This happened right next to where I work today - the UK [del]Xenophobic[/del]Independence Party ‘Common Sense Tour’ bus crashed into the parapet of the train station in Portsmouth (as it was performing a U turn to avoid crashing into a low bridge).
Not much more to say, except that everyone present, pointing and laughing, definitely seemed to appreciate the irony.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ukip-bus-crashes-into-portsmouth-station-1-6025252
Self-reported for forum change (could have sworn I posted this in MPSIMS)
[nm]ha ha[/nm]
So moved.
Yeah, but at least I didn’t crash any buses today.
Laughing at these yobbos has been traditional ever since they were called Mosley’s Blackshirts.
Well, no. Because Cable Street is in London (just round the corner from where I live, incidentally) and the bus crashed in Portsmouth, which is about 75 miles away. Near by cosmic standards, perhaps, but not really by human ones. 
I see from the article that UKIP’s “Common Sense Bus” had
Sounds about right. All the other UKIPpers were probably riding the “Rabid Xenophobia Monorail”.
I started wondering… do UKIP canvass door to door? If so, what do they do when the person who answers the door isn’t conspicuously White British?
I don’t want to turn this into a political discussion, but “not wanting to be a member of the EU” is not the same as “xenophobic”. UKIP represents the first category - the fact it may attract members of the second category is unfortunate, those people should stick with the BNP/EDL.
Even better, what do they do when the person who answers the door is White British, but their partner isn’t?
“We think there are too many foreigners stealing our jobs…um…although obviously some of them are OK. I’ll just go now.”
It’d be nice if that were true, but UKIP does not solely present itself as “wanting out of the EU”:
The recent poster campaign with the pointing finger was explicity xenophobic - “26 million foreigners want to steal your job” xenophobic.
Farage’s last conference speech dwelt on how awful it was to be on a train and hear people speaking anything other than English.
They campaignto “end support for multi-culturalism and support one common British culture”.
Page 1 of the current manifesto is about immigration, not leaving the EU. Page 2 links immigration to crime.
They’re not attracting racist nutbars by accident. They’re attracting racist nutbars because they’re explicitly xenophobic to the extent that racist nutbars think they’ve found common cause.
When you say ‘may attract’, don’t you really mean ‘is composed of’?
Their shtick is that they’re not racist but that they want out of Europe so the UK can control immigration. Unfortunately there appear to be a fair few racists in UKIP.
I wonder if the driver is any relation to the pilot who was flying that plane that crashed while flying Nigel Farage and a UKIP banner around?
I think the message is: never get on board a vehicle that has been hired by UKIP.
I’d say the racism is pretty much systemic. It’s not accidental or coincidental at all - some of them are just worse at hiding it than others.
Well, I must admit you have done a much better job of denouncing UKIP than the recent Guardian article on the same subject, which basically boiled down to “they say they’re not like other parties, but some of their politicians act like other politicians” and “some of their members have said silly things”. I don’t think you have to equate the “foreigners wanting your job” with xenophobia (much less racism), it is a genuine concern but I agree it is overplayed by UKIP. But I have to admit your other three points are too close to the line.
To be honest, I’m still tempted to overlook this because I think many aspects of the EU are a gigantic waste of money (certainly in terms of an extra level of bureaucracy that I think we are better off without). In practice, UKIP aren’t going to win a majority but I’d be happy to see them gain more influence so that we can finally have our referendum, which I expect to give us a more informed debate than we have managed thus far.
ETA: I’m not against restricting immigration if it’s for the right reasons - “British jobs for British people” isn’t xenophobic, it’s just trying to improve our economy/reduce our benefits bill. But I can’t deny that there is a concern that too many members of UKIP are in favour of it for the wrong reasons. So on balance, I will probably still vote UKIP where possible - particularly in European elections.
Without wishing to get all Great-Debatesey on you, there’s a considerable amount of work on the economic impact of immigration to the UK - the conclusion of which is that it’s a small net positive. Similarly, people who come over to work tend to pay more in tax than they claim in benefits. Cites available if you’re interested.
On a wider point, it’s instructive to think about how businesses will respond if immigration is halted/limited. Will they shrug and spend more to employ the same labour force? Or will they move as many jobs as they can to e.g. Romania because when they do the sums, Set-up costs + Romanian wages + Transport is less than Stay here + Native Brit wages? Even where they do say, those added costs are going to get passed on. I’m not sure how much better it is for the economy for, say, food prices to rise (and agriculture does employ a lot of immigrants) given how many people already can’t afford food.
You make some fair points. As you say, this is not the place to extend this debate (I’m sure it’s been done to death in GD but I rarely venture in there) but I just wanted to clarify that I’m not particularly against immigration, and I would not dispute that it is in fact a small net positive. What I resent is the billions spent on Brussels bureaucracy, very little of which benefits anybody in my view. So in other words, the exact position of UKIP. That is why it would be unfortunate if racism and xenophobia over-runs the party, as it seems to be in danger of doing (but I think we’re a fair way off the tipping point).
In addition, it would seem possible to have immigration restrictions that would change the current small net positive to a larger net positive, by only accepting immigrants who are deemed of economic and social benefit. It wouldn’t be easy to administer, even in theory, but it could perhaps be done. I believe Australia has a similar policy and their economy has weathered the recession better than many.