UKIP Boss Never Said He Would Stop Immigration

by John Bean.

We British Democrats congratulate those who voted UKIP in May’s Council Elections. Their courage in breaking free from the smug dominance of what has become a single Lib-Lab-Con party  gave them a blow  from which the old gang have not recovered.

The UKIP voters’ actions mean that Britain’s withdrawal from the dictatorship of the EU is now being demanded by a majority. It means that the immigration tidal wave is at long last being talked about in many TV programmes and in all national papers.

But the big snag is that UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, is in fact a talker and not a doer. Behind that smile, the raised beer glass and a certain charisma, is a chum of the international bankers. A man who says he would take us out of Europe but would tie us to the global money power instead.


Farage with Banksters (2)
The man with an arm around Farage is Peter Schiff. He is another ‘bankster’ who runs an investment firm that helps retail and institutional investors in the U.S. diversify out of the U.S. dollar (is that money laundering?)

As for immigration, on the BBC Election News program of May 3rd, 2013, Nigel Farage said UKIP wanted a net immigration figure of 50,000. The net figure is arrived at by taking away the number of people who leave Britain permanently each year – mainly Brits – from the total number of immigrants arriving. The number departing is around 250,000 a year. Therefore to have a net figure of 50,000 means that Farage will be happy with 300,00 a year!

UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, whose word is always final,  has shown that his party will  in reality do little to close the immigration floodgates.  This is not a sudden change of  opinion following the success of UKIP at  May’s County Council elections. This is what he has said in the past:

  •   “We would need a minimum of a quarter of a million work permits annually”.  Daily Politics Show 4th May 2010.
  •  “I am not opposed to immigration. Much of the immigration to this country has been good”.  Question Time 25th November 2010.
  •  “We believe that immigration should be controlled by only admitting into the country the same number as those who left it in  the previous 12 months.   BBC Any Questions  2007.


Only  British Democrat policy can save True Brits from becoming a minority by  2050. We have to stop further mass immigration and repatriate all illegals, because they  broke the law to get here.


John Bean

19 thoughts on “UKIP Boss Never Said He Would Stop Immigration

  1. It is good to see a constant variety of topics on the BDP website.
    The current political momentum is with UKIP that much is obvious. I for one was not surprised by the strength of their vote throughout the Country at large: unlike the highly paid political commentators of the BBC and the like who were in their on words ‘astonished’!
    The Tory Party are in disarray, the hard left anti fascist cretins rejoice at the demise of the BNP vote and on the other hand have a political heart attack at the strength of the ‘Patriotic British Vote’ of UKIP. We watched Margaret Hodge on Newsnight with Andrew Brons call UKIP: Xenophobic.
    Why is this good news for Nationalists? The Tory Party have done their utmost to put major spin on the issue of immigration and a good solid proportion of our people have rejected it. Our people do not believe the toffee nosed Tory Party on the issue of immigration or Europe for that matter.
    UKIP can become more radical in time and they may have to if the Conservative Party decides to sound more robust on immigration and Europe. I can see defections on the backbenches and a possible demise of the Tory Party in the end. Fifty-Seven Liberal MPs hold the balance of power in Westminster. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that UKIP could smash through the massive Parliamentary hurdle.
    Mr Farage has been given ample air time to propel his Party to the forefront of British Politics. He is seen by many as a likeable and acceptable front man. In my opinion, he has been frugal and clever he has timed his speeches on immigration so it has made a major impact on the electorate. He has made sure he is not linked with the stigmatized radical right but he has also made sure he sounds radical to the people affected by multiculturalism. Mr Farage is going to need ‘big balls’ to stand up to the political elite and their mite: they want us in Europe with no referendum. Getting our country free of the European Union is going to be a major political struggle for all Nationalists and if we win that battle, the fundamental goals of the future will be so much easier to attain.
    We have to accept the momentum is with UKIP. I hate to repeat myself but if possible, we should join the ranks of UKIP to influence and radicalise their policies.
    Many of us live and work on the front line of this multicultural mayhem. UKIP gives us hope for a major rebellion against the last sixty years of Liberalism!

  2. Johnny Leach you are wrong. UKIP will not allow former BNP members to join because they are libertarians ie support a form of militant economic liberalism and not nationalists.

    If UKIP were so good and had such good immigration policies why was the BNP so popular in many parts of the UK. UKIP can be beaten with a decent campaign even the tired and outdated BNP beat them in Maryport where they put in a campaign.

