Hope not Hate – refuting the claims UKIP is racist

Hope not Hate – refuting the claims UKIP is racist

by Neil Craig
article from Wednesday 31, July, 2013

MY PARTY, UKIP, has come under a lot of pressure from unfair accusations of racism. In that light on Monday I attended a meeting of a leftist group called Hope Not Hate. The meeting had been specifically advertised as a "discussion" on UKIP policies; whether they were so right wing that they had to be opposed. I thought discussion would proceed more effectively if there was somebody there who knew our policies so, even though no specific invitation had been made, I went.

Unknown to me somebody else had had the same idea. Lord Christopher Monckton, the Scottish party president; world expert on the catastrophic warming fraud; speaker on dozens of videos viral worldwide: and generally as intelligent a person as you will find in politics anywhere – was seated on one side of the room. I took a seat on the other, relaxed and looked forward to a good evening.

Unfortunately the advertised speaker Nick Lowles couldn't make it and Ms Hazel Nolan, another employee of HNH who had come up as his assistant stepped in, along with a Glasgow official. They explained that HNH had been set up to be less strident than previous leftist confrontational groups and thus more attractive to women and others, hence the primacy of "Hope" in the title. To be fair to them they did acknowledge that UKIP isn't racist though the claim can be made against some, mainly former, members.

From the audience I did say that while I regretted that they had decided not to ask anybody who knew UKIP policies to the "discussion" and that their blog section on UKIP which seemed to be a collection of the weakest smears (e.g. a UKIP member plays darts and sometimes goes online but without quoting anything he said) dressed up in scary language, what they had started off with was much more reasonable.

In the audience there were two "extreme leftist elements" both of whom were sitting directly behind me and a few other clearly committed rather older socialists but also some "civilians". The first ELE then went into a long diatribe about our extreme rightist policies, of which I can only remember our opposition to the redefinition of marriage and opposition to current aid targets. All of these were things I would happily speak for (for example quitting the EU and allowing the third world to sell us cheaper food than the EU does would undoubtedly do more good for them than our usually misspent "aid" budget does) and all things which on which popular opinion is on our side.

Lord Monckton was less confrontational than I. He made it absolutely clear that our party is absolutely opposed to racism and actually asked HNH to find evidence since he would personally ensure that nobody involved in racism would remain. This placated everybody but ELE number 1 who made the, as I see it paradoxical argument, that making that offer must be an admission that it was happening. Even more paradoxical as it had already been acknowledged that there were two Labour councillors formerly in the BNP, and Labour clearly weren't being so helpful.

But with that exception everybody now accepted that UKIP wasn't racist. They did still say that we were pulling the Conservatives to make more rightist noises and while those in HNH who, according to Red Pepper (see below), come from the Socialist Workers Party may dislike that, it is clearly entirely legitimate.

I here ought to acknowledge that I also mentioned the tundratabloids accusation that there is some government funding of HNH. There is no evidence for this other than the link given below and I had assumed it true purely because I have written on other occasions about the massive role government funding plays in ASH (98%) and almost all environmental groups such as Scottish Renewables.

Hazel confirmed without hesitation that HNH had never received anything, not a penny, from the state and I have to accept that since for her to lie about that would be incredibly foolish and if found out, deprive the entire organisation and anybody in it of any sort of credibility forever.

The massive amount of hidden government funding of political organisations campaigning for more government power is damaging not just for distortion it causes in political debate but also because it inevitably sows distrust.

I also, firmly believing that the terms "left" and "right" are counterproductive labels I started on the list of policies, given below which we support and have been "leftist". While they cut me off after number four the point was taken.

Then as a final point I mentioned that main real act of fascism we have seen in Scotland was the attack on Nigel Farage recently and I hoped they would campaign against such behaviour by Radical Independence. They accepted this with a perhaps slightly grudging "that goes without saying". Since Radical Independence appears to be an Trotskyist front that is a significant statement and suggests to me that that bit of intimidation did its supporters no good. Let us hope that Salmond, who so disgracefully defended the perpatrators will follow their example.

