# Ukip - why are they gaining support?



## where to (Nov 16, 2012)

Don't think we've really done this one.

Labour vote lost votes to BNP between 1997 and 2010, but not to the left.

The Tory vote is going to their right. Why is this? 

Why are Tory voters unhappy?

I can't say I saw this coming, or even understand it.  Is it just small c conservatives unhappy on social issues and europe?


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2012)

Don't know that I'd agree with two of your assumptions;

(a) Labour just lost votes - and many of those were working class voters who just stopped voting. I'd like to see evidence that they 'lost votes tothe BNP'.
(b) Labour *did* start to get outflanked to the left in Wales by PC, in Scotland (devastatingly in recent Assembly elections) by the SNP and here and there by the Green Party in England (they lost 10 seats by a smaller margin than the GP vote in 2010 - one of course was Caroline Lucas in Brighton).


----------



## paolo (Nov 16, 2012)

Tory votes heading right:

Well, bear in mind that old school Tories are massively hating disco Dave's modernisation stuff. They don't believe the 'nasty party' problem either exists, or matters.

UKIP is the natural place to flee to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

I think a lot of people just dislike the eu and see both labour and tories as too chummy with brussels. But ukip don't seem to do so well in domestick elections


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

paolo said:


> Tory votes heading right:
> 
> Well, bear in mind that old school Tories are massively hating disco Dave's modernisation stuff. They don't believe the 'nasty party' problem either exists, or matters.
> 
> UKIP is the natural place to flee to.


Ok, let's try and identify this vote: what's an old school tory?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

Just the further right feeling that the tories are getting a bit wooly on immigration, gay marraige, europe and other idiot daily mail reader concerns. Possibly grabbing a few votes from bnp voters who now dont have a serious proper fash group to support.


----------



## paolo (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, let's try and identify this vote: what's an old school tory?



Ones who still like all the old shit - recipe as you fancy it: a dash of homophobia, a dash of racism, etc etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

paolo said:


> Ones who still like all the old shit - recipe as you fancy it: a dash of homophobia, a dash of racism, etc etc.


Where do they come from regionally, in social class, in occupation? Have they been hit by the crash - in what way? Sacked? Put out of their home or lost it value? And so on.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 16, 2012)

paolo said:


> Tory votes heading right:
> 
> Well, bear in mind that old school Tories are massively hating disco Dave's modernisation stuff. They don't believe the 'nasty party' problem either exists, or matters.
> 
> UKIP is the natural place to flee to.


The tories do believe that all their problems will be solved with a swing to the right ,same agruement will probally happen in the states


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Where do they come from regionally, in social class, in occupation? Have they been hit by the crash - in what way? Sacked? Put out of their home or lost it value? And so on.



Why ask questions which you know cant be answered?

I imagine that a lot of them are retired or close to retirement. Theyll have a liveable pension, and own their home. Theyll have been hit by the economy/cuts, but not crippled, for the most part. They'll live in safe tory seats, or perhaps one of those fucking weird places up north where there are tons of asians and tons of bigots.

{/wild speculation}


----------



## paolo (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Where do they come from regionally, in social class, in occupation? Have they been hit by the crash - in what way? Sacked? Put out of their home or lost it value? And so on.



Dunno. My survey team are being rather tardy. 

I'd speculate that the one common factor is age. Older people.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Why ask questions which you know cant be answered?
> 
> I imagine that a lot of them are retired or close to retirement. Theyll have a liveable pension, and own their home. Theyll have been hit by the economy/cuts, but not crippled, for the most part. They'll live in safe tory seats, or perhaps one of those fucking weird places up north where there are tons of asians and tons of bigots.
> 
> {/wild speculation}


I don't. They can be answered. Lots of people have done actual research on them. And what it shows is that the sort of lazy assumptions that lie behind your post are at best totally wrong.

What is this thread about? Just saying _ha ha old fat tories?_


----------



## paolo (Nov 16, 2012)

So basically butchers, you 'knew the answer', but kept it back and asked people to speculate, so you could score a measly point in the thread?

FFS.

If you've got relevant info, just fucking post it and quit the games.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 16, 2012)

Hahaha butchers you're such a fucking rotter. Stop teasing people.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

paolo said:


> So basically butchers, you 'knew the answer', but kept it back and asked people to speculate, so you could score a measly point in the thread?
> 
> FFS.
> 
> If you've got relevant info, just fucking post it and quit the games.


The unveiling of social assumptions about UKIP voters is worth doing this way. Sorry if you're all offended and that. It was to make a point - and if the OP is to be taken seriously then this is what we need to be looking at.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

_Ha ha fat old tories._


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 16, 2012)

People with developing racist view points who still wring their hands about coming straight out and voting BNP...

Is to blame for some of it


----------



## paolo (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The unveiling of social assumptions about UKIP voters is worth doing this way. Sorry if you're all offended and that. It was to make a point - and if the OP is to be taken seriously then this is what we need to be looking at.



If *you* want to be taken seriously, why not discuss it in a manner that doesn't come across as sneery?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I don't. They can be answered. Lots of people have done actual research on them. And what it shows is that the sort of lazy assumptions that lie behind your post are at best totally wrong.
> 
> What is this thread about? Just saying _ha ha old fat tories?_



Sorry, that article says next to nothing about the demographics of the ukip vote. I did say I was wildly speculating, so hardly cutting to call my "assumptions" lazy. They were meant to be. But until you find something that says a bit moreusedul than some ukip voters are middle class and some are "financially marginal", whatever that is supposed to mean, I think crass and lazy is probably the way to go.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

paolo said:


> If *you* want to be taken seriously, why not discuss it in a manner that doesn't come across as sneery?


I don't really care if you think i come across as sneery. I don't really want to be taken seriously.  Fact is, there is a huge wedge of people who assume they know what the UKIP vote is based on, one based on their own social prejudices. This is dangerous. One way to demonstrate how this works is to show it here by...well...showing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Sorry, that article says next to nothing about the demographics of the ukip vote. I did say I was wildly speculating, so hardly cutting to call my "assumptions" lazy. They were meant to be. But until you find something that says a bit moreusedul than some ukip voters are middle class and some are "financially marginal", whatever that is supposed to mean, I think crass and lazy is probably the way to go.


It says everything about UKIP 'demographics' (your term i think) if you know how to read it. For instance labour voting parents tells you about where they come from socially, work wise, geographically, and so on.

And more to the point, you haven't read the article anyway - _you've read the puff piece that leads into it - the charts and stuff to entice you in._


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2012)

People did exactly the same re the BNP. Who then used this to their advantage.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It says everything about UKIP 'demographics' (your term i think) if you know how to read it. For instance labour voting parents tells you about where they come from socially, work wise, geographically, and so on.
> 
> And more to the point, you haven't read the article anyway - _you've read the puff piece that leads into it - the charts and stuff to entice you in._



I skimmed it, looking for the bits about who votes for ukip. There's about two paragraphs, and they don't say much. I couldn't read the graphs on my phone. Will check them from my pc.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I skimmed it, looking for the bits about who votes for ukip. There's about two paragraphs, and they don't say much.


 
No there isn't. There is page after page after page.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

Honestly, what does that article say about age, region, occupation, affected by cuts, etc that you ask about? I see next to nothing. It says the core is middle class, plus some less well off. It says some rather obvious shit about populism, xenophobia, racism and euro scepticism, in one of the graphs, which pretty much backs up what I said. Where does it contradict my very lazy assumptions?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 16, 2012)

On the basis of very limited analysis of people I know of who have put up UKIP posters, I'd say there's a strong representation of retired, white, middle class enough to think they are a cut above 'the lower orders' but not 'upper middle class', better off than many but convinced that they are hard done by, types who go for UKIP.  The type who is permanently pissed off about the petty things in life.  And is probably fairly homophobic / racist albeit in what they consider to be a 'respectable' sort of way (they would generally define themselves as pro British Way Of Life / Family Values, rather than overtly racists / homophobic.  The "I'm not a racist but..." sort of type.)

I've also spotted a demographic out there that generally leans BNP-wards in most things, but regards the BNP as being too 'lower-class' for them, and may disagree with the welfare-ist bits of the BNP manifesto.  One or two right wing loons on a forum I used to hang out on tended to dismiss the BNP for being 'left wing'.  Not sure how well this matches the UKIP voters.

An 'anti EU' platform generally tends to do quite well, especially if someone spouts a few "everybody knows that the EU wants to ban this / force everyone to do that" platitudes.

And a lot of people tend to view MEP / local elections as 'not that important' so they feel more inclined to register a 'protest vote' such as UKIP than they would be at a general election.

Above reflects personal observations and does not have academic authority.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Honestly, what does that article say about age, region, occupation, affected by cuts, etc that you ask about? I see next to nothing. It says the core is middle class, plus some less well off. It says some rather obvious shit about populism, xenophobia, racism and euro scepticism, in one of the graphs, which pretty much backs up what I said. Where does it contradict my very lazy assumptions?


It answers the core question - class pretty definitively, and if you're unable to read anything else _from_ that - then you're welcome to your _ha ha fat tory bastards._


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No there isn't. There is page after page after page.



Ahh, able to access the document. Page 9 backs up my lazy assumptions. Middle aged to retired, professional/management, affected by the cuts somewhat, daily mail readers.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Ahh, able to access the document. Page 9 backs up my lazy assumptions. Middle aged to retired, professional/management, affected by the cuts somewhat, daily mail readers.


 
No it doesn't. Keep on digging. 

Maybe you could offer something to back this claim up?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No it doesn't. Keep on digging.
> 
> Maybe you could offer something to back this claim up?



71% aged 45+

52% skilled manual or professional, low but statistically insignificant compared to other parties unskilled/never worked, fuck knows what half the other categories even mean...

49% read anti immigrant papers

High worry about finances (probably concerned about all them johnny foreigners taking their jobs...), half way between Conservative and bnp.

Fat, old Tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

That's a no then.  Thanks you for taking the time to undo your own claims.

Odd how:



> Overall, we ﬁnd UKIP support is concentrated among middle aged, ﬁnancially insecure men with a Conservative background and is signiﬁcantly higher among the skilled working classes who have been most exposed to competition from the European Common Market. UKIP supporters are also more likely than voters in general to read regularly one of Britain’s Euro- sceptic right-wing‘tabloid’ newspapers, though such papers are also popular with supporters of the mainstream Conservative Party.


 
Can be spun isn't it jon? Odd how it becomes "Middle aged to retired, professional/management,"


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

What does "skilled working classes" mean? Is that like my dad? A fucking shit hot carpenter who probably makes more money a year than all the managers and some of the directors at the company I work for? Bullshit is such a person "working class". The rest of it is exactly what I said from my second post.


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2012)

...and as ever we're back to how to define working class.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

It doesn't mean:



> professional/management.


 
where did you get that from? Exactly.

and no, the rest of it isn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

chilango said:


> ...and as ever we're back to how to define working class.


We're just on jon getting shit wrong for now.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 16, 2012)

chilango said:


> ...and as ever we're back to how to define working class.


 
Either "us" or "them" depending on your perspective


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 16, 2012)

chilango said:


> ...and as ever we're back to how to define working class.


 
Urban can't fucking help itself! Same old fucking long winded crap.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't mean:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I got it from page 9 of the document you linked to. 52% of the people are professional/managerial, or skilled manual. Ie fucking self employed plumbers and shit, probably clearing more than you and I earn combined. 

12% semi skilled/unskilled/never worked.  

The rest made up by categories that are utterly meaningless ("routine non manual" and "other")

Do read your own links.


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2012)

chilango said:


> ...and as ever we're back to how to define working class.



...the biggest con trick they ever pulled on us. And it's still working.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I got it from page 9 of the document you linked to. 52% of the people are professional/managerial, or skilled manual. Ie fucking self employed plumbers and shit, probably clearing more than you and I earn combined.
> 
> 12% semi skilled/unskilled/never worked.
> 
> ...


Yes i do. Which is why i know that the idea that you've put forward  - that the mass of UKIP voter is  Middle professional/management is destroyed by it. You even do it here for me and for others who can't be bothered to read it. 

What is the argument presented in this report jon? Is it that people who think like you are wrong?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes i do. Which is why i know that the idea that you've put forward  - that the mass of UKIP voter is  Middle professional/management is destroyed by it. You even do it here for me and for others who can't be bothered to read it.
> 
> What is the argument presented in this report jon? Is it that people who think like you are wrong?



Managerial/professional, skilled manual, and, whilst we're at it, "other", making up 63% of the vote. Compared to 12% semi skilled/unskilled/never worked.

What about those figures is wrong?  How much money do the people in the former categories get, compared to the people in the latter?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

You're just saying things. Ask me a question or say something. I can do it - you think that saying  52% of the UKIP is professional/management means that there voters are therefore those people. I think this destroys your lazy assumptions about what constitutes the UKIP vote. And each time you say they are right you hammer the nail home.

Oh hang on, you're not someone who thinks the working class = semi skilled/unskilled/never worked? Oh dear


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2012)

butchers do us favour and just say what you think the fucking link says.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You're just saying things. Ask me a question or say something. I can do it - you think that saying  52% of the UKIP is professional/management means that there voters are therefore those people. I think this destroys your lazy assumptions about what constitutes the UKIP vote. And each time you say they are right you hammer the nail home.
> 
> Oh hang on, you're not someone who thinks the working class = semi skilled/unskilled/never worked? Oh dear



I'm someone who thinks the people who wrote the study think that. What with them having grouped people by social class into these categories. Again, do read the articles you link to. (That was a suggestion, not a question, btw).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

co-op said:


> butchers do us favour and just say what you think the fucking link says.


What? a) In what way are you incapable of clicking on the link and b) in what way is the discussion about me hiding what i think the links says? I am quote clear in what the links says - the link shows that old attitude of who votes for UKIP (old tories, rural poshoes) is wrong and based on social assumptions. Good intro co-op, i'm sure this'll be another winner for you.


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What? a) In what way are you incapable of clicking on the link and b) in what way is the discussion about me hiding what i think the links says? I am quote clear in what the links says - the link shows that old attitude of who votes for UKIP (old tories, rural poshoes) is wrong and based on social assumptions. Good intro co-op, i'm sure this'll be another winner for you.


 
There's a fucking clear overlap between UKIP voters and tories so you're talking crap right there.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 16, 2012)

We argue what their demographic is ,but you can bet your bottom dollar the tories have spent good money trying to find out


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'm someone who thinks the people who wrote the study think that. What with them having grouped people by social class into these categories. Again, do read the articles you link to. (That was a suggestion, not a question, btw).


Then you are not able to read the report right - and should not be allowed near such tables.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

co-op said:


> There's a fuckin g clear overlap between UKIP voters and tories so you're talking crap right there.


Who has said different? Not me. When you suggest that i have, you're talking crap right?

All the other stuff from my post - just ignored? Well done co-op. Well done.


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who has said different? Not me. When you suggest that i have, you're talking crap right?
> 
> All the other stuff from my post - just ignored? Well done co-op. Well done.


 


You do talk some serious shite, ba you make me laugh. Have fun with your witterings.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

co-op said:


> You do talk some serious shite, ba you make me laugh. Have fun with your witterings.


Hang on, you invented something that i said then said that it's not true. This after making up some other bollocks as you couldn't be bothered to read what 20 posts. Into the ditch. Idiot. _I'm off now i've read the thread._


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Then you are not able to read the report right - and should not be allowed near such tables.



So explain to me what "social class" means, please. And why they appear to have ordered employment categories by money earned, rather than some other, potentially more useful, way of doing it.

You don't seem to be saying much on this thread. Just criticising me for not understanding, when your own level of comprehension can hardly be considered to have been demonstrated. Is there any chance you just jumped straight to the conclusions?


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, you invented something that i said then said that it's not true. This after making up some other bollocks as you couldn't be bothered to read what 20 posts. Into the ditch. Idiot. _I'm off now i've read the thread._


 

Yes butchers, that's _exactly what happened_. Genius. When did I say I was off btw? I'm expecting an answer _if you can concoct one_.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 16, 2012)

Italic wars


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> So explain to me what "social class" means, please. And why they appear to have ordered employment categories by money earned, rather than some other, potentially more useful, way of doing it.
> 
> You don't seem to be saying much on this thread. Just criticising me for not understanding, when your own level of comprehension can hardly be considered to have been demonstrated. Is there any chance you just jumped straight to the conclusions?


 
Hang on, i should explain to you what social class means when you're a) using it to argue that the mass of UKIP voters are managerial
'professional despite it showing that 52% are, and b) how this doesn't relate to income at all.

Saying much? I've said the stereotype of the UKIP voter is wrong and here's why. What have you said?


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Italic wars


 
ftw


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

co-op said:


> Yes butchers, that's _exactly what happened_. Genius. When did I say I was off btw? I'm expecting an answer _if you can concoct one_.


It's what you normally do. And yes it's exactly what you did. You came in with a mad post then followed it up with an invention.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 16, 2012)




----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's what you normally do. And yes it's exactly what you did. You came in with a mad post then followed it up with an invention.


 
Oh it wasn't mad it was _totally insane_ butchers. Asking you what you think! No answer to my question I note. Why's that then? Losing the plot? Eh?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 16, 2012)

The few UKIP supporters I know support them because they wish to leave the EU & stop immigration. These are their only only reasons for supporting UKIP. These people would be considered working class if they worked.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

co-op said:


> Oh it wasn't mad it was _totally insane_ butchers. Asking you what you think! No answer to my question I note. Why's that then? Losing the plot? Eh?


That's not what you did is it co-op? Be honest. And i immediately answered your question. What one have i missed? Why i thought you were now off? I did that one already too. Because it's what you do. Now, all them things that you missed in my replies? An answer? Yeah...right.


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's not what you did is it co-op? Be honest. And i immediately answered your question. What one have i missed? Why i thought you were now off? I did that one already too. Because it's what you do. Now, all them things that you missed in my replies? An answer? Yeah...right.


 
Oh just winding you up a little ba you do get pompous when you get on one. Maybe get off it? Or you can just wind yourself in knots of treble negatives and start dry-humping the thread again.

Love the idea that you answered my question though - "I did that already too. Because that's what you do". Just pure bullshit really. I answered the question (I didn't) but I did because that's what you do. Fantastic.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, i should explain to you what social class means when you're a) using it to argue that the mass of UKIP voters are managerial
> 'professional despite it showing that 52% are, and b) how this doesn't relate to income at all.
> 
> Saying much? I've said the stereotype of the UKIP voter is wrong and here's why. What have you said?



52%, plus the other 11%, who we know aren't unskilled/semi skilled/never worked. So probably more the other end. So that's 63%, ie two thirds, ie the mass.

And I've said it's right and used your own stats to demonstrate this. You don't seem to be doing much more than parroting the, seemingly incorrect, conclusions of the report writers. Who are probably intellectual ponces who you'd be quick to denounce in any other situation, anyway. Can't you come up with your own analysis of the figures, to counteract mine, rather than relying on someone else's?  I came into this discussion pretty much taking the piss and fully expecting to lose, but the further I go the further I think you're not really making a coherent argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Scrupulosity manifest is co-op. That's right. He even gave himself a little cap for that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> 52%, plus the other 11%, who we know aren't unskilled/semi skilled/never worked. So probably more the other end. So that's 63%, ie two thirds, ie the mass.
> 
> And I've said it's right and used your own stats to demonstrate this. You don't seem to be doing much more than parroting the, seemingly incorrect, conclusions of the report writers. Who are probably intellectual ponces who you'd be quick to denounce in any other situation, anyway. Can't you come up with your own analysis of the figures, to counteract mine, rather than relying on someone else's? I came into this discussion pretty much taking the piss and fully expecting to lose, but the further I go the further I think you're not really making a coherent argument.


What analysis and what figures? You've destroyed your own claim. _52% of UKIP voters are professional/managerial - therefore that is who votes for them. _It's childish in it's crudiosity. But no, you try to have it both ways, saying that saying 52% of people are something is_ not a very fair way_ of looking at things.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

This:




			
				jon said:
			
		

> I imagine that a lot of them are retired or close to retirement. Theyll have a liveable pension, and own their home. Theyll have been hit by the economy/cuts, but not crippled, for the most part. They'll live in safe tory seats, or perhaps one of those fucking weird places up north where there are tons of asians and tons of bigots


 
Does this stand up? The liveable pension, own their own home, tory seats jon?


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Scrupulosity manifest is co-op. That's right. He even gave himself a little cap for that.


 
Anyone?


It's not important, I'm just curious..


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this stand up? The liveable pension, own their own home, tory seats jon?



Fuck knows. You cut off the [/wild speclation] bit, and it's certainly not been counteracted by anything you posted.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

co-op said:


> Anyone?
> 
> 
> It's not important, I'm just curious..


And a single substantive reply to my points, Not a one. _Scrupulous! _


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 16, 2012)

I know UKIP supporters in my hometown very well, I also have met lots of self professed UKIP supporters in two other constituencies in different parts of the country.

In two of the three - their support comes overwhelmingly from working class and small business people who don't like the EU - they may be socially conservative on some or all of the current hotbutton liberal Vs conservative issues but they aren't always - 3 of the main UKIP activists in my hometown are current or former union reps, and their candidate in the last general election was a working class black woman (and in 2001 they fielded a former Socialist Labour Party candidate).

In the final of the 3 areas I have spoken to them at length about politics they have tended more to the retired well to do skilled working class/lower middle class little Englander type...

It is difficult to catagorise UKIP voters in my view just like it is BNP voters


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Fuck knows. You cut off the [/wild speclation] bit, and it's certainly not been counteracted by anything you posted.


It has been, it's been taken apart.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What analysis and what figures? You've destroyed your own claim. _52% of UKIP voters are professional/managerial - therefore that is who votes for them. _It's childish in it's crudiosity. But no, you try to have it both ways, saying that saying 52% of people are something is_ not a very fair way_ of looking at things.



No, I specifically state that 52% is a majority, and very significant, (because that's totally the proportion of professional/managerial people in the uk, right?), then build on that by highlighting a further 11% who seem likely to be quite well off, and comparing this to the 12% semi skilled etc who are probably not so well off. I point out that the study you link to seems to be grouping these people into social classes.

You parrot a line about how these stats prove that ukip is predominantly working class, asserted by the studies authors. Read the study, study the stats, and come back to me when you are able to point me to the bit which actually backs this assertion up. I'm more than happy to have my political cock shown to be smaller than yours, because I really don't give a fuck. But right now, that isn't happening.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It has been, it's been taken apart.



Where?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> No, I specifically state that 52% is a majority, and very significant, (because that's totally the proportion of professional/managerial people in the uk, right?), then build on that by highlighting a further 11% who seem likely to be quite well off, and comparing this to the 12% semi skilled etc who are probably not so well off. I point out that the study you link to seems to be grouping these people into social classes.
> 
> You parrot a line about how these stats prove that ukip is predominantly working class, asserted by the studies authors. Read the study, study the stats, and come back to me when you are able to point me to the bit which actually backs this assertion up. I'm more than happy to have my political cock shown to be smaller than yours, because I really don't give a fuck. But right now, that isn't happening.


No you didn't. You might now. Where did you specifically state such a thing?

I haven't said any such thing and neither does the report. Pull your trousers up,


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 16, 2012)

co-op said:


> Anyone?
> 
> 
> It's not important, I'm just curious..


 
The revolution will not be intelligible.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Where?


In the report that you are now suggesting should be alternatively the voice of god and not worth bothering with due to its extreme errors.


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 16, 2012)

paolo said:


> Dunno. My survey team are being rather tardy.
> 
> I'd speculate that the one common factor is age. Older people.


I think we can probably fairly easily group them by newspaper brand as well.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I think we can probably fairly easily group them by newspaper brand as well.


 
Go on then


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No you didn't. You might now. Where did you specifically state such a thing?
> 
> I haven't said any such thing and neither does the report. Pull your trousers up,



Jesus, are you even reading any of my posts? I've been pretty consistent on this since I worked out how to read he report toward the end of page one.

And yes you have, at the start of page two.

Who's got the real butchers, and what have they done to him? Ffs.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> In the report that you are now suggesting should be alternatively the voice of god and not worth bothering with due to its extreme errors.



I'm discussing the evidence you've provided. I've not dismissed it, although have stated my surprise that you put so much stock in it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Jesus, are you even reading any of my posts? I've been pretty consistent on this since I worked out how to read he report toward the end of page one.
> 
> And yes you have, at the start of page two.
> 
> Who's got the real butchers, and what have they done to him? Ffs.


 
So you agree that you state that 52% is a pretty significant majority? But it's not - is it? The you proceed to attack this number.

No i didn't. Quote me - i didn't and wouldn't because i know that it's not true.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'm discussing the evidence you've provided. I've not dismissed it, although have stated my surprise that you put so much stock in it.


And alternately using it then attacking it. 

Oh look co-op went, like i said,


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So you agree that you state that 52% is a pretty significant majority? But it's not - is it? The you proceed to attack this number.
> 
> No i didn't. Quote me - i didn't and wouldn't because i know that it's not true.



I don't think I bunched every single member into a whole, at any point. I have no doubt that ukip has voters under 25 in fucking Brighton or something. However, the typical ukip voter is, as per the majority, in the demographic I described. 52% is certainly a significant majority if it fits into he petty narrow demographic I described.

Looking back, I perhaps read the quote you took from the reports website. It basically agrees with me; ukip voters are fat Tory bastards, then says they have a significant working class element. So what? Still mostly fat Tory bastards. The lazy assumption stands up.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Who said that you needed to? No they're not. You can't read.

Perhaps - perhaps what? Misread it? Read it right? What did you _perhaps do_ jon?

And no it doesn't, it screams in your face that your lazy idiocies are just that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

What sort of 'perhaps' is required to argue that i said that UKIP have only working class voters - or that there is no overlap between tory and UKIP voters?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who said that you needed to? No they're not. You can't read.
> 
> Perhaps - perhaps what? Misread it? Read it right? What did you _perhaps do_ jon?
> 
> And no it doesn't, it screams in your face that your lazy idiocies are just that.



Ukip support is concentrated amongst Middle aged financially insecure = penny pinching, management/professional, older male daily mail readers. Or fat Tory bastards.

With the rest being made up of the working class. Well where he fuck else are they going to come from?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Ukip support is concentrated amongst Middle aged financially insecure = penny pinching, management/professional, older male daily mail readers. Or fat Tory bastards.
> 
> With the rest being made up of the working class. Well where he fuck else are they going to come from?


Apart from it not saying that.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What sort of 'perhaps' is required to argue that i said that UKIP have only working class voters - or that there is no overlap between tory and UKIP voters?



Where did I claim you said ukip only have working class voters?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from it not saying that.



What does it say, then?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Where did I claim you said ukip only have working class voters?


 
[QUOTE-jon]You parrot a line about how these stats prove that ukip is predominantly working class, asserted by the studies authors. [/QUOTE]

Now, that's a)  not solely w/c i agree but  b) not what i claimed at all. So wtf are you on about?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> What does it say, then?


Like what i said at the start, that the idea of UKIP voters being rural army tory boys is a bit shit and people who think that need to grow up.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 16, 2012)

There are everywhere at the moment:



> November 16th, 2012 22:28
> *UKIP is surely now a more attractive partner than the LibDems*


 
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/danielhannan/


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Having one of their lead crytpo- MEPs wrote about them in a soft-pro-ukip paper is not them being everywhere. That's just them being there.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 16, 2012)

.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Now, that's a) not solely w/c i agree but b) not what i claimed at all. So wtf are you on about?


 


butchersapron said:


> Like what i said at the start, that the idea of UKIP voters being rural army tory boys is a bit shit and people who think that need to grow up.


 




butchersapron said:


> That's a no then. Thanks you for taking the time to undo your own claims.
> 
> Odd how:
> 
> ...


 

Actually, where I said "perhaps I misread it", I was totally wrong. I read it right the first time. It states that the majority of ukip voters are working class. This is not born out by the stats the study highlights. Anyway, I was winning for a while, but you're right, the drinks kicking into play. n'night butchers.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> The revolution will not be intelligible.


 
Truly, Msgr butchers is imparting His Wisdom in ridddles on this thread.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Oh look co-op went, like i said,


 


Wrong again, O Sage. _What? have you run away?_

I predict you'll be back though because _that's just what you do,_ isn't it?


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Jesus, are you even reading any of my posts?


 
(a) don't start calling him Jesus or he really will disappear up his own aris
(b) no, you might as well discuss it with Jazzzz, you'll get as much sense.


----------



## Turboprop (Nov 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I think a lot of people just dislike the eu and see both labour and tories as too chummy with brussels. But ukip don't seem to do so well in domestick elections


 
Too many ex MP's making a nice earner out of their 'jobs' in Brussells for them to do anything about it. Also, Brussells seems to be where a lot of our failed 'politicians' end up, so they need somewhere to go, at our expense of course!


----------



## love detective (Dec 4, 2012)

Quite a decent analysis piece here based on youguv data

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/in...12/04/the-rise-of-ukip-what-does-it-all-mean/



> In 2009, roughly 2 in 10 UKIP voters had voted Conservative in the previous election. Now, it is 4 in 10. So, even now less than half of UKIP’s current support is coming from former Tory voters.....
> 
> ....research I have done with colleagues on UKIP loyalists suggests many come from working class, Labour leaning backgrounds, and are deeply hostile to all the establishment parties. This is borne out in the YouGov data – UKIP supporters’ views of all three parties’ leaders are strongly and persistently negative, and they are more likely to express alienation from politics and dissatisfaction with democracy. It is very doubtful that the Conservatives would sweep such voters if they allied with UKIP. And on top of this, a further quarter of recent UKIP support has come from Labour and the Lib Dems, or from abstainers. These are not groups the Conservatives are likely to win over with an alliance....
> 
> ....So UKIP’s rise is clearly not the result of temporary defections by Conservative voters annoyed about Europe. What, then, is going on? My ongoing research with Matthew Goodwin suggests that UKIP shares many characteristics with “radical right” parties such as the Dutch Party for Freedom, the Danish People’s Party, the Austrian Freedom Party and the True Finns. Like these parties, UKIP mobilises voters who are primarily concerned about immigration, but are also typically nationalist, Eurosceptic and deeply disaffected with the existing political elite


----------



## Quartz (Dec 4, 2012)

love detective said:


> Quite a decent analysis piece here based on youguv data
> 
> http://www7.politicalbetting.com/in...12/04/the-rise-of-ukip-what-does-it-all-mean/


 
Your quote from that article is interesting given the Dislike Labour line in Table 2 - down to zero in 2011.


----------



## love detective (Dec 5, 2012)

dislike of the labour _government_, which in 2011 no longer existed hence the zero


----------



## Grandma Death (Dec 5, 2012)

Late to this one but as I see it the lib dems were the recipients of a lot of protest votes when they werent in government-now they are in government some of those votes will move down the chain.


----------



## Quartz (Dec 5, 2012)

love detective said:


> dislike of the labour _government_, which in 2011 no longer existed hence the zero


 
The text says one thing, the table another. But anyway, only a small minority most disliked Labour even when it was in power.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 5, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> The few UKIP supporters I know support them because they wish to leave the EU & stop immigration. These are their only only reasons for supporting UKIP. These people would be considered working class if they worked.


 
I agree with this.  People who have in the past voted Conservative, Labour, Liberal or other but who are now worried about the effects of immigration and what they see as "interference" from the EU.


----------



## gosub (Dec 5, 2012)

They didn't really gain any votes in the recent by elections looking at the numbers, more turnout was down as Lab/Con/Lib supporters failed to turnout


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 5, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> The revolution will not be intelligible.


 
Either pretend you understand or Commandante Butchers will have you up against the wall quicker than you can say 'and I thought Stalin was an arsehole'.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2012)

And to show this golf-club-majors vista has not been the situation for a while.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2012)

gosub said:


> They didn't really gain any votes in the recent by elections looking at the numbers, more turnout was down as Lab/Con/Lib supporters failed to turnout


That is effectively a gain as it demonstrates the ability to motivate voters in a time of general electoral apathy. And anyway@

They doubled their vote in Croydon North despite the goofball candidate.
They doubled their vote in Rotheram.
They increased their vote by around 50% in Boro.

And this whilst turn outs fell in all the seats.


----------



## gosub (Dec 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That is effectively a gain as it demonstrates the ability to motivate voters in a time of general electoral apathy. And anyway@
> 
> They doubled their vote in Croydon North despite the goofball candidate.
> They doubled their vote in Rotheram.
> ...


 

Not a fan but a couple of interesting pieces with links to other pieces (Rotherham)
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83384
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83386

eta Croydon is interesting


----------



## co-op (Dec 5, 2012)

Oh look butchers is back. _Just like I said._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2012)

First one says if you combine the BNP/UKIP Rotheram vote at the 2010 election you get 6000. Combine them after last weeks election and you get 6000. That may be true but the first took place on a 60% turnout and the second on a 33% turnout.And if you go back to 2005 you find a combined vote of 3000 - where have the extra voters come from if not the other parties or from non-voters? Either way shows an growth.

And what does it matter if they have taken some of the BNP's collapsing vote? Does this mean that they are destined to go the same way as the BNP due to some inherent limit and only ever have the same influence? I think the latter idea has been pretty clearly been blown out of the water by Mickey Fab's hand up his backside kite flying of recent weeks, the panicked tory reaction - inlcuding todays stuff about promising a referendum with an out option. And the former by the rise in the combined far-right (i'll use that term for now) from effectively nothing in 2001 to 6000+ today - second (and third) in the constituency.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 5, 2012)

Nigel squirms...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 6, 2012)

I would take Farage over Verhofstadt any day


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 14, 2012)

My (admittedly sketchy) understanding of Farage's economic policies is that he's a rabid free-marketeer.

Is that correct and if so, to what extent do his supporters understand that they're voting for e.g. dismantling the NHS etc?


----------



## love detective (Dec 14, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> My (admittedly sketchy) understanding of Farage's economic policies is that he's a rabid free-marketeer.
> 
> Is that correct and if so, to what extent do his supporters understand that they're voting for e.g. dismantling the NHS etc?


 
From what i've seen of their economic policies/manifesto they come across more like a proponent of a kind of post industrial east asian state developmental capitalism than free market capitalism


----------



## junglevip (Dec 14, 2012)

They fill the void left by those that no longer represent ordinary folk


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2012)

Lord Ashcroft’s polling on UKIP



> Lord Ashcroft headlines his article on one of the most persistent myths about UKIP, that people vote for them over the issue of Europe and, therefore, winning the support of those people is all about offering policies related to Europe.
> 
> 
> Past polling has shown this to be nonsense – a huge YouGov poll of voters in the 2009 European election found that Europe was only the fourth most important issue for UKIP voters after the economy, immigration and crime; a 2010 YouGov poll of UKIP voters at the 2010 election found the issue of Europe trailing behind the economy and immigration – and Lord Ashcroft finds the same now. Amongst people considering UKIP (he doesn’t provide a crossbreak for people saying they actually would vote UKIP) 68% name the economy as one of the most important issues facing the country, followed by immigration on 52% and welfare dependency on 46%. Europe is fifth on 27%… meaning almost three quarters of UKIP considerers really don’t see the issue of Europe as that important. Ashcroft found a similar pattern in his focus groups – Europe was mentioned comparatively little compared with immigration, welfare and general disatisfaction with modern Britain.


----------



## junglevip (Dec 18, 2012)

bbc newsnight on now - Europe's shift to the right.  goldendawn, spain2000


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Lord Ashcroft’s polling on UKIP


 
Useful article that and also see Goodwins response based on his previous BNP polling data


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Either pretend you understand or Commandante Butchers will have you up against the wall quicker than you can say 'and I thought Stalin was an arsehole'.


Citizen smith had an execution book,but i don't think butchers has one


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

Um...HOPE not hate takes a position on UKIP


----------



## cantsin (Mar 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Um...HOPE not hate takes a position on UKIP


 
whatever the conclusions and subsequent positions UAF  take up re:  UKIP, that seems a pretty open and positive process by which to come to them tbh.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

One of the main differences between UKIP and the euro-nationalist parties is that the latter are largely pro-welfare, albeit not for everyone, whereas UKIP are rabidly anti-welfare state, etc...


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

btw,does HNH have a position on open borders?


----------



## junglevip (Mar 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Um...HOPE not hate takes a position on UKIP


 
Note to self:

Read later...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

cantsin said:


> whatever the conclusions and subsequent positions UAF take up re: UKIP, that seems a pretty open and positive process by which to come to them tbh.


At first glance maybe but then on second look things appear a little odd - for example, the vote on whether to campaign against UKIP, 67% voted for this. Lowles then decided that they didn't really mean yes when they voted yes, they really mean no and so there is to be no campaign. More here.


----------



## malatesta32 (Mar 23, 2013)

UKIP just won gooshays local. 831 votes, 30%. better than BNP 202, 9%.


----------



## rosecore (Mar 23, 2013)

They perpetuate the idea that you can simply walk into another EU country and claim benefits, that's an outright lie - http://t.co/HFszUIRe90


----------



## J Ed (Mar 23, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/22/will-sun-back-ukip-2015

I think that UKIP is being backed by Murdoch in the same way that he backed the Tea Party in the US, he is trying to push the overall political discourse to the right. The policies of UKIP and the Tea Party are remarkably similar, both claim to be freemarket libertarians while espousing what is basically a right-wing populist position. For example, the Tea Party claims to be pro-freemarket but supports a nationalised healthcare for the elderly in the form of medicare, UKIP claims to be libertarian while advocating the scrapping of tuition fees

You have a very similar populist, walking the zipline of acceptability, attitude towards race. UKIP, like The Tea Party, has a few 'non-white' members but its positions are utterly designed to appeal to the racial majority. The Tea Party made a lot of the 'Ground Zero Mosque' issue and Mexican immigration. UKIP wants to ban burkhas and whips up hatred against the prospect of an increase in Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants, they are even holding a demonstration against them.

Both the Tea Party and UKIP are being used to divert what would be serious opposition to neoliberalism into an ideology that is ostensibly anti-establishment but in reality would facilitate a kind of hyper-neoliberalism. This tactic is eerily familiar of the way in which the establishment used fascism and right-wing Catholic social teaching to divert people from socialism in the early 20th Century.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 23, 2013)

I wonder what all the libertarian supporters of UKIP think of the proposals to ban benefit claimants spending money on booze, sky TV etc. It's up for debate st the UKIP conference apparently 

Will they complain or will they think freedom only applies to them...


----------



## rosecore (Mar 23, 2013)

Turning public anger from the banks, tax avoiders and tax evaders to the scapegoats of the poorest - Immigrants, the unemployed, the sick. Every major party has turned right on the immigration debate, it gives Ukip an oxygen that should not exist.


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 23, 2013)

UKIP announced Jon Gaunt as a member at their conference today - someone that will definitely appeal to racist white van driving pricks everywhere. He was on Murdoch's payroll too before he got kicked off talk radio. I smell a rat.

This is going to be pushed as an 'anti establishment' thing isn't it? The right-wing press, furious at being reigned in by Leveson, are going to see this as revenge against the mainstream parties - a reminder who runs things, a reminder of whose agenda should be followed.


Bring on Scottish independence, I'll head north over the border, no way in hell I'll accept the rule of these fucking cuckoo clocks.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Mar 23, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> UKIP just won gooshays local. 831 votes, 30%. better than BNP 202, 9%.


 
Actually UKIP took 38.9% while BNP took 9.47%. So as good as 50% between them.


----------



## rosecore (Mar 23, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> Actually UKIP took 38.9% while BNP took 9.47%. So as good as 50% between them.


20% turnout. Minority parties always make gains from these.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 24, 2013)

A point I've just seen in The Guardian is that the Telegraph seem to be moving away from the Tories.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 24, 2013)

Maybe people are worried about immigration and Europe?


----------



## Quartz (Mar 24, 2013)

rosecore said:


> 20% turnout. Minority parties always make gains from these.


 
True, but they can start a bandwagon going.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

rosecore said:


> 20% turnout. Minority parties always make gains from these.


Not always and not exclusively - at the height of the BNP success they were able to win seats by getting previous non-voters out. And here, if you combine the BNP/UKIP vote, you find that they managed to withstand a low turnout, that is they demonstrated a _motivated_ vote - the only other group who managed that was a residents association.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Mar 24, 2013)

rosecore said:


> 20% turnout. Minority parties always make gains from these.


 
Nothing to worry about then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

rosecore said:


> They perpetuate the idea that you can simply walk into another EU country and claim benefits, that's an outright lie - http://t.co/HFszUIRe90


 
Yup. It's pretty difficult to do even after you've actually contributed to the tax system of those countries with reciprocal arrangements, too, let alone trying to open a claim straight away.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

rosecore said:


> Turning public anger from the banks, tax avoiders and tax evaders to the scapegoats of the poorest - Immigrants, the unemployed, the sick. Every major party has turned right on the immigration debate, it gives Ukip an oxygen that should not exist.


 
It's a historically-proven distraction tactic in times of economic crisis. Frankly, I'd be more worried if they *weren't* trying to get the immigration dog to bark - it might imply they had something even more nauseating up their collective political sleeves.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 24, 2013)

Is it because they are copying and pasting old Nick Griffin tweets?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Maybe people are worried about immigration and Europe?


 
I'm sure some people are.
It's pretty hard to separate genuine and rational concern from irrational scaremongering at the moment, though, with the amount of media noise.


----------



## treelover (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a historically-proven distraction tactic in times of economic crisis. Frankly, I'd be more worried if they *weren't* trying to get the immigration dog to bark - it might imply they had something even more nauseating up their collective political sleeves.


 

benefit swipe cards limiting purchases is bad enough..


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm sure some people are.
> It's pretty hard to separate genuine and rational concern from irrational scaremongering at the moment, though, with the amount of media noise.


 
But that has been the same for the past five , perhaps even more years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> UKIP announced Jon Gaunt as a member at their conference today - someone that will definitely appeal to racist white van driving pricks everywhere. He was on Murdoch's payroll too before he got kicked off talk radio. I smell a rat.
> 
> This is going to be pushed as an 'anti establishment' thing isn't it? The right-wing press, furious at being reigned in by Leveson, are going to see this as revenge against the mainstream parties - a reminder who runs things, a reminder of whose agenda should be followed.
> 
> ...


Yeh go to scotland where one alex salmond may as well get paid by murdoch for what he does without charge.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/22/will-sun-back-ukip-2015
> 
> I think that UKIP is being backed by Murdoch in the same way that he backed the Tea Party in the US, he is trying to push the overall political discourse to the right. The policies of UKIP and the Tea Party are remarkably similar, both claim to be freemarket libertarians while espousing what is basically a right-wing populist position. For example, the Tea Party claims to be pro-freemarket but supports a nationalised healthcare for the elderly in the form of medicare, UKIP claims to be libertarian while advocating the scrapping of tuition fees
> 
> ...


Where did 'the establishment' use fascism and right-wing catholic social teaching in the uk? Pls remind me.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Where did 'the establishment' use fascism and right-wing catholic social teaching in the uk? Pls remind me.


 
I'm not talking about the UK in the first instance


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> But that has been the same for the past five , perhaps even more years.


 
At the same level? Or has it actually oscillated up and down, depending on what other distracytions have been available?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> benefit swipe cards limiting purchases is bad enough..


 
Such a scheme failed before, on a much smaller scale. IMO it's pie in the sky until they have a robust technical solution in place, unless they *want* thousands of skint, pissed-off people besieging their local DWP offices.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2013)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I'm not talking about the UK in the first instance


as this thread's about the uk I find that rather surprising.


----------



## treelover (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Such a scheme failed before, on a much smaller scale. IMO it's pie in the sky until they have a robust technical solution in place, unless they *want* thousands of skint, pissed-off people besieging their local DWP offices.


 

Mastercard are working with Demos(the well know 'centre left' think tank) on it, i think they will create a workable model, Aus already has it, the fact UKIP are endorsing it sadly makes it much more likely as Tories don't want to be outflanked..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> Mastercard are working with Demos(the well know 'centre left' think tank) on it, i think they will create a workable model, Aus already has it, the fact UKIP are endorsing it sadly makes it much more likely as Tories don't want to be outflanked..


 
The Aussie scheme is considerably more simple than Demos' proposals. The Basics card doesn't have Australia-wide coverage; it isn't used for all benefits, or all benefits recipients, and relies (like the voucher scheme over here) on retailers collaborating. It also relies on retailers billing the item under the correct code. Fine of the retailer scans products and uses an EPOS system, not so fine if the retailer works a till manually, in which case you can ring a product into any code you like. The devil is, as always, in the detail. The more complex the scheme, the greater probability of it failing, like so many of the govts' vanguard IT schemes.


----------



## where to (Mar 25, 2013)

Latest poll by TRS brmb has ukip on 17 (seventeen) %.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Mar 25, 2013)

My mother (retired state registered childminder) announced she's voting for them. In her case I don't think it's an anti eu/ immigration stance - there are virtually no immigrants in the small Yorks mining town she lives in. No way is she racist. I think it's more a case of the other parties being utterly rubbish. My town has been labour as long as I've lived. Mum loathes the Tories, she needs an eye operation and can barely see. It was cancelled because of NHS cuts, after Condems came to power. She may have voted libdems in the past.
I've no idea what dad thinks of this (Nalgo member, staunch socialist). I haven't asked him!


----------



## starfish2000 (Mar 26, 2013)

Ukip are naive old tories from the 80 s who never saw that privatisation would lead to globalisation and that globalisation would lead to a migrant mobile labour force that would compete for part time work with their offspring.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

Did you read the post before yours?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 26, 2013)

Havent read the whole thread, but I thinks its simply that no major party has been prepared to engage with the electorate and propose an immigration policy that the populace as a whole find acceptable.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2013)

1927 said:


> Havent read the whole thread, but I thinks its simply that no major party has been prepared to engage with the electorate and propose an immigration policy that the populace as a whole find acceptable.


I think it's because all parties (up until this amazingly self-destructive lot) have encouraged immigration whilst demonising immigrants.

Immigration is necessary for growth in low birth-rate (aka rich) countries (one reason Japan appears to be doing so badly economically, their GDP growth per capita is actually quite strong). It's also cheaper to import skills than train people, and harder to unionise immigrants. And, of course, ~5% unemployment is 'necessary' for capitalism to remain profitable (partly by putting downward pressure on wages by keeping a reserve army of labour around to scare the workers with, and partly by controlling inflation).

This is why the CBI squeals whenever the Tories talk of immigration caps, and are spitting feathers now that they're actually implementing one (to the massive detriment of the economy because May is trying to achieve her arbitrary target by fucking off foreign students, who are a huge boon for the economy and employers both).

The CBI do not squeal about demonising immigrants because without this they would be easier to unionise and that would never do. Demonisation of immigrants also gets people pointing the finger at those who have even less than they do, whilst ignoring the near invisible and near invincible cunts that are actually robbing them blind.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

Farage is replacing Boris as the right-wing press's favourite stooge for the time being, Murdoch's very keen on him, and he'll back UKIP to extract revenge for Cameron's failure to deliver BskyB to him, and the press regulation stuff.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2013)

The Tea Party has pretty much destroyed the Republicans, so it's not all bad news.

The bad news is that the parliamentary 'left' has been dragged further right than Thatcher/Reagan in the process (here as well as there). But at least the rot might stop and a change of direction become possible (not inevitable, possible).


----------



## where to (Mar 26, 2013)

In 2013 a huge chunk of the population knows the consensus doesn't deliver any longer. Across Europe people are apparently moving away from the centre ground/ mainstream politics, but in no consistent way. The UKIP vote must firstly be seen in that context.

In Italy they get a bolshy comedian crackpot, in Greece the organised far left and right, Spain the Catalan nationalist pill and united left (no Spanish right organised, yet) seem to be filling the void. In the UK we get UKIP.

The policies are secondary imo. What matters is who is organised and shouts loudest/ gets the press megaphone moat often. In the UK that's UKIP.

I would call UKIP the placebo vote. It doesn't work, but its new so how can we be sure? People have no belief in any alternative economic model, no matter how shite the current one is. And anyway, it feels better and that's kind of the point. How many even know their economic policies ? Does.t really matter apparently.

They are 17% now but this is only just starting point as the potential size of the placebo vote is 40% or more.

The Left could fill this bits of this void, but only a new and aggressive Left. People are immune to the Left they've heard before. They don't believe it will work and they don't want nice, they want hard and on their side (eg Syriza , who are aggressive , for now , towards Berlin).

By summer UKIP will be up to 25%, barring exposure.


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 26, 2013)

where to said:


> Don't think we've really done this one.
> 
> Labour vote lost votes to BNP between 1997 and 2010, but not to the left.
> 
> ...


 
The Sun is the biggest selling 'news' paper in the country and there will always be those too dense to see beyond the rhetoric
also the "it costs us Xmillion a day to be in Europe" line is a crafty one . They are careful not to remind us that we wouldn't see a penny of money saved though


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _Ha ha fat old tories._


 
and a fucking berk who looks like Homer Simpson in a pinstripe suit


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 26, 2013)

Farage just reminds me of a slightly charming but clueless parish councillor, as played by Hugh Lawrie.

Can you imagine him out on a meet-and-greet walkabout in somewhere like Lewisham, encountering ordinary people?  He wouldn't know what to say or do, he'd shit his pants.

(tbh the fact that he doesn't appear to pretend to like football and all the kind of 'I'm one of you, look I'm wearing a baseball cap' bullshit that the main party leaders do is almost to his credit - he's pretty much a straight-up space alien).


----------



## likesfish (Mar 26, 2013)

Its a protest vote for people who wouldnt vote BNP but hate the other partys the lib dems used to be that route but since the coalition that gone.

Caroline lucas won here in brighton but thats probably a local thing.
 The Left could fill this bits of this void, but only a new and aggressive Left. People are immune to the Left they've heard before. They don't believe it will work and they don't want nice, they want hard and on their side (eg Syriza , who are aggressive , for now , towards Berlin).

Unfortunatly you need a critical mass to be taken seriously tommy sheridan and George and scargill and the famous names on the left and they are rather dodge.
 The swp while useless also appears to have joined the catholic church in a sex scandals.

A left that was grown up enough not to talk about revolution ( its not happening anytime soon so forget it.).
 You can transform society with out a revoultion its just harder less immediate but it can be done


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 26, 2013)

pinkmonkey said:


> My mother (retired state registered childminder) announced she's voting for them. In her case I don't think it's an anti eu/ immigration stance - there are virtually no immigrants in the small Yorks mining town she lives in. No way is she racist. I think it's more a case of the other parties being utterly rubbish. My town has been labour as long as I've lived. Mum loathes the Tories, she needs an eye operation and can barely see. It was cancelled because of NHS cuts, after Condems came to power. She may have voted libdems in the past.
> I've no idea what dad thinks of this (Nalgo member, staunch socialist). I haven't asked him!


 
the irony is UKIP would do exactly the same with the NHS as the real tories


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2013)

this hat is becoming increasingly popular with wannabe mavericks. Galloway has a leather one.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

Taking their cues from Martin wright and Ian bone (sure i've also seen Nick h. looking rather snazzy in one as well).


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> this hat is becoming increasingly popular with wannabe mavericks. Galloway has a leather one.


 
Very popular with 'Mens' Rights Activists' too, fedoras should be renamed cunt tops.

Not that MRA isn't 'intersectional' with UKIP nuttery http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17911131


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2013)

sure of seen Laurrie Penny sporting one as well


----------



## where to (Mar 26, 2013)

Vince cable too, similar anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Very popular with 'Mens' Rights Activists' too, fedoras should be renamed cunt tops.


 
Fuck you, shitheel! 

You'll have to pry my black fedora from my cold dead fingers.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

is this one?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 26, 2013)

starfish2000 said:


> Ukip are naive old tories from the 80 s who never saw that privatisation would lead to globalisation and that globalisation would lead to a migrant mobile labour force that would compete for part time work with their offspring.


nailed in one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> is this one?


 
It is.
Mine doesn't have a broad ribbon on it like Hislop's though. Mine has a narrow leather band. He's formal, I'm "scruffy bastard".


----------



## J Ed (Mar 30, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/22/will-sun-back-ukip-2015
> 
> I think that UKIP is being backed by Murdoch in the same way that he backed the Tea Party in the US, he is trying to push the overall political discourse to the right. The policies of UKIP and the Tea Party are remarkably similar, both claim to be freemarket libertarians while espousing what is basically a right-wing populist position. For example, the Tea Party claims to be pro-freemarket but supports a nationalised healthcare for the elderly in the form of medicare, UKIP claims to be libertarian while advocating the scrapping of tuition fees
> 
> ...


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 30, 2013)

As an impressionistic aside, in the absence of social mobilisation on a significant scale, right-wing parties find it easier to grow as they are essentially just building on the logic of ideological production of society more broadly (something left-wing parties can do, but with more difficulty).


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Mar 30, 2013)

cantsin said:


> whatever the conclusions and subsequent positions UAF take up re: UKIP, that seems a pretty open and positive process by which to come to them tbh.


 
That's where you are wrong: even assuming the figures weren't rigged, HNH leadership clique ignored them anyway.  No surprise there.  For context on HNH's take on UKIP, check this post out http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...upping-with-the-devil-hope-not-hate-ukip.html


----------



## Quartz (Mar 31, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> As an impressionistic aside, in the absence of social mobilisation on a significant scale, right-wing parties find it easier to grow as they are essentially just building on the logic of ideological production of society more broadly (something left-wing parties can do, but with more difficulty).


 
Would you care to explain that in rather simpler terms?


----------



## Quartz (Mar 31, 2013)

Larry O'Hara said:


> That's where you are wrong: even assuming the figures weren't rigged, HNH leadership clique ignored them anyway. No surprise there. For context on HNH's take on UKIP, check this post out http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...upping-with-the-devil-hope-not-hate-ukip.html


 
Interesting article but it conflates concern over immigration with racism. Notice that the current concern is immigration by Romanians - whites.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Interesting article but it conflates concern over immigration with racism. Notice that the current concern is immigration by Romanians - whites.


Exactly where do you think that it does that? It does no such thing.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Would you care to explain that in rather simpler terms?


 
Ok, our entire public debate is based on right-wing premises, which is an easier base for right-wing parties to build on.

One example; if you start from the idea that "British people" are one unified group with common interests (an idea that's pretty basic to all our political parties, media institutions, political commentators etc.), then things like "putting Britain first" naturally spring from that (and a whole load of policy preferences re: immigration, internationalism etc.).


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 31, 2013)

where to said:


> They are 17% now but this is only just starting point as the potential size of the placebo vote is 40% or more.
> 
> The Left could fill this bits of this void, but only a new and aggressive Left. People are immune to the Left they've heard before. They don't believe it will work and they don't want nice, they want hard and on their side (eg Syriza , who are aggressive , for now , towards Berlin).
> 
> By summer UKIP will be up to 25%, barring exposure.


Sorry which poll has put them on 17%?

The idea that they'll be polling 25% (nationally) is barking, you are clearly talking nonsense.

ETA: I've seen there's three polls in March which have them on 17%, but they're outliers. Using the March polling from here they're on 12.5% for the month (could be slightly out just did calculation quickly), so significantly lower than the 17% figure you're using.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry which poll has put them on 17%?
> 
> The idea that they'll be polling 25% (nationally) is barking, you are clearly talking nonsense.


Here


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 31, 2013)

Cheers butchers, just checked UKPR.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 31, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Ok, our entire public debate is based on right-wing premises, which is an easier base for right-wing parties to build on.


 
Ah, right.



> One example; if you start from the idea that "British people" are one unified group with common interests (an idea that's pretty basic to all our political parties, media institutions, political commentators etc.), then things like "putting Britain first" naturally spring from that (and a whole load of policy preferences re: immigration, internationalism etc.).


 
Except that's a nationalist POV not a right-wing one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Interesting article but it conflates concern over immigration with racism. Notice that the current concern is immigration by Romanians - whites.


 
Jews are/were "white". Skin colour didn't stop racism. "White" is a moveable feast, and not necessarily a shield from racism.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 31, 2013)

Yes, but the current concern is not because they're Romanians per se; it's that a large group of people will have the right to immigrate. UKIP affect to be concerned about immigration from everywhere.


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Yes, but the current concern is not because they're Romanians per se; it's that a large group of people will have the right to immigrate.


 
Hmm, not sure about that one...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Interesting article but it conflates concern over immigration with racism. Notice that the current concern is immigration by Romanians - whites.


 


butchersapron said:


> Exactly where do you think that it does that? It does no such thing.


 
Quartz?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Ah, right.
> 
> Except that's a nationalist POV not a right-wing one.


Well yes, but nationalist positions come more naturally to Right-wing parties than Left-wing ones (particularly parties outside the political mainstream). Ally it to other parts of public discourse (idealisation of "working hard and getting on", hostility to people seen as unproductive, exclusion of marginalised groups from the national narrative), and it's an open goal for UKIP really. They're free to say everything that public discourse implies, without actually having to act on it.

(acting on it is impossible for the political class of course, curtailing immigration would cost the country billions of pounds, as would pulling out of the EU, a degree of subsistence for the unemployed is vital for reproducing the labour force and maintaining social stability etc etc.)


----------



## where to (Mar 31, 2013)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> ETA: I've seen there's three polls in March which have them on 17%, but they're outliers



That's quite a few outliers.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 31, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> (acting on it is impossible for the political class of course,


 
Well, they're political inactivists at heart, aren't they? 



> curtailing immigration would cost the country billions of pounds, as would pulling out of the EU,


 
Those are the big two debates, aren't they? And opinions differ.



> a degree of subsistence for the unemployed is vital for reproducing the labour force and maintaining social stability etc etc.)


 
That's their view. I've been unemployed and I think it would have been socially better if I and all the other unemployed had been employed. 

Anyway, I just caught the last 5 mins or so of Farage's speech on BBC Parliament where he spoke of emulating the Liberal Democrats. I think he's making a mistake there.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Well, they're political inactivists at heart, aren't they?


If only. A bit of political inaction would've done wonders in the past four years (witness how well Belgium was doing until they disastrously agreed on a government)



> Those are the big two debates, aren't they? And opinions differ.


They aren't debates if you look at them from perspective of the political class or the business class (essentially the same things). Ask the CBI or the big financial firms if they want the borders closed or to pull out of the EU.



> That's their view. I've been unemployed and I think it would have been socially better if I and all the other unemployed had been employed.


 
Whatever you or I think about unemployment and social policy, the idea that "full employment" should be a goal of public policy has long been off the menu in public debate. A debate that now boils down to "how much forced labour should be inflicted on the unemployed"



> Anyway, I just caught the last 5 mins or so of Farage's speech on BBC Parliament where he spoke of emulating the Liberal Democrats. I think he's making a mistake there.


It's a mistake to make the comparison. But UKIP's target would be something like that ie. a couple of dozen parliamentary seats, force the Tories into coalition...


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 31, 2013)

The capitalist class win in a range of ways from today's unimpeded labour movement. It was of course an absolutely central( but obviously undeclared) plank of the Blair/Brown era economic strategy, and remains so for the Coalition today. And is an absolutely central policy plank of the EU . It ensure that the traditional economistic Trades Union "limitation of supply " strategy to defending working class wage levels  and conditions is significantly  undermined by an almost limitless supply of  fresh labour. A labour supply of course which has cost the UK capitalist class absolutely nothing to reproduce or educate  ! And a labour supply which is generally, younger, fitter, and keener to work crap hours and conditions and for lower wages than the indigenous workforce. Whats not to like for capitalism  !  Then the capitalist class can also pull the ancient old "divide and rule" trick via their popular press, stoking up fears and hatreds against the very incomer workers they have imported !  --- distracting the indigenous working class from who is really responsible for shitty housing, the economic crisis, and the imminent destruction of the Welfare State. The capitalist class of course has no intention whatsoever of ending unimpeded labour supply, they will fight tooth and nail to continue it -- but they are quite happy for the vacuous bullshitters of UKIP to sow petty nationalist  illusions and divisive anti immigrant hysteria amongst the rest of the population - confident that UKIP are just a bunch of con-artist saloon bar , in it for the big lunches, braggarts who will deliver absolutely none of their big promises.  The capitalist ruling class would actually be much more nervous about a neo fascist party doing well on the same agenda, because the fairytale national autarkist "solutions"  , anti immigrant ,and anti finance prejudices of fascism are much less easily controllable than the paper tigers of UKIP.

The danger for the radical  Left is to be sucked into policy and ideological/terminological accommodations with the widespread anti migrant worker , and anti settled "immigrant" community, hysteria - as the Left periodically did to the anti semitism of the Nazis in Germany in the early 30's - wth lots of "nod and a wink" euphemisms to the Nazis working class support base about "of course we all hate Finance Capitalists" , when this was actually a universal code word for "Jewish Finance Capital". Concessions to racism and petty nationalism simply don't work - the Left not only shouldn't but CAN'T  "out bigot" the Right - without becoming just a radical "anti capitalist" Left wing of the Right - "Strasserism" as it is usually called.   Instead the radical Socialist Left has to simply grit its collective teeth in the face of a mass media created anti immigrant shitstorm and  campaign relentlessly against the austerity offensive without scapegoating the other , immigrant, working class VICTIMS of the capitalist system. Our propaganda has to always take pains to pin the real blame on capitalism for poverty, low wages, the cuts. We need to try and draw people from across communities into these campaigns and struggles. And in the area of unfettered labour supply; ending free movement of , particularly EU, labour ?   It simply aint going to happen under contemporary capitalism. So the struggle for better wages and conditions has to become much more straightforwardly political - rather than depending on traditional Trades Union "restriction of supply" nostrums.  The struggle has to be also a national, electoral one,building a new radical socialist party and  fighting for a planned egalitarian socialist  society, with an internationalist perspective, but which does promise reindustrialisation and regional policy  and a Welfare State, to ensure good skilled "jobs for all" and a good life for all. Obviously it would be up to a democratic socialist workers state what the policy was on the entry of external workers at any one  time, in the rapidly changing circumstances of the time. But in that transformed socio/economic situation the international and domestic context would be completely different.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> The capitalist class win in a range of ways from today's unimpeded labour movement. It was of course an absolutely central( but obviously undeclared) plank of the Blair/Brown era economic strategy, and remains so for the Coalition today. And is an absolutely central policy plank of the EU . It ensure that the traditional economistic Trades Union "limitation of supply " strategy to defending working class wage levels and conditions is significantly undermined by an almost limitless supply of fresh labour. A labour supply of course which has cost the UK capitalist class absolutely nothing to reproduce or educate ! And a labour supply which is generally, younger, fitter, and keener to work crap hours and conditions and for lower wages than the indigenous workforce. Whats not to like for capitalism ! Then the capitalist class can also pull the ancient old "divide and rule" trick via their popular press, stoking up fears and hatreds against the very incomer workers they have imported ! --- distracting the indigenous working class from who is really responsible for shitty housing, the economic crisis, and the imminent destruction of the Welfare State. The capitalist class of course has no intention whatsoever of ending unimpeded labour supply, they will fight tooth and nail to continue it -- but they are quite happy for the vacuous bullshitters of UKIP to sow petty nationalist illusions and divisive anti immigrant hysteria amongst the rest of the population - confident that UKIP are just a bunch of con-artist saloon bar , in it for the big lunches, braggarts who will deliver absolutely none of their big promises. The capitalist ruling class would actually be much more nervous about a neo fascist party doing well on the same agenda, because the fairytale national autarkist "solutions" , anti immigrant ,and anti finance prejudices of fascism are much less easily controllable than the paper tigers of UKIP.
> 
> The danger for the radical Left is to be sucked into policy and ideological/terminological accommodations with the widespread anti migrant worker , and anti settled "immigrant" community, hysteria - as the Left periodically did to the anti semitism of the Nazis in Germany in the early 30's - wth lots of "nod and a wink" euphemisms to the Nazis working class support base about "of course we all hate Finance Capitalists" , when this was actually a universal code word for "Jewish Finance Capital". Concessions to racism and petty nationalism simply don't work - the Left not only shouldn't but CAN'T "out bigot" the Right - without becoming just a radical "anti capitalist" Left wing of the Right - "Strasserism" as it is usually called. Instead the radical Socialist Left has to simply grit its collective teeth in the face of a mass media created anti immigrant shitstorm and campaign relentlessly against the austerity offensive without scapegoating the other , immigrant, working class VICTIMS of the capitalist system. Our propaganda has to always take pains to pin the real blame on capitalism for poverty, low wages, the cuts. We need to try and draw people from across communities into these campaigns and struggles. And in the area of unfettered labour supply; ending free movement of , particularly EU, labour ? It simply aint going to happen under contemporary capitalism. So the struggle for better wages and conditions has to become much more straightforwardly political - rather than depending on traditional Trades Union "restriction of supply" nostrums. The struggle has to be also a national, electoral one,building a new radical socialist party and fighting for a planned egalitarian socialist society, with an internationalist perspective, but which does promise reindustrialisation and regional policy and a Welfare State, to ensure good skilled "jobs for all" and a good life for all. Obviously it would be up to a democratic socialist workers state what the policy was on the entry of external workers at any one time, in the rapidly changing circumstances of the time. But in that transformed socio/economic situation the international and domestic context would be completely different.


Fucking hell. Which party should I join for all that Ayatollah?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Yes, but the current concern is not because they're Romanians per se; it's that a large group of people will have the right to immigrate. UKIP affect to be concerned about immigration from everywhere.


 
You implied that concerns against Romanians couldn't be "racism" because they're white. I was disabusing you of that notion.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You implied that concerns against Romanians couldn't be "racism" because they're white. I was disabusing you of that notion.


 
You're mistaken to think I held it in the first place though I can see how what I wrote could be so interpreted. For UKIP the current brouhaha over Romanians is nothing to do with their being Romanian. It would be the same if they were Angolan or Brazilian or Thai. The issue which UKIP - unlike the BNP - are exploiting is immigration, not race. It's a fine difference, but if you fail to make it, you fall into their trap.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 31, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Fucking hell. Which party should I join for all that Ayatollah?


 
The party I'm sure we all hope  might emerge from the fog of growing struggle  eventually as the crisis reaches the" tipping point "of pain for enough working class people. Then again of course it might not, and we're all completely screwed. Depends whether one's an optimist or a pessimist I suppose (yeh, yeh, I know - "or a fantasist")..


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2013)

This bloke claims to be a ukipper and a Stalinist...

https://twitter.com/KenBellUKIP


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2013)

J Ed said:


> This bloke claims to be a ukipper and a Stalinist...
> 
> https://twitter.com/KenBellUKIP


 
In Southampton one of their main leaders and a former PPC is Kim Rose ex-Socialist Labour Party activist and candidate


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 31, 2013)

where to said:


> That's quite a few outliers.


3 results out of 26. You going to address the substantive points? They're not on 17% and that they'd have to almost double their share to the vote in 3 months to be polling 25% by the summer.

They're pricks and they are growing but lets have proper analysis not daft claims.


----------



## where to (Mar 31, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> 3 results out of 26. You going to address the substantive points? They're not on 17% and that they'd have to almost double their share to the vote in 3 months to be polling 25% by the summer.
> 
> They're pricks and they are growing but lets have proper analysis not daft claims.


 
when they poll 17%, it is legitimate to say then say they are on 17%. i don't see what it problematic about that, or about making predictions on an informal politics forum.


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 31, 2013)

where to said:


> That's quite a few outliers.


looking at the list Ukip do seem to jump about a bit


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 31, 2013)

Right so you don't actually understand polling data.

Leaving the 25% nonsense aside, what are peoples predictions for their performance in the upcoming local elections?

Vast majority of the councils where election's are occurring are Tory atm.


----------



## where to (Apr 1, 2013)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> Right so you don't actually understand polling data.
> 
> Leaving the 25% nonsense aside, what are peoples predictions for their performance in the upcoming local elections?].



Just saving that one for posterity.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Vast majority of the councils where election's are occurring are Tory atm.


 
It'll be an interesting one - worth discussing in more depth here 

I don't think UKIP will be particularly well organised for these, they're not normally and in my view they will not have much impact in terms of votes taken from others or seats actually won.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 1, 2013)

I reckon they'll make some gains this time, in contrast to 2011 and 2012 where they didn't have any gains (overall). I don't think they'll take a lot of seats but they could have quite a lot of second/third places

Having a quick glance through that list of councils where elections are happening you'd think theres a few areas where they stand to do well. What could be interesting if in the SE there's a repeat of the Eastleigh by-election with UKIP taking votes of the Tories and letting the yellow scum in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> I reckon they'll make some gains this time, in contrast to 2011 and 2012 where they didn't have any gains (overall). I don't think they'll take a lot of seats but they could have quite a lot of second/third places
> 
> Having a quick glance through that list of councils where elections are happening you'd think theres a few areas where they stand to do well. What could be interesting if in the SE there's a repeat of the Eastleigh by-election with UKIP taking votes of the Tories and letting the yellow scum in.


 
I'm not sure that the Tories will be too worried about the placings *if*, after analysis, the votes appear to mostly come from Lib-Dems and Tories making "protest votes". That could play out badly for them if, as is likely to happen, Cameron continues to disenchant and disenfranchise the backwoodsmen. I'm not sure that even winning more than a handful of seats would give UKIP any sort of political longevity, though, given that they'd have to enter coalition (formal or informal) with one wing of neoliberalism or t'other, which would immediately put the kybosh on some of their political proposals.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Apr 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Quartz?





Quartz said:


> Interesting article but it conflates concern over immigration with racism. Notice that the current concern is immigration by Romanians - whites.


 
I agree Butcher's, he evidentlt hasn't read the article.  There is an important principle here, that of those in the pay of the statye (like HNH) should not be campaigning in favour of their paymasters (the coalition), yet they evidently are.


----------



## where to (Apr 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It'll be an interesting one - worth discussing in more depth here
> 
> I don't think UKIP will be particularly well organised for these, they're not normally and in my view they will not have much impact in terms of votes taken from others or seats actually won.


 
agreed.  Labour will also be recieving massive swings back to themselves in these elections where there is no clear alternative (i.e. maybe not in Scotland/ Wales/ etc).  same with the Euros next year- UKIP are actually unlikely to come first as many are expecting.


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

Apparently some leftist/liberals in Rusholme managed get a UKIP poster about ending EU immigration taken down by clear channel

thing is, instead of a few thousand seeing, many thousands will do now with the resultant furore,

makes one wonder if they knew this would happen..




of course they fucking did...


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

J Ed said:


> This bloke claims to be a ukipper and a Stalinist...
> 
> https://twitter.com/KenBellUKIP


 

"Let's be honest, publicity like this we could not buy even if we tried. It is a mini Rotherham all over again, and looking at these mouthy madams who seem to be behind it I am reminded of just why I quit the Labour Party. Keeping my sarcasm in check when faced with some bird with a bra size larger than her IQ is not easy."


and uncouth and sexist as well, play them at their game contact the media about his comments


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

"*Ken Bell* ‏@*KenBellUKIP*  28 Mar
A dating site rejected me. I failed the question: "What do you like the most in a woman?" It seems "my cock" is not an acceptable answer."

in your dreams, seen the moustache...

he thinks he is funny as well, always a bad sign of a flawed character...


----------



## youngian (Apr 1, 2013)

From UKIP's manifesto on defence-



> Restore the Royal Navy to its 2001 strength with three new aircraft carriers and nearly 70 other ships, at the same time guaranteeing the future of the Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth bases


 
We can safely assume that three aircraft carriers and 70 ships aren't much good for defending the plains of central Europe if the Kremlin went mad. So what on earth do UKIP want with this massive expansion in naval power?

UKIP's main contention is that outside the EU they could negotiate better global deals with rising economic powers and the Commonwealth (which is merely a networking organisation). I can only assume that this naval power is their idea of leverage; British defence protection in exchange for preferential trade deals (because Johnny Foreigner is crap at that sort of thing compared to 'our boys').

In essence a 21st century rehash of the League of Empire Loyalists and Joseph Chamberlain's Imperial Federation.

Unless they want to sail these ships to the Baltic to give the Hun a good thrashing.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> 3 results out of 26. You going to address the substantive points? They're not on 17% and that they'd have to almost double their share to the vote in 3 months to be polling 25% by the summer.
> 
> They're pricks and they are growing but lets have proper analysis not daft claims.


There's core support and then there is protest vote, both of which count equally in an election. They took almost 100% of the protest vote in Eastleigh, and a lot of it came from Labour voters who abandoned the Lib Dems but did not return to Labour.

Eastleigh is downright weird as a constituency, but in 2015 UKIP will be picking up tactical as well as protest votes in constituencies like Eastleigh and their protest vote will be strong in many areas, in the absence of any left party capable of competing for those votes.

This is Ashcroft on his Eastleigh exit poll:



> UKIP’s claim towards the end of the campaign that they were enjoying a late surge is borne out by the fact that nearly a third of their voters (31%) made up their minds in the last week – indeed nearly a fifth (18%) decided on the day. This also helps to explain the bump in their support since my final pre-election poll, taken last weekend.
> 
> Our question on why people voted as they did suggests a high proportion of the UKIP voters wished a plague upon all parties’ houses: 83% of them said they were sending a message that they were “unhappy with the party I usually support nationally”, and three quarters wanted to show they were “unhappy with all the main parties at the moment”. Notably, the proportion saying they voted UKIP “tactically to try and prevent another party from winning” (40%) was nearly as high as the proportion among those who voted Lib Dem (43%).
> 
> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/p...heres-why-eastleigh-voted-the-way-it-did.html


----------



## Quartz (Apr 1, 2013)

youngian said:


> We can safely assume that three aircraft carriers and 70 ships aren't much good for defending the plains of central Europe if the Kremlin went mad.


 
Perhaps Europe should spend more in its own defence?

A comment, though: recently, the trend has been to have fewer ships capable of doing more. I'm not so sure that's a good idea. In combat, ships get sunk, so the loss of each newer ship is more keenly felt. If you have more ships, albeit each less capable, then the loss of a ship isn't such a problem.



> So what on earth do UKIP want with this massive expansion in naval power?


 
I assume it's for flexibility in projecting power. Nothing says "Hi" like a carrier fleet. And defence of trade routes. If you're going to have a carrier fleet then 3 carriers is a good choice - 2 active in the fleet (in case 1 gets sunk) and 1 in refit. And more tangibly, it's jobs for the shipyards. The two current carriers are being built up north, so this is likely a play for votes in and around Portsmouth and Southampton. Expansion of the army provides employment too, of course. Notice that they want to regionalise the army - spreading the jobs. Beyond that it's hard to say because their defence policy document seems to be missing.



> Unless they want to sail these ships to the Baltic to give the Hun a good thrashing.


 
Why bother when we've got Trident?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 2, 2013)

More crap from Wintour but there's some info at the bottom.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 4, 2013)

Currently odds on to finish second to labour in the South Shields by election


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 4, 2013)

The EDL leader endorses Falange and UKIP.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/04/racist-english-defence-league-announce-support-for-ukip/

The EDL is promoting Falange on their Faecesbook page.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/EDL-English-Defence-League/238696516197018

Tim Stanley has attracted a fair number of right wing loons to this blog.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...es-ukip-this-is-a-nightmare-for-nigel-farage/


----------



## pesh (Apr 4, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> The EDL leader endorses Falange and UKIP.


 
thats nice, they should do a little UK tour together. in a light aircraft.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 4, 2013)

The tories are putting 'expectations management' into play with stories planted in the press about how awful the May elections will be.  When they turn out to be not quite as awful it'll be painted as a victory, and evidence that Milliband isn't making the needed breakthrough.  Pretty standard stuff (and practiced by the last Labour gov too).


----------



## rover07 (Apr 4, 2013)

One of their posters has appeared by us in Brighton.

It's garish pink/yellow and shouts:

STOP EU IMMIGRATION 

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

In a city that thrives on foreign tourists, students and workers it's pretty offensive.


Who the fuck do these people think they are?


----------



## junglevip (Apr 4, 2013)

Meanwhile in other news:

"English Defence League leader endorses Ukip. This is a nightmare for Nigel Farage" - Telegraph

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...es-ukip-this-is-a-nightmare-for-nigel-farage/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

It means very little for Farage - but it might say a lot about who is pulling TR's strings.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 4, 2013)

This gives a bit of insight into why UKIP is attracting votes not just from the Tories but from Labour.

Conclusion of research report on Immigration and Perceptions of the Political System in Britain in Political Quarterly



> Existing academic research has highlighted the potentially negative consequences of ethnic and cultural diversity for citizens' willingness to trust and cooperate with one another20 and the potentially negative effect of ethnic and cultural divisions on welfare provision, as citizens come to perceive the recipients of public funding as vastly different from themselves. The author's own research points to the conclusion that concerns about cultural diversity may also have negative consequences for democratic political systems, because such concerns are weakening the sense of connection between citizens and the institutions and elites that govern them. Such a conclusion is particularly worrying given that most democracies have become culturally diverse, especially after the influx of immigrants in the post-Second World War period. If this association was limited to certain political parties or certain governments, the findings would be far less troubling, as they would indicate that concern about immigration really only affects specific support for governments of the day rather than more deep-seated diffuse or general system support.
> The findings here, however, point to a potentially persistent, strong relationship between concern about immigration and distrust in politics in Britain. These findings confirm that the perceived harm to national community being done by large-scale immigration to Britain has potentially serious consequences for attitudes toward the political system as a whole, including all government institutions and elites of all political leanings. Thus, despite the British public's association of the Conservative party with toughness on immigration, the findings reported here indicate that in modern-day Britain, the public may be equally sceptical about all parties' ability to control immigration.
> Of course, the survey used here came at a fairly early stage of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government, and so it will be important to continue to monitor this relationship as relevant survey data become available. At present, though, based on the 2010–11 survey used here, it appears that the connection between concern about immigration and political distrust is strong and robust. Why might this be the case?
> While the Conservative party has consistently been seen as the best party to handle immigration and asylum issues compared with the other main parties, the Ipsos MORI data discussed above point to the conclusion that for the past decade or so, a larger group of survey respondents have actually come to think either that _none_ of the three main parties are best on immigration, or that they are unsure as to which is better. That is, while those who do think one of these parties is better on immigration tend to say it is the Conservatives who are stronger, there are often many more British citizens who are not clear about which party is stronger. This, in turn, perhaps reflects a high level of scepticism on the part of the British public about the ability of the political system as a whole to have much impact on immigration policy, particularly since the passing of the Human Rights Act in 1998—which had significant repercussions for control of immigration and asylum policy—and more recently the large influx of EU immigrants who were not subject to UK immigration controls (by the government's own choice).
> The prospect of reduced levels of political trust as a result of concerns about the impact of immigration on British culture and society has potentially serious consequences for governance. Academic research indicates, for instance, that individuals are more willing to try to cheat the system (not pay taxes and not pay for public transportation) and are more willing to break the law when their perceptions of the political system are negative.22 As noted above, some research indicates that people are also less willing to support state policies involving redistribution of state funds when they perceive cultural differences between themselves and those who access these funds. In short, the possibility of reduced levels of political trust resulting from concerns about immigration presents the prospect of a weakened political system. The findings here point to the conclusion that this is now a potentially persistent phenomenon which _all_ political parties in Britain must in some way address.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It means very little for Farage - but it might say a lot about who is pulling TR's strings.


 
I've read quite a bit on FB hinting at TR being a state asset, think there's any truth to that?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

State asset might be bit OTT but there's no way he's _clean_.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 4, 2013)

What is TR?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 4, 2013)

Quartz said:


> What is TR?


 
*Who* is.
Tommy Robinson, the alias of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, "head" of the English Defence League.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> *Who* is.
> Tommy Robinson, the alias of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, "head" of the English Defence League.


 
Wrong end of the alimentary canal, surely?


----------



## where to (Apr 4, 2013)

The39thStep said:
			
		

> This gives a bit of insight into why UKIP is attracting votes not just from the Tories but from Labour.
> 
> Conclusion of research report on Immigration and Perceptions of the Political System in Britain in Political Quarterly



Interesting stuff and feels about right. Serious implications for the pro state left. Puts into words suspicions I have had re: America for a long time too.


----------



## Corax (Apr 6, 2013)

They've received an endorsement from the EDL this morning.  Bet they're dead chuffed about that..!


----------



## where to (Apr 6, 2013)

Very quiet all week on Philpott, welfare, bedroom tax and in the debate that conflated these issues.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 6, 2013)

UKIP hoover up a lot of people who think they are "anti establishment" in their support. FB politics groups are full of this type of thing, followed by such statements as "it's UKIP for me".

The predictable irony is that UKIP are an entirely pro establishment party, the establishment being massive corporations and the failed cult of capital for whom the 'kippers will handly adopt any position. 

They are a cruel hoax, just as most phoney populist reactionaries tend to be.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Apr 6, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> UKIP hoover up a lot of people who think they are "anti establishment" in their support. FB politics groups are full of this type of thing, followed by such statements as "it's UKIP for me".
> 
> The predictable irony is that UKIP are an entirely pro establishment party, the establishment being massive corporations and the failed cult of capital for whom the 'kippers will handly adopt any position.


 
Too true, but their chief selling point is they are percieved to be opposed to the_ political establishment_ which is where the electoral attraction lies.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 6, 2013)

The main problem with the political establishment is that it is wholly owned by the corporate hegemony, and replacing them with UKIP who will kneel down for the same cunts (starting with Murdoch, who has had several meetings with Farage) will do nothing to change anything. The fuckwittery of some of their policies such as flat tax might just bring forward the day when we set them all on fire, but outright victory is unlikely - the greater usefulness as seen by corporates will be in dragging the political debate rightwards, and diverting blame from those squeezing wages and conditions for higher profits onto marginalised groups like migrant workers.  They'll be being pushed by the media, but not all the way home.


----------



## junglevip (Apr 6, 2013)

Check this:






I fucken loves it


----------



## treelover (Apr 6, 2013)

Full colour, that would cost a few bob...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It means very little for Farage - but it might say a lot about who is pulling TR's strings.



Are you going to leave it at that that, you tease?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I've read quite a bit on FB hinting at TR being a state asset, think there's any truth to that?


 
Which state?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 6, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> The fuckwittery of some of their policies such as flat tax


 
A flat tax per se is not necessarily a bad idea - it just depends how it's implemented. That's really something for another thread, but simply calling a flat tax fuckwittery is IMHO foolish.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 6, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Which state?


 
Qatar?


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

Quartz said:


> A flat tax per se is not necessarily a bad idea - it just depends how it's implemented. That's really something for another thread, but simply calling a flat tax fuckwittery is IMHO foolish.


It's a fucking terrible idea. It completely fails to recognise many things:

1. The utility of money reduces with income. The first few quid that get you housed, fed, warm, clean, clothed and mobile are the key to survival. The next are used to improve the quality of your housing, food, heating, clothing, mode of transport and to chuck a few luxuries in like holidays or better entertainment. Spending after that becomes increasingly trivial, such that people are willing to spends tens of thousands to fly their hairdresser half way around the world for one night.

2. Taxation pays for the economy that taxpayers earn money from. If there were no reason to be based here, the rich would go to Somalia where there are no taxes. Those that reap disproportionate reward from the economy should pay disproportionately towards its costs (of providing a literate, numerate, and often highly trained, healthy workforce, a criminal justice system overwhelmingly focused on protecting property and enforcing contracts, a sophisticated communications and transport infrastructure, a government that pimps us out around the world and underwrites their bad gambling debts, you know, those little things).

3. Income inequality reduces the capacity for capitalist growth. Rich people save their money by investing in future bubbles which will burst and ruin us all, poor people spend it on things that other people need to be in work to provide, like nice food and clothes and going out more often. It is harmful in every conceivable way to allow very large income gaps to arise, and taxation is the way the gap can be prevented from getting too wide.

4. If what you actually mean is if we had equal wages for all, then ignore the above. I agree.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's a fucking terrible idea. It completely fails to recognise many things:
> 
> 1. The utility of money reduces with income. The first few quid that get you housed, fed, warm, clean, clothed and mobile are the key to survival. The next are used to improve the quality of your housing, food, heating, clothing, mode of transport and to chuck a few luxuries in like holidays or better entertainment. Spending after that becomes increasingly trivial, such that people are willing to spends tens of thousands to fly their hairdresser half way around the world for one night.


 
As I said, it depends upon how you implement it.


----------



## ymu (Apr 7, 2013)

There is no way to sensibly implement a flat tax, unless you are arguing that it should be flat with respect to utility rather than face value, given that you quoted that bit? I would still argue that it should be progressive still, but strict utility value would certainly give us a much more progressive system than we have now.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 7, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> this hat is becoming increasingly popular with wannabe mavericks. Galloway has a leather one.


Oops. Sounds like I'd better go into maverick politics, then


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2013)

Quartz said:
			
		

> A flat tax per se is not necessarily a bad idea - it just depends how it's implemented. That's really something for another thread, but simply calling a flat tax fuckwittery is IMHO foolish.



What did you do during the poll tax? Good idea done badly?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 7, 2013)

Saw plans for a UKIP anti-immigration protest in Spalding after their protest in Boston. To be followed by one in Wisbech.

Snake oil selling cunts.


----------



## where to (Apr 7, 2013)

Strange and risky route for them to go down. Eyes on the Council perhaps?


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2013)

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk...tory-17372074-detail/story.html#axzz2PooF3pCU

Over 300 at the last one in December in Boston, if they were from just the local area that is substantial, it is more than the BT protests in my city..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2013)

where to said:


> Strange and risky route for them to go down. Eyes on the Council perhaps?


Bingo - boston has a large independent vote (coming out of the bypass protests) that they want to hoover up.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bingo - boston has a large independent vote (coming out of the bypass protests) that they want to hoover up.


 
Lincolnshire does generally, weird place.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Lincolnshire does generally, weird place.


This move is potentially is a big problem for them on local level, because this sort of thing (the anti-immigration protest i mean) is going to be led/ran by local far-right cranks which allows UKIP to simply be moved back into then the loon camp (i think the BNP was much more successful at adopting this local approach and had a lot more 'integrity' and acceptance as a result, whereas UKIP are still _currently_ seen as outsiders locally - whilst acceptable to vote for on the natioaal level). I would expect to see the centre keeping a close eye on local initiatives such as this for the next few years.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 8, 2013)

They're also telling porkies on HS2, do I see a pattern of dishonesty emerging here?

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/04/07-ukip-set-to-make-hs2.html


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2013)

Flat tax is highly regressive even in the first instance. In practice it is more so, because essentials are going up higher than average inflation, which is not likely to change. Higher paid people get better accountants making it more regressive again.

The appeal of flat tax is that it is simple, thus appealing to the simple  of mind.

I recall that it was the system introduced in Iraq when Paul Bremmer ran the show for a short time. That worked well.

UKIP's attraction for the flat tax underlines one of their weakest philosophical points -  they are not in favour of independence at all. They would have us at least as dependent on the same market-cult whims that have screwed up the global economy. Neither are they are they a credible alternative to larger parties - again they bow at the same altar, that of the finance gods. Much of their current appeal is founded in delusion and hoax.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 8, 2013)

I think UKIPs' tax plan had a high starting threshold (£15,000?) which mitigated some of the damage at the lower end, but this is bound to further fuel rhetoric about "those who pay in and those who don't".  Plus all the wealthy with a massively increased amount of spare cash will be certain to throw this into things like housing speculation which will take a lot more out from those at the bottom end and middle of the working population.  The 'spare cash' the rich have is often harmful, it's less likely to be invested in nice-sounding things like 'job creation' and more likely these days to be used for speculation in property, foodstuffs and mineral resources, upping the cost for everyone globally. I'd prefer government to take this and spend it on things that benefit society - physical and social infrastructure, proper care and housing.


----------



## FNG (Apr 8, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Lincolnshire does generally, weird place.


 
Spalding,Boston and Wisbech are all massively dependant on Seasonal Agricultural work for their ecconomies.Large employers contract out their recruitment policies to gangmasters, who recruit directly from overseas and distort the housing market by buying up and converting previous single family houses into multi let units.They then make a premium on renting them to their workers.Surplus capital then goes into further property aquisitions.



> he greater usefulness as seen by corporates will be in dragging the political debate rightwards, and diverting blame from those squeezing wages and conditions for higher profits onto marginalised groups like migrant workers.


 
At a tangent but i saw the tories have/are planning to abolish the Wages Agricultural Board that protects the pay and conditions of some of the poorest paid workers in the country

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/withering-assault-wages-race-bottom


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 8, 2013)

junglevip said:


> Check this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


did they put a white guy in a head-dress, rather than google for a picture of an actual native American?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 8, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> I think UKIPs' tax plan had a high starting threshold (£15,000?) which mitigated some of the damage at the lower end,


 
Idiots. For a flat tax, £15K is far too low for a family unless it's transferable from a non-wage-earning partner to a wage-earning partner. You want somewhere about £40K.


----------



## ymu (Apr 8, 2013)

The rich benefit more than the poor from tax-free thresholds. Try again.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 8, 2013)

ymu said:


> The rich benefit more than the poor from tax-free thresholds. Try again.


 
That doesn't matter: the poor and the near-poor still benefit massively. Got a sensible objection?


----------



## ymu (Apr 8, 2013)

How does a couple on £7k between them benefit? (That's the minimum earnings before your partner cannot claim JSA, BTW.)


----------



## Quartz (Apr 8, 2013)

ymu said:


> How does a couple on £7k between them benefit? (That's the minimum earnings before your partner cannot claim JSA, BTW.)


 
They're still getting other benefits, and because they're massively below the tax threshold they're dinged not one whit.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 8, 2013)

UKIP get 23% in Wigan council by election


----------



## where to (Apr 8, 2013)

The39thStep said:
			
		

> UKIP get 23% in Wigan council by election



What sort of ward? Rural fringe or narmal Wigan?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 8, 2013)

From http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/347453



> The British National Party achieved 3.3% of the vote, just 26 votes behind the Conservative Party.


----------



## Wilson (Apr 20, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk...tory-17372074-detail/story.html#axzz2PooF3pCU
> 
> Over 300 at the last one in December in Boston, if they were from just the local area that is substantial, it is more than the BT protests in my city..


 
They're having one in Spalding tomorrow which looks like its going to be unopposed and then theres going to be one in Wisbech on Saturday May 18th
http://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/v...ukip_only_party_to_halt_immigration_1_1981723

If anyone has any suggestions for what I could do... I could quite easily infiltrate their protest seeing as i look like one of them...


----------



## treelover (Apr 20, 2013)

> If anyone has any suggestions for what I could do... I could quite easily infiltrate their protest seeing as i look like one of them...


 

like this...


----------



## Wilson (Apr 20, 2013)

I'm not that fuckin downright pig ugly


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2013)

The IWCA look at UKIP's attempts to appeal to working class voters, the effects this has on wider political discourse, where and why they have done well (and conversely why the left haven't)  and suggests if successful they will come up against the same external limits that the BNP faced (and i would argue they have internal constraints as well but we'll see on that):

The Slow Fix



> However, just because the BNP have imploded doesn’t mean that the reasons behind their success have disappeared or that their vote has gone away. As the IWCA put it after last year’s French presidential elections: ‘despite these setbacks, the underlying conditions which facilitated the BNP’s rise are still there: disillusionment with the neo-liberal centre and a Labour party that has turned its back on the working class, producing a political vacuum. There is no reason to assume that the BNP is permanently impaired or cannot learn their lessons; but even if that were so, the opportunity remains for some other right-wing formation to fill the vacuum (it is notable that UKIP did well at the recent local elections, a new phenomenon for them)’ (link).
> 
> And so it is coming to pass. According to research conducted by Rob Ford of the University of Manchester, many UKIP loyalists ‘come from working class, Labour leaning backgrounds, and are deeply hostile to all the establishment parties… UKIP supporters’ views of all three parties’ leaders are strongly and persistently negative, and they are more likely to express alienation from politics and dissatisfaction with democracy… UKIP’s strongest support often comes from older working class voters, who often have traditional left wing loyalties’ (link).


 
..



> The IWCA is of the left, the BNP and UKIP are of the right, but what all three share is an awareness of orientating toward the working class, and of the necessity of addressing day-to-day working class concerns. There is a clear pattern: a direct strategic orientation first and foremost to the working class where they live – and not just where they work, and not just those in unionised occupations – bears fruit. It is a simple, straightforward strategic insight, yet it has eluded what is left of the left outside the Labour party. The failure of the left to grasp this simple lesson is allowing UKIP a free run to swallow up the vote the BNP previously broke away from Labour. UKIP are filling the vacuum because they are now the only ones who are trying, in any realistic sense, to fill it.
> 
> In particular, they are being allowed to lead the debate on immigration and frame the matter purely in nationalist, reactionary terms, with no countervailing perspective framing the matter in terms of class. TUSC’s manifesto does not mention immigration, it merely states ‘Defend the right to asylum’ (link). Prior to the onset of the economic crisis, the attitude of the liberal left was that any failure to support unlimited immigration was xenophobic and racist: it seems that even TUSC has realised this position is no longer tenable, but rather than address the issue in class terms they don’t address it at all.


 


> Unless there is a change of strategy and orientation on the left, the process of ‘pushing the political goalposts ever right-wards’ will only continue. As has been shown, there is a means whereby the left can begin to compete, namely to ‘fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class’ because ‘in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement’ (link). As a strategy it  can be arduous, unglamorous and requires a long term investment - a slow fix - but it is the only way forward if our side is serious about rising to the twin challenges of capitalist crisis and growing right-wing nationalism, not just here but in Europe. The austerity clawbacks offer a once in a century opportunity and if the left as a whole continues to shirk its responsibility, the judgement of history will be merciless and the consequences will be profound.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 24, 2013)

Refreshing to have an analysis which actually looks at how the left relates to the working class rather than one about the 'IS tradition'


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 24, 2013)

Quartz said:


> From http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/347453


link won't load


----------



## Quartz (Apr 24, 2013)

It works just fine if you copy the link into another browser tab. 

The Tories got only 89 votes!


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 24, 2013)

Maybe if the 'left' had a leader that was constantly on the TV and in the papers, appeared on Question Time 13 times and so on they'd make inroads.  Visibility is important.  Farage is everywhere, but policy and some of their questionable statements are never analysed anywhere prominent - those claims of 8 million Romanians 'invading' and so on.  I think Labour are strategically leaving them alone as they think they'll do more damage to the tories than to them, but it might not work out that way.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 24, 2013)

Did anyone see Falange on C4 News last night?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 24, 2013)

Excellent article. I'd expecting nothing less of course but it's really good that some on the left are offering this analysis in the midst of all the energy that gets expended on navel-gazing about the IS tradition or getting into twitter wars with the commentariat.

Some minor criticisms: I think quoting 17% for UKIP's support is a slight over-statement of where they're at right now. That specific poll that said 17% would appear to be an outlier and the trend is for them is around 10-12% from what I've seen. Furthermore we've yet to see if the Tories can neutralise it at local and general elections. My guess is that UKIP will do start to do consistently well at a local level, but are unlikely to reproduce that success at the 2015 general election. Despite this the point that's being made about how UKIP is comparable to the more successful contintental European far-right populist groups is absolutely correct so it is just a quibble really. It's always worth re-iterating that Britain probably would've developed a far-right populist party with an established presence in parliament by now if it weren't for our uniquely undemocratic electoral system.

Likewise with the TUSC election result, I doubt TUSC were too bothered about how badly they did in Eastleigh. I know it's tempting to highlight the shitness of the result to really rub their nose in it, but I personally think the more damning results for TUSC were in Rotherham and Manchester central, and a more detailed discussion of exactly why their strategy isn't working might've been good. These are both areas where the SP has a presence, many branches and hundreds of members, and the support of some large trade unions too. OK it's not much compared to the mainstream parties obviously, but it's something, and in spite of these resources there's been nothing to show. _They should be doing better._ These are both constituencies where the left ought to be making inroads during a time of recession, but TUSC is getting nowhere. Perhaps the SP need to stop thinking the sun shines out of the arse of "left" trade union bosses and go back to a more localist type of campaigning (something which they do in fact have history of doing at their best) rather than trying to re-live the glory years of being bag-carriers for the Labour Left, this time substituted with the TU bureaucracy. I won't be holding my breath obviously.

So what are the internal pressures within UKIP? There's already a contradiction, a fairly well established one that's been mentioned on this thread before, between the more libertarian inclined laissez-faire types and the socially conservative ex-Tory's. Take an issue such as gay marriage for instance. UKIP's public position is that they're are implacably opposed - and it's given them a short-term boost by winning support from disaffected Tory voters - but it's not a popular policy in the country, polls say a clear majority of people are either in favour or indifferent, and this is particularly pronounced amongst young people. There's also a differing of opinion within the party, also reflected along generational lines. How they reconcile these differences in their own party on a policy like gay marriage, with an eye on making sure they don't end up being so reactionary that they alienate loads of potential voters, will be very interesting.

Then there's the contradiction with them picking up the ex BNP's vote but offering very little in terms of actual policies for working class people. The article is right to highlight the shift in rhetoric from Farage to anti-immigrant stuff phrased in fairly sensible economic terms, rather than ranting about cultural marxist conspiracies to commit genocide against the white race etc. But I think they're going to have to develop something more substantial than just "they took our jobs" rhetoric if they want to become more than a protest vote for w/c people worried about the consequences of immigration.

This leads to the question: How far will they be able to "fill the vacuum" of working class representation whilst also supporting some outrageous neo-liberal policies that would do real harm to w/c people should they ever get chance to carry them out? I know there's a substantial group within w/c communities that's receptive to benefit-bashing rhetoric but that's only a part of what UKIP has in store. The BNP actually did have policies on council housing, renationalising utilities etc that were thought up to deal with the material needs of working class communities that are disenfranchised. It helped embed them in w/c communities in a way I haven't seen from UKIP - infact I wouldn't be so sure if UKIP cared enough about the the political priorities of w/c people to undertake a policy shift in that direction, I think UKIP are quite condescnding about w/c voters and work on a basis that the plebs are thick and racist so that's all they need to do to win their votes. UKIP's policies all seem to be drawn from a idiosyncratic mix of dogmatic ultra-Thatcherism and social conservatism, with all sorts of miscellaneous crankish libertarian conspiracy theories thrown in there. 

In terms of organisation UKIP always seemed to be to be lacking compared to the BNP. The BNP at their peak had quite a lot of active members, had a visible public presence and seemed fairly well organised - although this is based on my experience in small northern towns I couldn't say that with the same degree of certainty about elsewheere in the country. I don't wish to slip into cliche's about "boots on the ground" and so on but it's worth asking the question - is UKIP's organisational capacity and membership keeping up with their poll ratings? Their ability to stand candidates is becoming impressive, as the article mentions, but do they have a large and engaged enough membership to support those candidates and then make the leap from a being small party that does well in the polls into a medium sized party that does well in elections?

Then you other issues. Look at the way for instance UKIP gets heavy (mainly positive) press coverage. Is that going to remain the case forever? The press is fickle - ask Boris Johnson about this. Private Eye was covering this quite recently, Murdoch was having Farage over for lunch at just the time he started going cold on Boris. If UKIP stand a reasonable chance of costing the Tories the next election and delivering a Labour govt will Murdoch and the press stop being so nice and turn their ire on Falange? How would those polls number stand up without the soft backing of the right-wing press? And there's also another feature of UKIP I was wanting to go into (but have been too busy to do) which is their continual appearances on Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorist sites. Maybe I'm wrong and all publicity is good publicity but being a regularly fixture on a TV show which is such a cesspit of racism and anti-semitism is a bit of a risk for a party keen not end up like the BNP, surely? Does trying to get some of the the "outlaw status" of people like Alex Jones actually work in UKIP's long-term advantage?

Despite these internal pressures the article's spot on - UKIP looks on track to push the centre of british politics further right in exactly the way previous IWCA articles have predicted. And I don't see anything much yet in terms of critical re-evaluation from the left that could stop that. The younger generation of the self-identified left is too wrapped up in the online commentariat wars and who's falling out with who on twitter to notice what's actually going on with the class struggle (and just so no-one gets narked I'm not having a go as if I'm better than that, I'm part of that generation too and it's a criticism that applies to me more than a lot of others) The older generations are tied to the mast of Trotskyism (or whichever moribund grouplet they've pledged allegience too) and they'll go down with that ship.

Getting analysis of this type out to a working class audience is critical and something we should spend more time thinking about.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 24, 2013)

Nigel fucking Farage is on every single news program I turn on recently, I'm not quite sure what's going on. Hopefully he gets even busier and has to start taking light aircraft in between engagements again.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 24, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Did anyone see Falange on C4 News last night?


 
No, I missed it.  Didn't he go to Bulgaria and find precisely nobody who was planning to move to England or something?


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 24, 2013)

Wilson said:


> They're having one in Spalding tomorrow which looks like its going to be unopposed and then theres going to be one in Wisbech on Saturday May 18th
> http://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/v...ukip_only_party_to_halt_immigration_1_1981723
> 
> If anyone has any suggestions for what I could do... I could quite easily infiltrate their protest seeing as i look like one of them...


 
Are you Wisbech?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 24, 2013)

Excellent analysis Delroy. UKIP are getting ahead of themselves right now, and your question about their local organisation can ever really keep up with their poll ratings is on the mark.

But they're strong, for now, out of a vacuum of real political challenge, and unchallenged themselves by anyone influential.


----------



## Wilson (Apr 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Are you Wisbech?


 
Wisbech is a town  I have the dubious fortune of living near to it.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 25, 2013)

Wilson said:


> Wisbech is a town  I have the dubious fortune of living near to it.


 
How near?

Do you have a tail?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 25, 2013)

8115 said:


> No, I missed it. Didn't he go to Bulgaria and find precisely nobody who was planning to move to England or something?


Yes, he did but he refused to believe the Roma or the Bulgarians when they told him they didn't want to live in a country with such lousy weather.


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2013)

Left Unity(85 groups and growing) which I think unlike others on here is going to be substantial are likely to have some sort of open borders policy, there doesn't seem to be any sign of awareness on the issues around it for working class people, this will undoubtedly limit any electoral viability they have.

especially as its components will include a sizeable element of the ISN who are clear on their support for open borders..

btw, kudos to Ch4 news for beginning a real debate on the issues..


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 25, 2013)

Not just their viability electorally but in composition and engagement. Lets face it the left are happier in the company of the left.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Despite these internal pressures the article's spot on - UKIP looks on track to push the centre of british politics further right in exactly the way previous IWCA articles have predicted. And I don't see anything much yet in terms of critical re-evaluation from the left that could stop that.


 
Great analysis, I think this is particularly spot on, UKIP are fulfilling a very similar function to the one that the Tea Party did in the US - that of being a populist social conservative, neoliberal party with a thin veneer of 'libertarianism' which misdirects the victims of neoliberalism to another neoliberal project. Murdoch, amongst others, was absolutely behind the Tea Party project and he seems to be trying to achieve something similar here.






These people are even meeting at neoliberal conferences, I really think that the Tea Party model is being applied in Britain.


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2013)

When is the media going to start robustly interrogating UKIP?, if this was a left wing party that was doing so well, it would be open season...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 25, 2013)

treelover said:


> Left Unity(85 groups and growing) which I think unlike others on here is going to be substantial are likely to have some sort of open borders policy, there doesn't seem to be any sign of awareness on the issues around it for working class people, this will undoubtedly limit any electoral viability they have.
> 
> especially as its components will include a sizeable element of the ISN who are clear on their support for open borders


 
Not just clear on their support for open borders, clear in their very vocal belief that anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist of the worst kind which automatically puts them in conflict with 99% of people.


----------



## MikeMcc (Apr 25, 2013)

Dropped in my postal vote this morning, there were the three main parties, UKIP and the Greens.  The town has been traditionally Tory or Lib-Dem, with a few dubious decisions - un-necessary tree felling, resurfacing of some back roads that councillors just happen to live in, and ANPR cameras on all exit roads from the town...

Only UKIP has put a flying through the door and the only signs I've seen are UKIP.  The UKIP guy is fairly experienced (previously Tory).  the flyer put me off though.  Usual blurb about local services that no-one would believe, a bit about no windfarms, though there are none planned near the town anyway, and the back was dominated with a blurb about how the Romanians and Bulgarians are coming.  So it was a vote for the Greens.


----------



## where to (Apr 25, 2013)

J Ed said:
			
		

> Not just clear on their support for open borders, clear in their very vocal belief that anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist of the worst kind which automatically puts them in conflict with 99% of people.



Treelover, how can you imagine this thing is going to get round even the first corner with such a total detachment from reality. 
I know you like to be positive but you can see the problem with this sort of detached buffoonery so surely you can also see its going to smash headfirst into the first wall it comes across. 

These sorts don't seem to understand the need for credibility. And that it needs to be earnt.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 25, 2013)

The BNP have released a leaflet to counter UKIP. It's accessible via this [link broken] https://twitter. com/bnp/status/327434842960695296 and it makes interesting reading on the issue of UKIP attracting working class votes. The slogans are "UKIP - Like the Tories but richer" and the slightly more bonkers "Want a Muslim neighbour? Vote UKIP" but the issues they are attacking them on are NHS privatization, attacks on working conditions and sick pay and er, Equality legislation for women.

EDIT Oh yeah and this. UKIP candidate found pushing Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Rothschilds type antisemitism. http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/04/ukip-candidate-blames-world-war-ii-and-the-holocaust-on-jews/

This is what happens when you actively court the Alex Jones crowd.....


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 25, 2013)

"Still Laughing" page.

https://www.facebook.com/SLATUKIP?fref=ts


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> "Still Laughing" page.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/SLATUKIP?fref=ts


Wow, that's great. Any reason you've posted this without comment?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 25, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/25/some-ukip-candidates-possible-bnp-members

Nigel Farage's comments here are quite revealing.



> When it comes to the general election and the European elections, we have put in place a very rigorous testing procedure – testing people's knowledge, their ability with media – you know, full credit checks, police checks and all the rest of it," said Farage.
> 
> *"I'll be honest with you, we don't have the party apparatus in a very short space of time to fully vet 1,700 people.*


 
I bet there's a few more racist cranks to come out of the woodwork, problem is I don't think "exposing" people for having far-right views is going to do much good in the long run. Diminishing returns.


----------



## treelover (Apr 26, 2013)

Farrago was on Question Time yet again tonight, incredible, 14 times for someone who doesn't even have any M.P's..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

And?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> When is the media going to start robustly interrogating UKIP?,


by the right wing rags, never if they have their way, as UKIp is their plan C for when/if the Tories implode
(not that they'll need them, given that Labour are plan B)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> by the right wing rags, never if they have their way, as UKIp is their plan C for when/if the Tories implode
> (not that they'll need them, given that Labour are plan B)


Labour/tories are plan a - UKIP are a tool to indirectly pressure them. Part of plan a is the pretence that there is or could ever be a plan b.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Labour/tories are plan a - UKIP are a tool to indirectly pressure them. Part of plan a is the pretence that there is or could ever be a plan b.


hmm yes, taht may be more like it, sorta "do *exactly* as we say, adopt policy x,y,z OR we'll give this bloke's candidates enough favourable space to scare the shit out of your MPs, no-one will be safe?" bluff?
e2a; or do you mean gulling the electorate into thinking the system's anything other than a closed-off stitchup?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

Total bluff. And the key is not who is elected but how the ruling class move/control the overton window.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 26, 2013)

lot of people, racist or not, list "immigration" as a concern.

major parties continue current levels of immigration and don't really talk about any easing of such levels.

UKIP talk about easing/stopping it and put it at top of agenda.

hence popularity of UKIP.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 26, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> Maybe if the 'left' had a leader that was constantly on the TV and in the papers, appeared on Question Time 13 times and so on they'd make inroads. Visibility is important. Farage is everywhere, but policy and some of their questionable statements are never analysed anywhere prominent - those claims of 8 million Romanians 'invading' and so on. I think Labour are strategically leaving them alone as they think they'll do more damage to the tories than to them, but it might not work out that way.


 
I think that's probably true.  A few times I've wondered why the 'body politic' doesn't roll over and squash UKIP like a sleeping sow crushing its piglets.  After all, their policies are an incoherent right-wing wet dream and completely implausible on pretty much every measure (tax cuts all round whilst splurging on the armed forces, getting rid of tuition fees etc ... really?!) and on the face of it it doesn't seem to hard for the mainstream parties to shoot them out of the sky.  But Labour won't because they think they'll damage the Tories more, Cameron won't because he's scared of the UKIP-sympathising right of his party, and no-one gives a fuck what the Lib Dems think.  They're letting them run ... although I suspect the article butchersapron quotes is right that they'll run up against some of the same limitations as the BNP.

As for their internal constraints, I reckon if Farage had been killed in that plane crash we wouldn't be discussing this.  Farage is a cunt but he's not a fool, and his maverick public persona does seem to appeal to some people.A little like Boris Johnson, maybe.  In a weird way he works on things like Question time, and he seems to be quite good at keeping the frothing loons who make up a lot of UKIP sufficiently in check to protect the party's image - a bit like Griffin did for the BNP for a while, in fact.  He also appears to wield huge authority within the party.  Without him, I reckon they'd start fighting amongst themselves in pretty short order.  In terms of finishing off UKIP, a decapitation strategy seems to have a lot going for it.  I'd be prepared to bet that a few people are digging around in Farage's closet (ugh!) to see what skeletons might lurk there.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 26, 2013)

dp


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 26, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> lot of people, racist or not, list "immigration" as a concern.
> 
> major parties continue current levels of immigration and don't really talk about any easing of such levels.
> 
> ...


 
Slight correction to that, major parties bang on about reducing it all the time, but can't actually change levels of immigration because we live in a globally integrated economy. Being a maverick outsider party, UKIP don't have to deal with that reality, thus, UKIP can spout off on the subject, using the major parties and mainstream newspapers' hypocritical stance on the matter for political capital.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 26, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Slight correction to that, major parties bang on about reducing immigration all the time, but can't actually change levels of integration because we live in a globally integrated economy. Being a maverick outsider party, UKIP don't have to deal with that reality, thus, UKIP can spout off on the subject, using the major parties and mainstream newspapers' hypocritical stance on the matter for political capital.


i totally agree with you 100%.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 26, 2013)

Another thing: Farage is a leader. He has shown himself to have the ability of leadership that Cameron and Clegg so clearly lack.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 26, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> i totally agree with you 100%.


ie. Conservative manifesto



> immigration today is too high and needs to be reduced. We do not need to attract people to do jobs that could be carried out by british citizens, given the right training and support. So we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.


 
and Labour (who filed it in a section titled "Crime and Immigration" (!))



> We are committed to an
> immigration system that
> promotes and protects British
> values. People need to know
> ...


----------



## youngian (Apr 26, 2013)

This UKIP candidate in Cambridge is not likely to be gaining to much support after this Q&A on cycling-

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/2013maycounty/eastchesterton


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 26, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> ie. Conservative manifesto
> and Labour (who filed it in a section titled "Crime and Immigration" (!))


Of course, in the unlikely event of UKIP taking power, the same thing would happen - they'd discover that being part of a global economy involves a constant traffic of people and goods, that the amount of migration is largely determined by economic forces and that any effective action to curtail it would involve an inordinate amount of spending on policing and would affect so many people's bottom lines that it would be totally impractical. So immigration levels would stay the same.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 26, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Another thing: Farage is a leader. He has shown himself to have the ability of leadership that Cameron and Clegg so clearly lack.


 
There is, of course, no difference between leading a long-established national party and what is essentially a protest group...


----------



## Quartz (Apr 26, 2013)

Ironically the latter is perhaps more difficult. But Cameron and Clegg have shown themselves unfit to manage so much as a public convenience.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 26, 2013)

Farage has all the leadership skills he needs, seeing as how he's never, ever going to have to actually do anything which involves governing. The same way Blair can talk about it - it's the confidence and assured attitude of those with fuck all involvement.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 26, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Farage has all the leadership skills he needs, seeing as how he's never, ever going to have to actually do anything which involves governing.


 
Never say never; just look at Salmond.


----------



## where to (Apr 26, 2013)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Another thing: Farage is a leader. He has shown himself to have the ability of leadership that Cameron and Clegg so clearly lack.



When has he done that? Leadership of who?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 26, 2013)

where to said:


> When has he done that? Leadership of who?


 
UKIP. You may recall that he stepped down as leader some years back and someone else took over but was a disaster, so he came back and look where UKIP appear to be today.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 26, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Never say never; just look at Salmond.


 
Yes, well done Quartz - ignore the actual Scottish Parliament there. 

Farage is the lead cat herder of a herd of drunken cats. That's not leadership.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 26, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Yes, well done Quartz - ignore the actual Scottish Parliament there.


 
Ignore it? Salmond's won devolution, won the existence of the Scottish parliament, and until the death of Brian Adam the other day had a majority.



> Farage is the lead cat herder of a herd of drunken cats. That's not leadership.


 
You dismiss Farage so lightly at your peril. I think he could be a very dangerous man.


----------



## where to (Apr 26, 2013)

Quartz said:
			
		

> UKIP. You may recall that he stepped down as leader some years back and someone else took over but was a disaster, so he came back and look where UKIP appear to be today.



What examples of his leadership and running of the party are there to support the link you're making though?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 26, 2013)

where to said:


> What examples of his leadership and running of the party are there to support the link you're making though?


 
See post 319.


----------



## where to (Apr 26, 2013)

Post numbers dont come up on the device I am accessing forum from.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 26, 2013)

where to said:


> Post numbers dont come up on the device I am accessing forum from.


 
Sorry, I meant to make it a link.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Apr 27, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> I think that's probably true. A few times I've wondered why the 'body politic' doesn't roll over and squash UKIP like a sleeping sow crushing its piglets. After all, their policies are an incoherent right-wing wet dream and completely implausible on pretty much every measure (tax cuts all round whilst splurging on the armed forces, getting rid of tuition fees etc ... really?!) and on the face of it it doesn't seem to hard for the mainstream parties to shoot them out of the sky. But Labour won't because they think they'll damage the Tories more, Cameron won't because he's scared of the UKIP-sympathising right of his party, and no-one gives a fuck what the Lib Dems think. They're letting them run ... although I suspect the article butchersapron quotes is right that they'll run up against some of the same limitations as the BNP.


UKIP might be incoherent but the reason the mainstream parties are wary of them is because they too are incoherent. Incoherent to the estent that they are representative of just over 6 out of 10 voters - collectively.

So UKIP dosen't have to compete with them for the extant vote when it can more easily mop up the disaffected. One obvious area of attraction is immigration where once UKIP flew the flag all the other parties immediately started shuffling nervously.

And while the IWCA article does predict official 'anti-fascism' will kick in as soon as UKIP register a threat to their Labour paymasters, this does not mean 'that faced with the same limitations as the BNP' it will  necessarily succumb to them.


----------



## Favelado (Apr 27, 2013)

A man who is married to my auntie is standing as a UKIP councillor and I notice that he "liked" an EDL page on Facebook. What should we do with him?


----------



## where to (Apr 27, 2013)

The Times today say three of ukips candidates were on the old Bnp membership list from a few yrs back.  

I'm not sure how their inabilty to vet candidates works with that. It would take five minutes to run a report checking these two data sets against each other.

What would happen if a ukip supporter quietly notified them of a 'problem' candidate I wonder and what would the responce reveal.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 27, 2013)

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...ming-gay-claims-uk-councillor-candidate270413

John Sullivan, a UK councillor candidate congratulated Russia on banning gay Pride marches and claimed regular exercise in schools can prevent homosexuality.

In a series of Facebook posts, Sullivan, who is a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) likened gay activists to termites and stated that feminism is evil and being gay is even worse.

Sullivan is standing for local elections on 2 May, to represent as a councillor the Forest of Dean area in Gloucestershire’s County Council, in western England, UK.

In a series of posts on the far right anti-gay Traditional Britain Group Facebook group Sullivan expressed anti-gay views, revealed Colin Cortbus, an anti-extremist campaigner and a Gay Star News reader.

In one post Sullivan said that regular physical exercise ‘prevents’ children from ‘becoming’ gay.

He recommended that ‘Victorian style’ regular physical exercise be reinstated in schools as it apparently ‘releases of tension’ which ‘prevents’ homosexuality’.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 27, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Yes, well done Quartz - ignore the actual Scottish Parliament there.
> 
> Farage is the lead cat herder of a herd of drunken cats. That's not leadership.


 
Even UKIP agree with me 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/27/ukip-local-elections-emails



> In one email, a senior party figure claims that leading the anti-EU party is like "herding cats". Ukip leader Nigel Farage is warned that his party is facing a decade without credible policies, as crippling internal rows rage, and it is suggested that the party should consider buying off-the-shelf strategy from right-leaning thinktanks.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...ming-gay-claims-uk-councillor-candidate270413
> 
> John Sullivan, a UK councillor candidate congratulated Russia on banning gay Pride marches and claimed regular exercise in schools can prevent homosexuality.
> 
> ...


 Wow what a charmer


----------



## Quartz (Apr 27, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Even UKIP agree with me
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/27/ukip-local-elections-emails


 
And how are those emails different from any other political party?

However, UKIP and Farage are best, IMO, as gadflies: they can inflict stinging criticism when and where it's due.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 27, 2013)

Quartz said:


> And how are those emails different from any other political party?
> 
> However, UKIP and Farage are best, IMO, as gadflies: they can inflict stinging criticism when and where it's due.


 
Square that with him having "the ability of leadership" and being "a dangerous man".


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

Interesting that, in the last week, the 'Fail', Torygraph and Guardian have all run with UKIP smear stories, (today's Guardian one).

The coalition of the right really must sense the potential for electoral damage.

Wonder if Falange will resort to the Mao quote...?



> I hold that it is bad as far as we are concerned if a person, a political party, an army or a school is not attacked by the enemy, for in that case it would definitely mean that we have sunk to the level of the enemy. It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2013)

Quartz said:
			
		

> And how are those emails different from any other political party?
> 
> However, UKIP and Farage are best, IMO, as gadflies: they can inflict stinging criticism when and where it's due.



What does this mean?  Best for who? Criticisms of who? On behalf of who?


----------



## Dan U (Apr 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Interesting that, in the last week, the 'Fail', Torygraph and Guardian have all run with UKIP smear stories, (today's Guardian one).
> 
> The coalition of the right really must sense the potential for electoral damage.
> 
> Wonder if Falange will resort to the Mao quote...?



The Sun as well. Which must smart a bit after dinner with Rupert


----------



## gosub (Apr 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Interesting that, in the last week, the 'Fail', Torygraph and Guardian have all run with UKIP smear stories, (today's Guardian one).
> 
> The coalition of the right really must sense the potential for electoral damage.
> 
> Wonder if Falange will resort to the Mao quote...?


 
Responding to the CCHQ document leak, UKIP leader Nigel Farage told The Commentator exclusively, "I am sure that Tory donors will be delighted to learn that their hard earned money is being spent on a research team whose job it is, not to come up with serious policies to get this country back working, but to research gossip, tittle tattle and the dance moves of UKIP candidates. They must be utterly terrified that their shallow approach to government is being seen through by the public.
"If this is the best they can do," Farage said, "then I ask you should we just get rid of the whole lot of them?"
http://www.thecommentator.com/artic...inners_in_intensive_anti_ukip_media_briefings


----------



## FNG (Apr 28, 2013)

UKIP candidate Spalding South Alan Jesson



> However, in spite of the Spalding Guardian being unable to contact him, Mr Jesson has not been hiding his views on the Spalding Immigration Issues Facebook page.





> In one of his comments he said: “If they work hard pay tax stay on the right side of the law and have sufficient funds to pay their way then maybe some can stay. Others no chance.”


 
http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/latest-news/hundreds-to-attend-protest-1-5014897


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2013)

Anyone fancy fact checking this? Recent UKIP leaflets have been great, but they've been produced by the centre for parliamentary by-elections, the locals always bring the loons and the genuinely nasty ones out.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Interesting that, in the last week, the 'Fail', Torygraph and Guardian have all run with UKIP smear stories, (today's Guardian one).
> 
> The coalition of the right really must sense the potential for electoral damage.
> 
> Wonder if Falange will resort to the Mao quote...?


 
 Please don't use the expression the 'Fail'


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Please don't use the expression the 'Fail'


 
That's such a polite request that I'll certainly consider what you say. Is there any particular reason why that expression irks so particularly..or is it just a personal pet hate?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> That's such a polite request that I'll certainly consider what you say. Is there any particular reason why that expression irks so particularly..or is it just a personal pet hate?


 
gives the impression that you are some how part of the slacker generation


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> gives the impression that you are some how part of the slacker generation


 
Who are they?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 28, 2013)

a platform in the pro drugs lobby


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> a platform in the pro drugs lobby


 
Hmmm...and it's not good if I give the impression that I'm part of that platform?


----------



## youngian (Apr 28, 2013)

I've heard these immigrants can't even write basic coherent English-






[/quote]


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

youngian said:


> I've heard these immigrants can't even write basic coherent English-


[/quote]
 Wonder if he spelt his surname correctly?


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 28, 2013)

I like how they're spinning the exposure of fruitcakes and racists in their ranks as 'dirty tricks', as though their candidates had been duped into being racist/homophobic shitbags. 

Keep shining those torches of truth, CCHQ.

Pretty sure you could find similar quotes from Tories mind.

Oh, and since when has homosexuality been part of the remit of SPUC? (seen as source for quotes on one of the leaflets above). It's almost as if they're all-round cunts, isn't it?


----------



## youngian (Apr 28, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> I like how they're spinning the exposure of fruitcakes and racists in their ranks as 'dirty tricks', as though their candidates had been duped into being racist/homophobic shitbags.


 
They are of course 'a tiny minority' unlike the majority of UKIP candidates who are voices of reasoned debate who never indulge in sewer politics.


----------



## Corax (Apr 28, 2013)

Anyone listening to Pienaar's Politics on Radio 5 right now? UKIP's Godfrey Bloom ranting about "women of child-bearing age" going out to work. And a bizarre tangent from nowhere about windmills. It's like something by Chris Morris. Genuinely beyond parody. 

ETA: Just googled him and it seems he's been coming out with this shit since 2004 at least.  And people are still voting for this cock?


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 28, 2013)

My mate said that in her area (high number of non-whites) they are trying to make our their policies are based on things like funding for libraries, with little mention of their usual racist and xenophobic guff.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Wonder if he spelt his surname correctly?


 
His brother Cliff would have literally been a better candidate.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 28, 2013)

I've only just seen this with not having a TV and all...equal amounts of  and 




Nig's conclusion? He knows best.


----------



## nicedream (Apr 29, 2013)

UKIP are gaining support because they are the BNP for racists who don't like to be called racists.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 29, 2013)

It's a bit worrying that the media-authorised public debate next election is likely to be between these shitheads and the Tories, i.e. between batshit right and establishment right, rather than e.g. about whether people want their NHS back and corporations to pay their taxes.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2013)

nicedream said:


> UKIP are gaining support because they are the BNP for racists who don't like to be called racists.


How does that explain the rise in their support? The BNP never ever got close to these national polling figures _ and _UKIP have faced a barrage of racism claims in the period that their support has grown.

edit: and what sort of tactics follow from such an analysis?


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 29, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Wonder if he spelt his surname correctly?


 
why has he got an inverted cross on his poster. Does he like death metal or something?


----------



## marty21 (Apr 29, 2013)

UKIP actually make the case for a Federal Europe more attractive to me - which takes some doing - well done to them - I'm not sure they have got the hang of this politics thing


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How does that explain the rise in their support? The BNP never ever got close to these national polling figures _ and _UKIP have faced a barrage of racism claims in the period that their support has grown.
> 
> edit: and what sort of tactics follow from such an analysis?


 


Rutita1 said:


> I've only just seen this with not having a TV and all...equal amounts of  and
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with  & , but we overlook Farage's personal appeal to voters at our peril.

Setting aside his odious, right-wing, nutjob politics, he is demonstrably appealing to certain sections of the electorate merely by dint of 'being different' to the 3 party droids. He does _appear_ to answer questions put to him, he cultivates an impression of self-depricating good humour and obviously plays on his (golf) clubbable personality. Not totally dis-similar to Boris Johnson  he makes a sustained effort to come across as a 'breath of fresh air' on programmes like QT. Of course, he has also over seen a large rise in electoral support for his party as well, from around 3% to 11% in national polling. I know its hard  to digest for many of us here, but people do appear to find him likeable.

No surprise then that Sunday's YouGov found him the only party leader with a +ive personal rating, and a very significant one at that.

The tories do have much to fear from this man; no wonder they've started to play rough.


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2013)

Here's the kind of person who likes UKIP:


> Colin, a local pensioner and life-long Tory, says he is considering Ukip. “I think [gay marriage] is absolutely disgusting quite truthfully.”
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/97b6f7e6-ad46-11e2-b27f-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2Rq0JgOw4


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 29, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I agree with  & , but we overlook Farage's personal appeal to voters at our peril.
> 
> Setting aside his odious, right-wing, nutjob politics, he is demonstrably appealing to certain sections of the electorate merely by dint of 'being different' to the 3 party droids. He does _appear_ to answer questions put to him, he cultivates an impression of self-depricating good humour and obviously plays on his (golf) clubbable personality. Not totally dis-similar to Boris Johnson he makes a sustained effort to come across as a 'breath of fresh air' on programmes like QT. Of course, he has also over seen a large rise in electoral support for his party as well, from around 3% to 11% in national polling. I know its hard to digest for many of us here, but people do appear to find him likeable.
> 
> ...


The ones who come across as likeable are perhaps the ones we should mistrust the most.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> The ones who come across as likeable are perhaps the ones we should mistrust the most.


 
Yes....but we're not on his radar, are we?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 29, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yes....but we're not on his radar, are we?


Well, no, but what about those who are unable to see past the affable charm? What does it say about them? That they are incapable of seeing anything else but the 'sign'?

Farage and Bozza aren't the only ones. I remember how people were taken in by the boyishly good-looking Blair with his easy smile and ready soundbite.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, no, but what about those who are unable to see past the affable charm? What does it say about them? That they are incapable of seeing anything else but the 'sign'?
> 
> Farage and Bozza aren't the only ones. I remember how people were taken in by the boyishly good-looking Blair with his easy smile and ready soundbite.


 
Yep and yep.

But in all honesty this new dangerous man is going to do much damage to the tories before he ever got anywhere near any position of power.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 29, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep and yep.
> 
> But in all honesty this new dangerous man is going to do much damage to the tories before he ever got anywhere near any position of power.


Tbh, I'm loving watching UKIP and the Tories tear strips off each other. I haven't had this much entertainment for ages.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 29, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, no, but what about those who are unable to see past the affable charm? What does it say about them? That they are incapable of seeing anything else but the 'sign'?
> 
> Farage and Bozza aren't the only ones. I remember how people were taken in by the boyishly good-looking Blair with his easy smile and ready soundbite.


 
affable charm? Fararge is like a grinning smug know all that you find in the bar at the golf club


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 29, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> affable charm? Fararge is like a grinning smug know all that you find in the bar at the golf club


It's called sarcasm.


----------



## where to (Apr 29, 2013)

Agree with brogdale here.

Farage is unusual - perhaps unique - by presenting a positive, cheerful face to their brand of miserable, negative right wing politics. I can't think of any other who has presented these politics without coming across as a totally bitter grumpy and miseryridden cunt.

Compare him to le pen, griffin, tebbit, Mosley, every other ukip member you have ever seen or heard, Powell etc etc. The difference is stark.

Acknowledging this is a pretty important step in understanding their recent success imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, no, but what about those who are unable to see past the affable charm? What does it say about them? That they are incapable of seeing anything else but the 'sign'?


To be honest, that's pretty much the exactly how those who dismiss these peoples politics and concerns through simply _exposing them_ or shouting racist at the whole lot of them, without attempting to address them politically - or even to trying recognise how an why they reached their current conclusions and so how to tackle them - operate. And that is perfect for the UKIP leadership - that's exactly the uncomprehending response they need to continue their good form.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 29, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> affable charm? Fararge is like a grinning smug know all that you find in the bar at the golf club


 In fact he's as if by some weird sorcery, an actual golf club bar had been transformed into human form.


----------



## where to (Apr 29, 2013)

The39thStep said:
			
		

> affable charm? Fararge is like a grinning smug know all that you find in the bar at the golf club



Still grinning though...


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> To be honest, that's pretty much the exactly how those who dismiss these peoples politics and concerns through simply _exposing them_ or shouting racist at the whole lot of them, without attempting to address them politically - or even to trying recognise how an why they reached their current conclusions and so how to tackle them - operate. And that is perfect for the UKIP leadership - that's exactly the uncomprehending response they need to continue their good form.


Bloom and Nuttall appear to lack Farage's appeal. As for Lord Pearson, he just came across as a latter day League of Empire Loyalist. UKIP's fortunes hinge on one man.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> affable charm? Fararge is like a grinning smug know all that you find in the bar at the golf club


to you and me, maybe, but clearly - as the only public face of Britain's fastest-growing political party - he has _some_ sort of distinct appeal to an awful lot of people, and that appeal cuts across bounds of age, class and region. Writing him and UKIP off simply isn't smart


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 29, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> to you and me, maybe, but clearly - as the only public face of Britain's fastest-growing political party - he has _some_ sort of distinct appeal to an awful lot of people, and that appeal cuts across bounds of age, class and region. Writing him and UKIP off simply isn't smart


 
Its the message rather than the messenger though.Survey after survey lists immigration, the EU and the economy as key issues and UKIP has that corner now from the BNP. Far from writing them off I am backing them at the bookies!


----------



## where to (Apr 29, 2013)

Streathamite said:
			
		

> to you and me, maybe, but clearly - as the only public face of Britain's fastest-growing political party - he has some sort of distinct appeal to an awful lot of people, and that appeal cuts across bounds of age, class and region. Writing him and UKIP off simply isn't smart



His greatest appeal is to the media. Theyre the ones who really love him. Because he doesnt scare them is one of the main reasons why we're being bombarded by him/them.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, no, but what about those who are unable to see past the affable charm? What does it say about them? That they are incapable of seeing anything else but the 'sign'?


It says that they feel totally betrayed by, and cut of from, the cosy 3-party club, and it has done f-all for them since the world - their world - began to fall apart in 2008. It also suggests, strongly, that trhose parties simply aren't addressing, or even listening to their concerns. whilst their standard of living, and life chances have got steadily shittier over the past 5 years or so. Whether those concerns, or the issues that most concern them (eg immigration), are entirely reasonable or well-informed, is beside the point.
Those are normal people, just like us, same number of arms, legs, braincells. As BA pointed out, simply demonising them or ignoring them would be near-disastrous. They have to be listened to, and engaged with, intensively and extensively.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 29, 2013)

where to said:


> His greatest appeal is to the media. Theyre the ones who really love him. Because he doesnt scare them is one of the main reasons why we're being bombarded by him/them.


Indeed, I can't see someone like Bloom getting as much exposure. Even Nuttall's invited on QT every now and again, while Bloom isn't.


----------



## where to (Apr 29, 2013)

Wilf said:
			
		

> In fact he's as if by some weird sorcery, an actual golf club bar had been transformed into human form.



Or the spirit of a golf club gravitates 15m around him. If you're in a train carriage with him, you're in a golf club bar. If you're in a tv studio with him, you're in a golf club bar.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 29, 2013)

where to said:


> Agree with brogdale here.
> 
> Farage is unusual - perhaps unique - by presenting a positive, cheerful face to their brand of miserable, negative right wing politics. I can't think of any other who has presented these politics without coming across as a totally bitter grumpy and miseryridden cunt.
> 
> ...


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Its the message rather than the messenger though.Survey after survey lists immigration, the EU and the economy as key issues and UKIP has that corner now from the BNP. Far from writing them off I am backing them at the bookies!


fair enough! I misread you. I agree entirely with what you've said here - except for the caveat that the messenger must be, at the very least, doing an OK job of communicating that message.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2013)

weepiper said:


>


that's one for the 'grant tory shit face' thread


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 29, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> It says that they feel totally betrayed by, and cut of from, the cosy 3-party club, and it has done f-all for them since the world - their world - began to fall apart in 2008. It also suggests, strongly, that trhose parties simply aren't addressing, or even listening to their concerns. whilst their standard of living, and life chances have got steadily shittier over the past 5 years or so. Whether those concerns, or the issues that most concern them (eg immigration), are entirely reasonable or well-informed, is beside the point.
> Those are normal people, just like us, same number of arms, legs, braincells. As BA pointed out, simply demonising them or ignoring them would be near-disastrous. They have to be listened to, and engaged with, intensively and extensively.


I understand that but how does one get through to those who've uncritically swallowed the rhetoric about immigration and, more importantly, difference? UKIP offers nothing but more of the same with a fringe on top. I agree that the 3 main parties have only themselves to blame and that they offer nothing new. But then, nor does UKIP.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

where to said:


> His greatest appeal is to the media. Theyre the ones who really love him. Because he doesnt scare them is one of the main reasons why we're being bombarded by him/them.


Sure, but if the public felt totally turned off by him, that fact would have made itself plain by now, wouldn't it? Like it did with Griffin after his disastrous QT?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Sure, but if the public felt totally turned off by him, that fact would have made itself plain by now, wouldn't it? Like it did with Griffin after his disastrous QT?


keep it on the qt


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> I understand that but how does one get through to those who've uncritically swallowed the rhetoric about immigration and, more importantly, difference?


I don't actually know the full, right, response, but it has to include a) listening to them, in full and b) then engaging via grassroots campaigning


----------



## where to (Apr 29, 2013)

Streathamite said:
			
		

> Sure, but if the public felt totally turned off by him, that fact would have made itself plain by now, wouldn't it? Like it did with Griffin after his disastrous QT?



Yep, didn't mean they didn't, just that the media dynamic is particularly crucial. Its what actually gets him back on qt every time for starters


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 29, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> I understand that but how does one get through to those who've uncritically swallowed the rhetoric about immigration and, more importantly, difference? UKIP offers nothing but more of the same with a fringe on top. I agree that the 3 main parties have only themselves to blame and that they offer nothing new. But then, nor does UKIP.


 
I agree with this. UKIP is offering the same old same old populist tunes on immigration especially, but there's a large minority around who provide a very receptive audience for those tunes.

Personally I'd be the world's worst anti-right-wing campaigner, because my patience levels with  populist lying shit is far too low to ever find an _effective_ way of arguing against it.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Apr 29, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> I don't actually know the full, right, response, but it has to include a) listening to them, in full and b) then engaging via grassroots campaigning


 
Campaining for what?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 29, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> I don't actually know the full, right, response, but it has to include* a) listening to them*, in full and b) then engaging via grassroots campaigning


 
I do enough 'listening to' hate-foreigners shite (and hate benefit 'scroungers' shite, hate travellers shite, etc) from a significant minority of my work colleagues.

Just makes me want to kill the gullible twats rather than engage with them. Instead, I bottle it up and fume in silence, or do my best to avoid listening at all, when possible.

Highly effective, not


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> Campaining for what?


OK, here goes....Campaigns that cover the common ground you actually have with UKIPers - on the economy, jobs, public services, in fact quite a few things - whilst initiating an honest dialogue on immigration, one which can lead to a genuine 2-way process of education.
UKIP's levels of support over the past few years, and Goodwins and Ford's invaluable research
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/29/ukip-sting-local-elections prove the following
1) there is simply too much of it out there, in too much variety, and too upfront, to be dismissed as just the last breaths of a few old white Tories
2) ditto, people who really want an acceptable version of the BNP.
3) UKIP draw support from traditional Labour-voting backgrounds, ex-Tory voters, people principally turned off too much (rightly!) by the current political set up to engage with it...in fact, that anti-politics is a large part of their appeal. Loads and laods of people have concerns about immigration which may mean they are ill-informed; it certainly does not mean they are a screaming racist who jerks off over pix of Heinrich Himmler or La Thatch.It is in fact, part of a wider sense of exclusion, that this country simply is not there for them.
Simply, UKIP look and sound like the first people in a long, long while to take that audience, that group, that social cross-section seriously.
Screaming 'RASCIST' at them, ignoring them or patronising them simply plays into UKIP's hands, which - in the midst of a vicious recession - is simply a very bad mistake to make.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> I do enough 'listening to' hate-foreigners shite (and hate benefit 'scroungers' shite, hate travellers shite, etc) from a significant minority of my work colleagues.
> 
> Just makes me want to kill the gullible twats rather than engage with them. Instead, I bottle it up and fume in silence, or do my best to avoid listening at all, when possible.
> 
> Highly effective, not


It certainly wasn't effective, IMO a better line is to do the research, master the facts and then debate courteously. You can never defeat hardcore fash that way; you can defeat ignorance and fear


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 29, 2013)

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...unveils-mep-plans-in-coventry-92746-33254320/
Quality candidate there eh....Jon'Gaunty'Gaunt


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 29, 2013)

>>Post 390 :

I think you're massively too optimistic about the possibilities there Streathamite. Far too many people simply don't *want* to hear contradictions to what they want to believe.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 29, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> It certainly wasn't effective, IMO a better line is to do the research, master the facts and then debate courteously. You can never defeat hardcore fash that way; you can defeat ignorance and fear


 
Haven't the patience.

Meaning, I do have plenty of facts on benefits (particularly) and a fair few about immigration too.

But people *really hate* having their prejudices contradicted, don't they?

So a huge reluctance to take on that is my failing, and a big one, sure, but I simply can't be arsed.

Will try and get back to this tomorrow though ...


----------



## Corax (Apr 29, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> I've only just seen this with not having a TV and all...equal amounts of  and
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a man that didn't get bullied _enough _at school.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Apr 29, 2013)

A now compulsory abortion from a UKIP candidate in Kent


http://www.gravesendreporter.co.uk/...e_foetuses_says_ukip_kent_candidate_1_1745952


----------



## Quartz (Apr 29, 2013)

Shortly to be an ex-candidate, I hope.

I wonder if people are mistaken when they compare Farage to Boris Johnston; perhaps Denis Thatcher with a heavy dose of Dear Bill might be closer to the mark?


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 29, 2013)

https://twitter.com/UkipTips


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 29, 2013)

^^ While watching CBeebies with your children, be sure to point out that Rastamouse came over here and knicked Fingermouse's job


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 30, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Haven't the patience.
> 
> Meaning, I do have plenty of facts on benefits (particularly) and a fair few about immigration too.
> 
> ...


I've tried getting some of these Kippers to see the light but, like you say, they aren't interested. They'd rather believe wholly and completely in the myths and lies. I had one patronise me on Twitter the other day. Another kept misrepresenting what I was saying. With that kind of ignorance, words can't penetrate those thick skulls in the same way that a power drill can.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Far too many people simply don't *want* to hear contradictions to what they want to believe.


oh absolutely; especially when times are hard, many people simply want a scapegoat. But _most_ is not all, and, equally, some/many can be educated, especially if you adopt a long-term, slowly, slowly, drip, drip approach; all of the most successful campaigns I've sen, in tems of blunting the BNP's influence in an area, for instance, have been built on painstaking grassroots persuasion
Also, UKIP's target audience are by definition different and more persuadable, they're people who'd be horrified to be thought of as racist. They too have an instinctive desire to retreat to the comfort of myths and lies, but you can explode those lies, time and time again. And that will work, because even less do people want to see themselves as ignorant, gullible fools.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 30, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> I've tried getting some of these Kippers to see the light but, like you say, they aren't interested. They'd rather believe wholly and completely in the myths and lies.... Another kept misrepresenting what I was saying.


 
Unfortunately that's the norm for the Tories, Labour and LibDems too.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 30, 2013)

Hannan's worried. Get out the popcorn.



> If we carry on like this, we’ll give Labour a massive parliamentary majority with a minority of the popular vote. Together, the Conservatives and Ukip could deliver the referendum on leaving the EU which more than 80 per cent of people want. Instead, the two parties are locked in a quarrel which reflects badly on all concerned.
> When Ken Clarke called Ukip "a collection of clowns", he was being unnecessarily rude – though no less rude, to be fair, than Ukip habitually is about him. Name-calling is rarely a way to win people over; nor does it impress neutral observers.
> Politics is a rough game, of course, and we all sometimes lose our temper. I’ve done so myself, and I apologise now to the people I’ve been offensive about – including Gordon Brown. In this instance, though, Ken wasn’t having a go at another politician; he was having a go at a large constituency of people in Britain.
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...pats-could-put-ed-miliband-in-downing-street/


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2013)

Come the revolution we'll auction off the rights to stand on the throat of people like Dan 'the NHS was a big mistake' Hannan to finish them off, or maybe adopt the more egalitarian method of a good old fashion raffle. Should raise enough to pay for a couple of hospitals.

The concern I have over the last couple of days is seeing the Tory press attack machine being drawn into the battle, being reminded that tales of being free from a 'state owned' press is pretty meaningless when it so willingly does the government's work. Being amused at seeing right-wing fucks on the receiving end is balanced by concern that the same machine will be pointed at anything left/progressive that offers a threat on the same scale.


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> Come the revolution we'll auction off the rights to stand on the throat of people like Dan 'the NHS was a big mistake' Hannan to finish them off, or maybe adopt the more egalitarian method of a good old fashion raffle. Should raise enough to pay for a couple of hospitals.
> 
> *The concern I have over the last couple of days is seeing the Tory press attack machine being drawn into the battle, being reminded that tales of being free from a 'state owned' press is pretty meaningless when it so willingly does the government's work.* Being amused at seeing right-wing fucks on the receiving end is balanced by concern that the same machine will be pointed at anything left/progressive that offers a threat on the same scale.


 
Yes, it has been so blatant, it makes you wonder whether they care that they are seen to be part of the propaganda machine, even the most unpolitical reader must be noticing it.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 30, 2013)

[Nigel is explaining to Reggie what kinds of people his secret army will be against]
Nigel Farage: Wreckers of law and order. Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, neo-Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists, union leaders, Communist union leaders, atheists, agnostics, long-haired weirdos, short-haired weirdos, vandals, hooligans, football supporters, namby-pamby probation officers, rapists, papists, papist rapists, foreign surgeons - headshrinkers, who ought to be locked up, Wedgwood Benn, keg bitter, punk rock, glue-sniffers, "Play For Today", Clive Jenkins, Roy Jenkins, Up Jenkins, up everybody's, Chinese restaurants - why do you think Windsor Castle is ringed with Chinese restaurants?
Reginald Perrin: You realise the sort of people you're going to attract, don't you, Jimmy? Thugs, bully-boys, psychopaths, sacked policemen, security guards, sacked security guards, ratialists, Paki-bashers, queer-bashers, Chink-bashers, anybody-bashers, rear Admirals, queer admirals, Vice Admirals, fascists, neo-fascists, crypto-fascists, loyalists, neo-loyalists, crypto-loyalists.
Nigel Farage: Do you think so? I thought recruitment might be difficult.


----------



## gosub (Apr 30, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Hannan's worried. Get out the popcorn.


 


Hannan does it every election.


How is call me Dave's EU review going?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 30, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> [Nigel is explaining to Reggie what kinds of people his secret army will be against]
> Nigel Farage: Wreckers of law and order. Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, neo-Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists, union leaders, Communist union leaders, atheists, agnostics, long-haired weirdos, short-haired weirdos, vandals, hooligans, football supporters, namby-pamby probation officers, rapists, papists, papist rapists, foreign surgeons - headshrinkers, who ought to be locked up, Wedgwood Benn, *keg bitter*, punk rock, glue-sniffers, "Play For Today", Clive Jenkins, Roy Jenkins, Up Jenkins, up everybody's, Chinese restaurants - why do you think Windsor Castle is ringed with Chinese restaurants?
> Reginald Perrin: You realise the sort of people you're going to attract, don't you, Jimmy? Thugs, bully-boys, psychopaths, sacked policemen, security guards, sacked security guards, ratialists, Paki-bashers, queer-bashers, Chink-bashers, anybody-bashers, rear Admirals, queer admirals, Vice Admirals, fascists, neo-fascists, crypto-fascists, loyalists, neo-loyalists, crypto-loyalists.
> Nigel Farage: Do you think so? I thought recruitment might be difficult.


 
 

Classix! 

'Keg Bitter' though -- very seventies reference that! 

I understand Nigel Fiasco actually is a real ale man. Please let me make it very clear on Urban though that there's plenty more of us who are lefties! 

Keith Flett included


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 30, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Hannan's worried. Get out the popcorn.


 
Naked call for a UKIP/Tory electoral pact there surely?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 30, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Naked call for a UKIP/Tory electoral pact there surely?


Deffo. He's been making overtures for months.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 30, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> oh absolutely; especially when times are hard, many people simply want a scapegoat. But _most_ is not all, and, equally, some/many can be educated, especially if you adopt a long-term, slowly, slowly, drip, drip approach; all of the most successful campaigns I've sen, in tems of blunting the BNP's influence in an area, for instance, have been built on painstaking grassroots persuasion
> Also, UKIP's target audience are by definition different and more persuadable, they're people who'd be horrified to be thought of as racist. They too have an instinctive desire to retreat to the comfort of myths and lies, but you can explode those lies, time and time again. And that will work, because even less do people want to see themselves as ignorant, gullible fools.


 
You have a much more positive (and confident?) take on this than I'm able to muster really. It would take seriously hard work like you say, and require  a level of patience and campaigning application that I don't think I've got. This isn't a UKIP target area where I live -- South Wales has its own dynamics, and some of those are less leftish inclined than I was expecting when I first moved here.

But there's a significant minority of people here whose default reaction to foreigners, benefits, etc is very UKIP-like. I tend to agree with what nino posted further up -- some of those attitudes come across as  pretty ingrained. Plenty of people just prefer to follow the easiest gut reaction.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 30, 2013)

gosub said:


> Hannan does it every election.
> 
> 
> How is call me Dave's EU review going?


