What do you think about UKIP?

[Divair]

Am I the only one who rebelliously and intentionally mentions 'ukip' without capitalising?

Yes.

[Regenburg]

Am I the only one who rebelliously and intentionally mentions 'ukip' without capitalising?

does writing everything without caps count as intentional?

[The Mataniya Islands]

The BNP are much more stupid than UKIP but that doesn't mean they are any worse. I think that UKIP are much more politically correct than the BNP, but they are also less predictable and that's rather worrying.

But at the end of the day the BNP are so ridiculously stupid it's hilarious; I mean come on, who makes restrictions on membership of a political party that are "only indigenous British" and honestly believes they are not racist? Only the likes of the BNP.
At least UKIP don't admit to having Fascistic tendencies like Nick Griffin and his bigoted, bird-brained, beer-belly followers.

[Wolfmanne]

The BNP are much more stupid than UKIP but that doesn't mean they are any worse. I think that UKIP are much more politically correct than the BNP, but they are also less predictable and that's rather worrying.

But at the end of the day the BNP are so ridiculously stupid it's hilarious; I mean come on, who makes restrictions on membership of a political party that are "only indigenous British" and honestly believes they are not racist? Only the likes of the BNP.
At least UKIP don't admit to having Fascistic tendencies like Nick Griffin and his bigoted, bird-brained, beer-belly followers.

BNP are still around?

I thought they ran out of pure Brits so all the people with Irish grandfathers switched over to UKIP .

[Parti Ouvrier]

Ah, brilliant. NationState's Generalites, the RESPECT Party of the internet.

Let me make it clear that first of all I am an Eurorealist and an One Nation Conservative along the lines of Kenneth Clarke, plus I share the environmental views of ousted Tory MP Tim Yeo, so I don't really agree on that much with UKIP, whether it is their socially conservative or libertarian/thatcherite wing. But what people are characterising UKIP as is plain stupid. Yes, their manifesto says that they are against gay marriage. Yes, their manifesto says that they are opposed to immigration to the point that a civil servant in the Home Office would give Nigel Farage a funny look if he became Prime Minister and started going on about his shit. Yes, their environmental policy is unenvironmental. I could go on. The point is that this is their voting base and of course they will go for those with these beliefs. I personally think that some people are just slow to change and that is understandable.

Many of them are probably OAPs with flashbacks about the 'good old days', residents of the many Little Englands where the Daily Mail is the only newspaper sold at the newsagents that exist in the Midlands and South East England. And yes, there are libertarians among them who are slightly off their rocker when it comes to privatisation or just want to smoke weed and still leave the EU. But to say that they are racist and xenophobic when it is only a few Councillors coming out with these stupid ideas about gay marriage causing floods or something about foreign aid and the nonexistant 'Bongo Bongo Land'. UKIP is just a party who are against the EU and to win a few votes decide to try and gain the support of the increasingly isolated thatcherites/libertarians/traditionalists in the modernist Conservative Party, groups which just happen to be reasonably euroskeptic.

They are wrong and they are misguided, but they'll either die out eventually (mainly because their voter base will die). As a Tory, I don't agree with them and they are a dangerous splinter to the Conservative Party that could steal votes, so I don't like them on that, but what people on NationStates (and leftists in general) are characterising them as is idiotic.

Nigel Farage has agreed to a public debate with Nick Clegg on UK membership of the EU:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26287197

No details as to the date/venue as of yet, but should be interesting.

Why Clegg? Kenneth Clarke should be in the debate, seeing that he is the leader of the Eurorealistic Tories. Clarke can stand up for his views. As for Clegg, sure, he might pull off a passionate speech or two like the ones in the general election debate, but whilst I like the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition, I think the rest of Britain isn't in the mood for 'liberal, backstabbing bullshit'. Clegg vs. Farage? I'd give Farage the win on a debate.

Firstly, racism and Xenophobia are different things.
What was it NF said, something like 29 million could come to Britain from Romania and Bulgaria. Also a lot of scaremongering about immigration, if that's not - an 'intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries', I don't know what is!