Chris actually asked if UKIP could become associate members of HNH which produced a somewhat bewildered "I'll have to put it to the committee".

All in all a remarkable experience. I have been at the sharp end of an SWP organised mob but when you get to a meeting, where they are trying to recruit, reason remains powerful.


-------------------------------------------------------

10 "Leftist" Policies From UKIP

This is not to say that UKIP is a "leftist" party it is to say that even the original definition of "left" and "right" in politics means little; that over the years the definition of which is which has changed, sometimes more than once and that nowadays most of the most important political questions do not relate to either. The term originally derived from the fact that the door into the first French assembly in the 1790s was on the left of the chamber. All the nobs, great and good, aristos and politically connected entered first and therefore found themselves seated on the right as the last to enter, the most common, were left nearest the door.

Today the best that can be said of the definition is that it is meaningless. The medium is that it allows those who don't want to put time into politics can get pre-digested opinions simply by choosing a place on the line, even though this often means they end up with opinions on unrelated issues that make no sense. The worst is that it helps those in power distort, divide and rule.

1 - Not being ruled by an unelected elite in Brussels - or is Tony Benn a rightist? When Neil Kinnock took over the Labour party they were committed to leaving the EU without even a referendum. Since then his wife, himself and now his son have each been making thousands a year out of the EU and coincidentally Labour support staying in without even a referendum.

2 - Opposing unlimited immigration of unskilled workers which pushes down wage rates for the poorest - also a world class welfare system is obviously incompatible with allowing unlimited immigration from countries with average incomes of £350 a year. - in early 20thC America mass immigration was largely opposed by the trade unions, who feared the competition and supported by business owners who wanted cheap workers. Now Swedish trade unionists, following the race riots there largely unreported by our media, have launched a nationalist campaign, urging the government to impose restrictions on immigration in certain economic areas. The Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) complained that more than two thirds of work permits issued to people from non-Nordic countries were related to economic areas where there was already high domestic labour competition

3 - Popular right of referendums.

4 - Popular right to an EU referendum - rather like the Labour one in 1974.

5 - Being progressive as in actually supporting progress and not wanting to return to the middle ages - OK, UKIP is not quite as enthusiastic for technological progress as Trotsky who said "technology, which takes nothing ‘on faith’, is actually able to cut down mountains and move them" and "that in the future this will be done on an immeasurably larger scale" but clearly Trotsky would be far closer to UKIP than to today's "environmentally aware Trotskyites with their faith based global warming scare.

6 - Against rich people passing a law to increase the price of only the sort of drink poor people buy.

7 - Opposed to fuel poverty - the other parties are all creating ever more expensive electricity through demanding we subsidise technologically backward windmills. Particularly in Scotland where Holyrood voted unanimously for the world's most expensive Climate Change Act. This is why every single honest MSP has publicly admitted supporting more fuel poverty.

8 - UKIP has been against all the illegal wars, hospital bombings, ethnic cleansing, genocide, sexual enslavement of children and other atrocities the LabConDems did in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya.

9 - Opposing corruption, from the EU where – for over 10 years no accountants have been willing to certify their accounts – to the Forth bridge where £2 bn is going walkabout

10 - An end to EU food tariffs which add 20% to our food bills and prevent 3rd world countries developing - the average cow in Europe gets £400 a year subsidy which is more than the average Senegalese lives on. What sort of "leftist" wants higher food prices - no before the Greens became "leftist".


-------------------------------------------------------

Links and sources

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130256/Lord-Ahmed-Rotherham-offers-10m-bounty-detain-Obama.html#axzz2JsGBUqjC

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Anti-fascism-isn-t-working/

http://tundratabloids.com/2013/06/uk-government-funding-left-wing-hope-not-hate-to-smear-ukip.html

 

ThinkScotland exists thanks to readers' support - please donate in any currency and often


Follow us on Facebook and Twitter & like and share this article
To comment on this article please go to our facebook page