Oldham East and Saddleworth By-Election: Paul Nuttall MEP

When people leave UKIP, usually after a disagreement with the autocratic leadership, UKIP sets out to lie and smear the person who has departed. This usually takes the form of accusing the person of being a BNP infiltrator. It sometimes seems that UKIP have so many infiltrators that they just can't be anything but a shadow of the BNP. But last May we reported here how UKIP leader Nigel Farage MEP had been photographed meeting Tony "The Bomber" Lecomber. Why would the UKIP leader have had a meeting with  a notorious man, even by BNP standards like Lecomber?

The Junius on UKIP blog helps to shed some light on this with a recent article about UKIP's colleagues in the European Parliament here. Nikki Sinclaire MEP refused to sit with UKIP's group in the EU parliament, quite reasonably she would rather not be associated with far right racists, holocaust deniers and homophobes. She has been joined by fellow MEP Mike Nattrass. Sadly other UKIP MEPs, including Paul Nuttall, are happy to associate with the nastier far right elements in the EU parliament. Nikki Sinclaire recently won a legal action against UKIP reported here.

UKIP have a history of changing policy in midstream if it suits them, and producing ill researched policies that don't add up.  Gary Cartwright is an ex-employee of Nigel Farage in Brussels, but left disillusioned and disenchanted. Of course, as with anybody who leaves the dangerous cult that UKIP became under Farage he is constantly smeared and attacked by Farage's disciples. Now that Mr Cartwright works for ex-UKIP MEP Nikki Sinclaire, he is coming under renewed attack and smear by certain UKIP people. Truly, UKIP is the politics of the playground but a very nasty and unpleasant playground.

Unable to garner the needed 5% to save their deposits in most parliamentary elections, UKIP have now come out in favour of Proportional Representation. Well if you can line your pockets becoming an MEP with a small perecentage of votes in EU elections, try the Westminster gravy train next. When UKIP claim to be the straight party remember Ashley Mote and Tom Wise. God knows what UKIP would get up to under PR. Pole dancing and prostitues on MP's expenses maybe?

Here's what Gary Cartwright says about the UKIP way of developing policy:

"The UKIP policy making process was always a bit different. Although I was one of those who called for a widening of the policy base from the moment I joined the party, I eventually came to agree with Roger Knapman who argued for a narrower and more focussed set of policies concentrating on withdrawal. Britain does need a new party, but UKIP clearly ain't it!

I was very surprised, however, to read that UKIP is now coming out in favour of farming subsidies, a la the Common Agricultural Policy. Opposition to the CAP is one thing that traditionally unites all eurosceptics - and quite a lot of europhiles as well. Maybe UKIP has become so obsessively contrarian that it has even turned against conventional euroscepticism now, who knows?

I recall a transport policy paper which called for the electrification of a line that had, in fact, been closed for many years. There was also a local government paper that was quite probably the most politically illiterate thing I have ever seen.

The biggest question that observers will be asking, however, is not whether UKIP has done an about-turn on farming subsidies, but whether the party is, as it appears to be, out of control".

Taken from Gary Cartwright's Brussels Blog.

More on UKIP and the BNP

The following is a highly informative article by Symon Hill.

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.

To see the article on the Ekklesia website click here.

UKIP and the BNP

Much has been made recently of UKIP's membership of the EFD Group in Brussels. The EFD is a group of far-right homophobes and holocaust deniers that no self-respecting political party should associate with. But is UKIP a self-respecting political party? Not judging by the photograph (right) of Nigel Farage with Tony 'The Bomber' Lecomber and Mark Deavin.

Every time UKIP takes a step forward it declares war on itself, and takes two steps back. Nigel Farage has always been there, like the love child of Arthur Daley and Peter Mandelson after a threesome with Niccolo Machiavelli. An interesting article followed UKIP's first three MEPs being elected in 1999.

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.

How very bizarre. Then, in 2010, Nikki Sinclaire finds herself in hot water, and attacked on national televeision by Nigel Farage MEP, for leaving UKIP's alliance in the EU parliament with the far-right EFD Group. But there's more.

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."

Mr Farage, for a seemingly astute politician, does seem to be in the habit of bumping into far-right politicians, and wining and dining them. But under every smooth operator, especially in British politics it seems, is a particularly nasty and unpleasant character. So the article continues.

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."

A further question that needs answering is why UKIP/EFD's rather strange press officer, Mark Croucher, still works for these people. After all it is Mark Croucher who claims to run UKIP's members past Searchlight, the anti-fascist organisation, to ensure no BNP infiltration. But does he?

Why not read the whole article, including the bits about Nick Griffin of the BNP? Please follow this link.