[The Mataniya Islands]

The BNP are much more stupid than UKIP but that doesn't mean they are any worse. I think that UKIP are much more politically correct than the BNP, but they are also less predictable and that's rather worrying.

But at the end of the day the BNP are so ridiculously stupid it's hilarious; I mean come on, who makes restrictions on membership of a political party that are "only indigenous British" and honestly believes they are not racist? Only the likes of the BNP.
At least UKIP don't admit to having Fascistic tendencies like Nick Griffin and his bigoted, bird-brained, beer-belly followers.

BNP are still around?

I thought they ran out of pure Brits so all the people with Irish grandfathers switched over to UKIP .

Apparently whatever's left of the BNP currently resides in Welshpool in Wales, but they are indeed decreasing in numbers thank God. Just skimming through the Wikipedia page for them now and they never cease to amaze me for the wrong reasons. John Tyndall the founder of the BNP once proclaimed that "Mein Kampf is my bible."

[Shove Piggy Shove]

Nigel Farage has agreed to a public debate with Nick Clegg on UK membership of the EU:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26287197

No details as to the date/venue as of yet, but should be interesting.

Why Clegg? Kenneth Clarke should be in the debate, seeing that he is the leader of the Eurorealistic Tories. Clarke can stand up for his views. As for Clegg, sure, he might pull off a passionate speech or two like the ones in the general election debate, but whilst I like the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition, I think the rest of Britain isn't in the mood for 'liberal, backstabbing bullshit'. Clegg vs. Farage? I'd give Farage the win on a debate.

Clegg made the challenge on a radio show stating the the Lib Dems were 'the party of in' and UKIP were 'the party of out' (ketchup) - Farage accepted earlier today, so now we just have to wait for the date/venue to be confirmed.

With regards to the outcome, I'm pretty solidly pro-EU, so I would hope that if Clegg can get his facts & arguments in order he should be able to win.

[Ifreann]

Why Clegg? Kenneth Clarke should be in the debate, seeing that he is the leader of the Eurorealistic Tories. Clarke can stand up for his views. As for Clegg, sure, he might pull off a passionate speech or two like the ones in the general election debate, but whilst I like the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition, I think the rest of Britain isn't in the mood for 'liberal, backstabbing bullshit'. Clegg vs. Farage? I'd give Farage the win on a debate.

Clegg made the challenge on a radio show stating the the Lib Dems were 'the party of in' and UKIP were 'the party of out' (ketchup) - Farage accepted earlier today, so now we just have to wait for the date/venue to be confirmed.

With regards to the outcome, I'm pretty solidly pro-EU, so I would hope that if Clegg can get his facts & arguments in order he should be able to win.

Clegg will win in terms of having facts and reason on his side. Farage will win in terms of scaring people with talk of foreigners coming to Britain to steal jobs and beg on the streets and ban English ale.

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

I do hope Farage wins a solid victory for the out camp in that debate: I am rather hopeful, as he has asked for a debate for absolutely ages, so he must be farely confident.

Also, as a UKIP member, I'd hope it would both show people we need to get out, and be the final nail in the Lib Dem's coffin, boosting our election results.

[Tagmatium]

Because UKIP likes to pretend that the Empire is still a think, and that Britain is a special enough snowflake that it can do what the fuck it wants.

There's a reason why it ended in the 1950s - reality happened, and shit had to change.

But the UK gave so much to the world, it deserves to think that it is special. Magna charta is one reason than without the islands the Nazis would win ww2 or at least the Soviet would reach Paris. Given all that a litle credit from its citizens thos cointry deserves. UKIP is aware of that and at least it wants to reach a little bit of the gold old days.

The reason why the Empire ended is because some social warriors came to power who instead of giving representation to the colonies in the West Minster parliament they did everything to drive them away from Btitain.

Well, I'm not sure what the hell I just read.

[Britannia I]

I think their a badly misunderstood, patriotic party that wants to be rid of the corrupt EU and British political Correctness so top marks to them for working so hard Very Positive

[Wolfmanne]

Ah, brilliant. NationState's Generalites, the RESPECT Party of the internet.

