Labour politicians keep harping on about the BNP and how big a threat they are in the upcoming imperial elections but they're fooling nobody - we all know that it's a desperate attempt to scare tens of thousands of disaffected Labour voters into getting off their backsides and voting instead of with-holding their votes in protest at the abysmal performance of their awful party.
The only party that has anything to fear from the BNP is Labour. They are ideologically close to each other, both parties being authoritarian socialists, and that's why traditional Labour strongholds are such fertile hunting grounds for the BNP.
Anyone wanting to cast a protest vote against Labour should vote UKIP, not waste their vote on the debt-ridden, racist BNP.
Use your EU vote to keep the BNP out
The BNP showed their true stripes when their deputy leader and candidate for the West Midlands constituency in the June 4 European elections, Simon Darby, appeared on stage in Milan at a neo-fascist rally.
The BNP claims they're not racist anymore. But you can tell a lot about people from the company they keep. Darby stood alongside Roberto Fiore, convicted in 1985 for his involvement in a bombing which killed 85 people including two Brits.
He became an MEP after Alessandra Mussolini, granddaughter of the World War Two dictator, resigned her seat to take up a post in the Italian government.
Fiore's party is a member of the European National Front. Also on the platform was French MEP Bruno Gollnisch, who was given a three-month prison sentence in 2007 for holocaust denial.
Winston Churchill features prominently on the BNP website, but he'd be turning in his grave to see friends of Mussolini admirers and Hitler lovers using his image.
Churchill knew that being British is not about race or religion. It's about respecting tolerance and fairness and believing that this countrol should be involved in the world, not shunned by it.
Don't let the BNP ruin our country. The BNP thrives on low turnout in elections: make sure you use your vote.
Neena Gill
Labour MEP for the West Midlands
wonkotsane is an author at Bloggers4UKIP.
Posts
24 comments:
This was from the UKIP Bournemouth site which came via a tip off from a contact in Italy:
http://www.westbournemouthukip.com/main.htm
You'd think Labour would give us a hat tip?
Ignore this tripe about the BNP and go ahead and vote for them.
UKIP are finished and they have been constantly thrashed by the BNP in elections over the last two years.
Ask yourself this question......What has the 12 elected MEP's done since taking office?
The answer is absolutley nothing!
They have their snouts in the trough just like the other corrupt party's.
UKIP according to the polls is far from finished.
Just because you do better then us at local elections does not mean that you are on course to do well.
Oh and lastly UKIP has done more in the last few years to wake Britain up to the threat of our EU membership then BNP ever has!.
UKIP is actually doing pretty well. Back in January the only published poll so far of voting intentions in the Euro Elections put them fourth on 7%, significantly ahead of Greens and BNP. UKIP also are getting a lot of broadcast time, as a result of their strong result in 2004. And a report in the Daily Telegraph said that Labour MPs, on the basis of (presumably private?) polling are afraid they will come 4th after the LibDems and UKIP. So UKIP look well set, and the BNP are making little impact in campaign terms so far - EXCEPT that Labour seem determined to talk up the "BNP threat", presumably to frighten their own core support into voting.
UKIP is far from finished as Steve Fowler says. But should be careful about links they carry, and the sorts of people they allow to associate themselves with UKIP. For e.g. there's a link to a post on Bloggers4UKIP for something called The Lone Voice where a German doctor of African origin has been described as a witchdoctor. LibLabCon is always keen to malign UKIP and call it racist. So you guys have to be always vigilant and disown any racist morons who try to link their blogs to this site. The Lone Voice could be a 5th columnist trying to disrupt your chances before 4th June.
I am concerned that both the BNP and UKIP deny mankind's contribution to climate change.
This is not a sustainable position to take, as it contradicts what the scientists are telling us.
