As the row over David Cameron's remarks about UKIP containing 'lunatics, freaks and racists' rumbles on, my attention is drawn to a piece which appeared in 1994 on the website Black Information Link. Click HERE to read more. It appears to endorse some of what David Cameron was saying, albeit from an admittedly partisan perspective. Did Nigel Farage really say "We will never win the nigger vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us," as Alan Sked alleges? If not, why didn't he sue? If he did say it, why does UKIP continue to use him as their main media spokesman? Feel free to enlighten us in the Comments section.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
The Question Nigel Farage Must Answer
As the row over David Cameron's remarks about UKIP containing 'lunatics, freaks and racists' rumbles on, my attention is drawn to a piece which appeared in 1994 on the website Black Information Link. Click HERE to read more. It appears to endorse some of what David Cameron was saying, albeit from an admittedly partisan perspective. Did Nigel Farage really say "We will never win the nigger vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us," as Alan Sked alleges? If not, why didn't he sue? If he did say it, why does UKIP continue to use him as their main media spokesman? Feel free to enlighten us in the Comments section.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
"If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour"... anything strike a bell there? Glass houses, stones....
God that cheered me up.
Let's be honest. The Black information link is racist itself - far more so than many people who are accused of racism. The Black information link (a clue in the title) actively discriminates against white and other non-black people (although of course all can view the website.)
I think that should be 2004 rather than 1994.
I quite like the idea of UKIP trying to sue David Cameron for defamation. Even if this was legally possible (and UKIP do seem to be getting a lot of dodgy legal advice recently - might I suggest better lawyers?) surely it would be politically silly. Apart from making them look churlish, do they really want a hearing when any of their senior figures are liable to be cross-examined about any potentially racist statement that anyone UKIP might have made?
As a Cameron supporter, I hope this blows over quickly. It was unwise to insult a large group of people before the May elections, just as it was unwise to agree the need for more house building in the south east. Perhaps I'm getting jumpy, but I'm certainly uneasy about New Labour talking down their electoral prospects. Anything short of a disaster will be hailed as a great victory by them. Come on Tory strategists - get your collective fingers out!
Whatever the rights and wrongs of reported speech from many years ago, UKIP is probably not going to be damaged by David Cameron's attack. If its 2.7% vote holds up at the next election, Conservatives could once again lose 25 marginals by less than their vote. That could make all the difference to getting into power since I believe a 9% swing will be needed to get a majority in any case. Am I right or have I missed something?
My question is: What should David Cameron do about it, if anything? Keep describing members as racists and beyond the pale, or is there another strategy? Personally, I am a UKIP fan, but am interested in his strategic problem. I am absolutely sure the UKIP leadership is loving the current angry approach. Gadflies indeed.
Don't mention the E word! It's caused the demise of many a Tory leader......
"I quite like the idea of UKIP trying to sue David Cameron for defamation... surely it would be politically silly."
Well, possibly not. Is not the mere threat of litigation (however incredible) worth £10,000s of free publicity for the imminent elections? DC has scored an own-goal with this one.
I doubt that UKIP are really enjoying this as a light into their dark cupboards is the last thing they want.
The website Iain links to is not the only referece to these racist overtones. The Guardian has an articlearticle at the time of the Kilroy stalk out that covers more of the same ground.
The various UKIP publications and websites also have some worrying features. The UKIP forum has a thread on the extreme right wing (former National front) newsheet called The Flag. It seems to have positive reception rather than an automatic rejection it should receive.
Those defending UKIP confuse the party leadership with the voters. What David Cameron has done is alert those voters to the fact that UKIP is not just a vote about Europe but a vote in support of a party with a decidely seedy past and present.
I was wondering how long it would take for the Tories to use Blink etc as a shield against this UKIP nonsense. It almost looks like an attempt to confuse the issue by adding a third dynamic.
The quote has appeared elsewhere - take a look on Google. Has Sked ever sought corrections about this?
Henry: It's doubtful UKIP made muh a difference at all. () There are twenty-seven seats where the combined UKIP/Vanitas vote exceeded the non-Conservative majority. But even if we assume only 75% of that vote came from the Conservatives and none from the holding party, only twenty-one seats fall. Assume 60% from us and 20% from the main challenger and you get thirteen/fourteen (Eastleigh on a knifedge). Even this is frankly optimistic beyond belief. A lot of UKIP votes come from Labour voters who would never vote Conservative, or from people who would otherwise vote fringe or not at all. The idea that in all but a tiny handful of seats the Conservatives would have won but for the presence on the ballot paper of a UKIP candidate is a pipe dream of the UKIP leadership.
bebopper is absolutely right, the Conservatives have already lost the local elections. Labour have pulled down their expectations in order to exceed them and make Cameron look like a busted flush, its the first time they've looked like knowing how to deal with him.
"If not, why didn't he sue?"
I am no fan of UKIP but I thought you were against a litigation culture, Iain?
Look - we all get slandered at least three times a day. If you don't, you're doing something wrong. Politicians far more so. God save us from a world where people sue over every damned insult.
Of course, UKIP are supposed to be suing the Conservatives over this whole fiasco. They shouldn't but it's all a stupid political stunt just like Cameron's inane remark.
How long, oh Lord, how long? Hell, if we go on down this road, some twat will go to the police over somebody spoofing his blog next, to take it to its ludicrous extreme.
Think The Darbyshires have already done that :)
"How long, oh Lord, how long?"
That's what I was asking myself on 21st March 1556.
Pain and suffering have a way of focusing the mind on the important things in life (or eternal life).
Mr Cameron professes to understand this, so why is he even talking about UKIP, gifting them the oxygen of publicity, when thousands are unemployed, children live in poverty, and politicians are perceived not to care?
Dear Mr Bongo,
Know thine enemy, they say. 1. The muslim vote in my Ward must be less than half od one percent. 2. Sandwell is predominantly Sikh (and eastern european) in terms of the black and asian population. 3. The possibility of any of those people reading Iain's excellent blog is rather remote.
Apart from that, I suspect you were 100% right.
was out canvassing in the local election last night as a candidate. knocked on one door. lovely old lady very concerned by cameron and his comments about UKIP. votes Tory Locally but is worried nationally now. then knock on next door used to vote labour but impressed by Cameron now Tories. quite amusing
Inamicus - somebody pre-Darbyshired the Darbyshires on that front. Ask our kind host.
Post a Comment