# Nigel Farage humiliated by James O'Brien on LBC



## editor (May 16, 2014)

I know this has been mentioned on the UKIP thread, but I really think it's worth a thread of its own. It's a fantastic interview by James O'Brien. He _destroys_ Farage.





> Nigel Farage has just appeared on the James O’Brien show, and it’s one of the most amazing radio interviews I’ve ever heard.
> 
> It started with the Ukip leader attempting to defend his party over charges of racism. It ended with his Communications Director Patrick O’Flynn interrupting the interview live on air and then, according to LBC staff, physically dragging him out of the studio off camera.
> 
> ...


----------



## D'wards (May 16, 2014)

editor said:


> finished Nigel Farage’s political career


Hyperbole, i'm afraid


----------



## Metal Malcolm (May 16, 2014)

Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet but:

Twitter is full of people saying 'He's finished'
Every news article mentioning it is full of comments from people berating the interviewer and defending Farage.

It's definitely not the end of his career, sadly.


----------



## D'wards (May 16, 2014)

The thing all the agencies trying to discredit Farage miss, I think, is that his voter base will either be mildly racist themselves, or quite willing to turn a blind eye to a bit o' the old racism. To those it could possibly be a selling point even, so the media's attempt to destroy him could actually help him.
Definitely gives him the underdog status...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 16, 2014)

It won't be the end of anything, but fuck it, it's 20 minutes of joy


----------



## Crispy (May 16, 2014)

"He's just saying what we're all thinking"

His support will be undamaged.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 16, 2014)

D'wards said:


> The thing all the agencies trying to discredit Farage miss, I think, is that his voter base will either be mildly racist themselves, or quite willing to turn a blind eye to a bit o' the old racism. To those it could possibly be a selling point even, so the media's attempt to destroy him could actually help him.
> Definitely gives him the underdog status...



Or more likely won't consider what he said in the interview to be racism.


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2014)

God, just imagine if even a few of the interviews with politicians in the media were that rigorous. It's enjoyable to see Farage squirm over his lies, but why do we never see anything like this with IDS, Clegg or Cameron?


----------



## gosub (May 16, 2014)

agree its not the end, but it fucking should be.  Come the referendum you can build quite a strong case for getting out of an anti democratic EU, but there won't be a chance the debate will be on what's the difference between a Romanian and a German.

UKIP has done so much long term damage to Euroscepticism, just so they could top the polling for a parliament they don't believe in


----------



## Dogsauce (May 16, 2014)

It's not always the content of what they say, but whether they remain composed and retain a bit of dignity.  Thought Farage was getting a bit het up on Question Time the other week, when he's normally a bit slicker/smugger.  Maybe it's slowly wearing him down or getting to him?  Not a huge amount of people will pay attention to this anyway.

I wish some punches were landing on the coalition, worried that this UKIP stuff is a diversion.


----------



## gosub (May 16, 2014)

J Ed said:


> God, just imagine if even a few of the interviews with politicians in the media were that rigorous. It's enjoyable to see Farage squirm over his lies, but why do we never see anything like this with IDS, Clegg or Cameron?



Most politicians refuse to go on O'Brien apparently.   Still, vacancy at newsnight


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

gosub said:


> agree its not the end, but it fucking should be.  Come the referendum you can build quite a strong case for getting out of an anti democratic EU, but there won't be a chance the debate will be on what's the difference between a Romanian and a German.
> 
> UKIP has done so much long term damage to Euroscepticism, just so they could top the polling for a parliament they don't believe in


Why are you assuming that there will be a referendum? That depends on The tories winning a majority govt - something looking far from certain right now.


----------



## elbows (May 16, 2014)

Crispy said:


> "He's just saying what we're all thinking"
> 
> His support will be undamaged.



And we should factor in the story that the BNP try to tell about UKIP when desperately trying to win back their share of the racist and xenophobic vote. A story that is undermined every time UKIP have the sort of performance this thread is about.

The European election material from the BNP that recently came through my door says the following regarding UKIP:



> The BBC talked up UKIP as 'anti-immigration' because they're terrified of you voting BNP. But the truth is that UKIP support Immigration, especially Muslim Immigration.
> 
> "UKIP is NOT against Immigration. We welcome Immigration. We WANT Immigration!" - Nigel Farage, speaking in the European Parliament 11/12/2013


----------



## RedDragon (May 16, 2014)

My problem with all this Farage-bating is anything short of an absolute kill just makes him look victimised to his supporters - that whole section about his 'german' children was ridiculous.


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you assuming that there will be a referendum? That depends on The tories winning a majority govt - something looking far from certain right now.



Why do you assume that a Tory majority government wouldn't back out on that? It's not as if Cameron hasn't guaranteed it before.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why do you assume that a Tory majority government wouldn't back out on that? It's not as if Cameron hasn't guaranteed it before.


I don't. But it's the first hurdle that has to be crossed.


----------



## gosub (May 16, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why do you assume that a Tory majority government wouldn't back out on that? It's not as if Cameron hasn't guaranteed it before.



Its on the statue book, tory party wouldn't survive bringing forward change in law to get rid.  Milliband's position is odd though - pretending there won't be even though there will be a new treaty, suppose he's hoping theLib Dems he is trying  so hard to woo don't do small print.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

gosub said:


> Its on the statue book, tory party wouldn't survive bringing forward change in law to get rid.  Milliband's position is odd though - pretending there won't be even though there will be a new treaty, suppose he's hoping theLib Dems he is trying  so hard to woo don't do small print


No it's not.


----------



## gosub (May 16, 2014)

Yes, yes it is 

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/europeanunion.html

basis of the new treaty 

and back on ignore


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

gosub said:


> Yes, yes it is
> 
> http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/europeanunion.html
> 
> ...


No it's not. The private members bills to put an in/out referendum on the eu on the statute book fell at the start of the year. Hence osborne trying to bump the lib-dems into one in march. The provisions in that bill you link to are not concerned with a referendum membership of the eu.  It provides for a referendum on passing extra powers to the eu not membership of the eu.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2014)

gosub said:


> Its on the statue book, tory party wouldn't survive bringing forward change in law to get rid.  Milliband's position is odd though - pretending there won't be even though there will be a new treaty, suppose he's hoping theLib Dems he is trying  so hard to woo don't do small print.









there should be a thread of all the good images people post in error


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 16, 2014)

J Ed said:


> God, just imagine if even a few of the interviews with politicians in the media were that rigorous. It's enjoyable to see Farage squirm over his lies, but why do we never see anything like this with IDS, Clegg or Cameron?



Because that's not the done thing anymore.


----------



## kraepelin (May 16, 2014)

Given how well Farage normally handles interview, could it be that the expenses question hit a real raw nerve, could his press guy know a potential skeleton in the closet.

Or could it be that Farage has just been given a fucking easy ride by all sections of the press.

I listen to the fallout of farage leaving and i don't think i've heard any interviewer call farage straight out racist like james did.

I wonder if james might have earnt a bit of hate from the not to small sized UKIP LBC listeners.

Its a fucking dim reflection on our press when it take a LBC host to give it to Farage


----------



## Favelado (May 16, 2014)

That was smashing!


----------



## 1%er (May 16, 2014)

Fun to watch, not sure it will have any real impact as anti-europe voters don't have any other electable alternative, do they? 

Is "in or out" the only real issues in the European election?


----------



## Fingers (May 16, 2014)

kraepelin said:


> Given how well Farage normally handles interview, could it be that the expenses question hit a real raw nerve, could his press guy know a potential skeleton in the closet.
> 
> Or could it be that Farage has just been given a fucking easy ride by all sections of the press.
> 
> ...



You should see the hate in the comments at the bottom of the YouTube video. Tonnes of it. At least one of them called for him to be executed.

Welcome to life under UKIP


----------



## eatmorecheese (May 16, 2014)

Agree with the consensus, brilliant to watch, a relaxed demolition job. Probably enough to turn certain waverers off UKIP, but enough to entrench the nutters who will vote for them anyway. Meeja bubble porn.

What a ham-faced poltroon, though


----------



## xenon (May 16, 2014)

J Ed said:


> God, just imagine if even a few of the interviews with politicians in the media were that rigorous. It's enjoyable to see Farage squirm over his lies, but why do we never see anything like this with IDS, Clegg or Cameron?


He did the same with I DS. Boris Johnson won't talk to him any more either.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 16, 2014)

liberal spunk party.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

It won't matter; look at the comments on the Torygraph article following this. They all cast O Brien as some crappy/lefty journalist and say it's the mainstream media picking on the kippers.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 16, 2014)

Fingers said:


> You should see the hate in the comments at the bottom of the YouTube video. Tonnes of it. At least one of them called for him to be executed.
> 
> Welcome to life under UKIP



What? Hate comments on You Tube video. Life under UKIP? 'giving it' to Farage? Bollocks.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

WolverOBrien: "I'm the best at what I do...and what I do ain't pretty!" (i wish i had the phothoshops)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2014)

A mainstream politician with balls would be bringing out the tory posters (unofficial, irrc) from the sixties saying 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote labour'. They _have to_ do this, surely?


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

They have done. We've had two weeks of it. Meanwhile mainstream parties continue being the ones actually being properly and powerfully racist.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They have done. We've had two weeks of it. Meanwhile mainstream parties continue being the ones actually being properly and powerfully racist.


I take the point that it is wrong to applaud when a warmonger like Jack Straw says the only decent thing there is to say to Nick Griffin, and it is playing into the hands of the likes of Straw to applaud him, to give any appearance that you are on the same side as him. 

It is wrong to applaud. You don't get applause for saying the fucking obvious, for simply showing that you are not racist in the way Griffin is racist. Tens of millions of people can do that.  'You can fuck off, too' has to be the consistent cry. However, the banishing of UKIP from the scene has to be a positive thing. It means that they can no longer dictate any of the terms of debate. A small victory, but a victory nonetheless.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I take the point that it is wrong to applaud when a warmonger like Jack Straw says the only decent thing there is to say to Nick Griffin, and it is playing into the hands of the likes of Straw to applaud him, to give any appearance that you are on the same side as him.
> 
> It is wrong to applaud. You don't get applause for saying the fucking obvious, for simply showing that you are not racist in the way Griffin is racist. Tens of millions of people can do that.  'You can fuck off, too' has to be the consistent cry. However, the banishing of UKIP from the scene has to be a positive thing. It means that they can no longer dictate any of the terms of debate. A small victory, but a victory nonetheless.


Which is a massively different thing from - as you suggested - a mainstream politician doing it. But if you're not trying to get rid of the mainstream politicians as well all you're doing is saying that they are the legitimately racist parties.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2014)

It depends who's saying it. That is true. Oh for even just a moderately right-wing Labour party leadership that you could get behind just a little bit in such circumstances.


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

Saw Farage on the tube once
Rather regretting I didn't deck the little shit
Anyway O'Brien was BRILLIANT
Paxmans retiiring
Reckon he should go for it


----------



## Manter (May 16, 2014)

Crispy said:


> "He's just saying what we're all thinking"
> 
> His support will be undamaged.


I read that as 'his support will be unhinged'


----------



## JHE (May 16, 2014)

I haven't heard the interview.  Perhaps Farage was an arse.  I don't know.  But from the account I've read Farage's supposed crime seems to be to believe that it's better to have German neighbours than Romanian neighbours.  Is that it?  Is that the outrage?

I don't see why expressing that opinion should do him much harm.

Where I live, in Madrid, Romanians have a bad reputation.  Personally, I have not had any bad experience of Romanians and have no antipathy towards Romanians, but I remember a very nice young Romanian woman, who worked in a bar I used to use, telling me how bad she thought many of her compatriots here are (a bunch of crooks, in her opinion) and Spaniards quite often express critical views of Romanians - usually it's specifically of the Romanian Gypsies.

Maybe these opinions are mistaken.  I don't know, but I'm pleased to be in a place where people are able to and willing to argue about these opinions.

We'll see whether voters in Britain share the PC tut-tutters' view of what Farage said.  Maybe many won't think his opinion as outrageous as the PC bossyboots want us to think it was.


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2014)

Yes JHE, but you're a well known racist. Prime UKIP material really.


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2014)

'PC tut-tutters'? My christ.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> 'PC tut-tutters'? My christ.


Wearing PC bossyboots.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2014)

JHE said:


> Perhaps Farage was an arse.


no perhaps about it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2014)

Just watched that. Afraid the 'you know the difference' bit doesn't work that well. The presenter said 'German children'. But Farage said 'Romanian _men_'. Not excusing what Farage said - he's a disgusting racist wanker - but the blow landed there wasn't very hard. The hardest blows come from just pointing out Farage's own words talking about people not speaking English, but I have to agree with other posters who say that this will sit rather well with many of his supporters.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

Someone who describes themselves as a socialist:



			
				jhe said:
			
		

> Maybe these opinions are mistaken. I don't know



Yes you do. And why weasel to comment on the content of the claim but pretend that you're merely talking about free speech. In the years i've been here seeing you turn in to this racist piece of shit is pretty much the second steepest decline.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2014)

JHE said:


> I haven't heard the interview.  Perhaps Farage was an arse.  I don't know.  But from the account I've read Farage's supposed crime seems to be to believe that it's better to have German neighbours than Romanian neighbours.  Is that it?  Is that the outrage?
> 
> I don't see why expressing that opinion should do him much harm.
> 
> ...



Substitute 'black people' for 'Romanians' in that. See how it reads. You're talking like a lot of racist people in 1950s Britain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Someone who describes themselves as a socialist:
> 
> 
> Yes you do. And why weasel to comment on the content of the claim but pretend that you're merely talking about free speech. In the years i've been here seeing you turn in to this racist piece of shit is pretty much the second steepest decline.


Romanians aren't a race, so I can't be being racist. 

/Nigel Farage


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Someone who describes themselves as a socialist:
> 
> 
> Yes you do. And why weasel to comment on the content of the claim but pretend that you're merely talking about free speech. In the years i've been here seeing you turn in to this racist piece of shit is pretty much the second steepest decline.


_Second_ steepest. Begs a question...


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

Poster now called keyboardjockey - can't remember original name. Solid left wing poster, turned rabid right wing nutjob 2008. He had more weight than jhe ever had though. Plenty of small scale ones - bloke called excosulate - same thing but turned into an anti-semitic  conspiraloon.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2014)

Ah yes. Turned Zionist.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Poster now called keyboardjockey - can't remember original name. Solid left wing poster, turned rabid right wing nutjob 2008. He had more weight than jhe ever had though. Plenty of small scale ones - bloke called excosulate - same thing but turned into an anti-semitic  conspiraloon.



Thought he started out as keyboardjockey and changed his name to something else. He disappeared years ago.


----------



## co-op (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Poster now called keyboardjockey - can't remember original name. Solid left wing poster, turned rabid right wing nutjob 2008. He had more weight than jhe ever had though. Plenty of small scale ones - bloke called excosulate - same thing but turned into an anti-semitic  conspiraloon.




One of the saddest things in my political life (and I really mean this, for me it has been really saddening) is watching two people I really know and trusted (still trust on nearly everything) turn into racists, or at least islamophobes. I still cannot understand how fucked up that is - and I feel like islamophobia is a gateway drug to all the rest, so god knows where they'll end up. These are people who had a real handle on politics, on class, had read a lot of sociology - one of them was basically my mentor on all this stuff. I have this temporarily pigeon-holed under "middle-age blokes" since both were when it happened, but I still don't understand why.

Really odd. The first half of my life it was all the other way round - guys who were openly racist in the 70s and 80s coming out as anti-racist when they hit their 30s, had children, felt the love, all that stuff. It seemed really genuine. Life's too short, good people are too precious - all that stuff. One reason I have never really known how hard to go in on "a racist" is because I've seen so many of them flip to awareness later in their lives. But to see people go the other way....I mean it's just saddening.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Thought he started out as keyboardjockey and changed his name to something else. He disappeared years ago.


Other way round then - can't recall right now. The other new name came back and was here for yonks. Talking shit.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 16, 2014)

I'm wondering whether at least this might mean that he gets a bit less fucking airtime - though it may mean he gets _more_, on the basis that he might have an even better racist rant this time.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 16, 2014)

Excellent use of twenty minutes, watching that.

Will do Farage no great harm, his supporters will agree with what happened there.

James O'Brien though, what a rare thing to see a journo with all the facts and happy to deploy them. hastag/paxman's job etc.

Always happier when 9am came along and fat-cunt-bigot-twat-Ferrari was limo'd back to Blackheath.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Other way round then - can't recall right now. The other new name came back and was here for yonks. Talking shit.



Gone and best forgotten. Though I've just remembered his name. Zachor.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

co-op said:


> One of the saddest things in my political life (and I really mean this, for me it has been really saddening) is watching two people I really know and trusted (still trust on nearly everything) turn into racists, or at least islamophobes. I still cannot understand how fucked up that is - and I feel like islamophobia is a gateway drug to all the rest, so god knows where they'll end up. These are people who had a real handle on politics, on class, had read a lot of sociology - one of them was basically my mentor on all this stuff. I have this temporarily pigeon-holed under "middle-age blokes" since both were when it happened, but I still don't understand why.
> 
> Really odd. The first half of my life it was all the other way round - guys who were openly racist in the 70s and 80s coming out as anti-racist when they hit their 30s, had children, felt the love, all that stuff. It seemed really genuine. Life's too short, good people are too precious - all that stuff. One reason I have never really known how hard to go in on "a racist" is because I've seen so many of them flip to awareness later in their lives. But to see people go the other way....I mean it's just saddening.


Yes. It is a real ongoing thing. And one of the problems is, that having such a handle on other things makes you more credible in the eyes of others who haven't that experience. I've seen it here. I know the edl/whatever young types here are not let anywhere near us (and i don't mean on demos). Because we have the same sort of experience based credibility that their current mates do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2014)

O'Brien did a very good job. And the ease with which he went for whichever piece of information was relevant was extremely impressive. He prepared well.

However, I am uneasy about people beating Farage with the 'your members employ illegal immigrants' stick. I see why they do it, but far stronger to hit him with the stuff that you yourself think is disgusting rather than just attempting to point out hypocrisy. There is far too much real bad stuff about Farage to bother with his hypocrisy, imo.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 16, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Thought he started out as keyboardjockey and changed his name to something else. He disappeared years ago.



Yeah I thought he was keyboardjockey first. Developed a strange obsession with Ken Livingstone  IIRC then kept lurching rightwards from there.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

Here's a thing about where he started - it took me years to not confuse him with violent panda - now imagine VP turning into a bag of shit.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 16, 2014)

I remember that as well but I don't think it's something that has broader meaning.


----------



## Nylock (May 16, 2014)

"Those communist countries I visited"


----------



## Quartz (May 16, 2014)

editor said:


> I know this has been mentioned on the UKIP thread, but I really think it's worth a thread of its own. It's a fantastic interview by James O'Brien. He _destroys_ Farage.



And this is why we have free speech: let them be destroyed by their own words.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 16, 2014)

Crispy said:


> "He's just saying what we're all thinking"
> 
> His support will be undamaged.



Yes, but it's part of a general trend of alienating potential future support. Only 4% are certain to vote for his tribe of zealots at the GE.

Admitedly, it's mostly only politics geeks that will care, but it really is an excellent display of how naked the emperor is. For me, the funniest parts were near the start when he kept wriggling, no lying about certain candidates. It just goes to show how shite most interviewers are that he expects to get away with his rehearsed distractions and denials.

The kipborg have been polluting cyberspace with their single transferable bibble ever since. Mainstream media is just one big conspiracy against their hallowed bastion of truth dontcha know.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 16, 2014)

1%er said:


> Fun to watch, not sure it will have any real impact as anti-europe voters don't have any other electable alternative, do they?
> 
> Is "in or out" the only real issues in the European election?



In or out isn't even an EU election issue in fact. It's only a referendum supplied by a Westminster Parliament that will address that question.


----------



## treelover (May 17, 2014)

> Explaining his claim that Romanians were more likely to be criminals, he said: "We have a problem; unfortunately, those communist countries which I visited and I've seen the real poverty that people live in.
> "We talk about exclusion in society … go and see, since the fall in communism, what has happened to the Roma communities in those countries; they don't get jobs, they've got nowhere to live and they have been forced, in many cases, to a life of crime.



Farage is guilty of a lot of things, but what he says in the particular paragraph is correct in that the Roma are marginalised and in many cases have to live on the 'edge' to survive.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (May 17, 2014)

JHE said:


> Where I live, in Madrid, Romanians have a bad reputation.



And there's no smoke without fire, eh, amiright?


----------



## shagnasty (May 17, 2014)

James O'brien did his research very well ,didn't take the pressure of at all


----------



## Thimble Queen (May 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> Farage is guilty of a lot of things, but what he says in the particular paragraph is correct in that the Roma are marginalised and in many cases have to live on the 'edge' to survive.



Yeah and he's contributing to it with his bullshit racist rhetoric


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2014)

It was an enjoyable interview, must say. I liked O'brien's pissed off contemptuous tone.


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> James O'brien did his research very well ,didn't take the pressure of at all


First I've seen of O'Brien. Suspect he's a bit of an arrogant shit in real life, but it was nice to see him hitting that particular target.  He did a bit of recycling towards the end but most of it was pretty fast on his feet segue ways. Very impressive.


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Yeah and he's contributing to it with his bullshit racist rhetoric


Yep. I can see a logic to seeing Farage as a buffoonish nationalist or noting that he's different to common or garden, unambiguous racists or islamophobes. However, his little Germans-good/Romanians-bad game stems from somewhere I struggle to see as anything less than racist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> Farage is guilty of a lot of things, but what he says in the particular paragraph is correct in that the Roma are marginalised and in many cases have to live on the 'edge' to survive.



There's a big step between living on the edge of society and living a life of crime. Farage deliberately conflates the two, so as to appear sympathetic to marginalised communities while simultaneously seeding the idea of these people being an external threat to the general population.


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's a big step between living on the edge of society and living a life of crime. Farage deliberately conflates the two, so as to appear sympathetic to marginalised communities while simultaneously seeding the idea of these people being an external threat to the general population.


Indeed - and in fact having a brand of politics that isn't sympathetic to _any_ marginalised group, white, black, British, southern European...


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 17, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Indeed - and in fact having a brand of politics that isn't sympathetic to _any_ marginalised group, white, black, British, southern European...



He's a crafty bastard this Farage I'll give him that.


----------



## 8ball (May 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just watched that. Afraid the 'you know the difference' bit doesn't work that well. The presenter said 'German children'. But Farage said 'Romanian _men_'. Not excusing what Farage said - he's a disgusting racist wanker - but the blow landed there wasn't very hard.


 
Yeah, if a bunch of German children moved in next door to me I'd probably call Social Services if there didn't seem to be any parents around.

The O'Brien chap's research was bang on, mind, and he wasn't taking any old bullshit for an answer either.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 17, 2014)

Wilf said:


> First I've seen of O'Brien. Suspect he's a bit of an arrogant shit in real life, but it was nice to see him hitting that particular target.  He did a bit of recycling towards the end but most of it was pretty fast on his feet segue ways. Very impressive.


He speaks highly of you too


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 17, 2014)

poptyping said:


> Yeah and he's contributing to it with his bullshit racist rhetoric


He sends FBI be suggesting all Romanians are itinerant vagrants you don't want as neighbours. 

For someone about whom his followers claim is smart he certainly didn't act it - unless of course you think he's a nasty piece of work


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2014)

Wilf said:


> First I've seen of O'Brien. Suspect he's a bit of an arrogant shit in real life, but it was nice to see him hitting that particular target.  He did a bit of recycling towards the end but most of it was pretty fast on his feet segue ways. Very impressive.



He's been on LBC for years and has always been pretty good and really doesn't come across as that arrogant. Maybe that's cos he came straight after Nick Ferrari, so it would be very hard to look like an arrogant shit following that arrogant wankstain.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2014)

Certainly a better interview than what we've come to expect. But it's a nonsense to suggest that it marks the end of Farage. If anything, it will play well with his core support. They feel the same about Romanians, but feel that they can't say it. And it will further reinforce the narrative of persecution by the media.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 17, 2014)

'roma' and 'romanian' are not the same thing - but they get readily  - and deliberately - conflated. 

Agree that this is not going to cause UKIP much damage - they other dog whistle policies to racists and xenphobes - so outing them as racists and xenophobes will not bother much of their support.
Better to expose fargae for being a posh, rich arsehole and his 'man of the people' schtick as utter bullshit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yes, but it's part of a general trend of alienating potential future support. Only 4% are certain to vote for his tribe of zealots at the GE.
> 
> Admitedly, it's mostly only politics geeks that will care, but it really is an excellent display of how naked the emperor is. For me, the funniest parts were near the start when he kept wriggling, no lying about certain candidates. It just goes to show how shite most interviewers are that he expects to get away with his rehearsed distractions and denials.
> 
> The kipborg have been polluting cyberspace with their single transferable bibble ever since. Mainstream media is just one big conspiracy against their hallowed bastion of truth dontcha know.


Where have you got  this 4% from? The euro polls show UKIP on an steady range of 25-34% - with half of respondents saying they would also vote for UKIP in the general elections. So we would the expect to see UKIP showing up in the GE polling at around 13-17% - exactly what they have been doing. Their voters typically are 75% certain to vote (and the rest of of their supporters are in the very likely to vote camp). So if we take the worst case scenario and knock off 20% of their support they have around 10-14% certain to vote for them (on current polling which is all we have to go on) rather than 4%.

What's struck me about this two week _UKIP freak out _is the combining of exaggeration (_OMG UKIP are going to stop all immigration!_) with an unrealistic downplaying of the level of support they and their ideas have (_wouldn't fit in a phone box_). Neither of these are helpful to coming up with realistic overviews of where we are (never mind substantive analysis) but when they join together it can end up being actively harmful.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 17, 2014)

O'Brien shut Farage up, which is something few people have managed. Farage usually talks over everyone else, but not this time.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where have you got  this 4% from? The euro polls show UKIP on an steady range of 25-34% - with half of respondents saying they would also vote for UKIP in the general elections. So we would the expect to see UKIP showing up in the GE polling at around 13-17% - exactly what they have been doing. Their voters typically are 75% certain to vote (and the rest of of their supporters are in the very likely to vote camp). So if we take the worst case scenario and knock off 20% of their support they have around 10-14% certain to vote for them (on current polling which is all we have to go on) rather than 4%.
> 
> What's struck me about this two week _UKIP freak out _is the combining of exaggeration (_OMG UKIP are going to stop all immigration!_) with an unrealistic downplaying of the level of support they and their ideas have (_wouldn't fit in a phone box_). Neither of these are helpful to coming up with realistic overviews of where we are (never mind substantive analysis) but when they join together it can end up being actively harmful.



The 4% was something I read relating to certain votes at the GE. Clearly a different poll and far lower. I haven't seen anyone claim they are going to stop all immigration, and I don't seek to downplay their support. I reckon getting on for 10 in the GE is not out the question, and for 4% to say it's certain now sounds ballpark for that.


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He's been on LBC for years and has always been pretty good and really doesn't come across as that arrogant. Maybe that's cos he came straight after Nick Ferrari, so it would be very hard to look like an arrogant shit following that arrogant wankstain.


Fair dos. As much as anything what I said came out of what Awesome said:
"WolverOBrien: "I'm the best at what I do...and what I do ain't pretty!" "

Anyway, I'm more than happy to see all that deployed against the filthy dirty thing that is Falange.


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where have you got  this 4% from? The euro polls show UKIP on an steady range of 25-34% - with half of respondents saying they would also vote for UKIP in the general elections. So we would the expect to see UKIP showing up in the GE polling at around 13-17% - exactly what they have been doing. Their voters typically are 75% certain to vote (and the rest of of their supporters are in the very likely to vote camp). So if we take the worst case scenario and knock off 20% of their support they have around 10-14% certain to vote for them (on current polling which is all we have to go on) rather than 4%.
> 
> What's struck me about this two week _UKIP freak out _is the combining of exaggeration (_OMG UKIP are going to stop all immigration!_) with an unrealistic downplaying of the level of support they and their ideas have (_wouldn't fit in a phone box_). Neither of these are helpful to coming up with realistic overviews of where we are (never mind substantive analysis) but when they join together it can end up being actively harmful.


There's certainly the interesting question of what % of their Euro vote sticks for the GE (and in turn how that plays out for the Tories along with whether they get any MPS [unlikely with first past the post, but we'll have to see] ). Next thing will be whether they get a permanent presence at anything like 10-20%.  Liberals are a vastly different case, with centuries of history and a local machine. Means they can never be truly killed off.  Ukip _might_ establish that eventually, but they just don't seem the kind of party able to put that sort of graft in.  Too much of a farage machine.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 17, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Fair dos. As much as anything what I said came out of what Awesome said:
> "WolverOBrien: "I'm the best at what I do...and what I do ain't pretty!" "
> 
> Anyway, I'm more than happy to see all that deployed against the filthy dirty thing that is Falange.


I wasn't suggesting O Brien was employing dirty tricks. I think he presented evidence and argued accordingly against Farage's logic.

The thrust of the hate from the youtubers seems to be around the "have you ever worked in business?" question Farage put to James whose response is being characterised as arrogant lefty socialists-know-nothing-about-business-but-want-to-spend. I've no idea whether James would regard himself as a socialist, I don't think he does.

It's the arrogance: Jame's response to that was sarcastic because the question is insulting and arrogant and refinforces the capitalist view the society should treat 'business' people as a hgiher class of citizen. UKIP (as well as the rest of the mainstream parties) hide this arrogance behind talk of 'small business' as the backbone of society and how such people are invariably life's winners. They are no more pro-small business than Tesco or Goldman Sachs.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 17, 2014)

Wilf said:


> There's certainly the interesting question of what % of their Euro vote sticks for the GE (and in turn how that plays out for the Tories along with whether they get any MPS [unlikely with first past the post, but we'll have to see] ). Next thing will be whether they get a permanent presence at anything like 10-20%.  Liberals are a vastly different case, with centuries of history and a local machine. Means they can never be truly killed off.  Ukip _might_ establish that eventually, but they just don't seem the kind of party able to put that sort of graft in.  Too much of a farage machine.



UKIP have managed, more than any other party, to do as well as they have for as long as they have without the sort of intense local party campaiging we associate with the long, slow rise of the LDs and smaller but equally hard won rises by The Greens and even the BNP.

But circumnavigating that process may well not do UKIP any favours in the medium to long term. How many of their candidates are really willing to get to grips with drains & dogshit, broken gates, schools admission appeals and all the other mundane casework. That's one of the reasons BNP don't hold seats. Once the thrill of a little local glamour and basic support of headline rhetoric has gone it soon becomes much more dull, without the support and possbile delusion of real power that some of the larger parties offer.

I'm not writing them off, but theres a very very long way to go till they match what the LDs had (and may yet have again).


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Poster now called keyboardjockey - can't remember original name. Solid left wing poster, turned rabid right wing nutjob 2008. He had more weight than jhe ever had though. Plenty of small scale ones - bloke called excosulate - same thing but turned into an anti-semitic  conspiraloon.