These scientific institutions have warned governments about the urgent need to slash carbon emissions:
the IPCC, the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK and the USA, as well as the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences; European Academy of Sciences and Arts; Network of African Science Academies; the International Council for Science; the European Science Foundation; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Federation of American Scientists; the World Meteorological Organization; the American Meteorological Society; the Royal Meteorological Society (UK); the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences; the American Geophysical Union; the American Institute of Physics; American Astronomical Society; the American Physical Society; the American Chemical Society; the National Research Council (US); the Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), the American Quaternary Association; the Geological Society of America; Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia); the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London; the European Geosciences Union; the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics; and the International Union of Geological Sciences.
Huw, that's quite a comprehensive list. Could you narrow it down to those groups that haven't been paid to say global warming is man-made, aren't departments of governments that are using the global warming myth to raise taxes and those that don't rely on the man-made global warming scam secure vital funding?
I notice you don't mention the scientists and groups that consistently and comprehensively demolish the global warming propaganda but are denied equal access to the public by state-controlled media and environmental groups that close down debate. Is there a reason for that? Anything to do with the hysteria whipped up by climate change propaganda driving usually sane people into the arms of extremists like the Green Party?
Thanks for engaging, wonkotsane.
How many years do you think UKIP activists will be able to maintain the ridiculous conspiracy theory that global warming is a 'scam' when the scientific evidence from the Arctic to the Amazon is absolutely overwhelming?
Huge amounts of evidence exists in the public domain showing the vast quantities of money poured into climate change denial by vested interests (see George Monbiot's articles about the climate change denial industry, his book HEAT, Sharon Beder's excellent book, Global Spin about corporate efforts to discredit the environment movement and undermine it with corporate-backed front groups).
Do you think UKIP's credibility will be strengthened or weakened in the long-term by maintaining the untenable, unprovable and unsustainable argument that scientists are corrupt?
David Attenborough
I and fellow 'extremists' (!) in the Green Party are proposing a constructive, positive, people-centred path out of a crisis which UKIP -against disturbing evidence to the contrary - denies is even taking place: a Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal will create a million jobs in energy conservation, home insulation and renewable energy schemes, and will simultaneously make our economy more resilient to the big, widely predicted challenges on the horizon.
Even if some people in Shropshire share UKIP's bizarre views on climate change, I think they will respond positively to the Green Party's forward-looking policies on JOBS and ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.
What is UKIP's plan for getting our economy out of the crisis, wonkotsane?
Huw, the point of my previous comment (which I'm sure you didn't accidentally miss) was that the people banging the drum on climate change are mainly those that have something to gain from it - government funded research quangos, government funded "scientists", companies selling "green" products and, of course, environmental pressure groups including the Green Party.
I have yet to see an argument for man-made climate change that stands up to even basic scrutiny. The IPPC report on climate change was a report with a political agenda, funded by governments to "prove" that man-made climate change exists and that taxation and socialism is the only way to save the world. Several scientists left the report because it wasn't scientific, the answer had already been decided on and the rest was just politics. One scientist had to threaten legal action to have his name taken off the report as an endorser.
The planet is cooling overall, not warming and this has been the case for the last few years. We aren't even approaching the temperatures experienced during the medieval warm period or during the time of the viking migrations when it was warm enough to grow grapes and produce wine on Greenland and in Newfoundland. The north-west passage was navigable by viking longboats but is now impassable.
The climate changes all the time, the only thing different now is that we have more technology at our disposal to identify what are, in context, minute changes in the climate and the political motivation to use climate change as a cash cow.
[... continued below ...]
[... continued from above ...]
What caused the medival warm period? What caused Greenland and Newfoundland to be warm enough to support grapes? Why is the earth cooling? What's the difference between scientists knowing that we were going to have an ice age 30 years ago and scientists knowing that we're going to have global warming now? What's scientific about refusing to entertain the possibility that climate change propgandists are wrong? Why won't the IPPC re-convene to re-write their report based on the fact that the World War 2 data from the Atlantic which was key to their predictions has been shown to be inaccurate because of the different methods the Americans used when they carried out the measurements during the war? Why has the lead author of the IPPC report on climate change issued two warnings in two years that the Wilkins Ice Shelf is "hanging on by a thread" and about to collapse any day now when it collapsed over a decade ago? Why is the "hockey stick" still being used for climate change predictions when it's proved to be wrong every year since it was created? Why are the Met Office issuing warnings every year of record temperatures and then retracting them when it snows in March and the summer is washed out? Will someone from the green lobby answer these basic questions without referring to discredited quack science, government-funded propaganda or the elusive "consensus of the scientific community" that doesn't exist? Will you answer them Huw?
