I also disagree that UKIP is similar to Vlaams Belang or BNP.
I've no idea how similer they are or are not to Vlaams Belang. As for the BNP... it's complicated.
Yes, UKIP does not have it's roots in Neo-Nazism (something the BNP has, in public at least, tried to abandon. More Fascist than Nazi now).
But...
You can (more-or-less) divide the people that voted for UKIP in the last Euro elections into three groups; people who are strongly anti-E.U, people who just wanted to cast a protest vote and people who wanted a party to vent their racist (sorry "nationalist") feelings through, and who didn't want the stigma that comes with voting for the BNP. Hence "BNP-lite".
The first two groups drew from all major parties (and LibDem voters are especially common in the first, btw) and will not vote for UKIP in normal elections. This group probably made up the bulk of the UKIP vote in the South West and the East Midlands.
The third group are overwhelmingly Tory voters in normal elections, and are largely found in white collar, white flight suburbs (especially around the eastern edges of the London metropolitan area, but also around the edges of Birmingham/the Black Country and around the edges of some East Midlands cities). This group seems more open to the possibility of voting for UKIP in non-E.U elections, and if UKIP puts enough effort into targeting them...
Vlaams Belang's vice chairman had to resign after denying the Holocaust. Otherwise, interesting analysis. My point was mostly that I don't think the UKIP leaders themselves are racist, though their voters may as far as I know well be. I would say though that there is a difference between racism on the one hand and xenophobia on the other. Not to condone the latter, but it isn't as bad.