KBJ got himself a girlfriend who turned out to be right-wing.  Rather than arguing with her on politics, he changed his politics overnight, converted to Judaism and became one of that minority of shrill, ill-informed pro-Zionist British Jews that do so much to make British Jewry look like a bunch of reactionary cunts.
He changed his username to Zachor post-circumcision, btw.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yeah I thought he was keyboardjockey first. Developed a strange obsession with Ken Livingstone  IIRC then kept lurching rightwards from there.



The Livingstone "concentration camp" jibe coincided with KBJ's getting a girlfriend.  he basically ran with her commentary about Livingstone (which tallied pretty much with that of the Jewish "establishment" in Britain - that Livingstone was an anti-Semite, and that whatever the context of his comment, he was a Judaeophobe).  His "lurching" pretty much tied into his moving in with her, and then converting.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Livingstone "concentration camp" jibe coincided with KBJ's getting a girlfriend.  he basically ran with her commentary about Livingstone (which tallied pretty much with that of the Jewish "establishment" in Britain - that Livingstone was an anti-Semite, and that whatever the context of his comment, he was a Judaeophobe).  His "lurching" pretty much tied into his moving in with her, and then converting.




a smear which despite having little substance was wheeled out regularly by livingstones political enemies


----------



## xenon (May 17, 2014)

Didn't KBJ argue for voting for Borris Johnson before that though? I used to agree with a lot of what he said - not that bit, - before he went waywood. Not that it really matters with him not being here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> a smear which despite having little substance was wheeled out regularly by livingstones political enemies



Easy pickings, isn't it?  If the audience aren't bothered to look past the media version, and put the comment in context, then people will buy it, and frankly people are lazy enough to not look past the media version.  Livingstone's enemies got off on that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2014)

xenon said:


> Didn't KBJ argue for voting for Borris Johnson before that though? I used to agree with a lot of what he said - not that bit, - before he went waywood. Not that it really matters with him not being here.



He didn't like Livingstone, mostly due to Livingstone's leadership of the GLC, and the fact that he was kind of a mascot for a type of Labour party that KBJ didn't think could work.  He didn't drink the new Labour Kool-Aid, but he did believe that old-fashioned Labour leftism wouldn't or couldn't work in govt.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 17, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> How many of their candidates are really willing to get to grips with drains & dogshit, broken gates, schools admission appeals and all the other mundane casework. That's one of the reasons BNP don't hold seats. Once the thrill of a little local glamour and basic support of headline rhetoric has gone it soon becomes much more dull, without the support and possible delusion of real power that some of the larger parties offer.



They have quite a lot of ex-Tory councillors in their ranks (some of the existing councillors are defectors). There will be quite a lot used to the nuts and bolts of it. It's probably the new young excitable libertarian types that will have a hard time of it. They don't have my sympathy.


----------



## youngian (May 17, 2014)

Farage does indeed get an easy ride in the media on so many levels. This interview at least challenged the crude xenophobia at the heart of UKIP but little else is challenged so that Farage is able to constantly repeat absurd lies so they are eventually taken as facts; EU accounts haven't been signed off for 12 years, 70 per cent of our laws are made in Brussels, we are told what to do by Brussels bureaucrats, Commonwealth is a trading bloc, all absolute bollocks.


----------



## weltweit (May 17, 2014)

youngian said:


> Farage does indeed get an easy ride in the media on so many levels. This interview at least challenged the crude xenophobia at the heart of UKIP but little else is challenged so that Farage is able to constantly repeat absurd lies so they are eventually taken as facts; EU accounts haven't been signed off for 12 years, 70 per cent of our laws are made in Brussels, we are told what to do by Brussels bureaucrats, Commonwealth is a trading bloc, all absolute bollocks.


Yes, I agree.

The interviewer was definitely up on his game and prepared and gave Farage a harder time than I have thus far seen him have. I thought the most worrying bit was over the Romanians personally.

I was talking to someone today who said the Tories would rather Labour won the Euro elections than UKIP because if UKIP win it will only increase the vociferousness of their own euro sceptics. I hadn't really realised that UKIP COULD win. I just expected they could get a bigger vote share than others would be comfortable with.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 17, 2014)

OBrien/Farage should be shown in cinemas.


----------



## weltweit (May 17, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> OBrien/Farage should be shown in cinemas.


Hmm. I wonder how widely it will be seen.
The bbc politics site showed a bit of it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27437982


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 17, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Hmm. I wonder how widely it will be seen.
> The bbc politics site showed a bit of it
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27437982


I tweeted the link yesterday, fwiw. Not sure what else one can do. The average voter probably isn't interested enough to dig this out. Hardocre kippers will see it but think it's a hatchet job. Lefties like me won't vote kip anyway.


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I tweeted the link yesterday, fwiw. Not sure what else one can do. The average voter probably isn't interested enough to dig this out. Hardocre kippers will see it but think it's a hatchet job. Lefties like me won't vote kip anyway.


 You sound like you could have written this torygraph piece by Tim Stanley....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...lled-car-crashes-the-ukip-bandwagon-rides-on/


----------



## youngian (May 17, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I was talking to someone today who said the Tories would rather Labour won the Euro elections than UKIP because if UKIP win it will only increase the vociferousness of their own euro sceptics.


Likewise Labour aren't that bothered about a good UKIP showing as it would send the Tories into a tailspin. Its Cameron's worst nightmare to see his backbench swivalent tendency on the march less than a year before the GE.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2014)

youngian said:


> Likewise Labour aren't that bothered about a good UKIP showing as it would send the Tories into a tailspin. Its Cameron worst nightmare to see his backbench swivalent tendency on the march less than a year before the GE.


no it isn't. his losing the next election is surely a bigger nightmare for him than what happens now.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You sound like you could have written this torygraph piece by Tim Stanley....
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...lled-car-crashes-the-ukip-bandwagon-rides-on/


Tim Stanley! The fuck you say!


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2014)

youngian said:


> Likewise Labour aren't that bothered about a good UKIP showing as it would send the Tories into a tailspin. Its Cameron worst nightmare to see his backbench swivalent tendency on the march less than a year before the GE.


 Yes, and i think what really scares the vermin is not knowing what a good UKIP Euro performance will do to the 'stickyness' of tory -> UKIP defectors come the GE. Current polling typically sees 10%+ falling back into the fold, but they don't know what a really large burst of positive, winning publicity would do to those numbers.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2014)

youngian said:


> Likewise Labour aren't that bothered about a good UKIP showing as it would send the Tories into a tailspin. Its Cameron worst nightmare to see his backbench swivalent tendency on the march less than a year before the GE.


according to the guardian the tories are actually in quite a good mood

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/17/tory-general-election-victory-ukip

if blair didn't give a fuck about a million plus people marching against the iraq war, why should cameron give a fuck about people voting for ukip in an election this year which frankly changes nothing?


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Tim Stanley! The fuck you say!



Did you read it?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yes, and i think what really scares the vermin is not knowing what a good UKIP Euro performance will do to the 'stickyness' of tory -> UKIP defectors come the GE. Current polling typically sees 10%+ falling back into the fold, but they don't know what a really large burst of positive, winning publicity would do to those numbers.


yeh because you know why people vote ukip  there are probably a lot of eurosceptic tories voting ukip in the euros to force the issue of a european referendum who wouldn't vote for them in a domestic election.


----------



## youngian (May 17, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if blair didn't give a fuck about a million plus people marching against the iraq war, why should cameron give a fuck about people voting for ukip in an election this year which frankly changes nothing?


It changes a lot, UKIP candidates achieving a slight percentage increase in key marginals could cost Tory seats. As a consequence they are faced with having to woo back rightwing voters without losing moderate floating voters.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2014)

youngian said:


> It changes a lot, UKIP candidates achieving a slight percentage increase in key marginals could cost Tory seats. As a consequence they are faced with having to woo back rightwing voters without losing moderate floating voters.


tbh this has been predicted a number of times before and it assumes that a lot of voters are thick as pigshit. while ukip are likely to do well in elections on thursday i don't think they're going to do as well next year because a lot of these disaffected tories will stay at home instead of voting for e.g. ukip. anyway you're making the assumption that the tories are in any way attractive to "moderate floating voters", if such exist then they'll have a hard time finding anyone to vote for! and by definition "moderate floating voters" have not been "won" - your bit about the tories not losing them therefore rot.


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh this has been predicted a number of times before and it assumes that a lot of voters are thick as pigshit. while ukip are likely to do well in elections on thursday i don't think they're going to do as well next year because a lot of these disaffected tories will stay at home instead of voting for e.g. ukip.


 
Yes, quite possibly...but none of the extant polling can tell what impact an actual electoral success/victory for UKIP will have on the level of defection maintained through till May 2015.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yes, quite possibly...but none of the extant polling can tell what impact an actual electoral success/victory for UKIP will have on the level of defection maintained through till May 2015.


no, you mistake defection between now and 2015 as one long period when it is in fact two short ones - that from now till 22/5 and april 2015-may 2015. those are the only two period when defections matter. in addition the work done on tory>ukip defections suggests that it is the aulder voter who is more susceptible to the allure of the ukip. it's not your young tory voter. see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9248.12130/full


----------



## weltweit (May 17, 2014)

I find the Scottish referendum and the possibility of a European referendum both quite unsettling. With any luck Cameron will not be re-elected so the second will go away but in case he does, do any of you know what the opinion polls say atm on the EU question?


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, you mistake defection between now and 2015 as one long period when it is in fact two short ones - that from now till 22/5 and april 2015-may 2015. those are the only two period when defections matter. in addition the work done on tory>ukip defections suggests that it is the aulder voter who is more susceptible to the allure of the ukip. it's not your young tory voter. see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9248.12130/full



I don't think I'm mistaking anything; whatever the demographics or the time frame during which people make up their minds, the fact remains that an actual UKIP victory, (largest % share of popular Euro vote), if it happens, is a psephological great unknown. Maybe the positive effect would wear off during the intervening year...but that's what the tories hope for...they can't be certain, and that is what will be worrying the wonks that pour over the marginal polling.


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I find the Scottish referendum and the possibility of a European referendum both quite unsettling. With any luck Cameron will not be re-elected so the second will go away but in case he does, do any of you know what the opinion polls say atm on the EU question?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I don't think I'm mistaking anything; whatever the demographics or the time frame during which people make up their minds, the fact remains that an actual UKIP victory, (largest % share of popular Euro vote), if it happens, is a psephological great unknown. Maybe the positive effect would wear off during the intervening year...but that's what the tories hope for...they can't be certain, and that is what will be worrying the wonks that pour over the marginal polling.


the thing is that you didn't mention the period in which people make up their mind, you talked of a level of defection maintained until next may. that grinding you hear is the sound of your goalposts moving. i am suggesting that only two short and discrete periods of defection matter, one this year and one next.


----------



## weltweit (May 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 54060


Blimey, it is a lot closer than I thought.
Thanks for posting that, I knew I could have googled, but I also knew someone reading this would know.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 54060


source pls


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the thing is that you didn't mention the period in which people make up their mind, you talked of a level of defection maintained until next may. that grinding you hear is the sound of your goalposts moving. i am suggesting that only two short and discrete periods of defection matter, one this year and one next.




Well, pretty obviously the actual point at which such defection takes place only lasts as long as it takes to draw a cross with a pencil...but the tory pollsters will be concerned specifically with how many of the Euro defectors (in the Westminster) marginals can be turned over the coming 12 months. The considerable positive publicity that a UKIP Euro 'victory' would produce will worry them that the 'turning' will be all the harder.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Well, pretty obviously the actual point at which such defection takes place only lasts as long as it takes to draw a cross with a pencil...but the tory pollsters will be concerned specifically with how many of the Euro defectors (in the Westminster) marginals can be turned over the coming 12 months. The considerable positive publicity that a UKIP Euro 'victory' would produce will worry them that the 'turning' will be all the harder.


tbh the tories have made a rod for their own back by fucking up the last time they promised a referendum. and there's a lot of people don't trust cameron who previously voted tory.


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> source pls


 here


----------



## RedDragon (May 18, 2014)

Not too proud to take the Mail's shilling, oh James 

What you need to know about Nigel Farage before you vote this Thursday by JAMES O'BRIEN


----------



## killer b (May 18, 2014)

I'm sure such an article would have much more impact in the guardian.


----------



## maomao (May 18, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> Not too proud to take the Mail's shilling, oh James
> 
> What you need to know about Nigel Farage before you vote this Thursday by JAMES O'BRIEN


Mail on Sunday not the Daily Mail. Geordie Grieg is at pretty open war with Paul Dacre and likes printing stuff that will wind him up. And while The Mail's in house columnists are some of the most evil people in the world of newspapers, the paper does have a history of printing a wide range of opinion (very heavily skewed, but not exclusively, to the right). I'm not a fan of The Mail, and The Mail Online is particularly objectionable for other reasons (constant objectification of women, borderline paedophilia) I certainly wouldn't criticise any journalist for writing for them on a one off basis. Where else is he likely to be read so widely?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

That Scotty M person, the most vociferous Farage defender is one of the most angry idiots I've seen on YouTube!


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Did you read it?


Got as far as:



> Lefty O’Brien’s a brilliant journalist and a nice guy, but he makes Owen Jones look like a Monday Club member – so it’s no surprise that he hammered Farage hard on immigration and expenses. For once, the Ukip leader handled it badly. Partly because of some of the things he’s said about Romanians are simply indefensible and partly because O’Brien’s rage was so pure that he struggled to defuse the situation with his usual bonhomie



Tim Stanley is a cunt; what else do I need to know?


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Got as far as:
> 
> Tim Stanley is a cunt; what else do I need to know?



OK, your call. It's just that you and he seemed to be offering the same basic analysis of the electoral impact of Farage's 'car crash' LBC interview.

You...





> The average voter probably isn't interested enough to dig this out. Hardocre kippers will see it but think it's a hatchet job. Lefties like me won't vote kip anyway.



The cunt...





> Lefty O’Brien’s a brilliant journalist and a nice guy.... so it’s no surprise that he hammered Farage hard on immigration and expenses. For once, the Ukip leader handled it badly. Ukip’s foes will say that Farage is finished on the grounds that anyone who sees the interview couldn’t possibly vote for him and his party. But there's two problems with that:
> 
> 
> Ninety-nine-point-nine per cent of Britons won't watch the video because they’ve got better things to do with their lives.
> ...


----------



## Ponyutd (May 18, 2014)

I'm not going over five pages but I hope the phrase 'former landlord' has been used before O'Brien gets his Sainthood.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You sound like you could have written this torygraph piece by Tim Stanley....
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...lled-car-crashes-the-ukip-bandwagon-rides-on/


Tim Stanley. Oy! 

This comment sums UKIP up.


> J DE Foster  SaminLondon • 6 minutes ago
> In the fifties, people were invited to stand on their own two feet. There was pride, and thrift and a sense of family values that have been systematically eroded by en endless procession od 'professional' politicians.
> We need to get back to the real world, and if it takes UKIP, so be it.



The fifties... what is this obsession with nostalgia? It isn't just UKIP that engage in this kind of thing. The Tories and Labour also do it. This is why this country can't move forward.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> I'm not going over five pages but I hope the phrase 'former landlord' has been used before O'Brien gets his Sainthood.


Would you care to expand?


----------



## Combustible (May 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OK, your call. It's just that you and he seemed to be offering the same basic analysis of the electoral impact of Farage's 'car crash' LBC interview.



Apart from the bit about O'Brien being a 'lefty', is Stanley's analysis wrong? Do you think the interview means that Farage is 'finished' or that it will significantly damage UKIP?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

I asked who O Brien was on the other thread shortly after the show finished - no one replied. All i can find is that he went to Ampleforth and that i remember seeing him aggressively offer conservative pro-catholic arguments on the big questions and shows like that. I reckon him and Tin Stanley would be in the same ball-park politically - given O brien is a labour supporter and Stanley was a long term member and labour PPC and both are practicing christians.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Blimey, it is a lot closer than I thought.
> Thanks for posting that, I knew I could have googled, but I also knew someone reading this would know.



I didn't realise how close those numbers were either, but the key thing to note is that despite the oft-touted meteoric rise of UKIP, support for staying in the EU seems to be growing faster than it has for decades.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

maomao said:


> Mail on Sunday not the Daily Mail. Geordie Grieg is at pretty open war with Paul Dacre and likes printing stuff that will wind him up. And while The Mail's in house columnists are some of the most evil people in the world of newspapers, the paper does have a history of printing a wide range of opinion (very heavily skewed, but not exclusively, to the right). I'm not a fan of The Mail, and The Mail Online is particularly objectionable for other reasons (constant objectification of women, borderline paedophilia) I certainly wouldn't criticise any journalist for writing for them on a one off basis. Where else is he likely to be read so widely?


He used to write video game reviews for their You Magazine, or whatever it is now that comes with that paper.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OK, your call. It's just that you and he seemed to be offering the same basic analysis of the electoral impact of Farage's 'car crash' LBC interview.
> 
> You...
> 
> The cunt...


The difference between my post and Stanley's is that he traduces O Brien and his effort at every turn: most people have better things to do with their time thatn listen to a radio debate between him and Farage.

I'm sure people do have important things to do, but that's not really what this ukip fanboy is saying: he's merely trying to dismiss what is actually a very important interview.

From the Vox Political blog, this great point:


> Regarding JL Sullivan, Farage said he wasn’t a councillor but a council candidate, then contradicted himself by saying he had not heard of that gentleman’s name. If that were true, how would Farage know whether he was a councillor or a candidate?



Farage doesn't even have any idea who's in his party. I'm trying to discern if anything has been done, since this interview (even though the tweet, which is utterly repellant, is 4 months old).

Is this man still in the party, even after the interview?


----------



## Combustible (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon him and Tin Stanley would be in the same ball-park politically - given O brien is a labour supporter and Stanley was a long term member and labour PPC and both are practicing christians.



I'm not sure that's particularly true now. As far as I can tell Tim Stanley's Labour activity (where he claimed to be relatively left wing) was prior to his conversion to a US style 'Paleoconservatism' which I think is a fairly unusual trajectory and presumably not likely to be shared by O'Brien.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> I'm not going over five pages but I hope the phrase 'former landlord' has been used before O'Brien gets his Sainthood.


what does that mean?


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

I do think it was a well delivered, fast on his feet demolition job. Pity he couldn't have gone a bit further with Farage's 'I think we all know what that is' comment (on the supposed differences of having Germans or Romanians moving in next door).  It really felt like some 70s NF comment on how white families might feel if a black or Asian family moved in.  I'm not having a go at O'Brien  but it really did seem the point where Farage's pragmatic nationalism descended into outright racism. Ditto the train stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Combustible said:


> I'm not sure that's particularly true now. As far as I can tell Tim Stanley's Labour activity (where he claimed to be relatively left wing) was prior to his conversion to a US style 'Paleoconservatism' which I think is a fairly unusual trajectory and presumably not likely to be shared by O'Brien.


From what i can tell (admittedly i haven't done a particularly thorough review) Stanley still seems to fit into the atlantacist/NATO wing of the labour party despite no longer being a member. Maybe i'm reading too much into my limited experience of O Briens rather pompous appearances on a few programs as well.


----------



## Balbi (May 18, 2014)

Brillo pad tried the same question on Suzanne Evans (UKIP Communities spokesperson) and got slapped down by her.


----------



## Combustible (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> From what i can tell (admittedly i haven't done a particularly thorough review) Stanley still seems to fit into the atlantacist/NATO wing of the labour party despite no longer being a member.



I think the difference with Stanley is that he didn't go down the far more common route of liberal, Atlanticism that often ends up with fawning over US Democrats. Rather he appears to support a far more unfashionable strain of US conservatism (in this country), which includes obvious sympathy with Pat Buchanan who he has written a book about and support for the Tea Party. It certainly gives him a niche position in the media anyway.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

"Come with me to Poland and i'll show you the horrible truth.
Then off to Bulgaria to slander all their youth.
Take a trip to Strasbourg and I'm sure you will agree
While I stuff my face at your expense, only I can set you free!"

"My name it rhymes with garage, but only pronounce it posh
I give the impression I'm like you because i eat pub nosh
Don't take a trip to Strasbourg like all my MEP's
Who'd rather sit on their backsides and collect their annual fees!"

"Suddenly the mask is slipping, send for Mr Flynn
He's got the magic marker and the facepaint made of win
If only i was in that westminster, I'd be top of the bally class
Before it's off to Strasbourg to sit on my fat arse!"


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I asked who O Brien was on the other thread shortly after the show finished - no one replied. All i can find is that he went to Ampleforth and that i remember seeing him aggressively offer conservative pro-catholic arguments on the big questions and shows like that.


He went to Ampleforth?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> He went to Ampleforth?


He did.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 18, 2014)

Ampleforth, aka The Catholic Eton.


----------



## Ponyutd (May 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> what does that mean?


It means he was a former landlord. He announced it on one of his shows before LBC went nation wide.
He gave Frank Lampard a going over, when Lampard rang the show he couldn't back track quick enough.


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2014)

Nineham went to Westminster, Renton to Eton, Kimber, Callinicos, not sure but private school, anyway, Laura to Brighton College, elites everywhere.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> He gave Frank Lampard a going over, when Lampard rang the show he couldn't back track quick enough.


One private schoolboy showing due deference to another there. I bet his other callers don't get that.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> It means he was a former landlord. He announced it on one of his shows before LBC went nation wide.
> He gave Frank Lampard a going over, when Lampard rang the show he couldn't back track quick enough.


Fuck!

He's dead to me then.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Ampleforth, aka The Catholic Eton.


Wonder where Farage went to school?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Wonder where Farage went to school?


Flipping heck. If only there was some way that we could find out.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Flipping heck, If only there was some way that we could find out.





> Farage was educated at Dulwich College, a public school in south London.[9] On leaving school in 1982, he decided not to go to university, but to work in the City trading commodities at the London Metal Exchange.[7] Initially, he joined the American commodity brokerage firm Drexel Burnham Lambert,[9] transferring to Credit Lyonnais Rouse in 1986.[9] He joined Refco in 1994, and Natexis Metals in 2003.[9]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage
I assume that is probably true..


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

Give a man a fact and he eats for a day, teach a man to google...


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Give a man a fact and he eats for a day, teach a man to google...


That is all well and good but most threads on here would be a bit more sparse if people just turned to google every time they wondered about something.

And anyhow it was wikepedia not google which told me that Farage went to Dulwich, as incidentally also did Bob Monkhouse. But while Farage it seems stayed the course, Monkhouse was expelled!


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

Dulwich College eh?


----------



## Welsh lad (May 18, 2014)

Nigel Farage attacked over Romanians 'slur'. 

Ed Milliband said the comments about Romanian immigrants were a "racial slur", while Nick Clegg said the comments had no place in modern Britain. David Cameron added the comments were "pretty unpleasant".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27459923


----------



## peterkro (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> And anyhow it was wikepedia not google which told me that Farage went to Dulwich, as incidentally also did Bob Monkhouse. But while Farage it seems stayed the course, Monkhouse was expelled!


As did Raymond Chandler. Peterkro  pointless and off topic trufax.


----------



## xenon (May 18, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> It means he was a former landlord. He announced it on one of his shows before LBC went nation wide.
> He gave Frank Lampard a going over, when Lampard rang the show he couldn't back track quick enough.




He was a nob with the Lampard thing, no question. But on him being a landlord, he gave it up for ethical reasons. Couldn't square it with his politics. It was one property he let. He's said that a number of times. Believe his reasoning or not, O'Brien isn't a landlord any more.


----------



## xenon (May 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Fuck!
> 
> He's dead to me then.



Idiot.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

xenon said:


> He was a nob with the Lampard thing, no question. But on him being a landlord, he gave it up for ethical reasons. Couldn't square it with his politics. It was one property he let. He's said that a number of times. Believe his reasoning or not, O'Brien isn't a landlord any more.


So it's utterly irrelevant to this conversation.

As irrelevant as earlier comments from some nobhead about OBrien's catholicism leading to views of the sort I have never seen him express. In fact when he's on shows like TBQ he's always speaking against the likes of creationism and religious bigotry.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> And anyhow it was wikepedia not google which told me that Farage went to Dulwich, as incidentally also did Bob Monkhouse. But while Farage it seems stayed the course, Monkhouse was expelled!



Nigel Farage said he wanted to be a politician when he was younger and everybody laughed. They're not laughing now.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Wonder where Farage went to school?



there is a piece about his school days on transpontine this week

http://transpont.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/ex-dulwich-college-fascist-seeks-your.html


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> The difference between my post and Stanley's is that he traduces O Brien and his effort at every turn: most people have better things to do with their time thatn listen to a radio debate between him and Farage.
> 
> I'm sure people do have important things to do, but that's not really what this ukip fanboy is saying: he's merely trying to dismiss what is actually a very important interview.



Are you sure you've read Stanley's piece? I really can't see where you're getting the idea that he 'traduces' O'Brien from; he does say this of him..


> ...O’Brien’s a brilliant journalist and a nice guy, but he makes Owen Jones look like a Monday Club member – so it’s no surprise that he hammered Farage hard on immigration and expenses...O’Brien’s rage was so pure...



Hardly defamatory Awesome?

Other than that, you and Stanley appear pretty much in lock-step. You both appear to accept that O'Brien gave Farage a tough questioning, most 'ordinary' punters don't have the time or inclination to watch or analyse the encounter, and that it's unlikely to put off many voters already determined to vote UKIP.

You did say all that stuff, didn't you?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

I find it extremely unlikely that Stanley complimenting OBrien is anything other than condescension. Stanley is another swivel eyed buffoon. He thinks Gove is the saviour of our schools ffs!
 That he follows up these 'compliments' by referencing O Brien's 'rage' says it all. What rage? He was measured, clear and serious. Hardly the same as the attitude behind 'shoot all poofters'!


----------



## Welsh lad (May 18, 2014)

The Sun newspaper on Saturday also criticised Mr Farage, saying his comments were "racism, pure and simple".


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 18, 2014)

Welsh lad said:


> The Sun newspaper on Saturday also criticised Mr Farage, saying his comments were "racism, pure and simple".


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)




----------



## Sasaferrato (May 18, 2014)

Metal Malcolm said:


> Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet but:
> 
> Twitter is full of people saying 'He's finished'
> Every news article mentioning it is full of comments from people berating the interviewer and defending Farage.
> ...



Sadly? Really? 

Is it your view that people should only hold views of which you approve?

Ask yourself why UKIP is gaining support. Ask yourself why the political flavour, of which you approve, is being rejected.

The reason that UKIP is gaining support is that the mainstream parties have lost the faith of the electorate, thereby allowing UKIP to flourish.

Frankly, I find Urban's attitude to UKIP naive and patronising, effectively saying that the electorate are stupid, and don't really understand what UKIP is about. This is arrant nonsense. The disengagement between the mainstream parties and the electorate is the fault of those parties, not of the electorate. When people are faced with a political elite that neither understands or cares about their issues, they will turn to someone who does appear to understand and care.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 18, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> View attachment 54093




its the pot calling the kettle tbf


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 18, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> My problem with all this Farage-bating is anything short of an absolute kill just makes him look victimised to his supporters - that whole section about his 'german' children was ridiculous.



I was away when the interview was broadcast, so have only heard a bit on the radio. The interviewer was bullying, badgering and not giving Farage proper time to reply. He did Farage no damage whatsoever.


----------



## RedDragon (May 18, 2014)

There is no substance to UKIP other than one single issue. 

What I find more disturbing is the shift to the right we'll see after Thursday's protest vote.


----------



## Gingerman (May 18, 2014)

Welsh lad said:


> The Sun newspaper on Saturday also criticised Mr Farage, saying his comments were "racism, pure and simple".


A clear favourite for the 2014 Brass Neck award surely.....


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> A clear favourite for the 2014 Brass Neck award surely.....


How about this:


----------



## Gingerman (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How about this:



Another outstanding nomination.....


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 18, 2014)

Crispy said:


> "He's just saying what we're all thinking"
> 
> His support will be undamaged.



I agree. A less amateurish and hysterical interviewer could have damaged UKIP. This guy was on an ego trip, and didn't.


----------



## cesare (May 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I was away when the interview was broadcast, so have only heard a bit on the radio. The interviewer was bullying, badgering and not giving Farage proper time to reply. He did Farage no damage whatsoever.


How long was "the bit" you heard?


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I was away when the interview was broadcast, so have only heard a bit on the radio. The interviewer was bullying, badgering and not giving Farage proper time to reply. He did Farage no damage whatsoever.


The OP link is to most of it.

I agree Farage is no way finished, but his comments on Romanians were, lets say, problematic, and his story about being on a train just odd, I always notice lots of languages when I am in London but it doesn't bother me.

Would you rather have a household of Germans living next to you than one of Romanians?


----------



## ddraig (May 18, 2014)

Sas
 a lot of people have been posting what you've just said in different ways 
why do you think the view of a few is Urban's view? even when it clearly isn't on this thread. "Frankly, I find Urban's attitude to UKIP naive and patronising, effectively saying that the electorate are stupid, and don't really understand what UKIP is about. "


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Stanley is another swivel eyed buffoon. He thinks Gove is the saviour of our schools ffs!



That's as maybe, but on the issue of the impact of the O'Brien/Farage interview you and he speak as one. Are you troubled by this?


----------



## killer b (May 18, 2014)

Its kind of the opposite of what urban thinks, if there's such a thing.


----------



## RedDragon (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Would you rather have a household of Germans living next to you than one of Romanians?


Wasn't O'Brien labouring the point Farage's house was the german household with children who spoke english as a second language.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> Wasn't O'Brien labouring the point Farage's house was the german household with children who spoke english as a second language.


Yes he did, but he also asked what the difference was between Germans and Romanians to which Farage responded something like "you know the difference!" ... I am not convinced I do but I have no experience with Romanians. Germans I am quite happy with.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Frankly, I find Urban's attitude to UKIP naive and patronising, effectively saying that the electorate are stupid, and don't really understand what UKIP is about. This is arrant nonsense.



You've clearly not be reading the UKIP threads. What you claim is the arrant nonsense.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> That's as maybe, but on the issue of the impact of the O'Brien/Farage interview you and he speak as one. Are you troubled by this?


NOt at that moment.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 18, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Nigel Farage said he wanted to be a politician when he was younger and everybody laughed. They're not laughing now.



No, they are not. As I said earlier. the rise of UKIP is as much about the failure of the big three as it is about UKIP policies. People are fed up with being ignored, fed up with central offices imposing candidates, and, I suspect, fed up with politics in general.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 18, 2014)

cesare said:


> How long was "the bit" you heard?



A minute or two. 'Cherry picked' no doubt.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> No, they are not. As I said earlier. the rise of UKIP is as much about the failure of the big three as it is about UKIP policies. People are fed up with being ignored, fed up with central offices imposing candidates, and, I suspect, fed up with politics in general.


((bob))


----------



## RedDragon (May 18, 2014)

I think you get more insight from watching the video, O'Brian's anger/contempt and childish way of saying Farage were unprofessional.


----------



## xenon (May 18, 2014)

Well I partially agree with Sas re UKIP's support. I have older relatives that are considering voting UKIP, otherwise have been traditional Labour voters. They are not racist. Maybe perturbed by the pace of change, worry about young people's prospects, employment, housing etc. The obvious stuff. And voting for UKIP, for them is a protest fuck you, to the the established parties and media machinery.