Let me make it clear that first of all I am an Eurorealist and an One Nation Conservative along the lines of Kenneth Clarke, plus I share the environmental views of ousted Tory MP Tim Yeo, so I don't really agree on that much with UKIP, whether it is their socially conservative or libertarian/thatcherite wing. But what people are characterising UKIP as is plain stupid. Yes, their manifesto says that they are against gay marriage. Yes, their manifesto says that they are opposed to immigration to the point that a civil servant in the Home Office would give Nigel Farage a funny look if he became Prime Minister and started going on about his shit. Yes, their environmental policy is unenvironmental. I could go on. The point is that this is their voting base and of course they will go for those with these beliefs. I personally think that some people are just slow to change and that is understandable.

Many of them are probably OAPs with flashbacks about the 'good old days', residents of the many Little Englands where the Daily Mail is the only newspaper sold at the newsagents that exist in the Midlands and South East England. And yes, there are libertarians among them who are slightly off their rocker when it comes to privatisation or just want to smoke weed and still leave the EU. But to say that they are racist and xenophobic when it is only a few Councillors coming out with these stupid ideas about gay marriage causing floods or something about foreign aid and the nonexistant 'Bongo Bongo Land'. UKIP is just a party who are against the EU and to win a few votes decide to try and gain the support of the increasingly isolated thatcherites/libertarians/traditionalists in the modernist Conservative Party, groups which just happen to be reasonably euroskeptic.

They are wrong and they are misguided, but they'll either die out eventually (mainly because their voter base will die). As a Tory, I don't agree with them and they are a dangerous splinter to the Conservative Party that could steal votes, so I don't like them on that, but what people on NationStates (and leftists in general) are characterising them as is idiotic.


Why Clegg? Kenneth Clarke should be in the debate, seeing that he is the leader of the Eurorealistic Tories. Clarke can stand up for his views. As for Clegg, sure, he might pull off a passionate speech or two like the ones in the general election debate, but whilst I like the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition, I think the rest of Britain isn't in the mood for 'liberal, backstabbing bullshit'. Clegg vs. Farage? I'd give Farage the win on a debate.

Firstly, racism and Xenophobia are different things.
What was it FN said, something like 29 million could come to Britain from Romania and Bulgaria. Also a lot of scaremongering about immigration, if that's not - an 'intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries', I don't know what is!

I think the issue of immigration is overstated, but wanting to limit immigration is not xenophobia or racism. The reason for it is the belief that 'immigrants take jobs', which is true to a degree. The reality is that it only makes Middle Class jobs slightly more competitive with most of these 'Bulgarian/Romanian' immigrants probably being students or professionals coming to Britain for a salary that they deserve. The others that come do jobs and hours that people don't want to do. If you can excuse this stupid anecdote: last week, when I was going to Malta, I stopped to have breakfast at a restaurant at the airport. It was Sunday and early in the Monday. All the workers were Eastern European; I can't imagine your average underclass British citizen, whether White, Black, Mixed Race or whatever, making that sort of effort. So yeah, to me UKIP are definitely misguided, but it just seems to be economic protectionism/nationalism to me; they are scared of competition. They don't advocate racial discrimination, segregation or anything like that. What a few BNP rejects are saying is not even what the core of the party believes.

[The Mataniya Islands]

But the UK gave so much to the world, it deserves to think that it is special. Magna charta is one reason than without the islands the Nazis would win ww2 or at least the Soviet would reach Paris. Given all that a litle credit from its citizens thos cointry deserves. UKIP is aware of that and at least it wants to reach a little bit of the gold old days.

The reason why the Empire ended is because some social warriors came to power who instead of giving representation to the colonies in the West Minster parliament they did everything to drive them away from Btitain.

Well, I'm not sure what the hell I just read.

If this was Facebook I would have liked the above comment.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Firstly, racism and Xenophobia are different things.
What was it FN said, something like 29 million could come to Britain from Romania and Bulgaria. Also a lot of scaremongering about immigration, if that's not - an 'intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries', I don't know what is!