True and yet, he doesn't have the guts to go all the way and join the Kippers.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> [Nigel is explaining to Reggie what kinds of people his secret army will be against]
> Nigel Farage: Wreckers of law and order. Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, neo-Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists, union leaders, Communist union leaders, atheists, agnostics, long-haired weirdos, short-haired weirdos, vandals, hooligans, football supporters, namby-pamby probation officers, rapists, papists, papist rapists, foreign surgeons - headshrinkers, who ought to be locked up, Wedgwood Benn, keg bitter, punk rock, glue-sniffers, "Play For Today", Clive Jenkins, Roy Jenkins, Up Jenkins, up everybody's, Chinese restaurants - why do you think Windsor Castle is ringed with Chinese restaurants?
> Reginald Perrin: You realise the sort of people you're going to attract, don't you, Jimmy? Thugs, bully-boys, psychopaths, sacked policemen, security guards, sacked security guards, ratialists, Paki-bashers, queer-bashers, Chink-bashers, anybody-bashers, rear Admirals, queer admirals, Vice Admirals, fascists, neo-fascists, crypto-fascists, loyalists, neo-loyalists, crypto-loyalists.
> Nigel Farage: Do you think so? I thought recruitment might be difficult.


That's one of my favourite episodes of 'Reggie Perrin'!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Ideal time for C4 to repeat Fairly Secret Army - never repeated ever.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> But there's a significant minority of people here whose default reaction to foreigners, benefits, etc is very UKIP-like. I tend to agree with what nino posted further up -- some of those attitudes come across as pretty ingrained. Plenty of people just prefer to follow the easiest gut reaction.


oh don't get me wrong, I know that all of that is true - I just think they are so obviously being led up the path - and you have to believe most people aren't complete mugs - that enough of them can be turned, espesh as UKIP really haven't been put under sustained scrutiny yet, as they will be when the Tories start _really_ fighting dirty (which they will, no political animal is more vicious than a tory MP facing electoral wipeout.
(btw, what you say about SW Wales is far more true about mid-wales, where I lived).


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Please let me make it very clear on Urban though that there's plenty more of us who are lefties!
> Keith Flett included


indeed, our Keith has v much the look of a man who hath supped long and lustily at the pumps!


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ideal time for C4 to repeat Fairly Secret Army - never repeated ever.


oh god, yes please. utterly brilliant


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> True and yet, he doesn't have the guts to go all the way and join the Kippers.



I wonder how many will jump ship if it ever looks like they are electable? I can think of a few who would if they knew they'd still hang onto their jobs.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Apr 30, 2013)

These elections on Thursday at least offer choices outside of the main three parties. You have UKIP on the right and.....oh I forgot. FUCK ALL on the left.

Threads like this really hammer home that most of you lefties can only be defined by what you are against as opposed to what you might actually want to try and do.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> These elections on Thursday at least offer choices outside of the main three parties. You have UKIP on the right and.....oh I forgot. FUCK ALL on the left.
> 
> Threads like this really hammer home that most of you lefties can only be defined by what you are against as opposed to what you might actually want to try and do.


Yes, the anti-eu UKIP. Not really an anti-party are they?

Anyway, i thought your Catholicism was supposed to be soothing your mental anguish and inner turmoil - yet you sound ever more rabid each time you re-appear with one of these shocking hit-and-runs.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 30, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Deffo. He's been making overtures for months.


 
Farage just won't wear it though. He clearly despises Cameron, Osborne and the 'New Labour' brand of Tories they brought in. And it's splintering the Tory vote, especially at local elections. It's a bit strange really, and reminiscent of the Labour party deciding to eat itself in the 1980's in full view of the electorate - it just took longer to happen.

This split originates in Maastricht, and through the years of opposition the Tories hung it together long enough to form an opposition - however, once they got in, their base is screaming for an abrupt right turn and Cam and Gideon both know that'll kill them dead at the ballot box. 

Vaguely admirable that - the Tories discipline in opposition, in grasping power. But essentially it's the same old tired cliche - in a time of famine, they all worked together to ensure they all got fed - in a time of plenty, they argue over the place settings.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Vaguely admirable that - the Tories discipline in opposition, in grasping power. But essentially it's the same old tired cliche - in a time of famine, they all worked together to ensure they all got fed - in a time of plenty, they argue over the place settings.


See capitalist individualism always fucks up collectivism. It's just human nature. Needs to be stopped.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 30, 2013)

Oh, yeah - but this time it's funny


----------



## Stoat Boy (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, the anti-eu UKIP. Not really an anti-party are they?
> 
> Anyway, i thought your Catholicism was supposed to be soothing your mental anguish and inner turmoil - yet you sound ever more rabid each time you re-appear with one of these shocking hit-and-runs.


 

A fair point. But the reality remains that UKIP do at least offer a form of credible political opposition to the Westminster mainstream at the moment and there is really nothing else out there what so ever. I just loathe the insipid mixture we have in Westminster at the moment and yearn for a change and whilst I accept that UKIP aint going to win any seats in Westminster any time soon as least they are trying to make change happen, even if you dont agree with that change.

I just utterly loathe the careerist class of cunts we have in Westminster both at cabinet and shadow cabinet level and see nothing more than even more vacuous and insincere tossers lining up to take their places when the great lecture circuit in the sky beckons. And from a left, at a time when capitalism is in a terrible crisis and the utter farce of the bail outs and so on is still being played out we get nothing at all of any value.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Well, one of the reasons was that the right used their power in the preceding non-crisis situation to destroy the left, and the conditions that had historically produced that left, as an effective social force. That sort of thing isn't just put back together again in a few years.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well, one of the reasons was that the right used their power in the preceding non-crisis situation to destroy the left, and the conditions that had historically produced that left, as an effective social force. That sort of thing isn't just put back together again in a few years.


 
Maybe not but you still have a Trade Union movement that at least has the political and financial muscle if it wanted to use it. And that is what I fail to understand about their continued support for how Labour has evolved. The question is not Dave or Ed, the question is how did either brother ever get a sniff of being in power after their joint association with the Blair regime.Ditto with Ed Balls and company.

Mass immigration is plainly a matter that suits the top 1% due to the pressure it brings on wage levels and yet we have a left who seem to be only interested in damming anybody or anything who perhaps dare suggest that we need to train the million plus under 25's unemployed in this country first rather than just opening up our labour markets to even more outsiders and in the EU there is an institution run by the most motley bunch of incompetents going but once again, anybody suggests that perhaps our interests might be better served by not being part of it and its all the hysteria once again.

For me I feel that it would be more than possible to make a good left wing case for both positions and which might not have all the UKIP nonsense about defence and so on (things I find utterly impossible to support myself) but instead we get nothing.

Being opposed to even more immigration and wanting us to leave the EU should not a political position solely up to the right to present.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Again, the people you're thinking of as the left above are in the mainstream anti-immigration boat. What would you have the unions do with their money? Give it to the labour party or piss it away on some no-hopers?  Fund an anti-immigration party? Set one up? Do you think that would have flocking to it in the way that UKIP has had recently? I don't. I think any such attempt would be a colossal flop.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Threads like this really hammer home that most of you lefties can only be defined by what you are against as opposed to what you might actually want to try and do.


UKIP are a political party, and in their way a poilitical phenomenon.
Ergo, suitable subject for apolitcs BB. How on earth you deduced the above from the mere existence of this thread is utterly baffling


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 30, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Farage just won't wear it though. He clearly despises Cameron, Osborne and the 'New Labour' brand of Tories they brought in. And it's splintering the Tory vote, especially at local elections. It's a bit strange really, and reminiscent of the Labour party deciding to eat itself in the 1980's in full view of the electorate - it just took longer to happen.
> 
> This split originates in Maastricht, and through the years of opposition the Tories hung it together long enough to form an opposition - however, once they got in, their base is screaming for an abrupt right turn and Cam and Gideon both know that'll kill them dead at the ballot box.
> 
> Vaguely admirable that - the Tories discipline in opposition, in grasping power. But essentially it's the same old tired cliche - in a time of famine, they all worked together to ensure they all got fed - in a time of plenty, they argue over the place settings.


Sure but did you notice how much arse-licking Hannan was doing? He does it a lot but he's not got the guts to join the Kippers.

I  can still remember the old Referendum Party and that ghastly video they produced in 1997.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 30, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> I wonder how many will jump ship if it ever looks like they are electable? I can think of a few who would if they knew they'd still hang onto their jobs.


They will if UKIP can plug the holes in its leaky ship.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 30, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Sure but did you notice how much arse-licking Hannan was doing? He does it a lot but he's not got the guts to join the Kippers.
> 
> I can still remember the old Referendum Party and that ghastly video they produced in 1997.


 
He's playing the game though, safe and soundly. The political commentary that'll allow him to place himself as a visionary should the pact happen, or the Cassandra should doom occur by way of a Labour '15 majority. His readers are that old school Tory base who would love to see their party be a bit more UKIP, they'll vote UKIP in EU elections and maybe locals, but Tory at crunch time. Appealing to his market.

Interesting that polling's indicated Miliband's more valuable to his party support than Cameron or Clegg this week. As in, within membership - he's more likely to be met with support than opposition. Crude way of working it out apparently, but still http://societycentral.ac.uk/2013/03/20/voters-losing-faith-in-coalition-handling-of-economy/. Cameron & Clegg are both viewed as drags on the party, by their membership - but only because they're not implementing the complete batshit nonsense the membership want from them. Politics eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Party memberships tiny and meaningless  - only thing that counts is parliamentary party.


----------



## coley (Apr 30, 2013)

youngian said:


> This UKIP candidate in Cambridge is not likely to be gaining to much support after this Q&A on cycling-
> 
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/2013maycounty/eastchesterton



Depends, what is the ratio of cyclists to drivers in Cambridge?


----------



## Balbi (Apr 30, 2013)

Disagree with you there. Cameron & Clegg are becoming more Gordon Brown than Tony Blair to their electorate, 'their' voters aren't enthused or bothered about voting for them.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> [Nigel is explaining to Reggie what kinds of people his secret army will be against]
> Nigel Farage: Wreckers of law and order. Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, neo-Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists, union leaders, Communist union leaders, atheists, agnostics, long-haired weirdos, short-haired weirdos, vandals, hooligans, football supporters, namby-pamby probation officers, rapists, papists, papist rapists, foreign surgeons - headshrinkers, who ought to be locked up, Wedgwood Benn, keg bitter, punk rock, glue-sniffers, "Play For Today", Clive Jenkins, Roy Jenkins, Up Jenkins, up everybody's, Chinese restaurants - why do you think Windsor Castle is ringed with Chinese restaurants?


dead funny post, but it's also a near-perfect demonstration of how people are totally failing to understand the nature and extent of UKIP appeal and support.


----------



## coley (Apr 30, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> dead funny post, but it's also a near-perfect demonstration of how people are totally failing to understand the nature and extent of UKIP appeal and support.



Mebbes because people are fed up to the back teeth of the lying two faced bunch of hypocrites we have had to endure these last couple of decades and they see UKIP as somehow free of these characteristics, like some once saw the Libdems


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 30, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> dead funny post, but it's also a near-perfect demonstration of how people are totally failing to understand the nature and extent of UKIP appeal and support.


 
i'm not people


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Again, the people you're thinking of as the left above are in the mainstream anti-immigration boat. What would you have the unions do with their money? Give it to the labour party or piss it away on some no-hopers? Fund an anti-immigration party? Set one up? Do you think that would have flocking to it in the way that UKIP has had recently? I don't. I think any such attempt would be a colossal flop.


 
We all know how well No2EU worked


----------



## redsquirrel (May 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> We all know how well No2EU worked


Has that been wound up or is it still staggering on? 

IMO the problem with No2EU wasn't the underlying idea so much as there was no groundwork done before (or after).


----------



## Quartz (May 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> We all know how well No2EU worked


 
Actually, I'll bet that a good many people don't. Apart from not being successful, that is. Not without looking it up anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Actually, I'll bet that a good many people don't. Apart from not being successful, that is. Not without looking it up anyway.


This farage, why do you like him quartz?


----------



## Streathamite (May 1, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i'm not people


I've always had a problem putting you in the _homo sapiens_ description class.
More seriously: what I meant was that UKIP have an innate appeal to the sort of people David Nobbs (yaaay! betcha didn't know who the author of _Reggie Perrin_ was) so brilliantly satirised, people who are more interested in their grievances, and people to blame for them, than long and complex answers


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> I've always had a problem putting you in the _homo sapiens_ description class.
> More seriously: what I meant was that UKIP have an innate appeal to the sort of people David Nobbs (yaaay! betcha didn't know who the author of _Reggie Perrin_ was) so brilliantly satirised, people who are more interested in their grievances, and people to blame for them, than long and complex answers


 
there are a few lefties who fall into that category as well tbf


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

The thing isn't about giving them answers - at least not formal type answers - but to help construct communities in which the interests they see reflected in the UKIP (which, when it comes down to it are the basics, health, work education and leisure for them and their friends and family) are reflected in and expressed through other solidarity based forms of organisation, organisation that has the power to effect the things they care about rather than just being an expression of alienation and anger. People with far-right opinions are not _genetically_ far-right, their views are changeable through practice, in fact they are often a warped expression of exactly the sort of things that we should welcome and try to encourage in our own initiatives. Of course, there are those who are just racist arseholes.


----------



## Streathamite (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> People with far-right opinions are _genetically_ far-right,there views are changeable through practice,


the rest makes sense, but please could you clarify this bit?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> the rest makes sense, but please could you clarify this bit?


Supposed to read: People with far-right opinions are NOT genetically far-right,there views are changeable through practice,


----------



## Streathamite (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Supposed to read: People with far-right opinions are NOT genetically far-right,there views are changeable through practice,


ahhh....I suspected as much, you just threw me there!


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2013)

The horror of genetic engineering revealed as Farage is found to be 2/3 Enoch, 1/3 Soames


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 1, 2013)

Balbi said:


> The horror of genetic engineering revealed as Farage is found to be 2/3 Enoch, 1/3 Soames


 
No no no...nobody needs a third Soames;  an eigth or a sixteenth would be more than enough.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Dan U (May 1, 2013)

it's ok everyone, Alex Wood wasn't making a nazi salute, he was



> angrily trying to take a camera off his girlfriend who was annoyingly taking pictures of him in the pub imitating a pot plant. These things happen - I should know!


 
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nig...-local-elections_b_3191417.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

The pub was imitating a plant pot?


----------



## Dan U (May 1, 2013)

bonkers isn't it.

i bet none of the 'smears' get traduced after the election either


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

That is the worst excuse ever. I mean if you were grabbing a camera why would you hold your hand flat instead of shaping a grip. Why would you tuck your thumb in instead of the traditional use it to oppose the other fingers in order to be able to hold stuff approach?


----------



## Streathamite (May 1, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No no no...nobody needs a third Soames; an eigth or a sixteenth would be more than enough.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Ranbay (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That is the worst excuse ever. I mean if you were grabbing a camera why would you hold your hand flat instead of shaping a grip. Why would you tuck your thumb in instead of the traditional use it to oppose the other fingers in order to be able to hold stuff approach?


 
He was hacked, they broke into his facebook posted things and took this photo or something, and posted this and anything nasty he said, etc honest.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 1, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> I've always had a problem putting you in the _homo sapiens_ description class.
> More seriously: what I meant was that UKIP have an innate appeal to the sort of people David Nobbs (yaaay! betcha didn't know who the author of _Reggie Perrin_ was) so brilliantly satirised, people who are more interested in their grievances, and people to blame for them, than long and complex answers


 
i bloody know who David Nobbs is   although you're right about the rest of it.


----------



## Streathamite (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That is the worst excuse ever. I mean if you were grabbing a camera why would you hold your hand flat instead of shaping a grip. Why would you tuck your thumb in instead of the traditional use it to oppose the other fingers in order to be able to hold stuff approach?


and he doesn't look that angry, or that much leaning-forward-y


----------



## where to (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> That is the worst excuse ever. I mean if you were grabbing a camera why would you hold your hand flat instead of shaping a grip. Why would you tuck your thumb in instead of the traditional use it to oppose the other fingers in order to be able to hold stuff approach?



I am amazed and do not understand Farage backing him on this. Why? Any publicity is good publicity? Very strange.


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/01/ukip-nazi-row-photoshops-hitler

Apparently there are two Delingpoles and James's brother, Dick, a UKIP candidate, has been doing silly things with photo-shop to "hit back" with irony at the Tory media...


----------



## elbows (May 1, 2013)

Just got round to checking the candidates list for the county council elections here (Warwickshire) and still virtually no UKIP candidates standing in any Nuneaton & Bedworth ward (looks like just one this time). BNP candidates in quite a lot of wards but apart from Labour and Tories the only party fielding candidates in every seat this time are the Greens. Zero Lib Dems.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 2, 2013)

Get the popcorn out!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...-ukip-bigots-ensure-a-labour-victory-in-2015/


----------



## The39thStep (May 2, 2013)

UKIP could gain around 100 seats


----------



## gosub (May 2, 2013)

where to said:


> I am amazed and do not understand Farage backing him on this. Why? Any publicity is good publicity? Very strange.


 
well for a start if he is a Nazi he's using the wrong arm

and its not like doing Nazi related stuff in your youth creates an inpenitrable barrier to holding public office












In all seriousness, given this stuff and that police commissioner girl last week, public is going to have to reassess dirt trawls, coz you can't stop youngsters being numpties, and other wise we are are stuck with politicos who were old enough to know better before social media came along


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2013)

gosub said:


> well for a start if he is a Nazi he's using the wrong arm
> 
> and its not like doing Nazi related stuff in your youth creates an inpenitrable barrier to holding public office


 
Which tells you what?

As for the rest, well, the second one doesn't hold public office and both were clearly wearing their stuff because of the ridiculous nature of it, rather than as a political affirmation. Spot the difference. The excuse over the other pic is equally bad as well:



> Another picture obtained by the Daily Mirror showed Mr Wood with a knife between his teeth in front of a Union flag, but he claims this was a pirate-themed Hollywood stunt.


----------



## The39thStep (May 2, 2013)

> Another picture obtained by the Daily Mirror showed Mr Wood with a knife between his teeth in front of a Union flag, but he claims this was a pirate-themed Hollywood stunt.


 
There was a former poster on here, in fact the highest junior leader of the Fifth International, who was photographed  in a similar pirate situation but with rice pudding coming out of his mouth.


----------



## gosub (May 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which tells you what?
> 
> As for the rest, well, the second one doesn't hold public office and both were clearly wearing their stuff because of the ridiculous nature of it, rather than as a political affirmation. Spot the difference. The excuse over the other pic is equally bad as well:


 

Counsellor of State is a Public Office.  Granted the two examples are closer to the Dellingpole one but that hasn't stopped "outrage" at him. 

which tells you what : that it may not be a Nazi salute.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2013)

gosub said:


> Counsellor of State is a Public Office. Granted the two examples are closer to the Dellingpole one but that hasn't stopped "outrage" at him.
> 
> which tells you what : that it may not be a Nazi salute.


I guess this one on the left isn't either then:


----------



## gosub (May 2, 2013)

I think the context of the rest of the photo makes that less likely.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2013)

gosub said:


> I think the context of the rest of the photo makes that less likely.


Indeed, so why are you ignoring the context here? In fact, why are you ignoring the photo? Do you believe his cock and bull story?


----------



## where to (May 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Indeed, so why are you ignoring the context here? In fact, why are you ignoring the photo? Do you believe his cock and bull story?



And going back to the basis of my point, do you think people will believe this story even - even - if true. And why would Farage go to the risk of backing this political nobody and his absurd tales.


----------



## gosub (May 2, 2013)

I don't actually understand his explanation.  That photo says very little,  though suggestive enough for people to imply their own context


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 2, 2013)

where to said:


> And going back to the basis of my point, do you think people will believe this story even - even - if true. And why would Farage go to the risk of backing this political nobody and his absurd tales.


 
Perhaps on balance he sees the greater political risk in _not_ backing him - if UKIP is to become 'a partiotic working class party' he can't be seen to be rolling over every time some or another is deemed to be indiscreet. Currently the real danger for Farage is appearing too respectable.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2013)

where to said:


> And going back to the basis of my point, do you think people will believe this story even - even - if true. And why would Farage go to the risk of backing this political nobody and his absurd tales.


Sorry forgot to reply to this earlier - internal party disquiet - _are we going to stand by any of out lot or just give them up as soon as the media says? _As Joe says above. No external benefit, must be internal.


----------



## thedockerslad (May 2, 2013)

You stupid cunt. You are why I don't get involved.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Me?


----------



## thedockerslad (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Me?


 
yes.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Don't get involved with what? And why "You stupid cunt"?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

I reckon there's other reasons that you don't 'get involved' gary or kevin or whatever ghastly name you have.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Come on lad let's have it. I am a rooferslad btw if you want to even up.  Come on.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

too much aggression and bullying on this site now,


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> too much aggression and bullying on this site now,


Unbelievable, someone is called  cunt out of nowwhere, the cuntee responds politely and it's now bullying and aggression.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Total bluff. And the key is not who is elected but how the ruling class move/controlthe overton window.


 


> Downing Street is moving fast to pre-butt - as it were - today's seat loss results from yesterday's elections. It looks as I write as though UKIP, as expected, has done very well indeed. Remember: Harry Phibbs's success test for them is gains of over 100.
> 
> OUT from the Queen's Speech go such Big State or Nanny State measures as a minimum alchohol price and plain cigarette packaging and access (though the former at least was actually junked earlier this year after a Cabinet revolt).
> IN come tough, no-nonense measures such as a crackdown on immigrants' access to the NHS and benefits (though it remains to be seen how these plans will work in practice, especially when faced with the dual challenge to all tough-minded proposals - judicial review and human rights laws).


----------



## stuff_it (May 3, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> and he doesn't look that angry, or that much leaning-forward-y


To be fair he is leaning forwards and to the right.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 3, 2013)




----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> too much aggression and bullying on this site now,


fuck off, you cunt


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

That stuff stopped them right in their tracks.





Rutita1 said:


> Spoiler


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 3, 2013)

"We're fahking British! We've got the Queen - and she's got hairy fucking goat legs"


----------



## weltweit (May 3, 2013)

As to why UKIP are doing well, it is Farage, for he is the only Ukipper who is visible in the main media and he seems to manage to be on the main current affairs programs pretty much every week.

There are other people in UKIP, but they just don't seem to feature, which could be an issue come a general election. Farage can't be everywhere and their candidates will have to speak for themselves which will be a new experience for us.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

weltweit said:


> As to why UKIP are doing well, it is Farage, for he is the only Ukipper who is visible in the main media and he seems to manage to be on the main current affairs programs pretty much every week.
> 
> There are other people in UKIP, but they just don't seem to feature, which could be an issue come a general election. Farage can't be everywhere and their candidates will have to speak for themselves which will be a new experience for us.


No, it's the fact that everyone else is hated, seen as venal self-serving thieves. Farage is just a donkey face on top of that. It is most clearly not about him, it is about how he can/has capitalised on this hatred. _It's not him._


----------



## malatesta32 (May 3, 2013)

results etc
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/nick


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2013)

He is a venal self-serving thief!  How does he get away with this "i'm not a politician, one of the establishment" schtick? He's been milking one of the greatest cash cows for unaccountable politicos going for the best part of a decade. Don't see the Telegraph pouring over his expenses there.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> How does he get away with this "i'm not a politician, one of the establishment" schtick? He's been milking one of the greatest cash cows for unaccountable politicos going for the best part of a decade. Don't see the Telegraph pouring over his expenses there.


They already did his i got a million quid off the EU in expenses i think.

You want the telegraph to be defining what's legitimate btw?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He is a venal self-serving thief! How does he get away with this "i'm not a politician, one of the establishment" schtick? He's been milking one of the greatest cash cows for unaccountable politicos going for the best part of a decade. Don't see the Telegraph pouring over his expenses there.


are you familiar with the 'big lie' technique of goebbels and tony blair?


----------



## weltweit (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, it's the fact that everyone else is hated, seen as venal self-serving thieves. Farage is just a donkey face on top of that. It is most clearly not about him, it is about how he can/has capitalised on this hatred. _It's not him._


 
I think you may have to admit that Farage is a likeable charachter. I am pro europe, but I like him..


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He is a venal self-serving thief! How does he get away with this "i'm not a politician, one of the establishment" schtick? He's been milking one of the greatest cash cows for unaccountable politicos going for the best part of a decade. Don't see the Telegraph pouring over his expenses there.


Expose him articul8!!!


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They already did his i got a million quid off the EU in expenses i think.
> 
> You want the telegraph to be defining what's legitimate btw?


(no of course - I'm pointing to their role in exposing the parliamentary expenses scandal - they don't seem to have been as assiduous on UKIP expenses).

So how and why is he able to pose a other than a liar and thief like the rest of them?


----------



## The39thStep (May 3, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> results etc
> http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/nick


 
Are they the UKIP results?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I think you may have to admit that Farage is a likeable charachter. I am pro europe, but I like him..


you do know that when there was the pro-cuts rally at westminster a year or two back your mate nige was the main speaker. are you pro-cuts?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I think you may have to admit that Farage is a likeable charachter. I am pro europe, but I like him..


Why do i have to admit that? I'm anti-euoro abd i hate him. Some people like him, some don't. But your claim was that their current success was down solely to people liking him - do you really think it's that simple? Even his likeability relies on a background of everyone else being shit. It's based on a negative appraisal of others as much as a positive endorsement of him. Let's talk politics here.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Expose him articul8!!!


 The truth is out there.  But it's not cutting through.  Any suggestions as to why?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> (no of course - I'm pointing to their role in exposing the parliamentary expenses scandal - they don't seem to have been as assiduous on UKIP expenses).
> 
> So how and why is he able to pose a other than a liar and thief like the rest of them?


Maybe this was because they didn't have any MPs so weren't part of the expose. Just a thought like.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The truth is out there. But it's not cutting through. Any suggestions as to why?


Because people don't really give a shit and want to hit the others were it hurts. Simple stuff.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe this was because they didn't have any MPs so weren't part of the expose. Just a thought like.


They can attack "MEPs expenses" while milking them to the full.  Classic political hypocrisy.  They are on the take to an even greater extent than your average MP.  Why is he not seen as just as much part of the problem?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why do i have to admit that? I'm anti-euoro abd i hate him. Some people like him, some don't. But your claim was that their current success was down solely to people liking him - do you really think it's that simple? Even his likeability relies on a background of everyone else being shit. It's based on a negative appraisal of others as much as a positive endorsement of him. Let's talk politics here.


there is that perception of ukip as an anti-establishment party, perhaps helped by farage's rather bumbling antics. but yer man's clearly something of a tippler - the grauniad described him in january as 'a famously exuberant drinker' which means he's plastered half the time. this probably explains half his attraction for that bibulous section of society, journalists.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because people don't really give a shit and want to hit the others were it hurts. Simple stuff.


I'd hazard a guess that if UKIP look like doing any real damage at a General Election, Farage will be taken down in a sleaze scandal - cash or sex or both  But he's useful for the Tory right atm


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> They can attack "MEPs expenses" while milking them to the full. Classic political hypocrisy. They are on the take to an even greater extent than your average MP. Why is he not seen as just as much part of the problem?


They didn't buy a disc ful of MEPs expenses, they bought one full of MPs expenses. I note you've gone from demanding the telegraph police what is politically legitimate to something else rather quickly. Why don't they 'go after' Farage? Because they rather enjoy the grief he's giving the tories? Because they want to see his parties policies gain greater influence? Have you uncovered a conspiracy!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'd hazard a guess that if UKIP look like doing any real damage at a General Election, Farage will be taken down in a sleaze scandal - cash or sex or both But he's useful for the Tory right atm


you're a bit of a 'loon, and it's not a good thing.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> there is that perception of ukip as an anti-establishment party, perhaps helped by farage's rather bumbling antics. but yer man's clearly something of a tippler - the grauniad described him in january as 'a famously exuberant drinker' which means he's plastered half the time. this probably explains half his attraction for that bibulous section of society, journalists.


Yes, one of the latent messages of the last weeks attacks was based around pics of him sitting in or outside pubs having a pint and reading the paper = pisshead in their imagination, normal in everyone elses.


----------



## weltweit (May 3, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you do know that when there was the pro-cuts rally at westminster a year or two back your mate nige was the main speaker. are you pro-cuts?


I didn't know that no.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They didn't buy a disc ful of MEPs expenses, they bought one full of MPs expenses. I note you've gone from demanding the telegraph police what is politically legitimate to something else rather quickly. Why don't they 'go after' Farage? Because they rather enjoy the grief he's giving the tories? Because they want to see his parties policies gain greater influence? Have you uncovered a conspiracy!


No of course that's what's behind it.  What I'm asking is why it hasn't be identified and checked more effectively


----------



## weltweit (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why do i have to admit that? I'm anti-euoro abd i hate him. Some people like him, some don't. But your claim was that their current success was down solely to people liking him - do you really think it's that simple? Even his likeability relies on a background of everyone else being shit. It's based on a negative appraisal of others as much as a positive endorsement of him. Let's talk politics here.


I didn't know you were anti euro. Is that antu Euro the currency or anti euro the EU establishment?

It is certainly true that Farage has not been tainted by office which means people have less to complain about him, and his message so far has been pretty simplistic.

And it is true what you say, that: "everyone else being shit" because they are, choosing someone to vote for will be difficult at the next election for a lot of people.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, one of the latent messages of the last weeks attacks was based around pics of him sitting in or outside pubs having a pint and reading the paper = pisshead in their imagination, normal in everyone elses.


pubs now only attract certain sections of the population, it's not like it used to be when the pub was a hub for a community. so while the association of farage and ukip with the pub, with their bit about smoking in pubs and that, might play well with a certain demographick of people, it will pass a load of other people by. indeed, with drinking apparently falling among much of the population (see for example http://www.just-drinks.com/news/alcohol-consumption-per-capita-drops-to-14-year-low_id109683.aspx) the identification of ukip with drinking may prove counterproductive.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I didn't know you were anti euro. Is that antu Euro the currency or anti euro the EU establishment?
> 
> It is certainly true that Farage has not been tainted by office which means people have less to complain about him, and his message so far has been pretty simplistic.
> 
> And it is true what you say, that: "everyone else being shit" because they are, choosing someone to vote for will be difficult at the next election for a lot of people.


Both, they are effectively one and the same. I want the EU to be smashed into a million pieces. He has office, and he's tainted it - see his braying over the way he's ripped off the EU expenses a few years back. I think many UKIP voters are not keen on farage, but they like the idea of a straight talker,  the straight talking often seeming to be as important as what is said.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> pubs now only attract certain sections of the population, it's not like it used to be when the pub was a hub for a community. so while the association of farage and ukip with the pub, with their bit about smoking in pubs and that, might play well with a certain demographick of people, it will pass a load of other people by. indeed, with drinking apparently falling among much of the population (see for example http://www.just-drinks.com/news/alcohol-consumption-per-capita-drops-to-14-year-low_id109683.aspx) the identification of ukip with drinking may prove counterproductive.


Possibly, i think the drop in pub boozing hasn't seen a concomitant drop in it being seen as acceptable, as a normal thing for people to do, rather then something that is a sign of weakness, as in many US states.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2013)

There is something in the UKIP vote that is a reaction to a kind of patronising, puritanical liberal-left middle class teacherly attitude - don't smoke, don't drink too much, don't be racist, don't be sexist, do your recycling, do enough exercise etc - to which a UKIP vote is a "do you know what, FUCK THIS - you lot are a hypocritical shower of cunts anyway" - if I want to enjoy a pint or tell an off-colour gag I will thank you very fucking much.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Possibly, i think the drop in pub boozing hasn't seen a concomitant drop in it being seen as acceptable, as a normal thing for people to do, rather then something that is a sign of weakness, as in many US states.


 
Normal and _traditional_.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Normal and _traditional_.


Part of _our _way of life that _they_ are trying to get rid of with their straight bananas and Somalians.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Possibly, i think the drop in pub boozing hasn't seen a concomitant drop in it being seen as acceptable, as a normal thing for people to do, rather then something that is a sign of weakness, as in many US states.


 
See also the popularity of Charles Kennedy - I think a lot were sympathetuc to his booziness and didn't see it as a weakness.


----------



## weltweit (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Both, they are effectively one and the same. I want the EU to be smashed into a million pieces.


 
Ok. My view is that the union has helped peace break out in Europe (post WWII) and countries coming together is largely the reason for it. If we are moving together we are not moving apart and the extreme of moving apart is war. Therefore I am glad we are moving together.

That said, I want the UK to be in the free market, I am not so keen on the rest and certainly against Britain joining the Euro.



butchersapron said:


> He has office, and he's tainted it - see his braying over the way he's ripped off the EU expenses a few years back. I think many UKIP voters are not keen on farage, but they like the idea of a straight talker, the straight talking often seeming to be as important as what is said.


 
I think Farage has a sense of humour and often makes his points with a cheeky smile. This differs significantly from Po faced normal politicians who have an overegged sense of their own importance and are basically as dull as ditchwater.


----------



## gosub (May 3, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Ok. My view is that the union has helped peace break out in Europe (post WWII) and countries coming together is largely the reason for it. If we are moving together we are not moving apart and the extreme of moving apart is war. Therefore I am glad we are moving together.
> 
> That said, I want the UK to be in the free market, I am not so keen on the rest and certainly against Britain joining the Euro.
> 
> ...


 

NATO played quite a large part in post war European peace, and dragging states along in a direction they were unhappy with in the name of togetherness was the cause of the US civil war


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Unbelievable, someone is called cunt out of nowwhere, the cuntee responds politely and it's now bullying and aggression.


 
Just another helping of treelover's passive-aggressiveness.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

The face of things to come?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> <eldritch horrors snipped>
> 
> The face of things to come?


 
I really don't want to see that toad-like _thing_ in the middles face when it comes ...

... it's looking close the the edge in that picture which is revolting enough.

What _are_ the other two doing with their hands I wonder?


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

> Nice to see the Greens winning two seats in Essex, but the message sent out to the left by Ukip's rise is sobering beyond words: after years of wondering what a crack in mainstream politics might look like, there comes a huge fissure – and the people responsible hail from the populist right. And what does it speak of? Anger and bafflement – "protest", if you prefer – about immigration and so-called "welfare", for sure. But also a profound cultural estrangement from Westminster, and an anodyne political class whose inadequacies were always going to spark public anger, not least in the midst of an economic crisis seemingly without end.


 
Time for an end to the hubris from WILOTL, they have signally failed and must recognise that if things are to change..


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

What is WILOTL?


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

You know by now, 'what is left of the left'


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

what I meant to say is that it could have been the left who were the 'insurgents and benefited from the undoubted alienation of huge parts of the public from the current political class.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> You know by now, 'what is left of the left'


I've never heard that in my life, or if i have it never stuck in my memory. 

And what is that unattributed quote from?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> what I meant to say is that it could have been the left who were the 'insurgents and benefited from the undoubted alienation of huge parts of the public from the current political class.


Stop thinking and obsessing on the left and think about the class.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

thedockerslad said:


> You stupid cunt. You are why I don't get involved.





butchersapron said:


> Don't get involved with what? And why "You stupid cunt"?





butchersapron said:


> I reckon there's other reasons that you don't 'get involved' gary or kevin or whatever ghastly name you have.





butchersapron said:


> Come on lad let's have it. I am a rooferslad btw if you want to even up. Come on.


Any chance of a reply?


----------



## sunnysidedown (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> You know by now, 'what is left of the left'


 
if ever there was a more fitting epigraph


----------



## krtek a houby (May 3, 2013)

I am dismayed but not surprised by the results. What's the general feeling with urban? Apologies, I haven't got the time to spare for 18 pages...


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

krtek a houby said:


> I am dismayed but not surprised by the results. What's the general feeling with urban? Apologies, I haven't got the time to spare for 18 pages...


More people should have voted lid-dem/tory/labour? Sorry, too busy to read what you may say in reply.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Dismayed but not surprised. Like an expected shock.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 3, 2013)

krtek a houby said:


> I am dismayed but not surprised by the results. What's the general feeling with urban? Apologies, I haven't got the time to spare for 18 pages...


 
Unalloyed pleasure. Tory vote split. Labour more likely to fight for the centre than to make rash commitments on spend. The maths should stop  Miliband from saying any silly protectionist or anti-immigration or pro-referendum stuff.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I've never heard that in my life, or if i have it never stuck in my memory.
> 
> And what is that unattributed quote from?


 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/03/local-elections-results-panel-verdict

Sorry, its by John Harris in the Guardian L/E panel.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Gay marriage? wtf is jenkins on about? (In that article treelover linked to above)


----------



## krtek a houby (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> More people should have voted lid-dem/tory/labour? Sorry, too busy to read what you may say in reply.


 
That's nice but you're hardly representative of urban. Putting you on ignore now & then you can do the same to me & we'll live life to the full without ever having to cross swords again.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Gay marriage? wtf is jenkins on about? (In that article treelover linked to above)





Tory councillor mate in leafy shire says it keeps coming up on the doorstep; elderly conservatives are furious about it.

He also says that Kipper/Tory relations at a constituency party level are thawing, from fury and loathing two years ago to unofficial but cordial discussions these days about low-level non-aggression pacts in 2015


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

krtek a houby said:


> That's nice but you're hardly representative of urban. Putting you on ignore now & then you can do the same to me & we'll live life to the full without ever having to cross swords again.


I won't put you on ignore thanks. I'll take the matty talbot option.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

krtek a houby said:


> That's nice but you're hardly representative of urban. Putting you on ignore now & then you can do the same to me & we'll live life to the full without ever having to cross swords again.


What sort of perfect representative of urban are you after - what are the features that you're looking for?


----------



## Corax (May 3, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I think Farage has a sense of humour and often makes his points with a cheeky smile.


Yes.  He reminds me of Boris Johnson in that.  And is similarly dangerous for that reason.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

> Tory councillor mate in leafy shire says it keeps coming up on the doorstep; elderly conservatives are furious about it.


 

Exactly, many on the left, etc can't seem to get inside the minds of middle England, same as in the U.S, the book "What is wrong with Kansas'' attempted to deconstruct these voters of the bible belt.

Not saying we should address such concerns, just be aware, though gay marriage is sometimes contested even in the gay community.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> Exactly, many on the left, etc can't seem to get inside the minds of middle England


 
Why would anybody want to get inside the minds of middle England? What a revolting thought.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Tory councillor mate in leafy shire says it keeps coming up on the doorstep; elderly conservatives are furious about it.
> 
> He also says that Kipper/Tory relations at a constituency party level are thawing, from fury and loathing two years ago to unofficial but cordial discussions these days about low-level non-aggression pacts in 2015


Only going to vote tory or UKIP. No power to expand their vote, only to cut into it. And they cannot retreat without proper old school imperial Afghanistan style massacre.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> Exactly, many on the left, etc can't seem to get inside the minds of middle England, same as in the U.S, the book "What is wrong with Kansas'' attempted to deconstruct these voters of the bible belt.
> 
> Not saying we should address such concerns, just be aware, though gay marriage is sometimes contested even in the gay community.


Do they need to? You're not going to win these people by argument are you?


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

No, but you may be able to undermine the arguments/ideas that inform their views

often wonder how a real Harry Perkins would deal with all this, imagination is key..


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> No, but you may be able to undermine the arguments/ideas that inform their views
> 
> often wonder how a real Harry Perkins would deal with all this, imagination is key..


Maybe, but just build something better rather then formal argument. That means all that stuff that you like, and think people should be doing.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

The media is making out that UKIP has lots to say and propose about 'welfare' but it seems to me its mostly in terms of 'benefits for migrants', they don't seem to push reform as a key policy, or do they?

sadly, they will have heard it 'on the doorstep'


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> The media is making out that UKIP has lots to say and propose about 'welfare' but it seems to me its mostly in terms of 'benefits for migrants', they don't seem to push reform as a key policy, or do they?
> 
> sadly, they will have heard it 'on the doorstep'


The trick is to use it/them to make cameron do it. That's it. Nothing else.

Someone us going to get it in the neck for this UKIP victory. They have to.


----------



## thedockerslad (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon there's other reasons that you don't 'get involved' gary or kevin or whatever ghastly name you have.


 
'ghastly'


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

thedockerslad said:


> 'ghastly'


Or horrid. Any answer?


----------



## Corax (May 3, 2013)

I'm not confident that many current UKIP voters can be influenced much either way tbh.  Most I've seen interviewed or spoken to personally are either protest voters that don't actually have much affinity for the party, or law'n'order types that will vote for any party with enough of a string 'em up feel to it.

Is it more important to concentrate on influencing new voters?  As became evident with the death of Thatcher, there's a generation who have recently reached or are reaching voting age that have no comprehension of the devastation her policies wrought.  This is a a growing proportion of the ballot.  Concerning?


----------



## thedockerslad (May 3, 2013)

UKIP won't achieve anything in the real elections, just as the BNP didn't. The mainstream political parties and media will ensure they don't.


----------



## brogdale (May 3, 2013)

thedockerslad said:


> UKIP won't achieve anything in the real elections, just as the BNP didn't. The mainstream political parties and media will ensure they don't.


 
But.....they do have the potential to achieve a real kick in the teeth for tory chances of a majority or even minority government.

This is quite a good overview...



> Thanks to vigorous Conservative opposition to the Alternative Vote in 2011, the split of the right-of-centre vote now threatens to pitch all parties of the right into the severe under-representation that any first-past-the-post electoral systems keeps waiting for divided parties. For UKIP, the possibility is that they may poll record votes at an election in 2014 or 2015, and yet win not a single Westminster seat. For the Liberal Democrats it is hard to see more than half at best of their current 57 MPs surviving.
> And for the Conservatives, unless they can squeeze or partner with one of their rivals, just getting back to the 36 per cent support of 2010 will be tricky. So current crude forecasts (using unified national swing) posit a Labour majority of 90 to 110 seats.


 
Dunleavy attributes UKIP's rise, in part, to Thatcher's divisivness and the competing tory puppet masters of globalised industrial capital and global finance, and therefore concludes..



> ...if a Labour victory still eventuates, it will be clear that the lasting legacy of Thatcherism was to fragment the centre-right of British politics, in the process perhaps gifting Ed Miliband with a 1997-like landslide of MPs.


----------



## happie chappie (May 3, 2013)

Look where UKIP did particularly well – Lincolnshire for example.

Boston is a town at the arse end of nowhere close to where I live with few stable jobs, low wages and high levels of migration. Ditto Wisbech and, to a certain extent, Peterborough.

People in London telling the traditional white working class up here that the EU is a wonderful institution and migration brings great economic benefits just doesn’t wash I’m afraid. It’s a world away from their daily lives and experiences.

I’ve lost count of the number of people I know saying they’re fed up with the EU and high levels of migration and they simply want out, irrespective of the long-term consequences. These aren’t hard core fascists, or even racists.

They are just very pissed off with what’s happening where they live and to be honest I can’t blame them.

Don’t dismiss the concerns of the people who vote for them. If you lived out here you’d realise some of them are legitimate.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

Good post, but leaving the EU wouldn't end their problems

btw, the next big disaster is the EU/US free trade agreement


----------



## frogwoman (May 3, 2013)

It is amazing how people on the left can defend the EU. The EU is instituting legalised theft and a police state in greece and imposed austerity elsewhere within its borders

I don't agree entirely with the migrant workers thing though having lived in a country where many of the people there are desperate to get into the EU. that institution is quite happy to use protectionism to keep people out and demand even more austerity as a "condition" for entry (which will never happen)


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It is amazing how people on the left can defend the EU. The EU is instituting legalised theft and a police state in greece and imposed austerity elsewhere within its borders


 
Because of all the good things that go with supernational regulation. Consumer protection and employee protection are only really possible when businesses can't play the game of jurisdiction arbitrage.


----------



## happie chappie (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> Good post, but leaving the EU wouldn't end their problems


 
It might not - but for many people here the EU (and particularly migration) _is_ the problem as far as they're concerned.

I don't think many people in more prosperous parts of the UK realise just how difficult it is to get anything like a decent job here is, and just how low pay rates are being driven.

I went to the Job Centre with a mate of mine towards the end of last year when he'd lost his job and signed on for the first time.

I looked at the available jobs on the computer terminal. Almost the best paid among the few advertised was for a Santa and his helpers at the local department store. It was just above the minimum wage. I'm not joking, by the way.

He's a skilled man but he's competing against migrants who'll do the work for a fraction of the price. He can hardly pay his mortgage. He couldn't afford to get his car through the MOT so he took the tyres off to sell on Ebay and told the garage to keep the rest of the car.

He's always been a solid Labour man but he's very, very, pissed off. If he could have been arsed to vote today (and I very much doubt he bothered) he would have voted UKIP. If I was in his shoes I'd have probably done the same.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 3, 2013)

UKIPs success has been largely bolstered by enormous amounts of attention from press which was, at the time, disproportionate.

Why? Because of the froth of relative novelty, and because UKIP values of shallow, reactionary populism chime with those of the press. It's the same press that spied on a murdered child and implied that claiming benefits can make you kill your children in a house fire. They are the biggest bullies in the land, bar none. The lies about migrants and failure to explain banking fraud show exactly their function and UKIP hits their G spot.

It's natural for governing parties to be unpopular, especially one as inept as the tories, so it's a good vote for genuine rightists and hard rightists.

OK, they are basically a hoax, but that's detail. Who wants detail? It's dull.

How does homophobia make us independent?

Will UKIP nationalise foreign owned infrastructure, like much rail or energy?

Will they make us independent of the finance capital cult? Will they bollocks.

What is their plan for making us independent of our bizarre reliance on so many food imports? Nada.

A problem with attacking them on racism / xenophobia is that the classic smokescreen accusation of "shutting down debate" takes up more time than it is worth and doesn't do anything to put off the significant minority of voters who could be pretty bigoted like that. There are a lot of people who complain that they "are not allowed" to talk about immigration, yet they do little else. It is forever being discussed. They are classic cases of congnitive dissonance, the type who would plan for Christmas with one part of the brain while another part fumed about Christmas being banned.

It is the press and others who have whipped up the hate frenzy, UKIP are just sucking up the rewards of it and the ones really laughing are terrorist facilitating crimewave aka global finance capital, to whom UKIP pay full allegience.

To be fair to UKIP, the proof of the pudding will now be in the eating. Councillors and groups who perform well and genuinely serve in regards to matters that have bugger all to do with Europe will deserve to be re-elected. Not that they necessarily will, if for example the Tories are in opposition 4 years from now (possibly due to a UKIP "SDP" effect).

But still, I am sure many of them are up to the task and many are not. 

Weak councillors in larger parties can often have their weakness covered by the work of others. More isolated councillors less so. 

BNP and Greens have been known to fail even with some kind of experience base. Complacency and delirium for UKIP right now would not be well advised. 

I said some weeks back that too many feet would go in too many mouths sooner or later. That did happen, but because they were in a position of almost uniform opposition it mattered less.

When actual councillors start to balls things up and shoot their mouths off then the tide could quickly turn.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 3, 2013)

Having said all the above, it is a failing of the left that we have not adapted broadly enough to challenge the EU from the left. Huge swathes of left of centre (if not harder elements) were well in to Europe for social, enviornmental and cultural reasons that are easy to sympathise with. 

Times have changed, it's increasingly anti democratic and neoliberal. Labour and The Greens have especially failed to be critical enough. One wouldn't expect it of the LDs. It doesn't mean having to leave btw. 

The irony is that UKIP will not altar the main problem of the EU a jot - enforced neoliberalism. They chuffin' love it. That's a prime reason they are a hoax.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> UKIPs success has been largely bolstered by enormous amounts of attention from press which was, at the time, disproportionate..


 

OK first line



> UKIPs success has been largely bolstered by enormous amounts of attention from press


 
Bit of a mess, What is their success, when dd it happen? Is this success independent of the press? What does bolstered mean?i How come a week of mainstream media attacks resulted in 26%?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Having said all the above, it is a failing of the left that we have not adapted broadly enough to challenge the EU from the left. Huge swathes of left of centre (if not harder elements) were well in to Europe for social, enviornmental and cultural reasons that are easy to sympathise with.
> 
> Times have changed, it's increasingly anti democratic and neoliberal. Labour and The Greens have especially failed to be critical enough. One wouldn't expect it of the LDs. It doesn't mean having to leave btw.
> 
> The irony is that UKIP will not altar the main problem of the EU a jot - enforced neoliberalism. They chuffin' love it. That's a prime reason they are a hoax.


Hang on who is the 'we' here - it seems to be labour greens and lib-dems?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

> Will UKIP nationalise foreign owned infrastructure, like much rail or energy?


 
You know nationalise just means owned by the state, it's nothing to do with your foreigner bashing here.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

who are you referring to?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 3, 2013)

happie chappie said:


> He's a skilled man but he's competing against migrants who'll do the work for a fraction of the price.


 
Are employers flouting minimum wage legislation, or is he simply less skilled than he thinks?


----------



## coley (May 3, 2013)

happie chappie said:


> It might not - but for many people here the EU (and particularly migration) _is_ the problem as far as they're concerned.
> 
> I don't think many people in more prosperous parts of the UK realise just how difficult it is to get anything like a decent job here is, and just how low pay rates are being driven.
> 
> ...



Similar story up here, lot of plumbers joiners etc would go south for 9/10 months of the year,but its all dried up now, courtesy of an influx of people who will work for even less than them.


----------



## happie chappie (May 3, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Are employers flouting minimum wage legislation, or is he simply less skilled than he thinks?


 
You can come up and suggest he's less skilled than he thinks he is if you like, but I should warn you that you're liable to leave with fewer teeth than you started with.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 3, 2013)

Perhaps he's losing work to people who are less arsey than he is, then.


----------



## happie chappie (May 3, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Perhaps he's losing work to people who are less arsey than he is, then.


 
You might want to tell him that and then you could look forward to having a broken nose as well.


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 3, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Perhaps he's losing work to people who are less arsey than he is, then.


 
Ah the good old race to the bottom.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Perhaps he's losing work to people who are less arsey than he is, then.


That'a the problem, To get people arsey together. Otherwise scum like you can take advantage.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 3, 2013)

happie chappie said:


> You might want to tell him that and then you could look forward to having a broken nose as well.


 
So your point was that mainstream politicians need to understand and sympathise with sociopathic thugs from Lincolnshire who get into a tizzy when they are undercut by more pleasant competitors, and leave dead cars in garages by way of protest?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Ah the good old race to the bottom.


very droll


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

I think Silas is also a prolific poster on Guardian CIF , his/her outpourings of ''common sense Blairism'' is mighty familiar


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> I think Silas is also a prolific poster on Guardian CIF , his/her outpourings of ''common sense Blairism'' is mighty familiar


 
Nah. It's probably the same person who copies and pastes Balbi's Doctor Who criticism, nicking my stuff.


----------



## happie chappie (May 3, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> So your point was that mainstream politicians need to understand and sympathise with sociopathic thugs from Lincolnshire who get into a tizzy when they are undercut by more pleasant competitors, and leave dead cars in garages by way of protest?


 
I assume this is some kind of joke. If it's not then you've got absolutely no idea what it's like up here.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

Farrago will love this...


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

[QUOTES]till on immigration, Nicholas Watt reports that David Cameron is to use next week's Queen's Speech to reassure former Tory voters who jumped ship to Ukip because of concerns over immigration and welfare. Downing Street is also readying a “media blitz” to demonstrate it is taking action over policy areas which pushed support towards Ukip.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/may/03/local-elections-2013-live-blog

[/QUOTE]


absolutely certain now Cameron will announce end to HB for under 25's.

still not certain UKIP are as agitated about benefits as EU and immigration, politicians are going to use it though as cover.


----------



## shagnasty (May 3, 2013)

Butchers is correct even the graun had items of bad press for Ukip.Was talk of tory dirty tricks ,so whats new


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 3, 2013)

happie chappie said:


> I assume this is some kind of joke. If it's not then you've got absolutely no idea what it's like up here.


 
Or he does have some idea but thinks it's funny anyhow ...


----------



## Corax (May 3, 2013)

happie chappie said:


> Boston is a town at the arse end of nowhere close to where I live with few stable jobs, low wages and high levels of migration. Ditto Wisbech and, to a certain extent, Peterborough.
> 
> People in London telling the traditional white working class up here that the EU is a wonderful institution and migration brings great economic benefits just doesn’t wash I’m afraid. It’s a world away from their daily lives and experiences.
> 
> ...


Some of what you're referring to (2nd para particularly) is to do with mythology though. I live in the South and my high street has a dozen Polish shops. Lots of local 'indigenous' people get upset that their signs are in Polish as well as English. There was a particular furore when one put a sign in its window stating "Sorry, No English". As anyone with an ounce would expect, it was an attempt to say that they didn't _speak_ English, but I'm sure you can imagine what the local UKIP types decided it meant...  

Crap standard of education round here, thirty different languages in a primary school class, the jobs available are 99% in the realm of minimum wage, and in most respects the city is a fucking dive, set up purely to serve a very small number of yacht-owning wankers that live in the New Forest.

I've spent some time in Cornwall and Devon, Plymouth particularly. The situation was if anything worse down there.

Kent has some fucking shitholes too.

And many of the places I lived in London were grim as fuck.

Alongside austerity and the rise of nationalism, a cartoonish and simplistic concept of the North/South divide seems to be gaining ever more traction. But the idea that anywhere South of the Grimbsy-Gloucester line is paved with gold is divisive nonsense.

And that's my concern. It's really _*really* _fucking divisive. I know I'd be pissed off if I lived in Barnsley and I thought everyone down South was living in places like Romsey. I don't know if it's being done deliberately tbh, but it certainly suits certain political groups to see it ramped up, especially if they can pin it on immigration.


----------



## happie chappie (May 3, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Or he does have some idea but thinks it's funny anyhow ...


 
My sides are splitting every time I hear my mate's been struggling to pay his mortgage. His misses has had to take on two cleaning jobs (one in the morning and another in the evening) as well as her full-time job. Must be a bundle of laughs.


----------



## thedockerslad (May 3, 2013)

brogdale said:


> But.....they do have the potential to achieve a real kick in the teeth for tory chances of a majority or even minority government.
> 
> This is quite a good overview...
> 
> ...


 
The point you are missing is that electoral politics is a waste of time and energy and has nothing to offer the working class.


----------



## Wilson (May 3, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Perhaps he's losing work to people who are less arsey than he is, then.


You neo liberal scumbag


----------



## brogdale (May 3, 2013)

thedockerslad said:


> The point you are missing is that electoral politics is a waste of time and energy and has nothing to offer the working class.


 
I think you're right; I may well have missed that point.

Largely because it is different and distinct from the one we were discussing.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 3, 2013)

Wilson said:


> You neo liberal scumbag


 


Wilson said:


> You neo liberal scumbag scab


 
Are you going to add a word every couple of minutes, then? How about "lickspittle" next?


----------



## happie chappie (May 3, 2013)

Corax said:


> Some of what you're referring to (2nd para particularly) is to do with mythology though. I live in the South and my high street has a dozen Polish shops. Lots of local 'indigenous' people get upset that their signs are in Polish as well as English. There was a particular furore when one put a sign in its window stating "Sorry, No English". As anyone with an ounce would expect, it was an attempt to say that they didn't _speak_ English, but I'm sure you can imagine what the local UKIP types decided it meant...
> 
> 
> > It's a fair point but it's not just about the number of Polish shops there are on the high street. That's almost a side issue. In fact, I don't think I've heard anyone specifically mention it around this neck of the woods. At least it doesn't seem to be a primary concern.
> ...


----------



## thedockerslad (May 3, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I think you're right; I may well have missed that point.
> 
> Largely because it is different and distinct from the one we were discussing.


 
We weren't discussing anything you were trying to tell me that electoral politics matters. It doesn't.


----------



## Wilson (May 3, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Are you going to add a word every couple of minutes, then? How about "lickspittle" next?


 
No you're right, you couldn't be  a scab.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 3, 2013)

Wilson said:


> No you're right, you couldn't be a scab.


 
Parasite?


----------



## brogdale (May 3, 2013)

thedockerslad said:


> We weren't discussing anything you were trying to tell me that electoral politics matters. It doesn't.


 


thedockerslad said:


> We weren't discussing anything you were trying to tell me that electoral politics matters. It doesn't.


 
If that's how you see it. I thought you were discussing electoral politics and I was questionning your view that "...UKIP won't achieve anything in the _real_ elections,..."

But hey ho, it's probably time for another drink, not a pointless 'barney'


----------



## Corax (May 3, 2013)

happie chappie said:


> It's a fair point but it's not just about the number of Polish shops there are on the high street. That's almost a side issue. In fact, I don't think I've heard anyone specifically mention it around this neck of the woods. At least it doesn't seem to be a primary concern.
> 
> It's more about the lack of employment - especially for unskilled workers.
> 
> There's fuck all here, and more and more people competing for fuck all.


The shops thing was just an illustration of the environment HC, painting a picture that isn't Chipping Norton.  The issues that worry people (such as blue-collar jobs) are exactly the same, and also get blamed on immigration down South.


----------



## Wilson (May 3, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Parasite?


vector


----------



## happie chappie (May 3, 2013)

Corax said:


> The shops thing was just an illustration of the environment HC, painting a picture that isn't Chipping Norton. The issues that worry people (such as blue-collar jobs) are exactly the same, and also get blamed on immigration down South.


 
It doesn’t seem to be the usual mantra of “they’re all coming over here to claim benefits” or even they’re all “lazy and don’t want to work”.

In fact, nearly everyone I’ve spoken say something along the lines of “the Poles are real grafters”. 

It’s more of “there’s not enough work to go round so why are we letting more people come here”.

Some locals are undoubtedly angry and a few downright racists, but many just have that air of sullen resignation as if worn down by a daily struggle to survive.

It’s just so fucking hard to be right at the bottom of the pile.


----------



## Corax (May 3, 2013)

happie chappie said:


> It doesn’t seem to be the usual mantra of “they’re all coming over here to claim benefits” or even they’re all “lazy and don’t want to work”.
> 
> In fact, nearly everyone I’ve spoken say something along the lines of “the Poles are real grafters”.


Try asking them the same question about non-white immigrants.


----------



## happie chappie (May 3, 2013)

Corax said:


> Try asking them the same question about non-white immigrants.


 
It's not really so much of an issue as there's been relatively few non-white immigrants coming to this neck of the woods in recent years and those that are here are pretty well-established.

In any case, they tend not to be competing for low-wage agricultural jobs which is one of the mainstays of the local economy. 

Indeed, the BNP have made little real headway and they're the main anti non-white immigrant party.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 4, 2013)

Some of the residents of Boston, Lincs were interviewed on Radio 4 this morning. Some of their reasons for voting UKIP were that there were too many foreigners living there now, that you couldn't understand what they were saying, that they were intimidating, that they got everything given to them on a plate, and that crime levels had gone up.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 4, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Are employers flouting minimum wage legislation, or is he simply less skilled than he thinks?


What's your definition of skilled?
Should he be grateful to make minimum wage?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2013)

thedockerslad said:


> UKIP won't achieve anything in the real elections, just as the BNP didn't. The mainstream political parties and media will ensure they don't.


 
What do you mean by "real elections - by-elections and general elections?
If so, that's not a sensible way of looking at things, especially given that UKIP's base are a fuckload more civic-minded and likely to be decent ward councillors than the BNP turned out to be.
If they *do* manage to establish a decent base in local authorities, and actually *hold* wards through decent surgery work, then they build a foundation (which the BNP failed to do except in a couple of locales) for contesting constituencies a bit further down the line, and although the 'Kippers have skeletons in their closets, there's not likely to be the same degree of rancidity to their corpses, as the ones the BNP had and have.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 4, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> What's your definition of skilled?


 
I'd be more interested in HC's definition. He's the one who thinks that something is broken because skilled labour is being undercut. That's why I asked about MW; the job of income regulation and border controls is to prevent a race to the bottom. Protecting the rights of people who believe themselves to be "skilled" to charge a premium, not so much.


----------



## treelover (May 4, 2013)

Farrago was a commodities broker and the son of a merchant banker, how has managed to pull off this 'man of the people act'

I don't usually dish voters, but it really looks like in England a certain type of person likes to vote for their 'betters'

but not all UKIP voters of course, but enough.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 4, 2013)

treelover said:


> Farrago was a commodities broker and the son of a merchant banker, how has managed to pull off this 'man of the people act'
> 
> I don't usually dish voters, but it really look like in England a certain type of person likes to vote for their 'betters'
> 
> but not all UKIP voters of course, but enough.


 
Why be so sqeemish about dissing voters? A lot of us are thick and/or nasty people. Fuck em.


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 4, 2013)

Here's an intriguing insight into the ideological framework the libertarian right operates within, from an hilarious article entitled "anti-racists are the real racists" http://pol-check.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/why-modern-anti-racists-are-racist.html


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 4, 2013)

lol


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 4, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> I'd be more interested in HC's definition. He's the one who thinks that something is broken because skilled labour is being undercut. That's why I asked about MW; the job of income regulation and border controls is to prevent a race to the bottom. Protecting the rights of people who believe themselves to be "skilled" to charge a premium, not so much.


I don't see how MW prevents a race to the bottom, it simply establishes what that bottom shall be.


----------



## andysays (May 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Gay marriage? wtf is jenkins on about? (In that article treelover linked to above)


 


Silas Loom said:


> Tory councillor mate in leafy shire says it keeps coming up on the doorstep; elderly conservatives are furious about it.


 
Maybe someone should explain to them it's only being made optional, not compulsory...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 4, 2013)

andysays said:


> Maybe someone should explain to them it's only being made optional, not compulsory...


 
My mate finds that a serious nod works best and then he shifts the conversation to potholes.


----------



## weltweit (May 4, 2013)

treelover said:


> Farrago was a commodities broker and the son of a merchant banker, how has managed to pull off this 'man of the people act'


 
He has a big, simple and clear message and no baggage from years spent mired in ultimately unproductive government.

Pretty easy to get motivated by "out of europe" and "keep the immigrants out".



treelover said:


> I don't usually dish voters, but it really looks like in England a certain type of person likes to vote for their 'betters'.


 
Do you think people think Farage is their better? if he is seen as a man of the people as you posited then he is by definition not one of their betters! I fear you have contradicted yourself in your eagerness to critique the paragon of virtue that is the pint drinking airplane crashing Farage.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Here's an intriguing insight into the ideological framework the libertarian right operates within, from an hilarious article entitled "anti-racists are the real racists" http://pol-check.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/why-modern-anti-racists-are-racist.html


 like the fact that the Liberal Party (now consisting of two men and a stuffed parrot) is the essence of freedom.


----------



## Ranbay (May 4, 2013)

> Banned from fostering kids because you're a UKIP member? Why not take your fight to the European Court of Human Rights?


----------



## sptme (May 5, 2013)




----------



## ymu (May 5, 2013)

This is a modified map of their gains, based on the BBC efforts (click pic for original):





Most gains in very Tory areas. Tory losses split between Labour and UKIP. Some LD gains in the SW.

Only East Sussex lost mostly Labour and got some UKIP.

Very Tory set of locals but the lentil belt is outing itself.


----------



## J Ed (May 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Here's an intriguing insight into the ideological framework the libertarian right operates within, from an hilarious article entitled "anti-racists are the real racists" http://pol-check.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/why-modern-anti-racists-are-racist.html


 
What's the point in creating nonsense like this when the SHTF they will all run to the EDL which I find exciting because that will make them fair game.


----------



## J Ed (May 5, 2013)

Libertarians are fascists or close enough that they should be treated as such.


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2013)

Item on "B.H." (R4) this am about the degree to which Farage's appeal is down to the language/expression he uses. Put simply, just that. The 'Farage barage of verbage' was described as anti-jargon, devoid of technocratic/managerialisms and connecting with the punters on an emotive/affective level. Also observation that he was far more likely to offer people some vision, whatever we may think of it, of their future; he talks about their 'journey', rather than his own or his own party's...Clegg.

Obvious challenge for UKIP; how many of their candidates can pull off the Farage gab?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 5, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Obvious challenge for UKIP; how many of their candidates can pull off the Farage gab?


 
Quite. And how many can avoid sounding crudely racist when talking about European immigration?


----------



## happie chappie (May 5, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> I'd be more interested in HC's definition. He's the one who thinks that something is broken because skilled labour is being undercut. That's why I asked about MW; the job of income regulation and border controls is to prevent a race to the bottom. Protecting the rights of people who believe themselves to be "skilled" to charge a premium, not so much.


 
There's a big push by the DWP to get people on Job Seeker's Allowance to declare as self-employed - whether or not self employment actually is suitable for that person.

Hey presto the Claimant Count jobless figure comes down. The worker is no longer subject to the NMW and most other employment protections. A win-win for the Government.

Then they are competing with lots of other "self employed" people (many of whom are migrants) for what little work (skilled and unskilled) there is around here and pay rates are forced down.

Basic labour market economics say if the supply of labour exceeds demand there is a downward pressure on wage rates.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Quite. And how many can avoid sounding crudely racist when talking about European immigration?


What makes you think that they all want to? The _exposure_ of racists in the party didn't exactly harm them on thursday did it?


----------



## treelover (May 5, 2013)

> Nigel Farage (current leader & MEP):
> “We will never win the nigger vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us”
> 
> source
> http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf


 

Someone posted this on Socialist Unity, is this right, did he say that?, the poster gives this reference above as evidence


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 5, 2013)

happie chappie said:


> There's a big push by the DWP to get people on Job Seeker's Allowance to declare as self-employed - whether or not self employment actually is suitable for that person.
> 
> Hey presto the Claimant Count jobless figure comes down. The worker is no longer subject to the NMW and most other employment protections. A win-win for the Government.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, that's a fair point; if people are being pressured into self-employment rather than actively choosing it, assumptions about safety nets need to change.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> Someone posted this on Socialist Unity, is this right, did he say that?, the poster gives this reference above as evidence


The source is Farage's histotic UKIP rival Alan Sked in an interview with the Mail on Sunday after he had stormed off from UKIP after losing internal battles with Farage and then reprinted in a pro-europe pamphlet by a pro-europe group for the 2004 elections. There's no way of knowing if it's true unless Sked says he made it up or Farage admits it. Farage denies it.


----------



## treelover (May 5, 2013)

tx,


----------



## nino_savatte (May 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> Farrago was a commodities broker and the son of a merchant banker, how has managed to pull off this 'man of the people act'
> 
> I don't usually dish voters, but it really looks like in England a certain type of person likes to vote for their 'betters'
> 
> but not all UKIP voters of course, but enough.


He also went to the elite (it's a word the UKIP uses to attack its enemies and I'm turning it back on them) Dulwich College, a public school founded with Edward Alleyn's money in the 17th (?) century.


----------



## Corax (May 5, 2013)

One thing I really don't get about UKIP is how any of their supporters are female, when one of the party's leading figures is Godfrey "clean behind the fridge" Bloom FFS.

_"no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age. That isn't politically correct, is it, but it's a fact of life. The more women's rights you have, it's actually a bar to their employment."_

_"I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home."_


----------



## teqniq (May 5, 2013)




----------



## Sasaferrato (May 5, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Just the further right feeling that the tories are getting a bit wooly on immigration, gay marraige, europe and other idiot daily mail reader concerns. Possibly grabbing a few votes from bnp voters who now dont have a serious proper fash group to support.


 
Can you explain why being a Communist is OK, whilst being a Fascist is not?

Both are vile totalitarian philosophies, both have murdered and tortured vast numbers of the unfortunate people who existed under these regimes.

Is it simply the hypocrisy of Urban, in that if it is 'left', no matter how revolting it is OK, whilst if it is 'right' it is not?


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Can you explain why being a Communist is OK, whilst being a Fascist is not?
> 
> Both are vile totalitarian philosophies, both have murdered and tortured vast numbers of the unfortunate people who existed under these regimes.
> 
> Is it simply the hypocrisy of Urban, in that if it is 'left', no matter how revolting it is OK, whilst if it is 'right' it is not?


communism is great and fascism is shit. Simple.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 5, 2013)

Fascism is all about fetishising military uniforms and worshipping wars and death.


----------



## J Ed (May 5, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Fascism is all about fetishising military uniforms and worshipping wars and death.


 
Plenty of embarassing uniform fetishism on the left


----------



## nino_savatte (May 5, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Plenty of embarassing uniform fetishism on the left


I should have left out the word "uniforms".


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 5, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Fascism is all about fetishising military uniforms and worshipping wars and death.


 
And Communism? North Korea for example? Great fondness for uniforms there.


----------



## Favelado (May 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> And Communism? North Korea for example? Great fondness for uniforms there.


 
Yeah, well Kim Jong-Il's penchant for onesies is pretty much the norm in Britain now so we can't really criticise.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> And Communism? North Korea for example? Great fondness for uniforms there.


See the above post (#632).


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> And Communism? North Korea for example? Great fondness for uniforms there.


What, in an...army?


----------



## thedockerslad (May 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What do you mean by "real elections - by-elections and general elections?
> If so, that's not a sensible way of looking at things, especially given that UKIP's base are a fuckload more civic-minded and likely to be decent ward councillors than the BNP turned out to be.
> If they *do* manage to establish a decent base in local authorities, and actually *hold* wards through decent surgery work, then they build a foundation (which the BNP failed to do except in a couple of locales) for contesting constituencies a bit further down the line, and although the 'Kippers have skeletons in their closets, there's not likely to be the same degree of rancidity to their corpses, as the ones the BNP had and have.


 
I'm going to disagree with you on this, and the reason is I don't believe that ukip pose the same kind of potential threat that the bnp do/did. As you mention there may be skeletons in cupboards but I guess they are likely to be posh people pretending otherwise. They are basically the old centre  right of the conservative party who feel left behind by Cameron and the coalition.


----------



## Favelado (May 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What, in an...army?


 
Is the public subject to a dress-code in North Korea to some extent?


----------



## J Ed (May 5, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Is the public subject to a dress-code in North Korea to some extent?


 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/north-koreas-28-approved-haircuts-1735221


----------



## Favelado (May 5, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/north-koreas-28-approved-haircuts-1735221


 
It says 28 but it's about 4 really.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2013)

thedockerslad said:


> I'm going to disagree with you on this, and the reason is I don't believe that ukip pose the same kind of potential threat that the bnp do/did. As you mention there may be skeletons in cupboards but I guess they are likely to be posh people pretending otherwise.
> They are basically the old centre right of the conservative party who feel left behind by Cameron and the coalition.


 
It depends what you mean by "potential threat". There isn't the same existential threat to order that the BNP carried, but in terms of the "turn to the right", and the further legitimation of far-right politics that the BNP kickstarted, and the effect of that in pushing the "political centre" rightward, the threat is still there.
As for them being "the old centre right", I'd say they're more like an amalgam of The League of Empire Loyalists, The Monday Club and The Federation of Conservative Students - unabashedly hard right and proud of it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Is the public subject to a dress-code in North Korea to some extent?


The public faced the fantastic_ Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle_ campaign a few years back and i think afew others are forcibly _imposed_ rather than being _popular_.


----------



## Favelado (May 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The public faced the fantastic_ Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle_ campaign a few years back and i think afew others are forcibly _imposed_ rather than being _popular_.


 
I can't remember where I read it but I think denim of any colour might be a no-no. I heard of rebellious youth wearing it but at the risk of a month in an internment camp. Something along those lines.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Plenty of embarassing uniform fetishism on the left


 
Donkey jackets ftw!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> And Communism? North Korea for example? Great fondness for uniforms there.


 
They haven't quite managed, in 60 years, to para-militarise the working public in the same way the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy managed in less than a decade.


----------



## thedockerslad (May 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It depends what you mean by "potential threat". There isn't the same existential threat to order that the BNP carried, but in terms of the "turn to the right", and the further legitimation of far-right politics that the BNP kickstarted, and the effect of that in pushing the "political centre" rightward, the threat is still there.
> As for them being "the old centre right", I'd say they're more like an amalgam of The League of Empire Loyalists, The Monday Club and The Federation of Conservative Students - unabashedly hard right and proud of it.


 
The BNP are a fascist party just like the NF were. They have a particular traceable trajectory. UKIP imo are not a fascist party. Yes they represent a certain right wing element of the Tories, and there may well be some fascists in their party, but that doesn't make them a fascist party.

Personally if we want to talk about how the old political centre was pushed rightwards I think we have to look to Blair (save  Kinnock for later). One of his first calls after being elected was to meet Thatcher. He did nothing to reverse the terrible injustices inflicted on the working class. That fucking shower layed the foundations for what is happening now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2013)

thedockerslad said:


> The BNP are a fascist party just like the NF were. They have a particular traceable trajectory. UKIP imo are not a fascist party. Yes they represent a certain right wing element of the Tories, and there may well be some fascists in their party, but that doesn't make them a fascist party.


 
I haven't said, anywhere on this or any other thread, that they're a fascist party. I haven't implied it, either. I even said that there isn't the same existential threat from UKIP that there was from the BNP.

Replies are always better when you read what's been written rather than slotting in suppositions. 



> Personally if we want to talk about how the old political centre was pushed rightwards I think we have to look to Blair (save Kinnock for later). One of his first calls after being elected was to meet Thatcher. He did nothing to reverse the terrible injustices inflicted on the working class. That fucking shower layed the foundations for what is happening now.


 
Well, Thatcher started it all really in '79 by snatching the NF's voter base with her anti-immigrant rhetoric. Set an example for Blair of how to do it, w/r/t anti-immigrant sentiment, although Blair was more subtle. Frankly though, after Smith died and "new Labour" started embracing neoliberalism *wholesale* (arguably, Smith's dalliance with neoliberalism was piecemeal), any leftism in the party's politics was purely rhetorical anyway, and new Labour's politics were essentially the Labour-right veering further rightward as circumstances allowed.


----------



## thedockerslad (May 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't said, anywhere on this or any other thread, that they're a fascist party. I haven't implied it, either. I even said that there isn't the same existential threat from UKIP that there was from the BNP.
> 
> Replies are always better when you read what's been written rather than slotting in suppositions. [
> 
> ...


 
Wow that was a really defensive post. I was just trying to clarify my position on this.

My position is I couldn't care less about these politicians or their shenanigans.


----------



## coley (May 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> And Communism? North Korea for example? Great fondness for uniforms there.


In the hat stakes,the commies always lose


----------



## Corax (May 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Is it simply the hypocrisy of Urban, in that if it is 'left', no matter how revolting it is OK, whilst if it is 'right' it is not?


 


Sasaferrato said:


> And Communism? North Korea for example? Great fondness for uniforms there.


Ignoring the highly debatable notion of N Korea as communist for a second - did you know your rhetorical question in the first quote was cobblers, or do you genuinely think that Urban is full of cheerleaders for Kim Jong Un?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 5, 2013)

Corax said:


> Ignoring the highly debatable notion of N Korea as communist for a second - did you know your rhetorical question in the first quote was cobblers, or do you genuinely think that Urban is full of cheerleaders for Kim Jong Un?


 
TBH, at times it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 5, 2013)

coley said:


> In the hat stakes,the commies always lose


 
Have you seen the width of those dress hats?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> They haven't quite managed, in 60 years, to para-militarise the working public in the same way the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy managed in less than a decade.


 
Or, at least ostensibly, the communist regimes of the Soviet satellites?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't said, anywhere on this or any other thread, that they're a fascist party. I haven't implied it, either. I even said that there isn't the same existential threat from UKIP that there was from the BNP.
> 
> Replies are always better when you read what's been written rather than slotting in suppositions.
> 
> ...


 
UKIP's position (which incidentally, I support - at a time of high unemployment, the last thing required is more candidates for each job) on immigration is bang on, for the time that we in. At another time... who knows.


----------



## Corax (May 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> TBH, at times it wouldn't surprise me.


Didn't _really_ answer the question there Sass...


----------



## dominion (May 5, 2013)

_They haven't quite managed, in 60 years, to para-militarise the working public in the same way the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy managed in less than a decade. _​​No they just starve the poor buggers to death.​


----------



## J Ed (May 5, 2013)

BNP to use entryism in UKIP 

http://www.leftfutures.org/2013/05/ukip-faces-bnp-entrism/


----------



## coley (May 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Have you seen the width of those dress hats?



Aye you could stage ' come dancing' on the top of some of them


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Can you explain why being a Communist is OK, whilst being a Fascist is not?
> 
> Both are vile totalitarian philosophies, both have murdered and tortured vast numbers of the unfortunate people who existed under these regimes.
> 
> Is it simply the hypocrisy of Urban, in that if it is 'left', no matter how revolting it is OK, whilst if it is 'right' it is not?



Communism doesn't have inequality, brutality, racism, authoritarianism and unquestionable devotion to leaders built into its founding principles. Fascism does. Communist states have obviously frequently succumbed to these dispicable realities, through corrupt leaders and failed policies, granted. But the ideals on which the theory is based are sound. 

Its a cop out to say it, but it just seems to me communism just hasn't been done properly yet. 

I will add, I'm no expert in either political thought or history. My arguments could probably easily be torn apart by anyone with a bit more knowledge. I never claim to be a political anorak or theory expert but the basics aren't that hard to understand, and I believe that the principles of commie theory are sound and fair, whilst fascism is dangerous and hateful by nature and the reality has shown this to be undoubtedly true. Fascism has "worked" and it was shit. Communism has never been implemented properly.


----------



## coley (May 5, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Communism doesn't have inequality, brutality, racism, authoritarianism and unquestionable devotion to leaders built into its founding principles. Fascism does. Communist states have obviously frequently succumbed to these dispicable realities, through corrupt leaders and failed policies, granted. But the ideals on which the theory is based are sound.
> 
> Its a cop out to say it, but it just seems to me communism just hasn't been done properly yet.
> 
> I will add, I'm no expert in either political thought or history. My arguments could probably easily be torn apart by anyone with a bit more knowledge. I never claim to be a political anorak or theory expert but the basics aren't that hard to understand, and I believe that the principles of commie theory are sound and fair, whilst fascism is dangerous and hateful by nature and the reality has shown this to be undoubtedly true. Fascism has "worked" and it was shit. Communism has never been implemented properly.



I would agree with all the above, but communism is great in theory but doesn't take into consideration basic human nature.Even socialism which had a brief flowering died just as soon as the establishment worked out the minimum 'bread and circuses' required to keep the majority of the masses content.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 6, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Can you explain why being a Communist is OK, whilst being a Fascist is not?
> 
> Both are vile totalitarian philosophies, both have murdered and tortured vast numbers of the unfortunate people who existed under these regimes.
> 
> Is it simply the hypocrisy of Urban, in that if it is 'left', no matter how revolting it is OK, whilst if it is 'right' it is not?



Also, four legs good, two legs bad.


----------



## treelover (May 6, 2013)

"a politician is a person who will double cross that bridge when they come to it"

posted on FB..


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 6, 2013)

Larry Elliot in the Guardian. Will Ukip's rise give Labour a kick up the arse?



> Many natural Labour supporters voted for Ukip last Thursday, even though the past three years under the coalition should have made the official opposition the receptacle for protest. Labour should have done much, much better. That it didn't boils down to two things. The opposition is still blamed for the state of the economy when the crisis broke. More significantly, perhaps, Labour needs to show that the growth pessimists are wrong and that it has a plan for remedying the UK's deep structural problems after the next election. As yet, it has not remotely done so.


----------



## cdg (May 6, 2013)

When I saw Farage on the tele drinking a pint and smoking a fag, BOOM, instant connection.


----------



## sihhi (May 6, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Slight correction to that, major parties bang on about reducing it all the time, but can't actually change levels of immigration because we live in a globally integrated economy. Being a maverick outsider party, UKIP don't have to deal with that reality, thus, UKIP can spout off on the subject, using the major parties and mainstream newspapers' hypocritical stance on the matter for political capital.


 
Hence why talk of Tory UKIP coalescing is unlikely, ime


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 6, 2013)

coley said:


> I would agree with all the above, but communism is great in theory but doesn't take into consideration basic human nature.Even socialism which had a brief flowering died just as soon as the establishment worked out the minimum 'bread and circuses' required to keep the majority of the masses content.


What exactly is "human nature"?


----------



## Poo Flakes (May 6, 2013)

For better or worse, I would have thought a slightly xenophobic, little Englander party does represent a significant portion of British public opinion and deserves representation. It is just a shame that nearly all other segments of British public opinion have no representation at all.



coley said:


> I would agree with all the above, but communism is great in theory but doesn't take into consideration *basic human nature*.Even socialism which had a brief flowering died just as soon as the establishment worked out the minimum 'bread and circuses' required to keep the majority of the masses content.


 
Exactly, everyone knows that a species which distributes resources according to the perfectly rational whims of European financial intermediaries and inherited wealth is, *in fact*, the result of the human condition. Indeed, to suggest otherwise is a sign of a craven sociopath.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 6, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Communism doesn't have inequality, brutality, racism, authoritarianism and unquestionable devotion to leaders built into its founding principles. Fascism does. Communist states have obviously frequently succumbed to these dispicable realities, through corrupt leaders and failed policies, granted. But the ideals on which the theory is based are sound.
> 
> Its a cop out to say it, but it just seems to me communism just hasn't been done properly yet.
> 
> I will add, I'm no expert in either political thought or history. My arguments could probably easily be torn apart by anyone with a bit more knowledge. I never claim to be a political anorak or theory expert but the basics aren't that hard to understand, and I believe that the principles of commie theory are sound and fair, whilst fascism is dangerous and hateful by nature and the reality has shown this to be undoubtedly true. Fascism has "worked" and it was shit. Communism has never been implemented properly.


 
Ever hear of a guy called Stalin? He killed more of his own people than Hitler did.


----------



## andysays (May 6, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Ever hear of a guy called Stalin? He killed more of his own people than Hitler did.


 
No, clearly no one here has ever heard of Stalin, which is surprising given the number of times his name is mentioned by you and your ilk as definitive proof that anyone to the left of Tony Blair is clearly a massacring tyrannical dictator in waiting...


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 6, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Ever hear of a guy called Stalin? He killed more of his own people than Hitler did.



Did you miss the bit where I said that communist ideals had been corrupted by evil power crazed leaders? Or did you just willfully ignore them? You've never stuck me as an idiot, so I'm going to assume you're being disingenuous and its the latter.

Some horrendous things have been done in the name of communism.  But these acts are always a perversion of the ideals, rather than the pure implementation of them. Stalin was a cunt, no two ways about it. But to my knowledge, Marx et all never included anything about gulags and show trials and creating a constant climate of fear in his little manifesto.

Pretty sure that the clues were there all along when it came to old Adolf, though.

Do you see the difference?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 6, 2013)

thedockerslad said:


> Wow that was a really defensive post. I was just trying to clarify my position on this.


 
It was hardly "defensive" to point out you were talking shite/had drawn shite inferences.



> My position is I couldn't care less about these politicians or their shenanigans.


 
Then why post in the politics forum, ennui?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 6, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Or, at least ostensibly, the communist regimes of the Soviet satellites?


 
Germany and Italy had practically every civvy uniform wearer, from bus conductors to cinema ushers, wearing state-approved clobber with various pseudo-military decorations and even instated rank structures. The worst the various Soviet satellites went for, apart from in Romania, was the "medals and badges" fetish. Very little gold braid and brass buttons with insignia stamped on them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 6, 2013)

dominion said:


> _They haven't quite managed, in 60 years, to para-militarise the working public in the same way the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy managed in less than a decade. _​​No they just starve the poor buggers to death.​


 
I'm always grateful when someone states the obvious. Thanks!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 6, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> UKIP's position (which incidentally, I support - at a time of high unemployment, the last thing required is more candidates for each job) on immigration is bang on, for the time that we in. At another time... who knows.


 
Thing is, if UKIP ever parlay their current relative popularity into a parliamentary presence, where their _bloc_ can manipualte the balance of power, they'll drop their immigration policies like hot potatoes or enable "back door immigration". They're boss-class, after all. They need that cheap labour to keep the money rolling in, and if the native population won't work for peanuts and a bowl of rice a day (relatively speaking), they need people who will - immigrants.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 6, 2013)

I was wondering who pays for the UKIP? Pretty clearly they have some solid backing.

Their treasurer is an Eton/Guards/Oxford/Chambers/City type who made a bundle coming up with innovative ways to let people speculate on gold and formerly a major Tory donor.

Be interesting to know more about their other financial backers in this context, but there's clearly a strong public-school/city-fat-cat tendency there.


----------



## J Ed (May 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thing is, if UKIP ever parlay their current relative popularity into a parliamentary presence, where their _bloc_ can manipualte the balance of power, they'll drop their immigration policies like hot potatoes or enable "back door immigration". They're boss-class, after all. They need that cheap labour to keep the money rolling in, and if the native population won't work for peanuts and a bowl of rice a day (relatively speaking), they need people who will - immigrants.


 
Or, and I think this is more likely, they will maintain or even step up their anti-immigration rhetoric while doing nothing to implement it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 6, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Or, and I think this is more likely, they will maintain or even step up their anti-immigration rhetoric while doing nothing to implement it.


 
Ah, Thatcher-stylee!


----------



## co-op (May 6, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I was wondering who pays for the UKIP? Pretty clearly they have some solid backing.
> 
> Their treasurer is an Eton/Guards/Oxford/Chambers/City type who made a bundle coming up with innovative ways to let people speculate on gold and formerly a major Tory donor.
> 
> Be interesting to know more about their other financial backers in this context, but there's clearly a strong public-school/city-fat-cat tendency there.


 
Simple answer - Stuart Wheeler. Made the largest single donation to a political party in UK history - £5m to the tories in 2001 (he sure can pick 'em). Then got kicked out of the tory party for giving money to UKIP and is now their Treasurer.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 6, 2013)

co-op said:


> Simple answer - Stuart Wheeler. Made the largest single donation to a political party in UK history - £5m to the tories in 2001 (he sure can pick 'em). Then got kicked out of the tory party for giving money to UKIP and is now their Treasurer.


 
If he's treasurer though, that's presumably not just for the cash he'd personally kick in with, but also for his contacts with other potential donors. They're also very likely to be Eton/Guards/Oxbridge/City types.

Which provides to a first approximation at least, a fairly clear whose interests the UKIP are likely to be promoting at any given moment. Hypothetically at least: city fat-cats who don't give a shit about immigration, but who are happy to exploit the gullible, in order to put pressure on the major parties over EU financial regulation, to push them even further to the right (than they already were going) in order to facilitate wider investment opportunities in the public sector aka primitive accumulation and more generally, rich public school twats doing whatever the fuck they want at the expense of everybody else.


----------



## Poo Flakes (May 6, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> If he's treasurer though, that's presumably not just for the cash he'd personally kick in with, but also for his contacts with other potential donors. They're also very likely to be Eton/Guards/Oxbridge/City types.
> 
> Which provides to a first approximation at least, a fairly clear whose interests the UKIP are likely to be promoting at any given moment. Hypothetically at least: city fat-cats who don't give a shit about immigration, but who are happy to exploit the gullible, in order to put pressure on the major parties over EU financial regulation and/or to push them even further to the right in order to facilitate wider investment opportunities in the public sector aka primitive accumulation and more generally, rich public school twats doing whatever the fuck they want at the expense of everybody else.


 
This kind of annoys me about UKIP.  They probably do represent those that are getting a raw deal from the EU's reckless 'liberalisation' of labour markets which is only indirectly related to immigration but then the major parties respond by opposing legislation that probably do defend working class interests (e.g. anti-monopolistic, human rights, consumer protection, etc).


----------



## coley (May 6, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> What exactly is "human nature"?


 
Looking after No 1,The family and friends and the local community,putting it very broadly and simply.


----------



## youngian (May 6, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Haven't the patience.
> 
> Meaning, I do have plenty of facts on benefits (particularly) and a fair few about immigration too.
> 
> ...


 
I can see where you are coming from. Immigration is dropping and even if it continues at a substantial rate, like crime and Obama's brith certificate they are unlikely to believe you. It just takes a couple of Poles to barge in front of them at the supermarket and they are off again about immigrants.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 6, 2013)

coley said:


> Looking after No 1,The family and friends and the local community,putting it very broadly and simply.


 
Ok, so looking after a stranger is "unnatural" in your eyes?


----------



## The39thStep (May 6, 2013)

Interesting article by Rob Ford on UKIP .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...eguardian/commentisfree/rss+(Comment+is+free)


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 6, 2013)

Seventh Billet said:


> It isn't a case of corrupt or evil leaders. There have been relatively benign and well-intentioned Communist leaders as well as Stalin and his ilk. Stalin was a product of a particular political culture at a particular time, and the attempt to impose an ideology and political system on a society unsuited for it.



So what youre saying is that communism is an inherently flawed system which can never work, even if every member of a given communist state rigorously adheres to its most well intentioned principles?

Won't be a popular view round these parts, though I can understand how even a basic understanding of 20th century communist experiments might lead one to such a view.

But still, the principles are sound, whilst it should be clear to anyone that fascism by design and implementation is hateful and dangerous,and thats the only argument that I was making


----------



## frogwoman (May 6, 2013)

it depends what you mean by communism.

although perhaps we should come up with a different word. dunno though.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 6, 2013)

Seventh Billet said:


> No. That isn't what I'm saying.



Well do you care to elucidate?


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2013)

Seventh Billet said:
			
		

> There's no such thing as 'a communist system.' All we've seen are regimes that came to power in different circumstances and tried to implement measures, often on an ad-hoc basis, arising from their particular understanding of Marx (and often realising that they were departing from Marx drastically but feeling they had no choice.) None of them called the outcome communism; all of them called it socialism. The accuracy of that label is still under dispute.



The ussr called itself communist around 1937.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2013)

Seventh Billet said:
			
		

> Really? In what context? Right until the end the leaders referred to the system as socialist.



In the constitution of I think either 36 or 37. Around then anyway.


----------



## coley (May 6, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Ok, so looking after a stranger is "unnatural" in your eyes?



Don't be simple, you can be better than that, you have enough for a meal, do you share that meal amongst your family  or with others, altruism and fairness works well when their is enough to go around, but the first sniff of 'shortage' and its every bugger for themselves, remember the fuel shortage a couple of years back and the scenes at the forecourts? Now,imagine if there was going to be an imminent and long term food shortage?

That's human nature.


----------



## coley (May 6, 2013)

Seventh Billet said:


> In actual fact, in situations of crisis you always find examples of both altruism and the opposite.


You certainly do, couldn't agree more, but which one usually triumphs?


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2013)

Remained until 1977.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2013)

Seventh Billet said:
			
		

> Even so, I'm sure they never referred to the system as communism.
> 
> In my experience people who grew up in the USSR call it socialism.



Of course, you were right all along! As ever.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2013)

Seventh Billet said:


> I'm just saying that despite what you say (which I'm not disputing), I've never come across evidence that they actually claimed to be implementing communism. Although, thinking about it, I do seem to remember that in the Brezhnev era they claimed that communism was close to becoming reality. Or summat like that. I'm not sure how far they really believed it, however.
> 
> I've honestly never heard an ex-Soviet say that what they lived under was communism. Or if they do, they simply mean Communist rule.
> 
> In fact it seems that most people, whether they lived under it or not, conflate communism with Communist rule.


 
I think you might be (mis)remembering Khrushchev's 1961 promise of communism in 20 years, ie. by 1980.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> In the constitution of I think either 36 or 37. Around then anyway.


 
The 1936 constitution doesn't mention communism once but refers to the USSR as 'a socialist state of workers and peasants'. In the Revolution Betrayed Trotsky quotes Stalin in 1936  saying “That social organization which we have created may be called a Soviet socialist organization, still not wholly completed, but at root a socialist organization of society.” Given that in Marxist orthodoxy communism is generally interpreted as coming about only after the withering away of the State it's not surprising that the term was avoided as a descriptive in official Soviet propaganda.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 6, 2013)

coley said:


> Don't be simple, you can be better than that, you have enough for a meal, do you share that meal amongst your family or with others, altruism and fairness works well when their is enough to go around, but the first sniff of 'shortage' and its every bugger for themselves, remember the fuel shortage a couple of years back and the scenes at the forecourts? Now,imagine if there was going to be an imminent and long term food shortage?
> 
> That's human nature.


So in some contexts it's "human nature" to be altruistic and fair, to display solidarity and in other contexts it's "human nature" to be defensive and selfish?

That being the case you aren't describing "human nature" at all. For it to be an essential "human nature" to behave in these ways, rather than just human behaviour in particular circumstances, it would have to hold true for all situations, to be a universal rationality.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The 1936 constitution doesn't mention communism once but refers to the USSR as 'a socialist state of workers and peasants'. In the Revolution Betrayed Trotsky quotes Stalin in 1936 saying “That social organization which we have created may be called a Soviet socialist organization, still not wholly completed, but at root a socialist organization of society.” Given that in Marxist orthodoxy communism is generally interpreted as coming about only after the withering away of the State it's not surprising that the term was avoided as a descriptive in official Soviet propaganda.


 
Avoided maybe, but actually promised by Khruschev at a time when the dictatorship of the bureaucracy faced the split with the Chinese and other regimes.


----------



## coley (May 6, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> So in some contexts it's "human nature" to be altruistic and fair, to display solidarity and in other contexts it's "human nature" to be defensive and selfish?
> 
> That being the case you aren't describing "human nature" at all. For it to be an essential "human nature" to behave in these ways, rather than just human behaviour in particular circumstances, it would have to hold true for all situations, to be a universal rationality.


Nice argument, though I don't think it would work when the last ten people are down to the last tin of beans,


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 6, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Avoided maybe, but actually promised by Khruschev at a time when the dictatorship of the bureaucracy faced the split with the Chinese and other regimes.


 
Promised for the _future_. Never to describe the present.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 6, 2013)

Seventh Billet said:


> If there is a human nature it is contradictory and basically self-seeking. Altruism is another form of self-preservation.
> 
> Both capitalism and communism are in line with human nature. Fascism is at one with a human being's basest instincts, which can be expressed, often in hidden form, under other political and social systems.


Better off admitting to ourselves that "human nature" is a pointless concept, because humans don't exist in a vacuum, making rational choices in perfect historical circumstances, but exist in actual historical circumstances. There's no nature and nurture, they are both present in every decision.

(It has a lot of ideological uses though, mostly not good ones!)


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 6, 2013)

coley said:


> Nice argument, though I don't think it would work when the last ten people are down to the last tin of beans,


If it really were genuinely the last tin of beans, of the last 10 people, at least a few of the 10 would probably prefer not to prolong their lives any longer than necessary, some would probably prefer a quick suicide to a slow starvation, others might be hopeful that the last tin of beans could sustain them until some unforeseen solution presented them with more food, still others might believe that they might be saved by consuming the tin of beans but would prefer not to deprive someone else of them, they might devise a democratic or arbitrary means of allocating the beans between them (they've been socialised as peaceful democrats after all), they might share the meagre ration of beans between them out of fairness or mutual goodwill (who knows what they've gone through to get to this point).

Sure one or other of them _might _decide to murder the rest to secure another day of strength, but it'd be pretty down the list of likely outcomes IMO.

In any case, all of the above would be perfectly rational, and perfectly in line with actual human behaviour.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Promised for the _future_. Never to describe the present.


 
Yep, with the supreme irony that the totalitarian dictatorship of the bureaucratic class over the proletariat was undertaken by a party calling itself communist.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2013)

Seventh Billet said:


> Not ironic in the slightest. Not to a Marxist anyway.


 
Nope, you've lost me there.


----------



## seventh bullet (May 6, 2013)

Seventh Billet said:


> No, I think the politbureau's dominant faction and their ideologists did claim communism was close at hand in the 1970s. I might be wrong though. I'm too lazy to look it up these days.


 
Officially, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' ended in the 1930s with the approach of socialism.  In the 1950s and early 60s Khrushchev talked about full communism being approached sometime in the near future, but Brezhnev wasn't so daft and in 1967 he mentioned Soviet society entering a stage of mature or 'developed socialism.'


----------



## coley (May 6, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> If it really were genuinely the last tin of beans, of the last 10 people, at least a few of the 10 would probably prefer not to prolong their lives any longer than necessary, some would probably prefer a quick suicide to a slow starvation, others might be hopeful that the last tin of beans could sustain them until some unforeseen solution presented them with more food, still others might believe that they might be saved by consuming the tin of beans but would prefer not to deprive someone else of them, they might devise a democratic or arbitrary means of allocating the beans between them (they've been socialised as peaceful democrats after all), they might share the meagre ration of beans between them out of fairness or mutual goodwill (who knows what they've gone through to get to this point).
> 
> Sure one or other of them _might _decide to murder the rest to secure another day of strength, but it'd be pretty down the list of likely outcomes IMO.
> 
> In any case, all of the above would be perfectly rational, and perfectly in line with actual human behaviour.



I doubt anyone making it through to the last ten would be considering suicide, they would all be considering the best way to secure that last tin of beans, and I would think any notions of civilisation,fair play and democracy would have also been discarded to reach this point, in short, these last ten will probably be a right bunch of twats.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 6, 2013)

coley said:


> I doubt anyone making it through to the last ten would be considering suicide, they would all be considering the best way to secure that last tin of beans, and I would think any notions of civilisation,fair play and democracy would have also been discarded to reach this point, in short, these last ten will probably be a right bunch of twats.


 
I don't think even you're convinced by this answer. Firstly, there's no guarantee that the last 10 people on Earth aren't (a) just there by dumb luck (b) good at co-operating (c) great at hiding, you're making a great assumption that the last 10 are the most ruthless, and again, it's a variable that has nothing to do with human nature. 

And... all of that is irrelevant. It doesn't even matter whether my outcomes are any more or less likely than yours. We can all recognise that the other options are perfectly rational for lots of humans, that they would be the "natural" (shall we say spontaneous instead?) choice of lots of humans. Survive as the last human being alive, having murdered the other 9 for an extra day or so of life? Would that _really_ be _your_ choice?


----------



## thedockerslad (May 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It was hardly "defensive" to point out you were talking shite/had drawn shite inferences.
> 
> Then why post in the politics forum, ennui?


 
1. No I recognise a defensive post when I see one. That's ok I was starting to like you for it. 

2. Because I can and because it seems to me that too many people on here are still enamoured by party politics.


----------



## Gingerman (May 7, 2013)

They've got a zombie for a leader


----------



## youngian (May 10, 2013)

County Clare born EU immigrant Des lynham endorses UKIP-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/10/des-lynam-endorses-ukip-song?commentpage=3

Has he lost his fucking marbles?


----------



## Quartz (May 10, 2013)

youngian said:


> County Clare born EU immigrant Des lynham endorses UKIP-
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/10/des-lynam-endorses-ukip-song?commentpage=3
> 
> Has he lost his fucking marbles?


 
Perhaps he wants Ireland back in the UK?


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2013)

State teat for a few million a year in work, now how much of his pension do hard-working crowded out families pay?


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Perhaps he wants Ireland back in the UK?


What an odd thing to say. Why did you say it?


----------



## coley (May 10, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> I don't think even you're convinced by this answer. Firstly, there's no guarantee that the last 10 people on Earth aren't (a) just there by dumb luck (b) good at co-operating (c) great at hiding, you're making a great assumption that the last 10 are the most ruthless, and again, it's a variable that has nothing to do with human nature.
> 
> And... all of that is irrelevant. It doesn't even matter whether my outcomes are any more or less likely than yours. We can all recognise that the other options are perfectly rational for lots of humans, that they would be the "natural" (shall we say spontaneous instead?) choice of lots of humans. Survive as the last human being alive, having murdered the other 9 for an extra day or so of life? Would that _really_ be _your_ choice?



No.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2013)

Falange is positioning like mad this am...



> *Nigel Farage*, the Ukip leader, has also been doing the rounds at Millbank this morning. He suggested that there should be a referendum on the EU before 2015 because, even if legislation for a post-2015 referendum were passed before the general election, that would not be binding on a future government.
> They cannot bind the next parliament, that isn’t constitutional law in this country. Somebody else might win the election so [a referendum bill is] really meaningless electorally and it’s just a gesture and it shows how scared they really are. Anyway, I don’t want to wait until the end of 2017 to have a referendum. That is four and half years away. In that time goodness knows how much legislation will have been passed and goodness knows how many people will have come here from Romania and Bulgaria.​This seems to be a shift in Farage's position. Now he is saying a referendum bill for a referendum after 2015 would be "meaningless". In the past (for example, in his speech to the Ukip conference) he has suggested it would have some merit.
> He also reiterated his suggestion that Ukip could form a pact with the Conservatives if the Conservatives were to get rid of David Cameron.
> I’ve said all the way through that if someone like a Boris [Johnson] or a Michael Gove was leading the Conservative party we’d certainly be prepared to have a conversation ...
> ...


 
He must be enjoying himself as the tories go for each others' throats, especially with Rifkind saying things like this:-

"*[Tabling the amendment] is not just foolish, it is quite contrary to all the political instincts of a responsible political party that wants to hold and retain power after the next general election*."​​​


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2013)

Gove totally did what Farage demanded, no wonder he's laughing up his sleeve.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Gove totally did what Farage demanded, no wonder he's laughing up his sleeve.


 
Well, there has to be 'personal chemistry' for a coalition to work.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2013)

That was great politics from Farage to pick Gove to be his catspaw - someone just vain enough to think both that Farage was serious about working with him and that he himself would seriously either make or be a good tory leader/PM, as well as being stupid enough not to realise that his public image is of a total incompetent clown and so could only damage the party to UKIPs benefit.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That was great politics from Farage to pick Gove to be his catspaw - someone just vain enough to think both that Farage was serious about working with him and that he himself would seriously either make or be a good tory leader/PM, as well as being stupid enough not to realise that his public image is of a total incompetent clown and so could only damage the party to UKIPs benefit.


 
Interestingly, Crick today takes a different, though not un-related, line on the relationship that goes back some way...



> My old friend Tom Fairbrother has drawn my attention to a passage in Nigel Farage’s memoirs, Fighting Bull, in which the Ukip leader expresses his gratitute to Michael Gove.
> Mr Gove is one of the senior Tories Nigel Farage always says he could do business with (in contrast to David Cameron).
> It all dates back to 1999 when Ukip were contesting the European elections. Farage was in dispute with The Times newspaper over an article which claimed that Ukip and Farage had links with the BNP.
> Farage relates: “I did something which I have never done before, something which was against my nature. I called the famous libel solicitors Carter-Ruck and appealed for the protection of the law against allegations without substance.
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (May 13, 2013)

Surely I'm not alone in finding the utter obsession with Europe by the Tories and UKIP totally insane?


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Surely I'm not alone in finding the utter obsession with Europe by the Tories and UKIP totally insane?


 
Not by their logic, though; its all about removing the social chapter etc. that restricts the ability of capital to exploit.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 13, 2013)

I read somewhere at the weekend that one article of faith on the Europhobic right of the Tories (presumably UKIP too?) is removing the European Working Time Directive. I know plenty of people in this country are conservative minded, but how the hell that can ever be popular (except amongst free market nutters), I simply fail to grasp.

'Vote for us and we'll extend your hours'


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> I read somewhere at the weekend that one article of faith on the Europhobic right of the Tories (presumably UKIP too?) is removing the European Working Time Directive. I know plenty of people in this country are conservative minded, but how the hell that can ever be popular (except amongst free market nutters), I simply fail to grasp.
> 
> 'Vote for us and we'll extend your hours'


 
False..something...I can't quite remember what the dead german said.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2013)

UKIP up to 18% in the ICM/Guardian monthly. 



> Nigel Farage's party has surged from its previous record best with ICM, the 9% it notched up in April, to 18% after its council election victories last week.
> 
> Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have been left reeling, with all shedding four points on the month to 34%, 28% and 11% respectively.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2013)

Maybe  the tories first proper panicked move:

*James Chapman (Mail)*@jameschappers
Big EU referendum news: Cameron and Hague to unveil Bill tomorrow having not consulted Lib Dems - will dare them and Labour to vote it down


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe the tories first proper panicked move:
> 
> *James Chapman (Mail)*@jameschappers
> Big EU referendum news: Cameron and Hague to unveil Bill tomorrow having not consulted Lib Dems - will dare them and Labour to vote it down


 
Clegg...aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Roadkill (May 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe the tories first proper panicked move:
> 
> *James Chapman (Mail)*@jameschappers
> Big EU referendum news: Cameron and Hague to unveil Bill tomorrow having not consulted Lib Dems - will dare them and Labour to vote it down


----------



## where to (May 13, 2013)

"And Hague". that means something, not sure what.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe the tories first proper panicked move:
> 
> *James Chapman (Mail)*@jameschappers
> Big EU referendum news: Cameron and Hague to unveil Bill tomorrow having not consulted Lib Dems - will dare them and Labour to vote it down


Stupid move, UKIP and the right of his party know he's running scared and can be forced to their demands.


----------



## J Ed (May 14, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Stupid move, UKIP and the right of his party know he's running scared and can be forced to their demands.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/14/eu-referendum-david-cameron-tory

Good call.

David Cameron's attempt to douse the Eurosceptic surge within the Conservative party by announcing he will publish a draft bill on an EU referendum appears to have failed to quell backbench discontent over Europe.

Rebel MPs said they would press ahead with an amendment to the Queen's speech – and urged the prime minister to face down his Liberal Democrat coalition partners and introduce a government bill to hold a referendum during the present parliament.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 14, 2013)

Someone needs to remind these cunts that they didn't actually win the 2010 election, and they can't just do what the fuck they like.


----------



## gosub (May 14, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> Someone needs to remind these cunts that they didn't actually win the 2010 election, and they can't just do what the fuck they like.


 
 Here is an extract from the Liberal Democrats 2010 manifesto on Europe:
_The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU._​*– LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 2010 MANIFESTO​* 
if Politicians think the EUro will survive another 5 years without the sort of structural reform that would require a treaty its going to be a bumpy ride


----------



## nicedream (May 14, 2013)

...


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2013)

That's total shit. Embarrassing.


----------



## Dreich (May 16, 2013)

Looks like Farrage is getting a hard time in Edinburgh:
https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/335070343108653057


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2013)

Lucky bastard:



> Fully licensed, food served all day. Stewart Brewing Real Ales throughout the Festival. Ground Floor Restaurant/ Bar allows children of 5 years and over when accompanied by an adult for dining up until 5pm. Cellar Bar: 18+
> 
> Food
> Fully licensed and also serving hot drinks from 12:00-01:00 (Sun til 00:00). Food served all day. Real ale
> extensive selection of malt whiskies. Free wifi.


----------



## Dreich (May 16, 2013)

If they'll serve him! Apparently, a taxi driver refused to take him in his cab and he had be driven off in a police van.


----------



## youngian (May 16, 2013)

When's Farage coming to Brixton?


----------



## where to (May 18, 2013)

Latest Comres poll has them at 19%. A record high. Lab 35, Tory 29, Liberal 8.


----------



## trampie (May 18, 2013)

Farage apparently locked in a pub and bundled into a police van for his own safety up in Scotland, protesters shouting all sorts at him and giving him a very hard time.

Farage seems to think their outrage is an anti English thing, could we have Scotland and Wales independent and socialist and in Europe and England right wing and out of Europe, on their tod ?


----------



## where to (May 18, 2013)

where to said:
			
		

> Latest Comres poll has them at 19%. A record high. Lab 35, Tory 29, Liberal 8.



Polling done wed thurs btw so any impact from Canon's gait-gate v v unlikely


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 18, 2013)

where to said:


> Polling done wed thurs btw so any impact from Canon's gait-gate v v unlikely


 
But similarly no reaction yet from the swivelometer.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2013)

Did they all have a bit of chin-wag round the back of the coffin, and decide that dave was no more?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/18/tory-party-europe-lord-howe



> Lord Howe, the former Conservative chancellor who triggered the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, has launched a scathing attack on the prime minister, accusing him of running scared of his backbenchers and endangering Britain's future in Europe.
> The Tory grandee says David Cameron has opened a Pandora's box by opposing the current terms of the UK's membership of the European Union and now appears to be losing control of his party. The prime minister's actions, Howe writes in the Observer, have turned an internal Tory problem into a national one.


 
Talk about Grey men in suits...


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Did they all have a bit of chin-wag round the back of the coffin, and decide that dave was no more?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/18/tory-party-europe-lord-howe
> 
> ...


 
Looks like one Prime Minister's guts for garters aren't enough for Howe. Go Geoffrey you wild old boar.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Looks like one Prime Minister's guts for garters aren't enough for Howe. Go Geoffrey you wild old boar.



From the comments underneath...



> Watching this is like watching an animal chew it's own leg off when it's caught in a trap.
> Only much more enjoyable


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 18, 2013)

It is getting more entertaining by the day. 



> 'm getting almost as much pleasure watching the Tories implode as I did watching thatchers funeral.All labour have to do is sit back and enjoy the circus of clowns throwing knives at each other.Brilliant bring it on


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 18, 2013)

It's all very amusing but it does raise the horrible spectre of an actual in/out referendum happening.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2013)

where to said:


> Latest Comres poll has them at 19%. A record high. Lab 35, Tory 29, Liberal 8.


That record didn't last long. Observer/Opinium has them on 20% tmw.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> It's all very amusing but it does raise the horrible spectre of an actual in/out referendum happening.


 
Horrible in what way?


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That record didn't last long. Observer/Opinium has them on 20% tmw.


 
Hmmm...coalition to outlive Cameron?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Horrible in what way?


 
Horrible as in abrupt loss of export market, flight of financial services industry and overseas investment, all that sort of stuff.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Horrible as in abrupt loss of export market, flight of financial services industry and overseas investment, all that sort of stuff.


 Oh, but that wouldn't just be a result of there being a referendum; that would be because it happened *and *a majority of the electorate voted out.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Oh, but that wouldn't just be a result of there being a referendum; that would be because it happened *and *a majority of the electorate voted out.


 
I don't trust the electorate. Do you?


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> I don't trust the electorate. Do you?


 To do what?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> To do what?


 
To vote correctly.

What's the most recent polling on voting intention in the event of an in/out referendum? I recall it being 50/50 a while back but the mood has clearly changed rather.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> To vote correctly.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

According to both UK polling report and the electoral calculus prediction machines that 7/20/27/37 split would not result in any UKIP mps, but would result in around a 110 labour majority (lib-dems holding onto 20/30). (Usual comments about universal swing etc)


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

On the domestic left i suspect that we may see a ridiculous reactionary pro-eu swing hedged with social-market bleating and a consequent further isolation. Not that it matters.


----------



## where to (May 19, 2013)

Latest poll on in out ref is 42 out 23 in and a load of unknown undecideds. Those numbers approximately reverse if unspecified consessions are won.

Any referendum would be a close run thing imo


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 19, 2013)

Ugh. If they had but one neck.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Only 28% of the electorate think that the EU is one of the things that would decide where their general election vote would go (and only 49% of UKIP voters).

When asked the in/out question on the tories stupid draft bill the response in todays Sunday Times/YG is 36% go, 45% leave. ICM asked same question for Sunday Telegraph: 46% leave, 30% stay.


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> On the domestic left i suspect that we may see a ridiculous reactionary pro-eu swing hedged with social-market bleating and a consequent further isolation. Not that it matters.


 
Any evidence for this?

England's (possibly UK's) most prominent leftist Bob Crow underlines the domestic left's hopes for a national Keynesian ideal by calling for withdrawal ASAP. Not that it matters.


----------



## J Ed (May 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Any evidence for this?
> 
> England's (possibly UK's) most prominent leftist Bob Crow underlines the domestic left's hopes for a national Keynesian ideal by calling for withdrawal ASAP. Not that it matters.


 
He may be talking about the soft left? This was in the Graunid for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/14/tory-led-exit-europe-carnival-of-reaction

Milne's argument isn't totally unconvincing IMO


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Any evidence for this?
> 
> England's (possibly UK's) most prominent leftist Bob Crow underlines the domestic left's hopes for a national Keynesian ideal by calling for withdrawal ASAP. Not that it matters.


This sort of stuff, but more this especially - plus hope-not-hates and that wing of the union funded soft-left emphasis on them and the creeping reaction to UKIP's recent successes that is even happening on here.


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


> This was in the Graunid for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/14/tory-led-exit-europe-carnival-of-reaction


 
Seumas Milne is also anti-EU and like Bob Crow in favour of referendum, supported by Labour, plus withdrawal.

Your example does not make sense either in contradicting my point or backing up butchersapron.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Milne is following the same line as articul8 on here - no withdrawal via referendum as that would and could only happen on tory lines. Effectively it's a defence of continued membership, and one in which social directives are often wheeled out. The right to a referendum but _please don't vote to leave._


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This sort of stuff, but more this especially - plus hope-not-hates and that wing of the union funded soft-left emphasis on them and the creeping reaction to UKIP's recent successes that is even happening on here.


 
It's always swings and roundabouts.
This kind of reactive left - not including Ian Bone because there's always some bluster in what he/old Class War says, hard to judge exactly what he's saying - will oppose whatever the Tories seem to heading on.

When most Tory MPs were pro- in the 70s they were anti, now a much higher proportion are anti-, being pro is OK. It's react to the Tories bleeding heart progressivism not 'old' Labour Left which has always been anti-EU.

They can use anti-fascism both times. Oswald Moseley was pro-EU and Enoch Powell was anti-EU. I dislike anti-fascism like a kind of football. We'll target UKIP when our paymasters tell us to. If Labour did become anti-EU due to intolerable business and public pressure, then pro-EU people would become the fingered fascist-enablers.


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Milne is following the same line as articul8 on here - no withdrawal via referendum as that would and could only happen on tory lines. Effectively it's a defence of continued membership, and one in which social directives are often wheeled out. The right to a referendum but _please don't vote to leave._


 
This part does sound like fantasy:




> The Labour leader has already argued for "comprehensive" EU reform, including of restrictions on state aid and intervention. In office, he would need to go a lot further in using the leverage of restructuring to negotiate change, in alliance with others across Europe. But a progressive package of demands should also shift the shape of a subsequent referendum.


 
A progressive package of demands via Miliband.


----------



## J Ed (May 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Seumas Milne is also anti-EU and like Bob Crow in favour of referendum, supported by Labour, plus withdrawal.
> 
> Your example does not make sense either in contradicting my point or backing up butchersapron.


 
Are you reading this differently to how I am? He's arguing not to leave, isn't he?


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 19, 2013)

Pro EU don't have to do much at the moment considering we're actually part of the EU. They can sit back and watch all the anti EU types running around huffing and puffing. If a referendum does come, then they will have to step up a gear or three.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Pro EU don't have to do much at the moment considering we're actually part of the EU. They can sit back and watch all the anti EU types running around huffing and puffing. If a referendum does come, then they will have to step up a gear or three.


Eh? There are rising levels of anti-eu feeling across all of europe - including the former strongholds of pro-eu feeling - and the pro-eu types are sitting pretty?


----------



## J Ed (May 19, 2013)

Is there any chance UK withdrawal could lead to the whole edifice collapsing? 55% youth unemployment in Spain is just indefensible... something needs to change.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Is there any chance UK withdrawal could lead to the whole edifice collapsing? 55% youth unemployment in Spain is just indefensible... something needs to change.


That's the hope - which is why national defences of the EU from the left (social-directives, stability = jobs, _a bonfire of the protections_ blah blah) is so pathetically short-sighted and un-internationalist. Withdrawal forced on the political class (in the same way that you would try and impose a workplace reconstruction on the boss) is the real internationalist position.


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Are you reading this differently to how I am? He's arguing not to leave, isn't he?


 
His position is advising Labour to secure pro-Leftist changes to the Britain-EU relationship,  if this fails, to leave. His point is that Labour must battle and _be seen to_ battle the EU.


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's the hope - which is why national defences of the EU from the left (social-directives, stability = jobs, _a bonfire of the protections_ blah blah) is so pathetically short-sighted and un-internationalist. Withdrawal forced on the political class (in the same way that you would try and impose a workplace reconstruction on the boss) is the real internationalist position.


 
How can we impose withdrawal on the political class, given that changes to national benefit schemes (an area some would argue has little to do with the EU directly) cannot be resisted? 

Also:

a. What about those who don't care?

b. Where does it leave those place like Serbia or Montenegro where there are in spite of economic problems, leftist-liberal coalitions in favour of joining the EU in spite of how terrible it is.

It's like suggesting the US working-class ought to impose withdrawal from NAFTA, when in places where it is ostensibly strongest, most organised - in Los Angeles or Chicago it can't keep its schools in working-class districts open.

I don't have answers, just still confused.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Well, we are closer to withdrawal from the EU than stopping changes to benefit schemes. It's not a case of opposing the latter, slowly building up support for an alternative EU then having a unified movement imposing it on the the political class and capital, that is a fantasy (and the one that has hamstrung the left on the eu since the early 90s and the definitive move away from the social model). What we have is a messy situation whereby the short term political interests of one section of the political expression capital have led it into conflict with other sections of capital and opened up a dynamic that could, if followed through to the end, unleash unexpected consequences across the whole of the eu. That's situation right now - it's not the result of our strength but it is still the situation that we have to recognise and take the opportunities it offers us  - and a europe-wide reconfiguration surely opens the doors to local victories feeding into others across the continent - far more so than when under the financial discipline of the EU/ECB/IMF/etc


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2013)

I'll take your word for it. But:-

Do you imagine a Europe-wide reconfiguration is
a. possible or
b. meaningful for anything but a fleeting moment of hope?

Isn't there any danger we might become like Tariq Ali dedicating his 1988 work, on the possibilities that Soviet glasnost/disengagement from Cold War militarism offered the British left, to purged political hero Boris Yeltsin?

Seeking to make hay out of opportunities that present themselves by chance, not of independent working-class-dominated pressure, and then ending up with egg on your face?

I see all the discussion of EU/non-EU as essentially two ways of reaching the same goal making capitalism in European areas profitable with respect to (re)emerging competitors like China, Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I'll take your word for it. But:-
> 
> Do you imagine a Europe-wide reconfiguration is
> a. possible or
> ...


Missed this earlier mate, will reply tmw.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

I know it's the Telegraph game, but let them play, this one might get out of their control :


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Readable version here


----------



## J Ed (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I know it's the Telegraph game, but let them play, this one might get out of their control :


 
lol, I think 'the average commenter on the Telegraph BTL' should be a definition of swivel eyed


----------



## J Ed (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Readable version here


 



			
				Nigel Falange said:
			
		

> Mr Farage uses an advertisement in Monday's Daily Telegraph to urge Conservative voters to back Ukip. The “loons” description, he says, is “the ultimate insult” from a party leadership that has betrayed the trust of its own supporters.
> He writes in the advertisement: “Only an administration run by a bunch of *college kids*, none of whom have ever had a proper job in their lives, could so arrogantly write off their own supporters.”


 
Interesting use of Americanisms there...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2013)

Gonna leave this one or 2 other places.

Farage gets the "Hitler/Downfall" meme treatment from the wonderful people at Still Laughing At UKIP on Facebook


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

Why are they wonderful - their anti-edl shite was full of disgusting class based prejudice. Were you involved?


----------



## Quartz (May 20, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Interesting use of Americanisms there...


 
Not really. It's a subtle dig: they attend colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. It could backfire, as he went to Dulwich College...


----------



## J Ed (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why are they wonderful - their anti-edl shite was full of disgusting class based prejudice. Were you involved?


 
One of the people involved is a right-wing Sheffield Labour student, absolutely in keeping with his behaviour.


----------



## J Ed (May 20, 2013)

Their opposition to the EU = racism stance is also vomit inducing!


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2013)

How exactly is opposing the EU racist?

Have these people been in a coma for the last 20 years or something?


----------



## J Ed (May 20, 2013)

No, they've spent the past 20 years growing up in the sort of middle-class do gooder soft left household where the repetition of tropes like that passes for political education.


----------



## where to (May 20, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:
			
		

> YouTube Video
> 
> Gonna leave this one or 2 other places.
> 
> Farage gets the "Hitler/Downfall" meme treatment from the wonderful people at Still Laughing At UKIP on Facebook



Still laughing at ukip? I think they're laughing more.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 21, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Gonna leave this one or 2 other places.
> 
> Farage gets the "Hitler/Downfall" meme treatment from the wonderful people at Still Laughing At UKIP on Facebook




Latest poll puts them at 22 per cent. Hilarious. Obviously.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2013)

They are gonna have to get rid of call me Dave I think


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 21, 2013)

Who is?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 21, 2013)

Is it worth everyone claiming that they'd support UKIP if they're ever polled just to fuck about with the tories and get them to stick someone unelectable at the helm?  (not that they've been elected for nearly 20 years, even with the 'perfect storm' last time).  Or is there a danger in doing so and giving the swivel-eyed lot 'momentum' that media/public will latch on to?


----------



## Quartz (May 21, 2013)

It occurs to me that Farage has missed a huge trick: after he got chased out of Scotland, he could have said that it was such a shame as he was going to speak on the importance of having a referendum, and then seguing from the Scottish referendum into a EU referendum.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2013)

You mean he could have said he was in favour of a referendum on the EU? Do you think this was some sort of secret?


----------



## Quartz (May 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You mean he could have said he was in favour of a referendum on the EU?


 
No, on Scottish independence.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2013)

UKIP already support the scottish referendum. And he/they have been directly linking that to their support for an EU referendum for some time now.


----------



## Quartz (May 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP already support the scottish referendum. And he/they have been directly linking that to their support for an EU referendum for some time now.


 
But he missed the opportunity to remind people of this.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2013)

UKIP's membership surges towards 30,000 



> While David Cameron reassures his party's dwindling membership that he would never employ anyone who "sneered" at them, UKIP is attracting thousands of new recruits. A spokesman told me today that the party now has 27,517 members after _gaining 2,000 this month and 6,000 since March_. Once the backlog is cleared, it expects to have more than 30,000.


 
Lib-dems own figures say they have 42 000.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 24, 2013)

UKIP : Against elites & for the little guy!*

http://www.markpack.org.uk/41203/ukip-meps-vote-against-tackling-tax-evasion/


* claim at variance with facts.


----------



## treelover (May 24, 2013)

Whats with UKIP's silence on the Woolwich events?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> Whats with UKIP's silence on the Woolwich events?


 
They don't need to say anything, people know what they stand for (or what they imagine they stand for).


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

Keeping quiet is the best option i think - don't get associated with the fools with Balalaikas but hoover up any electoral anger. People have to stop expecting them to act like the NF or BNP - they are not that sort of party. That's a serious misreading that will only lead you up the garden path.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 24, 2013)

Yep, all they have to do is sit and wait. They will look reasonable compared to Lennon et al.


----------



## The39thStep (May 24, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They don't need to say anything, people know what they stand for (or what they imagine they stand for).


 
add three percentage points on there next poll


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 24, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> add three percentage points on there next poll


 
Plus 60,000 'likes' for the previously moribund EDL overnight.

Pause for a moment.

And you can almost hear Enoch snickering.


----------



## The39thStep (May 24, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> Plus 60,000 'likes' for the previously moribund EDL overnight.
> 
> Pause for a moment.
> 
> And you can almost hear Enoch snickering.


 
I was out in a few pubs last night and almost every conversation turned into resentment or a rant about the Woolwich murder.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 24, 2013)

What kind of rants were they?


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 24, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> add three percentage points on there next poll


 
After the press conference with the family add one percentage point more.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> Plus 60,000 'likes' for the previously moribund EDL overnight.
> 
> Pause for a moment.
> 
> And you can almost hear Enoch snickering.


 
I heard he was more of a Milky Bar type of fella.


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I heard he was more of a Milky Bar type of fella.


Badoom-TISH!


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I heard he was more of a Milky Bar type of fella.


 
Very droll.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> Very droll.


 

Couldn't resist, frankly.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

The question UKIP has now is how they are going to harness this short wave of anger, how they're going to integrate it into their activity - to keep the people it washes up.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 24, 2013)

Quartz said:


> It occurs to me that Farage has missed a huge trick: after he got chased out of Scotland, he could have said that it was such a shame as he was going to speak on the importance of having a referendum..../quote]


 

It looks like like he might have missed another one. Nick Griffin has just laid flowers at the site. The first 'national' political figure to do so


----------



## The39thStep (May 24, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> What kind of rants were they?


 
The whole sorry saga of Abu Hamsa to immigration to Enoch was right to one law for them , they want to turn the country into a Muslim state. etc


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2013)

Now UKIP leader Nigel Farage sets his sights on working-class Labour voters


----------



## 1%er (May 27, 2013)

When is the next big test, is it the Euro elections 2014 or are there elections prior to that?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2013)

Euro 2104. By elections inbetween i expect - and hope. There are tests, proper tests, just not electoral tests, before then. To clean the stable, to build up a trusted competent layer around Farage and to establish some roots in w/c areas.


----------



## Dan U (May 27, 2013)

Bit of a transposition there I think butchers!


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2013)

Not sure i follow Dan.


----------



## Dan U (May 27, 2013)

2104? Not 2014?

Unless I have missed the joke of course, entirely likely


----------



## JimW (May 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure i follow Dan.


 
You've got 2104 not 2014 - the very long march through the institutions!


----------



## where to (May 27, 2013)

Definitely a mistake. Its a world cup that year.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2013)

Blame palace


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2013)

> *We need a Eurosceptic party of the centre left*
> 
> I left Ukip, the party I founded, when it became a magnet for bigots. But what happened to leftwing opposition to the EU?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/28/we-need-eurosceptic-party-centre-left


 

Alan Sked, who helped set up UKIP is now calling for a UKIP of the centre left, some remarkably compassionate ok policies, but a dubious character


----------



## Dogsauce (May 28, 2013)

Maybe that's just a sinister plan to split the 'centre left' to compensate for the damage done to the tory vote.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

Sked is a bitter old fool still angry at farage who he has tried to suggest is privately an open racist before. Talking of UKIP and the far-right, what happened to Sked's former BNP mate and UKIP NEC member Mark Deavin who he brought into the party and who edited the anti-semitic booklet that Nick Griffin was found guilty of inciting racial hatred for? Not with a shitty bargepole.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2013)

UKIP will be be very very happy indeed that the European Commission’s today decided to take the UK to the European Court of Justice over the ‘right to reside’ test applied to EU migrants trying to access certain welfare benefits - weeks and weeks of eu/immigration/benefits stuff coming up. Cameron will be fuming - silly backfiring sort of warning from EU to him to stop messing about that actually means he can only move even further towards the euroscpetics in the party and nationally.

Useful factual summary here.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP will be be very very happy indeed that the European Commission’s today decided to take the UK to the European Court of Justice over the ‘right to reside’ test applied to EU migrants trying to access certain welfare benefits - weeks and weeks of eu/immigration/benefits stuff coming up. Cameron will be fuming - silly backfiring sort of warning from EU to him to stop messing about that actually means he can only move even further towards the euroscpetics in the party and nationally.
> 
> Useful factual summary here.


 
Drunken Shit just now on R4 arguing the toss over this issue. I think, (if my hearing was correct), he dismissed Falange's contribution to the discussion as "gash comments".


----------



## treelover (May 30, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> It looks like like he might have missed another one. Nick Griffin has just laid flowers at the site. The first 'national' political figure to do so


 
was this on the news?


----------



## Idris2002 (May 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> Alan Sked, who helped set up UKIP is now calling for a UKIP of the centre left, some remarkably compassionate ok policies, but a dubious character


 
One of those who fancies himself as a philosopher king, but is unfortunately not as smart as he thinks he is.

He starts out with a boilerplate attack on "the sleep of reason breeds monsters" thing and then repeats all the obvious tropes of the same rationalist progressivism he claims to deride. I mean, look at this, for g-d's sake:



> Perhaps an independent Britain could negotiate a confederation of the British Isles with the Irish Republic to help solve Ireland's problems.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> was this on the news?


 
It sure was. On the day he turned up.


----------



## Quartz (May 30, 2013)

UKIP join anti-Tory alliance in Norfolk.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> Alan Sked, who helped set up UKIP is now calling for a UKIP of the centre left, some remarkably compassionate ok policies, but a dubious character


 

NUKIP. They'll need a charismatic leader.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 30, 2013)

no2eukip


----------



## frogwoman (May 30, 2013)

maybe Proletarian democracy coul dhave a popular front with NUKIP

my ukip supporting nan was going on to me the other day about "the far right are rising all over europe and we'll be thrown out of the country" er yeah thanks gran, let me eat my dinner 

she's scarily well informed, still goes to a politics discussion group for the elderly every week  she loves Nigel Farage tho lol


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Drunken Shit just now on R4 arguing the toss over this issue. I think, (if my hearing was correct), he dismissed Falange's contribution to the discussion as "gash comments".


 
I've listened again, (27.40 - 28.05), and it does sound like he called Falange's statements "_*gash comments".*_

Unless my understanding of slang is woefully defecient, that sounds like a wholly inappropriate word for a minister of state to use?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 30, 2013)

most unparliamentary language


----------



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

This will give them a boost, Benefits for European migrants 

Link 1
Link 2


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2013)

> *Now Ukip is gunning for Labour, what's Ed Miliband going to do about it?*
> 
> It's a misconception that Ukip draws from the right: its biggest support is from Labour's traditional – and disaffected – base
> 
> ...


 
Note the above quoted paragraph, what a lot of people on here have echoed, it could apply to WILOTL as well, future isn't looking good


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2013)

> The claim that Ukip is drawing only from the right is one of the big misconceptions in British politics. Our analysis in a forthcoming book on the party reveals that its voters are much more likely to be low-income, financially insecure and working class. They look like old Labour, and since 2010 the Ukip surge has been strongest among these low-skilled, older and blue-collar workers, the exact groups that Labour is struggling with the most. Since its low point in 2009, we find that Labour has made double-digit advances in its vote share among women, the under-35s and graduates, all groups that avoid Ukip. In contrast, Labour has barely grown among men and those with no qualifications, and the party has actually lost ground among pensioners. Among these groups, the Ukip vote has surged by an average of nine percentage points.


 
This is the same demographic who are voting for euro-nationalist parties across the EU, just what can be done? Middle class People's Assemblies  and inward looking new left parties don't seem to be the answer, the IWCA for all its faults seemed to be one path that was worth exploring.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2013)

Certainly makes the first few pages of this thread interesting re-reading - i wonder if the posters challenging me then are still clinging to their "fat old tories" _analysis?_


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2013)

didn't you author a piece on Red Pepper about the rise of these parties across the EU?


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2013)

treelover said:


> didn't you author a piece on Red Pepper about the rise of these parties across the EU?


 
Nah, i did a piece on the BNP which made similar -if more political - points though. Incidentally a german version of the grillo party has just been formed in Germany, after the success of of other new anti-eu parties over there. And Grillo has this week made the demand for an in/out referendum on the eu his key rallying point..


----------



## gosub (May 31, 2013)

1%er said:


> This will give them a boost, Benefits for European migrants
> 
> Link 1
> Link 2


 


Not sure who the face palm is aimed at.

Given HMG is likely to lose then most likely response is an end to UK's universal benefits to bring us into line with the rest of EUrope


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2013)

Time to move away from this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/31/all-quiet-far-left-front?commentpage=1


----------



## gosub (May 31, 2013)

treelover said:


> Whats with UKIP's silence on the Woolwich events?


 


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...arty-just-look-at-their-response-to-woolwich/


----------



## ayatollah (May 31, 2013)

treelover said:


> This is the same demographic who are voting for euro-nationalist parties across the EU, just what can be done? Middle class People's Assemblies and inward looking new left parties don't seem to be the answer, the IWCA for all its faults seemed to be one path that was worth exploring.


 
And ,pray, what do you see as the key  "path worth exploring" in the utterly failed IWCA project's  "strategy" as being, treelover ?   Come on ... spell it out clearly in the cold light of day for us .    "Outflanking" the BNP or UKIP's appeal to  those sections of the white working class falling for the anti migrant  hysteria  and Islamophobia built up by the capitalist press by  .......   what .?    Making concessions to that very same racism and  Islamophobia, by adopting slippery political positions which whilst dressing themselves up in the fine language of "anti identity politics" and "listening to the working class", then ends up making demands for immigration controls and campaigns against local councils giving perfectly legitimate grants to ethnic minority projects ?  Lovely. Very progressive and radical. Really  identifies the real causes of  poverty, joblessness, housing shortages, the failing NHS, the world economic crisis, doesn't it ? Oh...... no...... it doesn't does it .. its exactly the same diversionery scapegoating which  anti semitism  served to divide the working class in the 1930's. And exactly the sort of lumpen racist but pseudo radical "anti capitalism" on which fascist "Strasserism" was based.

This is exactly the logic which led PASOK (and of course New Democracy) in Greece to get really stuck into participating enthusiastically in all the anti immigrant hysteria  - hoping to  "outflank" the Far Right. Worked brilliantly didn't it ! As Greece, and everywhere else, clearly shows, you can't  fight racism by making concessions to it. Concessions only build the racist bonfire higher. Concede today on  " EU migrant workers being a problem" , and the Far Right just ups the score- to  embrace racist hostility to everyone but Whites.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2013)

Such fear. Just tell the working class they have no interests but yours. Yours. You really are a political idiot. And if anyone  disagrees with you, then they are a fascist. Not a jokey fascist, a real fascist. Men like you are no help in times like this.


----------



## 1%er (May 31, 2013)

gosub said:


> Not sure who the face palm is aimed at.
> 
> Given HMG is likely to lose then most likely response is an end to UK's universal benefits to bring us into line with the rest of EUrope


Yes I think you are right, I made that point in a different thread  Changing from a means tested benefit to a contribution system would save them millions for sure.


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2013)

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/the-working-class-movement-wcm/


Ian Bone is positing a new grouping


----------



## gosub (Jun 3, 2013)

1%er said:


> Yes I think you are right, I made that point in a different thread  Changing from a means tested benefit to a contribution system would save them millions for sure.


Looks like Labour wants to inverse the EU mainstream..... The more you contribute the less you are intitled to,  or how to build justification for tax avoidance


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 4, 2013)

Interesting article that confirms  that the far right see labour territory as profitable as Tory shires. This is exactly what the BNP were able to do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## Quartz (Jun 4, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Interesting article that confirms that the far right see labour territory as profitable as Tory shires.


 
Except, of course, the authors make the point that UKIP aren't the far right.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, i did a piece on the BNP which made similar -if more political - points though. Incidentally a german version of the grillo party has just been formed in Germany, after the success of of other new anti-eu parties over there. And Grillo has this week made the demand for an in/out referendum on the eu his key rallying point..


 
you got a link for that butchers?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 4, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Except, of course, the authors make the point that UKIP aren't the far right.


 
They make the point that they aren't the BNP. Have a look at the UKIP economic policies , they are far to the right of the BNP.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> you got a link for that butchers?


 
Which bit?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Except, of course, the authors make the point that UKIP aren't the far right.


 
No they don't - they make the point that they are not the 'toxic far right' and list reasons why, and the potential ramifications of this. Can't you ever read anything properly. The whole _point_ of the article is the attempt at a populist far right move into areas that are seen (rightly or wrongly) as the natural constituency of the left, or at at least not this sort of far-right.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> They make the point that they aren't the BNP. Have a look at the UKIP economic policies , they are far to the right of the BNP.


 
Quite. But then so were/are Labour.

FWIW (with many caveats etc.)...as at 2010. Might be interesting to see movement since then?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 4, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Quite. But then so were/are Labour.
> 
> FWIW (with many caveats etc.)...as at 2010. Might be interesting to see movement since then?


 
is that really of any use?


----------



## Quartz (Jun 4, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> They make the point that they aren't the BNP. Have a look at the UKIP economic policies , they are far to the right of the BNP.


 

Per the article:



> It's a misconception that Ukip draws from the right


 


The39thStep said:


> Have a look at the UKIP economic policies, they are far to the right of the BNP.


 
Really? I've just been reading their taxation policies which are a bit of a mess but some of them seem a good start. A flat tax with a high allowance - £13K per person - and you can use your partner's allowance, so a family doesn't pay tax until they earn over £26K. That will be a big boost to the poor. I just wish they added children into the equation. As I said in another thread, the Left should change their chant from, "Tax the rich" to "Don't tax the poor." I'll admit I don't quite understand their tax on corporate value, but it seems to get around the problem of the likes of Amazon paying so little tax. Of course, they can promise what they will as they're not going to get elected. Their policies are internally inconsistent - the very next page indicates an allowance of £11.5K, and a flat tax of 31% rather than the 25% mentioned on the first page. Some of their policies are very naive: 'Working hours should be agreed between employers and employees; wages and salaries will tend to adjust to provide adequate compensation.' Yeah right: workers need protection. Their economic policies tend to the Libertarian rather than the Right.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2013)

Did you read past the sub-headline? The sub-headline that confuses the research (that the bloody article is about for gods sake) that shows that UKIP draw from a class or _social_ basis that is traditionally labour with them being _politically_ labour.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 4, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> is that really of any use?



I think so, but only as an indicator. I think that if you were to exclude immigration issues, UKIP would score very differently along the Libertarian axis.

OTOH so many of their policies are subject to Nigel's whim...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> is that really of any use?


 
Tricky one, that.
I suppose as poster I'm the wrong person to ask, but if you think otherwise feel free to you say why?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 4, 2013)

Because it is totally vague, be better off if you put political parties against birth signs


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2013)

> _Paul B_ Says:
> 28 May 2013 at 11:37 am
> UKIPs next party political broadcast highlights exclusively their leadership discussing/canvassing white working class voters in London. According to the film maker – ironically the wife of a Labour MP – their message, as referenced in the IWCA article, is finding an echo. The latest polls ndicate that this is the case.


 
posted elsewhere

anyone know who this is?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2013)

Who the film maker is? Austin Mitchell's wife. This is isn't an endorsement by her she is contractually required to make them for all parties.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Who the film maker is? Austin Mitchell's wife. This is isn't an endorsement by her she is contractually required to make them for all parties.


 
Even parties with no sitting MPs?  Does that apply to any party then?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> Even parties with no sitting MPs?  Does that apply to any party then?


This will be an mep thing I think. And only for official ppbs most likely. Did read an explanation in the link I posted up about this a few weeks back, but can't find right now .


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

UKIP lost a council seat to Health Concern (that's the Campaign to Restore Emergency Health Care Facilities at Kidderminster Hospital - led by the ex indepedent MP Dr bloke) last night


----------



## treelover (Jul 7, 2013)

UKIP and yes Nigel Farage interviewed yet again on Sunday Politics

Sunday Politics/ComRes big study of UKIP councillors indicates 'UKIP cllrs - 70% previously voted Tory, 30% been Tory candidates, 21% have been Tory cllrs, 33% been Tory members; 81% of UKIP cllrs believe climate change is not happening or human activity is not mainly responsible'


----------



## laptop (Aug 4, 2013)

Now, who at the _Telegraph_ decided to shoot Farage in the _Clockwork Orange_ underpass?


----------



## elbows (Aug 6, 2013)

Blooming hell again.



> Bloom was filmed speaking at a meeting in Wordsley, near Stourbridge, in July. In the recording he says: "How we can possibly be giving a billion pounds a month when we're in this sort of debt to bongo bongo land is completely beyond me.
> 
> "To buy Ray-Ban sunglasses, apartments in Paris, Ferraris and all the rest of it that goes with most of the foreign aid. F18s for Pakistan. We need a new squadron of F18s. Who's got the squadrons? Pakistan, where we send the money."
> 
> ...


 


> John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw, said Ukip should "throw him out and stop him standing as an MEP". A spokesman for the Hope, Not Hate campaign said Bloom's remarks were reminiscent of the "Tory party of 1985", when Alan Clark provoked outrage by referring to Africa as "bongo bongo land" in an official meeting.
> 
> Bloom has previously caused controversy over some of his comments about women. The MEP was criticised for asking why businesses would ever hire "a lady of child-bearing age" and once said he wanted to get involved in women's rights issues because: "I just don't think they clean behind the fridge enough."


 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/06/ukip-godfrey-bloom-bongo-bongo-land


----------



## elbows (Aug 6, 2013)

Oh and a quick google reveals Godfrey Bloom has been interviewed by Alex Jones on a number of occasions.


----------



## elbows (Aug 6, 2013)

And has dribbled about fiat currencies in some articles for the Ludwig von Mises institute.

http://mises.org/daily/6282/German-Gold


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 7, 2013)

He was in full red faced buffoon mode on Today this morning
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...terview-on-today-programme-with-jim-naughtie/


----------



## kabbes (Aug 7, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> He was in full red faced buffoon mode on Today this morning


 
Yes, I heard that.  It was entertaining in his total lack of contrition or any recognition that his comments could be anything other than Standing Up For The Man On The Street (by which he apparently means the Man in the Rugby Club).


----------



## agricola (Aug 7, 2013)

I think its remarkable that he can mention F18s for Pakistan - when we dont have any, nor do Pakistan.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 7, 2013)

At least he said that he would be willing to apologise to the ambassador of Bongo Bongo Land.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 7, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Yes, I heard that. It was entertaining in his total lack of contrition or any recognition that his comments could be anything other than Standing Up For The Man On The Street (by which he apparently means the Man in the Rugby Club).


 
I heard it, it was hilarious, that spectator piece says it quite accurately it was a great way to hi-jack the news cycle, the ghost of Alan Clarke popping up out of nowhere.

The other thing is it's also really damaging for the right this stuff, outside of the people on the spectator comment pages using words like bongo bongo land isn't good for any politician in this day and age. It's this kind of bullshit that makes the republicans in the USA unelectable and over the next 20 years if the british right carry on it'll do the same to them. The Tories following UKIP is like when the republicans let Rush Limbaugh and the tea party set the agenda for them.

incidentally saw this other day made me laugh wanted to share it


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 7, 2013)

elbows said:


> Blooming hell again.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/06/ukip-godfrey-bloom-bongo-bongo-land


 
The worrying thing for UKIP about these sorts of outbursts is that they simultaneously appeal to their base (for whom "I'm not PC" is a big plus), but make them look stupid in the media - its the old contradiction that kills outsider parties - they become mainstream by being outsiders, but when you're mainstream you have to keep to the script.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I heard it, it was hilarious, that spectator piece says it quite accurately it was a great way to hi-jack the news cycle, the ghost of Alan Clarke popping up out of nowhere.
> 
> The other thing is it's also really damaging for the right this stuff, outside of the people on the spectator comment pages using words like bongo bongo land isn't good for any politician in this day and age. It's this kind of bullshit that makes the republicans in the USA unelectable and over the next 20 years if the british right carry on it'll do the same to them. The Tories following UKIP is like when the republicans let Rush Limbaugh and the tea party set the agenda for them.


 
I think the MEP had it right, that this will get him support amongt certain sections of the population (maybe not who/where he thinks though). Farage will love it, he gets to both disown the comments and be associated with them.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 7, 2013)

laptop said:


> Now, who at the _Telegraph_ decided to shoot Farage in the _Clockwork Orange_ underpass?


What the hell's that weird hand gesture supposed to mean?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 7, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> What the hell's that weird hand gesture supposed to mean?


 
"I've got you by the balls"


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2013)

The threatening begging bowl of bongo-bongo land.


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 7, 2013)

http://blog.ukipwatch.org/2006/03/prostitutes-do-it-because-they-want-to.html
More wit and wisdom from blooming Godders,hes  the Kippers representive on the EEC Woman's Rights and Gender Equality Committee


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2013)

Mine of stuff on him on that site:

Godders Bloom in "Paki" race row
Bloom in bar room fracas? Surely not...
Bloom back in form
Godfrey Bloom has volunteered to dispense summary justice on the streets of Yorkshire 
UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom ejected over Nazi jibe


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2013)

This is a corker given his recent comments:

Bloom’s family affair – he scams taxpayer so parliamentary staff work for his investment company 



> Another missive from UKIPs most gregarious of buffoons, Godfrey Bloom, with the Times exposing the fact that Godders has been gloriously ripping off the taxpayer by paying his parliamentary staff (using taxpayers’ money) to work for his investment company.
> 
> Still, why should anyone doubt a man who has the sheer gall to say: “I am pretty well known as the cleanest MEP in town. All of the people who work for me are fully qualified and trustworthy.”
> 
> ...


----------



## 8ball (Aug 7, 2013)

kabbes said:


> At least he said that he would be willing to apologise to the ambassador of Bongo Bongo Land.


 
He should take some Ray Bans and maybe some Ferrari merchandise as a peace offering.


----------



## cyprusclean (Aug 7, 2013)

"I just don't think they clean behind the fridge enough."


LOL


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2013)

cyprusclean said:


> "I just don't think they clean behind the fridge enough."
> 
> 
> LOL


 
Yes, it's really funny, and searingly relevant to everyday life.


----------



## Serotonin (Aug 7, 2013)

http://www.channel4.com/news/video-ukips-bloom-i-dont-see-why-bongo-bongo-is-racist

Bit of a climb down from his bullish unrepentant remarks this morning on the Today Prog. I bet he wears fucking red cords too.


----------



## stavros (Aug 7, 2013)

> Does anyone really give a monkey's about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them


 
Richard Littlejohn, 1994.

So Bloom is in fine company with his take on African affairs.


----------



## elbows (Aug 7, 2013)

As insincere non-apology climbdowns go, that one has been especially pathetic so far. Not terribly surprising since they know that the underlying themes expressed by Bloom are an important part of maintaining racist & economics for wankers-related support for their party. Just have to be slightly more careful with the language used so as not to get too much stick from the media 



> "Although quite clearly no such personal usage was intended, I understand from UKIP party chairman Steve Crowther and leader Nigel Farage that I must not use the terminology in the future, nor will I and sincerely regret any genuine offence which might have been caused or embarrassment to my colleagues."


 
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23608106


----------



## brogdale (Aug 7, 2013)

Serotonin said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/video-ukips-bloom-i-dont-see-why-bongo-bongo-is-racist
> 
> Bit of a climb down from his bullish unrepentant remarks this morning on the Today Prog. I bet he wears fucking red cords too.


 
KGM does appear to enjoy interviews like that one.

