John Humphrys this morning presided over a mini-debate on the Today Programme about UKIP’s success on Thursday, observing that the party’s good showing in the three by-elections could be read as indicative of the disenchanted mood of a section of the electorate which is looking for a ‘new party’. In the case of UKIP however, the panel (whom it must be said were not sympathetic towards UKIP), suggested that voters had chosen them because they represented the ‘none of the above’ option, fulfilling a role akin to that once played by the now highly unpopular Liberal Democrats. The suggestion therefore, was that the vote for UKIP was largely negative, rather than positive.
One panellist stated that UKIP supporters tend to be much more concerned about the state of the economy than average, whilst another claimed that despite its anti-EU focus, 49% of UKIP supporters named immigration as their primary concern. However, what they did not go on to note is the implicit fragility of UKIP’s support, for its globalist Thatcherite economic approach would not assist our economic recovery, and with respect to immigration, the party is only concerned about European immigration. It never talks about restricting immigration from Asia and Africa. It would therefore seem safe to draw the conclusion that the bulk of UKIP’s supporters would prefer to vote for a new party committed to leaving the EU which also followed a non-globalist and non-Thatcherite economic policy, and was committed to slashing immigration from everywhere around the globe.
John Humphrys has acknowledged that a significant section of the electorate desires a new party. Some, at least for now, have decided to invest their support in UKIP. It is of course the wrong choice, but the positive alternative option has yet to be created. We must provide a positive and credible alternative. Upon this score, it is at least encouraging that UKIP is now being described as a ‘mainstream party’ by prominent political and media figures, rather than being misrepresented as ‘racist’ simply for raising the suggestion that mass immigration ought to be curtailed. There have certainly been some figures in a number of the smaller parties who would merit this appellation, but it is time that those who routinely abuse the words ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ in order to delegitimise any position on immigration other than that in favour of open borders, were ignored. They have cried wolf for too long, and as anyone in possession of their senses knows, there are no wolves in Britain today, other than those kept in zoos and safari parks.
Here are two links to articles in the Daily Mail and Telegraph respectively.ReplyDelete
Has there been a better time to start a new party for decent Brits who don't want to see their wonderful country destroyed
Thanks for the links Constip. I shall have a look at them when I have time.Delete
I see that Peter Hitchens took a pathetic swipe at the BNP again. If he thinks he is so much better than the BNP then why does he not set-up his own party that manages to be both un-PC and not get continually smeared by his fellow guttersnips in the press? It seems to me that any genuinely non-PC party is going to be called nasty names by the likes of him. Or is it because he is a total joke as both a so-called 'journalist' (otherwise known as a paid liar) and as a man?Delete
I am not a fan of Peter Hitchens, and I understand your frustration at him being constantly negative whilst suggesting nothing positive, but as for the BNP, I have no time for what they are. Many people have mistakenly supported and even joined it, but anyone who knows about the manner in which its upper echelons operate would understand that it is not to be trusted.Delete
Becoming 'mainstream' is obviously something to court as this implies widespread acceptance, however, how to make nationalism 'mainstream' is what we must concern ourselves with. I think we need to get to grips with and challenge the corrollary of the ideology of 'racism' here . I would expect that any position, either personal or political, which allowed for a preference of any kind towards an ethnic group could be considered by marxist ideologues, or even liberal ones, as being 'racist'. If this were so then the vast majority of people of all ethnicities would be 'racist' I'd say. In that the indigenous British, like any other ethnic group, have a racial composition we must, therefore, surely seek to assert this in our ancestral homeland if we are nationalists. This does not necessitate struggling to create an 'all white society' ( not that we should accept that there is anything negative about mono-ethnic societies per se, as multi-cultural propagandists would have everyone believe). However, a nationalist movement needs to be created ( perhaps not a policial party alone) which will foster ethnic consciousness and pride in our native British heritage if we are to survive as a nation and not be subsumed by miscegenation. I am not proposing some sort of apartheid programme but, rather, a campaign of cultural awareness and constitutional or legislative measures to promote the native identity of our indigenous Britons. I am happily ethno-centric ( and I believe most people are, I am not certainly not a 'hater' or a supremacist, but if this is to be a 'racist' then so be it.ReplyDelete
What is important is the retention of the substance in forms of policy. Blair did not go into the 1997 elections trumpeting about how he was going to make the UK more ‘diverse’ through opening the floodgates to mass immigration, but that is what he did, and once his party had taken control of the school curriculum and imposed ‘diversity’ legislation on every public body, his ideology was strictly enforced and has subsequently been internalised by the better part of an entire generation. Few under 35 will have managed to resist this constant barrage of propaganda, with the result that it will not be possible to win over sufficient numbers of voters in this age bracket by employing a linguistic code that they have been indoctrinated to believe is virtually synonymous with ‘Nazism’, no matter how incorrect and unsubstantiated that identification may be. Electoral politics has to take account of such realities.Delete
You are right. He stated quite the opposite in fact. If you look at Labour's 1997 election manifesto they said that every country had the right to firmly control immigration and Britain under New Labour would be no different. A more blatant Labour lie you could hardly fail to find! Any new party when it faces the inevitable smear of 'racism' from the Labour Party amongst others needs to tell the British people how the Labour Party lied about its true intentions before 1997 and how things subsequently turned-out.Delete
No, you are NOT 'racist'. You are racially aware which is what most human beings are (if they are honest with themselves and others) Indeed, this is one part of the essence of humanity itself. Neither you nor I 'hate' other races. Enoch Powell was once asked if he was a 'racist'. He said no he wasn't but he was a 'racialist' and he also said that there was no harm in being one as it was the basis of nationalism.ReplyDelete