Another lungful of HnH hypocrisy

Hope not Hate this evening posted the story which has appeared in the Guardian newspaper which attempts to suggest that there is something wrong with UKIP accepting a £25,000 donation from e-cigarette firm Pillbox 38 because UKIP has consistently voted against EU legislation which would outlaw their products. UKIP has always been against legislation which interferes with personal choice on both smoking and smoking replacement products. Hope not Hate's comment was 'is it me, or is this slightly dodgy'. The £25k represents less than 20% of UKIPs total donations.

Meanwhile, the same release of donor information showed that the Labour Party (who fund Hope not Hate) received over £2.4 million from the Trade Union movement (who also fund Hope not Hate). The trades unions have opposed the austerity drive by the current government which seeks to reduce state spending and, as a consequence, state employment, and Labour has voted in line with the trades unions wishes in Parliament. The £2.4m represented 77% of Labour's total donations.

Strangely, Hope not Hate have no comment to make on how dodgy this is, but as they receive money from both sides, that's hardly surprising. Just another dose of HnH hypocrisy.

Hope not Hate's take on democracy - shut down the opposing argument by name-calling

Hope not Hate are busy salivating over a series of comments which they claim prove UKIP to be 'misogynist'.

The carpet in their offices must be positively wet with all the dribbling, as last week they focussed on comments by UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom relating to aid being sent to 'Bongo Bongo Land'.

While attacking Bloom's comments, they naturally failed to address any substance within his comments, particularly as details came to light of aid to India and Nigeria (who have their own space programs) and F/18 fighters to Pakistan (as we continue to scrap our own fighter aircraft). Naturally, had any of Hope not Hate's armchair warriors actually travelled to areas which receive aid, they might have had a better perspective, but as most of their experience is gleaned from pages from the 'Guardian' newspaper it can hardly be expected that they know what they are talking about.

Today, they are up in arms over comments made by UKIP Treasurer Stuart Wheeler and UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom during a debate at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London on the subject of plans to impose a quota on the number of women represented in boardrooms.

For Hope not Hate's benefit, here is a dictionary (the Oxford English Dictionary) definition of a debate:

"a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote"

In practise, this works by openly debating the matter at hand, something which Hope not Hate are not keen on, probably because it smack of, well, democracy, and other 'right wing' tendencies.

In their moralising, Hope not Hate have yet to mention how an open debate can be held on whether quotas on the number of women in boardrooms should be held if only one side of the debate - the side in favour - is allowed to participate, of if those who oppose the idea of 'affirmative action' (which did so much to harm race relations in the United States) are castigated as racist/sexist/misogynist/Nazi (delete as appropriate).

This is what Hope not Hate mean by 'democracy', I suppose. Just out of interest, how many women do Hope not Hate employ? One? Out of how many?