Meanwhile....from an enterprising Music shop in Dundee...https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...a.10150127240648154.328607.75873888153&type=1


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 8, 2013)

elbows said:


> As insincere non-apology climbdowns go, that one has been especially pathetic so far. Not terribly surprising since they know that the underlying themes expressed by Bloom are an important part of maintaining racist & economics for wankers-related support for their party. Just have to be slightly more careful with the language used so as not to get too much stick from the media
> 
> 
> 
> from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23608106


 

Yep, plenty of the attention (phone ins, plenty of pages of press inc FIVE in the DM) hasn't been especially scathing and quickly moved on to "does he have a point?" (markedly avoiding the role of the arms trade in much of this).

Many will have sniggered at the comments and I doubt many votes will be lost. Many of their supporters are of the "it's racist to call someone racist" school.

I heard the end of one BBC bulletin last night, namechecked the party 5 times in half a minute.

They have been rewarded for racism. That's how it works, and no one in the party seems that bothered that the man is an unspeakable racist prick.


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 8, 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/08/ukip-mep-bongo-bongo-land-antelope


----------



## teqniq (Aug 8, 2013)

Ukip MEP: 'bongo bongo land' is not racist because it refers to antelope 

As far as it goes, Bongo is indeed an antelope but I think it's reasonably clear he wasn't referring to them.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 9, 2013)

Some stuff on UKIP funders here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/the-publishers-and-lords-bankrolling-ukip-factcheck


----------



## laptop (Aug 9, 2013)

The Guardian said:


> ukip-mep-bongo-bongo-land-antelope


 
One of the better URLs of the year


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2013)

Bloom clearly is a nasty piece of work, but his latest tweet demonstrates that he has more grasp of how to act in political opposition than NL...



> *Godfrey Bloom* ‏@Goddersukip19m
> @BBCr4today Help to Buy will be disaster. Already seeing prices going up and personal debt increasing. Have we learned nothing about debt?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 13, 2013)

I knew Help to Buy was iffy as soon as I'd heard about it. I remember thinking "hang on, wasn't this kind of thing a causal factor in the recession"? My local council (Cameron's and Pickles's favourite) was one of the first to rush into this. Indeed, all social housing has been transferred or sold off and any new properties being built are for buyers with loads of money (and no sense) or buy to let landlords. These people should be imprisoned or transported to South Georgia or the Falklands.


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2013)

massive increase in house sales here in a relatively expensive part of the city, its looking like five years ago again.


----------



## youngian (Aug 13, 2013)

And if you weren't already convinced Bloom was a dipshit madman check out his e-petition, which is one in the eye for the lefty feminists-
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52327


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 15, 2013)

I noticed that UKIP and Farage are now getting polled on personal popularity, the same as the other mainstream parties here > http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7975:

_For the first time the like him/like his party question included Nigel Farage and UKIP. Farage was liked by 27%, disliked by 50% (a net rating of minus 23); UKIP were likely by 25%, disliked by 52% (a net rating of minus 27, so Farage slightly more popular than his party)._

This idea that Farage is universally loved as an everyman, despite all the positive news coverage he gets, doesn't seemed to be based on much more than wishful thinking.


----------



## Corax (Sep 20, 2013)

OMGodfrey Bloom is winning friends and influencing people again:

*Ukip's Godfrey Bloom sparks row after 'joke' branding women 'sluts'*



> Controversial Ukip politician Godfrey Bloom is at the centre of another row after hitting a journalist round the head with a brochure and joking that a room debating women in politics was "full of sluts".
> 
> [also...]
> He was then asked by Channel 4's Michael Crick why there were no black people pictured on a conference brochure.
> ...



In addition to his recent colonial era racism, the man has a long history of misogyny.  How can any woman can vote for this party, let alone stand as a candidate?


----------



## pissflaps (Sep 20, 2013)

http://www.channel4.com/news/ukips-godfrey-bloom-biffs-michael-crick


----------



## Quartz (Sep 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> In addition to his recent colonial era racism, the man has a long history of misogyny.  How can any woman can vote for this party, let alone stand as a candidate?



Is he aiming to be the Boris Johnson of UKIP?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Is he aiming to be the Boris Johnson of UKIP?


What is that?


----------



## agricola (Sep 20, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Is he aiming to be the Boris Johnson of UKIP?



It is hard to see Bloom as anything other than that bloke at the golf club.


----------



## pissflaps (Sep 20, 2013)

like johnson, he's little more than a bully who more often than not finds himself out of his intellectual depth. give em enough rope...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2013)

He's irrelevant, unless he been unleashed to do this sort of minor thing to appeal to right tories. Either way, the DISGRACE work for their target vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> like johnson, he's little more than a bully who more often than not finds himself out of his intellectual depth. give em enough rope...


Give bloom enough rope? You think that you are in a battle with Bloom? My poor poor fool, you don't even know what war you are in.


----------



## pissflaps (Sep 20, 2013)

shit off, will you? cheers.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> shit off, will you? cheers.


God, you're like a wired up chris morris for the 21st century. Who just swears and never says anything.


----------



## youngian (Sep 20, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/ukips-godfrey-bloom-biffs-michael-crick



Looks like Bloom has moved up to DEFCON Fuck. Farage is talking about removing the whip from straight talking Godfrey. Trendy metropolitan political correctness gone mad is even infecting UKIP!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2013)

youngian said:


> Looks like Bloom has moved up to DEFCON Fuck. Farage is talking about removing the whip from straight talking Godfrey. Trendy metropolitan political correctness gone mad is even infecting UKIP!


Bloom won't be bothered. He can always sidle up to the rest of the EAP in the Euro Parliament.


----------



## pissflaps (Sep 20, 2013)

am i correct in thinking that if it wasn't for the EP, none of these halfwits would have a job?


----------



## Quartz (Sep 20, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Bloom won't be bothered. He can always sidle up to the rest of the EAP in the Euro Parliament.



More to the point, he's assured of his EP pension no matter what, isn't he?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Sep 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> God, you're like a wired up chris morris for the 21st century. Who just swears and never says anything.


You mean Chuck Norris surely?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 20, 2013)

Who cares about so called racism and sexism, obsessions of the left,  because political correctness and no one is allowed to say what they think. It's all just the usual slurs on UKIP because they are ANTI ESTABLISHMENT and no one is allowed to talk about immigration. Ever. And brain washing political correctness. it's gone mad is what I say because of leftists like Cameron (CamerCOMMUNIST more like is what I say)

White men don't run anything any more and don't call me racist just because I don't like foreigners.

er... all that detail about UKIP people actually say is just typical leftie smears but what about political correctness it's gone way too far so it's UKIP for me.

We need plain speaking like UKIP give, not all this namby pamby political correctness of the liberal left.

This post has probably been deleted by the brain washed left already. Why can't anyone say what they think?

Why do the left want our grandchildren to be muslims? because the politically correct brigade, the marxist BBC and the EUSSR that's why.
And did you know there is an ACTUAL PC Brigade? They banned Christmas and you are not allowed to say "blackboard" because of the liberal elite.


----------



## agricola (Sep 20, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> am i correct in thinking that if it wasn't for the EP, none of these halfwits would have a job?



Farage and Bloom were both City types, so they would probably still be there.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 20, 2013)

I love freedom of speech: it gives them the chance to show us what they really are.


----------



## Corax (Sep 20, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Why do the left want our grandchildren to be muslims?


This is one of (or similar to) the arguments that puzzle me most.

The whole _extinction of white people/think of your descendants_ thing.

Imagining that I gave a fuck for a second: If it were true that white people were 'dying out', then I assume my descendants would probably be non-white, so I doubt they'd give a massively flying bollock about preserving any sort of mythical white heritage.

Do these twatstands not grasp that, do they really imagine that any fruit of their loins will only ever breed with someone as white as they are, and that their descendants are therefore truly destined to be a persecuted minority if their ethnic apocalypse came to pass?  It's just fucking barmy tbh.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 20, 2013)

Roger Helmet on Newsnight now defending Bongo Bongo land and sluts as the comments of a colourful and outspoken character. Ha.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 20, 2013)

agricola said:


> Farage and Bloom were both City types, so they would probably still be there.


 
Farage was keen to point out in a news interview yesterday that he'd had a job before entering politics, unlike most other politicians.

As if 20 years in The City gives you some kind of relevant insight into how people live....


----------



## agricola (Sep 20, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> As if 20 years in The City gives you some kind of relevant insight into how people live....



How they might be destroyed, maybe.


----------



## CyberRose (Sep 21, 2013)

Quartz said:


> I love freedom of speech: it gives them the chance to show us what they really are.


Unfortunately "what they really are" is also why they're increasing in popularity. This latest "gaff" by Bloom won't have done them any harm whatsoever amongst their support. I suppose it should be encouraging that Farage has criticised Bloom for his comments which at least shows he's aware of what is accepted in society whether he believes it or not (altho ironically his criticism of Bloom is more likely to be a bone of contention for UKIP supporters)


----------



## Corax (Sep 21, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> Farage was keen to point out in a news interview yesterday that he'd had a job before entering politics, unlike most other politicians.
> 
> As if 20 years in The City gives you some kind of relevant insight into how people live....


In addition to my "no confidence in any of the above" proposal, another electoral reform I'd like to see in my fantasy land of unicorns and rainbows is that eligibility for parliament would depend on having lived in the real world for a certain amount of time.  Anyone who's left education and spent all the intervening time as a parliamentary researcher, city boy, union officer, Brussels bod, etc, would be barred until they've spent a few years doing a normal job amongst normal people.

I have *no* fucking idea how this would work in practice of course - how it would be termed so as not to bar people unable to find employment or with disabilities for example.  Or how you'd draw up the list of what did and didn't count.  Or how you'd prevent convenient exchanges and secondments that ticked the boxes but counted for fuck all in reality.  Essentially, it's entirely unworkable, but it's a nice thing to imagine anyway.  

I'm entirely serious about the "no confidence" thing though, and I think that's absolutely workable.


----------



## stavros (Sep 21, 2013)

Curiously, there wasn't much about this on the front pages this morning, with only the Indie (which nobody buys anyway) giving it any prominance. The purpose of UKIP to the mainly Tory press seems to be to get Cameron to stop being so damn lefty, so bad PR for UKIP doesn't tally with their editorial lines.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2013)

Corax said:


> In addition to my "no confidence in any of the above" proposal, another electoral reform I'd like to see in my fantasy land of unicorns and rainbows is that eligibility for parliament would depend on having lived in the real world for a certain amount of time.  Anyone who's left education and spent all the intervening time as a parliamentary researcher, city boy, union officer, Brussels bod, etc, would be barred until they've spent a few years doing a normal job amongst normal people.
> 
> I have *no* fucking idea how this would work in practice of course - how it would be termed so as not to bar people unable to find employment or with disabilities for example.  Or how you'd draw up the list of what did and didn't count.  Or how you'd prevent convenient exchanges and secondments that ticked the boxes but counted for fuck all in reality.  Essentially, it's entirely unworkable, but it's a nice thing to imagine anyway.



It'd be as easy to institute a system such as you propose, as to institute any other bar to seeking political office - that is, it';d be simple to write the legislation, but much harder to get it past the self-interested hordes that make up our legislature.



> I'm entirely serious about the "no confidence" thing though, and I think that's absolutely workable.



Plenty of polities allow a "none of the above" option on ballots, and the NOTA option is counted and disseminated just the same as the votes and names of candidates are.  Some polities even allow "write in" candidates.
This polity, however, will never do so, because to do so would further highlight the bankruptcy of our parliamentary "democracy".


----------



## Corax (Sep 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Plenty of polities allow a "none of the above" option on ballots, and the NOTA option is counted and disseminated just the same as the votes and names of candidates are.  Some polities even allow "write in" candidates.
> This polity, however, will never do so, because to do so would further highlight the bankruptcy of our parliamentary "democracy".


I had a vague recollection that it's an option in places, but is there anywhere where it actually has any _effect_?   Do any of them count NOTA in a way that would enforce a re-run with previous candidates barred in the way I've suggested?  That's the key piece.


To clarify what I mean:

If "no confidence in any of the above" won, the constituency polling would have to be re-run,* with none of the previous candidates allowed to stand again.*

I'd predict that the initial effect would be a whole shitload of reruns in some places, as constituencies would have to repeat the ballot multiple times before reaching a result. There would be an expense to that of course, but it would be naff all in comparison to the amount of money spunked on pointless foreign campaigns and overspent white elephant projects, and unlike those it would be entirely worth it.

Ultimately, the parties would find themselves having to field candidates that people *actually believed in*.

All it would demand is that the supporters of all the candidates _between them_ outnumbered the number of people that thought they were *all* a bunch of useless twats. That's not too much to ask is it?

And I bet turnout at elections would rocket too, as a lot of disillusioned, disenfranchised, and angry non-voters that the state currently inaccurately dismiss as 'apathetic' might have a reason for making a cross again.



I think it's unlikely to come to pass, but possible given enough public pressure.  There's fuck all chance of Labour or the Tories implementing it alone, but there might be a small glimmer of hope for a junior coalition partner forcing it as they'd stand to lose far less (and perhaps even gain by giving them a second bite of the cherry).  It would be a major concession by the senior partner though, so they'd essentially be blowing their wad on a single horse.

Doubtless it would be 'negotiated', mangled, and the effect somehow negated along the way of course...

It's probably a naively idealistic idea.  I'm sure some bitter and hypercynical Urbanite will be along to cryptically ridicule me for it any minute.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2013)

Brilliant pic of Farage in The Grauniad today, taken at just the right moment:


----------



## laptop (Sep 21, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Brilliant pic of Farage in The Grauniad today...



I read that as "Farange". Do we think it'll stick?


----------



## laptop (Sep 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Plenty of polities allow a "none of the above" option on ballots



Are they all jurisdictions in which voting is compulsory?


----------



## Gingerman (Sep 21, 2013)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/unfortunate-bbc-moustache-for-nigel-farage-8829452.html


----------



## Badgers (Sep 21, 2013)

The question in the thread title is politically of no more or less merit than asking why so many people watch X-Factor.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2013)

I've never cleaned behind my fridge and I like sluts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2013)

laptop said:


> Are they all jurisdictions in which voting is compulsory?



Nope. Some US states offer it, as do many US municipalities.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2013)

Badgers said:


> The question in the thread title is politically of no more or less merit than asking why so many people watch X-Factor.


What do you mean?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2013)

Corax said:


> I had a vague recollection that it's an option in places, but is there anywhere where it actually has any _effect_?   Do any of them count NOTA in a way that would enforce a re-run with previous candidates barred in the way I've suggested?  That's the key piece.
> 
> 
> To clarify what I mean:
> ...




Nope, and in any established polity, you'd have a damned hard time getting something as elegant and effective legislated, unfortunately!* *




> I'd predict that the initial effect would be a whole shitload of reruns in some places, as constituencies would have to repeat the ballot multiple times before reaching a result. There would be an expense to that of course, but it would be naff all in comparison to the amount of money spunked on pointless foreign campaigns and overspent white elephant projects, and unlike those it would be entirely worth it.
> 
> Ultimately, the parties would find themselves having to field candidates that people *actually believed in*.



And/or with policies that actually reflected what *the people* wanted, rather than what the politicians tell them is in their best interest.



> All it would demand is that the supporters of all the candidates _between them_ outnumbered the number of people that thought they were *all* a bunch of useless twats. That's not too much to ask is it?
> 
> And I bet turnout at elections would rocket too, as a lot of disillusioned, disenfranchised, and angry non-voters that the state currently inaccurately dismiss as 'apathetic' might have a reason for making a cross again.



Well, quite. It's convenient to label voter disengagement as "apathy".  It prevents reflection on exactly *why* voters are so massively disengaged.



> I think it's unlikely to come to pass, but possible given enough public pressure.  There's fuck all chance of Labour or the Tories implementing it alone, but there might be a small glimmer of hope for a junior coalition partner forcing it as they'd stand to lose far less (and perhaps even gain by giving them a second bite of the cherry).  It would be a major concession by the senior partner though, so they'd essentially be blowing their wad on a single horse.
> 
> Doubtless it would be 'negotiated', mangled, and the effect somehow negated along the way of course...
> 
> It's probably a naively idealistic idea.  I'm sure some bitter and hypercynical Urbanite will be along to cryptically ridicule me for it any minute.



Hey, if you believe in a democratic electoral system, your proposal is a damn sight more democratic than our current "Parliamentary democracy" is!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 22, 2013)

Some scary photos from their conference - http://jesshurd.com/2013/09/20/ukip-conference/

You have been warned!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 22, 2013)

UKIP if you want to. Nigel's not for kipping.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 22, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Some scary photos from their conference - http://jesshurd.com/2013/09/20/ukip-conference/
> 
> You have been warned!


Scary monsters and super creeps, to coin Bowie.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 22, 2013)

laptop said:


> I read that as "Farange". Do we think it'll stick?



I've been calling him falange for ages


----------



## Quartz (Sep 22, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> UKIP if you want to. Nigel's not for kipping.



As the Court of Appeal said of the judge: they're not asleep; they're thinking with their eyes closed!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I've been calling him falange for ages


I can't help saying his name as if it rhymes with garage (UK pronunciation, rather than French/American)


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 22, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I've been calling him falange for ages


Falange is preferable as it suits his variety of politics.


----------



## laptop (Sep 22, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Falange is preferable as it suits his variety of politics.



But "Farange" is a vaguely xenophobic take on "Falange"...


----------



## laptop (Sep 22, 2013)

Handy roundup from the BBC:



> In September, UKIP leader Nigel Farage defended claims about his schooldays after Channel 4 claimed to have a letter from his teachers from 1981, who described him as "fascist" and a "bully".
> In August, MEP Godfrey Bloom was filmed on camera saying British aid should not be sent to "Bongo Bongo Land". In footage obtained by the Guardian he said payments were being used to buy items like sunglasses and luxury cars. He later said he regretted his remarks.
> Former UKIP member Chris Pain stepped down as regional chairman after a Sunday Mirror investigation in May revealed alleged racist comments he posted on Facebook. He was expelled from the party in September for undisclosed reasons.
> The Sun newspaper in May revealed Bradley Monk, a former Hampshire County Council UKIP candidate, had posted a picture of himself online wearing a Jimmy Savile mask at a Halloween party. He later apologised, saying it was a "harmless joke".
> ...



And that was before the "sluts" remark.


----------



## steeplejack (Sep 22, 2013)

even that loathsome ultra right sociopath guido fawkes seems to have it in for Farage now.

There's a lot out there on him (google junius in UKIP, or the "Dr Edmunds" blog linked from it).

There does appear to be a small minority in UKIP fairly aghast at the behaviour of the leadership of the party, and Phallange in particular. His speech was tepid and the conference- an important one for UKIP in building credibilty- has been a grandstanding disaster. 

This is the difference now that UKIP have become a touch more mainstream- their conference is no longer in a remote telephone box on a new university campus, but is covered by the media with quite a lot of interest. It's not just of interest to politics geeks, psephologists and purple-and-yellow-bow-tie wearers with extravagant facial hair. Drunken fights amongst the leadership in response to policy differences used only to make the funny pages of Private Eye, now they make the front pages.

Not that they will actually do anything, or that it would even matter if they did, though. But a rubbishing of UKIP in the MSM is one the cards for the next few months and it may well sweep away Phallange, who is clearly out of his depth. He might be able to present himself as an amiable blokey troublemaker but the media I suspect will expose that painfully, as Crick began to do last week.

What will be interesting is if the press go down the route of exposing UKIP as monomaniac oddballs, or, rather, if the y will follow the failed HnH / Searchlight tactics of shrieking about individual criminality and extremist right wing views. The destruction of UKIP this week in the press and the recent interest from state-sponsored antifascists in the party, can hardly be coincidence.


----------



## norwood (Sep 23, 2013)

The tactics of the mainstream left wing  british media are so obvious that i dont see it affecting peoples view of ukip.Farage will just ride out the smear tactics


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 23, 2013)

norwood said:


> The tactics of the mainstream left wing  british media are so obvious that i dont see it affecting peoples view of ukip.Farage will just ride out the smear tactics


"Mainstream left wing British media" I must look out for them, I haven't come across any yet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2013)

norwood said:


> The tactics of the mainstream left wing  british media are so obvious...



That'll be _The Daily Mail_, _The Telegraph_, _The Times_ and even _The Express_, all of which have run stories mocking Farage and UKIP?
Yep, they're *certainly* "the mainstream left wing british media". 



> ...that i dont see it affecting peoples view of ukip.Farage will just ride out the smear tactics



It may not affect UKIP supporters, but outside of that rather small sub-set of humanity, people are pretty much rolling their eyes and remarking on what an arse Farage is.  That includes my staunchly right-wing Tory parents, who were considering voting UKIP at the next General Election.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> "Mainstream left wing British media" I must look out for them, I haven't come across any yet.



You could, at a stretch call _The Guardian_ (with its 300,000 circulation) left-wing if you weren't aware that it's actually centrist and social-democrat.
You could probably accurately call _The Daily Mirror_ "left of centre", but that doesn't make them "left wing".

As usual, norwood is vocalising rectally.


----------



## gosub (Sep 23, 2013)

Do think the hatchet job relates to the general election, in which case BIG fuck up. If UKIP does better than CON/LIB in the EUros (and probably will) then they are back being news, with momentum and more cicumspect


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 23, 2013)

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/381800295371522048/photo/1

Interesting graph looking at UKIP support over last three years


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 23, 2013)

steeplejack said:


> even that loathsome ultra right sociopath guido fawkes seems to have it in for Farage now.
> 
> There's a lot out there on him (google junius in UKIP, or the "Dr Edmunds" blog linked from it).
> 
> ...


Junius is class.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 23, 2013)

steeplejack said:


> even that loathsome ultra right sociopath guido fawkes seems to have it in for Farage now.



They've become a threat to the established order.



> The destruction of UKIP this week in the press and the recent interest from state-sponsored antifascists in the party, can hardly be coincidence.



See above.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 23, 2013)

Dr Eric Edmond's blog


> *Bloom rains on Farage's big day*
> 
> I have no sympathy for Farage. He chose, supported and lived with Bloom in Brussels and deserves all the odure that will now descend on UKIP followings Bloom's assault on a journalist and insulting remarks about women. The latter he has done before and been able to shelter behind the great leaders jack boots but not this time. The media have tasted blood and now they will go after Farage big time.
> 
> ...



Edmond claims to be a member of UKIP's NEC.


----------



## gosub (Sep 23, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Dr Eric Edmond's blog
> 
> 
> Edmond claims to be a member of UKIP's NEC.


http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/fascism-in-ukip-dr-eric-edmond-is.html


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 23, 2013)

gosub said:


> http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/fascism-in-ukip-dr-eric-edmond-is.html


Whoops. Make that ex-NEC member and former candidate.


----------



## Corax (Sep 23, 2013)

steeplejack said:


> even that loathsome ultra right sociopath guido fawkes seems to have it in for Farage now.
> 
> There's a lot out there on him (google junius in UKIP, or the "Dr Edmunds" blog linked from it).
> 
> ...


My instant reaction on reading that post was slightly gleeful at the idea of their vote collapsing.

But where are those votes going to go?

UKIP imploding will be to the tories' gain, won't it...?


----------



## steeplejack (Sep 23, 2013)

Their Westminster vote has always been at best mediocre. That conference was supposed to be an early warning shot for Westminster 2015 and an attempt to build their credibility. Unfortunately Phallange's unicycle of seriousness went downhill at top speed straight into a big steaming pyramid of Godfrey Bloom's faeces, and the whole operation won't stop smelling now for quite a while.

the core UKIP voters will still return purple and yellow clad buffoons to a millionaires lifestyle as part of an institution they affect to despise. But their "Be Taken Seriously" plan has been scuppered for now.


----------



## laptop (Sep 23, 2013)

Corax said:


> UKIP imploding will be to the tories' gain, won't it...?



I want a button for "rueful assent" and I want it _now_.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 23, 2013)

Is the evidence for an implosion in their support/vote? I can't see any. At best the usual peaks and troughs of smaller party support can be pointed to and they are having a trough moment right now - but at a far higher level of opinion polling than they or any similar party has done for many many years, and at a consistently higher level than the lib-dems.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 24, 2013)

I've just read on Twitter that Bloom has left UKIP and will sit as an 'independent'.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Sep 24, 2013)

How does it work when someone elected in a list-based election gets the whip withdrawn? Presumably once you've been made an MEP (off your parties list) you're still an MEP if you leave the party unless you step down from parliament too?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2013)

You are an independent - until/if you take another parties whip.


----------



## gosub (Sep 24, 2013)

King Biscuit Time said:


> How does it work when someone elected in a list-based election gets the whip withdrawn? Presumably once you've been made an MEP (off your parties list) you're still an MEP if you leave the party unless you step down from parliament too?


Yep but in the meantime next one down party list also becomes MEP, I think.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Sep 24, 2013)

gosub said:


> Yep but in the meantime next one down party list also becomes MEP, I think.


I'm not sure that's right. Although that can happen in some circumstances (iirc the BNP had a rule that if you were elected as an MEP you had to serve four years, then step down and give someone else a year's experience) - Perhaps you can only do this if you personally step down as an MEP as well as being kicked out of your party.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2013)

gosub said:


> Yep but in the meantime next one down party list also becomes MEP, I think.


No.


----------



## gosub (Sep 24, 2013)

You are right apparently,  http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84346. 

How that squares with elections run on voting for party and MEP's appointed from lists I don't know but then it's EUropean politics


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2013)

UKIP put in a great series of local votes last night - holding where they had previously done well and doing well where they previously had not stood. The main losers in latter were tories but labour saw few % points lost as well. Pattern seems to to be around 22-25% whether standing first time or not. Won seat from labour as well (sevenoaks).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2013)

Apologies for the akehurst link, but here is the details of those elections last night, look at the ukip swings.

http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/council-by-elections_27.html?m=1


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 27, 2013)

Quartz said:


> More to the point, he's assured of his EP pension no matter what, isn't he?


More than likely. It's a gravy train, innit.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2013)

Why a UKIP/Tory pact is fantasy land. 



> In YouGov’s poll this morning for the Sun the Conservatives had 33 percent support, Labour 40 percent, the Liberal Democrats 9 percent and Ukip 11 percent. While it would be a gross exaggeration to say all of Ukip’s support comes from the Conservative party, they do gain a disproportionate amount of support from ex-Tories and it’s natural for people to add together that Conservative 33 percent and that Ukip 11 percent and think what might be.





> The reality though may not be as simple as adding the two together. In yesterday’s poll we also asked people to imagine that Ukip and the Conservatives agreed a pact at the next general election where they would not stand against each other, with Ukip backing the Conservative candidate in most constituencies and the Conservatives backing the Ukip candidate in a small number of constituencies. We then asked how they’d vote under those circumstances. Once you’ve taken out the don’t knows and wouldn’t votes, the new Conservative/Ukip alliance would be on 35 percent of the vote (up just two points on their current support), Labour would be on 45 percent (up five points on their current support), the Liberal Democrats on 11 percent (up two points), 9 percent of people would vote for other parties (down eight points).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2013)

Quartz said:


> More to the point, he's assured of his EP pension no matter what, isn't he?





nino_savatte said:


> More than likely. It's a gravy train, innit.


He's assured of not one, but two pensions from the taxpayer as a result of being an MEP.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2013)

Interesting that both Ken Clarke and Michael Hesseltine have come out attacking UKIP as loons and racists today. I think the traditional left of the party senses they have to do something right now to stop the party running off to the radical right (whether in the party or with another). It's too late i feel though, they are now trapped whichever way they move. Any move at all is going to alienate one constituency. Move to the centre and they lose to UKIP (whose figures have remaained around 11-13% no drop at all due to Bloom) move to the right and they lose the soft-tory vote (which is going to be the key to the next election for them). And a move to the right won't stop UKIP anyway, it'll embolden them.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 2, 2013)

I think that makes sense. They aren't going to stop UKIP or even slow them down if they just keep going further and further to the right. David Cameron made a brief mention of the US government shutdown on radio 4 yesterday too I notice. Perhaps some of the smarter Tories have an eye on what's happening in the US and are afraid they'll end up being held to ransom by the radical right in their own party and UKIP?  Scared of Paul Dacre and Daily Mail calling for a UKIP vote at the General Election, something foreshadowed when they backed the Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I think that makes sense. They aren't going to stop UKIP or even slow them down if they just keep going further and further to the right. David Cameron made a brief mention of the US government shutdown on radio 4 yesterday too I notice. Perhaps some of the smarter Tories have an eye on what's happening in the US and are afraid they'll end up being held to ransom by the radical right in their own party and UKIP?  Scared of Paul Dacre and Daily Mail calling for a UKIP vote at the General Election, something foreshadowed when they backed the Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election?


Yep, and the miliband stuff this week gave a clear indication of what nuttiness they may end up if they don't act now. A polarisation agenda a la the tea party will destroy them for a long long time.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 2, 2013)

Surely they are not that suicidal? I can see them calling for a UKIP vote for the Euro elections, but not the General Election. Unless they actually want the Tories to lose and be consigned to oblivion. Perhaps they are hoping for a repeat of Canada?


----------



## Corax (Oct 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> David Cameron made a brief mention of the US government shutdown on radio 4 yesterday too I notice. Perhaps some of the smarter Tories have an eye on what's happening in the US and are afraid they'll end up being held to ransom by the radical right in their own party and UKIP?


How would that work?  IIUC the US 'shutdown' situation isn't possible in the UK - or not due to parliamentary refusals anyway.


----------



## laptop (Oct 3, 2013)

Corax said:


> How would that work?  IIUC the US 'shutdown' situation isn't possible in the UK - or not due to parliamentary refusals anyway.



The specific mechanics of the shutdown clearly don't apply. But the _Mail_ is, I think, leading a campaign to hold the Tories to ransom from the right...

... with some large success in terms of policy pronouncements, like making noises that sound like cutting all benefits for under-25s.


----------



## Corax (Oct 3, 2013)

laptop said:


> The specific mechanics of the shutdown clearly don't apply. But the _Mail_ is, I think, leading a campaign to hold the Tories to ransom from the right...
> 
> ... with some large success in terms of policy pronouncements, like making noises that sound like cutting all benefits for under-25s.


Not convinced that's the Mail holding them to ransom tbh.  I think it's what they want to do anyway.

The Mail didn't hold them to ransom over disability benefits, the bedroom tax, or any of the other viciousness they've introduced did they?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2013)

UKIP 2nd in 3/4of last nights by-elections. And all within that 20-28% range i talked about last week -whether standing for the first time or not.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP 2nd in 3/4of last nights by-elections. And all within that 20-28% range i talked about last week -whether standing for the first time or not.



Heseltine et al calling 1/4 of the electorate racist; that'll go down well.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP 2nd in 3/4of last nights by-elections. And all within that 20-28% range i talked about last week -whether standing for the first time or not.



I spoke to someone in the Labour party who had been involved in the Wombwell by election yesterday. It's a very safe Labour seat, not one they were ever going to lose (they ended up with 67%), but UKIP finished 2nd with 24.9% whereas the Tories were languishing down in 3rd with 4.9%, a mere 81 votes. So it was Labour against UKIP Tory, English Democrat and he said it was like running against 3 far-right candidates, whereas in Barnsley they were more used to just dealing with one in that area (the BNP, which has fallen apart) and also noted no Lib Dem or left candidate, not even a paper one. This is a pretty working class area, there ought to be a left candidate even if it's just a paper TUSC one. But then Wombwell is a bit more diverse than some areas, I know it's Barnsley but believe it or not there are some fairly middle-class areas in Wombwell too, and the historically the Tories have been capable of polling upto a 1/3 of the vote in some elections in years gone by. But the funny thing is the middle-classes there are like public sector workers, or people who might fit the profile of a Tory but who had a dad or grandad who was a miner so can't vote Tory on principle, and they've basically carried on voting Labour even as they've been gentrified and made middle-class. A lot of these people reliably vote Labour, but my mate is worried that UKIP might be a more appealing option to them than the Tories. He's also worried that in a few years in seats like this it'll be Labour 1st UKIP 2nd, which is just like the situation prior to 2010 when the BNP was coming second in a close lot of safe Labour areas like this. Also the BNP vote came from the more economically deprived areas, whereas now those areas seem to be voting Labour again, but the more middle-class Labour-ish areas seem more willing to vote UKIP's than they are Tory or BNP. At least in Barnsley, I suspect that's different elsewhere.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 6, 2013)

Another instance of why UKIP are doing so well : BBC running a story that NF is to *stand for parliament!* 

Sorry, I should have advised more sensitive readers to be seated at the seismic news that a politician was going to tilt at being an MP.

This is still the better part of 2 years out, but there's a solemn duty to report the slightest UKIP story even though the BBC is run by a cabal of Marxists overseen by arch leftie Chris Patten.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 6, 2013)

norwood said:


> The tactics of the mainstream left wing  british media are so obvious that i dont see it affecting peoples view of ukip.Farage will just ride out the smear tactics


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 6, 2013)

What mainstream left wing British media?

Is the Morning Star still published? 

If so is it mainstream?

Socialist Worker maybe?

What's norwood on about?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 6, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What mainstream left wing British media?
> 
> Is the Morning Star still published?
> 
> ...



The Times and Telegraph are running a unique joint special edition tomorrow under the headline "Seize The Means Of Production Now!" and the BBC commissioned a major 10 part series on commodity fetishism within days of arch-leftie Chris Patten becoming Chairman of Governors. You can't make this stuff up.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 6, 2013)

hell in a handcart...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 6, 2013)

I blame the permissive society.

You know, you'd think you'd get used to the insanity of claims that the BBC or the UK media in general is Marxist/liberal/leftwing/soshlist/OMG it's the EUSSR etc, but every time it genuinely amazes me that this stuff can be trotted out without the slightest acknowledgement of the fucking facts. For instance any given Telegraph columnist claiming CBeebies shows are specifically designed to corrupt kids into something commie like being nice to each other or something.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is the evidence for an implosion in their support/vote? I can't see any. At best the usual peaks and troughs of smaller party support can be pointed to and they are having a trough moment right now - but at a far higher level of opinion polling than they or any similar party has done for many many years, and at a consistently higher level than the lib-dems.



Yep. This dip is perfectly timed for a wave of rejuvenating hype in the new year and build up to The Euros.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2013)

What dip? There isn't really one is there?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 7, 2013)

Some polls have had them a few points lower, before conference season they weren't getting QUITE as much endless hype.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2013)

Dip or trough, or not, this graph from Opinium does show the 'mirrored' fortunes of the tories and 'kippers:-


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2013)

And remember,  the areas the UKIP vote can reasonably be expected to influence general election outcomes is heavily (almost wholly) concentrated in tory seats where it can do most damage - it won't cost labour seats even if there are many UKIP voters coming from labour (which there are are and which is very important outside of the electoral sphere).


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2013)

They continued their excellent local election performances last night. An 18.5%, a 20% and a 43% and another one in the 20s - beating tories into 3rd in a number of them.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Dip or trough, or not, this graph from Opinium does show the 'mirrored' fortunes of the tories and 'kippers:-




The young lady is commenting on the position of the Lib Dems, which is flat on their backs, ready for sale to anyone, irrespective of the political ethos of the client. Without the Lib Dems, the present appalling government would not be in place. That said, we would still have had Labour, would things have been much different?


----------



## treelover (Oct 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They continued their excellent local election performances last night. An 18.5%, a 20% and a 43% and another one in the 20s - beating tories into 3rd in a number of them.


 
43%, ffs, where was that?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2013)

Was only a town council (Haverhill in Suffolk) but still an indication.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 11, 2013)

According to some wanker on my facebook feed, the fact the European emission regulations mean that Land Rover has decided to stop making Land Rover Defenders is reason enough.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Was only a town council (Haverhill in Suffolk) but still an indication.





> ...and Independent _*Frankie Boyle*_ fourth as he polled just 20 votes.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2013)

Just be thankful we don't have PR for the national elections, otherwise UKIP would be the power brokers.


----------



## Corax (Oct 11, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Dip or trough, or not, this graph from Opinium does show the 'mirrored' fortunes of the tories and 'kippers:-


Other than July 13, when (on the face of it) a load of them switched to Labour instead... What happened in July?


----------



## Corax (Oct 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They continued their excellent local election performances last night. An 18.5%, a 20% and a 43% and another one in the 20s - beating tories into 3rd in a number of them.


Any idea on turnout?

I've always been sceptical of Council/Euro/etc elections as much of an indicator as I've assumed the turnout is even lower (by a lot) than the GE - and the smaller the sample size the smaller the shift in volume needed to generate something that *looks* dramatic in percentage terms.  But admittedly that's purely an assumption, so it's be interesting to see how turnouts compare.


----------



## love detective (Oct 16, 2013)

A relevant quote from Mr Birchall in a recent article by Brian Whelan for Vice



> Sean Birchall wrote the book _Beating the Fascists_, detailing how the BNP were physically beaten off the streets in the early 90s. But he says the political vacuum that allows the far right to thrive will continue to throw up racist movements. “The underlying conditions that facilitated the BNP’s rise are still there," he explained, "disillusionment with the neo-liberal centre and a Labour party that has long turned its back on the working class.”
> 
> “Ukip are now partially filling that vacuum in working class political representation... the neo-liberal right and the nationalist right over recent decades have dramatically out-thought the left in terms of political strategy. They have identified tactics, narratives and constituencies, while the left has succeeded in alienating its core constituency of the working class.
> 
> “The EDL was always in any case more symptom, not cause," he continued. "Rather than generating hostility it merely reflects antagonism. There is a counter-strategy however: for those radically opposed to fascism and neo-liberalism to get on the landings and take on the fascists there, by engaging with and responding to working class concerns.”


----------



## CNT36 (Oct 17, 2013)

love detective said:


> A relevant quote from Mr Birchall in a recent article by Brian Whelan for Vice


Farage was on Steve Wright's afternoon show on radio 2 earlier giving a "non - political" interview. It was one of those "isn't he a lovely chap and just like us normal people" affairs.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2013)

CNT36 said:


> Farage was on Steve Wright's afternoon show on radio 2 earlier giving a "non - political" interview. It was one of those "isn't he a lovely chap and just like us normal people" affairs.



Good. Let's hope loads of tory waverers were impressed!


----------



## Quartz (Oct 28, 2013)

Oh look, the British pro EU group are trying to get a charity to stitch up UKIP, Guido Fawkes reports. 



> The cross-party pro-EU group “British Influence” – backed by Danny Alexander, Kenneth Clarke and Peter Mandelson – has written privately to a charity to ask for their help campaigning against UKIP in the European elections next year. That despite campaign director Joe Coney knowing this to be a breach of strict laws against charities getting involved in party politics. He wrote _“We realise that your charity status means that”_ – as a charity you – _“can’t campaign…”_.



Can someone who has the Sun article give a fuller context?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2013)

No. Better post it as fact anyway.


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 6, 2013)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ould-be-stripped-of-the-vote-8921383.htmlhtml
I know hes an ex-kipper but hes still the gift that keeps on giving


----------



## Quartz (Nov 6, 2013)

Fixed link.

He's got nothing to lose now, has he?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2013)

His seat?


----------



## Nylock (Nov 7, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ould-be-stripped-of-the-vote-8921383.htmlhtml
> I know hes an ex-kipper but hes still the gift that keeps on giving


got 5 paragraphs into that article before i had the urge to scream at my computer screen. The cognitive dissonance that man displays is frightening; the fact he got voted into office more so.


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 7, 2013)

Nylock said:


> got 5 paragraphs into that article before i had the urge to scream at my computer screen. The cognitive dissonance that man displays is frightening; the fact he got voted into office more so.


Proof that even shit on a stick can get elected.....


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2013)

He wasn't elected because of his odd views (which may not be that odd) but because he wore a UKIP badge rather than tory or labour. That's how elections work - even ones under PR.


----------



## Corax (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Plenty of polities allow a "none of the above" option on ballots, and the NOTA option is counted and disseminated just the same as the votes and names of candidates are.  Some polities even allow "write in" candidates.
> This polity, however, will never do so, because to do so would further highlight the bankruptcy of our parliamentary "democracy".


Some stuff on R4 at the moment about the growing _Voto en Blanco_ movement in Spain - where (reportedly) submitted blank votes are counted, reported, and respected as a vote of no confidence.

http://translate.google.co.uk/trans.../Voto_en_blanco&prev=/search?q=Voto+en+Blanco


----------



## J Ed (Nov 7, 2013)

Corax said:


> Some stuff on R4 at the moment about the growing _Voto en Blanco_ movement in Spain - where (reportedly) submitted blank votes are counted, reported, and respected as a vote of no confidence.
> 
> http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voto_en_blanco&prev=/search?q=Voto+en+Blanco



I don't see any particular reason why anyone would put any effort into this, some of the _indignados_ called for a vote for anyone other than the PSOE or the PP and I'm not sure it had much of an effect but where it did all it did was reduce the PSOE vote and help the PP get into power. PP voters, unsurprisingly, do not listen very much to what _indignados_ have to say.

If they're sick of neoliberalism then they should vote for the left, which is actually in a reasonably healthy state in Spain compared to here.


----------



## Corax (Nov 7, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I don't see any particular reason why anyone would put any effort into this


At the moment it doesn't have any teeth, and there's no actual _effect_ from a large "non-vote" other than some concerned hand-wringing.  But it's a step, and if it were taken a bit further so that it had real consequences on the standing politicians then it could be a good thing.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 7, 2013)

Farage getting ripped to shreds on QT now, the little Englander cunt.


----------



## SovietArmy (Nov 7, 2013)

Well Farage now on Question time I am sick to listening about East Europeans as myself came from Lithuania and living in UK.  What we done East Europeans why such hate on us?  Strange we still on feudal thoughts we still debating about nationality, about what woman should  wearing for example burkas.   Dont ever considered how we still back in time.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 10, 2013)

Farage is on TV again. Now its the Sunday Politics. That's two TV shows in a week. It's ridiculous.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 10, 2013)

skyscraper101 said:


> Farage is on TV again. Now its the Sunday Politics. That's two TV shows in a week. It's ridiculous.



Having Farage-oh on your programme is the televisual equivalent of having an entertaining but incontinent chimp as a seaside photo-op. We laugh *at* him, rather than with him.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 10, 2013)

The BBC would rationalise Farage's frequent appearances on their channel by claiming they're putting UKIP under 'greater scrutiny' because of their electoral success, which are local rather than national. If anything the Greens should be 'scrutinised' more than UKIP because they have a Westminster MP and 2 MSP's. UKIP have no representation in Scotland or Westminster (long may that continue).


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Having Farage-oh on your programme is the televisual equivalent of having an entertaining but incontinent chimp as a seaside photo-op. We laugh *at* him, rather than with him.



Didn't people think the same of that bloke who became Mayor Of London? And who is "we"? If it's people on U75 then you may well be right. Lots of other people think NF talks "common sense" when he drones on about PCGawnMad (tm) etc. And slagging off the EU is like shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2013)

Partisan (and not hiding it) but well sourced and good info.

http://haringeygreens.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/just-how-much-media-coverage-does-ukip.html


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 14, 2013)

I remember the last time Paul Nuttall was on; his attitude toward mental health was utterly disgusting. Odious little twat.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 14, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> The BBC would rationalise Farage's frequent appearances on their channel by claiming they're putting UKIP under 'greater scrutiny' because of their electoral success, which are local rather than national. If anything the Greens should be 'scrutinised' more than UKIP because they have a Westminster MP and 2 MSP's. UKIP have no representation in Scotland or Westminster (long may that continue).


UKiP are the third or fourth party in terms of vote share though which is more important IMO.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 14, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> UKiP are the third or fourth party in terms of vote share though which is more important IMO.


Tbh, I think the BBC wants a UKIP government.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 14, 2013)

I think the BBC are doin gwhat their tory masters want: keep the proles focussed on immigration and away from their bullshit.


----------



## gosub (Nov 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> I think the BBC are doin gwhat their tory masters want: keep the proles focussed on immigration and away from their bullshit.



I'd go the other way, last thing tories want is UKIP  nibbling at their vote share


----------



## Quartz (Nov 14, 2013)

I wonder if there's a simpler explanation: Farage makes good TV?


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> UKiP are the third or fourth party in terms of vote share though which is more important IMO.



Simple as this.

The UKIP are, at the moment, a major party. Thus the BBC is quite "right" to be giving them the sort of platform they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2013)

Long may it continue.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Didn't people think the same of that bloke who became Mayor Of London? And who is "we"? If it's people on U75 then you may well be right. Lots of other people think NF talks "common sense" when he drones on about PCGawnMad (tm) etc. And slagging off the EU is like shooting fish in a barrel.



To turn your own question back on you, who is "lots of people"?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

Quartz said:


> I wonder if there's a simpler explanation: Farage makes good TV?




does he though? I've seen portillo in form and hated him even as he did rhetoric well. Falange doesn't come across well at all imo. He's like a marionette.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2013)

Lots of people do think he comes across well though - and he does have a sort of personal vote no matter where he stands. I think if he'd stood in eastleigh he would now be an mp.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

he lent his weight heavily in that campaign, and yet UKIP did not win. Significant showing in the vote share though iirc.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> he lent his weight heavily in that campaign, and yet UKIP did not win. Significant showing in the vote share though iirc.


They missed it by around 1500 votes - i thunk farage would have got over the line if he stood. 20% lib-dem --UKIP swing.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> I remember the last time Paul Nuttall was on; his attitude toward mental health was utterly disgusting. Odious little twat.



he gets in our local rag (Manchester Evening News) on a very regular basis in the the letters page. May as well give him his own column. If it aint too much trouble, what's the gist of his attitude towards mental health issues?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

what a depressing thought. I know farage is on record as saying 'we are now the third force in british politics' and with the imminent/ongoing collapse of the LD he might even be right. I don't think they can be considered as 'merely' a tory protest vote anymore. Have to see when push comes to shove round 2015 I suppose.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2013)

Interesting to see how the different factions of capital relate to them over the coming year.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> To turn your own question back on you, who is "lots of people"?



heh - presumably a good many of the 10+ % expressing preference for them in the polls. Evidence of their kind can be seen all over social media.  They are blindly partisan followers, with such in depth matras as "UKIP, UKIP, UKIP"..."UKIP for me" and "UKIP all the way". They also have a special gift for crow-barring a moan about migration into the most unconnected of ways. It's a wonder to behold, in a rather depressing way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> heh - presumably a good many of the 10+ % expressing preference for them in the polls. Evidence of their kind can be seen all over social media.  They are blindly partisan followers, with such in depth matras as "UKIP, UKIP, UKIP"..."UKIP for me" and "UKIP all the way". They also have a special gift for crow-barring a moan about migration into the most unconnected of ways. It's a wonder to behold, in a rather depressing way.



So "lots of people" = "fractional minority", then?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 14, 2013)

gosub said:


> I'd go the other way, last thing tories want is UKIP  nibbling at their vote share


Assuming the tories are that smart. Their policies, closed thinking, and all round malicious stupidty preclude this IMO even though Farage is splitting the tory vote.

I think these tory mp's live in little bubbles. Who else would vote for a scumbag like IDS who has screwed up everything he's touched. These people have a core of sycophants and wannabes who will vote for them come what may. I see it every election time when the local farmers line the roads with 'Vote Tory' signs.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2013)

In Somerset? You're far far more likely to see UKIP banners in the fields in my experience.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 14, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> he gets in our local rag (Manchester Evening News) on a very regular basis in the the letters page. May as well give him his own column. If it aint too much trouble, what's the gist of his attitude towards mental health issues?


He made an offhand remark using a term that was insenstive toward mental health sufferers. In itself it wasn't a huge deal (for a man in a party with Godfrey Bloom after all). But when an audience person picked him up on it he dismissed them with an awful shrug and a sneer, betryaing their attitude in typical arrogant kipper fashion.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So "lots of people" = "fractional minority", then?



No facepalm required. Reasonable to think it's at least several hundred thousand, that's not factoring in all UKIP supporters by any means, or sympathetic tories. 

Several hundred thousand is a lot of people. If parties of the left were getting that much support I'm sure they'd be eager to describe it in positive terms.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 14, 2013)

Isn't Jon 'Gaunty' Gaunt now a member?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No facepalm required. Reasonable to think it's at least several hundred thousand, that's not factoring in all UKIP supporters by any means, or sympathetic tories.
> 
> Several hundred thousand is a lot of people. If parties of the left were getting that much support I'm sure they'd be eager to describe it in positive terms.



But even those numbers are meaningless if you're describing them as "lots of people" when they're weighed against the other 25 million or so people who have the voting franchise.  Sure they're likely to make a mark in a few constituencies, and to pull some votes from the Conservatives, but statistically they're nowhere near "lots of people".


----------



## Quartz (Nov 14, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> does he though? I've seen portillo in form and hated him even as he did rhetoric well. Falange doesn't come across well at all imo. He's like a marionette.



I'm not a great watcher of TV so I've a limited exposure (probably a good thing ) but he seems to come across better than most, and that's likely enough. Something else to consider: whereas the other politicos are beholden to their parties and their statements are necessarily taken in such vein, he *is* UKIP so his statements carry much more weight. Even Cameron and Miliband would be subject to the Kremlinologists.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2013)

How does that help him come across well on the TV?


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 14, 2013)

It does smack of the media 'making the news', in that without this exposure they'd be nowhere.  It's an 'interesting story' for them, having some kind of underdog stirring the system up.

Farage seems to spin himself as some kind of outsider, who's had a 'real job' rather than being groomed by a party, but then when you consider that 'real job' was as an investment banker in The City then you'll know whose interests he'll be acting in, same as the rest of them. Phony revolutionary.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Lots of people do think he comes across well though - and he does have a sort of personal vote no matter where he stands. I think if he'd stood in eastleigh he would now be an mp.



He's entertaining and likable and seems like someone you could have a pint with, it's not rocket science, it's exactly the sort of thing that Republicans have been using in the US for years with some success when they have.

ETA. Not that I would fancy a pint with him


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 14, 2013)

Farage is like the old-fashioned stuck record or tape loop. He repeats the same phrases ad tedium, ad nauseum. He's a one-trick pony.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2013)

Quartz said:


> I'm not a great watcher of TV so I've a limited exposure (probably a good thing ) but he seems to come across better than most, and that's likely enough. Something else to consider: whereas the other politicos are beholden to their parties and their statements are necessarily taken in such vein, he *is* UKIP so his statements carry much more weight. Even Cameron and Miliband would be subject to the Kremlinologists.



Farage is "popular" with programmers because they can rely on him to talk in soundbites, rather than to haver on about boring old policy.  For much the same reason, some right-wing voters like him and his "blah blah blah immigration, blah blah blah Europe, blah blah blah Atlanticism" old pony.  Politics and a politician for people who "don't do politics". Farage leads, and the mainstream parties...well, they've been attempting to do the same for at least the last 15 years, but are tied down by awkward stuff like ideology and promises.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He's entertaining and likable and seems like someone you could have a pint with, it's not rocket science, it's exactly the sort of thing that Republicans have been using in the US for years with some success when they have.



Standard "man of the people" bollocks.



> ETA. Not that I would fancy a pint with him



How about pouring a pint into his plane's fuel tank?


----------



## emanymton (Nov 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> does he though? I've seen portillo in form and hated him even as he did rhetoric well. Falange doesn't come across well at all imo. He's like a marionette.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2013)

perhaps he died in that crash and they replaced him with a robot


----------



## J Ed (Nov 15, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Farage is like the old-fashioned stuck record or tape loop. He repeats the same phrases ad tedium, ad nauseum. He's a one-trick pony.



He's guilty of this than most of the shadow cabinet imo


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> perhaps he died in that crash and they replaced him with a robot


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> He's guilty of this than most of the shadow cabinet imo


The government too. "We're on the side of hardworking families who want to do the right thing and get on in life". The politics of the soundbite.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 16, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Farage is like the old-fashioned stuck record or tape loop. He repeats the same phrases ad tedium, ad nauseum. He's a one-trick pony.


 

Will people get bored of that loop tho'?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 17, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Will people get bored of that loop tho'?


I'd like to think so. All I hear are the same phrases coming out the mouths of Farage and the Cameron's Hole-in-the-Head gang.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

The polling figures don't suggest that they are. They are suggesting that support for that 'loop' has stabilised at worst at 10%+ at best around 16/17%.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> I'd like to think so. All I hear are the same phrases coming out the mouths of Farage and the Cameron's Hole-in-the-Head gang.



But isn't it the perogative of the recipiants of the 'protest vote' to be as single-issued as they choose?

e2a : from today's YG/ST poll...one little UKIP related snippit...



> Looking specifically at EU immigration, 22% of people think there is nothing wrong with EU immigration into the UK, 20% think it is damaging, but that Britain has no practical choice but to accept it. _*42% think that Britain should act to limit EU immigration even if it means breaking EU law or British citizens losing their own right to live elsewhere in Europe.*_


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2013)

Loadsamoney!



> The UK Independence Party will receive a multi-million pound boost before next year’s European elections after winning support from one of Britain’s wealthiest businessmen.
> 
> Paul Sykes, a self-made tycoon and veteran of the campaign to keep the pound 15 years ago, has promised to do “whatever it takes” to help Ukip top the polls in May.
> 
> ...


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Standard "man of the people" bollocks.
> 
> 
> 
> How about pouring a pint into his plane's fuel tank?


Sugar in the tank would do the job better


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Nov 18, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> The government too. "We're on the side of hardworking families who want to do the right thing and get on in life". The politics of the soundbite.



The Tories managed to get that one in to their response as to why they'd re-organised their website. It's almost creepy. 

"Mr Cameron, how would you like your tea?"
"Well in order to continue to do the right thing for hardworking families, and for those who want to get on in life, I'm proud to say that in addition to bringing Britain out of recession and turning the corner on the economy, I'd like milk and no sugar please. And have you got any custard creams?"


----------



## Quartz (Nov 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> How about pouring a pint into his plane's fuel tank?



What harm did the poor plane do to you to deserve that?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> But isn't it the perogative of the recipiants of the 'protest vote' to be as single-issued as they choose?
> 
> e2a : from today's YG/ST poll...one little UKIP related snippit...


Quite, hence "I'd like to think so". Of course, it ain't happening.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> Sugar in the tank would do the job better



Cheaper too, now I think of it!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2013)

Quartz said:


> What harm did the poor plane do to you to deserve that?



It harmed my sense of propriety by not killing Nigel Farage.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2013)

Sykes to pay for all UKIP's euro election advertising. Let's see if there's any other capital followers.

edit: sorry, forgot about brogdale's post above.


----------



## Batboy (Nov 19, 2013)

co-op said:


> Don't know that I'd agree with two of your assumptions;
> 
> (a) Labour just lost votes - and many of those were working class voters who just stopped voting. I'd like to see evidence that they 'lost votes tothe BNP'.
> (b) Labour *did* start to get outflanked to the left in Wales by PC, in Scotland (devastatingly in recent Assembly elections) by the SNP and here and there by the Green Party in England (they lost 10 seats by a smaller margin than the GP vote in 2010 - one of course was Caroline Lucas in Brighton).



labour lost votes to the BNP via white working class voters in places like Barking and Dagenham. I know I was there, I can assure you it was absolutely real and helped by the fact that horror show Margaret Hodge is he Labour MP.
The labour party majority decreased by around 40% from he start of her tenure. 

Ukip are pulling in voters from both sides, predominantly white voters but equally some Asian voters too.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sykes to pay for all UKIP's euro election advertising. Let's see if there's any other capital followers.
> 
> edit: sorry, forgot about brogdale's post above.


Conservative donors are flocking to Ukip



> Seventeen Tory supporters who between them gave over £5 million in donations now appear to have switched their allegiance to Nigel Farage’s Ukip, giving almost £750,000 to the Eurosceptic party.



Still small scale but interesting in that rather than rat-faced small poujadist businessmen they're starting to attract money from the financial fraction of capital - traditionally tory but with recent involvement with labour.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 28, 2013)

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...ts-into-comments-by-ukip-councillor-1-5712675



> Wednesday 5.30pm: A UKIP councillor is under investigation after reportedly telling children in care that they were ‘takers’ from society.
> 
> Gordon Gillick (74), who represents his home ward of Waldersey, Wisbech, also asked the youngsters when they would ‘start giving back to society’.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2013)

He is married to the hated Victoria Gillick btw.


----------



## where to (Nov 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...ts-into-comments-by-ukip-councillor-1-5712675



that's probably the worst 'political' position i've ever come across.


J Ed said:


> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...ts-into-comments-by-ukip-councillor-1-5712675



there has been huge forore over a range of things said by Ukip people recently. that one seems to be almost slipping through the net, but -for me -is by far the most despicable of the lot. what sort of pathetic cunt does says something like that to children?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...ts-into-comments-by-ukip-councillor-1-5712675



What a tosser.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 29, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...ts-into-comments-by-ukip-councillor-1-5712675
> 
> 
> > Wednesday 5.30pm: A UKIP councillor is under investigation after reportedly telling children in care that they were ‘takers’ from society.
> ...



I shouldn't be surprised that the local UKIP group leader supports this oxygen thief but its still disgusting that the guy is somehow making Cllr Gillick out to be some sort of champion against Political Correctness....



> Cllr Peter Reeve, the UKIP group leader, said he had not been at the meeting but supported his colleague.
> 
> He said: “As long as he’s being honest and transparent and saying what he believes, I’ve no problem with that.
> 
> “It may or may not be that I agree with him or that people find his views offensive, but I would rather a councillor is honest than cover up their beliefs because they are worried about it not being politically correct.”


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 29, 2013)

I pitched a question, via a FB admin on a politics page, to the effect of "what excuses will UKIP supporters have this time?" in relation to the Peterborough matter.

Here, in no special order, is a list of what emerged.

i) Don't care.

ii) Doesn't matter because he's not important (being one of a very small % of membership who are actually elected)

iii) A variant on "doesn't represent views" despite having been presumably selected as an election candidate precisely in part because he does represent views.

iv) Don't know full context, when there's a fair bit of context.

v) It's a new party, when it's not THAT new.

vi) The cherry on the cake from the UKIP leader on the council himself, that it's better to say this kind of thing than keep silent for fear of political correctness (which I'm given to understand has actually gone mad)


----------



## co-op (Nov 29, 2013)

Batboy said:


> labour lost votes to the BNP via white working class voters in places like Barking and Dagenham. I know I was there, I can assure you it was absolutely real and helped by the fact that horror show Margaret Hodge is he Labour MP.
> The labour party majority decreased by around 40% from he start of her tenure.
> 
> Ukip are pulling in voters from both sides, predominantly white voters but equally some Asian voters too.



Heh missed this reply so I can't find the original post now it was so long ago, but I'm not sure you've really taken on what I said about Labour losing votes due to people stopping voting rather than defecting (although of course there are some defections). Barking fits this pattern well - you say that Hodge's majority slumped - it did - but so did turnouts in general: in 2001 and 2005 turnouts were 45% and 50% - compared to over 70% as recently as 1992. 

Also - re 'where do the BNPs votes come from?' - the Conservative Party was getting 5 figure votes in Barking through the 80s and up to 92 - these have now disappeared and I think you're more likely to find disaffected tories in the BNP vote that emerged in the 2000s than Labour (although that doesn't mean they aren't working class voters of course).


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 29, 2013)

Honest?

Destroying the confidence of vulnerable children is honesty?

This wanker deserves to be sued into oblivion for this.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 29, 2013)

I found this on the hope not hate twitterfeed. I like it.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 29, 2013)

Tbf its no wonder pc went mad dealing like cunts like that 
   I can see what the cunt is thinking but
A ITS NOT THE KIDS FUCKING FAULT
B ITS THE  COUNCILS DUTY TO LOOK AFTER CHILDREN In that situation if they are having problems its the councils duty to sort it out so they can stop being a burden on the state 
C Its not the kids faul
D kill your awful wife and then yourself as your a burden on the planet


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 29, 2013)

likesfish said:


> I can see what the cunt is thinking



Go on then.



likesfish said:


> ITS THE  COUNCILS DUTY TO LOOK AFTER CHILDREN In that situation if they are having problems its the councils duty to sort it out so they can stop being a burden on the state



They're not a burden, they're children in need of help and support.  Why argue with scum like that on their terms?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 29, 2013)

Actually if yourcunt like that taking him on his terms and beating him with his own terms is exactly the thing to do Duty, Responsability to those less fortunate, common decency are all words that are favorites of that sort of person so shoving them down his throat and making them choke on them seems exactly the right thing to do.
   Its much harder for him to evade and talk about pc gone mad if you take the ball into his playground.
Tackling him on behaving like a decent human being is being pc gone mad.

Calling him out on his failure of duty and responsability as a councillior and a failure of conduct and decorum  is much harder for the git to evade.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

Doesn't sound like he goes along with his wifes _every sperm is sacred_ line.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

Another series of good local results last night 20s and 30s. This is how their polling figures are holding up with YG:


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

co-op said:


> Heh missed this reply so I can't find the original post now it was so long ago, but I'm not sure you've really taken on what I said about Labour losing votes due to people stopping voting rather than defecting (although of course there are some defections). Barking fits this pattern well - you say that Hodge's majority slumped - it did - but so did turnouts in general: in 2001 and 2005 turnouts were 45% and 50% - compared to over 70% as recently as 1992.
> 
> Also - re 'where do the BNPs votes come from?' - the Conservative Party was getting 5 figure votes in Barking through the 80s and up to 92 - these have now disappeared and I think you're more likely to find disaffected tories in the BNP vote that emerged in the 2000s than Labour (although that doesn't mean they aren't working class voters of course).


To have taken 12 seats from labour in Barking  they would have had to appeal to labour voters. If they didn't they couldn't have won - and they did. Their slogan for these campaigns was "We are the Labour Party your grandfather voted for"


----------



## co-op (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> To have taken 12 seats from labour in Barking  they would have had to appeal to labour voters. If they didn't they couldn't have won - and they did. Their slogan for these campaigns was "We are the Labour Party your grandfather voted for"



TBH I can't really join in here since Batboy's post quoting me is from some time ago (I missed it) and my original quote was obviously commenting on something he or someone else posted, but that was so long ago I can't find it. I don't think I'd have ever argued that the BNP take no votes from Labour, just that the standard argument - that 'this is where the BNP's vote comes from' - doesn't hold up that well because it ignores the large number of ex-Labour voters who have stopped voting. When I look at Barking results what jumps out is that the tories were getting 10-12000 votes there until 1997 and my hunch would be that BNP votes are as likely to come from there as anywhere (<unevidenced conclusion I know).

Lastly, my memory is that the "We are the Labour Party your Grandfather voted for" slogan was rolled out in 2010 when the BNP got ambitious and decided that Labour were there for the taking so launched a head on attack - and of course that was also the year that they got wiped out on the council, so as a slogan it failed. But again this is based on my memory (I don't remember the slogan before).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

There's two sets of elections in Barking here - the locals and the general. The latter may well have seen tories voting BNP (although the idea that tories are natural BNP voters ready to switch over at the drop of a hat doesn't really stand up). But if you look at the general election voting figures for the tories in the period from when the BNP first got their toehold they didn't drop off, which is surely what you expect to happen if the tory-->BNP scenario was accurate. In fact, at the height of the BNP challenge it actually went up and came close to its pre-92 height. The BNP vote would not appear to be coming from them on this basis. The party whose vote did go down whilst the BNPs went up was labours - and this on low turnouts remember, so it's unlikely it was due to wholly fresh voters or previous abstainers.

And in the locals, to win there was no other way than to get labour voters, otherwise the tories would have been the ones already winning these seats - and they weren't. I really do think it's undeniable that a large part of the BNP vote in urban areas - and i think barking is a very good example - were traditional labour voters. Every single analysis - hostile or friendly to the BNP, academic or anecdotal has come to the same conclusion to. And i can see people making the same mistakes about the UKIP vote as made at the time of the BNP's growth. Which isn't to say that the one maps directly onto the other but that their are similar themes and similar dangers to getting them wrong.

(No need to do a long or detailed reply or anything btw, i just meant to post that at the time but the conversation sort of petered out).


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 29, 2013)

sorry just posted the same graph as Butchers


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 29, 2013)

What kind of cuntician wakes up in the morning and thinks "I've got to tell those kids today that they are all wasters"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...ts-into-comments-by-ukip-councillor-1-5712675



TBF, him and his missus having alienated their own kids, they *have* to pick on other peoples' children to get their jollies, the miserable fucks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2013)

where to said:


> that's probably the worst 'political' position i've ever come across.
> 
> 
> there has been huge forore over a range of things said by Ukip people recently. that one seems to be almost slipping through the net, but -for me -is by far the most despicable of the lot. what sort of pathetic cunt does says something like that to children?



Someone who's so selfish, self-righteous and publicly pious that he and his wife had ten kids of their own, happily took money from the state to help raise them, and then conveniently forgot that fact when he wants to shit all over kids who never got a say in how their lives unfolded.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Doesn't sound like he goes along with his wifes _every sperm is sacred_ line.



He went along with it often enough that she hatched ten healthy sprogs. 

Perhaps he's one of them there hypocrites?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> What kind of cuntician wakes up in the morning and thinks "I've got to tell those kids today that they are all wasters"?



A putrid slimy mess of a cuntician, that's who.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Their slogan for these campaigns was "We are the Labour Party your grandfather voted for"



Literally? On leaflets? On the doorstep? Got any links or is it just anecdotal? Ta for any clarification.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Literally? On leaflets? On the doorstep? Got any links or is it just anecdotal? Ta for any clarification.


Yes literally - from election stuff to in person - earliest find i can make is 2006 - bang in the middle of their real growth.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes literally - from election stuff to in person - earliest find i can make is 2006 - bang in the middle of their real growth.




Christ. Thanks. I'd LOVE to see one of those leaflets. Won't bother to take the slogan to bits, sure we're all capable.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

I can find Goodwin putting it as far back as the 2005 general election.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He is married to the hated Victoria Gillick btw.



Didn't one of Gillick's daughters grow up to be a full-on rebel?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 29, 2013)

All in all he's just another prick in the wall.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 29, 2013)

Certainly it's easy to see how labour tribalism would make UKIP a more likely preference than the tories.


butchersapron said:


> I can find Goodwin putting it as far back as the 2005 general election.



it's astonishing, I really wouldn't have seen UKIP as a party of Clause 4, a substantial welfare state and high taxes for high earners, but one lives and learns. Thanks again


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

Er...we were talking about the BNP not UKIP.


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2013)

Its about a year now since this thread started so imo a good to time ask: Are Ukip here for good?

Unlike the BNP or any other 4th parties I can think of, they seem to have a clear section of the right wing press right behind them. certain strands of the electorate seem to have broken completely from the other parties (unlike in the past when Ukip were a Plan B or protest vote).  the working class and/or ex-labour section of their vote is probably less settled than the former Tory voters.

would the ex Tories slowly return in yrs 2/3 of a Miliband government though, or is this it?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 29, 2013)

UKIP seem to have permanently established themselves in parts of the country, most definitely I think, another interesting question is how many seats will they win in 2015?


----------



## youngian (Nov 29, 2013)

where to said:


> would the ex Tories slowly return in yrs 2/3 of a Miliband government though, or is this it?



Yes as the next intake of parliamentary Tories, which grows ever more swivel eyed with every session, will move further to the right after a defeat under Cameron. 
There will be no re-emergence of a centrist One Nation Conservative party that once held sway in Scotland and a force to be reckoned with in urban Britain.
That kind of politician like Ken Clarke is now an isolated dinosaur and a moderate Tory like Cameron or Nick Boles is just a neo-liberal that doesn't mind queers and darkies.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 29, 2013)

where to said:


> Its about a year now since this thread started so imo a good to time ask: Are Ukip here for good?



I think it's far too early to say. If I knew for sure, I'd be laying bets and making lots of money. 


With regards to longevity, for most people UKIP = Farage and it remains to be seen whether he can successfully hand over the reins.

I would not be surprised to see a significant dichotomy in right-wing (and to an extent, anti-Labour) voting: people voting UKIP in the Euro elections and Tory in the General Election. I do not believe that UKIP are sufficiently mature as a party to successfully contest a General Election in more than a few key seats. People like Bloom indicate the general low quality of their candidates. Therefore a good showing by UKIP in the Euro elections next year should not be seen as a breakthrough.

However, I would be similarly unsurprised to see a Labour landslide in 2015 on a Tory / UKIP split.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 29, 2013)

J Ed said:


> UKIP seem to have permanently established themselves in parts of the country, most definitely I think, another interesting question is how many seats will they win in 2015?



zero or one - if farage picks the right constituency to stand in. First past the post and the fact their ruddy faced clarksonite voter base are spread out -  rather than in clusters -  fuck them on that front


----------



## Batboy (Nov 30, 2013)

co-op said:


> Heh missed this reply so I can't find the original post now it was so long ago, but I'm not sure you've really taken on what I said about Labour losing votes due to people stopping voting rather than defecting (although of course there are some defections). Barking fits this pattern well - you say that Hodge's majority slumped - it did - but so did turnouts in general: in 2001 and 2005 turnouts were 45% and 50% - compared to over 70% as recently as 1992.
> 
> Also - re 'where do the BNPs votes come from?' - the Conservative Party was getting 5 figure votes in Barking through the 80s and up to 92 - these have now disappeared and I think you're more likely to find disaffected tories in the BNP vote that emerged in the 2000s than Labour (although that doesn't mean they aren't working class voters of course).



No you are wrong on this, certainly in places like Barking, these are former conventional Labour voters not Tory who would vote for the BNP and UKIP.

In Barking the incumbent MP Margaret Horror Hodge was handed on a plate a safe labour seat by her Islington mate Tony Blair, after she royally fucked up at Islington council by turning her eyes away from the 52 children abused in the care home close to where I lived. For political expediency she brushed this scandal under the carpet and the peadophiles were sent away with council employment references, so they could fuck little kids elsewhere. She was later rewarded with the position of Minister for Children by Blair to add to her 'safe' seat in Barking. You couldn't make this up, could you?

Whilst in Barking, she pissed off the former mayor of Barking Patrick Manley a stalwart labour man for forty years, as well as the former/late well respected Jo Richardson MPs loyal staff and private secretary, all of these people turned against Hodge in the General elections. Hodge is an odious nasty hypocrite who enjoys the wealth of her families  2.1 billion pound steel empire fortune (they paid just 157k tax in UK) and her husbands legal practice. She lives in luxury in Islington as opposed to moving into the battlefield of her constituency.

Elsewhere migrants were being thrown into Barking and Dagenham with zero planning for coping with resources like schools, housing, education and healthcare. This was hugely encouraged by Margaret Hodge as it helped serve her political survival as newly arrived migrants are more likely to vote labour and paradoxically help her survive the BNP onslaught and cut into her vote.

I think it is worth considering that at no point ever are newly arrived immigrants encouraged to or moved into places like Knightsbridge, Chelsea or the richer parts of town where Hodge might live, they are without exception shoved/forced into the already struggling poor areas of the country, that is one of the major causes of tension and conflict where immigration is concerned. Nothing has been learnt from history in this respect.

End result? People locally feel under pressure and threatened and the shite cunts of the BNP exploit the situation and move in on these areas taking lots of votes off of white, and ironically some Asian and black people, all of whom would have traditionally been Labour voters. You will also find that UKIP also pick up votes this way too. It's truly skewed in Barking.

*A note on Hodge..... In April 2006 she commented in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph  that eight out of ten white  white working class voters in her constituency might be tempted to vote for the BNP in the local elections on 4 May 2006 because "no one else is listening to them" about their concerns over unemployment, high house prices, and the housing of asylum seekers in the area. She said the Labour Party must promote "very, very strongly the benefits of the new, rich multi-racial society which is part of this part of London for me".*

The Tory vote in Barking in recent elections is around the 5k mark, the Labour vote has decreased dramatically since Hodge took over from Jo Richardson. They are both stagnant there and will remain so in my view.

So in answer to your question both Ukip and BNP will pick up votes from labour origins as well as Tory ones, and I would suggest a fairly even split on the UKIP vote, (although the Tories will probably fare worse this time round, as they are this time the governing party and elements of the electorate of places lke Barking will want to rattle them).


----------



## toggle (Nov 30, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> zero or one - if farage picks the right constituency to stand in.



predictions after the last lot of council elections suggest Camborne


----------



## catinthehat (Nov 30, 2013)

Not UKIP but I couldn't think were else to put in.  Speechless.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2013)

thats the BUF reborn isn't it? Sad sack re enactment society


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2013)

Don't really want to drag this too far OT but Raikes - _The Leader _- is always going to face the Dave Prowse problem isn't he?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 1, 2013)

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2013)

Excellent polling figures for UKIP this weekend btw 19% in the Opinium one and 15% in the YG.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 1, 2013)

catinthehat said:


> Not UKIP but I couldn't think were else to put in.  Speechless.




Attendance has diminished since heady earlier days, as has the quality of oratory.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 3, 2013)

toggle said:


> predictions after the last lot of council elections suggest Camborne


My house falls under that. Used to be St Ives before 2010. Hopefully my retreat to the west won't fall through. This Cunts bad enough.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 3, 2013)

Many tories mps now expect to lose the next election according to ben brogan in the telegraph. But far more fun is the green-ink-tastic comments underneath - the frothing at the mouth, fruit bat tory supporters and reason the party is dieing a slow death.  They hate - really really hate - cameron for not delivering some thatcherite, family values la la land - and
see that in UKIP instead.

Enjoy!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...ive-party-is-in-danger-of-dying-on-its-knees/



> We have passed a tipping point - the majority of households (53.4%) now get more from benefits and public services than they pay in taxes www.snouts-in-the-trough.com There are more people in the wagon than are pulling it. In this situation, people will vote for more government, more borrowing and more spending (Labour) until we are bankrupt





> Just look at the state of our once beautiful country, over-run with hordes of muslims,Bulgarians etc.........its looking more and more like Bangladesh on a bad day.
> 
> Soon we will be classed as a third world country, if not already.
> The people who did this to our country should be hung, drawn and quartered





> By far most of the problems in the Uk come from the breakdown in the marital family. The national debt is due to the fact that the state has to be the adopted husband to millions of women and the adopted father who has to deal with millions of kids who didn't get the loving discipline that many other us got. Pretty much every social problem we have is multiplied 3 fold because of family breakdown. About 1/3 of our health system, 1/2 of our justice system, 1/3 of the benefit system exists solely because of marital breakdown - and all of it has to be paid for.
> 
> There is no department of marriage and family in the whole university system - but I can study gender studies at 6 universities. There is almost no research on pilot projects to help struggling couples. There are NO conferences on marriage - and how to strengthen it - only conferences on diversity, There is almost no learning curve as to how social workers can coach distressed couples to a higher level of relationship competence. But they can learn that roots of the social problems from a marxist perspective.



This is a big part of UKIP appeal - they can promise this dailymail utopia of no poofs, no foreigners and no brussels to the 20% or so of the population who cant and wont deal with a changed society or that fact that the UK is  a middle ranking european power and has been since 1945. The tory party - trying to govern in the real world - can never satisfy this, but this is there support base - so they have lynton crosby in the throw them a few bones but they are not buying it. In fact everytime the tories bang on about immigration  (i.e. talking tough to prevent the  impending roma-geddon ) the UKIP vote goes up.


----------



## Nylock (Dec 9, 2013)

Another UKIP member has their true colours revealed:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/08/ukip-victoria-ayling-immigration-nigel-farage

Link is to a Guardian article about the UKIP coucillor's comments when still a member of the tory party but the story was actually splashed across the front page of the MOS (who broke the story) with accompanying 'shock! horror!' toned headline and leader. So it just goes to show there really is no level of hypocrisy which the Mail group of lavpapers won't sink to...

If you do end up going over to the MOS site, the comments are the predictable frothy, racist, far-right obnoxiousness of the worst sort that you would expect from the Mail's more knuckle-draggy following. You have been warned.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Dec 9, 2013)

That story was in the Mail yesterday. In fact it garnered a full front page in the same way serial killers caught do. Seemed rather OTT to me. I say that because I think the Mail has an agenda about this. Certainly she isn't saying, in that clip, anything that, for those who know what UKIP are really like, is all that shocking. So I think the Mail are trying to make her sound more shocking thatn she actually is in a curious attempt to normalise what she actually says. The Mail is certainly not pro immigration or multiculturalism. Consequently the reader is invited to think 'actually that's not as lurid or shocking as I expected'.

If that makes any sense. Clearly to right thinking people she's another tedious swivel eyed corporate apologist and bigot.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2013)

Bit paranoid that. It's pretty simple - the Mail wants to make sure UKIP toe their line, it's a bit of aggressive flirting - and it's done in order to get the tories to really toe the line - the last thing the tories want is the mail to back UKIP in 2015 (and the 2014 euros is going to give some indication how that is going to play out).

This video was filmed when the woman was in the tory party btw and she was referring to what she wants/expected _to be tory party policy. S_he's doing what loads of tories/labour/lib-dem/ukip members do - keep their real views on immigration quiet - this one just happens to be both ambitious and stupid so got herself caught out.This simply isn't just a UKIP thing.


----------



## Nylock (Dec 9, 2013)

Yeah, it was negligent of me not to mention in my post that the original vid was shot a few years ago when she was still in the tory party. Although the grauniad article does cover that aspect of the story... My view of UKIP is that it has always been a home for the nutty tory right and the more of their tory defectors that get caught on this shit, the better. It ends up making both lots look like a bunch of cunts and that can't be a bad thing


----------



## gosub (Dec 9, 2013)

Not convinced.  Stories like this and Farage didn't get on with a teacher 40 years ago look like a really blunt hatchet that's as likely to entrench their support more than anything.   Still all is not lost, who'd have thought six months ago the EDL would be a former UKIP parliamentary candidate. I suspect some classier character assassins are in hesitant crouch


----------



## sandinista GB (Dec 9, 2013)

My prediction is for some form of UKIP-Con pact which will guarantee Tories and UKIP gain seats. I can see future governments being Tory -UKIP coalitions and when Clegg goes Labour -Lib Dem coalitions. Sadly I see UKIP will be here for good unless The Tories become staunchly against the EU.

Far right parties such as the BNP shall come and go. They are like a boil they get big, cause some pain then burst and disappear.


----------



## alonsoss (Dec 15, 2013)

UKIP has support simply because idiotic emigration policy made by "elyte"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tel-NINE-WEEKS--costing-taxpayer-300-000.html


----------



## alonsoss (Dec 15, 2013)

did I say "elyte"?  no sorry I meant by idiots
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migra...rm-international-migration-within-the-uk.html


----------



## alonsoss (Dec 15, 2013)

I cannot notice Bulgarian and Romanians, can you?
http://gyazo.com/b1d03d7a1dbc16d0de482a157dd13431
http://gyazo.com/102439a58d69a3aec549119930713c6a


----------



## alonsoss (Dec 15, 2013)

if you like comedies , just watch this how the "officers" work  (not too funny)


----------



## Serotonin (Dec 15, 2013)

The Mail seem to have it in for Ayling.

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk...tory-20324704-detail/story.html#axzz2nYS0LN9C



> A national newspaper has claimed that Lincolnshire UKIP councillor Victoria Ayling was once a member of the far-Right National Front.
> 
> The Mail on Sunday says that Victoria's mother, a family friend and her ex-husband have spoken to them about her political activities with the extremist organisation in the 1970s.
> 
> ...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-police-probe-abuse-transvestite-husband.html


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 16, 2013)

alonsoss said:


> did I say "elyte"?  no sorry I meant by idiots
> http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migra...rm-international-migration-within-the-uk.html


Who the fuck is this clown?


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

<link removed>


----------



## alonsoss (Dec 17, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Who the fuck is this clown?


who is this muppet?


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2013)

Hadrianus said:


> <link removed>


Consider this your last warning. 
FAQ: 


> Content-free posts are not permitted. Posts containing nothing more than links to websites or video files are not permitted. Please explain the nature and relevance of the linked content as a courtesy to users.
> Users who make a stream of posts with no meaningful content and/or continually post up off topic material in inappropriate threads/forums will be banned.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 17, 2013)

alonsoss said:


> who is this muppet?


Fuckwit. You can't even spell the word "elite" properly. I've noticed that you've post the same links across two threads. Is there any reason for this?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 17, 2013)

alonsoss said:


> UKIP has support simply because idiotic emigration policy made by "elyte"
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tel-NINE-WEEKS--costing-taxpayer-300-000.html


Daily Mail, eh?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 17, 2013)

As predicted, there is some proper muckracking happening:

*Victoria Ayling denies being National Front member*
http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Victoria-Ayling-National-member/story-20324704-detail/story.html

Using the Townsend defence.


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Consider this your last warning.
> FAQ:


why you think this link is a spam? http://gyazo.com/c017bf0069ddcc58b905496615a706bd,
it is a copy taken from BBC and is showing clearly how many foreigners and from which area are in the UK, it show clearly also that idiots who claim that Romanians and Bulgarians are any threat are simply not clever in reading a simply text, It is just primary school mathematics. I think this link in valuable to discussion why UKIP may get more support but the problem - which this chart is showing clearly - are not Romanians and Bulgarians


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Fuckwit. You can't even spell the word "elite" properly. I've noticed that you've post the same links across two threads. Is there any reason for this?


spelling is important but thinking is even more important


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Daily Mail, eh?


that is right mate, Daily Mail


----------



## rover07 (Dec 17, 2013)

Hadrianus said:


> why you think this link is a spam? http://gyazo.com/c017bf0069ddcc58b905496615a706bd,
> it is a copy taken from BBC and is showing clearly how many foreigners and from which area are in the UK, it show clearly also that idiots who claim that Romanians and Bulgarians are any threat are simply not clever in reading a simply text, It is just primary school mathematics. I think this link in valuable to discussion why UKIP may get more support but the problem - which this chart is showing clearly - are not Romanians and Bulgarians



Can you speak English please.


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

rover07 said:


> Can you speak English please.


I am doing my best, but this is common trend: when you call HSBC, Natwest Amazon or dozens other "top" companies you may experience serious problems to understand their English. Of course I am not talking about your local chicken shop


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2013)

Hadrianus said:


> why you think this link is a spam?


Repeatedly posting up the same link across multiple threads with no contextual comments is indeed spam.  Stop it or you will be banned. Last warning.


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Repeatedly posting up the same link across multiple threads with no contextual comments is indeed spam.  Stop it or you will be banned. Last warning.


I think I gave contextual comments to each of the link.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2013)

Hadrianus said:


> I think I gave contextual comments to each of the link.


No you didn't, and I'll say it for the last time: it is NOT acceptable to repeatedly post up the same content all over these boards.


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

editor said:


> No you didn't, and I'll say it for the last time: it is NOT acceptable to repeatedly post up the same content all over these boards.


can you see any differents?
#######################################################################
why you think this link is a spam? http://gyazo.com/c017bf0069ddcc58b905496615a706bd,
it is a copy taken from BBC and is showing clearly how many foreigners and from which area are in the UK, it show clearly also that idiots who claim that Romanians and Bulgarians are any threat are simply not clever in reading a simply text, It is just primary school mathematics. I think this link in valuable to discussion why UKIP may get more support but the problem - which this chart is showing clearly - are not Romanians and Bulgarians
############################################################################
according to this chart http://gyazo.com/c017bf0069ddcc58b905496615a706bd
Romanians and Bulgarians are not a problem,
do you think National Statistic Office is making bogus charts?


----------



## gosub (Dec 17, 2013)

How do stats that give the figures prior to Romania and Bulgaria being given free movement to the whole of EUrope in 2014 tell you anything about what that movement will be?   Answer they don't


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

gosub said:


> How do stats that give the figures prior to Romania and Bulgaria being given free movement to the whole of EUrope in 2014 tell you anything about what that movement will be?   Answer they don't


They got free movement in majority of EU countries, also surprisingly emigrants who have no "free movement" within EU or are not event part of the EU are on the top list of benefits claimants http://gyazo.com/b1d03d7a1dbc16d0de482a157dd13431, "funny"? 10 first nations only 3 are part of the EU, "funny"? How it is possible?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 17, 2013)

Hadrianus said:


> that is right mate, Daily Mail


I was addressing alonsoss... unless you're telling me that you two share a brain/log-in.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 17, 2013)

Hadrianus said:


> spelling is important but thinking is even more important


You are alonsoss and I claim my £5


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> You are alonsoss and I claim my £5


sorry mate you deserved only for £1


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 17, 2013)

Hadrianus said:


> sorry mate you deserved only for £1


Hardly. You two seem to be cross-posting more or less the same posts.


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> I was addressing alonsoss... unless you're telling me that you two share a brain/log-in.


who is this funny alonsoss?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 17, 2013)

Hadrianus said:


> who is this funny alonsoss?


Not funny. Pathetic. Btw, for someone who's been posting on this thread, you seem to have paid no attention to it... which is rather odd.


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Not funny. Pathetic. Btw, for someone who's been posting on this thread, you seem to have paid no attention to it... which is rather odd.


on the very top I can see "Ukip - why are they gaining support?" - I am trying find out the answer, how about you? are you  trying too? So tell me why UKIP may get a support and may grow?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 17, 2013)

Hadrianus said:


> on the very top I can see "Ukip - why are they gaining support?" - I am trying find out the answer, how about you? are you  trying too? So tell me why UKIP may get a support and may grow?


Did you cut and paste your reply?


----------



## Hadrianus (Dec 17, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Did you cut and paste your reply?


I do not remember. But it may happen like that.


----------



## gosub (Jan 13, 2014)

I'd like to say it's because the other parties are going mental on the issue of EUrope, but UKIP doesn't really seem to be into the talking about the EU these days, it seems more about shit stirring about the People's of Europe.    So genuinely fair enough nobody on this thread seems to have pointed to the mass unemployment and fucking over of Spainish, Greek, Italian.and Cypriot economies 

Meanwhile 90+tory MP's  go on record to ask for unworkable version of the EU, the government calls for unpicking the cornerstones of the EU and tries to unconstitutionally bind its successors to a referendum after negotiations in an unworkable time frame ,  whilst Lib Dems and Labour either stare into headlights like confused rabbits or provide sound bits on why in a democracy you shouldn't ask the electorate and the media give it all the shallowest of analaysis

On the other side of La Manche however, 300-page draft of a new treaty has been  published by the German think tank Bertelsmann-Stiftung, and is backed by José Manuel Barroso, the Commission president, and Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council president.
A not bad stab at the circle that needs squaring can be found here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2014)

What?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 15, 2014)

I think this is brilliant http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...r-from-owen-jones-to-ukip-voters-9061968.html


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I think this is brilliant http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...r-from-owen-jones-to-ukip-voters-9061968.html



_If _those intending to vote UKIP were to read that letter, they might justifiably ask Jones which party is actually offering to address those jointly held concerns.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jan 16, 2014)

Not sure if this is the right part of 75 to post this:
_
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25749685

"An 84-year-old immigration detainee suffering from dementia, who was declared unfit for detention, died in handcuffs, a report has discovered."_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

YouGov euro-elections poll - tories have never not finished in top two in any national election

LAB 32%
UKIP 26%
CON 23%
LDEM 9%


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> YouGov euro-elections poll - tories have never not finished in top two in any national election
> 
> LAB 32%
> UKIP 26%
> ...



The 3 main parties retaining the following %s of their 2010 (GE) voters...

*Lab 61%
Con 42%
LD   25%*

source


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> YouGov euro-elections poll - tories have never not finished in top two in any national election
> 
> LAB 32%
> UKIP 26%
> ...


Assuming that the final result is something like that then I wonder if Cameron will really start to see some pressure on his leadership. I mean there's been the odd silly article but there's not been much serious danger so far this parliament, I guess part of the reason for the lack of speculation is the fact that there don't seem to be any non-mental potential candidates.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2014)

Big in Greece....apparently.



I think that's what they call a small ripple of applause at the end.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 17, 2014)

I found this retweeted on my timeline.


> *Michael Heaver* ‏@Michael_Heaver  6h
> Nigel Farage seen as *most working class leader*, least upper class http://y-g.co/1cyUyqE



Delusional or what? How is Farage "working class" when he's a former public schoolboy and the ex-commodity trading son of a stockbroker?


----------



## gosub (Jan 17, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I found this retweeted on my timeline.
> 
> 
> Delusional or what? How is Farage "working class" when he's a former public schoolboy and ex-commodity trading son of the stockbroker?


Whilst true (in relation to the survey linked to) its a low figure for all of them though 1% consider Cameron working class so they must of interviewed some very posh people


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 17, 2014)

gosub said:


> Whilst true (in relation to the survey linked to) its a low figure for all of them though 1% consider Cameron working class so they must of interviewed some very posh people


What that survey also shows us is an ignorance of the definition of the social classes (ones relation to capital).

This one's in denial/confused.


> Tony
> • 7 hours ago
> 
> −
> ...


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I found this retweeted on my timeline.
> 
> 
> Delusional or what? How is Farage "working class" when he's a former public schoolboy and ex-commodity trading son of the stockbroker?


Think about the people that vote for him: rich old cunts in their castles who don't want their moats cleaned except by foreigners while complaining about foreigners and womens rights and haviong to pay decent wages.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Think about the people that vote for him: rich old cunts in their castles who don't want their moats cleaned except by foreigners while complaining about foreigners and womens rights and haviong to pay decent wages.



Are there a lot of those in Rotherham?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Think about the people that vote for him: rich old cunts in their castles who don't want their moats cleaned except by foreigners while complaining about foreigners and womens rights and haviong to pay decent wages.



I'm aware that might not have been an entirely serious post but, nonetheless, that's a pretty inaccurate perception of UKIP's support base. Last March 'YouGov' analysed polling data to address the issue and found:-


_*60% of UKIP’s current supporters voted Conservative in 2010 – a clear majority, but far from everyone.*_ Just 12% voted UKIP last time. Small minorities voted Labour or, more likely, Liberal Democrat. (There’s nothing new in supporters from the pro-EU Lib Dems switching to the anti-EU UKIP – they are the kind of Lib Dem voters whose choice was driven by a dislike for the two big parties rather than enthusiasm for Brussels.)

Forced to choose, UKIP supporters would, by three-to-one, prefer a Tory-lead Cameron government to a Miliband-led Labour government. But _* one in four UKIP supporters decline to take sides*_. Nevertheless, one obvious line of attack by the Conservatives at the next election will be to warn UKIP supporters of the dangers of letting Ed Miliband become Prime Minister by default, if UKIP deprives the Tories of the votes they need to hang on in Con-Lab marginals.

UKIP is widely seen as to the Right of the Tories – but that is not how UKIP voters view themselves. _*Whereas 60% of Tory voters place themselves to the Right of centre, the figure for UKIP supporters is rather less, 46%. And whereas 25% of Tories say they are in the centre, or even left-of-centre, the figure for UKIP voters is 36%.*_

However, _*UKIP voters are more likely than Tories to read one of right-of-centre tabloids, the Mail, Sun or Express*_.

Demographically, UKIP voters attract men slightly more than women – and the party draws _*its support disproportionately from older people with fewer qualifications.*_ Whereas 46% of all voters are over 50, and 38% under 40, the figures for UKIP are 71% and 15% respectively. And _* just 13% of UKIP supporters have university degrees*_ – half the national average (though this partly reflects the age profile: older people generally were less likely to attend university when they were young).

_*UKIP voters are less likely than voters generally, and far less likely than Conservative voters, to be above-average earners. 23% of UKIP supporters live in households whose total income exceeds £40,000, compared with 38% of Tories and 28% of Labour voters.*_
Little evidence of castles and moats there; generally speaking...many older, white ,working class folk say they will vote for Falange.​


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

They may see themselves as left of centre, even, but noone likes to think they are unreasonable, unfair or lacking in social compassion, even IDS believes he's 'doing what's right'.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 18, 2014)

That's a pretty good analysis there brogdale -- thanks for that.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> They may see themselves as left of centre, even, but noone likes to think they are unreasonable, unfair or lacking in social compassion, even IDS believes he's 'doing what's right'.



I'm not sure that it's just the UKIP supporters themselves that would describe _*some *_of their political positions as 'left of centre'. I'd imagine that quite a few folk on here would be glad to see a party of the left subscribing to some of the desires expressed by UKIP supporters:-

_"In a series of questions relating to a variety of areas, from energy prices and rent control to public ownership of railways and banking reform, the poll found that voters who intend to back Ukip supported state intervention, consistently and by a significant margin. *These results are in marked contrast to the lower percentages seen among Conservative supporters and are closer to Labour voters.* For instance, * 73% of Ukip supporters chose the proposition "the railway companies should be run in the public sector" as expressing their views, compared with 79% of Labour and only 52% of Conservative.*

This pattern is broadly replicated. "*The government should have the power to control energy prices": 83% Ukip, 86% Lab, 60% Con*; *"The government should have the power to control private sector rents": 50% Ukip, 56% Lab, 32% Con;  "The energy companies should be run in the public sector": 73% Ukip, 79% Labour, 52% Con. *YouGov warns that people "should be careful about reading too much into a sub-sample", but notwithstanding that caveat they can be "confident in saying that Ukip voters do seem to be more supportive of price controls and nationalisation than their rightwing image might suggest."_​I actually think that there is a real danger that all of these UKIP supporters/voters are characterised as 'right-wing' nationalistic bigots; the leadership of their chosen party certainly are, but many of their voters are former Labour or working class tories.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 18, 2014)

It's interesting that so many UKIP voters want to see state intervention when UKIP economic policy appears (last I looked) to be based on even more extreme free-market fundamentalism than nuLabour and the Tories ...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It's interesting that so many UKIP voters want to see state intervention when UKIP policy appears (last I looked) to be based on even more extreme free-market voodoo than nuLabour and the Tories ...



It is, isn't it? That there is such a discrepancy between the party and their support is probably something of a testament to Falange's skills as a political front-man, and the influence of the tabloids that the support apparently reads.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I'm aware that might not have been an entirely serious post but, nonetheless, that's a pretty inaccurate perception of UKIP's support base. Last March 'YouGov' analysed polling data to address the issue and found:
> 
> <snip>



Yep - thing is, no matter how many times you or others point this out, it doesn't seem to register with many people. And as a result they're working with inaccurate maps.


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> even IDS believes he's 'doing what's right'.


no he doesn't. i wish people would stop saying this.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 18, 2014)

On a lighter note, someone's just sent me a link to this.  



> Sir, — Since the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, the nation has been beset by serious storms and floods.
> 
> One recent one caused the worst flooding for 60 years. The Christmas floods were the worst for 127 years. Is this just “global warming” or is there something more serious at work?
> 
> ...



More on his letter to the PM here.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 18, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> On a lighter note, someone's just sent me a link to this.
> 
> 
> 
> More on his letter to the PM here.


This is the sort of thing we're dealing with.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

That bloke left the tories over it.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That bloke left the tories over it.



He did - thus neatly illustrating UKIP's strategy of mopping up social conservatives (and lunatics like him!) who think Cameron is a dangerous pinko liberal.  It won't work in the long run because that demographic is shrinking and the Tories know they have to appeal to a younger and more liberal generation to have any chance of long-term electoral viability, but it's helped UKIP a bit in the short run.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I actually think that there is a real danger that all of these UKIP supporters/voters are characterised as 'right-wing' nationalistic bigots; the leadership of their chosen party certainly are, but many of their voters are former Labour or working class tories.


Aren't the media to blame here? 15 years of scapegoating and hysteria about everything and the creation of an oppressed middle class of straight white men?

I used to think the Daily Mail told the truth (in the 90's - because that was the only newspaper i was aware of as it was all my parents ever read and I had no interest in newspapers beyond). It seemed absurd to me that the press would make shit up or misrepresent things in all but the most sutble of ways. I also never considered myself to be racist, anti-foreigners or particularly pro business/capitalism.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> no he doesn't. i wish people would stop saying this.


Why? It's in everything he says. 

The figures dont' support his bullshit (and it is bullshit), he 'believes' otherwise.

Owen Jones calls him out on QT (the last time in which he appeared and will probably ever appear) and he loses his lunch and screams 'we're doing what's right'?

He believes this crap, that's part of why he's so dangerous!

I'm not suggesting he isn't evil, he's a tory. But he's also a zealot.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Aren't the media to blame here? 15 years of scapegoating and hysteria about everything and the creation of an oppressed middle class of straight white men?
> 
> I used to think the Daily Mail told the truth (in the 90's - because that was the only newspaper i was aware of as it was all my parents ever read and I had no interest in newspapers beyond). It seemed absurd to me that the press would make shit up or misrepresent things in all but the most sutble of ways. I also never considered myself to be racist, anti-foreigners or particularly pro business/capitalism.


Why have you ignored the actual point made - that the stereotype of the UKIP voter as some fuddy old major out in the country is inaccurate?


----------



## treelover (Jan 18, 2014)

> YouGov euro-elections poll - tories have never not finished in top two in any national election
> LAB 32%
> UKIP 26%
> CON 23%
> LDEM 9%



That's a massive figure for an 'insurgent' or outsider party, the Greens never got more than 15% in the Euro's.


----------



## treelover (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Think about the people that vote for him: rich old cunts in their castles who don't want their moats cleaned except by foreigners while complaining about foreigners and womens rights and haviong to pay decent wages.




Delusional, as J Ed says, go to Rotherham where ex labour voters are supporting Farage in their droves.

and he knows it, so expect much more 'class politics' from the Farage


----------



## treelover (Jan 18, 2014)

> Demographically, UKIP voters attract men slightly more than women – and the party draws _*its support disproportionately from older people with fewer qualifications.*_ Whereas 46% of all voters are over 50, and 38% under 40, the figures for UKIP are 71% and 15% respectively. And _* just 13% of UKIP supporters have university degrees*_ – half the national average (though this partly reflects the age profile: older people generally were less likely to attend university when they were young).



And its the old who are much more likely to vote.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> Delusional, as J Ed says, go to Rotherham where ex labour voters are supporting Farage in their droves.
> 
> and he knows it, so expect much more 'class politics' from the Farage


'delusional'?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I'm not sure that it's just the UKIP supporters themselves that would describe _*some *_of their political positions as 'left of centre'.


 
I think you're right.

I think UKIP are a good example of a political movement that can be described as neither "left-wing" nor "right-wing."


----------



## stuff_it (Jan 18, 2014)

Priceless - UKIP councillor blames floods on gay marriage: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/18/ukip-homophobic-gay-_n_4622332.html


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I think you're right.
> 
> I think UKIP are a good example of a political movement that can be described as neither "left-wing" nor "right-wing."



Interesting that you describe a 'minor' political party as a _"political movement"_. That aside, in using the phrase "_left of centre" _I was specifically referring to the poll findings about _*some *_of their supporters. Based upon their last GE manifesto, I don't think that anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the linear spectrum of political ideologies would place UKIP's policies anywhere other than on the right. Despite the apparently 'broad church' of support, the leadership and stated policies of the party are obviously right wing.

A party proposing flat-rate direct taxation, lower tax burdens on capital, increased in-direct taxation, drastically reduced public spending, a raft of anti-immigrant measures, prison building, 'boot-camps' for young offenders, school vouchers (private options), new grammar schools, health vouchers (private options), public sector pension freeze, universal credit benefit system, scraping of 'green' measures, nuke building and fracking ain't 'left of centre', no much how you might want to pretend it is.


----------



## Dr Jon (Jan 18, 2014)

stuff_it said:


> Priceless - UKIP councillor blames floods on gay marriage: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/18/ukip-homophobic-gay-_n_4622332.html


Climate change denial meets religion.
Watch thou for the fuckwit...


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2014)

i look forward to the press scouring the letters pages of local papers for the mad rantings of councillors from other parties. of which there is many, should they choose to look. desperate stuff tbh.


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 18, 2014)

Dr Jon said:


> Climate change denial meets religion.
> Watch thou for the fuckwit...









Pic of said fuckwit.....


----------



## teqniq (Jan 18, 2014)

*points and laughs*


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2014)

> "The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters."



"*Nation*" 

...and those 'scriptures' were written when?


----------



## silverfish (Jan 18, 2014)

Dr Jon said:


> Climate change denial meets religion.



Worked for Noah


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 18, 2014)

Is religious loonspuddery common in UKIP I wonder?

I mean I know it is in the Tea Party, but they're American. Whereas I'd seen a lack of it as one of the big differences with their UK cousins.

I guess it's not a surprise though, to find signs of broken critical thinking among people who have allowed the Mail/Express/Sun to convince them that voting for a former commodity trader's racist party is the way to get the public utilities renationalised.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jan 18, 2014)

UKIP is generally hatstand, but some fellow travellers are more loon than others. Well done, keep it up


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 18, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Is religious loonspuddery common in UKIP I wonder?
> 
> I mean I know it is in the Tea Party, but they're American. Whereas I'd seen a lack of it as one of the big differences with their UK cousins.
> 
> I guess it's not a surprise though, to find signs of broken critical thinking among people who have allowed the Mail/Express/Sun to convince them that voting for a former commodity trader's racist party is the way to get the public utilities renationalised.


I think there is a sharing of 'ideas' between the US right and the UK right. It's nothing new, it's been going on since the time of Heath. It seems to have become much worse in recent times. Critical thinking is anathema to these loons. It's much easier for them to believe in fairies and hobgoblins than to ask searching questions.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

Some more polling evidence about UKIP support and perceptions of the party/leader from the monthly online ComRes poll for the Indy on Sunday and Sunday Mirror:-



> There is an assumption that UKIP are a bit like marmite – love em or hate em. Their supporters are very positive (and vocal) but are vastly outnumbered by detractors. The ComRes results however paint a more positive picture for UKIP – _*27% had a positive opinion of the party (so marginally higher than Labour (26%) and the Tories (25%)). Only 38% had a negative opinion though, which was significantly lower than the Conservatives or Labour, giving them the most positive net figure*_. The other interesting finding was that _*Nigel Farage polled significantly less positively than his party – a net rating of minus 18, compared to minus 11 for UKIP.*_
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8596


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8596

With the obvious observation that it is very easy for a party with no MPs to maintain a narrative untainted by any real-world compromise/fuck-ups.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2014)

Chart for that:


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> i look forward to the press scouring the letters pages of local papers for the mad rantings of councillors from other parties. of which there is many, should they choose to look. desperate stuff tbh.



There's certain labour councillor who posted here for a while for example


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> There's certain labour councillor who posted here for a while for example


I remember him.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 19, 2014)

Adopting the logical lunacy of people who think these sorts of things, there have been these sorts of things for eons, so why is it the fact that something has now _changed_ that has brought this one about? Surely the (*ahem*) logical assumption is that in fact things still haven't changed in the way God wants them to, and humanity keeps failing to get the message (though, admittedly, I'm not sure God has really chosen the best medium for his argument).

How about we treat people equally, do unto others and all that, and maybe _then_ all the floods and such will stop.

Only they won't, of course, because it's a load of bollocks.


----------



## Dowie (Jan 19, 2014)

stuff_it said:


> Priceless - UKIP councillor blames floods on gay marriage: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/18/ukip-homophobic-gay-_n_4622332.html



God is pretty weak these days... what happened to the plagues of locusts, proper floods that wiped out every species on the planet aside from a few on a small wooden arc and of course the fire and brimstone reigned down on sodom and gomorrah

now all he can muster up is a bit of rain and light localised flooding...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

Lord Camomile said:


> Adopting the logical lunacy of people who think these sorts of things, there have been these sorts of things for eons, so why is it the fact that something has now _changed_ that has brought this one about? Surely the (*ahem*) logical assumption is that in fact things still haven't changed in the way God wants them to, and humanity keeps failing to get the message (though, admittedly, I'm not sure God has really chosen the best medium for his argument).
> 
> How about we treat people equally, do unto others and all that, and maybe _then_ all the floods and such will stop.
> 
> Only they won't, of course, because _*it's a load of bollocks*_.



Have to say that i've always found it difficult to understand why folk feel drawn to the concept of a diety that requires to be worshipped, let alone one that sends fatal floods in a fit of pique about a legal reform. 

These christos are proper odd, ain't they?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 19, 2014)

Guardian breaking news is saying UKIP just suspended the jeezo-loonspud councillor in question.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Guardian breaking news is saying UKIP just suspended the jeezo-loonspud councillor in question.



Boring. What self-respecting party of 'fruit cakes, loonies and racists'. suspends folk like this?


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 19, 2014)

Using his 'logic,' why did God inflict the Black Death on Christian Europe then eh eh?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 19, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> Using his 'logic,' why did God inflict the Black Death on Christian Europe then eh eh?


They didn't pray hard enough. Anyone that died was a crap Christian and deserved it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 19, 2014)

> He was suspended by the party after defying a request not to do further interviews on his beliefs following his initial claims made in a letter to a local newspaper.
> 
> The move came as leader Nigel Farage launched a clearout of "extremist, nasty or barmy" views from the party ahead of polls in May.
> 
> ...


 http://www.theguardian.com/society/...spiritual-disease-pray-healed-david-silvester


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 19, 2014)

> "When I was at Bible college I did a thesis on homosexuality and I came across the writings of an American psychiatrist, Jeffrey Satinover. He came up with two particular beliefs; one, he said it has not been proven at all that the gay condition comes from the genes, and second he said that by the Holy Spirit, there is always power for a gay person to be healed.



Keep digging, pal [grabs popcorn].


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> There's certain labour councillor who posted here for a while for example


remind me who?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Keep digging, pal [grabs popcorn].



Telegraph opts for a third 'belief'...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...-chances-of-child-being-gay-in-adulthood.html


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Telegraph opts for a third 'belief'...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...-chances-of-child-being-gay-in-adulthood.html


You've gotta love the report author's name.


> *Dick Swaab, *professor of neurobiology at Amsterdam University,


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> You've gotta love the report author's name.



Ouch!


----------



## Quartz (Jan 19, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Guardian breaking news is saying UKIP just suspended the jeezo-loonspud councillor in question.



I wonder if this is reflecting positively on Farage because it's giving him the opportunity to show leadership?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> remind me who?



Starts with J and ends with P


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

Gotta love this 'blue on blue' stuff; the tories display their fear every time they lash out at the 'kippers.



> A senior Conservative minister who is tipped to the party’s next chairman has said there are still “fruitcakes” in the UK Independence Party.
> 
> Michael Fallon, a business minister, made the comments after a Ukip councillor linked recent storms and floods to the Coalition’s decision to legalise same sex marriage.
> 
> Speaking about the state of Ukip on the BBC’s Sunday Politics Show, Mr Fallon said the comments showed that “there clearly are one or two fruitcakes still around there”.



but then, more seriously reveals, in advance, the predictable and crude spin that they're going to put on their likely defeat at the hands of UKIP in the Euro elections..



> He added: “[The Tories are] the only party that can actually secure reform and give people the choice they’ve been arguing for a long time. Whatever happens in the European elections it is _*simply a protest vote.*_”



That's great; I'd imagine that's just the sort of patronising arrogance that's really going to motivate Euro 'kipper voters to stay with the party for the 2015 GE.


----------



## neonwilderness (Jan 19, 2014)

stuff_it said:


> Priceless - UKIP councillor blames floods on gay marriage: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/18/ukip-homophobic-gay-_n_4622332.html


UKIP Shipping forecast:
https://soundcloud.com/nicholas-peg...ndcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## Dr Jon (Jan 19, 2014)

He should've listened to George Carlin on Religion and God


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> UKIP Shipping forecast:
> https://soundcloud.com/nicholas-peg...ndcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=twitter







> _*"....becoming psychotic...*_


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 19, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25800285


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 19, 2014)

Dos'nt the  bible also condones buying and selling slaves ? wonder what UKIP loonspud's views are on that ?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> Dos'nt the  bible also condones buying and selling slaves ? wonder what UKIP loonspud's views are on that ?



Isn't there quite alot of stuff about migration in it as well?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Isn't there quite alot of stuff about migration in it as well?



... Jehovah is big on ethnic cleansing too, e.g. telling his chosen to massacre the Midianites' women and male children if I recall right.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

...and that '_kingdom of god' _stuff, with the '_god being the judge of all' _schtick...sounds a bit supra-national organisation to me.


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 19, 2014)

https://twitter.com/UkipWeather


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 19, 2014)




----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 19, 2014)

Surely this can't be true. . . 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-as-the-nations-favourite-party-9069625.html
Can so many people be such twats? 
The country is fucked.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Surely this can't be true. . .
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-as-the-nations-favourite-party-9069625.html
> Can so many people be such twats?
> The country is fucked.



UKIP have no MPs, so it's very easy for the poll respondents to have a relatively high 'favourable' view of them etc.

Poll details here.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 20, 2014)

"its raining men"


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 20, 2014)

"Right, becoming racist, 5."


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2014)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Surely this can't be true. . .
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-as-the-nations-favourite-party-9069625.html
> Can so many people be such twats?
> The country is fucked.


but another poll recently showed that based on policy, greens are the most popular. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE. 

maybe they're all full of shit.


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 22, 2014)

The indefensible defends the undefendable.......


----------



## Quartz (Jan 22, 2014)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Surely this can't be true. . .
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-as-the-nations-favourite-party-9069625.html
> Can so many people be such twats?
> The country is fucked.



This seems to me to be less of an endorsement of UKIP and more an expression of dissatisfaction with the main parties.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 22, 2014)

oh so thats where niel hamiltons been


----------



## Dr Jon (Jan 22, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> The indefensible defends the undefendable.......


Kinell! - Mr cash-4-questions has been dug up!
What a shower of Tory have-beens / zombies.
Has Lawson joined them yet?


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 22, 2014)

When you need someone to defend your party against accusations of being a joke who do you send into the TV studios ? thats right...Mr. "cash-in-a-brown envelope" Neil Hamilton


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I think you're right.
> 
> I think UKIP are a good example of a political movement that can be described as neither "left-wing" nor "right-wing."



This is my second reply to this post, and tbf I think I owe Phil _something_ of an apology; maybe he is just a little prescient?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/23/nigel-farage-ukip-2010-election-manifesto



> _*Nigel Farage has disowned his party's 2010 election manifesto*_ after he was asked whether the UK Independence party still wanted to bring in a flat tax, introduce a dress code for taxi drivers, regularly deploy armed forces on the street and repaint trains in traditional colours.
> 
> The Ukip leader said all of the party's policies were under review and he would not commit to new ones until after the European elections in May this year.



Who know's what the fuck they stand for? Although, in my defence, (Phil), Falange did say this in the interview..



> "I don't defend the 2010 manifesto, I didn't put it together. But _*it will be similar in flavour [in 2015]," he said*_.



So, still barking right-wing, then?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2014)




----------



## laptop (Jan 23, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> https://twitter.com/UkipWeather





> *
> 
> 
> UkipWeather* ‏@*UkipWeather*  Jan 20
> A band of animosity is moving steadily across Sevenoaks after a laptop was spotted on James Turner Street #*benefitsstreet*



Repost in almost all u75 threads


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 23, 2014)

Gingerman said:


>


Wonder how David Silvester explained the great storms/hurricanes of late '80s when Thatcher was still at the helm and clause 28 was making the govt disapproval of queer lifestyles clear?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 23, 2014)

Farage looks like an evil monied frog; which is ironic for a little england xenophobe.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 24, 2014)

The Graun has a list of policies from the 2010 manifesto.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/23/the-ukip-politices-disowned-by-nigel-farage

IIRC there was also one that required cyclists to dismount on busy roads and walk along the pavement so as not to hold up traffic. Fuck that with a shitty stick.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 24, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The Graun has a list of policies from the 2010 manifesto.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/23/the-ukip-politices-disowned-by-nigel-farage
> 
> IIRC there was also one that required cyclists to dismount on busy roads and walk along the pavement so as not to hold up those of us with big important cars going to big important places. Fuck that with a shitty stick.


fixed for you


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 24, 2014)

People with big important cars are seldom doing anything important, they just think they are.  Pretty sure we'd manage fine without them.  I think a lot of UKIPs base are those sorts, people who describe themselves as 'wealth creators' and talk about 'the productive part of the economy' (you know, the part that tries to sell me extended warranties, flips burgers, comes up with a new idea for marketing sausages, not the bit that teaches kids or cuts out tumours).


----------



## brogdale (Jan 27, 2014)

More attention from the Telegraph.....

They're loving this "_they're all old Labour" _schtick...and the theory that UKIP picks up the disaffected from the incumbents....



> Ukip's supporters look more like Old Labour than True Blue Tories. Ukip's supporters tend to be blue-collar, older, struggling economically, and often live in poorer, urban areas, with big pools of support in the Labour heartlands of the North. Middle-class suburbanites do not dominate Ukip. They shy away from it.



but, psephologically, this is the key. Needing to reverse the respective polling with Lab, the tories have lost huge swathes of their working class support...



> It is certainly true that new recruits to Ukip are more likely to have voted for the Conservatives in 2010 than any other party.



Polling suggests that Lab must have won back 2010 'leakage' to UKIP, but I seriously doubt that the tories will.


----------



## gosub (Jan 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Polling suggests that Lab must have won back 2010 'leakage' to UKIP, but I seriously doubt that the tories will.




More likely they don't vote for anyone


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Jan 27, 2014)

I have seen a lot of seemingly innocent propaganda on Facebook.  Usually a graphic under the theme of being proud to be British, but without mentioning a political party.  I suspect UKIP or BNP are generating these to appeal to the voters who have nationalist feelings.


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 27, 2014)




----------



## panpete (Jan 27, 2014)

Nigel Farage looks like kermit the frog  hehehehehehe


----------



## gosub (Jan 28, 2014)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukipwatch/100256765/meet-ukip-britains-most-working-class-party/


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukipwatch/100256765/meet-ukip-britains-most-working-class-party/





You actually replied and quoted me in the the post where I put that up!


----------



## gosub (Jan 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You actually replied and quoted me in the the post where I put that up!


Opps, bit stressed yesterday after my car was done over.  Only really saw Labour claim.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2014)

'Radical right rebels' FFS.  Because nothing says rebellion like a party run by an ex-banker for the benefit of bankers.  But hey, Farage drinks pints so he must be 'one of us', right?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2014)

They're not saying that they're 'one of us' - they're saying that they are a rebellion on and against the traditional composition of the electoral right.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 29, 2014)

Ukip donor pays for Telegraph advert to claim 'sodomy has always been a crime'



> A businessman who gave £10,000 to the UK Independence party hastaken out an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph describing "sodomy" as a crime and saying there is no such word as "homophobic".
> 
> Demetri Marchessini, who gave two donations of £5,000 to Ukip last year, paid for an open letter to be published in the newspaper attacking Times columnist Libby Purves after she wrote about Russia's "bashing" of gay people in the runup to the Sochi Olympics.
> 
> In the advertisement, which appeared the day after Ukip leader Nigel Farage said he wanted to distance his party from barmy types, Marchessini declared "sodomy has always been a crime" and homosexuality has been a sin for 2,000 years.


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 29, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Ukip donor pays for Telegraph advert to claim 'sodomy has always been a crime'


"The Greek  businessman has previously caused controversy for saying women dressed in trousers are showing hostile behaviour, unmarried mothers deserve a good smack and that date rape is an invention of feminists"....My fuckwit alert alarm has just exploded


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They're not saying that they're 'one of us' - they're saying that they are a rebellion on and against the traditional composition of the electoral right.



seems to me they are saying both, but in policy and rhetoric it is the latter that seems to be the bigger hoax.

Much as they love to be seen as edgy and anti establishment, the rather dull truth is that they are just another branch of Tory-ism.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...-ukip-dares-cut-spending-on-nhs-and-pensions/

Just my opinion, but I think this, if anything is their weakspot. Not calling them racist - they LOVE that. And not their position on the EU, which is a very easy target (the EU) in itself.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 29, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Ukip donor pays for Telegraph advert to claim 'sodomy has always been a crime'



And it's true that sodomy has always been a crime.

Marchessini's mistake is to identify sodomy as "the act of homosexuality."  He claims that he has no objection to two men falling in love.  But in reality sodomy (which means any sexual act that cannot result in reproduction) is a mainly heterosexual practice.

If he would admit that his real problem is with blow-jobs, his statement would find little support.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jan 29, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Ukip donor pays for Telegraph advert to claim 'sodomy has always been a crime'


Oh dear! What an idiot.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 29, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> "The Greek  businessman has previously caused controversy for saying women dressed in trousers are showing hostile behaviour, unmarried mothers deserve a good smack and that date rape is an invention of feminists"....My fuckwit alert alarm has just exploded


 
His book is a bit special.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Women-Trousers-Demetri-Marchessini/dp/0954510704


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2014)

Putting sodomy to one side for a moment..... Ipsos Mori's recent "Issues index" (Jan) polling for 'the Economist' gives another glimpse of the UKIP leaning demographic expressing 'concerns' about "race/immigration"....



No real surprises, I suppose, but with exception of "_skilled manual workers*", *_the uniformity of 'concern' across the social groupings is noticable.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25933781

'*Xenophobia' drives UK immigration policy, Mike Russell says*

Scotland's education secretary will claim UK immigration policy is being "driven by UKIP and a nasty xenophobia".


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25933781
> 
> '*Xenophobia' drives UK immigration policy, Mike Russell says*
> 
> Scotland's education secretary will claim UK immigration policy is being "driven by UKIP and a nasty xenophobia".


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> seems to me they are saying both, but in policy and rhetoric it is the latter that seems to be the bigger hoax.
> 
> Much as they love to be seen as edgy and anti establishment, the rather dull truth is that they are just another branch of Tory-ism.
> 
> ...


You've got the wrong end of the stick here - we are talking about 'Revolt on the the right', the soon to be published book on UKIP by Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford and the associated Telegraph blog, that trying, (without much success on here on the left) to dispel some of the more stubborn (and potentially politically damaging to 'us') myths about their support, their supporters motivations and so on. Not their self description. The sort of stuff that you just posted in fact


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 29, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> And it's true that sodomy has always been a crime.
> 
> Marchessini's mistake is to identify sodomy as "the act of homosexuality."  He claims that he has no objection to two men falling in love.  But in reality sodomy (which means any sexual act that cannot result in reproduction) is a mainly heterosexual practice.
> 
> If he would admit that his real problem is with blow-jobs, his statement would find little support.


 
really?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2014)

I'm hearing that Labour is getting panicky about Wythenshawe - so much so that it's put a three line whip on candidates even from the South West to go up there.  I doubt UKIP will take it, but they are obviously performing quite well on the doorsteps


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 29, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> And it's true that sodomy has always been a crime.
> 
> Marchessini's mistake is to identify sodomy as "the act of homosexuality."  He claims that he has no objection to two men falling in love.  But in reality sodomy (which means any sexual act that cannot result in reproduction) is a mainly heterosexual practice.
> 
> If he would admit that his real problem is with blow-jobs, his statement would find little support.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I'm hearing that Labour is getting panicky about Wythenshawe - so much so that it's put a three line whip on candidates even from the South West to go up there.  I doubt UKIP will take it, but they are obviously performing quite well on the doorsteps


Why do you always say "I'm hearing that Labour is getting panicky about Wythenshawe/whatever" rather than I'm hearing that _we _are getting panicky about Wythenshawe/whatever"


----------



## laptop (Jan 29, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> "The Greek  businessman has previously caused controversy...



And there was me thinking "Greek businessman" was a euphemism for "rent boy"...


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why do you always say "I'm hearing that Labour is getting panicky about Wythenshawe/whatever" rather than I'm hearing that _we _are getting panicky about Wythenshawe/whatever"


Because I'm referring to what the organisational apparatus of the party is thinking.  This bears no relation to what I am thinking.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Because I'm referring to what the organisational apparatus of the party is thinking.  This bears no relation to what I am thinking.


You mean it's not just another of your cheap distancing tricks?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why do you always say "I'm hearing that Labour is getting panicky about Wythenshawe/whatever" rather than I'm hearing that _we _are getting panicky about Wythenshawe/whatever"



That's because he's _in_ Labour, but not _of_ Labour.  Rather, he's "changing Labour from the inside".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2014)

laptop said:


> And there was me thinking "Greek businessman" was a euphemism for "rent boy"...



Notice how he claims that "homosexuality has been a crime for 2,000 years"?
He's blatantly tailoring the timeline so that he doesn't have to acknowledge that Ancient Greece included such historical marvels as "The Sacred Band".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Because I'm referring to what the organisational apparatus of the party is thinking.  This bears no relation to what I am thinking.



"Labour, you are not in me", as LP might say.


----------



## laptop (Jan 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Notice how he claims...



Yes


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

I fail to see frankly how EU membership benefits us.

Best we leave, or at least re-negotiate our position.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> I fail to see frankly how EU membership benefits us.
> 
> Best we leave, or at least re-negotiate our position.


Are you talking about yourself?


----------



## Dr Jon (Jan 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> *snip*


We've had Hamilton, now we get Lord "no such thing as climate change" Monckton.
All they need now is Lawson...


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you talking about yourself?



pardon me?

I simply said I don't see why we must remain in the EU.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> pardon me?
> 
> I simply said I don't see why we must remain in the EU.


 Do you support other UKIP policies as well?


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 29, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> His book is a bit special.
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Women-Trousers-Demetri-Marchessini/dp/0954510704


He's a bit 'special'......


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Do you support other UKIP policies as well?



er.. no.  I simply think the EU is a waste of time.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> er.. no.  I simply think the EU is a waste of time.



What; none of their other policies? Not one?


----------



## laptop (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami doesn't like paid holidays, or parental leave, or having a health & safety rep, or food standards, or...


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> What; none of their other policies? Not one?



I'm a Tory, well supporter not a member.

And paid holidays?  they only existed since 1973?  wow..


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> I'm a Tory, well supporter not a member.
> 
> And paid holidays?  they only existed since 1973?  wow..



So why are you against the EU? I thought that capitalists were all comfortable with economic freedoms. You might be supporting the wrong party there.


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


>








Not a swivel eyed loon......


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jan 30, 2014)

Flyer apparently handed out by a UKIP candidate in Glasgow. Best laugh I've had all week, particularly the last line


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

Totally faked.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2014)

Dr Jon said:


> We've had Hamilton, now we get Lord "no such thing as climate change" Monckton.
> All they need now is Lawson...



...for a headbanger hat-trick.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2014)

could that Lord Monckton look any more like a cartoon villain?


----------



## laptop (Jan 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> could that Lord Monckton look any more like a cartoon villain?



Just one thing missing:


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 4, 2014)

Latest Brainthunk from a psychometrically vetted MEP:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...atten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence



> A Ukip MEP believes that British Muslims should sign a special code of conduct and warns that it was a big mistake for Europe to allow "an explosion of mosques across their land".
> Gerard Batten, who represents London and is member of the party's executive, told the Guardian on Tuesday that he stood by a "charter of Muslim understanding", which he commissioned in 2006.
> The document asks Muslims to sign a declaration rejecting violence and says that certain parts of the Qu'ran that promote "violent physical Jihad" should be regarded as "inapplicable, invalid and non-Islamic".


 
Can we have a charter for Christians to sign too, stating for example that they won't employ their prejudices on bed and breakfast guests and so on?  It'd seem fair.


----------



## Gingerman (Feb 4, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Latest Brainthunk from a psychometrically vetted MEP:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...atten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
> 
> ...


 Maybe we can make Muslims wear a special sign as well


----------



## elbows (Feb 4, 2014)

The story about the kidnap gang leader being a UKIP spokesman for a while was fun, with the added bonus of it now becoming clear that he was previously a tory activist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26019668

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26032865


----------



## laptop (Feb 4, 2014)

elbows said:


> The story about the kidnap gang leader being a UKIP spokesman for a while was fun, with the added bonus of it now becoming clear that he was previously a tory activist.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26019668
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26032865



So is that second story about his Tory membership a UKIP leak in response, to deflect attention from the fact that they had a convicted kidnapper as a spokescreature? Or did he send his membership card to the BBC?

Loving the story, though. With deepest condolences for the kidnap victims, obv.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2014)

Falange will love this....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26367391



> *Net migration to UK rises*
> 
> Net flow of 212,000 long-term migrants to UK in year to September 2013, up from 154,000 in 2012, figures show.
> The Official for National Statistics said the net flow - the numbers moving here minus the numbers leaving the UK - rose from 154,000 in the previous year.
> ...


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Feb 27, 2014)

I think UKIP are gaining support as a protest vote. It's that simple.  That is all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 27, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I think UKIP are gaining support as a protest vote. It's that simple.  That is all.




you may need to eat your words come May.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I think UKIP are gaining support as a protest vote. It's that simple.  That is all.


Protest at what and against who?


----------



## Quartz (Feb 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> you may need to eat your words come May.



I wonder if pollsters count the possibility of voting for one party (e.g. UKIP) in the Euro elections and another in the General Election (e.g. Tory).


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 27, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I wonder if pollsters count the possibility of voting for one party (e.g. UKIP) in the Euro elections and another in the General Election (e.g. Tory).


I should think they do- its logical to assume that some voters would happily have ukip in europe but when it came down to  'its labour or the tories at home' would vote tory. Thing is if the UKIP victories in the euros are big, then surely that might also bolster their credibility as a serious party among those for whom it is, atm, a protest vote.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I should think they do- its logical to assume that some voters would happily have ukip in europe but when it came down to  'its labour or the tories' would vote tory.



I'm not sure if I've seen that reflected in polls.



> Thing is if the UKIP victories in the euros are big, then surely that might also bolster their credibility as a serious party among those for whom it is, atm, a protest vote.



I agree. But it will be very interesting if there's a near-total Tory wipeout with a huge switch to UKIP. Even so, FPTP means that UKIP has a huge mountain to climb.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I wonder if pollsters count the possibility of voting for one party (e.g. UKIP) in the Euro elections and another in the General Election (e.g. Tory).


Polls for specific elections tend to ask how you intend to vote in that specific poll.

There is not going to be a neat-total tory wipeout with a huge switch to UKIP. No one, and i mean no one, thinks that there's even the remotest possibility of such an outcome.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Polls for specific elections tend to ask how you intend to vote in that specific poll.
> 
> There is not going to be a neat-total tory wipeout with a huge switch to UKIP. No one, and i mean no one, thinks that there's even the remotest possibility of such an outcome.



any ideas where they have a chance of a seat? could be a betting opportunity.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2014)

Here's the favs for a Farage run.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> any ideas where they have a chance of a seat? could be a betting opportunity.



No idea. As you know, I'm rather removed from the situation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I wonder if pollsters count the possibility of voting for one party (e.g. UKIP) in the Euro elections and another in the General Election (e.g. Tory).



They do.  It's a primary variable.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 27, 2014)

I could imagine some on the left (or Labour supporters) strategically supporting UKIP in the Euros just to shit the tories up a bit and make them distance themselves further from the (electable) centre.

There will be lots of talking up of their chances in the media, just to create a 'story' when they do well - followed by numerous exposees in the loyal tory press ahead of the general election to bring people back to the fold. It just feels like a fucking game.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Here's the favs for a Farage run.



Some really interesting ones there, particularly Boston, which is the only place that I've seen multiple pro-UKIP bumper stickers in one car park.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Feb 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> you may need to eat your words come May.


I want to be in Europe.  


butchersapron said:


> Protest at what and against who?


Protest vote for Tories who are not happy with Johnny Foreigner types who are giving them first world problems.

I think immigration is a good thing.  I will be considering it myself if this country continues to float evermore right-wing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 27, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I want to be in Europe.




what I was alluding to was that the coming euros are going to be something of a litmus test for UKIP support- as outlined above the support in the euros does not automatically translate into victory on the mainland, but as indicators go its what we'll have other than the polls and bys. In which they keep beating the lib dems and coming third. Which is quite disturbing.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2014)

From the horse's mouth, as it were....

I think Andrew, in the cravat, left his telly on whilst Skyping.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Feb 27, 2014)

British politics are disturbing.  What do we have on the left to vote for?

I see UKIP and the Tories in the same light as BNP and EDL.   I am sick of all the "Proud to be British" stuff being pushed around Facebook. It is veiled nationalism and will monstrously grow if people feed it.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> British politics are disturbing.  What do we have on the left to vote for?
> 
> I see UKIP and the Tories in the same light as BNP and EDL.   I am sick of all the "Proud to be British" stuff being pushed around Facebook. It is veiled nationalism and will monstrously grow if people feed it.



I not sure it's very veiled tbh.

But don't get overly anxious; UKIP will not win any seats, (perhaps save one ie. Falange himself), and if they manage to come second in many constituencies they will have completely sunk any hope the tories may have of forming an administration.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Feb 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> From the horse's mouth, as it were....
> 
> I think Andrew, in the cravat, left his telly on whilst Skyping.



Chris and Daryl don't like trains, then.   The scrapping of HS2 is a policy I didn't know about.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Feb 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I not sure it's very veiled tbh.
> 
> But don't get overly anxious; UKIP will not win any seats, (perhaps save one ie. Falange himself), and if they manage to come second in many constituencies they will have completely sunk any hope the tories may have of forming an administration.


Anything to piss off the Tories.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 28, 2014)

Apparently, UKIP have borrowed their conference slogan, 'Love Britain. Vote UKIP' from the BNP. 

Still, I respected rather than liked his defence of it, by referencing the BNP's use of the Union flag (though he calls it the Union Jack). He's really good at turning aside blunders.


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 28, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Apparently, UKIP have borrowed their conference slogan, 'Love Britain. Vote UKIP' from the BNP.
> 
> Still, I respected rather than liked his defence of it, by referencing the BNP's use of the Union flag (though he calls it the Union Jack). He's really good at turning aside blunders.




No volume on that but probably a good thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

Ofcom has just recognised UKIP as 'a major political party' for the euro elections and so will, for the first time, qualify for the max number of party political broadcasts as tories, labour and lib-dem swines.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 4, 2014)

fair enough


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ofcom has just recognised UKIP as 'a major political party' for the euro elections and so will, for the first time, qualify for the max number of party political broadcasts as tories, labour and lib-dem swines.


 All in all it's turned out to be a pretty poor day for dave.


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 4, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> fair enough



fair skinned enough


----------



## Nylock (Mar 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> All in all it's turned out to be a pretty poor day for dave.


The more shitty days Dave has up to and after the elections of 2014 & 15 the better....


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 5, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I see UKIP and the Tories in the same light as BNP and EDL.   I am sick of all the "Proud to be British" stuff being pushed around Facebook. It is veiled nationalism and will monstrously grow if people feed it.


 

The Russians will be invading us if we're not careful.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 5, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> Chris and Daryl don't like trains, then.   The scrapping of HS2 is a policy I didn't know about.


does everybody who thinks HS2 is a colossal waste of money not like trains, then?


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Mar 5, 2014)

Farage doesn't like foreigners on trains... that's for sure.  But no, I was making light of the two video respondents who stated that they didn't like trains.  Not an entirely strange statement to make, but interesting that two people, interviewed by the same crew, said similar things.  I think some prompting took place; the inserting of thoughts.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2014)

White face, blue collar, grey hair: the 'left behind' voters only Ukip understands

_Farage's core voters are not EU-obsessed Tories, but working-class men. Labour cannot afford to ignore their real concerns

... 

Farage is no catch-all populist; his appeal is concentrated in specific groups and is utterly alien to others. Ukip has virtually no support among the financially secure and the thirty- and fortysomething university graduates who dominate politics and the media. Support is weak among women, white-collar professionals and the young. Ethnic-minority voters shun the party totally.

Make no mistake, this is a revolt dominated by white faces, blue collars and grey hair: angry, old, white working-class men who left school at the earliest opportunity and lack the qualifications to get ahead in 21st-century Britain. That Ukip's core voters are middle-class Tories animated by the single-issue of Europe is the biggest myth in Westminster. In fact, Ukip is the most working-class-dominated party since Michael Foot's Labour in 1983. They struggle financially, worry about the future, and loathe the political class, not just Cameron and the Conservatives._


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> White face, blue collar, grey hair: the 'left behind' voters only Ukip understands
> 
> _Farage's core voters are not EU-obsessed Tories, but working-class men. Labour cannot afford to ignore their real concerns
> 
> ...



Nothing about teeth and beer bellies, nothing.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 6, 2014)

UKIP tries to shut down comedy tour



> UKIP is trying to stop musical comedy duo Jonny And The Baptists from touring.
> 
> Their current show is called The Stop UKIP Tour, prompting party supporters to target venues with a sustained written and phone call campaign. They have also put pressure on venues' sponsors and benefactors.
> 
> ...


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Mar 6, 2014)

Taking the piss is a fundamental human right.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 6, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> Taking the piss is a fundamental human right.



Absolutely. However, having Arts Council (i.e. public) money to do it is a different matter. Then it could be construed as propaganda.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Absolutely. However, having Arts Council (i.e. public) money to do it is a different matter. Then it could be construed as propaganda.


The arts council are not funding the comedy, the show in any way. They, as they are supposed to, help fund a venue that the show is to appear at.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Mar 6, 2014)

Arts Council part funding a venue, and then influencing bookings?  I suppose a non-political proviso would be sensible, particularly if the BNP started touring a musical.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> Arts Council part funding a venue, and then influencing bookings?  I suppose a non-political proviso would be sensible, particularly if the BNP started touring a musical.


Why would they then get to decide whose booked? That's up to the venue managers.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Mar 6, 2014)

Because they put up funding for the venues, allegedly.   He who pays the piper... etc.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Mar 6, 2014)

My dog pulls this face when he's getting a lot of attention....


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> Because they put up funding for the venues, allegedly.   He who pays the piper... etc.


But they don't. They do not determine booking policy at the venues they part fund.


----------



## treelover (Mar 7, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Nothing about teeth and beer bellies, nothing.



But is the wider analysis correct?, if it is, its important, the left is seen as a joke by most working class people, how can this change?


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> But is the wider analysis correct?, if it is, its important, the left is seen as a joke by most working class people, how can this change?



Maybe a big effort to change the sense of humour of the working class would do the trick.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> But is the wider analysis correct?, if it is, its important, the left is seen as a joke by most working class people, how can this change?



They're not seen


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They're not seen


 They're not.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 7, 2014)

They're


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2014)

They.*

*have you just got in from the pub as well?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 7, 2014)

T


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> T


----------



## laptop (Mar 12, 2014)

_Telegraph:_

*Nigel Farage 'employs both his wife and mistress at public expense'*


----------



## Quartz (Mar 12, 2014)

A man who can keep two women satisfied? I thought they were trying to smear him?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2014)

they are probably sleeping with polish men behind his back


----------



## laptop (Mar 12, 2014)

Quartz said:


> A man who can keep two women satisfied? I thought they were trying to smear him?



Actually, the report is:




			
				Telegraph said:
			
		

> The claim was made by Nikki Sinclaire, a former Ukip MEP, now standing as an independent, during a debate in the EU assembly on Wednesday.
> 
> "With unemployment still a problem across Europe and indeed the UK, does Mr Farage thinks it is a fair use of taxpayers' money, namely his secretarial allowance, not only to employ his wife Kirsten but his *former* mistress Annabelle Fuller?," she said.



My bold.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2014)

And the bold is something denied by all involved. Whole lot of sexism around about Fuller and her role in UKIP and right politics generally for the last 10 years. And a whole lot of dust surrounding the accuser.


----------



## laptop (Mar 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And the bold is something denied by all involved. Whole lot of sexism around about Fuller and her role in UKIP and right politics generally for the last 10 years. And a whole lot of dust surrounding the accuser.



Indeedy. 


But I've had my moment of gloat


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2014)

laptop said:


> Indeedy.
> 
> 
> But I've had my moment of gloat


Sure we'll going to have a lot more between now and 2015 with whatever the papers have been stockpiling!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 12, 2014)

laptop said:


> _Telegraph:_
> *Nigel Farage 'employs both his wife and mistress at public expense'*


Baffling.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Mar 12, 2014)

Nigel has a Farage à trois.  

How continental of him?


----------



## TrickyDicky (Mar 13, 2014)

You can see when a party is gaining support against the Establishment Newlabour/Liberal/Tory party,the leader gets attacked not on policies but on his private life. Hence the implied 'sexual behavior'attacks on Farage by Rothermere's Mail which controls the way DUMBO middle class minds 'think' and Murdoch's Sun which controls the way DUMBO working class minds 'think'.


----------



## laptop (Mar 13, 2014)

^^^ This'll go well...


Meanwhile, the _Times_ makes more of the fact that Farange's accuser is on bail awaiting trial on fraud charges. The _Telegraph_ underplayed its earlier coverage and didn't mention her transgender discrimination claim...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2014)

in answer to the op, ukip are gaining support because no one's actually seen them do anything. for example, they've not been in charge of a council. and no one knows or much cares what meps do. yes, ukip are a bunch of barking loons. and every week one or two of them are unmasked. but they haven't had their hands on the levers of power enough to show them to be exactly like any other snouts-in-the-trough party.


----------



## Nylock (Mar 13, 2014)

TrickyDicky said:


> You can see when a party is gaining support against the Establishment Newlabour/Liberal/Tory party,the leader gets attacked not on policies but on his private life. Hence the implied 'sexual behavior'attacks on Farage by Rothermere's Mail which controls the way DUMBO middle class minds 'think' and Murdoch's Sun which controls the way DUMBO working class minds 'think'.


So, which DUMBO class stratum do you hail from then...?


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 13, 2014)

TrickyDicky said:


> You can see when a party is gaining support against the Establishment Newlabour/Liberal/Tory party,the leader gets attacked not on policies but on his private life. Hence the implied 'sexual behavior'attacks on Farage by Rothermere's Mail which controls the way DUMBO middle class minds 'think' and Murdoch's Sun which controls the way DUMBO working class minds 'think'.



I love the way Kippers all think they're some kind of anti-establishment warriors.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 14, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> I love the way Kippers all think they're some kind of anti-establishment warriors.




 ... led by that working class man of the soil Farage


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Nylock said:


> So, which DUMBO class stratum do you hail from then...?


EITHER ruling OR under, at a rough guess


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 15, 2014)

Baffling!


----------



## gosub (Mar 15, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Baffling!





Looks like old school UKIP democratic accountability and sovereignty riffing on an Independence day theme, not modern UKIP where immigration is a bigger concern than the EU rather than a sub set of the EU issue, and very little fuck is given about genuine issues caused by mass immigration- loss of affordable housing and the UK's 1 million unemployed youth endebted and unskilled to be able to compete in the jobs market .


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 15, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Baffling!



Fantastic!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 15, 2014)

I love how he says "the yoo kay eye pee" as it it were some weird copyright phenomena.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2014)

That's from 2006 and clearly just an amatuer local branch job. Don't think you'll be seeing anything like that again - certainly not before may. This was the going nowhere party that you joined wasn't it gosub? Rather than the doing well one they have now?


----------



## gosub (Mar 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's from 2006 and clearly just an amatuer local branch job. Don't think you'll be seeing anything like that again - certainly not before may. This was the going nowhere party that you joined wasn't it gosub? Rather than the doing well one they have now?


 Nope, HAVE STILL NEVER JOIN UKIP, worked with Referendum party and advocated (and forgot) voting for them once after the consitution without referendum debacle.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2014)

gosub said:


> Nope, HAVE STILL NEVER JOIN UKIP, worked with Referendum party and advocated (and forgot) voting for them once after the consitution without referendum debacle.


Sorry, my mistake, keep confusing you with goneforlunch.


----------



## where to (Mar 16, 2014)

New poll has Ukip leading EU Parliament vote.  Ukip on 30%, Labour just behind on 28%.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukip-win-eu-parliament-election-opinion-poll-reveals-1440499


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 16, 2014)

I doubt UKip even want power. If they take us out of the EU it will be a disaster. It's far easy for them to sit in their cosy gentlemans' clubs and whine about the world while profiting from it.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 16, 2014)

I think being in EFTA rather than the EU, as UKIP want, will make little difference economically; politically is a wholly different matter. For instance, England would not be able to block an independent Scotland's entry to the EU.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 17, 2014)

Another Kipper in the shit.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 17, 2014)

They are ridicularious.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2014)

Fabulous i was right to be wrong piece from Rentol. 

Why when i said UKIP are on the verge of extinction i should really have said that they would top the euro polls.

And he's still at it in that piece, claiming the tories are sitting pretty for the general election.


----------



## elbows (Mar 24, 2014)

The Guardian decide to waffle on about UKIP in places such as Great Yarmouth and Skegness. I don't think there are any surprises here but I suppose it touches on a few relevant issues and sheepishly acknowledges that this is another part of the country often ignored in journalists pictures. Lays the bleak flatness and isolation on a bit thick though, groan, oh well it gave the northern cliche's a rest for once by having eastern ones take charge instead. And then looks at some of the local UKIP characters, splits and controversies, in the typical style.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...le-england-east-anglia-lincolnshire-elections


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 25, 2014)

I read that -- I thought John Harris did some quite good research there as it goes. I'm a bit less negative than elbows about it.


----------



## elbows (Mar 25, 2014)

I didn't mean to sound that negative, in that I thought it was worth posting about at least.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2014)

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/ctzym9/nigel-farage-who-are-you currently on Channel 4 - absolute shit, pro-Farage shitshow by a 'libertarian' cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

Martin Durkin - ex RCP and producer of silly documentaries that get censured for being full of lies. And Margaret: Death of a Revolutionary.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

Anyone seen a worse anti-ukip poster?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2014)

Why does the trolley have 6 Hitlers?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

_The prophecy._


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 1, 2014)

Channel 4 actually cut its flagship news programme by 30 mins to accommodate Durkin's Max Factor job on Falange.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why does the trolley have 6 Hitlers?


hitler clones.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone seen a worse anti-ukip poster?



So, the question is:

"Which two Hitlers voted for Farrago?"


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _The prophecy._



"You are the fabled. . . Sixth Hitler?"


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2014)

Hope not H8: The Tory's best m8


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 2, 2014)

I won't be giving either cunt the oxygen of publicity tonight. Ideally I'd deprive both of actual oxygen, too.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 3, 2014)

I done a peotry about the UKIPs. In a sophisticated parallel to real life you may not think it's all that good.

http://bilgewatch.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-new-politics/


----------



## Nylock (Apr 3, 2014)

<flippant>In answer to the original thread title: Nick Clegg. That's why UKIP are gaining support: Nick Clegg.</flippant>


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone seen a worse anti-ukip poster?



Dear g-d that is fucking terrible. Whoever thought up this poster needs a slap.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 4, 2014)

There is a story in the local paper where an alleged rape victim cannot bring her case to court because the cops lost the video evidence. They have paid her £7.5k compensation which, according to the story, is payable because of ECHR legislation.

How would UKIP have protected her rights. I think we all know the answer given they want out of the convention.

They don't comment on issues like this and rely on some implicit notion of 'british fair play' and the conventions of cricket.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2014)

The ECHR is nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> *There is a story in the local paper where an alleged rape victim cannot bring her case to court because the cops lost the video evidence. They have paid her £7.5k compensation which, according to the story, is payable because of ECHR legislation.*
> 
> How would UKIP have protected her rights. I think we all know the answer given they want out of the convention.
> 
> They don't comment on issues like this and rely on some implicit notion of 'british fair play' and the conventions of cricket.



And that local paper is attacking the award of the compensation and the ECHR, rather than attacking the cops for incompetence?

Or have I got this wrong?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> And that local paper is attacking the award of the compensation and the ECHR, rather than attacking the cops for incompetence?
> 
> Or have I got this wrong?


Why on earth would you assume that?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 4, 2014)

No it's just reporting it. The UKIP angle is mine, inspired by listening to them whining on local radio ahead of the MEP elections next month.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 4, 2014)

So you're gratuitously slamming UKIP for no reason? I wonder if that's one reason why they're gaining support.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2014)

UKIP do want to pull out from the ECHR - but this was under the Human Rights Act which isn't directly the ECHR and so it's quite simple for them to say there's no reason why the payout would not happen if they had their way. It's an entirely ineffective attack. When are you going to come out and declare yourself a UKIP supporter btw?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 4, 2014)

I think I gave perfectly sound reasoning. They oppose the ECHR. Do you deny this?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I think I gave perfectly sound reasoning. They oppose the ECHR. Do you deny this?



Of course not, but what does that have to do with the police losing the evidence? Nothing.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 4, 2014)

I think you've completely misread.

The police lost the evidence. The case cannot proceed, but because of the ECHR the alleged victim was able to get compensation.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why on earth would you assume that?


Not sure what to assume tbh -- I'm unclear what the papers's getting at from AW's post.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I think you've completely misread.
> 
> The police lost the evidence. The case cannot proceed, but because of the ECHR the alleged victim was able to get compensation.




OK, I got the lost evidence bit, but what was the paper's take on the whole matter?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 4, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> OK, I got the lost evidence bit, but what was the paper's take on the whole matter?



What does it matter? The whole point is the this is the sort of thing the ECHR can do for people. I don't imaging this is a common thing, but in this circumstance the alleged victim, denied her day in court, received something that, had we not been part of the ECHR, she would not have otherwise received. Ukip wants us out of that.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 4, 2014)

Yes, and you're trying to use this to slam UKIP. £7500 seems pretty poor compensation for your rapist going free, and losing such poor compensation seems to me a pretty poor excuse to slam UKIP. And I wonder if others are reacting to claims such as yours by actually looking at UKIP to check them and end up liking what they see.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Not sure what to assume tbh -- I'm unclear what the papers's getting at from AW's post.


The papers just reported the facts. They weren't opinion pieces.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 4, 2014)

I don't have a problem with this. These are sorts of consequences people need to be aware of when they support policies that lead to denying people their rights. If that's seen as ganing up on poor old ukip, i don't give a shit. This is an entirely fair criticism, if you don't like it that's entirely fine. I don't agree.