I think the issue of immigration is overstated, but wanting to limit immigration is not xenophobia or racism. The reason for it is the belief that 'immigrants take jobs', which is true to a degree. The reality is that it only makes Middle Class jobs slightly more competitive with most of these 'Bulgarian/Romanian' immigrants probably being students or professionals coming to Britain for a salary that they deserve. The others that come do jobs and hours that people don't want to do. If you can excuse this stupid anecdote: last week, when I was going to Malta, I stopped to have breakfast at a restaurant at the airport. It was Sunday and early in the Monday. All the workers were Eastern European; I can't imagine your average underclass British citizen, whether White, Black, Mixed Race or whatever, making that sort of effort. So yeah, to me UKIP are definitely misguided, but it just seems to be economic protectionism/nationalism to me; they are scared of competition. They don't advocate racial discrimination, segregation or anything like that. What a few BNP rejects are saying is not even what the core of the party believes.

Jesus Christ. I never said ukip were generally a racist organisation. Nor did I say opposition to immigration was racist. I wish you would stop conflating racism and Xenophobia.

[Divair]

I think their a badly misunderstood, patriotic party that wants to be rid of the corrupt EU and British political Correctness so top marks to them for working so hard Very Positive

No, they're not misunderstood at all. Everyone knows what they stand for, which is exactly why they're hated.

[Tagmatium]

No, it's not. It's a ridiculously smug propoganda machine for armchair revolutionaries and Champagne socialists. It's every bit as biased as the Mail, just more subtle about it and biased in the opposite direction.

Strangely enough the Guardian did an article on champagne socialism: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... s-hollande

The thing that annoys me is their civil libertarianism. It is just plain over the top now and along the lines of 'fuck whatever the British government does'.

The Guardian's not a good paper.

It has an overall attitude of smugness and regularly stoops to sneer at those it thinks are stupid or wrong.

I stopped reading it (I'd long stopped buying it) when they ran an article that basically boiled down to "Ha, ha. A Daily Mail journalist got her house broken in to".

[Wolfmanne]

I think the issue of immigration is overstated, but wanting to limit immigration is not xenophobia or racism. The reason for it is the belief that 'immigrants take jobs', which is true to a degree. The reality is that it only makes Middle Class jobs slightly more competitive with most of these 'Bulgarian/Romanian' immigrants probably being students or professionals coming to Britain for a salary that they deserve. The others that come do jobs and hours that people don't want to do. If you can excuse this stupid anecdote: last week, when I was going to Malta, I stopped to have breakfast at a restaurant at the airport. It was Sunday and early in the Monday. All the workers were Eastern European; I can't imagine your average underclass British citizen, whether White, Black, Mixed Race or whatever, making that sort of effort. So yeah, to me UKIP are definitely misguided, but it just seems to be economic protectionism/nationalism to me; they are scared of competition. They don't advocate racial discrimination, segregation or anything like that. What a few BNP rejects are saying is not even what the core of the party believes.

Jesus Christ. I never said ukip were generally a racist organisation. I wish you would stop conflating racism and Xenophobia.

They are essentially synonymous.

The point still stands though. Wanting to limit immigration doesn't make you xenophobic; even the Lib Dems want to do this to a degree. UKIP just have a strong stance on it and some of their members are making a few passionate remarks because of recent trends. Is Australia a xenophobic country because of its immigration policy? UKIP want essentially a similar policy to that. I don't agree with it, but I don't see it as xenophobia.

[Scholencia]

1) New Zealand had representative self-government in 1893; women's suffrage in New Zealand had nothing to do with the United Kingdom's parliament, and was entirely the responsibility of the New Zealand Parliament. So no, the United Kingdom wasn't the first country to grant women the right to vote.

Which does not change tha fact that New Zealand was back than a British colony and not even a dominion. It was something like the Falkands today, since there is no New Zealand etnicity the people who libed there 150 years ago were British,

2) There's been no functioning "Muslim caliphate" since the sack of Baghdad in 1258; the Mamluks kept a shadow Abbasid Caliphate running until the 16th century - though one without any temporal authority - and the Ottomans intermittently claimed the title until the abolition of the Ottoman Empire in the 1920. But since the traditional Caliphate functionally ended in the 13th century,

To be honest I dont care since their history is not worth to learn since the islamic history is not importing to the to the human kinds as the European history is or the history of the Roman Empire. So, please spare me from the history of thoose savages.