I'm not a scientist and I presume you're not either so why do you assume that what you are told is true is any different from what I'm told? I fully support the Greens' objectives to reduce consumption and improve the natural environment - they are common sense objectives - but I disagree with the climate change propaganda, the discredited quack science and the "too much stick, not enough carrot" method of getting their own way.
Which politician was it that said climate change deniers were worse than holocaust deniers? A lot of people seem to think their extremist views and actions (such as criminal damage, trespass and breaking and entering) are acceptable because it's all about the environment. Those people are going to get a big shock a few years down the line when global warming patently fails to happen and people realise that the economy and industry have been destroyed and the technological advancement of the human race has been set back a decade because some fruitcakes on the lunatic fringe gave power mad politicians the excuse they needed to tax us to the hilt and kick off their global socialist revolution. And when people are looking for someone to blame, the politicians will be pointing fingers at people like the Green Party and other ecoterrorists and saying "they said it was happening, we took it all in good faith".
I will repeat my question, because you avoided it, wonkotsane.
The green industrial revolution, which Greens want to see financed by the Green New Deal, will set our economy on a more sustainable course, make our economy more resilient in the face of peak oil and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
South Korea and Japan are devoting huge amounts of their stimulus packages to Green New Deals. Barack Obama is hoping to create 2 million jobs in the USA with his version of the Green New Deal. The UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon recently said that green jobs are the way forward out of this crisis.
How does UKIP propose to create jobs if it rejects the masin thrust of the Green Party's million-green-jobs agenda, wonkotsane?
How does UKIP propose to unite the country and get us out of the financial and economic crisis if it spreads insane denial of peer-reviewed science and accuses scientists of being corrupt?
What positive and constructive plan are UKIP offering to voters who are unprecedentedly disillusioned with politics and politicians?
Why should people vote for UKIP, which has been hit by its own share of sleaze, and which denies what David Attenborough calls the Truth about Climate Change?
Ok, I'll answer your questions and you answer mine. Bear in mind, though, that this is a UKIP supporting blog and not an official website so this is my opinion.
The green industrial revolution, which Greens want to see financed by the Green New Deal, will set our economy on a more sustainable course, make our economy more resilient in the face of peak oil and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.They're false jobs, built on the back of a lie and unsustainable. When the global warming scam is finally universally acknowledged as such people will walk away from the new green technologies. Green energy like wind and tidal power is hugely expensive and inefficient and cannot meet the needs of the country. You may think that you're creating 1m new jobs but in reality more jobs will will be lost through the destruction of our economy in the name of the climate change scam.
South Korea and Japan are devoting huge amounts of their stimulus packages to Green New Deals. Barack Obama is hoping to create 2 million jobs in the USA with his version of the Green New Deal.Paid for by their respective taxpayers. It's false economy - taking more money off taxpayers to shore up a false industry. It's unsustainable.
The UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon recently said that green jobs are the way forward out of this crisis.The politically-motivated, unscientific IPPC report was a UN project.
How does UKIP propose to create jobs if it rejects the masin thrust of the Green Party's million-green-jobs agenda, wonkotsane?Because there's more ways to skin a cat and the green-jobs scheme is unsustainable. The cost of EU membership, both in direct financial costs and the reams of red tape that come with the thousands of new directives issued every year by the EU smother small businesses and stifle enterprise. Leaving the EU will help small businesses and recover the £40m a day cost of being in the EU. A slice of that £40m can be used to support small businesses - support that we currently can't afford because of the EU and which we wouldn't be allowed to give if we could afford it because of EU rules.
