Cassius
YaBB God
Posts: 4,659
|
 |
« on: December 13, 2013, 04:17:47 PM » |
|
I can see similarities with UKIP, but I don't think you can really shoehorn one big-tent party into a couple of small parties from a different country. Aside from that, whilst this point is largely moot (since the BNP is to all intents and purposes dead), UKIP and the BNP are two entirely different beasts and cannot be lumped together as one. UKIP, at this moment of time, is effectively the Conservative right in exile, having left the party because they view David Cameron and his leadership coterie as a bunch of wet, limp-wristed liberals who's main objective is to pander to the media of the 'serious people' (Guardian, Independent, the Times), and that this can be seen through policies on issues like gay marriage. Basically, most UKIP supporters are people who would quite happily have voted for Margaret Thatcher, William Hague and Michael Howard, whom, in their eyes, were robust, no-nonsense right-wingers. The BNP, on the other hand, is an openly racist party whose support was largely concentrated in working class areas (UKIP does draw support in similar regions now, but is able to compete in a far wider variety of paces than the BNP ever was). The BNP's electoral support also revolved almost entirely around the issue of immigration, whereas UKIP's appeal covers a wider range of areas (immigration is one, but the EU, moral policy and taxes are other big drawers for UKIP support).
So, whilst I would agree that the Republican Party holds many similarities to UKIP (just as our own Conservative Party once did), I do not think it is 'becoming' it, partly because the political scene is so different here than in America (the role of religion in society is never a factor in UK elections, whereas it often seems to be in the US). The BNP comparison is totally wrong, in my view.
|