I made no comment on the amount of compensation since it's a separate issue, but yes I would agree that's a fair criticism. it's still £7500 more than Ukip policy making would allow. It is also not paid out because she is a victim of rape. I used the word allegedly precisely because we don't know whether or not she has been raped and because of the police mishandling the evidence we will never know. That is why she is getting compensation and so on that basis it is entirely reaonable to question the amount, but that is a separate issue.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 4, 2014)

OK, points taken. I should remember that not all local papers are as bad as the one we have round here.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 4, 2014)

And I have no problem at all with ECHR either ...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't have a problem with this. These are sorts of consequences people need to be aware of when they support policies that lead to denying people their rights. If that's seen as ganing up on poor old ukip, i don't give a shit. This is an entirely fair criticism, if you don't like it that's entirely fine. I don't agree.
> 
> I made no comment on the amount of compensation since it's a separate issue, but yes I would agree that's a fair criticism. it's still £7500 more than Ukip policy making would allow. It is also not paid out because she is a victim of rape. I used the word allegedly precisely because we don't know whether or not she has been raped and because of the police mishandling the evidence we will never know. That is why she is getting compensation and so on that basis it is entirely reaonable to question the amount, but that is a separate issue.


First off, UKIP are not going to form any govt ever - they can't and will not ever be in a situation to repal the human rights act of 1998. Secondly, this case has very little to do with the ECHR as it's based on british parliamentary law - withdrawing from the ECHR would not nessaccrily mean that in this case - or similar - that the victims would automatically not receive compensation as there is no reason why the same rights would not be incorporated into british law - in fact, _they already are_, that's how she got the compensation.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 4, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> OK, points taken. I should remember that not all local papers are as bad as the one we have round here.


I made no comment on the quality of the paper.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 4, 2014)

I know, but I was thinking along other lines at first.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 5, 2014)

Has anyone asked Nigel Farage who he thinks should replace Brucie in presenting strictly?

Can I read 300 words on that please?

Also, is there a link to him holding a pint?

What are Nigels tips for how many horses will die in The Grand National?

We have the technology now to just have his every utterance beamed live to us via Reuters or AP.

But it's not happening is it? Because the media is a leftie conspiracy, just seeking to smear Amazing Nigel and The New Politics


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 5, 2014)

Isn't Nigel having his 50th birthday party at The Ritz tonight, courtesy of the Telegraph-owning Barclays brothers?  That might be why he's been off the telly for a few hours.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I think you've completely misread.
> 
> The police lost the evidence. The case cannot proceed, but because of the ECHR the alleged victim was able to get compensation.



Nope, because of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act '95, which has very little to do with the ECHR at all, given that it pre-dates the UK's enactment into law of the ECHR (with a few exceptions).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Yes, and you're trying to use this to slam UKIP. £7500 seems pretty poor compensation for your rapist going free, and losing such poor compensation seems to me a pretty poor excuse to slam UKIP. And I wonder if others are reacting to claims such as yours by actually looking at UKIP to check them and end up liking what they see.



It's not "compensation for her rapist going free" in any shape or form.  That's "spin".  It's compensation for failure of duty of care.

Just thought I'd make that clear.


----------



## treelover (Apr 6, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Isn't Nigel having his 50th birthday party at The Ritz tonight, courtesy of the Telegraph-owning Barclays brothers?  That might be why he's been off the telly for a few hours.



I hope there are lots of photos of the event, though I suspect there won't be, can't have his carefully manufactured 'man of the people' image dented.


----------



## treelover (Apr 6, 2014)

> Can Nigel Farage Really Win A Seat In Westminster? – New Polling In Folkestone & Hythe April 6th, 2014 On behalf of the Mail on Sunday, Survation conducted a telephone poll in the constituency of Folkestone & Hythe on April 3rd and 4th – a constituency in which Nigel Farage has expressed an interest in standing – to see what effect a Farage candidacy could have on the seat in 2015. Respondents were asked to imagine it was the 2015 general election and that the candidates standing were the incumbent Damian Collins MP for the Conservatives. Nigel Farage for UKIP, Gordon Cowan for Labour (a local Labour figure) and Lynne Beaumont for Liberal Democrat – the previous PPC. Voting Intention Figures Voting intention figures and their change from the 2010 general election with Farage as a name UKIP candidate in 2015: Labour – 18 (+7) Conservative – 36 (-13) Liberal Democrat – 8 (-22) UKIP – 33% (+28) AP – 3% (-1) - See more at: http://survation.com/2014/04/can-ni...ing-in-folkestone-hythe/#sthash.JJ5xIufa.dpuf
> http://survation.com/2014/04/can-ni...-westminster-new-polling-in-folkestone-hythe/




poll for the daily mail,


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 6, 2014)

Grim result for Arsenal today, but the only analysis on the BBC is from commentators, former players and fans. 

Not a word from Amazing Nigel Farage about what he thinks. It's another Communist blackout.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2014)

Don't. Twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> poll for the daily mail,



Unsurprising, in that constituency, given that the chain of local papers for that part of Kent is owned by a rampantly anti-immigrant tool who's spewed out a steady diet of lies for the last 20+ yearsd, and that the constituency has a history of electing (parliamentary) hard-right Tory MPs.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unsurprising, in that constituency, given that the chain of local papers for that part of Kent is owned by a rampantly anti-immigrant tool who's spewed out a steady diet of lies for the last 20+ yearsd, and that the constituency has a history of electing (parliamentary) hard-right Tory MPs.



and even then the poll shows tories on a 3 point lead


----------



## Welsh lad (Apr 7, 2014)

I think UKIP are capitalising on a public distrust towards the mainstream political elite. Nigel Farage is painting himself as the people's person and playing on public scepticism and fears over the EU.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't. Twat.



Go. Fuck yourself. Pompous tit.

(Rude posts win)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2014)

Welsh lad said:


> I think UKIP are capitalising on a public distrust towards the mainstream political elite. Nigel Farage is painting himself as the people's person and playing on public scepticism and fears over the EU.



ably assisted by the mainstream press. The hoax is so shallow it's breathtaking.


----------



## Welsh lad (Apr 8, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> ably assisted by the mainstream press. The hoax is so shallow it's breathtaking.



With the exception of the Mirror, Guardian and Independent.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 8, 2014)

Didn't the Ukips say that, if elected, they'd pull out of EU then disband?


----------



## gosub (Apr 8, 2014)

Don't think so, maybe historically  I know the Referendum party said that certainly, but why come up with a manifesto on other areas if that were the case.   EU membership isn't even their main draw any more, it's immigration which will still be needed but contested even if we were able to fully control our borders.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 8, 2014)

I think Farage wins whatever happens, no matter how unlikely it is that he'll get into government or even Parliament. Either he does so and can enact whatever nonsense his corporate apologist cabinet wants, or he continues his 'job' in the EU parlaiment where he and his Ukips MEP's continue their shambolic voting record and expenses claim. The guy is everything he claims to oppose.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 8, 2014)

Watch out that some of the loyal Tory press aren't playing an 'expectations management' game - talking up UKIP ahead of the Euros so that when they then fall short of these inflated expectations they can say how much of a chump Nigel is, and how good old Dave didn't do so badly after all (and where was the Labour breakthrough? Shame on Red Ed).


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2014)

Welsh lad said:


> With the exception of the Mirror, Guardian and Independent.



I certainly saw a pro piece in The Indie, falling for the "working class" nonsense IIRC.

And The Graun did a 4 page spread about what a force the ukips are on the East Coast. Few escape the madness, I can't comment on The Mirror.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Watch out that some of the loyal Tory press aren't playing an 'expectations management' game - talking up UKIP ahead of the Euros so that when they then fall short of these inflated expectations they can say how much of a chump Nigel is, and how good old Dave didn't do so badly after all (and where was the Labour breakthrough? Shame on Red Ed).



It's possible, but they are likely to do well so I dunno how effective it would be. It's the Generals where that scenario would play out better.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 8, 2014)

We've had months and months of being told UKIP would win the euro elections. It'll either become a self-fulfilling prophecy (where people believe they can win it so throw a vote their way) or be painted as a bitter failure if they don't.

I'm never sure if it's a conspiracy one way or the other (moving agenda to right or damaging Tory election chances) or if it's just the media thinking Farage makes good telly.

Whatever it is, the constant media attention gives them credibility, which they've done little to deserve.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 8, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> And The Graun did a 4 page spread about what a force the ukips are on the East Coast. Few escape the madness, I can't comment on The Mirror.



That was John Harris's piece the other week. There's a difference between identifying/analysing their popularity in some areas, and being uncritically pro UKIP, which he definitely wasn't being.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 9, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> That was John Harris's piece the other week. There's a difference between identifying/analysing their popularity in some areas, and being uncritically pro UKIP, which he definitely wasn't being.



He was neither gushing or scathing. But a 4 page spread foccusing on a general postive is certainly wind in the sails. It's all part of the circle of media hype.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 9, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> We've had months and months of being told UKIP would win the euro elections. It'll either become a self-fulfilling prophecy (where people believe they can win it so throw a vote their way) or be painted as a bitter failure if they don't.
> 
> I'm never sure if it's a conspiracy one way or the other (moving agenda to right or damaging Tory election chances) or if it's just the media thinking Farage makes good telly.
> 
> Whatever it is, the constant media attention gives them credibility, which they've done little to deserve.


Perhaps it will backfire. The constant message about how useless the Eu is might compel an apathetic electorate to remain so and just not vote.


----------



## Nylock (Apr 9, 2014)

Trouble is these days, a lot of the nasty shit you hear does have an air of inevitability about it.... Regardless of which mouthpiece it issues forth from.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 9, 2014)

Nasty shit is all we seem to hear. If the only person that's available or willing to defend the EU, warts and all, is Clegg then what hope is there?

And what reforms does Farage think he's going to enact in the EU? Doubtless he has friends in other countries who are like him in their respective constituencies because it's a gravy train; a gentleman's club for the financiers who can enact a little drama now and then to parade their prejudices. Farage's only real skill is that he doesn't take it too far, unlike some of the other UKips (Godfrey Bloom). But even then it doesn't take much for their true colours to show: Paul Nuttall's disdain for mental health or his laughable action of waving around his credit card on Question Time saying "you lot maxed out this, the national visa card"

No one laughed.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 9, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> We've had months and months of being told UKIP would win the euro elections. It'll either become a self-fulfilling prophecy (where people believe they can win it so throw a vote their way) or be painted as a bitter failure if they don't.


Have we, where? Most polling has shown Labour in first place with UKIP and the Tories fighting for second, there have been a couple of pieces in the last month about UKIP being just ahead of Labour in the ComRes poll, but that's hardly "months and months".


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 9, 2014)

It's what I've been hearing, though I've not seen polling data - probably just from reading the 'liberal' press which seems to me to have been saying this for ages. UKIP supporters will be motivated to make a stand, especially if they think they'll do well and stick one to the EU and 'mainstream' parties (they're also older and statistically more likely to vote). Other voters will have less inclination to take part in the process, a labour victory will hardly damage the coalition (poor local election results might do though). It'll probably be painted as 'humiliating' for Milliband if Labour don't make a clear 'breakthrough' by the right-wing papers, they won't want any wind in his sails. UKIP will be the story. Tories will lose support to UKIP but dismiss it as a protest vote, and counterattack labour's performance (held back by voter apathy) instead.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Nasty shit is all we seem to hear. If the only person that's available or willing to defend the EU, warts and all, is Clegg then what hope is there?
> 
> And what reforms does Farage think he's going to enact in the EU? Doubtless he has friends in other countries who are like him in their respective constituencies because it's a gravy train; a gentleman's club for the financiers who can enact a little drama now and then to parade their prejudices. Farage's only real skill is that he doesn't take it too far, unlike some of the other UKips (Godfrey Bloom). But even then it doesn't take much for their true colours to show: Paul Nuttall's disdain for mental health or his laughable action of waving around his credit card on Question Time saying "you lot maxed out this, the national visa card"
> 
> No one laughed.


What hope is there of a defence of the EU? What about those of who don't want to defend the eu?

It's not a gentlemans club, it's a rapacious neo-liberal organisation with long-term plans to do serious irreversible damage to the conditions of the working class in work and out and in the eu and out. It's not a golf club or private members club. It's much much worse.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> He was neither gushing or scathing. But a 4 page spread foccusing on a general postive is certainly wind in the sails. It's all part of the circle of media hype.


How do you want papers to report on the rise in popular support for UKIP? Do you want hope not hate style nonsense? Or do you want the sober sort of social analysis that the goodwin and ford piece that you're referring to was based on? Do you want a false map or an accurate one? Do you want propaganda or critical interrogation?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I certainly saw a pro piece in The Indie, falling for the "working class" nonsense IIRC.
> 
> And The Graun did a 4 page spread about what a force the ukips are on the East Coast. Few escape the madness, I can't comment on The Mirror.


What "working class" nonsense? UKIP are making inroads into the w/c vote and into wider-national consciousness. This is undeniable today.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 9, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I certainly saw a pro piece in The Indie, falling for the "working class" nonsense IIRC.
> 
> And The Graun did a 4 page spread about what a force the ukips are on the East Coast. Few escape the madness, I can't comment on The Mirror.



Check out the demographics on the east coast, and you'll see why the Graun might fall for that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What "working class" nonsense? UKIP are making inroads into the w/c vote and into wider-national consciousness. This is undeniable today.



They're pushing quite hard in Norfolk and Lincolnshire, apparently, helped by the fact of an older core population who've generally elected right-wing MPs, and who are discontented with the Cameroons.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What "working class" nonsense? UKIP are making inroads into the w/c vote and into wider-national consciousness. This is undeniable today.



Sorry, I don't mean that increasing establishment sponsored among the working class is nonsense. I mean the idea that their politics are good for the working class are nonsense.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Check out the demographics on the east coast, and you'll see why the Graun might fall for that.



My point was that there was clearly a decision on the lines of "We need more stuff about UKIP, lets find some specifics and do a detailed large feature on how well they're doing". The overall effect will have added to the circus. It was in The Graun, a paper cited as not really part of that circus. It is.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Sorry, I don't mean that increasing establishment sponsored among the working class is nonsense. I mean the idea that their politics are good for the working class are nonsense.


What was this article in the independent saying that UKIP are good for the w/c? Can't see anything on their UKIP tag.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> My point was that there was clearly a decision on the lines of "We need more stuff about UKIP, lets find some specifics and do a detailed large feature on how well they're doing". The overall effect will have added to the circus. It was in The Graun, a paper cited as not really part of that circus. It is.


As explained previously, the authors of that piece are coming from the soft-left and they had a book on UKIP published last week. The piece was sober balanced reflection rather than any big-top piece. 

And you know what, it's perfectly ok to "find some specifics and do a detailed large feature on how well they're doing" - in fact, that's a good basis for serious journalism and debate.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2014)

New TNS-BMRN Euro elections poll:


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2014)

> A woman who was heralded as the “future face” of Ukip says she can no longer face campaigning for the party because of their illiberal stance on immigration.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...own-partys-stance-on-immigration-9244746.html




Oh dear, Falange's extreme libertarian Alexandra(unemployed people shouldn't vote) Swann has said she won't be the 'young face' of UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2014)

Set up all along.


----------



## chilango (Apr 9, 2014)

treelover said:


> Oh dear, Falange's extreme libertarian Alexandra Swann has said she won't be the 'young face' of UKIP.





I wish you wouldn't call him "Falange".


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 9, 2014)

She can join those three twats in Libertarian Alliance then


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> She can join those three twats in Libertarian Alliance then



Taxpayers' Alliance pays better...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> I wish you wouldn't call him "Falange".



Why not? It's really funny


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> New TNS-BMRN Euro elections poll:


Here's hoping the LDs don't manage to make double figures.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2014)

Great weekend polling for UKIP - highest ever in the Independent with 20%. Up thee and four in Observer and Mirror on 18% and 20%.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 12, 2014)

They were out campaigning on my local high street today, not for the first time. 

Only party I've seen doing it recently. 

Putting in the leg work round here at least.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 12, 2014)

did you catch Farange on HIGNFY last night? Laughed off/joined in the mockery in a self deprecatin way.

Hislop got his digs in. I've seen people take a worse beasting on that prog.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> did you catch Farange on HIGNFY last night? Laughed off/joined in the mockery in a self deprecatin way.
> 
> Hislop got his digs in. I've seen people take a worse beasting on that prog.


I can't see two rather pompous private schoolboys and oxbridge media luvvies failing to land a blow on him would do him much harm with the part of the electorate he's appealing to.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I can't see two rather pompous private schoolboys and oxbridge media luvvies failing to land a blow on him would do him much harm with the part of the electorate he's appealing to.



Presumably he knows it all too well otherwise he wouldn't have agreed to go on there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 12, 2014)

he didn't get that hard of a time either. 
the butt of a few jokes but not a focused cunting off.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Presumably he knows it all too well otherwise he wouldn't have agreed to go on there.


He's a tart, always up for the bbc, probably claims it on his eu expenses.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 13, 2014)

What are UKIP benefiting from in current polling --  all-round 'None of the above'-ism generally I suppose. If they're in any way profiting from the Maria Miller story just now, that's pretty ironic given how their MEPs have their snouts really deep in the Brussels trough themselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2014)

As has been exposed for over a decade now without effecting them.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 13, 2014)

I know, but its mad all the same that it has no effect.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 13, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I know, but its mad all the same that it has no effect.



Tbh - and at risk of sounding like a snob - the kind of people who think that Farage 'understands people like me' and most British laws are made in Brussels probably aren't going to take much notice.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 13, 2014)

As far as I can tell, UKIP's main appeal to our local elderly is the promise to reintroduce smoking in pubs.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 13, 2014)

I wonder if there's something else: Farage is a leader; Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband are not.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 13, 2014)

No.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I wonder if there's something else: Farage is a leader; Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband are not.


Farage has consistently returned even lower ratings than Clegg when polls ask about him as national leadership material - apart from this single comres poll (which still finds 2/3 of those polled do not look on him at all favourably). And he polls worse then his party - if your scenario were accurate we would expect the opposite.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 13, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I wonder if there's something else: Farage is a leader


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 13, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I wonder if there's something else: Farage is a leader; Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband are not.


hardly. what has he led? an expenses fuelled drinking club?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 13, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> As far as I can tell, UKIP's main appeal to our local elderly is the promise to reintroduce smoking in pubs.



And if they get a couple of extra MEPs they'll be ideally placed to deliever on that promise.

Either that or they'll just cozy up to a few more of Europe's racist fringe parties and mouth off about women, gays, immigrants, gay immigrants and other simillarly vital issues.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 13, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> hardly. what has he led? an expenses fuelled drinking club?



UKIP from being a non-entity to a significant player. And he has charisma.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 13, 2014)

"he has s_piwit_!"

"yes he did sir."


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 13, 2014)

I wonder how the tories are going to deal with Farage? Smeer campaign? Try to steal their clothes (Back) whilst  reminding everyone that UKIP want win? 
The poisiton of the right wing media is intersting as well - the tory papers seem to be trying to use UKIP to force the tories rightwards on immigration and europe - but by bigging up UKIP they are helping labour. Are they going to turn on Farage come spring 2015?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 13, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Are they going to turn on Farage come spring 2015?



I think it will depend upon how well UKIP do in the Euro elections and the response of the Tories. If UKIP do extremely well at the expense of the Tories, then Cameron might be forced out, and then it's anyone's guess. If they merely do well, then it will be a case of 'Rally round so as to not let Labour win and jeopardise the recovery.'


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2014)

Where do you come up with your utter misreadings of basic politics from? Cameron is not going to be forced out no matter how well UKIP do or how badly the tories do. They didn't become the most electorally successful party in history by making such basic mistakes when in power.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where do you come up with your utter misreadings of basic politics from? Cameron is not going to be forced out no matter how well UKIP do or how badly the tories do. They didn't become the most electorally successful party in history by making such basic mistakes when in power.



Tbf they made some pretty basic mistakes in power under Major's leadership.  Put up or shut up, and all that.  But you're right IMO: they're not going to go unseating Cameron now.  Even some of the backbench malcontents are falling into line, partly because they've too much to lose and nothing to gain from a bout of bloodletting before next year.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> I wonder how the tories are going to deal with Farage? Smeer campaign? Try to steal their clothes (Back) whilst  reminding everyone that UKIP want win?



Smears would be easiest, but also have the most chance of blowing up in the Tories' faces.


> The poisiton of the right wing media is intersting as well - the tory papers seem to be trying to use UKIP to force the tories rightwards on immigration and europe - but by bigging up UKIP they are helping labour. Are they going to turn on Farage come spring 2015?



35 years ago, that's pretty much the pattern the media followed with regard to the NF and the Tories, and then in '83 Thatcher pretty much stole the NF's clothes policy-wise.


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2014)

> *What's the difference between BNP and Ukip voters?*
> Both groups share the same concerns, are disaffected by politics and anxious about immigration, but there the similarities end
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/bnp-ukip-voters-politics-immigration



Interesting article,

the authors also claim both parties bedrock support is the 'left behinds' which if true is similar across the EU.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 14, 2014)

How unusual of the guardian to do an article on UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> How unusual of the guardian to do an article on UKIP.


What are your criticisms of the piece?

Also, how unusual for you moan about media covering UKIP.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What are your criticisms of the piece?
> 
> Also, how unusual for you moan about media covering UKIP.



Just saw that it's Goodwin. I'll make an exception for that.

Eta: It honestly didn't tell me anything I didn't know though. I'd be surprised if you or many here are different.


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> I wonder how the tories are going to deal with Farage? Smeer campaign? Try to steal their clothes (Back) whilst  reminding everyone that UKIP want win?
> The poisiton of the right wing media is intersting as well - the tory papers seem to be trying to use UKIP to force the tories rightwards on immigration and europe - but by bigging up UKIP they are helping labour. *Are they going to turn on Farage come spring 2015?*



Bang on queue, The Times front page story today is "Farage faces investigation into 'missing' EU expenses'
(no direct link just http://news.sky.com/)


Kippers will of course see this as a media conspiracy


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 15, 2014)

Farage is saying he'll never speak to the Times again because of this hatchet job.  Twitter is begging the BBC to run a similar story...


----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2014)

Falange missed a trick in that R4 'Today' interview....if he'd said he'd spent a sizeable % of the EU dosh on booze & fags he'd have gathered up more support from his constituency.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2014)

What will UKIP call itself when Scotland votes Yes?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> What will UKIP call itself when Scotland votes Yes?



RIP?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2014)

Of course, the intention of these _applauded _smears is to drive UKIP voters back to the sensible terrorist arms of labour and tory. Marvelous stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> What will UKIP call itself when Scotland votes Yes?


Their vote as % of vote of total electorate will immediately _rise _as a result  - so rUKIP.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> What will UKIP call itself when Scotland votes Yes?




rUKIP

fucking pipped to the post


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2014)

UKIP-rising has a more threatening feel though - i'd go for that.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 15, 2014)

That paints images in my mind of a zombie horde of angry (or at least 'disgusted') old white men, some of them riding on the roof of a sensible Volvo estate waving the union flag.  Finally the voices of the people who send in complaint letters to BBC Points of View can be heard.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 15, 2014)

One of the quoted people in the article is crying stitch up

http://order-order.com/2014/04/15/times-source-i-was-misquoted/#comment-2128103


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2014)

Not just someone quoted but someone whose "quotes" formed the entire basis for the story.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 15, 2014)

Murdoch Press Vs. UKIP.

Here's hoping for a long and bloody battle, with many casualties.

(though wait until they've sunk the tories first, yeah?)


----------



## Dan U (Apr 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not just someone quoted but someone whose "quotes" formed the entire basis for the story.



Haven't read the times article in full I must admit.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 15, 2014)

For those who, like me, don't pay Murdoch's shilling, the Telegraph version is here.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 15, 2014)

That article has a link to a video phone in hosted by the Torygraph and that pillock Tim Stanley where he says that there are too many people going to university (except him and his mates obviously), and that if the numbers going were 'substantially' reduced then they could/would reduce tuition fees?!? Does that make any sense or am I just stupid?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> What will UKIP call itself when Scotland votes Yes?



Which kinda begs the question (again) what will/should the non-scottish parts of the present state call themselves collectively post scottish political independence?

I just don't get how any the 'rump' can actually be referred to as united or a kingdom. I'm no expert but doesn't the united bit refer to the union of the english and scottish kingdoms? And presumably the word kingdom only applies to England? Brenda is the the queen of england, right...and Wales is a principality and fuck knows what NI is.

I think greater england would be a truer descriptor.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Their vote as % of vote of total electorate will immediately _rise _as a result  - so rUKIP.


Indeed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Which kinda begs the question (again) what will/should the non-scottish parts of the present state call themselves collectively post scottish political independence?
> 
> I just don't get how any the 'rump' can actually be referred to as united or a kingdom. I'm no expert but doesn't the united bit refer to the union of the english and scottish kingdoms? And presumably the word kingdom only applies to England? Brenda is the the queen of england, right...and Wales is a principality and fuck knows what NI is.
> 
> I think greater england would be a truer descriptor.


Well, going back to Alfred the Great and Edward the Elder, those guys united the Saxon kingdoms.  So rUK _could_ retain the title United Kingdom on that pretext.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2014)

treelover said:


> Bang on queue, The Times front page story today is "Farage faces investigation into 'missing' EU expenses'
> (no direct link just http://news.sky.com/)
> 
> 
> Kippers will of course see this as a media conspiracy


 Bit of a weak attack really. From my brief reading of the details, Farage seems to have done little more than was envisaged in the 'honour' system the EU uses to line the pockets of MPs.  He's grasping and entitled, but he's also using using a system designed around those very qualities.  As you say, it's the reasons for the attack that matter. You'd almost think the Times and the Tories were working together.


----------



## Fingers (Apr 17, 2014)

My predictions over the coming week:

1) a national newspaper will publish a story about fake police harassing party members, judges that have been paid off and perverting the course of justice
2) Annabelle Fuller will be arrested
3) BBC will show an investigation into fraud and corruption

All of which will finish of Nigel before May.......


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 17, 2014)

balderdash


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 17, 2014)

There's the occasional suspicion that they're building him up to knock him down, but also a definite feeling some are just building him up, either because they like his shtick, or they think it'll damage the Tories, or because it'll make a good story/good telly and increase circulation or viewers.

The risk for UKIP is they're a one-man team, and whilst this might project 'good leadership', it also risks a collapse if he's shot down by the press, fairly or otherwise.  I can't think of anyone else they have that comes across reasonably well on the telly.  In fairness this is probably because they don't have all the media training of the career politicians they're up against, and with more cash coming in they might be dealing with this.  Saying that, there seems to be a bit of a 'cult of personality' if you ever read the comments below newspaper articles (I don't recommend doing this!) - lots of stuff along the lines of 'Nigel is the only one that can save us', so for some the 'smears' will never harm their opinion.


----------



## gosub (Apr 17, 2014)

If it's a one man band it's coz anyone with any competence is regarded as a threat to Nige and crushed


----------



## Quartz (Apr 17, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The risk for UKIP is they're a one-man team



This.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

As i have pointed out to you numerous times now quartz, farage polls behind his party.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 17, 2014)

I did wonder to myself how much money Hamilton brings to the party- I take it he's not short of a few quid. But even his pockets surely can't match the electioneering pots the tories and labour have, for euros or byes


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 17, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> There's the occasional suspicion that they're building him up to knock him down, but also a definite feeling some are just building him up, either because they like his shtick, or they think it'll damage the Tories, or because it'll make a good story/good telly and increase circulation or viewers.



Systemically/structually I think it's far more because they need to siphon widespread discontent into something comparatively safe. Sure, it's damaging to the tories but a concerted effort has gone in recently by ukip they're after Labour and other voters too. The circus press have helpfully taken up the theme. Lo and behold, Labour canvassers are now talking about a fair number of switchers. It should be said that a lot of Labour wobblers may find UKIP preferable to tories, for whom there is often a visceral and understandable hatred. But this rise of support for UKIP seems, largly, to not be based in the community politics on which smaller parties usually build, be that the history of the LDs, BNP, Greens or left parties. It's built far more on a press backed brand-hype. If they do knock him / them down it won't be till after the Euros. They will serve a purpose there by allowing the rancid right to say that the tories still aren't being horrid enough to the forrins. It will also allow the establishment to pronounce there has been "an earthquake" or something, that disaffection has been duly voiced etc. etc. before folk go back to the day to day business of being ripped off and fed on a diet of hatred.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

What widespread discontent are you referring to? And who are the 'they' attempting the siphoning as you see it?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 17, 2014)

How well does UKIP match an anti-EU Liberal Democrat party?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What widespread discontent are you referring to? And who are the 'they' attempting the siphoning as you see it?



The discontent is with political life in general, the establishment. Caused by a range of things - the economic crisis, scandals (including the child abuse stuff, resentment (encouraged) of migrants and the poor, much of the political construct being pretty shite anyway.

"they" being the esatblishment media. Yes, I know it's ironic. That's the nature of the biggest hoax in UK politics : an establishment endorsed, largly pro establihsment party for anti-establishment sentiment to be chanelled into.


----------



## benedict (Apr 18, 2014)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The discontent is with political life in general, the establishment. Caused by a range of things - the economic crisis, scandals (including the child abuse stuff, resentment (encouraged) of migrants and the poor, much of the political construct being pretty shite anyway.
> 
> "they" being the esatblishment media. Yes, I know it's ironic. That's the nature of the biggest hoax in UK politics : an establishment endorsed, largly pro establihsment party for anti-establishment sentiment to be chanelled into.


Seriously, you think the establishment media (who are they? How have they done this? Are they one homogenous block with the same interests? What are those interests?) decided years ago, well before the crash (see past polling heights and electoral performances) to set up a right wing party in order to dampen down anger at right wing parties?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously, you think the establishment media (who are they? How have they done this? Are they one homogenous block with the same interests? What are those interests?) decided years ago, well before the crash (see past polling heights and electoral performances) to set up a right wing party in order to dampen down anger at right wing parties?



No I don't think they're homogenous, but there is a broad bunch of interests round neoliberalism and standard "divide/rule" "bread/circus" distraction which the party in question more or less serves. Certainly they are a lot safer an option to point many disaffected people towards than any kind of genuine social democratic or more radical agenda. I'm not suggesting nearly as elaborate a conspiracy as you suggest, and didn't go near doing so. It's more a case of right time/place opportunism.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 18, 2014)

I see that in Sheffield there is a planned anti-UKIP protest outside a UKIP meeting because of a Farage visit. Seems tactically unsound to me, I'm not sure that protests like this and treating UKIP like it's the BNP is the best way to deal with the group. I could quite easily see people seeing the protest against UKIP mostly (exclusively?) by overly dramatic uni students and deciding that they have something going for them...


----------



## weepiper (Apr 21, 2014)

European election posters.


----------



## treelover (Apr 21, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I see that in Sheffield there is a planned anti-UKIP protest outside a UKIP meeting because of a Farage visit. Seems tactically unsound to me, I'm not sure that protests like this and treating UKIP like it's the BNP is the best way to deal with the group. I could quite easily see people seeing the protest against UKIP mostly (exclusively?) by overly dramatic uni students and deciding that they have something going for them...




yes, like it or not they are a legitimate party, there may and will  be times to protest against UKIP, not sure this is the right time.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> yes, like it or not they are a legitimate party, there may and will  be times to protest against UKIP, not sure this is the right time.



Unusual for tories to protest like this?


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 21, 2014)

weepiper said:


> European election posters.




I think the reason why UKIP are gaining support is one issue and one issue only, because there is a real and widespread sensation that there are now too many immigrants/migrants coming into the country and that the "change" this brings about in the "identity" of areas is something that makes people feel uncomfortable. UKIP are milking this for electoral gain and it is, I think, their main vote winner. Look at the poster above. It's entering dodgy terrain but will hit a nerve with a large swathe of people. mainly working class.

I questioned some UKIP people on a street stand recently and they seemed like tories to me. they were trying to focus on "local issues". Their main claim however was that the problem was EU migrants who can claim housing benefit within 3 weeks of arrival in the country and that this was why so many were coming here. 

Is there truth in that?

I have lived abroad for more than 20 years myself, so when I come back I notice the change immediately as I am not accustomed to it.
London is literally full of migrants. Every few steps in the high street I heard different languages. 

For people who have to compete with them for work I imagine it could be a problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2014)

UKIP now challenging for a Scottish MEP - they're on 10% the tories on 11% - whoever wins that battle gets the seat.


----------



## treelover (Apr 21, 2014)

> *Nigel Farage targets Labour heartland as poll shows Ukip support undamaged*
> Ukip leader to deliver strong anti-immigration message pitched at working-class voters, after brushing off expenses allegations
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/21/nigel-farage-ukip




Not really new, but big UKIP push for the working class vote, he is making a big show of coming to Sheffield,


----------



## treelover (Apr 21, 2014)

> An opinion poll published on Sunday night showed that Ukip supporters do not approve of inequalities of wealth, suggesting some of Farage's current support could be eroded over the controversy.
> The poll, conducted this month by ICM for the High Pay Commission, found that 80% of people thinking of voting for Ukip believe the gap in wealth between the rich and poor is important, and 46% very important – the same proportions as for the electorate as a whole.
> Potential Ukip supporters thought inequality between rich and poor was more important than building homes, cutting welfare benefits and cutting taxes.
> The poll showed 96% of Ukip supporters thought reducing immigration was important and 85% very important – more than the national average of 77% and 50% respectively. It found that 95% of potential Ukip supporters thought changing the UK relationship with the EU was important and 76% very important, compared with 68% and 37% of the general electorate.



According to this, UKIP voters do believe in redistribution, but its still immigration and the EU that is their main concern.

We can be absolutely certain its leadership don't believe in redistribution though.



> Among Ukip supporters, 87% say UK pay gaps are unfair and often do not reflect how hard people work; 85% say current pay gaps make it harder for people on low pay to get by on what they earn; and 84% believe UK businesses are often run to make a fast profit, not benefitting workers or communities in the long term.



The thing is, leaving the EU would almost certainly see pay gaps, etc increase and other EU enshrined workers rights abolished.
​


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> I think the reason why UKIP are gaining support is one issue and one issue only, because there is a real and widespread sensation that there are now too many immigrants/migrants coming into the country and that the "change" this brings about in the "identity" of areas is something that makes people feel uncomfortable. UKIP are milking this for electoral gain and it is, I think, their main vote winner. Look at the poster above. It's entering dodgy terrain but will hit a nerve with a large swathe of people. mainly working class.
> 
> I questioned some UKIP people on a street stand recently and they seemed like tories to me. they were trying to focus on "local issues". Their main claim however was that the problem was EU migrants who can claim housing benefit within 3 weeks of arrival in the country and that this was why so many were coming here.
> 
> Is there truth in that?



We have receiprocal agreements with 6 (last time I checked, it may have gone up in the last couple of years) EU states, whereby we can claim the full range of benefits in their countries, and they can do the same in ours.  Financially, it pretty much balances out/isn't a net expense.
What Farage's people are trying to do is claim that people from the other 20+ EU states can do the same - they can't.  They're subject to the usual 6 month wait before they have even *limited* recourse to "public funds".



> I have lived abroad for more than 20 years myself, so when I come back I notice the change immediately as I am not accustomed to it.
> London is literally full of migrants. Every few steps in the high street I heard different languages.



For me, in my half a century of life, London has *always* been like that.  It's one of the reasons I love the city so much.  It doesn't alienate me.  On the contrary, it makes me wonder why some people find it so hard to rub along with others.
I've come to the conclusion that many people who whine about immigrants would find other scapegoats for their discontent if there were no immigrants.  Such people *need* someone/a group to blame, to cover for their own misanthropy and their own failings.



> For people who have to compete with them for work I imagine it could be a problem.



That might be true if the "immigrant effect" of downward pressure on wages was a static force, but it isn't.  Economically, a kind of EU-wide equilibrium of prices and costs is creeping up on the member-states.  My relatives in Bulgaria reckon that wages there have gone up by about 20% since accession, so while it's happening slowly, it is happening.
Once it *has* happened, though, who will there be to blame?  I'm sure of one thing: That a new scapegoat *will* be found.


----------



## treelover (Apr 21, 2014)

> We have receiprocal agreements with 6 (last time I checked, it may have gone up in the last couple of years) EU states, whereby we can claim the full range of benefits in their countries, and they can do the same in ours. Financially, it pretty much balances out/isn't a net expense.




Do you mean claim the equivalent of our levels of benefit or that of the host country?

btw, plenty of countries are trying to withdraw that right, Germany wants to expel those who are not working.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> The thing is, leaving the EU would almost certainly see pay gaps, etc increase and other EU enshrined workers rights abolished.



Can you back that up?

Anyway, the whole Daily Mail benefits issue would be obviated if they could be charged back to the claimant's country.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP now challenging for a Scottish MEP - they're on 10% the tories on 11% - whoever wins that battle gets the seat.




Apparantly coming to Swansea very soon as well (this coming week I think). Tour of the traditionally Labour areas, looks like.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 22, 2014)

Some very emotive UKIP election posters http://imgur.com/a/NR4bu

Some real attempts to play on class grievances


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Some very emotive UKIP election posters http://imgur.com/a/NR4bu
> 
> Some real attempts to play on class grievances


 Much recycled.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 22, 2014)

Subtle.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 22, 2014)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> Do you mean claim the equivalent of our levels of benefit or that of the host country?



Equivalent of the minimum level of the host country, IIRC.



> btw, plenty of countries are trying to withdraw that right, Germany wants to expel those who are not working.



Schaubel has touted the idea, but it hasn't been legislated.


----------



## treelover (Apr 22, 2014)

> *Tim Aker* @*Tim_Aker* Follow
> Attacks on #*UKIP* posters are childish name calling. Other parties abandoned the working class and have nothing to offer British workers



UKIP, head of policy, definitely targeting wc/labour voters.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

Beware of flag wavers and Farrage followers. They seem to be on the increase.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Beware of flag wavers and Farrage followers. They seem to be on the increase.


Can we take it that you'll be doing your bit too stop them and voting for the Tories or the labour "British jobs for British workers" party?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> UKIP, head of policy, definitely targeting wc/labour voters.


 ..but not "wc/" (former) tory voters?


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can we take it that you'll be doing your bit too stop them and voting for the Tories or the labour "British jobs for British workers" party?



Not that it's any of your business but I've made it quite clear who I vote for over the years. But you carry on and make stuff up, if you like.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Not that it's any of your business but I've made it quite clear who I vote for over the years. But you carry on and make stuff up, if you like.


I have no idea who you have previously voted for. And of course it's my business who you vote for - it's everyone's. Especially if your vote against UKIP is only going to shore up those who are doing/have done the actual damaging things that UKIP can only dream of.


----------



## treelover (Apr 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ..but not "wc/" (former) tory voters?




Yes of course, but many of them went with Blair for some elections


----------



## treelover (Apr 22, 2014)

> I stand by my view that this Ukip campaign is a racist, xenophobic campaign designed to win votes by whipping up animosity against foreigners living and working and contributing to this country ...
> We do need much stronger action against bad employers to stop immigrants being abused and exploited by stronger enforcement of the minimum wage, tougher measures by councils against "beds in sheds" and prosecution of "cash in hand" employers. But it is dangerous fallacious nonsense to say that British workers are facing a threat from 26 million unemployed Europeans. The real threat to British workers' jobs and British society comes from the incompetent coalition government carrying out policies to cut taxes for wealthy millionaires *while millions suffer a cost of living crisis; creating a house price bubble while failing to invest in housing, infrastructure and skills, and privatising our National Health Service* ...




Mike Gapes LP MP on UKIP, note no mention of benefit cuts, etc


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 22, 2014)

Their adverts on those  big boards are quite good


----------



## J Ed (Apr 22, 2014)

Nigel Farage, Paul  Nuttall and the BNP in Sheffield City Centre today.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Nigel Farage, Paul  Nuttall and the BNP in Sheffield City Centre today.


 

Apparantly Farage said : "Moyes got Manchester out of Europe. Maybe he'll join UKIP"


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 22, 2014)

Constructed Hypewatch: "Medium Sized Political Party Launches Election Campaign" is not and should not worthy of being the top line in news bulletins.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Constructed Hypewatch: "Medium Sized Political Party Launches Election Campaign" is not and should not worthy of being the top line in news bulletins.


Party with few elected members close to leading polling for elections should be near the top of the political news. And where are these top-line stories in the news? Last few times i've asked you to back these sort of claims up you have been unable to.

God, i'd hate to see the propaganda you'd produce under the guise of public news.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Party with few elected members close to leading polling for elections should be near the top of the political news. And where are these top-line stories in the news? Last few times i've asked you to back these sort of claims up you have been unable to.
> 
> God, i'd hate to see the propaganda you'd produce under the guise of public news.



The last Radio 5 bulletin I heard (3pm) had it as 1st non sport item. Check it if you can be arsed on iplayer. I don't make stuff up. I've no need to imagine that MSM is in a frenzy about this bunch. Yes, it's semi-important that they will do quite well in the Euros, but it's a hype circle. Coverage leads to attention, thus a certain amount of support, thus more attention.

We have no idea what I'd produce, and I've no ambition to.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

RADIO 5 AT 3PM!!!!! FARAGE OVER MUNICH!!!!


I will check iplayer too. I didn't accuse you of making stuff up, but no links to the stories you mentioned were forthcoming.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> T
> 
> We have no idea what I'd produce, and I've no ambition to.


I've an idea of what it would be like -_ don't mention ukip, don't report on things that i don't like, anyone esle that does is supporting them._


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I've an idea of what it would be like -_ don't mention ukip, don't report on things that i don't like, anyone esle that does is supporting them._



I'm sure you have lots of ideas. Some of them may be quite well founded, others not. But I don't doubt your output would be the most informed and free of all personal prejudice.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I'm sure you have lots of ideas. Some of them may be quite well founded, others not. But I don't doubt your output would be the most informed and free of all personal prejudice.


I, at least, would want to report on UKIP. Your want to ostrich it and think that your viewers and readers deserve nothing less. Than not talking about that thing that's happening.


----------



## ChrisD (Apr 22, 2014)

I've decided I need a "no ukip canvassers here" or some other small (and reasonably polite) car sticker sized poster for our front window. I've looked at "hope not hate" website but can't find anything.
Any links welcome..


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 22, 2014)

Apparently Nick Robinson on that BBC asked Farage if his German wife and secretary was taking a 'British' job, and could no British person serve as his secretary?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

His standard reply is that no british woman would  be allowed work the hours.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

Come on, let's not be lining up with fucking tory scum like robinson to wack UKIP.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> His standard reply is that no british woman would  be allowed work the hours.


But it's ok for him to exploit her because she's his chattel wife.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

weepiper said:


> But it's ok for him to exploit her because she's his chattel wife.


The line is that it their choice. We don't have that choice. That's the line. It's not even true.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I, at least, would want to report on UKIP. Your want to ostrich it and think that your viewers and readers deserve nothing less. Than not talking about that thing that's happening.



You're a liar. Right to the bone. You don't report, you snipe and pick apart. Bit of difference.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> You're a liar. Right to the bone. You don't report, you snipe and pick apart. Bit of difference.


What on earth do you think critical political reporting is? 

Go away kterk - you are no good to man nor beast like this. Go away.


----------



## youngian (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Come on, let's not be lining up with fucking tory scum like robinson to wack UKIP.


Haven't noticed Robinson challenging UKIP's reactionary agenda very often. Looks like he's been getting his orders from Tory central office to stick it to Farage ahead of the elections.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What on earth do you think critical political reporting is?
> 
> Go away kterk - you are no good to man nor beast like this. Go away.



Nah, sorry. Anyone who gives that party the benefit of the doubt deserves pointing out.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Nah, sorry. Anyone who gives that party the benefit of the doubt deserves pointing out.


What?


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What?



Yeah. You heard me. Now get your minion to "like" it, you fuck.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Yeah. You heard me. Now get your minion to "like" it, you fuck.


I heard you. I don't know what you're on about. Do you? Can you help me here by answering my question about the post that you writted?


----------



## teqniq (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby  I may not always understand what Butchers is going on about, but nowhere have I seen him giving UKIP 'the benefit of the doubt'


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

teqniq said:


> krtek a houby  I may not always understand what Butchers is going on about, but nowhere have I seen him giving UKIP 'the benefit of the doubt'



Well, maybe I'm a bit muddled but he seems to want them to be given the oxygen of publicity. My bad if I've got it wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, maybe I'm a bit muddled but he seems to want them to be given the oxygen of publicity. My bad if I've got it wrong.


OMG, talking about something that's happening._ I want truth in reporting. My truth._


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> OMG, talking about something that's happening._ I want truth in reporting. My truth._



What on earth do you know about truth? You're quite happy to spread/believe lies about posters when it suits. Puuuhleeease.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> What on earth do you know about truth? You're quite happy to spread/believe lies about posters when it suits. Puuuhleeease.


What on earth has that got to do with the above exchange about reporting? Go away. Stop doing this to yourself.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Party with few elected members close to leading polling for elections should be near the top of the political news. And where are these top-line stories in the news? Last few times i've asked you to back these sort of claims up you have been unable to.
> 
> God, i'd hate to see the propaganda you'd produce under the guise of public news.



Tonight on Channel 4: What happened to Building 7?


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What on earth has that got to do with the above exchange about reporting? Go away. Stop doing this to yourself.



Aww, so caring. You're always right, aren't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Aww, so caring. You're always right, aren't you?


I'm right that you need to fuck off. For the good of everyone concerned.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, maybe I'm a bit muddled but he seems to want them to be given the oxygen of publicity. My bad if I've got it wrong.


Take different drugs and give us a rest you spindle armed loon


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Take different drugs and give us a rest you spindle armed loon



Who are you again? Anyone important or just fancied sloppy seconds?


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Apr 22, 2014)

I assume that everyone would agree that UKIP are a right wing nationalist party?

So does it follow that everyone who votes for them is either misinformed or a racist?

Personally I don't see why we should not be part of Europe...  I would rather be labelled a European than a Brit.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Nah, sorry. Anyone who gives that party the benefit of the doubt deserves pointing out.


That post didn't even mention "giving them the benefit of the doubt" whatever that means. BA simply pointed out that the possibility of UKIP taking the highest share the euro elections _is_ a new story, and that only cowardly fools like taffboy want the news to hide this fact.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Who are you again? Anyone important or just fancied sloppy seconds?


I'm a little mole from Hungary or somewhere


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

That's right - he just invented a quote and i let him get away with it. He made up a total lie. Wtf is wrong with him?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I, at least, would want to report on UKIP. Your want to ostrich it and think that your viewers and readers deserve nothing less. Than not talking about that thing that's happening.



Seeing as you're so big on evidence and digging things out, how about a game of "find the post where I said UKIP shouldnt be reported on".

It's a question of proportion, as is the case in a lot of journalistic issues. it's not outlandish to say that the ceaseless attention in the press is out of proportion.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Seeing as you're so big on evidence and digging things out, how about a game of "find the post where I said UKIP shouldnt be reported on".
> 
> It's a question of proportion, as is the case in a lot of journalistic issues. it's not outlandish to say that the ceaseless attention in the press is out of proportion.


I don't have to - your whole thing is that they shouldn't be because they're fanning flames that bareley exist. The place is burning down around you.

Ok, so 15%+ of politics reporting should be UKIP based - that's quite an increase, but you know, your rules...


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm a little mole from Hungary or somewhere



Czech Republic, you racist cunt. I suppose all those countries are the same to you.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Czech Republic, you racist cunt. I suppose all those countries are the same to you.


Go away. You need a rest.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 22, 2014)

teqniq said:


> krtek a houby  I may not always understand what Butchers is going on about, but nowhere have I seen him giving UKIP 'the benefit of the doubt'





butchersapron said:


> Go away. You need a rest.



Have a go at the victim. And stay classy. How did you get to be the person to say who belongs here and who doesn't? Is there some kind of course or certificate?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Have a go at the victim. And stay classy. How did you get to be the person to say who belongs here and who doesn't? Is there some kind of course or certificate?



What? What victim? WTF are you on about? What have you chose the two above quotes to demonstrate?


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What? What victim? WTF are you on about? What have you chose the two above quotes to demonstrate?



Playing the innocent, are we? "WTF are you on about"/"go away"... your schtick is lamentable.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd why have you quoted me here?


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Have a go at the victim. And stay classy. How did you get to be the person to say who belongs here and who doesn't? Is there some kind of course or certificate?



Butcher's does this at every given chance. He's the oracle, don'tcha know? Woe betide you if you have a different opinion...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Playing the innocent, are we? "WTF are you on about"/"go away"... your schtick is lamentable.


You tragic little man.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You tragic little man.




"Go away"


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> "Go away"


So, off you go. Broiling in your own frustration until your next outburst.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 23, 2014)

teqniq said:


> taffboy gwyrdd why have you quoted me here?



Sorry. I think I was going to comment on your post, defending Butchers in a different matter while agreeing with some of kretk's critique as well, then I didn't get round to doing so, went onto something else but had your quote left in. In otherwords:  a balls-up.


----------



## treelover (Apr 23, 2014)

Ugly stuff on here, what happened to robust but fair debate?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2014)

treelover said:


> Ugly stuff on here, what happened to robust but fair debate?


fuck off cunt


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Czech Republic, you racist cunt. I suppose all those countries are the same to you.



I think we all know who the real racist is don't we?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I assume that everyone would agree that UKIP are a right wing nationalist party?
> 
> So does it follow that everyone who votes for them is either misinformed or a racist?



Yes, it may be that...and mis-guided might be appropriate as well; though I ought to declare a personal 'interest'......I'd imagine that I'm not alone on here in having parents who, despite my best (subtle?) efforts, have decided to support UKIP.

Amongst a growing body of journalism exploring the phenomena of UKIP support, Behr's recent NS piece based on Cliftonville in Kent had some interesting quotes...



> Resentment here is about something more profound than fear of jobs being taken by outsiders or distaste at the sound of alien consonants in the bus queue. It expresses a feeling that all the important decisions are being made elsewhere; that someone in the capital has decided what kind of town this should be and that dissent is ignored or, worse, belittled as the mark of backward provinciality.





> “People feel they’ve lost something.........They may not be able to pinpoint what it is, but they don’t think they’re getting it back.”





> "....it (UKIP) feeds on and fuels pessimism, especially among her older constituents. They have worked hard throughout their lives and find as they reach retirement that they are worse off than they expected to be. They cannot go on holiday or provide treats for their grandchildren. They struggle to heat their homes in winter. These indignities provoke shame and rage. Financial precariousness that was exposed by the Great Recession combines with longer-standing feelings of cultural disorientation to produce a dread of abandonment. Politics in Westminster is judged to be for the benefit of someone else – migrants, welfare recipients, bankers, Brussels bureaucrats.
> 
> This is how Farage has been able to position himself as the anti-politician threatening to storm the wicked bastion.



In the case of my parents I would also add in the raw emotion of betrayal; they have, for the most part, voted deferentially as rural, working class tories...and have (finally) seemed to realise that it has got them nowhere...their level of vitriol for Cameron has been consistent since he gained the leadership of the party.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> In the case of my parents I would also add in the raw emotion of betrayal; they have, for the most part, voted deferentially as rural, working class tories...and have (finally) seemed to realise that it has got them nowhere...their level of vitriol for Cameron has been consistent since he gained the leadership of the party.



As pointed out further up the thread, this is a pretty common phenomenon (with traditional working-class Tory and Labour voters) and mirrors the growth of support for the Tea Party in the US.

Chomsky and Owen Jones could be talking about the same party/faction with branches in different countries almost:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...r-from-owen-jones-to-ukip-voters-9061968.html



> Like you – or three-quarters of you – I wouldn't choose the European Union as one of the key issues facing the country, even though I agree the British people should be given a vote on our membership. You think Westminster has become the preserve of career politicians, which is why I agree Parliament desperately need more working-class MPs, rooted in their communities, who understand the everyday concerns of voters.
> But our agreement goes so much further than that. A generation ago, our energy suppliers were flogged off to profiteers, some foreign, some British, but all rich and making money out of hard-pressed consumers. No wonder nearly 8 out of 10 of you want energy brought into public ownership – a figure even higher than other voters. You're right: it's time we stop the Big Six holding us to ransom, leaving millions lying awake at night wondering how they can pay the bills, and elderly people shivering in their homes.
> It's the same story with our railways, too. You're justifiably angry that the taxpayer is forking out three times more subsidies to our rip-off, inefficient railways, filling the bank accounts of the rail barons while millions are priced out of travelling. So nearly three-quarters of you are right to back bringing rail back into public ownership – again, a higher number than other British voters.
> This Government is handing our NHS, one of our country's most valued institutions, to tax-avoiding private health companies who are driven by profit, not the needs of patients. I'm not letting the last Labour government off the hook, before you ask, with their Private Finance Initiative which has left so many of our hospitals saddled with debts. So, like 84 per cent of you, I believe the NHS should be “nationalised and run in the public sector”.
> We're spending billions of taxpayers' money subsidising poverty wage-paying bosses, and most people living in poverty in Britain in 2014 have to get up each morning to work. So when two-thirds of you back “a substantial increase” in the minimum wage, I'm with you all the way: it would save money, boost demand in the economy, make work pay, and help stop bosses undercutting wages with cheaper labour, wherever it comes from.



http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12...obama-and-the-future-of-progressive-politics/



> There are studies of the attitudes of people who call themselves anti-government. You know, “Get the government off my back,” the Tea Party. It turns out they’re pretty much social democrats. They want increased spending on health, on education, on aid for families with dependent children, but of course not “welfare,” because “welfare” was demonized by Reagan’s racism.
> They say, “Don’t get involved with the world, but do it sometimes.” It’s a very strange collection.
> You remember this guy who stood up at a town hall meeting somewhere and said something like, “Don’t fiddle with my Medicare.” Though the government people laughed, it’s not a joke.
> If you look at studies of opinion, it turns out that, by and large, the more people get from the government, the less they think they get, and the more they’re opposed to government. It’s pretty steady. There are some deeply conservative, rural counties in California, which are radically libertarian, which are practically funded by the government.
> ...



Support for social democratic policies is almost as high with UKIP voters as Labour voters

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...british-political-compass-authoritarian-right



> This pattern is broadly replicated. "The government should have the power to control energy prices": *83% Ukip*, 86% Lab, 60% Con; "The government should have the power to control private sector rents": *50% Ukip*, 56% Lab, 32% Con; "The energy companies should be run in the public sector": *73% Ukip*, 79% Labour, 52% Con. YouGov warns that people "should be careful about reading too much into a sub-sample", but notwithstanding that caveat they can be "confident in saying that Ukip voters do seem to be more supportive of price controls and nationalisation than their rightwing image might suggest".



Which is why we get the 'wall of Labour millionaires' and now the xenophobic posters which attempt to exploit legitimate class grievances


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 23, 2014)

I wonder how much of that is an age thing, with an older generation (more represented in the UKIP figures) schooled and appreciative of the 'common good'.

Even my ex-girlfriend's very tory octogenarian grandparents were generous believers in society of some kind, for example meticulous sorters of recycling, because they believed it was to make things better (contradicting those who patronisingly claimed stuff like was 'confusing for the old').  It's in contrast to a younger generation raised on suspicion of outsiders, of a belief that society is stuffed with 'takers' at the bottom, and that it's not worth supporting society because piss-takers will take advantage (perhaps right, but they should be looking upwards for those piss-takers, not down).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2014)

Lots of old tories, social conservative types who'd never dream of crossing a picket line  and so on - thatcher didn't manage to kill them.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think we all know who the real racist is don't we?



As is evident by your post earlier, yes, yes we do.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> As is evident by your post earlier, yes, yes we do.



This was, and could be, an interesting thread. Maybe time to leave it there?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 23, 2014)

treelover said:


> Ugly stuff on here, what happened to robust but fair debate?


Where? From who? 

If you're going to come out with stuff likes this (and you repeatedly do) have the guts to specify what you mean rather than just posting passive-aggresive asides.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 24, 2014)

If UKIP were around in the 80's, like they are now (which would have meant they would have formed in the late seventies I guess), would they be as 'powerful' as they are now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If UKIP were around in the 80's, like they are now (which would have meant they would have formed in the late seventies I guess), would they be as 'powerful' as they are now?



If (and it's a big "if" IMO) they'd managed to grow beyond their Libertarian roots into an "alternative right-wing" challenger to the Tories, then while I don't think they'd have made political headway beyond council seats in the '80s, I think they might have had a stab at Parliamentary seats come Major, "the bastards" and his Europhobes problem.


----------



## treelover (Apr 24, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Where? From who?
> 
> If you're going to come out with stuff likes this (and you repeatedly do) have the guts to specify what you mean rather than just posting passive-aggresive asides.




calling people racist is fair is it?,

btwm I'm usually the one who gets the above because I bring up subjects like migration


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If UKIP were around in the 80's, like they are now (which would have meant they would have formed in the late seventies I guess), would they be as 'powerful' as they are now?



No. The EU pre-Maastricht was a very different entity and didn't energise people the same way over matters of national sovereignty.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> No. The EU pre-Maastricht was a very different entity and didn't energise people the same way over matters of national sovereignty.


That's not really what's driving UKIP's current success though. I do agree with you and VP that they would've have flourished in the 80s though  - there just wasn't the political space for them.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 24, 2014)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisstokelwalker/why-attendees-at-ukip-biggest-ever-rally-was-there

enjoying the poshboy libertarian wing.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 24, 2014)

White men have it so tough.  What we need is more 'common sense', whatever that might be.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 24, 2014)

Nigel gives the weather forecast:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/embed/smpE...rage gives UKIP weather forecast&product=news


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 24, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Nigel gives the weather forecast:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/embed/smpEmbed.html?playlist=http://playlists.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25901814A/playlist.sxml&title=Nigel Farage gives UKIP weather forecast&product=news


Chris Morris where are you?!?


----------



## teqniq (Apr 24, 2014)

Two men were thrown out of a Ukip event in Gateshead on Wednesday evening after loudly telling Nigel Farage to "fuck off back to Toad Hall".


----------



## treelover (Apr 24, 2014)

yes, but 700+ who packed out The Sage people there booed the ones doing it.

The Sage is seriously expensive to hire, must be serious money going into UKIP now.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 24, 2014)

treelover said:


> calling people racist is fair is it?,
> 
> btwm I'm usually the one who gets the above because I bring up subjects like migration


No it isn't but I had no idea that was what you were talking about, your comment was devoid of any context.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 24, 2014)

Someone shared this on my Facebook so thought i'd add it here too


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Chris Morris where are you?!?



I'm hoping for a cassetteboy version!


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2014)

> There is forever an England where Ukip is nothing more than a joke on Twitter, the Daily Mail is something that no one you know actually reads, where Christianity is a misguided thought process, where everyone understands that taxation is absolutely the right price to pay for the things we value. Maybe you live in that England. Lucky you. I visit it, of course, but I don't come from it. My family were that not-so-rare breed, working-class Tories. Turkeys not only vote for Christmas, I soon realised, they enthusiastically talk about the various ways in which they will be stuffed, every day of the week.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...l-farage-ukip-pustule-resentment-body-politic



Suzanne Moore, who as she says comes from a W/C Tory background on UKIP and in her view, 'lessons for the left'

not sure if I agree with her, but I have seen a lot of social media posts largely from young middle class graduates patronising and sneering at its voters.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's not really what's driving UKIP's current success though. I do agree with you and VP that they would've have flourished in the 80s though  - there just wasn't the political space for them.



Also we had the SDP in the 80s to provide UKIP style political self-trepanning for those disillusioned with the old two party politics.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 25, 2014)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-after-claiming-Miliband-not-British.htmlhtml
What a fucking charmer


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 25, 2014)

http://thewordsmythuk.wordpress.com...-sweet-irony-of-ukips-latest-poster-campaign/
Bloody immigrants,taking our jobs etc........


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 25, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Someone shared this on my Facebook so thought i'd add it here too


So now I can recycle mother's copies of the Daily mail for free - and not just on Sunday!


----------



## Quartz (Apr 25, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-after-claiming-Miliband-not-British.htmlhtml
> What a fucking charmer



Beat me to it.



Gingerman said:


> http://thewordsmythuk.wordpress.com...-sweet-irony-of-ukips-latest-poster-campaign/
> Bloody immigrants,taking our jobs etc........



Didn't you know that Ireland is part of the British Isles?

  (them, not you).


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> yes, but 700+ who packed out The Sage people there booed the ones doing it.
> 
> The Sage is seriously expensive to hire, must be serious money going into UKIP now.


All that EU money Farage makes has to go somewhere


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 25, 2014)

Their candidate (a wealthy businessman, _quel surprise_) paid.  They weren't too happy about opponents pointing out it was built/operated with about five million quid of EU money...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Their candidate (a wealthy businessman, _quel surprise_) paid.  They weren't too happy about opponents pointing out it was built/operated with about five million quid of EU money...


I read they managed to deal with it by pointing out that the EU money involved is simply the same money that the UK taxpayer paid into the EU. Which is good politics as it moves the focus away from the main issue and lines up UKIP alongside the long-suffering UK taxpayer against the EU's madness.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 25, 2014)

Urgh it sounds like the exact same argument Ayn Rand gave for taking medicare. You're right though it is good politics if you're electioneering.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 25, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> http://thewordsmythuk.wordpress.com...-sweet-irony-of-ukips-latest-poster-campaign/
> Bloody immigrants,taking our jobs etc........



I've taken a second look at it and I think you, I, and the article writer have fallen into a prepared trap. I bet UKIP knew the actor was not British and are using that to make the point.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2014)

Nonsense, the agency's people would have hired and used him - UKIP would have been almost entirely hands off on the actual production of the poster  - they might have had creative input but the rest, nah.


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2014)

either way it's pretty meaningless.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2014)

In terms of harming UKIP agreed, in terms of the grasping at straws of their opponents, pretty revealing.


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2014)

oh, certainly. it's embarassing.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 25, 2014)

Fuck! I missed the Ukips!

You know how it is: you sit at home and nothing comes, then the minute you nip to the shops the ukips appears, pushing leaflets through your made-in-England British sized letterbox (or as the filthy wogs would doubtless call it, a 'lettrebeaux').

I was realy looking forward to chasing some fool down the street shouting abuse and facts. It's just typical of the ukips to deny me that. Now all i have is this silly leaflet.

"Our politicians have allowed open-door immigration"

As opposed to...closed door immigration? The door-is-ajar immigration? The hinges-need-oiling immigration?

ONLY UKIP WILL TAKE BACK CONTROL.

(insert face of the flangemeister).

"We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government" - Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner, January 2014.

This is the chilling headline that leads a personal message from Nigerian Flange which I won't post. It's the usual bollocks: apparently 77% of people want a reduction in immigration, the political elite in this country don't care, the EU coststhe UK£55 million a day just in membership fees, and only the ukips is prepared to say 'enough's enough'.

"How to vote UKIP on May 22nd to get our country back"

Yes, there are actually instructions; like some apocalyptic and xenophobic quote from the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. DO PANIC! I will read them:

1. read the facts about the EU (hah!), and Britain's brighter future ouside it, on pages 6-8.
2. Put the poster on pages 4-5 in your window (not really a poster, more the words UKIP in big letters, which i have corrected to 'racist scum UKIP').
3. Fill out your postal vote if you have one, placying your *X* against *UK Independence Party (UKIP).*
4. Or go to the Polling Station on Thursday, 22nd May between 7am and 10pm, and place your *X* against *UK Independence Party (UKIP).*

Thanks Nige!

In the South West our candidates, representing all walks of life:

the Earl of Dartmouth (a chartered accountant called William).
A research scientist called Dr Julia Reid 'formerly in the NHS', which seems a rather odd phrase.
Gawain (!) Towler, journalist, researcher and publicist (probably just the latter). There's actually a man in the ukips called Gawain ffs! Doesn't sound like a beautiful british name to me!
Tony McIntuyre, retired teacher and, of course, company director.
Dr Robert Smith, child and educational psychologist, probably on hand to refute evidence for conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia and autism, etc.
Keith 'the Craw' Crawford, businessman and former serviceman (i'm assuming special ops).

NOT CAREER POLITICANS! (emphasis mine)

Facts at your fingertips (?) about Britain and the EU.

This is the stuff alluded to earlier.

*We're likely to have MORE jobs after we leave the EU.*

Er, how? Apparently the EU is shrinking as a 'world player'. I'm not sure how that even makes sense; is the continent shrinking? Is this some weird allusion to the rise of the BRIC countries and their peers? the EU is hardly going away - and we are right next to the continent. Soooo?

Apparently the idea that '3m jobs would be risked by leaving the EU is just a big lie'. Phew, glad that was sorted...with facts and evidence. Oh wait, there is none.

*Food and fuel will be CHEAPER outside the EU.*

each family (and odd division) is estimated to be £400 a year better off without he EU's agricultural and fiheries policies to contend with. Huh? How do families currently contend with it? Surely if we take our toys away they will just charge us more.

*We'll SAVE enough to mend our economy for our children.*

That being the economy wrecked by global capitalist and financial interests that are not beholden to the EU and are largely US based? Or policies enacted by home grown financial terrorists like George Osborne or the kinds of instution that spawned Farage? No, simply we save the £55 million a day we spend. 'It's reckoned (by whom? doesn;'t say) the EU costs us around £165 billion a year. Jesus wept!

*We can tell the European Court of Human Rights where to go.*

Why? I like human rights! 'The Uk has a proud tradition of liberty and freedom (Yarls Wood for instance)' This is apparnetly preventing us from deporting foreign criminals 'even if they have a cat; we won't have to give votes to prisoners; and we can give whole life sentences to the worst criminals'. Hip hip hooray!

*We can TRADE with the world, not subsidise it.*

Like we can now, presumably. But no apparently we are already giving 'your' money to countries like Turkey, Serbia, Albania, Armenia, Libya, the Ukraine.

I may be wrong, but I don't think all of those are in the EU.

*And of course we'll be able to control immigration...*

"We're one of the EU's best customers. Anyone who says that 3m jobs are at risk if we leave the EU is simply telling a big lie... Love Britain (notsomuch these days, mainly beause of the rampant xenophobia) Vote UKIP.

4,000 people a week come to live in Britain from the EU (apparently the ONS said so on 27/2/2014 - no mention of the number of people going to live in the EU, or working in or dependent on it)"

***
FFS. Just don't vote for these wankers. No evidence, just scaremongering and pandering.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2014)

I think you'd better brush up on your - british - arthurian legends.

The above response is just as politically worthless as the_ ha ha you used an irishman on your poster_ one.


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2014)

Gawain and the Green knight


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 25, 2014)

Come knocking on my door and Gawain will be Green Alright!


----------



## Quartz (Apr 25, 2014)

UKIP came in for a pasting tonight in HIGNFY.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 25, 2014)

Posted (or reposted) on Attila the Stockbroker's excellent Facebook page recently :




			
				Attila the Stockbroker said:
			
		

>



His comment :




			
				ATS said:
			
		

> Sorry, mate, that pint you just served me has been sitting in the pump since about 1954 and is flavoured with lots of old hat and a hint of fascism. In fact your entire cellar is full of nothing but ullage. Piss off.




PS Attila's a proper real ale fan and has been so for years. Same with me and loads of other non UKIPs. So despite 'Farage's Man of the Beer' self image , it's still safe to drink proper beer, pub and beer fans


----------



## toggle (Apr 25, 2014)

do we mention that UKIP appear to be taking their prediction of a potential victory in Camborne so seriously they have appointed a 17 year old as branch chair who has been gobbing off all over the shop and making a complete arse of herself.


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2014)

a not-unsympathetic interview with farage in the graun tonight.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ukip-european-parliament-elections?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 25, 2014)

Will read that in the paper version on the train tomorrow. She's normally pretty good at getting stuff out of her interviewees, not always to their credit but I'll wait and see ....


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 25, 2014)

Quartz said:


> UKIP came in for a pasting tonight in HIGNFY.




they got a savaging a few weeks back when farange was a guest.

its not doing them any harm at all to have the est. gunning for them- none at all.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 25, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> they got a savaging a few weeks back when farange was a guest.



The way he took it on the chin then did him credit; this time he wasn't there. We'll see what happens.


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2014)

Quartz said:


> We'll see what happens.


as a result of a savaging on HIGNFY? fuck all. what _could_ happen?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 25, 2014)

toggle said:


> do we mention that UKIP appear to be taking their prediction of a potential victory in Camborne so seriously they have appointed a 17 year old as branch chair who has been gobbing off all over the shop and making a complete arse of herself.


Stay classy ukips; now they have children to argue for smoking.


----------



## laptop (Apr 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> as a result of a savaging on HIGNFY? fuck all. what _could_ happen?



I'd have thought that watching HIGNFY and voting UKIP were already mutually exclusive... am I doing something like being anti-chav, but for _garagistes_?


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> a not-unsympathetic interview with farage in the graun tonight.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/25/nigel-farage-ukip-european-parliament-elections?CMP=twt_gu




Its a front page story, with large photo of him, crazy,

meanwhile, ITN have just done a package on another UKIP crackpot, this time much more dangerous, saying "because of multi-culturalism, the U.S is committing suicide", shades of Breivik? just caught the surname, Challice, Farage would not condemn it, citing free speech.


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2014)

None of these increasingly ugly comments seem to be denting their appeal, so no benefit of the doubt can really be given to its voters anymore.


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2014)

I'm not even sure what that means, so fair enough not condemning it. what does it mean?


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2014)

afaimo, basically, multi-culturalism is destroying U.S society


----------



## Nylock (Apr 25, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Someone shared this on my Facebook so thought i'd add it here too


Had one today, made use of the address you provided


----------



## laptop (Apr 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> afaimo, basically, multi-culturalism is destroying U.S society



Which would be a dog-whistle for "black people are...", fear of "miscgenation", all that shite...


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 26, 2014)

Farage is okay with his wife being from outside Britain because she doesn't come in huge waves. 

This is a party with representation in the lords; how does that square with their claim to an better politics when they aren't even in parliament.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2014)

You've just said that they're in parliament. Then followed up by asking why they aren't in  parliament.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> as a result of a savaging on HIGNFY? fuck all. what _could_ happen?



Farage might end up being mayor of London.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 26, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/27/ukip-farage-racism-lenny-henry-politics-europe

A UKIP local election candidate has apparently tweeted that Lenny Henry should emigrate to a 'black country' because he 'shouldn't have to live with whites'. 

Now I'm assuming Lenny Henry gets on OK with white people, amongst other things he was married to one for quite a while. But the best bit is that he was actually born in Dudley, which is in _the_ black country


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 26, 2014)

Internet access to a kipper is like giving a box of matches to an arsonist on national free patrol day.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2014)

Keep it up wells, you're doing a great job for UKIP: YouGov have UKIP taking the lead for the first time in the european election polls this weekend.

YG:

UKIP 31 (+4),
Labour 28 (-2),
Conservatives 19 (-3) 
LibDems 9 (-1) 
Greens 8(+2)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2014)

It's all falling into UKIPs lap right now - by-election expected as tory MP resigns (before being kicked out it seems) over cash for questions - in a seat with a split anti-tory vote, neither of who can overhaul them on their own, but tory defectors plus two sets of tactical votings from lib-dems and labour can.

This is Patrick Mercer in Newark btw.

Are the people posting ha ha thick as fuck UKIPers going to get behind the tories and urge a vote for them to keep the main enemy out?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's all falling into UKIPs lap right now - by-election expected as tory MP resigns (before being kicked out it seems) over cash for questions - in a seat with a split anti-tory vote, neither of who can overhaul them on their own, but tory defectors plus two sets of tactical votings from lib-dems and labour can.
> 
> This is Patrick Mercer in Newark btw.
> 
> Are the people posting ha ha thick as fuck UKIPers going to get behind the tories and urge a vote for them to keep the main enemy out?


Why the by? I thought this was all last year?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2014)

The parliamentary standards report was only completed friday and since then even more serious allegations have been put to them and he's expected to be the first MP to be kicked out in 60s years without being convicted of a crime - hence the expected resignation.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The parliamentary standards report was only completed friday and since then even more serious allegations have been put to them and he's expected to be the first MP to be kicked out in 60s years without being convicted of a crime - hence the expected resignation.


 Oh right...good oh.

Smithson's mate did a piece on UKIP chances in Newark last year...

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/31/if-there-were-a-newark-by-election/

...looks a bit dated now, though...I'd imagine that they'd be able to get up a good head of steam if it were called soon.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2014)

They'd have to take a heck of a chunk of the tory vote, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2014)

Low turnout for tories with stay at homes and lots of switchers, highly motivated labour tactical voters and lib dems, 5000 from each and a stay away (highly likely due to anger at another bent politician) and they should have their first mp.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Low turnout for tories with stay at homes and lots of switchers, highly motivated labour tactical voters and lib dems, 5000 from each and a stay away (highly likely due to anger at another bent politician) and they should have their first mp.


 If it is called, there'd be huge pressure on Farage not to bottle it again, and stand himself.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2014)

Yep, i think he'd have to grasp the nettle this time.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, i think he'd have to grasp the nettle this time.



I was talking to my old Dad about Farage earlier today to see if IHO any of the recent 'mud had stuck' and I wasn't surprised that he felt no different about him at all; if anything I think the press attacks will have reinforced the 'he's a bit of a lad' image with his core. Interesting, isn't it, that the've gone with the dirt this early, for the Euros? Bit of a gamble if that's all that the tory press have on him...the haven't kept their powder dry.


----------



## classicdish (Apr 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Low turnout for tories with stay at homes and lots of switchers, highly motivated labour tactical voters and lib dems, 5000 from each and a stay away (highly likely due to anger at another bent politician) and they should have their first mp.


Surely Labour supporters would aim for a win, like in 1997? Why would it be tactical to back a party that has only ever got 4% of the vote in that seat?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2014)

To damage the tories. More than one extra seat in the dying embers of this parliament would. And because what possible in the 97 landside isn't possible now.  That's how i would thinking anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I was talking to my old Dad about Farage earlier today to see if IHO any of the recent 'mud had stuck' and I wasn't surprised that he felt no different about him at all; if anything I think the press attacks will have reinforced the 'he's a bit of a lad' image with his core. Interesting, isn't it, that the've gone with the dirt this early, for the Euros? Bit of a gamble if that's all that the tory press have on him...the haven't kept their powder dry.




this is jus the euros, if ukip do as well as predicted, then start threatening seats- watch the gloves come off. The recent est. smearing and highlighting of the fruits will be like a vicars tea compared to how rabid they will go if the tory party think home seats are under significant threat


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 27, 2014)

The fuck-ups and amateurishness of UKIP will appeal to many because they're sick of slippery and groomed on-message career politicians, so it helps make them look 'different' even if the content of what people say is highly offensive - they'll see it as railing against 'political correctness', in some cases a bit of a laugh maybe.

Also remember in the euros people aren't electing a government, they don't have to worry about the competency of candidates in office. It's seen as a fairly risk-free punch in the face for the government. What they build off the back of it is a worry.

The Lenny Henry guy has actually defended his statement, expect a dismissal soon. UKIP are also whining about people digging up dirt on their candidates as though nobody has done that on any other political party, which is bollocks (though maybe the media are giving them more attention on this - racist Tory councillor a rarely make the national news). They've said they should be attacked on policy - difficult when they only have one at the moment!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 27, 2014)

Saw a ukip poster in the village yesterday;in wondered how many people support gtheir bullshit locally. I don't know the people concerned.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Saw a ukip poster in the village yesterday;in wondered how many people support gtheir bullshit locally. I don't know the people concerned.


 Depending where you live, probably around 15 to 20% according to most polling.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 27, 2014)

I posted back my leaflet yesterday.

In some ways I wouldn't be surprised if we were indicative of 'most polling' estimates, but despite being surrounded by a sea of blue voting landowners and twats, our local councillor is actually a green, bucking local trends. When he retires I expect the Tories will take hold, or possibly the libdems again.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 27, 2014)

Little as I like Nick Cohen's Observer pieces a lot of the time, this one's definitely worth a read ...


*Nigel Farage is a phoney. Scrutinise him and he'll crumble*
Instead of tearing into the preposterous Ukip leader, Britain's famously aggressive media have made him a celebrity


----------



## treelover (Apr 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Keep it up wells, you're doing a great job for UKIP: YouGov have UKIP taking the lead for the first time in the european election polls this weekend.
> 
> YG:
> 
> ...




If UKIP get as as many MEP's as predicted, doesn't that mean they will have access to even more EU funds?, ironic but of course they can then use it to 'professionalise' themselves, spread more propaganda, etc.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2014)

YouGov find that *45% of over 60's,* (highest turn-out cohort), intend to vote UKIP in the Euros...

*UKIP (45%), Con (20%), Lab (19%), LD (8%), Oth (8%). (for this cohort)*



> ....45% of those who expressed a voting intention said UKIP....The oldies are, as is well known, much more likely to turn out to vote. In this poll 58% said they were 10/10 certain to vote compared with 46% for the sample as a whole.....This is one poll and there are the usual caveats about sub-sets – though this segment represented 525 people.



...but the challenge for Farage to carry over Euro success into the Westminster poll is demonstrated by this...



> ...*only 20% of this same subset said they would choose UKIP when asked who they’d been voting for at the general election...*



This being their most favourable demographic, it presently looks likely that a mid-teen share of the popular vote is more realistic estimate of the GE UKIP share.

Also posted in Polling thread.


----------



## treelover (Apr 28, 2014)

> ...*only 20% of this same subset said they would choose UKIP when asked who they’d been voting for at the general election...*



Its about 15% more than the whole of the left is likely to get though.


----------



## rekil (Apr 28, 2014)

Forum fave Tim Aker is a UKIP east England MEP candidate.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 28, 2014)

Poster not gone down very well in the East End of Glasgow


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2014)

11% UKIP in scotland.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 11% UKIP in scotland.



Indeed. Quite possible they'll get an MEP this time. The reaction that poster has got in the particular location it's in is heartening though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2014)

has a party with no members of parliament ever managed this level of visibility and polling before? Surely even Mosely's lot didn't get this level of attention.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> has a party with no members of parliament ever managed this level of visibility and polling before? Surely even Mosely's lot didn't get this level of attention.


 Good question.

I remember Goldsmith's millions giving the Referendum Party a high visibility in 1996/7, but although they took 3% of the popular vote in the 1997 GE, their polling was nowhere near the current UKIP levels. Who knows, if Goldsmith had survived and continued to spunk millions into the RP, Sked's party may well have withered on the vine.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 28, 2014)

One of the curios, which points to a hollowness which may in the end provide relief for their opponents, is that the party has not gone through anything like the normal trajectory of growth through community based action.

The tories didn't have to in their roots because they are a party of privilge and centuries of power, though some of them do nonetheless.

Labour are absolutely founded on it. The LDs built up their base with local campaigning too, acquiring councillors through "drains and dogshit" graft. The Greens borrowed a lot of LD strategy. Even the BNP had boots on the ground in the areas they did well, if that's not too close a metaphor for comfort. You name it, Hammas, Sinn Fein... whatever, The growth is slow or slow-ish and hard won.

But UKIP have managed it much more on a bubble of hot air and hype really, stacks of people becomming councillors and MEPs overnight.

No one knows what the fuck MEPs do of course, which helps, especially as UKIPs do next to fuck all beyond bathing in EU gravy.

But I feel sorry for people who end up with shit ones as councillors, not that any party is immune from shit councillors but still...UKIP are rising to levels that are probably beyond their basic competence to serve and legislate.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> has a party with no members of parliament ever managed this level of visibility and polling before? Surely even Mosely's lot didn't get this level of attention.


They are working hard to get this level of attention because it's the EU elections and they all want to get onboard the gravy train Farage has so successfully milked. Come the general election they won't give a shit.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> this is jus the euros, if ukip do as well as predicted, then start threatening seats- watch the gloves come off. The recent est. smearing and highlighting of the fruits will be like a vicars tea compared to how rabid they will go if the tory party think home seats are under significant threat



I strongly suspect much of the more recent puff about "ooooh...UKIP are for Labour voters too" is damage limitation from tory rags, as well as chiming with UKIP strategy. It also sounds like a marginally clever observation. Certainly though there are people who would vote UKIP who would never ever countenance voting tory, but to be lulled into any notion that it's a pro working class vote is just testament to the fraud and how out of touch Labour have become in too many areas (complacency being a prime cause)


----------



## treelover (Apr 29, 2014)

One of the things I am beginning to notice on social media is that accusations of 'racist', 'homophobe', etc, are not having any impact on posters who are accused of it and many other posters are reccing them, , its simply is not having the effect it would have had a few years ago, it may be because especially the former has been used in a scattergun way to shout down people and has now lost its impact, I don't know, Orwell might have had an answer, but long term its worrying, there was a poll a few years ago that stated 50% of voters would support a nationalist party that eschewed violence,etc, it was only one poll though.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> They are working hard to get this level of attention because it's the EU elections and they all want to get onboard the gravy train Farage has so successfully milked. Come the general election they won't give a shit.


What nuanced insight.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I strongly suspect much of the more recent puff about "ooooh...UKIP are for Labour voters too" is damage limitation from tory rags, as well as chiming with UKIP strategy. It also sounds like a marginally clever observation. Certainly though there are people who would vote UKIP who would never ever countenance voting tory, but to be lulled into any notion that it's a pro working class vote is just testament to the fraud and how out of touch Labour have become in too many areas (complacency being a prime cause)



tbh I've not seen reporting that suggests UKIP is *for* any particular demographic, but precisely the other way around...certain cohorts appear more favourably disposed towards their simplistic nationalism. The polling evidence suggests that, as any 'protest party' would, UKIP have taken voters from all other parties, but continue to poach more from the tories than anyone else. Here's the latest evidence on the churning for the forthcoming Euros:-


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I strongly suspect much of the more recent puff about "ooooh...UKIP are for Labour voters too" is damage limitation from tory rags, as well as chiming with UKIP strategy. It also sounds like a marginally clever observation. Certainly though there are people who would vote UKIP who would never ever countenance voting tory, but to be lulled into any notion that it's a pro working class vote is just testament to the fraud and how out of touch Labour have become in too many areas (complacency being a prime cause)



The tories saying that UKIP are taking votes off labour too is irrelevant electorally - the only places where UKIP voters can do damage is in in tory 
marginals.

What's marginally clever?

 The second half of your post needs separating from the first.


----------



## gosub (Apr 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> One of the things I am beginning to notice on social media is that accusations of 'racist', 'homophobe', etc, are not having any impact on posters who are accused of it and many other posters are reccing them, , its simply is not having the effect it would have had a few years ago, it may be because especially the former has been used in a scattergun way to shout down people and has now lost its impact, I don't know, Orwell might have had an answer, but long term its worrying, there was a poll a few years ago that stated 50% of voters would support a nationalist party that eschewed violence,etc, it was only one poll though.



The power of words.  Remember arguing with a rather creepy bloke who ended standing for district council as BNP (lost deposit).  He delighted in using language political correctness has tried to expunge from the lexicon, like some 8 year old thrilled at knowing a swear word capable of getting a rise out the grown ups.  Newspeaking doesn't change the underlying attitudes of those who outlook you wish to deem unacceptable, it just makes them easier to mark them out, where they wallow happy as a pig in shit.

I remember doing Referendum party stuff, the smears of racist and xenophobia emanating from Mr Mandelson down.  Found it quite upsetting because it wasn't true, neither  of me or most of the people seeking plebiscite over the disaster that is the EUro.   I look now at posters coming out of UKIP with some guilt as we laid the bedrock...To label them 'racist' is a semantic contortion, that dilutes the language and as a slur, rolls off like water from a ducks back.  Some are however utterly xenophobic, and as such, to me, repellent.  My truck is with the politics of EUrope not the peoples.

While I felt some hurt, and then guilt on the 'xenophobia' front. I wonder in ten years time if current UKIP supporters will feel the same about the 'racist' term.  There are certainly currents - you only have to look as far as the anti Lenny Henry stuff going on... but that is for the future


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> One of the things I am beginning to notice on social media is that accusations of 'racist', 'homophobe', etc, are not having any impact on posters who are accused of it and many other posters are reccing them, , its simply is not having the effect it would have had a few years ago, it may be because especially the former has been used in a scattergun way to shout down people and has now lost its impact, I don't know, Orwell might have had an answer, but long term its worrying, there was a poll a few years ago that stated 50% of voters would support a nationalist party that eschewed violence,etc, it was only one poll though.




that's been the case for years. They like being called racist if anything. They have a ready made smokescreen for the accusation. (not the kipfrauds per se, more the general pool of xenaphobes who they now dominate)

Such phrases as "typical - playing the race card and closing down the debate" are used to close down the debate, which Orwell would of course said something about.

The reaction against "pc" has been at least as problematic as pc itself (IMO) for the better part of 30 years.

ETA : You put the point very well, I think elsewhere you or someone said they are like a teen who has found a new swearword. The racists have found expert ways to invoke race without it being provable. Then they can have a "debate" on their territory ad infinitum while their opponent seeths. It's all well rehearsed.

I wish to god Hope Not Hate could grasp this. UKIPs weak point is economics and an instinctive authoritarianism. interesting to see how many LDs have gone over from one of those charts. "protest" my rusty hoop. Protest is meant to be against the establishment not for more corporate phooey. You'd think the LD supporters might have learned their lesson from being diddled last time but no... much of this has the ring of the lemmings parade.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 29, 2014)

Separately, cat is out the bag again.

pic.twitter.com/2lVyp7Lv7z


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2014)

Paul Nuttal is not an MEP. 

This stuff is shit.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Paul Nuttal is not an MEP.



But Paul Nuttall is.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2014)

Quartz said:


> But Paul Nuttall is.


Oh, _now _you're not ignoring me.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's all falling into UKIPs lap right now - by-election expected as tory MP resigns (before being kicked out it seems) over cash for questions - in a seat with a split anti-tory vote, neither of who can overhaul them on their own, but tory defectors plus two sets of tactical votings from lib-dems and labour can.
> 
> This is Patrick Mercer in Newark btw.



6 month ban.

Ball in Mercer's court.....will he do what would hurt Cameron most?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

game on!


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 29, 2014)

Perfect storm for Farage. He couldn't have wished for a by election in a better seat - as long as he thinks he can win it.

Now I wonder will the three main parties goad him into standing or remain silent?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

...and Crick has just said that it can't be held until after the Euros/locals, so the tories can't tie up UKIP with 2 concurrent campaigns.


----------



## Corax (Apr 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...and Crick has just said that it can't be held until after the Euros/locals, so the tories can't tie up UKIP with 2 concurrent campaigns.


It can't be held * on the same day * is what I heard on the radio (not Crick)


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

Corax said:


> It can't be held on the same day is what I heard on the radio (not Crick)


 Yeah, it's right...according to Smithson...



> It is impossible for there to be a by election in Newark or anywhere else on May 22nd . section 14 of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 came into force on April 6th and now there is a minimum of 25 days excluding weekends/bank holidays between the writ being moved and the by election being held .


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 29, 2014)

The freepost response continues:


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> The freepost response continues:
> 
> View attachment 53039


That is so unbelievably shit. Did you do it yourself?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That is so unbelievably shit. Did you do it yourself?



No I didn't actually and don't give a flying fuck whether you like it or not, so fuck off being such a condescending prick!

I shall now go back to ignoring you, like I have been doing for a very long time now despite the fact that you continue baiting and abusing. You seriously aren't as important as you seem to believe you are.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 29, 2014)

This is better







(in Swansea apparently)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 29, 2014)

Personally I like every which way people take it upon themselves to show their dislike of UKIP, I don't think it's a competition of better or worse. I'm happy to be seeing it done.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Personally I like every which way people take it upon themselves to show their dislike of UKIP, I don't think it's a competition of better or worse. I'm happy to be seeing it done.


Voting tory?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 29, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Personally I like every which way people take it upon themselves to show their dislike of UKIP, I don't think it's a competition of better or worse. I'm happy to be seeing it done.


I wasn't referencing your post tbh, I just meant it was just 'better' in terms of having a short, sharp, positive message for people who might be thinking of voting UKIP instead of just calling them racists and possibly entrenching their position


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 29, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I wasn't referencing your post tbh, I just meant it was just 'better' in terms of having a short, sharp, positive message for people who might be thinking of voting UKIP instead of just calling them racists and possibly entrenching their position



Yeah I hear ya. The thing I posted is tongue in cheek obviously apart from the post them a brick care of their own freepost.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 29, 2014)

A school friend once found several thousand blank envelopes in a skip, and set up the Freepost address for the British Field Sports Association on his John Bull toy printing set and stamped them all up, dropping a few dozen in any post box he passed. Cost them a few hundred quid. At 60p a stamp these days you could burn through some of UKIP's wealthy backers' cash a bit quicker. Shame the post office has been privatised, you could be redistributing Stuart Wheeler's cash to the NHS (or, um, war and prisons...)


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 29, 2014)

I think they have weight limits on those Freepost addresses don't they? Bricks might not go through. Cat turds are probably fair game.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Personally I like every which way people take it upon themselves to show their dislike of UKIP, I don't think it's a competition of better or worse. I'm happy to be seeing it done.


Voting tory/labour/lib-dem?


----------



## treelover (Apr 29, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Personally I like every which way people take it upon themselves to show their dislike of UKIP, I don't think it's a competition of better or worse. I'm happy to be seeing it done.




keep posting on the bedroom tax thread, very informative


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 29, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Personally I like every which way people take it upon themselves to show their dislike of UKIP, I don't think it's a competition of better or worse. I'm happy to be seeing it done.


Even by idiotic means that actually increase the support for UKIP. But hey doing totally counterproductive things is better than doing nothing right


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 29, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> The freepost response continues:
> 
> View attachment 53039


I hear the Eastern Europeans  are quite good at building things


----------



## ddraig (Apr 29, 2014)

.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

ddraig said:


> billboard in Swansea



Jolly good, but deja _view_


----------



## ddraig (Apr 29, 2014)

damn yooooooooooo! i deleted it n all 
and sorry yonungian, weeps posted it up page


----------



## ddraig (Apr 29, 2014)

weepiper said:


> This is better
> 
> 
> (in Swansea apparently)


around the corner from where Nigel is due to attend an event tomorrow


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I hear the Eastern Europeans  are quite good at building things



Whereas...East Africans?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 29, 2014)




----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> keep posting on the bedroom tax thread, very informative



I will and anywhere else I like.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 29, 2014)

ddraig said:


>




Couldn't you just do that to any photo of anyone ever? What's the point in it? Surely Farage is actually seen as less serious, more humorous and likely to pass the pint test, than most politicians.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2014)

ddraig said:


> snip


That is utter shit.

Though this tripe is almost as bad.


> *10 good reasons not to vote for Ukip*
> *.........*
> *9) Has there ever been a major party so dependent on one sellable character?*


Can't even get basic facts right.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 30, 2014)

weepiper said:


> This is better
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I know where that is! Will look for it  on the bus this morning 

Farage's coming to town this evening, with a gathering of opponents expected too. We'll both be along ...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

Big big lead for ukip in latest tns-bmrb European poll, 36% to labour 27% tory 18 and lib dem Scum on tens.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2014)

Are they successfully pulling votes out of Labour now, which is what that poll suggests? Is the strategy working or still harming the Tories more?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> That is utter shit.
> 
> Though this tripe is almost as bad.
> Can't even get basic facts right.


 Yes, there are many reasons not to vote for UKIP, but..... 





> *8. It speaks with forked tongues*


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

They're taking support from all places, but it only hurts labour in the euros really.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2014)

Poll from a week ago for comparison, nicked off the other thread:

*LAB 30%, UKIP 27%, CON 22%, LDEM 10%, GREEN 6%. (Apr 23rd)
(Vs 27%.		  36%.		 18%.		  10% today)

It's all margins of error, but suggests Tories still dropping more points.

Tories will play the result as 'humiliation for labour' rather than take it as a criticism of themselves ("we're the incumbent, we expect a protest vote, people have had it hard but we're building the recovery and listening to their concerns")*


----------



## co-op (Apr 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Big big lead for ukip in latest tns-bmrb European poll, 36% to labour 27% tory 18 and lib dem Scum on tens.


Have you got a link for that one? Can't find it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

co-op said:


> Have you got a link for that one? Can't find it.


Not yet, will post when I have.


----------



## co-op (Apr 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not yet, will post when I have.


Ta.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

co-op said:


> Ta.


That poll

LAB 27% (-3)
UKIP 36% (+7)
CON 18% (-3)
LIB DEM 10% (+1)
OTHER 9% (-2)

Full data just under the main bit.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2014)

not confident enough to go for Newark though


----------



## youngian (Apr 30, 2014)

articul8 said:


> not confident enough to go for Newark though


Turnouts are slightly higher as well and that doesn't play well for UKIP. Unlike the SDP in the 80s or even the Lib Dems this is nothing like a serious party that anyone outside of its core base of swivel eyed loons can see playing a role in government. 
As for Labour they seem content to let UKIP slug it out with the Tories and watch Cameron drift farther to the right come the general election. A dangerous strategy as UKIP are starting to pepper their manifesto with more economic inteventionist measures to woo Labour voters. But not to the extent of the French FN and it is lucky for Labour that UKIP is still run by free-market headbangers like Farage.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 30, 2014)

Could 'swivel eyed' be the most over used cliche in British political discourse?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

youngian said:


> Turnouts are slightly higher as well and that doesn't play well for UKIP. Unlike the SDP in the 80s or even the Lib Dems this is nothing like a serious party that anyone outside of its core base of swivel eyed loons can see playing a role in government.
> As for Labour they seem content to let UKIP slug it out with the Tories and watch Cameron drift farther to the right come the general election. A dangerous strategy as UKIP are starting to pepper their manifesto with more economic inteventionist measures to woo Labour voters. But not to the extent of the French FN and it is lucky for Labour that UKIP is still run by free-market headbangers like Farage.


Any labour-->ukip movement won't be electorally significant though as it'll tend to be in areas with large labour majorities.


----------



## youngian (Apr 30, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> Could 'swivel eyed' be the most over used cliche in British political discourse?


Its succint and we know who its aimed at. I rather like Turnip Taliban as well.


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2014)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ens-his-attack-ukip-more-thatcherite-thatcher


Milliband attacks UKIP 'from the left' in the Daily Mirror today

btw, its interesting that most UKIP voters want a bigger role for the state, nationalisation, higher taxes for the rich, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

treelover said:


> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ens-his-attack-ukip-more-thatcherite-thatcher
> 
> 
> Milliband attacks UKIP 'from the left' in the Daily Mirror today
> ...


That's a more productive method for the mainstream parties to take to achieve their ends (note:this isn't me supporting those ends) but he really needs to not make the pro-eu argument, that's exactly what UKIP want him/them to do. Only one winner on that ground.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 30, 2014)

treelover said:


> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ens-his-attack-ukip-more-thatcherite-thatcher
> 
> 
> Milliband attacks UKIP 'from the left' in the Daily Mirror today
> ...



Yeah it reminds me of this:


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2014)

> If you want to know about the real agenda of a political party it is vital that you understand how the party is funded. If UKIP we're some kind of alternative, then surely they would have an alternative funding model, rather than relying on huge donations from super-wealthy individuals, just like the Tory party?
> 
> We'll the evidence speaks for itself,: UKIP are funded in exactly the same way as the Tory party, and were they ever to obtain any real measure of power, you can be absolutely sure that their financial backers will be looking for payback (in the form of favourable legislation, seats in the House of Lords, knighthoods, political appointments, subsidies and outsourcing contracts or even the chance to actually write government legislation for them) in exactly the same way major donors to the Tory party have been handed countless favours by the Tory led government.
> 
> ...





http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/ukip-alternative-delusion-neoliberal.html

another attack from the left, much better than labour's


----------



## gosub (Apr 30, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Are they successfully pulling votes out of Labour now, which is what that poll suggests? Is the strategy working or still harming the Tories more?



Yougov has them taking 46% of 2010 tory voters, 17% of Labour, and 24% of Libdems.  Relating to the Euro elections


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

gosub said:


> Yougov has them taking 46% of 2010 tory voters, 17% of Labour, and 24% of Libdems.  Relating to the Euro elections


Do you mean 47% of their vote is former tories according to YG? Or do you really mean they have taken half of the tory vote i.e 5 million votes. That figure drops to 17% for the general election btw


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

Another poll just published:

ComRes

TORY 18%(-4)
LAB 27%(-3)
LDEM 8%(nc)
UKIP 38%(+8)


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2014)

> These artisan French foods, proud produce of our terroirs and all protected by Appellation d'Origine status, will soon be at the mercy of multinationals, under the new transatlantic trade and investment partnership the European Union is negotiating with the US.
> "American farmers and 'big food' will rule; our regulations and standards will count for nothing," Chauprade continues. "This is an EU that has no respect for national specificities; it's an EU of bureaucrats, of ever greater normalisation, in the service of big banks and corporations. It is not the EU we want."
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...lux-eurosceptics-parties-european-union-polls




Are UKIP raising the issue of the EU's imminent signing of the 'transatlantic trade and investment partnership'(TTIP) with the U.S which ultimately will cede more sovereignty away from nation states as Big Corp runs riot in the EU?

Maybe not, as Farage wants something similar for U.S and U.K

btw, the above is from a prominent FN politician, but its an argument the left should be making across the EU.


----------



## Theisticle (Apr 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Another poll just published:
> 
> ComRes
> 
> ...



The caveat:

Note that both polls are based on only those certain to vote. This tends to boost up the support of UKIP, who have the most enthusiastic supporters in the European elections – if ComRes had taken those saying they were 5+/10 likely to vote it would have decreased UKIP’s lead to four points.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8768


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> The caveat:
> 
> Note that both polls are based on only those certain to vote. This tends to boost up the support of UKIP, who have the most enthusiastic supporters in the European elections – if ComRes had taken those saying they were 5+/10 likely to vote it would have decreased UKIP’s lead to four points.
> 
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8768


True, but the line of march is clear.


----------



## chilango (Apr 30, 2014)

Tell you what, when "us on the Left" can start pulling the figures that UKIP do maybe then we can sneer from our high ground, till then we'd be better served trying to learn something from the "swivel eyed loons" who are doing politics a lot better than we are.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> True, but the line of march is clear.


 Vermin sub 20%...hmmm.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2014)

chilango said:


> Tell you what, when "us on the Left" can start pulling the figures that UKIP do maybe then we can sneer from our high ground, till then we'd be better served trying to learn something from the "swivel eyed loons" who are doing politics a lot better than we are.



Is the lesson that we need a leader of the same political class as people who run the BBC?


----------



## chilango (Apr 30, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Is the lesson that we need a leader of the same political class as people who run the BBC?



Ask Lord Acton's grandson about that one.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 30, 2014)

weepiper said:


> This is better
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well that didn't last long. It was altered for the first time yesterday or last night I think, and was still there 7:30 am this morning, but on the way back this afternoon -- poster completely removed!

May well get replaced by a new UKIP poster mind you -- they/Sykes have paid for the space after all.


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2014)

> *Ukip soars to top of polls despite Farage ducking byelection battle*
> Latest polling puts Nigel Farage's party on course to sweep European elections after leader rules out standing in Newark
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/30/ukip-nigel-farage-top-polls-european-elections



The irresistible rise?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2014)

Survation have instantly polled about Farage. The numbers suggest that the party does poll better than its leader, and that there is little consensus about whether or not he's a bottler.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...-of-line-with-the-latest-euro-voting-numbers/



> Participants were asked were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with two statements:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2014)

That second question is a bit like 'push polling' as I understand it. Expect to see a lot of that over the next year (A Crosby trick). Who commissioned the survey?

E2a: Huff Post. Kind of figures.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 30, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

treelover said:


> The irresistible rise?


Daft headline as the polling was done well before he announced he wasn't standing.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> That second question is a bit like 'push polling' as I understand it. Expect to see a lot of that over the next year (A Crosby trick). Who commissioned the survey?
> 
> E2a: Huff Post. Kind of figures.


 Yeah, but 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 doesn't suggest the push was particularly effective?


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 doesn't suggest the push was particularly effective?



I think the term as I understand it is to install ideas into voters by carrying ideas in the polling question (in this case Farage bottling it). Cruder examples in the US were downright dishonest: "if senator X was known to have fathered an illegitimate child would you still vote for him?)

So maybe highlighting Farage choosing not to stand (or chickening out) is a way of portraying him negatively via the question. (True 'push polling' involves trying to contact as many people as possible to sew an idea, maybe not the case here).


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2014)

> Absolutely agree. Farage isn't stupid. And even if he got lucky in Newark what could he possibly gain by becoming the only UKIP MP a year before the general election?
> His whole strategy is to push Cameron out and then form a pact with the anti-European section of the Tory Party. They've been fighting this internal battle for decades. Farage's plan for the 2015 election is to try to attract away as many voters as he can who might have voted Labour by portraying himself as the anti-Westminster alternative. Then the day after the 2015 election he'll form a pact with whoever has replaced Cameron. Result: another Tory government. Another government without a mandate that got to power by trickery and deception.
> If Farage did manage to get into Westminster now in Newark he would be wrecking his own plan. He'd suddenly lose his anti-Westminster stance and Cameron's pals would try to stitch him up with even the slightest expenses difficulties he made in Westminster. And meanwhile his real supporters on the Tory benches would suddenly be forced to show their support.
> By staying out he can keep his real strategy away from the public until after he's conned them out of their vote to bring in an even more extreme Tory Party.
> No wonder Norman Tebitt supports him.



Imo, this post on guardian cif(by a ususally spot on poster) seem very astute


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 30, 2014)

treelover said:


> Imo, this post on guardian cif(by a ususally spot on poster) seem very astute



It's mental shit, which is probably why you are quoting it approvingly you mental


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

That stuff sounds like paranoid barminess.


----------



## Fingers (Apr 30, 2014)

it is a fairly open secret in media circles that things are going to go extremely shit for them over the next few days. hang onto your hats....


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

Do the media think they can 'take them down' - what deluded arrogant shits.


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's mental shit, which is probably why you are quoting it approvingly you mental




mental, eh, not very progressive language


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2014)

Fingers said:


> it is a fairly open secret in media circles that things are going to go extremely shit for them over the next few days. hang onto your hats....


Why? How? And if it's a fairly open secret why won't you give any details.

Anyway, another day another story about on one of UKIPs members



			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> Ukip donor says women cannot be raped by their husbands


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2014)

Apparently, according to social media,  Farage sold out a 2,500 seater venue for his meeting in Bath earlier this week, any confirmation?


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2014)

Fingers said:


> it is a fairly open secret in media circles that things are going to go extremely shit for them over the next few days. hang onto your hats....




links?


----------



## Fingers (Apr 30, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Why? How? And if it's a fairly open secret why won't you give any details.



Because I do not want to fuck up what could possibly be a god send.  I can say I am pretty sure that the Guardian is going to break an explosive story involving serious criminality and massive corruption which goes right to the top of the party either tomorrow or Friday.

ETA: I would say this might be why Farage has looked rather on edge today


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2014)

I predict they have nothing. nothing that'll dent 'em anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

treelover said:


> Apparently, according to social media,  Farage sold out a 2,500 seater venue for his meeting in Bath earlier this week, any confirmation?


The forum has 2000 capacity when all sections are open. They sold out the lower part and upper circle - i don't know if that's the entire place or not.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2014)

Fingers said:


> Because I do not want to fuck up what could possibly be a god send.  I can say I am pretty sure that the Guardian is going to break an explosive story involving serious criminality and massive corruption which goes right to the top of the party either tomorrow or Friday.



If true, the tories will be very pleased.


----------



## Fingers (Apr 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The forum has 2000 capacity when all sections are open. They sold out the lower part and upper circle - i don't know if that's the entire place or not.



Plus there was a social media campaign to book seats and not turn up (as they were free) Not sure how big that got


----------



## Fingers (Apr 30, 2014)

killer b said:


> I predict they have nothing. nothing that'll dent 'em anyway.



Depends how many and who gets nicked and charged


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 30, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Why? How? And if it's a fairly open secret why won't you give any details.
> 
> Anyway, another day another story about on one of UKIPs members



All publicity is good publicity for the party of rapists and racists.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2014)

Fingers said:


> Because I do not want to fuck up what could possibly be a god send.  I can say I am pretty sure that the Guardian is going to break an explosive story involving serious criminality and massive corruption which goes right to the top of the party either tomorrow or Friday.


How would posting any details "fuck up what could possibly be a god send"?


----------



## laptop (Apr 30, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> How would posting any details "fuck up what could possibly be a god send"?



I dunno. Can UKIP afford the circumstances of Carter-Fuck or Schillings to get an injunction against the paper? 

If they can, the above would be enough for them to go on if it went before Mr Justice Idiot. (<-- name suppressed because I conveniently forgot it.)


----------



## Fingers (Apr 30, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> How would posting any details "fuck up what could possibly be a god send"?



No idea and am not going to risk sticking it on a forum without having it legalled my self. For a taster you can go here as it is out there on twitter already

https://twitter.com/JasnaBadzak

Yes and I know she has a conviction for defrauding UKIP out of cash but that is part of the story


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2014)

laptop said:


> I dunno. Can UKIP afford the circumstances of Carter-Fuck or Schillings to get an injunction against the paper?
> 
> If they can, the above would be enough for them to go on if it went before Mr Justice Idiot. (<-- name suppressed because I conveniently forgot it.)


Well if it's an open secret they must already be aware of it and would already have such wheels in motion.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

Fingers said:


> No idea and am not going to risk sticking it on a forum without having it legalled my self. For a taster you can go here as it is out there on twitter already
> 
> https://twitter.com/JasnaBadzak
> 
> Yes and I know she has a conviction for defrauding UKIP out of cash but that is part of the story


That person is not someone to go near. Just look at that timeline. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Fingers (Apr 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That person is not someone to go near. Just look at that timeline. Nothing to see here.



We will see.... My source is not her.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

Her claims about the guardian pretty clearly are just paranoia about UKIP persecuting her 'stiching me up' - and she repeats this UKIP/IRA nonsense as well.


----------



## laptop (Apr 30, 2014)

Well if it screws up let it be her fault, not urbanz'


----------



## Fingers (Apr 30, 2014)

ok, story should break tomorrow afternoon (bar any last minute legal shit i suppose)... watch this  space, i might be wrong but i am pretty certain i am not. I will gladly suck it up if i am.


----------



## gosub (Apr 30, 2014)

treelover said:


> Apparently, according to social media,  Farage sold out a 2,500 seater venue for his meeting in Bath earlier this week, any confirmation?


http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-belly-of-the-beast/


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2014)

Fingers said:


> ok, story should break tomorrow afternoon (bar any last minute legal shit i suppose)... watch this  space, i might be wrong but i am pretty certain i am not. I will gladly suck it up if i am.


Well lets assume for a minute you are right and this story does break, _why_ is it a godsend? What will it achieve?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

700 is the lower section. They also had the similarly sized upper circle.


----------



## Fingers (Apr 30, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Well lets assume for a minute you are right and this story does break, _why_ is it a godsend? What will it achieve?



It could royally fuck them right up.  I call that a bit of a godsend considering how popular they seemingly are at the moment.


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2014)

Fingers said:


> No idea and am not going to risk sticking it on a forum without having it legalled my self. For a taster you can go here as it is out there on twitter already
> 
> https://twitter.com/JasnaBadzak
> 
> Yes and I know she has a conviction for defrauding UKIP out of cash but that is part of the story




Sounds like a loose cannon, C/T, etc


----------



## Fingers (May 1, 2014)

treelover said:


> Sounds like a loose cannon, C/T, etc



Maybe, maybe not.... we will see if the media and police run with it...


----------



## redsquirrel (May 1, 2014)

Fingers said:


> It could royally fuck them right up.  I call that a bit of a godsend considering how popular they seemingly are at the moment.


Well again, assuming that it does "royally fuck them right up" what are the benefits form that? Besides the fact that the traditional parties, particularly the Tories, gaining a higher % share of the vote?


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2014)

It would have to be a issue of seismic importance to dent their popularity at the moment, maybe major personal corruption by Farage.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 1, 2014)

treelover said:


> It would have to be a issue of seismic importance to dent their popularity at the moment, maybe major personal corruption by Farage.


Arrghhhh! Do people not read this fucking thread, as has been pointed out god knows how many times Farage polls behind UKIP, the idea that removing Farage=the collapse of UKIP is utter rubbish.

EDIT: though to be fair it could "dent their popularity" a little.


----------



## Fingers (May 1, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Well again, assuming that it does "royally fuck them right up" what are the benefits form that? Besides the fact that the traditional parties, particularly the Tories, gaining a higher % share of the vote?



Simples, I do not like UKIP any more than the BNP and would rather have the traditional parties in power than let these grubby fuckers get even a fraction of it.


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-belly-of-the-beast/




Farage got two standing ovations in a city like Bath which is traditionally Lib Dem, as the author of this excellent report asks, will they go on to vote for him and his party in the GE, over 800 people on a Monday night means something is going on, the last time the left got numbers like that was with Benn's appearances and the Iraq War.


----------



## Nylock (May 1, 2014)

> Britain is now a country which _loathes_ its politicians (largely justifiably), and anyone who can give the impression of being unlike them will find a large audience.


This is as good an explanation as any as to why UKIP are getting so much attention and building support. Our politicical classes are almost universally despised (being perceived as corrupt, nepotistic and hopelessly out of touch with everything). Then again, if there was a left party diametrically opposite to UKIP with a 'curse on both your houses' attitude to the mainstream, some very wealthy backers and getting a fuckton of airtime then they too might be in a similar position...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 1, 2014)

Nylock said:


> This is as good an explanation as any as to why UKIP are getting so much attention and building support. Our politicical classes are almost universally despised (being perceived as corrupt, nepotistic and hopelessly out of touch with everything). Then again, if there was a left party diametrically opposite to UKIP with a 'curse on both your houses' attitude to the mainstream, some very wealthy backers and getting a fuckton of airtime then they too might be in a similar position...




They wouldn't get the airtime or the backers because they wouldn't be establishment arguments.

Some of the major roots of UKIP support and attitudes is in the decades of virulent day in /out shite in The Mail, Express et al. Those rags may have an air of critique of the party in order to cover for their more trad tory friends, but the establishment will always go with right wing alternatives over left wing ones for obvious reasons.

ETA : As for the current political class being corrupt and nepotistic, of course that's true, and UKIP are very much in that class. How people can't see through it is a little weird.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 1, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> No I didn't actually and don't give a flying fuck whether you like it or not, so fuck off being such a condescending prick... you continue baiting and abusing. You seriously aren't as important as you seem to believe you are.



Just re-posting for emphasis. Try learning some new tricks ffs butchers.


----------



## classicdish (May 1, 2014)

Nylock said:


> ...Our politicical classes are almost universally despised...


Shame that doesn't seem to translate onto voting when it matters, for example in 2010: 
57% of the electorate voted for Con/LD/Lab
35% of the electorate didn't vote
8% of the electorate voted for other parties
Of these the most popular party on the left were the Greens but they only got 265,243 votes (0.6% of the electorate)


----------



## Nylock (May 1, 2014)

classicdish said:


> Shame that doesn't seem to translate onto voting when it matters, for example in 2010:
> 57% of the electorate voted for Con/LD/Lab
> 35% of the electorate didn't vote
> 8% of the electorate voted for other parties
> Of these the most popular party on the left were the Greens but they only got 265,243 votes (0.6% of the electorate)


Going by the percentages:
23.4% of the total electorate voted Conservative
18.8% of the total electorate voted Labour
14.9% of the total electorate voted LibDem
7.8%  of the total electorate voted for others

So in percentage terms of total electorate versus non vote 35% share:
vs Conservative vote share of 23.4% = 11.6% more non-votes
vs Labour vote share of 18.8% = 16.2% more non-voters
vs LibDem vote share of 14.9% = 20.1% more non-voters
vs Others vote share of 7.8% = 27.2% more non-voters

In numbers:
Total electorate:	45,597,461
Total who voted:   29,687,604
Total non-voters:   15,909,857

Total Conservative Votes:   10,700,000
Total Labour Votes:		8,600,000
Total LibDem Votes:		6,800,000
Total Others:		  3,600,000 (actually rounded up from a remainder of 3,587,604)

So going from these figures (no shows/non-votes vs votes cast):
9.1 million MORE people didn't show than those who voted LibDem
7.3 million MORE people didn't show than those who voted Labour
5.2 million MORE people didn't show than those who voted Conservative
5.1 million MORE people didn't show than those who voted LibDem & Others combined.
0.5 million MORE people didn't vote than those who voted LibDem & Labour combined.

Only 1.2 million more voters voted for BOTH LibDem & Conservative combined than those who didn't vote at all.

If people felt that their vote mattered, why is it that the amount of non-voters outweighs those who vote for the government of the day? If voter apathy/disgust is the non-problem you seem to be making it out to be, why are political types worried about it? 

It would be of interest to see how many of those who turned out to vote in 2010 were 'habitual' voters (those who always vote and always vote for the same party), how many of those who turned out were of the 'it's our duty to vote' types, how many of those who turned out to vote did so but under sufferance (the 'no-one I approve of is standing but i'm going to vote against xyz' type/'i'm going to hold my nose while I cast my vote' type), how many of those who turned out did so enthusiastically as they were all gung-ho about the forthcoming buttfucking and how many of those who turned out to vote were first-time voters. It would also be of interest to see how many of those who turned out in 2010 will not do so in 2015. 

Turnout was up 3.7% in 2010 versus the 2005 GE, how much of that was the LD's and Tories smelling blood in the water and making a proper push to get their vote out? Even then they only managed to beat the effective 'none of the above' vote by 2.6% of the total electorate. That's fucking shit in anyone's book.

If voters turn out 'when it counts' then why do 35% of them not show for when it's supposed to _properly_ count in the general election?


----------



## classicdish (May 1, 2014)

Nylock said:


> If voter apathy/disgust is the non-problem you seem to be making it out to be, why are political types worried about it?


I never said it is a non-problem. I raised the question about your statement _"Our politicical classes are almost universally despised"_ 

I agree a 65% turnout is very poor - the UK has the lowest turnouts in the EU. By contrast Belgium gets 90% turnouts and many others are in the mid 80s% http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/upload/Full_Reprot.pdf 

I also agree people don't think that highly of politicians: What do people really think of politicians?

However 'Almost universally' suggests something like 90% plus of people and I was pointing out that 57% of the electorate still vote for the 'big three'.

Not that many people seem to be that interested in helping organise anything better by way of coherent alternatives or actually going out and voting for the alternatives if and when they are offered.


----------



## Nylock (May 1, 2014)

you can still vote for someone you hate, provided you hate them and their party less than the alternative.... 

However, in the interests of not provoking a statistical pissing contest, I'll concede that 'almost universally' may have been a bit strong of me. Nonetheless, you can't deny that a significant proportion of the electorate do not trust, or even like, those in power in westminster and that this proportion is a pretty high one (58% rating their honesty/integrity as low/very low from that linked article, for instance).


----------



## Theisticle (May 1, 2014)

Anne Marie Waters is now a Ukip candidate. 

_



			Dispatch International
		
Click to expand...

_


> was launched at the “2012 International Conference for Free Speech and Human Rights in Brussels” – a European counter-Jihad conference where Fjordman, among others, participated. Fjordman was a major influence upon Anders Breivik. This is company that only an extremist would keep.
> 
> _Dispatch International_ published Anne Marie Waters’s resignation from Labour alongside an article praising EDL leader, Tommy Robinson as “the most courageous and cleverest working-class leader England has produced for many decades”.
> 
> This juxtaposition is presumably not as unwelcome as you might suppose to Waters, who has developed a continued dialogue and relationship with EDL supporters via twitter.



http://socialistunity.com/anne-marie-waters-happened-next/

More details here: http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/anne-marie-waters-and-dispatch-international-one-more-time/

Example of her loony writing:



> In Europe, thanks largely to the left-supported concept of multiculturalism, races and religious groups again live separately in ghettoised communities, Islamic madrassas teach children to separate themselves from non-Muslims, and Muslims are increasingly governed – particularly in family matters – by a network of sharia tribunals that operate outside of the laws of the mainstream, overwhelmingly white, secular majority. In the UK, a disturbing segregation of Muslim prisoners is also developing.


http://www.d-intl.com/2013/09/15/left-wing-racists-have-restored-segregation/?lang=en


----------



## MrSki (May 1, 2014)




----------



## rioted (May 1, 2014)

*Nigel Farage scarpers after being hit by egg in Nottingham*

Read more: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nigel...tory-21042977-detail/story.html#ixzz30TMefIbh


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2014)

Its a laugh but it will probably help his cause, nasty undemocratic lefties, etc.


----------



## dennisr (May 1, 2014)

Agree - its a bit daft


----------



## dennisr (May 1, 2014)

Propaganda has to be a bit cleverer than chucking eggs.

*UKIP - a pro-cuts party for the 1% *

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/809/18539/30-04-2014/ukip-a-pro-cuts-party-for-the-1


----------



## Sprocket. (May 1, 2014)

I know he doesn't like Europe but un ouef is un ouef!


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2014)

Fingers said:


> it is a fairly open secret in media circles that things are going to go extremely shit for them over the next few days. hang onto your hats....


 You had fore-warning of "Fred the egg"?

Was that it?


----------



## Fingers (May 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You had fore-warning of "Fred the egg"?
> 
> Was that it?



Ha ha.

As far as I am aware they are still going to publish, I have not heard anything to the contrary but if I so I will let you know.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 1, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Why? How? And if it's a fairly open secret why won't you give any details.



Because of libel laws?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2014)

Sad, scared old men



> The UKIP leader got back in his car after being hit on the head by an egg thrown by a protestor.
> 
> The protestor was cornered by men in an alley to the side of the Halifax building society in St Peter's Square.
> 
> He was holding a placard that said: "Sad, scared old men"



Seriously, is that all _our _side can come up with? No wonder UKIP are walking all over us.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2014)

I've no problem with the egging - the egging is fine and i always support politicians being reminded that they can only walk the streets in physical safety right now as we allow them to. It's the pathetic sad old men stuff that i'm talking about here. Essentially that says to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people being fucked over, scared of being fucked over and already fucked over that you support them being fucked over by business, state and politicians. That you have no answer to them being fucked over and that you're not looking for one - you're just happy that it's happening and want to enjoy it whilst you can. It's so politically stupid. A little bit of thought and you could point out that Farage is one of those people fucking the dreaded scared old men over or something - but no, laugh at the scared old men instead.


----------



## hash tag (May 1, 2014)

Sorry, but I don't get all the fuss about Farage and UKIP. Lets not forget they do not have a single MP or Lord. All they have is one or two council seats and a European one. Are they really that much of a threat?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Sorry, but I don't get all the fuss about Farage and UKIP. Lets not forget they do not have a single MP or Lord. All they have is one or two council seats and a European one. Are they really that much of a threat?


They've won 13 MEPS at the last election with 2.5 million votes (16%) the current polls suggests they may well double that this time. And their councilors are now in their hundreds. 5 million people turning to UKIP is something worth taking note of.

And when you ask are they a threat - who do you mean are they threat to?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I've no problem with the egging - the egging is fine and i always support politicians being reminded that they can only walk the streets in physical safety right now as we allow them to. It's the pathetic sad old men stuff that i'm talking about here. Essentially that says to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people being fucked over, scared of being fucked over and already fucked over that you support them being fucked over by business, state and politicians. That you have no answer to them being fucked over and that you're not looking for one - you're just happy that it's happening and want to enjoy it whilst you can. It's so politically stupid. A little bit of thought and you could point out that Farage is one of those people fucking the dreaded scared old men over or something - but no, laugh at the scared old men instead.



I didn't much care for what the bloke said, and the idea of throwing an egg at someone then standing around to shout some slogans while the police come to take you away is tactically flawed to put it mildly.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 1, 2014)

After Farage was egged he was spirited off to, of all places, the nearest pub. Word soon got round and a large crowd of people gathered outside hoping to make Mr Farage aware of the extent of their displeasure at his racist hatemongering. There was a daily Mirror journalist in a chicken suit for some reason.

Farage and chums, men of the people that they are, were smuggled out the back and quickly made themselves scarce.

I don't buy this stuff about Farage voicing the genuine concerns of the working class. What I saw today was more evidence of what I'd long suspected, that the working class are not so easily fooled as some posters around here would have us believe and most of them hate the likes of UKIP.


----------



## superfly101 (May 1, 2014)

rioted said:


> *Nigel Farage scarpers after being hit by egg in Nottingham*
> 
> Read more: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nigel...tory-21042977-detail/story.html#ixzz30TMefIbh



Video of the egging http://news.sky.com/story/1253232/nigel-farage-hit-by-egg-on-campaign-trail


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 1, 2014)

Ukips versus women in trousers!


----------



## MrSki (May 1, 2014)




----------



## Dogsauce (May 1, 2014)

That must be the third time someone's posted that.

As I understand it there's is a weight limit on the Freepost, so those bricks will just stay in the post office. 

Why not stamp up loads of envelopes instead? I'm so sure it's possible to get a packet of many in a pound shop or 'borrow' some from work.

There's also a free phone number on the flyer I had, calling that from a phone box will waste a fraction of cash and time if you can be bothered.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 1, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> That must be the third time someone's posted that.
> 
> As I understand it there's is a weight limit on the Freepost, so those bricks will just stay in the post office.
> 
> ...



From what I can see most people who are doing this are not posting bricks, obviously. They are addressing lots of envelopes, cutting up campaign material and putting a little bit in each one.


----------



## Gerry1time (May 1, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> There was a daily Mirror journalist in a chicken suit for some reason.



Probably because someone had it kicking around or got the idea from this Labour stunt against Boris Johnson, given Farage decided not to stand in Mercer's old seat.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 1, 2014)

Gerry1time said:


> Probably because someone had it kicking around or got the idea from this Labour stunt against Boris Johnson, given Farage decided not to stand in Mercer's old seat.




Still raises the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?


----------



## phildwyer (May 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Sad, scared old men.


 
Yes, the problem with Britain is that there just aren't enough happy, bold young men in politics.  Oh hang on...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 1, 2014)

did you mean bald or bold?


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2014)

Another Kipper on Q/T, Suzanne Evans, no one from the left, not even a Green.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 2, 2014)

This might be fun folks!

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_to_hold_it_s_biggest_ever_annual_conference_at_doncaster_racecourse


----------



## treelover (May 2, 2014)

What, that a big leftie protest will be held outside, might be fun but its not the answer.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 2, 2014)

No, not at all. Let's film the locals going in and boycott their shops!


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 2, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> No, not at all. Let's film the locals going in and boycott their shops!



WTF are you on about?


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 2, 2014)

Fingers said:


> Ha ha.
> 
> As far as I am aware they are still going to publish, I have not heard anything to the contrary but if I so I will let you know.



Where's this media tsunami then? Come on, I'm waiting for the mighty Grauniad to save us from the nasty xenophobic man.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2014)

it was buried by the false flag egging


----------



## pesh (May 2, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> From what I can see most people who are doing this are not posting bricks, obviously. They are addressing lots of envelopes, cutting up campaign material and putting a little bit in each one.


i sent him a bit of an old hoover yesterday.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

All you people sending them stuff that aren't letters. The PO is liable for them. And they won't deliver them.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 2, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> WTF are you on about?



 In the Doncaster area the biggest group of UKIP members and supporters appear to be the small shopkeepers.
Strange though that most of them are ex English Democrat supporters of the former elected mayor Peter Davies, father of Philip Davies the conservative MP for Shipley.


----------



## tony.c (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> All you people sending them stuff that aren't letters. The PO is liable for them. And they won't deliver them.


That's ok. Royal Mail is a private company now so it might dent their profits and dividends to shareholders a bit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

tony.c said:


> That's ok. Royal Mail is a private company now so it might dent their profits and dividends to shareholders a bit.


Put the stamps up too.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 2, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> In the Doncaster area the biggest group of UKIP members and supporters appear to be the small shopkeepers.
> Strange though that most of them are ex English Democrat supporters of the former elected mayor Peter Davies, father of Philip Davies the conservative MP for Shipley.



And you think boycotting their shops will stop UKIP? Or that they'll even notice?


----------



## tony.c (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Put the stamps up too.


They will anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Ok, let's turn this anti-UKIP thing into an anti-postal system thing. Carry on posting mail to UKIP that won't get delivered and thinking that an anti-fascist blow has been struck.


----------



## tony.c (May 2, 2014)

Two birds with one brick.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 2, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> And you think boycotting their shops will stop UKIP? Or that they'll even notice?



Sorry. Am going. Bye all.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> In the Doncaster area the biggest group of UKIP members and supporters appear to be the small shopkeepers.


 
Shop at Waitrose, run them out of town.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Put the stamps up too.



They'll put those prices up if they bloody well feel like it anyway, regardless of how many bricks come through the door.  Prices aren't set according to cost, they're set according to how much you can get away with stuffing in your pockets.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> They'll put those prices up if they bloody well feel like it anyway, regardless of how many bricks come through the door.  Prices aren't set according to cost, they're set according to how much you can get away with stuffing in your pockets.


So, sending stuff to UKIP that they won't get to hurt RM is ridiculous.

What next, fucking up the bits of the NHS they've managed to break off and part-sell?

This UKIP paranoia is getting well out of hand.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

We're running out of time on this guardian published  "explosive story involving serious criminality and massive corruption which goes right to the top of the party either tomorrow or Friday." aren't we edlnews?


----------



## laptop (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We're running out of time on this guardian published  "explosive story involving serious criminality and massive corruption which goes right to the top of the party either tomorrow or Friday." aren't we edlnews?



I was thinking, when it didn't appear last night, that if there is a major story the time to publish it would now be late Monday night (would usually be the Sunday, but there's this Bank Holiday) for maximum _Today_ programme juice.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

There's nothing but this tory Jasna oddball. Who anyone serious would be well advised not to go near. As appears to be the case.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> serious criminality and massive corruption



I'm guessing they need some MPs first?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

They may well be on course then.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

I'm a non-voter who hates farage and UKIP and the eu. If these pathetic attacks have made me think that i may as well vote UKIP to annoy the pro-status quo liberals, then what are they doing to those who don't hate farage or ukip and do hate the eu? Or is that only fat old tories and sad scared men?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

HnH were urging a UKIP vote in the 2009 euro elections to stop the BNP. The game never changes does it?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

laptop said:


> I was thinking, when it didn't appear last night, that if there is a major story the time to publish it would now be late Monday night (would usually be the Sunday, but there's this Bank Holiday) for maximum _Today_ programme juice.


Maybe, just maybe it's not happening and fingers has been sold a puppy by jasbo et al? That would be a _terrible _surprise wouldn't it?


----------



## Corax (May 2, 2014)

Someone should put together a parody poster about Romanian immigrants and encourage people to use their freepost address to send them heavy items. Bricks or something.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2014)

Corax said:


> Someone should put together a parody poster about Romanian immigrants and encourage people to use their freepost address to send them heavy items. Bricks or something.




I thought there was something fishy about that poster...I wasn't convinced it was genuine when I noticed that the linear scale on the map was calibrated in kilometres.


----------



## laptop (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe, just maybe it's not happening and fingers has been sold a puppy by jasbo at al? That would be a _terrible _surprise wouldn't it?



I would indeed be shocked. To my very marrow.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2014)

wish I'd got odds now.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm a non-voter who hates farage and UKIP and the eu. If these pathetic attacks have made me think that i may as well vote UKIP to annoy the pro-status quo liberals, then what are they doing to those who don't hate farage or ukip and do hate the eu? Or is that only fat old tories and sad scared men?


It's not that this anti-UKIPism is just a politically stupid dead end that achieves nothing except for propping up the Tories/Labour/LibDems, it's counterproductive on it's own terms.

These fools really do seem to be so devoid of any intelligence that they can't see that their actions are producing support for UKIP, it's running the "yes to AV" and "Better Together" campaigns close for sheer monumental stupidity.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> It's not that this anti-UKIPism is just a politically stupid dead end that achieves nothing except for propping up the Tories/Labour/LibDems, it's counterproductive on it's own terms.
> 
> These fools really do seem to be so devoid of any intelligence that they can't see that their actions are producing support for UKIP, it's running the "yes to AV" and "Better Together" campaigns close for sheer monumental stupidity.


That's about the size of it, yep.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 3, 2014)

http://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org/1507122.html


----------



## fishfinger (May 3, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> http://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org/1507122.html


Are there really people that stupid, actually sending UKIP bricks because of that "advert"?
It seemed to me, to be a mildly amusing spoof ad, remenicsent of one of the fake ads that Viz sometimes print.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Are there really people that stupid, actually sending UKIP bricks because of that "advert"?
> It seemed to me, to be a mildly amusing spoof ad, remenicsent of one of the fake ads that Viz sometimes print.



It was only meant as a joke - I don't know how much has actually been sent.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2014)

Simple effing common sense.

(Sorry, site won't let me copy)


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2014)

Above link said:
			
		

> How should a mature and multicultural society like Britain respond to the rise of a party like Ukip? This is the debate that has gripped our politics and been met with a consensus that Ukip should be condemned, ridiculed and dismissed. Ukip, our media proclaims, is a racist, extreme and even dangerous party that is packed with bigots and homophobes. If only we drag these strange creatures out from the wilderness and put them under the spotlight then voters will see the true nature of Ukip and abandon this hideous experiment in populist politics.
> Only, they haven’t. Since the latest onslaught of attacks, Ukip’s average support in the polls has risen to historically unprecedented levels.


Spot on.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 4, 2014)

The 'one or two' bad apples line doesn't really wash when you consider some of the dodgier stuff has been said by Bloom, Nuttals and even Farage himself.

I don't think it's useful or even particularly interesting to hear the latest outrageous comment from a local council candidate made three years ago on social media, I'd rather some of the more senior members were challenged robustly on stuff like flat tax, NHS, ECHR and maternity rights - this isn't really happening, it's just a series of minor outrages that seem a distraction as much as anything, noise on twitter and nothing more.

I'm not convinced by the assertion in the above article that UKIP is siphoning up the financially dispossessed - not my experience of the supporters I know or those appearing in a lot of articles - I'm seeing a lot of comfortably off suburban retired people, those I know without any significant hardship but who aren't comfortable with changes they see, hearing different languages spoken on the high street and things like that, and who feel they can't raise this because they'll be called (perhaps with some justification) racist.

That's not to say they aren't reaching out to dispossessed labour areas in the last couple of weeks, maybe with some success, but I get the impression that the core is more traditional Tories in the grammar school rather than Etonian mould. The rebellion against the 'status quo' seems a bit overplayed.

I'm hoping the momentum drops off after the euros - will the media even hold attention for another 12 months?  There are a lot of things UKIP want to do with things like employment rights that really worry me, and I don't want rolling back of employment rights and protections getting any further pushing - the Tories and some elements of Labour will be only to happy to run with that ball if there's the slightest sign of public acceptance.


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm not convinced by the assertion in the above article that UKIP is siphoning up the financially dispossessed - not my experience of the supporters I know or those appearing in a lot of articles - I'm seeing a lot of comfortably off suburban retired people, those I know without any significant hardship but who aren't comfortable with changes they see, hearing different languages spoken on the high street and things like that, and who feel they can't raise this because they'll be called (perhaps with some justification) racist.



Yeah, absolutely agree that their "ultra-nasty party", thatcherite shite needs to be challenged and hope that they never get near to being able to implement their policy platform...but I don't think you're right about the demographic that is forming their polled support. As ever, I think our own geography has a strong influence upon how we perceive their support. I'm sure they're attracting a fair chunk of comfortably off, suburban retired, but I very much get the impression that the uncomfortably off suburban demographic is just as strong, if not stronger, a base for their support. There are also some interesting geographical correlations between UKIP's established council success in the more 'provincial' parts of the S&E of England and those constituencies with high levels of retired and EU immigration, and low levels of educational qualification and income. If you know Thanet you'll get what I'm on about.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2014)

I know just was the anti-UKIP campaign needs. 
Stewart lee. 
Stewart Lee being smug and arch. 
Stewart lee being smug and arch _in the guardian._


----------



## gosub (May 4, 2014)

Even by just attacking UKIP they give them publicity, mean while the EUro elections draw nearer the media and parties dancing to UKIP and here in Scotland the SNP's agenda.  I've had leaflets explaining why we are better off together or out, and what parties like or dislike about things like bedroom tax.  None of this has fuck all to do with MEP's and what they can and do. After the election the MEP's are going to try and lay a claim to a more democratic EUrope but it is going to ring completely hollow here in the UK. The disjoint between what MEP's do is almost as complete as that of the Commission.  That nobody wants to address that either at party or media level, we would be better off out -though that has little to do with UKIP which seems more concerned with immigration  than EUrope these days.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 4, 2014)

I've had 'conversations' with UKIP supporters.  My main gripe with the party is that they are right-wing nationalists, and I find that disturbing. The UKIP supporters claim that they are not racists, providing me with examples of friends or relatives who are non-Christian or non-white.  So I then ask, "Why are you supporting UKIP then?"

The way I see it is that once they've closed the borders and divorced us from Europe, they'll start sending people "home", offering deportations, and for those non-British who decide to remain in the UK, I do wonder what expulsion policies may emerge.



> I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.
> _-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)_


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I know just was the anti-UKIP campaign needs.
> Stewart lee.
> Stewart Lee being smug and arch.
> Stewart lee being smug and arch _in the guardian._



What a tit. Self-satisfied drivel.


----------



## Quartz (May 4, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> UKIP supporters claim that they are not racists, providing me with examples of friends or relatives who are non-Christian or non-white.  So I then ask, "Why are you supporting UKIP then?"



And I think that is why many on the left fail to understand UKIP. AIUI WRT immigration they want _control_ over immigration, to decide who can come, not no immigration.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 4, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I've had 'conversations' with UKIP supporters.  My main gripe with the party is that they are right-wing nationalists, and I find that disturbing. The UKIP supporters claim that they are not racists, providing me with examples of friends or relatives who are non-Christian or non-white.  So I then ask, "Why are you supporting UKIP then?"
> 
> The way I see it is that once they've closed the borders and divorced us from Europe, they'll start sending people "home", offering deportations, and for those non-British who decide to remain in the UK, I do wonder what expulsion policies may emerge.



Yes, but nobody actually is going to close the borders. I agree it's a terrible scenario but since it's not going to happen and most people are aware it's not going to happen it's not particularly useful to posit. Have you converted any 'kippers by telling people that UKIP are racist?


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> ....once they've closed the borders and divorced us from Europe, they'll start sending people "home", offering deportations, and for those non-British who decide to remain in the UK



Do you think UKIP will secure 326 seats, (plus), or do you think they'll have to enter coalition to get the deportations going?


----------



## tony.c (May 4, 2014)

Corax said:


> Someone should put together a parody poster about Romanian immigrants and encourage people to use their freepost address to send them heavy items. Bricks or something.


 


fishfinger said:


> Are there really people that stupid, actually sending UKIP bricks because of that "advert"?
> It seemed to me, to be a mildly amusing spoof ad, remenicsent of one of the fake ads that Viz sometimes print.


 
UKIP forced to cancel Freepost address after being sent FAECES in the post
Mirror

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-forced-cancel-freepost-address-3495376


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2014)

tony.c said:


> UKIP forced to cancel Freepost address after being sent FAECES in the post
> Mirror
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-forced-cancel-freepost-address-3495376


 no shit


----------



## fishfinger (May 4, 2014)

tony.c said:


> UKIP forced to cancel Freepost address after being sent FAECES in the post
> Mirror
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-forced-cancel-freepost-address-3495376


FFS


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 4, 2014)




----------



## not-bono-ever (May 4, 2014)

no fun for the posties though


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2014)

Fingers said:


> ok, story should break tomorrow afternoon (bar any last minute legal shit i suppose)... watch this  space, i might be wrong but i am pretty certain i am not. I will gladly suck it up if i am.


Has this godsend broken yet or do we get to call you a bluffer who's knowledge is as empty as his politics?


----------



## tony.c (May 5, 2014)

not-bono-ever said:


> no fun for the posties though


Alarm at Peterborough mail centre after suspect parcels found
Peterborough Telegraph
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...-centre-after-suspect-parcels-found-1-6034336


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Has this godsend broken yet or do we get to call you a bluffer who's knowledge is as empty as his politics?


 last minute legal shit; obviously...


----------



## articul8 (May 6, 2014)

what's all this "he was a fascist at school" business about leaked letters? Hoax or significant?:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/169454715/Nigel-Farage-1981-school-letter


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2014)

articul8 said:


> what's all this "he was a fascist at school" business about leaked letters? Hoax or significant?:
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/169454715/Nigel-Farage-1981-school-letter


Old insignificant bollocks.


----------



## articul8 (May 6, 2014)

old as in going back to 1981, or these came to light a while ago?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 6, 2014)

old as in came to light a while ago and had no impact then beyond the predictable circles.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2014)

Yeah - as in published before.


----------



## gosub (May 6, 2014)

articul8 said:


> what's all this "he was a fascist at school" business about leaked letters? Hoax or significant?:
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/169454715/Nigel-Farage-1981-school-letter



http://www.channel4.com/news/nigel-farage-ukip-letter-school-concerns-racism-fascism.  19/9/2013   Not sure if it was a hoax (probably not) was early example of double standards in scrutiny.  Other than the schools they attended very little attention is paid to the juvenile activities of our politicians. I think the disproportionate attention is one of the reasons they have been rising in the polls.


----------



## articul8 (May 6, 2014)

Labour's response to uKIP:
http://labourlist.org/2014/05/labour-releases-ukip-attack-leaflet/

"Labour will..
 take tough action on immigration".


----------



## J Ed (May 6, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Labour's response to uKIP:
> http://labourlist.org/2014/05/labour-releases-ukip-attack-leaflet/
> 
> "Labour will..
> take tough action on immigration".



They should go a step further and run on their proud record of bombing foreigners


----------



## gosub (May 6, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Labour's response to uKIP:
> http://labourlist.org/2014/05/labour-releases-ukip-attack-leaflet/
> 
> "Labour will..
> take tough action on immigration".



The bullet points on that leaflet - fuck all to do with MEP's or councillors


eta so Labour's position on EUrope is: if there is a new treaty on Europe there will be a referendum in which you can vote for new treaty and continued pretence that all that matters is the Commons or vote for out where Commons would matter more


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 6, 2014)

Liberal Democrats criticise Hackney Unites for ‘no platform’ stance on UKIP

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/05/06/liberal-democrats-criticise-hackney-unites-ukip/

(Hackney Unites receives funding from Hope Not Hate, as far as I'm aware).

There are about 3 people running as UKIP candidates in the Council elections in Hackney, which is interesting.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 6, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Liberal Democrats criticise Hackney Unites for ‘no platform’ stance on UKIP
> 
> http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/05/06/liberal-democrats-criticise-hackney-unites-ukip/
> 
> ...



To be honest I'm not happy about this either - Hackney Unites are betraying The Class by allowing the Lib Dems a platform.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2014)

Can anyone guess what this is?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 6, 2014)

Is it a UKIP person in a poorly executed Jimmy Savile mask?


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2014)

It is indeed. I think _we're through the barrel_ now folks. 

That actually featured in yet another big multi-page daily mail piece.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2014)

that is a very lazy saville costume indeed- how long would it tak to buy a crap trackie and some plastic bling?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It is indeed. I think _we're through the barrel_ now folks.
> 
> That actually featured in yet another big multi-page daily mail piece.


 
They had better be saving up the real dirt until 2015, because this really pedestrian stuff.


----------



## youngian (May 6, 2014)

As the Major from Fawlty Towers was unavailable UKIP have selected leading fuckloon Roger Helmer to fight the Newark by-election


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 6, 2014)

http://stilllaughingattheukip.wordp...ukip-and-his-views-on-rape-and-homosexuality/


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2014)

Quotes taken from when he was a tory MEP btw


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Quotes taken from when he was a tory MEP btw



Interesting choice of candidate. I suppose there is the E.Mids MEP thing, but being such a recent convert...it's literally just 2 years since he defected from the nasty party...hmmm...looks like they really want to rub it in.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2014)

May not expect to win as he's already on the UKIP list for e.mids again where he'd almost def get a seat.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> May not expect to win as he's already on the UKIP list for e.mids again where he'd almost def get a seat.


 but he'd have made that Euro decision ages ago, no?


----------



## youngian (May 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Interesting choice of candidate. I suppose there is the E.Mids MEP thing, but being such a recent convert...it's literally just 2 years since he defected from the nasty party...hmmm...looks like they really want to rub it in.


He resigned in protest because they wouldn't pick a man who published golliwog picturebooks as his successor.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> but he'd have made that Euro decision ages ago, no?


Yep - that's what i'm saying he's #1 on the euro list, almost guaranteed a seat, so he was picked in the expectation of putting up a pro campaign and not damaging any other potential UKIP up and comers.

Oh hang on, he'll be an MEP in June then won't he? He won't be able to stand. Very odd.

edit: no, he can stand, he just can't take the seat if he wins, unless he resigns as MEP.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2014)

youngian said:


> He resigned in protest because they wouldn't pick a man who published golliwog picturebooks as his successor.


yep, and in protest at Warsi...apparently.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yep - that's what i'm saying he's #1 on the euro list, almost guaranteed a seat, so he was picked in the expectation of putting up a pro campaign and not damaging any other potential UKIP up and comers.
> 
> Oh hang on, he'll be an MEP in June then won't he? He won't be able to stand. Very odd.
> 
> edit: no, he can stand, he can't take the seat if he wins, unless he resigns as MEP.


 Can they change the list order at this late stage?


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Can they change the list order at this late stage?


Don't know  but don't think it matters now on further investigation - as i think he's rather be an MP...


----------



## Dogsauce (May 6, 2014)

Surely Helmer would be a liability as an MP? Or is that what they want, someone to stick it to the 'politically correct'?


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2014)

They just want an MP and i don't think they care too much who it is at this point. They just need one person to break through the barrier that they can point to them come may 215


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 6, 2014)

Helmer should be entertaining. He is nuttier than squirrel shit.





> "Let me make another point which will certainly get me vilified, but which I think is important to make: while in the first case, the blame is squarely on the perpetrator and does not attach to the victim, in the second case the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind."


Now he is out on point for UKIP. 





> Helmer stated of the Roman Catholic Church that: "it would be perfectly fair to describe it as systemically paedophile."


----------



## redsquirrel (May 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Can they change the list order at this late stage?


I don't think it matters, I'm not 100% sure but I think if an MEP retires the party who won the seat basically get to appoint whoever they want as their replacement. So there's no real problem with him running, and getting elected, as an MEP and then running for Westminster.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They just want an MP and i don't think they care too much who it is at this point. They just need one person to break through the barrier that they can point to them come may 215



Do they want an MP before 2015? Why not stand Farage if they really want to win?


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 6, 2014)

The Tories are odds on to retain the Newark seat by the way. Shortest odds available on UKIP are 3/1.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/newark-by-election/winning-party


----------



## youngian (May 6, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't think it matters, I'm not 100% sure but I think if an MEP retires the party who won the seat basically get to appoint whoever they want as their replacement. So there's no real problem with him running, and getting elected, as an MEP and then running for Westminster.


I think Ian Paisley was an MP and MEP at the same time. Inspiration for Helmer.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 7, 2014)

youngian said:


> I think Ian Paisley was an MP and MEP at the same time. Inspiration for Helmer.


Yes but the rules have changed since then, you can't hold both positions simultaneously anymore.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 7, 2014)

youngian said:


> I think Ian Paisley was an MP and MEP at the same time. Inspiration for Helmer.



I have a suspicion there is a different system in place in Northern Ireland though.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2014)

he must have been coining it with that many hats


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Do they want an MP before 2015? Why not stand Farage if they really want to win?


Course they do! Trouble is Farage would be damaged by running and failing though - in one year he can pick any seat he likes.


----------



## brogdale (May 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Course they do! Trouble is Farage would be damaged by running and failing though - in one year he can pick any seat he likes.


 Yes, and as we've speculated before...he's already picked it. Laura Sandys knows this.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Course they do! Trouble is Farage would be damaged by running and failing though - in one year he can pick any seat he likes.



Hmmm, so its better that Helmer runs the risk of losing... But even so, I mean they must want to maintain the momentum they have going in to the election, would having an MP help them do that? Could feasibly cost them 3 or 4 MP's next year.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Hmmm, so its better that Helmer runs the risk of losing... But even so, I mean they must want to maintain the momentum they have going in to the election, would having an MP help them do that? Could feasibly cost them 3 or 4 MP's next year.


I'd have advised Farage to go for it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

And here's my reasoning: farage is the only nationally known and credible candidate they have. They have a year to attract other such candidates - either from across the political divide, from business etc and doing so is key to turning current high levels of support into something substantial. A Farage victory would be likely to demonstrate that the careerist hopes of these types might not go for a burton if they join UKIP - and the potential immediate/medium term benefits of getting some credible candidates on board would easily outweigh any damage if he didn't win.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 7, 2014)

I reckon NF quite enjoys life in Bruxelles and wouldn't be keen to give it up.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> I reckon NF quite enjoys life in Bruxelles and wouldn't be keen to give it up.


What a daft thing to say.


----------



## Santino (May 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> he must have been coining it with that many hats


 Hats are a popish abomination.

Except bowler hats, obv.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 7, 2014)

Helmer was picked at a local hustings (as things should be, and a marked contrast to the Tory parachute), so I don't think it implies any particular strategy - I don't think they're that organised or scheming. It's one of their (few) charms.

There's the risk that if Helmer wins then he'll become a different focus to nige and that might not be useful to the party, particularly with some of crap he's come out with (alongside the comments highlighted in the media there's tons more lower-level reactionary bullshit). Can't see him appealing to younger voters, but then they vote in fewer numbers and UKIP don't need them or have to act on their concerns (similar strategy to the current government in that respect, pensioners 'triple locked', EMA scrapped).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 7, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> I reckon NF quite enjoys life in Bruxelles and wouldn't be keen to give it up.


