Vilipend and amend the sins you condign
There has, of late, been a LOT of fuss over what political parties, and what they do or do not stand for.
Now, there is a debate to be had about of the grass-roots supporters, party membership, party leadership, or party representatives are best to judge what the party stands for as a whole.
However, let's face it, when deciding who to vote for, you really have to look at the candidates you are voting for first, then the manifesto. So, while I accept that UKIP may not be a bigoted party, their candidates certainly make enough bigoted statements to make voting for them problematic.
I can accept that many of the grass-roots support UKIP in order to deliver higher minimum wages, more protections for workers, more exports and fewer imports, etc. However, the party manifesto, statements by candidates, and votes made by candidates historically, point to a party who will remove minimum wage, gut human rights, - including protections for workers, and only object to international trade when it is against the interests of big businesses, not as a means to encourage domestic growth through subsidiary production.
In fact, if you look at what the UKIP grass-roots seem to want, then they are euro-sceptic Green Party supporters. Meanwhile, the UKIP leadership and candidates are more like Tories who find the modern Tory Party lacking in bigotry and movement towards classical fascism.
Now, UKIP supporters are not alone in this: Labour's grass roots, and, to a lesser-degree, Party membership, are much closer to the 1970's Labour Party than the "New-Labour" crowd, who are 1970's Tories, for example. However, in those cases, the gulf is not so large. Tee ethos of the party candidates is not such a polar opposite of the grass-roots.
All-in-all then, UKIP, as a party, may not be a group of bigoted classical fascists that their candidates are. However, next week, we're not voting for the party-as-a-whole; we're voting for the candidates. If the grass-roots have a problem with that, purge your ranks of these ne'er-do-wells and we'll talk.
Now, there is a debate to be had about of the grass-roots supporters, party membership, party leadership, or party representatives are best to judge what the party stands for as a whole.
However, let's face it, when deciding who to vote for, you really have to look at the candidates you are voting for first, then the manifesto. So, while I accept that UKIP may not be a bigoted party, their candidates certainly make enough bigoted statements to make voting for them problematic.
I can accept that many of the grass-roots support UKIP in order to deliver higher minimum wages, more protections for workers, more exports and fewer imports, etc. However, the party manifesto, statements by candidates, and votes made by candidates historically, point to a party who will remove minimum wage, gut human rights, - including protections for workers, and only object to international trade when it is against the interests of big businesses, not as a means to encourage domestic growth through subsidiary production.
In fact, if you look at what the UKIP grass-roots seem to want, then they are euro-sceptic Green Party supporters. Meanwhile, the UKIP leadership and candidates are more like Tories who find the modern Tory Party lacking in bigotry and movement towards classical fascism.
Now, UKIP supporters are not alone in this: Labour's grass roots, and, to a lesser-degree, Party membership, are much closer to the 1970's Labour Party than the "New-Labour" crowd, who are 1970's Tories, for example. However, in those cases, the gulf is not so large. Tee ethos of the party candidates is not such a polar opposite of the grass-roots.
All-in-all then, UKIP, as a party, may not be a group of bigoted classical fascists that their candidates are. However, next week, we're not voting for the party-as-a-whole; we're voting for the candidates. If the grass-roots have a problem with that, purge your ranks of these ne'er-do-wells and we'll talk.