How does UKIP propose to unite the country and get us out of the financial and economic crisis if it spreads insane denial of peer-reviewed science and accuses scientists of being corrupt?Again, the green-job scheme is unsustainable so it has no relevance to the economic future of the country. The cost of the EU is probably the largest single contributor to the massive budget deficit we are currently experiencing. And denial of your so-called "science" isn't insane, blind faith in unsubstantiated, politically motivated and discredited "science" is insane.
[... continued below ...]
[... continued from above ...]
What positive and constructive plan are UKIP offering to voters who are unprecedentedly disillusioned with politics and politicians?
Why should people vote for UKIP, which has been hit by its own share of sleaze, and which denies what David Attenborough calls the Truth about Climate Change?The LibLabCon - along with the Greens and others - have had plenty of time to clean up politics and enfranchise disillusioned voters. But all we've had is more sleaze, more fraud, more corruption and the establishment is even further removed from reality than ever. The EU is not just undemocratic, it is anti-democratic. 75% of our laws are made by the unelected European Commission and rubber stamped by the European Parliament with very few voices of dissent or debate - in the case of the UK's MEPs, only UKIP. The Republic of Ireland, France and the Netherlands all voted against the EU Constitution in its past and present forms but the votes are rejected. The EU doesn't take no for an answer, is it any wonder voters are disillusioned? The Greens are eurofederalists - why would voters want more of the same?
Despite the best efforts of environmentalists like the Green Party, the environment is way down the list of priorities when compared to unemployment, paying for food, rising cost of living, increasing transport costs, abolition of civil liberties, etc.
UKIP believes in broadly libertarian ideals - small government, "hands off" government, personal responsibility ... and that includes European government.
So let me get this right...
You are saying that people wanting to vote for UKIP have to join you in your bizarre, paranoid world of conspiracy theories and accept the bonkers proposition that climate change has been made up by corrupt scientists wanting to get their money?! Hmmm.
The world-renowned physicist, Steven Hawking, spoke about climate change to the Royal Society in 2007.
He said, "As we stand at the brink of a .... period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again, to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces."
"As scientists, we ... are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.
"As citizens of the world, we have a duty to share that knowledge. We have a duty, as well, to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to ... prevent further climate change."
To me this sounds like pretty uncontroversial, wise advice from a highly intelligent man. Society ought, after all, to listen to its geniuses.
OK. Maybe UKIP politicians and bloggers can make their offensive assertions that he is 'lying'.
But do you really believe that the British public will vote for that?
In your second response you said that 'the Greens have had plenty of time to clean up politics, but all we've had is more sleaze, more fraud, more corruption...'.
I'm afraid you seem guilty of projection.
Open Europe, a euro-sceptic think-tank set up by some of the UK’s leading business people to campaign for more transparency and accountability in the EU released a league table of MEPs on 29th May 2009.
This showed which MEPs voted most frequently to promote transparency, openness and democracy in the European Parliament and to fight waste and misuse of funds.
Top of the league table was Dr Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party.
Bottom of the league table were 4 Tories, 5 UKIP members and Robert Kilroy-Silk.
Nigel Farage admitted he has taken £2m of tax-payers' money and I haven't even begun to mention Tom Wise and Ashley Mote.
The Greens have a proven record of fighting for transparency and accountability.
To vote for UKIP to protest against sleaze in Westminster would be singularly counter-productive.
UKIP has a broad range of policies, the environment is just one policy area. You're concentrating on it because it's the raison d'être of the Green Party. As I said, for most people it's way down the list of priorities after things like having a job, being able to pay bills, that sort of thing and so-called "green" taxes have a detrimental effect on the labour market and the cost of living.