 
You think Farage would rather be an MEP than an MP....why? I think he's made the right call in not going for Newark but that is in no small part because he does want to be an MP.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 7, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Helmer was picked at a local hustings (as things should be, and a marked contrast to the Tory parachute), so I don't think it implies any particular strategy - I don't think they're that organised or scheming. It's one of their (few) charms.
> 
> There's the risk that if Helmer wins then he'll become a different focus to nige and that might not be useful to the party, particularly with some of crap he's come out with (alongside the comments highlighted in the media there's tons more lower-level reactionary bullshit). Can't see him appealing to younger voters, but then they vote in fewer numbers and UKIP don't need them or have to act on their concerns (similar strategy to the current government in that respect, pensioners 'triple locked', EMA scrapped).



It's a valid point - maybe they just don't have the kind of party machine approach when it comes to selecting candidates. 

I think they probably will need serious party machinery to survive though.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2014)

youngian said:


> As the Major from Fawlty Towers was unavailable UKIP have selected leading fuckloon Roger Helmer to fight the Newark by-election





just read that Helmer used to be chairman of the Monday Club, wish the media would highlight just how many of the UKIP candidates are former right wing Tories.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Helmer was picked at a local hustings (as things should be, and a marked contrast to the Tory parachute), so I don't think it implies any particular strategy - I don't think they're that organised or scheming. It's one of their (few) charms.
> 
> There's the risk that if Helmer wins then he'll become a different focus to nige and that might not be useful to the party, particularly with some of crap he's come out with (alongside the comments highlighted in the media there's tons more lower-level reactionary bullshit). Can't see him appealing to younger voters, but then they vote in fewer numbers and UKIP don't need them or have to act on their concerns (similar strategy to the current government in that respect, pensioners 'triple locked', EMA scrapped).




Latest poll, 10% would vote UKIP in GE


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

I think you mean the far worse Freedom Association.


treelover said:


> just read that Helmer used to be chairman of the Monday Club, wish the media would highlight just how many of the UKIP candidates are former right wing Tories.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> Latest poll, 10% would vote UKIP in GE


No, circa 15%


----------



## youngian (May 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> wish the media would highlight just how many of the UKIP candidates are former right wing Tories.


I thought that was a given. 

In order for Cameron to give the Tories the veneer of being a moderate centre right party he's glad to see the back of the likes of Helmer. Unfortunately the rise of UKIP has seen this strategy bite him on the arse and he going to have a difficult time facing both ways at the GE.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

Good piece this:

The media's failure to neutralise Ukip can only be good for democracy



> The dominant political parties and the mainstream media collusively concerted the attack on Ukip. Never has the management of what is somewhat hyperbolically called "the clash of ideas", conducted by the opinion-formers and gatekeepers of debate, been so clear. Rarely have the tactics to maintain argument within acceptable bounds been more obvious.





> What emerges from the shameful way in which "debate" has been manipulated, is that the hold of the media over the imagination of the people is more circumscribed than its practitioners believe, so maladroit has been their management of political news. Their pride has proved false pride: the threadbare efforts to delegitimise Ukip demonstrates only the desperation with which their overwrought labours are pursued.





> A more positive interpretation would be that the ineffectual attempts to destroy Ukip show the growing fragility of the carefully crafted management of what is sometimes called "the national conversation". It suggests that in the future, there may be space for a more genuine plurality of ideas, views and politics than the carefully scripted, staged "rough and tumble" without content that masquerades as democracy in the rich world.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2014)

Jeremy Seabrook is a great writer/sociologist


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2014)

Major UKIP Rally in London tonight, Westminster, apparently this will show the 'real face' of UKIP, diversity, etc.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Good piece this:
> 
> The media's failure to neutralise Ukip can only be good for democracy



I don't much accept that it has been a "concerted attack" as much as it is a fascination with the sensationalist. Of course it hasn't worked, becuase a lot of the support is akin to (not my metaphor) an 11 year old revelling in a new swearword they've found.

All it adds to is the sense of an establishment touted alternative to the establishment, a systemic siphoning of dissent into politics that are no threat to the establishment at all. The left opponenents can get sucked into a similar trap, but are more effective when outlining actual policy that is reactionary and anti working class. Such an approach tends to get less MSM coverage, for obvious systemic reasons (they support such policy and wouldn't present it as "bad").

The general nature of the current hype around the Euros was entirely predictable, though the scale has surprised even me.

But I don't think they'll hold 15% in the generals. 5 to 10 would be my pitch, probably the low end of that. The hype will die down somewhat, the "vote UKIP get Milliband" message will have some effect.

But most of all, I hope people continue to raise the anti working class, anti women and other absolutely demonstrable negatives of the party, along with the sense of general fraud and hoax.

After all, they did very well in the last Euros. What astonishing earthquake has there been in the establishment as a consequence? We have a tory government that is systemically corrupt and consistently gets away with it. Wow, that showed 'em.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

15% is in the general election not euros.

You've just done all that Seabrook pointed out is not working and won't work. Treating adults like children to be thrown  to this side and that by the media and establishment. Did you bother reading it before replying? Why the fuck don't people just do that?


----------



## gosub (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I don't much accept that it has been a "concerted attack" as much as it is a fascination with the sensationalist. Of course it hasn't worked, becuase a lot of the support is akin to (not my metaphor) an 11 year old revelling in a new swearword they've found.
> 
> All it adds to is the sense of an establishment touted alternative to the establishment, a systemic siphoning of dissent into politics that are no threat to the establishment at all. The left opponenents can get sucked into a similar trap, but are more effective when outlining actual policy that is reactionary and anti working class. Such an approach tends to get less MSM coverage, for obvious systemic reasons (they support such policy and wouldn't present it as "bad").
> 
> ...




If it hasn't been a concerted attack then we are being lead to a position where politics is to be left to those who every utterance both current and historic must past scrutiny, they cannot get on the wrong side of teachers at school without it being dragged up decades later.  People who pass such a test truely would be a political elite,  their words and actions so banal out of fear of raising offence that they will represent no real constituency.

Granted trawling facebook is cheap and easy journalism that we will see more of in the future, but I don't think it is being equally applied, and think the electorate would be poorly served if it was -not because people don't have a right to know, but who would step up to plate and run for office. Its bad  enough now.


----------



## Quartz (May 7, 2014)

Or we get those who revel in it, like Alan Clark, Boris Johnson, and our favourite gadfly Nigel Farage.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

What?


----------



## gosub (May 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Or we get those who revel in it, like Alan Clark, Boris Johnson, and our favourite gadfly Nigel Farage.


 less common now than they were.


----------



## The39thStep (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I don't much accept that it has been a "concerted attack" as much as it is a fascination with the sensationalist. Of course it hasn't worked, becuase a lot of the support is akin to (not my metaphor) an 11 year old revelling in a new swearword they've found.
> 
> All it adds to is the sense of an establishment touted alternative to the establishment, a systemic siphoning of dissent into politics that are no threat to the establishment at all. The left opponenents can get sucked into a similar trap, but are more effective when outlining actual policy that is reactionary and anti working class. Such an approach tends to get less MSM coverage, for obvious systemic reasons (they support such policy and wouldn't present it as "bad").
> 
> ...



For some members of the working class it's the left not ukip that are seen as anti working class especially on issues such as immigration and the EC.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 7, 2014)

gosub said:


> If it hasn't been a concerted attack then we are being lead to a position where politics is to be left to those who every utterance both current and historic must past scrutiny, they cannot get on the wrong side of teachers at school without it being dragged up decades later.  People who pass such a test truely would be a political elite,  their words and actions so banal out of fear of raising offence that they will represent no real constituency.
> 
> Granted trawling facebook is cheap and easy journalism that we will see more of in the future, but I don't think it is being equally applied, and think the electorate would be poorly served if it was -not because people don't have a right to know, but who would step up to plate and run for office. Its bad  enough now.




I think I get and agree with your broad thrust. But I don't think it has to be "trawl for something that looks bad" as much as "trawl for something that looks controversial". That's what they are interested in. Plus anything with "UKIP" in it gets special treatment at the moment, and that can't be entirely or even mostly attack based.

Case in point of many, front page of "i" today has a quote of a Cameron Aide, in turn quoting a canvassed member of the general public, saying that voting UKIP (from normal tory voting) is like being on a stag do or something. It may have some validity as an analogy but front page news? There's about 2/3 of a page inside on it too, with a comment piece for good measure. Its fucking ridiculous.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 7, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> For some members of the working class it's the left not ukip that are seen as anti working class especially on issues such as immigration and the EC.



If they're not seen that way then someone hasn't been informing them of actual policy. Who and why, when there's been so much written about them?  Of course, the context is also the revolting attempt to divide the class on lines of colour/ethnicity/race.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I think I get and agree with your broad thrust. But I don't think it has to be "trawl for something that looks bad" as much as "trawl for something that looks controversial". That's what they are interested in. Plus anything with "UKIP" in it gets special treatment at the moment, and that can't be entirely or even mostly attack based.
> 
> Case in point of many, front page of "i" today has a quote of a Cameron Aide, in turn quoting a canvassed member of the general public, saying that voting UKIP (from normal tory voting) is like being on a stag do or something. It may have some validity as an analogy but front page news? There's about 2/3 of a page inside on it too, with a comment piece for good measure. Its fucking ridiculous.


Maybe there should be a body that tells papers what  to say?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2014)

there was a photo of the chancellor of the exchequer sat next to a sex worker with a bowl of cocaine in front of him and nobody gave a tuppeny fuck.

unless they catch Farange in a panzer commanders dress uniform the shits not going to stick


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I think I get and agree with your broad thrust. But I don't think it has to be "trawl for something that looks bad" as much as "trawl for something that looks controversial". That's what they are interested in. Plus anything with "UKIP" in it gets special treatment at the moment, and that can't be entirely or even mostly attack based.
> 
> Case in point of many, front page of "i" today has a quote of a Cameron Aide, in turn quoting a canvassed member of the general public, saying that voting UKIP (from normal tory voting) is like being on a stag do or something. It may have some validity as an analogy but front page news? There's about 2/3 of a page inside on it too, with a comment piece for good measure. Its fucking ridiculous.


You're why people vote UKIP.  You uncomprehending clown.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 7, 2014)

Butchers, can you try to discuss stuff without insulting people. Thanks.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe there should be a body that tells papers what  to say?



Maybe you should stop making allusions to straw men, though I accept habits can be hard to break.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Maybe you should stop making allusions to straw men, though I accept habits can be hard to break.


What is your point? You go on and on about the media. Then you go on and on about the media not doing what you like. What do you want? If you think ukip are at 30% because of the media then you need to get out of relating things to the media.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Butchers, can you try to discuss stuff without insulting people. Thanks.


I do, all the time. The last post was descriptive. Challenge it if you like.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 7, 2014)

you frequently insult people. It's needless and unproductive at that level of frequencey. 

You didn't challenge anything I said with any substance.  Possibly too busy trying to seem superior. 

I made two medium sized posts. Either comment on them directly with some detail or don't. But just wading in with "clown" etc. is no use to anyone beyond perhaps your own ego.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> you frequently insult people. It's needless and unproductive at that level of frequencey.
> 
> You didn't challenge anything I said with any substance.  Possibly too busy trying to seem superior.
> 
> I made two medium sized posts. Either comment on them directly with some detail or don't. But just wading in with "clown" etc. is no use to anyone beyond perhaps your own ego.


If your medium size posts required short responses, so be it. They are and were direct comments. And thy both contained a world of substance giving your past posts and my responses - you pompous self regarding clown.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 7, 2014)

So, no substance then. Same thing, day in, week, month and year out.

You're the one who casts aspersions so frequently. I could never call you a clown because you take yourself far too seriously, but pompous and self-regarding seem very fitting descriptive epiphets for yourself.

And you're still not dealing with the topics raised. Can we stop making this about our personal opinions of each other please?


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> So, no substance then. Same thing, day in, week, month and year out.
> 
> You're the one who casts aspersions so frequently. I could never call you a clown because you take yourself far too seriously, but pompous and self-regarding seem very fitting descriptive epiphets for yourself.
> 
> And you're still not dealing with the topics raised. Can we stop making this about our personal opinions of each other please?


Wtf is wrong with you?


----------



## gosub (May 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> there was a photo of the chancellor of the exchequer sat next to a sex worker with a bowl of cocaine in front of him and nobody gave a tuppeny fuck.
> 
> unless they catch Farange in a panzer commanders dress uniform the shits not going to stick



What like the photo of Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2014)

thats SS not panzer


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 7, 2014)

And substantive comment came there none.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> And substantive comment came there none.


You're right, I don't offer substantive posts.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 7, 2014)

Not in the cases I am clearly referring to, that's correct. But you offer plenty of evasive, nasty, pompous and insulting posts. Yep, self regarding too. Try and resist the temptation to say "where" in a one word post, another of your standard dull subsitutes for dicussing anything once you've been called out. 

If you think I was wrong can't you just post something on the lines of "I don't agree with X because Y, with a bit of counter analysis" You make it personal and over judgemental so often. I don't respond to other people like this, but you do respond to other posters in a similar fashion a great deal. It's very odd, it's alienating and it does no service to actual discussion.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Not in the cases I am clearly referring to, that's correct. But you offer plenty of evasive, nasty, pompous and insulting posts. Yep, self regarding too. Try and resist the temptation to say "where" in a one word post, another of your standard dull subsitutes for dicussing anything once you've been called out.
> 
> If you think I was wrong can't you just post something on the lines of "I don't agree with X because Y, with a bit of counter analysis" You make it personal and over judgemental so often. I don't respond to other people like this, but you do respond to other posters in a similar fashion a great deal. It's very odd, it's alienating and it does no service to actual discussion.


Once again, your medium sized posts deserved short sized posts - they were substantive _because _of their brevity - no need to waffle on eh?:

a) you suggest the media should be controlled by people who like you and your nasty politics

b) You don't get, at all, why people are supporting UKIP.


----------



## J Ed (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Not in the cases I am clearly referring to, that's correct. But you offer plenty of evasive, nasty, pompous and insulting posts. Yep, self regarding too. Try and resist the temptation to say "where" in a one word post, another of your standard dull subsitutes for dicussing anything once you've been called out.



He is bang on the money with you. Your writing belies your classism, sexism and ableism and more often than not people are driven to certain kinds of politics not by what they agree with but what they reject and I can understand why people would reject your fuckwittery.


----------



## gosub (May 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> thats SS not panzer



There was an SS panzer corps.  (i just checked)


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Not in the cases I am clearly referring to, that's correct. But you offer plenty of evasive, nasty, pompous and insulting posts. Yep, self regarding too. Try and resist the temptation to say "where" in a one word post, another of your standard dull subsitutes for dicussing anything once you've been called out.
> 
> If you think I was wrong can't you just post something on the lines of "I don't agree with X because Y, with a bit of counter analysis" You make it personal and over judgemental so often. I don't respond to other people like this, but you do respond to other posters in a similar fashion a great deal. It's very odd, it's alienating and it does no service to actual discussion.


God, christ and the other one, stop fucking moaning.


----------



## quiquaquo (May 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> God, christ and the other one, stop fucking moaning.



You SWP?


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

Damn right.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> You SWP?


Sorry, just got the many levels joke there.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2014)

About 150 protestors mostly SWP outside the rally according to BBC Journo.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2014)

> *Helmer given rousing welcome as he launches Newark byelection campaign*
> Candidate cheered, suggesting his comments about rape and homosexuality may have had little effect on voters
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-cheered-launching-newark-byelection-campaign



The attacks don't seem to be working, though the media is reporting that Farage considers they may have an cumulative impact.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 7, 2014)

The Tories are probably enjoying this as it's normally their oddballs being called out in Twitterland, they're off the hook for now. Probably less happy that they'll get shafted electorally by UKIP.


----------



## weepiper (May 7, 2014)

Britain First have offered to be bootboys for Farage. From their facebook page



> BRITAIN FIRST TO DEPLOY ARMOURED PATROL VEHICLES AND EX-MILITARY VOLUNTEERS TO PROTECT UKIP LEADER NIGEL FARAGE
> We are sickened by the far-left attempts to stifle democracy by attacking UKIP leader Nigel Farage.
> Britain First is indeed a rival patriotic party to UKIP, but we are all patriots together and UKIP may be well presented in nice suits but as recent attacks show, they cannot protect Mr Farage from the leftwing thugs who seem intent in intimidating him and perverting the democratic process.
> While no great fans of UKIP, Britain First has hundreds of ex-British Forces street activists and several armoured ex-army Land Rovers and we now put our men and our resources at UKIP’s disposal during the period of election campaigning.
> ...



Farage is coming to speak in Edinburgh on Friday and there's a protest planned organised by Radical Independence among others. Watch out for this lot and the SDL.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2014)

who is their rohm?


----------



## weepiper (May 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> who is their rohm?



You mean their early leader who will be assasinated by Farage because he sees him as a threat?  I dunno.

This is the picture they posted with that paragraph btw


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2014)

well, thats a good look


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> About 150 protestors mostly SWP outside the rally according to BBC Journo.


Yes, def 150 swp. ffs


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, def 150 swp. ffs



Of course them, they love this stuff.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 8, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Britain First have offered to be bootboys for Farage. From their facebook page
> 
> 
> 
> Farage is coming to speak in Edinburgh on Friday and there's a protest planned organised by Radical Independence among others. Watch out for this lot and the SDL.


So terrorism, smart. 

How do they have access to army equipment like that?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 8, 2014)

weepiper said:


> You mean their early leader who will be assasinated by Farage because he sees him as a threat?  I dunno.
> 
> This is the picture they posted with that paragraph btw


Fuck, that's real?


----------



## Serotonin (May 8, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So terrorism, smart.
> 
> How do they have access to army equipment like that?



http://www.exmodplant.co.uk/landrovers-ex-mod

Ex MOD landrovers. Big fucking wow. Silly posturing.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 8, 2014)

Perhaps they are a particularly enthusiastic Devo tribute band.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> just read that Helmer used to be chairman of the Monday Club, wish the media would highlight just how many of the UKIP candidates are former right wing Tories.


But they won't. Ukip will do well while we scoff at them because they are constnatly given airtime and allowed a very soft level of criticism thereon. Roger Helmer was on Question Time relatively recently. I'd never heard of him before. They sertainly didn't question his appalling views (though he did come acorss as a beliigerent insufferable anachronism).


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

They? We?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 8, 2014)

Heh! 



> *UKIP Employ Latvian Workers To Deliver Leaflets*
> posted by: Simon Cressy | on: _Wednesday, 7 May 2014, 17:52_
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/ukip/ukip-employ-latvian-workers-to-deliver-leaflets-3689


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 8, 2014)

*



			Bill Drummond in Birmingham: Why I covered a UKIP billboard poster with my International Grey
		
Click to expand...

*
*http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/wha.../bill-drummond-birmingham-ukip-poster-7084059*


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

_Sack the foreigners! British jobs for British workers!_ demands Hope not hate.


----------



## andysays (May 8, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Heh!
> http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/ukip/ukip-employ-latvian-workers-to-deliver-leaflets-3689






			
				Hope not Hate said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to British jobs for British workers?



Quite right, UKIP should certainly take HnH's advice and ensure that their leaflets are only delivered by certified British workers in future...


----------



## youngian (May 8, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Heh!
> http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/ukip/ukip-employ-latvian-workers-to-deliver-leaflets-3689



I understand many UKIP members are not as light on their feet as they used to be but its interesting they can't even get volunteers to do election leafleting in Surrey. Probably because they can't work out what's in it for them or why anyone would do anything for free.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> Quite right, UKIP should certainly take HnH's advice and ensure that their leaflets are only delivered by certified British workers in future...



Yes it can be read that way and for that reason could have been framed much better however I am pretty sure it's about pointing out hypocrasy.

My facepalm was for both reasons. I could have explained that but didn't.


----------



## andysays (May 8, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes it can be read that way and for that reason could have been framed much better however I am pretty sure it's about pointing out hypocrasy.
> 
> My facepalm was for both reasons. I could have explained that but didn't.



HnH's intention may be to point out hypocrisy, but by using slogans like "British Jobs for British Workers" uncritically, they simply give tacit support to such ideas, rather than do anything to challenge them.

And in fact HnH are also being hypocritical by only attacking UKIP on this issue while ignoring racist policies and statements from other parties over the years which have actually made these ideas part of the mainstream.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> HnH's intention may be to point out hypocrisy, but by using slogans like "British Jobs for British Workers" uncritically, they simply give tacit support to such ideas, rather than do anything to challenge them.
> 
> And in fact HnH are also being hypocritical by only attacking UKIP on this issue while ignoring racist policies and statements from other parties over the years which have actually made these ideas part of the mainstream.




Fair points which I agree with, the first one in my post above, the 2nd now you have made it.


----------



## andysays (May 8, 2014)

As a counter to the simplistic idea that UKIP can be dismissed or demonised as racist, you might be interested to read this election communication from one of their candidates in Enfield







Not sure how we might counter this, but simply shouting racist isn't likely to do it.

ETA sorry, this is unreadable. Here's some of what it says


> Make our immigration system fairer for our Commonwealth friends. This is your opportunity to join UKIP, vote us out of the failing EU, and celebrate and defend with us our Commonwealth.



I read this as an appeal for the votes of for those with family ties in parts of the Commonwealth, eg the Caribbean or Indian sub-continent. How successful it's likely to be is another matter.


----------



## laptop (May 8, 2014)

I note the _Guardian_ Diary talking to a very pissed-off BNP spokescreature:



> Contacted by the Guardian to chat about Griffin's stated views on Jews, ethnicity and the like in the 1990s, spokesman Simon Darby told us: "You would be better off looking for what Mr Farage has in his closet."



Hmmm... do tell...


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

I bet there's a few pairs of red trousers in there.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 8, 2014)

That whole main BNP article (linked to inside laptop's quote above) is definitely worth a read.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

Who would have guessed Griffin was a racist!


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 8, 2014)

I missed the UKIP canvassers... I was out the day they called. 
Although the Tories called and offered me a leaflet.... I refused to take it.... they walked away.
No conflict at the doorstep for me this year.


----------



## youngian (May 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> As a counter to the simplistic idea that UKIP can be dismissed or demonised as racist, you might be interested to read this election communication from one of their candidates in Enfield
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This Daily Mail story about how there will be a  higher ethnic minority make up of Britain in 2050 has attracted a lot of UKIP comment. Apparently we should all vote for a party that wants to restrict mainly white European immigration but is more relaxed than other parties about increasing Commonwealth immigration.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

This pro Commonwealth post-colonial patricianism is well publicised by UKIP but it is still lost on its core supporters and the party knows it. Thats because its a xenophobic dog whistle party that is a rallying point for the fearful, bigoted and reactionary and they don't even believe its true.

As far as they're concerned Farage's reasonable sounding "sensible migration" line is just froth for the politically correct Metropolitan liberals that apparantly run our media. And they are absolutely right about it just being a line because the rank and file know better than anyone who UKIP really are and how they think.


----------



## andysays (May 8, 2014)

youngian said:


> This Daily Mail story about how there will be a  higher ethnic minority make up of Britain in 2050 has attracted a lot of UKIP comment. Apparently we should all vote for a party that wants to restrict mainly white European immigration but is more relaxed than other parties about increasing Commonwealth immigration.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field
> 
> This pro Commonwealth post-colonial patricianism is well publicised by UKIP but it is still lost on its core supporters and the party knows it. Thats because its a xenophobic dog whistle party that is a rallying point for the fearful, bigoted and reactionary and they don't even believe its true.
> ...



How do you know that a lot of those comments are from UKIP supporters? Are you suggesting that no one but a UKIP supporter could hold such opinions?

Are you saying that UKIP are unique in using dog whistle statements to appeal to the fearful, and even the "xenophobic, bigoted and reactionary"?

And given that the "Commonwealth immigrant" vote is likely to grow significantly, isn't it good politics for UKIP to seek to capture at least some of it?


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> *http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/whats-on/arts-culture-news/bill-drummond-birmingham-ukip-poster-7084059*[URL='http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/whats-on/arts-culture-news/bill-drummond-birmingham-ukip-poster-7084059[/QUOTE'][/QUOTE[/URL]]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> As a counter to the simplistic idea that UKIP can be dismissed or demonised as racist, you might be interested to read this election communication from one of their candidates in Enfield
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its basically saying if you vote for us we will let your friends and family into the country rather than the East Europeans, its blatant, crass and borderline racist


----------



## andysays (May 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> Its basically saying if you vote for us we will let your friends and family into the country rather than the East Europeans, its blatant, crass and borderline racist



I agree about the message it's putting across.

Do you think it's unique, or that UKIP is unique, in its blatentcy(?), crassness and/or borderline racism?


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2014)

So I hear that (white) people at the anti-EDL protest at Westminster heckled UKIP's mixed race Steven Wolfe as a 'fake'. Is some of the hysteria around UKIP causing some of the more extreme anti-UKIP people to become a bit racist?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

J Ed said:


> So I hear that (white) people at the anti-EDL protest at Westminster heckled UKIP's mixed race Steven Wolfe as a 'fake'. Is some of the hysteria around UKIP causing some of the more extreme UKIP people to become a bit racist?



I don't know but targetting a particular UKIP candidate on the grounds of his race, if that's what happened, is pretty clearly a racist thing to do.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2014)

I think a lot of them were already racist, and in many cases embedded in the Tory party (activists/candidates rather than voters).


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> Do you think it's unique, or that UKIP is unique, in its blatentcy(?), crassness and/or borderline racism?



The mainstream parties all openly support racist policies like indefinite detention of migrants and fast-track deportations. UKIP might have cornered the market in unreconstructed 1950's racism but they're certainly not the only racist party.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I think a lot of them were already racist, and in many cases embedded in the Tory party (activists/candidates rather than voters).


The anti-ukip people?


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't know but targetting a particular UKIP candidate on the grounds of his race, if that's what happened, is pretty clearly a racist thing to do.



Corroboration here:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/47...-black-and-ethnic-minority-members-fight-back



> A small number of hecklers from an anti-Ukip demonstration outside the hall managed to infiltrate the meeting, but were swiftly ejected by stewards.
> 
> Mr Woolfe appeared on the brink of tears as he responded to one protestor's cry of 'faker'.
> 
> His voice cracking with emotion, he referenced his own childhood growing up in Manchester and said: "A five-year-old child having to go home and tell his mum he was called a n***** all day at school - that's not a fake."



Who's winning the debate around race here and who looks like a wingnut? Stupid, stupid, stupid.


----------



## andysays (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The mainstream parties all openly support racist policies like indefinite detention of migrants and fast-track deportations. UKIP might have cornered the market in unreconstructed 1950's racism but they're certainly not the only racist party.



Agreed, so I'm not sure why they are frequently attacked by anti-racists as if they were the only racist party.

(I'm not even convinced that they have cornered the market in unreconstructed 1950's racism, TBH)


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Corroboration here:
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/47...-black-and-ethnic-minority-members-fight-back
> 
> ...


FFS


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Who's winning the debate around race here and who looks like a wingnut? Stupid, stupid, stupid.



They've not only acted like cunts, they've played right into Farage's hands. To the point where I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some UKIP PR person staged the whole thing.


----------



## ChrisD (May 8, 2014)

good cartoon by Dave Brown in today's 
http://www.independent.co.uk/
(scoll down)  can't seem to post screen shot: too large a file


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> They've not only acted like cunts, they've played right into Farage's hands. To the point where I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some UKIP PR person staged the whole thing.



Why would UKIP have to stage any of this? It's not atypical of the usual behaviour of these people.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> They've not only acted like cunts, they've played right into Farage's hands. To the point where I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some UKIP PR person staged the whole thing.


Apart from it  being  loads of nominally left-wing and anti-racist groups behind  it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

You've got to play the ball not the man. Farage must be delighted with these personal attacks because then he can wheel out all his minority chums and say, 'look, I'm not racist'. If people took him to task on the actual content of his policies, and demonstrated that they are fundamentally racist, then that cannot so easily be countered by simply shaking hands with a few black people.

The key thing in my opinion is to discredit the idea of a difference between being 'anti-immigration' and being racist. This would not only undermine UKIP but any other party who tries to score points by claiming to be 'tough on immigration'. Sadly it's not something we can achieve by throwing eggs or waving signs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why would UKIP have to stage any of this? It's not atypical of the usual behaviour of these people.



I don't think they've staged it. But I do think that they probably wish they had.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> You've got to play the ball not the man. Farage must be delighted with these personal attacks because then he can wheel out all his minority chums and say, 'look, I'm not racist'. If people took him to task on the actual content of his policies, and demonstrated that they are fundamentally racist, then that cannot so easily be countered by simply shaking hands with a few black people.
> 
> The key thing in my opinion is to discredit the idea of a difference between being 'anti-immigration' and being racist. This would not only undermine UKIP but any other party who tries to score points by claiming to be 'tough on immigration'. Sadly it's not something we can achieve by throwing eggs or waving signs.


So the key thing is to call them and their supporters racist. Righto. Are you working for UKIP pr?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So the key thing is to call them and their supporters racist. Righto.



No, the key thing is to demonstrate that their _policies_ are racist.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, the key thing is to demonstrate that their policies are racist.


So that you can call them racist. Working a treat. Crack on then and do this demonstration.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So that you can call them racist. Working a treat. Crack on then and do this demonstration.



I forgot that racism doesn't bother you that much.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

All that demonstrating anti-immigration policies are racist does is move a whole load of people from being anti-immigration to being racists, nothing else. What do you think is going to happen?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I forgot that racism doesn't bother you that much.


Oh lordy. Are we going to get a tantrum on this thread too?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> All that demonstrating anti-immigration policies are racist does is move a whole load of people from being anti-immigration to being racists, nothing else. What do you think is going to happen?



Once upon a time certain racist ideas were socially acceptable, the inherent superiority of white people over other races etc. These ideas were challenged, questioned, discredited. They're now well on their way to extinction. I would hope that we might start to do something simillar with the racist idea that it's OK for a state to decide who is and isn't allowed to live on a particular piece of land. 

I'm not thinking this is something that can be done on a time scale of the next election or anything like that, but I don't want to live another fifty years and still see billboards put up by mainstream political parties reading, 'it's not racist to impose controls on immigration'.


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not thinking this is something that can be done on a time scale of the next election or anything like that, but I don't want to live another fifty years and still see billboards put up by mainstream political parties reading, 'it's not racist to impose controls on immigration'.



This puts UKIP on par with all the other parties (and I suspect 99%+ of voters) though, doesn't it?


----------



## youngian (May 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> How do you know that a lot of those comments are from UKIP supporters? Are you suggesting that no one but a UKIP supporter could hold such opinions?


I was referring to the comments that contained the words 'vote UKIP'



andysays said:


> Are you saying that UKIP are unique in using dog whistle statements to appeal to the fearful, and even the "xenophobic, bigoted and reactionary"?


Even the Tories are careful about playing the Powellite xenophobia card (although Lynton Crosby will have a punt if May elections go badly) and all other parties are in favour of honouring our treaty obligations to freedom of movement of labour across the EU.



andysays said:


> And given that the "Commonwealth immigrant" vote is likely to grow significantly, isn't it good politics for UKIP to seek to capture at least some of it?


Telling black or Asian British citizens to vote UKIP to stop thieving Romanian gyppos stealing your jobs is not really social progress in my book. UKIP's whole raison d'etre is about fear of the 'other'. UKIP put up a Jamaican candidate in racially mixed Croydon North by-election and he was just as prone as the rest of them as coming out with swivel eyed loon twattery. As a consequence he bombed at the polls. Probably because a middle aged Asian or Afro-Carribean voter is all too familiar with the rhetoric that UKIP now heaps on East Europeans.The way UKIP wheels out its Asian and black candidates is toe curling. Like some 70s Richard LIttlejohn pub bore who likes to tell you his mate Chalky doesn't mind golliwogs so what's the problem.

UKIP's sentimetality about the Commonwealth is a rehash of post war League of Empire Loyalist fantasies about reforming an imperial trade bloc where greatful Johnny Native is queuing up to buy Land Rovers. The Commonwealth is a networking club and doesn't remotely resemble a trade bloc. And there is no quid pro quo to justify why few of these countries should have UK labour market access over the EU.


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2014)

Kippers are using the Express comments boards as notice boards, even mentioning membership fees.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The anti-ukip people?



Nope - Read J Ed's post wrong I think - sure it said 'UKIP' rather than anti-UKIP originally.

Although not the case here, haven't the BNP been heckling UKIP on some occasions? They certainly aren't fond of them.


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Nope - Read J Ed's post wrong I think - sure it said 'UKIP' rather than anti-UKIP originally.



Yeah, I wrote UKIP rather than anti-UKIP originally by mistake. My fault


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Nope - Read J Ed's post wrong I think - sure it said 'UKIP' rather than anti-UKIP originally.
> 
> Although not the case here, haven't the BNP been heckling UKIP on some occasions? They certainly aren't fond of them.


It did, thought that was what you meant.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> Kippers are using the Express comments boards as notice boards, even mentioning membership fees.


Bastards. Is there nothing they will not do?


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Once upon a time certain racist ideas were socially acceptable, the inherent superiority of white people over other races etc. These ideas were challenged, questioned, discredited. They're now well on their way to extinction. I would hope that we might start to do something simillar with the racist idea that it's OK for a state to decide who is and isn't allowed to live on a particular piece of land.
> 
> I'm not thinking this is something that can be done on a time scale of the next election or anything like that, but I don't want to live another fifty years and still see billboards put up by mainstream political parties reading, 'it's not racist to impose controls on immigration'.


It's a rather more complex question though isn't it? You can tell people 'til you're blue in the face that it's racist to want a limit on immigration - all that's going to do is get their backs up.

Given the current economic framework we exist in - which most people don't see any alternative to - there are many totally non-racist reasons for wanting to restrict economic migration. Calling people who hold those views racists isn't going to make those reasons go away.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> Kippers are using the Express comments boards as notice boards, even mentioning membership fees.



The 'bottom half of the internet' has very strong UKIP representation - particularly local paper sites. The BNP used to be strong on this too. I've no idea if this is orchestrated in the same way that the mainstream parties used to circulate talking points so that you'd see the same phrases used by multiple posters (most commonly on the BBC or national paper sites), but you do see the same wording popping up here and there. Nothing sinister - just hints at some degree of organisation, or perhaps very motivated supporters, many of whom will be retired with time on their hands.  I think it's seen as a battleground, and to some extent they're winning as they're seldom challenged, or if they are, not with anything substantial (shallow name calling and stuff like that).


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I forgot that racism doesn't bother you that much.




disgusting comment


----------



## urbanspaceman (May 8, 2014)

My neighbour and I had a bizarre interaction with the UKIP Coldharbour councillor candidate last week, when he came a'canvassing. He seems to know nothing about retail politics: he didn't announce himself clearly, and his companion lurked silently behind him. I told him that local politics is about unglamorous quality-of-life stuff, not a glorious crusade against Brussels, and asked him how, without a party machine to back him, he could be as effective as say Rachel Heywood.

I mentioned anti-social behaviour, and tellingly, he excitedly interpreted and repeated this back to me as "law'n'order". Then he confidently stated that the police would be more sympathetic to UKIP than to other parties. I pointed out that the Met is an enormously complex and diverse bureaucracy, and that his analysis was startlingly simplistic. I mentioned what I thought might be a couple of useful points that I have learned as a civilian, about dealing with the Council and Police, and his eyes glazed over.

My neighbour asked him out of interest how he got her name (_obviously the electoral roll, but she didn't know that_), and he said: "why should I tell you since you're not voting for me ?" and stomped off. She was rattled by this and took a picture of him, at which he called her "mad".


----------



## Teaboy (May 8, 2014)

urbanspaceman said:


> My neighbour and I had a bizarre interaction with the UKIP Coldharbour councillor candidate last week, when he came a'canvassing. He seems to know nothing about retail politics: he didn't announce himself clearly, and his companion lurked silently behind him. I told him that local politics is about unglamorous quality-of-life stuff, not a glorious crusade against Brussels, and asked him how, without a party machine to back him, he could be as effective as say Rachel Heywood.
> 
> I mentioned anti-social behaviour, and tellingly, he excitedly interpreted and repeated this back to me as "law'n'order". Then he confidently stated that the police would be more sympathetic to UKIP than to other parties. I pointed out that the Met is an enormously complex and diverse bureaucracy, and that his analysis was startlingly simplistic. I mentioned what I thought might be a couple of useful points that I have learned as a civilian, about dealing with the Council and Police, and his eyes glazed over.
> 
> My neighbour asked him out of interest how he got her name (_obviously the electoral roll, but she didn't know that_), and he said: "why should I tell you since you're not voting for me ?" and stomped off. She was rattled by this and took a picture of him, at which he called her "mad".



So, did he win your vote?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> Given the current economic framework we exist in - which most people don't see any alternative to - there are many totally non-racist reasons for wanting to restrict economic migration. Calling people who hold those views racists isn't going to make those reasons go away.



There's a difference between people who listen to the arguments that immigration is picking their pocket and the people who make those arguments in the first place. If we're not going to challenge those arguments, which are usually fallacious and/or based on inaccuracies or outright lies, what are we going to do? Ask the BBC to stop putting Farage on telly and hope he goes away? 

Of course you're right about immigration controls going hand in hand with the economic and politcial structure of society, and I don't think you can keep one of those things while getting rid of the other. I just think it's easier to use the principle freedom of movement to argue against capitalism than to use an anti-capitalist perspective to argue for freedom of movement, if that makes any sense.


----------



## youngian (May 8, 2014)

urbanspaceman said:


> My neighbour and I had a bizarre interaction with the UKIP Coldharbour councillor candidate last week, when he came a'canvassing. He seems to know nothing about retail politics: he didn't announce himself clearly, and his companion lurked silently behind him. I told him that local politics is about unglamorous quality-of-life stuff, not a glorious crusade against Brussels, and asked him how, without a party machine to back him, he could be as effective as say Rachel Heywood.
> 
> I mentioned anti-social behaviour, and tellingly, he excitedly interpreted and repeated this back to me as "law'n'order". Then he confidently stated that the police would be more sympathetic to UKIP than to other parties. I pointed out that the Met is an enormously complex and diverse bureaucracy, and that his analysis was startlingly simplistic. I mentioned what I thought might be a couple of useful points that I have learned as a civilian, about dealing with the Council and Police, and his eyes glazed over.
> 
> My neighbour asked him out of interest how he got her name (_obviously the electoral roll, but she didn't know that_), and he said: "why should I tell you since you're not voting for me ?" and stomped off. She was rattled by this and took a picture of him, at which he called her "mad".



He'll just think you're a member of the out-of-touch Metropolitan liberal elite trying to trip him up with your fancy answers and questions. 

I'm surprised they're even trying their luck in Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's a difference between people who listen to the arguments that immigration is picking their pocket and the people who make those arguments in the first place. If we're not going to challenge those arguments, which are usually fallacious and/or based on inaccuracies or outright lies, what are we going to do? Ask the BBC to stop putting Farage on telly and hope he goes away?



There's a difference between challenging racist arguments and simply stating "UKIP are racist and therefore bad" and hoping that'll automatically make them implode.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> There's a difference between challenging racist arguments and simply stating "UKIP are racist and therefore bad" and hoping that'll automatically make them implode.


It will though. After he has demonstrated it. They'll all fall:




			
				frank said:
			
		

> The key thing in my opinion is to discredit the idea of a difference between being 'anti-immigration' and being racist. This would not only undermine UKIP but any other party who tries to score points by claiming to be 'tough on immigration'. Sadly it's not something we can achieve by throwing eggs or waving signs.



This is the key thing. the key thing. To tell people that they are - despite what they think, how they live their lifes, despite who they are - racists. That's the key thing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> There's a difference between challenging racist arguments and simply stating "UKIP are racist and therefore bad" and hoping that'll automatically make them implode.



That's more or less what I've been saying, although someone will be along momentarily to tell me that I haven't.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's more or less what I've been saying, although someone will be along momentarily to tell me that I haven't.



This:



SpookyFrank said:


> No, the key thing is to demonstrate that their _policies_ are racist.



Certainly implies as much. 

Pointing out that policies are racist isn't the same as challenging them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> This:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps I should have said, 'point out _why _their policies are racist'.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

In order to shout _racist_. Genius.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Perhaps I should have said, 'point out _why _their policies are racist'.



But the point here is that attributing racism to UKIP isn't a magic bullet. You can call UKIP racist over and over again, but how much of a dent is going to make on people who think that the media etc. call UKIP racist just to discredit them?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> But the point here is that attributing racism to UKIP isn't a magic bullet. You can call UKIP racist over and over again, but how much of a dent is going to make on people who think that the media etc. call UKIP racist just to discredit them?


You end up calling black blokes fakes. _Not real black people._


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> But the point here is that attributing racism to UKIP isn't a magic bullet. You can call UKIP racist over and over again, but how much of a dent is going to make on people who think that the media etc. call UKIP racist just to discredit them?



There's a difference between calling someone a racist and presenting an argument that a policy they support is racist.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's a difference between calling someone a racist and presenting an argument that a policy they support is racist.


In order to shout racist at their supporters. Where is the difference?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 8, 2014)

Has it been mentioned Britain First have offered their services to protect Farage from "leftist thugs" on his outings?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2014)

yes- along with a picture of them dressed as blatant stormtroopers. And I don't mean the star wars kind.


----------



## trevhagl (May 8, 2014)

spend hours arguing with thick cunts on Facebook , the worrying thing is their own supporters don't even know what they stand for!! They even dare to slag the NHS for treating muslims , without a clue what would happen to it if UKIP ever got power


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Has it been mentioned Britain First have offered their services to protect Farage from "leftist thugs" on his outings?


This, this is what it's all about.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 8, 2014)

Meanwhile, this:


----------



## William of Walworth (May 8, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> That whole main BNP article (linked to inside laptop's quote above) is definitely worth a read.






			
				butcherapron said:
			
		

> Who would have guessed Griffin was a racist!



Come on now, that's not the point, general fact's well known, but some of the detail may not be -- at least not to everyone!


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's a difference between calling someone a racist and presenting an argument that a policy they support is racist.


Amounts to the same thing in the end though, doesn't it? Relies on the idea that if we can just convince people that UKIP are racist they'll crumble.


----------



## co-op (May 8, 2014)

youngian said:


> I'm surprised they're even trying their luck in Coldharbour Lane.



Brixton isn't what it was, it's well wealthy. The tory candidate in the locals in 2010 lived in a flat over a shop on Railton Rd, and he was a merchant banker.


----------



## tony.c (May 8, 2014)

co-op said:


> The tory candidate in the locals in 2010 lived in a flat over a shop on Railton Rd, and he was a merchant banker.


But what did he do for a living?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2014)

Premier Inn's marketing folks are on the ball:

http://www.thedrum.com/stuff/2014/0...ng-lenny-henry-goes-viral#JBPI7tZdg0ZMCgM3.01


----------



## youngian (May 8, 2014)

co-op said:


> Brixton isn't what it was, it's well wealthy. The tory candidate in the locals in 2010 lived in a flat over a shop on Railton Rd, and he was a merchant banker.


Although the urban Tory middle classes are regarded with suspicion by Kippers, they've got the right ideas on tax and the free market but have dangerously suspect liberal social views on gays and forrins. And they've probably got a Polish nanny for Tarquin and Cressida.


----------



## gosub (May 8, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Premier Inn's marketing folks are on the ball:
> 
> http://www.thedrum.com/stuff/2014/0...ng-lenny-henry-goes-viral#JBPI7tZdg0ZMCgM3.01


 by saying it wasn't them


----------



## emanymton (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, the key thing is to demonstrate that their _policies_ are racist.


No the key thing is to demonstrate their policies are anti - working class. The racism is only part of that.


----------



## emanymton (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Once upon a time certain racist ideas were socially acceptable, the inherent superiority of white people over other races etc. These ideas were challenged, questioned, discredited. They're now well on their way to extinction. I would hope that we might start to do something simillar with the racist idea that it's OK for a state to decide who is and isn't allowed to live on a particular piece of land.
> 
> I'm not thinking this is something that can be done on a time scale of the next election or anything like that, but I don't want to live another fifty years and still see billboards put up by mainstream political parties reading, 'it's not racist to impose controls on immigration'.


I agree, but focusing attacks on ukip around the race and immigration issue will make that future more not less likely.


----------



## co-op (May 8, 2014)

youngian said:


> And they've probably got a Polish nanny for Tarquin and Cressida.



But she'd be a lot cheaper if she was a proper illegal.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In order to shout racist at their supporters. Where is the difference?




Who mentioned shouting? Has SpookyFrank been shouting?

One of the tried and tested bleats of bigots is to say people are "just shouting racist", even if it's not happening anywhere beyond their bitter and muddled heads.

It may not be always effective to call racist policies racist, but it's certainly reasonable and there's no need to assume that the assessment is "shouted".


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2014)

Farage on Question Time again tonight. The marginalised 'maverick outsider' making his 15th appearance.

Oh, and Shapps is on too. I might even watch.


I'm not seeing the Tories going for UKIP much, unlike a year or so back (with the 'fruit cakes and loonies' thing).  What's their strategy - let UKIP set a right-wing agenda they can capitalise on? Avoid alienating potential supporters that might return to the fold after the election? Accept they were never going to gain anything in this election and hope UKIP eclipse Labour so that Ed M can't claim any momentum?  Their silence is suspicious.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 8, 2014)

http://isnigelfarageonquestiontime.com


----------



## teqniq (May 8, 2014)

What with the poster and leaflet campaign and the above average appearances on Question Time they must have shedloads of money and influence at their disposal (I realise the two are largely interchangeable).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2014)

teqniq said:


> What with the poster and leaflet campaign and the above average appearances on Question Time they must have shedloads of money and influence at their disposal (I realise the two are largely interchangeable).



What's money got to do with Question Time?


----------



## teqniq (May 8, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What's money got to do with Question Time?


Nothing perhaps, but maybe influence has.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Nothing perhaps, but maybe influence has.



well yes, they're unlikely to have someone from TUSC on, but Farage leads a party with numerous MEPs and good poll ratings so it seems perfectly legitimate to have him on fairly regularly.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 8, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> well yes, they're unlikely to have someone from TUSC on, but Farage leads a party with numerous MEPs and good poll ratings so it seems perfectly legitimate to have him on fairly regularly.



Not as regularly as they have him on though. How often do the Greens get on QT?


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 8, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> spend hours arguing with thick cunts on Facebook , the worrying thing is their own supporters don't even know what they stand for!! They even dare to slag the NHS for treating muslims , without a clue what would happen to it if UKIP ever got power



Damn those thick cunt unwashed masses eh? Just think, if it wasn't for those loutish working class people we'd be living in a socialist utopia by now...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Not as regularly as they have him on though. How often do the Greens get on QT?



UKIP have far more MEPs and far more local councillors and much better poll ratings. Caroline Lucas is on this one tonight isn't she?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Damn those thick cunt unwashed masses eh? Just think, if it wasn't for those loutish working class people we'd be living in a socialist utopia by now...



trevs a Libdem and let's not forget what they've already done to the NHS


----------



## marty21 (May 8, 2014)

Party Political Broadcast from the An Independence from Europe party tonight,I've never heard of them - are they splitters from UKIP?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2014)

marty21 said:


> Party Political Broadcast from the An Independence from Europe party tonight,I've never heard of them - are they splitters from UKIP?



Yes it's Mike Natrass MEP former UKIP deputy leader who launched the party as vote spoiler for UKIP


----------



## co-op (May 8, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes it's Mike Natrass MEP former UKIP deputy leader who launched the party as vote spoiler for UKIP





On the quiet peerage nomination from the tory party when the dust's settled?


----------



## tony.c (May 8, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes it's Mike Natrass MEP former UKIP deputy leader who launched the party as vote spoiler for UKIP


With a name chosen to be top of the ballot paper.


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2014)

I've not mentioned it before but I have encountered a whole lot of Ukip members or at least proto members: about 15 years ago in York, there was a meeting of the EU Finance Ministers and there were a number of public meetings to discuss the issues, I have to say they were a very odd lot, far from being all wealthy, usually very badly dressed with poor hygiene(yes I know, ill fitting suits and all that) and yes, their main issue was 'sovereignity' I think some of them will now be 'Freemen'


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 8, 2014)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-klf-frontman-bill-drummond-3514522
"he former pop star said it offended him in “so many ways”, adding it was “very cynically trying to pander to us at our most vulnerable and negative and not to our better selves”.
Drummond added: “This billboard not only offended me morally and aesthetically, it also went against everything that I feel political discourse should be about.”

The Birmingham-based artist said he had 1,000 litres of paint made up a decade ago so those who bought it could deface “anything you found to be morally or aesthetically offensive”.

“Basically I was in the business of promoting vandalism,” he admitted."



get in there bill !


----------



## DrRingDing (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This, this is what it's all about.



Care to expand chuck?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Care to expand chuck?


This is it, make the fucking most of it because one minute you're getting drunk at weddings and heading into the hills to shoot deer the next you're playing Russian roulette in a cage full of dirty water. This is fucking it.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 8, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> This is it, make the fucking most of it because one minute you're getting drunk at weddings and heading into the hills to shoot deer the next you're playing Russian roulette in a cage full of dirty water. This is fucking it.



Meth or SB?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2014)

This is it


----------



## DrRingDing (May 8, 2014)

Meth.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2014)

This is fucking it, this is it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 8, 2014)

'It's the quality of immigrants'

'There's too many'

Little Englander scum.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 8, 2014)




----------



## Nylock (May 9, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> http://isnigelfarageonquestiontime.com


oh god, my eyes!


----------



## Nylock (May 9, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I agree, but focusing attacks on ukip around the race and immigration issue will make that future more not less likely.









like this?

(appeared on a friend's facebook whatsit....)


----------



## Quartz (May 9, 2014)

Today's Alex cartoon hits the mark:


----------



## gosub (May 9, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Today's Alex cartoon hits the mark:


except that the tories plan of reforming the EU by 2017 then offering a referendum isn't credible.  There will be a new treaty next parliament as there will need to be a new treaty towards the next tranch of federalism to try and fix the mess caused by the eurozone, so we get a referendum anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

That's the worst cartoon ever.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

UKIP now on highest ever polling with populus - 16% +2. Can't remember the reason they traditionally are quite hard on smaller parties - think it may be reallocation of don't knows. If so, a 16% from them is pretty solid.


----------



## J Ed (May 9, 2014)

I caught the end of QT last night, watching Chuka et al interrupt Farage at the end while he was making an ostensibly reasonable enough point about Pfizer was enough to get the sympathy if not support of anyone not already decidedly against him.


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2014)

Someone has posted on Left Unity that UKIP has more ethnic minority members than they have!, I wonder if this is correct, not least that LU is a new party and tiny


----------



## gosub (May 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I caught the end of QT last night, watching Chuka et al interrupt Farage at the end while he was making an ostensibly reasonable enough point about Pfizer was enough to get the sympathy if not support of anyone not already decidedly against him.



 saw that bit Chuka was lying through his teeth : 
*Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): *I would like the Secretary of State to clarify the legal position, because it seems to me that, under the law the previous Government introduced, Ministers were going to stay out of all these decisions, which would be trusted to an independent body; and that, under the 2004 European Union merger regulation that they signed up to, this is clearly a concentration that falls to be determined by Brussels regulation, not by this elected House of Commons. I therefore find it very surprising that the Opposition are demanding the Secretary of State to intervene, when he might end up in an illegal position if he tried to do so.

*The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable):* It is precisely because of the legal position that I have been studiously neutral on this matter. It is fair to say that there are elements of ambiguity—it is not absolutely clear—but the main position is exactly as the right hon. Gentleman described it: under the legislation we inherited from the Labour party, Ministers do not engage with decisions except in three very specific areas of public interest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2014)

weepiper said:


> You mean their early leader who will be assasinated by Farage because he sees him as a threat?  I dunno.
> 
> This is the picture they posted with that paragraph btw



"You're wearing trainers.  You ain't coming in".


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2014)

Serotonin said:


> http://www.exmodplant.co.uk/landrovers-ex-mod
> 
> Ex MOD landrovers. Big fucking wow. Silly posturing.



Gives their steroid-withered genitals a bit of pep, playing soldiers does.

AFAICR, the last bunch of right-wingers who claimed to be made up of former military (CxF - "Combined Ex-Forces, a "division" of the EDL) turned out to be 50% Walter Mittys.
This bunch of bouncer-lookalikes are probably no different.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Perhaps they are a particularly enthusiastic Devo tribute band.



If they were that enthusiastic, they'd be wearing the red plantpots, not flat caps!


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I caught the end of QT last night, watching Chuka et al interrupt Farage at the end while he was making an ostensibly reasonable enough point about Pfizer was enough to get the sympathy if not support of anyone not already decidedly against him.


I didn't get that far(age) through Farage Time. Nigle Farage kept interrupting everone whuile David Nigel Farage kept interrupting everyone else and the audience of Nigel Farage seemed particularly Nigel Farage.

I can't cope with it anymore. I can't stand the fat faced cunt. I can't stand seeing his pious bullshit spewing wordhole pump out lie after lie. I can't stand him talking over everyone else while that stupid old bastard Dimblecunt continually prevents anyone else from speaking. Caroline Lucas, whatever you may think of her, tried to put some pro EU points across by listing what good they do. Dimblecunt just interrupted her saying it wasn't relevant! Of course it's relevant you stupid institutional reactionary tosser!

I'm so tired of this immigration shit and I'm so tired of UKIP appearing, virtually unchallenged, on the BBC night and fucking day. And it comes to something when it takes Shapps to be the only person to mention the number of UK people living and working abroad.

At least someone in the audience got a cheer by challenging Farage on the scam his mep's run, not turning up to do their job while taking EU money. They don't even care though; Farage is quite open about this being party tactics to defeat the evil EU.

Stupid bastard, I hope he fucking dies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2014)

treelover said:


> Its basically saying if you vote for us we will let your friends and family into the country rather than the East Europeans, its blatant, crass and borderline racist



It's saying a bit more than that, and playing on the resentment some first and second generation immigrants still feel about the progressive tightening of immigration rules between the late '60s and now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from it  being  loads of nominally left-wing and anti-racist groups behind  it.



If you're non-white and don't agree with the likes of HnH and UAF, then you're obviously a "faker".
You just *know* that the sad cunts probably didn't even *SEE* the racism in what they said.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you're non-white and don't agree with the likes of HnH and UAF, then you're obviously a "faker".
> You just *know* that the sad cunts probably didn't even *SEE* the racism in what they said.


If anything, they probably saw it militant anti-racism. That really wound me up yesterday.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, the key thing is to demonstrate that their _policies_ are racist.



Well, there's the rub:  What policies, Frank?  So far, much of what we've heard from UKIP, both from the centre and the periphery, is deniable.  Farage and his advisors have cleverly engineered a "screen" of plausible deniability around him, so that the views of his membership don't reflect on him, and they've kept policy so generalised and thin on the ground that demonstrating racism becomes a semantic rather than a political exercise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It will though. After he has demonstrated it. They'll all fall:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the key thing. the key thing. To tell people that they are - despite what they think, how they live their lifes, despite who they are - racists. That's the key thing.



You filthy racist bastard, you!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yes- along with a picture of them dressed as blatant stormtroopers. And I don't mean the star wars kind.



More like bouncers in flat caps, tbf.


----------



## Quartz (May 9, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> At least someone in the audience got a cheer by challenging Farage on the scam his mep's run, not turning up to do their job while taking EU money.



Point of order: Farage himself does attend the EU Parliament. At least, there are quite a few videos of his speeches there.







Etc

And here's one of Paul Nuttall at the EU Parliament:



Of course, they're not there now because they're campaigning for re-election.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Who mentioned shouting? Has SpookyFrank been shouting?



It's a metaphor. :faceplam:



> One of the tried and tested bleats of bigots is to say people are "just shouting racist", even if it's not happening anywhere beyond their bitter and muddled heads.



Do yourself a favour, and leave off of trying to fold personal insults into political commentary. It makes you look like a dick.



> It may not be always effective to call racist policies racist, but it's certainly reasonable and there's no need to assume that the assessment is "shouted".



What "policies" would that be?  As far as I can see, UKIP has very few codified policies, just a lot of unattributed ideas floating around.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Point of order: Farage himself does attend the EU Parliament.
> Of course, they're not there now because they're campaigning for re-election.


who would have thought awesome wells' spittle flecked invective was full of shit.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What "policies" would that be?  As far as I can see, UKIP has very few codified policies, just a lot of unattributed ideas floating around.


 
This is completely deliberate on their part.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2014)

8ball said:


> This is completely deliberate on their part.



Yes, as I said several posts before the one you replied to.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, as I said several posts before the one you replied to.


 
I'm Canucking.


----------



## J Ed (May 9, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I didn't get that far(age) through Farage Time. Nigle Farage kept interrupting everone whuile David Nigel Farage kept interrupting everyone else and the audience of Nigel Farage seemed particularly Nigel Farage.



All I saw was straight forward barracking of Farage.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2014)

noticed chukka sliding out from under a question concerning housing. smoothly done


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Awesome Wells said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't get that far(age) through Farage Time. Nigle Farage kept interrupting everone whuile David Nigel Farage kept interrupting everyone else and the audience of Nigel Farage seemed particularly Nigel Farage.
> ...


If  all you see is farage then how do you know who isn't farage? Worthless stuff.


----------



## J Ed (May 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> If  all you see it farage then how do know who isn't farage? Worthless stuff.



What?


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

Sorry, meant to quote the wells. Fixing now.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 9, 2014)

The thing that pisses me off with Question Time is not just the ever-present Nigel (who did talk over everyone else for much of the programme, more aggressively than his usual style) but the fact that for the last few years it's been near enough nothing but Europe and immigration. Bedroom tax, food banks, tax cuts for the rich etc. have barely got a look-in. It's letting the government off the hook. I know it's essentially entertainment dressed up as holding politicians to account, but the subject selection and limited palette of guests has been a let-down and I've given up routinely watching it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 9, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Point of order: Farage himself does attend the EU Parliament. At least, there are quite a few videos of his speeches there.


Oh i don't care. I'm past the point of reason, and adding Paul Twatall into the mix just pushes me further!


Nutall also blogged that he doesn't attend the EU out of choice: this is how they intend to bring it down - a few fruitcake little englanders are going over there (or not) to parade around their sad little xenophobia while no doubt everyone else thinks they, and by extension us, are ridiculous. I'm only surprised they don't turn up goosestepping saying "ve are from ze ukip unt ve are taking der pisswasser", or some other allo allo inspired stereotype.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

Why are you pro neo-liberalism wells?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 9, 2014)

Farage recently said he wasn't able to attend the parliament very often because the injuries sustained in his plane crash made travel difficult. 



(Doesn't actually give a fuck, does he?)


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 9, 2014)

killer b said:


> who would have thought awesome wells' spittle flecked invective was full of shit.


Go fuck yourself


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Oh i don't care. I'm past the point of reason, and adding Paul Twatall into the mix just pushes me further!
> 
> 
> Nutall also blogged that he doesn't attend the EU out of choice: this is how they intend to bring it down - a few fruitcake little englanders are going over there (or not) to parade around their sad little xenophobia while no doubt everyone else thinks they, and by extension us, are ridiculous. I'm only surprised they don't turn up goosestepping saying "ve are from ze ukip unt ve are taking der pisswasser", or some other allo allo inspired stereotype.



How they doing you think?


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Go fuck yourself


 
I don't think it's unreasonable to desire some level of accuracy in our supposed allies' criticism of the enemy.

The problem with spouting made up bullshit in your no doubt enjoyable rants is that it makes it easier to write of what you say that is true. If there is any.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> All I saw was straight forward barracking of Farage.


Then you saw a different show.

Certainly he came under criticism from other pannelists, so what? They didn't talk him down and run their yap nonstop. He did. For the 30 minutes I watched, which was immigration, which gets raised every week. He continued his nonsense about 480 odd million europeans queuing at the door to take YOUR jobs and refused, as usual, to listen to facts or reason. If you mean by barracking that Chuka Umuna criticised him for his 'foreign languages I heard on trains' comment, or whatever the fuck he said, then that was well deserved criticism, which was far from barracking - and it was met by a mealy mouthed straw man. As usual.

Ukip are on almost every week now, they were on last week as well. I can't remember the last time Caroline Lucas was on, not for many months I think. TUSC haven't been on iirc, nor the Socialist Party, or even the SWP.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 9, 2014)

killer b said:


> I don't think it's unreasonable to desire some level of accuracy in our supposed allies' criticism of the enemy.
> 
> The problem with spouting made up bullshit in your no doubt enjoyable rants is that it makes it easier to write of what you say that is true. If there is any.


What bullshit did I make up then. Let's start there, if you want to be reasonable. Or is this yet another tired personal attack. I've already put that tedious cunt butchersapron on ignore even though he seems to think I give a shit, you can go the same way pal, it's all gravy afaic


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Then you saw a different show.
> 
> Certainly he came under criticism from other pannelists, so what? They didn't talk him down and run their yap nonstop. He did. For the 30 minutes I watched, which was immigration, which gets raised every week. He continued his nonsense about 480 odd million europeans queuing at the door to take YOUR jobs and refused, as usual, to listen to facts or reason. If you mean by barracking that Chuka Umuna criticised him for his 'foreign languages I heard on trains' comment, or whatever the fuck he said, then that was well deserved criticism, which was far from barracking - and it was met by a mealy mouthed straw man. As usual.
> 
> Ukip are on almost every week now, they were on last week as well. I can't remember the last time Caroline Lucas was on, not for many months I think. TUSC haven't been on iirc, nor the Socialist Party, or even the SWP.



Why on earth would they be? What have they done that warrants it? What are UKIP doing to warrant it? Being the third party in the polls? Having 12 MEPs with an euro election coming in 4 weeks? Head in the sand time.

And btw - you've not put me on ignore. You've just ignored every point i ever put to you.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 9, 2014)

From Paul Nuttall's own blog:



> *My Attendance Record*
> Today’s Daily Telegraph claims my attendance record in the European Parliament is terrible. Alongside UKIP MEPs, David Campbell Bannerman and Godfrey Bloom, my attendance record at plenary sessions is the lowest of any British MEP. I’ll hold my hands up, as my attendance record is flaky to say the least. But so what? I treat Brussels with the contempt it deserves: it has no real democratic mandate and MEPs only exist as a pretence to make the EU look democratic, when in fact we all know it is not. I also keep abreast of what is going on out there through the work of the excellent UKIP staff. So as I always say, one does not have to be in the joke shop to know the jokes.



So if a jobseeker says 'i don't want to work, i hate capitalism, i hate the state', it'd be ok to get benefits without question?

I can't see Mr Nuttalls agreeing to that

Perhaps if he turned up to the JC one a month just to keep abreast of the rules and regulations...and the jokes.


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/09/tony-parsons-endorses-ukip


http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/09/tony-parsons-interview


Fwiw, Tony Parsons: "I would vote for UKIP"


I think the Comics on Radio 4 don't like Farage though


----------



## Dogsauce (May 9, 2014)




----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a metaphor. :faceplam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's a metaphor that's used an awful lot by the right to charicature and make often reasoned analysis sound paranoid and absurd.

I wasn't insulting individuals, more mindsets, and the words "bitter" and "muddled" are hardly scathing. They are, however, accurate in many cases. Perhaps you have a go at everyone you come across who folds personal insults into political commentary,  but it would make you a very busy person.

Your point about "Policies" is something I get, certainly the propaganda has dog whistle racism in it. Immigrants to blame for unemployment and housing problems (neatly turned to "politicians to blame for letting immigrants cause the problem" so it;s not racist. At all. because it's blaming the politicians (for the immigrants who are to blame, including the 26 million who all want my job)

While cogent analysis is what's required, and there's plenty of it on this thread, and while not just calling stuff racist is very important (also there's plenty such stuff on this thread), what there's also rather too much of on this thread is "that's not how to do it", too often keener to slam critique of the subject matter than to critique the subject matter itself.

As with so many issues, if any of us really knew "how to do it" on a grand scale we wouldn't be where we are.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why on earth would they be? What have they done that warrants it? What are UKIP doing to warrant it? Being the third party in the polls? Having 12 MEPs with an euro election coming in 4 weeks? Head in the sand time.
> 
> And btw - you've not put me on ignore. You've just ignored every point i ever put to you.



He's been on that show more than anyone other politician since 2009.

Do you have your head in the sand about the disproportionate coverage of this man and his medium sized party?

A fair comparrison would be to that given to Clegg and The LDs before the last GE. It was over the top and rather silly looking back at it but nothing like the scale and length of time that this circus has gone on for.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

I asked why the spgb or sp deserve a spot on it rather than ukip. I didn't mention the level of coverage ukip have.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

You have an anti ukip blog don't you?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 9, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> A fair comparrison would be to that given to Clegg and The LDs before the last GE. It was over the top and rather silly looking back at it but nothing like the scale and length of time that this circus has gone on for.


Aside from the fact these elections are for europe and not britain, i'm not sure it is fair since the LD's had an actual presence in Parliament. Ukip doesn't. In fact, given their MEP's attendance rate, I'm not even sure they have one in Europe.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 9, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Ukip are on almost every week now, they were on last week as well. I can't remember the last time Caroline Lucas was on, not for many months I think. TUSC haven't been on iirc, nor the Socialist Party, or even the SWP.


And how many councillors do each of those parties have? What is each party currently polling? Your stupid anti-UKIPism appears to be blinding you to the fact that UKIP are now certainly the fourth, and on some measures the third, biggest political party in Britain. 

But leaving that aside perhaps you could tell me what you want to achieve with your anti-UKIPsim? For all that he's been shown to be a lying moron Fingers was at least honest enough to admit that his goal was simply to shore up support for Lab/Tories/LibDems, the very parties that are currently attacking labour. And that's all this stupid fucking anti-UKIP wankery would amount to, even if it was successful, which clearly it isn't.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I asked why the spgb or sp deserve a spot on it rather than ukip. I didn't mention the level of coverage ukip have.



Fair enough. Soz, though you often seem to argue that the coverage is justified. It's not.

I don't have an anti UKIP blog. I did a blogpiece about UKIP last year, not even majorly anti and on a wordpress I don't use as much now. Was going to do an update but dunno if I can be bothered. 

http://stevedrant.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/ukip-observations/


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> And how many councillors do each of those parties have? What is each party currently polling? Your stupid anti-UKIPism appears to be blinding you to the fact that UKIP are now certainly the fourth, and on some measures the third, biggest political party in Britain.
> 
> But leaving that aside perhaps you could tell me what you want to achieve with your anti-UKIPsim? For all that he's been shown to be a lying moron Fingers was at least honest enough to admit that his goal was simply to shore up support for Lab/Tories/LibDems, the very parties that are currently attacking labour. And that's all this stupid fucking anti-UKIP wankery would amount to, even if it was successful, which clearly it isn't.


You have misunderstood; i do not say they should have no place at all in the debate, or on the shows like QT.

They have been gifted airtime and a spotlight the likes of the greens would kill for,while having no MPs.

I doubt they are the fourth largest party, and if they are the difference between third and fourth place is very big indeed. I bet the greens are bigger (hopefully! ).

If that isn't the case, how are other parties, never mind one with actual MPs, ever to get their voice heard? If you are going to host a debate for the European elections then either invite everyone standing or it's not democracy. 

I didn't set out to achieve anything by posting other than vent my spleen at the painfully apparent bias towardukip.


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2014)

Distasteful as you may find it, UKIP have a mandate justifying these appearances.

Complaining that the party leading the polls for the upcoming European elections get more airtime than minor parties is a fruitless activity IMO.


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> Distasteful as you may find it, UKIP have a mandate justifying these appearances.
> 
> Complaining that the party leading the polls for the upcoming European elections get more airtime than minor parties is a fruitless activity IMO.



Yep, the fact that a "balanced" panel is drawn exclusively from the parties of capital would seem to be a more fruitful avenue of criticism.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 10, 2014)

I don't think Ukip get treated seriously enough by the media given the support they have while even having one interview with Nellist is probably more than they strictly need to do


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> Distasteful as you may find it, UKIP have a mandate justifying these appearances.
> 
> Complaining that the party leading the polls for the upcoming European elections get more airtime than minor parties is a fruitless activity IMO.


I don't think they have a mandate to the extent they are given and I am fed up with hearing Farage talk everyone down. He doesn't listen. I can't count the number of times people have tried correcting him and all he does is pull shit out of his arse about millions given to the EU each day as if we were on our knees throwing money at some portly ruddy faced Prussian with a monocle. The figure we give is a tenth of what he constantly claims and isn't a one way street either. 

And so Nuttalls was on the other Dimbelby show last night and came out with this corker, in respect of wind power on the issue of fracking: "it makes richer people richer and poor people poorer". No discussion, no evidence just populist shite. Renewable enery in the world of ukip? Nope. This kind of shite frustrates me. And people applaud! Idiots support this crap because the proliferation of these views is greater than the alternative, whatever it may be. There is no balance in these debates.


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yep, the fact that a "balanced" panel is drawn exclusively from the parties of capital would seem to be a more fruitful avenue of criticism.



Tbh A "fairer" reflection of the views of the electorate would mean about half the panellists seats' being left empty by guests deciding they had better things to do...


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2014)

Herdson, (on Smithson), discussing how desperate the vermin seem to sabotage/keep Farage away from any GE leaders' TV debates.
Cameron's "2,3,5" ploy giving Farage just one platform...on an equal footing to the Greens.....



> ...is it really plausible to place UKIP alongside the Greens if, as polls suggest is eminently possible, Farage leads his party to victory in the European elections?
> 
> T*he scale of that achievement should not be understated: no party other than the Conservatives or Labour has won any national election in over a century.  For comparison, the biggest election the Liberals or Lib Dems have won since 1945 is Devon County Council.*  To class UKIP in the third tier is asking for trouble – which may very well be the plan.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yep, the fact that a "balanced" panel is drawn exclusively from the parties of capital would seem to be a more fruitful avenue of criticism.


which non-capital parties have sufficient support to warrant representation?


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2014)

killer b said:


> which non-capital parties have sufficient support to warrant representation?


 check-mate! and that's how it works.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

killer b said:


> which non-capital parties have sufficient support to warrant representation?


If you're on the ballot paper and you're not invited to a discussion on the election...democracy has failed you.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2014)

I'm not sure if there's room on QT for all of them.


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If you're on the ballot paper and you're not invited to a discussion on the election...democracy has failed you.



TV chat shows are not democracy.


----------



## gosub (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If you're on the ballot paper and you're not invited to a discussion on the election...democracy has failed you.


there does need to be a balance, if you give as much time in a debate to the monster raving looney and every other minority candidate you arent going to have time to cover much ground in a debate


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If you're on the ballot paper and you're not invited to a discussion on the election...democracy has failed you.



Yet you're calling for the party leading the polling for that election to be thrown out of the same discussion. What principles are you invoking here in your defence of democracy?

Btw - UKIP has 25 000 more members than the greens, more councillors, more MEP and many many more voters.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2014)

And another thing wells and his types miss about farage and his qt appearances - the other panelists (and presenter and audience) do their bit to make discussion revolve around him and his party with their relentless (and ineffective) attacks. In fact, what they do is what wells does on here just writ large and in public.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2014)

Guess what these figures are:

UKIP 41K
CONSERVATIVES 4K
SNP 3484
LABOUR 3K
LIBDEMS 968


----------



## teqniq (May 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> TV chat shows are not democracy.


We don't really live in one either.

a democracy that is, not a chat show


----------



## gosub (May 10, 2014)

teqniq said:


> We don't really live in one either.
> 
> a democracy that is, not a chat show



just coz they don't give you a free parker pen for turning up to vote


----------



## redsquirrel (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> You have misunderstood; i do not say they should have no place at all in the debate, or on the shows like QT.
> 
> They have been gifted airtime and a spotlight the likes of the greens would kill for,while having no MPs.
> 
> I doubt they are the fourth largest party, and if they are the difference between third and fourth place is very big indeed. I bet the greens are bigger (hopefully! ).


How are they not the fourth party? They have been polling ahead of the LibDems for the best part of two years, last year they took 23%, just behind the Tories and well ahead of the LDs, and absolutely miles ahead of the Greens. This year they are in with a shout of placing first in the euro elections. 

Christ, this is precisely why you and the rest of your idiot friends are getting beaten into the ground by UKIP. Not only are your politics shite, not only is your strategy not just stupid but totally counter effective but you really are deluded bullshitting morons.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure if there's room on QT for all of them.


Deflate Farage's ego, you'll find some room.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Deflate Farage's ego, you'll find some room.


See, all you have in response to a serious point is to abuse farage. Worthless unless you're offering something else beyond whining.

And let's get one thing clear here - two month ago, ofcom ruled that in election coverage for the european elections UKIP must receive the exact same amount of media and news coverage as labour, tories and lib-dems - that these four are 'the major parties':



> We have consulted on an appropriate approach for determining the composition of the list of major parties ahead of the elections taking place on 22 May 2014.
> 
> Our decision is that the United Kingdom Independence Party ("UKIP") should be added to the list of major parties in England and in Wales for the 2014 European Parliament elections.





> In news and current affairs election programming that focuses on the European Parliamentary elections across England, Wales and Scotland (i.e. Great Britain) as a whole, UKIP will be treated as a major party across the whole of England, Wales and Scotland (i.e. Great Britain).


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Christ, this is precisely why you and the rest of your idiot friends are getting beaten into the ground by UKIP. Not only are your politics shite, not only is your strategy not just stupid but totally counter effective but you really are deluded bullshitting morons.


NOne of this tired screed makes any sense; try explaining yourself you daft twat. I post on a message board that Farage has probably never even heard of and that somehow is giving UKIP a victory? Get real ffs.

And to whom are you referring when you say 'idiot friends'? Back up this shit.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

gosub said:


> there does need to be a balance, if you give as much time in a debate to the monster raving looney and every other minority candidate you arent going to have time to cover much ground in a debate


That's a distraction. The monster raving loony party may be a joke but they are part of democracy. Either you have it for everyone or for noone. Ok I think most people would agree there are extremes, either harmless or dangerous, but what is acheived by marginalising people, and who decides?


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2014)

Ofcom.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> TV chat shows are not democracy.


QT isn't a chat show.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 10, 2014)

Too old a story to matter now?


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> QT isn't a chat show.


how sweet.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

killer b said:


> how sweet.


Is condescension your only argument?

You seem intent on constantly missing the point: I didn't say it was a heavyweight slice of politica analysis. But whether you like it or not, it is a programme where politicians discuss, to one extent or another, the issues of the day. I don't think it's not biased and I have no doubt the questions are selected, possibly even the audience. That doesn't change the fact that it has pretty high ranking party members being asked to voice their view on whatever. That's not a chat show; they dont' discuss their movie career, sing their latest pop song, or talk about hwo they got into acting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> And how many councillors do each of those parties have? What is each party currently polling? Your stupid anti-UKIPism appears to be blinding you to the fact that UKIP are now certainly the fourth, and on some measures the third, biggest political party in Britain.
> 
> But leaving that aside perhaps you could tell me what you want to achieve with your anti-UKIPsim? For all that he's been shown to be a lying moron Fingers was at least honest enough to admit that his goal was simply to shore up support for Lab/Tories/LibDems, the very parties that are currently attacking labour. And that's all this stupid fucking anti-UKIP wankery would amount to, even if it was successful, which clearly it isn't.



IMO part of the problem is that (much as the anti-UKIPpers protest otherwise), they're still looking at UKIP through an anti-fascist lens, and using the same tactics that were used against the BNP in B & D.  The big issue with that is that while some of UKIP's councillors and candidates are indeed racist scum, not all of them are - many of them are bog-standard hard-right populists who think that Hitler and Nazism were horrific, and that Fascism is a Dago perversion.   They may be "little Britain" Xenophobes, but their combination of rhetoric and (extremely) amorphous policy intentions are currently attractive to a whole skew of the electorate, from disengaged and/or disenchanted Tories, to old-fashioned Labour rightists.  
Doing sensationalised exposés of UKIPpers won't work.  Part of the reason such actions worked against Griffin's mob, is that the BNP were trying to hide a lot of baggage.  It was simple to point up glaring contradictions between public and private rhetoric , and make political points from that.  With a majority of UKIP's candidates and councillors, their dirty laundry is already public, so the same game doesn't work - in fact it looks petty and pathetic.
I hope that some of the more voluble "UKIP are fascist Nazi racists" types realise that, before May 2015.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> View attachment 53614
> 
> Too old a story to matter now?



Where's the fake sheikh when you need him?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> You have misunderstood; i do not say they should have no place at all in the debate, or on the shows like QT.
> 
> They have been gifted airtime and a spotlight the likes of the greens would kill for,while having no MPs.



You use the word "debate".
If you ponder the word for a few moments, you'll realise that programmes like QT aren't about debate, they're about entertainment - political entertainment, and Farage hasn't been "gifted airtime", he's proven himself substantively-entertaining - the editions of QT he appears on add about 10% to their ratings over other editions - and that's why he's invited on.



> I doubt they are the fourth largest party, and if they are the difference between third and fourth place is very big indeed. I bet the greens are bigger (hopefully! ).



You'd lose your bet.
And while the gap between the Lib-Dems and UKIP is *currently* substantial, there is absolutely *NO* way of predicting how much that gap might shrink given a good UKIP Euro-result and Clegg's inability to move his party beyond a narrative that says "we screwed you all by teaming up with the Tories, but we're pretending that we're a check on their excesses, in order to gull you out of your vote".


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> IMO part of the problem is that (much as the anti-UKIPpers protest otherwise), they're still looking at UKIP through an anti-fascist lens, and using the same tactics that were used against the BNP in B & D.  The big issue with that is that while some of UKIP's councillors and candidates are indeed racist scum, not all of them are - many of them are bog-standard hard-right populists who think that Hitler and Nazism were horrific, and that Fascism is a Dago perversion.   They may be "little Britain" Xenophobes, but their combination of rhetoric and (extremely) amorphous policy intentions are currently attractive to a whole skew of the electorate, from disengaged and/or disenchanted Tories, to old-fashioned Labour rightists.
> Doing sensationalised exposés of UKIPpers won't work.  Part of the reason such actions worked against Griffin's mob, is that the BNP were trying to hide a lot of baggage.  It was simple to point up glaring contradictions between public and private rhetoric , and make political points from that.  With a majority of UKIP's candidates and councillors, their dirty laundry is already public, so the same game doesn't work - in fact it looks petty and pathetic.
> I hope that some of the more voluble "UKIP are fascist Nazi racists" types realise that, before May 2015.


It may be public, but it doesn't mean that everyone knows about it. If they do, they might care - or they might not. it's pretty obvious that ukip supporters either don't care they will be voting for MEP's like Nuttal who can't be arsed to do their job while happily receiving their 70 odd grand a year. In fact some of them probably agree with his stance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> It may be public, but it doesn't mean that everyone knows about it. If they do, they might care - or they might not. it's pretty obvious that ukip supporters either don't care they will be voting for MEP's like Nuttal who can't be arsed to do their job while happily receiving their 70 odd grand a year. In fact some of them probably agree with his stance.



And you think this doesn't actually apply beyond UKIP, to the wider party-political world?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You use the word "debate".
> If you ponder the word for a few moments, you'll realise that programmes like QT aren't about debate, they're about entertainment - political entertainment, and Farage hasn't been "gifted airtime", he's proven himself substantively-entertaining - the editions of QT he appears on add about 10% to their ratings over other editions - and that's why he's invited on.



Whether you call it political entertainment or not, it feautures prominent politicians - good or bad, skilled or not - who give views on issues of the day, or at least what the BBC thinks are relevant issues. 

I really don't care why he's invited on. I care that he constantly talks over everyone else and is allowed to give a particular message while the opposing message, as Carolin Lucas tried to explain, is immediately shut down.

There are few avenues on public media for people to put their views across and when people like her are marginalised in this way it just gives UKIP more credence than they deserve. I haven't once said they shouldn't be allowed on there at all, but it's very easy for UKIP to flourish in an already favourable environment, one created partly by an out of touch elite and partly by a nasty right wing media. Unfortunately he is part of that elite and any attempt by opposing speakers to explain this gets shut down by him talking over them and Dimbedore saying 'nope, can't say that'.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And you think this doesn't actually apply beyond UKIP, to the wider party-political world?



It may well be. Doesn't make it right. I'm not sure what the point is.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2014)

Could someone requote that ofcom ruling please as he has me on ignore.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

I would certainly like to see more focus on exposing and deconstructing UKIP's policies, as the labour guy on Any Questions tried last night. But how can this be done effectively agianst a backdrop of UKIP self pity and hectoring, and a right wing media, in which i include the bbc? 

This is rapidly becoming a no win situation if people can't even express their feelings about these ridiculous idiots on here. I don't advocate throwing eggs or sending shit in the post for one minute; those are silly actions (though i can understand them). But telling people they can't have a say on ukip while talking down to those who watch or even attend Question Time is hypocrisy.

And I would call ukip fascist: their attitudes toward social justice, unemployed, workers rights, womens rights, parents rights, and rights in general, are extremely regressive. I don't want these tossers anywhere near government.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You use the word "debate".
> If you ponder the word for a few moments, you'll realise that programmes like QT aren't about debate, they're about entertainment - political entertainment, and Farage hasn't been "gifted airtime", he's proven himself substantively-entertaining - the editions of QT he appears on add about 10% to their ratings over other editions - and that's why he's invited on.



The one thing that's lacking in the entertainment show that is QT is the clap-o-meter. I reckon Grunt Scrapps would have done poorly, judging by the lack of applause he received.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The one thing that's lacking in the entertainment show that is QT is the clap-o-meter. I reckon Grunt Scrapps would have done poorly, judging by the lack of applause he received.



You'd have to reanimate Hughie Green or Bob Monkhouse to replace Dimblebum as host, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> It may well be. Doesn't make it right. I'm not sure what the point is.



The point is simple: It's that members of the electorate *do* care, but may (for a variety of reasons) choose to vote in a particular way because the other choices offer them less traction on the political process, or because a vote a certain way *will* act as a "protest" vote" in terms of putting a shot across the bows of other political parties.
it's about a hell of a lot more than the simplistic idea that if you vote for X, then you're a racist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Whether you call it political entertainment or not, it feautures prominent politicians - good or bad, skilled or not - who give views on issues of the day, or at least what the BBC thinks are relevant issues.
> 
> I really don't care why he's invited on. I care that he constantly talks over everyone else and is allowed to give a particular message while the opposing message, as Carolin Lucas tried to explain, is immediately shut down.
> 
> There are few avenues on public media for people to put their views across and when people like her are marginalised in this way it just gives UKIP more credence than they deserve. I haven't once said they shouldn't be allowed on there at all, but it's very easy for UKIP to flourish in an already favourable environment, one created partly by an out of touch elite and partly by a nasty right wing media. Unfortunately he is part of that elite and any attempt by opposing speakers to explain this gets shut down by him talking over them and Dimbedore saying 'nope, can't say that'.



Having watched a couple of the Farage-os, both recently, and further back, the main reason "opposing speakers" are shut down is because rather than asking (for example) "Nigel, your close colleague G. Bloom is a proven sexist racist, do you sanction those views", they come out with stuff more along the lines of "but Nigel, Bloom is a racist sexist, so you must be too!". It's arsery, and it doesn't address the sort of questions that should be asked of Farage: 
What are your specific policy prescriptions for _X, Y_ and _Z_?
How will you, prior to referendum on EU membership, legally limit immigration from other EU members?
How will you deal with any "tit for tat" actions concomitant to limiting immigration, including effects on business?
What are your policies/theories/concepts about reviving manfacturing?
Will a profitable manufacturing sector be achievable without exploitation of other members of the Commonwealth?
etc
etc
etc.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

As I said, i'd prefer they spent more time deconstructing their policies. 

But that doesn't change the fact that Farage just talks over everyone.


----------



## J Ed (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> But that doesn't change the fact that Farage just talks over everyone.



Take off the ideological blinkers for a second, he just does not do that any more than most politicians on QT and less than some.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Take off the ideological blinkers for a second, he just does not do that any more than most politicians on QT and less than some.


so?


----------



## emanymton (May 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Guess what these figures are:
> 
> UKIP 41K
> CONSERVATIVES 4K
> ...


Not a clue, so go on put me out if my misery.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> IMO part of the problem is that (much as the anti-UKIPpers protest otherwise), they're still looking at UKIP through an anti-fascist lens, and using the same tactics that were used against the BNP in B & D.  The big issue with that is that while some of UKIP's councillors and candidates are indeed racist scum, not all of them are - many of them are bog-standard hard-right populists who think that Hitler and Nazism were horrific, and that Fascism is a Dago perversion.   They may be "little Britain" Xenophobes, but their combination of rhetoric and (extremely) amorphous policy intentions are currently attractive to a whole skew of the electorate, from disengaged and/or disenchanted Tories, to old-fashioned Labour rightists.
> Doing sensationalised exposés of UKIPpers won't work.  Part of the reason such actions worked against Griffin's mob, is that the BNP were trying to hide a lot of baggage.  It was simple to point up glaring contradictions between public and private rhetoric , and make political points from that.  With a majority of UKIP's candidates and councillors, their dirty laundry is already public, so the same game doesn't work - in fact it looks petty and pathetic.
> I hope that some of the more voluble "UKIP are fascist Nazi racists" types realise that, before May 2015.


I'd question the extent to which it "worked" on the BNP and all. The BNP was on a steady upward incline that was largely halted by their own financial and political ineptitude rather than people publicising their very obvious links to white supremacist ideology and Hitler worship. There's lots of people for whom demonisation as racist by the mainstream media is a positive sign that the party is challenging established interests...


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Not a clue, so go on put me out if my misery.


This isn't a thread about other parties. It's about UKIP.

This is a pretty common fallacy: farage's bullishness isn't justified if he's one of many. I don't want people talking over each other for obvious reasons. It's also typical of the class he pretends not to be part of.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Not a clue, so go on put me out if my misery.


Facebook likes this month.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'd question the extent to which it "worked" on the BNP and all. The BNP was on a steady upward incline that was largely halted by their own financial and political ineptitude rather than people publicising their very obvious links to white supremacist ideology and Hitler worship. There's lots of people for whom demonisation as racist by the mainstream media is a positive sign that the party is challenging established interests...


i'd agree with that, to a point. however, the organisational model of the bnp relied on continual success and the retardation of people leaving the party - at the height of their 'success' something like 80% of members left within five years. utter loyalty to griffin was necessary to retaining high office within the party, so when people fell out with him (or perhaps, at least in the case of sadie whatserface, did their job and disrupted the party, off they went. afaics all the alternative leadership who could have succeeded griffin are gone - people like paul golding and so on. it's less financial issues which have fucked them, rather it's griffin who, in protecting his own interests, has royally buggered the party. the number of people they influenced has been out of all proportion to their size or electoral impact but it is worth noting that both in tower hamlets in 1994 and in barking & dagenham in 2010 although bnp candidates lost at local elections their vote none the less increased.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'd question the extent to which it "worked" on the BNP and all. The BNP was on a steady upward incline that was largely halted by their own financial and political ineptitude rather than people publicising their very obvious links to white supremacist ideology and Hitler worship. There's lots of people for whom demonisation as racist by the mainstream media is a positive sign that the party is challenging established interests...



In B & D, despite HnH and UAF's rhetoric, what defeated the BNP was a broad front of aligned and non-aligned activists (not just Swappies and Spotlighters) intensively canvassing the constituency for 7-10 days before the election. If it hadn't been for that surge of activism (some of it from way outside the constituency) , things might have been different.
But yeah, in the overall scheme of things, the BNP shot themselves in the foot with all the financial finagling and dodginess.


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The one thing that's lacking in the entertainment show that is QT is the clap-o-meter. I reckon Grunt Scrapps would have done poorly, judging by the lack of applause he received.



Maybe the next election should be run as a Question Time/Big Brother mash up, where the various party leaders all have to answer a series of questions, and in each round there's a phone-in poll* and one of them is eliminated, until we get a winner who becomes PM



butchersapron said:


> Facebook likes this month.



*or voting by Facebook likes


----------



## Corax (May 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe the next election should be run as a Question Time/Big Brother mash up, where the various party leaders all have to answer a series of questions, and in each round there's a phone-in poll* and one of them is eliminated, until we get a winner who becomes PM


I'm sure Galloway would be well up for that.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe the next election should be run as a Question Time/Big Brother mash up, where the various party leaders all have to answer a series of questions, and in each round there's a phone-in poll* and one of them is eliminated, until we get a winner who becomes PM


when you say 'eliminated', just how permanently do you mean?


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2014)

Corax said:


> I'm sure Galloway would be well up for that.



The line between satire and reality is becoming increasingly blurred


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> when you say 'eliminated', just how permanently do you mean?



I was originally thinking "eliminated from the competition and being interviewed by Davina McColl before disappearing to a life of deserved obscurity" but I'm open to suggestions


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> I was originally thinking "eliminated from the competition and being interviewed by Davina McColl before disappearing to a life of deserved obscurity" but I'm open to suggestions


if by 'disappearing to a life of deserved obscurity' you mean 'being shipped to the falklands to clear mine fields with nothing more than a spoon and a stick' then i'm with you.


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if by 'disappearing to a life of deserved obscurity' you mean 'being shipped to the falklands to clear mine fields with nothing more than a spoon and a stick' then i'm with you.



There's potential there for further reality TV excitement, so although it wasn't part of my original idea, I'm sure we could make that work.

I suggest a representative of Urban75 TV Production Company needs to tout it round the various broadcasters ASAP. Once we've got approval from one of them, I'm sure any constitutional issues can be swiftly and easily dealt with.


----------



## frogwoman (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> And I would call ukip fascist: their attitudes toward social justice, unemployed, workers rights, womens rights, parents rights, and rights in general, are extremely regressive. I don't want these tossers anywhere near government.



You'd have to say the same about all the parties then.


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> QT isn't a chat show.



Yes it is.

It is a bunch of people promoting themselves and their political brands through the medium of choreographed superficial discussion.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> It is a bunch of people promoting themselves and their political brands through the medium of choreographed superficial discussion.



Yeah, this. There's no proper analysis of arguments, no structured debate, no obligation for anyone to present any evidence for anything they say. Hence people like Farage can come across relatively well despite spouting nothing but falsehoods, hollow soundbites and fallacious arguments.


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah, this. There's no proper analysis of arguments, no structured debate, no obligation for anyone to present any evidence for anything they say. Hence people like Farage can come across relatively well despite spouting nothing but falsehoods, hollow soundbites and fallacious arguments.



...and there are no consequences.

It doesn't matter what the guests say, or whether they "win". 

It changes nothing. Literally nothing.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (May 10, 2014)

Excellent demo against Farage at the Corn Exchange in Edinburgh yesterday.


----------



## tony.c (May 10, 2014)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Excellent demo against Farage at the Corn Exchange in Edinburgh yesterday.


Nigel Farage faces barrage of Edinburgh protest
Edinburgh Evening News
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/nigel-farage-faces-barrage-of-edinburgh-protest-1-3404499


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> You'd have to say the same about all the parties then.


Maybe so. But this isn't an all party thread.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Maybe so. But this isn't an all party thread.


If you were to say in all seriousness that all the parties are fascist parties then you'd show that you don't understand what fascism is, what neo liberalism is and many other things into the bargain.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> As I said, i'd prefer they spent more time deconstructing their policies.
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact that Farage just talks over everyone.



Why are you so obsessed with the guy you call a fascist _being rude and talking over the nice politicians?_


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why are you so obsessed with the guy you call a fascist _being rude and talking over the nice politicians?_


It's a hobby


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> It's a hobby



Yes. You're a hobbyist. A dispassionate observer.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes. You're a hobbyist. A dispassionate observer.


If you want a serious answer then ask  a serious question; staying off by accusing NBC of an obsession is just being a dick.

Besides I would have thought it obvious why I'd object to people talking over each other : i want to hear what the are saying.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If you want a serious answer then ask  a serious question; staying off by accusing NBC of an obsession is just being a dick.
> 
> Besides I would have thought it obvious why I'd object to people talking over each other : i want to hear what the are saying.



Nobody else does.

It was a serious question; how can you obsess over his tendency to interrupt people and simultaneously genuinely believe him to be a fascist? Why are you more concerned about his manners than the nazi political tendencies you perceive him to embody?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Nobody else does.
> 
> It was a serious question; how can you obsess over his tendency to interrupt people and simultaneously genuinely believe him to be a fascist? Why are you more concerned about his manners than the nazi political tendencies you perceive him to embody?


I have no idea what this is meant to mean. If you want to aska serious question try avoiding stupid hyperbole. Also look up obsession in the dictionary.


----------



## Nylock (May 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> And I would call ukip fascist: their attitudes toward social justice, unemployed, workers rights, womens rights, parents rights, and rights in general, are extremely regressive. I don't want these tossers anywhere near government.


Sorry, but calling UKIP Fascist demeans the term. UKIP may be xenophobic, bigoted, sexist, rampantly neoliberal, anti-working class, driven by a sense of nostalgia for the 'good old days' of chauvinistic British exceptionalism before we were neutered and ruled by the nasty EU and generally seem to advocate a return to the 1950's (but without a publicly owned NHS) BUT this does not make them fascist.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2014)

.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I would call ukip fascist.





Awesome Wells said:


> try avoiding stupid hyperbole.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

ukip-why-are-they-gaining-support

Another possible reason for discussion and / or reflection: 

Their would-be opponents spending too much time and effort trying to outsmart one another on threads such as this?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

Tony Parsons has endorsed them. Always thought he was a smug wanker, but it's just advanced a few levels. Same bilge about the elite not understanding ordinary lives or something. I won't link. Farage understands ordinary lives with his Ritz Parties, private school education, banking past and massive expense accounts. Goes without saying.

And Parsons to the Dupes Parade. He's nowhere near poor, so he's less with the lemming logic.

ETA : have been reminded that he wrote some pro empire stuff a couple of years back, so he has form as an establishment stooge anyway.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If you want to aska serious question try avoiding stupid hyperbole.


this is a joke, right? good one.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2014)

I gave my reasons, I think they are valid. Accusing me of obsession is just insulting and stupid.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2014)

So, if they want to be taken seriously, posters should avoid using hyperbole? I'm glad we finally agree.


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2014)

I don't think you're obsessed, that was tbf an inaccurate criticism.

You made a post pissed off at UKIP, a sentiment many here would no doubt share. 

posters tried to use your post to draw out inconsistencies and contradictions that might weaken the veracity of your Anti-UKIP argument  - weaknesses not only shared by other anti UKIP types, but sadly a common feature of ineffective liberal responses to various right wing movements over the years.

Up to you whether you want to listen, however grudgingly.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2014)

chilango said:


> I don't think you're obsessed, that was tbf an inaccurate criticism.
> 
> You made a post pissed off at UKIP, a sentiment many here would no doubt share.
> 
> ...



That's fine, then do so respectfully and without sniffing and sneering, which is all to common on here from some quarters. But projecting my one post, to one message board online, to mean something more than it did is as ridiculous and unproductive as calling someone 'obssessed' because they would rather politicians didn't shout each other down.

And the fact it was Question Time, which may well be a lightweight edited affair (i have no illusions about that at all), is irrelevant. That programme is still taken seriously by people who will include some persuaded by the likes of farage (the audiences always seems predominantly right wing/libertarian even). I think that's important: when Owen Jones was on with IDS, we saw IDS lose his temper and that image has pervaded ever since. IDS hasn't been on that show since and there is no doubt in my ind he has been invited, so it counts for something however small.


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> That's fine, then do so respectfully and without sniffing and sneering, which is all to common on here from some quarters. But projecting my one post, to one message board online, to mean something more than it did is as ridiculous and unproductive as calling someone 'obssessed' because they would rather politicians didn't shout each other down.
> 
> And the fact it was Question Time, which may well be a lightweight edited affair (i have no illusions about that at all), is irrelevant. That programme is still taken seriously by people who will include some persuaded by the likes of farage (the audiences always seems predominantly right wing/libertarian even). I think that's important: when Owen Jones was on with IDS, we saw IDS lose his temper and that image has pervaded ever since. IDS hasn't been on that show since and there is no doubt in my ind he has been invited, so it counts for something however small.


 I think many viewers of last week's QT will remember the representatives of the former three main parties closing ranks and backing each other to close out Farage. One particular instance will remain etched upon my memory; Umunna piling in to dig Shapps out of hole when he hadn't quite squealed with enough volume that Farage had identified the two/three of them as representing the political establishment. This particular outing for Farage will have added further to their polling rise.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> That's fine, then do so respectfully and without sniffing and sneering, which is all to common on here from some quarters. But projecting my one post, to one message board online, to mean something more than it did is as ridiculous and unproductive as calling someone 'obssessed' because they would rather politicians didn't shout each other down.
> 
> And the fact it was Question Time, which may well be a lightweight edited affair (i have no illusions about that at all), is irrelevant. That programme is still taken seriously by people who will include some persuaded by the likes of farage (the audiences always seems predominantly right wing/libertarian even). I think that's important: when Owen Jones was on with IDS, we saw IDS lose his temper and that image has pervaded ever since. IDS hasn't been on that show since and there is no doubt in my ind he has been invited, so it counts for something however small.


You're actually serious aren't you? Despite spending the last 3 weeks making abusive or hyperbolic posts on this thread wat seems like every third post. I'v e not once seen you offer any analysis as to why ukip are doing well, what this means or even just informed comment on others posts that do offer this. Just _i hate farage, i hate the media, why do the media like farge_ whining.

Btw, yet another set of great polls for UKIP overnight:

Survation *Euro *poll:  

UKIP 32% (+1) 
Labour 28% (no change)
Conservatives 21% (-4) 
LibDem 9% (+3)

Opinium/Observer general election:

Labour 33% (-1)
Conservatives 29% (-3)
UKIP 20% (+2)
LiberalDemocrats 9 (+2)


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2014)

I agree that sneering is an inadequate form of criticism that should be avoided.

As I said above, points are be taken from your postings to represent something wider than just your views because it's an echo of views that we've heard before all too often (perhaps why it is being dismissed more quickly than you'd like too).

I think you're wrong about QT. It really is of no consequence.


----------



## Favelado (May 11, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I think many viewers of last week's QT will remember the representatives of the former three main parties closing ranks and backing each other to close out Farage. One particular instance will remain etched upon my memory; Umunna piling in to dig Shapps out of hole when he hadn't quite squealed with enough volume that Farage had identified the two/three of them as representing the political establishment. This particular outing for Farage will have added further to their polling rise.



That's an interesting point. As I was watching, I felt that Farage was having his worst public appearance for some time, but you're right that it's going to have played very differently for other viewers.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2014)

I really don't know what shapps was doing on there tbf. He looks and sounds like a confidence trickster, and a fraudulent scammy cunt. Which is funny, cos he is.

but he didn't seem to do anything othr than make himself and his party look shit. At least Man Who Would Be King ummana came off as concerned an well meaning (while dodging any straight question).


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I think many viewers of last week's QT will remember the representatives of the former three main parties closing ranks and backing each other to close out Farage. One particular instance will remain etched upon my memory; Umunna piling in to dig Shapps out of hole when he hadn't quite squealed with enough volume that Farage had identified the two/three of them as representing the political establishment. This particular outing for Farage will have added further to their polling rise.


Indeed, and let's be honest - the demand from wells and others is not that Farage _be more polite _- it's that the above ally with the leading media/cultural/political institutions in the state and shut him up, freeze him (and by extension those supporting UKIP for whatever reason) out of public political debate. And, by a second extension, we find that the lib-dems, the tories and labour are the only legitimate acceptable voice of politics. And they bleat about democracy whilst they try and gag voices they don't like or agree with.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

chilango said:


> I agree that sneering is an inadequate form of criticism that should be avoided.
> 
> As I said above, points are be taken from your postings to represent something wider than just your views because it's an echo of views that we've heard before all too often (perhaps why it is being dismissed more quickly than you'd like too).
> 
> I think you're wrong about QT. It really is of no consequence.


Meaningless - except for political journos who then go on to write even more meaningless stories that no one reads about individual performances. The fact is, before Griffin's appearance turned around the figures the program was being prepared to be dumped.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I think many viewers of last week's QT will remember the representatives of the former three main parties closing ranks and backing each other to close out Farage. One particular instance will remain etched upon my memory; Umunna piling in to dig Shapps out of hole when he hadn't quite squealed with enough volume that Farage had identified the two/three of them as representing the political establishment. This particular outing for Farage will have added further to their polling rise.



I would agree with this entirely. In fact Ken Clarke's response to Paul Nuttal on the radio was even worse. In fact he probably went so far that he may well have contributed to splitting the tory vote (only tories are going to listen to him anyway).


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2014)

chilango said:


> I think you're wrong about QT. It really is of no consequence.



I'm not so sure about it having no consequence. If my elderly, (UKIP-curious), parents are any guide, I suspect that the viewer demographic,(such as it is), might well correlate quite closely with those most likely to vote. Flawed and infuriating as it may be, for many folk I think it might represent one of their few opportunities to believe that they are accessibly engaging with 'politics'.


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I'm not so sure about it having no consequence. If my elderly, (UKIP-curious), parents are any guide, I suspect that the viewer demographic,(such as it is), might well correlate quite closely with those most likely to vote. Flawed and infuriating as it may be, for many folk I think it might represent one of their few opportunities to believe that they are accessibly engaging with 'politics'.



My parents too

BUT

They're neither changing their minds based upon guests performances nor hearing any arguments of substance.

Just a dull spectator sport and consumption as some kinda lukewarm cultural capital...


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I would agree with this entirely. In fact Ken Clarke's response to Paul Nuttal on the radio was even worse. In fact he probably went so far that he may well have contributed to splitting the tory vote (only tories are going to listen to him anyway).


 Which is why the point you made earlier drew such criticism....



> I really don't care why he's invited on. I care that he constantly talks over everyone else and is allowed to give a particular message while the opposing message, as Carolin Lucas tried to explain, is immediately shut down.



Farage's media positioning as the (political) underdog, to be supported, requires the opposite...and the Umunna/Shapps alliance played right into his hands.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I would agree with this entirely. In fact Ken Clarke's response to Paul Nuttal on the radio was even worse. In fact he probably went so far that he may well have contributed to splitting the tory vote (only tories are going to listen to him anyway).



UKIP aren't winning votes and support because of arguments politicians have on the radio or telly  . There's a whole social world out there that's driving their current rise - and it's not all people who just listen to and moan abut the media all day/are filled up with whatever the media say. It's because they better reflect or make sense of the conclusions they currently have came to through reflection on their and their families and friends social experiences  - and the political views they themselves construct on this basis. If you weigh up the impact - or depth of impact more specifically - of the various influences floating around, and you end up with the media on top, then there's something wrong with your scales. And it's something really damaging that closes off understanding and understanding of potential or of how people act and think politically.

(Actually, there may be some positive reinforcement of views already arrived at by the sort of establishment ganging up mentioned above).


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2014)

chilango said:


> My parents too
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...


 Oh yeah, you and I may know it for what it is but, based upon my singular example of watching my parents' engagement with the spectacle, I suspect that it has some influence. Clearly the parties see the exposure as productive to some extent.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2014)

Then it's just as well I don't get invited on to Question Time/Answers/Dimblebollocks


----------



## J Ed (May 11, 2014)

chilango said:


> My parents tooide
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...



Exactly. I don't think that you could really argue that anyone learns anything from Question Time other than politicians are wankers who hide their own misanthropy and incompetence through platitudinous nonsense.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2014)

you can't even play spot the plants in the audience, because the selection procedure means they pretty much all are


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

Hey wells, turn on the sunday politics show on bbc1 - quick!


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Oh yeah, you and I may know it for what it is but, based upon my singular example of watching my parents' engagement with the spectacle, I suspect that it has some influence. Clearly the parties see the exposure as productive to some extent.



For the guests it's all about "brand exposure".

For the viewers there's an element of "I watch QT therefore I'm politically informed" self-validatory consumption going on (no different to any other product with lifestyle value-added worth these days).

But the absence of any substantive debate or argument in ideas, It remains avert superficial engagement.

Views do not change because of it.

Material conditions even less so.

Sure some people may use a QT appearance as a reference when making a point during discussion, but ime it's never of any significance, and neither adds nor subtracts evidence or validation to the point.

Even examples given in this thread seem to confirm this meaninglessness.

Farage was rude, IDS lost his temper etc.etc.  They *looked* bad. Yeah, well, so what?

This won't even effect what goes on at the ballot box nevermind anything of import.

People are looking at this upside down


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Then it's just as well I don't get invited on to Question Time/Answers/Dimblebollocks



I've been on a couple of these kind of things.   

waste of my time.


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2014)

chilango said:


> For the guests it's all about "brand exposure".
> 
> For the viewers there's an element of "I watch QT therefore I'm politically informed" self-validatory consumption going on (no different to any other product with lifestyle value-added worth these days).
> 
> ...



Yep, I'm certainly not seeking to portray QT as a meaningful political engagement, and I do agree with Butchers' point above, but my (albeit very limited) experience of hearing people of my parents' generation discussing what they'd seen/heard on QT leads me to believe that programmes such as QT can have some influence on how folk superficially relate to politicians and their ideas. For those elderly folk removed from the workplace and with a relatively limited social life, I think what they see on QT etc. can have some influence on their ballot-box decisions.

That's all, really.


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2014)

No I get that. I hear the same from my mother. 

But I don't think it changes or influences their views.

Rather it acts as a prop to justify already existing views (that are built far more concretely).


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2014)

chilango said:


> No I get that. I hear the same from my mother.
> 
> But I don't think it changes or influences their views.
> 
> Rather it acts as a prop to justify already existing views (that are built far more concretely).



Yeah.

But the thing about UKIP, specifically, is that some of their central themes that appear to resonate are not always very well embedded in the actual concrete life experience of those (older) demographics attracted. UKIP appears to have to little to say about the conctete basis of my folks' existance....pensions, the cost of living, transport subsidies, health-care etc.. but they appear to be hearing the noises about immigration, self-determination, 'uman rights, general pessimism, cynicism and disconnect with the political elite etc. which are all played out regularly on media platforms like QT.

But always fruitless to draw the general from the specific.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> you can't even play spot the plants in the audience, because the selection procedure means they pretty much all are


It's usually the students from the local tory youth cult, spotty and suited, or fat old members of the local masonic lodge banging on about business and the evils of socialism/yerp.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

No it isn't ffs. It's members of local parties, interest groups and civil society.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

Butchers is right about that.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's because they better reflect or make sense of the conclusions they currently have came to through reflection on their and their families and friends social experiences  - and the political views they themselves construct on this basis. If you weigh up the impact - or depth of impact more specifically - of the various influences floating around, and you end up with the media on top, then there's something wrong with your scales.



How do you square that assessment with this well discussed research from last year?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

If media plays so little a place then how would you explain that the UKIP platform is highly in line with the day in / day out headlines of The Mail, Express et al across a number of decades. Is it just coincidence?

Neither of us need be on opposite ends of the spectrum of course, it's easy to understand how people can seek a party beyond the trad 3 in an atmosphere of corruption where 2 parties are in govt and the other one was quite recently. Then it's a question of where that dissent gets channelled. Obviousy, a party with wealthy donors and regular bolstering of their agenda, let alone specific brand, across MSM is likely to do very well in that process.

People's direct experience may relate to poverty, "public" service and housing problems etc. and we both surely know who it's easier for blame to be piled on for them, and it aint those responsible.

When Caroline Lucas the other night explicitly avoided saying UKIP were racist and went on to try and talk about actual policy (god forbid), like NHS privatiation, in bellowed NF with standard low grade cliche about "getting democracy back" (there's something instinctively authoritarian about him in fact). Dimbleby finished off the job.

The creation of a false alternative is complete, some surprisingly intelligent people have fallen for it.


----------



## J Ed (May 11, 2014)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-soft-pedal-in-newark-byelection-9350087.html



> Ukip boosted by Labour decision to soft pedal in Newark by-election
> 
> Last night Ukip's hopes of winning its first Westminster seat received a major boost as it emerged that Labour is to make little more than a token effort in the Newark by-election on 5 June.
> 
> With the Conservatives facing a tough fight with Ukip for first place, there has been speculation that the Tory vote in the constituency would be split, allowing Labour to come through the middle.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Sorry, but calling UKIP Fascist demeans the term. UKIP may be xenophobic, bigoted, sexist, rampantly neoliberal, anti-working class, driven by a sense of nostalgia for the 'good old days' of chauvinistic British exceptionalism before we were neutered and ruled by the nasty EU and generally seem to advocate a return to the 1950's (but without a publicly owned NHS) BUT this does not make them fascist.



Is there really a clear line between "definitely fascist" and "definitely not fascist"?

We could say that The Daily Mail ticks most of those boxes, but oh no...lets' not call them "fascist". Except for the fact that they endorsed fascists of course.

You missed out "authoritarian" by the way. The "libertarian" claims made by some supporters and observers are contradicted by facts,rhetoric and policy. They are only economic liberals, not social liberals. In fact, it's the neoliberalism in that list that probably most points away from fascism if anything, though we could get into the murky world of dissecting that Mussolinni "marriage of.." quote.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> How do you square that assessment with this well discussed research from last year?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html
> 
> ...


What on earth has that link got to do with what i've posted? 

Or indeed most of that post - beyond the question of how if media shouldn't be top weighted in thinking about what drives political motivations then why does UKIPs policies mirror the news headlines. Which just doesn't even make sense.

 Firstly, all the parties views are highly in line with media headlines - but the ones currently under sustained attack are UKIPs, not the other parties - whilst UKIP's support should be falling according to model of simple media manipulation - right?

And secondly, and more to the point of what i was trying to get across in the post that you're replying to - i was on about how individuals (or individuals in similar circumstances and with similar backgrounds and experiences - what could be termed some form of community maybe) produce and organise their political view of the world. Not bloody parties.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Is there really a clear line between "definitely fascist" and "definitely not fascist"?
> 
> We could say that The Daily Mail ticks most of those boxes, but oh no...lets' not call them "fascist". Except for the fact that they endorsed fascists of course.
> 
> You missed out "authoritarian" by the way. The "libertarian" claims made by some supporters and observers are contradicted by facts,rhetoric and policy. They are only economic liberals, not social liberals. In fact, it's the neoliberalism in that list that probably most points away from fascism if anything, though we could get into the murky world of dissecting that Mussolinni "marriage of.." quote.


There's a clear line between UKIP and fascism. And the Daily mail and fascism. Stop using the term if you think otherwise. 

Do UKIP claim to be libertarians btw?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There's a clear line between UKIP and fascism. And the Daily mail and fascism. Stop using the term if you think otherwise.
> 
> Do UKIP claim to be libertarians btw?



The agendas often cross over, I'd argue it's more blurred. Obviously people are very quick to repudiate fascism, it doesn't have a very good PR these days. I wasn't using the word as much as discussing someone elses use. I don't call UKIP fascist not least because it leads into round-the-houses arguements like this.

A few years ago the word "libertarian" came very early on in their main website blurb. I'm not sure how prominent it is now, but it's a word that has a lot of appeal, though gets muddled in use. A lot of Tea Party people blather on about it despite being deeply reactionary.

"Freedom" is often a word the hard and far right co-opt.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

You're arguing that UKIP and the mail may be fascist? They're not. There are no blurred lines. All that suggesting that there are can do is to define fascism away as just normal far right things and to then see it everywhere - but also, and more importantly, nowhere.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe the next election should be run as a Question Time/Big Brother mash up, where the various party leaders all have to answer a series of questions, and in each round there's a phone-in poll* and one of them is eliminated, until we get a winner who becomes PM



Pffft.

"Running Man" would be better.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What on earth has that link got to do with what i've posted?
> 
> Or indeed most of that post - beyond the question of how if media shouldn't be top weighted in thinking about what drives political motivations then why does UKIPs policies mirror the news headlines. Which just doesn't even make sense.
> 
> ...



You were talking about people's observations from their own real life etc, how people form their view of the world. Quite a lot of their assessments happen to be factually quite inaccurate. The link was a demonstration of that. Obviously. 

Ok, you may want to say that it's not media that drives that level of misinformation, can you suggest another factor? 

UKIPs agenda mirrors that of much of the press. No surprise then that exposure etc. bolsters them. Please don't pretend to struggle to compute the point even if you don't agree. You are lapsing into rudeness again.


----------



## J Ed (May 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do UKIP claim to be libertarians btw?



Up until recently their website was titled "Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.”

I think that they do have some right-wing libertarians, but they are a minority. They got rid of one Paulite member because he was a bit too critical of the party on same sex marriage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...and there are no consequences.
> 
> It doesn't matter what the guests say, or whether they "win".
> 
> It changes nothing. Literally nothing.



As I said several pages ago to AW, it's political entertainment, that's all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why are you so obsessed with the guy you call a fascist _being rude and talking over the nice politicians?_



Because he'd prefer polite fascism?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hey wells, turn on the sunday politics show on bbc1 - quick!



BBC1 has changed its name to Farage1


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You were talking about people's observations from their own real life etc, how people form their view of the world. Quite a lot of their assessments happen to be factually quite inaccurate. The link was a demonstration of that. Obviously.
> 
> Ok, you may want to say that it's not media that drives that level of misinformation, can you suggest another factor?
> 
> UKIPs agenda mirrors that of much of the press. No surprise then that exposure etc. bolsters them. Please don't pretend to struggle to compute the point even if you don't agree. You are lapsing into rudeness again.


I wasn't talking at all about the accuracy or not of their views, but how they are arrived at. That was the whole point. And if you get that wrong then you're going to find it very difficult, it not near impossible to to converse or meaningfully discuss politics with these people. You won't even be speaking the same language.

I'm not interested in doing so no - i don't think it's even relevant as a start point to dealing in stuff politically - and this may even be heightened in UKIPs case.

I didn't struggle to comprehend your point- your point made no sense. That's different. You said UKIP say what the papers say, therefore people love them because they have red that they should in the paper - i said a) be the other parties say what the papers say without any such rise in their support and to general disgust and b) the papers are currently attacking UKIP - so, in line with your model, their support should drop - it hasn't. It has risen to and by unprecedented levels. Which leaves serious questions to be asked about your media manipulation mirroring model. If it can't account for UKIPs rise, if it, in fact, predicts the exact opposite of what is happening in reality.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pffft.
> 
> "Running Man" would be better.




'I'm gonna make you eat that contract! And I hope you leave enough room for my fist cos I'm gonna shove it down your throat and rip out your goddam spine!'

vintage arnie


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Tony Parsons has endorsed them. Always thought he was a smug wanker, but it's just advanced a few levels. Same bilge about the elite not understanding ordinary lives or something. I won't link. Farage understands ordinary lives with his Ritz Parties, private school education, banking past and massive expense accounts. Goes without saying.
> 
> And Parsons to the Dupes Parade. He's nowhere near poor, so he's less with the lemming logic.
> 
> ETA : have been reminded that he wrote some pro empire stuff a couple of years back, so he has form as an establishment stooge anyway.



Tony Parsons has been the epitome of centre-rightism for more decades than I care to count, and only gets any currency as a "leftie" because he was a music journo for a couple of years, back when it meant actually listening to music rather than re-writing press releases.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

Butchers

_"I wasn't talking at all about the accuracy or not of their views, but how they are arrived at." _

Given that they are inaccurate though, and given that the inaccuracy is in line with MSM narrative, do you think those two things are only coincidence? If not, how could it not be a relevant fact to the overall debate?

_"That was the whole point. And if you get that wrong then you're going to find it very difficult, it not near impossible to to converse or meaningfully discuss politics with these people. You won't even be speaking the same language."_

Of course I understand that. I think we both understand each other better than you make out.

_"I'm not interested in doing so no - i don't think it's even relevant as a start point to dealing in stuff politically - and this may even be heightened in UKIPs case." _

You're not interested in speaking with them? Sorry, that's a genuine question. I was going to ask something similar on the thread of all contributers. Probably will.

_"You said UKIP say what the papers say, therefore people love them because they have red that they should in the paper"_

That's an exagerated misrepresenation, but I would argue there has to be a strong influence, or if not that at least an alternative cause of demonstrable misinformation should be advanced.

_"i said the other parties say what the papers say without any such rise in their support"_

But you've ignored my obvious point that other parties either are in government or were in government recently, making them easier targets for general disgust, especially in a pervading atmosphere of corruption and their "living in a different world".

_"the papers are currently attacking UKIP"_

It's not as simple as that. They are singling out sensationalist stories about the party, partly motivated by attack to defend the tories. But on the other pages they continue to bolster the general agenda. There's also the obvious point Wilde made about "There's one thing worse than being talked about..."

They "criticise" UKIP candidates etc. for saying stuff in the same tone as their own papers say. I guess there's a slight sense of Frankensteins Monster about it, but they can afford UKIP success at the Euros, it's a bigger stick to drive the tories further to the right for one thing.

Then the fuss will die down for a while and in the run up to the generals it may well be wall to wall "vote ukip get miliband" and quite a lot of Euro voters will feel they've "sent their message", along with whatever petty thrill of phoney rebellion that may bequeath them.

_"in line with your model, their support should drop" _- My model is about long term high profile brand exposure, constant coverage and resultant channeling of dissent in a direction that is ultimately very safe for the establishment. Belatedly picking at a few nutbar candidates doesn't seem to have done more harm than good to the UKIP profile, you are right about that, but it was predictable. The right wing press will then, as in the past, use the success of UKIP to say "look! we were right" having driven the agenda in the first place.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

Why can't you quote properly? Now i'm going to have to clear all that up. Which means double quotes followed by double quotes and all sorts of nonsense and editing. No, sod that, i'll just type as it comes out of my head.

If i say that i wasn't talking about the inaccuracy of peoples views and that it's not relevant to my point then why insist that i talk about the inaccuracy of their views? I expect peoples views on scientific or historical questions may not be 100% accurate. Is this a direct result of the media - or is there a whole other social world that people live in and has led to these shockingly erroneous views? If there is, then maybe just maybe that world has some impact on their political and social views too? That it's not just the media filling up empty vessels.

No, you misread the next bit - i was saying that i'm not in the least interested in putting people right, in imparting my 100% correct views to them then inviting them to politically organise around the views emanating from me. I'm interested in getting involved in collective activity with all sorts of people so we can identify then work out something we are all a bit happier with. The related point about language is f you start from the position that the article you repeatedly endorse does (British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows) then you a) will be doing that vanguardist nonsense b) amplifying it by saying _it's because of the media why you're so thick_ and c) not speaking the same language as the mass of people.

I didn't ignore any obvious point of yours about the other parties being targets of disgust - mainly because you made no such point. But again, let's just look at your model quickly:

UKIP rise in support is because the media generally says what they say (the latter not true) and people believe them. So why have they rose whilst the other parties who the media also generally says what they not risen by the same amount? Is it maybe because of that damn other world outside of the media again?

And then when the media turns on ukip, ukips support rises - the model suggests that it should fall. What could account for this? That other world of experience and reflection - including, very importantly _against the media - _maybe_? _Well no, not maybe, definitely.

Also the same way you can only seem to see the media, you also seem to be only able to see parties.


----------



## gosub (May 11, 2014)

so the tory position is now vote for Cameron and he will try and negotiate reform, even if he fails/hasn't succeeded he will give us a referendum by x date in which he will campaign for yes to EU.
  You could argue that he has just set up  us a referendum where we won't know what we are voting on, however having outlined his strategy probably not. Doesn't look like a recipe for getting meaningful reform on the table.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

Butchers. Sorry, multiple quotes have always eluded me. Will try and sort that. but I've spoken directly to all your points apart from perhaps "seeing beyond parties". In terms of who people vote for, its hard to see beyond parties isn't it? We can't vote for The Telegraph, World Development Movement or local Working Men's club.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 11, 2014)

> I despise nearly all of UKIPs policies. However I will be voting for them simply because of their policies specifically on the EU and on Immigration. There is really little other palatable choice from my point of view



From someone on another forum I visit. Jesus fucking wept.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Butchers. Sorry, multiple quotes have always eluded me. Will try and sort that. but I've spoken directly to all your points apart from perhaps "seeing beyond parties". In terms of who people vote for, its hard to see beyond parties isn't it? We can't vote for The Telegraph, World Development Movement or local Working Men's club.


Where did you? You have not 'spoken' to the main points at all. You've bashed out some words repeating what you previously said. You didn't engage with my suggestion of a world beyond the media for example - and that was rather an important one.

Who mentioned voting?


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

Doreen Lawrence denies link to group accused of Farage threats



> Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon played down her involvement with Unite Against Fascism (UAF), whose members are accused of trying to silence the Ukip leader.
> 
> The campaign group lists Lady Lawrence, a Labour peer, as one of its honorary presidents and says she has been a regular supporter and attendee at its meetings. However, Lady Lawrence insisted she was not closely involved with the group.



Founding signatories:
David Cameron MP


----------



## Dogsauce (May 11, 2014)

Any reason he picked on Doreen Lawrence specifically, other than the fact he's a cunt?

It's the fact people like Farage still see justice for Stephen Lawrence as some kind of _Political Correctness Gone Mad_ isn't it? That's all it was about.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Any reason he picked on Doreen Lawrence specifically, other than the fact he's a cunt?
> 
> It's the fact people like Farage still see justice for Stephen Lawrence as some kind of _Political Correctness Gone Mad_ isn't it? That's all it was about.


Cameron didn't write it. She is being attacked for being nominally involved with UAF. He's a founding signatory of UAF.

I Know no one clinks on links and all that unfashionable shit but come the fuxk on, the two diff ones are clear there.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Any reason he picked on Doreen Lawrence specifically, other than the fact he's a cunt?
> 
> It's the fact people like Farage still see justice for Stephen Lawrence as some kind of _Political Correctness Gone Mad_ isn't it? That's all it was about.



The level of hatred that some of the kipborg have for Dianne Abbot is a wonder to behold. Now, she's far from perfect but I wonder if there's a specific characteristic of hers that really winds them up. Yes, I wonder.

Ditto Doreen Lawrence. I'm sure someone may be able to figure it out.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> In principle i
> 
> 
> The level of hatred that some of the kipborg have for Dianne Abbot is a wonder to behold. Now, she's far from perfect but I wonder if there's a specific characteristic of hers that really winds them up. I wonder.


You just liked a post about doreen lawrence that you thought attacked her for being Diane abbott that mistakenly thought it was written by david cameron. Take a step back.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where did you? You have not 'spoken' to the main points at all. You've bashed out some words repeating what you previously said. You didn't engage with my suggestion of a world beyond the media for example - and that was rather an important one.
> 
> Who mentioned voting?



Actually I spoke to just about everything beyond what you said about a "world beyond media", which is a higer strike rate than I gain from your engagement with my points, many of which you flat ignore.

The thread is about a political party. That's where the voting bit came in, but you clearly haven't been paying that much attention so I'll leave it.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You just liked a post about doreen lawrence that you thought attacked her for being Diane abbott that mistakenly thought it was written by david cameron. Take a step back.



I deleted what you quoted. I had started to do a response on another device a while back. When I posted something else an unfinished point went up with it.

ETA : I don't even understand what you are putting to me, but never mind. The confusion is more down to me, as I say.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron didn't write it. She is being attacked for being nominally involved with UAF. He's a founding signatory of UAF.
> 
> I Know no one clinks on links and all that unfashionable shit but come the fuxk on, the two diff ones are clear there.



Sorry - I meant Farage attacking her, not Cameron (I didn't say Cameron), mainly on the back of this comment off your first link which implied he'd singled her out as someone needing to denounce UAF:



> Her comments were made after Mr Farage said UAF’s supporters have made violent attempts to silence him and called on the peer to “disassociate” herself from such actions.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Actually I spoke to just about everything beyond what you said about a "world beyond media", which is a higer strike rate than I gain from your engagement with my points, many of which you flat ignore.
> 
> The thread is about a political party. That's where the voting bit came in, but you clearly haven't been paying that much attention so I'll leave it.


I was talking to you about what we were talking about. You did not 'speak to' a single' thing that i said about the world outside of the media - that other world. Not one word. Mostly because it came after your long escape ooh i can't quote post and now i can't post anymore stuff. Nope, you're not leaving it - you're running away from it. This why they are stomping people like you.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I deleted what you quoted. I had started to do a response on another device a while back. When I posted something else an unfinished point went up with it.
> 
> ETA : I don't even understand what you are putting to me, but never mind. The confusion is more down to me, as I say.


It's simple you mistook doreen lawrence for diane abbott (in  a very David Brent way) then went back  and edited in something about DL to make it look like you didn't. Whilst liking a post that you mistakenly thought was quoting david cameron.

Seriously, stop being a clown. This is _too much clowning._


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Sorry - I meant Farage attacking her, not Cameron (I didn't say Cameron), mainly on the back of this comment off your first link which implied he'd singled her out as someone needing to denounce UAF:


So he didn't mention her at all then?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 12, 2014)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmTFriJCAAEmpmd.jpg


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's simple you mistook doreen lawrence for diane abbott (in  a very David Brent way) then went back  and edited in something about DL to make it look like you didn't. Whilst liking a post that you mistakenly thought was quoting david cameron.
> 
> Seriously, stop being a clown. This is _too much clowning._



Did I fuck. I can tell the difference between the two.  Post 2239 clearly deliniates the 2. I saw the shit Lawrence was getting it and it reminded me of the shit Abbot gets off the kind of UKIP drooling vermin who cross over with EDL.

The bit at the top was something I'd typed hours before. Everytime I quote on a new device I have it garbles up the response.

If you think I'm lying I don't really care. For all your bluster you struggle to comprehend some very basic things. Too busy faultfinding.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

Change _vote _for _profile. _Oddly enough, you missed the answer -at the start of march ofcom ruled that UKIP must get the same amount of news and politics coverage as the other three parties for this election. No. Too easy? Must be some mad elite plot to drive fuck knows what fuck knows where?


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Did I fuck. I can tell the difference between the two. I saw the shit Lawrence was getting it and it reminded me of the shit Abbot gets off the kind of UKIP drooling vermin who cross over with EDL.
> 
> The bit at the top was something I'd typed hours before. Everytime I quote on a new device I have it garbles up the response.
> 
> If you think I'm lying I don't really care. For all your bluster you struggle to comprehend some very basic things. Too busy faultfinding.


Nonsense. Utter nonsense. You just happened to be typing something that fitted in with a reply to another post. Yeah. Yes, _you are lying._ One nil to me because you know that you are you toerag.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So he didn't mention her at all then?



Cameron or Farage? The quote from the first article I included in my reply seemed to say Farage had picked her out as someone who needed to denounce UAF, despite many others being involved (including Cameron as you indicated). Picking her out is the sort of thing that would be done by the kind of asshat that goes on about a 'race relations industry' and right-wing tropes like that - Farage doesn't usually seem to go this far.

Farage playing the victim is a clever strategy - if the media (or even low level tweeting/blogging types) attack this claim of victimhood it becomes self-fulfilling.  People have been digging up dirt on the Tories in a similar style for years, his 'suffering' is not unique at all.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

Farage. He didn't pick her out at all - right? He didn't mention her. Nor did he mention Cameron.


----------



## Nylock (May 12, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Is there really a clear line between "definitely fascist" and "definitely not fascist"?



There is*, and hollering 'fascist!' every time a bunch of far-right mouth breathers make headlines is not exactly they way forward, is it?



> We could say that The Daily Mail ticks most of those boxes, but oh no...lets' not call them "fascist". Except for the fact that they endorsed fascists of course.


Of course that's what I meant to say in my post! Thanks for the correction. 



> You missed out "authoritarian" by the way. The "libertarian" claims made by some supporters and observers are contradicted by facts,rhetoric and policy. They are only economic liberals, not social liberals. In fact, it's the neoliberalism in that list that probably most points away from fascism if anything, though we could get into the murky world of dissecting that Mussolinni "marriage of.." quote.


It wasn't an exhaustive list ffs and, terrible as they are, they are not fash.

Jesus, is 'hyperbolic' your only setting?


*E2A


----------



## andysays (May 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Farage. He didn't pick her out at all - right? He didn't mention her. Nor did he mention Cameron.



If that Telegraph story is correct, he clearly did pick her out



> Her comments were made after Mr Farage said UAF’s supporters have made violent attempts to silence him and called on the peer [Doreen Lawrence] to “disassociate” herself from such actions.



So given that she is only "*one* of its honorary presidents", why should Farage (apparently, unless he reeled off a whole list of honorary presidents and it's the Telegraph singling her out) single her out?

And it looks like you owe an apology for not reading properly the story you're linking to and then attacking someone for understanding better than you what it actually says...


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> If that Telegraph story is correct, he clearly did pick her out
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I watched the interview as it happened. I posted about it on this very thread as it was happening._ He did not mention her at all._ Not once. He did not mention anyone.

Who do i owe an apology to andy?


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

Very comfortable UKIP lead in euros for latest sky/YG poll:

UKIP 31%
Labour 25%.
Tories 23%
 Lib Dems 9%


----------



## Dogsauce (May 12, 2014)

Gaining from Labour by the look of it. Paul Sykes' money/strategy is working.


----------



## gosub (May 12, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Gaining from Labour by the look of it. Paul Sykes' money/strategy is working.


compounded by Labour's strategy of hammer away at getting Lib Dem votes and don't say anything else that might impact on that.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

gosub said:


> compounded by Labour's strategy of hammer away at getting Lib Dem votes and don't say anything else that might impact on that.


That's the general election - they don't have any such strategy for the euros. Their euro strategy is keep quiet and let UKIP cause trouble for the tories


----------



## J Ed (May 12, 2014)

This is a weird story, if true it's something for people who welcome state restrictions on speech...

Anti-UKIP blogger visited by police and told to self censor

Buzzfeed link: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/police-investigate-man-for-criticising-ukip-on-twitter

From the blogger himself: http://axeofreason.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/you-are-not-allowed-to-read-this-blog.html?m=1

edit: Picked up by the Graunid as well http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/police-ask-blogger-remove-legitimate-tweet-ukip


----------



## Quartz (May 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Anti-UKIP blogger visited by police and told to self censor



Disgraceful.


----------



## ddraig (May 12, 2014)

why didn't they tell them to do one?
why did they delete tweets "as a gesture of goodwill" ?


----------



## dilberto (May 12, 2014)

"Ukip - why are they gaining support?"

UKIP speak about issues which are of popular concern but which due to the prescriptive politically correct climate under which we live people may be too fearful to speak of themselves and which the regulated media and those who follow their agenda do not wish to see discussed. That is why they attract such strong enmity, liberals have become accustomed to controlling the political debate.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

dilberto said:


> "Ukip - why are they gaining support?"
> 
> UKIP speak about issues which are of popular concern but which due to the prescriptive politically correct climate under which we live people may be too fearful to speak of themselves and which the regulated media and those who follow their agenda do not wish to see discussed. That is why they attract such strong enmity, liberals have become accustomed to controlling the political debate.


Hello again. It's cultural marxism isn't it? Seriously - your views are not mainstream or popular. They are are bonkers brevik. No one holds them. You do not speak for the common woman.


----------



## andysays (May 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I watched the interview as it happened. I posted about it on this very thread as it was happening._ He did not mention her at all._ Not once. He did not mention anyone.
> 
> Who do i owe an apology to andy?



I didn't watch the interview, so I don't know what was said or not said in that interview. But are you saying that you know for certain the story in the Telegraph is factually incorrect, ie that Nigel Farage never made any reference to anyone disassociating themselves from UAF's actions, *either in that interview or elsewhere*?



> Her comments were made after Mr Farage said UAF’s supporters have made violent attempts to silence him *and called on the peer to “disassociate” herself from such actions*.



If this is the case, might it have been useful to point this out when you posted the link?

Otherwise it just looks like you're doing what you do far too often, IMO, which is to throw ill-explained stuff out there, and then attack people when they don't immediately grasp the point you're seeking to make. You still haven't made a coherent point in any of this Farage/Doreen Lawrence/Telegraph business, as far as I can see, you're more interested in having a go at someone for mentioning Diane Abbott.

At your best, you make a great contribution to these boards, greater than most and certainly greater than me, but if you're actually seeking to persuade anyone of your point of view, I suggest you need to spend a little more time and a little more care explaining what you actually mean, and why why you think the way you do. Otherwise it appears that you often care more about "being right" and cunting off anyone and everyone who doesn't immediately agree with you, than actually making a constructive contribution.

And seperate to that, if this introducing of Doreen Lawrence into the story of UAF trying to "silence" Farage didn't come from Farage, do you have any idea where it did come from?


----------



## ddraig (May 12, 2014)

dilberto said:


> "Ukip - why are they gaining support?"
> 
> UKIP speak about issues which are of popular concern but which due to the prescriptive politically correct climate under which we live people may be too fearful to speak of themselves and which the regulated media and those who follow their agenda do not wish to see discussed. That is why they attract such strong enmity, liberals have become accustomed to controlling the political debate.


are you oppressed? 
why are people so fearful of speaking their minds then, what would actually happen to them?


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Doreen Lawrence denies link to group accused of Farage threats
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OH FFS. The story doesn't say Farage mentioned her at all. It says he called on "senior Labour party figures" to distance themselves and she is one. What is wrong with you? Yes, butchers could stand to be a bit more polite occasionally but to be honest it's pretty rude to respond to links people post without taking the time to make sure you've understood them.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> I didn't watch the interview, so I don't know what was said or not said in that interview. But are you saying that you know for certain the story in the Telegraph is factually incorrect, ie that Nigel Farage never made any reference to anyone disassociating themselves from UAF's actions, *either in that interview or elsewhere*?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hang on - i said that DL was not mentioned. I repeatedly said that. I was right in saying that. Who do i owe an apology to?

The telegraph quite clearly used her to try and associate farage with the racists who hate DL and think her kid was selling drugs and the race relations industry blah blah. That's why i posted the bloody story -as it fitted in with the ongoing debate of the tory media attempting to damage ukip. I didn't attack anyone for not grasping the point of that posting. No one.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

Anyway, shall we move on - maybe talking about how the DL 'story' shows the barrel scraping we're now into? Maybe how that highlights the lack of connect between the media attacks and what UKIP supporters are thinking - that same lack of a common language i was talking about to taffboy yesterday?


----------



## andysays (May 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on - i said that DL was not mentioned. I repeatedly said that. I was right in saying that. Who do i owe an apology to?
> 
> The telegraph quite clearly used her to try and associate farage with the racists who hate DL and think her kid was selling drugs and the race relations industry blah blah. That's why i posted the bloody story -as it fitted in with the ongoing debate of the tory media attempting to damage ukip. I didn't attack anyone for not grasping the point of that posting. No one.



In which part of this post, where you first brought the subject up


butchersapron said:


> Doreen Lawrence denies link to group accused of Farage threats
> 
> Founding signatories:
> David Cameron MP



or this one, where you appear to assume without justification that Dogsauce thinks/suggests that Cameron wrote the Telegraph article


butchersapron said:


> Cameron didn't write it. She is being attacked for being nominally involved with UAF. He's a founding signatory of UAF.
> 
> I Know no one clinks on links and all that unfashionable shit but come the fuxk on, the two diff ones are clear there.


do you say that Doreen Lawrence was not mentioned?

The first (ambiguous) reference you make to someone not mentioning Doreen Lawrence is here


butchersapron said:


> So he didn't mention her at all then?


but it's not clear who you're referring to. Could be Farage, could equally be Cameron.

Here it starts to become clear that you're saying that Farage didn't mention Doreen Lawrence 


butchersapron said:


> Farage. He didn't pick her out at all - right? He didn't mention her. Nor did he mention Cameron.


but still not what your point might actually be.

So I think you owe Dogsauce an apology (though I'm sure you won't agree and won't make one), and I think you ought to acknowledge that you didn't explain explicitly what your point was in posting the link to the Telegraph which you have (belatedly) asserted is incorrect, and hadn't offered any suggestion of from who (and why) the apparent complete fabrication of Doreen Lawrence or anyone else being mentioned by Farage might have come from, until the post I'm now responding to, more than 16 hours after you first posted the link.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

wtf are you on about. I posted two names in my post. Dogsauce replied by asking "Any reason he picked on Doreen Lawrence specifically" which i thought, given that i _knew _Farage didn't mention DL, meant he was referring to the last named male - i.e Cameron. I then explained why DL was being dragged into this (a full 2 minutes after my first post on this not your 16 hours rubbish). 5 minutes later dogsauce replied explaining that he meant farage. I then immediately replied by saying that Farage hadn't mentioned her. Then you jumped in.

The only people owed apologies are me and dogsauce for your ridiculous intervention. You totally fucked it up, better luck next time, but where's our apology?


----------



## andysays (May 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> wtf are you on about. I posted two names in my post. Dogsauce replied by asking "Any reason he picked on Doreen Lawrence specifically" which i thought, given that i _knew _Farage didn't mention DL, meant he was referring to the last named male - i.e Cameron. I then explained why DL was being dragged into this (a full 2 minutes after my first post on this not your 16 hours rubbish). 5 minutes later dogsauce replied explaining that he meant farage. I then immediately replied by saying that Farage hadn't mentioned her. Then you jumped in.
> 
> The only people owed apologies are me and dogsauce for your ridiculous intervention. You totally fucked it up, better luck next time, but where's our apology?



So lets see if I've got this right.

You posted a link to an article containing something made up about what Farage said. You didn't bother to mention that it was made up, but because you knew it was, this meant that everyone else should somehow know that, and come to the same conclusion as you about why you had posted the link and what point you were seeking to make.

You then conclude that dogsauce must have been referring to Cameron (he couldn't have been referring to Farage, because you knew Farage hadn't said it) so you have a go at him for being so stupid as to mean something silly he didn't actually mean.

You still don't realise that everyone doesn't see things the same as you, have the same info in front of them as you, draw the same conclusions as you, and you regularly attack people for not seeing things from the same position as you, assuming that just because you see something one way, everyone else should too, not because you've done anything as reasonable as give people complete info, but because you expect them to guess, fill in the blanks for themselves and read your mind to know what point you're seeking to make.

Does this way of communicating work with people in the real world, or do you find there too that almost everyone else is too stupid to see things your way when you expect them to magically know/guess/have some sort of psychic link which will allow them to know what the fuck you're talking about? And do you find that this method of communicating, where you dismiss, criticise and attack people for having the effrontary of not following your line on everything, succeeds in winning many people over to your point of view?

Sometimes you really appear to be completely unable to see anything from anyone else's point of view, either intellectually or emotionally; you end up ranting at what you think people are saying or thinking, because you can't conceive that it's something other than what you assume it must be. You can, of course, simply dismiss what I'm saying but I thought you might be interested in how you can come across...


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

I didn't have a go at dogsauce at all. You fucked this up - totally. Now you're totes making it worse.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't have a go at dogsauce at all. You fucked this up - totally. Now you're totes making it worse.



Totes eh? That sounds serious.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Totes eh? That sounds serious.


This is serious internet biz SF


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This is serious internet biz SF



Shit mate, is sum1 gonna get totes pwned? #roflcopter


----------



## andysays (May 12, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Totes eh? That sounds serious.



I'd rather have Toots than totes



Maybe if butchers took the time to listen to some music and think about what someone other than him is saying, rather than just always fire back the first instant aggressive response he comes up with, he might be a more effective poster...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 12, 2014)

Is it pronounced toits in Bristol?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 13, 2014)

Now they are hiring foreigners to deliver their leaflets!


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2014)

seems to be a lot of breathlessness this morning about UKIP 'legal threats' making some website take down this poster:







It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, considering three of the claims are unverified _even according to the poster_?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2014)

I think it was the fact the police called round that is at issue - it's not a criminal matter, and the police admitted they had no authority to tell the person to take it down.  The account of the incident sounds very strange. Others have highlighted actual threats of violence (including from a UKIP supporter) via Twitter that have not resulted in police action, so what were they doing?

The picture had been in circulation, and the guy posting it (a science blogger) had sought to clarify or back-up the claims with the added detail, so improving on what was already out there, including detailing where claims were not verified.


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2014)

I know about the police visit, but the claim this morning seems to be that the image has been removed from FB following legal complaints. considering three of the points have no basis at all, and several of the others are incredibly dodgy extrapolations of stuff lunatic individual members have said, this doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I've seen people reposting it with the words _no surrender_ this morning. Really.

Borrowing the dodgy propaganda tactics and the language of the far right. Nice one.


----------



## gosub (May 13, 2014)

You could just about make a case that you are distributing campaign materials without an imprint (name and address of publisher) but that's really aimed at dead tree printing to tie in with election expenses.  Law was amended as recently as 2007 and already out of date.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (May 13, 2014)

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/05/13/strip-public-of-the-vote-says-ukip-candidate



> Magnus Nielsen, who is standing for the party in West Hampstead said the UK should start reducing the number of people entitled to vote.
> 
> "I sometimes think the people who fought for the vote in 1832 and 1888 and so forth, trying to extend the franchise were probably doing the wrong thing," he told an election hustings in West Hampstead.
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2014)

gosub said:


> You could just about make a case that you are distributing campaign materials without an imprint (name and address of publisher) but that's really aimed at dead tree printing to tie in with election expenses.  Law was amended as recently as 2007 and already out of date.


 
Is legalising marital rape the policy of ukip or any of it's candidates? Erm. No. That's a lie. I think it's dangerous for political discourse to be based on who can get the most lurid lies trending on fb, frankly.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 13, 2014)

its not neccesary anyway- a list of their policies as stand is bad enough. As for using 'no surrender'


----------



## gosub (May 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> Is legalising marital rape the policy of ukip or any of it's candidates? Erm. No. That's a lie. I think it's dangerous for political discourse to be based on who can get the most lurid lies trending on fb, frankly.



granted but thats fuck all to do with the criminal law, potentially libellous yes but the police don't turn out for that.  It would be quite hard to outlaw lies in elections given manifestos etc aren't legally binding. They have gone down the wrong route and Strisanded the thing.


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2014)

but it's just a compilation of the hatchet jobs the media has been doing on them for weeks anyway - and look how convincing they were. Do you think anyone is going to be convinced not to vote ukip by this list of transparent lies?


----------



## gosub (May 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> but it's just a compilation of the hatchet jobs the media has been doing on them for weeks anyway - and look how convincing they were. Do you think anyone is going to be convinced not to vote ukip by this list of transparent lies?



A few, will certainly add vigour to their opponents that protest their meetings, vandalise their campaign literature and other anti democratic actions.  But by trying to make it a criminal matter and trying to have facebook pages pulled all they are doing is making things worse.  A rebuttle unit and warning of a writ was the way to go.  A proper election team would have been working on that.  A bloke standing for local council, has, (in any other party) taken decisons beyond his pay grade and made things worse. pouring petrol on the situation.  Why the police went along with it fuck knows. They should have directed him to the ERO down the town hall for a chat.


----------



## gosub (May 13, 2014)

we will need to update the law to cover electronic publications though.  If you want to influence an election beyond voting, be contactable.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

gosub said:


> A few, will certainly add vigour to their opponents that protest their meetings, vandalise their campaign literature and other anti democratic actions.  But by trying to make it a criminal matter and trying to have facebook pages pulled all they are doing is making things worse.  A rebuttle unit and warning of a writ was the way to go.  A proper election team would have been working on that.  A bloke standing for local council, has, (in any other party) taken decisons beyond his pay grade and made things worse. pouring petrol on the situation.  Why the police went along with it fuck knows. They should have directed him to the ERO down the town hall for a chat.



That link doesn't say anything about trying to get a facebook pages pulled.  You suggest UKIP should have warned of a writ - that sounds exactly like what happened. In fact, they may not even have gone that far in instance given the hazy nature of the suggested "legalistic threats from a UKIP member". Note as well: member.


----------



## Theisticle (May 13, 2014)

Janice Atkinson, PR person for Ukip, MEP candidate and former Daily Mail columnist is a right charmer:

"Janice Atkinson, as Ukip SE chairman, and MEP candidate, jointly with colleagues Patricia Culligan and Alan Stevens, MEP candidates, have raised concerns about the way the police will deal with the protestors at the Hove Ukip public meeting, on Tuesday, 13th May to be held in the Jewish Hall. They have formally asked the chief constable to arrest any protestors who call our supporters 'fascists', hurlother abuse or any physical assault, for 'hate crime' or under the public order act."
http://votejaniceatkinsonukip.co.uk/Media/Press-Releases/Anti-racist-12-05-2014.pdf

Deliberately stoking tensions in Kent:

"Ninety per cent of ATM [cash machine] crime is committed by Romanian gangs and drug and gun crime is mainly run by Eastern Europeans."

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/eastern-europeans-are-creating-no-go-17019/


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2014)

gosub said:


> A few, will certainly add vigour to their opponents that protest their meetings, vandalise their campaign literature and other anti democratic actions.  But by trying to make it a criminal matter and trying to have facebook pages pulled all they are doing is making things worse.  A rebuttle unit and warning of a writ was the way to go.  A proper election team would have been working on that.  A bloke standing for local council, has, (in any other party) taken decisons beyond his pay grade and made things worse. pouring petrol on the situation.  Why the police went along with it fuck knows. They should have directed him to the ERO down the town hall for a chat.


 
That's the answer then is it? Better press officers?

I'm not really interested in UKIP's response tbh. I'm just pissed off that this bollocks is getting traction and seen as a good thing by people who should know better.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2014)

I don't know why anyone would want to make shit up about UKIP to find reasons not to vote for them. Their 'positions' surely offer enough..in their own words...


> 1.Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing
> 
> 2.Enrol unemployed welfare claimants onto community schemes or retraining workfare programmes.
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 13, 2014)

build more prisons and send more people to them


----------



## gosub (May 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> That's the answer then is it? Better press officers?
> 
> I'm not really interested in UKIP's response tbh. I'm just pissed off that this bollocks is getting traction and seen as a good thing by people who should know better.