I am more familiar with the Ottomans and their genocidal acts against innocent people from the 16th century until the early 20.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing up the "Muslim Caliphates" in relation to the gradual abolition of Atlantic slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries. I suspect you don't actually know what a "Caliphate" is, and are trying to make a general point about slavery continuing in some Muslim countries into the 20th century; but the latter point is wholly distinct from any hypothetical abolition of slavery by "Muslim Caliphates"

I have point them out because political biased historians in the West (who are unfortunately main stream) tend to represent muslim history as something developed and the history of Europe as the history of a Church dominated, white supramist era.

For inastance you could only hear (history books, documentaries) about slavery from the Europeans and then you got this comments which says the British empire used to be evil, while at other hand the subject of slavery of muslim Arabs who even contribute more to slavery in Africa is ignored. In fact, they are represent as "elighten" in compare to the european "Dark Age".

Or the other example are the Crusaders. You will always get about the evil christinan pope, religious bigotry etc. while the same people ignored that Muslims have expanded in former christian Norther Africa and Spain (ironically, many complain about the reqonquista yet dont know that Souther Spain was christian and Byzantine from begin). In fact the modern history dont want to tell what hapened to the Vandals after they got absorbed from the Arabs, probably because they dont want that the "eligthem" muslims be seen as bigoted.

[Scholencia]

Now, the former poster was complainin how "evil" was the British Empire and replied with the question about the muslim caliphates since I am sure that he would never condem the 13th century Arab muslim civilisation.

[Blasveck]

I guess the Islamic Golden Age doesn't exist to Scholencia. Or at least, it sure seems like it.

[Greater-London]

Bringing apathetic people into the political fold to support insane bullshit is a net harm.

What brings greater harm is having a large, dissatisfied and angry group of people who feel they are without a voice in their own community. Which leads to something far uglier than a handful of UKIP councilors and MEP's.

[Scholencia]

I guess the Islamic Golden Age doesn't exist to Scholencia. Or at least, it sure seems like it.

Islamic Golden Age is with begin false since because of some individuals doesn not mean that it is Golden. Or you do agree that 16-19 european century is a "christian golden age".

The period of the islamic "golden age" was certainly not more developed than the Europe at that time since the Arabs had also slaves, religious bigotry and all what it goes with it.

[Greater-London]

No, they're not misunderstood at all. Everyone knows what they stand for, which is exactly why they're hated.

Whilst I agree that they aren't a misunderstood party. Although saying "No one understands us" is quite fitting for a political party only just out of its teens. I think there are misconceptions about UKIP, I think plenty of people don't actually read UKIP's literature or manifesto and just assume its "bad" or "good" on gut instinct. There are lots of people who are libertarians who support UKIP - a party who disagree with drug decriminalization, gay marriage and free movement of peoples. The same way that people on the political left call them fascists.

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

I think their a badly misunderstood, patriotic party that wants to be rid of the corrupt EU and British political Correctness so top marks to them for working so hard Very Positive

No, they're not misunderstood at all. Everyone knows what they stand for, which is exactly why they're hated.

Really?

I know what they stand for, and so I joined. Most of the people who claim to have reasons to not like UKIP have no knowledge of their manifesto besides the EU and imigration.

[Blasveck]

I guess the Islamic Golden Age doesn't exist to Scholencia. Or at least, it sure seems like it.

Islamic Golden Age is with begin false since because of some individuals doesn not mean that it is Golden. Or you do agree that 16-19 european century is a "christian golden age".

The period of the islamic "golden age" was certainly not more developed than the Europe at that time since the Arabs had also slaves, religious bigotry and all what it goes with it.

I can't even understand the first paragraph due to your horrid grammar, but I don't know why you would think that a period of incredible academic achievements such as algebra, medical, and astronomical accomplishments is "false" in any sort of way.