Nigel Farage hasn't admitted to "taking" £2m of taxpayers money, he was asked how much he had received in allowances and expenses and he said it was about £2m. This is over 10 years and the estimated cost of an MEP, any MEP including your own Caroline Lucas. It's about the same cost as a Westminster MP - in some cases less - yet an MEP has a "constituency" of several million people, the requirement to travel to Brussels or Strasbourg (depending on which stage of the half yearly pantomime they're at) on a regular basis and 75% of our laws are made by the EU. Your own MEP has been quiet on the allowances and expenses front - ask her how much she received in expenses and allowances over the past 10 years (assuming she's been an MEP for that long).
The voting records for UKIP MEPs are too subjective to be of use or accurate. Your eurofederalist MEP will happily vote to give the EU more power, more control of our country if that's what the EU says will make it more efficient or transparent. UKIP MEPs will resist any attempt to undermine our sovereignty by the EU, even if it's part of a superficial attempt to make the EU less corrupt. We all know what happens to people who actively try and fight corruption in the EU - they are either abused, assaulted or threatened by Belgian police as UKIP's MEPs and staff have been or they're sacked and publicly humiliated like Marta Andreason was. If UKIP wasn't the party most committed to fighting fraud and corruption in the EU then why did Marta - who put her job and possibly even her liberty on the line to expose the rampant fraud in the EU - join UKIP and stand as an MEP candidate alongside Nigel Farage?
Tom Wise and Ashley Mote - only one of them ever sat as a UKIP MEP and both of them were expelled from the party as soon as it was known that they had done something wrong. This is what proper, honest parties do, they don't cover things up and protect fraudsters like the LibLabCon.
Anyway, I answered your questions so now it's your turn to answer mine:
What caused the medieval warm period? What caused Greenland and Newfoundland to be warm enough to support grapes? Why is the earth cooling? What's the difference between scientists knowing that we were going to have an ice age 30 years ago and scientists knowing that we're going to have global warming now? What's scientific about refusing to entertain the possibility that climate change propagandists are wrong? Why won't the IPPC re-convene to re-write their report based on the fact that the World War 2 data from the Atlantic which was key to their predictions has been shown to be inaccurate because of the different methods the Americans used when they carried out the measurements during the war? Why has the lead author of the IPPC report on climate change issued two warnings in two years that the Wilkins Ice Shelf is "hanging on by a thread" and about to collapse any day now when it collapsed over a decade ago? Why is the "hockey stick" still being used for climate change predictions when it's proved to be wrong every year since it was created? Why are the Met Office issuing warnings every year of record temperatures and then retracting them when it snows in March and the summer is washed out? Will someone from the green lobby answer these basic questions without referring to discredited quack science, government-funded propaganda or the elusive "consensus of the scientific community" that doesn't exist? Will you answer them Huw?
When I said "even if it's part of a superficial attempt to make the EU less corrupt" I meant "even if it's part of a superficial attempt to make the EU appear less corrupt"
I don’t intend to get involved in a detailed discussion about climate change on this thread, because I want to devote my energies in the next couple of days to ensuring the best vote possible for the Green Party in the European and local elections on Thursday.
I have had many discussions with often anonymous contributors like you on the Shropshire Star website, which you can read here:
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/04/25/climate-criticism-unfounded/ ;
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ ;
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/09/06/warming-what-the-cynics-say/ ;
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/10/11/writer-fails-to-note-evidence/ ;
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/06/13/group-to-air-views-of-drivers/ ;
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/01/20/everyone-will-pay-for-airport/
In these debates I respond to each new distortion that the ‘sceptics’ introduce, I highlight the cutting and pasting and I attempt to shine a light on the vested interests behind the arguments.
You said that for most people, having a JOB is the key issue, and I agree with you.
The Greens want to create 1 million jobs in green industries, renewable energy and energy conservation, because we have confidence in what the SCIENTISTS are telling us (see my first contribution) and do not buy UKIP's ridiculous and paranoid notion that climate change is part of some UN-sponsored international conspiracy.
Home insulation for all will stimulate employment and make people's houses warmer in the cold. You say this would create 'non-jobs', but surely you would not dispute that this policy would have a beneficial effect for pensioners and other vulnerable groups in winter.