I don't think it is a good thing. But it will happen increasingly now we can all publish to world from anywhere.  Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, though you should be accountable for what you say (I sort of understand why it gets a bit different for elected politicans- only accountable at elections).  BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE LITERALLY POLICED


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I don't know why anyone would want to make shit up about UKIP to find reasons not to vote for them. Their 'positions' surely offer enough..in their own words...



To us 'right thinking' types, yes.  Many people have swallowed the 'scroungers' narrative, think all foreign aid buys flash cars for dictators, think Grammar Schools 'helped out the poor' and lap up patriotism.  That list will seem acceptable to far more people than we'd like.  I guess the twitteratai and HNH types are focusing on homophobia, racism etc. as it's nearly universally accepted that these are bad things, even in most of the right-wing press these days.  They're also things that can be challenged or upheld without affecting the wealthy or financial systems that serve them - social liberalism has little cost, not that it isn't important/valued.

Not saying that's an effective technique, but that might be why people are picking up on those things more than stuff like their batshit energy policy, for instance.  It's simplistic sloganeering, but then explaining the value of the social chapter to people succinctly is harder to achieve.

You also have to consider a lot of people aren't being strategic in their attacks on UKIP or thinking about how what they say influences other voters - they're just angry at bigots attacking the culture of them or their friends and are raging back at them, regardless of whether this is 'effective' or not.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> To us 'right thinking' types, yes.  Many people have swallowed the 'scroungers' narrative, think all foreign aid buys flash cars for dictators, think Grammar Schools 'helped out the poor' and lap up patriotism.  That list will seem acceptable to far more people than we'd like.  I guess the twitteratai and HNH types are focusing on homophobia, racism etc. as it's nearly universally accepted that these are bad things, even in most of the right-wing press these days.  They're also things that can be challenged or upheld without affecting the wealthy or financial systems that serve them - social liberalism has little cost, not that it isn't important/valued.
> 
> Not saying that's an effective technique, but that might be why people are picking up on those things more than stuff like their batshit energy policy, for instance.  It's simplistic sloganeering, but then explaining the value of the social chapter to people succinctly is harder to achieve.
> 
> You also have to consider a lot of people aren't being strategic in their attacks on UKIP or thinking about how what they say influences other voters - they're just angry at bigots attacking the culture of them or their friends and are raging back at them, regardless of whether this is 'effective' or not.



Yep, but I'd say that making up stuff is even less effective. I suppose the intent (?) of the anti-UKIP stuff was to dissuade trad. Lab voters from switching rather than hoping to have any effect upon tory switchers.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 13, 2014)

Janice Atkinson, UKIP South East chairman & MEP candidate, demands police action to arrest so-called ‘anti-racist’ protestors.

Kipper press release (pdf) - http://votejaniceatkinsonukip.co.uk/Media/Press-Releases/Anti-racist-12-05-2014.pdf


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/05/13/strip-public-of-the-vote-says-ukip-candidate



To be fair I have heard similar stuff from people about ukip and other far right parties _ too stupid to be allowed to vote etc


----------



## Buddy Bradley (May 13, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> To be fair I have heard similar stuff from people about ukip and other far right parties _ too stupid to be allowed to vote etc


Enacting a minimum intelligence requirement to vote is not exactly analogous to saying that female suffrage was a bad idea...


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Enacting a minimum intelligence requirement to vote is not exactly analogous to saying that female suffrage was a bad idea...


Yes it is. It's restricting the franchise on a pathetically spurious basis the same as stop. In fact, the former - which you seem to have some synpathy for? - is actually worse as it's a movable barrier than you can just raise or lower rather than an absolute.

More to the point, his comments weren't directed  at female enfranchisement - he talked about people having been in jail - and the loss of voting rights not being disenfranchised from birth.


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Enacting a minimum intelligence requirement to vote is not exactly analogous to saying that female suffrage was a bad idea...



Do you think this is a good idea?


----------



## Buddy Bradley (May 13, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Do you think this is a good idea?


Of course not, don't be silly.


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Enacting a minimum intelligence requirement to vote is not exactly analogous to saying that female suffrage was a bad idea...



What's intelligence? And what is so great about it,


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Enacting a minimum intelligence requirement to vote is not exactly analogous to saying that female suffrage was a bad idea...


Who said female suffrage was a bad idea though?


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I don't know why anyone would want to make shit up about UKIP to find reasons not to vote for them. Their 'positions' surely offer enough..in their own words...


I disagree. Like it or not, those positions are part of the reason why they're currently polling so high. They offer a response to the concerns that a lot of people have - one which clearly makes sense. Any attempt to counter UKIP has to respond to the same concerns, as clearly screaming 'racists!' isn't getting anywhere.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> I disagree. Like it or not, those positions are part of the reason why they're currently polling so high. They offer a response to the concerns that a lot of people have - one which clearly makes sense. Any attempt to counter UKIP has to respond to the same concerns, as clearly screaming 'racists!' isn't getting anywhere.


Yep. Look at what people are saying not what UKIP are saying, listen to them, take them seriously, take what they say seriously. This isn't really about UKIP.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> I disagree. Like it or not, those positions are part of the reason why they're currently polling so high. They offer a response to the concerns that a lot of people have - one which clearly makes sense. Any attempt to counter UKIP has to respond to the same concerns, as clearly screaming 'racists!' isn't getting anywhere.



Oh yes, and tbf I think I've been pretty consistent in arguing that. But, responding to UKIP's positions by making stuff up is obviously just as counter-productive as shouting "racists". I do think that a valid response to UKIP's rise is to point out the disconnect between people's concerns driving the poll numbers and the actual UKIP proposals; meddling with education, re-introducing selective schooling, abolishing inheritance tax, rolling back human rights and fracking etc. are almost certainly not what UKIP voters think they are voting for.


----------



## Quartz (May 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> and the actual UKIP proposals; meddling with education, re-introducing selective schooling, abolishing inheritance tax,



I expect a lot of UKIP voters want these three. But...



> rolling back human rights and fracking etc. are almost certainly not what UKIP voters think they are voting for.



Agreed


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2014)

They want 'rolling back of human rights' for the bad guys though, don't they?  'Universal' rights, benefits, healthcare are all anathema.

At the same time I think there was a poll out a while ago showing more UKIP supporters than other party supporters wanted the railways renationalised (or at least more than tory supporters).  Maybe part of the desire for the 'good old days' (suspect they'd be even happier going back to the pre-nationalisation 'big four' if that was an option).  It's not something that matches what the leadership wants, I'm sure.


----------



## Quartz (May 13, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> They want 'rolling back of human rights' for the bad guys though, don't they?  'Universal' rights, benefits, healthcare are all anathema.



I know you're using hyperbole, but I very much doubt that.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2014)

Oh, and expecting migrants to support themselves for five years _including non-emergency medical care_ is just another way of bringing forward the break-up of the NHS and a way of getting cash registers in surgeries and hospitals (or encouraging rival private provision).  That stuff needs pointing out a bit more.  People working here and paying taxes deserve the collective benefits paid for by those taxes, there isn't (yet) a minimum qualifying period for people born here.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I know you're using hyperbole, but I very much doubt that.



The red tops are always grumbling about human rights, and how it stops terrorists/foreign criminals being deported and so on.  It's been a tabloid theme for years, and doubtless has a lot of public support.  I don't quite know what the agenda is behind this - fear that the same institutions could be used to hold the government or industry to account?


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> They want 'rolling back of human rights' for the bad guys though, don't they?  'Universal' rights, benefits, healthcare are all anathema.
> 
> At the same time I think there was a poll out a while ago showing more UKIP supporters than other party supporters wanted the railways renationalised (or at least more than tory supporters).  Maybe part of the desire for the 'good old days' (suspect they'd be even happier going back to the pre-nationalisation 'big four' if that was an option).  It's not something that matches what the leadership wants, I'm sure.


Last bit - utterly key. The leadership here is not the voters. The voters are using the party - not the other way round. That's where the wedge should be driven in and why it's also an _opportunity _for those of us concerned with or facing the same issues.


----------



## Quartz (May 13, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The red tops are always grumbling about human rights, and how it stops terrorists/foreign criminals being deported and so on.  It's been a tabloid theme for years, and doubtless has a lot of public support.



Yes, but they've always accepted that there should be human rights; it's just a question of what those rights should be.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Yes, but they've always accepted that there should be human rights; it's just a question of what those rights should be.


So exactly as dogsauce said: "They want 'rolling back of human rights' for the bad guys though".


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2014)

UKIP "*....has descended into a terrifying "form of racist populism*".*..*.according to Sanya-Jeet Thandi, a member of the party's youth wing.

Sanya's last interview on C4 representing UKIP Youth was odd...she seemed a little less than coherent, and I do wonder if the other interviewee Awarte managed to talk some sense into her; I liked the cut of his jib.

http://bcove.me/4sewsd77


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> UKIP "*....has descended into a terrifying "form of racist populism*".*..*.according to Sanya-Jeet Thandi, a member of the party's youth wing.
> 
> Sanya's last interview on C4 representing UKIP Youth was odd...she seemed a little less than coherent, and I do wonder if the other interviewee Awarte managed to talk some sense into her; I liked the cut of his jib.
> 
> http://bcove.me/4sewsd77



I find this a bit odd, it's not as if the recent UKIP leaflets and posters represent a divergence from previous comments from the leadership of the party. Surely she knew exactly what she was getting into before this poster?


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2014)

Graunid gave her a cif article http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukip-playing-race-card-im-quitting-the-party


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

Over what time scale can we measure this descent? The kid is 21. She joined at 18. What's changed here: the party or young person developing their understanding of the world? The party hasn't as far as i can see.

Racial populism? Nope - not really. Nationalist populism - yes, certainly.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Graunid gave her a cif article http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukip-playing-race-card-im-quitting-the-party


This is their bandwagon jumping. As ever, their attempts to get in the gutter are rather hands off and sniffy. _let's do a cif piece._


----------



## dilberto (May 13, 2014)

Politics is not just economic it is also cultural.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

dilberto said:


> Politics is not just economic it is also cultural.


And the trad indigenous white man with his blah blah cultural traditions is not who you think and hasn't been for a long fucking time. You're the outsider here, you're the one trying to impose stuff on the indigenous population. You speak for no one.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

andysays said:


> If that Telegraph story is correct, he clearly did pick her out
> 
> So given that she is only "*one* of its honorary presidents", why should Farage (apparently, unless he reeled off a whole list of honorary presidents and it's the Telegraph singling her out) single her out?
> 
> And it looks like you owe an apology for not reading properly the story you're linking to and then attacking someone for understanding better than you what it actually says...



Where is Farage's apology eh?

Speaking of unthought though shite:

HOPE Not Hate Call In Lawyers Over Nigel Farage Remarks About Violence Towards Ukip Members

_



			On Tuesday, HOPE not hate revealed that the organisation has instructed its solicitors to write to Farage, demanding that he withdraw the "libellous allegations" and apologise.
		
Click to expand...

_
This whilst going all day moaning about UKIP bringing law into free debate. The also make the classic _refutes _mistake.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Over what time scale can we measure this descent? The kid is 21. She joined at 18. What's changed here: the party or young person developing their understanding of the world? The party hasn't as far as i can see.
> 
> Racial populism? Nope - not really. Nationalist populism - yes, certainly.



I get the impression from her media appearances and the CiF piece that she was attracted to the idea of a party with a 'thatcherite' policy platform with the added bonus of making it possible for a greater proportion of in-migration from the new commonwealth, and specifically India. I agree that it appears to tell us more about her than UKIP, but it will almost certainly intensify claims of racism within the party.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I get the impression from her media appearances and the CiF piece that she was attracted to the idea of a party with a 'thatcherite' policy platform with the added bonus of making it possible for a greater proportion of in-migration from the new commonwealth, and specifically India. I agree that it appears to tell us more about her than UKIP, but it will almost certainly intensify claims of racism within the party.


Claims that i think they will ride easily out given her - _let me in_ appeal to the tories.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

Gerard Batten's window put through overnight.

_Vote tory, lib-dem, labour - please don't vote UKIP. _


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Gerard Batten's window put through overnight.
> 
> _Vote tory, lib-dem, labour - please don't vote UKIP. _


Are MEP home addresses still revealed, then? MPs have had theirs made exempt from FoI for years.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

Easy to find.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Easy to find.


Might catch on, then? Although I expect quite a few have plod on hand.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Might catch on, then? Although I expect quite a few have plod on hand.


Makes you wonder that the throwers were doing over the last decade.


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Gerard Batten's window put through overnight.



Do you have a link for that?


----------



## Theisticle (May 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I get the impression from her media appearances and the CiF piece that she was attracted to the idea of a party with a 'thatcherite' policy platform with the added bonus of making it possible for a greater proportion of in-migration from the new commonwealth, and specifically India. I agree that it appears to tell us more about her than UKIP, but it will almost certainly intensify claims of racism within the party.



Yes. If you watched her C4 interview with Awate, she dislikes how EU migrants have easier access to the UK than Indians. Despite the Tory government actually making it easier for students from the country to study here as it criminalises other minorities. It's not a brave move. I'm entirely cynical of her motives but it will certainly call into question the racism within the party.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Do you have a link for that?


Other than knobhead sites and farage talking about it, no.


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2014)

Worth remembering

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1296205.ece



> DAVID CAMERON’S election strategist is planning a covert campaign to target UK Independence party councillors and has suggested that the Home Office’s scheme for “go home” vans targeting illegal immigrants is flawed and has backfired.
> 
> Lynton Crosby, the Conservative party’s campaign chief, wants to launch a “below-the-radar” operation to undermine UKIP politicians by catching them making embarrassing comments.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quartz (May 13, 2014)

Looks like Farage is losing control of the racists:

http://order-order.com/2014/05/13/ukips-ethnic-minority-poster-girl-quits-party-citing-racism


----------



## gosub (May 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I get the impression from her media appearances and the CiF piece that she was attracted to the idea of a party with a 'thatcherite' policy platform with the added bonus of making it possible for a greater proportion of in-migration from the new commonwealth, and specifically India. I agree that it appears to tell us more about her than UKIP, but it will almost certainly intensify claims of racism within the party.



I've read a few anti EU bloggers who have looked at the switch towards anti immigration by UKIP with distaste. Its not that long ago it was about sovereignty.


----------



## Quartz (May 14, 2014)

gosub said:


> I've read a few anti EU bloggers who have looked at the switch towards anti immigration by UKIP with distaste. Its not that long ago it was about sovereignty.



Per Farage, it's not immigration _per se_ but *control* of immigration, which is an aspect of sovereignty.


----------



## andysays (May 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where is Farage's apology eh? ...









LEAVE NIGEL ALONE!!!1!


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2014)

This is all rather ungracious Andy.


----------



## andysays (May 14, 2014)

You may have a point to make beyond "isn't it horrible the way all the establishment is ganging up on poor old UKIP. This must prove they're, like, really anti-establishment and stuff", but if so you're totally failing to make it.

So why not put all the point scoring, one-upmanship and "my knowledge and analysis is bigger than yours" bullshit aside for a moment, and just focus on making your point in a clear and concise way.

ETA: forget that bit. I am genuinely interested in discussing the issues behind this rather than engaging in sniping and back biting


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 14, 2014)

Ukip has a _youth wing?_


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Ukip has a _youth wing?_


 Yep, and look Sanya-Jeet is still there, with them, on the front page...

http://www.youngindependence.org.uk/


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yep, and look Sanya-Jeet is still there, with them, on the front page...
> 
> http://www.youngindependence.org.uk/


I'm hearing her on that clip (above)1. That's a pretty sloane accent, fwiw.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'm hearing her on that clip. That's a pretty sloane accent, fwiw.



LSE.


----------



## gosub (May 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Per Farage, it's not immigration _per se_ but *control* of immigration, which is an aspect of sovereignty.


not how the adverts come across.  And pages back I had a link to a poll of UKIP's voters concerns EU is becoming a secondary issue. I can see where Ms Thandi is coming from.
It's made worse by being here in Scotland and seeing when we do get a referendum on EU media is going to give all the No comentary to Farage and UKIP who can't even agree a plan for getting out, sometimes its article 50 sometimes not.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 14, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Ukip has a _youth wing?_



It's for the under 50s


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 14, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> It's for the under 50s


Not wrong, judging by the clip on their webpage which actually is being kind to some of the people on it.

Then they focus on her sitting on a benc by zooming in on her very expensive looking shoes! Weird.


----------



## Theisticle (May 14, 2014)

Typical Hundal

To win UKIP voters, Miliband must articulate a sense of progressive nationalism

http://labourlist.org/2014/05/to-wi...rticulate-a-sense-of-progressive-nationalism/


----------



## nino_savatte (May 14, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Ukip has a _youth wing?_


Hard to believe. No? I always thought they were born middle-aged with fags hanging out their gobs shouting "Where's my pint"!


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> You may have a point to make beyond "isn't it horrible the way all the establishment is ganging up on poor old UKIP. This must prove they're, like, really anti-establishment and stuff", but if so you're totally failing to make it.
> 
> So why not put all the point scoring, one-upmanship and "my knowledge and analysis is bigger than yours" bullshit aside for a moment, and just focus on making your point in a clear and concise way.
> 
> ETA: forget that bit. I am genuinely interested in discussing the issues behind this rather than engaging in sniping and back biting


Come now andy, you made a fool of yourself with your shrill demand that i aplogise for being correct and for you being wrong -  you then further made an oaf of yourself with some classic self-regarding pomposity by  suggesting that i listen to some music in response to me asking that we move on in order to save you further embarrassment - now you're making an arse of yourself by suggesting that i have made no points about UKIP other than that travesty you've posted above. All pretty tawdry and self-evidently not true. And all stemming from your own mistake - there's a reason why you shouldn't post at 5am.

Away from this nonsense; farage is overplaying his hand with the current cosying up the tories, sign of over confidence. A good chunk of the recent support is anti-tory labour voters and it's their swing element that would/could put him in the position of propping up a tory govt that he today is appearing to take for granted. If he pushes them away  - as this tory stuff surely will - he cuts the ground out from beneath him


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Typical Hundal
> 
> To win UKIP voters, Miliband must articulate a sense of progressive nationalism
> 
> http://labourlist.org/2014/05/to-wi...rticulate-a-sense-of-progressive-nationalism/


Hundal and his gangs answer to every parties problem is progressive nationalism. It's just another way of saying one-nation toryism based on consensual rather than conflict politics. A politics that includes everyone and excludes very few. It's rhetoric rather than tactics.


----------



## J Ed (May 14, 2014)

Fear of losing voters to UKIP is obvious here

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/10/yvette-cooper-migrant-workers-exploitation-crime



> The exploitation of migrant workers in an attempt to undercut wages would be made a criminal offence under a Labour government, the shadow home secretary will say. Yvette Cooper will also propose minimum custodial sentences for wholesale employment of illegal immigrants.
> 
> The measures are designed to reassure British workers that immigrant labour will not undercut their wages but the specific proposal is legally fraught since employers will be concerned that it could give the state greater control over the setting of wages in the private sector above and beyond the minimum wage.
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 14, 2014)

and precisely how aree you going to prove that someone is using migrant labour to undercut locals? minimum wage is minimum wage- agency warehouse staff be they holders of a brit passport or otherwise get a quid or so more than bare min if they are lucky. So how in practise would that work? wooly labourite waffle.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Fear of losing voters to UKIP is obvious here
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/10/yvette-cooper-migrant-workers-exploitation-crime


See, they've messed this up (speaking tactically i mean, not about principles or anything daft like that) - they've made it so the story is protection of immigrant workers not british workers - that will be the focus, the headline. That's not going to get UKIP switchers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2014)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Yes, but they've always accepted that there should be human rights; it's just a question of what those rights should be.



We've already incorporated ECHR.  Where does the mandate to resile from specific sections of it come from?  I don't recall any referenda about this.  Personally, I don't want politicians or the media making that decision for me.  I want the full democratic ability to exercise a right of choice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2014)

dilberto said:


> Politics is not just economic it is also cultural.



And for your next revelation of a banal truism...?


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Claims that i think they will ride easily out given her - _let me in_ appeal to the tories.




The Guardian CIF posters who have replied to that article have not really shown any nuance, even the left wing ones, in fact they have took her views at face value with no mention she is a right wing libertarian,


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And the trad indigenous white man with his blah blah cultural traditions is not who you think and hasn't been for a long fucking time. You're the outsider here, you're the one trying to impose stuff on the indigenous population. You speak for no one.



Yup.  While it's true that politics pervades culture, and _vice versa_, that's not an indication that politics should *reflect* a particular culture (indigenous or not), it's merely a reflection of how social relations are interwoven.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yup.  While it's true that politics pervades culture, and _vice versa_, that's not an indication that politics should *reflect* a particular culture (indigenous or not), it's merely a reflection of how social relations are interwoven.


Yep - bearing in mind this poster is a bonker-brevik_ it's all cultural marxism taking over _type.


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2014)

treelover said:


> The Guardian CIF posters who have replied to that article have not really shown any nuance, even the left wing ones, in fact they have took her views at face value with no mention she is a right wing libertarian,


 no way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Makes you wonder that the throwers were doing over the last decade.



Chanting "no platform to the racist (insert name of group here)", perhaps?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yep - bearing in mind this poster is a bonker-brevik_ it's all cultural marxism taking over _type.



There was me thinking that the whole "cultural Marxism" _schtick_ had been adequately rebutted a couple of decades ago!
Still, I suppose it still has *some* utility for those not willing to/unable to come up with a coherent argument.


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2014)

killer b said:


> no way.




Actually, there are hundreds of posts on there from usually sharp incisive contributors, but on this article, they all agree with her nearly, so they can attack UKIP.


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2014)

treelover said:


> Actually, there are hundreds of posts on there from usually sharp incisive contributors, but on this article, they all agree with her nearly, so they can attack UKIP.


I guess we can't expect people to be sharp and incisive about everything. Especially liberals, who often seem to have a sizeable blindspot as far as UKIP are concerned.


----------



## Quartz (May 14, 2014)

gosub said:


> not how the adverts come across.



It's too nuanced for an advert aimed at the putative UKIP supporter, alas.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 14, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and precisely how aree you going to prove that someone is using migrant labour to undercut locals? minimum wage is minimum wage- agency warehouse staff be they holders of a brit passport or otherwise get a quid or so more than bare min if they are lucky. So how in practise would that work? wooly labourite waffle.


In the wake of 911 under Labour signing up to an agency required the same, quite punitive, amount of ID as opening a bank. There's no way Johnny Foreigner, short of breaking the law, could walk into Pertemps or Reed and get signed up.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 14, 2014)

yeah I know this- but I'm not talking illegal migrants but those allowed to live and work here under EU regs and that. If someone employs half a dozen legal migrants at min wage or just a bit above- what are labour going to do? its all perfectly legal.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> It's too nuanced for an advert aimed at the putative UKIP supporter, alas.


The UKIP ads are too nuanced for UKIP voters?







Are you for real?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 14, 2014)

Isn't it looking at where companies try to get round min wage by charging over the odds (via wage deductions) for accommodation/transport etc?  I thought that had already been legislated against.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Isn't it looking at where companies try to get round min wage by charging over the odds (via wage deductions) for accommodation/transport etc?  I thought that had already been legislated against.


Yep, but enforced - hardly. The accommodation scam is the real big one - and immigrant workers are often happy to go along with it on the basis that it's temp and they can put up with it for now.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 14, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Isn't it looking at where companies try to get round min wage by charging over the odds (via wage deductions) for accommodation/transport etc?  I thought that had already been legislated against.



I do recall some furore over hotbedding a couple of years back but nothing since.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 15, 2014)

(Swansea apparently)


----------



## Nylock (May 15, 2014)

clegg looks like he's enjoying that gag....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 15, 2014)

killer b said:


> I guess we can't expect people to be sharp and incisive about everything


Treelover manages


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

Fingers said:


> Because I do not want to fuck up what could possibly be a god send.  I can say I am pretty sure that the Guardian is going to break an explosive story involving serious criminality and massive corruption which goes right to the top of the party either tomorrow or Friday.
> 
> ETA: I would say this might be why Farage has looked rather on edge today


Maybe tmw?


----------



## Fingers (May 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe tmw?



No idea, it has gone a bit quiet, though Gerard Batten is trying to use his lawyers to get a public meeting shut down.... 

http://movagxen.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/the-meeting-ukip-dont-want-you-to-go-to/


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

Fingers said:


> No idea, it has gone a bit quiet, though Gerard Batten is trying to use his lawyers to get a public meeting shut down....
> 
> http://movagxen.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/the-meeting-ukip-dont-want-you-to-go-to/


So i saw - that's what made me think of you. Any idea about the suggestion that Jasna's conviction for defrauding UKIP may be being re-investigated as we speak?

And second thoughts about who may have been pulling your strings over this?


----------



## Fingers (May 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So i saw - that's what made me think of you. Any idea about the suggestion that Jasna's conviction for defrauding UKIP may be being re-investigated as we speak?



As far as I know it is being re-investigated. _If _arrests are made I guess it will hit the papers. If not, no story.


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

Fingers said:


> As far as I know it is being re-investigated. _If _arrests are made I guess it will hit the papers. If not, no story.


The suggestion surely is that it's _her who is the subject of further legal investigation _over her conviction for defrauding UKIP not UKIP being investigated.


----------



## Fingers (May 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The suggestion surely is that it's _her who is the subject of further legal investigation _over her conviction for defrauding UKIP not UKIP being investigated.



I guess it depends if there was any corruption involved in the prosecution of her by the Met Police and the legal system. I don;t know if there was or not. If there was a massive scandal looms.


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

Fingers said:


> I guess it depends if there was any corruption involved in the prosecution of her by the Met Police and the legal system. I don;t know if there was or not. If there was a massive scandal looms.


Well given she has been claiming that UKIP are harassing her with legal stuff i think it's pretty likely that she fired off some decoy flares in order to direct attention away from the fact that the shit about to hit the legal fan was concerning her own criminal behaviour becoming a live issue again rather than UKIPs - and some less than scrupulous people went running after those flares. Far more likely than UKIP (right up to the leadership remember) being involved in long term police and judicial corruption. You got mugged in short. In fact, from that reply, it sounds like you may still be leaving yourself open to ongoing mugging.


----------



## Fingers (May 15, 2014)

Are you this tedious and condescending away from the internet?


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

Fingers said:


> Are you this tedious and condescending away from the internet?


Seriously - you're lapping up shit and then spreading it around. Jackafuckingnory.


----------



## Fingers (May 15, 2014)

Just wondered...


----------



## weepiper (May 15, 2014)

Garngad (Royston), Glasgow


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 15, 2014)

To paraphrase Widdecombe, of Nigel: there's something of the shite about him.


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2014)

> *Britain's richest 1% own as much as poorest 55% of population*
> ONS figures reveal growing wealth disparity and north-south divide, with nation's top 10% owning 44% of household wealth
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...st-1-percent-own-same-as-bottom-55-population



Meanwhile


----------



## Roadkill (May 15, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> (Swansea apparently)



Reminds me of






Take your pick of which party leader you'd actually like to see in this position, like...


----------



## Corax (May 15, 2014)

chilango said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> It is a bunch of people promoting themselves and their political brands through the medium of choreographed superficial discussion.


Never seen it referred to as a "chat show" before - but now that I do it's absolutely spot on.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> *(Swansea apparently)*



Ha! The previous doctored UKIP poster that went viral was around 5 mins down the road from us, and very quickly got obliterated (presumably by the hoarding company), then briefly replaced by the same UKIP poster, then superseded altogether. No idea where in SA the above latest one is though ...


----------



## The39thStep (May 16, 2014)

16 ukip candidates out of 21 council ward elections announced locally plus six BNP .


----------



## Theisticle (May 16, 2014)

Not sure why Goodwin/Ford assume the Left has always voted Labour.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ided-left-right-cut-labour-support?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Not sure why Goodwin/Ford assume the Left has always voted Labour.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ided-left-right-cut-labour-support?CMP=twt_gu


Because a) he means labour and b) it always has/did up until the breach that is the point of the article.


----------



## gosub (May 16, 2014)




----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

Got a leaflet through from someone called  Mike Nattrass who represents 'an independence party. Never heard of them. They seemed a bit ukip at first, but actually claim a few worthwhile things such as wanting a state funded NHS. Has anyone else heard of them?


----------



## The39thStep (May 16, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Reminds me of
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Got a leaflet through from someone called  Mike Nattrass who represents 'an independence party. Never heard of them. They seemed a bit ukip at first, but actually claim a few worthwhile things such as wanting a state funded NHS. Has anyone else heard of them?


He's an MEP - an ex UKIP MEP. And you like the cut of his jib.


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2014)

oh lordy.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Got a leaflet through from someone called  Mike Nattrass who represents 'an independence party. Never heard of them. They seemed a bit ukip at first, but actually claim a few worthwhile things such as wanting a state funded NHS. Has anyone else heard of them?



Calling themselves the pretty nonsensical "*An* independence from Europe" to get at the top of the ballot paper...quite possibly poaching 'kipper votes from those not concentrating in the ballot booth...


----------



## krtek a houby (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's an MEP - an ex UKIP MEP. And you like the cut of his jib.



Perhaps he didn't know who the bloke was? Not all of us are a walking encyclopedia.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Because a) he means labour and b) it always has/did up until the breach that is the point of the article.


 That article deserves to be in the Why the G is shit thread.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Perhaps he didn't know who the bloke was? Not all of us are a walking encyclopedia.


Hey, maybe that's why i answered his question as to who he was. Don''t  start with your shit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Calling themselves the pretty nonsensical "*An* independence from Europe" to get at the top of the ballot paper...quite possibly poaching 'kipper votes from those not concentrating in the ballot booth...



Yes, name choice makes it clear it's a spoiling exercise after he failed his re-selection criteria (i.e the non loon test - and given who managed to actually pass..well). After which he was on the verge of joining one of the BNP splinter groups.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

I'm going to vote green.


----------



## krtek a houby (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hey, maybe that's why i answered his question as to who he was. Don''t  start with your shit.



Nah, you had a moment of self righteous superiority and belittled the poster. It's your m.o.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Perhaps he didn't know who the bloke was? Not all of us are a walking encyclopedia.


 Not very difficult to find out tbf...



> *BASIC POLICY IN BRIEF*
> 
> To leave the European Union, retaining normal friendship and trading relations.
> To develop close links with the Commonwealth.
> ...



Looks like the ramblings of someone who doesn't actually know very much about politics.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Nah, you had a moment of self righteous superiority and belittled the poster. It's your m.o.


He asked a question i answered. Then pointed out a little irony (in the common everyday use of the term). And then you came on doing this again:

krtek: Hey you, you over there, you're a cunt, come here you cunt.
someone: Why are you calling me a cunt and trying to pick a fight.
krtek: Oh here we go, look at this cunt trying to cause trouble, he's got form for it, the cunt.
Someone: eh?
krtek: Hey you, you over there, you're a cunt, come here you cunt.
someone else: Why are you calling me a cunt and trying to pick a fight.

It's tired old and pointless.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 16, 2014)

gosub said:


>




Farage: I was on a train and nobody around me spoke English and I felt slightly uncomfortable.
O'Brien: Your wife's a German speaker.
F: And my children are too
O'B: Does that make you feel uncomfortable?
F: No, but they can speak English
O'B How do you know those people couldn't?
F: I got the distinct feeling it wasn't their language of choice.

What a twat!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 16, 2014)

He really does deserve a fuckin' good hoofing tbh.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

Quality not quantity says Farage: so Romanian men are less 'quality' than german kids (ie his own)?

Fuck you with a sharp flugelhorn


----------



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

krtek a houby said:


> Nah, you had a moment of self righteous superiority and belittled the poster. It's your m.o.


other people limit themselves to moments of self-righteousness. you're always puffed up with the delusions that a) you're always right and b) everyone else gives a shit about your opinion. in fact it's the contrary on both a) & b).


----------



## gosub (May 16, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> He really does deserve a fuckin' good hoofing tbh.




thought he got one. favourite bit was the gentle stretch at the end after Farage left like some yawning grizzly bear.  

Overrun massively my arse - Farage was on air for exactly 20 mins


----------



## krtek a houby (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He asked a question i answered. Then pointed out a little irony (in the common everyday use of the term). And then you came on doing this again:
> 
> krtek: Hey you, you over there, you're a cunt, come here you cunt.
> someone: Why are you calling me a cunt and trying to pick a fight.
> ...



Much like your good self. You know what you did, what you always do and still you do it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Perhaps he didn't know who the bloke was? Not all of us are a walking encyclopedia.



Butchersapron (I'm aussming, he keeps trolling me for some reason) is on my ignore list; I wish he'd just fuck off because I'm fucking tired of his constant abuse.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

gosub said:


> thought he got one. favourite bit was the gentle stretch at the end after Farage left like some yawning grizzly bear.
> 
> Overrun massively my arse - Farage was on air for exactly 20 mins


I liked the collateral damage that Patrick O Flynn stepped into as well. That's the double!


----------



## krtek a houby (May 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> other people limit themselves to moments of self-righteousness. you're always puffed up with the delusions that a) you're always right and b) everyone else gives a shit about your opinion. in fact it's the contrary on both a) & b).



And Mini Me arrives, just in time to back up Doctor Evil. I'm not always right but here's the thing, I'm not always wrong, either. As for my opinion? It's not a popularity contest but you clearly do care about my opinion because you're always commenting on it. Without fail. Always.

krtek 1 pickman 0


----------



## krtek a houby (May 16, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Butchersapron (I'm aussming, he keeps trolling me for some reason) is on my ignore list; I wish he'd just fuck off because I'm fucking tired of his constant abuse.




He's been doing it for donkey's years. Him and his Baldrick have form for it. But don't worry, you're not the only one.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 16, 2014)

gosub said:


> thought he got one.



Did he? Any youtube vids? Could do with a laugh.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> He's been doing it for donkey's years. Him and his Baldrick have form for it. But don't worry, you're not the only one.


I don't generally ignore lists, but for some, I make an exception.


----------



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

krtek a houby said:


> And Mini Me arrives, just in time to back up Doctor Evil. I'm not always right but here's the thing, I'm not always wrong, either. As for my opinion? It's not a popularity contest but you clearly do care about my opinion because you're always commenting on it. Without fail. Always.
> 
> krtek 1 pickman 0


it's a pity you feel you need to lie and lie again in your posts


----------



## gosub (May 16, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't generally ignore lists, but for some, I make an exception.



only trouble is, he is so prolific it fucks up the way threads scan


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

gosub said:


> only trouble is, he is so prolific it fucks up the way threads scan


That's partly why i don't like ignore lists, that and i prefer to hear what people have to say, but that guy has issues clearly so it's best not to indulge his sad little psychodrama.


----------



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

Awesome Wells said:


> That's partly why i don't like ignore lists, that and i prefer to hear what people have to say, but that guy has issues clearly so it's best not to indulge his sad little psychodrama.


spoken like someone who assumes everyone they dislike must be mental


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> spoken like someone who assumes everyone they dislike must be mental


Are you seriously going to accuse me now of taking the piss out of people with mental health issues? Grow up.


----------



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

Awesome Wells said:


> Are you seriously going to accuse me now of taking the piss out of people with mental health issues? Grow up.


no, i'm going to say that you use mh issues as a cuss and that i very much doubt you've the background which allows you to identify people with mh issues here - if you did phrases like sad little psychodramamight not be found in your posts


----------



## Idris2002 (May 16, 2014)




----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i'm going to say that you use mh issues as a cuss and that i very much doubt you've the background which allows you to identify people with mh issues here - if you did phrases like sad little psychodramamight not be found in your posts



Given that you know fuck all about me, you are in precisely no position to make such a stupid claim. I find comments like this, casting nasty minded aspersions at people, really nasty. Go fuck yourself.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

Surprised that some people here haven't been going crazy about  (NSFW i suppose) this.



Spoiler: pic


----------



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

Awesome Wells said:


> Given that you know fuck all about me, you are in precisely no position to make such a stupid claim. I find comments like this, casting nasty minded aspersions at people, really nasty. Go fuck yourself.


so you like to hand it out but don't like taking it. what a low wretch you are.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Not sure why Goodwin/Ford assume the Left has always voted Labour.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ided-left-right-cut-labour-support?CMP=twt_gu


 No, but the table of poll findings embedded within the piece was interesting.




Setting aside a couple of responses from those claiming to be tory voters, there are absolute majorities of the electorate thinking that the rigged judicial system helps corporate capital,(and their managers)  exploit workers and denying them their 'fair share' of the wealth created by their labour. And that's from those voting for the parties of capital. 

And folk wonder why 'old' labour voters seek to register a protest?


----------



## rioted (May 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so you like to hand it out but don't like taking it. what a low wretch you are.


It is all about scoring points isn't it? Perhaps you and your master ought to take a bit of time out to consider whether there's just a hint of truth in the oft repeated criticism of your posting style. Instead you just go into full attack mode. That may or may not be a sympton of underlying issues of self esteem or whatever, but it certainly puts people off.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 16, 2014)

> The problem for Labour is that these voters no longer think about politics in general, or Labour in particular, in economic terms. Labour has encouraged this: New Labour played down traditional leftwing ideology in favour of social liberalism and pragmatic centrism. Now many voters with longstanding "old left" economic values associate Labour more with "new left" social liberalism: feminism, multiculturalism and support for immigration.
> 
> Ukip's rise has exposed this division on the left and made it harder to heal. Many of the "new left" voters attracted to Labour by its social liberalism cannot stomach Ukip voters' strong opposition to immigration, which they regard as an expression of ignorance and prejudice, and so refuse to engage with "old left" voters on the economic issues where the two groups share common ground.
> 
> Conversely, "old left" voters retain a strong distrust of Labour's middle-class elites, after decades of feeling ignored and marginalised as New Labour chased the middle-class swing vote, and cannot abide lectures from privileged "new left" activists about the virtues of immigration and diversity.


 (source above)

That's entirely consistent with what I've heard talking to many urban/working class UKIP voters at both ends of the country.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 16, 2014)

Trouble is that UKIP (like the main three parties) appears to have no intention of addressing those inequalities.

A lot of support comes from people picking them because they're 'not the others'.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> No, but the table of poll findings embedded within the piece was interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wonder how we account for that 32% gap between "Government should redistribute wealth" and "ordinary people don't get a fair share"?

Spose "redistribution" as a concept is more tainted than any these days.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so you like to hand it out but don't like taking it. what a low wretch you are.



These boards are swimming with it to be fair. And it doesn't give a good impression of some political positions that deserve more attention.


----------



## Fingers (May 16, 2014)

Did anyone hear/watch Farages wonderful car crash interview on LBC this morning? James O'Brien pretty much destroyed him.

It ended up with his Director of Comms, Patrick O'Flynn, shutting down the interview, and according to station staff, dragging Farage out of the studio.

As this blog commentator said, it was his Nick Griffin moment and his mask well and truly slipped.

Watch it here (adverts for first two minutes)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...rage-has-just-had-his-nick-griffin-moment/?fb


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2014)

Nick griffins career never recovered from his QT appearance? What?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 16, 2014)

he didn't come of off that one as smoothly as he does on QT etc.

the owed tax money for a family business one rattled him a bit in particular.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 16, 2014)

Fingers said:


> Did anyone hear/watch Farages wonderful car crash interview on LBC this morning? James O'Brien pretty much destroyed him.
> 
> It ended up with his Director of Comms, Patrick O'Flynn, shutting down the interview, and according to station staff, dragging Farage out of the studio.
> 
> ...


Did it? I don't think there was anything in that interview that would particularly perturb the 20 ish per cent considering voting for the man.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

Few quick things: Dan Hodges is paid to make bold predictions such as UKIP are over, labour have already lost the election etc  he's always wrong. In this case he' wrong because UKIP voters aren't massed in london listening to bloody LBC - it means nothing nationally - who the hell is james o brien anyway? The BNP's votes went up after Griffin appeared on QT. Their collapse had nothing to do with QT and to think that it does is merely to demonstrates the media bubble hodges lives in.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 16, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Trouble is that UKIP (like the main three parties) appears to have no intention of addressing those inequalities.
> 
> A lot of support comes from people picking them because they're 'not the others'.



Sure or 'because they'll let us smoke in pubs again' ...


----------



## Fingers (May 16, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Did it? I don't think there was anything in that interview that would particularly perturb the 20 ish per cent considering voting for the man.



You are probably right but further down the line there is no way he can claim he does not have racist views about certain types of immigrants.  That lie is well and truly busted.  It will always be brought up in future debates


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Few quick things: Dan Hodges is paid to make bold predictions such as UKIP are over, labour have already lost the election etc  he's always wrong. In this case he' wrong because UKIP voters aren't massed in london listening to bloody LBC - it means nothing nationally - who the hell is james o brien anyway?The BNP's votes went up after Griffin appeared on QT. Their collapse had nothing to with QT and to think that it does it to just demonstrates the media bubble hodges lives in.


 if reality doesn't fit, just make a different reality up. a better world is possible.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 16, 2014)

Fingers said:


> You are probably right but further down the line there is no way he can claim he does not have racist views about certain types of immigrants.  That lie is well and truly busted.  It will always be brought up in future debates



Racism is not the political silver bullet that people seem to think it is.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

Fingers said:


> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...rage-has-just-had-his-nick-griffin-moment/?fb





> What happened in between has effectively finished Nigel Farage’s political career.


If only.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2014)

Labour's attack from Dugher...



> The MP for Barnsley East said: “The idea that Nigel Farage is *some sort of the voice of the working class frankly is bollocks.*” He claimed the Ukip leader “masquerades as the anti-politics candidate” but had in spent 15 years as a full-time politician in the European Parliament. Mr Dugher pointed out that Mr Farage was a former stockbroker and anti-working class. “Look at his policies - *taking away workers' rights, charging people to see their GP and tax cuts for millionaires*,” he told the _Daily Express_



Whereas... Michael?


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Labour's attack from Dugher...
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas... Michael?


Yep, which is why none of these criticisms work without a credible working class alternative.


----------



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

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> These boards are swimming with it to be fair. And it doesn't give a good impression of some political positions that deserve more attention.


you didn't notice then that i wasn't handing out gratuitous insults, unlike Awesome Wells, but that i was commenting on awesome wells' use of mental illness in a cuss. you may have noticed that using mh as a putdown doesn't generally go down too well round here but it's no surprise to me to see someone like you not taking issue with awesome wells use of mh to rubbish butchers but to act as an apologist for same. you should be ashamed of yourself. but i don't suppose you are.


----------



## Wilf (May 16, 2014)

Ukip aren't going to be destroyed by Farage's foot in mouthery, or even that of his yet more idiotic colleagues. Mind they are giving it a good go.


----------



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

rioted said:


> It is all about scoring points isn't it? Perhaps you and your master ought to take a bit of time out to consider whether there's just a hint of truth in the oft repeated criticism of your posting style. Instead you just go into full attack mode. That may or may not be a sympton of underlying issues of self esteem or whatever, but it certainly puts people off.


no, it's not all about scoring points. my little exchange with Awesome Wells was about wells' use of mh to rubbish butchersapron. wells hasn't come back and said 'actually i know what i'm talking about as i'm a mh professional', resorting instead of sweary wank. but you'd rather have a pop at me instead of doing the right thing - which in this case is to take wells to task for stooping so low. but then you're a bit of a twat so i'm by no means surprised you act as you do.


----------



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

Wilf said:


> Ukip aren't going to be destroyed by Farage's foot in mouthery, or even that of his yet more idiotic colleagues. Mind they are giving it a good go.


frankly what's more likely to fuck ukip up than anything else is the very thing they want - power. it's one thing to pose as an anti-party party but if they got a foothold on the domestic political scene they'd be done for. their lords famously didn't turn up or speak at the recent debate about immigration there. and there's no reason to suppose any councillors or mps they got would do a better job. it wouldn't be long before any councillors or mps they got would be hauled up before standards people and i would be surprised if any local or national assembly reps they got lasted more than one term. the quality's not there at the grassroots any more than it is at the top of the party.


----------



## classicdish (May 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> ...i was commenting on awesome wells' use of mental illness in a cuss...


"Psychodrama" isn't a mental illness tho'.


----------



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

classicdish said:


> "Psychodrama" isn't a mental illness tho'.


what did you expect from someone like Awesome Wells, an insightful diagnosis and plan of treatment? when someone says


Awesome Wells said:


> That's partly why i don't like ignore lists, that and i prefer to hear what people have to say, but that guy has issues clearly so it's best not to indulge his sad little psychodrama.


it's fairly clear what they're talking about. unless you're being wilfully daft.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 16, 2014)

The racism slurs might be enough to discourage the politically engaged that support them - but that'll be more likely to be the tory voters, right?  Is that why papers are using this tactic?  Pointing out the 'fuck the poor' policies might deter the people the right-wing press *want* to vote UKIP.


----------



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

Dogsauce said:


> The racism slurs might be enough to discourage the politically engaged that support them - but that'll be more likely to be the tory voters, right?  Is that why papers are using this tactic?  Pointing out the 'fuck the poor' policies might deter the people the right-wing press *want* to vote UKIP.


they don't want to point out the 'fuck the poor' policies because the tories, the labour party and indeed the lib dems have all fucked over the poor to a far greater extent than ukip thus far has managed.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 16, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The racism slurs might be enough to discourage the politically engaged that support them - but that'll be more likely to be the tory voters, right?  Is that why papers are using this tactic?  Pointing out the 'fuck the poor' policies might deter the people the right-wing press *want* to vote UKIP.



Farage/unknown Ukipper did a racism is an easier story that fits with the existing narrative is all.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 16, 2014)

Today's hatchet (from the times originally), seems an awkward one. Incident is from June last year, I imagine the press (or someone feeding them) has a massive library of these tales, enough to keep them going for a while yet.  Amusing how these stories always seem to be phrased 'it emerged today'.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...rkshire-ukip-candidate-s-restaurant-1-6620701



> UKIP’S small business spokesman, who is standing for election in Yorkshire to the EU parliament, faced claims of hypocrisy today after it emerged seven people were arrested for immigration offences in a raid on his restaurant.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Today's hatchet (from the times originally), seems an awkward one. Incident is from June last year, I imagine the press (or someone feeding them) has a massive library of these tales, enough to keep them going for a while yet.  Amusing how these stories always seem to be phrased 'it emerged today'.
> 
> http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...rkshire-ukip-candidate-s-restaurant-1-6620701


It's hope not hate feeding them mostly.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you didn't notice then that i wasn't handing out gratuitous insults, unlike Awesome Wells, but that i was commenting on awesome wells' use of mental illness in a cuss. you may have noticed that using mh as a putdown doesn't generally go down too well round here but it's no surprise to me to see someone like you not taking issue with awesome wells use of mh to rubbish butchers but to act as an apologist for same. you should be ashamed of yourself. but i don't suppose you are.



I was making a general point, not referring to the current spat. You've gone and made this personal as well, going on about whether I should be ashamed and if I am. I don't follow every internicine  squabble here. Sorry about that. Though I don't always stick to it either, I prefer to talk about the thread subject matter.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> they don't want to point out the 'fuck the poor' policies because the tories, the labour party and indeed the lib dems have all fucked over the poor to a far greater extent than ukip thus far has managed.



Much of the press has also been in on the "fuck the poor game".

The reactionary press have a tricky situation, but are handling it quite well and are less accountable by far than even the politicians. "Perogative of the harlot" or whatever the phrase was.

Point being that they'll feign some disdain towards the party, having promoted the hate agenda for years before the party was even born. Then, when the party do pretty well it will be "See...we told you so...that people are really angry about migration" (not least because they've been systematically winding people up and lying for years).

It suits the right in some ways to have the tories outflanked to the right to pull them right. Pretty bloody obvious really.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 16, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If only.




"griffin moment" could be a misnomer. Griffin on QT didn't neccessarily lose him support he already had, it was part of a more general clusterfuck.

And NF goofing up an interview wont neccessarily alienate current support. What all the goofs do is prevent them from getting very much further. 

After the Euros the bubble will deflate anyhow for a while. It will be up to the media if and when they re inflate it specifically, but they will continue to print "divide and rule" hatred and lies on the migration theme, doing some of the partys work for them in any case.

I haven't looked at the Torygraph comments yet, but I expect it's crawling with the usual bell-ends trying to insist that their emperor is actually very well clothed indeed.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Surprised that some people here haven't been going crazy about  (NSFW i suppose) this.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: pic



The image is actually posed for an art project (NSFW) http://www.thedualism.com/  but yeah, the tats...


----------



## teqniq (May 16, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure or 'because they'll let us smoke in pubs again' ...


Believe it or not two people I know have actually said that.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> "griffin moment" could be a misnomer. Griffin on QT didn't neccessarily lose him support he already had, it was part of a more general clusterfuck.
> 
> And NF goofing up an interview wont neccessarily alienate current support. What all the goofs do is prevent them from getting very much further.
> 
> ...



Oh it's the MSM picking on Farage!
The interviewer is rubbish/a lefty/gay/biased/racist himself/part of the EU.

The usual shite and denial.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 16, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Oh it's the MSM picking on Farage!
> The interviewer is rubbish/a lefty/gay/biased/racist himself/part of the EU.
> 
> The usual shite and denial.



Yeah, I've seen all that. As risible as it is typical. Few things are more daft than such turgid reactionaries thinking they are groundbreaking mavericks.


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2014)

but it _is _the MSM picking on Farage. Fairly blatantly so.


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

Ukip are gaining ground because the majority of people, all people, from all nations and cultures are essentially tribal and stupid
It has ever been thus


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Ukip are gaining ground because the majority of people, all people, from all nations and cultures are essentially tribal and stupid
> It has ever been thus


Deep man. Clueless.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

Christ in a gimp mask! Lisa Duffy, from the ukips, is being thoroughly humiliated on the wireless!


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

So? 

There is a world outside of the media. There really really is.


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Deep man. Clueless.


Nope, not entirely
I realise that statement was glib
But people are daft
Caesar 
Thatcher
Abba
Etc


----------



## Buckaroo (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Ukip are gaining ground because the majority of people, all people, from all nations and cultures are essentially tribal and stupid
> It has ever been thus



Well fuck off then. People are stupid, always have been, always will be, end of, nuff said etc. Fuck off.


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So?
> 
> There is a world outside of the media. There really really is.


Shurely shom mishtake???????


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Nope, not entirely
> I realise that statement was glib
> But people are daft
> Caesar
> ...


Just
Shut
Up
You haven't offered anything for some
time now


----------



## Buckaroo (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Nope, not entirely
> I realise that statement was glib
> But people are daft
> Caesar
> ...



Christ
You


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Well fuck off then. People are stupid, always have been, always will be, end of, nuff said etc. Fuck off.


My you are sensitive
The majority have fears which they have problems dealing with, even admitting
They tend then to cleave to a simplistic and easy answer
This makes them stupid
India has just voted a Hindu Fascist to run the country
They have enough evidence to know what Modi's about
BUT, they chose him
No different here
People will opt for the simple proposition


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> My you are sensitive
> The majority have fears which they have problems dealing with, even admitting
> They tend then to cleave to a simplistic and easy answer
> This makes them stupid
> ...


Odd then that this morning you reckoned he'll be a wise leader. You simple minded prat.


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Just
> Shut
> Up
> You haven't offered anything for some
> time now


Not that you like anyway


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Odd then that this morning you reckoned he'll be a wise leader. You simple minded prat.


I didnt say that, and if you had half a head you would remember what I actually said
But then, that doesn't suit you does it?
Happier ranting than thinking


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Not that you like anyway


No, not all - to any thread - nothing. Just  an empty space of half remembered facts that people put you right on and a desperate clinging to a sense that you were once superior, more informed, more cutting than other people at some point in your life. Maybe you were. Who knows, who cares. You're shot and shit now.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> I didnt say that, and if you had half a head you would remember what I actually said
> But then, that doesn't suit you does it?
> Happier ranting than thinking


Yes you did.


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, not all - to any thread - nothing. Just  an empty space of half remembered facts that people put you right on and a desperate clinging to a sense that you were once superior, more informed, more cutting than other people at some point in your life. Maybe you were. Who knows, who cares. You're shot and shit now.


Well I certainly seemed to have riled you
You are totally absorbed by short term surface froth - well as I see it anyway
As for once being cutting edge...
I once held a very divergent view of Plato to the rest of my peers


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Well I certainly seemed to have riled you
> You are totally absorbed by short term surface froth - well as I see it anyway
> As for once being cutting edge...
> I once held a very divergent view of Plato to the rest of my peers


Riled me? I think your contribution to the thread is worth 30 seconds of response. And that's what you got. And thank you for supporting the second part of my response.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 16, 2014)

Everyone is stupid except people like him. Tedious shit. Dull.


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you did.


"He is likely to be less stupid"

This does not say he wont be stupid, but just likely to be "Less Stupid" in comparison to an out and out communalist like LK Advani

Tricky language


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> "He is likely to be less stupid"
> 
> This does not say he wont be stupid, but just likely to be "Less Stupid" in comparison to an out and out communalist like LK Advani
> 
> Tricky language


Because of his wisdom. Therefore he is wise. Not that tricky.


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Everyone is stupid except people like him. Tedious shit. Dull.


Nice
So you think the majority have a complete understanding of everything do you?
You have nothing to tall them?


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Because of his wisdom. Therefore he is wise. Not that tricky.


Thats idiotic
Less Stupid means wise?
When Did I ever impune the word wisdom with his name?
I think you'll find I described him a s cunning


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Thats idiotic
> Less Stupid means wise?
> When Did I ever impune the word wisdom with his name?
> I think you'll find I described him a s cunning


Cunning and a long term thinker - a good description of wise.

Is this people with nothing to say about the thread making threads about them day btw?


----------



## Buckaroo (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Nice
> So you think the majority have a complete understanding of everything do you?
> You have nothing to tall them?



No but you're not the one to tell 'them' anything. Who are you and who do you think you're talking to? What does this mean?

"So you think the majority have a complete understanding of everything do you?"


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2014)

Apologies for linking to this right-wing 'libertarian' website but I couldn't find the story elsewhere and if true this Tory homophobic campaigning is quite disgusting.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/16/tory-party-leaflet-east-london



> Another leaflet, not confirmed to be created by the Conservative Party themselves, highlights a number of issues that might be of concern to the local Muslim population, in addition to echoing the Conservatives' concerns over gambling". It reads: "I don't support the Tories in their national policies, but locally, here in Newham, they are our best bet to stop the Labour cartel that's killing our community and kids. That's why, after 19 years, I will be voting Conservative on 22nd May."
> 
> The leaflet has been described as "homophobic" by Twitter users who have highlighted its section called "Representation Fail" which states: "We have one of the biggest council/resident mismatches in the country. In senior council positions, there are *7 times more gays and 3 times less ethnic minorities* than the resident population. The vast majority of council managers describe themselves as *atheist* while Newham is the most religious borough in the UK. A gay council boss and councillor have even been caught with their *pants down* in Wanstead Flats".



It's interesting that these former Respect candidates are standing for the Tories, I suppose it just shows how progressive the Respect project was in the first place.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 16, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Believe it or not two people I know have actually said that.



Yep, at least one has said it to me.

Having said that though, on probing a bit their view was more like ...

"The mainstream parties (very much including nuLabour) are all about imposing nanny state bullshit (like smoking bans) on us instead of addressing our real (economic and social) concerns. Fuck 'em ... "


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> but it _is _the MSM picking on Farage. Fairly blatantly so.


To a point that's true, but FWIW O Brien gave IDS a similar grilling and I've no reason to assume he wouldn't grill other party interviewees.

So I would say that all parties should bear this level of scrutiny. Not that UKIP should be allowed to get away with the same free pass that the main parties seem to enjoy.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yep, at least one has said it to me.
> 
> Having said that though, on probing a bit their view was more like ...
> 
> "The mainstream parties (very much including nuLabour) are all about imposing nanny state bullshit (like smoking bans) on us instead of addressing our real (economic and social) concerns. Fuck 'em ... "


Bingo  - i think that piece linked to much earlier did actually identify this quite well.


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Cunning and a long term thinker - a good description of wise.
> 
> Is this people with nothing to say about the thread making threads about them day btw?


 "a good description of wise"?
I cant believe you actually think that
As for somehow making this about me?
Bizarre
As you well know, I will drop in, offer a critique, then bugger off again
Hardly the way to make it all about me


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> "a good description of wise"?
> I cant believe you actually think that
> As for somehow making this about me?
> Bizarre
> ...


If only you did offer a critique - could you point to one? No, you walk in throw up and fuck off.


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> No but you're not the one to tell 'them' anything. Who are you and who do you think you're talking to? What does this mean?
> 
> "So you think the majority have a complete understanding of everything do you?"


People dont
I certainly dont
You seem to have some idea of how you think people should behave, so I assume that you have something to impart that would enable them to see your point


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> If only you did offer a critique - could you point to one? No, you walk in throw up and fuck off.


No actual response then other than to drop a little niggle
If thats your choice I will stick around this thread


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> No actual response then other than to drop a little niggle
> If thats your choice I will stick around this thread


Response to what? Tell me what you have posted that requires or even invites a response beyond what you've already received.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 16, 2014)

Do we all
have to post
in free verse
now
if so 
I'm toast


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Response to what? Tell me what you have posted that requires or even invites a response beyond what you've already received.


Your claim that said I Modi would be wise for example


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Your claim that said I Modi would be wise for example


Dealt with  - you expect him to be wise enough not to do what last BJP people did. Anything to say about UKIP or about the responses to your _thoughts _on UKIP?


----------



## hipipol (May 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Dealt with  - you expect him to be wise enough not to do what last BJP people did. Anything to say about UKIP or about the responses to your _thoughts _on UKIP?


Not dealt with at all, but no matter
Farage is a clever soundbite manipulator who has manged to sell the notion he is Geezer from down the pub full of no nonsense talk
He is similar to all the folksy Yank marshals who get away with housing prisoners in tents in the desert 
I go back to the statement of stupidity - humans are, by their very nature, extremely stupid
People make decisions, and I include myself here, based on gut reaction then produce the justification
Most are able to re think the decision but only if confronted by a stronger argument 
Current mainstream "leaders" seem unable to provide such a response


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 17, 2014)

.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 18, 2014)

> Maria Pizzey
> 8 hrs
> 
> 
> This is UKIP's MEP candidate for the South East. She described herself as Nigel's number 2. She told us to f**k off because we stood peacefully holding placards accusing UKIP of racist policies. She offered no debate or arguments to defend her party and despite the chap in the picture asking us to pose for photos, this was her response when asked to return the favour. She made personal comments about my body size and when I told her I would quote her widely she said "I don't care where you f***ing post this, just f**k off!" Hilariously, I have just discovered she is UKIP's press advisor. This is the most rude and aggressive individual I have had the misfortune to come across and she wants to represent this country in Europe. By the way her name is Janice Atkinson.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 18, 2014)

Here's her facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/janice.atkinson.984

.. and here she is on Twitter being unpleasant. 

https://twitter.com/JaniceUKIP


----------



## classicdish (May 18, 2014)

and the reply:

Dear John Lyndon Sullivan,
Hello! I’m one of those whatevers you’ve read about... 
continued: http://notsowunderbar.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/open-letter.html


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 18, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Here's her facebook page
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/janice.atkinson.984
> 
> ...


She's the welfare person for the party!


----------



## smokedout (May 18, 2014)

hipipol said:


> They tend then to cleave to a simplistic and easy answer
> This makes them stupid



Do you even realise what you just said


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Here's her facebook page
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/janice.atkinson.984
> 
> ...




not defending her or attacking the sentiments of the protestors,  but if you have such inflammatory placards stuck in your face, then most people would respond with such a gesture.


----------



## laptop (May 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> not defending her or attacking the sentiments of the protestors,  but if you have such inflammatory placards stuck in your face, then most people would respond with such a gesture.



Anyone who thinks those are inflammatory has led a sheltered life.


----------



## hipipol (May 18, 2014)

smokedout said:


> Do you even realise what you just said


Yes
Humans are stupid


----------



## smokedout (May 18, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Yes
> Humans are stupid



are you trying to prove humans are stupid by proving that you're stupid?


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

Must admit, I quite like it when politicians tell protesters to fuck off.  If ukippers are still at the stage of responding in a normal, un-spin, unprofessional way that's a good thing. In fact its the _only_ conceivable good thing I can think of about the sacks  of shit.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Must admit, I quite like it when politicians tell protesters to fuck off.  If ukippers are still at the stage of responding in a normal, un-spin, unprofessional way that's a good thing. In fact its the _only_ conceivable good thing I can think of about the sacks  of shit.



Interesting comment. I suspect the slick PR and 'on message' fakeness of the major parties strongly signifies un-trustworthiness to a great many people.

Tony Blair and David Cameron's eras being much of a muchness in that respect.

One of the things many people seem to have liked about Thatcher was that most of the time she managed to sound sincere to them (even to people who thought she was evil in some cases.)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 18, 2014)

Butchers - this is the poll I referred to earlier in the week about 4% being certain to vote UKIP in next years Generals:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...olitical-Monitor-May-2014-Europe-Section.aspx


----------



## DotCommunist (May 18, 2014)

prescott got respect from some quarters over the two-jabs response to an egging


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Butchers - this is the poll I referred to earlier in the week about 4% being certain to vote UKIP in next years Generals:
> 
> http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...olitical-Monitor-May-2014-Europe-Section.aspx


Thank you for digging it out - the page isn't loading. I'll check it when it is,


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Interesting comment. I suspect the slick PR and 'on message' fakeness of the major parties strongly signifies un-trustworthiness to a great many people.
> 
> Tony Blair and David Cameron's eras being much of a muchness in that respect.
> 
> One of the things many people seem to have liked about Thatcher was that most of the time she managed to sound sincere to them (even to people who thought she was evil in some cases.)


... and that's one of the ironies of the Thatcher 'project'. She herself had an image that was constructed, along with the wider use of ad agencies, but somehow got across a reputation for plain speaking. Authoritarian populism (Stuart Hall?)?   Must admit I can't see it personally with Farage, he always comes across as unadulterated gobshite, more the bloke in the pub you want to _punch_ than anything else, though as butchers has just been saying on the other thread he actually lags _behind_ his party in terms of popularity. But yeah, the ukipper giving the photographer the finger is, for the moment, an _almost_ endearing quality.


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> prescott got respect from some quarters over the two-jabs response to an egging


I seem to remember Blair was trapped between milking it and criticising it. Came out with some 'john will be john' type bollocks.


----------



## J Ed (May 18, 2014)

From the Private Eye on Tory leaks about UKIP to the media


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> From the Private Eye on Tory leaks about UKIP to the media


Looks like CCHQ have worked the Telegraph today...



> *UKIP conference mired in controversy over Nazi costumes*
> *Some conference-goers chose to flout a ban on Nazi uniforms at the annual 1940s-themed weekend in Middle England*
> 
> For UKIP members, it's one of the highlights of the year.
> ...


----------



## laptop (May 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Looks like CCHQ have worked the Telegraph today...



Oddly, that now has no reference to UKIP... if it's the same story?


----------



## Corax (May 18, 2014)

classicdish said:


> and the reply:
> 
> Dear John Lyndon Sullivan,
> Hello! I’m one of those whatevers you’ve read about...
> continued: http://notsowunderbar.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/open-letter.html





> And besides, you might be surprised. We’re quite hardy, as a bunch. Some of the things we do to each other for pleasure can be really bloody painful.


----------



## weepiper (May 18, 2014)

That interview was revealing not in that it's some silver bullet proving Farage is a racist, but because it nakedly shows his feelings about class. 'You know the difference'. The difference is, the Romanians in his scenario are poor.


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

weepiper said:


> That interview was revealing not in that it's some silver bullet proving Farage is a racist, but because it nakedly shows his feelings about class. 'You know the difference'. The difference is, the Romanians in his scenario are poor.


I hadn't thought of that as an angle.
I thought he was saying they were gypsies and criminal and therefore bad news


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

weepiper said:


> That interview was revealing not in that it's some silver bullet proving Farage is a racist, but because it nakedly shows his feelings about class. 'You know the difference'. The difference is, the Romanians in his scenario are poor.


Germans are people he works with - Romanians are people who clean up after him nf the germans (like Paxman, the great liberal hero who kept two in his garage). He wouldn't care if it were the other way round - the key point is that some are rich and some are poor.


----------



## Quartz (May 18, 2014)

classicdish said:


> and the reply:
> 
> Dear John Lyndon Sullivan,
> Hello! I’m one of those whatevers you’ve read about...
> continued: http://notsowunderbar.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/open-letter.html



Mr Sullivan might care to reflect that gays were persecuted for a long time and it didn't stop people being gay. He might also care to reflect that the persecution came to a crescendo in WW2 - the Jews weren't Hitler's only target.

Mr Sullivan, of course, is an idiot.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Why would he? Did you read what he wrote?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

weepiper said:


> That interview was revealing not in that it's some silver bullet proving Farage is a racist, but because it nakedly shows his feelings about class. 'You know the difference'. The difference is, the Romanians in his scenario are poor.


Yes, but then racism has always been closely intertwined with class issues. Anti-Irish feeling was always essentially a form of racism in all its important aspects, but also most certainly rooted in class assumptions.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, but then racism has always been closely intertwined with class issues. Anti-Irish feeling was always essentially a form of racism in all its important aspects, but also most certainly rooted in class assumptions.


Whose anti-irish racism? What a totally daft thing to say. Was working class anti-irish feeling  based on class snobbishness? In manchester? In In Brum? In Bristol? Or in the media?

Of course, for those who only see things through the media we only have the past media to reply on - we'll get some cartoons from papers only the middle class read at that time in response to this i suspect- ones where irish are monkeys.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Whose anti-irish racism? What a totally daft thing to say.


That which was widespread in 50s and 60s Britain. This is the same kind of thing - zoning in on a nationality and assigning traits to it - laziness or criminality.

I'll turn this on its head. You don't see equivalents between the attitudes of the likes of Farage towards Eastern Europeans and attitudes towards the Irish a generation ago? Really? If not, then it's not such a daft thing to say, is it?


----------



## weepiper (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, but then racism has always been closely intertwined with class issues. Anti-Irish feeling was always essentially a form of racism in all its important aspects, but also most certainly rooted in class assumptions.



Not in Glasgow it wasn't. The most fervent anti-Irish activity/feelings were deeply rooted among people who found themselves in direct competition for work from the Irish immigrants.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Not in Glasgow it wasn't. The most fervent anti-Irish activity/feelings were deeply rooted among people who found themselves in direct competition for work from the Irish immigrants.


And that is the same tension that is feeding certain aspects of UKIP's support.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That which was widespread in 50s and 60s Britain. This is the same kind of thing - zoning in on a nationality and assigning traits to it - laziness or criminality.


What the hell had that to do with what you said. You have this back to front. Have you any experience of this? You are miles off. All that post does is suggest what prejudice is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What the hell had that to do with what you said. You have this back to front. Have you any experience of this? You are miles off. All that post does is suggest what prejudice is.


Experience of what? Farage is talking up fears of Romanian criminality. No, I have no experience of that. I do have experience of anti-Eastern European feeling. I have seen this, and if you ask any Eastern European about their experience here they will tell you about it. 'Fucking Poles' muttered under the breath. It is happening.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And that is the same tension that is feeding certain aspects of UKIP's support.


What, upper class based racism. Wtf?
Are you suggesting that UKIP  style racism (as you see it, moral racism) is really superiors looking down on what they see as inferiors on a class base  - or not. If not, have another look at your post here. And you didn't come back on your earlier equation of the BNP with UKIP did you?


----------



## weepiper (May 18, 2014)

Is there a point somewhere lbj? Because if there is, I've missed it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Experience of what? Farage is talking up fears of Romanian criminality. No, I have no experience of that. I do have experience of anti-Eastern European feeling. I have seen this, and if you ask any Eastern European about their experience here they will tell you about it. 'Fucking Poles' muttered under the breath. It is happening.


I asked you if you had any experience of the class based racism that you suggest anti-irish racism was based on. It wasn't based on that. That is such a bad misreading of anti-irish racism in the uk it throws your whole understanding of what racism in this country is into question.


----------



## hipipol (May 19, 2014)

smokedout said:


> are you trying to prove humans are stupid by proving that you're stupid?


No, not prove it
But dont deny the fact
Do you think that humans are generally wise do you?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 19, 2014)

hipipol said:


> No, not prove it
> But dont deny the fact
> Do you think that humans are generally wise do you?



you are generally the thickest person on here by quite some margin.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Whose anti-irish racism? What a totally daft thing to say. Was working class anti-irish feeling  based on class snobbishness? In manchester? In In Brum? In Bristol? Or in the media?
> 
> Of course, for those who only see things through the media we only have the past media to reply on - we'll get some cartoons from papers only the middle class read at that time in response to this i suspect- ones where irish are monkeys.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

Reminds me, must learn my lines for my nephew's christening.


----------



## hipipol (May 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> you are generally the thickest person on here by quite some margin.


I bow to your wisdom oh Great One


----------



## Idris2002 (May 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


----------



## stowpirate (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Germans are people he works with - Romanians are people who clean up after him nf the germans (like Paxman, the great liberal hero who kept two in his garage). He wouldn't care if it were the other way round - the key point is that some are rich and some are poor.



Some Germans have very similar attitudes. It would be interesting to get Kirsten Mehr opinion on Turkish workers in Germany?


----------



## treelover (May 19, 2014)

It mightn't bother the protest voters, but major success in the Euro Elections will also ironically channel massive EU funds to UKIP which they can use to build up their profile.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, but then racism has always been closely intertwined with class issues. Anti-Irish feeling was always essentially a form of racism in all its important aspects, but also most certainly rooted in class assumptions.



Anti-Irish racism in the UK has, at most, only very shallow class roots.  The main impeller of anti-Irish racism has always been the "othering" of Catholicism, and the inane assumption by some that Irish = bog-trotting, kid-spawning, ignorant Catholics.
There's very rarely, except in those areas with significant pre-existing sectarian issues, been anything like a class element to it that went beyond the usual _bourgeois_ distaste for and disgust at the proletariat.


----------



## sim667 (May 19, 2014)

weepiper said:


> That interview was revealing not in that it's some silver bullet proving Farage is a racist, but because it nakedly shows his feelings about class. *'You know the difference'*. The difference is, the Romanians in his scenario are poor.



Personally I took that to mean they are a different ethnic background and skin colour, not because they're from a poorer country.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Personally I took that to mean they are a different ethnic background and skin colour, not because they're from a poorer country.


He meant, germans = money, jobs, small discreet family
Romanians = spongers, thieves, huge noisy families

The nations _could _be reversed  - he just mean _those types._ It's a class snob thing. Not a race thing.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

sim667 said:


> skin colour



Nail: head.  Those Roma johnnies look positively subcontinental.


----------



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

phildwyer said:


> Nail: head.  Those Roma johnnies look positively subcontinental.


----------



## sim667 (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He meant, germans = money, jobs, small discreet family
> Romanians = spongers, thieves, huge noisy families
> 
> The nations _could _be reversed  - he just mean _those types._ It's a class snob thing. Not a race thing.



Or both, meaning one but implying the other.

Roma gypsies are treated as an underclass across a vast majority of europe (if not all), he's just taking that underlying racism and holding it up as the poster boy for anti immigration in the UK…


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Or both, meaning one but implying the other.
> 
> Roma gypsies are treated as an underclass across a vast majority of europe (if not all), he's just taking that underlying racism and holding it up as the poster boy for anti immigration in the UK…


He meant one but is happy to let the other ride for now. And he's really not holding up the forcible removal of roma camps in france as the way to go here, nor the building of roma walls. nor anti-roma pogroms. He's on about germans being richer than ROMANIANS.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>



What a clown you are Pickman's.  Do you know nothing of history?  The Roma look subcontinental because they _are _subcontinental.  Hence the reluctance of Farage and his ilk to share a street with them.


----------



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

phildwyer said:


> What a clown you are Pickman's.  Do you know nothing of history?  The Roma look subcontinental because they _are _subcontinental.  Hence the reluctance of Farage and his ilk to share a street with them.


that's ROMANIANS you thick cunt

see? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...aying-ukip-is-not-a-racist-party-9396215.html ROMANIAN.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> that's ROMANIANS you thick cunt



No, he's talking about the Roma specifically.  

Note what he says in the very piece you cite: “The vast majority of Romanians who have come to the UK wish to better their lives and would make good neighbours."

Politicians throughout Europe use this kind of code.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2014)

if he meant roma surely he'd have said 'the majority of Roma' 

unless its all a sneaky dog whistle code to tie in general anti roma prejudice and conflate that with romanians and eastern europeans in general?


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>



Which one is Roddy McDowall?


----------



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

phildwyer said:


> No, he's talking about the Roma specifically.
> 
> Note what he says in the very piece you cite: “The vast majority of Romanians who have come to the UK wish to better their lives and would make good neighbours."
> 
> Politicians throughout Europe use this kind of code.


he says that because he said clearly the other day he wouldn't want a romanian as a neighbour and now he's trying to make out he didn't mean it.


----------



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

phildwyer said:


> No, he's talking about the Roma specifically.
> 
> Note what he says in the very piece you cite: “The vast majority of Romanians who have come to the UK wish to better their lives and would make good neighbours."
> 
> Politicians throughout Europe use this kind of code.


not to mention certain academics in turkey


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> unless its all a sneaky dog whistle code to tie in general anti roma prejudice and conflate that with romanians and eastern europeans in general?



Go to the top of the class young Sir.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if he meant roma surely he'd have said 'the majority of Roma'
> 
> unless its all a sneaky dog whistle code to tie in general anti roma prejudice and conflate that with romanians and eastern europeans in general?


Yep. That's exactly what he did in the radio interview discussed on the other thread. Segued from Roma into Romanians very deliberately and deftly.


----------



## J Ed (May 19, 2014)

Wow, Dan Hodges almost calling Ed Miliband a racist by proxy here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...-a-racist-ed-miliband-wants-to-hear-from-you/


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 20, 2014)

Y'kno there's probably about a day for someone to do an autotune remix of Farage saying something a little bit racist, maybe that'll work.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 20, 2014)

If Milliband starts to "triangulate" his stated policies so as to encompass racist supporters of Farage then he will be more of a loser than some of us already thought he was.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 20, 2014)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...aying-ukip-is-not-a-racist-party-9396215.html
In that article itself the Independent manages to slip seemlessly from talking about Rumanians to Roma.


----------



## youngian (May 20, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...aying-ukip-is-not-a-racist-party-9396215.html
> In that article itself the Independent manages to slip seemlessly from talking about Rumanians to Roma.


He can't help himself.


> “The vast majority of Romanians who have come to the UK wish to better their lives and would make good neighbours,” he wrote.
> 
> “But there is a real problem, an unpalatable truth that our political class would rather not discuss. Since the welcome fall of Communism and the awful dictator Ceausescu, Romania has struggled to complete a full transition into a western democracy.”
> 
> Citing issues of organised crime and the social exclusion of the Roma minority in Eastern Europe, Mr Farage went on to say: “We should not be in a political union with Romania, with an opened door to all of their citizens. We must take back the power to stop criminals from entering our country by taking back control of our borders.


Farage and racism is like Putin and the Ukraine; he's not moving in the tanks but sends them as close to the border as he can. As well as given comfort to agitators from a distance. Dogwhistle brinkmanship?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2014)

This whole 'political class' thing he constantly goes on about is tiresome.  His party is stuffed full of ex-tory politicians and right-wing journos.  Astroturf bollocks.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 20, 2014)

youngian said:


> He can't help himself.
> 
> Farage and racism is like Putin and the Ukraine; he's not moving in the tanks but sends them as close to the border as he can. As well as given comfort to agitators from a distance. Dogwhistle brinkmanship?



It's cultural. As said, we all know his claims to be separate from the polticial class is spurious given that he quacks, walks, and shits like the proverbial duck.

It's cultural: he's embedded in the machine he claims to stand against and that stand is the thing driving ukip along. Consequently he's a liar. 

To people like him it's just the natural order: foreigners, like the indigenous serfs, should keep their place and preferrably, in the case of _wogs_, stop at Calais.

So he likely doesn't see himself as racist, even though he _probably _is. I don't ordinarily like that kind of judgement, but the evidence is overwhelming even if anecdotal. It's as natural to discriminate, from the top of the social pile, as it is to want Britain to be self governed. 

What's then happened is he's enveigled a bunch of 'hard working' business types to come on board by offering them the ability to denounce and oppose workers rights and those pesky human rights that stop them from sacking pregnant women and paying compensation for mishaps etc.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 20, 2014)

Paxman were shit on Newsnight last night. He's fucking shit every night.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention certain academics in turkey



Is that like one of those three-bird roasts, but with an academic in the turkey instead of a chicken and a duck?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 20, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Wow, Dan Hodges almost calling Ed Miliband a racist by proxy here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...-a-racist-ed-miliband-wants-to-hear-from-you/



Wow, Hodges in snidey middle-class wanker non-shocker!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

"the media has elevated him....The Mail and The Sun have been actively formenting the discontent he's benefitted from. If an algorithm had to create a political leader based on Sun and Mail articles it would be Nigel Farage." - Musa Okwonga hits the nail on the head. No mystery at all.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 20, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Paxman were shit on Newsnight last night. He's fucking shit every night.


 
Asking Berlusconi if he really called Angela Merkel an unfuckable lardarse. He's already in holiday mode it seems.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> "the media has elevated him....The Mail and The Sun have been actively formenting the discontent he's benefitted from. If an algorithm had to create a political leader based on Sun and Mail articles it would be Nigel Farage." - Musa Okwonga hits the nail on the head. No mystery at all.




Take comfort from that if you want, but the issue of immigration/identity politics has been the elephant in the room for twenty years. When the BNP was politically killed off it was assumed that the danger had passed. 
All that's happened is that UKIP have harnessed the same discontent to more dramatic effect. 5 years ago UKIP were the 'good Nazis' the palatable alternative to the BNP. 
Now Farage is getting the same treatment that Griffin got. Hope and Hate meanwhile trawl through twitter and facebook accounts to find the nugget then used to paint the party as a whole party as fascist. Exactly the same formula employed against the BNP. 
Perhaps it will work again. 
What if it dosen't? 
What if it does?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2014)

its not the same really, ukip has a veneer of respectability that the BNP never managed, even at the height of their star.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its not the same really, ukip has a veneer of respectability that the BNP never managed, even at the height of their star.


i wonder why that is


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder why that is



Because they wear better clothes?  You don't get that whole 'scruffy chav'/'fat thug' thing that made it easy for people to look down their noses at the EDL/BNP.  This is respectable middle-class bigotry, right?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Because they wear better clothes?  You don't get that whole 'scruffy chav'/'fat thug' thing that made it easy for people to look down their noses at the EDL/BNP.  This is respectable middle-class bigotry, right?


i was referring to the fact that the british national party (re-)emerged from the national front, a party which never managed to shrug off its virulent hitler-worship.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

Joe Reilly said:


> Take comfort from that if you want, but the issue of immigration/identity politics has been the elephant in the room for twenty years. When the BNP was politically killed off it was assumed that the danger had passed.
> All that's happened is that UKIP have harnessed the same discontent to more dramatic effect. 5 years ago UKIP were the 'good Nazis' the palatable alternative to the BNP.
> Now Farage is getting the same treatment that Griffin got. Hope and Hate meanwhile trawl through twitter and facebook accounts to find the nugget then used to paint the party as a whole party as fascist. Exactly the same formula employed against the BNP.
> Perhaps it will work again.
> ...



I go along with quite a lot of that post, but certainly not the "elephant in the room" thing. Migration is talked about a great deal. Why do people act as if it isn't?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i was referring to the fact that the british national party (re-)emerged from the national front, a party which never managed to shrug off its virulent hitler-worship.



did any significant number of BM end up in the BNP? cos they were a not-even-trying-to-hide-it hitler cult ennit...


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2014)

I get the impression Griffin isn't really trying to be respectable any more, some of the mask has slipped and the islamophobia is laid on pretty strong now.  His has his euro-money (which presumably comes with a nice golden parachute) so is probably set up on that alone, no need to bilk party members for a living.


----------



## laptop (May 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if he meant roma surely he'd have said 'the majority of Roma'
> 
> unless its all a sneaky dog whistle code to tie in general anti roma prejudice and conflate that with romanians and eastern europeans in general?



It is. Based on the fact that his electorate is defined as those who can't be arsed to distinguish "Romanian" from "Romany".


----------



## laptop (May 20, 2014)

Anyways. Yesterday I was wondering whether the *real* motivation of UKIP's funders was not to get the UK out of the EU, but to influence the EU toward an even more capitalist-friendly position. Much the same as Cameron's half-hearted anti-EU stance.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I go along with quite a lot of that post, but certainly not the "elephant in the room" thing. Migration is talked about a great deal. Why do people act as if it isn't?



It is of course referenced in the run up to elections particularly since the BNP breakthrough in 2002, but its day to day impact is actually not _discussed_ at all. 
What you have instead is set positions: either are pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant.  
The adopted platform is then employed not to convince, but to demonise the other side. 
Beginning and end of debate.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

Joe Reilly said:


> It is of course referenced in the run up to elections particularly since the BNP breakthrough in 2002, but its day to day impact is actually not _discussed_ at all.
> What you have instead is set positions: either are pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant.
> The adopted platform is then employed not to convince, but to demonise the other side.
> Beginning and end of debate.


 
The quality of all public "debate" in the context of MSM is pretty questionable, migration being no better or worse on average than general economic policy, foreign policy, social security, privatisation etc.

But it's impact is "discussed" on a daily basis.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> This whole 'political class' thing he constantly goes on about is tiresome.  His party is stuffed full of ex-tory politicians and right-wing journos.  Astroturf bollocks.



It's working though isn't it? And even though it's full of those types it's seen by people - even people who know full well what Farage and his colleagues represent - a way of kicking out at the three main parties who've betrayed them so badly. Rather than feeling smug because we think we can see through something the stupid proles are taken in by we should maybe be asking why it's Farrage and not someone on the left who's managing to channel that kind of sentiment.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> we should maybe be asking why it's Farrage and not someone on the left who's managing to channel that kind of sentiment.



Because people who consider themselves on the "left" are terrified of being accused of racism.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's working though isn't it? And even though it's full of those types it's seen by people - even people who know full well what Farage and his colleagues represent - a way of kicking out at the three main parties who've betrayed them so badly. Rather than feeling smug because we think we can see through something the stupid proles are taken in by we should maybe be asking why it's Farrage and not someone on the left who's managing to channel that kind of sentiment.



It's not so much smugness as sheer boredom/frustration with him coming up with that defence/statement all the bloody time.

I think players in the party being connected to power has helped them in this substantially - they haven't got here through chance.  With backers like James Goldsmith back in the Referendum Party days (which UKIP appeared to grow out of) they've always been pretty close to power and money, and have been able to use this.  The left has no equivalent footing, other than maybe the soft left/liberal media occasionally pushing the green party agenda.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2014)

DP


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2014)

I'm sorry I missed this today...sounds like it was a rather jolly jape....top respect to the steel band members who refused to play!



> * Nigel Farage failed to turn up to his mini street carnival in Croydon as rows broke out in the street over whether the party was racist and one of his local candidates described the town as an unsafe "dump". *My colleague *Rowena Mason* was there, and she has sent me this:
> 
> The event quickly turned into a farce as two members of a hired steel band said they were uncomfortable about playing at the event. Marlon Hibbert, whose parents are Jamaican, said he he thought Ukip was "racist" and he had no idea it was the party that had made the booking.
> 
> ...



Top campaigning tactics from McKensie...



> Asked whether Farage was frightened of attending, McKenzie, standing in Croydon North, said: "If he hasn't turned up he is a very sensible man. It just shows how successive governments have continued to fail communities like Croydon.
> 
> "*Croydon, which was once the place to be, the place to shop, has now become sadly a dump ... How can you ask an international leader to turn up somewhere where he feels unsafe?*"


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2014)

croydon- the new beirut?


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> croydon- the new beirut?


 
Seems singularly inept to call his leader an _*international *_leader.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 20, 2014)

I kip, they kip, we all kip for UKIP.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Seems singularly inept to call his leader an _*international *_leader.



Works abroad (in theory), married from abroad. A true internationalist.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Works abroad (in theory), married from abroad. A true internationalist.



He did go to Scotland as well, didn't he?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> He did go to Scotland as well, didn't he?



they practically ran him out of fair caledonia brandishing sharpened farm tools and mel gibson


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> they practically ran him out of fair caledonia brandishing sharpened farm tools and mel gibson


obviously 'safer' than the Cronx, though...we're wellard down here.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> we should maybe be asking why it's Farrage and not someone on the left who's managing to channel that kind of sentiment.



1) The continued divisions and sniping on and within the left (left of labour), for which one need look no further than Urban, though there are plenty of other places to look.

2) If a cogent left force were to emerge (for the sake of argument I'm not including The Greens, now polling up to 12%) - it would not benefit from having had it's agenda loudly trumpeted for years on a day in/day out basis by mainstream media. And there just doesnt seem to be the same sensationalist fetish of left issues as for right ones.

Having said all of this, the posturing of Miliband is slightly towards the centre left, the stuff on housing and tackling energy companies for example. As it happens, Labour have every chance of polling above UKIP even at the Euros, let alone the generals

Most people who are rightly fuming at privatisations, corruption, benefit shite and all the other reactionary hells eminating from the government are having their sentiment channeled into Labour.

Those with more generalised anger or anger stoked by hate-rags around migration etc. are being channeled into UKIP.

It's not "smug" to see through the fact that they are an establishment recommended "anti-establishment" hoax. It's plain as day. Was the little boy smug to say the emperor was naked?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

You've answered the question as to why that anger isn't being channeled into the left but probably not in the way you think you have.


----------



## eatmorecheese (May 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I'm sorry I missed this today...sounds like it was a rather jolly jape....top respect to the steel band members who refused to play!
> 
> 
> 
> Top campaigning tactics from McKensie...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You've answered the question as to why that anger isn't being channeled into the left but probably not in the way you think you have.



Are you going to be explicit?

It's one thing to have a go at a tendency for being "smug", but responses like yours risk looking smug too.

Here's a more basic version of what I outlined: dissent not being channeled to the left because

1) Internal behaviours and problems of the left

2) A lot less support for left ideas in mainstream media and discourse.

Feel free to address these actual points, or carry on with more arch distraction. makes no odds to me really, though the former would probably be more constructive.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

The idea that the media determine people's views, like they're just blank slates on which the establishment can write anything they like (obviously not you though, you're above all that, which is why you accept views on the power of the media that the likes of Murdoch have been deliberately cultivating for decades and take the exact same view of UKIP, who votes for them, why and how this should be combated as the 'establishment' media do). It's fucking insulting. 

You're right about the failure of the left too - though it's not because we disagree with each other. It's because the more visible elements of the left are full of chest prodding twats who in truth don't trust the working class, who think they're just too easy for the right to manipulate.

Have you ever considered that people might have actual reasons (beyond being brainwashed by the Daily Mail) for disagreeing with you politically? That they might see through UKIP just as well as anyone else but vote for them anyway for a variety of instrumental reasons? I guess not - after all, that would mean actually listening to people and taking their concerns seriously. Much easier to assume they have these concerns because they Daily Express told them they should be concerned about them.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman I've never said the media determine views, but clearly they significantly frame "debate".

"obviously not you though" - doing my thinking for me, how kind.

"It's because the more visible elements of the left are full of chest prodding twats" .... I know it's only metaphor, but aren't you doing rather a lot of er... chest prodding?

The problems of the left go far beyond that, and into the realms of people who are prepared to get very nasty and personal in determining that others are "doing it wrong". But if many were doing it right we wouldn't be in this fix in the first place.

"Have you ever considered that people might have actual reasons (beyond being brainwashed by the Daily Mail) for disagreeing with you politically?"

Yes. Thanks.

"I guess not" You guessed wrong.

"that would mean actually listening to people and taking their concerns seriously." - What concerns? The concerns that leave them exasperated with establishment politics? It's hard not to take them seriously. Or the concerns about 26 million people after their jobs, that are the product of deliberate and careful orchestration of lies?

"Much easier to assume they have these concerns because they Daily Express told them they should be concerned about them"

There's The Sun, Mail, Telegraph and Star as well. With The Times throwing their oar in from time to time and the BBC going along for the ride.

The general discourse is right wing and reactionary. It's no surprise or insult that people might be swayed by it. It would be surprising if they weren't. It's like advertising : It's all very well to scoff at the idea that people might be persuaded by it, but if it didn't work then capitalists wouldn't pay for it.

For all that you say, you still haven't managed to outline how it is that a private school neo liberal banker is presented and seen as "anti establishment" - there is a sharp cognitive dissonance there, and it doesn't require any chest prodding to discern it.

ETA : this is a standard reference for those who deride the idea that significant sections of the public may acutally be influenced by an endless stream of reactionary bilge. Talk of "chest prodding" is all very well, but doesn't address the actual issue.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html


----------



## chilango (May 20, 2014)

Ian Bone seen heckling UKIP in Croydon on C4 news just now...


----------



## chilango (May 20, 2014)

...and "fake" Romanian protesters. Weird.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> ETA : this is a standard reference for those who deride the idea that significant sections of the public may acutally be influenced by an endless stream of reactionary bilge.



I've never understood people who minimize the influence of the media on the population.

_Of course _people are influenced by the media.  Why else do they vote against their own interests all the time?  If the media didn't influence people it wouldn't exist.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2014)

chilango said:


> Ian Bone seen heckling UKIP in Croydon on C4 news just now...


 that's more like it, Ian.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...and "fake" Romanian protesters. Weird.



Were they, weren't they? Litmus test...would Farage have wanted them as neighbours?

And candidate McKenzie; kinnel.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> SpineyNorman I've never said the media determine views, but clearly they significantly frame "debate".
> 
> "obviously not you though" - doing my thinking for me, how kind.
> 
> ...



No surpsise that people are swayed by the media - not you though obviously. You see through all that. You don't actually say anything in that post beyond implicitly confirming what I just said.

How's Farrage come across as anti-establishment? Easy. He's not any of the other three. And the anti-establishment credentials are reinforced by the _political _establishment ganging up on them and highlighting something racist said on twitter by someone who once delivered some UKIP leaflets (the kinds of things you'd no doubt be able to find members of all the other parties saying - let's not forget the worrying number of antisemites found in the Green Party over the years, out and out racists in the Tory party, labour party loons and Lib Dem antisemites). And then when 'the left' joins in with the political establishment and sneers at people, implying they're brainwashed by the media but insisting '_that's not what I actually mean'_ it reinforces it - and the idea that you don't care about their concerns, that you're the same as the rest.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No surpsise that people are swayed by the media - not you though obviously. You see through all that. You don't actually say anything in that post beyond implicitly confirming what I just said.




And you haven't remotely spoken to the point that evidence bares out that aggregated public perceptions are significantly out of line with reality in a direction conforming with the positions of right wing dominated media.

Clearly not everyone is swayed, including you and I I daresay. But the generality holds as the evidence displays.

How do you explain it? Please try.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2014)

> The Ukip car has crashed, making the mask slip, *revealing the cheap suits of the BNP.* Hahaha, we don't do Fascism here Farage! But we do do self-delusion, impotent rage and shit analogies!




posted on cif and there are many more in the same vein

I do wonder now if Hope Not Hate are orchestrating people to frequently post on social media sites.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> And you haven't remotely spoken to the point that evidence bares out that public perceptions are significantly out of line with reality in a direction conforming with the positions of right wing dominated media.
> 
> Clearly not everyone is swayed, including you and I I daresay. But the generality holds as the evidence displays.
> 
> ...



First, I don't 'speak to points' - they can't hear what I'm saying.

How do I explain it? Does correlation = causation? Who is following who here?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

From the article:

- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34.

- Immigration: some 31 per cent of the population is thought to consist of recent immigrants, when the figure is actually 13 per cent. Even including illegal immigrants, the figure is only about 15 per cent. On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

-  Crime: some 58 per cent of people do not believe crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19 per cent lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53 per cent lower than in 1995. Some 51 per cent think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012.

- Teen pregnancy is thought to be 25 times higher than the official estimates: 15 per cent of of girls under 16 are thought to become pregnant every year, when official figures say the amount is closer to 0.6 per cent.

Among the other surprising figures are that 26 per cent of people think foreign aid is in the top three items the Government spends money on (it actually makes up just 1.1 per cent of expenditure), and that 29 per cent of people think more is spent on Jobseekers' Allowance than pensions.

In fact we spend 15 times more on pensions - £4.9 billion on JSA vs £74.2 billion on pensions.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> How do I explain it? Does correlation = causation? Who is following who here?



That's a reasonable question. What else might be causing such widespread misinformation?


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2014)

Btw, the Guardian seems to be in a state of panic about UKIP, there are about three articles a day at the moment attacking them.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That's a reasonable question. What else might be causing such widespread misinformation?



People's experiences and perceptions.

Benefits: bloke next door with no visible disability but who claims DLA and ESA and gets a mobility car. He's almost certainly entitled to every penny but you don't know that - changes your perception of benefits claimants. Especially as these kinds of things seem like bigger issues if you yourself and working and struggling to survive - you can't afford a car etc.

Teen pregnancy: some estates have much much higher rates than elsewhere. People on those estates, or who know people on those estates, might be led to overestimate it.

Migration - especially if they 'look different' people will notice them, especially if their numbers in the area you live are rising, and probably over-estimate them. It's pretty well established that people over-estimate the pace and extent of change - you don't need a media conspiracy.

Crime: On average it might be dropping but in a lot of areas it's not - it's getting a lot worse. People who live in or are aware of those areas will think it's going up - I know I find the falling crime figures hard to believe because, quite simply, they don't match with my experiences. Am I brainwashed by the media too? 

Where in the media does it say that we spend more on JSA than pensions? If people are getting that from the media it surely must be somewhere. Maybe most people know more people on JSA than they do on old age pensions? I know I do.

The media does have some influence but it has to tap into something that's already there otherwise nobody will listen. How else do you explain most sun readers opposing the Iraq war for example? It's more a mirror than a source of light.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 20, 2014)

treelover said:


> Btw, the Guardian seems to be in a state of panic about UKIP, there are about three articles a day at the moment attacking them.



Yeah but it's not like there are any other problems in this country is it?

The independent by contrast seems determined to put the boot into Ed Miliband, if today's edition is anything to go by.


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2014)

> It is notable that the Ukippers pictured are all old, ill educated people wearing bad clothes.



another CIF comment, satirical?


----------



## J Ed (May 20, 2014)

treelover said:


> another CIF comment, satirical?



Nah, just par for the course.

I love the idea that someone's clothes are being used to discredit them. Let's all just vote for whoever can afford the best suit, that's bound to work.


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2014)

> *Mass brawl erupts between rival groups of youths in area where former Home Secretary David Blunkett warned of rioting due to influx of Roma immigrants*
> 
> *More than 25 people involved in mass disturbance in Page Hall, Sheffield*
> *One teenager injured in violence which broke out at around 8pm last night*
> ...




Oh dear, this has been predicted in Sheffield, hot weather now, etc, I wonder if UKIP will stir the pot?

note the Mail so usual provisos, stirring it, not so many people, etc, Sheffield forum will have more


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

Status on my facebook wall by someone bragging about running out of their house after finding a UKIP leaflet had just been posted through their door, swearing at the woman who was delivering them, threatening to burn the leaflets and basically threatening her if she didn't leave the neighbourhood. 42 likes from Sheffield lefties in about an hour.

I fucking despair.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> People's experiences and perceptions.
> 
> Benefits: bloke next door with no visible disability but who claims DLA and ESA and gets a mobility car. He's almost certainly entitled to every penny but you don't know that - changes your perception of benefits claimants. Especially as these kinds of things seem like bigger issues if you yourself and working and struggling to survive - you can't afford a car etc.
> 
> ...




Each of these instances would explain a certain amount of the population being a bit wrong, not the aggregated general population being very wrong. 

For everyone who does live next door to such a claimant there are many who don't. 

For everyone who lives in a relatively high teen preganancy area there are many that, by definition, don't. 

And ditto down the line. 

For a widely false statistical narrative to hold sway across the board points to more than just some people having understandably circumstances having moderately skewed perceptions.


----------



## J Ed (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Status on my facebook wall by someone bragging about running out of their house after finding a UKIP leaflet had just been posted through their door, swearing at the woman who was delivering them, threatening to burn the leaflets and basically threatening her if she didn't leave the neighbourhood. 42 likes from Sheffield lefties in about an hour.
> 
> I fucking despair.



This time around the media hysteria and reaction to UKIP seems to be a lot stronger than anything the BNP ever got. I wonder why...


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Status on my facebook wall by someone bragging about running out of their house after finding a UKIP leaflet had just been posted through their door, swearing at the woman who was delivering them, threatening to burn the leaflets and basically threatening her if she didn't leave the neighbourhood. 42 likes from Sheffield lefties in about an hour.
> 
> I fucking despair.




That's crazy,

maybe it was her ill fitting clothes


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Each of these instances would explain a certain amount of the population being a bit wrong, not the aggregated general population being very wrong.
> 
> For everyone who does live next door to such a claimant there are many who don't.
> 
> ...



Bollocks. Pretty much everyone I know has a story like that about someone on benefits (I imagine most people have someone who'd fit that description on their street - most normal people anyway), crime (as I said - to be honest crime figures don't fit my experiences either but I don't read any of those papers - can they brainwash you without even reading them now? impressive!), pregnancy etc. You don't have to live nextdoor to them yourself - you just need to know enough people who do. There's other ways this stuff gets around but what's important is to understand how it gets worked through - socially.

You're just desperate to see someone pulling the strings - I don't know why, maybe it's more comforting than the disorganised and uncontrollable reality, or maybe it's just an easy way to make sense of things. I suspect the thing that makes you see the media pulling the strings is the same thing that makes you prone to Bilderberg type conspiracy theories and makes (made?) you prone to 9/11 nonsense too. The media make people right wing theory is just a slightly more sophisticated version of conspiracy theory style thinking after all.


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2014)

treelover said:


> Oh dear, this has been predicted in Sheffield, hot weather now, etc, I wonder if UKIP will stir the pot?
> 
> note the Mail so usual provisos, stirring it, not so many people, etc, Sheffield forum will have more




this was last night, the story is only just been put up on the D/M site, which updates frequently, strange..


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Status on my facebook wall by someone bragging about running out of their house after finding a UKIP leaflet had just been posted through their door, swearing at the woman who was delivering them, threatening to burn the leaflets and basically threatening her if she didn't leave the neighbourhood. 42 likes from Sheffield lefties in about an hour.
> 
> I fucking despair.


Do you think the leafletter, who may well not have been a party member (though that's a bit of a stretch), would have wanted to stop and chew the fat?

I'm not condoning violence.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

J Ed said:


> This time around the media hysteria and reaction to UKIP seems to be a lot stronger than anything the BNP ever got. I wonder why...



I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with their posing a much greater threat to the traditional parties. After all, if it was that would mean the the rabid anti-UKIP wadicals were being led by the media into doing the Tories, Labour's and Lib dems job for them and we all know they're the only ones able to see through the media's manipulations.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Do you think the leafletter, who may well not have been a party member (though that's a bit of a stretch), would have wanted to stop and chew the fat?
> 
> I'm not condoning violence.



What are you on about? She got threatened and chased off the street, presumably stopping her leafleting. Do you think this is healthy or productive?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What are you on about? She got threatened and chased off the street, presumably stopping her leafleting. Do you think this is healthy or productive?


there are 3 choices:

either chase people around the streets
engage them and try and point out and perhaps persuade them their policies are bollocks.
do nothing.

the first you object to because it's violent and unproductive, by and large I agree. Though i probably would have sent them packing if i'd been at home when they'd leafletted me (perhaps not with threats or some benny hill chase around the houses).
the second will prbably get rebuked.
the third achieves nothing.


----------



## J Ed (May 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> there are 3 choices:
> 
> either chase people around the streets
> engage them and try and point out and perhaps persuade them their policies are bollocks.
> ...



FFS this behaviour would be ridiculous if she was UKIP but she was probably just a postwoman or working for one of the private delivery companies, she has to deliver the leaflets or she gets sacked. This logic is just bizarre, where exactly does it end?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

_Bollocks. Pretty much everyone I know has a story like that about someone on benefits (I imagine most people have someone who'd fit that description on their street - most normal people anyway), _

Whose defining normal here? Quite a lot of people may not have anyone on their street on benefits. Farily wealthy people for example, who's misinformation levels leak into this kind of research data as much as anyone else.

_crime (as I said - to be honest crime figures don't fit my experiences either but I don't read any of those papers - can they brainwash you without even reading them now? impressive!), pregnancy etc. You don't have to live nextdoor to them yourself - you just need to know enough people who do. There's other ways this stuff gets around but what's important is to understand how it gets worked through - socially._

Yet it creates misguided perceptions. Does one just _listen to those concerns _or does one challenge the fact that a perception of an individual case might distort an overall assessment? I hope the latter approach wouldn't involve any chest prodding. 

Would you suggest that day in day out headlines (lies), which in turn drive broadcast media agendas, have zero effect? That's it's all entirely down to people misjudging circumstances of their own volition? If that's the case why do parties pay so much to the likes of Lynton Crosby to specifically drive agendas and talking points? Is there something you know that they don't?

"You're just desperate to see someone pulling the strings" You're doing my thinking for me again.

"maybe it's more comforting..."  - cod psyhocology, based on premise that happens to be false.

Maybe decades of anti migrant lies in the press actually have an effect. Just...maybe.

"I suspect the thing that makes you see the media pulling the strings is the same thing that makes you prone to Bilderberg type conspiracy theories and makes (made?) you prone to 9/11 nonsense too."

That's changing subjects quite a bit. It's not even a case of pulling strings, and 911 is a very different matter indeed.

"The media make people right wing theory is just a slightly more sophisticated version of conspiracy theory style thinking after all"

You've been quite round the houses on this one, but you still haven't explained why people think it's "sticking one to the establishment" to vote for another right wing pro establishment party. The notion that the likes of Murdoch and Desmond push their own nasty agendas is hardly a conspiracy theory anyhow. Likewise, the role of the migration and other debates in smokescreening stuff like the privatisation of the NHS (barely a peep from the BBC on that one) .

Clearly this isn't all about media, but I could be just as quizzical about why you seem to want to diminish the importance as you are in seeing me as someone who wants to over exagerate it.


So much about this thread and similar conversations elsewhere is truly perplexing.

We're told that people "can't listen to the concerns of ordinary people" when they can, and when those concerns are very well known. 

We're told that highlighting something racist is "screaming"

We're told that it's no good just calling ukip racist, even though an increasing amount of critique is about stuff far beyond that. 

We're told that we don't understand how angry people are with the political establishment, when every fucker knows about that anger.

We're told that professional and aspiring professional politicians are the people to take on the "political class", that reaction is rebellion.

And we get odd phrases thrown about like "the real world" as if some people live in holograms or plasticine, "chattering classes" as if propensity to chatter is tied into an economic relation. 

So much of all this is bogus. Since about the late 1980s reactionaries have used complaing about political correctness to justify their interpretation. "political correctness" has been assumed politically wrong for nearly a generation, yet opposing it is still presented as some kind of brave and fresh thing.

And for all this, the relative current popularity of UKIP can still probably best be described in 2 words : "False alternative". Is that falseness a media creation or something in the minds of people regardless of media? Both, I think


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2014)

From Buzzfeed's photo-essay titled.... 
*I Went To The UKIP Diversity Carnival And It Was A Total Disaster*







I wonder who that could be, then?


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2014)

Oh no, a... _rebuke._

From who exactly?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> there are 3 choices:
> 
> either chase people around the streets
> engage them and try and point out and perhaps persuade them their policies are bollocks.
> ...



Let them deliver the leaflets. It's not difficult.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> _Bollocks. Pretty much everyone I know has a story like that about someone on benefits (I imagine most people have someone who'd fit that description on their street - most normal people anyway), _
> 
> Whose defining normal here? Quite a lot of people may not have anyone on their street on benefits. Farily wealthy people for example, who's misinformation levels leak into this kind of research data as much as anyone else.
> 
> ...



Fucking hell - I honestly can't be arsed.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> The idea that the media determine people's views, like they're just blank slates on which the establishment can write anything they like (obviously not you though, you're above all that, which is why you accept views on the power of the media that the likes of Murdoch have been deliberately cultivating for decades and take the exact same view of UKIP, who votes for them, why and how this should be combated as the 'establishment' media do). It's fucking insulting.
> 
> You're right about the failure of the left too - though it's not because we disagree with each other. It's because the more visible elements of the left are full of chest prodding twats who in truth don't trust the working class, who think they're just too easy for the right to manipulate.
> 
> ...


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Status on my facebook wall by someone bragging about running out of their house after finding a UKIP leaflet had just been posted through their door, swearing at the woman who was delivering them, threatening to burn the leaflets and basically threatening her if she didn't leave the neighbourhood. 42 likes from Sheffield lefties in about an hour.
> 
> I fucking despair.



Who? Inbox if preferred.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fucking hell - I honestly can't be arsed.



Give it out, but can't take it back. Standard. Run along now, prod someone else in the chest.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Bollocks. Pretty much everyone I know has a story like that about someone on benefits (I imagine most people have someone who'd fit that description on their street - most normal people anyway), crime (as I said - to be honest crime figures don't fit my experiences either but I don't read any of those papers - can they brainwash you without even reading them now? impressive!), pregnancy etc. You don't have to live nextdoor to them yourself - you just need to know enough people who do. There's other ways this stuff gets around but what's important is to understand how it gets worked through - socially.
> 
> You're just desperate to see someone pulling the strings - I don't know why, maybe it's more comforting than the disorganised and uncontrollable reality, or maybe it's just an easy way to make sense of things. I suspect the thing that makes you see the media pulling the strings is the same thing that makes you prone to Bilderberg type conspiracy theories and makes (made?) you prone to 9/11 nonsense too. The media make people right wing theory is just a slightly more sophisticated version of conspiracy theory style thinking after all.



Spiney Norman

I'm as anti-conspiraloon as you I should think, and I've had big issues on here in the past with some of taffboy's crazier stuff in older threads.

But concerning mainstream media he's not completely wrong on this I think. I don't personally think the mainstream media brainwash people en masse, nor do I think that people are generally 'thick' enough to believe everything they're told, far from. Don't subscribe to any conspiracy either.

But surely there are plenty of people around IRL (I've encountered a fair few myself) who *are* quite keen (overkeen?) to believe the anecdotes they hear in the pub/from some neighbours or relatives/and yes from the media too (as well as from what they see, or think they see, themselves, in their own street or estates). People in shit jobs on shit money often want to blame an easy target, UKIP are pretty good ATM at tapping into that kind of understandable pissed off-ness. I'm not that interested in whether the Sun/Mail/Telegraph etc are orchestrating/manipulating or just reflecting/channelling peoples discontent, but its pointless to pretend the general media-dominant tone isn't playing a pretty significant part -- for a proportion of people at least.

I understand everything you and others have been saying about alienation from mainstream parties too, nor do I agree at all with shouting 'racist' at UKIP -- totally counterproductive.

I suppose the above ramble stems from my not being exactly sure what you're getting at. Can't believe there's not some overlap between yours and taffboy's positions.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Give it out, but can't take it back. Standard. Run along now, prod someone else in the chest.



Oh, fuck off and learn to quote properly. What you write is incomprehensible, at least try to make it legible.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 20, 2014)

J Ed said:


> FFS this behaviour would be ridiculous if she was UKIP but she was probably just a postwoman or working for one of the private delivery companies, she has to deliver the leaflets or she gets sacked. This logic is just bizarre, where exactly does it end?


Sorry what logic are you referring to? I dont advocate chasing people around and explicitly said it could well be soneone else delivering that isn't affiliated with ukip.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Sorry what logic are you referring to? I dont advocate chasing people around and explicitly said it could well be soneone else delivering that isn't affiliated with ukip.



Copernicus calling - he's not talking to you.


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2014)

To be honest I am just as worried about the conspiraloon shit taffboy peddles as I am about ukip.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Let them deliver the leaflets. It's not difficult.


If a ukip came to your door to deliever a leaflet you'd take it or would you stop and try challenging their views?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest I am just as worried about the conspiraloon shit taffboy peddles as I am about ukip.



Find a conspiraloon post from me, then outline how such a post is as concerning as fanatic neoliberal bigots polling 20+ %. Or maybe just go and have a lie down instead.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 20, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Copernicus calling - he's not talking to you.


sorry. 

this thread has become hard to follow.


----------



## J Ed (May 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If a ukip came to your door to deliever a leaflet you'd take it or would you stop and try challenging their views?



If someone delivered a UKIP leaflet to me I wouldn't assume for a second that they were a UKIP member tbh.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 20, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest I am just as worried about the conspiraloon shit taffboy peddles as I am about ukip.




As I'm sure you well know yourself frogwoman, and as I said before, I'm as ready as anyone  to disagree with conspiraloon shit and taffboy's definitely not been immune from that on here (generally) to say the least.

I just don't really think he's been *that* CT-heavy in this particular thread though. Unless I've missed some posts ... but some of his posts do include some sense IMO.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh, fuck off and learn to quote properly. What you write is incomprehensible, at least try to make it legible.



Please outline what you had difficulty comprehending.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 20, 2014)

J Ed said:


> If someone delivered a UKIP leaflet to me I wouldn't assume for a second that they were a UKIP member tbh.


Fair enough.

I probably would, to be honest. But it depends. If they turned up with a UKIP rosette, it'd be a safe bet. If they were my postie, it'd be a safe bet they weren't a member.

I don't really know what I'm talking about to be honest with you.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

I'm going to stand corrected. This is a sample from a few weeks, but I just can't see how years of this kind of thing could have any influence on debate or perceptions at all. It's a conspiracy theory, like saying that Templars wanted to bury Diana on the moon.




ETA : the claim it is "state propaganda" is dubious, much of it is corporate though the state plays along.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

And another selection that can't possibly have any effect on perception whatsoever. Makes you wonder why they bother at all.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Give it out, but can't take it back. Standard. Run along now, prod someone else in the chest.



No, I mean I can't be arsed. I think you're an asset to the likes of UKIP. If that's chest prodding I don't give a shit - you deserve it.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, I mean I can't be arsed. I think you're an asset to the likes of UKIP. If that's chest prodding I don't give a shit - you deserve it.



I think you can only go so far with your case, and that constant attempts to score points among their opponents is an asset to the likes of UKIP. If you slag off chest prodders and then don't care if you chest prod it makes you a vapid hypocrite.  Now, run along and tell someone else what they think and why they think it. Good luck with being a bit closer to the mark.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Spiney Norman
> 
> I'm as anti-conspiraloon as you I should think, and I've had big issues on here in the past with some of taffboy's crazier stuff in older threads.
> 
> ...



Easy. Me: people derive their views about the world through lived experience and via a range of sources - the media is a tiny part of that, and its contents are more a reflection of people's views than their origins - hence the wide divergence when the media message doesn't fit.

Taffboy: MSM MSM everything's driven by the media. When I say that I don't actually _mean _everything's driven by the media. But when I talk about people I disagree with I always say it's because of what's in the media. But I don't mean it's all media brainwashing. Even though it is. But that's not what I actually think - in fact I don't think people are brainwashed by the media - except for when they are - which is all the time for people who disagree with me.

Seriously - have a look at his posts - it's media MSM media media. It's the only way he appears to be able to understand the world. Someone has to be pulling the strings. Of course he denies it cos when it's put like that it sounds ridiculous. But it's implicit in pretty much everything he ever posts.

I think sneering neo-fabians like him do as much to help the right as any media outlet.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I think you can only go so far with your case, and that constant attempts to score points among their opponents is an asset to the likes of UKIP. If you slag off chest prodders and then don't care if you chest prod it makes you a vapid hypocrite.  Now, run along and tell someone else what they think and why they think it. Good luck with being a bit closer to the mark.



Everyone knows it's true though. I can prod you in the chest cos you're a liberal liability - that's allowed. No hypocrisy.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Find a conspiraloon post from me, then outline how such a post is as concerning as fanatic neoliberal bigots polling 20+ %. Or maybe just go and have a lie down instead.



I'd rather have UKIP than the party that's boasted you, David Icke and Tony Gosling as members.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> And another selection that can't possibly have any effect on perception whatsoever. Makes you wonder why they bother at all.




You've discovered that right wing tabloids print right wing bollocks. Take a bow sir, I'd never have known that without you pointing it out and I take back everything I said.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'd rather have UKIP than the party that's boasted you, David Icke and Tony Gosling as members.



It's starting to leak out now. Perhaps you're finally starting to take on those concerns about immigration, gays, and the 26 million after your job.



SpineyNorman said:


> Everyone knows it's true though. I can prod you in the chest cos you're a liberal liability - that's allowed. No hypocrisy.



Everyone? You did a survey? Or is this more of your psychic act?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You've discovered that right wing tabloids print right wing bollocks. Take a bow sir, I'd never have known that without you pointing it out and I take back everything I said.



That's not the point I was making, as well you know. But now you're just into base twisting and strawmen. The point you are making seems to rest on the fact that such endless propaganda has no effect, and that it's the smug work of chest-prodders to suppose otherwise. But there's more evidence that it does have an effect.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That's not the point I was making. The point you are making seems to rest on the fact that such endless propaganda has no effect, and that it's the smug work of chest-prodders to suppose otherwise. But there's more evidence that it does have an effect.



If I pretend you've persuaded me and I now agree with you about everything, even 9/11, will you STFU?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It's starting to leak out now. Perhaps you're finally starting to take on those concerns about immigration, gays, and the 26 million after your job.



Yes. There couldn't possibly be genuine concerns lurking behind the idea that there's foreigners taking jobs eh? After all, job security, wages, conditions - there's no problems with any of those. You're right about everything Mr Taffboy.

Can you tell me some more stuff about how powerful and evil the media is please?





taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Everyone? You did a survey? Or is this more of your psychic act?



Yes. Everyone. We have a special forum that everyone except you knows about and I asked on there.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> If I pretend you've persuaded me and I now agree with you about everything, even 9/11, will you STFU?


YOU CAN NEVER SILENCE THE TRUTH


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes. There couldn't possibly be genuine concerns lurking behind the idea that there's foreigners taking jobs eh? After all, job security, wages, conditions - there's no problems with any of those. You're right about everything Mr Taffboy.
> 
> Can you tell me some more stuff about how powerful and evil the media is please?
> 
> ...



Do you blame pay, conditions and security on foreigners? If they are not to blame then why might people think they are? 

Did I say the media were evil? No, you put words in my mouth, which is something of a habit.

Sorry I didn't know about your special forum, I assumed you were talking out your arse with fucknuts hyperbole. 

Don't forget: Last bitter retort wins. 

I wonder if UKIP boards suffer this kind of rancour.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It's starting to leak out now. Perhaps you're finally starting to take on those concerns about immigration, gays, and the 26 million after your job.


And there it is, if you criticise the anti-UKIPists you're a racist, a bigot etc. Utterly pathetic.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its not the same really, ukip has a veneer of respectability that the BNP never managed, even at the height of their star.



It's not the same. But the formula to  disable them is exactly the same as employed against the BNP. Something that may be cause for regret down the road.


taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The quality of all public "debate" in the context of MSM is pretty questionable, migration being no better or worse on average than general economic policy, foreign policy, social security, privatisation etc.



The essential difference is that none of the above, unlike 'what will not be discussed' are drivers for political change.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Do you blame pay, conditions and security on foreigners? If they are not to blame then why might people think they are?
> 
> Did I say the media were evil? No, you put words in my mouth, which is something of a habit.
> 
> ...



Well, since they don't have to endure you I imagine it's somewhat more civilised.

How might people think that threats to jobs are a result of migration? Well, first - nobody sensible denies that for some sections of the workforce - low paid, unskilled manual work for a start - migration, and specifically EU migration, has resulted in fewer job opportunities and with worse conditions.

Second, people have noticed that the loss of security has come at the same time as increased movement within Europe. They don't need the Daily Mail to tell them that - they can see it with their own eyes. I think this is because they're both products of neoliberalism. But it's perfectly possible for someone to erroneously think there's a line of causation running from one to the other, just as you erroneously think the media cause people to be wacists. They don't need the papers to tell them that. People can reach conclusions all of their own. As Joe Reilly says, what's not being talked about in the media better accounts for that than right wing tabloids being right wing.

You fucking prole hating green party loon.


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2014)

Newsnight just had a good package on why L/P voters in Rotherham are shifting to UKIP, interviewing ex miners, etc

last but one item, I think.


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

> Labour and Tory polling is showing that attacks claiming Nigel Farage is a racist have backfired since voters do not regard him as such and see the assaults as a sign that the political establishment are ganging up to undermine him.
> The apparent backlash is coming to both parties from telephone polling and focus groups, which say that the attacks have raised Farage's profile and confirmed him as the anti-establishment candidate. It does not tally with published opinion polls that show the Ukip lead in the European elections narrowing slightly.
> One source said: "Calling people names does not work. It confirms the old politics."
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ory-poll-ratings-farage-attacks?commentpage=6



Surprised?

non...


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> Surprised?
> 
> non...



The Old Politics?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 21, 2014)

Isn't it presumptuous to assume UKIP are drawing significantly large support from marginalised workers, and also that those influenced by media are somehow ill-educated or naive? It just seems like the same arguments as when people defended BNP voters from placard-waving trots on grounds that these were marginalised people nobody else was speaking for, but I don't see evidence of it being the same demographic. I know there is some support from whatever letters people who measure these things use to designate people at the bottom, but a lot from further up the scale too.

A lot of UKIP support comes from reasonably well-off retired people- look at the rallies/meetings on the TV. 

These aren't people whose jobs are threatened by migration, or people who don't usually vote because the system leaves them behind. Some are old-school Tories unhappy with social changes, unhappy with the flimsy PR personas heading up the main parties. Within the activists these aren't struggling outsiders and malcontents. 

It's people like my uncle (retired further ed lecturer, good pension, UKIP member) who comes out with stuff about Britain being lost to Sharia law - where does someone living in a nice suburb of Northampton come up with stuff like that? What 'experience' brings forward such opinions so far from the truth? Maybe years of reading Mad Mel in the Mail has hammered this thought in?


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 21, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Isn't it presumptuous to assume UKIP are drawing significantly large support from marginalised workers, and also that those influenced by media are somehow ill-educated or naive? It just seems like the same arguments as when people defended BNP voters from placard-waving trots on grounds that these were marginalised people nobody else was speaking for, but I don't see evidence of it being the same demographic. I know there is some support from whatever letters people who measure these things use to designate people at the bottom, but a lot from further up the scale too.
> 
> A lot of UKIP support comes from reasonably well-off retired people- look at the rallies/meetings on the TV.
> 
> ...



Ahhh, now that actually is a reasonable response. We're not talking about that though. Please go away.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2014)

Reading about the demographic, the average income of ukip voters is below the national average, and few among the rich vote ukip. A lot of older people. A lot more men than women. They still do far better among white people than non-white. Fear of immigration and immigrants doesn't necessarily correlate that closely with its actual practical consequences for you in particular. 'They're coming over here taking our jobs' actually still isn't resonating anywhere nearly as loudly with younger people who are competing for those jobs as with older people who are not.

Be interesting to see in this election who votes UKIP. If it is predominantly older men again, I think they're not in a very rosy position. Those voters will drift away, and even if they don't they are appealing to a dying sensibility.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Reading about the demographic, the average income of ukip voters is below the national average, and few among the rich vote ukip. A lot of older people. A lot more men than women. They still do far better among white people than non-white. Fear of immigration and immigrants doesn't necessarily correlate that closely with its actual practical consequences for you in particular. 'They're coming over here taking our jobs' actually still isn't resonating anywhere nearly as loudly with younger people who are competing for those jobs as with older people who are not.



All the parties have more white supporters than non-white, except possibly Respect. Do you have any evidence that the "taking our jobs" stuff isn't working on younger people?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 21, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> All the parties have more white supporters than non-white, except possibly Respect. Do you have any evidence that the "taking our jobs" stuff isn't working on younger people?


They are doing far better among white people than non-white. UK population is 92 per cent white. UKIP supporters are 98 per cent white. That's a very big difference - it means that UKIP support among non-whites is far below the level among whites. Far, far below.

The evidence for their message not working as well on younger people as on older people is in the demographic of their support, which is skewed markedly towards the over-50s - well over half. I didn't want to link to the Mail, but I'll have to as it's the only place I can find a recent report. Ignore the headline, which is balls. Just look at the figures. Assuming they haven't just pulled those figures out of their arses (and they do quote Populus as a source, tbf), they do reveal certain things.

I suspect that low interest rates eroding the value of pensions may be as big a factor as anything in the disgruntlement of older voters switching to UKIP.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 21, 2014)

The Tories have done everything they can to protect pensioners whilst everyone else takes a bath - they know where their support comes from and that older generations are more likely to see voting as some sort of civic duty.

Politicians don't target the young because they are less likely to vote - though this is probably a bit of a catch-22 - engage with them a bit more and deal with stuff like ridiculous rents and support for education and it might get something back. It's not that there aren't a lot of young people with interest in politics, from twitter bores to EDL marchers.


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They are doing far better among white people than non-white. UK population is 92 per cent white. UKIP supporters are 98 per cent white. That's a very big difference - it means that UKIP support among non-whites is far below the level among whites. Far, far below.
> 
> The evidence for their message not working as well on younger people as on older people is in the demographic of their support, which is skewed markedly towards the over-50s - well over half. I didn't want to link to the Mail, but I'll have to as it's the only place I can find a recent report. Ignore the headline, which is balls. Just look at the figures. Assuming they haven't just pulled those figures out of their arses (and they do quote Populus as a source, tbf), they do reveal certain things.
> 
> I suspect that low interest rates eroding the value of pensions may be as big a factor as anything in the disgruntlement of older voters switching to UKIP.




they haven't targeted young people yet, they didn't have much support amongst northern working class, then they started tailoring their propaganda(if not their policies) towards them.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> Newsnight just had a good package on why L/P voters in Rotherham are shifting to UKIP, interviewing ex miners, etc
> 
> last but one item, I think.



The BBC ran an item on UKIP supporters? Stop the clocks.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 21, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Well, since they don't have to endure you I imagine it's somewhat more civilised.
> 
> . But it's perfectly possible for someone to erroneously think there's a line of causation running from one to the other, just as you erroneously think the media cause people to be wacists. They don't need the papers to tell them that. People can reach conclusions all of their own. As Joe Reilly says, what's not being talked about in the media better accounts for that than right wing tabloids being right wing.
> 
> You fucking prole hating green party loon.




Oh no. You think people have been eroneous? as in wrong? isn't that something you'd think rather aloof in others?

Why do you get such a thrill out of spelling "racist" and "radical" with a "w"?

Do you get a little twinge out of feeling superior in method to those other people who oppose racism but dont quite understand as much as you do?

I don't know why you feel the need to be so personal and abusive, but in regards to class I sell my labour to get by, have never earned even approaching the national average and have no control over the means of production. I'm not self hating. 

It's you who are assuming far more of "proles" and presuming to speak for them more than I am. My party is neither here nor there really, I certainly don't evangalise for them here and wouldn't bother to.

Whatever your politics are I've a funny feeling that, like mine, they havent made massive headway. I think we should all be a lot more modest and humble about our positions to be honest.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 21, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> And there it is, if you criticise the anti-UKIPists you're a racist, a bigot etc. Utterly pathetic.



Well, SN led off with an "I'd rather UKIP" line, but that doesn't neccessarily make him a critic of anti UKIPists.

But in so far as a double negative makes for a positive one thing should be very clear: 

It may not be the most effective politics to describe UKIP as bigots, but the party is abosuletly riddled with bigotry and I have no idea why people seem to be so against it being said. I'd rather speak out against bigotry than constantly snipe and jeer at people for doing so.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 21, 2014)

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...r-news/ukip-oldham-leaflet-racism-row-7148269

note the reference to "white folk", but remember not to say that racist people, seeking to exploit racial differences, are "racist".

It may be a case with logic to it, but it's PCgonemad liberalism to point it out, and can  be devestated when someone employs full wit and guile to mis-spell the word with a "w".


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 21, 2014)

Leaving aside the grammatical, the main issue here is strongly aligning nation to political belief and assuming power to decide who is and isn't properly of the nation. Reminds me of something, but should we say what it is? No, some people may get angry on the thread. Let's listen to their concerns instead. What if they've gone and lost their identity or something?

Separately, I had a UKIP supporter go onto me tonight about the "multiculturals" (in the context of the carnival stuff earlier in the day). I asked him to expand on any favouritsm he might have for monoculturalism, and what it might entail. He didn't get back to me. perhaps I should have listened to his concerns too, poor thing. I think he only wanted to have a moan about the blacks and stuff really. It would be pathetic to call that racist though.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Leaving aside the gramatical, the main issue here is strongly aligning nation to political belief and assuming power to decide who is and isn't properly of the nation. Reminds me of something, but should we say what it is? No, some people may get angry on the thread. Let's listen to their concerns instead. What if they've gone and lost their identity or something?
> 
> Separately, I had a UKIP supporter go onto me tonight about the "multiculturals", I asked him to expand on any favouritsm he might have for monoculturalism, what it might entail. He didn't get back to me. perhaps I should have listened to his concerns too, poor thing. I think he only wanted to have a moan about the blacks and stuff really. It would be pathetic to call that racist though.




It's not that it's clearly nationalist sentiment. It's that you KEEP SAYING IT.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 21, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's not that it's clearly nationalist sentiment. It's that you KEEP SAYING IT.



I've hardly discussed nationalism at all here, let alone KEPT saying it. Anyway, I was thinking more aspects of an "f" word.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2014)

The magic words that transform UKIP voting racist sheeple into right-on leftists: "You racist cunt! You can't spell*!"

*feel free to replace with comments on clothing, accent, mental health


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/20/labour-tory-poll-ratings-farage-attacks



> Farage attacks backfire on Labour and Tories
> Attacks have confirmed Ukip leader as anti-establishment candidate, according to telephone polling and focus groups



*gasp*


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 21, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> <snip> Do you have any evidence that the "taking our jobs" stuff isn't working on younger people?



I've got an unemployed-since-graduation 25 yr old cousin's kid that it's working on.

I can't imagine he's the only example.


----------



## Mation (May 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...r-news/ukip-oldham-leaflet-racism-row-7148269
> 
> note the reference to "white folk", but remember not to say that racist people, seeking to exploit racial differences, are "racist".
> 
> It may be a case with logic to it, but it's PCgonemad liberalism to point it out, and can  be devestated when someone employs full wit and guile to mis-spell the word with a "w".


That can't be real. I mean, I believe the leaflet exists and has been distributed, but UKIP can't possibly be _that_ stupid.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Oh no. You think people have been eroneous? as in wrong? isn't that something you'd think rather aloof in others?
> 
> Why do you get such a thrill out of spelling "racist" and "radical" with a "w"?
> 
> ...



Yes. I think people can be wrong sometimes. That's an astounding observation.

This is quickly followed by the equally surprising observation that there's racists in UKIP. It's a good job you're here sir.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

J Ed said:


> The magic words that transform UKIP voting racist sheeple into right-on leftists: "You racist cunt! You can't spell*!"
> 
> *feel free to replace with comments on clothing, accent, mental health



Don't forget to tell them they're only racist cos The Daily Mail.


----------



## Mation (May 21, 2014)

laptop said:


> Anyways. Yesterday I was wondering whether the *real* motivation of UKIP's funders was not to get the UK out of the EU, but to influence the EU toward an even more capitalist-friendly position. Much the same as Cameron's half-hearted anti-EU stance.


How?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 21, 2014)

Mation said:


> That can't be real. I mean, I believe the leaflet exists and has been distributed, but UKIP can't possibly be _that_ stupid.



They're not a slickly organised established party machine with media training and on-message spokespeople.  As a consequence their twat filtering isn't as good as the other parties.

FWIW I don't see this as a negative, 'Safe' on-message politicians are what a lot of people rail against.

(that's not in any way a defence of twattery, or the fact they at least appear to attract more twats - though I suspect the tories have worse twats, but of a different kind, and more likely to obtain power).


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 21, 2014)

Loads on twitter just now about UKIP candidate Bobby Ansar being stabbed and called a Kaffir by Labour thugs*

Certain people are going to fucking lap this up.

*On closer reading - his Labour-voting muslim neighbours


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

Billy Bragg is doing a #whyImvotingukip pisstake thing. He's retweeting the ones he likes best. Here's a selection:

Retweeted by *Billy Bragg*


*R-Mattz* ‏@*RealMattLucas*  11h
#*WhyImVotingUkip* Because I like to think that people from other countries who live in mine are the main reason I have failed in life.

Retweeted by *Billy Bragg*


*Keri* ‏@*kerihw*  10h
#*WhyImVotingUkip* SIk off FibDems an NuLieBores and torees r week abuot they putting mosckes on my kids' schooles and wearin scarfs go home


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Loads on twitter just now about UKIP candidate Bobby Ansar being stabbed and called a Kaffir by Labour thugs*
> 
> Certain people are going to fucking lap this up.
> 
> *On closer reading - his Labour-voting muslim neighbours


pic here: http://t.co/J872Ljs94q

(bobby anwar btw)


----------



## killer b (May 21, 2014)

I'm finding the concept of 'Miliband's bootboys' a fairly comical one, I have to say.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Billy Bragg is doing a #whyImvotingukip pisstake thing. He's retweeting the ones he likes best. Here's a selection:
> 
> Retweeted by *Billy Bragg*
> 
> ...


They both read like taffboys attempts at satire. I wonder if Lucas understands the meritocratic irony in a person like him - born into privilege - mocking others for being failures in life? Probably not.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

I did wonder if the second one actually _was _taffboy


----------



## Wilf (May 21, 2014)

If you take away the humour (which is easy, as there isn't any), Little Britain is a ukip world view writ large.


----------



## killer b (May 21, 2014)

I was thinking that was a little rich of Matt Lucas for similar reasons.


----------



## D'wards (May 21, 2014)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Loads on twitter just now about UKIP candidate Bobby Ansar being stabbed and called a Kaffir by Labour thugs*
> 
> Certain people are going to fucking lap this up.
> 
> *On closer reading - his Labour-voting muslim neighbours


 Couldn't have happened at a better time, for the UKIP


----------



## rekil (May 21, 2014)

New Bragg lyrics - "Any way you like"


----------



## DotCommunist (May 21, 2014)

was it matt lucas who blacked up to hilariously play a thieving carribean woman? one of them twats anyway.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

Billy Bragg makes me want to say cunt really loudly.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> pic here: http://t.co/J872Ljs94q
> 
> (bobby anwar btw)


He wrote the UKIP android app. And Mina Anwar is his aunty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its not the same really, ukip has a veneer of respectability that the BNP never managed, even at the height of their star.



UKIP has drawn part of its' membership from a very different demographic - from a libertarian right that Old One-Eye was never able to embrace or appeal to, regardless of how much Euro-right spin he put on the BNP's politics - and that does give a measure of respectability, particularly in the eyes of some Conservative supporters who find Cameron's seeming wetness an irritation.  To them, I'd say Frage's appeal lies as much in his seeming certainty on issues, as in the policies (such as they are) he stands behind.


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

The Guardian seems to becoming the 'Daily Farage'


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I go along with quite a lot of that post, but certainly not the "elephant in the room" thing. Migration is talked about a great deal. Why do people act as if it isn't?



Migration *is* "talked about a great deal".
On what terms, though? I'd argue that the "talk" covers a very narrow part of the "immigration" debate - the part that can be used as a dog whistle against immigrants - and doesn't explore either lived experience or the *nature* of immigration under neoliberalism.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I've got an unemployed-since-graduation 25 yr old cousin's kid that it's working on.
> 
> I can't imagine he's the only example.


Quick look at the polls suggests that in 18-24 age group UKIP currently polling 12-16% and about 4% above that in 25-34 group.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

I guess that if ukip members/voters making racist comments is proof that UKIP support those sentiments then we must also assume that labour support stabbing people.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I guess that if ukip members/voters making racist comments is proof that UKIP support those sentiments then we must also assume that labour support stabbing people.


Not to mention the racism, homophobia, stupidity, theft, corruption etc


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's also because most of "The Left" are full on afraid of working class estates. I've reached a point now where I've decided that most of the 57 varieties are constructing theoretical justifications to "vote Labour with no illusions" _purely to avoid having to go near a council estate and discover how utterly fucking useless they are._



While we've seen the occasional ward councillor canvassing over the last 15 years, we've only been canvassed once during a G.E. and we're not a "bad" estate by any means.
While I don't agree that "the left" _per se_ are "afraid" of working class estates, I do think that some (especially middle class) activists believe that they'll be challenged more readily on the estates, and also assume that estates are either full of "tribal Labour voters", or of people who won't vote full-stop, so don't stir their arses.
I also absolutely agree that the non-Labour left default to the hoary old "vote Labour with no illusions" _schtick_ far too often, but not purely on the basis of not wanting to admit how useless they are.  It's also because it preserves the _status quo_ that even our most revolutionary organised elements of the left feel comfortable with.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 21, 2014)

http://www.youkiptheywin.co.uk/


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2014)

J Ed said:


> If someone delivered a UKIP leaflet to me I wouldn't assume for a second that they were a UKIP member tbh.



20 years ago, maybe, but some parties (even the 3 mainstream parties!) don't have enough local activists in some areas to reliably ensure that leaflets get delivered, so everyone farms it out to delivery agencies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That's not the point I was making, as well you know. But now you're just into base twisting and strawmen. The point you are making seems to rest on the fact that such endless propaganda has no effect, and that it's the smug work of chest-prodders to suppose otherwise. But there's more evidence that it does have an effect.



The point he's making is that such propaganda's effect is self-limiting - extreme arguments win few converts, they mostly just shore up the opinions of the already-converted.  "State propaganda" has to be a hell of a lot more all-encompassing than what you've posited, in order to actually generate fresh converts - we're talking a full-scale assault by a united media front _a la_ Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, not something on the scale of the current situation.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

I think taffboy could so with being introduced to modern cultural theory - even the basics like Halls encoding/decoding model. It might help him move beyond this media obsession - or at least understand how it works in a bit more depth. But, then that wouldn't leave much of his _huh huh thickos _approach in place i suppose.


----------



## laptop (May 21, 2014)

Mation said:


> How?



How would they influence the EU? Well, for starters, by setting out to influence the choice of Commissioners taking office in the autumn.

More generally and in mood-music rather than specific nameable interventions: by reinforcing the climate that exists in Brussels of appeasment of the UK. Which would mean more pro-capitalist measures and no pro-social measures. 

Why? Freedom of movement of capital is in the interests of UKIP's big backers - consider Party Treasurer gambling tycoon Stuart Wheeler.

Am I answering the question you had in mind?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think taffboy could so with being introduced to modern cultural theory - even the basics like Halls encoding/decoding model. It might help him move beyond this media obsession - or at least understand how it works in a bit more depth. But, then, that wouldn't leave much of his _huh huh thickos _approach in place i suppose.



Here you go taffboy http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/SH-Encoding-Decoding.pdf


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-05-21/blackburn-ukip-candidate-stabbed-in-the-face/


more on the UKIP/labour incident


----------



## Mation (May 21, 2014)

laptop said:


> How would they influence the EU? Well, for starters, by setting out to influence the choice of Commissioners taking office in the autumn.
> 
> More generally and in mood-music rather than specific nameable interventions: by reinforcing the climate that exists in Brussels of appeasment of the UK. Which would mean more pro-capitalist measures and no pro-social measures.
> 
> ...


Yes - cheers


----------



## gosub (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-05-21/blackburn-ukip-candidate-stabbed-in-the-face/
> 
> 
> more on the UKIP/labour incident



not really a Labour/UKIP thing  more neighbour from hell


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

gosub said:


> not really a Labour/UKIP thing  more neighbour from hell


How do you know?


----------



## sim667 (May 21, 2014)

Anyone had a look at the whyimvotingukip hashtag on twitter today?


----------



## Idris2002 (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How do you know?



He is that infernal neighbour.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2014)

Who thought that this would be the best approach?


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

> apologies to all for delay in responding to comments on here. i have been busy canvassing in my burngreave ward.
> i was expecting to gain votes from disillusioned white british labour voters. however, whilst canvassing it has become apparent that many non white voters are supporting me as they are fed up with blunkett's lack of contact with his constituents and the labour council's way of dealing with problems in the area.
> canvassing has been difficult because so many people have been stopping me in the street to tell me what they want UKIP to do, both nationally and locally. so i have had several hours talking to people instead of visiting every street to make sure my election communications have been delivered.
> this friday's count should be interesting.
> ...



this was posted on a local forum by a UKIP candidate, if its true, then I reckon the LP have even more difficulties in the future and the unreconstructed left are not seen as option by this part of the constituency.

btw, I remember canvassing for the Socialist Alliance in the 2001 elections, the same thing happened to us, hundreds of people came up to us, desperate to be heard/helped, the SA(basically the SWP component) promised all sorts of help, it never came and the SA vote was derisory even though we had a great candidate.


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

> Labour Party donor and and stalwart of the Labour's 'Finance and Industry Group' (LFIG) Ian Wallace has today announced that he is joining UKIP after becoming disillusioned by the direction the Labour Party has taken. Mr Wallace has called on Labour members to join UKIP alongside him, to vote for them in tomorrow's European and local elections, and indeed give them support in the 2015 general election.



more shifts from labour?


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> more shifts from labour?


No, just rich knobheads unhappy at their lack of personal influence. Seriously, can't you read anything soberly and politically? Why must it always be a rush into or away from something?


----------



## Quartz (May 21, 2014)

.


----------



## Quartz (May 21, 2014)

gosub said:


> not really a Labour/UKIP thing  more neighbour from hell



We don't know that yet, though I'll point out that the one does not preclude the other.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Quartz said:


> .


Your best post on the thread quartz.


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

Die Linke, made up of former east German communists and disaffected social democrats, is now the main opposition in Germany's European election, here we have TUSC and Left Unity, will we ever have an effective non LP parliamentary left?


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> Die Linke, made up of former east German communists and disaffected social democrats, is now the main opposition in Germany's European election, here we have TUSC and Left Unity, will we ever have an effective non LP parliamentary left?


Who on earth told you that? They're on 8% and in 4th position.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2014)

UKIP candidate in homophobia and radical religious demagoguery shocker

Oh wait he's a Tory

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/2...nd-questions-how-he-can-represent-lgbt-voters


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ake-greens-first-time-new-european-parliament




butchersapron said:


> Who on earth told you that? They're on 8% and in 4th position.


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2014)

Oh, and in the Netherlands, the Dutch Socialist Party is running neck-and-neck with the governing Labour party in the polls.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ake-greens-first-time-new-european-parliament


Yes, to overtake the greens - the greens on 10%. Not to be the the main opposition. The only way you can come up with that scenario is by lumping 80+% of the vote into non-opposition and bundling the greens into that opposition. We need accurate maps here.

(And i bet you'd be moaning about the dutch socialists maoist past as well if you only know about it)

Actually, you just c&Ped that guardian article with no link or attribution in your post i was replying to.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2014)

Has this been posted yet?


----------



## co-op (May 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 20 years ago, maybe, but some parties (even the 3 mainstream parties!) don't have enough local activists in some areas to reliably ensure that leaflets get delivered, so everyone farms it out to delivery agencies.



You might expect this happens where a party is hopelessly off its turf but Labour have to pay people to deliver in Lambeth ffs; that's a working class inner London borough where they dominate the council and they don't have enough members to deliver their stuff.


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Has this been posted yet?


wot?


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Top work Mirror/Hope not Hate - saying no to homophobia all the way:



> UKIP candidate Peter Lello has been held over an accusation of sexual assault on a homeless Bulgarian man.
> 
> The 40-year-old, who is gay, was arrested last week after his alleged victim went to police .


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> Die Linke, made up of former east German communists and disaffected social democrats, is now the main opposition in Germany's European election, here we have TUSC and Left Unity, will we ever have an effective non LP parliamentary left?



are you stupid as well as mental?


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Of course, our homophobic anti-racist fingers and his edlnews mates (fresh from buying a bag of mad frogs from jasna and boasting about it to all and sundry) tweet this as:



> UKIP candidate Peter Lello arrested for sex assault on homeless Bulgarian man


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> are you stupid as well as mental?




"mental", "thick", such unpleasant slurs, I hope you are not such a nasty creature in real life.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Has this been posted yet?


I got that leaflet. According to the labour office (I rang the number on the leaflet) yups actually said this, which I don't believe. I asked them about their policy and was just pointed to the job guarantee scheme. They vote couldn't explain how it works. 

It seems to me labour are tying to position themselves oddly as more right -or centrist as perhaps they see it - than UK IP. Ending a requirement to look for work is a fringe policy to most people.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Has this been posted yet?



I've got a better one than that but I don't know how to post pics here!


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> this was posted on a local forum by a UKIP candidate, if its true, then I reckon the LP have even more difficulties in the future and the unreconstructed left are not seen as option by this part of the constituency.
> 
> btw, I remember canvassing for the Socialist Alliance in the 2001 elections, the same thing happened to us, hundreds of people came up to us, desperate to be heard/helped, the SA(basically the SWP component) promised all sorts of help, it never came and the SA vote was derisory even though we had a great candidate.


it is true - particularly the Yemeni community - I've heard it (indirectly) from people canvassing for tusc. they're concerned cos recently a lot of eastern Europeans have been moving in and theyrr worried about resources being stretched. Maxine expecting to lose votes.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> While we've seen the occasional ward councillor canvassing over the last 15 years, we've only been canvassed once during a G.E. and we're not a "bad" estate by any means.
> While I don't agree that "the left" _per se_ are "afraid" of working class estates, I do think that some (especially middle class) activists believe that they'll be challenged more readily on the estates, and also assume that estates are either full of "tribal Labour voters", or of people who won't vote full-stop, so don't stir their arses.
> I also absolutely agree that the non-Labour left default to the hoary old "vote Labour with no illusions" _schtick_ far too often, but not purely on the basis of not wanting to admit how useless they are.  It's also because it preserves the _status quo_ that even our most revolutionary organised elements of the left feel comfortable with.



I was in a sullen mood the other night so may have indulged in some hyperbole, yours is a more serious analysis. I guess it depends on what parts of the left you're talking about - it just strikes me I know a lot of supposed revolutionary socialists who I see on demo's and in meetings who have literally never gone and done a campaign stall or knocked doors on an estate - any estate, I'm not talking about rough ones. A lot of that as you say is that they think they'll be challenged (its also that some just think thats "boring") but perhaps more by people they assume to be racist more than anything else. Even if you can get them out now and again, they'll say things like "Don't knock that door, there's an England sticker in the bedroom window, they probably vote BNP".


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 22, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> it is true - particularly the Yemeni community - I've heard it (indirectly) from people canvassing for tusc. they're concerned cos recently a lot of eastern Europeans have been moving in and theyrr worried about resources being stretched. Maxine expecting to lose votes.



I've met a few asian voters who are/were intending to vote UKIP. I think its easier for us to talk them round than Labour but you can't physically speak to enough to make much difference.


----------



## CNT36 (May 22, 2014)

This nearly got me voting UKIP. 



UKIP voters determined to overcome challenge of drawing an ‘X’


----------



## kebabking (May 22, 2014)

OK political Urbs, a quandry that i could use some help with....

being a traditional Brit, i view the European parliament as an expensive talking shop - lots of hot air, lots of moving cardboard boxes around, but bugger all impact on the lives of all at Chez Kebabking - and therefore is not important to me who sits there. however, i'm aware that who sits there has symbolic value, and that elections for it are good weather vanes as to public feeling etc..

so, as someone who wants the UK to remain in the EU, and believes that Labour will eventually promise to hold a referendum in the next parliament - so that however wins the 2015 election there will be a referendum on EU membership - i'm considering voting for UKIP in the European elections today.

i'll explain my thinking, and i'd welcome your critique.

by voting UKIP i signal to the wider EU that there is a problem with how the UK views the EU, that voting UKIP means that problem is profound, and that in order for the UK to remain in the EU, more pro-EU UK politicians need to be able to show the UK electorate at the referendum that the EU has listened to the concerns and has come up with some serious reforms/changes in response.

in effect, that by voting UKIP, i strengthen the negotiating hand of whoever forms the next government and concentrate the minds of the wider EU, meaning changes to the EU become more likely, meaning that in 2017/18 the UK electorate is more likely to vote to remain within the EU rather than leave.

is my logic broadly correct?

(i'm aware that UKIP is a very _nasty_ party with which i share pretty much no political values, i'm aware that a large UKIP vote is likely to diminish how others view the UK, and i'm aware that a large UKIP vote in England might well have an impact on how Scotland sees itself with regards to the independance debate - i'm also aware that UKIP MEP's tend to be utterly useless, but _spectacularly_ expensive..)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2014)

TBH I'm not so sure how much of a shit the rest of the EU will give about the prospect of the UK leaving - they're already semi-detached anyway. That the country is voting in large numbers for an anti-EU party might just make them give even less of a shit.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 22, 2014)

kebabking said:


> OK political Urbs, a quandry that i could use some help with....
> 
> by voting UKIP i signal to the wider EU that there is a problem with how the UK views the EU, that voting UKIP means that problem is profound, and that in order for the UK to remain in the EU, more pro-EU UK politicians need to be able to show the UK electorate at the referendum that the EU has listened to the concerns and has come up with some serious reforms/changes in response.



How do you think the UK views the EU?  What changes do you think they can or will make to accommodate those views?  The trad tory element within UKIP will be keen to see an end to the social chapter and environmental stuff - things they see as a burden to business and red tape.  To some extent focusing on immigration is a trojan horse for this kind of thing.  How the public view things is different - I'm sure it's a bit more sophisticated than straight bananas and job-stealing benefit snaffling immigrants, but are their concerns matched by the party's agenda?  Does relentlessly focusing on Europe let all the neo libs and bankers off the hook, or are they part of the same thing?