    The only reason UKIP oppose the EU is because they are free traders and thatcherites. Many nationalists were fooled by Thatcher those people should not be fooled by Farage. UKIP have been goven air time because they are a con – wake -up.

  3. Very good comment Johnny.
    I think UKIP are playing the political game well.
    Farage is a very intelligent and a very political savvy individual.

    The attacks on Farage from nationalists are sometimes laughable and highlight they have learnt nothing from the failure of British nationalism.

  4. Whilst John Bean’s observations are correct, I do think we should take a pragmatic approach to the UKIP phenomenon and very much agree with what Johnny Leech says in his comments. Although the UKIP rhetoric on immigration is somewhat disingenuous for all the reasons that John Bean mentions, their policy on the EU is absolutely genuine and indeed was the entire raison detre’ of their original formation and existence. We will have to bide our time, but if UKIP get a sniff of power in the next few years, then we will be in a position to highight their shortcomings as they will be on the defensive. At the moment, no one will really listen to our warnings about UKIP as it will just sound like envy and sour grapes.

  5. John, be careful what you wish for. A right-wing Tory or Ukip government would destroy the National Health Service and tear up what little protection remains for British workers. And they would never limit the supply of cheap imported labour on which capitalism depends. You have fought all your life for social justice – how can you trust these people?

  6. Apologies for spelling Johnny Leech’s surname wrong.

    I agree with John Bean highlighting the flaws of UKIP. Support for the nationalist agenda is more than just leaving the EU. Its about history, traditions and identity and on these matters UKIP fail.

    I can’t be a member of UKIP so why would I support them or encourage others to so.
    UKIP want to increase their 50,000 a year net figure, that figure alone would mean 250,000 extra people into the UK per term. UKIP is lead by former Tories who oppose the EU thats all. They believe that a Muslim from Pakistan can be British – I disagree with this.

    On the matter of Farage, I remember a politican once called Tony Blair he was a good speaker and good at marketing the party he lead. We all know what happened in the end!

    UKIP won’t always surge in the polls. They have done so because of the Tories positions on issues like gay marriage and the EU, Labour leaving office and the decline of the BNP.

    Those patriotic – nationalists should be getting behind the British Democrats and seek to build a strong party. So when UKIP suffer defeats they have a home to go to. UKIP have gained alot of the BNP vote, there is no reason why the British Democrats can’t then get this vote in the future.

    UKIP are good to carry the anti-immigration and anti-EU message, while the British Democrats gets itself organised and into a position to takes seats. But I don’t believe in the long-term UKIP can be made more radical nor are they the answer.

    DavidM is right many will not heed our warnings about UKIP, but those warnings must still be made. Yes, they will seem like envy and sour grapes at first, but over time people will see the light and support will come.

  7. Bill, If by a “right-wing Tory government” you mean even more ultra-capitalist, then your are correct in its threat to the NHS and security for British jobs. I certainly do not trust them or in any alliance they may make with Farage.
    I despair that good patriots such as Johnny Leach and, to a lesser extent, John Mccaffrey, should ignore the evidence that has been presented on this site that Farage has no intention of reducing the mass immigration that is guaranteed to destroy the original ethnicity of the European nation that inhabits these isles. It is not a quesiton on our part of being ‘jealous’ of the success of UKIP. It is a question of the British Democrats wanting to put down a marker saying that we understand why so many people voted UKIP, and we applaud them for doing so, but their leader is not what he would appear to be. His true interest is global caitalism, hence his genuine opposition to the single Federal Europe. We must not make the mistake of considering that our enemy’s enemy is our friend.

  8. I don’t trust UKIP, but they are our best bet now Bill.
    While UKIP have their success a nationalist party such as the BDP needs to be established just by chance UKIP fall.
    Looking at why so many people hesitated or would never consider to vote for the then biggest nationalist party the BNP.

  9. I don’t think anyone who has dined with Rupert Murdoch can be trusted. I did read that the present ‘immigration policy’ of Ukip is ‘under review’. Why would that be?
    The rank & file of Ukip are to be congratulated on getting the sofa-sitters off their sofas & giving the Establishment one hell of a kick in the pants, but I feel that it was little to do with Mr.Farage or any of his sycophantic NEC. He has been in the EU for many years & has never bothered to build up much in the way of foot-soldiers. The Ukip phenomenon is, I think a sort of band-wagon that lots of people have unexpectedly climbed on, as much to his surprise as to all those displaced LibLabCon councillors.
    It has caused havoc in the Tory party & disquiet in the other two, so must be hailed as a good thing. In the end, though, Ukip won’t deliver, for all the reasons that John Bean puts forward.

