Love Britain: vote UKIP or BNP?

[mos]

Well the target of my hatred are the arseholes who's only method of arguement is to insult the people that disagree with them and are unable to engage in sensible debate without resorting to flinging objectionable labels.

So you are trying to engage me in the 'Are you but who am I' style of argument ? Very clever!

Ps. I sense a sockie.

[alluvial]

So you are trying to engage me in the 'Are you but who am I' style of argument ? Very clever!

Ps. I sense a sockie.

What the feck are you on about?

(And I note how you are resorting to label flinging.)

[Zero Liability]

There is no difference between UKIP and BNP these days - in some ways UKIP is now more right wing than the BNP.

Stupid.

The term 'right wing' also is meaningless when used in this way. The BNP - like most fascists - do not like capitalism and certainly not globalisation. Thus they're by no means on the economic right wing. Now, they're certainly on the right-wing of the authoritarian scale, but when many leftists share their disdain of the masses (as in: believe they're too stupid to run their own lives without intervention from mummy state), I fail to see what distinction this really brings about. The only disagreement is in terms of what aspects of one's life should be controlled by and subordinate to the government and the collective it represents. This has nothing to do with UKIP's own social policy.

UKIP support the introduction of work permits as a means to curtail migration. They believe immigration puts an unnecessary strain on public resources. Right or wrong, this is nowhere near to being on par with the views of the BNP, and is something both the Tories and Labour are now aping, because they know it's an electoral hot button. I guess they're a bit traditionalist on marriage too. That's about it.

UKIP is a vaguely libertarian party, a bit like the liberal party of old, when it still had a classical liberal bias to it. I don't agree with UKIP on tax avoidance and tax havens, either, but then I take a much dimmer view of the way governments conduct themselves than most. Even if UKIP isn't as libertarian as I would like it to be, it may give the Tories a viable option to partner with, assuming they genuinely want to rein in the size of the government, by a significant scope, as the lib-dems are far too tepid for this.

[mos]

What the feck are you on about?

(And I note how you are resorting to label flinging.)

So are you. "the feck" stands for a label in this context.

And I sense that you would not speak to me as you do I were from "Western Block".

[alluvial]

So are you. "the feck" stands for a label in this context.

And I sense that you would not speak to me as you do I were from "Western Block".

OMG!

[SpontaneousOrder]

Anyone who votes, in this age of free information, is worthy of the title 'subhuman'. Although I'd happily make exceptions for a lot of the Ron Paul fans in the states, etc.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Simples - go for this one....


"Britain’s survival depends on a technology-intensive manufacturing base, protected from globalisation and rampant internationalist exploitation – the core of the British National Party’s plan for rebuilding this nation’s economy after decades of Tory and Labour neglect.

Globalisation has caused the export of jobs and industries to the Far East, and has brought ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities who depend on them."

That's bulltulip. British communities are wealthier than they have ever been before, precisely because of globalisation.

[Zero Liability]

Anyone who votes, in this age of free information, is worthy of the title 'subhuman'. Although I'd happily make exceptions for a lot of the Ron Paul fans in the states, etc.

Voting by and large consists of giving the sheep a chance in contributing to how the wolves will carve them up. I don't expect it to bring much change, as democratic systems aren't driven by apathetic voters, so much as parties (such as lobbyists, quangos etc) who have far more to gain by passing policies whence they derive significant concentrated benefits, the costs of which are widely dispersed over said voters, whose sole purpose is to rubber-stamp this system. This isn't to say that the consent of the governed is not required for the system to function, but you can just as well substitute consent with apathy. If anything, it would seem like it is crises which create the most fertile ground for change, for better or for worse, as democratic systems are otherwise lethargic and conservative by their nature (as in: try repealing measures that benefit particular parties once they're enshrined in law; IR35 being a case in point).

Regarding Ron Paul's successes, they were largely in terms of bringing greater awareness to the public of the excesses of the US government. I see UKIP's role as similar, in regards to the EU and Westminster.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Voting by and large consists of giving the sheep a chance in contributing to how the wolves will carve them up. I don't expect it to bring much change, as democratic systems aren't driven by apathetic voters, so much as parties (such as lobbyists, quangos etc) who have far more to gain by passing policies whence they derive significant concentrated benefits, the costs of which are widely dispersed over said voters, whose sole purpose is to rubber-stamp this system. This isn't to say that the consent of the governed is not required for the system to function, but you can just as well substitute consent with apathy.

Regarding Ron Paul's successes, they were largely in terms of bringing greater awareness to the public of the excesses of the US government. I see UKIP's role as similar, in regards to the EU and Westminster.

The difference I see is that Ron Paul proposed to reduce government to it's bare essentials, and apart from that is an admitted voluntarist who (i think - i'v not payed attention in a while) would ideally go the whole way (Even though i thin in practicality it's be a disaster of epic proportions). The UKIP guys aren't like that.
Ofcourse i'm being hyperbolic calling voters subhuman; I'd be happy to see UKIP succeed for the time being (although I see it as a bit of a gamble), although I'd much rather see people not bother turning up to vote at all.

[Zero Liability]

UKIP are by far more 'moderate'. I think their 'extreme' (really, anything that 'offends' the oh-so-PC rarefied BBC crowd that refuses to depart from received doctrine on a number of issues) language suggests otherwise but really, they are only swinging back British politics mildly back onto the road of sanity, which shows how far gone it is. Godfrey Bloom was an exception (as is Daniel Hannan amongst his own party), but he's hardly representative of the party at large. A pity, I like him most of all politicians.

Again with regard to RP, I think the US is hopeless. No amount of electoral reform will suffice. I doubt he is ignorant of this. There is reluctance to even shave off a few billions from their staggering debt. Nothing is the fault of the central planners. It's all "bad weather", "stupid consumers", "foolish businesses refusing to lend" blah blah blah. It is hard to believe that a country so powerful is run by a bunch of delusional (or very deceitful) narcissists/psychopaths, such as Ms Yellen (or either of her predecessors), or Carney over here (we'll see how "skilled" or "intelligent" that bankster critter is when the going gets tough), but it's just late Roman empire on repeat. Thus, he is banking on a revolution through a small number of the populace introducing ideas that hopefully will bring about a paradigm shift. The system cannot function if consent is withdrawn and apathy is ended, and purely in terms of its financials, the US is in a very precarious situation if its currency loses credibility. The trouble in the emerging markets may defray this situation as it has shifted the focus away from the US, whose currency is seen as a 'safe haven' asset. Of course the fracking 'revolution' and re-shoring over there may help delay this.

Even the "extreme" supposed Ayn Rand acolyte, Paul Ryan, cannot do anything to stop the growth of their debt, due to the political horsetrading this involves. It's a laughable situation. Rand Paul is a bit more moderate sounding than his father, so he may curry more favour with electoral politics, and perhaps may ride on the back of a Republican party that is being forced into reform by its more radicalised members (this is where I think the Tories are headed, too, and UKIP may be a catalyst in this, much like the Tea Party was in the US, in spite of its flaws). Based on the legacy left by Reagan, I'm not optimistic about change being brought about through a presidency alone.

Where I think there is some overlap is that Farage is very charismatic and has a flare to him. But he's just one person at the top of the party; the rest of it isn't too dissimilar from how the other parties function, it's just a little closer to the classical liberal right than most of them are willing to be.