----------



## DownwardDog (May 22, 2014)

kebabking said:


> and believes that Labour will eventually promise to hold a referendum in the next parliament



Is this really a sure thing? Given that The Rise of the Kippers isn't really to do with the EU but more of a general opportunity to troll the established parties whom everyone now detests. Like when people decided to get RATM to Xmas number one to annoy Simon Cowell.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2014)

kebabking said:


> OK political Urbs, a quandry that i could use some help with....
> 
> being a traditional Brit, i view the European parliament as an expensive talking shop - lots of hot air, lots of moving cardboard boxes around, but bugger all impact on the lives of all at Chez Kebabking - and therefore is not important to me wh
> being a traditional Brit, i view the European parliament as an expensive talking shop - lots of hot air, lots of moving cardboard boxes around, but bugger all impact on the lives of all at Chez Kebabking - and therefore is not important to me who sits there. however, i'm aware that who sits there has symbolic value, and that elections for it are good weather vanes as to public feeling etc..
> ...


 Well I'm unsure why you believe that there will be a referendum in the nest parliament, I think it most unlikely. All the major parties are committed to the EU and I don't think any of them want to go to a referendum.



kebabking said:


> by voting UKIP i signal to the wider EU that there is a problem with how the UK views the EU, that voting UKIP means that problem is profound, and that in order for the UK to remain in the EU, more pro-EU UK politicians need to be able to show the UK electorate at the referendum that the EU has listened to the concerns and has come up with some serious reforms/changes in response.
> 
> in effect, that by voting UKIP, i strengthen the negotiating hand of whoever forms the next government and concentrate the minds of the wider EU, meaning changes to the EU become more likely, meaning that in 2017/18 the UK electorate is more likely to vote to remain within the EU rather than leave.
> 
> is my logic broadly correct?


Why would the EU care if UKIP are voted in, they weren't bothered when France, Holland and Ireland voted no. They know that all the major UK parties are committed to the EU are will not leave.



littlebabyjesus said:


> TBH I'm not so sure how much of a shit the rest of the EU will give about the prospect of the UK leaving - they're already semi-detached anyway.


Well as I've said above I don't think it will ever happen but I think it's lunatic nonsense to say that the EU wouldn't care about the UK leaving. It would cause huge damage for their project, how would they stop Greece for example breaking off.


----------



## killer b (May 22, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> TBH I'm not so sure how much of a shit the rest of the EU will give about the prospect of the UK leaving - they're already semi-detached anyway. That the country is voting in large numbers for an anti-EU party might just make them give even less of a shit.


Total bollocks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2014)

co-op said:


> You might expect this happens where a party is hopelessly off its turf but Labour have to pay people to deliver in Lambeth ffs; that's a working class inner London borough where they dominate the council and they don't have enough members to deliver their stuff.



I know.  When I belonged to Streatham CLP in the late '80s/early '90s, there were enough activists to get the entire constituency leafleted in 2-3 evenings.  Same with canvassing.  Now, the CLP is mostly councillors and an ageing core of activists.
No-one wants to put the effort in for a party that gives them no voice, and that's what Labour now is - a party that isn't constitutionally-required to listen to the membership anymore.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> Die Linke, made up of former east German communists and disaffected social democrats, is now the main opposition in Germany's European election, here we have TUSC and Left Unity, will we ever have an effective non LP parliamentary left?



Do yourself a favour, and learn about the German political system before making direct comparisons.  Germany has a "leftish" opposition in part due to their federal status.  It makes political power more immediate, and makes politicians more accountable.  It's a lot different to what we have here.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 22, 2014)

IN YOUR _FACE_, FARAGE:


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 22, 2014)

Oh fuck. I wish I'd seen that after I had voted. Much as I hate Farage and UKIP - that comparison is casting him in a favorable light. When I get to the voting booth I'm bound to think of that mop-topped twat and his blue stripey apron and subconsciously think "That Farage isn't such a bad old stick after all X'


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> are you stupid as well as mental?



It's certainly the case that _Die Linke_ form a more cohesive broad left opposition in the German _Lande_ than anything we have here, but that's partly to do with German local and regional democracy being more open to "change from below" than our own farcical system.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 22, 2014)

Since when has signing a petition been 'Direct Action' ??


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 22, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Well I'm unsure why you believe that there will be a referendum in the nest parliament, I think it most unlikely. All the major parties are committed to the EU and I don't think any of them want to go to a referendum.
> 
> Why would the EU care if UKIP are voted in, they weren't bothered when France, Holland and Ireland voted no. They know that all the major UK parties are committed to the EU are will not leave.
> 
> Well as I've said above I don't think it will ever happen but I think it's lunatic nonsense to say that the EU wouldn't care about the UK leaving. It would cause huge damage for their project, how would they stop Greece for example breaking off.



The Tories have offered a referendum in 2018. The Lib Dems say they want a referendum the next time there is any "fundamental" change in the UK's relationship with the EU. In the next year Labour will have to deal with people saying that voting Labour takes away the option of a referendum. Meanwhile the long term stability of the EU isn't exactly guaranteed. I wouldn't write anything off.


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2014)

> VP said
> It's certainly the case that _Die Linke_ form a more cohesive broad left opposition in the German _Lande_ than anything we have here, but that's partly to do with German local and regional democracy being more open to "change from below" than our own farcical system.




Yes, of course they have more democratic options with the federalised Lande system, but the left there basically unified, it still hasn't here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Since when has signing a petition been 'Direct Action' ??



WRT to Hugh F-W, he didn't just sign the petition, IIRC, he organised it.
On the subject of petition-signing being seen by activism, I've long been amazed by people who class doing that (especially in an age of online petitions) as "activism".  At best it's civic participation.


----------



## gosub (May 22, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> The Tories have offered a referendum in 2018. The Lib Dems say they want a referendum the next time there is any "fundamental" change in the UK's relationship with the EU. In the next year Labour will have to deal with people saying that voting Labour takes away the option of a referendum. Meanwhile the long term stability of the EU isn't exactly guaranteed. I wouldn't write anything off.



Nope. Labour said they will have a referendum if there is a new treaty (and it looks like there will be). Choice would be accept new treaty/ out of EU.   Tories said 2017 having renegotiated (IN/OUT)(you can't actually renegotiate in that time frame but still, and the Lib Dems always say they are favour then bottle it when it comes to a Parlimentary vote.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2014)

Labour have said they will hold a referendum _if any new treaty gave significant further powers to the  EU_ - not just if there is a new treaty. And they do not expect to see any such power-granting treaty to materialise. They effectively are anti-referendum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> Yes, of course they have more democratic options with the federalised Lande system, but the left there basically unified, it still hasn't here.



The German left *isn't* "basically unified".  It is, however, more fluid and less dogmatic in terms of seeing the good sense in combining forces for a "greater good".


----------



## kebabking (May 22, 2014)

gosub said:


> Nope. Labour said they will have a referendum if there is a new treaty...



thats what labour say _now_, i'm interested in what they say in the 8 weeks leading up to the election in 2015 and if - as appears to be the concensus - UKIP do very well in the popular vote today, i expect to see Labour attempt to hoover up some UKIP votes by being a bit more strident on the EU.

regardless of how well UKIP do in the Euro's and council elections, i don't think large numbers of people are going to vote for them in the GE - they are a one-trick-pony and pretty much everyone knows it - the impact that UKIP voters will have in the 2015 GE is not in voting for UKIP, but in voting for the traditional party that best manages to steal UKIP's clothes.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2014)

kebabking said:


> thats what labour say _now_, i'm interested in what they say in the 8 weeks leading up to the election in 2015 and if - as appears to be the concensus - UKIP do very well in the popular vote today, i expect to see Labour attempt to hoover up some UKIP votes by being a bit more strident on the EU.
> 
> regardless of how well UKIP do in the Euro's and council elections, i don't think large numbers of people are going to vote for them in the GE - they are a one-trick-pony and pretty much everyone knows it - the impact that UKIP voters will have in the 2015 GE is not in voting for UKIP, but in voting for the traditional party that best manages to steal UKIP's clothes.


UKIP supporters have consistently indicated that the eu is not their main concern. Why insist that it is - and further, that it's their only real concern?


----------



## gosub (May 22, 2014)

If there is a change in Labour's position, is more likely to be to counter losing votes to UKIP.  A vote on a new treaty is on statute books anyway.  But I do remember Lisbon


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2014)

The thing on the statute books is not a referendum on in/out of eu - but for/against any new treaty/granting of further powers.


----------



## kebabking (May 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP supporters have consistently indicated that the eu is not their main concern. Why insist that it is - and further, that it's their only real concern?



i'm not, exactly the opposite in fact - the 'kippers are obsessed/concerned with immigration, their beef with the EU is that it facilitates immigration. once both major parties agree to a referendum on the EU they will become much more equal in the eyes of the 'kippers with one offering a pro-EU, neoliberal agenda, and the other offering a neoliberal, pro-EU agenda - it becomes a fair fight between the two where individual 'kippers will decide whether to vote labour or tory on the other, non-immigration/EU issues.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2014)

kebabking said:


> i'm not, exactly the opposite in fact - the 'kippers are obsessed/concerned with immigration, their beef with the EU is that it facilitates immigration. once both major parties agree to a referendum on the EU they will become much more equal in the eyes of the 'kippers with one offering a pro-EU, neoliberal agenda, and the other offering a neoliberal, pro-EU agenda - it becomes a fair fight between the two where individual 'kippers will decide whether to vote labour or tory on the other, non-immigration/EU issues.


Well, calling hem a one trick pony then saying they're monomaniacal about immigration wouldn't suggest you think they have other concerns! Why would such a strong obsession dissipate before the general election - esp if one party is then seen as being soft on their obsession? That would only bring it to the forefront of these peoples voting behaviour/justification all over again i would think. Anyway, i can't see labour budging from their current anti-referendum with a anti-referendum content position. They might stress the former a bit more strongly, but i think that would be about all.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (May 22, 2014)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/22/ukip-ballot-paper-elections_n_5370711.html?ref=topbar


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2014)

> My colleague* Helen Pidd* has sent me this about Ukip prospects in the north of England.
> In the north, the biggest Labour losses tonight could come in South Yorkshire, where Ukip is confident of gaining at least four and perhaps as many as seven of the 21 seats up for grabs on Rotherham council, which would make them the official opposition. The anti-EU party currently has just one seat on the Labour-run council, following a byelection last year.
> Some big Labour trees could be felled: the cabinet member Gerald Smith, a councillor since 1979, is looking shaky in Holderness; and controversial deputy leader Jahangir Akhtar in Rotherham Westcould be at risk not just from Ukip but a strong local candidate from George Galloway's Respect party. Other wards that look strong for Ukip, according to the local party's vice chair, John Wilkinson, include Rawmarsh (which has the Ukip incumbent), Silverwood, Hellaby (where the Ukip candidate is a Tory defector), Valley, Rotherham East, Maltby and Anston & Woodsetts.
> In Sunderland, Ukip is hopeful of getting its first directly elected councillor in the north-east (they have a few siting councillors in the region who have defected from elsewhere).



From guardian update, I think she may be right about Rotherham, so sad, but it seems to be happening across the EU in former industrial areas: the nationalists/populists are gaining seats


----------



## laptop (May 22, 2014)

kebabking said:


> their beef with the EU is that it facilitates immigration



I think you'll find that that's just the tactical angle for today's election. 

Not least to expunge the memory of the barking manifesto for the last; but also to conceal the other neoliberal policies.


----------



## weepiper (May 22, 2014)




----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Labour have said they will hold a referendum _if any new treaty gave significant further powers to the  EU_ - not just if there is a new treaty. And they do not expect to see any such power-granting treaty to materialise. They effectively are anti-referendum.


Precisely, all three parties will use that wording as a get out clause (when in gov, or course what they say in opposition will be different).


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 23, 2014)

> *Panic as UKIP discover that ‘UKIP’ is Bulgarian for ‘Welcome!’ *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://southporttimes.co.uk/?p=106

Que diablos es esto?


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 23, 2014)

Meanwhile, over in Germany, the Alternative fur Deutschland party are singing a new tune on gays, gender equality and immigrants. But not all their supporters are happy. 

http://www.spiegel.de/international...s-softer-tone-on-gays-and-women-a-971131.html



> *Anger In the Party Base*
> 
> But this week's moves have also angered the party base. For many in the party, tolerance towards gays and lesbians and foreigners is precisely the kind of political correctness that drove them away from the country's established mainstream parties. Party chief Lucke's in-box has been filled with protest mails. "I joined AFD because of positive statements made about family values," wrote Hermann S. of Bad Säckingen near the Swiss border. If there really is a working group for gay and lesbian issues, he wrote, "then I would announce my withdrawal from the party as a Christian on the basis of my conscience."
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (May 23, 2014)

From a Michael Gove advisor:

It would be nice to say same old classist Tory bigots but his sentiment is absolutely indistinguishable from an awful lot of nasty comments about accent, intelligence, educational attainment, clothes and mental health issues from peole on the left and centre. Proof positive of that: the Guardian is reporting the comments as an intelligent insight and not an incredibly bigoted comment.


----------



## brogdale (May 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> From a Michael Gove advisor:
> 
> It would be nice to say same old classist Tory bigots but his sentiment is absolutely indistinguishable from an awful lot of nasty comments about accent, intelligence, educational attainment, clothes and mental health issues from peole on the left and centre. Proof positive of that: the Guardian is reporting the comments as an intelligent insight and not an incredibly bigoted comment.




Exactly. 
There are undoubtedly geographical correlations between UKIP support and low levels of educational qualification, more aged demographics and higher densities of EU in-migration, but to ascribe direct causation is tantamount to declaring that poverty is worse in poorer areas. It is interesting to see the political elite struggle to explain expressions of working class disaffection.


----------



## The39thStep (May 23, 2014)

Keenan Malik makes a decent attempt at analysis but his conclusion for a way toward is limp


----------



## The39thStep (May 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> From a Michael Gove advisor:
> 
> It would be nice to say same old classist Tory bigots but his sentiment is absolutely indistinguishable from an awful lot of nasty comments about accent, intelligence, educational attainment, clothes and mental health issues from peole on the left and centre. Proof positive of that: the Guardian is reporting the comments as an intelligent insight and not an incredibly bigoted comment.




Sick and tired of 'education is the answer' anti fascism/ anti UKIP brigade


----------



## brogdale (May 23, 2014)

Why are they not gaining any purchase in GL...in their own words....



> The results so far show little break-through in London, with the party losing one seat in Richmond and three in Merton, including that of*Suzanne Evans* - the posh, eloquent ex-Tory who has done stints on Question Time. Why did she lose? In her words:
> 
> _It’s because London is its own person, if you like - its own body, its own individual character - and it’s very different from the rest of the country. *Look at the social demographic - you have lots of the sort of metropolitan elite who, I think, cannot really understand the heartache and the pain that many people around the country are feeling*._



Merton.

Nothing there about folk who've lived in multi-cultural communities all their lives being immune to populist 'dog-whistles'.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 23, 2014)

Winston McKenzie looks suitably bonkers


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> Keenan Malik makes a decent attempt at analysis but his conclusion for a way toward is limp


Yeah, I thought that too. Not sure if I've seen any non-limp ways forward proposed anywhere mind.


----------



## Favelado (May 23, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> Winston McKenzie looks suitably bonkers




I just had a look and he signs off most of his tweets CHAMP.

LOL

e2a "
*Winston McKenzie* ‏@*WinstonMcK*  14 de may.
@*AnishUKIP* Too right.@*WinstonMcK* 4 Mayor.I'll float like a butterfly & sting like a bee.I'll eliminate the fallacies & create good policies."


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> From a Michael Gove advisor:
> 
> It would be nice to say same old classist Tory bigots but his sentiment is absolutely indistinguishable from an awful lot of nasty comments about accent, intelligence, educational attainment, clothes and mental health issues from peole on the left and centre. Proof positive of that: the Guardian is reporting the comments as an intelligent insight and not an incredibly bigoted comment.




ffs


----------



## girasol (May 23, 2014)

I just read this, goes with this thread... (me posting it doesn't mean I support Ukip btw, I don't!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...t-theyre-damning-millions-decent-Britons.html


----------



## Coolfonz (May 23, 2014)

I think these votes actually produce some opportunities for other (non-UKIP) political parties. And that even includes groups like TUSC and Left Unity (who should merge as an aside).

I'm speaking broadly here okay. You can quite easily see that UKIP have gained most in areas which are - or see themselves as - traditional working class areas, yes with aspirations or not, as I said I'm speaking broadly. But generally from those people who bought the Tory line after 1979. They gave up/turned their back on a wider society, employee rights and so on - which they had liked after WW2 - in return for rising wages, the ability to own housing, cheaper consumer goods and other material benefits. Notably Essex, parts of the midlands, parts of Yorkshire. It's not an unreasonable exchange in a lot of cases. I have plenty of people I regard as friends like that and they aren't bad folk. I'm not really any different apart from my politics. I like flat screens, a decent car and all that shit.

Then 2007-2009 robbed them of that. And they are pissed off.

So not only are they getting shit(ter) council services, packed hospitals, over subscribed schools, poor job security, less employment (for the self employed) and unemployment they get rising prices simultaneously with non-index linked pensions and falling wages.

So there is an opportunity for any political party to talk to those people, directly. UKIP have done so with its narrative. Many of the left parties (if one includes the Greens as well) just will not talk to them.

Even online when I have said to other leftists `if you can't explain our policies to a room full of UKIP voters what are we doing` I've been told to fuck off and join them. It seems weird to me. Leftists saying these peole are mad/bigots/senile etc. Instead left people are writing diatribes on the arrest of Gerry Adams, the universal wage, "open borders," the IPCC and all the other tangential subjects (which are important on their day, don't get me wrong) which simply ignore what these folks are concerned about.

Despite all this shit going on UKIP are polling ~25pc of a ~36pc turnout. There is an opportunity here...


----------



## juice_terry (May 23, 2014)

UKIP managed to gain 4 seats on my local council (Maidstone) it was interesting to see that 3 of the 4 wards were predominantly working class areas and the 4th an affluent area. Maidstone council now in no overall control with Tories holding most seats (29) , Lib Dems with 19, Independents with 5 to UKIP's 4 and Labour's 2.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 23, 2014)

http://bilgewatch.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/ukip-hype-whats-next/


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 23, 2014)

> mainstream media (MSM)


----------



## CNT36 (May 23, 2014)

Should people really be smug about the fact around 1 in 14 people in "London's diverse multicultural society" found UKIP attractive?



> UKIP have tried to explain away their 7% vote in London by claiming that they were the victims of "more media-savvy, well-educated population".
> 
> Given that many of Britain's poorest boroughs are in London - such as Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney - this arguement simply doesn't wash.
> 
> More realistically, London's diverse multicultural society simply didn't find UKIP attractive.


From Hope not Hate.


----------



## treelover (May 23, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> Winston McKenzie looks suitably bonkers



He is just on PM going on about the "cry of racism" is overused and abused, loudly and aggressively.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

Someone on fb is contemplating leaving the uk because of ukip! Apparently all the clever people are going to leave the country in 10 years and the brain drain means 'well get more like Eastern Europe' so classism, misogyny and now racism?


----------



## CNT36 (May 23, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Someone on fb is contemplating leaving the uk because of ukip! Apparently all the clever people are going to leave the country in 10 years and the brain drain means 'well get more like Eastern Europe'


I had one of them. People like that made me consider voting UKIP. Them and fucking Newsthump.


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

treelover said:


> He is just on PM going on about the "cry of racism" is overused and abused, loudly and aggressively.


he sounds utterly insane tbh


----------



## Gingerman (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> he sounds utterly insane tbh


Wasn't he a boxer? Too many punches to the head probably....


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 23, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> I had one of them. *People like that made me consider voting UKIP.* Them and fucking Newsthump.



You are joking right?  People behaving bonkers and saying daft things  Do pagans make you want to join the Catholic church?


----------



## treelover (May 23, 2014)

Gingerman

I think you may be right.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

It actually pisses me off because on one hand they are going on about ukips racism but being really racist themselves, I know many people from eastern europe, there are other reasons why someone would want to stay there apart from being thick, usually because they cannot afford to move, often because the beloved EU in the case of Serbia, Moldova, etc, makes it extremely difficult to move there, often simply because all their family are there, not because they are thick ffs


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

Thing is that a load of people I usually respect are taking this sort of sneering line, I knew I was right to stay off Facebook and twitter most of today


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 23, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Thing is that a load of people I usually respect are taking this sort of sneering line, I knew I was right to stay off Facebook and twitter most of today



Steer clear Froggy...it's pollution and for sure you will see the utter worst of some people.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Steer clear Froggy...it's pollution and for sure you will see the utter worst of some people.



They're meant to be on our side.. This is in some cases SP members/anarchist saying this stuff.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Steer clear Froggy...it's pollution and for sure you will see the utter worst of some people.



There was another one who said all ukip voters should be killed as a joke, had people who usually go mad at anything like that defending it because its 'just a parody' as if jokes don't play a role in creating culture


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 23, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> They're meant to be on our side.. This is in some cases SP members/anarchist saying this stuff.



Yeah I hear ya, utterly contradictory and depressing/disapointing. I feel the same way when I see/hear so called anti -fash using expressions like Uncle Tom or Coconut.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 23, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> There was another one who said all ukip voters should be killed as a joke, had people who usually go mad at anything like that defending it because its 'just a parody' as if jokes don't play a role in creating culture



Yeah, parody being used as an excuse to be a cunt.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah, parody being used as an excuse to be a cunt.



The person who was defending it on these grounds is one of the first people who goes mental about intersectionality and any 'wrong' use of language usually


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 23, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> The person who was defending it on these grounds is one of the first people who goes mental about intersectionality and any 'wrong' use of language usually




So either nail them or stay away.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> So either nail them or stay away.



I couldn't really be arsed with a fight. They were complaining that ukip were saying that someone who had tweeted that all ukip voters should be killed as a joke was given a job at the BBC, should not be given a job. To be honest I don't think they should, because it a) helps ukip and b) is deeply inappropriate. I know people who have voted for them in the past ffs.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 23, 2014)

Interesting interview on BBC. Why one man is voting for UKIP. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27543012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27543012


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Thing is that a load of people I usually respect are taking this sort of sneering line, I knew I was right to stay off Facebook and twitter most of today


Interesting that UKIP have managed to frame the debate, though, so all criticism of them is sneering. Not excusing the above, but they have cornered a 'I'm just a simple man and what I know is....' Narrative. So anyone who points out they have no policies, the economics doesn't work, leaving the EU isn't a magic solution to all problems real and imagined is accused of being establishment, part of the old way of doing things, patronising etc. Similar to the tea party in the US, it appears


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> Interesting that UKIP have managed to frame the debate, though, so all criticism of them is sneering. Not excusing the above, but they have cornered a 'I'm just a simple man and what I know is....' Narrative. So anyone who points out they have no policies, the economics doesn't work, leaving the EU isn't a magic solution to all problems real and imagined is accused of being establishment, part of the old way of doing things, patronising etc. Similar to the tea party in the US, it appears



Are you serious?


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> Interesting that UKIP have managed to frame the debate, though, so all criticism of them is sneering. Not excusing the above, but they have cornered a 'I'm just a simple man and what I know is....' Narrative. So anyone who points out they have no policies, the economics doesn't work, leaving the EU isn't a magic solution to all problems real and imagined is accused of being establishment, part of the old way of doing things, patronising etc. Similar to the tea party in the US, it appears




That's the thing, obviously this narrative works in their favour, but I don't think it is them that started it. And I don't think that saying that if a party (criticized for being racist) gets power all the clever people are gonna leave and well get like Eastern Europe, or that all ukip voters should be killed is remotely OK tbh. And I fucking hate farage and ukip, but this content less and downright offensive sneering is going on.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

I've seen and heard loads of people in my networks from all sorts of backgrounds criticising UKIP - and the BBC for their ludicrous and relentless promotion of them - and none of them have been snobbish. Maybe I'm just lucky there.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

This might be a good time/place to post this


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> That's the thing, obviously this narrative works in their favour, but I don't think it is them that started it. And I don't think that saying that if a party (criticized for being racist) gets power all the clever people are gonna leave and well get like Eastern Europe, or that all ukip voters should be killed is remotely OK tbh. And I fucking hate farage and ukip, but this content less and downright offensive sneering is going on.


No, you've misunderstood. What I said is 'not excusing the above'... Saying all clever people will leave or whatever is just unpleasant. But I was attempting to make a point about their self positioning as a political party of the misunderstood underdog.


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I've seen and heard loads of people in my networks from all sorts of backgrounds criticising UKIP - and the BBC for their ludicrous and relentless promotion of them - and none of them have been snobbish. Maybe I'm just lucky there.


Ditto, but I've also seen others claim they are being snobbish- one exchange ended with an enthusiastic UKIP supporter who is in Hull and delighted that they now have a UKIP counsellor saying that the criticiser of UKIP couldn't possibly understand her concerns as he wasn't looking at losing his job to a foreigner, and he was alright so turning his back on his roots. With more swearing and posturing. 

And the above woman's husband has been incandescent about the #whyi'mvotingukip tweets, calling them snobby, stupid and stuck up yesterday. I thought some of them were clever and funny <<shrugs>>


----------



## J Ed (May 23, 2014)

So inspired by the behaviour of the liberal commentariat and their hangers on, I thought that 'Actually bigoted liberal' should become a thing

Inspired by a tweet...


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> No, you've misunderstood. What I said is 'not excusing the above'... Saying all clever people will leave or whatever is just unpleasant. But I was attempting to make a point about their self positioning as a political party of the misunderstood underdog.



Not sure I understand what you're saying - are you saying that the party leadership has deliberately cultivated the image of themselves as the misunderstood underdog (true enough but that's just politicians doing what politicians do, and they've had a massive helping hand from the establishment parties and media, who've gone after them in a way they never do the traditional parties thus reinforcing that image - they'd never have been so successful in cultivating that image if powerful people weren't effectively confirming it by their actions) or are you saying that it's wrong to understand their _support _as misunderstood and disenfranchised/'underdog'?


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

Was it you SpineyNorman who was telling me that ukip were the part with the largest ethnic minority support?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> Ditto, but I've also seen others claim they are being snobbish- one exchange ended with an enthusiastic UKIP supporter who is in Hull and delighted that they now have a UKIP counsellor saying that the criticiser of UKIP couldn't possibly understand her concerns as he wasn't looking at losing his job to a foreigner, and he was alright so turning his back on his roots. With more swearing and posturing.
> 
> And the above woman's husband has been incandescent about the #whyi'mvotingukip tweets, calling them snobby, stupid and stuck up yesterday. I thought some of them were clever and funny <<shrugs>>



The ones I saw _were _snobbish, stupid and stuck up tbh

And I think it's true that many of the anti-UKIPers don't understand the concerns of their voters - losing their jobs to foreigners is the UKIP gloss that's put on it but the root problem is insecurity - it's not caused by foreigners IMO but it is there, and the most ardent anti-UKIP types I know - mostly educated, financially secure liberals - really don't understand and don't care.

This is summed up by one of the #whyImnotvotingUKIP tweets I saw yesterday that said something along the lines of 'because I don't blame the fact I'm a failure on foreigners'.


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not sure I understand what you're saying - are you saying that the party leadership has deliberately cultivated the image of themselves as the misunderstood underdog (true enough but that's just politicians doing what politicians do, and they've had a massive helping hand from the establishment parties and media, who've gone after them in a way they never do the traditional parties thus reinforcing that image - they'd never have been so successful in cultivating that image if powerful people weren't effectively confirming it by their actions) or are you saying that it's wrong to understand their _support _as misunderstood and disenfranchised/'underdog'?


The former. Farage is a very, very establishment figure in lots of ways, but has crafted a party that claims to be 'outsiders'. I think it's interesting as it allows them to say increasingly bonkers things and claim that criticism is prejudice. It's a very similar process (from what I see of it, as a layperson who happened to live there then and here now) to what happened in the US as the tea party was developing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Was it you SpineyNorman who was telling me that ukip were the part with the largest ethnic minority support?



16% - I've seen it on a poll on a thread here somewhere and Farrage mentions it in that lbc interview as well.

They basically took the votes of the Yemeni community from the TUSC candidate in one ward in Sheffield.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2014)

I didn't find some of the pisstakes of that black ukip guy in London that good either.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> The former. Farage is a very, very establishment figure in lots of ways, but has crafted a party that claims to be 'outsiders'. I think it's interesting as it allows them to say increasingly bonkers things and claim that criticism is prejudice. It's a very similar process (from what I see of it, as a layperson who happened to live there then and here now) to what happened in the US as the tea party was developing.



Fair enough - agree with that. But I think it's really important to keep in mind the distinction between the leadership and the support, especially the 'soft' support.


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> The ones I saw _were _snobbish, stupid and stuck up tbh
> 
> And I think it's true that many of the anti-UKIPers don't understand the concerns of their voters - losing their jobs to foreigners is the UKIP gloss that's put on it but the root problem is insecurity - it's not caused by foreigners IMO but it is there, and the most ardent anti-UKIP types I know - mostly educated, financially secure liberals - really don't understand and don't care.
> 
> This is summed up by one of the #whyImnotvotingUKIP tweets I saw yesterday that said something along the lines of 'because I don't blame the fact I'm a failure on foreigners'.


I'm not sure who their voters are. Every new story seems to focus a different demographic- disaffected Tory Essex man, labour heartland voters who haven't seen an economic recovery yet, the working class who feel marginalised and insecure, upper middle Home Counties types who've never liked foreigners and think the EU is after sterling.... They are a bit vague on actual policies and positions which makes it difficult IMO to characterise who the voters are, beyond people who are against how things are now. Almost the definition of a protest vote.


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fair enough - agree with that. But I think it's really important to keep in mind the distinction between the leadership and the support, especially the 'soft' support.


In what way do you mean?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> The former. Farage is a very, very establishment figure in lots of ways, but has crafted a party that claims to be 'outsiders'. I think it's interesting as it allows them to say increasingly bonkers things and claim that criticism is prejudice. It's a very similar process (from what I see of it, as a layperson who happened to live there then and here now) to what happened in the US as the tea party was developing.


Oh yes, it's very similar - well, slightly different in that the TP came out of the collapse of mainstream Republicanism which already had rhetoric about critics being the out of touch liberal elite, whereas that's something more specifically adopted by UKIP I would say. But it's constantly what they mean. That statement on Today about London voters might have been utterly fucked up in delivery but it was meant to imply that. (Trust HnH to mangle even a response to that  )


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh yes, it's very similar - well, slightly different in that the TP came out of the collapse of mainstream Republicanism which already had rhetoric about critics being the out of touch liberal elite, whereas that's something more specifically adopted by UKIP I would say. But it's constantly what they mean. That statement on Today about London voters might have been utterly fucked up in delivery but it was meant to imply that. (Trust HnH to mangle even a response to that  )


I was about to say there was less religion in this incarnation, but thinking about it we've had gays/flooding/wrath of god, and the insane guy on R4 was going on about God too. Wonder if it will become a theme.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> I was about to say there was less religion in this incarnation, but thinking about it we've had gays/flooding/wrath of god, and the insane guy on R4 was going on about God too. Wonder if it will become a theme.


I don't think so, that's more specifically American. (Gove's antics have surprised quite a few Americans I've told about them though.)


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't think so, that's more specifically American. (Gove's antics have surprised quite a few Americans I've told about them though.)


The religious schools?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> The religious schools?


The Bible-with-a-foreword thing.


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The Bible-with-a-foreword thing.


Oh, missed that. <<goes off to google>>

E2a good lord


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> In what way do you mean?



For the leadership the image of misunderstood underdog is, as you say, cultivated (though establishment liberals did much of Farage's work for him there). But for much of their 'soft' support - certainly in the working class northern cities and towns I'm familiar with - the self-image as disenfranchised, left behind, concerns dismissed by traditional political parties and mainstream civil society - didn't need to be cultivated.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> For the leadership the image of misunderstood underdog is, as you say, cultivated (though establishment liberals did much of Farage's work for him there). But for much of their 'soft' support - certainly in the working class northern cities and towns I'm familiar with - the self-image as disenfranchised, left behind, concerns dismissed by traditional political parties and mainstream civil society - didn't need to be cultivated.


That sort of self-image didn't need to be "cultivated" certainly, mostly because it's true. It doesn't necessarily turn into support for UKIP or parties with similar policies. I would say that has to be cultivated, and it's not just UKIP who do it by any means.


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> For the leadership the image of misunderstood underdog is, as you say, cultivated (though establishment liberals did much of Farage's work for him there). But for much of their 'soft' support - certainly in the working class northern cities and towns I'm familiar with - the self-image as disenfranchised, left behind, concerns dismissed by traditional political parties and mainstream civil society - didn't need to be cultivated.


Ahha, understand. But wonder how many of those people voted for them- or voted at all tbh. As I said, I'm unclear about who their supporters are- the people I know who voted for them are not marginalised and disenfranchised.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> I'm not sure who their voters are. Every new story seems to focus a different demographic- disaffected Tory Essex man, labour heartland voters who haven't seen an economic recovery yet, the working class who feel marginalised and insecure, upper middle Home Counties types who've never liked foreigners and think the EU is after sterling.... They are a bit vague on actual policies and positions which makes it difficult IMO to characterise who the voters are, beyond people who are against how things are now. Almost the definition of a protest vote.



In Sheffield and the surrounding towns, if the response we've had on campaign stalls and canvassing is anything to go by, it's overwhelmingly working class traditional labour. And I'm convinced that it's this kind of vote, more than any other, is responsible for their rise in electoral fortunes - they've represented the other types you listed for a while now - it might have grown a bit recently but there's been no fundamental change. The disenfranchised working class element of their vote appears to me to be almost entirely new.

So while it's true that UKIP's vote comes from all the different sections of society you've listed, their recent growth into an electoral force that nobody can ignore is down predominantly to working class voters. 

The polling seems to back this up too, though I don't have it to hand but it is all on here somewhere, I think on this very thread.


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> In Sheffield and the surrounding towns, if the response we've had on campaign stalls and canvassing is anything to go by, it's overwhelmingly working class traditional labour. And I'm convinced that it's this kind of vote, more than any other, is responsible for their rise in electoral fortunes - they've represented the other types you listed for a while now - it might have grown a bit recently but there's been no fundamental change. The disenfranchised working class element of their vote appears to me to be almost entirely new.
> 
> So while it's true that UKIP's vote comes from all the different sections of society you've listed, their recent growth into an electoral force that nobody can ignore is down predominantly to working class voters.
> 
> The polling seems to back this up too, though I don't have it to hand but it is all on here somewhere, I think on this very thread.


Thx, interesting. Not going to read 97 pages on the off chance I find it though


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That sort of self-image didn't need to be "cultivated" certainly, mostly because it's true. It doesn't necessarily turn into support for UKIP or parties with similar policies. I would say that has to be cultivated, and it's not just UKIP who do it by any means.



I agree - the point I was (probably clumsily) making is precisely that it doesn't need to be cultivated because it's true. There's plenty of liberal anti-UKIPers who don't believe this - who believe it's 'failure' rather than being let down, that they really should just stop moaning cos they're mostly privileged white males and the like.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

Manter said:


> Thx, interesting. Not going to read 97 pages on the off chance I find it though



I don't blame you


----------



## treelover (May 23, 2014)

Cameron , says he is going to respond to UKIP advances by amongst other things 'c4racking down on welfare'

I'm not sure that was raised by UKIP that much, though I'm sure they will now.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I agree - the point I was (probably clumsily) making is precisely that it doesn't need to be cultivated because it's true. There's plenty of liberal anti-UKIPers who don't believe this - who believe it's 'failure' rather than being let down, that they really should just stop moaning cos they're mostly privileged white males and the like.


I'm sure there are, it's the "immigration" "debate" writ large in a lot of cases. The other thing is that a lot of the said liberal anti-UKIPers aren't really all that concerned about racism either - there's plenty of acceptable racism around, just differently styled.

The frustrating thing for me is that none of this should be connected to immigration at all, and yet you can't get away from it apparently. The basic idea that it's to blame for situations X Y Z needs to be challenged but doing so is just shouting into the BBC wind.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm sure there are, it's the "immigration" "debate" writ large in a lot of cases. The other thing is that a lot of the said liberal anti-UKIPers aren't really all that concerned about racism either - there's plenty of acceptable racism around, just differently styled.
> 
> The frustrating thing for me is that none of this should be connected to immigration at all, and yet you can't get away from it apparently. The basic idea that it's to blame for situations X Y Z needs to be challenged but doing so is just shouting into the BBC wind.



This is gonna sound like lefty abc dogmatism but I honestly think the only solution is to try and get people organised around concrete (preferrably class) issues and raise their awareness through struggle. To effectively challenge these kinds of ideas you've got to win people's trust and show you're not like the liberals who don't give a shit and this is the best way I know of doing it - we had a fair bit of success with this in bedroom tax campaigns, especially in Barnsley.


----------



## J Ed (May 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The frustrating thing for me is that none of this should be connected to immigration at all, and yet you can't get away from it apparently. The basic idea that it's to blame for situations X Y Z needs to be challenged but doing so is just shouting into the BBC wind.



All of these issues are now racialised but UKIP has very little responsibility for that.


----------



## treelover (May 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> 16% - I've seen it on a poll on a thread here somewhere and Farrage mentions it in that lbc interview as well.
> 
> They basically took the votes of the Yemeni community from the TUSC candidate in one ward in Sheffield.



The Yemeni community are generally left wing, some came from Aden(now Yemen) after the insurgency in the 60's.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

treelover said:


> Cameron , says he is going to respond to UKIP advances by amongst other things 'c4racking down on welfare'
> 
> I'm not sure that was raised by UKIP that much, though I'm sure they will now.



Interesting point - the only stuff I've seen from them on welfare has been claiming to defend benefits, though I'm sure they say the opposite if they think that's what the voters in an area want to hear. I think if they're smart they'll try and avoid taking an unambiguous position on this kind of question for as long as possible cos if they are drawn into a battle of who's toughest on welfare they're bound to lose part of the support that's looking for social protections.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> All of these issues are now racialised but UKIP has very little responsibility for that.


Yes, lots of parties have been very keen to rephrase economic issues as racial ones and then call their opponents racist. And you know their opponents may well be racist - UKIP is - because those opponents appear on that basis. Meanwhile nothing gets better.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2014)

treelover said:


> The Yemeni community are generally left wing, some came from Aden(now Yemen) after the insurgency in the 60's.


i'm sorry, i don't see how part two of your sentence supports or otherwise relates to part one of your sentence.


----------



## J Ed (May 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sorry, i don't see how part two of your sentence supports or otherwise relates to part one of your sentence.



I assume that TL means that some came from South Yemen back when it was a socialist state so some have some exposure to Marxism and/or are supportive of left-wing ideas.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is gonna sound like lefty abc dogmatism but I honestly think the only solution is to try and get people organised around concrete (preferrably class) issues and raise their awareness through struggle. To effectively challenge these kinds of ideas you've got to win people's trust and show you're not like the liberals who don't give a shit and this is the best way I know of doing it - we had a fair bit of success with this in bedroom tax campaigns, especially in Barnsley.


No, that's true, I don't see any other way it could work. I just get frustrated at the relentless concentration on immigration, overwhelming every other economic policy.

And, really, I'm not prepared to deal with UKIP or other anti-immigration positions as being reasonable ones - they're specifically aggressive towards me, my family and a lot of my friends. I find it a challenge to treat people subscribing to them as worth listening to. I can understand how they come to those positions but they are basically telling me and mine to fuck off.


----------



## CNT36 (May 23, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> You are joking right?  People behaving bonkers and saying daft things  Do pagans make you want to join the Catholic church?


Yes, joking, exaggerating or something. They actually pissed me off more than UKIP yesterday.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I assume that TL means that some came from South Yemen back when it was a socialist state so some have some exposure to Marxism and/or are supportive of left-wing ideas.


yeh but in that case why did they come to britain instead of building socialism in south yemen? tbh all i want treelover to do is say what he meant and we can move on instead of getting bogged down in this over many posts.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I assume that TL means that some came from South Yemen back when it was a socialist state so some have some exposure to Marxism and/or are supportive of left-wing ideas.



Yep, one of my Yemeni students fought for Mengistu, back in the day. When he goes back to visit he finds it odd to see his old comrades all heading off to the mosque. Don't think he'd been seen dead voting UKIP though.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No, that's true, I don't see any other way it could work. I just get frustrated at the relentless concentration on immigration, overwhelming every other economic policy.
> 
> And, really, I'm not prepared to deal with UKIP or other anti-immigration positions as being reasonable ones - they're specifically aggressive towards me, my family and a lot of my friends. I find it a challenge to treat people subscribing to them as worth listening to. I can understand how they come to those positions but they are basically telling me and mine to fuck off.



Me as well - I've got a black partner with 2 mixed race teenagers and a mixed race grandson. I have no time for ideological racists, don't see the point in even trying with them. But with the softer types for whom anti-immigrant stuff is in effect a way of explaining the shit they're going through I hold my nose and have a go - it's the only way it's going to be beaten. I do understand why others aren't prepared to do that though.

Sometimes it is more complex though - the example from above of the Yemeni community - a lot of its members have voted UKIP because there's been an influx of Eastern European migrants into the area, putting massive additional strains onto already tight resources. I really don't think the term racism makes sense here - it's a pragmatic attempt at protecting the interests of them and theirs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 23, 2014)

I also treat anti-immigrant stances as personally hostile towards me. What UKIP appear to be both developing and thriving off is the idea that social problems x, y and z (eg suppressed wages, unaffordable houses or joblessness) could be solved if only we got rid of lots of the immigrants. By magic - all the mechanisms of 'free market' capitalism remain in place, and are in fact reinforced. That's why I find it depressing when anyone on the left cheers votes for UKIP. At best that is one more person who needs to be persuaded that the problem is not what they think it is. At worst, it is a victory for bigotry. Either way, it is a sign of a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I also treat anti-immigrant stances as personally hostile towards me. What UKIP appear to be both developing and thriving off is the idea that social problems x, y and z (eg suppressed wages, unaffordable houses or joblessness) could be solved if only we got rid of lots of the immigrants. By magic - all the mechanisms of 'free market' capitalism remain in place, and are in fact reinforced. That's why I find it depressing when anyone on the left cheers votes for UKIP. At best that is one more person who needs to be persuaded that the problem is not what they think it is. At worst, it is a victory for bigotry. Either way, it is a sign of a step in the wrong direction.


there's one family i can think of, the worst sort of freeloading immigrants, who've wangled a top-notch central london mansion: but as they've managed to get british nationality by hook or by crook we can't send them packing as they so richly deserve


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 23, 2014)

My fear is also that Labour's response to this will not be to acknowledge the problems and the real causes of those problems, but instead to try to assuage fears of immigration. To set forward measures to limit access to the NHS or other services to people from other parts of the EU, for instance. I suspect that this will be their response over the coming year. The focus groups will tell them to do it.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 23, 2014)

Wow! It's an EARTHQUAKE!!!!!

Here's some major changes to look out for in the new political landscape:

- Lots of moaning about immigration in the press.

- Lots of being told we must take concerns about immigration seriously

- Lots of articles about the amazing Nigel Farage and his dynamic party

- Lots of being told that we shouldn't really say racists, sexists and homophobes are racist, sexist... you get the picture.

- A fairly small number of politicians replacing some other politicians and being at least as likely to be useless gravytrain riders (maybe miss this one out)

THINGS WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN!!!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 23, 2014)

There is an alternative scenario in which this is UKIP's high point. They don't kick on with the general elections, where their absence of a first idea what to do beyond shouting boo at the EU and immigrants therefrom is exposed rather badly.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Wow! It's an EARTHQUAKE!!!!!
> 
> Here's some major changes to look out for in the new political landscape:
> 
> ...


I don't think it's physically possible to talk (ie moan) more about immigration than it has been over the last few days, even weeks. I'm physically sick of it. 

Fortunately, in that respect, we had no local election here.


----------



## Coolfonz (May 24, 2014)

A few more thoughts.

It is good that Ukip have taken the right slightly leftward. 291,000 people voted BNP in 2007.

But I do think the party is going to find it hard to push on from here if the economy improves, if it fails to win any MPs in 2015. We have seen this before with the Greens and BNP.

The Liberals are widely seen as being hated, UKIP got around 37pc (off top of head maths) of the seats the Liberals got.

So called `Essex man` - which used to be so important on election nights - has fallen out of love with the Tories.

It is amazing how Labour has completely lost parts of working class voters and doesn't even seem to be making any attempt to get them back. Milliband and Balls really look like liabilities now.

All the parties of the left, TUSC, Left Unity and any others you can name, must merge into one group. Take the lessons from IU in Spain and Syriza.

But as I said a couple of pages back, there is an opportunity now to take Ukip voters. All the parties will be looking at how to nick them...

What price now on a Labour, Liberal and Green coalition after 2015?


----------



## treelover (May 24, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...onservativehome-conference-politics-live-blog


The Tories are having a conference today where they are examining how to get back the working class vote they used to have and combat UKIP, ideas include: supporting unions, backing a higher minimum wage and promoting aspiration, lots of it coming from Robert Halfon who seems to have the political antennae of a Tebbit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2014)

Manter said:


> The former. Farage is a very, very establishment figure in lots of ways, but has crafted a party that claims to be 'outsiders'. I think it's interesting as it allows them to say increasingly bonkers things and claim that criticism is prejudice. It's a very similar process (from what I see of it, as a layperson who happened to live there then and here now) to what happened in the US as the tea party was developing.



It's also, interestingly (at least to me!), a very similar anti-criticism tactic as adopted by the identity-politickers in the '80s - represent criticism as social prejudice - and some people will feel equally as uncomfortable contradicting Farage as they did contradicting the "speaking as a..." types back then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> there's one family i can think of, the worst sort of freeloading immigrants, who've wangled a top-notch central london mansion: but as they've managed to get british nationality by hook or by crook we can't send them packing as they so richly deserve



There's never a Bren gun around when you need one.


----------



## 1%er (May 24, 2014)

The more the other parties and the media cried "RACISTS" the more support UKIP appeared to get, I didn't see or read anything about policy/manifestos, just racism.  A very British election.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Wow! It's an EARTHQUAKE!!!!!
> 
> Here's some major changes to look out for in the new political landscape:
> 
> ...



What you need is enlightenment.
May I suggest you achieve it via the medium of hitting yourself round the head with a crowbar, you tart?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> The more the other parties and the media cried "RACISTS" the more support UKIP appeared to get, I didn't see or read anything about policy/manifestos, just racism.  A very British election.



UKIP are extremely and deliberately policy-light.  By being policy-light they can "capture" people who might not otherwise vote for them if they had a codified agenda.  UKIP discourse on a lot of subjects, but a lot of it is deniable, so the party can disavow any loonery from the membership, without *alienating* the membership or the wider electorate.
It's a suitable tactic that has been used successfully many times before.  it also means that you're more difficult for the opposition to nail down.


----------



## 1%er (May 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> UKIP are extremely and deliberately policy-light.  By being policy-light they can "capture" people who might not otherwise vote for them if they had a codified agenda.  UKIP discourse on a lot of subjects, but a lot of it is deniable, so the party can disavow any loonery from the membership, without *alienating* the membership or the wider electorate.
> It's a suitable tactic that has been used successfully many times before.  it also means that you're more difficult for the opposition to nail down.


But why was there no discussion about policy by the big 3, after all it was an election.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is an alternative scenario in which this is UKIP's high point. They don't kick on with the general elections, where their absence of a first idea what to do beyond shouting boo at the EU and immigrants therefrom is exposed rather badly.



Playing the underog will obviously take them only so far, as will avoiding getting bogged down in policy.  That lack of policy will only work against them *if* they don't fill the gap with something consistent and appealing in the meantime, though, and if they play off of what the other parties are unwilling to do, they *may* win a seat or two.
Of course, a good GE result is also dependant on whether they're interested in playing in that arena.  Local and regional power is more immediate, less mediated and therefore can be more appealing than the Parliamentary circus.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> But why was there no discussion about policy by the big 3, after all it was an election.



Could it be because there are really only fairly minor nuances separating their mainstream neo-liberal policies, whereas there's more differentiation to be had from posturing?


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> UKIP are extremely and deliberately policy-light.  By being policy-light they can "capture" people who might not otherwise vote for them if they had a codified agenda.  UKIP discourse on a lot of subjects, but a lot of it is deniable, so the party can disavow any loonery from the membership, without *alienating* the membership or the wider electorate.
> It's a suitable tactic that has been used successfully many times before.  it also means that you're more difficult for the opposition to nail down.


 Quite so. And now, in the post-election fall-out, we have representatives of their established political rivals cornered into a position where they now have to repeatedly, publicly spout that they "respect" UKIP, "respect" those who voted for them, are "listening" to their angst, are "hearing" their grievances and "working hard" to address those concerns. All very rewarding for those that went and put a cross down for Farage; wonder what conclusions they'll draw from the experience?


----------



## 1%er (May 24, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Could it be because it's really hard to tell the difference between neo-liberal policies, whereas there's more differentiation to be had from posturing?


If that is true, it say a lot about the state of politics in the UK nowadays.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> But why was there no discussion about policy by the big 3, after all it was an election.



Because national policy isn't particularly applicable at the local level, so policy is more localised.  People vote in local elections for the candidate who's most likely to improve a local situation, or whose party is promising to find the money to re-surface the roads, not because the candidate's national party is in favour of crucifying benefit claimants or some such.


----------



## 1%er (May 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because national policy isn't particularly applicable at the local level, so policy is more localised.  People vote in local elections for the candidate who's most likely to improve a local situation, or whose party is promising to find the money to re-surface the roads, not because the candidate's national party is in favour of crucifying benefit claimants or some such.


I see, I think. So in these elections voters went for individuals rather than party?


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> I see, I think. So in these elections voters went for individuals rather than party?


 Not in the Euros.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> If that is true, it say a lot about the state of politics in the UK nowadays.


It's been true for the last 20 years - since Blair became Labour leader. Some would say longer - since Kinnock. 

But UKIP are also a neo-liberal party, albeit an incoherent one. Their policies, such as they are, are not coherent because they seek to be business-friendly ('we'll cut the red tape, cut taxes, establish small government', etc) at the same time as offering vague promises of protectionism to British workers. The more you look in to UKIP, the less you find. 

TBH a vote for UKIP is also a vote for another version of 'business as usual' - and a pretty savage version of it.


----------



## 1%er (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Not in the Euros.


So why no policy in the euros as well?


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> So why no policy in the euros as well?



Because the 'kippers claim that their one, single, unifying, populist notion of withdrawal is the panacea.


----------



## 1%er (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Because the 'kippers claim that their one, single, unifying, populist notion of withdrawal is the panacea.


but what about the big 3? Was this a manifesto free Euro election?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Because the 'kippers claim that their one, single, unifying, populist notion of withdrawal is the panacea.


And the other parties refuse to confront this. EU immigration is not the cause of unemployment, but acknowledging the real cause of unemployment - it is an inevitable result of neoliberal economics and the retreat from collective solutions to problems - is even more unpalatable to them than pulling up UKIP. And they are also too scared to advocate free movement in the EU as a positive - for the same reason, because they are not prepared to acknowledge the consequences of free movement _combined with _neoliberal economics and the retreat from collective solutions.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And the other parties refuse to confront this. EU immigration is not the cause of unemployment, but acknowledging the real cause of unemployment - it is an inevitable result of neoliberal economics and the retreat from collective solutions to problems - is even more unpalatable to them than pulling up UKIP. And they are also too scared to advocate free movement in the EU as a positive - for the same reason, because they are not prepared to acknowledge the consequences of free movement _combined with _neoliberal economics and the retreat from collective solutions.


 Yes, all of that...added to which that, unlike UKIP, the 2 main parties are politically riven on the issue.


----------



## Quartz (May 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> So why no policy in the euros as well?



You can't vote for individual candidates in the Euro elections: it's a party list system (which I hate but that's for another thread).


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

Quartz said:


> You can't vote for individual candidates in the Euro elections: it's a party list system (which I hate but that's for another thread).


What on earth has that got to with UKIP having openly stated policies or not?


----------



## 1%er (May 24, 2014)

Quartz said:


> You can't vote for individual candidates in the Euro elections: it's a party list system (which I hate but that's for another thread).


When I asked this





1%er said:


> I see, I think. So in these elections voters went for individuals rather than party?


we were talking about the locals 

My understanding about the Euros is, it is some sort of PR and a list system.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What you need is enlightenment.
> May I suggest you achieve it via the medium of hitting yourself round the head with a crowbar, you tart?



I might be wrong on some things, but on this I am not:

Lots of people are heartily sick of the same echo chamber shit, day in and week out eminating from the same class and sources that UKIP purport to be against. It's obscured the real politics of things like the NHS privatisation, benefit sanctions and other things that impact what is patronisingly termed "the real world" a lot more than 26 million people who aren't actually after my job, living in sewers or stealing babies.

I can't believe that people get slapped around on forums like this for saying that the bullyscum press has been absolutely hideous and gut-wrenching in recent months. (Well, I can believe it but only from experience)


A balanced assessment of the UKIP local election results is "medium sized party make good gains despite drop in share", but the press have to keep riding the same bandwaggon they've been on for months. They don't know any different, and sections that are often more sensible have gone along for the ride too.

I'm no Labourite, but the same press is painting the results as some kind of near disaster for them. Why? It wasn't great by any stretch, but what this is really about is right wing perspectives being applied again and again and again. Labour have made a bit more effort on issues that effect poorer people, like rents, zero hours contracts etc. Not miraculous and maybe no more than just noise, but they are attacked again and again.

With Tory and LD in government it's obvious that a Labour wobbler can be pushed towards UKIP, especially with enough hype. Then it's "LOOK!! Labour are really losing out" - it's a message the reactionaries want to project, and they have helped create it.

They needed to say that UKIP took Labour votes, to try and offset damage to their tory allies,  and started doing so simoultaneously a few days after Farage and Co said it was a developing strategy. However, UKIP continue to eat far more into Tory votes, so if anything the game of lies is going to have to be stepped up. Lucky us.

It seems like the endless tide of hatred against migration isn't going to stop any time soon, especially not with Crosby practing his disgusting dark arts. Why should it be a problem to talk about it?


----------



## Quartz (May 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> When I asked thiswe were talking about the locals



Ah, mea culpa.



> My understanding about the Euros is, it is some sort of PR and a list system.



Yes. D'Hondt and a party list.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I'm no Labourite, but the same press is painting the results as some kind of near disaster for them. Why? It wasn't great by any stretch,



Actually, I thought winning 338 extra council seats and 6 extra councils was a resounding success for Labour.


----------



## 1%er (May 24, 2014)

wrong thread  F1 thread --------->


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 24, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Ah, mea culpa.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough, there's different ways of interpretting it. It was, for example from a 2010 base, general election night that wasn't great.

But my general point is that the MSM are fixated on an anti Labour perspective which has hardened because now there are 2 neoliberal zealot and socially conservative parties to bolster the narrative.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Fair enough, there's different ways of interpretting it. It was, for example from a 2010 base, general election night that wasn't great.
> 
> But my general point is that the MSM are fixated on an anti Labour perspective which has hardened because now there are 2 neoliberal zealot conservative parties to bolster the narrative.


grand. but iyo WHY are the msm fixated etc?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> grand. but iyo WHY are the msm fixated etc?



Same as for as long as I can remember : They are systematically tuned to be skeptical or downright hateful towards anything that they could conceivably (in their opinion) described as "left wing".

For example, although "The Man Who Hated Britain" backfired to some extent, it was a piece that could have been put out any time. It happened to be put out within a very short time of EM saying he might do something about the energy cartels.

But that's a tiny example. There's plenty more, but I've got to head out soon.  I'm a little surpised if you'd need to be told really.

I did have one realisation today, via someone on another board : I often wondered why the tenor of the press barons was so often anti EU. It was pointed out to me that, although the EU is largely a right wing crock as well, it's of a scale that can't be bullied nearly as easily by scumfucks like Desmond and Murdoch.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> But why was there no discussion about policy by the big 3, after all it was an election.



I think there was policy in there and to be fair to the Labour Party on pithy issues. I'm sure the Greens and Lib Dems had acres of it. But who was going to hear it? The election was fought on a single issue and in this respect UKIP did only moderately well, though a bigger win in the Euros may be revealed. It may indeed be UKIP's high watermark as the EU 'question' may be 'settled' if the Tories get back in.


----------



## 1%er (May 24, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I think there was policy in there and to be fair to the Labour Party on pithy issues. I'm sure the Greens and Lib Dems had acres of it. But who was going to hear it? The election was fought on a single issue and in this respect UKIP did only moderately well, though a bigger win in the Euros may be revealed. It may indeed be UKIP's high watermark as the EU 'question' may be 'settled' if the Tories get back in.


It seems to me that the EU question has hindered UK politics for over 20 years, It will be interesting to see how far to the right the Tories move for 2015.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I think there was policy in there and to be fair to the Labour Party on pithy issues. I'm sure the Greens and Lib Dems had acres of it. But who was going to hear it? The election was fought on a single issue and in this respect UKIP did only moderately well, though a bigger win in the Euros may be revealed. It may indeed be UKIP's high watermark as the EU 'question' may be 'settled' if the Tories get back in.


 
I'm not sure about describing UKIP's 17% PNS from these Locals as only a moderate success. Considering geography alone, its pretty obvious that many of the areas up for (re)election did not correlate with UKIP's previous areas of electoral success such as the S.Coast, Kent, E.Anglia, SW, Lincolnshire and the E.Mids....









Clearly, if more of their 'favoured' areas had been up, the BBC's PNS would have been higher; London alone will have deflated the figure significantly. Obviously tomorrow's UKIP Euro national % will be much higher than 17%.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 24, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> You are joking right?  People behaving bonkers and saying daft things  Do pagans make you want to join the Catholic church?



Fuck off dickhead. I voted for UKiP because of morons like you! I hate the bastards but I hate you more.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 24, 2014)

Yep, but even 24% as in Sunderland is just 24% from 35% who turned out. It's not unreasonable to see their support as being well motivated to turn out at the moment. They still have largely fringe appeal only.

There is a very real anger around austerity, a class anger labour appears unable to speak to. But equally a large part of their support is of a 'down with this sort of thing' reaction from over 50's. That's force that isn't strengthening. It loses every time on issues such as gay marriage and it's fickle. Most people reject this kind of thinking and that means there is not an endless well for UKIP to draw upon.

Considering the coverage immigration and the EU has had UKIP did no better than ok. They will be ruthlessly exposed over the next year and will surely never have the debate so strongly in their favour again.


----------



## Quartz (May 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Fair enough, there's different ways of interpretting it. It was, for example from a 2010 base, general election night that wasn't great.



True, but IMO they've lost a lot of votes to UKIP - some genuine defections, but many, I think, protest votes.



> But my general point is that the MSM are fixated on an anti Labour perspective which has hardened because now there are 2 neoliberal zealot and socially conservative parties to bolster the narrative.



Not going to argue with you there!


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 24, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fuck off dickhead. I voted for UKiP because of morons like you! I hate the bastards but I hate you more.



A UKIP supporter showing their true colours. Charming.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

Labour did bloody well in the 2010 locals as it goes. Far far better then they did in the general election.


----------



## mauvais (May 24, 2014)

So it's been one whole day, but a day was obviously too long for this UKIP councillor to keep his past under the carpet.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...stigation-racist-homophobic-facebook-comments




			
				Dave Small on Facebook in June said:
			
		

> Why on earth is this useless Goverment pandering to Puffs? I refuse to call them gays, as what has gay to do with Perverts like Elton John and Clair Balding who get their jollies in such disgusting ways. to sum up, they should not allowed to be married, they should go back to the closet



Plenty more choice stuff in there, and great SPG to boot. Congratulations to the courageous UKIP voters of Redditch for electing that.

Edit: here is the whole joy of it: https://www.facebook.com/dave.small.188?fref=ts

Now, not to turn ourselves into GCHQ or anything, but I wonder: how hard can it be to find more of this for other elected members? How many are there, 200ish?


----------



## smokedout (May 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> A balanced assessment of the UKIP local election results is "medium sized party make good gains despite drop in share", but the press have to keep riding the same bandwaggon they've been on for months. They don't know any different, and sections that are often more sensible have gone along for the ride too.



you go on and on and on about Ukip, you even have a blog about them don't you? why do you expect the press to be any different, you're lapping it up and so are lots of other people.


----------



## Pere Duchesne (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


>


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

mauvais said:


> So it's been one whole day, but a day was obviously too long for this UKIP councillor to keep his past under the carpet.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...stigation-racist-homophobic-facebook-comments
> 
> ...


That is basically what hope not hate have spent the last 6 months doing.


----------



## smokedout (May 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Fair enough, there's different ways of interpretting it. It was, for example from a 2010 base, general election night that wasn't great.
> 
> But my general point is that the MSM are fixated on an anti Labour perspective which has hardened because now there are 2 neoliberal zealot and socially conservative parties to bolster the narrative.



and this is just nonsense, is The Guardian fixated on an anti-labour perspective, or the Mirror, or The People, The Indy, the New Statesman, or even BBC or Channel 4 news.  The Tory press are fixated on an anti-labour position, thats not really very surprising or interesting.


----------



## mauvais (May 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That is basically what hope not hate have spent the last 6 months doing.


They've done a pretty shitty job of it then if it only comes out after election.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

mauvais said:


> They've done a pretty shitty job of it then if it only comes out after election.


Only comes out after the election ? The last four weeks the papers have been filled probably every single day by multiple stories about stupid facebook comments from UKIP members fed them by HnH - never mi d their own publication other UKIP facebook comments. It's been absolutely relentless. How have you managed to missed it all I wish i'd managed to.


----------



## mauvais (May 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Only comes out after the election ? The last four weeks the papers have been filled probably every single day by multiple stories about stupid facebook comments from UKIP members fed them by HnH - never mi d their own publication other UKIP facebook comments. It's been absolutely relentless. How have you managed to missed it all I wish i'd managed to.




I guess; but on retrospectively looking for 'racist councillor' I find loads of stories I'd never seen. If such a collation exists, it'd have been better if they'd just unfurled it in a single shot of 'X% candidates saying unpleasant things'.


----------



## weepiper (May 24, 2014)

Getting pretty pissed off with hearing UKIP described as 'the fourth party' when they haven't even got a single MP. DUP have 8 MPs. SNP have 6. Sinn Fein have 5. If it doesn't apply to the south of England it doesn't count, obviously.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

mauvais said:


> I guess; but on retrospectively looking for 'racist councillor' I find loads of stories I'd never seen. If such a collation exists, it'd have been better if they'd just unfurled it in a single shot of 'X% candidates saying unpleasant things'.


Have a look for UKIP candidate, or member (or fruitcake) rather than councilor. Seriously, the drip drip kept it going for weeks on end rather than a one-shot thing potentially dissappearing rather quickly.


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2014)

mauvais said:


> I guess; but on retrospectively looking for 'racist councillor' I find loads of stories I'd never seen. If such a collation exists, it'd have been better if they'd just unfurled it in a single shot of 'X% candidates saying unpleasant things'.



Nah, a drip-drip release of info lets you build a narrative which is more useful than a single expose.


----------



## mauvais (May 24, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Nah, a drip-drip release of info lets you build a narrative which is more useful than a single expose.


I think it's failed. I could be wrong - maybe it significantly deterred would-be UKIP voters, but it seems to me to have had diminishing returns over time on the basis of it being small volumes of more of the same.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Getting pretty pissed off with hearing UKIP described as 'the fourth party' when they haven't even got a single MP. DUP have 8 MPs. SNP have 6. Sinn Fein have 5. If it doesn't apply to the south of England it doesn't count, obviously.


 
True enough, but I think we'd all be pretty surprised if any of those you mention gained the largest % share of the popular vote in a UK-wide election, as UKIP will do tomorrow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

mauvais said:


> I think it's failed. I could be wrong - maybe it significantly deterred would-be UKIP voters, but it seems to me to have had diminishing returns over time on the basis of it being small volumes of more of the same.


Farage's standard response has been 'I don't know the man'. He appears not to know any UKIP members at all. Be harder for him to say that faced with a whole list of names.


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Actually, I thought winning 338 extra council seats and 6 extra councils was a resounding success for Labour.



Well you are wrong.

They needed to win 500-600 seats to claim a resounding success. 

Worst, they lost seats to UKIP, which they seemed to have totally failed to predict, despite UKIP clearly going after Labour votes, they must be crapping themselves.


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> But *my general point is that the MSM are fixated on an anti Labour perspective* which has hardened because now there are 2 neoliberal zealot and socially conservative parties to bolster the narrative.



Of course they are, because prior to this election the MSM, together with the Muppets that run the Labour party assumed UKIP could only win over former Tory voters, that theory has now been blown out of the water.


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2014)

mauvais said:


> I think it's failed. I could be wrong - maybe it significantly deterred would-be UKIP voters, but it seems to me to have had diminishing returns over time on the basis of it being small volumes of more of the same.



I think it's absolutely failed, it was counterproductive and that failure is a good thing. The combined forces of the three main parties (plus the Greens and a few useful idiots on the left) and a supplicant media do not control what goes on and who gets elected.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 24, 2014)

mauvais said:


> I guess; but on retrospectively looking for 'racist councillor' I find loads of stories I'd never seen. If such a collation exists, it'd have been better if they'd just unfurled it in a single shot of 'X% candidates saying unpleasant things'.



It's deliberately staggered to convey a sense of 'momentum'. Thus allowing the parties/papers that financially (you don't think they do it for nothing do you?) sponsor HnotH to give 'shock and awe' expressions on a daily basis.


----------



## mauvais (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Farage's standard response has been 'I don't know the man'. He appears not to know any UKIP members at all. Be harder for him to say that faced with a whole list of names.


Exactly. If you're going to go to war with someone or something, you'd prefer to deliver a single blow with everything you can muster, not set out only ever hoping to eventually defeat them via piecemeal attrition.

In this sense, the best available vector now for attacking UKIP is it having profited from its failure to address racism and homophobia within its ranks; it's a much weaker charge than simultaneously catching a large number of members at those very acts, so the whole thing is on the back foot. I'm sure there'll be more opportunities, of course, but the current method of delivery has fallen on its arse.


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I think there was policy in there and to be fair to the Labour Party on pithy issues. I'm sure the Greens and Lib Dems had acres of it. But who was going to hear it? The election was fought on a single issue and i*n this respect UKIP did only moderately well*, though a bigger win in the Euros may be revealed. It may indeed be UKIP's high watermark as the EU 'question' may be 'settled' if the Tories get back in.



They didn't do 'moderately well', you clown!

They scored an average somewhere around 25-30% + in the areas they fielded candidates, despite the fact that most of the council areas up for election this year were more urban areas.

IIRC their national average score was 17%, but that was because they didn't stand in every area, and London deflated their share somewhat.

Hence, the Tories & Labour are shitting themselves.

Not so much the LibDems, because they know they are dead meat anyway.


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fuck off dickhead. I voted for UKiP because of morons like you! I hate the bastards but I hate you more.



Well, you're a right fucking charmer.

And, a complete dickhead.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 24, 2014)

[QUOTEsmokedout, post: 13158665, member: 15335"]you go on and on and on about Ukip, you even have a blog about them don't you? why do you expect the press to be any different, you're lapping it up and so are lots of other people.[/QUOTE]

I try to keep a balanced perspective. I do talk a lot about the degree of attention they get, and that is always going to be problematic in possibly feeding flames. But totally ignoring systemic media frenzy is tricky too. Do we just let it carry on un challenged? Its the same with the migration hate and benefit lies.

I do not have a blog about ukip. I've written 2 pieces on them in a year, hardly obsessive.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 24, 2014)

promising username there common.sense


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I try to keep a balanced perspective. I do talk a lot about the degree of attention they get, and that is always going to be problematic in possibly feeding flames. But totally ignoring systemic media frenzy is tricky too. Do we just let it carry on un challenged? Its the same with the migration hate and benefit lies.
> 
> I do not have a blog about ukip. I've written 2 pieces on them in a year, hardly obsessive.



To be fair that's two more than pretty much anyone else who isn't a member of UKIP.

And please try and quote properly, it's a right pain in the arse having to reformat every reply to you.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

40 000+members. I bet he


mauvais said:


> Exactly. If you're going to go to war with someone or something, you'd prefer to deliver a single blow with everything you can muster, not set out only ever hoping to eventually defeat them via piecemeal attrition.
> 
> In this sense, the best available vector now for attacking UKIP is it having profited from its failure to address racism and homophobia within its ranks; it's a much weaker charge than simultaneously catching a large number of members at those very acts, so the whole thing is on the back foot. I'm sure there'll be more opportunities, of course, but the current method of delivery has fallen on its arse.



Nah. It wasn't that these shocking revelations were spread out over an extended period that failed to impact on their vote, it was much more complicated than that  - and frankly, doing them all at once might have backfired even worse than the drip drip did for a number of reasons - a) Farage genuinely doesn't know everyone in a 40 000 member party b) for every one you could find similar or worse in labour, lib-dem, tory or green c) as the drip drip backfire indicated - the public don't really do being told what to think and why by the media. Such an approach by a united media would likely only further highlight how they (the media and non-ukip politicians) all piss in the same pot - further cementing ukips credibility in opposing this lash-up and undermining anything that same media and politician cosy set up has to say about ukip. Essentially these stories do no matter no matter how the media and non-ukip politicans choose to present them.

Best available vector for who btw?


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> promising username there common.sense



homage to the son of the Thetford corset-maker?


----------



## Mr Moose (May 24, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I think it's absolutely failed, it was counterproductive and that failure is a good thing. The combined forces of the three main parties (plus the Greens and a few useful idiots on the left) and a supplicant media do not control what goes on and who gets elected.



Funny, cause the non-labour left have been swimming against the tide of a hostile media for years and never won anything through elections. If the public see through it as you suggest they must all be a bit shit.

Some of the stories just get out as they happen, or because X person is now a candidate or a councillor. That's perfectly understandable.

I'm glad the stories come out. If you want to use social media to pick on gay people ride the fucking whirlwind whoever you are. And UKIP have these creeps crawling from under every rock. The public will in the end reject them for it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

Odd dynamic here - we have on one hand the usual _omg the media must shut up about UKIP because that promotes them and we know that the mass of people believe what they're told by the media_ and on the the other we have the media relentlessly assaulting UKIP. So, if the former is in anyway true we would expect to see a UKIP collapse wouldn't we? What happens to that model when the UKIP vote and support rises during that period of sustained attack by the media? I've yet to see the media obsessed try to square that circle. I think the situation demands that they do though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 24, 2014)

Lol at common.sense


----------



## Mr Moose (May 24, 2014)

common.sense said:


> They didn't do 'moderately well', you clown!
> 
> They scored an average somewhere around 25-30% + in the areas they fielded candidates, despite the fact that most of the council areas up for election this year were more urban areas....



I suggest you have a look at the results again and then get some manners.


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Getting pretty pissed off with hearing UKIP described as 'the fourth party' when they haven't even got a single MP. DUP have 8 MPs. SNP have 6. Sinn Fein have 5. If it doesn't apply to the south of England it doesn't count, obviously.



They are the 'the fourth party' in terms of the popular vote across the UK, in fact they may end-up being 'the first party' on that basis when the Euro-election results are declared.

The likes of the DUP, SNP & SF don't come anywhere near the support that UKIP has, across the whole of the UK.

And, it's fuck-all to do with the south of England - they have done well in the north of England too.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Odd dynamic here - we have on one hand the usual _omg the media must shut about UKIP because that promotes them  and we know that the mass of people believe what they're told by the media_ and on the the other we have the media relentlessly assaulting UKIP. So, if the former is in anyway true we would expect to see a UKIP collapse wouldn't we? What happens to that model when the UKIP vote and support rises during that period of sustained attack by the media? I've yet to see the media obsessed try to square that circle. I think the situation demands that they do though.



There is a big difference between the media endlessly reporting the UKIP 'phenomenon' and debating immigration as if it's the only issue and the media getting stuck into them with the same rigour as they would for their rivals.


----------



## Pere Duchesne (May 24, 2014)

common.sense said:


> And, it's fuck-all to do with the south of England - they have done well in the north of England too.



From certain perspectives, the south of England begins just below Cumbria and Northumberland.

I still don't know what to make of the Danelaw correlation.


----------



## mauvais (May 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nah. It wasn't that these shocking revelations were spread out over an extended period that failed to impact on their vote, it was much more complicated than that  - and frankly, doing them all at once might have backfired even worse than the drip drip did for a number of reasons - a) Farage genuinely doesn't know everyone in a 40 000 member party b) for every one you could find similar or worse in labour, lib-dem, tory or green c) as the drip drip backfire indicated - the public don't really do being told what to think and why by the media. Such an approach by a united media would likely only further highlight how they (the media and non-ukip politicians) all piss in the same pot - further cementing ukips credibility in opposing this lash-up and undermining anything that same media and politician cosy set up has to say about ukip. Essentially these stories do no matter no matter how the media and non-ukip politicans choose to present them.


It's a fair argument I suppose, although I'm not sure I entirely agree. I'm merely thinking of recent complex scandals of any flavour, so for instance phone hacking; they made a much deeper impact on the public when a large number of individual as-they-happen stories were consolidated into one lump. I agree most with your point about anti-media, anti-establishment (not that UKIP are realistically any different) so some of the vote was pretty much indestructible on this occasion, but I also think those same votes won't hold longer term.



> Best available vector for who btw?


Anyone looking to inflict damage on UKIP by scandal rather than political argument.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> There is a big difference between the media endlessly reporting the UKIP 'phenomenon' and debating immigration as if it's the only issue and the media getting stuck into them with the same rigour as they would for their rivals.


Are you saying that they've not been under relentless attack from all quarters of the media over the last 4 weeks? Because they have you know. And the model that suggests that people do what the media tells them to would suggest this would lead to a drop in their support. And it hasn't.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

Pere Duchesne said:


> From certain perspectives, the south of England begins just below Cumbria and Northumberland.
> 
> I still don't know what to make of the Danelaw correlation.


If you're going to fail-flounce would you have the common decency to come back under your own name please?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 24, 2014)

Everyone knows that people just vote for the party the MSM!!!111!! tell them to vote for. Apart from people who know that people just vote for the party the MSM tell them to vote for. Those people are free thinkers and in no way influenced by the media. We Should probably make it so the only peopLe aLLowed to vote are those people who know about the MSM and how it influences the feeble minded.

POWER TO THE LIBERAL INTELLIGENTSIA!!!


----------



## Mr Moose (May 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you saying that they've not been under relentless attack from all quarters of the media over the last 4 weeks? Because they have you know. And the model that suggests that people do what the media tells them to would suggest this would lead to a drop in their support. And it hasn't.



It's possible that in 4 months things may seem different to 4 weeks let alone a year. But given that they had an open goal to shoot at for this election, Tories facing the backlash of being in power, Labour ineffectual, Lib Dems collapsed, maybe the negative press helped avoid a real spectacular. They could have maxxed out on anti-Europe feeling, but, in the local elections at least, they didn't.

I do agree that it's counter productive to demonise the UKIP vote, but the party's character should be exposed, in a way just like any one else who wants power.


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *Farage's standard response has been 'I don't know the man'.* He appears not to know any UKIP members at all. Be harder for him to say that faced with a whole list of names.



Whereas that freak Miliband pretends to know everyone, even 'the leader', lol, of Swindon council.

Once again Farage comes across as honest, and Miliband a fake.

What party leader can possibly know every name of every person in their party?


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

common.sense said:


> Once again Farage comes across as honest, and Miliband a fake.



Almost like he's not a politician?


----------



## frogwoman (May 24, 2014)

'show ignored content ' lol.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

17 per cent share of the vote for UKIP in the local elections, down from 23 per cent last year, according to the BBC, and just 7 per cent in London. Turnout at 36 per cent.

So, just 6 per cent of the electorate walked into a polling booth and voted UKIP - about one in every 17 registered voters. In London, fewer than 3 per cent did so - about one in every 40 registered voters.

In answer to the OP, asking why they are gaining support, the evidence of Thursday's local elections is that currently they are not.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In answer to the OP, asking why they are gaining support, the evidence of Thursday's local elections is that currently they are not.


'Clutching at the straws' as Poirot might say.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 17 per cent share of the vote for UKIP in the local elections, down from 23 per cent last year, and just 7 per cent in London. Turnout at 36 per cent.
> 
> So, just 6 per cent of the electorate walked into a polling booth and voted UKIP - about one in every 17 registered voters. In London, fewer than 3 per cent did so - about one in every 40 registered voters.
> 
> In answer to the OP, asking why they are gaining support, the evidence of Thursday's local elections is that currently they are not.



You this is peak UKIP, then?


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 17 per cent share of the vote for UKIP in the local elections, down from 23 per cent last year, according to the BBC, and just 7 per cent in London. Turnout at 36 per cent.
> 
> So, just 6 per cent of the electorate walked into a polling booth and voted UKIP - about one in every 17 registered voters. In London, fewer than 3 per cent did so - about one in every 40 registered voters.
> 
> In answer to the OP, asking why they are gaining support, the evidence of Thursday's local elections is that currently they are not.



Yes they are. A more relevant stat is one of how many they scored in the seats they stood in - not in what they achieved across all seats. And that is by definition now above 17%. And again, a more relevant stat is how they performed in these seats last time around - and that was 3%. So they have gone up by 14% across all seats in the national vote (not just the ones they stood in). I reckon a 14% rise indicates growing support. Further, their national and euro polling has risen from around 4% to around 15% and 30%. Again, an indication of a rise in support. As is wining 200 council seats in one go. Last time in the euros they had 2.5 million voters on 16% - this time around they are easily going to beat 16% possibly get 30% - a doubling of their vote would indicate massive gain in support - and so will pretty much any other likely outcome now.

It isn't necessary to deny the facts to oppose UKIP - in fact doing so actually undermines that opposition.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You this is peak UKIP, then?


Dunno. Might be. I struggle to see Thursday's local election results as a triumph for them, though.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

By the same token i would guess that lib-dem support isn't tanking either. That's the sort of clegg-logic required to deny that UKIP are gaining support.


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2014)

Has it occurred to anyone that part of the reason why Farage might be seen as anti-establishment is that he has been probably the most prominent anti-war politician over the past couple of years? His anti-war stance has been far more consistent than the Lib Dems, who are now totally complicit in whatever NATO adventure is going on. Farage opposed the Iraq War, Libya, the bombings of Syria, EU machinations in Ukraine and even NATO strikes on Islamists in Mali. 

The likes of Chuka Umunna, Nick Clegg and Dan Hodges have gone after him hard over this too and tried to smear Farage with a sort of politics-free McCarthyism and unsurprisingly it has not worked.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Dunno. Might be. I struggle to see Thursday's local election results as a triumph for them, though.


 tbh its very difficult to make much of a judgement about the strength of their local polling as there has been no polling (that I'm aware of) specifically relating to local elections. But the fact that UKIP's national polling has been low to mid teens hints that 17%, even if that is a large underestimate of local strength, represents quite a success for them. Obviously tomorrow night's result has been extensively polled, and anything substantially south of 30% would look like an under-achievement compared to polling evidence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Has it occurred to anyone that part of the reason why Farage might be seen as anti-establishment is that he has been probably the most prominent anti-war politician over the past couple of years? His anti-war stance has been far more consistent than the Lib Dems, who are now totally complicit in whatever NATO adventure is going on. Farage opposed the Iraq War, Libya, the bombings of Syria, EU machinations in Ukraine and even NATO strikes on Islamists in Mali.
> 
> The likes of Chuka Umunna, Nick Clegg and Dan Hodges have gone after him hard over this too and tried to smear Farage with a sort of politics-free McCarthyism and unsurprisingly it has not worked.


Could be. I doubt it was a major reason behind many UKIP votes, although it may be behind some. Certainly 'I want to keep British soldiers out of foreign wars and UKIP are the only ones who say they want this too' is a reason for voting for them that I can respect, although whether this is a UKIP position or just a Farage position is rather unclear, given that UKIP don't actually have any policies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> tbh its very difficult to make much of a judgement about the strength of their local polling as there has been no polling (that I'm aware of) specifically relating to local elections. But the fact that UKIP's national polling has been low to mid teens hints that 17%, even if that is a large underestimate of local strength, represents quite a success for them. Obviously tomorrow night's result has been extensively polled, and anything substantially south of 30% would look like an under-achievement compared to polling evidence.


Turnout at 36 per cent is lower than expected, I believe. I think this may be bad news for UKIP. I'll go out on a limb and give a number. I suspect their share of the vote tomorrow will be around 25%, putting them just second behind Labour.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Turnout at 36 per cent is lower than expected, I believe. I think this may be bad news for UKIP. I'll go out on a limb and give a number. I suspect their share of the vote tomorrow will be around 25%, putting them just second behind Labour.


 
Forget turn-out; those 'kippers wanted to vote alright.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Forget turn-out; those 'kippers wanted to vote alright.


The core voters, sure. Their over-50s core vote. But the softer vote - those who probably don't even agree with them much, but are pissed off with the system at the moment? I can believe that a lower than expected turnout would be disproportionately bad for UKIP - many of the disaffected but not actually right-wing bigots may have decided just not to vote at all rather than voting UKIP. To get close to 30 per cent, they need more than their core vote.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The core voters, sure. Their over-50s core vote. But the softer vote - those who probably don't even agree with them much, but are pissed off with the system at the moment? I can believe that a lower than expected turnout would be disproportionately bad for UKIP - many of the disaffected but not actually right-wing bigots may have decided just not to vote at all rather than voting UKIP. To get close to 30 per cent, they need more than their core vote.


 where's that 36% from?


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I suggest you have a look at the results again and then get some manners.



I said, "IIRC their national average score was 17%", I've checked as you suggested and guess what?

"The BBC's projected national share of the vote put UKIP in third place on 17%."

That's somewhat more than them doing ''moderately well'', considering they have basically come from nowhere in the last couple of years in respect of local elections.

Oh, and BTW, I have manners, otherwise I would have called you a fucking clown.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> where's that 36% from?


The Independent newspaper.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

common.sense said:


> That's somewhat more than them doing ''moderately well'', considering they have basically come from nowhere in the last couple of years in respect of local elections..


It's down on last year. Even excluding London, it's down on last year. Now that could be due mainly to the fact that the cities didn't vote last year, and it is one of the striking features of UKIP's support that it's strongest in areas where there are fewest new immigrants. But nevertheless, it's not a resounding success. It indicates to me that they haven't been wildly successful in drawing votes away from Labour. It also indicates to me that most of the people who actually do have Romanians for neighbours don't agree with Farage.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

That 36% was for the locals.


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 17 per cent share of the vote for UKIP in the local elections, down from 23 per cent last year, according to the BBC, and just 7 per cent in London. Turnout at 36 per cent.
> 
> So, just 6 per cent of the electorate walked into a polling booth and voted UKIP - about one in every 17 registered voters. In London, fewer than 3 per cent did so - about one in every 40 registered voters.
> 
> In answer to the OP, asking why they are gaining support, the evidence of Thursday's local elections is that currently they are not.



Another one that hasn't a clue.

Last year council elections were mainly shire county council ones, this year they were more urban areas - you are comparing apples with horse dung.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

common.sense said:


> Another one that hasn't a clue.
> 
> Last year council elections were mainly shire county council ones, this year they were more urban areas - you are comparing apples with horse dung.


I can only repeat what I said above. This year it was places with significant numbers of immigrants that were voting, and UKIP did worse. They are not extending far beyond their base of white over-50s males who have fallen on hard times.


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Dunno. Might be. I struggle to see Thursday's local election results as a triumph for them, though.



In that case, I bet you'll struggle to see the Euro election results as a triumph for them. 

EDIT - just found the similes on here.


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *Turnout at 36 per cent is lower than expected, I believe.* I think this may be bad news for UKIP. I'll go out on a limb and give a number. I suspect their share of the vote tomorrow will be around 25%, putting them just second behind Labour.



Believe what you want, but that's a fairly average turn-out for Euro elections in the UK.

Higher than 2009, at 34.7%, slightly lower than 2004, at 38.52%, massive compared to 1999 at just 24%.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm


----------



## common.sense (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can only repeat what I said above. This year it was places with significant numbers of immigrants that were voting, and UKIP did worse. They are not extending far beyond their base of white over-50s males who have fallen on hard times.



Yeah, like Essex, where they did so well, doesn't have a significant numbers of immigrants. 

Fuck me, you seem to live in some sort of dream world.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 24, 2014)

common.sense said:


> In that case, I bet you'll struggle to see the Euro election results as a triumph for them.
> 
> EDIT - just found the similes on here.


There's a similes button?!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> There's a similes button?!


Well, something like one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

common.sense said:


> Believe what you want, but that's a fairly average turn-out for Euro elections in the UK.
> 
> Higher than 2009, at 34.7%, slightly lower than 2004, at 38.52%, massive compared to 1999 at just 24%.
> 
> http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm


As in the projected turn-out given in the widely touted polls showing UKIP doing better than Labour - that is what the 'I believe' bit was referring to. If the polls are to be believed, some people who said they were sure to vote in fact did not. The 36% is for the places with euro and local elections, btw. The overall turnout for the euros may be lower than that.

You're a rather combative fellow, aren't you?


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

The 36% is for the locals alone. Nothing to do with the euros. Which may be higher or lower than that. Or the same.


----------



## frogwoman (May 24, 2014)

Common sense lol


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 24, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> A UKIP supporter showing their true colours. Charming.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 24, 2014)

common.sense said:


> Well, you're a right fucking charmer.
> 
> And, a complete dickhead.



  

Fuck off and die you left-liberal Muppet.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 24, 2014)

common.sense said:


> I said, "IIRC their national average score was 17%", I've checked as you suggested and guess what?
> 
> "The BBC's projected national share of the vote put UKIP in third place on 17%."
> 
> ...



This is a phenomena known as a 'difference of opinion' and does not require you to be rude.

You simply think this is big. I don't believe it is that big. We would probably have the same disagreement were we both viewing your minuscule penis.


----------



## Manter (May 24, 2014)

Is it UKIP 'defend themselves against the internet' night?


----------



## frogwoman (May 24, 2014)

Some of this sneering 'anti fascist' liberal bollocks where people are constantly taking the piss out of Ukip voters for their spelling, intelligence, accent and even saying racist, elitist shit like the comments about Europe and some of the stuff I saw on fb about the black ukip candidate, reminds me of Bush and Blair during the Iraq war, where they justified the war was it was to 'spread freedom' and anyone who disagrereed obviously did not like freedom and democracy and supported Saddam.

I remember ages ago on some political discussion group I was on a girl from Serbia but living in the US posted that her teacher had told her in front of the class that everyone in the country was a murderer, to me it is the same sort of mentality, using the idea of liberalism and other values that sound good to mask the most horrible class hatred and even sexism and racism. I'm not saying everyone who is criticizing ukip is doing this, shit I mean that I have slagged them off enough on here but I know I am not alone in finding it all very objectionable because it seems to be a 'politically correct' way of displaying their prejudices.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Some of this sneering 'anti fascist' liberal bollocks where people are constantly taking the piss out of Ukip voters for their spelling, intelligence, accent and even saying racist, elitist shit like the comments about Europe and some of the stuff I saw on fb about the black ukip candidate, reminds me of Bush and Blair during the Iraq war, where they justified the war was it was to 'spread freedom' and anyone who disagrereed obviously did not like freedom and democracy and supported Saddam.
> 
> I remember ages ago on some political discussion group I was on a girl from Serbia but living in the US posted that her teacher had told her in front of the class that everyone in the country was a murderer, to me it is the same sort of mentality, using the idea of liberalism and other values that sound good to mask the most horrible class hatred and even sexism and racism. I'm not saying everyone who is criticizing ukip is doing this, shit I mean that I have slagged them off enough on here but I know I am not alone in finding it all very objectionable because it seems to be a 'politically correct' way of displaying their prejudices.



Yes. Sneering at illiteracy when there's actually some very ugly ideas there that need challenging...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fuck off and die you left-liberal Muppet.


So what are you? A right-nationalist Muppet?


----------



## frogwoman (May 24, 2014)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-despite-being-on-electoral-roll-9427571.html

Was this all ukip's doing?


----------



## frogwoman (May 24, 2014)

*Swathes of European citizens living in Britain were turned away from the ballot box in the European elections on Thursday despite registering as voters and having polling cards. 
*
_The Independent_ has seen evidence of more than 60 EU nationals on the electoral roll being denied the chance to vote in the European elections. The overall number affected is likely to be significantly higher.

The lost votes could be particularly significant in a year when Ukip is expected to make significant gains as non-British voters are less likely to support immigration-sceptical candidates.

Many EU nationals had made sure they were on the electoral roll but were unaware of an extra piece of paperwork needed in order to cast their votes in Britain. The form, known as a UC1 appears not to have been advertised or sent out in many cases.

Others had all the relevant registration documents but were still told by election officials to “go and vote in their own country”.

The Electoral Commission acknowledged last night that many EU citizens were unaware of the extra form needed to cast their vote in Britain. They also admitted that they had received complaints from non-British EU voters saying it was never sent to them.


Did ukip do this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> shit I mean that I have slagged them off enough on here but I know I am not alone in finding it all very objectionable because it seems to be a 'politically correct' way of displaying their prejudices.


There is also a lot of confusion (I don't mean by you) between criticising UKIP and criticising UKIP voters. I think the Tories are despicable shits, but I don't think everyone who votes Tory is a despicable shit. 

A few times on here recently, people have been pulled up when criticising UKIP as if they were criticising all people who vote UKIP.


----------



## frogwoman (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is also a lot of confusion (I don't mean by you) between criticising UKIP and criticising UKIP voters. I think the Tories are despicable shits, but I don't think everyone who votes Tory is a despicable shit.
> 
> A few times on here recently, people have been pulled up when criticising UKIP as if they were criticising all people who vote UKIP.



Depends what they were criticizing them for doesn't it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Depends what they were criticizing them for doesn't it?


No, not really. _Criticism of UKIP_, whether it is for being bigots or whatever, is not the same as criticising everyone who votes UKIP.


----------



## frogwoman (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, not really. _Criticism of UKIP_, whether it is for being bigots or whatever, is not the same as criticising everyone who votes UKIP.



What were they criticizing them for? Shit spelling etc?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> What were they criticizing them for? Shit spelling etc?


No. Stirring up anti-immigrant feeling, conflating Roma with Romanians, blaming all variety of social problems on immigrants. That sort of thing.

Targetting and demonising Romanians, in particular, was nasty shit that deserved to be roundly bloody condemned.

tbh I see those who hold back from such condemnation for fear of offending UKIP voters as the 'liberals' here.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 24, 2014)

It'll be just the same on the Guido Fawkes blog. Whilst they'll criticise our  parties and politicians they are very sympathetic to what inclines us to the left.

They hate to slag us off as people.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 24, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So what are you? A right-nationalist Muppet?


 
What do you think, part timer?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> What do you think, part timer?


Oh I barely care.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 24, 2014)

lib dem I reckon


----------



## frogwoman (May 24, 2014)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/visa-regulations-revised-table

Have a look at this. 

My mate has been in the UK for years but can't vote despite passing the citizenship test because it costs so much money to become a UK citizen. I have another mate who almost had to go back to the USA because the company who was meant to be applying for her visa didn't do it. 

The immigration system here is a fucking disgrace, all about letting 'the right' people in the country (ie people who have a spare 900 quid lying around) as far as I know ukip didn't bring it in though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/visa-regulations-revised-table
> 
> Have a look at this.
> 
> ...


It is a disgrace, yes. UKIP won't have brought it up for good reason - Farage only wants to allow people with money in. Rich Indians, and rather randomly, it appears, New Zealanders.

Unfortunately, if UKIP do gain more traction, I can see the system becoming worse as a reaction to that.

A reversal of the old US dictum 'send us your poor'. Instead it is 'send us your rich'. Why the rich would want to come to a Britain that was isolationist is rather a sticky question.


----------



## frogwoman (May 24, 2014)

Labour and Tory would make it worse not just ukip,


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Some of this sneering 'anti fascist' liberal bollocks where people are constantly taking the piss out of Ukip voters for their spelling, intelligence, accent and even saying racist, elitist shit like the comments about Europe and some of the stuff I saw on fb about the black ukip candidate, reminds me of Bush and Blair during the Iraq war, where they justified the war was it was to 'spread freedom' and anyone who disagrereed obviously did not like freedom and democracy and supported Saddam.
> 
> I remember ages ago on some political discussion group I was on a girl from Serbia but living in the US posted that her teacher had told her in front of the class that everyone in the country was a murderer, to me it is the same sort of mentality, using the idea of liberalism and other values that sound good to mask the most horrible class hatred and even sexism and racism. I'm not saying everyone who is criticizing ukip is doing this, shit I mean that I have slagged them off enough on here but I know I am not alone in finding it all very objectionable because it seems to be a 'politically correct' way of displaying their prejudices.



To repeat: 'anti-racism' is a licence to hate the poor.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Labour and Tory would make it worse not just ukip,


Yes. Labour and tory created the system we have now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2014)

Joe Reilly said:


> To repeat: 'anti-racism' is a licence to hate the poor.


Anti-racism is also like being against racism. Don't throw the baby out here.


----------



## J Ed (May 25, 2014)

Remember to vote for the people who repatriate kids doing their A-Levels to Mauritania and kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq and not the racists or else you're a thick, uneducated mentally disabled chav!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Remember to vote for the people who repatriate kids doing their A-Levels to Mauritania and kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq and not the racists or else you're a thick, uneducated mentally disabled chav!


The state of the labour party is profoundly depressing. For the voting system to be meaningfully democratic, there needs to be a 'cock and balls' option. A none-of-the-above box where, if none of the above gets most of the votes, then that is exactly what you get.


----------



## Manter (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The state of the labour party is profoundly depressing. For the voting system to be meaningfully democratic, there needs to be a 'cock and balls' option. A none-of-the-above box where, if none of the above gets most of the votes, then that is exactly what you get.


How very.... Belgian


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

Manter said:


> How very.... Belgian


Yeah, well, nobody seemed to notice much... A very good illustration of what government _is not_, in fact. It is not something without which society necessarily disintegrates.


----------



## Manter (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, well, nobody seemed to notice much... A very good illustration of what government _is not_, in fact. It is not something without which society necessarily disintegrates.


My Belgian friends assure me they have a government, just not a Government. They seem perfectly happy either way....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

Manter said:


> My Belgian friends assure me they have a government, just not a Government. They seem perfectly happy either way....


Well if cock-and-balls wins, you can have another election organised, one with none of the previously above on the ballot.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's down on last year. Even excluding London, it's down on last year. Now that could be due mainly to the fact that the cities didn't vote last year, and it is one of the striking features of UKIP's support that it's strongest in areas where there are fewest new immigrants. But nevertheless, it's not a resounding success. It indicates to me that they haven't been wildly successful in drawing votes away from Labour. It also indicates to me that most of the people who actually do have Romanians for neighbours don't agree with Farage.


Getting 30% in Sunderland, taking Thurrock council from Labour to NOC, getting 9 councillors (7 taken from Lab) elected in Rotherham, these don't show that they have been successful in drawing votes away from Labour? I don't know what criteria you need for them to be widely successful but I think by any sensible measure it's clear that they have managed to obtain significant support in Labour heartlands.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Turnout at 36 per cent is lower than expected, I believe.


What was the expected turnout? Last I heard the turnout was slightly up.

EDIT
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ions-and-results.323935/page-11#post-13156094


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes they are. A more relevant stat is one of how many they scored in the seats they stood in - not in what they achieved across all seats.


On that point have you seen a figure for their average vote? I tried searching for it but could only find the PNS.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is a disgrace, yes. UKIP won't have brought it up for good reason - Farage only wants to allow people with money in. Rich Indians, and rather randomly, it appears, New Zealanders.



Unlike Blair, Brown and Cameron eh?


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2014)

Bad maths and denial. Some high quality analysis there littlebabyjesus


----------



## Roadkill (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 17 per cent share of the vote for UKIP in the local elections, down from 23 per cent last year, according to the BBC, and just 7 per cent in London. Turnout at 36 per cent.
> 
> So, just 6 per cent of the electorate walked into a polling booth and voted UKIP - about one in every 17 registered voters. In London, fewer than 3 per cent did so - about one in every 40 registered voters.
> 
> In answer to the OP, asking why they are gaining support, the evidence of Thursday's local elections is that currently they are not.



It's certainly true that 'none of the  above' is still the largest party, but it's IMO rather naive to say that UKIP didn't do well.  Last week's council elections were mainly not in areas where you'd expect the Kippers to make a good showing, but in traditionally Labour-voting cities - Sunderland, Rotherham, etc.  And where they didn't win they often came a worryingly close second.  In my neck of the woods in Hull, for instance, they only actually won one ward, but were second in several others.

It probably will get a bit harder for them from here on, though.  Firstly, people tend to be freer in voting for minor parties at local elections than general ones, and a proportion of their support will probably switch back to their previous allegiances.  Ashcroft's polling reported yesterday suggests as much.  Partly that will be because of the 'vote Farage, get Cameron/Millipede' argument.  Partly, also, it might be because at a general election UKIP will actually have to produce a manifesto.  They played a clever game in ditching the 2010 one and being deliberately vague about everything except their core territory of Europe and immigration, but that won't work for the general election and in their manifesto then they'll have a difficult line to walk.  A lot of the very right-wing stuff (flat tax etc) in the 2010 manifesto won't play well with the support they're currently drawing from ex-Labour voters, but it'll be difficult to move away from, partly because the right-wing party establishment won't want to, partly because it would open them up to charges of saying what they want people to hear, and partly because a more left-ish tone might not appeal to rural, Conservative-inclined voters who've previously been their core support.  They've done well recently by letting people see in them what they want to see, but I'm not sure that's sustainable for much longer.

Hopefully come the run-up to the general election they'll actually be challenged on policy, and there'll be less of the outrage and screams of 'racist!  bigot!' from the liberal establishment, which at best has been ineffective and at worst counter-productive.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2014)

The reason for the % drop in their overall vote since last year is because there was many more seats up for election, and they weren't contesting as high a proportion of them. So although they did better in the seats they did stand, overall the % looks lower because theres more seats where theres no votes at all (as they weren't there for people to vote for)

No need to make it complicated.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> The reason for the % drop in their overall vote since last year is because there was many more seats up for election, and they weren't contesting as high a proportion of them. So although they did better in the seats they did stand, overall the % looks lower because theres more seats where theres no votes at all (as they weren't there for people to vote for)
> 
> No need to make it complicated.


But the geography of the authorities up for election was also a significant component.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

And, as I've pointed out numerous times now, when compared to their results last time out in these seats (I.e comparing apples with apples) they are up 14%. How on earth is that not gaining support. 

One other thing I missed in my list of indicators of gaining support last night, post membership, now up to 40 000 plus and currently growing at 5000 a month. If all these add up to losing support or standing still, imagine how well they'd be doing if they were growing.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> But the geography of the authorities up for election was also a significant component.


 How?


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> How?


 
Parties tend to have geographically defined 'heartlands' and 'peripheries'. The spread of non-metro authorities with 1/3 seats up this time, did not correlate at all well with UKIP's previously established bases of support in areas like Kent, S.Coast. East Anglia, East Mids, Lincolnshire and parts of the SW.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> On that point have you seen a figure for their average vote? I tried searching for it but could only find the PNS.


Will be along shortly i expect.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Parties tend to have geographically defined 'heartlands' and 'peripheries'. The spread of non-metro authorities with 1/3 seats up this time, did not correlate at all well with UKIP's previously established bases of support in areas like Kent, S.Coast. East Anglia, East Mids, Lincolnshire and parts of the SW.


yeah of course - so in a lot of these seats, support is going up from zero rather than down from 20-odd percent.

Either way, it's either willful ignorance or extreme naivety to claim that this is some kind of drop in support.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 25, 2014)

I'm reading numerous editorials and comments saying UKIP can 'no longer be ignored'. Is that because there's someone in a cave in Inner Mongolia that hasn't seen Farage on the telly yet?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> yeah of course - so in a lot of these seats, support is going up from zero rather than down from 20-odd percent.


This was also true for last year's election in which UKIP won 22%. I can't find the figure for their share of the vote in the 2009 election, which roughly corresponds to the 2013 one, but in 2009, they won a grand total of 7 seats with a share of the vote certainly below 5%.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This was also true for last year's election in which UKIP won 22%. I can't find the figure for their share of the vote in the 2009 election, which roughly corresponds to the 2013 one, but in 2009, they won a grand total of 7 seats with a share of the vote certainly below 5%.


Which pretty unambiguously suggests that they have since gained support when you compare like with like.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2014)

It's been explained repeatedly why your maths is shit. Why are you still in denial? Their support has not gone down.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> It's been explained repeatedly why your maths is shit. Why are you still in denial? Their support has not gone down.


Um, I was correcting something you said. If you're going to point out that they've gone from virtually zero to 17% this year, it is only fair to also point out that they went from virtually zero to 22% last year, too.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

But definitely not gaining support.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2014)

Are you still claiming their support has gone down since last year?


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

There's even another indicator of their gaining support in that last thing lbj posted  - they could only fight 25% of the seats in 2009, in those same seats in 2013 they managed to fight 75% of them. Yet another unambiguous sign of growth in support - including the key one of broadening national support and membership and breaking out of small regional pockets.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> Are you still claiming their support has gone down since last year?


Have you even been reading my posts? I myself qualified what I said by pointing out that the cities were not voting last year. I am suggesting that this year's local election result is not strong evidence that their support has grown in the last year, and further that their anti-immigrant message is resonating least well in areas with larger numbers of immigrants. I would like to see a map of England showing number of immigrants per 1000 people compared to % share of UKIP vote - I would expect that there is quite a marked inverse correlation.

Btw, it would be nice if you acknowledged my point above expanding on what you said. Disingenuous not to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2014)

1%er said:


> I see, I think. So in these elections voters went for individuals rather than party?



What I'd say is that a majority of people in local elections nowadays vote instrumentally, whereas 30 years ago, they'd have been farmore likely to vote "tribally".


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Have you even been reading my posts? I myself qualified what I said by pointing out that the cities were not voting last year. I am suggesting that this year's local election result is not strong evidence that their support has grown in the last year, and further that their anti-immigrant message is resonating least well in areas with larger numbers of immigrants. I would like to see a map of England showing number of immigrants per 1000 people compared to % share of UKIP vote - I would expect that there is quite a marked inverse correlation.


So they _are _gaining support? You're certainly not reading mine btw - or probably more accurately, you are, but have no worthwhile response to the points that i've made in reply to your claim that ukip are not gaining support.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is also a lot of confusion (I don't mean by you) between criticising UKIP and criticising UKIP voters. I think the Tories are despicable shits, but I don't think everyone who votes Tory is a despicable shit.
> 
> A few times on here recently, people have been pulled up when criticising UKIP as if they were criticising all people who vote UKIP.


Your claim that all ukip voters are racist now that UKIP have been exposed as racist and that each ukip voter represents a direct personal attack on you. Under which banner do they appear? The soberly party-directed one or the wild lashing out at the voters one?


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can only repeat what I said above. This year it was places with significant numbers of immigrants that were voting, and UKIP did worse. They are not extending far beyond their base of white over-50s males who have fallen on hard times.


You said here they did worse. That isn't true. Or have I somehow misread your post?


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

And here?




			
				liitlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> In answer to the OP, asking why they are gaining support, the evidence of Thursday's local elections is that currently they are not.



That's a pretty unambiguous claim isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I might be wrong on some things, but on this I am not:
> 
> Lots of people are heartily sick of the same echo chamber shit, day in and week out eminating from the same class and sources that UKIP purport to be against. It's obscured the real politics of things like the NHS privatisation, benefit sanctions and other things that impact what is patronisingly termed "the real world" a lot more than 26 million people who aren't actually after my job, living in sewers or stealing babies.
> 
> I can't believe that people get slapped around on forums like this for saying that the bullyscum press has been absolutely hideous and gut-wrenching in recent months. (Well, I can believe it but only from experience)



In your case, it's probably down to the tabloidesque hyperbole you use.
For a start, you claim "lots of people are heartily sick".  Is the sickness reflected in sales figures for print media, or viewer/listener figures for TV and radio?  No, it isn't.  That "echo chamber bullshit" appears to satisfy some people, and of course it's from the same sources as always - the political class aren't exactly partisan, and haven't been for at least 30 years.  They'll happily whore themselves under *any* flag - it couldn't not be.
As for what's obscured, again it's the same old same old.  
here's the thing: What's better, to rail against the vehicle, or smash the engine?  What you do is rail against the vehicle.  All that achieves is that a few people will agree with you.



> A balanced assessment of the UKIP local election results is "medium sized party make good gains despite drop in share", but the press have to keep riding the same bandwaggon they've been on for months. They don't know any different, and sections that are often more sensible have gone along for the ride too.



Of course they know different, you knob!   Journalism, except for a very few representatives, is *not* an honourable profession.  Journalists write in conformity to their paper's political line, or their owner's political line.  What journos almost never do unless they're a Pilger or a Fisk, is write what they actually believe.



> I'm no Labourite, but the same press is painting the results as some kind of near disaster for them. Why? It wasn't great by any stretch, but what this is really about is right wing perspectives being applied again and again and again. Labour have made a bit more effort on issues that effect poorer people, like rents, zero hours contracts etc. Not miraculous and maybe no more than just noise, but they are attacked again and again.



You're missing the point of the narrative that you're railing against.  This isn't about Labour, the Tories and the Lib-Dems, this is about the media building up a subject (UKIP), because it is in the interests of the media to do so.  Those who stand behind the media - those who own it- are (to put it very simply) using the UKIP story as a method of building leverage on the mainstream parties - it's fairly simple power-politics.



> With Tory and LD in government it's obvious that a Labour wobbler can be pushed towards UKIP, especially with enough hype. Then it's "LOOK!! Labour are really losing out" - it's a message the reactionaries want to project, and they have helped create it.
> 
> They needed to say that UKIP took Labour votes, to try and offset damage to their tory allies,  and started doing so simoultaneously a few days after Farage and Co said it was a developing strategy. However, UKIP continue to eat far more into Tory votes, so if anything the game of lies is going to have to be stepped up. Lucky us.
> 
> It seems like the endless tide of hatred against migration isn't going to stop any time soon, especially not with Crosby practing his disgusting dark arts. Why should it be a problem to talk about it?



You really do come across as having a great deal of contempt for Joe and Josephine Public's ability to think critically, don't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> homage to the son of the Thetford corset-maker?



It's kinder on him to say "son of a Thetford corset maker" than "fuckstick revenooer"!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

btw, wrt UKIP's supposed strongholds, Hull *is* one of those. It's where they won their first ever council seat. It's not really true that they started out as a party only of the Tory shires.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2014)

we know that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Some of this sneering 'anti fascist' liberal bollocks where people are constantly taking the piss out of Ukip voters for their spelling, intelligence, accent and even saying racist, elitist shit like the comments about Europe and some of the stuff I saw on fb about the black ukip candidate, reminds me of Bush and Blair during the Iraq war, where they justified the war was it was to 'spread freedom' and anyone who disagrereed obviously did not like freedom and democracy and supported Saddam.



As some posters will know, I have extended family out Norfolk way, and the sense I've gotten with regard to UKIP votes boils down to a single point: UKIP canvassed some areas heavily *and* engaged with those they canvassed.  In Great Yarmouth's wards they were sometimes the only party to turn up on the doorstep, and they appear to have taken it seriously - note-takers accompanying the candidates etc - whereas the three mainstream parties appear to have taken the electorate for granted.  These aren't unintelligent voters, they're voters who felt engaged enough with the political process to vote for someone who appears to be listening to them.  How pundits translate that into hairy thickos voting for UKIP merely shows that some people have fallen back on stock stereotypes to "explain" things, rather than actually engaging with (possibly unpalateable) fact.
Multiply that  vote across the country, even if the concern shown on the doorstep is merely an act, and that's a fair few people convinced that they're being listened to, and that's something that none of the major parties have been able to do for at least the last decade and a half.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So what are you? A right-nationalist Muppet?



You need to get your irony detector serviced.


----------



## Roadkill (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> btw, wrt UKIP's supposed strongholds, Hull *is* one of those. It's where they won their first ever council seat. It's not really true that they started out as a party only of the Tory shires.



Eh?    The point about places like Hull - although more so Sunderland and Rotherham, where they did even better - is that it's somewhere they've just broken through.  Here are the results for the 2012 elections, for example, and here's 2014 for comparison.  They didn't even field a candidate in Southcoates East ward then: now they've deposed Labour and got their first councillor. I've not checked in detail, but I'm pretty sure their share of the vote is well up in every ward where they've fielded a candidate.  They really weren't a significant factor here before these elections: now they are.  And lest we forget, they've only one councillor in Hull: they've ten in Rotherham, again from none before.  So if you're trying to argue that their surge in support in cities like Hull is illusory, you're flat-out wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anti-racism is also like being against racism. Don't throw the baby out here.



The problem is that anti-racists are racist against racists, maaan!


----------



## treelover (May 25, 2014)

> B/A said
> One other thing I missed in my list of indicators of gaining support last night, post membership, now up to 40 000 plus and currently growing at 5000 a month. If all these add up to losing support or standing still, imagine how well they'd be doing if they were growing.





The 'fastest growing' left wing party, Left Unity only has 2000 members, what a state of affairs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> The 'fastest growing' left wing party, Left Unity only has 2000 members, what a state of affairs.



Thing is, Left Unity has a reasonably-complex agenda, whereas UKIP's agenda is best described as "amorphous, but anti-immigration".  UKIP have wider appeal at least partly because what they "put out there" to the public isn't complex - it's a simple message that can be read a number of different ways, depending on the POV of the reader.


----------



## Roadkill (May 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> As some posters will know, I have extended family out Norfolk way, and the sense I've gotten with regard to UKIP votes boils down to a single point: UKIP canvassed some areas heavily *and* engaged with those they canvassed.  In Great Yarmouth's wards they were sometimes the only party to turn up on the doorstep, and they appear to have taken it seriously - note-takers accompanying the candidates etc - whereas the three mainstream parties appear to have taken the electorate for granted.  These aren't unintelligent voters, they're voters who felt engaged enough with the political process to vote for someone who appears to be listening to them.  How pundits translate that into hairy thickos voting for UKIP merely shows that some people have fallen back on stock stereotypes to "explain" things, rather than actually engaging with (possibly unpalateable) fact.
> Multiply that  vote across the country, even if the concern shown on the doorstep is merely an act, and that's a fair few people convinced that they're being listened to, and that's something that none of the major parties have been able to do for at least the last decade and a half.



I agree, but it's also worth saying that they played a very canny game in two respects.  Firstly, ditching the 2010 manifesto, much of which would have gone down like a sack of shit with a lot of erstwhile Labour voters, and refusing to be drawn onto territory other than Europe and immigration allowed people to project onto them what they want to see, even those who support things like renationalisation of the railways and nationalising energy firms, neither of which the Kippers are likely to be all that keen on.  Secondly, they picked their target areas well and focused their - still comparatively limited - resources on them.  Here they didn't even bother fielding a candidate in some of the more middle-class wards: they threw everything at poorer areas of the city, and it worked.  Looking ahead, there's no reason the latter shouldn't continue to work, but I still think the former will become more difficult as the general election looms larger.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 26, 2014)

Well my hunch appears to have been wrong. UKIP have polled closer to 30 per cent in the euros than 25 %.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

BBC focusing now on the fractured nature of the right in the new chamber...UKIP not sitting with FN, and FN not sitting with GD etc..


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

Do we have an idea of funding levels for UKIP, compared to other parties down as far as Greens and (snort) Lib Dems?


----------



## tony.c (May 26, 2014)

UKIP have a number of wealthy ex-Tory financial backers. I doubt that the Greens do.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

Sure, but is there anything quantitative?


----------



## Quartz (May 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well my hunch appears to have been wrong. UKIP have polled closer to 30 per cent in the euros than 25 %.



Not up here they didn't: ~10%


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 26, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure, but is there anything quantitative?



The electoral commission has a searchable tool: 

https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/SOASearch.aspx

In 2011 it was £1bn to the Kippers and £710k to the Greens. Nothing more recent.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

Thanks.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 26, 2014)

tony.c said:


> UKIP have a number of wealthy ex-Tory financial backers. I doubt that the Greens do.



Yep, we now have four parties funded by millionaires that pander to or stir up fears about immigration. Not a victory, is it?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> As some posters will know, I have extended family out Norfolk way, and the sense I've gotten with regard to UKIP votes boils down to a single point: UKIP canvassed some areas heavily *and* engaged with those they canvassed.  In Great Yarmouth's wards they were sometimes the only party to turn up on the doorstep, and they appear to have taken it seriously - note-takers accompanying the candidates etc - whereas the three mainstream parties appear to have taken the electorate for granted.  These aren't unintelligent voters, they're voters who felt engaged enough with the political process to vote for someone who appears to be listening to them.  How pundits translate that into hairy thickos voting for UKIP merely shows that some people have fallen back on stock stereotypes to "explain" things, rather than actually engaging with (possibly unpalateable) fact.
> Multiply that  vote across the country, even if the concern shown on the doorstep is merely an act, and that's a fair few people convinced that they're being listened to, and that's something that none of the major parties have been able to do for at least the last decade and a half.



I dunno, simply voting for whoever turns up at your doorstep seems pretty stupid to me.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 26, 2014)

It's having someone pay attention to you, and can also humanise candidates or parties. It's why in some local areas you get a candidate from a regionally less-popular party because they are well known and established in the community.  The lib dems used to be quite good at this.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> It's having someone pay attention to you, and can also humanise candidates or parties. It's why in some local areas you get a candidate from a regionally less-popular party because they are well known and established in the community.  The lib dems used to be quite good at this.



Yes. And it's worth remembering that the older voters recall face-to-face interaction as the norm.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 26, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> It's having someone pay attention to you, and can also humanise candidates or parties. It's why in some local areas you get a candidate from a regionally less-popular party because they are well known and established in the community.  The lib dems used to be quite good at this.



Thinking that what you say to a doorstep canvasser is going to influence a political party's national policy, note taker or no note taker, is also pretty stupid.


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)




----------



## goldenecitrone (May 26, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Yep, we now have four parties funded by millionaires that pander to or stir up fears about immigration. Not a victory, is it?



Definitely not. A worrying lurch to the right across the country.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


>




What a smug liberal cunt


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What a smug liberal cunt


You watched that quickly.


----------



## mutley (May 26, 2014)

I doubt we can explain that much of the UKIP vote by them canvassing, cos they won't have the people on the ground to do more than scratch the surface. And their vote is so widespread, with them even getting one MEP in scotland and wales. They are connecting for othe reasons. Sure canvassing helps but its not the explanation.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> You watched that quickly.



Comes over in the first 30 seconds or so with the stuff about liverpool. Watched the rest now and it doesn't get any better. Do you dispute the self-evident fact that Stewart lee is indeed a smug liberal cunt?


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

I thought it was about someone from Liverpool? 

I will leave it to you to decide who is & isn't a smug liberal cunt.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> I thought it was about someone from Liverpool?



And in order to do so he demonises the entire city - stuff about nicking coats etc. And do I really need to tell you what he's talking about when he says, 'if only there was a way for liverpudlians to profit from going on and on about the past in a really whiny voice' what do you think he's talking about?

Also, EU migration is good cos it means london trendies like him can get a coffee cheaper or something.



MrSki said:


> I will leave it to you to decide who is & isn't a smug liberal cunt.



Sensible choice. He is one.


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> And in order to do so he demonises the entire city - stuff about nicking coats etc. And do I really need to tell you what he's talking about when he says, 'if only there was a way for liverpudlians to profit from going on and on about the past in a really whiny voice' what do you think he's talking about?
> 
> Also, EU migration is good cos it means london trendies like him can get a coffee cheaper or something.
> 
> ...


Sorry if a sense of humour has passed you by. I think he might have been joking.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Sorry if a sense of humour has passed you by. I think he might have been joking.



Jokes are meant to be funny aren't they? If I told you a racist joke would you accept the excuse that I was just joking?


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Jokes are meant to be funny aren't they? If I told you a racist joke would you accept the excuse that I was just joking?


No but your point is?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> No but your point is?



That I'm not sure him demonising scousers as thieves and taking the piss out of the Hillsborough justice campaign can be exused on the basis of 'it's only a joke'


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What a smug liberal cunt



Who is that smug, patronising wanker?

edited to add the words 'smug' and 'patronising'


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> That I'm not sure him demonising scousers as thieves and taking the piss out of the Hillsborough justice campaign can be exused on the basis of 'it's only a joke'


I don't remember the Hillsborough Justice campaign being mentioned. You have come to this conclusion.

Demonising scousers as thieves is well out of order though. I will stop watching anything by Stewart Lee. Is that you satisfied?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

THis situation is ridiculous. The right wing anti-immigration message has seeped into the wound and the body politic is now beyond repair. I'm so sick of this.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 26, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Who is that smug, patronising wanker?
> 
> edited to add the words 'smug' and 'patronising'



One of the funniest comedians in Britain. Just behind Nigel Farage.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> I don't remember the Hillsborough Justice campaign being mentioned. You have come to this conclusion.
> 
> Demonising scousers as thieves is well out of order though. I will stop watching anything by Stewart Lee. Is that you satisfied?



Watch what you want. But what do you think he meant by 'if only there was some way liverpudlians could profit from talking about the past in a really whiny voice'?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> THis situation is ridiculous. The right wing anti-immigration message has seeped into the wound and the body politic is now beyond repair. I'm so sick of this.



Good to see you're taking a balanced view of things and not being at all hysterical.


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Watch what you want. But what do you think he meant by 'if only there was some way liverpudlians could profit from talking about the past in a really whiny voice'?


Maybe he was talking about the fact the city was built from the profits of slavery? I don't know but I am sure you will tell me.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Maybe he was talking about the fact the city was built from the profits of slavery? I don't know but I am sure you will tell me.



How would they profit from talking about slavery in a whiny voice?


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> How would they profit from talking about slavery in a whiny voice?


How would they profit from talking about anything in a whiny voice?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> How would they profit from talking about anything in a whiny voice?



The myth is that the hillsborough justice campaign is all about winning compensation. Work it out.


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> The myth is that the hillsborough justice campaign is all about winning compensation. Work it out.


To me I see the Hillsborough  Justice campaign about people wanting justice for a horrendous event and those that were responsible are held to account. I have never even thought that it was about people wanting compensation.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Stewart Lee plagiarizing Boris Johnson. Fantastic. Top notch Smith libbery there.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

I usually like Stuart lee, but he does deserve a slap for that routine. why was it posted?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> To me I see the Hillsborough  Justice campaign about people wanting justice for a horrendous event and those that were responsible are held to account. I have never even thought that it was about people wanting compensation.



It is for me as well. Obviously not for Stewart lee though.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> One of the funniest comedians in Britain. <snip>



Never heard of him. 

On the evidence of that video he seems to be a twat though.


----------



## weepiper (May 26, 2014)

Scotland waking up to the depressing realisation that we've now got a UKIP MEP this morning. Of more concern to me is that of the 20,184 votes cast for Britain First across the UK, 13551 were in Scotland


----------



## J Ed (May 26, 2014)

Wow, I had no idea he said that about Liverpool. He's regularly on the People's Assembly as well! Do they know?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Good to see you're taking a balanced view of things and not being at all hysterical.


Good to see you missing the point of Stewart Lee's sketch.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Good to see you missing the point of Stewart Lee's sketch.



You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Anyone who does that sort of stuff about Hillsborough is immediately on/off the list of someone i want to spend any time on. Much like someone doing a frank spencer impression today.


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone who does that sort of stuff about Hillsborough is immediately on/off the list of someone i want to spend any time on. Much like someone doing a frank spencer impression today.


I didn't get the impression it had anything to do with Hillsborough.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You're a fucking idiot.


Which is of course a perfectly balanced and not hysterical response.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Top ten UKIP results in labour/tory seats.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Which is of course a perfectly balanced and not hysterical response.



And as if to prove my point...

why does my calling you a fucking idiot (which you clearly are) demonstrate hysteria and lack of balance?


----------



## J Ed (May 26, 2014)

Yes, Lincolnshire is becoming real UKIP country


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Top ten UKIP results in labour/tory seats.


If Matthew does one for the LDs I'd imagine my manor will be in there.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Which is of course a perfectly balanced and not hysterical response.



go on - what did he mean then?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> I didn't get the impression it had anything to do with Hillsborough.


The sketch has nothing to do with Liverpool, apart from a throwaway gag that, to anyone familar with Stewwart Lee, knows he doesn't actually think. 

I'm pretty confident I'm right in saying that Stewart Lee isn't scouser-ist. I don't think he hates Liverpudlians. it's a silly throwaway gag in a skit about the hypocrisy of the policies of ukip and the like. Quite why that is now being derided by arsehols with nothing better to do than stare into their navels and pretend ukip are nice people deserving of the same respect ukip politicians show, variously, toward gays, liberals, women, the unemployed, the sick, muslims, and foreigners in general - I don't know. Some people on here need to get a fucking life.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> If Matthew does one for the LDs I'd imagine my manor will be in there.



e2a: surprised not to see some Kent cons in that list.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> And as if to prove my point...
> 
> why does my calling you a fucking idiot (which you clearly are) demonstrate hysteria and lack of balance?


Are you asking me why it's ok to overreact to the point of throwing unprovoked abuse?


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Wow, I had no idea he said that about Liverpool. He's regularly on the People's Assembly as well! Do they know?


It was on his recent show, and they all watch it so they must do. 

I wondered at the time if maybe I was missing some nuance, but I still can't see it. Surprised there hasn't been a bigger noise about it tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> If Matthew does one for the LDs I'd imagine my manor will be in there.


I expect there'll be on on the way, and a re-calibration of the top ten UKIP targets (i.e three way splits where they can slip through and performed well over the locals and euros).


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

Stewart Lee - a great example of parts of the UK's inability to understand or relate to many other parts. Much like these elections and the analysis of them.
So there is finally a use for the smug liberal cunt


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> The sketch has nothing to do with Liverpool, apart from a throwaway gag that, to anyone familar with Stewwart Lee, knows he doesn't actually think.
> 
> I'm pretty confident I'm right in saying that Stewart Lee isn't scouser-ist. I don't think he hates Liverpudlians. it's a silly throwaway gag in a skit about the hypocrisy of the policies of ukip and the like. Quite why that is now being derided by arsehols with nothing better to do than stare into their navels and pretend ukip are nice people deserving of the same respect ukip politicians show, variously, toward gays, liberals, women, the unemployed, the sick, muslims, and foreigners in general - I don't know. Some people on here need to get a fucking life.



lying about and deliberately misrepresenting the views of others as well now.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

No one post his old muckers anti-BNP show from when they were on the up. That was just terrible - and i love richard herring.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> go on - what did he mean then?


He's taking the piss out of UKIP's hypocritical attitude toward immigration. The reference to Paul Nuttal is to ask "why is it ok for someone to come from one part of the country and tell people in another how to live, when it's not ok for someone from another country to do the same?"

In conclusion, fuck you kip.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Are you asking me why it's ok to overreact to the point of throwing unprovoked abuse?



No, I'm asking why it's hysterical and unbalanced to call you a fucking idiot. And stop being so fucking precious.


----------



## J Ed (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> He's taking the piss out of UKIP's hypocritical attitude toward immigration. The reference to Paul Nuttal is to ask "why is it ok for someone to come from one part of the country and tell people in another how to live, when it's not ok for someone from another country to do the same?"



I have no idea what that means


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

JTG said:


> Stewart Lee - a great example of parts of the UK's inability to understand or relate to many other parts. Much like these elections and the analysis of them.
> So there is finally a use for the smug liberal cunt


yeah! 

fucking wanker liberal elite metropolitan CUNT! I fucking hate that stewart lees, he's a fucking tosser. Why can't he stick to proper jokes, like why do asians smell of curry, or why is black people's lips so big? Fucking taking the piss out of people that take a hypocritical attitude toward movement of people across the continent - CUNT! CUNT CUNT!


----------



## Brainaddict (May 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> I usually like Stuart lee, but he dies deserve a slap fir that routine. why was it posted?


I agree it is a misjudged routine. The problem is you need to know him well to understand the misjudgement. He's done major routines about and against stereotyping, so if you know him the joke is that he is stereotyping despite being against stereotyping. Obviously if you do it to a TV audience that doesn't know you well that's not going to come across - which I'm sure he'd admit if pushed. So it's a misjudgement all round, but what it wasn't was a simple attempt to get a laugh out of a stereotype. But he should have realised that it looked like that.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, I'm asking why it's hysterical and unbalanced to call you a fucking idiot. And stop being so fucking precious.



Who the fuck are you to tell me I shouldn't take offence when someone calls me a fucking idiot? Do one you cretin!


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> He's taking the piss out of UKIP's hypocritical attitude toward immigration. The reference to Paul Nuttal is to ask "why is it ok for someone to come from one part of the country and tell people in another how to live, when it's not ok for someone from another country to do the same?"
> 
> In conclusion, fuck you kip.



and in doing so slandered the hillsborough justice campaign and scousers as a group. If a Pakistani businessman was slagging off British working class people would it be OK for me to show up his 'hypocritical attitude' by making racist comments about Pakistanis? Guess it must be.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I have no idea what that means


So what?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> and in doing so slandered the hillsborough justice campaign and scousers as a group. If a Pakistani businessman was slagging off British working class people would it be OK for me to show up his 'hypocritical attitude' by making racist comments about Pakistanis? Guess it must be.


I have absolutely no idea how you have managed to insert - crowbar in - the notion that he's ridiculing the effort of the hillsborough justice campaign.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> yeah!
> 
> fucking wanker liberal elite metropolitan CUNT! I fucking hate that stewart lees, he's a fucking tosser. Why can't he stick to proper jokes, like why do asians smell of curry, or why is black people's lips so big? Fucking taking the piss out of people that take a hypocritical attitude toward movement of people across the continent - CUNT! CUNT CUNT!



Go and have a lie down. You're showing yourself up now.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> yeah!
> 
> fucking wanker liberal elite metropolitan CUNT! I fucking hate that stewart lees, he's a fucking tosser. Why can't he stick to proper jokes, like why do asians smell of curry, or why is black people's lips so big? Fucking taking the piss out of people that take a hypocritical attitude toward movement of people across the continent - CUNT! CUNT CUNT!


my god.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I have absolutely no idea how you have managed to insert - crowbar in - the notion that he's ridiculing the effort of the hillsborough justice campaign.



'if only there was some way they could profit from talking about the past in a really whiny voice' 

What the fuck else do you think that means?


----------



## Favelado (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> and in doing so slandered the hillsborough justice campaign and scousers as a group. If a Pakistani businessman was slagging off British working class people would it be OK for me to show up his 'hypocritical attitude' by making racist comments about Pakistanis? Guess it must be.



I usually love him, but that ambiguous bit where you could have read it as Hillsborough/The Beatles/something else scouse didn't sit well at all.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Go and have a lie down. You're showing yourself up now.


says the genius that somehow thinks, from a skit that tangentially references Liverpool, Stewart Lee is damaging the Hillsborough cause.


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> yeah!
> 
> fucking wanker liberal elite metropolitan CUNT! I fucking hate that stewart lees, he's a fucking tosser. Why can't he stick to proper jokes, like why do asians smell of curry, or why is black people's lips so big? Fucking taking the piss out of people that take a hypocritical attitude toward movement of people across the continent - CUNT! CUNT CUNT!


Good grief
Step away from the net and have a lie down


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> says the genius that somehow thinks, from a skit that tangentially references Liverpool, Stewart Lee is damaging the Hillsborough cause.



I didn't say he was damaging the hillsborough cause (he's not - and the campaign would eat Stewart lee for breakfast if he was). I said he made cuntish comments about it. And he did.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

It doesn't tangentially reference Liverpool. It's front and centre, and it fucking stinks.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> 'if only there was some way they could profit from talking about the past in a really whiny voice'
> 
> What the fuck else do you think that means?


I don't know, I'm not Stewart Lee. I certainly didn't assume it meant Hillsborough, not for a cold minute. I think you're projecting an awful lot of really nasty shit there. Does the past, in respect of Liverpool, have to mean Hillsborough and nothing else? Have you asked him what he meant by that? Not for one second would I ever assume Stewart Lee is taking the piss out of Hillsborough.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> yeah!
> 
> fucking wanker liberal elite metropolitan CUNT! I fucking hate that stewart lees, he's a fucking tosser. Why can't he stick to proper jokes, like why do asians smell of curry, or why is black people's lips so big? Fucking taking the piss out of people that take a hypocritical attitude toward movement of people across the continent - CUNT! CUNT CUNT!


a cold shower and a rest in a darkened room would seem in order.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> It doesn't tangentially reference Liverpool. It's front and centre, and it fucking stinks.


According to you and this other twat, and I have only your expert opinions to base what Stewart Lee really meant. Why should I assume that you know best?


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> yeah!
> 
> fucking wanker liberal elite metropolitan CUNT! I fucking hate that stewart lees, he's a fucking tosser. Why can't he stick to proper jokes, like why do asians smell of curry, or why is black people's lips so big? Fucking taking the piss out of people that take a hypocritical attitude toward movement of people across the continent - CUNT! CUNT CUNT!


Lot of tantrums on here since UKIP-month started aren't there?


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> and in doing so slandered the hillsborough justice campaign and scousers as a group. If a Pakistani businessman was slagging off British working class people would it be OK for me to show up his 'hypocritical attitude' by making racist comments about Pakistanis? Guess it must be.


He did not slander the Hillsborough Justice campaign. You have read this into his act. I did not hear Hillsborough mentioned once in that clip.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I didn't say he was damaging the hillsborough cause (he's not - and the campaign would eat Stewart lee for breakfast if he was). I said he made cuntish comments about it. And he did.


No, he made a joke; you have inferred that it was about Hillsborough. Whether it's a good joke is another matter.


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

Have you heard my stuff about nig-nogs that I don't really mean? It's dead funny like


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't know, I'm not Stewart Lee. I certainly didn't assume it meant Hillsborough, not for a cold minute. I think you're projecting an awful lot of really nasty shit there. Does the past, in respect of Liverpool, have to mean Hillsborough and nothing else? Have you asked him what he meant by that? Not for one second would I ever assume Stewart Lee is taking the piss out of Hillsborough.



Yeah he can't have done something bad because he's one of the good guys so if he appears to be saying something bad it must really be something good, we just need to work out how.

There is a (thankfully declining) myth that the hillsborough campaign is all about compensation - and it's often couched in terms of profiting from talking about the past in a really whiny voice. It's hardly a giant leap is it? I don't see how the comments make sense otherwise.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> According to you and this other twat, and I have only your expert opinions to base what Stewart Lee really meant. Why should I assume that you know best?


I didn't say anything about the Hillsborough justice campaign.


----------



## _angel_ (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> yeah!
> 
> fucking wanker liberal elite metropolitan CUNT! I fucking hate that stewart lees, he's a fucking tosser. Why can't he stick to proper jokes, like why do asians smell of curry, or why is black people's lips so big? Fucking taking the piss out of people that take a hypocritical attitude toward movement of people across the continent - CUNT! CUNT CUNT!


Maybe just stick with the tradescunts routine?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> He did not slander the Hillsborough Justice campaign. You have read this into his act. I did not hear Hillsborough mentioned once in that clip.



You keep grasping those straws, I'm sure your smug middle class liberal hero will be grateful for it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> No, he made a joke; you have inferred that it was about Hillsborough. Whether it's a good joke is another matter.



What did it mean then? The only way the comments make sense (and fit the idea of a 'joke' where he exposes the 'hypocrisy' of someone who's made bigoted comments about one group of people by making bigoted comments about the group of people they belong to) is if he's talking about Hillsborough.

Give us your alternative explantion and I'll consider it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> No, he made a joke; you have inferred that it was about Hillsborough. Whether it's a good joke is another matter.


The bastard deduced or concluded something from evidence and reasoning? What a cunt!!!


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah he can't have done something bad because he's one of the good guys so if he appears to be saying something bad it must really be something good, we just need to work out how.
> 
> There is a (thankfully declining) myth that the hillsborough campaign is all about compensation - and it's often couched in terms of profiting from talking about the past in a really whiny voice. It's hardly a giant leap is it? I don't see how the comments make sense otherwise.



Maybe it was just a shitty joke within a laerger skit? Maybe that's all it was - not some dig at the attitude in Liverpool toward what happened.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> 'if only there was some way they could profit from talking about the past in a really whiny voice'
> 
> What the fuck else do you think that means?



The Beatles, Merseybeat and the heyday of Liverpool FC. Obviously. Nothing to do with Hillsborough whatsover.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What did it mean then? The only way the comments make sense (and fit the idea of a 'joke' where he exposes the 'hypocrisy' of someone who's made bigoted comments about one group of people by making bigoted comments about the group of people they belong to) is if he's talking about Hillsborough.
> 
> Give us your alternative explantion and I'll consider it.


I'm not the author of the sketch. Why not ask Mr Lee himself, I think he'd be better able to help you though I doubt you'll listen, it's obvious you want to believe the worst about him.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> Maybe just stick with the tradescunts routine?


Well, the old ones are the best!


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You keep grasping those straws, I'm sure your smug middle class liberal hero will be grateful for it.


I think you will find that people slagged off Liverpool before Hillsborough. You may read into it what you want but I don't think Hillsborough has much to do with his act. Is it not allowed for people to mention Liverpool without Hillsborough?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The bastard deduced or concluded something from evidence and reasoning? What a cunt!!!


is there a reason that you continue to sniff around my every post?


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

Next week: Stewart does tight Scots, thick Brummies and West Country yokels!


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> is there a reason that you continue to sniff around my every post?


Can't really avoid your foul tirade and accusations on this thread at the minute. Maybe you could say something about the thread topic or get off the thread?


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 26, 2014)

JTG said:


> Have you heard my stuff about nig-nogs that I don't really mean? It's dead funny like



He does a routine that includes his imaginary black partner. Think you may be getting him mixed up with Clarkson though.


----------



## emanymton (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Maybe he was talking about the fact the city was built from the profits of slavery? I don't know but I am sure you will tell me.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Oh God, they're all here now.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Oh God, they're all here now.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can't really avoid your foul tirade and accusations on this thread at the minute. Maybe you could say something about the thread topic or get off the thread?


All you ever do is follow me around like a shitty shadow. You have had nothing positive or even pleasant to say. You've made no effort to talk to me in anything resembling a human being and yet you have the fucking nerve to sit in judgement, including resorting to 5yo posts in vain attempts to paint me in the nastiest light possible. 

And yet, earlier, you posted this:


> Don't be so quick to believe smears from those who've just demonstrated their bitter grudge driven agenda.



If that isn't irony I don't know what is. Now fuck off and haunt someone else you fuckwit cunt.


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Oh God, they're all here now.


You did take a swipe at a sacred cow tbf


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

JTG said:


> Next week: Stewart does tight Scots, thick Brummies and West Country yokels!


You know who I hate? Historians. All they ever do is talk about the past in a whiny voice.


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> You know who I hate? Historians. All they ever do is talk about the past in a whiny voice.


Eh?


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

JTG said:


> Eh?


I think he's _trying _to do newman and badiell now.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

he's just smearing shit all over himself now. embarrassing, but mildly compulsive viewing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> All you ever do is follow me around like a shitty shadow. You have had nothing positive or even pleasant to say. You've made no effort to talk to me in anything resembling a human being and yet you have the fucking nerve to sit in judgement, including resorting to 5yo posts in vain attempts to paint me in the nastiest light possible.
> 
> And yet, earlier, you posted this:
> 
> ...



You've effectively accused others of racism on this thread. You have no right to talk about anyone trying to paint you in the worst possible light.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You've effectively accused others of racism on this thread. You have no right to talk about anyone trying to paint you in the worst possible light.


So, by effectively, you really mean not at all.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You've effectively accused others of racism on this thread. You have no right to talk about anyone trying to paint you in the worst possible light.


It's rather revealing the way this this _personal _response to not liking stewart lee or thinking that he was alluding to hillsborough mirrors the _political _(as they see it anyway) response to UKIP and the surrounding issues. Hyperbole, abuse and cunts!!!!

_I think something and that's enough._


----------



## andysays (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> and in doing so slandered the hillsborough justice campaign and scousers as a group. If a Pakistani businessman was slagging off British working class people would it be OK for me to show up his 'hypocritical attitude' by making racist comments about Pakistanis? Guess it must be.



That routine has absolutely fuck all to do with Hillborough, and the fact that you are so certain it does says far more about you and your anti-liberal-middle-class-metropolitan-sandal-wearing-humus-eating-cunt prejudice than about Stewart Lee or anything else.

It plays on the long standing comic stereotype of scousers as whiney, insular and complaining, which has been around for at least forty years that I can remember and probably longer (ie long before Hillsborough). I got the impression he was using that stereotype to send it up, though maybe not. 

And whether it was an effective critique on UKIP is open to question, probably not as you and others seem to be taking the position that when a stuck up too clever for his own good comedian makes a joke about UKIP you don't like, it makes you more sympathetic to them and more likely to support them. This is not a coherent political response, but unfortunately this seems to be a significant source of support for UKIP, the knee jerk populist hate response, including from people like you who, with your professed proper political understanding, should know better.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 26, 2014)

JTG said:


> Next week: Stewart does tight Scots, thick Brummies and West Country yokels!


He has done jokes about Scots, and maybe watching them will show where he was coming from with the Liverpool joke:


Now you can think he's a prick for that routine, but it's easier to see what he was trying to do. I think he was trying to do something similar in the Liverpool routine but without enough explanation.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

FWIW I don't think Stewart Lee hates scousers, I think it was a poorly considered rhetorical device. But it was a device he wouldn't have used against a different target. And I'm not convinced it's a reference to Hillsborough, although I can see how it could be read that way (and considering the way the whiny scousers meme has become wrapped up with Hillsborough over the years, another reason to avoid).


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> That routine has absolutely fuck all to do with Hillborough, and the fact that you are so certain it does says far more about you and your anti-liberal-middle-class-metropolitan-sandal-wearing-humus-eating-cunt prejudice than about Stewart Lee or anything else.
> 
> It plays on the long standing comic stereotype of scousers as whiney, insular and complaining, which has been around for at least forty years that I can remember and probably longer (ie long before Hillsborough). I got the impression he was using that stereotype to send it up, though maybe not.
> 
> And whether it was an effective critique on UKIP is open to question, probably not as you and others seem to be taking the position that when a stuck up too clever for his own good comedian makes a joke about UKIP you don't like, it makes you more sympathetic to them and more likely to support them. This is not a coherent political response, but unfortunately this seems to be a significant source of support for UKIP, the knee jerk populist hate response, including from people like you who, with your professed proper political understanding, should know better.



Fuck off you sanctimonious cunt. You're miles off too - I _used to_ quite like Stewart lee, before this I had no real axe to grind with him.

It's the words 'profit from' that are key here. If you don't see how that taps into myths around Hillsborough that's your problem and not mine.

You can fuck off with the implication that they're making me 'more likely to support UKIP' too.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So, by effectively, you really mean not at all.



No. I mean your responses to any kind of criticism of Stewart lee - you know, the ones where you say, 'yeah he should take the piss out of darkies or something you'd like that more'. 

Don't you think you've embarrassed yourself enough on this thread?


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> FWIW I don't think Stewart Lee hates scousers, I think it was a poorly considered rhetorical device. But it was a device he wouldn't have used against a different target. And I'm not convinced it's a reference to Hillsborough, although I can see how it could be read that way (and considering the way the whiny scousers meme has become wrapped up with Hillsborough over the years, another reason to avoid).


Close enough to my view that


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> That routine has absolutely fuck all to do with Hillborough, and the fact that you are so certain it does says far more about you and your anti-liberal-middle-class-metropolitan-sandal-wearing-humus-eating-cunt prejudice than about Stewart Lee or anything else.
> 
> It plays on the long standing comic stereotype of scousers as whiney, insular and complaining, which has been around for at least forty years that I can remember and probably longer (ie long before Hillsborough). I got the impression he was using that stereotype to send it up, though maybe not.
> 
> And whether it was an effective critique on UKIP is open to question, probably not as you and others seem to be taking the position that when a stuck up too clever for his own good comedian makes a joke about UKIP you don't like, it makes you more sympathetic to them and more likely to support them. This is not a coherent political response, but unfortunately this seems to be a significant source of support for UKIP, the knee jerk populist hate response, including from people like you who, with your professed proper political understanding, should know better.


Note the slip from def not in the first para to _well maybe it did, it's just what i think _in the second. And a genuine example of the sort of crude stereotyping employed by Lee in the third. Is that you Stew? Note also, another example of the blossoming tantrum genre.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah he can't have done something bad because he's one of the good guys so if he appears to be saying something bad it must really be something good, we just need to work out how.
> 
> There is a (thankfully declining) myth that the hillsborough campaign is all about compensation - and it's often couched in terms of profiting from talking about the past in a really whiny voice. It's hardly a giant leap is it? I don't see how the comments make sense otherwise.


Well, you think he's one of the bad guys, so it must mean something bad, just need to work it out


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well, you think he's one of the bad guys, so it must mean something bad, just need to work it out


And here we get, well i like him, i'm great, so he must have meant something else. And this from a liverpool fan as well. Actually, this is an example of the suarez plausible deniability excuse - call someone a racially abusive term then pretend it wasn't about it all innocent like, it meant something else entirely. Luckily only some right thickos fell for that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well, you think he's one of the bad guys, so it must mean something bad, just need to work it out



Except that's not true at all. I used to like Stewart lee. 

Nobody has offered an even close to credible alternative explanation for what he said. I think I'm on firmer grounds than awesome needs a lie down wells and the other apologists.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nobody has offered an even close to credible alternative explanation for what he said.


*cough*


killer b said:


> FWIW I don't think Stewart Lee hates scousers, I think it was a poorly considered rhetorical device. But it was a device he wouldn't have used against a different target. And I'm not convinced it's a reference to Hillsborough, although I can see how it could be read that way (and considering the way the whiny scousers meme has become wrapped up with Hillsborough over the years, another reason to avoid).


----------



## andysays (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fuck off you sanctimonious cunt. You're miles off too - I _used to_ quite like Stewart lee, before this I had no real axe to grind with him.
> 
> It's the words 'profit from' that are key here. If you don't see how that taps into myths around Hillsborough that's your problem and not mine.
> 
> You can fuck off with the implication that they're making me 'more likely to support UKIP' too.



"profit from" refers to scouse comedians mining this same old whiney themes, at least that's how I understood it, but I'm sure you know best.

A number of people have said that the form of the attacks on UKIP has made them more likely to support them, and though I'm not going back to check, I'm pretty sure you were one of them.

From memory, you said if you weren't involved with union and standing for TUSC, you'd be inclined to vote for them too, but if I have totally imagined this, which I doubt, I apologise.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Except that's not true at all. I used to like Stewart lee.
> 
> Nobody has offered an even close to credible alternative explanation for what he said. I think I'm on firmer grounds than awesome needs a lie down wells and the other apologists.


Used to, and now he's a smug liberal middle class hero.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> FWIW I don't think Stewart Lee hates scousers, I think it was a poorly considered rhetorical device. But it was a device he wouldn't have used against a different target. And I'm not convinced it's a reference to Hillsborough, although I can see how it could be read that way (and considering the way the whiny scousers meme has become wrapped up with Hillsborough over the years, another reason to avoid).


Largely go with this but  that he did it under the banner of the suarez doctrine, which means he knew full well it would be read as referring to hillsborough and was happy to let that stand as he had his potential cover story ready made - but which also suggests _intention _for it to be read that way.


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Used to, and now he's a smug liberal middle class hero.


Before he mentioned Liverpool.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 26, 2014)

What the fuck is "the banner of the Suarez doctrine"


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I dunno, simply voting for whoever turns up at your doorstep seems pretty stupid to me.



But it's not "voting for whoever turns up at your doorstep", it's voting for a party that's bothered to engage with you as a member of the electorate; that's bothered to listen to your concerns.  Canvassing works, especially when the mainstream parties have all but withdrawn from the doorstep due to a lack of activists.  Some of UKIP's ward wins are clear proof of that.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> What the fuck is "the banner of the Suarez doctrine"


It's what i explained above - the one you defended racial abuse under. Saying something knowingly out of order with a ready made plausible denial (one that the naive or tainted can buy without much effort).


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> *cough*



Where does the 'profit from' bit come from then?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Used to, and now he's a smug liberal middle class hero.



Think what you want - you're 'explanation' for why I've taken exception to his comments doesn't hold up either way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Thinking that what you say to a doorstep canvasser is going to influence a political party's national policy, note taker or no note taker, is also pretty stupid.




More contempt for the working class, Frank?
What people are (surprising as it may seem to you) aware of is that councillors have traction on *local* policy.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's what i explained above - the one you defended racial abuse under. Saying something knowingly out of order with a ready made plausible denial (one that the naive or tainted can buy without much effort).


You can fuck right off with that.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> You can fuck right off with that.


Indeed, that's the response of most sensible people to use of the suarez doctrine.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> "profit from" refers to scouse comedians mining this same old whiney themes, at least that's how I understood it, but I'm sure you know best.
> 
> A number of people have said that the form of the attacks on UKIP has made them more likely to support them, and though I'm not going back to check, I'm pretty sure you were one of them.
> 
> From memory, you said if you weren't involved with union and standing for TUSC, you'd be inclined to vote for them too, but if I have totally imagined this, which I doubt, I apologise.