I understand that. But in trying to understand that, it doesn't mean UKIP's hipocracy, bigotry and policy detail shouldn't be pointed out and challenged. It's just a fucking shame there's not much else offering people like my relatives an alternative. Being negative about UKIP and offering nothing else is mostly pointless and just something to do on the internet in the end though. I told them I am thinking of voting Green but there's plenty there I dislike too.


----------



## 1%er (May 18, 2014)

The fourth estate working well, just how well, we will see after the election.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 18, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Sas
> a lot of people have been posting what you've just said in different ways
> why do you think the view of a few is Urban's view? even when it clearly isn't on this thread. "Frankly, I find Urban's attitude to UKIP naive and patronising, effectively saying that the electorate are stupid, and don't really understand what UKIP is about. "



I don't fully understand the point you are making. I'll answer it as I understand it.

Urban has had a disparaging attitude towards UKIP for a long time; by extension, that is disparaging and condescending towards those people who vote for UKIP; a rising number of people.

Although I am broadly in line with UKIP's view that the EU needs radical reform, including curtailment of the power of the EU commission, and a return to 'trading bloc' status, I find most of UKIP's policies distasteful. 

I can understand their rise in popularity though. Our 'elected' elite have chosen to ignore the growing rumble of discontent. Labour have lied about a Referendum on EU powers, as have the Conservatives. The Lib Dems are of course EU catamites. Cameron promises a referendum in 2017, safe in the knowledge that he isn't going to have to deliver.

The whine by business in this country that they cannot obtain employees with the necessary skills within the UK, and therefore 'have' to bring people in from other EU countries is bullshit. What they are actually saying is 'We don't have to spend money training people here, we can import from Poland etc, and the incoming employees will work for less'.

The political elite are not terribly concerned with immigration, it doesn't undermine their employment prospects or living standards.

It is little wonder that the only party that is promising change in our relationship with the EU is gaining ground.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 18, 2014)

xenon said:


> Well I partially agree with Sas re UKIP's support. I have older relatives that are considering voting UKIP, otherwise have been traditional Labour voters. They are not racist. Maybe perturbed by the pace of change, worry about young people's prospects, employment, housing etc. The obvious stuff. And voting for UKIP, for them is a protest fuck you, to the the established parties and media machinery.
> 
> I understand that. But in trying to understand that, it doesn't mean UKIP's hipocracy, bigotry and policy detail shouldn't be pointed out and challenged. It's just a fucking shame there's not much else offering people like my relatives an alternative. Being negative about UKIP and offering nothing else is mostly pointless and just something to do on the internet in the end though. I told them I am thinking of voting Green but there's plenty there I dislike too.



Absolutely.

Again, absolutely.


----------



## ddraig (May 18, 2014)

what i meant was that you are saying that this is "urban's view" when it clearly isn't, even on this thread
there have been other posters who've put what you mean much better, plenty of them


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> The OP link is to most of it.
> 
> I agree Farage is no way finished, but his comments on Romanians were, lets say, problematic, and his story about being on a train just odd, I always notice lots of languages when I am in London but it doesn't bother me.
> 
> Would you rather have a household of Germans living next to you than one of Romanians?



Germans for choice, solely because I can speak a wee bit of German. Otherwise, not fussed.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 18, 2014)

ddraig said:


> what i meant was that you are saying that this is "urban's view" when it clearly isn't, even on this thread
> there have been other posters who've put what you mean much better, plenty of them



No doubt. I have never made any claim to be an orator.


----------



## ddraig (May 18, 2014)

stop saying it is "urban's view" then


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Sadly? Really?
> 
> Is it your view that people should only hold views of which you approve?
> 
> ...


It's a protest vote, is that what you're saying?. The problem is that people are protesting by voting for a party with some pretty objectionable members and associates - more than just the odd bad apple, and that Farage is a member of the establishment.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I don't fully understand the point you are making. I'll answer it as I understand it.
> 
> Urban has had a disparaging attitude towards UKIP for a long time; by extension, that is disparaging and condescending towards those people who vote for UKIP; a rising number of people.
> 
> ...



Plenty of us are both opposed to UKIP and to the sneering and condescension that some think passes for critique of UKIP. A look thru any recent UKIP thread will show that.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

Got two leaflets, a Labour and Tory one. The Labour one focusses on the Tories while the Tory one focusses on Labour AND Ukip..


----------



## DotCommunist (May 18, 2014)

it's like ukip are their eastern front


----------



## nino_savatte (May 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Dulwich College eh?


Same school as Bob Monkhouse.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it's like ukip are their eastern front


Yep. And Cameron's referendum promise is supposed to be the glue to keep the Tory eurosceptics onside.


----------



## Corax (May 18, 2014)

I've seen a few bits on Twitter etc making out that O'Brien is some sort of socialist hero, which are a weeny bit facepalm. 

But nonetheless, it'd be fun to see him take Paxman's vacant seat on Newsnight. Nothing to do with politics really, but I think he'd restore the entertainment value by pissing a load of politicians off at least.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

Corax said:


> .. But nonetheless, it'd be fun to see him take Paxman's vacant seat on Newsnight. Nothing to do with politics really, but I think he'd restore the entertainment value by pissing a load of politicians off at least.


Isn't Paxman's seat already occupied, by Laura Kuenssberg?


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Plenty of us are both opposed to UKIP and to the sneering and condescension that some think passes for critique of UKIP. A look thru any recent UKIP thread will show that.


Spot on.  Those threads will throw up the odd bit of 'edl/bnp/ukip supporters are thick' shite, but the fact that the vast majority of posters reject that shite is one of the good things about urban.


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> That is all well and good but most threads on here would be a bit more sparse if people just turned to google every time they wondered about something.


 Only joshing , but you did rather open yourself up to it on this one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Spot on.  Those threads will throw up the odd bit of 'edl/bnp/ukip supporters are thick' shite, but the fact that the vast majority of posters reject that shite is one of the good things about urban.


Steady on. We shouldn't go too far here. If you support the edl or bnp, that does tell me something important about you, and I will judge you for it and think a great deal less of you for it. I will think you are either ignorant, a scumbag or both.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Steady on. We shouldn't go too far here. If you support the edl or bnp, that does tell me something important about you, and I will judge you for it and think a great deal less of you for it. I will think you are either ignorant, a scumbag or both.



Which is all well and good but contributes little to actually stopping these movements and (more importantly) the conditions that create them.


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Steady on. We shouldn't go too far here. If you support the edl or bnp, that does tell me something important about you, and I will judge you for it and think a great deal less of you for it. I will think you are either ignorant, a scumbag or both.


Well, yes, _individually_ they _might_ be a scumbag, might be thick - but that's not the point.


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Well, yes, _individually_ they _might_ be a scumbag, might be thick - but that's not the point.


edit - beaten to it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Which is all well and good but contributes little to actually stopping these movements and (more importantly) the conditions that create them.


Well to take the BNP individually, if you tell me that you are a BNP supporter, I then know that you are a racist. The conditions that alienate people are one thing, but that should not mean that you avoid some moral clarity here - there is no excuse for supporting the BNP, or the EDL for that matter.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well to take the BNP individually, if you tell me that you are a BNP supporter, I then know that you are a racist. The conditions that alienate people are one thing, but that should not mean that you avoid some moral clarity here - there is no excuse for supporting the BNP, or the EDL for that matter.



Again, all well and good, but how does this help?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Again, all well and good, but how does this help?


Help what? Help explain the existence of such groups? A lot. They tap in to the resentment and alienation of racist people.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

The motor behind Ukip is undoubtably Farage himself, as a broadly likeable (media) personality. I don't think many prospective voters know their local Ukippers, but Farage has been very successful getting media exposure for himself as the figurehead, and somehow I don't hate him for it, even though politically I disagree with Ukip.

However I also hear and see Cameron trying to comment on every news story, as if he is the lightning rod on which we should all base our opinions and I find it stomach churning, Cameron is no more qualified as the moral arbiter of daily events than my binman.

But I do wonder about how Farage managed to become so prevalent in the media.


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's a protest vote, is that what you're saying?. The problem is that people are protesting by voting for a party with some pretty objectionable members and associates - more than just the odd bad apple, and that Farage is a member of the establishment.




It may be a protest vote, but it will have an impact, pushing England even further to the right, for example, the other parties will pick up on what they want to hear, immigration, benefits, etc,

many UKIP voters want the trains nationalised, you can bet that bit will be ignored.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Help what? Help explain the existence of such groups? A lot. They tap in to the resentment and alienation of racist people.



Help stop these groups/provide an alternative/change peoples minds?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Help what? Help explain the existence of such groups? A lot. They tap in to the resentment and alienation of racist people.


And non-racist people.


----------



## gosub (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yep. And Cameron's referendum promise is supposed to be the glue to keep the Tory eurosceptics onside.




not very good glue, he won't get reform done before 2017 and Labour is offering an in out referendum if there is a treaty (which there will be) and Clegg has also agreed this week to an in out so doesn't look like it will get lost in a coalition


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Help stop these groups/provide an alternative/change peoples minds?


Recognising that supporters of far-right groups are racists shifts at least part of the question about their support to a question of racism and racists. Why are there these racist people in this country? How do you combat racists? How do you change the minds of racists? 

With UKIP, there may be a question of how many of those intending to vote for them would change their minds if they were convinced that UKIP were themselves an essentially racist party. How many current UKIP voters really are not racist and can be turned away from UKIP by changing their minds about UKIP's racism? I don't know, but it's a question that addressing racism and racists throws up.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

gosub said:


> not very good glue, he won't get reform done before 2017 and Labour is offering an in out referendum if there is a treaty (which there will be) and Clegg has also agreed this week to an in out so doesn't look like it will get lost in a coalition


No they're not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And non-racist people.


No. You can't support the BNP and not be racist. They are not tapping into the resentment of people who are not racists because such people, despite their resentment, will not turn to support racists like the BNP. As I said earlier, there is a place for some moral clarity here.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

gosub said:


> not very good glue, he won't get reform done before 2017 and Labour is offering an in out referendum if there is a treaty (which there will be) and Clegg has also agreed this week to an in out so doesn't look like it will get lost in a coalition


Nothing in the Labour election leaflet I received Friday about ANY referendum, for any reason.


----------



## gosub (May 18, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/12/ed-miliband-eu-referendum-business-leaders


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> It may be a protest vote, but it will have an impact, pushing England even further to the right, for example, the other parties will pick up on what they want to hear, immigration, benefits, etc,
> 
> many UKIP voters want the trains nationalised, you can bet that bit will be ignored.


Well, they don't run on time at the moment...

The current government are very much to the right economically anyway, but not Euro-sceptic which is why Ukip are popular.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. You can't support the BNP and not be racist. They are not tapping into the resentment of people who are not racists because such people, despite their resentment, will not turn to support racists like the BNP. As I said earlier, there is a place for some moral clarity here.


And UKIP? Why did you narrow it down to the BNP? Who are we talking about? The BNP or UKIP? Are you arguing they are substantially the same?


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus racism isn't some sort of permanent binary switch that you flip that makes someone a "racist person" or not.

And, more importantly, trying to turn support for the far-right and right wing populism into a a moral thing centred around racism fails to tackle the causes of support and rise of groups like these.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And UKIP? Why did you narrow it down to the BNP? Who are we talking about? The BNP or UKIP? Are you arguing they are substantially the same?



This too lbj. There are some important things they have in common. Racism isn't the important bit.


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2014)

Just read in the Guardian that Farage requested the 'debate' with O' Brien, does that change the nature of the discussion?


----------



## Buckaroo (May 18, 2014)

Maybe O'Brien is an agent of the Thought Police, loyal to the Party and to Ingsoc?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> Just read in the Guardian that Farage requested the 'debate' with O' Brien, does that change the nature of the discussion?


In what way? Do you think it does?


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

Clegg landed a punch at their recent debate when he said so Farage wants to break ties with the world's largest market and establish trade links with New Zealand! That is certainly going to work .. or words to that effect.


----------



## RedDragon (May 18, 2014)

But Clegg is also an idiot, soused in the euro-project gravy train.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Clegg landed a punch at their recent debate when he said so Farage wants to break ties with the world's largest market and establish trade links with New Zealand! That is certainly going to work .. or words to that effect.


Clegg lost both debates convincingly. UKIP's polling rose afterwards. Lib-dems floundered.  What do you think landing  a punch is? Saying something that pro-eu types like you agree with?


----------



## Buckaroo (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg lost both debates convincingly. UKIP's polling rose afterwards. Lib-dems floundered.  What do you think landing  a punch is? Saying something that pro-eu types like you agree with?



And Clegg's spin is that the debates have led to scrutiny of UKIP! Not so much a punch as bruising Farage's knuckles with his face!


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> The motor behind Ukip is undoubtably Farage himself, as a broadly likeable (media) personality. I don't think many prospective voters know their local Ukippers, but Farage has been very successful getting media exposure for himself as the figurehead, and somehow I don't hate him for it, even though politically I disagree with Ukip.
> 
> However I also hear and see Cameron trying to comment on every news story, as if he is the lightning rod on which we should all base our opinions and I find it stomach churning, Cameron is no more qualified as the moral arbiter of daily events than my binman.
> 
> But I do wonder about how Farage managed to become so prevalent in the media.


No it's not. Farage - as i have pointed out to you and quartz many times - polls behind his party. His parties support is based on disgust and rejection of others. Farge gives it some political icing - but he is not driving it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> His parties support is based on disgust and rejection of others.



Which is why those that are fed up with the whole charade of democracy wish UKIP well this coming Thursday.

Personally I favour the Guy Fawkes approach to the issue...


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. You can't support the BNP and not be racist. They are not tapping into the resentment of people who are not racists because such people, despite their resentment, will not turn to support racists like the BNP. As I said earlier, there is a place for some moral clarity here.


 Well, yeah, kind of.  I've no real problem with the idea that BNP votes will always be seen as expressions of racism - and will often be exactly that.  However there are all kinds of scenarios where someone can end up voting for them. Indeed when ukip had less prominence there was a chance that any kind of combination of fearful or nationalistic sentiment could form itself into a BNP vote - without that person being an active racist.  Suppose I'm just making the point these things rarely run along neat channels.

Again, chilango says it better.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well to take the BNP individually, if you tell me that you are a BNP supporter, I then know that you are a racist. The conditions that alienate people are one thing, but that should not mean that you avoid some moral clarity here - there is no excuse for supporting the BNP, or the EDL for that matter.


Loads of non racists voted for the BNP. Loads of non-racists were involved in the edl at the start.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg lost both debates convincingly. UKIP's polling rose afterwards. Lib-dems floundered.  What do you think landing  a punch is? Saying something that pro-eu types like you agree with?


I didn't say Clegg won the debate, patently he did not, but the punch he landed was pointing out the ludicrous statement Farage had made when he spouted about making trade deals with New Zealand, as if that would remedy exiting the EU single market.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not. Farage - as i have pointed out to you and quartz many times - polls behind his party. His parties support is based on disgust and rejection of others. Farge gives it some political icing - but he is not driving it.


Well you haven't pointed it out to me, that is the first I have heard of it.
The only exposure I have had to Ukip is via Farage himself. I doubt I am alone.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I didn't say Clegg won the debate, patently he did not, but the punch he landed was pointing out the ludicrous statement Farage had made when he spouted about making trade deals with New Zealand, as if that would remedy exiting the EU single market.


Nor did i say that you did. I asked you what sort of landing punch puts the thrower on the deck. If it landed maybe you would have seen different results - but you didn't. So we can only conclude that, for you, a punch that lands, means someone saying something that you agree with.


----------



## gosub (May 18, 2014)

almost 219,000 views


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Well you haven't pointed it out to me, that is the first I have heard of it.
> The only exposure I have had to Ukip is via Farage himself. I doubt I am alone.


So again, the polling figures that consistenly put Farage behind his party - they mean nothing here? It doesn't matter if you're alone. Oh god.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Loads of non racists voted for the BNP. Loads of non-racists were involved in the edl at the start.


How many black people vote bnp? There are plenty of black people facing the same issues of marginalisation and deprivation, yet black people do not vote BNP. There's a reason for that.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I asked you what sort of landing punch puts the thrower on the deck. ...


Actually you didn't, you asked :


butchersapron said:


> What do you think landing  a punch is? Saying something that pro-eu types like you agree with?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How many black people vote bnp? There are plenty of black people facing the same issues of marginalisation and deprivation, yet black people do not vote BNP. There's a reason for that.


Yeah, because the BNP is racist. That's an amazing revelation.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Actually you didn't, you asked :


Actually, yes that is what i asked you,]. And you haven't answered. So we have to assume that landing a punch does, in fact, mean saying something that you agree with.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Actually, yes that is what i asked you,]. And you haven't answered. So we have to assume that landing a punch does, in fact, mean saying something that you agree with.


Clegg caught Farage out, saying something stupid, simple as that.
Rather similar to the interviewer of this thread, Farage said some stupid things, he was picked up on some of them. Politically speaking that is landing a punch - note, I didn't say a knockout blow, I said a punch.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Clegg caught Farage out, saying something stupid, simple as that.
> Rather similar to the interviewer of this thread, Farage said some stupid things, he was picked up on some of them. Politically speaking that is landing a punch - note, I didn't say a knockout blow, I said a punch.


Ok fair enough. How do we know the punch landed then?


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ok fair enough. How do we know the punch landed then?


That might depend on what one was expecting. For me the Clegg issue amply highlighted the paucity of Ukip's out of the EU policy, it reinforced for me that I want to remain in the single market. As to O'Brien he also will have had an effect on those who saw his interview. I don't think there needs to be a poll effect, probably most Ukip supporters will remain Ukip supporters, but others may have had their views reinforced.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> For me the Clegg issue amply highlighted the paucity of Ukip's out of the EU policy, it reinforced for me that I want to remain in the single market.



Yes, it reinforced your views.

Nick Clegg landed no punches, he didn't even throw any.

My 10 year old nephew could have that sack of shit, "Your bum smells" and Clegg would be stumped.


----------



## Welsh lad (May 18, 2014)

To be fair, both the Mail and Express are worse than the Sun.

I don't read any three of them. Usually the Guardian, Mirror or Independent for me. Nice left-wing reads !


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 18, 2014)

Welsh lad said:


> To be fair, both the Mail and Express are worse than the Sun.
> 
> I don't read any three of them. Usually the Guardian, Mirror or Independent for me. Nice left-wing reads !



I have six piles of dogshit, tell me which one tastes best.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I have six piles of dogshit, tell me which one tastes best.



Some have been out in the sun longer. What's your preference on dryness?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Welsh lad said:


> To be fair, both the Mail and Express are worse than the Sun.
> 
> I don't read any three of them. Usually the Guardian, Mirror or Independent for me. Nice left-wing reads !


Crack on with that lad - you're almost believable.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Some have been out in the sun longer. What's your preference on dryness?



I have no preference, I'd avoid the lot and opt for a chicken tikka charga.


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

"Yes, we entered the 2010 General Election campaign with a clear commitment to odour free rings. However the _voters_ decided that no single party was in a position to form a government. In those circumstances we were forced to spread our anal seepage along the governmental benches ....".


----------



## Buckaroo (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> That might depend on what one was expecting. For me the Clegg issue amply highlighted the paucity of Ukip's out of the EU policy, it reinforced for me that I want to remain in the single market. As to O'Brien he also will have had an effect on those who saw his interview. I don't think there needs to be a poll effect, probably most Ukip supporters will remain Ukip supporters, but others may have had their views reinforced.



Your views about remaining in the single market were reinforced but because that's the kind of thing you were looking for no? But in context of the debate, piss poor, it doesn't really count, not as a punch or a even a jab or anything really, does it? Clegg said something you agree with. Nobody cares. And likewise the O'Brien thing, it won't and it doesn't change anything.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I have no preference, I'd avoid the lot and opt for a chicken tikka charga.



I think I'd clean away all the piles of shit completely first.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> I think I'd clean away all the piles of shit completely first.



What's the best tool for the job, poop-scoop or guillotine?


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What's the best tool for the job, poop-scoop or guillotine?



Properly sealed, airtight, plastic bags?


----------



## Corax (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Isn't Paxman's seat already occupied, by Laura Kuenssberg?


Is she taking over the 'lead' role then? She's a decent interviewer from what I've seen, but I was hoping for someone a bit more comedy rottweiler stuff tbh...


----------



## Favelado (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So again, the polling figures that consistenly put Farage behind his party - they mean nothing here? It doesn't matter if you're alone. Oh god.



Would it be fair to compare him to Thatcher in this respect? A sort of "I don't like him but I think he's right" type of attitude?  Could he be personally unpopular yet somehow driving his party's poll ratings at the same time?

This may be a fairly easy point to ridicule so be my guest!


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Would it be fair to compare him to Thatcher in this respect? A sort of "I don't like him but I think he's right" type of attitude?  Could he be personally unpopular yet somehow driving his party's poll ratings at the same time?
> 
> This may be a fairly easy point to ridicule so be my guest!


Sir, you are a shit God, but by Christ I like your bible!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Would it be fair to compare him to Thatcher in this respect? A sort of "I don't like him but I think he's right" type of attitude?  Could he be personally unpopular yet somehow driving his party's poll ratings at the same time?
> 
> This may be a fairly easy point to ridicule so be my guest!


Sounds likely. I would think that the vast majority of people could not name a single other UKIP person. Farage pretty much _is_ UKIP in the media.


----------



## Welsh lad (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Crack on with that lad - you're almost believable.


What does that mean?


----------



## Buckaroo (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sounds likely. I would think that the vast majority of people could not name a single other UKIP person. Farage pretty much _is_ UKIP in the media.



except for them who choose the UKIP fuck they intend to vote for.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Welsh lad said:


> What does that mean?


That we're not all mugs.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sounds likely. I would think that the vast majority of people could not name a single other UKIP person. Farage pretty much _is_ UKIP in the media.


But political life isn't weighed up in the media minutes. If people voting for ukip think he'd be a shit leader this isn't a point about media coverage but about that other scary world that people live in and derive their views from experience of.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> except for them who choose the UKIP fuck they intend to vote for.
> 
> eta they all knew Thatcher


You'd have to be a pretty keen follower to know your local candidate's name, I think. I'm guessing here, but I would suspect that many if not most people don't know the name of the person they will vote for before walking into the booth, especially in non-general elections. I didn't last time I voted in a local election. IRRC, fewer than 10 per cent of people know who their current MEP is. Given that turnout will be at least 40 per cent, that almost certainly means that a majority of those voting for the sitting MEP don't know that MEP's name even though they voted for them last election.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sounds likely. I would think that the vast majority of people could not name a single other UKIP person. Farage pretty much _is_ UKIP in the media.


Yes, that was my point earlier .. pretty much my only exposure to Ukip is seeing Farage on things like Question Time. I know they did have another leader for a while but I never saw him.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

Corax said:


> Is she taking over the 'lead' role then? She's a decent interviewer from what I've, but I was hoping for someone a bit more comedy rottweiler stuff tbh...


I don't know, actually I may have read that she had it on here. Perhaps the vacancy still exists!


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes, that was my point earlier .. pretty much my only exposure to Ukip is seeing Farage on things like Question Time. I know they did have another leader for a while but I never saw him.


But that...doesn't matter...he becomes the focus for two pre-existing things 1) angry liberals 2) angry non-liberals - and the combined dynamic only reinforces what already existed. It's not about him ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't know, actually I may have read that she had it on here. Perhaps the vacancy still exists!


Flippin' heck. If only there were some way of finding out.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Flippin' heck. If only there were some way of finding out.


You are welcome to find out, it doesn't interest me enough to go and look!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> But political life isn't weighed up in the media minutes. If people voting for ukip think he'd be a shit leader this isn't a point about media coverage but about that other scary world that people live in and derive their views from experience of.



I think you've missed my point. The reasons people are inclined to vote UKIP are coming from the things from which they derive their views. But their knowledge of what UKIP is is coming pretty much exclusively from Farage. So if he is doing personally worse in ratings than his party, that is an artefact of polls and the questions they pose. It's not necessarily indicative of anything much.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you've missed my point. The reasons people are inclined to vote UKIP are coming from the things from which they derive their views. But their knowledge of what UKIP is is coming pretty much exclusively from Farage. So if he is doing personally worse in ratings than his party, that is an artefact of polls and the questions they pose. It's not necessarily indicative of anything much.


What? There's a base assumption there: their support is based on knowledge of UKIPs policy. Can you demonstrate this? The rest i can't make head nor tail of. Could you explain it a bit more?


----------



## Welsh lad (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That we're not all mugs.


Nor am I.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

Farage was on the radio while I was eating, he was apologising for saying the wrong thing wrt Romanians, it seems he feels an apology was warranted, and that it will be enough to placate the media.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

The media!!! the media!!!! Placate the media!!!


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The media!!! the media!!!! Placate the media!!!


Are you claiming you, and others are immune from the media perhaps?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Are you claiming you, and others are immune from the media perhaps?


No. I'm suggesting that viewing UKIP and their appeal through the media and how the media represents/attacks is a bit of a worthless media obsessed tautological game.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No. I'm suggesting that viewing UKIP and their appeal through the media and how the media represents/attacks is a bit of a worthless media obsessed tautological game.


I don't really understand your point.

You can't avoid Farage, he was just top billing on the 8 O'clock BBC News. Apologising!

Without media coverage, Ukip would be as threatening as the Monster Raving Loony Party.


----------



## JTG (May 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> As irrelevant as earlier comments from some nobhead about OBrien's catholicism leading to views of the sort I have never seen him express. In fact when he's on shows like TBQ he's always speaking against the likes of creationism and religious bigotry.


That wasn't the point being made


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't really understand your point.
> 
> You can't avoid Farage, he was just top billing on the 8 O'clock BBC News. Apologising!
> 
> Without media coverage, Ukip would be as threatening as the Monster Raving Loony Party.


That's my point. That you think that UKIPs support is a) dependent on the quantity of media b) on the quality of media responses.

The last two weeks should have told this is nonsense (incessant media attacks - rise in polling support) and that something else is driving their support - something a bit deeper than _that bloke on the the telly i like him, oh  - now i hate him_


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's my point. That you think that UKIPs support is a) dependent on the quantity of media b) on the quality of media responses.
> 
> The last two weeks should have told this is nonsense (incessant media attacks - rise in polling support) and that something else is driving their support - something a bit deeper than _that bloke on the the telly i like him, oh  - now i hate him_


Ok, I think I see your point now.

Yes there may be a groundswell of dissatisfaction with the main parties, with unemployment, the EU, immigration, that may be driving people to seek other options.

The advertising adage is that ads can only inform that something is available, but for those that want it, seeing it is available permits them to poll / vote that way.

So I do accept, it is more than just that cheeky chappie Farage is alright I will poll/vote for him however I still think the media is important in telling the electorate Ukip is an option for you.


----------



## Corax (May 18, 2014)

Especially given the popular popularity of the media, it's quite possible for media attacks on a fringe party to boost their support.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's my point. That you think that UKIPs support is a) dependent on the quantity of media b) on the quality of media responses.
> 
> The last two weeks should have told this is nonsense (incessant media attacks - rise in polling support) and that something else is driving their support - something a bit deeper than _that bloke on the the telly i like him, oh  - now i hate him_



It is possible to think both that there are other things driving their support and that without Farage and his ubiquitous tv presence (and, imo, pretty skilful handling of the media usually), UKIP would not be polling anything like it is. That horrible marketing speak 'brand recognition' comes in here, and whether or not people personally like that bloke on the telly is not that crucial. He is saying particular things that resonate with them enough for them to vote for his party, where his is the only voice they have ever heard from the party.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is possible to think both that there are other things driving their support and that without Farage and his ubiquitous tv presence (and, imo, pretty skilful handling of the media usually), UKIP would not be polling anything like it is. That horrible marketing speak 'brand recognition' comes in here, and whether or not people personally like that bloke on the telly is not that crucial. He is saying particular things that resonate with them enough for them to vote for his party, where his is the only voice they have ever heard from the party.


That's a reply that only sees the media. It makes the media the centre, the focus - where is the other stuff? What is the other stuff? And it doesn't offer any reason at all for the assertion that:



> without Farage and his ubiquitous tv presence (and, imo, pretty skilful handling of the media usually), UKIP would not be polling anything like it is



I see a liberal politics that has retreated to media representation rather than politics. Where opposition means saying you individually oppose a story that HnH have provided. Liking stories from the telegraph - being led by the nose by the tories. Where the implicit assumptions around legitimacy are that the big parties plus greens and lefties are proper parties.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I see a liberal politics that has retreated to media representation rather than politics. Where opposition means saying you individually oppose a story that HnH have provided. Liking stories from the telegraph - being led by the nose by the tories. Where the implicit assumptions around legitimacy are that the big parties plus greens and lefties are proper parties.


No, it's a judgement. One you clearly disagree with, but not indicative of anything else about my politics than that disaffection of various kinds can be used by parties like UKIP to galvanise support for them, but that this doesn't just happen by magic, and the efforts of the only person anyone knows from that party are important in that process.

It is possible to hold the two thoughts in your head at the same time. That the social conditions necessary for a party like UKIP to thrive must be looked at, and that the fact it is UKIP that are raking in the votes that are only possible with such conditions and not some other party can be partly explained by UKIP's leader. I don't think Neil Hamilton would be polling 30+ points in the polls, for instance. 

I give Farage credit here (a strange kind of credit given that I detest him). He's one of the most capable politicians in the country. But that doesn't mean I ignore everything else.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 18, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's a protest vote, is that what you're saying?. The problem is that people are protesting by voting for a party with some pretty objectionable members and associates - more than just the odd bad apple, and that Farage is a member of the establishment.



I think it could be more than a protest vote. In common with many others, I have thought for a long time that there is a need for a new political party, my choice wouldn't have been UKIP though.

On 'Question Time' the other night, whereas UKIP nationally was clobbered, there was praise for UKIP councillors. Interestingly, UKIP does not whip its councillors, which allows proper representation of the wish of the ward. As an entity, UKIP is indeed the curate's egg. Rather a pity that the 'good bits' are far outweighed by the bad.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I think it could be more than a protest vote. In common with many others, I have thought for a long time that there is a need for a new political party, my choice wouldn't have been UKIP though.
> 
> On 'Question Time' the other night, whereas UKIP nationally was clobbered, there was praise for UKIP councillors. Interestingly, UKIP does not whip its councillors, which allows proper representation of the wish of the ward. As an entity, UKIP is indeed the curate's egg. Rather a pity that the 'good bits' are far outweighed by the bad.


They only have one council where they can be whipped - and they are. Did anyone else see this local UKIP praise?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I think it could be more than a protest vote. In common with many others, I have thought for a long time that there is a need for a new political party, my choice wouldn't have been UKIP though.
> 
> On 'Question Time' the other night, whereas UKIP nationally was clobbered, there was praise for UKIP councillors. Interestingly, UKIP does not whip its councillors, which allows proper representation of the wish of the ward. As an entity, UKIP is indeed the curate's egg. Rather a pity that the 'good bits' are far outweighed by the bad.


