the richest members of society, promising to scrap the top tax rate and all inheritance tax.
On military and defence issues, they share the same militaristic outlook, but differ on specific policies. At their spring conference last weekend, UKIP prioritised their demand for a 40 per cent increase in military spending. The BNP want to reintroduce “national service” (with a civilian option). But unlike UKIP, they would withdraw from Afghanistan and NATO. It seems that UKIP is far more pro-US.
Voters in Bexhill and Battle have heard that the BNP candidate in their constituency will be Neil Jackson – who previously stood for UKIP. As BNP candidate, he will campaign for “an immediate end to Britain’s involvement in unnecessary foreign wars”. It seems this is one of the few differences he could find with UKIP.
Two sides of the same coin
So why do we persist in treating UKIP as much more acceptable than the BNP? I’m not asking for UKIP members to be demonised, nor am I suggesting that the BNP should be treated more gently. But those of us who detest what the BNP stands for need to remember that far-right views are promoted well outside the BNP’s own membership – in UKIP, on the right of the Tory Party, in the pages of the Daily Mail.
When the BNP’s Nick Griffin was invited onto BBC Question Time, I wrote that the politicians who sat next to him would face a monster of their own creation. Their failure to speak up for immigration or to promote a vision of a different society has fuelled the far-right’s electoral success. On the programme, Jack Straw encouraged voters to support a “mainstream party”, implying that the differences between “mainstream” parties are trivial. Indeed, the only point at which the three mainstream politicians really argued with each other was when they competed to appear the most strongly anti-immigration – bizarrely dancing to Griffin’s tune.
This is no way to beat the far-right. We need to tackle the issues head on, not resort to demonising one far-right group while being relaxed about another. If the BNP and UKIP both manage to gain an MP this year, don’t expect to see many occasions on which they do not vote the same way.
Since that triumph, however, UKIP has been falling to pieces with startling speed. The national executive recently passed a motion of no confidence in its leader, Michael Holmes. He then staged a counter-coup at the party's annual conference in Solihull two weeks ago, which led to the sacking of the entire executive and the closure of the London HQ.
These shenanigans have been observed with great interest by Nick Griffin and the BNP. Until 1997, under the leadership of Dr Alan Sked, UKIP's membership form included a clause stressing that racists were not allowed to join. Soon after Sked's departure, however, the clause mysteriously disappeared. The new leaders, Michael Holmes and Nigel Farage - who are now both MEPs - also set out to "combine our protest" with other anti-Euro campaigners. In his UKIP election leaflet this year, Holmes paid tribute to "citizens' patriotic protest groups" such as Save Our Sterling - presumably unaware that Save Our Sterling was run by the BNP.
Then came the most disturbing titbit of all: a blurred photo, taken in the summer of 1997, showing Nigel Farage of UKIP chatting to two men. One was Tony "the bomber" Lecomber, the other was Mark Deavin, head of research for the BNP, who had briefly infiltrated UKIP but was expelled in May 1997 after his true affiliations were discovered.
Deavin, who edited Mindbenders, an "expose" of Jews in the media, is also the author of The Grand Plan: The Origins of Non-White Immigration, in which he argues that "the mass immigration of non-Europeans into every White country on earth" had been engineered by "a homogeneous transatlantic political and financial elite to destroy the national identities and create a raceless new world order." Homogeneous, eh? Allow Deavin to explain: "These concerns were Jewish in origin... the promotion of World Government can also be seen to be in line with traditional Jewish messianic thinking."
When the photo was sent anonymously to the UKIP a few months ago, Farage expressed bafflement. While admitting that "I briefly met Mr Deavin at his request on June 17 1997, and had lunch with him in a restaurant," he insisted that "I have no recollection of ever meeting or speaking to Mr Lecomber in my life... I can only surmise that Mr Lecomber was planted outside the restaurant or that the photograph has been doctored."
Whatever the explanation, the fact that Farage met Deavin after the BNP man's expulsion was enough to alarm some UKIP members - especially as Farage, who earns his living as a City commodity-broker, is a man who often used words such as "nigger" and "nig-nog" in the pub after committee meetings. A month after the lunch, by an odd coincidence, Deavin wrote an article in the far-right journal Spearhead which discussed the possibility of closer relations between the BNP and UKIP.
But here's an even stranger coincidence. Shortly before the 1997 general election, Mark Deavin spoke freely of his plans to undercover researchers from Searchlight magazine and The Cook Report, who had posed as emissaries from Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National. One necessary step, he said, was to get rid of the BNP leader John Tyndall ("who is actually an obstacle") and replace him with Deavin's chum Nick Griffin. This would leave one other obstacle. "If Blair becomes prime minister," Deavin predicted, "the BNP will be the official opposition in the inner cities, in working-class areas. The UKIP will be the opposition in the shires, the county areas, the middle-class opposition. That party is a serious opposition to us in middle England, but, if we had the resources, we could tear it to pieces."