  10. I have copied a statement from the UKIP website regarding their UK immigration policy. Sure, they don’t talk about the indigenous British but I never expected them to. They run away from many of the fundamental issues of identity and culture. Nevertheless, there is plenty to motivate the British electorate. As a previous article pointed out this is not 1977!
    UKIP are the party people are talking about, they have arrived not just as anti EU party but also as an anti immigration party!
    In the current political climate, we as Nationalists have no choice we have to give UKIP critical support. They state quite correctly that none of their immigration policy could be implemented until we withdraw from the EU.
    I strongly believe we are on a very short timescale to save our people and land if we do not remove ourselves from the European Union within the next five to ten years the battle may well be lost.
    The ‘radical right’ have been around for eighty years without any real success but who knows what influence can be mustered over the coming years. There are good people in UKIP who hold very similar views to our own make no mistake about that.

    UKIP Immigration Policy is currently undergoing a review and update. The full policy will be published in due course. Meanwhile this is a statement of principles on which the detailed policy will be based.

    1. UKIP calls for an end to the age of mass, uncontrolled immigration. Since 1997 immigration has added almost four million new people to the British population; this figure does not include illegal immigrants, the exact number of which is unknown but is probably at least one million and possibly much higher.

    2. Britain is very densely populated. England, where the majority of people live, is one of the most densely populated countries in the world: more densely populated than China, India and Japan. We simply cannot sustain the level of immigration that adds another one million people to the population every four to five years. This puts an intolerable burden on our infrastructure and public services.

    3. UKIP would introduce a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement (with some exceptions) until we regain control of our borders, put in effective immigration controls, and deal with the issue of illegal immigrants. Overstaying a visa would become a criminal offence.

    4. Any future immigration for permanent settlement must be on a strictly limited and controlled basis where that can clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy. Immigrants would not be able to apply for public housing or benefits until they had paid tax for five years.

    5. Meanwhile UKIP would enable people to come and work in the UK by means of a points based work permit system for limited periods of time and to fulfil specific gaps in the job market that cannot be filled by the existing work force.

    6. Measures would be taken to identify illegal immigrants and remove them to their country of origin. Exceptions may be made in limited circumstances, but there would be no general amnesty for illegal migrants.

    7. EU citizens who have been established in the UK for seven years or more will, depending on their circumstances, be able to apply for permanent leave to remain (provided they fulfil certain criteria and are eligible to apply for work permits).

    8. UKIP would withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Convention on Refugees. This would enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable. UKIP would allow genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations.

    None of these policies can be implemented while Britain is still a member of the European Union, and that is just one of the reasons why UKIP policy is to leave the European Union.

  11. UKIP has struck a chord with a significant chunk of voters emboldened enough to break old voting habits or to vote for the first time ever for something they actually believe in. It is likely that many more will cast their votes for UKIP at the European elections next year under Proportional Representation and if this happens there is every chance that the electorate will go on to support them in a really big way at the General Election, despite it being held under FPTP.

    Whilst fully agreeing with John Bean’s analysis of fundamental differences between UKIP’s policies and those of nationalist parties such as ours, I think it would be folly not to support the momentum which has undoubtedly led to nationalist policies being openly debated in a way which would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. Time is fast running out for us and I agree with those comments advocating support for UKIP, for now, as the only pragmatic way of achieving our most cherished objectives of getting out of Europe and bringing immigration under control, both of which UKIP has pledged to do (although not to the extent we would like). For the moment, the other stuff is relatively unimportant.

    Currently, none of the nationalist parties is in a position to challenge the old guard, yet if they stand for election the small percentage of votes they might reasonably expect to attract could scupper or diminish UKIP’s chances of success. Far better that, for the time being at least, these votes should help propel UKIP into the corridors of power and create an ever more favourable atmosphere for nationalist policies to flourish. Genuinely nationalist parties need time to reorganise, unite and offer a credible alternative which will undoubtedly become more mainstream and acceptable to the electorate as the social situation deteriorates still further, as it surely will.