And on Any QUestions, the UKIP spokescreature, Lisa Duffy, got utterly utterly destroyed.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Oh god


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2014)

Spokescreature?

Really?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

Balbi said:


> Brillo pad tried the same question on Suzanne Evans (UKIP Communities spokesperson) and got slapped down by her.


What question?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Spokescreature?
> 
> Really?


Really what? I'm not giving them any slack, they think shooting gay people is something to brag about.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Someone got utterly utterly destroyed on the radio - don't you care? Why isn't it effecting you? Oh, it's because you're all cunts too. Right, now what time is the Monday morning radio phone agenda - cunts!!! I expect there'll be cunts on the wright stuff later on as well. Maybe listening to phone in on the internet in another city will provide me with another cunts!!! to carry on. Then that radio five one in the afternoon. 

Cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Really what? I'm not giving them any slack, they think shooting gay people is something to brag about.


They fucking love people like you. You're such a perfect match of everything.


----------



## Roadkill (May 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I think it could be more than a protest vote. In common with many others, I have thought for a long time that there is a need for a new political party, my choice wouldn't have been UKIP though.



What are you complaining about?  You lot north of the border have got the SNP, haven't you?!

<ducks>


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Someone got utterly utterly destroyed on the radio - don't you care? Why isn't it effecting you? Oh, it's because you're all cunts too. Right, now what time is the Monday morning radio phone agenda - cunts!!! I expect there'll be cunts on the wright stuff later on as well. Maybe listening to phone in on the internet in another city will provide me with another cunts!!! to carry on. Then that radio five one in the afternoon.
> 
> Cunts.


What exactly is it that you want here? I'm genuinely puzzled. When the likes of O'Brien do as decent a job of laying in to Farage as we might reasonably hope for from a mainstream media outlet, it exposes Farage and his party for what they are: a bunch of right-wing racists with an agenda to rip apart the welfare basis of this country. 

I don't know, but I'm guessing (and hoping) that a large number of the people intending to vote UKIP don't want Britain turned into the kind of country Farage wants. So exposing what his party really stands for as much and as often as possible is what? Irrelevant? It does not change the reality of the attacks on the poor, attacks on welfare, etc, that are happening. But a vote for UfuckingKIP does nothing to stop any of this - it just makes everything worse. The rise of UKIP should be profoundly fucking depressing to anyone who wants change from the left.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> The motor behind Ukip is undoubtably Farage himself, as a broadly likeable (media) personality.


Fucking hell, do we have to do this every bloody week!

If you'd actually read this or other UKIP threads you know that this is rubbish, that Farage polls behind his party. If one single factor is "the motor behind UKIP" it's a anger and contempt towards politicians in general.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell, do we have to do this every bloody week!
> 
> If you'd actually read this or other UKIP threads you know that this is rubbish, that Farage polls behind his party. If one single factor is "the motor behind UKIP" it's a anger and contempt towards politicians in general.


There is no one single factor. Anger and contempt towards politicians of the major parties is one factor. Farage's presence in the media is another. I think it is dangerous to ignore the fact that Farage is an effective political operator (not the same as saying that he makes people like him or even think he'd be a good pm). He is a major factor in turning that disaffection into votes for his party.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 18, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell, do we have to do this every bloody week!
> 
> If you'd actually read this or other UKIP threads you know that this is rubbish, that Farage polls behind his party. If one single factor is "the motor behind UKIP" it's a anger and contempt towards politicians in general.



Well, to repeat again : UKIP candidates are politicians and aspiring politicians.

Why on earth do people have it in their heads that voting for politicians is a good way of expressing contempt towards politicians? It doesn't add up for a nanosecond.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What exactly is it that you want here? I'm genuinely puzzled. When the likes of O'Brien do as decent a job of laying in to Farage as we might reasonably hope for from a mainstream media outlet, it exposes Farage and his party for what they are: a bunch of right-wing racists with an agenda to rip apart the welfare basis of this country.
> 
> I don't know, but I'm guessing (and hoping) that a large number of the people intending to vote UKIP don't want Britain turned into the kind of country Farage wants. So exposing what his party really stands for as much and as often as possible is what? Irrelevant? It does not change the reality of the attacks on the poor, attacks on welfare, etc, that are happening. But a vote for UfuckingKIP does nothing to stop any of this - it just makes everything worse. The rise of UKIP should be profoundly fucking depressing to anyone who wants change from the left.


I parodying wells.

The rest of the responses - yours included - are worthless pro-staus quo nonsense that, as you started to understand the other night, only legitimise the other parties. Standing shouting that you hate racism - and that, by implication, the main racists are ukip - is such an exercise in middle class mung beanism that i couldn't write it.

How many times does it need be said that it's not about UKIP? It's about society. Calling UKIP whatever is not even starting to deal with that. But, a two week UKIP pogrom designed from above, tells me pretty clearly how manipulable the sophisticated class are and how easily the UKIP supporters  can read it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Well, to repeat again : UKIP candidates are politicians and aspiring politicians.
> 
> Why on earth do people have it in their heads that voting for politicians is a good way of expressing contempt towards politicians? It doesn't add up for a nanosecond.


Yet they are. Now what? Are they being thickcos/manipulated/non-greens?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

> Why on earth do people have it in their heads that voting for politicians is a good way of expressing contempt towards politicians? It doesn't add up for a nanosecond.


How many votes did you attract by in your own _the electorate are all morons campaign_ btw? It was pretty poor wasn't it?  I reckon it took under a nanosecond.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yet they are. Now what? Are they being thickcos/manipulated/non-greens?



Do you struggle to form an opinion of your own? If so, why even get close to guessing other peoples?

What do you think of folk expressing their contempt for politicians by voting for politicians?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

What this interview does do is provide ammunition for people asking others not to vote UKIP. They are racist, and you can point to this interview as evidence of that. From my work recently, talking about this, a colleague (not a UKIP supporter) saying that 'I don't think Farage is racist, just that many of his supporters are'. Well this interview is evidence to present to the contrary. 

Aside from everything else, this matters. It mattered to point out what the BNP really were, and it matters to point out what UKIP really are.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How many votes did you attract by in your own _the electorate are all morons campaign_ btw? It was pretty poor wasn't it?



Why are you making stuff up?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Do you struggle to form an opinion of your own? If so, why even get close to guessing other peoples?
> 
> What do you think of folk expressing their contempt for politicians by voting for politicians?


No i don't.

I think it suggests that _there may be more afoot_ than the media stirring stuff up. You know, basic political common sense.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No i don't.
> 
> I think it suggests that _there may be more afoot_ than the media stirring stuff up. You know, basic political common sense.



What may be afoot?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What this interview does do is provide ammunition for people asking others not to vote UKIP. They are racist, and you can point to this interview as evidence of that. From my work recently, talking about this, a colleague (not a UKIP supporter) saying that 'I don't think Farage is racist, just that many of his supporters are'. Well this interview is evidence to present to the contrary.
> 
> Aside from everything else, this matters. It mattered to point out what the BNP really were, and it matters to point out what UKIP really are.


Great a non-ukip voter will see that farage said something in london that was bad.

_Here are my morals - they're better than yours._ This isn't politics - it's a result of the death of politics.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What may be afoot?


As ever, you need to ask someone else. Mass contempt being shown electorally-  you're supposed to be all over that. But when it happens, no, it's just the media. Nothing to see here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Great a non-ukip voter will see that farage said something in london that was bad.
> 
> _Here are my morals - they're better than yours._ This isn't politics - it's a result of the death of politics.



Perception is out there that Farage isn't racist. Change that perception.

Given that it is a false perception, that should be very possible.

And yes, if you vote for UKIP even knowing that Farage and UKIP are racists, then you are racist. You've done a racist thing, which is what being racist is.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 18, 2014)

Actually, you asked me first silly.

Why are people showing mass contempt by supporting a party at least as likely to disappoint as any other? For example, already shown to contain more a fair share of trough snouter, mega wealthy funders and slip sliders?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Great a non-ukip voter will see that farage said something in london that was bad.




Where he said it isn't relevant. There's a thing called the internet. Check it out, you're on it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perception is out there that Farage isn't racist. Change that perception.
> 
> Given that it is a false perception, that should be very possible.
> 
> And yes, if you vote for UKIP even knowing that Farage and UKIP are racists, then you are racist. You've done a racist thing, which is what being racist is.




So your non-ukip voting person now thinks farage is racist.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Like the edit btw. Love to see you try and stand it up .


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Actually, you asked me first silly.
> 
> Why are people showing mass contempt by supporting a party at least as likely to disappoint as any other? For example, already shown to contain more a fair share of trough snouter, mega wealthy funders and slip sliders?


What?

Because, as the post that you're supposed to be replying to says, there are more things afoot. Please tell me your other options - the ones with thick people told what to do by the media, manipulated and failing to vote for you. You personally that is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

"I'm not a racist, but I toured South Africa and took the apartheid govt's money for doing it."

Nope, doesn't wash. 

That is not an absence of politics. It is the reverse.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> "I'm not a racist, but I toured South Africa and took the apartheid govt's money for doing it."
> 
> Nope, doesn't wash.
> 
> That is not an absence of politics. It is the reverse.


Nope this is you displaying your morals for all to see again.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

"But county wages are terrible. I'm just looking after my family. Surely a bit of racism is permissible?"


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perception is out there that Farage isn't racist. Change that perception.
> 
> Given that it is a false perception, that should be very possible.
> 
> And yes, if you vote for UKIP even knowing that Farage and UKIP are racists, then you are racist. You've done a racist thing, which is what being racist is.




Let me repeat - if you vote UKIP you are a racist.

I sometimes wonder why there is a gap between the well off middle classes politically  - and this comes out whatever party or non party that you support - this sort of bullshit is pretty much why. Then i wonder why they always live in tory areas. Or vote for racist parties. The labour party has the largest ethnic minority vote - i guess they're the largest racists and have most racist voters then.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> "But county wages are terrible. I'm just looking after my family. Surely a bit of racism is permissible?"


You really need to have a think before posting again.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Ed miliband = not a racist
Cameron =  not a racist
Clegg = not a racist

All members of racist administrations  - do we hear from lbj that all tory lib-dem and labour voters are racist? Do we fuck.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How many times does it need be said that it's not about UKIP? It's about society. Calling UKIP whatever is not even starting to deal with that. But, a two week UKIP pogrom designed from above, tells me pretty clearly how manipulable the sophisticated class are and how easily the UKIP supporters  can read it.


Not that you care about my opinion, but your stance on this is baffling. Are UKIP somehow above or separate from society? No, so fighting racism in UKIP *is* fighting racism in society. As would be fighting racism in another party, or some other institution. Admittedly if someone only fought racism in UKIP that would show a pretty poor commitment to fighting racism. But no-one is suggesting that afaik. You seem to be on some trip where you think attacking UKIP is somehow anti-working class or something, or perhaps that attacking UKIP will scupper their attempt to scupper the Tory party. It's weird. Racism should be fought wherever it raises its head, and it should be called racism in order that it can be fought. As for why people here might target UKIP more than other institutions at the moment: they are new, on the rise, and trying to make acceptable a dislike of foreigners that even if the other parties play to it a bit, they never play on so directly. So it's completely reasonable to target UKIP for racism right now. It would be strange not to. It doesn't signify an acceptance of racism in the rest of society.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

Butchersapron thinks that 'loads of' non-racist people voted BNP. tbh he has a very different understanding of racism from me. Voting BNP is an act of racism. The 'I'm not racist but...' bullshit does not wash. And in any other sphere, he would be agreeing with that.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Brainaddict said:


> Not that you care about my opinion, but your stance on this is baffling. Are UKIP somehow above or separate from society? No, so fighting racism in UKIP *is* fighting racism in society. As would be fighting racism in another party, or some other institution. Admittedly if someone only fought racism in UKIP that would show a pretty poor commitment to fighting racism. But no-one is suggesting that afaik. You seem to be on some trip where you think attacking UKIP is somehow anti-working class or something, or perhaps that attacking UKIP will scupper their attempt to scupper the Tory party. It's weird. Racism should be fought wherever it raises its head, and it should be called racism in order that it can be fought. As for why people here might target UKIP more than other institutions at the moment: they are new, on the rise, and trying to make acceptable a dislike of foreigners that even if the other parties play to it a bit, they never play on so directly. So it's completely reasonable to target UKIP for racism right now. It would be strange not to. It doesn't signify an acceptance of racism in the rest of society.




My points appear baffling to you because you're not following or are part of the debate about the media and UKIP. Some dolts suggest that their rise is due to a heightened media profile. My point is that their rise is nothing to do with that and that if the media model types followed through on their logic then we would see a drop in ukip support. Rather than a rise. Which suggests problems with the model. It suggests that something in society - some conditions, some experience of and then reflection on things. Rather than some posh bloke on the telly.

So, using your loaf here, attacking ukip through the media is not going to address the issues driving their support or the mediated way in which it appears to people like you.

(You can do your i hate racism bit here now). Now, if you want to attack ukip - what do you do, attack the conditions that producer them - the mainstream parties/capital or do you encourage people to vote for the good old chaps, the proper covert powerful racists - or for what, tell me what.

Nice arrogant ill-informed swoop in btw back off snowboarding later i expect.


----------



## classicdish (May 18, 2014)

@butchersapron what would you suggest saying to a voter who was considering voting UKIP, if you were trying to persuade them not to and to vote for someone else?

What, in your opinion, is the strongest and most persuasive criticism of UKIP as a political option?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Butchersapron thinks that 'loads of' non-racist people voted BNP. tbh he has a very different understanding of racism from me. Voting BNP is an act of racism. The 'I'm not racist but...' bullshit does not wash. And in any other sphere, he would be agreeing with that.


Labout party racist
Tory party racist
lib-dems racist

Follow through on your logic and call each and every one who voted for those parties racist. Nah, you'll just ignore it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nice arrogant ill-informed swoop in btw back off snowboarding later i expect.


What is this bullshit? Is it politics?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

classicdish said:


> @butchersapron what would you suggest saying to a voter who was considering voting UKIP, if you were trying to persuade them not to and to vote for someone else?
> 
> What, in your opinion, is the strongest and most persuasive criticism of UKIP as a political option?


I'd say vote for them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Labout party racist
> Tory party racist
> lib-dems racist
> 
> Follow through on your logic and call each and every one who voted for those parties racist. Nah, you'll just ignore it.


They are not racist in the same way. You're being utterly disingenuous with this. Do you not understand what the likes of the BNP mean to black people? Come on, fucking think about this.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What is this bullshit? Is it politics?


Yes of course it is. Answer me - are all the labour lib-dem and tory voters racist? Your model demands they are. Are they?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They are not racist in the same way. You're being utterly disingenuous with this. Do you not understand what the likes of the BNP mean to black people? Come on, fucking think about this.


Not racist in the same way.  So all them voters are racist but not in the same way?

And we're back to your earlier trick of substituting the BNP for UKIP. Shoddy behaviour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes of course it is. Answer me - are all the labour lib-dem and tory voters racist? Your mode demands they are. Are they?


No. But voting BNP is a racist act. Do you understand what I'm saying here? When I see poll results from my ward, I see 100 or so people who have outed themselves as racist cunts who cannot be my friends. They are my enemy and the enemy of my family. Understand this, ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They are not racist in the same way. You're being utterly disingenuous with this. Do you not understand what the likes of the BNP mean to black people? Come on, fucking think about this.


By not in the same way, do you mean actually racist on power - actually really racist?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not racist in the same way.  So all them voters are racist but not in the same way?
> 
> And we're back to your earlier trick of substituting the BNP for UKIP. Shoddy behaviour.


I have been very careful about using BNP and UKIP. I haven't interchanged the two. It was YOU who said that 'loads of' BNP voters were not racist. I beg to fucking differ.


----------



## classicdish (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'd say vote for them.


Are you saying that you would be *unable* to construct an argument to try and persuade someone not to vote UKIP?
On what basis politically speaking would you suggest someone vote UKIP?
What would this achieve? What positive impact would it make towards anything?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. But voting BNP is a racist act. Do you understand what I'm saying here? When I see poll results from my ward, I see 100 or so people who have outed themselves as racist cunts who cannot be my friends. They are my enemy and the enemy of my family. Understand this, ffs.


Again, the attempt to substitute BNP for UKIP. Why are not all people who vote for racist parties racist? Why isn't hat magnified when they actually have power? Would this make you racist? Or does it only count for racist parties that you really don't live/vote for?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have been very careful about using BNP and UKIP. I haven't interchanged the two. It was YOU who said that 'loads of' BNP voters were not racist. I beg to fucking differ.


You most definitely have not. You have switched between the two in a most dishonest way.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Again, the attempt to substitute BNP for UKIP. Why are not all people who vote for racist parties racist? Why isn't hat magnified when they actually have power? Would this make you racist? Or does it only count for racist parties that you really don't live/vote for?


No. Disingenuous cunt. You are the one who asserted that 'loads of' non-racist people voted BNP. You are fucking wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They are not racist in the same way. You're being utterly disingenuous with this. Do you not understand what the likes of the BNP mean to black people? Come on, fucking think about this.


Racist but differently racist. So that's ok.


----------



## classicdish (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Labout party racist
> Tory party racist
> lib-dems racist
> 
> Follow through on your logic and call each and every one who voted for those parties racist. Nah, you'll just ignore it.


How is the Labour Party racist?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You most definitely have not. You have switched between the two in a most dishonest way.


Bullshit. Total fucking bullshit.

Do you still stand by your assertion that 'loads of' not racist people voted BNP?

'loads of' 

your words

'loads of' 


Fuck the fuck off. You don't have a fucking clue what the BNP means.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. Disingenuous cunt. You are the one who asserted that 'loads of' non-racist people voted BNP. You are fucking wrong.


You need to check your posts and the who brought what in. You're wrong. I


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You need to check your posts and the who brought what in. You're wrong. I


Did you not say that 'loads of' non-racist people voted BNP?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bullshit. Total fucking bullshit.
> 
> Do you still stand by your assertion that 'loads of' not racist people voted BNP?


You're dead on your feet and this little sand-throwing exercise won't help you. Because you're wrong. Starting at #208


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

30 million _differently racist _voters lbj - is this the case?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You're dead on your feet and this little sand-throwing exercise won't help you. Because you're wrong. Starting at #208


edl/bnp voters are doing a racist thing that I judge them for. Damn fucking right. You don't? 

But then 'loads of' non-racist people voted BNP according to you.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did you not say that 'loads of' non-racist people voted BNP?


Damn right i did. Now, show us your morals.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 30 million _differently racist _voters lbj - is this the case?


No and you're losing this. And you know what, you're not stupid, you know you're fucking wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> edl/bnp voters are doing a racist thing that I judge them for. Damn fucking right. You don't?
> 
> But then 'loads of' non-racist people voted BNP according to you.


And the extension  - they are UKIP. Later flushed out into: all ukip voters are racist. I've established you can't remember your own posts. You're not a very honest person.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Damn right i did.


Blind spot. Total blind spot.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No and you're losing this. And you know what, you're not stupid, you know you're fucking wrong.


Tell me why - if you vote for a racist party then you're a racist. Your words.

Here's three racist parties:

Are their voters racist? No they're _differently racist?_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And the extension  - they are UKIP.


Not at all. My whole argument has been that a lot of UKIP voters _don't think_ UKIP are racist. No BNP voter can reasonably argue that they were under the same illusion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me why - if you vote for a racist party then you're a racist. Your words.
> 
> Here's three racist parties:
> 
> Are their voters racist? No they're _differently racist?_



You don't see a difference between the BNP and the Tories? Really? Who's beingh disingenuous here? Your argument is falling apart.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not at all. My whole argument has been that a lot of UKIP voters _don't think_ UKIP are racist. No BNP voter can reasonably argue that they were under the same illusion.


You lying cunt. Your whole argument - if you follow if through from 208 was that UKIP are their successors.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't see a difference between the BNP and the Tories? Really? Who's beingh disingenuous here? Your argument is falling apart.


What?

I'll have another go:

Tell me why - if you vote for a racist party then you're a racist._ Your words._

Here's three racist parties:

Are their voters racist? No they're _differently racist._


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You lying cunt. Your whole argument - if you follow if through from 208 was that UKIP are their successors.


No it is not. That is you reading things into what I wrote. Quote me. Go on. Fucking quote me. You are reading a whole lot of things into what I wrote that I did not write.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

You're falling to pieces here. Accusing me of lying when I'm not. Adopting idiotic straw man positions that assume equivalence between voting for the BNP and voting _Labour_ (not just Tory).

Your position is shot when you have to resort to this. Politics? It went away a long time ago. LABOUR ARE JUST AS RACIST AS THE BNP.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it is not. That is you reading things into what I wrote. Quote me. Go on. Fucking quote me. You are reading a whole lot of things into what I wrote that I did not write.


Your argument from 208 onward needs to be read carefully - from the point where i suggest that your rather crude reading of what UKIP and others is happening


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Your argument from 208 onward needs to be read carefully - from the point where i suggest that your rather crude reading of what UKIP and others is happening


No. Quote me, disingenuous fuck. Fucking quote me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

'Labour are just as racist as the BNP.'

Good night.

Before I go, you have a blind spot when it comes to racism, butchersapron. A very serious blindspot that makes you take the wrong position on certain points. This is a case in point.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're falling to pieces here. Accusing me of lying when I'm not. Adopting idiotic straw man positions that assume equivalence between voting for the BNP and voting _Labour_ (not just Tory).
> 
> Your position is shot when you have to resort to this. Politics? It went away a long time ago. LABOUR ARE JUST AS RACIST AS THE BNP.


Your position is that voting for racist parties makes you racist.  So, in your eyes, all ukip voters are racist. Voting for three racist parties with millions of voters fails to draw such condemnation, In fact, it's _differently racist. _

So can we just confirm - _all ukip voters are racist_ for voting for a racist party,_ all others are differently racist_ for voting for racist parties (the ones with power).

You see, this is a bit shit isn't it? Who did you vote for 97/2001/2005/2010 btw? Did you vote differently racist?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Labour are just as racist as the BNP.'
> 
> Good night.


Excellent - he's making up quotes now. Good night indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. Quote me, disingenuous fuck. Fucking quote me.





littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Labour are just as racist as the BNP.'


He literally asks me to quote him then makes up a quote in the next breath. Baffling behaviour.

Talking of blind spots


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Before I go, you have a blind spot when it comes to racism, butchersapron. A very serious blindspot that makes you take the wrong position on certain points. This is a case in point.



Oh, i see you've edited stuff in behind my back again. No wonder i always have to check now. Ok, so we've gone from your laughable understanding of anti-irish racism, to all ukip voters are racist, and that you def never made any comparison between them and BNP voters (who are racist for voting racist) at all and you got to call me racist as well. Oh yeah and that other people who vote for real actual racist parties with real racist powers are just _differently racist.
_
That's some work.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> How is the Labour Party racist?


By introducing and supporting racist immigration laws - from the commonwealth act of 68 onwards. Simple one that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

You didn't say 'loads of'? You did, fella.

But you still don't get it. You still don't get the good feeling that the BNP miserably losing its deposit in your constituency brings. Walking the streets the next day. You don't get it. You do not get it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> Are you saying that you would be *unable* to construct an argument to try and persuade someone not to vote UKIP?
> On what basis politically speaking would you suggest someone vote UKIP?
> What would this achieve? What positive impact would it make towards anything?


1) of course i could
2) to annoy people - to put the tories into serious panic before the GE
3) To encourage political turmoil. 

Results that you can only get by voting UKIP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh, i see you've edited stuff in behind my back again.
> .


Wow. No I have not. I really have not. Fuck me.

Really, fuck me. 

You drop to the bottom of the ladder with that one, ba. Really? REALLY? Fuck me.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow. No I have not. I really have not. Fuck me.


Yes you did, You added this:



> Before I go, you have a blind spot when it comes to racism, butchersapron. A very serious blindspot that makes you take the wrong position on certain points. This is a case in point.



to this post. You came back after your 'good night' - like you just did again.

Think very carefully before denying it. Very carefully.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you did, You added this:
> 
> 
> 
> to this post. You came back after your 'good night' - like you just did again.


 What a cunt. I've changed everything I've thought or said with that, eh? 

FUCK

OFF

 Is that really what you are reduced to?

Pillock. 

Pillock who does not understand what he is talking about.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

Caught. Bang to rights.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What a cunt. I've changed everything I've thought or said with that, eh?
> 
> FUCK
> 
> ...


You denied changing anything - rather aggressively. Then, rather than o_h yeah, i did change it, you were right_ we get the above. Look, you haven't been able to remember your own arguments from minute to minute tonight, so i shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

a couple of quick points/questions for littlebabyjesus:

is voting UKIP a racist act?

Are UKIP voters racists?

Are all the people saying that will vote UKIP racist?

Is 32% of the electorate racist?

If so should we just write 'em off as "the enemy"?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> a couple of quick points/questions for littlebabyjesus:
> 
> is voting UKIP a racist act?
> 
> ...


Why are you asking me these stupid questions?


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why are you asking me these stupid questions?



Because they're the questions your posts made me want to ask.

What's so stupid about them?


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2014)

130,000 people voted BNP in my region at the last euros. I'm sure many, probably most of them are racists - but it's a bit of a leap to say all of them are. I can think of many reasons why someone might go to the ballot box ignorant of various major policies of the party they're voting for. They do it for all the other parties, so why not the BNP?


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> is voting UKIP a racist act?
> 
> Are UKIP voters racists?


 
51% of them would like immigrants and their families to leave the UK according to this poll. Mind you, 26% Labour voters would, too. So twice as likely to be racist as Labour supporters going on this one poll.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> 51% of them would like immigrants and their families to leave the UK according to this poll. Mind you, 26% Labour voters would, too. So twice as likely to be racist as Labour supporters going on this one poll.



 Only 37% 'tories' disagree.


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2014)

Is that necessarily a racist position though? I don't think any of us could disagree that the bosses use immigrant labour to keep wages down and manipulate the domestic job market. While the long term solution to this might be clear to us, it's neither an easy nor - to many - a particularly desirable one. Is it any wonder that to many, a much simpler, more immediate way of protecting 'british jobs for british workers' (a trope happily repeated by all the main parties) is quite an attractive option?

Shouting 'racist' at these people is just a way of shutting them up. But it doesn't make their concerns - which are mainly concerns we share ffs - go away.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> 130,000 people voted BNP in my region at the last euros. I'm sure many, probably most of them are racists - but it's a bit of a leap to say all of them are. I can think of many reasons why someone might go to the ballot box ignorant of various major policies of the party they're voting for. They do it for all the other parties, so why not the BNP?


Really? You think a sizeable number of those 130,000 did not know that the BNP is a party whose base is a racist ideology?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 19, 2014)

I do.


----------



## maomao (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? You think a sizeable number of those 130,000 did not know that the BNP is a party whose base is a racist ideology?



I had a black colleague who was planning on voting BNP at one point. I'm not suggesting for a moment that black people can't be racist but I don't think he was and I don't think it was their racist policies which had attracted him.


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2014)

Yes, I do.


----------



## kebabking (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? You think a sizeable number of those 130,000 did not know that the BNP is a party whose base is a racist ideology?



why not? how many voted LibDem at the last election without noticing that they've not been a left of centre (ish) party for years, how many vote Labour and still get upset when it doesn't do things it hasn't said it will do for 20+ years?

while i don't doubt that many (slim majority?) are aware of exactly what they vote for when they put an 'X' next to the BNP, how many just skim the leaflets without twigging? how many walk undecided into the voting booth and just stick the 'X' in the wrong place because they see the word 'British', and how many vote for the BNP at elections that don't really matter in order to put a rocket up the arse of the main parties who they see as completely leaving them behind?

personally i wouldn't vote for them in even the most inconsequential election, regardless of how much i thought the 'respectable' parties were ignoring me, but i can see the attraction in suddenly being the centre of political attention when previously you've only ever been ignored/marginalised or told to shut up and be grateful.


----------



## Virtual Blue (May 19, 2014)

this thread is great!!

classic u75!!


----------



## DownwardDog (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What this interview does do is provide ammunition for people asking others not to vote UKIP. They are racist, and you can point to this interview as evidence of that. From my work recently, talking about this, a colleague (not a UKIP supporter) saying that 'I don't think Farage is racist, just that many of his supporters are'. Well this interview is evidence to present to the contrary.
> 
> Aside from everything else, this matters. It mattered to point out what the BNP really were, and it matters to point out what UKIP really are.



The word 'racist' has awesome totemic power in middle class enclaves like LibDems, the BBC, people who drive Fiat 500s and Urban. I doubt it has the same pejorative heft among the wider populaton.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 19, 2014)

Virtual Blue said:


> this thread is great!!
> 
> classic u75!!



Without Ern it's like post-Robbie Take That. Still good but just not the same.


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2014)

That's the thing isn't it? The argument is won over and over on the terms the liberals set, by the liberals. Meanwhile, the vast majority simply ignore them. It's like they live in a different universe.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> That's the thing isn't it? The argument is won over and over on the terms the liberals set, by the liberals. Meanwhile, the vast majority simply ignore them. It's like they live in a different universe.


Cue: _oh so only liberals are anti-racism? You think the w/c are racist?_


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2014)

give 'em a chance mate.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

Thyey'll do it whilst insisting that all UKIP voters are racist too. But the people they vote for and are considering voting for next week are just _differently racist._


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> The word 'racist' has awesome totemic power in middle class enclaves like LibDems, the BBC, people who drive Fiat 500s and Urban. I doubt it has the same pejorative heft among the wider populaton.


What a load of balls.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> The word 'racist' has awesome totemic power in middle class enclaves like LibDems, the BBC, people who drive Fiat 500s and Urban. I doubt it has the same pejorative heft among the wider populaton.


Racist as an earned pejorative is still deadly across all society  - esp in w/c areas. _Earned_ is the key. Some privately educated and life-style privileged idiot shouting it doesn't help in establishing that earnicity.


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2014)

it dilutes it, in fact.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> it dilutes it, in fact.


Fucking right, it robs it of power and trivialises it - instrumentalises it, encloses it, turns it into the property of the media and politicians - _oh why won't some mainstream politician say something anti-racist for us..._


----------



## kebabking (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What a load of balls.



sorry, i think *DD* is correct - not only do i not think that the wider electorate is as sensitive to accusations of racism as what could be termed 'the liberal elite', but i think the wider electorate has a rather narrower definition of racism - and a Farage-esque 'if i wanted to live next to a load of Romainians i'd go and live in Romania' outburst probably wouldn't cut it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

kebabking said:


> sorry, i think *DD* is correct - not only do i not think that the wider electorate is as sensitive to accusations of racism as what could be termed 'the liberal elite', but i think the wider electorate has a rather narrower definition of racism - and a Farage-esque 'if i wanted to live next to a load of Romainians i'd go and live in Romania' outburst probably wouldn't cut it.


Depends who it's said by, what cred they have and so on. The idea that 'the wider electorate' is keen on racism and that the suggestion that they're not is some form of external imposition by liberal elites is poisonous right wing nonsense. The wider electorate (say class?) have imposed their lack of racism on those liberal elites.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Depends who it's said by, what cred they have and so on. The idea that 'the wider electorate' is keen on racism and that the suggestion that they're not is some form of external imposition by liberal elites is poisonous right wing nonsense. The wider electorate (say class?) have imposed their lack of racism on those liberal elites.