Stimulating a green industrial revolution would also get our economy out of the endless cycle of war over resources and would make our economy more resilient to the widely predicted phenomenon of PEAK OIL (prices rising exponentially once booming demand and declining production intersect). Does UKIP not have a view on peak oil? And what is it doing to prepare our economy for this?
With everyone from the TUC to the CBI talking about a green manufacturing strategy, surely UKIP needs to have a better answer than to dismiss the million jobs that this re-directing strategy could create as 'non-jobs'.
UKIP is saying that any scientist like Steven Hawking, David Attenborough or Old Salopian, Martin Rees, who warns of the urgent need to combat climate change is 'lying'.
This is not only offensive to those scientists who are acting in good faith, but shows that a vote for UKIP would be a vote to stay in the Age of Stupid http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/03/20/its-not-as-stupid-as-it-sounds/
What do you and UKIP think of the well-documented actions by Exxon Mobil, wonkotsane?
Exxon has attempted to deny or confuse the science of climate change in the public mind using a network of plausible sounding think tanks (see http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php ).
To me and to many others this attempt by the richest multinational in the world to undermine democracy is simply scandalous when the stakes are so high.
You said UKIP was the party 'most committed to fighting corruption', but ignore the fact that, according to an independent report by Open Europe, the UKIP members who haven't been expelled from the party for corrupt practices have the WORST record on transparency, accountability and fighting corruption in the European Parliament.
Voters surely need a better explanation from you as to why you think Open Europe is wrong to see the Greens as the most accountable MEPs and UKIP MEPs as the least accountable, especially when the Westminster expenses scandal is so prominent in people's minds.
Open Europe's league table shows UKIP in a very poor light.
If voters want transparency and accountability, Open Europe's poll shows that the best way to get it is by voting Green.
I see, so you've got time to post comments here making unfounded statements about the global warming myth and about UKIP and its MEPs but you haven't got time to answer my questions which, as you well know, you can't answer truthfully without contradicting all the quack science you've been quoting in your previous comments.
As I already said on the subject of the report on which MEPs have been supposedly promoting openness and transparency in the EU Parliament, the report can't include UKIP MEPs on the list fairly because where eurofederalist parties like the Greens will happily give the EU more control over the UK in exchange for a superficial veneer of accountability, UKIP will fight any more encroachment on our sovereignty by the European Empire. Any change that would make the EU Parliament appear to be more accountable or open is accompanied with a power grab, that's the way it works. UKIP will naturally oppose this.
The only way to stop UK citizens from being harmed by EU corruption and anti-democracy is to leave the EU. In that respect, as the only party that is committed to pulling out of the European Empire, UKIP should be top of the list.
I think you are going to find it hard to convince the public that the international scientific institutions I quoted in my first contribution are wrong about climate change and that the imploding UKIP party is right.
I think you are also going to have an uphill battle convincing people to vote for UKIP if all its MEPs do is sit there and be obstructive and negative and refuse to vote on measures which will make the EU more accountable and transparent.
Out of 12 UKIP MEPs elected at the last European Election 3 have been expelled from the party. Do you think the public will really vote for a party with a record of expelling a quarter of its MEPs?
I think more voters will choose practical policies for creating jobs and dealing with climate change( http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/greennewdealneededforuk210708.aspx ).
Hope and a proven record of voting against waste and the abuse of funds are a more positive message which I hope people will vote for.
My first, second and fourth paragraphs above have proven to be wrong after this election.
However, I maintain what I said about UKIP's denialist stance on anthropogenic climate change.
Wilfully ignoring the overwhelming message from the world’s climate scientists and scientific institutions may work as a tactic for some of the time, but it is not sustainable as the evidence mounts.
Like it or not, we have to face reality, and we are all in this together.
It will be impossible to solve the major ecological problems of our time from over-fishing, cutting carbon and protecting biodiversity, none of which recognise international boundaries, by adopting a narrow, isolationist and myopic UKIP mind-set.
Post a Comment