  12. Great post Kentish Man.
    Matters not nationalists attacking UKIP for no one is listening.
    This time in the wilderness for nationalism which may last for years, gives nationalism plenty of time to see where it has gone wrong.

  13. UKIP are averaging 18% in the polls, but in reality come the next general election they will get halve that at best. Where I live they need to go from 1,500 votes to at least 15,000 to take the seat. As for the 8-20% parlimentary results the BNP under clown and unpopular Griffin polled over 17% in Barking and polled 8% plus in other seats.

    Context on the recent election result:

    BNP best year 2006 – 33 elected out of 350 candidates = 9.4% success
    UKIP best year 2013 – 149 elected out of 1,700 candidates = 8.7% success

    When one looks at places like Barking and Dagenham the BNP didn’t stand enough candidates to meet public demand in 2006. If the BNP had had a full slate in 2006 it would of taken that Council and gained around 40 of the seats. UKIP at best got 16 in Lincolnshire CC they were no where near taking a council yet in these areas they had full slates.

    The reality is that it would be fair to assume that if the BNP had put up 1,700 candidates in 2006 then 150 election successes would have been possible.

    I’m all for free speech and debate, but it sets the wrong impression if someone reads a leaflet and gets directed to this website and reads comments promoting what will become the British Democrats biggest rivial UKIP. As such, whilst we must be realistic at present, we must also be positive about the future of ‘real’ sensible patriotic-nationalism not the fake stuff by UKIP/UCON.

  14. On the face of it, perhaps it does seem strange to be advocating support for UKIP at this time. However, it is all about facing up to reality and trying to bring about the conditions under which patriotic nationalist parties will eventually have a fighting chance of success at the polls. I think people new to this site understand this and that it will not necessarily deter them from supporting the BDP over the longer term.

    Of all of the parties/organisations which have sprung up following the BNP debacle, in my opinion the British Democratic Party best represents the future of British Nationalism. With an excellent manifesto and sensible policies with which the public is increasingly in tune; a steady stream of thought-provoking articles and vibrant, articulate website forum; and an intelligent Chairman with the presence, gravitas and experience to lead, the Party has the potential to become the main platform for British Nationalism, uniting all of us who are so desperate for a way forward.

    There is at last a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel but ask yourself, are we realistically in a position to contest elections? Of course it would be a bold effort if we did, but it would inevitably turn out to be a futile and costly gesture, with candidates losing deposits and the costs of campaigning being effectively poured down the drain. Far better to concentrate resources now on reorganisation and unifying all patriotic nationalists under the BDP banner.

    We all know that time is running out and that we simply don’t have the luxury just to debate the finer points of the various forms of nationalism whilst our country sinks further into the abyss. In the short term we must look at practical ways of advancing our cause and achieving our main objectives of quitting the EU and controlling immigration. As it is, UKIP represents the only credible option for getting this done and for that reason it seems crazy to oppose them at the ballot box, thereby depriving them of a critical percentage of votes which could make all the difference between success and failure. Much more sensible to give them our support, for now, in a last ditch effort to gain time and bring about the conditions under which the BDP can flourish and move up to the next level by contesting elections.

    It is not a perfect solution, and the British Democratic Party must continue to emphasise the differences in our policies, especially where we seriously disagree with UKIP. UKIP may become our greatest rival, but I certainly don’t regard them as an enemy in the same way as I do the traitors of the Lib/Lab/Con. There is a fair bit of common ground between us. It doesn’t help that UKIP (the leadership, that is, as I have found many rank & file members to be very sympathetic to our cause!) regards ex BNP and even BDP members as political pariahs. But all this has to be set aside in favour of the pragmatic solution. When time is short in a deteriorating situation, practical measures have to be taken for the ultimate achievement of our most cherished objectives.