I didn't say the wider electorate is keen on the old racism just that the accusation thereof is not always quite the mark of Cain it is in some circles.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> I didn't say the wider electorate is keen on the old racism just that the accusation thereof is not always quite the mark of Cain it is in some circles.


As i said, depends on whose is saying it, what cred they have and to who they are saying it.  I think your post goes much further towards suggesting that it's an external imposition that   that somehow challenges the default position of that 'wider electorate' - you're effectively taking up the  _they're all racist really_ banner of the liberals - just from the other side.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 19, 2014)

My eyes! My eyes!


----------



## kebabking (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Depends who it's said by, what cred they have and so on. The idea that 'the wider electorate' is keen on racism is poisonous right wing nonsense.



while i'd agree in terms of 'keen on', i think theres a difference between what 'the man in the street' construes as racist and what the 'intelligensia' construes as racism - i'd also suggest that even when 'the man in the street'* sees something as outright rascism, and doesn't like it, it is just one (perhaps towards the top, but still one of a handful) of the issues/cruxes he bases his vote on.

i'm not suggestting that rascism is popular, i'm suggesting that a party which can keep itself just this side of 'probably not racist' in the public perception can probably weather the media/political storm its 'just about not racist' comments provoke, as long as it has other things the public like.

i'm not convinced of either of those things with UKIP -  i think its sailing very close to the wind with regards to the public perception of racism, and that its pretty much a one trick pony.

*god awful phrase, like 'intelligensia' or 'liberal elite', but usable in this context i think...


----------



## gosub (May 19, 2014)

Some interesting stuff coming out about Switerland, an EEA member with twice UK immigrant levels that just decided by referendum to quota immigration.  Looking like all its trade deals with EU could fall apart if it doesn't reconsider ditching freedom of movement.  Not only bad for Cameron's negotiation, fucks Farage as well, wouldn't be able to do anything about immigration from EFTA. Stoking fires he won't be able to harness


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

Yeah, they're def going to cut switzerland off. 100%. Nailed on.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> 51% of them would like immigrants and their families to leave the UK according to this poll. Mind you, 26% Labour voters would, too. So twice as likely to be racist as Labour supporters going on this one poll.



This "definition" of racism is as absurdly reductionist as lbj's claim that you are a racist if you vote for UKIP. As Chilango said it's not like there's a binary classification between the horrible racists (boo! hiss!) and the nice non-racist liberals (yay!), people can have concerns about immigration while at the same time believing that people are equal wrt race. That doesn't mean that some of the ideas they might hold might not be racist, but that they are equally capable of opposing racism in other forms, e.g. wanting tougher immigration policies will discriminate against those from ethnic minorities but the same people can also be strongly opposed to racial discrimination in the workplace.

When you or littlebabyjesus claim that UKIP voters are racists what do you actually mean by that? Do you really think that 25%+ of the electorate believe that certain racial groups are inferior?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> This "definition" of racism is as absurdly reductionist as lbj's claim that you are a racist if you vote for UKIP.


I have not said this at all.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> 51% of them would like immigrants and their families to leave the UK according to this poll. Mind you, 26% Labour voters would, too. So twice as likely to be racist as Labour supporters going on this one poll.



You're aware the state has a policy of voluntary funded repatriation right?


----------



## treelover (May 19, 2014)

I wish people would get as animated about the cruel welfare reforms where people are being brutalised and actually dying, yes, committing suicide, starving to death, as they do with issues like UKIP, who as far as I know haven't caused any deaths yet.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have not said this at all.


Fine substitute the BNP if you really want, the point is the same.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Fine substitute the BNP if you really want, the point is the same.


No it's not. The BNP is not UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Fine substitute the BNP if you really want, the point is the same.


Anyone who votes UKIP knowing they are racist is a racist. They have now been exposed as racist. Therefore all voters and supporters are knowing informed racists. That's the logic of it for what it is.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> When you or littlebabyjesus claim that UKIP voters are racists what do you actually mean by that? Do you really think that 25%+ of the electorate believe that certain racial groups are inferior?


 
I don't know for sure their opinions on racial inferiority, but it's clear they don't want certain groups of people for colleagues or neighbours.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 19, 2014)

Surely Farage was displaying class prejudice rather than racism?  Isn't that really UKIP's shtick - the 'difference' between Farage's hypothetical German and Romanian neighbours, based on his presumptions based on national stereotypes?  Doesn't the press fuel this by offering migrants that 'contribute' in a defence of 'racism', matching with the current government's controls on non-EU migration that are based on wealth?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have not said this at all.


it's better than anything you have said


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 19, 2014)

gosub said:


> Some interesting stuff coming out about Switerland, an EEA member with twice UK immigrant levels that just decided by referendum to quota immigration.  Looking like all its trade deals with EU could fall apart if it doesn't reconsider ditching freedom of movement.  Not only bad for Cameron's negotiation, fucks Farage as well, wouldn't be able to do anything about immigration from EFTA. Stoking fires he won't be able to harness


But surely that would be seen as 'EU bureacrats tell us what to do with our sovereign laws' again?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> I wish people would get as animated about the cruel welfare reforms where people are being brutalised and actually dying, yes, committing suicide, starving to death, as they do with issues like UKIP, who as far as I know haven't caused any deaths yet.


They haven't caused any deaths, but their welfare policies will have the same outcomes as the tories if not worse.

The attitude of their welfare person can be summed up by the pciture someone posted earlier where she's out giving the middle finger to people campaigning for the Greens.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> They haven't caused any deaths


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/07/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-plane-crash_n_4402794.html


----------



## gosub (May 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> But surely that would be seen as 'EU bureacrats tell us what to do with our sovereign laws' again?


It heaps a load of smelly red herring on the OUT side of a referendum. Out could have won with increased democratic accountability and more direct negotiating a the table of world governance decisions are increasingly founded.  Potentially after Thursday, it would be difficult to stop Farage being the face of the OUT vote,and he will have got there by offering a false prospectus - (Napoleon's nation of shop keepers will always want trade so EFTA or EEA ) and a pernicious and deviceive one at that.  A position that will fall apart under a referendum spotlight.


Not happy Jan!


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 19, 2014)

I think the whole EU 'well' has been poisoned. Point to evidence that pulling out won't work and you just prove their point - the EU is repressive and possibly even vindictive.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

Ask the Greeks if it is.

Marvelous - now anti-fascism/racism silently turns to pro-euism.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 19, 2014)

They want the trade, just not the worker/environmental protection.  Ideally we could get the latter through national government, if only we weren't ruled by pricks. 

It's why many people on the left are in favour of Europe - because it's traditionally been more 'left' than national governments, particularly in the Thatcher years.

ETA - More recently it's been dominated by neo-lib agenda, driving privatisation, so no longer true.


----------



## gosub (May 19, 2014)

you can't win a referendum using just a reverse gear. You need to project a forward direction.  Mr Farage et al have steered into a cul de sac


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> They want the trade, just not the worker/environmental protection.  Ideally we could get the latter through national government, if only we weren't ruled by pricks.
> 
> It's why many people on the left are in favour of Europe - because it's traditionally been more 'left' than national governments, particularly in the Thatcher years.
> 
> ETA - More recently it's been dominated by neo-lib agenda, driving privatisation, so no longer true.


The social model of the eu (itself a monstrous capitalist scheme) died in 1992. The left who think that the EU means that old model today are in need of updated maps - and it can be argued they provide cover for that now open neo-liberalism.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

gosub said:


> you can't win a referendum using just a reverse gear. You need to project a forward direction.  Mr Farage et al have steered into a cul de sac


What referendum? You've failed to establish that one will happen. Your claim that it's the law, that there must be one, was shown to be nonsense - and you responded by putting the person who showed you this on ignore. It's hard enough to make sense of your posts at the best of times - making stuff up and talking as if it's true doesn't help.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

gosub said:


> you can't win a referendum using just a reverse gear. You need to project a forward direction.  Mr Farage et al have steered into a cul de sac


but is the cul de sac wide enough for them to do a three-point turn so they don't need to reverse out into traffic?


----------



## gosub (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> but is the cul de sac wide enough for them to do a three-point turn so they don't need to reverse out into traffic?


if you look at the polling UKIPers care more about immigration than EU.   And any way how do you get from those posters to my plan won't actually do anything about immigration.  so probably not


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

gosub said:


> And any way how do you get from those posters to my plan won't actually do anything about immigration.


and in english?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

gosub said:


> if you look at the polling UKIP care more about immigration than EU.  And any way how do you get from those posters to my plan won't actually do anything about immigration.  so probably not


Indeed, dolphin carousel, but slice glass.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I think the whole EU 'well' has been poisoned. Point to evidence that pulling out won't work and you just prove their point - the EU is repressive and possibly even vindictive.



Yep.  I wonder if it's even _possible _to pull out, practically speaking.  It was bad enough when the Irish voted "No" in their referendum--they just made them do it over and over again until they got it right.


----------



## kebabking (May 19, 2014)

gosub said:


> ...It heaps a load of smelly red herring on the OUT side of a referendum...



no, it doesn't, it shows that a small, non-member state that is surrounded by member states, that contributes pretty much nothing politicaly, a bit economically, and nothing militarily to 'Europe' - and has no way of getting its goods to non-EU markets without them travelling through EU territory - can be given sharp shrift.

it does not show that a state that is the second/third largest economy in the EU, that is one of Europes two military 'superpowers', that is one of Europes two permament UNSC members, and is surrounded by a big blue wobbly thing upon which it can trade with non-EU states can be given the same sharp shrift.


----------



## gosub (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and in english?








to WHICH EVER WAY YOU VOTE IN THE REFERENDUM WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE  -  VOTE OUT!


doesn't strike me as effective


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

What referendum?


----------



## laptop (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The social model of the eu (itself a monstrous capitalist scheme) died in 1992. The left who think that the EU means that old model today are in need of updated maps - and it can be argued they provide cover for that now open neo-liberalism.



True, it's been pretty much borked as far as widening or deepening "Social Europe" goes (though I give you the Working Time Directive of 2003 as an exception).

That was down to a prevalence of rightwing governments across Europe (and, slightly, in the EU Parliament) appointing rightwing Commissions.

But, still, on average it's to the left of UK adminsitrations: 






Several of these involve unwinding EU law.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

laptop said:


> True, it's been pretty much borked as far as widening or deepening "Social Europe" goes (though I give you the Working Time Directive of 2003 as an exception).
> 
> That was down to a prevalence of rightwing governments across Europe (and, slightly, in the EU Parliament) appointing rightwing Commissions.
> 
> ...


That's  a fake flyer make up of statements by individual UKIP weirdos not the parties policies at all. Note the sources.

Further: UKIP is not a UK administration, and the eu is far to the right of any ever existing or extant UK administration.


----------



## laptop (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's  a fake flyer make up of statements by individual UKIP weirdos not the parties policies at all. Note the sources.



I know it's a fucking spoof. But points 1, 3, 7 and 8 are consequences of UKIP's actual policies, yes?



butchersapron said:


> Further: UKIP is not a UK administration, and



Gosh. I was talking about the _political landscape_.



butchersapron said:


> the eu is far to the right of any ever existing or extant UK administration.



Eh? What policies do you have in mind?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

laptop said:


> I know it's a fucking spoof. But points 1, 3, 7 and 8 are consequences of UKIP's actual policies, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where - at least one of them has 'no source found'. That means_ i made it up.
_
Suggesting that _"But, still, on average it's to the left of UK administrations: "
_
note the :

And following it with a fake UKIP poster does sort of suggest that you know, this is an administration.

Imposing unelected technocratic govts on countries who then impose neo-liberalism by writing it into their constitutions is far beyond what the 2010 govt has ever done.
_
_


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

And don't say _gosh _either.


----------



## laptop (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Suggesting that _"But, still, on average it's to the left of UK administrations: "
> 
> note the :
> _
> And following it with a fake UKIP poster does sort of suggest that you know, this is an administration.


_
_
Ah, a _tactical _nit-pick.

Intended only as a quick illustration of what residents of the UK have to lose. OK?



butchersapron said:


> Imposing unelected technocratic govts on countries who then impose neo-liberalism by writing it into their constitutions is far beyond what the 2010 govt has ever done.



_On average_, I said. Since 1992. 

You're talking about the bailout conditions on Greece, I take it? Like IMF bailout conditions?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

laptop said:


> Ah, a _tactical _nit-pick.
> 
> Intended only as a quick illustration of what residents of the UK have to lose. OK?
> 
> ...


Yes, the austerity that the troika is imposing on the greek working class.


----------



## laptop (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, the austerity that the troika is imposing on the greek working class.



And these are worse than IMF conditions how?

I was not arguing that the EU was outside captialism. 

I am arguing that the working class in the UK objectively stand to lose out from exit now - paid time off being a clear and prime example.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

laptop said:


> And these are worse than IMF conditions how?
> 
> I was not arguing that the EU was outside captialism.
> 
> I am arguing that the working class in the UK objectively stand to lose out from exit now - paid time off being a clear and prime example.


You didn't. Did you? That might have been your later intention - but you didn't.

Worse than IMF conditions? These _are_ IMF conditions. That's what the troika is. It's what the eu is.

Let's just have a pro-eu thread - let it all out.


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> By introducing and supporting racist immigration laws - from the commonwealth act of 68 onwards. Simple one that.


Can you provide a bit more detail than this (and preferably about the present day Labour Party rather than 46 years ago)? In what way exactly is the Labour Party's immigration policy racist? I'm genuinely interested - maybe you could just give me a link to something relevant?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> Can you provide a bit more detail than this (and preferably about the present day Labour Party rather than 46 years ago)? In what way exactly is the Labour Party's immigration policy racist? I'm genuinely interested - maybe you could just give me a link to something relevant?


this is from their 2010 manifesto (sorry, it was in three columns):





> Strong borders and
> immigration controls
> We are committed to an
> immigration system that
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> Can you provide a bit more detail than this (and preferably about the present day Labour Party rather than 46 years ago)? In what way exactly is the Labour Party's immigration policy racist? I'm genuinely interested - maybe you could just give me a link to something relevant?


In what way does introducing racist laws and then supporting them for 46 years mean that you're not racist - the same racist laws that you introduced apply. The same party is now looking to tighten them up. That should be enough - but you want some other thing that says yes we're openly racist?  Is that right?


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 2) to annoy people - to put the tories into serious panic before the GE
> 3) To encourage political turmoil.
> 
> Results that you can only get by voting UKIP.


More people supporting UKIP means UK politics moving towards the right doesn't it?

Wouldn't it be preferable to see politics move towards the left, for example with more people voting Green, TUSC, Plaid Cymru or similar?

What do you hope and/or expect to emerge from this 'political turmoil'?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

46 years. Maybe they rescinded the racist legislation as soon they could. Or maybe they built on it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> More people supporting UKIP means UK politics moving towards the right doesn't it?
> 
> Wouldn't it be preferable to see politics move towards the left, for example with more people voting Green, TUSC, Plaid Cymru or similar?
> 
> What do you hope and/or expect to emerge from this 'political turmoil'?



No

Yes (but not those people)

Turmoil


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

I'm liking the leading questions style stuff here - like i'm on telly


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm liking the leading questions style stuff here - like i'm on telly


but don't you think ...


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

_I put it to you that you like bad stuff. And furthermore, you don't like good stuff. What say ye?_


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2014)

just agree to condemn the violence


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In what way does introducing racist laws and then supporting them for 46 years mean that you're not racist - the same racist laws that you introduced apply. The same party is now looking to tighten them up. That should be enough - but you want some other thing that says yes we're openly racist?  Is that right?


I was kind of hoping for something that actually goes into a bit of detail and analysis about the racism of these policies. 

The stuff Pickman's Model posted up mentions 'skills' and a 'points-based' system, and I can see how immigration policies do discriminate on the basis of someone's wealth and education levels. I am less clear about what role someone's "race" plays. Do you have any good links or references to something that explores in more depth how these policies are racist? I am not trying to argue that they are definitely not, I am genuinely interested in seeing the reasoning that lies behind your argument.


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

I ask "What do you hope and/or expect to emerge from this 'political turmoil'?" and you reply:


butchersapron said:


> Turmoil



Sorry, I am not trying to ask a 'leading' question here, I am just genuinely interested in what the point of this 'turmoil' is?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> I was kind of hoping for something that actually goes into a bit of detail and analysis about the racism of these policies.
> 
> The stuff Pickman's Model posted up mentions 'skills' and a 'points-based' system, and I can see how immigration policies do discriminate on the basis of someone's wealth and education levels. I am less clear about what role someone's "race" plays. Do you have any good links or references to something that explores in more depth how these policies are racist? I am not trying to argue that they are definitely not, I am genuinely interested in seeing the reasoning that lies behind your argument.


Well, you're not going to get it from me. And you've missed the point behind the argument - which was to come up with a problem with this logic, a) ukip are racist b) Therefore their voters are racist.  Or, more accurately, to see where this logic leads. a) labour are racist so b) all labour voters are racist. lbj got it and squirmed with his _differently racist_ bit. I do think labour are racist - i think all parties that have administered the state over the last 30 years are - the state is racist (it's also anti-racist). Do you agree with that?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> I ask "What do you hope and/or expect to emerge from this 'political turmoil'?" and you reply:
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not trying to ask a 'leading' question here, I am just genuinely interested in what the point of this 'turmoil' is?


The point? Turmoil. I like the main  parties not knowing how to respond to people openly telling them to fuck off. I like what i suggests about what is going on socially. Why do you need to put a point/hope/expectation on this?

Three genuinely in succession. That sure inspires belief.


----------



## Athos (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Well, you're not going to get it from me. And you've missed the point behind the argument - which was to come up with a problem with this logic, a) ukip are racist b) Therefore their voters are racist.  Or, more accurately, to see where this logic leads. a) labour are racist so b) all labour voters are racist. lbj got it and squirmed with his _differently racist_ bit. I do think labour are racist - i think all parties that have administered the state over the last 30 years are - the state is racist (it's also anti-racist). Do you agree with that?


 
Why 30 years?


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ...I do think labour are racist - i think all parties that have administered the state over the last 30 years are - the state is racist (it's also anti-racist). Do you agree with that?...


I don't know if I agree with that automatically, I am trying to keep and open mind and let myself be persuaded by argument and evidence.

Let me see if I have this correct: You are saying that the UK state (or all states?) is racist, so any political party that has administered it over the last 30 years is also automatically racist.

Are you still talking just about immigration policies or about everything including for example the criminal justice system?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> Why 30 years?


why not?


----------



## Athos (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> why not?


 
Although not strictly a logical inevitability, to specifically refer to 30 years implies that there's something significant and distinctive about that period. I wondered what it is?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> I ask "What do you hope and/or expect to emerge from this 'political turmoil'?" and you reply:
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not trying to ask a 'leading' question here, I am just genuinely interested in what the point of this 'turmoil' is?


Turmoil. I like it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

It is important, imo, very important, to pin down the likes of the BNP and their racism. There is no direct equivalence between their racism and that of parties like Labour or Tory. To pretend that there is is intellectually bankrupt.

You are talking through your arse here, butchersapron. You appear only to be capable of thinking in binaries.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> I don't know if I agree with that automatically, I am trying to keep and open mind and let myself be persuaded by argument and evidence.
> 
> Let me see if I have this correct: You are saying that the UK state (or all states?) is racist, so any political party that has administered it over the last 30 years is also automatically racist.
> 
> Are you still talking just about immigration policies or about everything including for example the criminal justice system?


No, lbj is, FFs.

Ever been caught in an Reductio ad absurdum  where some muppet is contesting the conclusion?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is important, imo, very important, to pin down the likes of the BNP and their racism. There is no direct equivalence between their racism and that of parties like Labour or Tory. To pretend that there is is intellectually bankrupt.
> 
> You are talking through your arse here, butchersapron.


The people who you list, *they aren't the real racists*. It's UKIP and the BNP. I wonder what those people in detention centres think about that. The people getting stopped in an unofficial suss law. It's farage you have to worry about. Clueless. Disconnected.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

Can we just get this clear - LBJ is not a racist but those who disagree with his chest prodding are racists, OR at worst have a racial blindspot. Which is a private school cowardly way of calling someone a racist.


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The point? Turmoil. I like the main  parties not knowing how to respond to people openly telling them to fuck off. I like what i suggests about what is going on socially. Why do you need to put a point/hope/expectation on this?


Why do you like parties not being able to be responsive? I don't want to start putting words in your mouth, but is it because you want the UK political system to somehow 'fall to bits' and then for some kind of revolution or something?

How are the Conservatives going to react if UKIP get a massive vote at the Euros?

Re. Point/hope/expectation - is it such a strange question to ask what good will come from 'turmoil'? Surely there is equally a risk that all sorts of shit things could emerge.



> Three genuinely in succession. That sure inspires belief.


Sorry I don't understand this bit. Three what?

[Edit: Sorry your post seems to have changed after I quoted it, please ignore as applicable]


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> Why do you like parties not being able to be responsive? I don't want to start putting words in your mouth, but is it because you want the UK political system to somehow 'fall to bits' and then for some kind of revolution or something?
> 
> How are the Conservatives going to react if UKIP get a massive vote at the Euros?
> 
> ...


You just did put words in my mouth. Above. Repeatedly. And you've put a juvenile scenario in my mouth. That's why i mentioned your 'genuinely'- it's not true is it?

Yes, i think the UK political system to somehow 'fall to bits'  (invented quote) if UKIP do well. I really really do.

How the tories are going to react is how you measure what your political actions are? If it makes the tories go right (don't do it) - if it make them go left (do it). 

If other things _emerge _it's because it's already there. Better vote tory labour and lib-dems to stop the things they produce emerging though eh?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is important, imo, very important, to pin down the likes of the BNP and their racism. There is no direct equivalence between their racism and that of parties like Labour or Tory. To pretend that there is is intellectually bankrupt.
> 
> You are talking through your arse here, butchersapron. You appear only to be capable of thinking in binaries.



Aren't you the one thinking in binaries? People are either racist or they're not and we can measure their racism according to their voting habits is the message I'm getting.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Aren't you the one thinking in binaries? People are either racist or they're not and we can measure their racism according to their voting habits is the message I'm getting.



Exactly how I'm reading lbj too.


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You just did put words in my mouth. Above. Repeatedly. And you've put a juvenile scenario in my mouth. That's why i mentioned your 'genuinely'- it's not true is it?


What isn't true? 


> Yes, i think the UK political system to somehow 'fall to bits'  (invented quote) if UKIP do well. I really really do.


Inverted commas (mine) are not quotation marks (yours). Sorry you misunderstood, I was not quoting you. I was not pretending to quote you.


> How the tories are going to react is how you measure what your political actions are? If it makes the tories go right (don't do it) - if it make them go left (do it).


Sorry but again I don't understand what you are saying here.


> If other things _emerge _it's because it's already there. Better vote tory labour and lib-dems to stop the things they produce emerging though eh?


Again, I fail to understand what you are saying.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> What isn't true?
> Inverted commas (mine) are not quotation marks (yours). Sorry you misunderstood, I was not quoting you. I was not pretending to quote you.
> Sorry but again I don't understand what you are saying here.
> Again, I fail to understand what you are saying.



Your repeated _genuinely _isn't true.

Why did you put inverted quotes around a position that you're suggesting is mine? And why put this slap bang in the middle of saying that you have no qish to put words on my mouth? Why directly put words in my mouth? See, this is the bit of your repetitive pleas about genuinely that i have a few problems with. As do you.

You asked me how the tories would react to a massive UKIP vote at the euros. I asked you how this would effect your responses to UKIP - or to politics generally. No reply. I didn't get it.

The tories, labour and lib-dems produce  the conditions that breed UKIP. If there is some social swell (politically or socially) it's because of these non-racist parties and their management of society. It exists outside of formal elections.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 19, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> What are you complaining about?  You lot north of the border have got the SNP, haven't you?!
> 
> <ducks>



You'll need to duck lower than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell, do we have to do this every bloody week!
> 
> If you'd actually read this or other UKIP threads you know that this is rubbish, that Farage polls behind his party. If one single factor is "the motor behind UKIP" it's a anger and contempt towards politicians in general.



Ain't that the truth? 
There must be a huge number of people like me, completely alienated by the actions of the Conservative party, which I had supported for over 40 years, and now with no 'party home'. I'm not voting Labour, I despise them. I'm not voting Conservative, I despise them even more. Lib Dems? God no. I suppose I'm really the archetypical UKIP voter, in terms of being an ex-Conservative voter, but, I will not be voting for them. For the first election ever, I won't be be voting.


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

> You asked me how the tories would react to a massive UKIP vote at the euros. I asked you how this would effect your responses to UKIP - or to politics generally. No reply. I didn't get it.



I asked you:





> On what basis politically speaking would you suggest someone vote UKIP?


You replied:





> to annoy people - to put the tories into serious panic before the GE


That's why I asked:





> How are the Conservatives going to react if UKIP get a massive vote at the Euros?


What I was trying to get at was; What will the beneficial result be of putting the tories into serious panic before the GE?

Sorry I didn't answer your question to me. I'm not sure if I understand it. My fear is that a strong UKIP vote will encourage the Conservative Party (and the other parties) to move rightwards, particularly on immigration and the EU.


----------



## treelover (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The social model of the eu (itself a monstrous capitalist scheme) died in 1992. The left who think that the EU means that old model today are in need of updated maps - and it can be argued they provide cover for that now open neo-liberalism.




The EU is in the process of signing a massive free trade agreement with the U.S, (TIPPS) with very little opposition, it will mean US Corporations who take over nationalised entities can sue if nat gov'ts try to take it back later and will be able to force through U.S labour standards, etc on companies they own in the EU.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> I asked you:
> You replied:
> That's why I asked:
> What I was trying to get at was; What will the beneficial result be of putting the tories into serious panic before the GE?
> ...


So. Let's not do anything that would make the tories move rightwards? Let's frame our politics by how the tories might respond. in fact, let's encourage them to move leftwards. Opposition to UKIP becomes about their potential effect on the tories. Let's oppose UKIP because their success might move the tories further right.

No politics that i want any part of. This is pretty mad shit you know. Oppose UKIP for being a far right party who piss in the same pot as the tories and lib-dems and labour, point out where their politics lead, point out what interests are driving them, make a general case that politics is the shadow that economics casts on society  - drive a wedge between the party member and passing supporters, and members and leadership - but don't do any of that because you fear it will move the tories rightwards ffs.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> politics is the shadow that economics casts on society



I like that, think I'm gonna nick it!


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I like that, think I'm gonna nick it!


I nicked it off Dewey (Not Huey, or Louie, Dewey).


----------



## andysays (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The point? Turmoil. *I like the main  parties not knowing how to respond to people openly telling them to fuck off*. I like what i suggests about what is going on socially. Why do you need to put a point/hope/expectation on this?
> 
> Three genuinely in succession. That sure inspires belief.



So you like the three main, anti-working class, generally neo-liberal, vaguely racist (but lets not get so focussed on that that it excludes everything else) parties being told to fuck off, and you view a growing number of people saying that they support a new, fourth anti-working class, generally neo-liberal, vaguely racist (but lets not get so focussed on that that it excludes everything else) party as a genuine example of this? That appears to be the clear implication of what you're saying. What do you actually think this suggests is going on socially?

UKIP claim to be anti-establishment, but most of us can recognise that this claim is bogus. Their one substantive claim to difference to the other three is their anti-EU stance, so it's only if you mistakenly equate the establishment entirely with the EU and its supporters here in Britain that they can be described as anti-establishment.

An UKIP victory in Thursday's elections, or something which they can present as a victory, will certainly cause the other three parties a bit of head scratching - "how did they do that, how can we prevent them from doing similar at the GE next year?" - but as far as I can see it will do absolutely nothing to genuinely challenge the increasingly anti-working class, generally neo-liberal, vaguely racist (but please, lets not get so focussed on that that it excludes everything else) nature of British politics, both in the media and in wider general social discourse.

Any suggestion that the rise of UKIP is in some way (in any way) a positive development which heralds a new dawn for pro-working class politics, or even that there is a new opportunity to begin to build such a thing, strikes me as wildly over-optimistic, trying to find some consolation in the fact that a significant minority of people have been conned into thinking that UKIP actually represents their interests, and that a vote for UKIP will do anything to improve their lives.


----------



## weltweit (May 19, 2014)

Nigel Farage defends Romanian comments amid racism claims
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27474099
video interview with Nick Robinson


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So. Let's not do anything that would make the tories move rightwards? Let's frame our politics by how the tories might respond. in fact, let's encourage them to move leftwards. Opposition to UKIP becomes about their potential effect on the tories. Let's oppose UKIP because their success might move the tories further right.


You were the one who said they would suggest someone vote UKIP to put the tories into serious panic before the GE.

I am not framing my politics around how the Conservative party will react. I asked you the question because *you* said something about putting the tories into serious panic. I wanted to know what this would achieve. How would this serious panic manifest itself?  

I only mentioned that I fear the Conservative Party (and the other parties) will move rightwards in response to a large UKIP vote because you were demanding that I answer a question about it. It isn't central to my politics.


> Let's not do anything that would make the tories move rightwards?


Well I certainly don't want to vote UKIP if that's what you mean. I don't want to persuade people to do stuff that will move the political centre of gravity of all political parties to the right, no.


> Let's frame our politics by how the tories might respond.


Like voting UKIP to put the tories into a serious panic? You were the one who raised the issue in the first place.


> No politics that i want any part of. This is pretty mad shit you know.


See above.


> Oppose UKIP for being a far right party who piss in the same pot as the tories and lib-dems and labour, point out where their politics lead, point out what interests are driving them, make a general case that politics is the shadow that economics casts on society  - drive a wedge between the party member and passing supporters, and members and leadership - but don't do any of that because you fear it will move the tories rightwards ffs.


Who said don't do any of that? I didn't.

You seemed to have now changed from 'vote UKIP' to 'oppose UKIP'. Maybe you think that everyone here has read and re-read so many of your posts that they already know what your politics are and what you think about everything, but frankly you seem to be all over the place. It is sometimes impossible to tell if you are being sarcastic or not, or even wtf you are talking about at all.

Thanks however for a fairly lucid last paragraph.

_"Oppose UKIP for being a far right party who piss in the same pot as the tories and lib-dems and labour, point out where their politics lead, point out what interests are driving them, make a general case that politics is the shadow that economics casts on society  - drive a wedge between the party member and passing supporters, and members and leadership"_

...and I'll just ignore the bit from earlier in the thread about voting UKIP.


----------



## andysays (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ...Oppose UKIP for being a far right party who piss in the same pot as the tories and lib-dems and labour, point out where their politics lead, point out what interests are driving them, make a general case that politics is the shadow that economics casts on society  - drive a wedge between the party member and passing supporters, and members and leadership...



This is a far more positive approach, and it's a shame that so much of the discussion around UKIP has been around the question of if they or their supporters are racist.

What would be far more to the point would be a focus upon how to genuinely oppose them politically.

Is it possible we can leave the obsession with racism for a while and attempt to move beyond that?

