If it were the BNP, i could understand this. UKIP makes it more borderline

No BNP supporter would adopt a nonwhite child, and UKIP isn't borderline at all because nothing about it is racist.

Multiculturalism  is the past, present, and future. Cultures that refuse to adapt are either destroyed, made irrelevent, or forced to adapt at gunpoint: look at East Asia: Japan adapted when Manchu China refused to, and one had a much, much better time of it. The United Kingdom's whole history is based on the notion of blending cultures (one, being the "United" Kingdom, two the absolute mongrel that is the English language). Contrary to popular belief, the Muslim world has a lot of multicultural facets (the longstanding triple influence of Arabic, Turkish, and Persian cultures, the Greek sciences and philosophies that they adapted and preserved through the Dark Ages). Many of the great superpowers of history were built on their willingness to adapt certain cultural values, finding a blend between values and techniques that made them very successful.

Care to explain the difference?

Multiculturalism is really the opposite of blending cultures.

It is trying to create several subcultures within a country and never allowing them to join together. Trying to keep a baby in a family of its own religion and race is a textbook example of that.

the bolded explains his comment.

The UKIP isn't a racist party.

But more importantly political views shouldn't be in this kind of decision.

My idea has always been that multiculturalism simply discourages "assimilation" and the assumption that adherents to one culture should subvert themselves to another, but to rather let assimilation occur at a natural pace (and reverse cultural osmosis, where some of the immigrants introduce elements that become ubiquitous part of the host society).

In my mind, the purpose of multiculturalism is the belief in a level playing field between different ways of life, at least objectively.

Now, i agree that politics shouldn't necessarily play a part in it, unless of course you're talking about ideologies that actively promote intolerance, because it would be verifiable that having more kids raised as bigots is only going to be detrimental to society as a whole.

Though for some reason i thought the UKIP was more or less the same as the BNP. I was wrong, which would make this particular decision wrong.

Couldn't have minority groups in a non-Labour family now, could we?

This is just stupid, If the parents are loving and caring for their children/ foster children, then political beliefs should be kept out of it. Talk about political correctness! But in no way is UKIP a racist, extremist party, if anything they are what the Conservative party used to be in the 1950's and 1960's. Even if these people supported EDL, BNP or the Communists this wouldn't be exceptable. I though we had a thing called freedom of speech afterall