  15. 2006 and 2013 local election results are not a concrete comparison. 2013 and 2009 are the same by saying that those elections fought were the same rural elections council and county council elections. Despite the BNP victories in 2006, they only gained three seats in 2009 and UKIP gained seven. The BNP vote in 2010 had to grow just to hold on to the gains of 2006 sadly it did not, mainly due to a poor performance from Griffin on Question Time. Even with our victories in the European Elections, if one looked closely our vote had hardly grown.
    We would all love a better situation for the Nationalist cause. If the BNP had of resurfaced with a fresh Leadership after 2010 who knows maybe the BNP would have been apart of the fresh wave of patriotic electoral support.
    The Daily Star the comical daily tabloid done its best to smear UKIP a fortnight ago, and then held a text poll: are UKIP racist? 90% of the poll said no. Another poll said 90% voted UKIP because of their concerns about immigration. A large proportion of my fellow work colleagues who had a vote in the Kent region a fortnight ago voted UKIP precisely because of that reason.
    The late Jonathon Bowden once said ‘you have got to consolidate your vote and break the mould’. Well UKIP have turned their vote into a local vote for sure. They have learnt how to campaign on local issues. Their parliamentary by election results give some substance to this as well. They have more than consolidated their vote and they still could break through into Westminster.
    137 gains in one night for a Party that does not have one seat at Westminster is a formidable turning point in British Politics. We should take heart it is a positive move in the right direction.
    It is a predictable shock to the Tory traitors already a laughable gesture by ‘Cameron’ to say, “if you vote Tory in the General Election we will give you a referendum in 2017’. One does not need to be a good judge: next years European Elections will further prove that support for Mr Farage and his Party has increased and the reason for that is fundamentally the issue of immigration!
    UKIP are not the ideal solution but they can help put our cause on the right path they can help unite our people. Another quote from Jonathon Bowden comes to mind and I remember it well just after the 2009 European Elections he said ‘you can’t win without the middle class vote’. Well UKIP attract both working class voters and middle class voters that is something the BNP never did.

  16. The British Democrats have to fight parliamentary seats as it is a cheap way, without little man power of promoting the party. £1000 on a GE seat means that a 40,000 odd houses could get leaflets. It would serve as a useful tool to bring in members too. UKIP may well get the majority of the protest vote and support at present but not all.

    In 2009 UKIP had 3 times the amount of candidates than the BNP, so again 3 vs 7 gains balances out.

    The 2007 and 2013 can be compared as they were both local elections. The BNP always polled better in mets, cities and urban areas than UKIP. If the recent elections had been in cities and mets I would doubt very much UKIP would have made those gains. In fact UKIP got two seats in nice middle class parts of North Yorkshire the rest were in the midlands with the majority in the south.

    As for the statement that the BNP never appealed to middle class voters that isn’t fully true. Some of their first gains in Burnely were from the Tories in the nice parts of the town. The BNP also always polled well in Broxbourne and Epping Forest. In Leicestershire East Goscote is no council estate. In Leicestershire in 2009 the BNP gained 26279 votes in the county council elections.

    Nick Griffin portrayed the BNP as alot more working class than it was for a reason, as I have stated already. UKIP will find it harder appealing to the working class, due to the links with the Tories, their trade policies, statements about women and workers rights.

    The UK needs a party with the polices of the BNP, but branded like UKIP. This is where the BDP party needs to create its position as the more sensible, middle class version of the BNP. UKIPs immigration policy is flawed, as such there is huge ground that could be made of this.

  17. (Party Member) Personally I have never before ever even considered tactical voting. It does not suit my character as I stand up for what I actually believe in. However, if our British Democratic Party is not strong enough YET to stand a candidate in any area then I hope people vote for Ukip. It ‘goes against the grain’ to show support for the insincere Farage but if it finally BREAKS THE STRANGLEHOLD of the LIBLABCON then it is worth gritting our teeth to break the system. After this it will be a small step for our people to vote for REAL NATIONALISM with the sincere and decent British Democratic Party.

    1. I have yet to vote UKIP and I live in a very Tory part of the country where they come a good second in council elections ect so it isn’t a ‘wasted vote’. I am reluctant to do so because this party is getting too much of a ‘head of steam’ which will make it difficult for our party to get off the ground and also because their policies on welfare (ie support for workfare) are not effective or fair (in most cases) in my opinion. Indeed, it is precisely because UKIP are on 10% of the vote that people like IDS, Osbourne and Cameron are ramping-up their insane hatred of the unemployed in an attempt to win cheap votes. As a nationalist, someone who is unemployed through no fault of their own (the vast majority) are a part of my nation too and therefore I have to have a social conscious about them.

  18. One fairly small but still important reason why UKIP has done well is because on one social issue they have a more moderate stance than the BNP did. It is an issue most people don’t give a damm about but if they do then they tend to have a liberal viewpoint and this includes people who have very socially conservative views on on other ‘social conservative’ issues such as divorce, the death penalty, abortion and of course immigration.

Leave a Reply