(This is a general suggestion, not one directed specifically at butchersapron - I recognise that he hasn't sought to make that the focus of the discussion, but he seems unable to resist getting emboiled with those who do want to focus on that.)


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

andysays said:


> So you like the three main, anti-working class, generally neo-liberal, vaguely racist (but lets not get so focussed on that that it excludes everything else) parties being told to fuck off, and you view a growing number of people saying that they support a new, fourth anti-working class, generally neo-liberal, vaguely racist (but lets not get so focussed on that that it excludes everything else) party as a genuine example of this? That appears to be the clear implication of what you're saying. What do you actually think this suggests is going on socially?
> 
> UKIP claim to be anti-establishment, but most of us can recognise that this claim is bogus. Their one substantive claim to difference to the other three is their anti-EU stance, so it's only if you mistakenly equate the establishment entirely with the EU and its supporters here in Britain that they can be described as anti-establishment.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone is even remotely claiming that the growth of UKIP is a " new dawn for pro-working class politics".

What it is, however, is a fairly unprecedented (in England at least) willingness to vote for a 4th Party. It is, even if only in form rather than content, a break, a rupture, in the status quo.

That UKIPs policies are just more of the same is, for the moment, irrelevant. UKIP aren't going to be enacting anything and a lot of their voters know this.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is it possible we can leave the obsession with racism for a while and attempt to move beyond that?



Funnily enough it's mirroring the media's current focus on UKIP racism.

It's the easy angle, no?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> You were the one who said they would suggest someone vote UKIP to put the tories into serious panic before the GE.
> 
> I am not framing my politics around how the Conservative party will react. I asked you the question because *you* said something about putting the tories into serious panic. I wanted to know what this would achieve. How would this serious panic manifest itself?
> 
> ...



Right, from the top:

You: On what basis politically speaking would you suggest someone vote UKIP?
 Me: to annoy people - to put the tories into serious panic before the GE

The answer is contained in my post - seeing tories panic, seeing them panic and mess up their GE plans - seeing tories panic. I literally said it. I'll say it again -_ seeing tories panic.
_
Who said that you don't do any of that - not me. However many of the posts in this thread and the far longer UKIP one are by people who do  not get this basic start point and are happy to just prod people in the chest and say racist - their anti-racist duty done for the year. It's largely what this thread has centred on. So restating this is a good thing to do. It's a pity no one opposing could come up with anything similar.

Don't ignore the call for people to vote UKIP. I _want _people to vote UKIP in the euros - because my political perspective is a bit wider than what parties people support. I want the EU to be brought down in a ball of flames - that doesn't mean i then support all anti-EU parties. A bit of nuance and context is what's required.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

andysays said:


> So you like the three main, anti-working class, generally neo-liberal, vaguely racist (but lets not get so focussed on that that it excludes everything else) parties being told to fuck off, and you view a growing number of people saying that they support a new, fourth anti-working class, generally neo-liberal, vaguely racist (but lets not get so focussed on that that it excludes everything else) party as a genuine example of this? That appears to be the clear implication of what you're saying. What do you actually think this suggests is going on socially?
> 
> UKIP claim to be anti-establishment, but most of us can recognise that this claim is bogus. Their one substantive claim to difference to the other three is their anti-EU stance, so it's only if you mistakenly equate the establishment entirely with the EU and its supporters here in Britain that they can be described as anti-establishment.
> 
> ...




OK, one opening paragraph that seems open to having a think about society - then 3 paras reducing society down to UKIP. How many times do i have to emphasise _that this isn't about UKIP _(for those of us who are supposed to be on the critical left anyway). Stop looking at parties - look at what people are doing, why they're doing it and how they understand what they're doing. Not what is to be done but, what is being done - what are people doing? To start anywhere else is pointless. But oh so inviting - _look at me being non-racist._


----------



## andysays (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> I don't think anyone is even remotely claiming that the growth of UKIP is a " new dawn for pro-working class politics".
> 
> What it is, however, is a fairly unprecedented (in England at least) willingness to vote for a 4th Party. It is, even if only in form rather than content, a break, a rupture, in the status quo.
> 
> That UKIPs policies are just more of the same is, for the moment, irrelevant. UKIP aren't going to be enacting anything and a lot of their voters know this.



OK, that new dawn bit was deliberate hyperbole.

But it's not people's willingness to vote for any 4th party, it's their willingness to vote for UKIP, a specific party with a specific message/image, and one which is based essentially on a dishonest claim to be anti-establishment. Their specific policies may be irrelevant, but most people have some idea where they stand in a broad sense.

Do you think this demonstrates a willingless, as yet untapped, to vote for a genuine pro-working class party (whatever exactly that would be)?

Or do you think it demonstrates a significant social development which gives an opportunity to build pro-working class movement which isn't focussed on parliamentary elections?

Both of those would certainly be positive, but I can't really see any sign of them, and would need some serious convincing.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

I think, as I said above, it represents a break, a rupture, with the norm (as far as elections in England go) on a far wider and bigger scale than we've seen. That's the positive we can take from it.


----------



## andysays (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> OK, one opening paragraph that seems open to having a think about society - then 3 paras reducing society down to UKIP. How many times do i have to emphasise _that this isn't about UKIP _(for those of us who are supposed to be on the critical left anyway)



OK, maybe I have been misunderstanding your deeper point. I thought you were arguing that the growing support for UKIP was in some way positive, in some way an indication of a social development which could be harnessed by those of us on the critical left, even if the fact that it's focussed on UKIP was not particularly important. Are you now saying that UKIP is a complete irrelevance (and if so, why are you spending so much energy on discussing them?) 



butchersapron said:


> Stop looking at parties - look at what people are doing, why they're doing it and how they understand what they're doing. Not what is to be done but, what is being done. To start anywhere else is pointless. But oh so inviting - _look at me being non-racist._



So what, in your opinion, are specific examples of what people are doing, why they're doing it and how they understand what they're doing which are worth looking at and discussing ATM? What are the things going on in society which are relevant to those of us who are supposed to be on the critical left?


----------



## Corax (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> I don't think anyone is even remotely claiming that the growth of UKIP is a
> "new dawn for pro-working class politics."


But is it a *golden* dawn? 







(Take a deep breath everyone, I'm not serious)


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> But is it a *golden* dawn?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> I think, as I said above, it represents a break, a rupture, with the norm (as far as elections in England go) on a far wider and bigger scale than we've seen. That's the positive we can take from it.


Just any kind of rupture isn't necessarily good. And the ways the mainstream system repairs this kind of rupture are not necessarily at all a step forward. In Austria, the rise of far-right groups polling significantly - groups closer to the BNP than to UKIP, admittedly - has led to a grand coalition between the two main parties. That has closed up possibilities for change, despite the fact that the centre-left party has polled more than the centre-right party recently. A step backwards takes you further away from where you want to be. The rise of a party like UKIP is just a step backwards. It's not a positive.

I agree with the point that if you want to make a difference, you fight the cuts, not UKIP. However, this is a thread _about UKIP_. Berating people for discussing UKIP and its significance here on this thread is ridiculous. And wrong. Many of us here will have been on anti-cuts marches. I've never been on an anti-UKIP march. I doubt many of us have.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

A rupture creates, however temporarily, possibility for change.

Yes, the status quo is almost certainly going to restablish itself, especially as the vehicle - UKIP - is so close to status quo in many ways anyhow. But it will still be weakened. The grip if the old parties on Politics, and how people engage with it will be less firm, less stable opening up future possibilities for good or ill.

Interesting times, with all that that entails.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> A rupture creates, however temporarily, possibility for change.


Hmmm. How does the rise of a very right-wing, xenophobic party create possibility for change for the better? I don't see it. I don't see the mechanism. UKIP winning loads of votes and a few seats in this election will just see their ability to affect the agenda continued and strengthened. It doesn't open space for others.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> A rupture creates, however temporarily, possibility for change.
> 
> Yes, the status quo is almost certainly going to restablish itself, especially as the vehicle - UKIP - is so close to status quo in many ways anyhow. But it will still be weakened. The grip if the old parties on Politics, and how people engage with it will be less firm, less stable opening up future possibilities for good or ill.
> 
> Interesting times, with all that that entails.


tbh i'm getting a bit bored of interesting times.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. How does the rise of a very right-wing, xenophobic party create possibility for change for the better? I don't see it. I don't see the mechanism. UKIP winning loads of votes and a few seats in this election will just see their ability to affect the agenda continued and strengthened. It doesn't open space for others.



Anything that weakens the established way of "doing politics" strengthens the possibility of a space being opened. That UKIP are doing so from the right doesn't change that. 

I'm not optimistic that this space will be seized...this time. But once it is seen that it can be done? 

I don't want to overplay this, it is not a breakthrough, just cracks.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i'm getting a bit bored of interesting times.



I'd take a Scandinavian Social Democracy right now.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> Anything that weakens the established way of "doing politics" strengthens the possibility of a space being opened. That UKIP are doing so from the right doesn't change that.
> 
> I'm not optimistic that this space will be seized...this time. But once it is seen that it can be done?
> 
> I don't want to overplay this, it is not a breakthrough, just cracks.


 Yes, and this is a scenario seen by some respected political scientists. The LRB carried a useful review of Peter Mair's "ruling the Void"...

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n10/jan-werner-muller/the-partys-over



> Mair’s conclusion is that the EU is a house that party politicians built which has no room for politics, while national governments are ever more likely to pretend they are merely the branch office of Brussels. (After all, if Brussels has already decided, you don’t take the blame; never mind that you were there at the negotiating table.) In this situation, what Mair calls *the Tocqueville syndrome* becomes acute: if political elites are either inaccessible or impotent, why put up with them? Tocqueville was writing about the fall of the aristocrats in the Ancien Régime, who could no longer justify their privileges once they had lost power to a centralised monarchy*. The worst of the economic crisis might be over, but the political crisis in Europe is only just beginning.



* Mair could equally have cast global corporate capital as the "centralised monarchy" to which the "aristocrat" sovereign states have yielded power.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> Anything that weakens the established way of "doing politics" strengthens the possibility of a space being opened. That UKIP are doing so from the right doesn't change that..



What kind of space, though? The Tories and Libdems appear set for a split at the next election. The Libdems may well be destroyed in terms of seats. If UKIP make a breakthrough that leads to seats, that could conceivably see a Tory/UKIP coalition, or at least a cooperation deal that allows a Tory minority government. If it happened, it would lead to more savage attacks on the poor. What other scenarios are there? This talk of 'space' is a little vague.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't ignore the call for people to vote UKIP. *I want people to vote UKIP in the euros* - because my political perspective is a bit wider than what parties people support. I want the EU to be brought down in a ball of flames - that doesn't mean i then support all anti-EU parties. A bit of nuance and context is what's required.



Will you be voting for ukip on Thursday then?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 19, 2014)

According to the Daily Mail (yeah I know but bear with me) a former founder has outed him as a frequent user of the word nigger to describe black people. He would apparently talk about the 'nigger vote' and how 'niggers wouldn't vote for us anyway'...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

Wanting UKIP to do well is mad. It will not lead to good things. So it will upset the Tories. So what?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

Kid_Eternity said:


> According to the Daily Mail (yeah I know but bear with me) a former founder has outed him as a frequent user of the word nigger to describe black people. He would apparently talk about the 'nigger vote' and how 'niggers wouldn't vote for us anyway'...


My god, how many papers has sked sold that to  over the last 20 years since he was ousted as leader? Ask Sked about Mark Deavin and the BNP trojan horsed they tried to run into UKIP. You know, the one who wrote the holocaust denial pamphlet that Griffin used to publish.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What kind of space, though? The Tories and Libdems appear set for a split at the next election. The Libdems may well be destroyed in terms of seats. If UKIP make a breakthrough that leads to seats, that could conceivably see a Tory/UKIP coalition, or at least a cooperation deal that allows a Tory minority government. If it happened, it would lead to more savage attacks on the poor. What other scenarios are there? This talk of 'space' is a little vague.



I don't think there'll be a Tory / UKIP coalition, would be suicidal for both parties. 

I think it may be more helpful to talk of "cracks" and "fractures" at this point rather than "spaces" (which seems to being imbued with too much progressive meaning for what I intended to mean).

...and, yes, it's vague. That's the point. It's the potential of moving into the unknown.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> I don't think there'll be a Tory / UKIP coalition, would be suicidal for both parties..


Why? tbh I think a coalition might be hard to broker, but a cooperation deal that allows the tories to pass their budget? Offered by a new tory leader as Cameron resigns the day after the election, and a new more UKIP-friendly tory leader takes his place. In return for setting a date for a referendum on Europe. The tories can hope the referedum says yes, but meanwhile they have fresh impetus to withdraw as much as they possibly can from social legislation in Europe, freed from any restraint on them doing so that the libdems might have exerted. 

Is that fanciful? It's not pretty.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. How does the rise of a very right-wing, xenophobic party create possibility for change for the better? I don't see it. I don't see the mechanism. UKIP winning loads of votes and a few seats in this election will just see their ability to affect the agenda continued and strengthened. It doesn't open space for others.



It's more about what the UKIP vote represents IMO. It's less an endorsement of the UKIP platform and more a big two fingers at the establishment (that UKIP are a part of that establishment is essentially irrelevant here). That's a positive thing. It means there's a space opening up, that people have had enough. 

We can either understand what this means socially or we can draw a big line in the sand, with the nice anti racists on one side, accompanied by the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems - the people who are driving them into the hands of UKIP and ruining their lives; and UKIP and all their nasty wacist voters on the other. Even the black ones (and IIRC UKIP have a higher proportion of w/c ethnic minority voters than the other three) they're wacists too. 

I instinctively want to be on the other side of that line. Got to be honest - if this was 15 years ago I'd probably be voting UKIP myself. In fact the reaction from middle class trendies makes me want to vote for them now (I won't obviously but if that's my instinctive reaction just imagine what it is for people who don't share my political background)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 19, 2014)

There will never need to be a Tory/UKIP coalition and there wouldn't ever be one anyway. Tory/Labour is more likely.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> I don't think there'll be a Tory / UKIP coalition, would be suicidal for both parties.
> 
> I think it may be more helpful to talk of "cracks" and "fractures" at this point rather than "spaces" (which seems to being imbued with too much progressive meaning for what I intended to mean).
> 
> ...and, yes, it's vague. That's the point. It's the potential of moving into the unknown.



Exciting though isn't it? The potential of moving into the fractured crack of vague politics? The unknown.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's more about what the UKIP vote represents IMO. It's less an endorsement of the UKIP platform and more a big two fingers at the establishment (that UKIP are a part of that establishment is essentially irrelevant here). That's a positive thing. It means there's a space opening up, that people have had enough.
> 
> We can either understand what this means socially or we can draw a big line in the sand, with the nice anti racists on one side, accompanied by the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems - the people who are driving them into the hands of UKIP and ruining their lives; and UKIP and all their nasty wacist voters on the other. Even the black ones (and IIRC UKIP have a higher proportion of w/c ethnic minority voters than the other three) they're wacists too.
> 
> I instinctively want to be on the other side of that line. Got to be honest - if this was 15 years ago I'd probably be voting UKIP myself. In fact the reaction from middle class trendies makes me want to vote for them now (I won't obviously but if that's my instinctive reaction just imagine what it is for people who don't share my political background)



I'll say this just once more. I haven't been shouting racist at UKIP voters. Not once.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 19, 2014)

A big kipper vote wouldn't only upset the tories, it would likely upset anyone who happens to be part of a minority and who hoped the country was slowly putting its old prejudices behind it. Wanting them to do well makes no sense whatsoever for an anti bigot.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why? tbh I think a coalition might be hard to broker, but a cooperation deal that allows the tories to pass their budget? Offered by a new tory leader as Cameron resigns the day after the election, and a new more UKIP-friendly tory leader takes his place. In return for setting a date for a referendum on Europe. The tories can hope the referedum says yes, but meanwhile they have fresh impetus to withdraw as much as they possibly can from social legislation in Europe, freed from any restraint on them doing so that the libdems might have exerted.
> 
> Is that fanciful? It's not pretty.



No. 

If UKIP join a coalition, any coalition, they're fucked, forever. 

If the Tories join a coalition with UKIP they'll start a civil war within the Party that could destroy them.

Won't happen.

Meanwhile if any of this starts to look on the agenda watch the shift of capital's backing of Labour become an avalanche.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> A big kipper vote wouldn't only upset the tories, it would likely upset anyone who happens to be part of a minority and who hoped the country was slowly putting its old prejudices behind it. Wanting them to do well makes no sense whatsoever for an anti bigot.


It will upset Romanians.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> I don't think there'll be a Tory / UKIP coalition, would be suicidal for both parties.
> 
> I think it may be more helpful to talk of "cracks" and "fractures" at this point rather than "spaces" (which seems to being imbued with too much progressive meaning for what I intended to mean).
> 
> ...and, yes, it's vague. That's the point. It's the potential of moving into the unknown.



I can't see ukip getting many, if any seats with fptp. And wouldn't any that they do win be at the expense of the tories anyway? Thus making a tory/kipper coalition almost impossible?


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Exciting though isn't it? The potential of moving into the fractured crack of vague politics? The unknown.


 As opposed to there being no cracks, fractures or space in the body politic? That's better, is it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I can't see ukip getting many, if any seats with fptp. And wouldn't any that they do win be at the expense of the tories anyway? Thus making a tory/kipper coalition almost impossible?


A tory-labour grand coalition is probably more likely, as has happened in Austria. We're fucked with that, too.


----------



## Favelado (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A tory-labour grand coalition is probably more likely, as has happened in Austria. We're fucked with that, too.



It's the hot topic here in Spain too - a PSOE/PP "gran coalición". Fucking disgusting stitch-up if it happens.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A tory-labour grand coalition is probably more likely, as has happened in Austria. We're fucked with that, too.



Very likely if we shared their PR electoral system.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A tory-labour grand coalition is probably more likely, as has happened in Austria. We're fucked with that, too.



Look at Italy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

If you are hoping for a big UKIP vote, what do you say to people who have been targetted by UKIP - Romanian immigrants, for instance? What do you say to them? Sorry, old bean, you're a casualty in a larger fight? 

Solidarity out of the window? That's what I see when I read people posting that they hope people vote UKIP. It's a bankrupt position.


----------



## weltweit (May 19, 2014)

I would never vote Ukip, but the reason I don't hate them is because I also think the EU needs radical reform, but that we should achieve that from within. The ideal of a single market is still good and should be reinforced, but the monetary and political union, common defence force etc ideas ... I don't want a USA of Europe and I think if they are honest a lot of others don't want that either.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you are hoping for a big UKIP vote, what do you say to people who have been targetted by UKIP - Romanian immigrants, for instance? What do you say to them? Sorry, old bean, you're a casualty in a larger fight?
> 
> Solidarity out of the window? That's what I see when I read people posting that they hope people vote UKIP. It's a bankrupt position.



I'm not hoping UKIP get a big vote. I expect they will though regardless.


----------



## andysays (May 19, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's more about what the UKIP vote represents IMO. It's less an endorsement of the UKIP platform and more a big two fingers at the establishment (that UKIP are a part of that establishment is essentially irrelevant here). That's a positive thing. It means there's a space opening up, that people have had enough.
> 
> We can either understand what this means socially or we can draw a big line in the sand, with the nice anti racists on one side, accompanied by the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems - the people who are driving them into the hands of UKIP and ruining their lives; and UKIP and all their nasty wacist voters on the other. Even the black ones (and IIRC UKIP have a higher proportion of w/c ethnic minority voters than the other three) they're wacists too.
> 
> I instinctively want to be on the other side of that line. Got to be honest - if this was 15 years ago I'd probably be voting UKIP myself. In fact the reaction from middle class trendies makes me want to vote for them now (I won't obviously but if that's my instinctive reaction just imagine what it is for people who don't share my political background)



Again, I'm struggling to see how support for UKIP represents, in any meaningful way, two fingers at the establishment. People are apparently saying "we've had enough of the dominance of the anti-working class, neo liberal consensus which the three main/establishment parties represent, and we're going to demonstrate this by giving our support to a new anti-working class, neo-liberal party." 

So what sort of space do you see opening up? To repeat my earlier question which remains unanswered, 



andysays said:


> Do you think this demonstrates a willingless, as yet untapped, to vote for a genuine pro-working class party (whatever exactly that would be)?
> 
> Or do you think it demonstrates a significant social development which gives an opportunity to build pro-working class movement which isn't focussed on parliamentary elections?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> I'm not hoping UKIP get a big vote. I expect they will though regardless.


I expect they will going on opinion polls. It may well be 30 per cent of a very low turnout, though - 30 per cent of 40 per cent turn out is only 12 per cent of voters. One in eight. And the higher turn out at the general election will see that number fall. It's mostly symbolic at this stage, given that the European parliament is seen as an utter irrelevance to most of us - that will continue whatever the vote. It is still the general election that matters.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I don't know for sure their opinions on racial inferiority, but it's clear they don't want certain groups of people for colleagues or neighbours.


How is that racist? Unless they don't want those "certain groups of people" as colleagues or neighbours _because_ of their race.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you are hoping for a big UKIP vote, what do you say to people who have been targetted by UKIP - Romanian immigrants, for instance? What do you say to them? Sorry, old bean, you're a casualty in a larger fight?
> 
> Solidarity out of the window? That's what I see when I read people posting that they hope people vote UKIP. It's a bankrupt position.


 Talking of Romanians and solidarity...did anyone else see the C4 News piece tonight with two Romanian immigrants? I'm not sure that Jon Snow was quite prepared for the reaction he got from his Romanian guests. Seems like Mariana shared Farage's apparently class-based position that he "would not want to live next door to a bunch of unruly Romanians..."

http://bcove.me/hj3mmmi6	(2.00 onwards)


----------



## andysays (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> I think, as I said above, it represents a break, a rupture, with the norm (as far as elections in England go) on a far wider and bigger scale than we've seen. That's the positive we can take from it.



Until relatively recently, there were two main parties which got most of the electoral support. Then that changed and there were three. Part of this was because voting Lib Dem was seen for a while as a protest, a voting against the established way of doing things represented by the two party system. We all know how that worked out.

That change didn't represent any sort of genuine break or rupture in politics in Britain/England, in the sense that there was any sort of new political approach that any of us here would see as positive, so why are you so convinced that the switch from three parties to four will, of itself, be so very different?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> Can you provide a bit more detail than this (and preferably about the present day Labour Party rather than 46 years ago)? In what way exactly is the Labour Party's immigration policy racist? I'm genuinely interested - maybe you could just give me a link to something relevant?


Well what about this story which has been in the press for the last few days for starters. It wasn't UKIP, or the BNP for that matter, that have set up detention centres like this and protected their operators.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Talking of Romanians and solidarity...did anyone else see the C4 News piece tonight with two Romanian immigrants? I'm not sure that Jon Snow was quite prepared for the reaction he got from his Romanian guests. Seems like Mariana shared Farage's apparently class-based position that he "would not want to live next door to a bunch of unruly Romanians..."
> 
> http://bcove.me/hj3mmmi6	(2.00 onwards)


She's been here for 30 years. She says that 'Romania is not a civilised country'. I don't blame particularly or judge her for her opinion - it is a country that forced her into exile 30 years ago after all. But if she's been here for 30 years, she is more British than Romanian now, and she comes across to me as a bit of a snob.

But really? It's alright to be prejudiced against Romanians. See, even Romanians think it's ok. Really? 

Actually, listening on, nah, she can piss off, tbh.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> I don't think there'll be a Tory / UKIP coalition, would be suicidal for both parties.


Yeah, I can't believe that Tory central office would be stupid enough to ever go for a coalition even if some members and MPs wanted it.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's more about what the UKIP vote represents IMO. It's less an endorsement of the UKIP platform and more a big two fingers at the establishment (that UKIP are a part of that establishment is essentially irrelevant here). That's a positive thing. It means there's a space opening up, that people have had enough.
> 
> We can either understand what this means socially or we can draw a big line in the sand, with the nice anti racists on one side, accompanied by the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems - the people who are driving them into the hands of UKIP and ruining their lives; and UKIP and all their nasty wacist voters on the other. Even the black ones (and IIRC UKIP have a higher proportion of w/c ethnic minority voters than the other three) they're wacists too.
> 
> I instinctively want to be on the other side of that line. Got to be honest - if this was 15 years ago I'd probably be voting UKIP myself. In fact the reaction from middle class trendies makes me want to vote for them now (I won't obviously but if that's my instinctive reaction just imagine what it is for people who don't share my political background)


Spot on SN


----------



## weltweit (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Actually, listening on, nah, she can piss off, tbh.


It wasn't the best interview, plenty of misunderstanding.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It wasn't the best interview, plenty of misunderstanding.


Reminds me of the conflation between Irish and travellers in the past. Romanians and Roma - even we Romanians can't tell the difference. And you know what, those Roma are no good. 

This is horrible shite that needs to be opposed.


----------



## weltweit (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Reminds me of the conflation between Irish and travellers in the past. Romanians and Roma - even we Romanians can't tell the difference. And you know what, those Roma are no good.
> 
> This is horrible shite that needs to be opposed.


But also average Brit fodder - the further your house is from the local council estate, the higher its desirability / ability to fetch a higher price .. is that common issue really any better ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> But also average Brit fodder - the further your house is from the local council estate, the higher its desirability / ability to fetch a higher price .. is that common issue really any better ?


There is lots of other horrible shite that needs to be opposed. And?

If some snob were on tv banging on about chavs, I'd say the same thing.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> How is that racist? Unless they don't want those "certain groups of people" as colleagues or neighbours _because_ of their race.



What nationalities don't you want for colleagues or neighbours? What do you base it on?


----------



## weltweit (May 19, 2014)

In his many utterances since his O'Brien interview, Farage has tried to argue that it is Romanian criminal gangs that he is opposed to, rather than Romanian people in general, and he has tried to deflect criticism by raising the issue of the collapse of Romania post communism. It is damage limitation, but if you believe there is no such thing as bad publicity, which incidentally I am not convinced by, he has been on the air a lot in the past days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

He did not lose control of himself in that interview. He switched from talking about Roma to Romanians in the same sentence very much on purpose. This was something he had prethought.


----------



## weltweit (May 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What nationalities don't you want for colleagues or neighbours? What do you base it on?


I just want nice neighbours, (as probably do everyone) when I have had them life has been good. I once lived next to a family who were a disaster for us, life was not so good then.


----------



## weltweit (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He did not lose control of himself in that interview. He switched from talking about Roma to Romanians in the same sentence very much on purpose. This was something he had prethought.


What, are you talking about the O'Brien interview?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> What, are you talking about the O'Brien interview?


Yes. O'Brien did a good job in that interview, but a great deal of what Farage said he had planned to say.

Is it damage limitation or getting the message out?


----------



## weltweit (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. O'Brien did a good job in that interview, but a great deal of what Farage said he had planned to say.
> 
> Is it damage limitation or getting the message out?



The damage limitation I mentioned came after, Farage has been endlessly on the media since that interview.

I don't think O'Brien flustered Farage as much as he hoped to but Farage didn't want the furore over his Romanian comments, unless he was courting the exposure he got as a result, but I am not sure even he would be that devious.


----------



## weltweit (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If some snob were on tv banging on about chavs, I'd say the same thing.


What is a chav?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> How is that racist? Unless they don't want those "certain groups of people" as colleagues or neighbours _because_ of their race.


It doesn't matter whether you call it racist or not. It is prejudice against particular groups of people. I would call it racist because it is the same as racism against people with particular body characteristics that mark them out as part of a group you are prejudiced against. Anti-Eastern European, anti-Irish feeling in the past - these are functionally the same as racism against black or brown people.

Let's settle on 'bigotry'. How about that? It is bigotted.

Nigel Farage is a bigot and his party is actively encouraging bigotry, albeit mostly in a dog-whistle way (which is a crucial difference between them and the likes of the BNP and the EDL). Doesn't mean that everyone who votes UKIP is a bigot, although a lot of them will be. As will many Labour and Tory voters - there are lots of bigots around. But the concentration in UKIP voters will be higher.

Yay! Bigots have got a platform. Let's hope they do well. That'll stick one to the Westminster elite.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She's been here for 30 years. She says that 'Romania is not a civilised country'. I don't blame particularly or judge her for her opinion - it is a country that forced her into exile 30 years ago after all. But if she's been here for 30 years, she is more British than Romanian now, and she comes across to me as a bit of a snob.
> 
> But really? It's alright to be prejudiced against Romanians. See, even Romanians think it's ok. Really?
> 
> Actually, listening on, nah, she can piss off, tbh.



You think she was prejudiced against her former fellow citizens? Can't say I got that really...I thought she told Snow that she just wouldn't want to live next door to "unruly" people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You think she was prejudiced against her former fellow citizens? Can't say I got that really...I thought she told Snow that she just wouldn't want to live next door to "unruly" people.


What was she doing there? _Help, we need a Romanian! Ah, she'll do._

She was sure as hell prejudiced against Roma.

I look forward to a future invite as the emergency Welsh person who's lived in England for 20-plus years so that I can pontificate about all the bad Welsh people (though not me, obviously).


----------



## weltweit (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> .. It doesn't matter whether you call it racist or not. It is prejudice against particular groups of people. ..


As neighbours go, I am prejudiced against loud people.
I don't like to live next to loud people, or drug dealers, criminals, well there are probably lots of people I don't want to live next to. Does that make me a bigot?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> As neighbours go, I am prejudiced against loud people.
> I don't like to live next to loud people, or drug dealers, criminals, well there are probably lots of people I don't want to live next to. Does that make me a bigot?


No. You haven't quite grasped the concept of bigot, I feel.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What was she doing there? _Help, we need a Romanian! Ah, she'll do._
> 
> She was sure as hell prejudiced against Roma.



I don't know how the production team find/choose their guest interviewees, but my point was that it was pretty obvious that Snow was not prepared for the response that he got. He seemed somewhat rattled that neither woman sought to call Farage out as a racist, and one very obviously thought that Farage had been correct in what he said. Always amusing to see the MSM's agenda get de-railed.


----------



## classicdish (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> We can either understand what this means socially or we can draw a big line in the sand, with the nice anti racists on one side, accompanied by the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems - the people who are driving them into the hands of UKIP and ruining their lives; and UKIP and all their nasty wacist voters on the other. Even the black ones *(and IIRC UKIP have a higher proportion of w/c ethnic minority voters than the other three)* they're wacists too.


I can't find any figures about levels of ethnic minority voting for UKIP. I did however find this .pdf  Ethnic Minority Voting on the 2010 UK General Election and based on that analysis about how and more importantly why people vote the way they do for the big three parties I'd be *very* surprised if "UKIP have a higher proportion of w/c ethnic minority voters than the other three"


----------



## redsquirrel (May 20, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What nationalities don't you want for colleagues or neighbours? What do you base it on?


Hang on this is the first time you've mentioned nationalities, before you simply said "certain groups of people".



littlebabyjesus said:


> It doesn't matter whether you call it racist or not. It is prejudice against particular groups of people. I would call it racist because it is the same as racism against people with particular body characteristics that mark them out as part of a group you are prejudiced against. Anti-Eastern European, anti-Irish feeling in the past - these are functionally the same as racism against black or brown people.