Hi
I have been sent this:
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Farage crash - sabotage is strongly indicated
To:
Date: Friday, 7 May, 2010, 22:34
I don't know the original source of the following report (it was passed to me from a usually reliable source), but if true this is very serious:
dave
At this stage of the investigation sabotage is strongly indicated.
Media reports that the banner got wrapped around the empennage are
clearly false - the banner can be seen from obverhead shots lying
undamaged, several hundred feet from the aircarft.
There is no sign of external pre-accident damage to the empennage (or
for that matter to the banner)
The accident happened at about 0756 local time, as the aircraft had
successfully picked up the banner, on its 5th attempt. The incident
was sudden, consistent with the parting of a control cable to the
rudder or elevators. The operator, Sky Banners Ltd, is experienced and
reputable and has a good safety record.
There are no grounds to query either the competence or integrity of the
pilot or operator.
The aircraft, a PZL-104 Wilga 35A, G-BWDF, c/n 21950955, is designed
for towing (originally gliders) and has an excellent safety record.
Nearly 1,000 have been made since 1968.
The police treated it as a crime scene and have not ruled out sabotage,
because AAIB found a severed control cable in the wreckage.
It is possible Eurobaromoeter conducted a secret poll in Buckingham -
it would be useful to know who was conducting local polls. Of course
there would be concern in Brussels and Berlin at someone as eloquent
and well-informed as Nigel being elected. The decision to
assassinate the Foreign Minister of Sweden was taken on the basis of a
Eurobarometer poll.
At this stage it is probable sabotage, probable method part-severing of
a control cable to the rudder or elevators. The aircraft was left
unguarded overnight.
An open Letter to Lord Pearson and the UKIP leadership
In the aftermath of another disappointing set of election results the leadership must make some crucial decisions, and involve the party membership in the decision making process. The failure of the party leadership to listen to rank and file members is culpable. UKIP must decide if it’s a party only interested in gaining seats in Europe or if it has ambitions to be a mainstream political party, dedicated to governing in Westminster. The concept that gaining seats in the EU would raise the party’s profile in the UK election is no more than a myth as results demonstrates.
If UKIP has a genuine desire to gain seats at Westminster, then we must get away from the concept that UKIP is a grass roots party and join the real political world by understanding what is required to gain seats in parliament, that means UKIP must become a professional mainstream political part. That requires a change in party structure, policies, funding and targeting seats; it requires a change of attitude towards the whole concept of where UKIP stands today, UKIP can no longer be led by mavericks wearing a Tory rosette on one lapel and a UKIP rosette on the other. It can no longer wash its dirty linen in public; it can no longer consider coming fourth a success story or keep using lack of publicity as an excuse for failure. UKIP must take action to bring in professional fundraisers, professional PR consultants and professional leadership.
The results from this election confirm that in order to gain seats any candidate requires both funds and a large team on the ground for months not weeks before an election, the next GE will s in all probability be held within the next 18 months, so planning must start now.
UKIP must understand that it currently lacks the funding and activists to contest the 400 plus seats that were contested at the current election, putting up paper candidates is not the way forward. UKIP should be looking at targeting between 50 and 75 seats selecting these candidates using a professional approach not the “who ‘s willing to stand’ approach each candidate to be approved by the NEC based on their ability to win the seat. Once selected the candidates must be support financially and by a strong election tem at constituency level.
The importance of gaining seats on local councils cannot be underestimated, nor should the importance of local issues when campaigning for parliament. Local council elections are scheduled in many regions for next May (Possible coinciding with a fresh GE) again UKIP must start planning now by selecting candidates, holding local surgeries and general becoming active at community level. None of this will happen on its own, it requires coordination at national, region and local level.
Another weakness within UKIP is the lack of local branches, difficult to remedy but an essential task for regional organisers to tackle.
Finally we come to the crux of the issue, why did we perform badly in the current GE, Even allowing that UKIP increased its share of the vote nationally, in the majority of seats where both a BNP candidate and UKIP candidate stood in the same constituency, the BNP candidate gained more votes. A thorough analysis of all the results is required and quickly to answer some vital question as to which of the UKIP policies appealed to the voters and which failed to impress.
There is also an urgent requirement for UKIP to appoint spokespersons on a wide range of issues that are bound to arise from the hung parliament, on a professional basis we can no longer leave this task to Nigel and Lord Pearson, UKIP requires a much wider range of people promoting UKIP policies in a professional and concise way and making more media appearances in the process, trotting out Lord Pearson or Nigel every time the media require a sound bite from UKIP has a negative effect and quickly becomes stale.
Philip Wray
Posted by United Kingdom Independence Party at 09:24