GC didn't mention anything about either racial or national groups. He claimed that simply not wanting to live next to certain groups of people was racist. Something that is clearly rubbish.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Nigel Farage is a bigot and his party is actively encouraging bigotry, albeit mostly in a dog-whistle way (which is a crucial difference between them and the likes of the BNP and the EDL).


As are Labour, as are the Tories, as are the LibDems, these are the parties that are setting up the detention centres, bringing in the legislation that attacks immigrants. Anyway I don't see anyone on this thread saying that UKIP aren't scum, rather that (a) people act in both a racist and anti-racist manner, often simultaneously, and (b) that the campaign by media and other political parties, aided by liberals, of shouting racist at UKIP is not just ineffective but actually counter-productive.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> What is a chav?




*AWOOGA AWOOGA*


----------



## classicdish (May 20, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> GC didn't mention anything about either racial or national groups. He claimed that simply not wanting to live next to certain groups of people was racist. Something that is clearly rubbish.


He actually said:





> I don't know for sure their opinions on racial inferiority, but it's clear they don't want certain groups of people for colleagues or neighbours.


The group mentioned by Farage and O'Brien on the radio was Romanians (or Roma depending on how you understood it) so I am guessing that is at least one 'unwanted group'.

How would you characterise this kind of thinking?

I see GC *did* mention racism here:





> 51% of them would like immigrants and their families to leave the UK according to this poll. Mind you, 26% Labour voters would, too. So twice as likely to be racist as Labour supporters going on this one poll.


Maybe "bigotted, xenophobic nativism/extreme nationalism" is more accurate as it is possible to be anti-immigrant without any racial element involved. In reality anti-immigrant feeling often goes hand-in-hand with overt or covert racism, or failing that religious/sectarian bigotry, or cultural chauvanism.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 20, 2014)

classicdish said:


> He actually said:
> The group mentioned by Farage and O'Brien on the radio was Romanians (or Roma depending on how you understood it) so I am guessing that is at least one 'unwanted group'.


 Yes and there is no specific mention of racial of national groups in that post. And this post wasn't in relation to the Farage/O'Brien interview but the fact that half of UKIP voters want the Government to encourage immigrants to leave the UK.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes and there is no specific mention of racial of national groups in that post. And this post wasn't in relation to the Farage/O'Brien interview but the fact that half of UKIP voters want the Government to encourage immigrants to leave the UK.


Nitpicking over which forms of bigotry are also racism spectacularly misses the point. They are an anti-immigration party that is stoking up anti-immigrant hostility and resentment. 

And it is not a politically sophisticated position to hope they do well. It is a position that is at best teenage nihilism. As is hoping the EU falls apart. To be replaced by what? War and death, quite probably. People wishing for these things need to grow the fuck up.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As is hoping the EU falls apart. To be replaced by what? War and death, quite probably. People wishing for these things need to grow the fuck up.


Yeah cos those are the only two options, good to see that you're effectively calling Bob Crow and Tony Benn warmongers.


----------



## Favelado (May 20, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah cos those are the only two options, good to see that you're effectively calling Bob Crow and Tony Benn warmongers.



No he isn't! Fucking hell.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 20, 2014)

Favelado said:


> No he isn't! Fucking hell.


Yes he is, according to LBJ wanting the EU dismantled is effectively being in favour of war and death.
Both Crow and Benn were opposed to the EU (like any socialist in their right mind is) and thus must be in favour of war and death.


----------



## Favelado (May 20, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes he is, according to LBJ wanting the EU dismantled is effectively being in favour of war and death.
> Both Crow and Benn were opposed to the EU, like any socialist in their right mind is and thus must be in favour of war and death.



A chair has 4 legs. A cat has 4 legs. Therefore a chair is a cat.


----------



## chilango (May 20, 2014)

I think a certain care needs to taken with our accurate use of words here, both in our positions and in those we attributing to others.


----------



## killer b (May 20, 2014)

Oh gosh, I'm opposed to the EU_ and_ opposed to war and death. I'm not sure if I can cope with all the cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Wilf (May 20, 2014)

chilango said:


> I think a certain care needs to taken with our accurate use of words here, both in our positions and in those we attributing to others.


This thread really isn't the place for that kind of humane common sense.


----------



## Wilf (May 20, 2014)

All men are mortal. Nigel Farage is a man.

Punchline:


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 20, 2014)

Call me stupid, but I don't really have a problem with the EU. Im sure there are some bureacrats sitting on a gravy train (ukip for one), but if a good law comes from Brussels i don't have an issue. It's no different than if it comes from London; both are distant far away places from where I live. I get that Brussels is 'foreign' and London isn't, but so what? It's not bad laws can't be home grown!


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

stupid!
there, happy now


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Call me stupid, but I don't really have a problem with the EU. Im sure there are some bureacrats sitting on a gravy train (ukip for one), but if a good law comes from Brussels i don't have an issue. It's no different than if it comes from London; both are distant far away places from where I live. I get that Brussels is 'foreign' and London isn't, but so what? It's not bad laws can't be home grown!


i think you'll find a great number of people will be calling you stupid: and rightly so, because a) ukip are politicians and not bureaucrats; b) the way laws are made by the eu tends towards the production of bad legislation; c) it is rather easier to get bad home-grown legislation amended or repealed than it is bad eu legislation.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> stupid!
> there, happy now


he won't be happy till he gets a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

happy to do that too!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> happy to do that too!


i have a sharp stick you can borrow for the occasion.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

ace! hope you got it from a rancid puddle


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> ace! hope you got it from a rancid puddle


alas no, but the business end's been rubbed in ordure.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

too kind!


----------



## BigTom (May 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Call me stupid, but I don't really have a problem with the EU. Im sure there are some bureacrats sitting on a gravy train (ukip for one), but if a good law comes from Brussels i don't have an issue. It's no different than if it comes from London; both are distant far away places from where I live. I get that Brussels is 'foreign' and London isn't, but so what? It's not bad laws can't be home grown!



Was asking the people I work with in the pub last week, nobody (including myself) could name a single one of our MEPs, or even say how many we have (I think it's 3 in the West Midlands), nor could they say a single issue that they would contact their MEP over.
In liberal democracy terms this is a problem, what is the EU / MEPs actually for? Why is it so disconnected from most people, far more so than the London parliament or local councils?
You get good and bad laws from the EU, but we probably have slightly less influence to change them than we do over the UK parliament, only slightly less because I think we have fuck all influence over the UK parliament at the moment either.

Then the level of corruption and waste in the EU puts our parliament to shame, see for instance the monthly moves between the two parliaments in Brussels and Strasbourg.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> happy to do that too!



Heh.  How impressive.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nigel Farage is a bigot and his party is actively encouraging bigotry



But it's the mainstream politicians who created him.  He's the inevitable product of the EU.  We should be grateful we've got a comparatively benign version--it could be a lot worse.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But it's the mainstream politicians who created him.  He's the inevitable product of the EU.  We should be grateful we've got a comparatively benign version--it could be a lot worse.


yeh we could have you pontificating


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But it's the mainstream politicians who created him.  He's the inevitable product of the EU.  We should be grateful we've got a comparatively benign version--it could be a lot worse.


UKIP are not the BNP, that is true enough. But 'it could be worse' is not the same as saying 'their popularity is no problem'.


----------



## laptop (May 20, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Was asking the people I work with in the pub last week, nobody (including myself) could name a single one of our MEPs, or even say how many we have (I think it's 3 in the West Midlands), nor could they say a single issue that they would contact their MEP over.
> 
> In liberal democracy terms this is a problem, what is the EU / MEPs actually for? *Why* is it so disconnected from most people, far more so than the London parliament or local councils?



Is it disconnected because journalists and their editors also subscribe to the idea that it's difficult - and assume readers won't want to hear about it?

Not to speak of the majority of newspaper and broadcast proprietors who are fiercely opposed to it...



BigTom said:


> You get good and bad laws from the EU, but we probably have slightly less influence to change them than we do over the UK parliament, only slightly less because I think we have fuck all influence over the UK parliament at the moment either.



As someone who's tried to engage both Westminster and Brussels, I can report that it's _slightly less impossible_ to have an impact on EU law-making. The first difference is that Westminster operates in chaos and obscurity: MPs and Lords don't know what's being debated when until days, sometimes hours, before. The EU Commission at least tells you what it's up to, if you ask.

But then I've taught myself which bit of the EU connects to which other bit, and I'm not afraid of people talking foreign - unlike many of the UK press corps in Brussels I've met.



BigTom said:


> Then the level of corruption and waste in the EU puts our parliament to shame, see for instance the monthly moves between the two parliaments in Brussels and Strasbourg.



That is utterly stupid. But the sums involved are rather small compared to, say, Trident.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nitpicking over which forms of bigotry are also racism spectacularly misses the point. They are an anti-immigration party that is stoking up anti-immigrant hostility and resentment.
> 
> And it is not a politically sophisticated position to hope they do well. It is a position that is at best teenage nihilism. As is hoping the EU falls apart. To be replaced by what? War and death, quite probably. People wishing for these things need to grow the fuck up.



That's right - if the neoliberal boss's club goes we're all doomed. And you take offence when people call you a liberal. For fuck's sake.


----------



## Metal Malcolm (May 20, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Sadly? Really?
> 
> Is it your view that people should only hold views of which you approve?
> 
> ...



Sorry, been away for a few days and just seen this.

No, my issue is not that people should only hold views of which I approve. You are absolutely right that UKIP are gaining support because they've lost faith in the mainstream parties. Unfortunately, when you look at what people actually want and compare it to UKIP's policies, they're so far apart it's astonishing. If the media representation of Farage was accurate, there would be discussion of his plans for further privatisation of pretty much everything, his removal of basic human rights, and his plan to effectively make life far more difficult for anyone outside of the 1%. Unfortunately all you hear is that he's either a) A man of the people, speaking up for the hardworking British people who've been let down by the mainstream parties (which is bollocks) or b) that he's a swivel-eyed racist lunatic, and that all who support him are racist lunatics too (which certainly wasn't the case, although it's starting to be hard to argue with).

Now, putting that aside - if we assume that UKIP are succeeding because people feel disenfranchised with mainstream political parties, this means that they've lost faith with both Labour AND the conservatives. Neither of which I would describe as the political flavour I approve of. If anything, my understanding is that you're considered to be a fairly mainstream conservative, which would mean it's your political choice which they're rejecting. Feel free to correct me on that.

Whether you like Owen Jones or not, this article from him a while ago summed up my feelings on it. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...r-from-owen-jones-to-ukip-voters-9061968.html

tl;dr - stop being such a collosal thundercunt.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 20, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Hang on this is the first time you've mentioned nationalities, before you simply said "certain groups of people".



We were discussing immigrants. Immigrants usually have different nationalities. 51% of UKIP supporters would prefer that they left the UK and took their British-born children with them. Sentiments that you appear to agree with.


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2014)

Farage just interviewed, in depth, on R4's 'Today' programme. A better interview than many of late....managed to get away from the "r" word...and actually pin him down on UKIP's electoral strategy for the 2015 GE.
Basically, Farage explicitly admitted that they're aiming for a small number of MPs, giving them a group big enough to hold 'the balance of power', in a position to offer 'confidence and supply' to *any* *minority government committed to an 'in/out' referendum.

I think this is what many of us have always supposed their game-plan to be, but AFAICR this is the most explicit Farage has been about the GE aims? 

* Farage claimed that Miliband wil, by September, have moved to a matching position of committing Lab to such a ref.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's right - if the neoliberal boss's club goes we're all doomed. And you take offence when people call you a liberal. For fuck's sake.


If it crashes leaving a vacuum, Europe becomes a dangerous place. I don't want to see war in Europe.


----------



## killer b (May 21, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> We were discussing immigrants. Immigrants usually have different nationalities. 51% of UKIP supporters would prefer that they left the UK and took their British-born children with them. Sentiments that you appear to agree with.


 don't be a prick.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 21, 2014)

killer b said:


> don't be a prick.


Hey what can I say GC has exposed me. I'm just a massive racist who want's all the immigrants (in a country I don't even live in) to be sent back home.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If it crashes leaving a vacuum, Europe becomes a dangerous place. I don't want to see war in Europe.



Why would it crash leaving a vacuum? Do you seriously think the EU is the only thing stopping Europe descending into war? What's the basis for this claim, some variant on democratic peace theory?

Why does it become any more dangerous than it already is? EU policy in Greece is directly aiding the rise of the likes of the Golden Dawn. The undemocratic nature of the institutionally neoliberal EU is feeding the rise of nationalism across Europe on the basis of sovereignty and democracy.

I think that's more dangerous than European governments having to negotiate new trade agreements.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> We were discussing immigrants. Immigrants usually have different nationalities. 51% of UKIP supporters would prefer that they left the UK and took their British-born children with them. Sentiments that you appear to agree with.



That's fucking out of order. If you can't take criticisms of the call them racist approach without calling people racists then you're really just proving his point for him.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why would it crash leaving a vacuum? Do you seriously think the EU is the only thing stopping Europe descending into war? What's the basis for this claim, some variant on democratic peace theory?
> 
> Why does it become any more dangerous than it already is? EU policy in Greece is directly aiding the rise of the likes of the Golden Dawn. The undemocratic nature of the institutionally neoliberal EU is feeding the rise of nationalism across Europe on the basis of sovereignty and democracy.
> 
> I think that's more dangerous than European governments having to negotiate new trade agreements.


Like you, I don't think the demise of the EU would lead to war in Europe. Who wants it? Who would gain from it?

I don't want to see the demise of the EU per se, what I want is a trading bloc, with a measure of agreement regarding borders. Having just come back from France, Holland, Germany and the Czech Republic, I am glad that I didn't have to queue for ages waiting to cross borders. I can remember the lengthy queues from Holland into Germany when I lived in Germany.  (That said, a border guy used to walk down the queue periodically and wave all the cars with BFG plates through.).


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why would it crash leaving a vacuum? Do you seriously think the EU is the only thing stopping Europe descending into war? What's the basis for this claim, some variant on democratic peace theory?


A lot of people think that the EU is a significant factor in keeping mainland Europe peaceful since WWII, forcing countries to work together, to trade together, to share currencies, laws etc, this is a significant thing. If we are moving together we are not moving apart, if we are moving apart then we risk war. (again)



SpineyNorman said:


> Why does it become any more dangerous than it already is? EU policy in Greece is directly aiding the rise of the likes of the Golden Dawn. The undemocratic nature of the institutionally neoliberal EU is feeding the rise of nationalism across Europe on the basis of sovereignty and democracy.


I don't think anyone is saying that the EU is perfect.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Note how you move from lots of liberals believing it into it being fact. What can be done with this sort of thing?


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Note how you move from lots of liberals believing it into it being fact. What can be done with this sort of thing?


It is a complex thing. I knew WWII veterans who lost friends to keep Britain free or independent, when it was suggested Britain might abandon the pound some of them wondered what they had been fighting for.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It is a complex thing. I knew WWII veterans who lost friends to keep Britain free or independent, when it was suggested Britain might abandon the pound some of them wondered what they had been fighting for.


So don't treat it in the way that you just did.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

But didn't the EU get the nobel peace prize or something? Surely that means it guarantees the peace. Like Henry Kissenger and Barak Obama.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It is a complex thing. I knew WWII veterans who lost friends to keep Britain free or independent, when it was suggested Britain might abandon the pound some of them wondered what they had been fighting for.



Lucky there wasn't more at stake during world war 2 than what kind of money people used. It could have got really messy if there was.


----------



## kebabking (May 21, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Like you, I don't think the demise of the EU would lead to war in Europe. Who wants it? Who would gain from it?...



the end of the EU - particularly a sudden, traumatic, acrimonious end to the EU - would bring about political and economic instability. that is _unlikely_ to end up as a full scale European land war, but it might - and given Europes' history one would foolish to discount the possibility - what is unlikely however is that after the acrimony, the blame, the population shifts, the economic turbulance, and the spats between countries over trade routes and resources, that everyone would take a deep breath, and sit down a discuss the situation like grown-ups in order to come to a mature, acceptable-to-all conclusion.

tension, resource-grabs and light fisticuffs are far more likely than that i fear...


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So don't treat it in the way that you just did.


Perhaps you could expand on that?

I think the EU has helped prevent war on mainland Europe since WWII. That the EU has failed to prevent mass unemployment in Spain Italy and Greece shows that it is not yet as good as it should or could be. It needs changing, but not abolishing.


----------



## chilango (May 21, 2014)

There have been wars on mainland Europe since Ww2 though.


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lucky there wasn't more at stake during world war 2 than what kind of money people used. It could have got really messy if there was.


Just saying what some WWII veterans told me at the time.
And one of them, the only one who is still alive, was anti the Afghan and Iraq wars.


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

chilango said:


> There have been wars on mainland Europe since Ww2 though.


Yes, I assume you mean things like the former Yugoslavia, but they were not in the EU.


----------



## chilango (May 21, 2014)

About the only claim you could make is that hasn't been a war between two member states of the EU. But you could make the same claim about EFTA or NATO.

It's not that compelling an argument for the EU tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Perhaps you could expand on that?
> 
> I think the EU has helped prevent war on mainland Europe since WWII. That the EU has failed to prevent mass unemployment in Spain Italy and Greece shows that it is not yet as good as it should or could be. It needs changing, but not abolishing.


You a) said that there are many people who think the eu has prevented war then b) went on to talk if this was established fact. It's an easy slippage - but it's nonsense.


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

Incidentally, I wonder how motivated prospective UKIP voters are going to be to get out to the polling stations. I noticed in the last days a lot of people I talk to don't seem to be likely to vote at all. (I am among them)


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Incidentally, I wonder how motivated prospective UKIP voters are going to be to get out to the polling stations. I noticed in the last days a lot of people I talk to don't seem to be likely to vote at all. (I am among them)


More than others.


----------



## chilango (May 21, 2014)

Yup. UKIP are the story of the elections. Of course their voters are going to be motivated to get out and vote.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

No - it's lib-dem vs greens


----------



## chilango (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No - it's lib-dem vs greens



Oh yeah, silly me.

That said its a bit of shame that UKIP are distracting a little from the latest step in the death of the Lib Dems.


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

I don't seem to have a polling card and I don't know where my local polling station is either.

^ Seems to be an excuse I have heard quite a lot.

The last man I spoke to said "I don't tend to get involved in that sort of thing!"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2014)

Conflict in Yugoslavia followed the break-up of the federation combined with the rise of right-wing nationalist movements. A break-up of the EU brought about through crisis alongside a rise of nationalism bears some comparisons. I'm sure few people in Tito's Yugoslavia predicted what would happen a few years later. Yugoslavia

The only alternative to wanting the EU to crash and burn amid a rise of nationalism is not to be some cheerleader for the EU. A left internationalist position can recognise both the EU's failings and the potentially dire consequences of certain ways in which it might collapse.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Wow, that's some distance in a few days - from  calling people who say what you just have warmongers  - and  yes, racists - to agreeing with them. The power of learning


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Conflict in Yugoslavia followed the break-up of the federation combined with the rise of right-wing nationalist movements. A break-up of the EU brought about through crisis alongside a rise of nationalism bears some comparisons. I'm sure few people in Tito's Yugoslavia predicted what would happen a few years later. Yugoslavia


I agree



littlebabyjesus said:


> The only alternative to wanting the EU to crash and burn amid a rise of nationalism is not to be some cheerleader for the EU. A left internationalist position can recognise both the EU's failings and the potentially dire consequences of certain ways in which it might collapse.


I think the EU needs fixing, not abolishing.

There is no way Spain should have 50% young person unemployment, similar in Italy & Greece while Germany thrives (relatively).

I have heard people argue that this inbalance is a result of the Euro, but the USA has a single currency and you don't see such inbalances across the states. Of course in America people do move en masse for work, perhaps that needs to be something that happens more in Europe. I wonder how the vacancy to unemployed stats work out for the EU as a whole.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I agree
> 
> 
> I have heard people argue that this inbalance is a result of the Euro, but the USA has a single currency and you don't see such inbalances across the states.



Seriously? Like Detroit, New Orleans...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> you don't see such inbalances across the states


pls check and try again


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Seriously? Like Detroit, New Orleans...





Pickman's model said:


> pls check and try again



Yes there are areas of the states that are run down and Detroit is one of them but does that compare to the populations of Spain Italy and Greece added together?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes there are areas of the states that are run down and Detroit is one of them but does that compare to the populations of Spain Italy and Greece added together?









or


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes there are areas of the states that are run down and Detroit is one of them but does that compare to the populations of Spain Italy and Greece added together?


Of course it does.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 21, 2014)

always use digis, pans can be rigged


----------



## chilango (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes there are areas of the states that are run down and Detroit is one of them but does that compare to the populations of Spain Italy and Greece added together?



There are huge regional imbalances on the USA. Huge.


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

Table A.  States with unemployment rates significantly different
from that of the U.S., April 2014, seasonally adjusted

United States (1) ...................|  6.3
  |
California ..........................|  7.8
District of Columbia ................|  7.5
Hawaii ..............................|  4.4
Idaho ...............................|  5.0
Illinois ............................|  7.9
Iowa ................................|  4.3
Kansas ..............................|  4.8
Kentucky ............................|  7.7
Louisiana ...........................|  4.5
Maryland ............................|  5.5
  |
Michigan ............................|  7.4
Minnesota ...........................|  4.7
Mississippi .........................|  7.5
Montana .............................|  4.8
Nebraska ............................|  3.6
Nevada ..............................|  8.0
New Hampshire .......................|  4.4
North Dakota ........................|  2.6
Oklahoma ............................|  4.6
Rhode Island ........................|  8.3
  |
South Carolina ......................|  5.3
South Dakota ........................|  3.8
Texas ...............................|  5.2
Utah ................................|  3.8
Vermont .............................|  3.3
Virginia ............................|  4.9
Wyoming .............................|  3.7


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

Unemployment rate in member states of the European Union in February 2014 (seasonally adjusted)
http://www.statista.com/statistics/268830/unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/

For comparison


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Unemployment rate in member states of the European Union in February 2014 (seasonally adjusted)
> http://www.statista.com/statistics/268830/unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/
> 
> For comparison


Is there maybe some internationally recognised rate that measures inequality? Maybe that would be of some use? 

(


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is there maybe some internationally recognised rate that measures inequality? Maybe that would be of some use?
> (


I don't know about that, perhaps there is, but those two webpages illustrate that there is nowhere in the USA which is experiencing anything like the 25% unemployment Spain is suffering.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't know about that, perhaps there is, but those two webpages illustrate that there is nowhere in the USA which is experiencing anything like the 25% unemployment Spain is suffering.


Are you sure that you really want to argue that?


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you sure that you really want to argue that?


Nowhere of the size of Spain certainly, I dare say there are pockets ..


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Nowhere of the size of Spain certainly, I dare say there are pockets ..


Do you think that it may not be uniform across spain - maybe concentrated in 'pockets'?


----------



## laptop (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is there maybe some internationally recognised rate that measures inequality? Maybe that would be of some use?



There's the Gini coefficient, a measure of the skewedness of the distribution of income. Gross - in the sense of ignoring many detailed circumstances - but not useless.

Time to read _The Spirit Level:Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better_, I fear.


----------



## weltweit (May 21, 2014)

laptop said:


> There's the Gini coefficient, a measure of the skewedness of the distribution of income. Gross - in the sense of ignoring many detailed circumstances - but not useless.


Looks interesting.



laptop said:


> Time to read _The Spirit Level:Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better_, I fear.


Easier to just agree with the headline, I already have a book on the go!


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

> With Nigel Farage's UK Independence party (Ukip) tipped to win in Britain, much will hinge on the affiliation of Beppe Grillo's Five Star movement in Italy, which is tipped to come second in the Italian vote with 19 seats. Should Grillo opt to make common cause with Farage, the Ukip-led Europe for Freedom and Democracy group could hold as many as 66 seats, putting it neck-and-neck with the liberals for third largest caucus behind the mainstream centre-right and centre-left blocs.



now, here is something that UK anti UKIP activists could constructively undertake, warning FS about the nature of UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> now, here is something that UK anti UKIP activists could constructively undertake, warning FS about the nature of UKIP.


Warning FS - a party riddled with far-rightism, anti-semitism and personal authoritarianism - about UKIP? Is everyone losing their political marbles here. You recommended a piece i linked to last year about the nature of FS - and now you think they need protecting from UKIP?


----------



## chilango (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> now, here is something that UK anti UKIP activists could constructively undertake, warning FS about the nature of UKIP.



Interesting that to link the two, be useful further explore any areas in common.

But Grillo and the m5s are no leftists and are unlikely to give a fuck about "the nature of UKIP". 

There was a thread somewhere here about M5S. Worth digging it up?

Eta Butchers has already got there...


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

thanks for explaining that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> now, here is something that UK anti UKIP activists could constructively undertake, warning FS about the nature of UKIP.


You sir are a fucking idiot is your memory as broken as your personality?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> now, here is something that UK anti UKIP activists could constructively undertake, warning FS about the nature of UKIP.


stick a pen in the back of your neck to reset your personality


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nitpicking over which forms of bigotry are also racism spectacularly misses the point. They are an anti-immigration party that is stoking up anti-immigrant hostility and resentment.
> 
> And it is not a politically sophisticated position to hope they do well. It is a position that is at best teenage nihilism. As is hoping the EU falls apart. To be replaced by what? War and death, quite probably. People wishing for these things need to grow the fuck up.


When you get close up and can look into their eyes, you see the fear.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Sadly? Really?
> 
> Is it your view that people should only hold views of which you approve?
> 
> ...



Says the bloke whose attitude to the SNP is much the same as what he's accusing others of holding about UKIP.
Hypocrite!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I see a liberal politics that has retreated to media representation rather than politics. Where opposition means saying you individually oppose a story that HnH have provided. Liking stories from the telegraph - being led by the nose by the tories. Where the implicit assumptions around legitimacy are that the big parties plus greens and lefties are proper parties.



It's a "mainstream parties as the only legitimate source of policy" politics that was pretty much mandated "from the top down" from Haines-onward - the whole idea of "managing the media" meant the eventual subsumption of political debate into what is effectively just plantation ocassionaly larded with rebuttal.  There's so little *investigative* political journalism, even compared to 20 years ago, that political _reportage_ is risible across the spectrum.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Says the bloke whose attitude to the SNP is much the same as what he's accusing others of holding about UKIP.
> Hypocrite!



If you can show me a single post of mine, where I say that those of an SNP persuasion have no right to that view, I will eat my hat.  They are wrong, certainly, but are perfectly entitled to be wrong.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a "mainstream parties as the only legitimate source of policy" politics that was pretty much mandated "from the top down" from Haines-onward - the whole idea of "managing the media" meant the eventual subsumption of political debate into what is effectively just plantation ocassionaly larded with rebuttal.  There's so little *investigative* political journalism, even compared to 20 years ago, that political _reportage_ is risible across the spectrum.



The mainstream parties holding open 'primaries' would be a step in the direction of democracy, as would an end to the imposition of candidates on constituencies where the local party's choice doesn't meet the approval of central office.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> *The mainstream parties holding open 'primaries' would be a step in the direction of democracy*, as would an end to the imposition of candidates on constituencies where the local party's choice doesn't meet the approval of central office.


Why would it be?


----------



## nino_savatte (May 22, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The mainstream parties holding open 'primaries' would be a step in the direction of democracy, as would an end to the imposition of candidates on constituencies where the local party's choice doesn't meet the approval of central office.


In order to have real democracy we need to abolish the monarchy first. Taking American ideas and overlaying them on the current system is no better than concealing chipboard with veneer.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 22, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The mainstream parties holding open 'primaries' would be a step in the direction of democracy, as would an end to the imposition of candidates on constituencies where the local party's choice doesn't meet the approval of central office.



Looking at the US the primary system there seems like just another way for the democratic process to be manipulated against the interests of the public. It's all horse trading of endorsements and policies, if you're not in with the right people (or able to buy your way in) you don't stand a chance.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 22, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> In order to have real democracy we need to abolish the monarchy first. Taking American ideas and overlaying them on the current system is no better than concealing chipboard with veneer.



I don't agree. The monarch has no real power, and, I suspect that if the monarchy were to be abolished, we would end up with something worse.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 22, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Looking at the US the primary system there seems like just another way for the democratic process to be manipulated against the interests of the public. It's all horse trading of endorsements and policies, if you're not in with the right people (or able to buy your way in) you don't stand a chance.



The only thing that might restore democracy is the abolition of political party system. 622 independent MPs would be a wonderful thing. Any legislation coming out of that would tend to be equitable and necessary. At the moment, much legislation is created on the 'why does a dog lick its balls?' principle.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The only thing that might restore democracy is the abolition of political party system. 622 independent MPs would be a wonderful thing. Any legislation coming out of that would tend to be equitable and necessary. At the moment, much legislation is created on the 'why does a dog lick its balls?' principle.


I wonder why the system of independent members produced the system of parties. Any suggestions?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 22, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The only thing that might restore democracy is the abolition of political party system. 622 independent MPs would be a wonderful thing. Any legislation coming out of that would tend to be equitable and necessary. At the moment, much legislation is created on the 'why does a dog lick its balls?' principle.



Ahistorical nonsense - it would be impossible to have a non-party system hence why nearly every local council with substantial numbers of independent councilors will see them form 'independent' groupings sometimes competing groups of independents.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 23, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I don't agree. The monarch has no real power, and, I suspect that if the monarchy were to be abolished, we would end up with something worse.


The entire political structure of this country is built around the monarch. But this idea that abolishing the monarchy would lead to something worse is ludicrous.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 23, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The entire political structure of this country is built around the monarch. But this idea that abolishing the monarchy would lead to something worse is ludicrous.


And yet she has no real power. 

Look at all this business with charles vs putin this week. The newspapers aren't happy with him breaching protocol (ie expressing an opinion - again). All i've heard, in respect of this, is how his mother is a better monarch because, for 80 years, she's kept her trap shut and 'done her duty'.

Ridiculous.


----------



## gosub (May 23, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I don't agree. The monarch has no real power, and, I suspect that if the monarchy were to be abolished, we would end up with something worse.



We'd probably be happy with the Irish system


----------



## nino_savatte (May 23, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> And yet she has no real power.
> 
> Look at all this business with charles vs putin this week. The newspapers aren't happy with him breaching protocol (ie expressing an opinion - again). All i've heard, in respect of this, is how his mother is a better monarch because, for 80 years, she's kept her trap shut and 'done her duty'.
> 
> Ridiculous.


The fact that the monarch isn't absolute does not change the fact that the entire political system of this country is constructed _around_ the monarch. Lord Lieutenants, Governor-Generals, the honour system, the House of Lords, the oath of allegiance and so on.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 23, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The fact that the monarch isn't absolute does not change the fact that the entire political system of this country is constructed _around_ the monarch. Lord Lieutenants, Governor-Generals, the honour system, the House of Lords, the oath of allegiance and so on.


Indeed. Their power comes from keeping her in her place and using her as a prop. Keep your place citizens, wave your plastic Taiwan flags and brease your elbow. Look it's Liz! She's a hard working families - just like us. Not like those filthy benefit scroungers!


----------



## gosub (May 23, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> And yet she has no real power.
> 
> Look at all this business with charles vs putin this week. The newspapers aren't happy with him breaching protocol (ie expressing an opinion - again). All i've heard, in respect of this, is how his mother is a better monarch because, for 80 years, she's kept her trap shut and 'done her duty'.
> 
> Ridiculous.



She can and should be able to stop bills. She doesn't, presumably because she worries about her lack of democratic mandate. The 72 Common Market bill for example, wasn't about a Common Market and they knew it.  Under the Irish system President has done a bit of tinkering but they are elected...in the main though a symbolic roll and allows their civil service and military to be un-politicised (a good thing)


----------



## nino_savatte (May 23, 2014)

gosub said:


> She can and should be able to stop bills. She doesn't, presumably because she worries about her lack of democratic mandate. The 72 Common Market bill for example, wasn't about a Common Market and they knew it.  Under the Irish system President has done a bit of tinkering but they are elected...in the main though a symbolic roll and allows their civil service and military to be un-politicised (a good thing)


If Liz vetoed a bill, it would probably produce a constitutional crisis.


----------



## gosub (May 23, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> If Liz vetoed a bill, it would probably produce a constitutional crisis.



exactly. So we lose out.  Any input they do have is behind a vail of secrecy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 23, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> If Liz vetoed a bill, it would probably produce a constitutional crisis.


Yep. The monarch survives by doing nothing, effectively handing over presidential powers to the prime minister. The head of the government in the UK has far more power than the heads of government in most other systems - a PM with a majority in the Commons runs the executive, has power over the legislature, and can change matters concerning the set-up of the state normally contained within a constitution that is overseen by head of state. The PM can also act with 'royal prerogative', proceeding without reference to parliament. 

Changing this system requires the removal of the illegitimate, inactive head of state.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> She can and should be able to stop bills. She doesn't, presumably because she worries about her lack of democratic mandate. The 72 Common Market bill for example, wasn't about a Common Market and they knew it.  Under the Irish system President has done a bit of tinkering but they are elected...in the main though a symbolic roll and allows their civil service and military to be un-politicised (a good thing)


I bet she doesn't worry at all. She might as well be a fucking robot.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> She can and should be able to stop bills. She doesn't, presumably because she worries about her lack of democratic mandate. The 72 Common Market bill for example, wasn't about a Common Market and they knew it.  Under the Irish system President has done a bit of tinkering but they are elected...in the main though a symbolic roll and allows their civil service and military to be un-politicised (a good thing)



What's your first language just out of curiosity?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 24, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The entire political structure of this country is built around the monarch.



Apart from the fact that the queen has no influence on policy or legislation whatsoever, you're spot on. 

Brenda has had, what, a dozen prime ministers now? If she was controlling them all how come their respective governments have all pursued different agendas? The monarchy is a complete red herring. A waste of money and good real estate, nothing more.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2014)

Of course she influence policy you fucking tool. Just by being there she influences policy, and who knows what happens behind closed doors. jesus.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 24, 2014)

The continuing presence of the monarchy hides that we already have a strongly republican system in the UK just one where the defacto president gets huge power and relatively little direct accountability


----------



## Pere Duchesne (May 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The continuing presence of the monarchy hides that we already have a strongly republican system in the UK just one where the defacto president gets huge power and relatively little direct accountability



That may have been true of the Blair or Thatcher administrations but not of the Cameron one. Controlling the Cabinet and the civil service takes quite a lot of energy, political skill and understanding of the departments involved. None of those qualities are represented in number 10 these days.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Apart from the fact that the queen has no influence on policy or legislation whatsoever, you're spot on.
> 
> Brenda has had, what, a dozen prime ministers now? If she was controlling them all how come their respective governments have all pursued different agendas? The monarchy is a complete red herring. A waste of money and good real estate, nothing more.


I'm not so sure about that. Prinz Karl has been throwing his weight about.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I'm not so sure about that. Prinz Karl has been throwing his weight about.



If you mean calling Putin a fascist, that's about as controversial a statement as calling water wet as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you mean calling Putin a fascist, that's about as controversial a statement as calling water wet as far as I'm concerned.


For a British royal to say that was extraordinarily foolish. And given Russia's history, using the word 'nazi' is about as bad as you can do. It indicates what an utter fuckwit Charles Windsor is, not that we didn't already know that.


----------



## seventh bullet (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you mean calling Putin a fascist, that's about as controversial a statement as calling water wet as far as I'm concerned.



He isn't.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> For a British royal to say that was extraordinarily foolish. And given Russia's history, using the word 'nazi' is about as bad as you can do. It indicates what an utter fuckwit Charles Windsor is, not that we didn't already know that.



The 'you can't compare us to the nazis because the nazis were really mean to us' angle is running a little thin now IMO. The Israelis have been using it for decades to bat aside criticism of their war crimes and now Putin's using the same defence. Putin meanwhile is quite happy to call most of the population of Ukraine nazis, and it's not like the Ukrainians had such a great time of it under Nazi occupation either. 

Maybe nazi is the wrong word, maybe Hitler is the wrong comparison, but Putin is a fascist alright.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 25, 2014)

No he isn't you clown


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> He isn't.



Let's do a little checklist...

Militant nationalism- yep
Repression of minorities- yep
Control of mass media- yep
Expansionist foreign policy- yep
Suppression of political dissent- yep

Looks a bit like fascism to me.


----------



## seventh bullet (May 25, 2014)

The real Nazis in Russia are gutter trash to people like Putin.  And the power of the Russian state will make sure they remain just that.

As for not being specific re Nazism, he still isn't a fascist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> As for not being specific re Nazism, he still isn't a fascist.



What exactly would he need to do to be a fascist?


----------



## seventh bullet (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Let's do a little checklist...
> 
> Militant nationalism- yep
> Repression of minorities- yep
> ...



You could say the same about partially reformed Stalinism and US-led liberal democracy after certain manifestations of fascism were defeated post-WWII.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> You could say the same about partially reformed Stalinism and US-led liberal democracy after certain manifestations of fascism were defeated post-WWII.



There's the small matter of degree though isn't there?


----------



## seventh bullet (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's the small matter of degree though isn't there?



I know, like all those dead people in Southeast Asia.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> The real Nazis in Russia are gutter trash to people like Putin.  And the power of the Russian state will make sure they remain just that.



Gutter trash he's happy to exploit when it suits him, like how he's used them to terrorise the gay community.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> I know, like all those dead people in Southeast Asia.



I'm not defending the ideologies that brought about those events, I just see them as distinct from fascism.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

Anyway, this isn't the thread for this so I'll just agree to disagree and go somewhere else.


----------



## seventh bullet (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not defending the ideologies that brought about those events, I just see them as distinct from fascism.



I was just using your checklist of fascism above, carried out by the world's leading liberal democratic power re expansionist foreign policy.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/russia-evil-after-all-200808111159


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> For a British royal to say that was extraordinarily foolish. And given Russia's history, using the word 'nazi' is about as bad as you can do. It indicates what an utter fuckwit Charles Windsor is, not that we didn't already know that.



He didn't call Putin a Nazi. He compared Putin's actions to those of Hitler. Quite a few people seem to agree with him. 



> Prince Charles reportedly told a woman: "And now Putin is doing just about the same as Hitler".


http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/25/most-people-agree-with-Prince-Charles/
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/25/most-people-agree-with-Prince-Charles/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> He didn't call Putin a Nazi. He compared Putin's actions to those of Hitler. Quite a few people seem to agree with him.
> 
> 
> http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/25/most-people-agree-with-Prince-Charles/


Right, so he compared Putin to the man who ordered the invasion of the USSR that cost 25 million Soviet lives. That doesn't make it any better.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right, so he compared Putin to the man who ordered the invasion of the USSR that cost 25 million Soviet lives. That doesn't make it any better.



He should have compared him to Stalin. Putin would have creamed his pants.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The 'you can't compare us to the nazis because the nazis were really mean to us' angle is running a little thin now IMO. The Israelis have been using it for decades to bat aside criticism of their war crimes .


'What Netanyahu is doing to the Palestinians is the same as what Hitler did to the Jews.'

That's the equivalent statement. But this statement came from the heir to the British throne. He's a fuckwit for saying it - conceivably he could be shaking this man's hand as monarch in the future. 

As for 'it's running a little thin', anyone with any wit about them can criticise both Putin and Netanyahu perfectly adequately (and more accurately) without reference to the Nazis.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

To be honest I don't see why our royals should be obliged to shake hands and play nice with dictators.

Someone will be along shortly to tell us that the queen is technically a dictator


----------



## Roadkill (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Someone will be along shortly to tell us that the queen is technically a dictator



Where's Peter Dow when you need him?


----------



## nino_savatte (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you mean calling Putin a fascist, that's about as controversial a statement as calling water wet as far as I'm concerned.


No, I'm talking about this sort of thing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...sent-to-Prince-so-he-could-give-approval.html

And Putin's no fascist. He's a nationalist cunt, but he's not a fascist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> No, I'm talking about this sort of thing
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...sent-to-Prince-so-he-could-give-approval.html



I daresay plenty of other big landowners, aristos and freelance rich cunts are also consulted about legislation on the sly. To say nothing of the hereditary peers in the house of lords.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I daresay plenty of other big landowners, aristos and freelance rich cunts are also consulted about legislation on the sly. To say nothing of the hereditary peers in the house of lords.


Like I said, the entire political system of this country is constructed _around_ the monarchy. That's a point that you've decided to ignore for reasons best known to yourself. Incidentally, in my original posts, at no time did I suggest that the queen has real power. You just assumed that.


----------



## seventh bullet (May 25, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> He should have compared him to Stalin. Putin would have creamed his pants.



No he wouldn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> To be honest I don't see why our royals should be obliged to shake hands and play nice with dictators.
> 
> Someone will be along shortly to tell us that the queen is technically a dictator


I don't see why 'our royals' are royals. But given that they are, shaking hands with dictators is part of their job. tbh the more Charles W opens his mouth, the better afaic - makes the job of selling a monarchy to the British people when the current queen dies that much harder. 

I don't think it's quite accurate to describe Putin as a dictator. He is the head of a political grouping that has a stranglehold on Russian politics and maintains that stranglehold in various corrupt ways, in much the same way as the PRI in Mexico used to buy and corrupt its way through seemingly perpetual power. Institutionalised power but not quite a dictatorship - the way he has had to swap with Medvedev shows that.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> our royals


_your_ royals. they sure ain't mine.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Like I said, the entire political system of this country is constructed _around_ the monarchy. That's a point that you've decided to ignore. Incidentally, in my original posts, at no time did I suggest that the queen has real power. You just assumed that.



The political system is constructed around _money_, the whole monarchy/aristocracy thing is merely a symptom of this. The roles previously played by aristocrats are increasingly being taken over by tycoons and oligarchs with no connection to Brenda's rabble at all.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2014)

who was pere duchesne btw? Lletsa?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Let's do a little checklist...
> 
> Militant nationalism- yep
> Repression of minorities- yep
> ...



Was the US fascist during world war 2 then? Is the RPF government in Rwanda fascist? Was Stalin a fascist? 

This is nonsense - those are character traits of authoritarian nationalism. Fascism is more than that.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The political system is constructed around _money_, the whole monarchy/aristocracy thing is merely a symptom of this. The roles previously played by aristocrats are increasingly being taken over by tycoons and oligarchs with no connection to Brenda's rabble at all.


Wrong. The Queen is incredibly rich and is a massive landowner. She may not have the power of her pre-Williamite predecessors, but she has power and influence. She is also head of the armed forces.

You still haven't dealt with my central point about the structure of this country's political system.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The political system is constructed around _money_, the whole monarchy/aristocracy thing is merely a symptom of this. The roles previously played by aristocrats are increasingly being taken over by tycoons and oligarchs with no connection to Brenda's rabble at all.


Er, no, not really. Technically speaking, the Queen/Prince Charles between them own all the land of Britain. We still live in the structure set up by William the Bastard.


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Was the US fascist during world war 2 then? Is the RPF government in Rwanda fascist? Was Stalin a fascist?
> 
> This is nonsense - those are character traits of authoritarian nationalism. Fascism is more than that.


What are the key differentials then? The militarisation of politics, collapsing the difference between civilian and military? For example. Also policing being overtly rather than covertly political? We're sitting here trying to come up with the key differences.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Er, no, not really. Technically speaking, the Queen/Prince Charles between them own all the land of Britain. We still live in the structure set up by William the Bastard.


Exactly. The Norman system persists beneath the layers of 'modernity'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Exactly. The Norman system persists beneath the layers of 'modernity'.


It's extraordinary, really. And quite a feat of propaganda that most people don't even know this.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's extraordinary, really. And quite a feat of propaganda that most people don't even know this.


Indeed. If we look at the Police and Crime Commissioners, it's an American idea that's been layered on top of a Norman system. The two things are in conflict and one of them has to go. Elected mayors are another example.


----------



## _angel_ (May 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> who was pere duchesne btw? Lletsa?


I wouldn't have thought so, judging  by the posts. Maybe that's what Fridgemagnet thought?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Er, no, not really. Technically speaking, the Queen/Prince Charles between them own all the land of Britain. We still live in the structure set up by William the Bastard.



Sounds like freeman-on-the-land type bullshit to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Indeed. If we look at the Police and Crime Commissioners, it's an American idea that's been layered on top of a Norman system. The two things are in conflict and one of them has to go. Elected mayors are another example.


Ah, but one thing the British establishment is good at is living with contradictions. They just ignore them. Good old British hypocrisy sees it through.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

In what meaningful sense does the queen own, for example, my house?


----------



## nino_savatte (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, but one thing the British establishment is good at is living with contradictions. They just ignore them. Good old British hypocrisy sees it through.


The British establishment also loves nostalgia. It can't get enough of it. 

UKIP is a good example of a nostalgia cult.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Sounds like freeman-on-the-land type bullshit to me.


Nope. It is the reason why during WW2, land could be confiscated for military use and the people simply told to fuck off. No rent was paid, nothing. This could not happen in France. 

Look it up, mate. Just because you didn't know it doesn't mean it isn't true.


----------



## Roadkill (May 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> who was pere duchesne btw? Lletsa?



I wondered that too.  Firky, maybe?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope. It is the reason why during WW2, land could be confiscated for military use and the people simply told to fuck off. No rent was paid, nothing. This could not happen in France.
> 
> Look it up, mate. Just because you didn't know it doesn't mean it isn't true.



I reckon the main reason the military can confiscate stuff is that they've got a near-total monopoly on tanks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> In what meaningful sense does the queen own, for example, my house?


The crown does not own your house. It does, however, own all land. Layers of other kinds of 'ownership' have been built on top of this - including the idea of a freehold, which in reality is not really quite what it sounds like: it is nothing more than a written permission from the monarch to use the land, which can be revoked legally. I am not certain, but the situation may be different in Scotland, where the rules don't go back to William the Bastard in quite the same way.

We are not citizens, constitutionally speaking. We are subjects, who act with the permission of the monarch. The difference between the two only really comes to the surface during times of crisis.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2014)

Surely all ownership of everything is built on some kind of fiction?


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> who was pere duchesne btw? Lletsa?


The flounced maurice/silas surely?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Surely all ownership of everything is built on some kind of fiction?


Of course it is. And the first layer of fiction here is that the Crown owns all land. But that fiction also has legal weight. As I said before, it means that the Crown can confiscate land without paying rent and the person turfed off that land will have no legal redress.

'Ownership' is fiction in the same way that 'money' is fiction. It is *only* an idea, but tell that to someone who's skint.


----------



## Ole (May 25, 2014)

Farage saw his arse, but was there actually any engagement of arguments on the part of O'Brien? Precious little, if any. Virtually all of it was about personal scandal. Missing the point, much like the rest of the media I've seen that are hostile to UKIP.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 25, 2014)

Oh really?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 25, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Was the US fascist during world war 2 then? Is the RPF government in Rwanda fascist? Was Stalin a fascist?
> 
> This is nonsense - those are character traits of authoritarian nationalism. Fascism is more than that.



Indeed. However, fascism and Communism are but two sides of the same coin. Every charge that can correctly laid against the fascist is equally relevant to Communist regimes. Extreme politics is just that, and differs little functionally between the far right and the far left.

BTW, who is laughing now? Farage or O'Brien?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 25, 2014)

whats the current set ups place on the coin? the winnet clogged rim?


----------



## RedDragon (May 25, 2014)

O'Brien  will claim victory citing the sensibilities of Londoners in part thanks to his broadcast .


----------



## Ole (May 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh really?


Assuming that's directed at me?

Yes, of course it is missing the point, unless you think the proper way of challenging a political party is to leave all the specious arguments it throws out utterly unchallenged and to focus on the personal twattishness of its leader (see BBC v Nick Griffin)?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> What are the key differentials then? The militarisation of politics, collapsing the difference between civilian and military? For example. Also policing being overtly rather than covertly political? We're sitting here trying to come up with the key differences.


those are some of the key ones yeah - I'll do you a proper reply when I've got a bit more time, busy with revision at the moment so haven't got time to do a reply that will do that question justice. though other posters are better qualified than me to answer it - eg butchersapron and ViolentPanda


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

@ butchersapron lol

The man who wanted people to vote UKIP on Thursday? That butchersapron? 

Get a fucking grip.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

...and he chooses this point to make his angry return - on the same day as his claim that UKIP are not gaining support speaks for itself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> @ butchersapron lol
> 
> The man who wanted people to vote UKIP on Thursday? That butchersapron?
> 
> Get a fucking grip.



Yes. He's better read than me (and you) on the topic of fascism. I know you lost an argument with him but you don't need to make your bitterness quite so obvious.


----------



## Ole (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ...and he chooses this point to make his angry return - on the same day as his claim that UKIP are not gaining support speaks for itself.


Were you willing people to vote UKIP though? (as littlebabyjesus said)


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Don't be so quick to believe smears from those who've just demonstrated their bitter grudge driven agenda.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 26, 2014)

Ole said:


> Assuming that's directed at me?
> 
> Yes, of course it is missing the point, unless you think the proper way of challenging a political party is to leave all the specious arguments it throws out utterly unchallenged and to focus on the personal twattishness of its leader (see BBC v Nick Griffin)?


What the fuck are you talking about? You were listening/watching a different interview. Got a soft spot for Farage? I have. It's at the end of my garden.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Yes. Anyone who thinks the call them racist at every available opportunity strategy (which has been so effective in denying them votes in the Euros) might not be the most effective must have a soft spot for Farage. What other explanation could there be?

SWP line appears to be we need to form a 'united front' with the labour party and religious organisations against UKIP. Could they be any more counter-productive if they tried?


----------



## nino_savatte (May 26, 2014)

I wasn't actually replying to you, numb nuts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> those are some of the key ones yeah - I'll do you a proper reply when I've got a bit more time, busy with revision at the moment so haven't got time to do a reply that will do that question justice. though other posters are better qualified than me to answer it - eg butchersapron and ViolentPanda



If we're talking about "proper" fascism, rather than oppressing students by making them change their bedding twice a year, then the lack of autarchy is significant - no modern "western" authoritarian govt would want that, or tolerate it.  What they want is strong governance that keeps the people consuming, and expands the consuming base, not economic self-sufficiency.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> @ butchersapron lol
> 
> The man who wanted people to vote UKIP on Thursday? That butchersapron?
> 
> Get a fucking grip.



It's you who needs to get a grip, if being trounced in an argument leads you to smear people.


----------



## Ole (May 26, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> What the fuck are you talking about? You were listening/watching a different interview. Got a soft spot for Farage? I have. It's at the end of my garden.



Don't be a cunt, it's pretty clear what I'm talking about. Apparently we were watching different interviews. I'm assuming you're not saying ad hominem is a good idea, so you must be saying O'Brien _was_ making counterarguments against policy. Well I don't remember a single one.

It's easy enough to check. Tell me of all the instances O'Brien makes a counterargument against UKIP policies.


----------



## Corax (May 26, 2014)

Is "being twats" official UKIP policy, or is it just coincidence?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I wasn't actually replying to you, numb nuts.



I was aware of that, shit for brains.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 27, 2014)

Ole said:


> It's easy enough to check. Tell me of all the instances O'Brien makes a counterargument against UKIP policies.


Why would he? Ukip has no policies at the moment. I think Farage said so during that interview (they've all said it at some point recently).


----------



## nino_savatte (May 27, 2014)

Ole said:


> Don't be a cunt, it's pretty clear what I'm talking about. Apparently we were watching different interviews. I'm assuming you're not saying ad hominem is a good idea, so you must be saying O'Brien _was_ making counterarguments against policy. Well I don't remember a single one.
> 
> It's easy enough to check. Tell me of all the instances O'Brien makes a counterargument against UKIP policies.


"Don't be a cunt"? Pot-kettle-black, chum.

O'Brien shut Farage up. That doesn't happen in most other interviews but your accusation of ad hominem is a strange one.

Perhaps Andrew Marr's interviewing style is more your thing. No?


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2014)

It was a pure ambush interview. You wouldn't want every political interview to be like that, sometimes you want a bit of depth and to get stuck into policy.  But when it comes to Farage, an ambush that got past his blustering defences and exposed his hypocrisy was just the fucking ticket.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 27, 2014)

Wilf said:


> It was a pure ambush interview. You wouldn't want every political interview to be like that, sometimes you want a bit of depth and to get stuck into policy.  But when it comes to Farage, an ambush that got past his blustering defences and exposed his hypocrisy was just the fucking ticket.


Wasn't an ambush at all. The interview was based on a question a caller asked in a previous phone in as to whether UKIP was racist (iirc). That's why James asked what he asked. He didn't focus on ukip policies because, as Farage himself admits, they have none right now - ie when confronted with criticism of what was in their previous manifesto that's their response.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 27, 2014)

Paul Nuttall, trying to bluff his way through some UKIP 'policies'.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Wasn't an ambush at all. The interview was based on a question a caller asked in a previous phone in as to whether UKIP was racist (iirc). That's why James asked what he asked. He didn't focus on ukip policies because, as Farage himself admits, they have none right now - ie when confronted with criticism of what was in their previous manifesto that's their response.


 Whether you call it an ambush or not, the style of the interview was a fast moving, quick witted (on the part of the interviewer) dash round ukip's racism, bullshit and hypocrisy. 100% fine by me, I'm just making the point it was different to more in depth attempts to scrutinise policy or positions.  In fact as these go, whether you call it an ambush or just someone being mentally quicker to the punch, it was as well delivered as I've seen in a long time. It's the sort of thing Krishnan Guru Murthy tries on ch4, but usually ends up looking a nobber as he interrupts people.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 27, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Whether you call it an ambush or not, the style of the interview was a fast moving, quick witted (on the part of the interviewer) dash round ukip's racism, bullshit and hypocrisy. 100% fine by me, I'm just making the point it was different to more in depth attempts to scrutinise policy or positions.  In fact as these go, whether you call it an ambush or just someone being mentally quicker to the punch, it was as well delivered as I've seen in a long time. It's the sort of thing Krishnan Guru Murthy tries on ch4, but usually ends up looking a nobber as he interrupts people.


Agreed, it just seems some people were critical of the interview because it didn't scrutinise policy and i want to point out that's not what the interview was about.

I wonder how long it will be before ukips start announcing policy.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I wonder how long it will be before ukips start announcing policy.


They're probably happy that we haven't gone for plain packaging for cigs ('EU, political correctness gone mad, health fascism...') - would have left too much of a blank space to fill.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Why would he? Ukip has no policies at the moment. I think Farage said so during that interview (they've all said it at some point recently).


strange then that they put some things curiously resembling 'policies' on their election material


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes. He's better read than me (and you) on the topic of fascism. I know you lost an argument with him but you don't need to make your bitterness quite so obvious.


not to mention daftness


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Agreed, it just seems some people were critical of the interview because it didn't scrutinise policy and i want to point out that's not what the interview was about.
> 
> I wonder how long it will be before ukips start announcing policy.




september. So they've actually got a good hand- only a year to go, off the back of a huge euro boost. Only 6 months of policy being aired- then GE. Result.

I know a year is a long time in politics etc but if farage keeps his long knives out and nobody gets caught being a nazi or stealing vast sums then the party looks in good shape to have the half dozen out of 40 aimed for


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> september. So they've actually got a good hand- only a year to go, off the back of a huge euro boost. Only 6 months of policy being aired- then GE. Result.
> 
> I know a year is a long time in politics etc but if farage keeps his long knives out and nobody gets caught being a nazi or stealing vast sums then the party looks in good shape to have the half dozen out of 40 aimed for


yeh but this is ukip we're talking about so something will come out the bag before teatime next tuesday.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 27, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Paul Nuttall, trying to bluff his way through some UKIP 'policies'.



Gods I revile that creature. His attitue on so many things sickens me. Another anonymous businessman obviously failed and thus a politician.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but this is ukip we're talking about so something will come out the bag before teatime next tuesday.


As sure as eggs are salmonella they will.  As always you'd expect their new MEPs and councillors to stick on safe territory and racist tweet their branes out. Pregnant women holding back small business, Britain is a Christian country, the gay conspiracy against guest houses - all well trodden paths. Wonder if we'll get some leftfield bigotry, something more imaginative?  Criminals to be branded?  Non-native dogs to be deported?  Sharia law to enforce imperial weights and measures?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

Wilf said:


> As sure as eggs are salmonella they will.  As always you'd expect their new MEPs and councillors to stick on safe territory and racist tweet their branes out. Pregnant women holding back small business, Britain is a Christian country, the gay conspiracy against guest houses - all well trodden paths. Wonder if we'll get some leftfield bigotry, something more imaginative?  Criminals to be branded?  Non-native dogs to be deported?  Sharia law to enforce imperial weights and measures?


"plebs"


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2014)

The violent repression of the underground Kilroy-Silk cult?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

Wilf said:


> The violent repression of the underground Kilroy-Silk cult?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

Wilf said:


> As sure as eggs are salmonella they will.  As always you'd expect their new MEPs and councillors to stick on safe territory and racist tweet their branes out. Pregnant women holding back small business, Britain is a Christian country, the gay conspiracy against guest houses - all well trodden paths. Wonder if we'll get some leftfield bigotry, something more imaginative?  Criminals to be branded?  Non-native dogs to be deported?  Sharia law to enforce imperial weights and measures?




surely farage will have been making calls along the lines of 'Eyes front and mouth shut- if anything issues from your pie hole it will be party line, I set party line. Anyone start off about golliwogs and PC gets chucked under the fucking bus. Capish?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

If Helmer gets in that might be a liability - I can almost see the tories letting him win, knowing that he'll draw attention from Nigel and spout off some homophobic bollocks sooner or later.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> surely farage will have been making calls along the lines of 'Eyes front and mouth shut- if anything issues from your pie hole it will be party line, I set party line. Anyone start off about golliwogs and PC gets chucked under the fucking bus. Capish?


yeh but 150+ cllrs - the drunk prefect can't keep an eye on all of them


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> If Helmer gets in that might be a liability - I can almost see the tories letting him win, knowing that he'll draw attention from Nigel and spout off some homophobic bollocks sooner or later.



Take off all your clothes and lie down on this couch.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> surely farage will have been making calls along the lines of 'Eyes front and mouth shut- if anything issues from your pie hole it will be party line, I set party line. Anyone start off about golliwogs and PC gets chucked under the fucking bus. Capish?


 And there will almost certainly be some kind of briefing document for the newly elected _exactly_ along those lines. Presumably his director of communications will act as lore master.  Mind, even if they get them to shut the fuck up on twitter they'll be easy prey for journos who happen to meet them at the bar.


----------



## Hulot (May 27, 2014)

And there goes their "not like the other parties" idiot-bait.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

Given it's O'Flynn dragging Farage off at the end before he digs himself deeper, maybe it's him calling the shots and setting the strategy, or perhaps one of their millionaire backers?  I don't think Farage runs the whole party agenda, from his dismissal of the earlier manifesto as junk I get the impression he wouldn't have the patience to set out all the policy.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> september. So they've actually got a good hand- only a year to go, off the back of a huge euro boost. Only 6 months of policy being aired- then GE. Result.
> 
> I know a year is a long time in politics etc but if farage keeps his long knives out and nobody gets caught being a nazi or stealing vast sums then the party looks in good shape to have the half dozen out of 40 aimed for


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-27565266

Oh well.


----------



## neonwilderness (Oct 11, 2014)

Here's another - UKIP voter calls LBC to discuss their policies, but can't name any  

http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...about-ukip-policies-cant-name-one--gkGeRNjyLg


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2014)

I bet s/he can say how many MP's they have though.

And just for the record, UKIP doesn't have a table of its policies as it's manifesto is being re-written right now. So O' Brien couldn't really answer his own question. I did note O' Brien said that he was _for mother-love though. _


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2014)

Well, they do say that he laughs last, laughs longest. Who will be laughing I wonder? Certainly not Cameron or Milliband.

I fully appreciate that by-elections are traditionally a time to give the party in power a poke in the eye, but Milliband, who would have expected a comfortable win, given the woeful performance of the current government, must be shitting himself.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, they do say that he laughs last, laughs longest. Who will be laughing I wonder? Certainly not Cameron or Milliband.
> 
> I fully appreciate that by-elections are traditionally a time to give the party in power a poke in the eye, but Milliband, who would have expected a comfortable win, given the woeful performance of the current government, must be shitting himself.


Why?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 11, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> Here's another - UKIP voter calls LBC to discuss their policies, but can't name any
> 
> http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...about-ukip-policies-cant-name-one--gkGeRNjyLg


I love me some JayOb.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 12, 2014)

We need UKIP. This woman wants to invade; says she's queen or something!


----------



## twentythreedom (Feb 6, 2018)

*bump*

Was searching for threads about JO'B. He's great.

OP declared Farage's political career to be over 

Depressing. Not only is it not over, just today the vile, poisonous shitcunt stirred up shit about the NHS on Fox News before hosting his regular OWN SHOW on LBC this evening 

James does bang on a bit about Brexit but I do like listening to him calmly making fools of angry racists. 

Mystery Hour is fucking brilliant too. And the 'Ray Liotta' moments


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 6, 2018)

twentythreedom said:


> *bump*
> 
> Was searching for threads about JO'B. He's great.
> 
> ...




Couldn't remember this interview and just watched it again. It builds up nicely and great pay off at the end when O' Flynn interupts.


----------



## billbond (Feb 7, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It won't be the end of anything, but fuck it, it's 20 minutes of joy



You want to hear the one when  oboring gets Destroyed by frank lampard
Have a look its on you tube
No that was pure joy
see James got the push from Newsnight, more good news   smiley face


----------



## billbond (Feb 7, 2018)

Another one, ol kay owns him
for some reason the lampard one dont load
Just look at him squirming


----------



## Riklet (Feb 7, 2018)

I hate James O'Brien. 

That is all.


----------



## billbond (Feb 7, 2018)

Riklet said:


> I hate James O'Brien.
> 
> That is all.


seems to have a bit of a fan club on here
One of my relatives worked for Lbc , she told us he was disliked by almost everybody  who worked there
Nobody had a good word for him
I used to listen a lot , but now find it a bit boring
Used to like Ian Collins


----------