You should apologise then. I said it made me 'feel like' voting for them. And it does. I wouldn't vote for them regardless of what other campaigns I'm involved in though. I made this perfectly clear.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No. I mean your responses to any kind of criticism of Stewart lee - you know, the ones where you say, 'yeah he should take the piss out of darkies or something you'd like that more'.



i didnt say that; that's you, again, twisting what someone else has said.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, that's the response of most sensible people to use of the suarez doctrine.


"Naive or tainted" - but I know better.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 26, 2014)

Wait this _suarez doctrine thing_...does it cover calling Black people _Coconuts_ or Uncle Tom instead of just calling them _traitors_ as you would White people?


----------



## andysays (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Note the slip from def not in the first para to _well maybe it did, it's just what i think _in the second. And a genuine example of the sort of crude stereotyping employed by Lee in the third. Is that you Stew? Note also, another example of the blossoming tantrum genre.



Another knee-jerk hate-filled response, which merely illustrates that you haven't read properly what you're responding to. If only you were as perceptive as you think you are.

Still looking forward to the turmoil, butchers?

All UKIP are doing is exploiting the understandable anger and fear people have, and turning it into hate.

You're full of the same anger, fear and hate, and although you shout like a big brave man on the internet, you're powerless and irrelevent, and deep down you know it. All this posturing is just compensation...

Populist whipping up of anger fear and hate may lead to turmoil, but there's no way the impotent raging left, which you unfortunately epitomise, will be able to make any headway against it.

Keep wanking along to your election returns - maybe if you ask Nigel nicely he'll give you a job as an adviser or analyst.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> i didnt say that; that's you, again, twisting what someone else has said.





Awesome Wells said:


> yeah!
> 
> fucking wanker liberal elite metropolitan CUNT! I fucking hate that stewart lees, he's a fucking tosser. Why can't he stick to proper jokes, like why do asians smell of curry, or why is black people's lips so big? Fucking taking the piss out of people that take a hypocritical attitude toward movement of people across the continent - CUNT! CUNT CUNT!


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Wait this _suarez doctrine thing_...does it cover calling Black people _Coconuts_ or Uncle Tom instead of just calling them _traitors_ as you would White people?


Of course it would in most uses.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> Another knee-jerk hate-filled response, which merely illustrates that you haven't read properly what you're responding to. If only you were as perceptive as you think you are.
> 
> Still waiting for the turmoil, butchers?
> 
> ...


We really do need a UKIP-tantrum thread for those who don't want to actually discuss the politics around  this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

mutley said:


> I doubt we can explain that much of the UKIP vote by them canvassing...



We can explain *some* of it, though.



> ...cos they won't have the people on the ground to do more than scratch the surface.



Conversely, their having few activists relative to the main parties may have meant that they deployed their activists tactically



> And their vote is so widespread, with them even getting one MEP in scotland and wales. They are connecting for othe reasons. Sure canvassing helps but its not the explanation.



No-one has claimed that it was. What I said up-thread was that the sense I got from relatives "on the ground" was that in Great Yarmouth the primary reason for how well they did was because they supposedly canvassed wards that the other parties either ignored, or took for granted.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> Another knee-jerk hate-filled response, which merely illustrates that you haven't read properly what you're responding to. If only you were as perceptive as you think you are.
> 
> Still looking forward to the turmoil, butchers?
> 
> ...



Fucking hell


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> One of the funniest comedians in Britain. Just behind Nigel Farage.



The real king of British comedians is Jerry Sadowitz.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> "Naive or tainted" - but I know better.


Tainted meaning wanting to defend the behaviour despite knowing what really lay behind it. Naive meaning defending it despite not knowing what lay behind it. Pretty simple - see Wells about use of inference.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Yes, Lincolnshire is becoming real UKIP country



TBF Potatoland was UKIP before UKIP existed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 26, 2014)

Saurez Doctrine in full effect? 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/lord-taylor-is-guilty.268074/


No need for fancy names IMO, people in glass houses and all that....


----------



## hipipol (May 26, 2014)

All this frothy chopped ranting achieves nothing and squanders what little power any individual has crouched over a keyboard in a darkened room.
Its not just UKIP
There is Europe wide rush to intolerance - best find some sort of message sorted that people, other than another ranter in a bedroom, might be able to understand


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Saurez Doctrine in full effect?
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/lord-taylor-is-guilty.268074/
> 
> ...


I would guess that was why DC was criticised for using one of those terms then.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

I haven't accused anyone of racism.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

hipipol said:


> All this frothy chopped ranting achieves nothing and squanders what little power any individual has crouched over a keyboard in a darkened room.


i doubt edward snowden ever crouched over a keyboard in a darkened room trying to coil one out.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I haven't accused anyone of racism.


good for you. is that ever or only today?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

hipipol said:


> All this frothy chopped ranting achieves nothing and squanders what little power any individual has crouched over a keyboard in a darkened room.
> Its not just UKIP
> There is Europe wide rush to intolerance - best find some sort of message sorted that people, other than another ranter in a bedroom, might be able to understand


This whole thread turned to shit ages ago. Anyone that dares criticise ukip for what they are is now to be themselves criticised. Now we have a party without policies run and fed by millionaires wanting to 'take our country back'. There is noever andy debate - for instance from whom? The EU? Who are the EU if that doesn't include us? Romanians and Bulgarians? Nasty easterners vs friendly westerners?

This whole thing makes me sick. The amount of coverage this party has received, with very little to challenge their lies about immigration (the only topic discussed), is astounding.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Tainted meaning wanting to defend the behaviour despite knowing what really lay behind it. Naive meaning defending it despite not knowing what lay behind it. Pretty simple - see Wells about use of inference.


As opposed to you, who knows the true meaning.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> This whole thread turned to shit ages ago. Anyone that dares criticise ukip for what they are is now to be themselves criticised. Now we have a party without policies run and fed by millionaires wanting to 'take our country back'. There is noever andy debate - for instance from whom? The EU? Who are the EU if that doesn't include us? Romanians and Bulgarians? Nasty easterners vs friendly westerners?
> 
> This whole thing makes me sick. The amount of coverage this party has received, with very little to challenge their lies about immigration (the only topic discussed), is astounding.


There has been constant informed debate from day 1 onwards. Mixed up with you popping in every few posts to say farage is a cunt, anyone who doesn't say farage is a cunt is a cunt, anyone trying to develop a substantive political analysis beyond calling farage a cunt is a cunt and so on.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> As opposed to you, who knows the true meaning.


As opposed to me to who deduced or concluded something from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements - yes.


----------



## J Ed (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> This whole thing makes me sick. The amount of coverage this party has received, with very little to challenge their lies about immigration (the only topic discussed), is astounding.



If only the Green Party received the same coverage (regardless of whether it was less warranted or not) then all the dumb proles would become Green Party members


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

The 40 UKIP target seats:


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

Why did the Nazis gain support? Same thing different time.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> This whole thing makes me sick. The amount of coverage this party has received, with very little to challenge their lies about immigration (the only topic discussed), is astounding.



Not sure what papers you read but i've seen their immigration statements challenged over and over - in conservative and liberal papers. And i've seen conservative and liberals challenging them on news and current affairs tv and radio programs over and over.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The 40 UKIP target seats:


i'm particularly sorry to see great grimsby and cleethorpes on that list


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

That's the Forest of Dean on that map at the top of the bristol channel btw


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

J Ed said:


> If only the Green Party received the same coverage (regardless of whether it was less warranted or not) then all the dumb proles would become Green Party members


UKIP#s vast coverage accompanies the prevailing 'labour ruined everything' rhetoric as well as the 'tsunami of immigration'. It's not just that they have had insane coverage, it's that very little ofwhat they say challenges these major misconceptions and very little of what they say is challenged by an objective media. UKIP still cling to the same provocative talking points abour immigration they always have, but i have never seen anything challenge this. Instead we get the majority of the papers constantly reinforcing the notion that entire city's worth of immigrants pop up each year. How many of these reports go on to say how much land isn't built upon in this country?

The same can be said for the climate change argument. All we hear is how ukip don't like windmills. They never explain why, or how fracking wells and nuclear reactors would be better, and are never asked.

The only criticism comes from pointing to the inevitable and latest lunatic tweet from Lord Snobbybottom and how he hates gays.


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The 40 UKIP target seats:



Aside from one or two outliers, are they targetting the areas of initial Saxon settlement?


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm particularly sorry to see great grimsby and cleethorpes on that list



Opportune time for them to go for Grimsby, with Austin Mitchell standing down at the next election...


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

agricola said:


> Aside from one or two outliers, are they targetting the areas of initial Saxon settlement?


Was it not Norsemen who settled them before the Saxons?


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

agricola said:


> Aside from one or two outliers, are they targetting the areas of initial Saxon settlement?


Yes:

OOPs, pic too big, hang on


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Opportune time for them to go for Grimsby, with Austin Mitchell standing down at the next election...


i hope the people who attacked the cleethorpes donkeys go some way to redeeming themselves by savaging the ukip candidate


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes:
> 
> OOPs, pic too big, hang on


the sooner all the ukip candidates are in cemeteries the better.


----------



## J Ed (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> UKIP#s vast coverage accompanies the prevailing 'labour ruined everything' rhetoric as well as the 'tsunami of immigration'. It's not just that they have had insane coverage, it's that very little ofwhat they say challenges these major misconceptions and very little of what they say is challenged by an objective media. UKIP still cling to the same provocative talking points abour immigration they always have, but i have never seen anything challenge this. Instead we get the majority of the papers constantly reinforcing the notion that entire city's worth of immigrants pop up each year. How many of these reports go on to say how much land isn't built upon in this country?



I just don't recognise most of this in the media over the past few months.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

oh joy, looks like they'lll be encroaching into my anglia then


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Opportune time for them to go for Grimsby, with Austin Mitchell standing down at the next election...


It's in Goodwin and Fords top ten UKIP targets in their book:






*Matthew Goodwin*@GoodwinMJ
This is what Austin Mitchell said about our book that flagged his seat (bit.ly/1p0oUgS). Today Ukip averaged 35% in Great Grimsby.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I just don't recognise most of this in the media over the past few months.


every time a non-labour politician is asked to explain why they are/aren't doing a certain thing 'it's because labour spent all the money'.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's in Goodwin and Fords top ten UKIP targets in their book.



Is that book any good, do you know?  Considering a read...


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Was it not Norsemen who settled them before the Saxons?



No - the first Saxon settlements were nearly four hundred years before the main Viking raids started.  Of course they then complained about people invading, despoiling society, taking jobs etc etc


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Is that book any good, do you know?  Considering a read...


I've not read it. I think mist of the interesting stuff has been posted by the authors on their various blogs and articles. I'm looking for a free copy on the web though.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I've not read it. I think mist of the interesting stuff has been posted by the authors on their various blogs and articles. I'm looking for a free copy on the web though.



Let me know if you find one, could you?  I'm cutting my book-buying expenditure back atm...


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Let me know if you find one, could you?  I'm cutting my book-buying expenditure back atm...


Of course.


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

agricola said:


> No - the first Saxon settlements were nearly four hundred years before the main Viking raids started.  Of course they then complained about people invading, despoiling society, taking jobs etc etc


My mistake, I always thought that those pesky Vikings had harassed them nasty Romans. What were those Vikings doing for four hundred years?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

pillaging towards the russian side of the world and waiting to invent the sextant


----------



## Brainaddict (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The 40 UKIP target seats:


Okay, back to politics. I suspect there is some correlation between those areas and high unemployment. Yet that would raise the question of why it is focussed in the south and east when there is a lot of unemployment further north and west as well.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Brainaddict said:


> Okay, back to politics. I suspect there is some correlation between those areas and high unemployment. Yet that would raise the question of why it is focussed in the south and east when there is a lot of unemployment further north and west as well.


These are areas with two/three way party splits which UKIP can slip though on around 30% - areas in the north with high unemployment etc are safe labour seats. These are not just best performing UKIP areas, there is local context.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> This whole thread turned to shit ages ago. Anyone that dares criticise ukip for what they are is now to be themselves criticised. Now we have a party without policies run and fed by millionaires wanting to 'take our country back'. There is noever andy debate - for instance from whom? The EU? Who are the EU if that doesn't include us? Romanians and Bulgarians? Nasty easterners vs friendly westerners?
> 
> This whole thing makes me sick. The amount of coverage this party has received, with very little to challenge their lies about immigration (the only topic discussed), is astounding.



What makes me sick is an obviously-intelligent person missing the point by a country fucking mile.
You've constantly tried to handbag the debate into something where the motivations for politics, and in particular for voting UKIP are reduced to "because people who vote UKIP are cunts".
The rational thing to do is *exactly* to analyse why people might do so, and to use that analysis to inform future tactics and politics.

But no, best to just call them names, and ignore everything else!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

ukip as a whole will have to keep noses very clean on the financial front. Any irregularity or case of 'money just resting etc' will be siezed on as 'look, they're just as bad as the others'


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> More contempt for the working class, Frank?
> What people are (surprising as it may seem to you) aware of is that councillors have traction on *local* policy.



I talk about stupid people and you assume I'm talking about the working class. Sounds like the contempt is at your end tbh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I talk about stupid people and you assume I'm talking about the working class. Sounds like the contempt is at your end tbh.



Given the context in which you mention them, it's difficult to conclude anything else, but by all means try to deflect from your own contempt by accusing me of the same!


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> ukip as a whole will have to keep noses very clean on the financial front. Any irregularity or case of 'money just resting etc' will be siezed on as 'look, they're just as bad as the others'



You can be sure their new councillors and MEPs will have been told this.  Whether they'll listen, or follow Farage's snout into the trough, is another matter.  In fact IMO one thing that might well hamper the party in the coming years is that the quality of its councillors won't be all that good, and there'll be a few resignations and sackings, as well as some disillusionment when the anti-political candidate people voted for turns out to be just another self-interested politician who doesn't turn up to council meetings.  Hopefully some of that will start to emerge well before the general election.


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's the Forest of Dean on that map at the top of the bristol channel btw


Yep - Labour/Tory marginal which the big two easily forget about


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> You can be sure their new councillors and MEPs will have been told this.  Whether they'll listen, or follow Farage's snout into the trough, is another matter.  In fact IMO one thing that might well hamper the party in the coming years is that the quality of its councillors won't be all that good, and there'll be a few resignations and sackings, as well as some disillusionment when the anti-political candidate people voted for turns out to be just another self-interested politician who doesn't turn up to council meetings.  Hopefully some of that will start to emerge well before the general election.


Otoh, aren't a fair few of them refugees from the big two who know how the local politics game is played?


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

JTG said:


> Otoh, aren't a fair few of them refugees from the big two who know how the local politics game is played?



Some are, but AFAIK not all that many of them, although I might be wrong on that point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Why did the Nazis gain support? Same thing different time.



Entirely different thing.  The Nazis built their original organisation by appealing to the rural _petit bourgeoisie_, promising land reform and _lebensraum_, plus an end to economic uncertainty and unemployment.  In many German cities, the Nazis had no traction until they were already in power, and even then cities as diverse as Cologne, Berlin and Dresden had substantial anti-Nazi dissent.
Comparing UKIP's results with how the Nazis gained support isn't just fatuous, it's historically-ignorant on a grand scale.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> You can be sure their new councillors and MEPs will have been told this.  Whether they'll listen, or follow Farage's snout into the trough, is another matter.  In fact IMO one thing that might well hamper the party in the coming years is that the quality of its councillors won't be all that good, and there'll be a few resignations and sackings, as well as some disillusionment when the anti-political candidate people voted for turns out to be just another self-interested politician who doesn't turn up to council meetings.  Hopefully some of that will start to emerge well before the general election.


i would be surprised if some of that hasn't emerged by the end of the month


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i would be surprised if some of that hasn't emerged by the end of the month



Let's hope so.


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Entirely different thing.  The Nazis built their original organisation by appealing to the rural _petit bourgeoisie_, promising land reform and _lebensraum_, plus an end to economic uncertainty and unemployment.  In many German cities, the Nazis had no traction until they were already in power, and even then cities as diverse as Cologne, Berlin and Dresden had substantial anti-Nazi dissent.
> Comparing UKIP's results with how the Nazis gained support isn't just fatuous, it's historically-ignorant on a grand scale.


Is it?

Were the Germans who elected him in 1933 thinking about the gas chambers? 

Who knows what the future holds. What are UKIP building their support on?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> But it's not "voting for whoever turns up at your doorstep", it's voting for a party that's bothered to engage with you as a member of the electorate; that's bothered to listen to your concerns.  Canvassing works, especially when the mainstream parties have all but withdrawn from the doorstep due to a lack of activists.  Some of UKIP's ward wins are clear proof of that.



There was an interesting snippet someplace on here yesterday, where Maurice posted a link to Electoral Commission saying that UKIP had a political fund of around a billion in 2011 (compared to the Greens on about 700k) 

That much cash pays for a lot of "engagement" ...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> What are UKIP building their support on?


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> There was an interesting snippet someplace on here yesterday, where Maurice posted a link to Electoral Commission saying that UKIP had a political fund of around a billion in 2011 (compared to the Greens on about 700k)
> 
> That much cash pays for a lot of "engagement" ...


Did that really say a billion? I assumed that was an error.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Did that really say a billion? I assumed that was an error.



I must admit I didn't check last night (looks like you need to register with your full name and address details) but I agree a billion seems high.

Still, I imagine the City would be willing to pay a lot to avoid EU imposed regulation on their criminal / irresponsible / anti-social behaviors.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Did that really say a billion? I assumed that was an error.


must be an error. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11901914


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Is it?
> 
> Were the Germans who elected him in 1933 thinking about the gas chambers?
> 
> Who knows what the future holds. What are UKIP building their support on?



A desire for genocide obviously.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What makes me sick is an obviously-intelligent person missing the point by a country fucking mile.
> You've constantly tried to handbag the debate into something where the motivations for politics, and in particular for voting UKIP are reduced to "because people who vote UKIP are cunts".
> The rational thing to do is *exactly* to analyse why people might do so, and to use that analysis to inform future tactics and politics.
> 
> But no, best to just call them names, and ignore everything else!



I've said no such thing. I've said that about ukip, I don't think I be said that about their voters. Nor have I ignored everything else. In fact I've just said why people (or at least the majority) vote this way; because of the media. The right wing media in this country has reinforced everything that would compel them to vote ukip. This is combined with their position currently as being seen as free from the taint of being in the system gives them an appeal to disillusioned voters who haven't been given a chance to properly consider a genuine alternative.


----------



## frogwoman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Is it?
> 
> Were the Germans who elected him in 1933 thinking about the gas chambers?
> 
> Who knows what the future holds. What are UKIP building their support on?




Something like 16% of UKIP supporters are from ethnic minorities, higher than most other political parties. The Nazis always had antisemitism as one of the main features of their ideology; they were way beyond even a group like the BNP. I doubt that 16% of their support was from other ethnic groups in Germany. 

It's starting to really annoy me when people call UKIP fascist. Do you really think they're like a party like Golden Dawn in Greece or Right Sector in Ukraine?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> You can be sure their new councillors and MEPs will have been told this.  Whether they'll listen, or follow Farage's snout into the trough, is another matter.  In fact IMO one thing that might well hamper the party in the coming years is that the quality of its councillors won't be all that good, and there'll be a few resignations and sackings, as well as some disillusionment when the anti-political candidate people voted for turns out to be just another self-interested politician who doesn't turn up to council meetings.  Hopefully some of that will start to emerge well before the general election.



I think quite@few of their supporters respect them for 'playing the system'; Paul nuttalls is quite open about the fact he doesn't do his job as an mep properly. In his mind not bothering to attend yet get paid helps the party achieve its goal of bringing down the EU.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Something like 16% of UKIP supporters are from ethnic minorities, higher than most other political parties. The Nazis always had antisemitism as one of the main features of their ideology; they were way beyond even a group like the BNP. I doubt that 16% of their support was from other ethnic groups in Germany.
> 
> It's starting to really annoy me when people call UKIP fascist. Do you really think they're like a party like Golden Dawn in Greece or Right Sector in Ukraine?


Then what are they?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I've said no such thing. I've said that about ukip, I don't think I be said that about their voters. Nor have I ignored everything else. In fact I've just said why people (or at least the majority) vote this way; because of the media. The right wing media in this country has reinforced everything that would compel them to vote ukip. This is combined with their position currently as being seen as free from the taint of being in the system gives them an appeal to disillusioned voters who haven't been given a chance to properly consider a genuine alternative.


how would you say that a party with more than 150 cllrs is not 'in the system'?


----------



## J Ed (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Then what are they?



http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/characterising-ukip.323917/


----------



## frogwoman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Then what are they?



They're a party slightly to the right of the Tories.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

A coalition of neo-liberal ideologues, empire loyalists, left behind working class protectionists and those for whom neo-liberalism proper is and hasn't worked, those without the financial or cultural capital to succeed and so are worthless to the main parties except as voting fodder every few years. They are not fascists ffs. Less are they nazis.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> must be an error.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11901914



Yeah, Electoral Commission shows it as a million-odd for the last year they have figures.

http://www.electoralcommission.org....s/political-parties-annual-accounts/2012#UKIP

Which is actually suspiciously low, given the amount of PR effort actually visible in the last few weeks.


----------



## isvicthere? (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> My mistake, I always thought that those pesky Vikings had harassed them nasty Romans. What were those Vikings doing for four hundred years?



For those who like history neatly packaged, you can "date" the Vikings from 793, when they first attacked England, to 1066, when they got their arses kicked by the English at (I think) Stamford Bridge. It was the fact that this was a few days before the Norman invasion, and the tired English army had to march south, and fight on a second front, that mainly enabled the Norman Conquest.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yeah, Electoral Commission shows it as a million-odd for the last year they have figures.
> 
> http://www.electoralcommission.org....s/political-parties-annual-accounts/2012#UKIP
> 
> Which is actually suspiciously low, given the amount of PR effort actually visible in the last few weeks.


it's amazing what a british journalist will print for a half bottle of wine


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 26, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> For those who like history neatly packaged, you can "date" the Vikings from 793, when they first attacked England, to 1066, when they got their arses kicked by the English at (I think) Stamford Bridge. It was the fact that this was a few days before the Norman invasion, and the tired English army had to march south, and fight on a second front, that mainly enabled the Norman Conquest.



Only a small component of the army marched south. Harold called up soldiers from the regions as he went along.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

What characterises parties like golden dawn, is it physical violence? OK ukip don't start riots and assault people, but what about their members who want to shot gays or deport black comedians? Is that really any different? 

If such people are the exception then do they represent a silent majority, why does the leadership never seem to be able to get a grip on these people? When James O'Brien confronted farage with the shot gays tweet farages response should have been way more decurve and emphatic, but all they do is brush it off and play it down. That suggests to me the real crime, in the eyes of the party, isn't a disgusting hateful comment that wouldn't seem out of place in golden dawn, but getting caught saying it.


----------



## isvicthere? (May 26, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Only a small component of the army marched south. Harold called up soldiers from the regions as he went along.



Indeed. Nevertheless, fighting a war two or three hundred miles to the north couldn't have been the best way to prepare for an imminent invasion.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Could then say why you think the above is sufficient to characterises UKIP as fascist wells?


----------



## MrSki (May 26, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Something like 16% of UKIP supporters are from ethnic minorities, higher than most other political parties. The Nazis always had antisemitism as one of the main features of their ideology; they were way beyond even a group like the BNP. I doubt that 16% of their support was from other ethnic groups in Germany.
> 
> It's starting to really annoy me when people call UKIP fascist. Do you really think they're like a party like Golden Dawn in Greece or Right Sector in Ukraine?


I don't know what the percentage vote was but the Association of German National Jews supported the Nazi party until it was too late.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 26, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> Indeed. Nevertheless, fighting a war two or three hundred miles to the north couldn't have been the best way to prepare for an imminent invasion.



Winning the first battle certainly had an effect. The blood was up and Harold rushed into the second battle instead of waiting to draw the Normans away from their supply lines.


----------



## treelover (May 26, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Definitely not. A worrying lurch to the right across the country.




For those who are vulnerable like claimants and disabled, this is a very very worrying time, fucking Tim Akers, the 'odd' extreme libertarian urbanites laughed and laughed at, is now an MEP, ffs..


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Is it?
> 
> Were the Germans who elected him in 1933 thinking about the gas chambers?



You do realise that Hitler wasn't "elected", right (28% in the 1933 elections, down from 30% in the previous election)?  You are aware that he got the Chancellorship because von Papen and Hindenberg thought they could use Hitler, and "fold" the NSDAP into their own political agenda?



> Who knows what the future holds. What are UKIP building their support on?



Currently, given the lack of policy, on an amorphous mix of anti-immigration and old-style Toryism.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I think quite@few of their supporters respect them for 'playing the system'



I suspect far more of them just aren't all that interested and don't know.  Nor will they ever, in all likelihood, in the case of MEPS, unless there's some kind of scandal about it.  In terms of councillors, though, that's closer to home and local media and politico types will hopefully be pretty quick to pick up on malfeasance or incompetence amongst them.


----------



## frogwoman (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> I don't know what the percentage vote was but the Association of German National Jews supported the Nazi party until it was too late.



Electoral support? There were associations that did their best to convince the regime that they weren't like the other Jews but I am not sure that this translated to voting for them at the ballot box and I certainly don't think that Jews made up 16% of those voting for the Nazis (although they might have for other 'patriotic' parties)


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I've said no such thing. I've said that about ukip, I don't think I be said that about their voters. Nor have I ignored everything else. In fact I've just said why people (or at least the majority) vote this way; because of the media. The right wing media in this country has reinforced everything that would compel them to vote ukip. This is combined with their position currently as being seen as free from the taint of being in the system gives them an appeal to disillusioned voters who haven't been given a chance to properly consider a genuine alternative.



Ever noticed how it's *never* you at fault, it's always someone else misreading or misrepresenting you?


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

MrSki said:


> I don't know what the percentage vote was but the Association of German National Jews supported the Nazi party until it was too late.


They were an irrelevant powerless far right imperial-militarist grouping who represented sweet FA. I can't believe that i'm having to argue this on the morning after UKIP top a euro election in the UK.


----------



## treelover (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lot of tantrums on here since UKIP-month started aren't there?




Its the smell of failure,


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Something like 16% of UKIP supporters are from ethnic minorities, higher than most other political parties.



Mostly British-born BMEs, though.



> The Nazis always had antisemitism as one of the main features of their ideology; they were way beyond even a group like the BNP. I doubt that 16% of their support was from other ethnic groups in Germany.



The NSDAP also derived a *lot* of early financial support and membership from people of other nationalities: Italians, Swiss, Czechs, Danes and more who were German-speakers and what Hitler classed as ethnic Germans. About 40% of the upper heirarchy of the party in '33 were ethic Germans rather than born in Germany.
So on Mr Ski's terms, the NSDAP are less and less like UKIP with every single historical fact we unpack about them.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> What characterises parties like golden dawn, is it physical violence? OK ukip don't start riots and assault people, but what about their members who want to shot gays or deport black comedians? Is that really any different?
> 
> If such people are the exception then do they represent a silent majority, why does the leadership never seem to be able to get a grip on these people? When James O'Brien confronted farage with the shot gays tweet farages response should have been way more decurve and emphatic, but all they do is brush it off and play it down. That suggests to me the real crime, in the eyes of the party, isn't a disgusting hateful comment that wouldn't seem out of place in golden dawn, but getting caught saying it.



How's that any different from the old tory right? Were they fascists?


----------



## Ax^ (May 26, 2014)

stewart lee now the nazis

hmms


----------



## treelover (May 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> That routine has absolutely fuck all to do with Hillborough, and the fact that you are so certain it does says far more about you and your anti-liberal-middle-class-metropolitan-sandal-wearing-humus-eating-cunt prejudice than about Stewart Lee or anything else.
> 
> It plays on the long standing comic stereotype of scousers as whiney, insular and complaining, which has been around for at least forty years that I can remember and probably longer (ie long before Hillsborough). I got the impression he was using that stereotype to send it up, though maybe not.
> 
> And whether it was an effective critique on UKIP is open to question, probably not as you and others seem to be taking the position that when a stuck up too clever for his own good comedian makes a joke about UKIP you don't like, it makes you more sympathetic to them and more likely to support them. This is not a coherent political response, but unfortunately this seems to be a significant source of support for UKIP, the knee jerk populist hate response, including from people like you who, with your professed proper political understanding, should know better.




I think you are right, Boris Johson made that sort of accusation, a sentimental city, living in the past, then before that was a major media attack on the city about ten years ago as well, accusing Liverpudlians of not being able to let go, whining, etc. Lee is perhaps to clever for his own good, but I'm sure he would never allude to the HJC as just about seeking compo.


----------



## frogwoman (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mostly British-born BMEs, though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly because of their view of reuniting with greater German lands with 'ethnic Germans' in them. UKIP don't as far as I am aware have territorial claims on the whole of southern Ireland for example


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ever noticed how it's *never* you at fault, it's always someone else misreading or misrepresenting you?


No, I notice when people _are_ misrepresenting me.


----------



## seventh bullet (May 26, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> stewart lee now the nazis
> 
> hmms



Actually, you're a Nazi if you don't like Stewart Lee's jokes.


----------



## treelover (May 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> Another knee-jerk hate-filled response, which merely illustrates that you haven't read properly what you're responding to. If only you were as perceptive as you think you are.
> 
> Still looking forward to the turmoil, butchers?
> 
> ...




This, people like BA say we are scaremongering, exaggerating, maybe some are, but the fact is the hard right is on the ascendant, the left is flailing and failing, they can't do that much when they are strong as in the 80's, but mow they can do even less to defend and work with those whose desperately need their help.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

_Who is the real nazi in this so called society?_


----------



## isvicthere? (May 26, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Actually, you're a Nazi if you don't like Stewart Lee's jokes.



Well, my Mum reads the DM, and she thinks Stewart Lee is "not funny". So your point is compelling.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

treelover said:


> This, people like BA say we are scaremongering, exaggerating, maybe some are, but the fact is the hard right is on the ascendant, the left is flailing and failing, they can't do that much when they are strong as in the 80's, but mow they can do even less to defend and work with those whose desperately need their help.


And these responses that are being criticised are both helping the populist right and utterly misunderstanding what is driving it - it's not a mass army of scrounger beaters, it's profoundly social-protectionist and shot though with all sorts of internal divisions. What the left have to do with this, i don't know. The fact is the left were already beaten on this ground due to their isolation from class issues and wider communities (despite their best intentions and work and commitment, individuals especially). SO the question now is about those communities and those class issues (which the left can play a key role in for sure) but not about the bloody left. Or bloody UKIP for that matter. That you picked out that bit of that post and ignored the rest of the SICKENING RANT is pretty shit _comrade_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Electoral support? There were associations that did their best to convince the regime that they weren't like the other Jews but I am not sure that this translated to voting for them at the ballot box and I certainly don't think that Jews made up 16% of those voting for the Nazis (although they might have for other 'patriotic' parties)



As you surmise, public support didn't translate into anything like wholehearted electoral support. Arguably, post-'30, even the public support "withered on the vine", as acts of anti-semitism could no longer be passed off as "high spirits" on the part of individual Brownshirts.
The association Mr Ski mentions were a German equivalent to some of the middle-class dominating rightwing groupings we had between the wars - sort of a League of Empire Loyalists for German Jews, many of them veterans of WW1.  Not wishing to labour a point, but the Jewish middle-classes in Germany engaged in wilful blindness with regard to the Nazi threat.  Fuck, the Rabbinate even supported handing over Jewish birth, marriage and death records to the Nazis (thus enabling the Nazis to get a *much* clearer picture of German Jewry, and to target their liquidation more clearly).


----------



## frogwoman (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> As you surmise, public support didn't translate into anything like wholehearted electoral support. Arguably, post-'30, even the public support "withered on the vine", as acts of anti-semitism could no longer be passed off as "high spirits" on the part of individual Brownshirts.
> The association Mr Ski mentions were a German equivalent to some of the middle-class dominating rightwing groupings we had between the wars - sort of a League of Empire Loyalists for German Jews, many of them veterans of WW1.  Not wishing to labour a point, but the Jewish middle-classes in Germany engaged in wilful blindness with regard to the Nazi threat.  Fuck, the Rabbinate even supported handing over Jewish birth, marriage and death records to the Nazis (thus enabling the Nazis to get a *much* clearer picture of German Jewry, and to target their liquidation more clearly).



There were also organizations for German Jews created and funded by the Nazis in order to control the population. 

I don't think most Jews EVER supported the Nazis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They were an irrelevant powerless far right imperial-militarist grouping who represented sweet FA. I can't believe that i'm having to argue this on the morning after UKIP top a euro election in the UK.



Oh come on!  You know there's always a couple of hysterics who conflate any advance by the right with the rise of fascism and/or Nazism!


----------



## treelover (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And these responses that are being criticised are both helping the populist right and utterly misunderstanding what is driving it - it's not a mass army of scrounger beaters, it's profoundly social-protectionist and shot though with all sorts of internal divisions. What the left have to do with this, i don't know. The fact is the left were already beaten on this ground due to their isolation from class issues and wider communities (despite their best intentions and work and commitment, individuals especially). SO the question now is about those communities and those class issues (which the left can play a key role in for sure) but not about the bloody left. Or bloody UKIP for that matter. That you picked out that bit of that post and ignored the rest of the SICKENING RANT is pretty shit _comrade_.



I wasn't directing my anger at Spiney or even you, for many people beyond this board life is becoming terrifying, it may have what you call 'social protectionist' elements in the party, but it also has fanatics like Akers in it, they imo will have a significant effect on policy in this country, changes that will hurt the poorest, etc.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

treelover said:


> This, people like BA say we are scaremongering, exaggerating, maybe some are, but the fact is the hard right is on the ascendant, the left is flailing and failing, they can't do that much when they are strong as in the 80's, but mow they can do even less to defend and work with those whose desperately need their help.



The problem is more to do with Labour than the left-wing.  With the exception of sections of old Labour, Britain has never had a proper left-wing voice in parliament.  Labour's position is now "we are not the Tories".  That position is no longer credible, and even the old left core vote is disappearing.  The left-wing has no money and is too divided to make a political force.  Talk of "vanguard", "stalinism", etc whenever they try.  Then you have other 'left-wing leaders', like George Galloway, who are just opportunists who use the left-wing, and other class dividing issues, as a way to show he is anti-establishment.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

treelover said:


> I wasn't directing my anger at Spiney or even you, for many people beyond this board life is becoming terrifying, it may have what you call 'social protectionist' elements in the party, but it also has fanatics like Akers in it, they imo will have a significant effect on policy in this country, changes that will hurt the poorest, etc.


They aren't the govt you know. They aren't even going to be in the next govt. The people doing all the things you hate are the mainstream parties. It's not UKIP. 

And none of that response from you is anything to with my reply or my anger you endorsing that andy blokes SICKENING attack on me


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh come on!  You know there's always a couple of hysterics who conflate any advance by the right with the rise of fascism and/or Nazism!


----------



## likesfish (May 26, 2014)

Blairs warning against UKIP so guess its time to join Ukip then


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

treelover said:


> This, people like BA say we are scaremongering, exaggerating, maybe some are, but the fact is the hard right is on the ascendant, the left is flailing and failing, they can't do that much when they are strong as in the 80's, but mow they can do even less to defend and work with those whose desperately need their help.



If you're offering an inaccurate analysis that relies on hoary old banalities like referencing fascism and Nazism, and on reading racism as the primary motivation of both the party and those who've voted for them, then "scaremongering" and "exaggerating" is exactly what you're doing.
The key to addressing political problems is to analyse them neutrally, not to fall back on the old gobshitery that barely worked against the BNP and the EDL, when HnH and UAF tried them.


----------



## Ax^ (May 26, 2014)

blames facebook..

*shakes fist at sky*


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And these responses that are being criticised are both helping the populist right and utterly misunderstanding what is driving it - it's not a mass army of scrounger beaters, it's profoundly social-protectionist and shot though with all sorts of internal divisions. What the left have to do with this, i don't know. The fact is the left were already beaten on this ground due to their isolation from class issues and wider communities (despite their best intentions and work and commitment, individuals especially). SO the question now is about those communities and those class issues (which the left can play a key role in for sure) but not about the bloody left. Or bloody UKIP for that matter.



Not sure the 'left' (whoever they are) need to do anything.  UKIP are just a spoiler.  Interestingly, they constantly try and court the left-wing vote with talk of nationalisation, and other left-wing policies.  Farage knows that is the only way they will move from an offshoot of the BNP to a credible national party (to a kind of British Guallism).

The problem with that strategy though is that they are mainly a bunch of racists, primarily attracting the votes of bigots.  The fact is that the main parties will steal their policies (particularly their policy on Europe) and rural England ain't rural France.


----------



## treelover (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you're offering an inaccurate analysis that relies on hoary old banalities like referencing fascism and Nazism, and on reading racism as the primary motivation of both the party and those who've voted for them, then "scaremongering" and "exaggerating" is exactly what you're doing.
> The key to addressing political problems is to analyse them neutrally, not to fall back on the old gobshitery that barely worked against the BNP and the EDL, when HnH and UAF tried them.



Eh, I've hardly posted on this thread, but my concern has been the impact of UKIP in pushing issues such as welfare even more to the right, I haven't even mentioned the Nazis, UKIP aren't fascists, never said they were. I have agreed with lots on here, spiney, etc, that calling them all these epithets is counter productive and the liberal types doing it are making things worse.


----------



## frogwoman (May 26, 2014)

Andy says, are you honestly accusing BA as being a UKIP supporter?


----------



## frogwoman (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Not sure the 'left' (whoever they are) need to do anything.  UKIP are just a spoiler.  Interestingly, they constantly try and court the left-wing vote with talk of nationalisation, and other left-wing policies.  Farage knows that is the only way they will move from an offshoot of the BNP to a credible national party (to a kind of British Guallism).
> 
> The problem with that strategy though is that they are mainly a bunch of racists, primarily attracting the votes of bigots.  The fact is that the main parties will steal their policies (particularly their policy on Europe) and rural England ain't rural France.



They're not an offshoot of the BNP though are they?


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Andy says, are you honestly accusing BA as being a UKIP supporter?


Potential leadership advisor in fact.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> They're not an offshoot of the BNP though are they?



Interestingly, one of their candidates (or other promiment member) described the BNP as an offshoot, or something similar.  I will try and dig out the interview... it was pretty recent.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The problem with that strategy though is that they are mainly a bunch of racists, primarily attracting the votes of bigots.



The second clause of that sentence is precisely the problem: dismissing all Kipper voters as 'bigots' isn't accurate, isn't fair, and gets in the way of a proper analysis of who is voting for them and why.

Tbh, too, living in a place where UKIP have just broken through and came top of the Euro poll, I resent the suggestion that I live amongst a crowd of bigots.  I don't.  Where I do live is in a relatively deprived city where the majority have been ignored and/or crapped upon by the political establishment and the modern economy alike, and who have quite understandably looked at the mainstream parties and said 'well, fuck you then.'  I'd rather they didn't vote for UKIP and I think they're wrong, but tbh I don't think I can fairly blame a lot of them for having done so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> There were also organizations for German Jews created and funded by the Nazis in order to control the population.



Yep.  They were very fond of state-sponsored organisations as a method of social control.



> I don't think most Jews EVER supported the Nazis.



They didn't.
That's not to say there weren't a significant minority of German Jews who were vehement German nationalists, though. Because there were.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> The second clause of that sentence is precisely the problem: dismissing all Kipper voters as 'bigots' isn't accurate, isn't fair, and gets in the way of a proper analysis of who is voting for them and why.
> 
> Tbh, too, living in a place where UKIP have just broken through and came top of the Euro poll, I resent the suggestion that I live amongst a crowd of bigots.  I don't.  Where I do live is in a relatively deprived city where the majority have been ignored and/or crapped upon by the political establishment and the modern economy alike, and who have quite understandably gone 'Well, fuck you then.'  I'd rather they didn't vote for UKIP, but tbh I don't think I can fairly blame a lot of them for having done so.



It is pretty obvious UKIP have been trying to tap into anti-immigration sentiment and thrive on it.  While I guess it is unfair to describe UKIP voters as bigots, a lot (probably the vast majority) vote for UKIP because of their stance on immigration.  

I am quite happy to dismiss all Tory voters as cunts using similar logic.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Interestingly, one of their candidates (or other promiment member) described the BNP as an offshoot, or something similar.  I will try and dig out the interview... it was pretty recent.



wishful thinking, the BNP had a bad image with a 'respectable' right vote since always. UKIP have some fruits of the loon but not the hard white nat/BM/NF core


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

treelover said:


> Eh, I've hardly posted on this thread, but my concern has been the impact of UKIP in pushing issues such as welfare even more to the right, I haven't even mentioned the Nazis, UKIP aren't fascists, never said they were. I have agreed with lots on here, spiney, etc, that calling them all these epithets is counter productive and the liberal types doing it are making things worse.



Just because I'm replying to your post, doesn't automatically mean I'm only going to adress your own view, but also the views of those who share the basic premises illustrated in your post.  It doesn't matter that you as an individual don't mention or believe such things.  It *does* matter that your fellow liberal-leftists are running with such narratives.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> wishful thinking, the BNP had a bad image with a 'respectable' right vote since always. UKIP have some fruits of the loon but not the hard white nat/BM/NF core



Sorry, one of their candidates did say something to that effect (the video is in the link).  They also publicly stated sympathy for the EDL.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/05/09/ukip-spokesman-calls-on-far-right-party-to-join-them/


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Sorry, one of their candidates did say something to that effect (the video is in the link).  They also publicly stated sympathy for the EDL.
> 
> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/05/09/ukip-spokesman-calls-on-far-right-party-to-join-them/


Did you read the whole thing? The Lord Monckton was effectively kicked out last year as well.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> It is pretty obvious UKIP have been trying to tap into anti-immigration sentiment and thrive on it.  While I guess it is unfair to describe UKIP voters as bigots, a lot (probably the vast majority) vote for UKIP because of their stance on immigration.



But it's not fair to suggest that everyone with concerns about immigration is a racist or a bigot, and it's counter-productive to do so.  It didn't work with the BNP, and it's not working with UKIP either: if anything, it's just allowed them to burnish their (ridiculous) 'anti-establishment' credentials.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 26, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I must admit I didn't check last night (looks like you need to register with your full name and address details) but I agree a billion seems high.
> 
> Still, I imagine the City would be willing to pay a lot to avoid EU imposed regulation on their criminal / irresponsible / anti-social behaviors.



Yeah, sorry, it was late - £1m. Greens were £700k. It's probably gone up in the last three years.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> But it's not fair to suggest that everyone with concerns about immigration is a racist or a bigot, and it's counter-productive to do so.  It didn't work with the BNP, and it's not working with UKIP either: if anything, it's just allowed them to burnish their (ridiculous) 'anti-establishment' credentials.



UKIP are anti-establishment.  The image only works in so far as they are anti-immigration, and the Tories presenting them as a bunch of reputable, misguided toffs


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Interestingly, one of their candidates (or other promiment member) described the BNP as an offshoot, or something similar.  I will try and dig out the interview... it was pretty recent.



The BNP was a recrudescence of elements of the NF into a more "socially-acceptable" form, culminating in Griffin's attempts at "new"/Euro-rightism and electoral politics.  The BNP aren't an offshoot of UKIP, and UKIP aren't an offshoot of the BNP.  UKIP is the child of the joining of the Referendum Party and the Libertarian Alliance.


----------



## stereotypical (May 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> FWIW I don't think Stewart Lee hates scousers, I think it was a poorly considered rhetorical device. But it was a device he wouldn't have used against a different target. And I'm not convinced it's a reference to Hillsborough, although I can see how it could be read that way (and considering the way the whiny scousers meme has become wrapped up with Hillsborough over the years, another reason to avoid).



I saw this video yesterday for the first time.  Being a born and bred scouser still living in my fair old city.  I will say this.  Firstly Ive never seen anything from Stewart Lee before (although I know who he is).  Secondly, I obviously despise UKIP and enjoy any opportunity to mock them.  Thirdly, I can take a joke.  A lot of us scousers, particularly the younger generation have shunned the whole defensive posture that lots of the older scousers have.  I can understand why they feel this way (having been treated like shat for decades, managed decline etc etc etc) but we like to think the city and its people have moved forward now and a lot has changed here in the past 10 years. 

Finally, in my opinion......It was a load of garbage and a lazy way to make a reasonably clever and effective argument.  Shame, I wont be wasting my time watching him again.

Not a single UKIP councillor was elected in this city on Friday.  They didnt even come close across the two councils, Sefton and Liverpool City Council.  We're all rather proud of this fact.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> The second clause of that sentence is precisely the problem: dismissing all Kipper voters as 'bigots' isn't accurate, isn't fair...



Quite. 



> ...and gets in the way of a proper analysis of who is voting for them and why.



yep, because it elides anything to do with, for example, political disenchantment, protest voting and local social relations.



> Tbh, too, living in a place where UKIP have just broken through and came top of the Euro poll, I resent the suggestion that I live amongst a crowd of bigots.  I don't.  Where I do live is in a relatively deprived city where the majority have been ignored and/or crapped upon by the political establishment and the modern economy alike, and who have quite understandably looked at the mainstream parties and said 'well, fuck you then.'  I'd rather they didn't vote for UKIP and I think they're wrong, but tbh I don't think I can fairly blame a lot of them for having done so.



hear hear.  When the alternatives to the UKIP shit sandwich is a Tory shit sandwich, a Labour shit sandwich and a Lib-Dem shit sandwich, people are just as likely to try the new flavour as the old.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Sorry, one of their candidates did say something to that effect (the video is in the link).  They also publicly stated sympathy for the EDL.
> 
> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/05/09/ukip-spokesman-calls-on-far-right-party-to-join-them/



yes and I recall there was mention of a 'sympathetic to UKIP' article suggesting possible links in Spearhead. That LBC interview with Farage the other day covered this. What I meant by 'wishful thinking' is that the BNP aren't hitching to UKIPS wagon, and elements within UKIP who would like that are not to the fore.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> It is pretty obvious UKIP have been trying to tap into anti-immigration sentiment and thrive on it.  While I guess it is unfair to describe UKIP voters as bigots, a lot (probably the vast majority) vote for UKIP because of their stance on immigration.



Really?

On what basis have you reached this conclusion - informed research and/or comment, or uninformed personal opinion?


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The BNP was a recrudescence of elements of the NF into a more "socially-acceptable" form, culminating in Griffin's attempts at "new"/Euro-rightism and electoral politics.  The BNP aren't an offshoot of UKIP, and UKIP aren't an offshoot of the BNP.  UKIP is the child of the joining of the Referendum Party and the Libertarian Alliance.



I guess my language was poor, as I did imply they were the same organisation. I thought it was an open secret that UKIP have been courting BNP votes quite openly the past few years.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> UKIP are anti-establishment.



I don't find the portrayal of a party to the right of the Tories, with millionaire backers, led by the wealthy, Dulwich College-educated son of a millionaire stockbroker as 'anti-establishment' very convincing, frankly.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I guess my language was poor, as I did imply they were the same organisation. I thought it was an open secret that UKIP have been courting BNP votes quite openly the past few years.




ah, vote fishing rather than talk of direct links, merger, tendency within etc

yes that I can buy


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> I don't find the portrayal of a party to the right of the Tories, with millionaire backers, led by the wealthy, Dulwich College-educated son of a millionaire stockbroker as 'anti-establishment' very convincing, frankly.




but he has a fag and a pint at the same time


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Really?
> 
> On what basis have you reached this conclusion - informed research and/or comment, or uninformed personal opinion?



Well, why are they voting for UKIP and not Greens?  Money might be an issue, but why did the BNP four years ago do so well and immigration tends to be on the top of everyone's shit list when times are good?


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> hear hear.  When the alternatives to the UKIP shit sandwich is a Tory shit sandwich, a Labour shit sandwich and a Lib-Dem shit sandwich, people are just as likely to try the new flavour as the old.



Aye, even when on cl;oser inspection the turd in this particular sandwich turns out to be a particularly splattery and malodorous specimen.







I wish I'd not thought of that.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> I don't find the portrayal of a party to the right of the Tories, with millionaire backers, led by the wealthy, Dulwich College-educated son of a millionaire stockbroker as 'anti-establishment' very convincing, frankly.



Yes, but their rank and file are fucking crazy.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yes and I recall there was mention of a 'sympathetic to UKIP' article suggesting possible links in Spearhead. That LBC interview with Farage the other day covered this. What I meant by 'wishful thinking' is that the BNP aren't hitching to UKIPS wagon, and elements within UKIP who would like that are not to the fore.


Spearhead was tyndall's anti-griffin mag, it wasn't a BNP mag once griffin took over (i,e pretty much the whole UKIP period) - and it was relentlessly anti-UKIP seeing it as potential (non-racist) competitor and also as bound to die pretty quickly due to that same lack of racism.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Well, why are they voting for UKIP and not Greens?  Money might be an issue, but why did the BNP do so well and immigration tends to be on the top of everyone's shit list when times are good?



who were times good for. The boom times weren't for everyone.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Yes, but their rank and file are fucking crazy.



What, so people like ex-businessman and former Tory MEP Roger Helmer are anti-establishment?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I guess my language was poor, as I did imply they were the same organisation. I thought it was an open secret that UKIP have been courting BNP votes quite openly the past few years.



What they were courting was those few "respectable" votes (i.e. voters originating on the mainstream right) that the BNP turned up between roughly 2005-2010.  They weren't targeting BNP ideologues, but voters who could rightly be described as right-wing "floaters" - people who usually voted Tory, but might vote for another rightist party for local political reasons.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I guess my language was poor, as I did imply they were the same organisation. I thought it was an open secret that UKIP have been courting BNP votes quite openly the past few years.


It was mostly the other way round - Griffin sent Buster Mottram to open talks and Farage used him to cut out the BNP element of the UKIP membership by letting the rat run for a while. For the voters, well, everyone is after them.


----------



## Manter (May 26, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Scotland waking up to the depressing realisation that we've now got a UKIP MEP this morning. Of more concern to me is that of the 20,184 votes cast for Britain First across the UK, 13551 were in Scotland


I didn't know they were a party, I thought they were a Facebook site


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> but he has a fag and a pint at the same time



Truly an anarchist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> I don't find the portrayal of a party to the right of the Tories, with millionaire backers, led by the wealthy, Dulwich College-educated son of a millionaire stockbroker as 'anti-establishment' very convincing, frankly.



I think that we (people in general, that is) tend to throw around the term "anti-establishment" when sometimes we actually mean something else, such as "anti-the current state of party politics" or "anti-the tripartite hegemony".
Let's be clear, "the establishment" will still be "the establishment", however UKIP performs, because "the establishment" isn't "the state" or the government, it's a loose web of power, influence and privilege that can't be affected by "anti-establishment" sentiment in the way that the state or the government can be affected.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

Manter said:


> I didn't know they were a party, I thought they were a Facebook site




an easy mistake to make given that they've astroturfed hardcore with bought facebook statuses.

look at the wki tho, they've links to the fleg protests and the NI right


----------



## frogwoman (May 26, 2014)

If a real fascist movement was to develop in this country some of you wouldn't even recognize it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 26, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I haven't accused anyone of racism.



That wasn't why I posted that link. 

I posted it to point out that there are people around here who like to preach a great deal yet they aren't in position to be pointing the finger at anyone. 

Read the thread and you will find it full of apologists and people using their rep around here to get away with the very thing they are critiscising on this thread.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It was mostly the other way round - Griffin sent Buster Mottram to open talks and Farage used him to cut out the BNP element of the UKIP membership by letting the rat run for a while. For the voters, well, everyone is after them.



I don't think any party pursued (or could pursue) the BNP vote as openly as UKIP has done.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that we (people in general, that is) tend to throw around the term "anti-establishment" when sometimes we actually mean something else, such as "anti-the current state of party politics" or "anti-the tripartite hegemony".



Fair comment.  UKIP are very definitely the latter, whilst in other ways being as 'establishment' as they come.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 26, 2014)

Anyone like to speculate how a 'Yes' vote in Scotland would affect UKIP's popularity at the next General Election?


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I don't think any party pursued (or could pursue) the BNP vote as openly as UKIP has done.


I think the language and policies of the main parties on immigration etc has far wider purchase and impact on potential BNP voters than some UKIP candidate saying _send them all back. _The same way that Thatcher had far more impact on the NF than the ANL did.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2014)

J Ed said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/characterising-ukip.323917/



Exactly why I started that thread.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> If a real fascist movement was to develop in this country some of you wouldn't even recognize it.




ENGLAND PREVAILS!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Well, why are they voting for UKIP and not Greens?  Money might be an issue, but why did the BNP four years ago do so well and immigration tends to be on the top of everyone's shit list when times are good?



Money *is* an issue, as is the activist base. The Greens barely have the financial and human resources to run candidates across the euro-constituencies, and only enough to target a limited number of wards. UKIP may have been able to call on (did call on, IMO) surreptitious support from local Tories in some of the wards they ran candidates in.  The Greens don't have anyone ideologically-close enough that such support is possible, even if Labour or the Lib-Dems had much of an activist base left.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 26, 2014)

A more useful comparrison than UKIP/Green hype may be BNP/Green hype.

5 years ago the BNP got 2 seats on about a million votes. The press were very excited.

Last night The Greens got 3 seats on about 1.2 million votes. The press hardly mention it.

The press like "sensation". Hate and blame are a big part of that.

When the establishemnt has a crisis of popularity, it prefers the dissent to be channeled rightward than leftward. That's what's generally happened across the EU with notable, less reported gains on the solid left (The Greens across the EU held their position with no overall gains or losses)


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> What, so people like ex-businessman and former Tory MEP Roger Helmer are anti-establishment?



He is still a homophobe arguing for reduced sentences on rape and climate sceptic.  And as you imply one of their more 'reputable' members; someone that can go on the BBC and give interviews, for example.


----------



## treelover (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> ENGLAND PREVAILS!



where is that from?

Ever seen the 1930's set 'Richard The Third' with Ian Mckellen?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> ENGLAND PREVAILS!



There's something about Sam Browne belts that make me want to get stabby.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

the media didn't make all them people go out and vote UKIP though.

I hear you on the one that the state is happier to advertise its activities in disrupting the far right cos everyone hates nazis etc. but seems less able to discuss or boast about state surveillance on left of labour orgs


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

treelover said:


> where is that from?
> 
> Ever seen the 1930's set 'Richard The Third' with Ian Mckellen?




it's 'V is for Vendetta'  where a fascist tendency within the tory party have managed to seize control and become a dictatorship because of outside events.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> I don't find the portrayal of a party to the right of the Tories, with millionaire backers, led by the wealthy, Dulwich College-educated son of a millionaire stockbroker as 'anti-establishment' very convincing, frankly.



My guess is that few actually believe that Farage and UKIP are really anti-establishment.

But...that given the widespread media narrative that a UKIP surge is a protest against the establishment that people are prepared to play along with the myth making because that narrative suits their desires to protest the establishment,

An instinctive understanding that in the spectacle of electoral performance that you're getting to pick from a range of pre- packaged storylines.

People aren't stupid.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

_Tell the people about the greens, then the people will like the greens
Don't tell people about UKIP or they'll like UKIP._

This sort of media-centred vanguardism, almost authoritarianism in it assumptions and aims, doesn't say much for your belief in the capabilities of the mass of people really taffers. In fact, it's pretty hideously elitist - and closer to mid 20th century models of fascist media manipulation.

And of course the reality being when:
_Tell the people how shit UKIP are and the people will learn_

turns out to be that _the people actually understand and reject the media/politician manipulation of them_, then this miraculously throws up precisely no problems or question over your model.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the media didn't make all them people go out and vote UKIP though.
> 
> I hear you on the one that the state is happier to advertise its activities in disrupting the far right cos everyone hates nazis etc. but seems less able to discuss or boast about state surveillance on left of labour orgs



The state are happy to talk about immigration because it has political ramifications, and it is a social issue that pundits actually understand (immigration is up this quarter).  No-one in the media understands the technical discussions on intellectual property, state surveillance or even environmental issues.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> ENGLAND PREVAILS!



I could see Lawrence Llewellyn Bowen, whilst disapproving the politics, liking the decor


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> He is still a homophobe arguing for reduced sentences on rape and climate sceptic.  And as you imply one of their more 'reputable' members; someone that can go on the BBC and give interviews, for example.



So he's a homophobe, a misogynist and an idiot.  I agree.  But none of those things make him 'anti-establishment.'



chilango said:


> My guess is that few actually believe that Farage and UKIP are really anti-establishment.
> 
> But...that given the widespread media narrative that a UKIP surge is a protest against the establishment that people are prepared to play along with the myth making because that narrative suits their desires to protest the establishment
> 
> ...



I agree.  Part of the problem, though, is liberals talking down to them as if they are!


----------



## Mr Moose (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> So he's a homophobe, a misogynist and an idiot.  I agree.  But none of those things make him 'anti-establishment.'
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Part of the problem, though, is liberals talking down to them as if they are!



Oh do give it a rest. Surely this angle has been done to death or do you need to talk down to everyone else?


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> So he's a homophobe, a misogynist and an idiot.  I agree.  But none of those things make him 'anti-establishment.'



The Tories were not misogynist, idiotic or homophobic enough for his tastes.


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The state are happy to talk about immigration because it has political ramifications, and it is a social issue that pundits actually understand (immigration is up this quarter).  No-one in the media understands the technical discussions on intellectual property, state surveillance or even environmental issues.



Very few in politics understands them either.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Tell the people about the greens, then the people will like the greens
> Don't tell people about UKIP or they'll like UKIP._
> 
> This sort of media-centred vanguardism, almost authoritarianism in it assumptions and aims, doesn't say much for your belief in the capabilities of the mass of people really taffers. In fact, it's pretty hideously elitist - and closer to mid 20th century models of fascist media manipulation.
> ...



But surely the net effect of all the major parties/media talking up immigration since the EU15 accession has had an effect on popular opinion/debate?


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Oh do give it a rest. Surely this angle has been done to death or do you need to talk down to everyone else?



Eh?   I'm not talking down to anyone - just agreeing with chilango and disagreeing mildly with DairyQueen, although in the latter case I'm mindful of ViolentPanda's point about 'anti-establishment' being a vague term and I think we're basically talking past one another rather than really disagreeing.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> But surely the net effect of all the major parties/media talking up immigration since the EU15 accession has had an effect on popular opinion/debate?


Of course it does. In the ridiculous crude way that taffboy imagines, the media obsession, the lack of faith in people to come to their own conclusions based on their own experience, reasoning and interests? No.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Eh?   I'm not talking down to anyone - just agreeing with chilango and disagreeing mildly with DairyQueen, although in the latter case I'm mindful of ViolentPanda's point about 'anti-establishment' being a vague term and I think we're basically talking past one another rather than really disagreeing.



My bad perhaps, soz. I'm just getting tired of the endless 'let's blame the 'liberal elite' for attacking UKIP. I don't disagree with it fundamentally, but I think it's becoming a cul-de-sac.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> My bad perhaps, soz. I'm just getting tired of the endless 'let's blame the 'liberal elite' for attacking UKIP. I don't disagree with it fundamentally, but I think it's becoming a cul-de-sac.



Fair enough.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

its not 'lets blame the liberal elite' but more 'look at how they do, ineptly, when faced with politics that challenge centrist grounds even a little'


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

Who are the British "liberal elites" anyway?  The elite in this country are a bunch of right-wing cunts with a few crusty, equally conservative old Labour-types armed with nothing but a bunch of soundbites peppered about to give the illusion of plurality.  I am of the opinion that a lot of people are stupid evidenced by voting patterns in Britain since the 1980s.  Nothing liberal or elitist about that.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

there is a huge liberal elite in this country and has always been since whiggism and beyond.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I am of the opinion that a lot of people are stupid evidenced by voting patterns in Britain since the 1980s.  Nothing liberal or elitist about that.



Go on...explain this.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> Go on...explain this.



The sentence is not liberal.  I am not a fucking whig debating the Corn Laws (Dot Communist's definition).

Neither am I advocating some ruling class be created based on party membership (unlike the conservatives, (to a lesser extent) Lib Dem and Labour). I just think a lot of people are stupid for the way they vote.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The sentence is not liberal.  I am not a fucking whig debating the Corn Laws (Dot Communist's definition).
> 
> Neither am I advocating some ruling class be created based on party membership (unlike the conservatives, (to a lesser extent) Lib Dem and Labour). I just think a lot of people are stupid for the way they vote.


They couldn't possibly just disagree with you could they? Nope - must just be stupid.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The elite in this country are a bunch of right-wing cunts with a few crusty, equally conservative old Labour-types armed with nothing but a bunch of soundbites peppered about to give the illusion of plurality.


liberals then


----------



## andysays (May 26, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Andy says, are you honestly accusing BA as being a UKIP supporter?



BA has consistently attacked most people criticising UKIP, allegedly because they're criticising them the wrong way (which I agree many people are) but, despite saying he has, he has consistently failed to really criticise them himself.

He has consistently suggested that he sees their rise as indicative of some positive political or social development, but has consistently failed to explain what he actually means by this. 

And he has consistently celebrated every poll and electoral result which indicates them doing well, and praised the way they've conducted themselves as compared to the mainstream parties.

Here is perhaps the nearest he comes to explaining his position (off the Farage humiliated by LBC interview thread)



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?





butchersapron said:


> *I'd say vote for them*.





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?





butchersapron said:


> 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*.





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'?





butchersapron said:


> No
> 
> Yes (but not those people)
> 
> Turmoil





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?



But obviously nothing about what he thinks it suggests about what is going on socially, or where this turmoil will lead. Just "vote UKIP for turmoil". Someone else later in that thread describes this as the position of a teenage nihilist. I think it's the position of a sad middle aged nihilist who is filled with hate and who recognises deep down that for all his reading and all his supposed erudition, he is an impotent irrelevance who actually has absolutely zero influence on anything.

It looks to me like he's given up on a pro-working class politics and he's left with, presumably, a vague hope that the three main neo-liberal anti-working class parties can be brought down in a state of turmoil as a result of people voting for a different neo-liberal anti-working class party. And he still claims that this is some sort of coherent political position which everyone else here is too stupid to see, the cunts.

So he may not be a supporter in the sense of going out canvassing for them, or even voting for them, but his support in the sense of wanting them to do well (if not the reasons for this support) has been apparent on various threads for weeks.


----------



## andysays (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Potential leadership advisor in fact.



Strictly minor league, I'm afraid


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given the context in which you mention them, it's difficult to conclude anything else, but by all means try to deflect from your own contempt by accusing me of the same!



I was talking about people who are easily swayed by canvassers. If canvassers exclusively targetting the working class is a real phenomenon it's one I've never noticed.


----------



## hipipol (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it does. In the ridiculous crude way that taffboy imagines, the media obsession, the lack of faith in people to come to their own conclusions based on their own experience, reasoning and interests? No.


This would be a valid point were it not obvious that very few people bother to engage their heads
With a turnout of 35/6% a small number of motivated and bitter people can get idiots into power
Equally people can only make a reasoned decision based on the information they are given.
How often is that information true? 
ALL the political parties are guilty of trivializing the electorate by reducing their positions to miniscule soundbites and NO explanation of why any decision is made
Its not insulting anyone to say the current way of doing biz simply gives the power to those who manipulate "their" sheep the best


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> BA has consistently attacked most people criticising UKIP, allegedly because they're criticising them the wrong way (which I agree many people are) but, despite saying he has, he has consistently failed to really criticise them himself.
> 
> He has consistently suggested that he sees their rise as indicative of some positive political or social development, but has consistently failed to explain what he actually means by this.
> 
> ...


 Working class politics can only be mediated through political parties?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

The fundamental contradiction between the very real concerns (economic etc) of a large part of the UKIP's base and their neo-liberal ideology combined with the interests of their backers, is going to get exposed at some point I think.

"What happens then?" becomes a very interesting question ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> And he still claims that this is some sort of coherent political position which everyone else here is too stupid to see, the cunts.



'There's no point me trying to explain myself because you're too stupid to understand' is classic Butchers. As is claiming to understand the working class as if they were some kind of single gestalt entity that can be herded in one direction or another by the judicious application of small electric shocks and sugary treats.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 26, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The fundamental contradiction between the very real concerns (economic etc) of a large part of the UKIP's base and their neo-liberal ideology combined with the interests of their backers, is going to get exposed at some point I think.
> 
> "What happens then?" becomes a very interesting question ...



You would think the same would be true of the mainstream parties but they seem to have been getting away with it for decades.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2014)

andysays I'm not going to speak on behalf of butchersapron (he can do that himself should he choose to) but as another poster who has argued that (albeit more lukewarmly) that the UKIP vote is not entirely negative, that it does represent some potential positives and thus (at least part of me) can be pleased with their results, I feel obliged to respond.

I am coming from the following perspective:

1/ the Left as we understand it has lost, and to carry on regardless compounds this defeat.

2/ the status quo as represented by the main parties is "a bad thing" and means continuing, relentless attacks on the w/c.

3/ The UKIP vote (at this moment) is not going to lead to an (no doubt anti w/c) govt, but will weaken the stays quo and cause already existing fractures within capital and the ruling class to widen.

4) a mass expression of disaffection with the status quo at the ballot box is "a good thing" even if the vehicle isn't.

None of this adds up to support for the politics of UKIP but rather a (qualified) sense of optimism about some of the causes, and effects, of the UKIP vote coupled with a desire to recognise how/why an anti-UKIP stance that defends the status quo is counter-productive.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> 4) a mass expression of disaffection with the status quo at the ballot box is "a good thing" even if the vehicle isn't.


further, any attempt to harness this disaffection can only be successful if you try to understand it's roots.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> andysays I'm not going to speak on behalf of butchersapron (he can do that himself should he choose to) but as another poster who has argued that (albeit more lukewarmly) that the UKIP vote is not entirely negative, that it does represent some potential positives and thus (at least part of me) can be pleased with their results, I feel obliged to respond.
> 
> I am coming from the following perspective:
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say this result is a good thing, but I don't think it's the end of the world. If anything I'm glad we've had this election for people to get voting UKIP out of their systems, and that UKIP's new elected representatives have a whole year to fuck up in a variety of entertaining ways and quite possibly cripple the whole party in the process. 

I also doubt their appeal will last once they are forced to actually tell people what their policies are and are no longer able to simply tell labour constituencies one thing and tory constituencies another.


----------



## emanymton (May 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> andysays I'm not going to speak on behalf of butchersapron (he can do that himself should he choose to) but as another poster who has argued that (albeit more lukewarmly) that the UKIP vote is not entirely negative, that it does represent some potential positives and thus (at least part of me) can be pleased with their results, I feel obliged to respond.
> 
> I am coming from the following perspective:
> 
> ...


I would be much more cautious than yourself or butchers in saying that the Ukip vote is a positive thing, I think I would prefer to say that it is reflective of the problems maintaining the existing status quo and will deepen the problems for the established parties. What some people seem to be losing sight of is that to a certain extent, it doesn't matter what Ukip's policies are as they are no where near being in a position to put them in practice. What they can do is cause problems for the established parties who's policies are daily destroying lives.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

All this nonsense because andy made a mistake the other week. Of course, andy, in his brief sojourn here has been unable to a) grasp where i'm coming from politically b) grasp when i'm looking to wind up the isolated moralists such as himself (and the thread he's picked those quotes from are a brilliant example) so c) he doesn't know how to respond to someone who rejects his mixture of bland trot-lite blatherings (not in a group yourself then andy) and desire to to bear moral witness to the horror of UKIP, never again comrades, never again.

Right, those whose interest in the far-right, populism and so on extends back longer than the tory papers and the pro-status quo elements of the left telling them to go attack UKIP, would be able to tell you that over the years, i've consistently argued that a healthy showing by UKIP in the general election would block the possibility of the tories being able to form a majority govt - even without the nailed on mass defection of lib-dem - this latter is what would effectively push labour over the line of being able to form a majority govt themselves.

In this sense, i really would like UKIP to do rather well. The best outcome would be governmental deadlock, no one able to form a majority govt or successive majority govts failing - that's because the real directing power behind the pressure on immigration is capital and the state - not bloody UKIP (and i see no understanding of the role that immigration and the management of immigration via the state plays for capital in any of your hand-wringing ) whereas the destroy UKIP, destroy it now approach means two things - one working class people can either shut up and go back to the main parties, after all these and their racist state policies are the only legitimate parties, or they can go unrepresented electorally (given their lack of connection with and support for left parties).

There is another potential result of a good UKIP vote in relation to these outcomes though and that's a loosening of the ties between the w/c and the main parties and between formal political activity among the w/c and non-involvement. Now, without an independent pro-working class organisation and activity, this loosening and this pull into activity will mean nothing whatsoever - it will die or be swallowed up by the existing parties (probably through a talent spotting exercise/sponsored mobility - exactly as i saw happen after the poll tax campaign died down). To bolster the mainstream parties credibility, to boost their legitimacy, at a time when they are facing precisely a crisis of their political reproduction is a sin - but that is exactly what you and many others have offered with your lack of understanding of why people are turning to UKIP and what it represents, what opportunities it opens up and what it requires those of us who have worked towards that pro-working class independence need to make sure happens. That would require a bit of dialectical thinking rather than simple_ look at me i'm on the right side_. And it would require serious politics and analysis.

I think the elephant in the room here might be a social disconnection from the sort of w/c people who are now moving towards supporting UKIP (whether temporarily or permanently) on the part of those doing the exposing, doing the shouting, doing the lack of understanding, doing the brush-offs. Hence we see on one hand the ha ha you old failures, capital state and politics has fucked you over, ha ha and on the other, are you being fucked over by capital, state and politicians, then join our group and fightback. There is  no common language at all in this situation, no way to communicate experience, reasoning, reflection, no way to do anything but misunderstand and follow up the misunderstanding with condemnation or outright rejection. Herd them back into the mainstream parties or _good riddance to bad rubbish let them rot in their own filth.
_
Onto europe - the eu is a neo-liberal austerity machine, it needs smashing. One way to expose its internal conflicts and to block its operations (its attacks on the working class) and both highlight and erode its legitimacy is to fracture the individuals capital/state compacts to stay in the eu and to put mass pressure on them to do something they will fight tooth and nail to avoid. This again, as above opens up the prospects of a) a battle between the mass of the population and state/capital within individual states b) capital and politics within those states and c) the eu and the people of the individual states. They get this in the countries where the eu is imposing austerity - they understand this, this is why they love farage in Greece, because they see the damage this clown can help inflict on the wider neo-liberal project, the doors he can unwittingly open. Again, hinging on the development of independent class organisation - nationally and nationally.

But, when we have the aforementioned people bearing moral witness arguing that to attack the eu is to support war and death (when what they really mean is that they have refused at the first jump) we have people who are trying to damp down the very idea of opposing austerity by any means other than the rhetorical or those the state and capital deem legitimate. This is where that sort of liberalism is actively damaging right now. These become the voices of the opposition to austerity, the voices of fucking everything, as they always are. The deciding factor of the limits of what political activity can be what aims it may have, what forms it may take. The eu is the opium of these people, and the challenge that UKIPs growth offers to them is something i am very much enjoying unfold.

What sort of evidence do you have of me giving up on pro-working class politics andy? What problems do you have in discriminating between description of what is going on and endorsement of what is going on? Between attempting to find a way to articulate a politics that actually treats UKIP supporters as real life people with real life experiences, interests and thoughts and so as part of a collective that is constantly shifting its view as its experiences etc change and one that endorses the current conclusions of those experiences and reflection? Why are you lot always on the wrong side of this? This one sided black and white, a or b, ridiculous puffed up semi-hidden bottleless vanguardism - bottleless because you never explicitly say you're vanguardist, in fact you never formally recognise that you are vanguardist, it's just the been the background music so long that you no  longer even hear it.

Seriously, all this because you made a bit of a arse of yourself over farage saying/not saying something.

These UKIP tantrums on here are a great example of the potential fracturing i mention above btw


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

there's a rather interesting article about ukip and the traditional parties - "And it’s good night Vienna. How (not) to deal with the populist radical right: The Conservatives, UKIP and some lessons from the heartland" - http://www.palgrave-journals.com/bp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/bp20147a.html


----------



## DairyQueen (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron - I agree with your post, although winning a seat in Scotland is a turd (there are other parties there that have a realistic chance of election).  There is a deeper problem that you describe and that voters clearly cannot connect to (at least explicitly) the overriding root of the problem, as you describe it...



> the EU is a neo-liberal austerity machine, it needs smashing.



These are never the terms in which people disparage against the EU.  Indeed, often the argument is formulated in terms that state the EU is not neoliberal enough; we spend too much on 'lazy southern European countries', we don't need regulation (or basic food safety standards), etc.  So, when the EU 'reforms', it will be on incredibly right-wing, reactionary terms; stop migration from poor to rich countries, stop regional development funding.  Although,  Pickman's model posts a good source that the manner in which the Conservatives and Labour are now chasing UKIP votes is hilarious, effectively alienating their _real_ core vote; the centre ground.  There is some dangers in this, particularly in the short-term ("temporary border controls" are being debated already).

Overall, though, UKIP is just a spoiler, for disaffected Tories, and they will always remain so.  Overall, the left do not need to worry about them too much (maybe some should even vote for them at the next GE in specific seats where they might win).  Hopefully, UKIP can make some ground in the next GE and take a couple of seats.  At that point the Tories could lurch to the right, which could be pretty suicidal.   The first-past-the-post system is designed to stop parties like UKIP becoming a serious threat, so that might be a big ask.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 26, 2014)

UKIP (a right wing nationalist party) are gaining support... and regardless of how or why, it is a fucking awful situation; not limited to Britain it seems, because the French have also voted up their FN party.

Cameron seems committed to "sorting out" Europe prior to a referendum and the son of Ralph the Trotskyist is more concerned about "sorting out" his alfresco eating habits than getting his arse into gear.

The UK is fucked.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 26, 2014)

Noticed that Clegg, Cameron and Milliband all seemed to be using anti-greying hair shit or dye or something. No grey hairs. Not Farage, maybe he got the grey vote?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Noticed that Clegg, Cameron and Milliband all seemed to be using anti-greying hair shit or dye or something. No grey hairs. Not Farage, maybe he got the grey vote?


he prefers to spend the money on beer


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 26, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> UKIP (a right wing nationalist party) are gaining support... and regardless of how or why, it is a fucking awful situation; not limited to Britain it seems, because the French have also voted up their FN party.
> 
> Cameron seems committed to "sorting out" Europe prior to a referendum and the son of Ralph the Trotskyist is more concerned about "sorting out" his alfresco eating habits than getting his arse into gear.
> 
> The UK is fucked.



Ralph wasn't a trot.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 26, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ralph wasn't a trot.


I stand corrected.  

Marxist then.


----------



## steeplejack (May 26, 2014)

Alan Sked- "Nigel Farage is a dimwitted racist"

quite an interesting article, actually. But early in the _Guardianista's _responses in the comments below:
_
"Sked is UKIP's Anton Drexler"_


----------



## Brainaddict (May 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> I am coming from the following perspective:
> 
> 1/ the Left as we understand it has lost, and to carry on regardless compounds this defeat.
> 
> ...



1. Agreed (though I'm not sure we'd agree on to what extent the loss was a bad thing, on the long historical view)

2. Agree the status quo is 'a bad thing' but I don't see UKIP as any less representative of it than the three main parties, who after all are but a cog in the status quo- Farage would happily be another. He won't win anyway, but his strength will simply help the main parties spot the chinks in their armour and repair them.

3. Voting for UKIP therefore won't weaken the status quo (and I'm not sure it's intended to by voters - see below). As for fractures within capital and the ruling class, on the evidence of 2007/2008 no one in the UK would know what the hell to do with them if they tripped on a fracture. Why be optimistic about fractures in capital when there's no-one (or no-one organised) to take advantage of them?

4. A mass expression of disaffection with the three main parties is not necessarily a mass disaffection with the status quo, it might just be disaffection with one cog in the status quo which they would like to work better. I can't say I know for sure what people were trying to express with their votes - lots of different stuff I imagine. But if there was deep dissatisfaction with 'the status quo' (as distinct from 'I really wish someone would give me a job' type of dissatisfaction) I think we'd see a bit more 'turmoil' than the rise of UKIP.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

I think we have in terms of rioting, non engagement with the electoral process and daily reports of the latest policy failures

under the Blairdom there was turmoil, there was crap policy making and anger there of.

but this lot seem to have managed to get 20 years worth of anger into one 5 year term.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I think we have in terms of rioting, non engagement with the electoral process and daily reports of the latest policy failures
> 
> under the Blairdom there was turmoil, there was crap policy making and anger there of.
> 
> but this lot seem to have managed to get 20 years worth of anger into one 5 year term.


Yes, I imagine a lot of people will vote labour at the next election as a result. And a lot of them will vote UKIP. I just don't see any nascent radicalism in it as some of you seem to.

Meanwhile the 3 parties' idea of repairing the chinks in their armour will be a move towards more xenophobic rhetoric. None of them will actually pull out of the EU will they? So they can only posture. They'll be posturing more right wing. Then UKIP/Farage will fuck up, and they'll hoover back up all the votes they lost. The increased xenophobia will probably be here to stay though.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

faranges stated aim is to win enough seats next year to be a credible force that makes the big two (whover gets majority) have the EU referendum


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

From the Tele...I'm not sure of their methodology, but it looks like a useful map of UKIP success...








> _Areas where there are high numbers of Ukip-leaning voters are coloured shades of purple. The marginal seats in which its impact will be crucial are outlined in black_



Provincial would seem to be a fair descriptor.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They aren't the govt you know. They aren't even going to be in the next govt. The people doing all the things you hate are the mainstream parties. It's not UKIP.


Precisely, this is (one of the reasons) why this anti-UKIP thing is so stupid. They aren't one of the parties that have spent the last 30+ years attacking people, dismantling the welfare state, bringing in the racist immigration policies. And as you say they won't after 2015 (or even 2020). 

Wasting your time, energy and effort attacking them is completely pointless all it amounts to in real terms is to prop up the established parties.


----------



## treelover (May 26, 2014)

According to The Times front page article UKIP are going to focus/concentrate  on L/P voting areas in future with their conference being held in Doncaster, Ed's seat.

what is his end game here, is he going to target 'benefit scroungers' who the W/C are supposed to hate, the bankers, the rich, will he offer to nationalise the railways, what offers will he make, and if he does, won't his libertarian wing, a large component(including Tim Akers) baulk at all this?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

Those are exactly the kinds of areas where their leaflets have been about more council housing, protection of benefits, anti-bedroom tax, etc. Taking a line against benefits would hurt them and they really don't need to do it IMO


----------



## weepiper (May 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> From the Tele...I'm not sure of their methodology, but it looks like a useful map of UKIP success...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Same picture in Scotland. Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee they got 10% or below. It was only in more rural areas like the Borders, Moray, Dumfries and Galloway, Shetland, Orkney and the Highlands they got 12%-13.6%


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

given the unified anti-benefits line of the major parties they'd do well to tap into the resentment at the major parties 'pay the taxes, don't get the benefits'. The larger parties have gone beyond just doing that safety net down, they actually want it destroyed and nobody is thick enough to see otherwise. UKIP would play well by promising british benefits for british taxpayers.

However I don't think they will play that one yet. They have a scant year to go, bouyed up on the back of a populist euro vote and faced with an electorate that despises all of them more or less.

The thing between now and the GE is for falanges mob to just not shit the bed in any significant way.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> given the unified anti-benefits line of the major parties they'd do well to tap into the resentment at the major parties 'pay the taxes, don't get the benefits'. The larger parties have gone beyond just doing that safety net down, they actually want it destroyed and nobody is thick enough to see otherwise. UKIP would play well by promising british benefits for british taxpayers.
> 
> However I don't think they will play that one yet. They have a scant year to go, bouyed up on the back of a populist euro vote and faced with an electorate that despises all of them more or less.
> 
> The thing between now and the GE is for falanges mob to just not shit the bed in any significant way.



They already are on the estates round here.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The 40 UKIP target seats:



Fingers crossed for coastal erosion getting a bit of a shift on.


----------



## Ax^ (May 27, 2014)

still a tory voter protest


still trying to find a fuck to give


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

I'd caution about seeing a rise in UKIP vote in labour areas as being 'UKIP taking w/c votes' - places like Rotherham are not some conglomerate of former pit villages and nothing else, there's still a fairly large chunk of rural an relatively well-off areas that have traditionally voted Tory. Taking 30% in these areas doesn't necessarily indicate a direct transition from labour voting block, rather that the anti-labour opposition had a new flag to rally under and some motivation to go out and vote (I haven't looked at the figures, but I'd expect that the Tory vote has dropped in these seats). Trad labour voters may simply have stayed at home, as the party has moved away from their interests, and Miliband trying to respond to UKIP's themes may move them even further away.


----------



## andysays (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Working class politics can only be mediated through political parties?



No, it can be mediated or operate in other ways too, but we've heard nothing on this subject.

On one or other of these UKIP threads, I've asked butchers and others in what way they see the increase in support as providing a positive opportunity for working class politics, either electorally or otherwise, and no one seems to have anything coherent to offer.

I guess it's easier to slag people off for the wrong sort of criticism of UKIP than say anything constructive or truely insightful.


----------



## andysays (May 27, 2014)

chilango said:


> andysays I'm not going to speak on behalf of butchersapron (he can do that himself should he choose to) but as another poster who has argued that (albeit more lukewarmly) that the UKIP vote is not entirely negative, that it does represent some potential positives and thus (at least part of me) can be pleased with their results, I feel obliged to respond.
> 
> I am coming from the following perspective:
> 
> ...



Fair enough, this is a coherent position, even if I don't agree that voting for UKIP really is a genuine expression of disaffection with the status quo.

You may have expressed this before, and if so I apologise for missing it, but butchers has been so busy cunting people off he's never come close to this.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 27, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> These are never the terms in which people disparage against the EU.  Indeed, often the argument is formulated in terms that state the EU is not neoliberal enough; we spend too much on 'lazy southern European countries', we don't need regulation (or basic food safety standards), etc.  So, when the EU 'reforms', it will be on incredibly right-wing, reactionary terms; stop migration from poor to rich countries, stop regional development funding.


I think this is what I find most puzzling about the notion that something good lies within the rise of UKIP - even the possible good they could do, i.e. help getting us out of the EU, would be done on death-to-EU-socialism/multiculturalism terms that would help determine the future course of economic and social policy within an EU-less Britain. And not in a good way. It's like hoping we'll withdraw from the WTO if people were wanting to do it on the grounds that it has the 'communist' country China in it. Sure, we'd be out of the WTO, but at the cost of demonising the left and with it many possible solutions to our own economic problems. It's paddling up shit creek knowing the crocodiles are going to nick your paddle when you're halfway up.


----------



## andysays (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> All this nonsense because andy made a mistake the other week...



I don't really give a fuck that you think I made a mistake the other week, or that I've made an arse of myself. Why should I care?

But I am glad that this has prompted you to finally set out coherently why you want UKIP to do well. It's a shame you couldn't have done so much earlier, but as you still appear to be motivated much more by indulging in aggressive one upmanship than furthering anyone's genuine understanding, it's not surprising that it's taken you so long.

I'm not interested in your attempts to categorise my position (moralising, hand wringing, vanguardist, whatever...), your reduction of discussion to crude personal attacks is tedious and, more importantly, simply obscures and distracts from the actual point.

So you argue a good showing by UKIP may see off the Conservatives and allow Labour to form a majority government? And this will advance the interests of pro-working class politics in what way exactly?

The support for UKIP suggests to me that they have been able to harness a significant portion of the anger and fear people are feeling, and focus it as hate and resentment from whatever "other" people see as to blame for their troubles. In the end it doesn't matter if the "other" is immigrants, or benefit claimants or eurocrats or trendy lefties, there's plenty of hate to go round. UKIP haven't created this hate, far less the conditions which created it, but they are an indicator of how much people, including a significant sector of the working class are gripped by it, as knee jerk response which leads even some people here to say that they feel like supporting UKIP.

And my objection to this is not a moral one, it's the absolutely practical one that hate is no basis on which to build any sort of progressive inclusive pro-working class movement, and this is why while you see some positive, I see only negative, the legacy of the failure of the left and the dominance of anti-working class neo liberalism to such an extent that even professed critical leftists see this "turmoil" (ooh, maybe no one will be able to form a government. won't that be exciting!) as the best that can currently be imagined.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> From the Tele...I'm not sure of their methodology, but it looks like a useful map of UKIP success...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can see a few tory/lib-dem battlegrounds there, particularly in the south west. If UKIP take a big chunk of the vote in these places it might actually help the tories win those seats.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2014)

There arent any tory/lib dem battlegrounds anymore.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I can see a few tory/lib-dem battlegrounds there, particularly in the south west. If UKIP take a big chunk of the vote in these places it might actually help the tories win those seats.


In those seats they'll be taking votes off the Tories and even more off the lib dems as well as gaining almost all of the labour tactical vote. They lower the chances of a tory win. Either way, they're not going to not stand.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In those seats they'll be taking votes off the Tories and even more off the lib dems as well as gaining almost all of the labour tactical vote. They lower the chances of a tory win. Either way, they're not going to not stand.



If they're taking more votes from the lib dems than from the tories in a tory/lib dem marginal than that will help the tories win no?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> There arent any tory/lib dem battlegrounds anymore.



My mum lives in one but whatever.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> Fair enough, this is a coherent position, even if I don't agree that voting for UKIP really is a genuine expression of disaffection with the status quo



Note here, Andy gets to decide which is a genuine expression of disaffection with the status quo and what isn't. Not what's useful in getting beyond that status quo, but in what is a genuine expression of disaffection. And if it's not pure, if it's not clean, if it's messy, well no then it doesn't count as genuine disaffection.  Never mind the cultural traditions of political expression weighing heavily on immediate activity and thus effecting the dynamic of how people move through different positions and relationships to politics. No, only immediate purity will do. Purity of course meaning fully agree with the party, sorry, Andy's, line. No movement, no messy, no dialectic.

edit: here's a quote from the late great Marty Glaberman that goes near this static nonsense understanding of people and their relationship to politics:

_It's essential to reject the idea that nothing can happen until white workers are no longer racist. I don't know what anybody thinks the Russian workers in 1917 were. They were sexist. They were nationalist. A lot of them were under the thumb of the church. But they made a goddamn revolution that began to change them. Whether there's a social explosion or not doesn't depend on any formal attitudes or supporting this particular organisation or that particular organisation._

Watch the spluttering outrage  - are you really comparing UKIP voters with *** (no,  i'm not) - drown out the wider point.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

The tories are probably sat back chuckling while the fallout from the UKIP 'success' lands on Clegg and to a lesser extent Miliband, despite the fact they should be the ones needing a nappy change.  Have they had any hand in creating the narrative of 'Turmoil' in the other parties?  It'll conceivably benefit them, although a weak LD party probably helps Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> I don't really give a fuck that you think I made a mistake the other week, or that I've made an arse of myself. Why should I care?
> 
> But I am glad that this has prompted you to finally set out coherently why you want UKIP to do well. It's a shame you couldn't have done so much earlier, but as you still appear to be motivated much more by indulging in aggressive one upmanship than furthering anyone's genuine understanding, it's not surprising that it's taken you so long.
> 
> ...


And here he demonstrates the truth that he simply does not know how to digest my position. Yes Andy, I'm arguing people should vote ukip to help form a labour majority govt. That's what I've always argued for on here and elsewhere. A majority labour govt.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> If they're taking more votes from the lib dems than from the tories in a tory/lib dem marginal than that will help the tories win no?


 There's about 8 LD seats in the SW that the tories 'could' take with a LD -> Con swing of under 7%, but whether or not the incumbent party could achieve such swings in the (new) era of 3.1 party politics is questionable. We've yet to see Farage's list of targets.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> No, it can be mediated or operate in other ways too, but we've heard nothing on this subject.
> 
> On one or other of these UKIP threads, I've asked butchers and others in what way they see the increase in support as providing a positive opportunity for working class politics, either electorally or otherwise, and no one seems to have anything coherent to offer.
> 
> I guess it's easier to slag people off for the wrong sort of criticism of UKIP than say anything constructive or truely insightful.


Can we see the list of your constructive and truly insightful offerings whilst we're at it please?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

***


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> If they're taking more votes from the lib dems than from the tories in a tory/lib dem marginal than that will help the tories win no?


They will be taking the lib-dem vote almost entire plus labour plus new non-voters, plus off the tories as well. This will not help the tories - the tories know this. this is the UKIP threat to them that they are planning for - i think they'd be a bit more relaxed about it than they actually are if they if they thought it would be helping them. That said, it is a possibility, but then as i said, they're not going to not stand. And the damage they can do to the tories nationally should far outweigh any potential gains this way.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Anyway, the tories were going to take all those sw lib-tory marginals anyway - UKIP is probably the only people who could stop them outside of wholesale shifts to labour (which i think could have happened over a few elections, but which UKIP may have put the  kybosh on now)


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Anyway, the tories were going to take all those sw lib-tory marginals anyway


this. What else could the collapse of the lib dem vote mean in these areas?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> this. What else could the collapse of the lib dem vote mean in these areas?


Btw, ashcroft's next poll is of precisely these lib-dem/tory marginals.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2014)

when's that out?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> when's that out?


Not for quite a while i expect - got to wait till after newark on thursday for starters.


----------



## andysays (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Note here, *Andy gets to decide which is a genuine expression of disaffection with the status quo and what isn't*. Not what's useful in getting beyond that status quo, but in what is a genuine expression of disaffection. And if it's not pure, if it's not clean, if it's messy, well no then it doesn't count as genuine disaffection.  Never mind the cultural traditions of political expression weighing heavily on immediate activity and thus effecting the dynamic of how people move through different positions and relationships to politics. No, only immediate purity will do. Purity of course meaning fully agree with the party, sorry, Andy's, line. No movement, no messy, no dialectic.
> 
> edit: here's a quote from the late great Marty Glaberman that goes near this static nonsense understanding of people and their relationship to politics:
> 
> ...



This here is perhaps the perfect example of why any discussion with you is apparently doomed to failure.

When I say I don't agree with something someone else has written, it's pointing out the place in their argument where we diverge, it's saying I agree with what goes before this, but not with this bit specifically. It's an invitation for chilango (or anyone one else) to expand on why, specifically, they think voting for UKIP is a coherent expression of anti-establishment/pro-working class politics, rather than, as I see it, simply a vote for another anti-working class, neo-liberal party which claims to be anti-establishment but beneath the surface actually stands for broadly similar interests, and has simply hijacked people's anger and fear at the establishment in a populist way.

I'm saying I don't agree with this particular part of his analysis, and asking him to expand on it if he wishes, with a view to convincing me and others of his point of view.

You, on the other hand, seem to interpret my disagreement (and by extension any disagreement) as saying I disagree totally with everything he's saying and that I demand that he and everyone else accept my point of view, as me seeking to shut down discussion. That's my reading of your nonsense about me getting to decide what's right, and your previous references to vanguardism. Maybe you mean something else, but your post is, as usual, so incoherent, so full of bile and empty of genuine clarity as to what exactly you mean, that I'm left having to guess.

I would be interested to hear how chilango and anyone else willing to state an opinion interprets my saying I don't agree with him on this point, BTW. I suspect that most people will see it as an invitation to expand the discussion rather than shut it down, but if I'm wrong, then so be it.

But it's no real surprise that you interpret my disagreement this way, because it's utterly typical of your behaviour here - most people seem to see these boards as an opportunity to exchange ideas and opinions, and perhaps even to persuade or be persuaded. But you clearly have no interest in any of that, you're not even genuinely interested in persuading others of your opinion - if you were you would make some attempt at clarity, and stop expecting everyone else to guess what the fuck you're on about, but then attack them for not grasping it.

If I was interested in online psychiatric diagnosis, I would develop the idea that this is the behaviour of a sociopath unable to see that others have an opinion which might differ from your own, but that doesn't automatically constitute what you interpret as an attack on your sense of self, but I'm not, so I'll just leave that line of thought there...

Instead I'll simply say that I've come to see you (and a few others who follow your lead) as an entirely destructive and corrosive influence on discussion here, constantly dragging it into point scoring attacks which are ultimately utterly counter-productive to any genuine pro working class politics. And if you behave in the same way in your exchanges in the real world, and if you have any real influence there (which I seriously doubt), then your influence there can ultimately only be utterly counter-productive to any genuine pro working class politics as well.

This is not a moral point, BTW, it is entirely a practical and political one, but I'm sure it's one which you are too wrapped up in your own ego and self importance to grasp.


----------



## ffsear (May 27, 2014)




----------



## treelover (May 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I'd caution about seeing a rise in UKIP vote in labour areas as being 'UKIP taking w/c votes' - places like Rotherham are not some conglomerate of former pit villages and nothing else, there's still a fairly large chunk of rural an relatively well-off areas that have traditionally voted Tory. Taking 30% in these areas doesn't necessarily indicate a direct transition from labour voting block, rather that the anti-labour opposition had a new flag to rally under and some motivation to go out and vote (I haven't looked at the figures, but I'd expect that the Tory vote has dropped in these seats). Trad labour voters may simply have stayed at home, as the party has moved away from their interests, and Miliband trying to respond to UKIP's themes may move them even further away.



On the local phone ins, most of the UKIP supporters who called in were W/C ex labour,  and don't forget BNP had a considerable showing in the previous election


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And here he demonstrates the truth that he simply does not know how to digest my position. Yes Andy, I'm arguing people should vote ukip to help form a labour majority govt. That's what I've always argued for on here and elsewhere. A majority labour govt.



It's a crude strategy because you have no hope of foreseeing where it leads. 

To me it takes Labour votes and makes a coalition of the right by far the most likely outcome if a Tory majority isn't achieved.

And whilst UKIP may have supporters who drift their way because they are shafted by the political establishment UKIP is also a coalition of a broad sweep of reactionaries who wish to roll back what they perceive is a progressive, permissive 'socialist' orthodoxy. 

That's a tiger by the tail and whilst it would likely fall apart at some point because of it's contradictions I don't want it to see it have power in a right wing coalition.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I'd caution about seeing a rise in UKIP vote in labour areas as being 'UKIP taking w/c votes' - places like Rotherham are not some conglomerate of former pit villages and nothing else, there's still a fairly large chunk of rural an relatively well-off areas that have traditionally voted Tory. Taking 30% in these areas doesn't necessarily indicate a direct transition from labour voting block, rather that the anti-labour opposition had a new flag to rally under and some motivation to go out and vote (I haven't looked at the figures, but I'd expect that the Tory vote has dropped in these seats). Trad labour voters may simply have stayed at home, as the party has moved away from their interests, and Miliband trying to respond to UKIP's themes may move them even further away.



If what mates from Rotherham have told be about their experiences canvassing they definitely are taking traditional labour votes in working class estates in Rotherham.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> It's a crude strategy because you have no hope of foreseeing where it leads.
> 
> To me it takes Labour votes and makes a coalition of the right by far the most likely outcome if a Tory majority isn't achieved.
> 
> ...


The point though, is that it's not something i've ever endorsed or suggested! It's total fantasy from andys massive brain. I've argued the exact opposite in great detail over many many years. This is why this stuff is laughable and not worth the time to respond to if he gets basic positions totally back to front.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2014)

If we're talking about disaffection with the status quo and making comparisons with history, 1933 Germany is the most pertinent, no? The fact that many workers in 1917 Russia were religious, reactionary and bigotted is irrelevant. They did not mass themselves behind a movement that made a direct appeal to those feelings. 

There are points of difference, of course - the Nazis found support among the wealthy in a way that UKIP have not. But there are also points of similarity, primarily in the way that the Nazis first built their support in small rural towns, not in the cities. This article outlines the demographic of Nazi support.

I am not suggesting that we should be worried about a UKIP takeover of the system. However, it is simplistic in the extreme to simply say: 'These people are rejecting the status quo. I reject the status quo, therefore I am glad these people reject the status quo, too.' If that which they choose over the status quo is right-wing, reactionary and xenophobic, this does not help your cause if you are none of these things. It just makes matters even worse.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Note here, Andy gets to decide which is a genuine expression of disaffection with the status quo and what isn't. Not what's useful in getting beyond that status quo, but in what is a genuine expression of disaffection. And if it's not pure, if it's not clean, if it's messy, well no then it doesn't count as genuine disaffection.  Never mind the cultural traditions of political expression weighing heavily on immediate activity and thus effecting the dynamic of how people move through different positions and relationships to politics. No, only immediate purity will do. Purity of course meaning fully agree with the party, sorry, Andy's, line. No movement, no messy, no dialectic.
> 
> edit: here's a quote from the late great Marty Glaberman that goes near this static nonsense understanding of people and their relationship to politics:
> 
> ...



I wonder what Andy would have said about the Paris Commune. A nationalist movement centred around anti-German chauvinism maybe?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If we're talking about disaffection with the status quo and making comparisons with history, 1933 Germany is the most pertinent, no? The fact that many workers in 1917 Russia were religious, reactionary and bigotted is irrelevant. They did not mass themselves behind a movement that made a direct appeal to those feelings.



I'd ask you the same then - what about the Paris Commune?


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The tories are probably sat back chuckling while the fallout from the UKIP 'success' lands on Clegg and to a lesser extent Miliband, despite the fact they should be the ones needing a nappy change.  Have they had any hand in creating the narrative of 'Turmoil' in the other parties?  It'll conceivably benefit them, although a weak LD party probably helps Labour.



Yes, its strange how the Tories are not described as 'having had huge losses' in the election, which they did, etc, all the hate and media attention is on L/D's and UKIP


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The point though, is that it's not something i've ever endorsed or suggested! It's total fantasy from andys massive brain. I've argued the exact opposite in great detail over many many years. This is why this stuff is laughable and not worth the time to respond to if he gets basic positions totally back to front.



I'm getting confused. Not a new feeling.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm getting confused. Not a new feeling.


Andy has concocted a  position from either genuine misunderstanding or twisted malevolence and presented it as mine. You took him at his word (why wouldn't you?) and responded as if that position was mine. But it's not. My position is the opposite - as people (apart from andy) who regularly read/post in the P&P forums would be able to tell you.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> Yes, its strange how the Tories are not described as 'having huge losses' in the election, which they did, etc, all the hate and media attention is on L/D's and UKIP



I think it was expected the tories would lose quite a bit of support, so maybe it's not a story in that sense, but there should be some concern, and it would be as easy to find some malcontent calling for the leader's head as it would be in any other party (hint: there's always someone available to provide the needed quote, even if just a 'candidate' and not MP).  Maybe they're not dancing like a puppet on Farage's string like Miliband appears to now be doing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 27, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> UKIP (a right wing nationalist party) are gaining support... and regardless of how or why, it is a fucking awful situation; not limited to Britain it seems, because the French have also voted up their FN party.
> 
> Cameron seems committed to "sorting out" Europe prior to a referendum and the son of Ralph the Trotskyist is more concerned about "sorting out" his alfresco eating habits than getting his arse into gear.
> 
> The UK is fucked.



So we should weep and wail and facepalm, rather than asking "why is nationalism apparently resurgent across much of the EU"?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I wonder what Andy would have said about the Paris Commune. A nationalist movement centred around anti-German chauvinism maybe?


I think we may need a handy check-list.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I wonder what Andy would have said about the Paris Commune. A nationalist movement centred around anti-German chauvinism maybe?


and filled with anti-social arsonists. not to mention people not kindly disposed towards priests.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think we may need a handy check-list.


an andy to zzz.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If we're talking about disaffection with the status quo and making comparisons with history, 1933 Germany is the most pertinent, no?



No. The Nazi dictatorship came about *not* due to electoral politics, but because of political scheming by von Papen _et al_. The Nazis did not have a majority.



> The fact that many workers in 1917 Russia were religious, reactionary and bigotted is irrelevant. They did not mass themselves behind a movement that made a direct appeal to those feelings.
> 
> There are points of difference, of course - the Nazis found support among the wealthy in a way that UKIP have not. But there are also points of similarity, primarily in the way that the Nazis first built their support in small rural towns, not in the cities. This article outlines the demographic of Nazi support.



The *profound* difference being that UKIP has done well in the urban areas too. The NSDAP only ever had limited success in the regional cities and even less in either of the capitals of the era (Weimar and Berlin).  Their rural support was also mostly from the rural _petit bourgeoisie_ and small landowners, rather than the rural working classes.



> I am not suggesting that we should be worried about a UKIP takeover of the system. However, it is simplistic in the extreme to simply say: 'These people are rejecting the status quo. I reject the status quo, therefore I am glad these people reject the status quo, too.' If that which they choose over the status quo is right-wing, reactionary and xenophobic, this does not help your cause if you are none of these things. It just makes matters even worse.



There's an assumption that because people have voted for UKIP in the Euros and the locals, that'll they'll *obviously* do so in a General Election, and yet history shows us that good Euro and local results, while a factor, aren't a great bellwether of G.E. results.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 27, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I wonder what Andy would have said about the Paris Commune. A nationalist movement centred around anti-German chauvinism maybe?



A lecture about how Proudhon was an inveterate anti-Semite, perhaps?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

> history shows us that good Euro and local results, while a factor, aren't a great bellwether of G.E. results.



might be something of a feedback loop on this one- those who were just turning in a tory protest vote being encouraged enough by the win to consider them seriously as GE candidates.


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Anyway, the tories were going to take all those sw lib-tory marginals anyway


Yep, Yeovil only safe LD seat in the region


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> might be something of a feedback loop on this one- those who were just turning in a tory protest vote being encouraged enough by the win to consider them seriously as GE candidates.


The ashcroft poll and the british election survey have both found 50%+ stickability.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The *profound* difference being that UKIP has done well in the urban areas too. .


UKIP did far less well in most large urban areas.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I am not suggesting that we should be worried about a UKIP takeover of the system. However, it is simplistic in the extreme to simply say: 'These people are rejecting the status quo. I reject the status quo, therefore I am glad these people reject the status quo, too.' If that which they choose over the status quo is right-wing, reactionary and xenophobic, this does not help your cause if you are none of these things. It just makes matters even worse.



The powers represented by UKIP already have the system; there is no need or intention for a 'takeover'. UKIP do not reject the status quo, they merely seek to effect an adjustment to the structural relationship between capital's economy and polity. They appear to be doing so by effectively exploiting the normative conflicts between commodified capital and polity's distinctive ontology enhanced by the crisis in finance capital. They are utilising the very notions of political democracy, public autonomy and collective determination that ensure the legal framework underpinning market exchange to undermine the Euro supra-national edifice. Their success in harnessing populist nationalism and disaffection is an interesting political phenomena, and one that those seeking to challenge capital might learn from?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The powers represented by UKIP already have the system; there is no need or intention for a 'takeover'. UKIP do not reject the status quo, they merely seek to effect an adjustment to the structural relationship between capital's economy and polity. They appear to be doing so by effectively exploiting the normative conflicts between commodified capital and polity's distinctive ontology enhanced by the crisis in finance capital. They are utilising the very notions of political democracy, public autonomy and collective determination that ensure the legal framework underpinning market exchange to undermine the Euro supra-national edifice. Their success in harnessing populist nationalism and disaffection is an interesting political phenomena, and one that those seeking to challenge capital might learn from?


Oh i see, you're one of those types that love war an death aren't you?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 27, 2014)

Before we start to worry about UKIP chances in the GE those just elected now have a year of being local councillors. Lets see how they get on with mundane problems like street lighting and refuse collecting. Not much chance of grandstanding there.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh i see, you're one of those types that love war an death aren't you?


 Rainy day


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The powers represented by UKIP already have the system; there is no need or intention for a 'takeover'. UKIP do not reject the status quo, they merely seek to effect an adjustment to the structural relationship between capital's economy and polity. They appear to be doing so by effectively exploiting the normative conflicts between commodified capital and polity's distinctive ontology enhanced by the crisis in finance capital. They are utilising the very notions of political democracy, public autonomy and collective determination that ensure the legal framework underpinning market exchange to undermine the Euro supra-national edifice. Their success in harnessing populist nationalism and disaffection is an interesting political phenomena, and one that those seeking to challenge capital might learn from?


I did not suggest that there was an intention for a takeover. Where I was talking about rejection of the status quo, to whatever extent it has happened, I was talking about UKIP voters rather than UKIP itself.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I did not suggest that there was an intention for a takeover. Where I was talking about rejection of the status quo, to whatever extent it has happened, I was talking about UKIP voters rather than UKIP itself.



Yes, but the fact that they perceive their actions as challenging the status quo is significant.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> UKIP did far less well in most large urban areas.


'less well' does not = badly

They didn't get a single council seat here, but were polling respectably wherever they stood - I've seen people gloating round here about how we're obviously too educated to elect a UKIP councillor, but little recognition of how well they've actually done (then much breathlessness over the euros).


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> 'less well' does not = badly
> 
> They didn't get a single council seat here, but were polling respectably wherever they stood - I've seen people gloating round here about how we're obviously too educated to elect a UKIP councillor, but little recognition of how well they've actually done (then much breathlessness over the euros).


They took 27% across bristol - a labour councilor has just called UKIP voters "thick and ignorant". I reckon there are urban areas outside of brilliant super london. Some posters may have heard of them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> 'less well' does not = badly
> .


True. And you can say the same about the Nazis.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2014)

shut up about the fucking nazis.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Amazing stuff - yesterday UKIP wasn't gaining support at all. Today it's 1933.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Rainy day




you lost me at ontology


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> shut up about the fucking nazis.


Maybe others should shut up about the fucking Russians, then. If historical comparisons and parallels are being drawn, this is better than most given the areas the support is drawn from.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Weimar - revolution-->defeat in war-->civil war-->attempted revolutions-->foreign invasion--> militias with members in the millions-->thousand of deaths from political street fighting--> mass active parties with members in millions.

UK 2014--> UKIP get 27% in the euros.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> True. And you can say the same about the Nazis.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe others should shut up about the fucking Russians, then. If historical comparisons and parallels are being drawn, this is better than most given the areas the support is drawn from.


And this would be this bit:



> Watch the spluttering outrage - are you really comparing UKIP voters with *** (no, i'm not) - drown out the wider point.



bang on time.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> you lost me at ontology




I'm just amazed that Butcher's has not yet identified which recent NLR piece I've plagiarised.

Though, tbf, the application to UKIP's rise was 'all my own work'.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I'm just amazed that Butcher's has not yet identified which recent NLR piece I've plagiarised.
> 
> Though, tbf, the application to UKIP's rise was 'all my own work'.


Perry of the andersons i guess? I've saving the piece up as i find his style too show offy to read unless the decks have been cleared.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Perry of the andersons i guess?


 Close, but no cigar.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Close, but no cigar.


Ah NLR, thought you said LRB. Please tell me it's a letter from articul8.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ah NLR, thought you said LRB. Please tell me it's a letter from articul8.


an articul8 letter would be anything but articulate. it would be like the letter to the bank manager off the young ones only without the structure and argument.


----------



## Quartz (May 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> Yes, its strange how the Tories are not described as 'having had huge losses' in the election, which they did, etc



Actually, they held their vote in the Euro election up here.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ah NLR, thought you said LRB. Please tell me it's a letter from articul8.




I did try to weave in "reified" in honour of Dwyer, but lost the will...

T'was Nancy that I was reading.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> an articul8 letter would be anything but articulate. it would be like the letter to the bank manager off the young ones only without the structure and argument.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I did try to weave in "reified" in honour of Dwyer, but lost the will...
> 
> T'was Nancy that I was reading.


Ah, interesting - i was going to post something about her new book on that hiden abode the other day but lost the link. Can't remember if it was an event or an article or vid or something.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ah, interesting - i was going to post something about her new book on that hiden abode the other day but lost the link. Can't remember if it was an event or an article or vid or something.


 This?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> This?


Yeah that was it, then i noticed a) the price and b) it's L&W linked and they're being boycotted because of their enclosure of the marx engels collected works - and thought better of it.


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They took 27% across bristol - a labour councilor has just called UKIP voters "thick and ignorant". I reckon there are urban areas outside of brilliant super london. Some posters may have heard of them.


Didn't UKIP get 20% in London in the Euros?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> Didn't UKIP get 20% in London in the Euros?


17%


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 17%


I'm less educated cos of being provincial


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> I'm less educated cos of being provincial


Not proper urban.


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2014)

andysays I'm not arguing that voting UKIP is a "coherent expression of pro-working class politics". That would be silly.

It is, however, reasonable to assume that given the choice of narratives available via the ballot box in these elections that people who chose to vote UKIP chose the narrative most likely to be interpreted, and portrayed as "anti-establishment". In that sense I'd argue that it was a pretty coherent gesture.

That the political content of UKIP is as solidly pro-establishment and anti-w/c as the others is, at this point, neither here nor there. Voters had no intention of electing a UKIP government, they understood implicitly the limits of these elections and how the various available outcomes would play out.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Tell you what, first ten or so pages of this thread, from when started 24 months ago, makes interesting reading.


----------



## andysays (May 27, 2014)

chilango said:


> andysays I'm not arguing that voting UKIP is a "coherent expression of pro-working class politics". That would be silly.
> 
> It is, however, reasonable to assume that given the choice of narratives available via the ballot box in these elections that people who chose to vote UKIP chose the narrative most likely to be interpreted, and portrayed as "anti-establishment". In that sense I'd argue that it was a pretty coherent gesture.
> 
> That the political content of UKIP is as solidly pro-establishment and anti-w/c as the others is, at this point, neither here nor there. Voters had no intention of electing a UKIP government, they understood implicitly the limits of these elections and how the various available outcomes would play out.



Thanks for your response and expansion of your earlier point. I still disagree, because I think that, simply concerning ourselves with electoral politics*, there were other options which would be more coherently anti-establishment, for example the Greens or TUSC, imperfect though both of those options are. So the question for me is why has the major political and electoral beneficiary of the anger and fear caused by 30+ years of anti working class neoliberal politics been another party which is, to me and apparently to you too, explicitly anti working class and neoliberal, rather than something (anything) more positive?

Clearly the result of these elections wasn't going to be a UKIP govt, or even a UKIP council anywhere. Similarly, the coming general election won't result in a UKIP government, but depending on how and where their support develops, it may have a significant influence on the balance of the various parties and therefore influence, to some extent, the party make up of the next government. 

But what it clearly (clear to me; I'd better say that other opinions are available in case I'm accused again of seeking to define the only acceptable terms of debate) won't do is make any difference whatsoever to the neoliberal anti working class nature of the next government or, in the longer term, help any of us to build any sort of pro working class, or even mildly progressive, alternative. This, for me is a cause of concern, rather than the sort of glee which some (not you) are indulging in.

Thank you also for recognising that my saying I disagree with you on this is an invitation for you to expand and discuss, rather than an attempt to shut down discussion. 

*I still think that, despite banging on about unspecified social developments beyond the electoral arena, it's significant that no one has attempted to outline how they think that increased support for UKIP could translate into anything positive there either, but perhaps that's another question.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 27, 2014)

Brainaddict said:


> I think this is what I find most puzzling about the notion that something good lies within the rise of UKIP - even the possible good they could do, i.e. help getting us out of the EU, would be done on death-to-EU-socialism/multiculturalism terms that would help determine the future course of economic and social policy within an EU-less Britain. And not in a good way. It's like hoping we'll withdraw from the WTO if people were wanting to do it on the grounds that it has the 'communist' country China in it. Sure, we'd be out of the WTO, but at the cost of demonising the left and with it many possible solutions to our own economic problems. It's paddling up shit creek knowing the crocodiles are going to nick your paddle when you're halfway up.



I do think there is a limit to the significance of UKIP in the grand scheme of things.  The left is dead in the country right now. 

Remember the Tories will never interfere with capital flows, they might pander to the 'bigot vote' and talk tough on immigration (even propose impractical 'quick fixes' to Schengen) but that is where it stops.  UKIP will never be more than a one man band, or a Tory spoiler.  The fact the Tories are pandering to the right is probably a good thing.   It is far more likely that the Tories just can't deal with this existential crisis, so we get a parade of unelectable right-wing toffs (remember Duncan Smith, Hague, Howard).

Even if Britain does leave the EU, what sort of country do you think will be left in its wake and what do you think that'll do to the neoliberal movement?


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2014)

> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/-sp-racism-on-rise-in-britain
> 
> British Social Attitudes survey finds proportion of people in the UK who say they are racially prejudiced has risen since 2001



can't add anything to it yet, guardian beta is rubbish


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2014)

> Trevor Phillips, former chair of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “Integration doesn’t happen by accident – you have to work at it. If we want to avoid a slow descent into mutual bigotry, we need to drop the dogma,* stop singing kumbaya to each other*, weigh the evidence without sentiment, recognise the reality, and work out a programme – both symbolic and practical – to change the reality.”



wise words?


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2014)

i dunno. what does it mean?


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> wise words?


I have no idea what he's on about


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thanks for your response and expansion of your earlier point. I still disagree, because I think that, simply concerning ourselves with electoral politics*, there were other options which would be more coherently anti-establishment, for example the Greens or TUSC, imperfect though both of those options are. So the question for me is why has the major political and electoral beneficiary of the anger and fear caused by 30+ years of anti working class neoliberal politics been another party which is, to me and apparently to you too, explicitly anti working class and neoliberal, rather than something (anything) more positive?
> 
> Clearly the result of these elections wasn't going to be a UKIP govt, or even a UKIP council anywhere. Similarly, the coming general election won't result in a UKIP government, but depending on how and where their support develops, it may have a significant influence on the balance of the various parties and therefore influence, to some extent, the party make up of the next government.
> 
> ...



I've just spoken to an acquaintance of mine, she is part of a big multi-racial family, she says they are 'terrified', (yes terrified) of what is happening in Europe, especially France, fear UKIP and see Farage as very dangerous, worried that the recent EU arrivals in their family will be kicked out, I think they may be over reacting, but I wonder what other such families feel, after all UKIP are getting numerous BEM votes.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

it means stop the embarrassing hands-over-the-water stuff and just live as normal with people who were not born here but have come to fix the pipes, gamble, have a shit twice a day, have a baby, etc etc. Trouble is thats how everyone has been acting more or less. So he is railing against a straw man, or if I am generous railing against those sorts who think ethnic food festivals* and the like represent cultural intergration

*I have nothing against such festivals. I myself constantly score cheap cooked meats of a polish brand, some of which include offal. Don't really like offal but if it is in the mix, fuck it


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it means stop the embarrassing hands-over-the-water stuff and just live as normal with people who were not born here but have come to fix the pipes, gamble, have a shit twice a day, have a baby, etc etc. Trouble is thats how everyone has been acting more or less. So he is railing against a straw man, or if I am generous railing against those sorts who think ethnic food festivals* and the like represent cultural intergration
> 
> *I have nothing against such festivals. I myself constantly score cheap cooked meats of a polish brand, some of which include offal. Don't really like offal but if it is in the mix, fuck it


Oh right. Less happy clappy liberal shit and using words like 'vibrant' and more being normal like what most people were doing anyway


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

But and this is key, he also means, have a body (with a potential head, say 80 grand for 3 days work a month) to "work out a programme – both symbolic and practical – to change the reality.”

Towards the end of the CRE, he really got the multi-culturalism from above is damaging segregating nonsense. But, the boy wants a job.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> Oh right. Less happy clappy liberal shit and using words like 'vibrant' and more being normal like what most people were doing anyway




pretty much. You know when immigration becomes an issue? when our kids are at school with their evil spawn.

never mind that the w/c have been existing alongside the incomers for ever.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

and not acting the dick about it either- actively stomping on those who did act the dick


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 27, 2014)

Has anyone ever pinned Farage or UKIP down on exactly what they plan to do with the hundreds of thousands of EU citizens who have come and built lives in the UK in good faith? Would they deport them all, allow them all to claim citizenship, or will there be some kind of test or conditionality to make sure only people who are the right sort of people are allowed to stay?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

I don't think anyone has ever thought of that question no. And given that UKIP don't support repatriation i don't think they'd have much trouble dealing with it if some fiendishly clever person dared ask them.


----------



## J Ed (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think anyone has ever thought of that question no. And given that UKIP don't support repatriation i don't think they'd have much trouble dealing with it if some fiendishly clever person dared ask them.



A lot of people are spending a lot of time disseminating the idea that they are, thereby causing a lot of grief to families like the one which treelover mentions.


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2014)

Spooky, do you think my friend and his family over reacted with their fears for the future


----------



## Favelado (May 27, 2014)

You can have all them pensioners in Benidorm back and we'll take the tax-payers. Fine.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

Favelado said:


> You can have all them pensioners in Benidorm back and we'll take the tax-payers. Fine.




bizarrely, ex pats get a vote here. Thats right, they spent the last decade living and working in Mombasa, but they still have a say in the polity they haven't lived in for ten years. Makes no sense


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Favelado said:


> You can have all them pensioners in Benidorm back and we'll take the tax-payers. Fine.


Don't they pay tax? Who you swapping them for?


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't they pay tax? Who you swapping them for?


Hard working families


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> Hard working families


 Britain Better Off


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> bizarrely, ex pats get a vote here. Thats right, they spent the last decade living and working in Mombasa, but they still have a say in the polity they haven't lived in for ten years. Makes no sense



It's fairly limited though. I tried to exercise my ex-pat voting rights and failed miserably. As I also did trying to vote on my adopted country. Too many hoops to jump through.


----------



## Fedayn (May 27, 2014)




----------



## DairyQueen (May 27, 2014)

Miliband is an opportunistic twat.  Hope Labour fucking die.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

note leaders change= party change

when we know that isn't the case. Even with flaccid shadow whips.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Britain Better Off


_Terrorists win._


----------



## Favelado (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't they pay tax? Who you swapping them for?



Just a facetious comment related to the fact that its immigrants who will pay the next generation's pensions. Capitalism has us locked into immigration regardless of whether people like it or not. What's UKIP's answer to the demographics? Is that another question no-one's bothered to ask them?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Just a facetious comment related to the fact that its immigrants who will pay the next generation's pensions. Capitalism has us locked into immigrationm regardless of whether people like it or not. What's UKIP's answer to the demographics? Is that another question no-one's bothered to ask them?


That last question was a bit rubbish, so let's take this one as the first.


----------



## weepiper (May 27, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Just a facetious comment related to the fact that its immigrants who will pay the next generation's pensions. Capitalism has us locked into immigration regardless of whether people like it or not. What's UKIP's answer to the demographics? Is that another question no-one's bothered to ask them?



I can help you with that one

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...-less-immigration-and-more-breeding-1-3423128


----------



## Favelado (May 27, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I can help you with that one
> 
> http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...-less-immigration-and-more-breeding-1-3423128



Breeding! That was my joke answer!


----------



## weepiper (May 27, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Breeding! That was my joke answer!



Truth is stranger than fiction.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 27, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Just a facetious comment related to the fact that its immigrants who will pay the next generation's pensions. Capitalism has us locked into immigration regardless of whether people like it or not. What's UKIP's answer to the demographics? Is that another question no-one's bothered to ask them?



Capitalism is all supply and demand... theory says individuals move to where they maximise their utility.


----------



## J Ed (May 27, 2014)

Fedayn said:


>



I have changed Labour's platitudes on immigration. But I won't make false platitudes or platitude.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 27, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I can help you with that one
> 
> http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...-less-immigration-and-more-breeding-1-3423128



An insight into the level of debate  the new force of unionism espouses.  I thought a No vote was bad, but Coburn talking about breeding? Is this the status quo? I blame the Borders...  I heard things about folk from there...


----------



## weepiper (May 27, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> An insight into the level of debate  the new force of unionism espouses.  I thought a No vote was bad, but Coburn talking about breeding? Is this the status quo? I blame the Borders...  I heard things about folk from there...



You can blame the Borders if you like... and Moray, and Dumfries and Galloway.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 27, 2014)

weepiper said:


> You can blame the Borders if you like... and Moray, and Dumfries and Galloway.



What sort of punter from Falkirk votes UKIP?


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> What sort of punter from Falkirk votes UKIP?


 Isn't there some kind of Orange/Unionist tradition in Falkirk or have I made that up?


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2014)

I wonder again if a 'yes' vote is more likely if Scots imagine the next Westminster Govt has a greater tinge of UK (i.e English flavoured) nationalism about it? And then what of the UK Election? Even more nationalism or a reaction against it?


----------



## DairyQueen (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> Isn't there some kind of Orange/Unionist tradition in Falkirk or have I made that up?



Not that immediately springs to mind... could be forgetting some new town outside Falkirk though.


----------



## weepiper (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> Isn't there some kind of Orange/Unionist tradition in Falkirk or have I made that up?



It's hoaching with them, same as much of central Scotland

http://www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/...nsing/civic_licensing/public_processions.aspx


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> Spooky, do you think my friend and his family over reacted with their fears for the future



Absolutely not.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 27, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I wonder again if a 'yes' vote is more likely if Scots imagine the next Westminster Govt has a greater tinge of UK (i.e English flavoured) nationalism about it? And then what of the UK Election? Even more nationalism or a reaction against it?



Doubt they will have much of an impact, if I am honest.  The more that Coburn speaks, the better for Yes it would seem though.

EDIT: post-referendum?  Who knows.  If it is a no, not sure what will happen.  Some places could get pretty nasty.  Unionism in Scotland is different from English patriotism.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> bizarrely, ex pats get a vote here. Thats right, they spent the last decade living and working in Mombasa, but they still have a say in the polity they haven't lived in for ten years. Makes no sense



Why are British people always 'ex pats' as if that's somehow different from being an immigrant? They're just immigrants somewhere else.


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

weepiper said:


> It's hoaching with them, same as much of central Scotland
> 
> http://www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/...nsing/civic_licensing/public_processions.aspx


LOL indeed


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

its just language dude we call them expatriate, bet the hosts call them 'el immigrant' or 'le incomer'


----------



## Favelado (May 27, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why are British people always 'ex pats' as if that's somehow different from being an immigrant? They're just immigrants somewhere else.



I always refer to myself as an immigrant here. Ex-pat has all sorts of dodgy connotations to me.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I always refer to myself as an immigrant here. Ex-pat has all sorts of dodgy connotations to me.


You might get mistaken for a cockney.


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You might get mistaken for a cockney.


 Or a Belgian/cockney/Welsh psycho full back


----------



## Lea (May 27, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why are British people always 'ex pats' as if that's somehow different from being an immigrant? They're just immigrants somewhere else.


I thought that ex pat was someone who gets transferred on a short term job contract so would not have immigrated to a place permanently.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> Or a Belgian/cockney/Welsh psycho full back


Pat Van Den Hauwe?


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Pat Van Den Hauwe?


 The only Pat worth remebering

Apart from Nevin. But he wasn't as good as Psycho Pat


----------



## DairyQueen (May 27, 2014)

Lea said:


> I thought that ex pat was someone who gets transferred on a short term job contract so would not have immigrated to a place permanently.



Nah... they're UKIP voters who retire in Spain.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> The only Pat worth remebering
> 
> Apart from Nevin. But he wasn't as good as Psycho Pat


He's got a new kids film out, psycho pat, i _think _it was called that.


----------



## Favelado (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> The only Pat worth remebering
> 
> Apart from Nevin. But he wasn't as good as Psycho Pat



Pat Nevin. Getting subbed so he could go and see the Cocteau Twins.


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's got a new kids film out, psycho pat, i think it was called that.


 Psycho Pat and his black and white cat. Great memories


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

I've done a thread


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 28, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Miliband is an opportunistic twat.  Hope Labour fucking die.


I'd still rather then than this Tory nightmare.


----------



## youngian (May 28, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Has anyone ever pinned Farage or UKIP down on exactly what they plan to do with the hundreds of thousands of EU citizens who have come and built lives in the UK in good faith? Would they deport them all, allow them all to claim citizenship, or will there be some kind of test or conditionality to make sure only people who are the right sort of people are allowed to stay?


As far as I know UKIP are never pinned down on these details. I assume all immigrants will go through some sort of visa application system. Lets say for example a farmer in UKIP friendly Lincolnshire doesn't get his strawberries picked this summer without his Baltic workforce, Tesco will go to Polish farmers for their stock and lots of assoctiated white English jobs are threatened; will these migrants workers get fast tracked? if yes will a minister have a veto in order to placate some foggy moaning from the locals.  And as far as I know UKIP haven't any policy on how they would tighten up the present non-EU immigration system.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ah, interesting - i was going to post something about her new book on that hiden abode the other day but lost the link. Can't remember if it was an event or an article or vid or something.



Have you got access to the NLR to read the article? If not I could probably c&p and PM you with it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Have you got access to the NLR to read the article? If not I could probably c&p and PM you with it.


That would be sterling work comrade. Ta.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 28, 2014)

I think their planned 'Australian style points system' would apply to all immigrants, european or otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

You mean the 'Australian style points system' that labour already introduced at the end of the last decade?


----------



## andysays (May 28, 2014)

treelover said:


> I've just spoken to an acquaintance of mine, she is part of a big multi-racial family, she says they are 'terrified', (yes terrified) of what is happening in Europe, especially France, fear UKIP and see Farage as very dangerous, worried that the recent EU arrivals in their family will be kicked out, I think they may be over reacting, but I wonder what other such families feel, after all UKIP are getting numerous BEM votes.



I'm sure that when you tell her that she is stupid and moralistic for being terrified, and a clever man on the internet says the rise in support for UKIP is just like the Paris Commune she'll feel a lot better


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)




----------



## nessa239 (May 28, 2014)

Because people are fed up with the main parties being a load of over-privileged twats who only have self-interest to heart.  UKIP are both more down to earth and a protest vote.  People just want to piss off the status quo as anarchy will get them jailed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> UKIP did far less well in most large urban areas.



Far better than the NSDAP you're fatuously comparing them to managed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Amazing stuff - yesterday UKIP wasn't gaining support at all. Today it's 1933.



The Night of the Long Knives has obviously passed us by, without us noticing it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2014)

treelover said:


> wise words?



It's *always* wise to abjure singing _Kumbaya_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Miliband is an opportunistic twat.  Hope Labour fucking die.



Not until they dance the Tyburn Jig, though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Far better than the NSDAP you're fatuously comparing them to managed.


Not at all, if you look at the figures. And it's only fatuous if you don't understand the point of the comparison, which was intended to counter an idea I think is horribly flawed and misguided - namely that the rise of right-nationalists in the UK and elsewhere might be something to be cheered.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

Staines has something on a tory pow-wow regarding the UKIP threat at Chequers this am.



> George Osborne has revealed that the Tories held a crisis summit at Chequers this morning on how to deal with the UKIP threat. Both government and party sources refuse to discuss attendees or indeed what was on the agenda. Leaving a breakfast event hosted at No.11 for alumni of Magdalen College, Oxford, the Chancellor explained his premature exit by telling attendees he was taking the unusual step of going to the PM’s official countryside residence in the middle of the week for the meeting.


----------



## Wilf (May 28, 2014)

Maybe they'll counter Farage's pint in hand publicity shots with pictures of George Osborne doing coke.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 28, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Maybe they'll counter Farage's pint in hand publicity shots with pictures of George Osborne doing coke.



and romping with sex workers obvs.


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2014)

> Leaving a breakfast event hosted at No.11 for alumni of Magdalen College, Oxford



We are all in this together.


----------



## frogwoman (May 28, 2014)

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/16/men-less-likely-identify-sexism/ 

This is very very interesting regarding support of various parties and sexism, I suggest that people read the whole thing


----------



## frogwoman (May 28, 2014)

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/axn9p3h3s0/YG-Archive-140512-Sexism.pdf

butchersapron will find this interesting - UKIP voters actually less likely than voters of any other party to have not done any of the items listed as sexist on the list


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm sure that when you tell her that she is stupid and moralistic for being terrified, and a clever man on the internet says the rise in support for UKIP is just like the Paris Commune she'll feel a lot better



You're a fucking idiot. Nobody said it was just like the Paris Commune. That's a fantasy all of your own.

Why do you think I brought that up Andy you smug know nothing cunt?


----------



## brogdale (May 29, 2014)

> Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage
> Follow
> Met @beppe_grillo for lunch today. Huge personality. Great fun to be with.
> 
> 7:19 PM - 28 May 2014




Reminds me of...


----------



## treelover (May 29, 2014)

> *Ukip's success lies in talking to workers – but not about class. We can do better*
> If you remove class identity, the 'them and us' of bosses and workers becomes 'insiders and outsiders', about race and immigration
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/29/ukip-workers-class-identity-race-immigration



Article by Ewa Jasiewicz, journo now, but used to be a Unite Community organiser


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2014)

That's a good piece  - well the first half, the 2nd wanders off a bit. And i'm always suspicious of the class as identity stuff - but as a start point for recognising where we actually are - and it's not 1933) then it's welcome. This is the stuff that needs to be built on that will drive a wedge between those people she talks about and those who actually run UKIP and would benefit from its growing influence - and without focusing or obsessing on UKIP or centering your political activity and efforts around them.


----------



## quiquaquo (May 29, 2014)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...lised-and-licensed-Nigel-Farage-has-said.html
_
The Ukip leader has said it is party policy for hand guns to be legalised and licensed in the UK despite being banned in the UK for the last 18 years. 

Mr Farage said the current ban on the guns, which were made illegal following the school shooting at Dunblane in 1996, was “ludicrous.” 
_

Where will it end?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 29, 2014)

That article's from January.


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2014)

A policy that will just be ditched - no votes in it but potential for loon-pinnage.


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2014)

The stickability of the UKIP vote - with figures and charts and everything.


----------



## Quartz (May 30, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> _Mr Farage said the current ban on the guns, which were made illegal following the school shooting at Dunblane in 1996, was “ludicrous.”_



Actually, Farage is correct. The reaction to Dunblane was a political reaction to public opinion:




			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> The Cullen Inquiry into the massacre recommended that the government introduce tighter controls on handgun ownership[11] and consider whether an outright ban on private ownership would be in the public interest in the alternative (though club ownership would be maintained).[12] The report also recommended changes in school security[13] and vetting of people working with children under 18.[14] The Home Affairs Select Committee agreed with the need for restrictions on gun ownership but stated that a handgun ban was not appropriate.
> 
> A small group, known as the Gun Control Network was founded in the aftermath of the shootings and was supported by some parents of victims at Dunblane and of the Hungerford Massacre.[15] Bereaved families and their friends also initiated a campaign to ban private gun ownership, named the Snowdrop Petition (because March is snowdrop time in Scotland), which gained 705,000 signatures in support and was supported by some newspapers, including the _Sunday Mail_, a Scottish newspaper whose own petition to ban handguns had raised 428,279 signatures within five weeks of the massacre.
> 
> In response to this public debate, the then-current Conservative government introduced a ban on all cartridge ammunition handguns with the exception of .22 calibre single-shot weapons in England, Scotland and Wales. Following the 1997 General Election, the Labour government of Tony Blair introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning the remaining .22 cartridge handguns in England, Scotland and Wales, and leaving only muzzle-loading and historic handguns legal, as well as certain sporting handguns (e.g. "Long-Arms") that fall outside the Home Office Definition of a "handgun" due to their dimensions.


----------



## DairyQueen (May 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's a good piece  - well the first half, the 2nd wanders off a bit. And i'm always suspicious of the class as identity stuff - but as a start point for recognising where we actually are - and it's not 1933) then it's welcome. *This is the stuff that needs to be built *on that will drive a wedge between those people she talks about and those who actually run UKIP and would benefit from it's growing influence - and without focusing or obsessing on UKIP or centering your political activity and efforts around them.



This stuff will never be built on.  We get is this shite from right-wing social democrats when their parties take a beating; no tangible policy, just the "remember the good old days" mantra.  The idea that class politics will become relevant with the demise of UKIP is a joke, the Guardian should stop pretending it is a left-wing paper, it inevitably does more damage to the cause.  The more Labour and other social democrats start using the rhetoric of the left, the worse it will be for the parties of the poor.  They think communists ruin the reputation of left-wing politics, that is not true.  Left-wing politics is undermined by the parade of self-centred cunts that use the rhetoric in order to be elected as neoliberals.


----------



## steeplejack (May 30, 2014)

Sked: Nigel Farage "too dim" to debate political ideas: elite complacency has caused EU crisis


----------



## The39thStep (May 30, 2014)

last years but I missed this.
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/taking-on-the-fruitcakes-how-can-we-stop-ukip/  or how can we come up with something  that means that we dont take them on but look pure.

Good to see the 'what we need is a UKIP of the left' ( I fondly remember the 'what we need is a BNP of the left' campaign) getting some attention.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 30, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> Sked: Nigel Farage "too dim" to debate political ideas: elite complacency has caused EU crisis


Seems a reasonable article.

Farage's inability to handle facts seems rather evident to me.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

Nothing like a grudge eh sked? Now who was it brought the BNP into UKIP mark one? Could you remind us alan?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not at all, if you look at the figures. And it's only fatuous if you don't understand the point of the comparison, which was intended to counter an idea I think is horribly flawed and misguided - namely that the rise of right-nationalists in the UK and elsewhere might be something to be cheered.



I've looked at the figures, and I still find your comparison fatuous.  Have you looked at the voting stats for the Nazis you've compared UKIP to? The demographic spread is different, the geographic spread is only partially similar, and the motivation - well, if you want to get into that, we can, but you'll be handed your arse on a platter.

As for cheering, you've now converted a narrow premise that a resurgent right *might* do SOME good to mainstream politics, or (preferably, in my opinion) destroy mainstream politics, to "cheering the rise of ... nationalists". Well done.


----------



## frogwoman (May 30, 2014)

The Nazis were nothing like ukip ffs.

Where are the paramilitary forces behind ukip? Where is the obsession with violence and the palingenetic mythology? Where is the irredentism?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> The Nazis were nothing like ukip ffs.
> 
> Where are the paramilitary forces behind ukip? Where is the obsession with violence and the palingenetic mythology? Where is the irredentism?



And where's the antisemitism? I don't see any evidence that there's any more of it in UKIP than the Tory party. Or the Green Party for that matter.


----------



## frogwoman (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> And where's the antisemitism? I don't see any evidence that there's any more of it in UKIP than the Tory party. Or the Green Party for that matter.



There's certainly no racial antisemitism and for example attempts to prove that people are biologically inferior - Farage also doesn't speak about other races as being a 'bacillus' and so on. 

The Nazis and even the majority of far right parties in Europe are way beyond anything ukip have done. Can you compare them to something like Golden Dawn for example? Of course not


----------



## frogwoman (May 30, 2014)

: Promotion of Greek-Macedonian dictionary - long v…:  

Have UKIP done anything like this whatsoever?


----------



## alfajobrob (May 30, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I always refer to myself as an immigrant here. Ex-pat has all sorts of dodgy connotations to me.



Racist fuck.


----------



## alfajobrob (May 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You might get mistaken for a cockney.



Regionalist twat.


----------



## alfajobrob (May 30, 2014)

Might be joking.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

alfajobrob said:


> Might be joking.


This is exactly why UKIP are winning the argument. I think. Probably.


----------



## Favelado (May 30, 2014)

¡ups! deleted post - wrong thread.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2014)

Wow.

Cameron just shat himself.


> The poll, by ComRes suggests that *86 per cent* of people who voted for Nigel Farage’s party will do so again next year.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2014)

Actual poll findings are slightly less impressive...



> The survey found that 37 per cent of Ukip voters said that they were “certain” to support the party at the general election. Another 49 per cent said that they were “likely” to do so, while 14 per cent said that they would probably back another party.



But that 14% 'leakage' is very low compared to some expectations from commentators...the UKIP 'stickability' appears, if anything, to be rising. That will worry CCHQ.


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2014)

> EU elections: Farage shakes it all about
> May 27, 2014
> 
> _Dave Kellaway examines the results of the European Union elections and the impact of the far right UKIP on the traditional parties_
> ...





> I've responded to Dave Kellaway's article on the Left Unity website at http://leftunity.org/eu-elections-farage-shakes-it-all-about/ (awaiting moderation) as follows:
> 
> Dave, Like Tom Walker in a separate article on the LU website, you consi...derably exaggerate the threat of UKIP in working class areas, particularly in cities, where UKIP got virtually got no council seats anywhere in the country, as pointed out in Tom Clark’s blog: http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/local-election-results-2014-aav.html. The blog entry also explains the particularly difficult local circumstances that have caused a lot of racism in Rotherham. UKIP came close in Middleton, where Lee Rigby came from, but their failure to win that seat is more remarkable than UKIP’s minor successes in the odd fairly large town.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/socialiststephen?hc_location=stream



New article from L/Unity member on UKIP with a robust response from another member.

note, no value judgement on either contribution.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 31, 2014)

65% of those eligible to vote stayed away from the polling booth. UKIP's "earthquake" has been exaggerated. Their over-confidence could be the source of their undoing... or at least, I hope it is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> The Nazis were nothing like ukip ffs.
> 
> Where are the paramilitary forces behind ukip? Where is the obsession with violence and the palingenetic mythology? Where is the irredentism?



There's not even much similarity between the German polity prior to Nazism, and the UK polity now.  They were far more loaded toward the traditional right than the UK has been for at least 80 years.


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's not even much similarity between the German polity prior to Nazism, and the UK polity now.  They were far more loaded toward the traditional right than the UK has been for at least 80 years.



I don't mean to go on about this but a lot of people who are saying that they will defriend people on fb for sharing ukip stuff are quite happy to share illuminati and conspiracy theory shit. These people wouldn't recognise a fascist movement if it emerged and appeared to agree with them.


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2014)

It seems the SWP are hosting anti-ukip meetings nationwide, I think they will be popular, but it must be the worse group to be running them.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

treelover said:


> It seems the SWP are hosting anti-ukip meetings nationwide, I think they will be popular, but it must be the worse group to be running them.


edl turned up at the Sheffield meeting apparently


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's not even much similarity between the German polity prior to Nazism, and the UK polity now.  They were far more loaded toward the traditional right than the UK has been for at least 80 years.



Yes, but there is not much similarity between the UK polity and any country, is there?  The UK has been vastly wealthy and is now relying on nothing but its position as a financial centre to maintain its prestige and power.  Most far-right movements thrive under very different circumstances; poor countries, losing profits to the financial centres?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 1, 2014)

But the rest of the UK is being left to rot and its social sphere looted (council, education, health and welfare cuts & privatisations etc), while only that financial centre remains prosperous, arguably at the expense of the former (PFI, student loans etc)

Maybe not as different as all that ...


----------



## treelover (Jun 1, 2014)

> Nigel Farage has declared he wants to see a grammar school in every town and cut the top rate of tax to 40p, as he set out plans to get Ukip's first MPs by "throwing the kitchen sink" at a few dozen constituencies.
> The Ukip leader, whose party triumphed in the European elections, said he would personally stand in the south-east and is considering the option of South Thanet, where the party has a lot of county council seats.
> Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Farage gave some indications of what would be in the party's manifesto outside of its key messages on leaving the EU and reducing immigration.
> He said the party was no longer committed to a flat tax and would make it a priority to abolish tax for those on the minimum wage, as well as cutting the top rate to 40p.
> ...



So its tax cuts and grammar schools as the first 'new' policies for UKIP, will they be popular?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

treelover said:


> So its tax cuts and grammar schools as the first 'new' policies for UKIP, will they be popular?



Interesting that they know they can't let themselves be cast as thatcherite and still expect to win in the North.


> Asked about whether he was trying to bring back Thatcherite policies, Farage said: "That was of its time. Thatcherism was of its time 40 years ago to deal with a specific set of problems. For half the country it benefited them, for the other half the country it didn't."



Christ, they'll be calling themselves a "one-nation" party soon.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Christ, they'll be calling themselves a "one-nation" party soon.


They've been positioning themselves this way for a while now.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They've been positioning themselves this way for a while now.


 Sorry, I forgot the smiley.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Sorry, I forgot the smiley.


Ah ok. Irony detector on the blink.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Yes, but there is not much similarity between the UK polity and any country, is there?



I'm not comparing the UK to any current polity, I'm specifically refuting a claim by another poster that the political situation and current UK polity has much in common with the political situation and the polity of pre-Nazi Germany in the years between the foundation of the NSDAP and the Nazi seizure of power.


----------



## treelover (Jun 1, 2014)

> "There voter profile is now of an age where by what's left of there grey matter is probably on some Alzheimer's induced nostalgia trip for the good old days. "



posted on CIF comments, a prime example of how not to engage UKIP supporters


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I don't mean to go on about this but a lot of people who are saying that they will defriend people on fb for sharing ukip stuff are quite happy to share illuminati and conspiracy theory shit. These people wouldn't recognise a fascist movement if it emerged and appeared to agree with them.



It's an old story, froggie - people get obsessed with looking at the symptoms rather than the disease.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

treelover said:


> It seems the SWP are hosting anti-ukip meetings nationwide, I think they will be popular, but it must be the worse group to be running them.



I'm not sure they'll be as popular as is being assumed (either by the Swappies or others).  While UAF etc have been merrily trying to quantify UKIP as racist/Nazi/whatever they've currently dug up about a single councillor, they're falling into the trap of not investigating what either the electoral phenomenon or the actual party *is*/what it exists for beyond the immediate.  Mud-slinging only goes so far, as you'd have thought that the likes of the SWP would have already learned.


----------



## treelover (Jun 1, 2014)

I meant people will go to find out solutions, air grievances, rant, not that any real solutions will be offered


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2014)

From an interview with David Graeber. Not really strictly on topic but a lot of the themes resonate with what has been discussed on this thread.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/01/help_us_thomas_piketty_the_1s_sick_and_twisted_new_scheme/



> Q: *I wonder about the political ramifications of this. You’re talking about a situation that obviously requires labor unions, but it could also go the other way. I am reminded of a passage in your book, “The Democracy Project,” where you attribute the well-known working-class enmity against the “liberal elite” to the fact that the liberal elite have good jobs, rewarding jobs, jobs that by definition lots of average people will never be able to get. I wonder if you could expand on that.*
> 
> A: Well, here we go back to the question of unpaid internships again. Some years ago I wrote a piece for Harpers called “Army of Altruists” where I tried to grapple with the power of right-wing populism, especially with the way that “we hate the liberal elite” and “support the troops” seemed to have a very similar, deep resonance, even to be a way of saying the same thing. What I ended up concluding is that working class people hate the cultural elite more than they do the economic elite—and mind you, they don’t like the economic elite very much. But they hate the cultural elite because they see them as a group of people who have grabbed all the jobs where one gets paid to do good in the world. If you want a career pursuing any form of value other than monetary value—if you want to work in journalism, and pursue truth, or in the arts, and pursue beauty, or in some charity or international NGO or the UN, and pursue social justice—well, even assuming you can acquire the requisite degrees, for the first few years they won’t even pay you. So you’re supposed to live in New York or some other expensive city on no money for a few years after graduation. Who else can do that except children of the elite? So if you’re a fork-lift operator or even a florist, you know your kid is unlikely to ever become a CEO, but you also know there’s no way in a million years they’ll ever become drama critic for the New Yorker or an international human rights lawyer. The only way they could get paid a decent salary to do something noble, something that’s not just for the money, is to join the army. So saying “support the troops” is a way of saying “fuck you” to the cultural elite who think you’re a bunch of knuckle-dragging cavemen, but who also make sure your kid would never be able to join their club of rich do-gooders even if he or she was twice as smart as any of them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 1, 2014)

Great find J Ed


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

J Ed said:


> From an interview with David Graeber. Not really strictly on topic but a lot of the themes resonate with what has been discussed on this thread.
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2014/06/01/help_us_thomas_piketty_the_1s_sick_and_twisted_new_scheme/



Yes, and Graeber doesn't even get onto the political elite.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 1, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> But the rest of the UK is being left to rot and its social sphere looted (council, education, health and welfare cuts & privatisations etc), while only that financial centre remains prosperous, arguably at the expense of the former (PFI, student loans etc)
> 
> Maybe not as different as all that ...



Well yes.  There is no serious appetite in England to change that.  This is perhaps the most depressing thing about modern politics; that people do not vote in terms of their regional interest.  They vote on very narrow issues that - truth be told - only impact a couple big cities at best (immigration being the most obvious).  The London economy is so far detached from the rest of the country, I find it really depressing that people in the North of England in particular tend to vote for politicians that simply do not represent their interests (of course, the London working-class get shafted in all of this, but in a very different way from the rest of the country).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 1, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> (of course, the London working-class get shafted in all of this, but in a very different way from the rest of the country).



In what way is it different?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> They vote on very narrow issues that - truth be told - only impact a couple big cities at best (immigration being the most obvious).


 eh?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> eh?



Lincolnshire is a big city


----------



## JTG (Jun 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Lincolnshire is a big city


with massive parks


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 2, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> edl turned up at the Sheffield meeting apparently



to break it up or because they're anti-ukip?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> to break it up or because they're anti-ukip?



To break it up as far as I know


----------



## JTG (Jun 2, 2014)

Did they succeed?


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2014)

anyone?

These sort of things just didn't happen here, there was no far right presence and certainly not one which could do the above.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2014)

Ashcroft's single constituency Newark polling shows support seems to be spread quite evenly across the age range, and highest in the youngest cohort. Bit of a myth-buster?

18-24: 36%
25-34: 22%
25-44: 28%
45-54: 31%
55-64: 29%
65+: 30%

(table3, p.4)
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Newark-by-election-poll-Full-tables.pdf


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Did they succeed?



No. Not really got any more info than that right now though, should know more after Wednesday night - belboid might know more than me cos apparently there was a left unity meeting in the same building at the time.


----------



## belboid (Jun 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Did they succeed?


nope, they were surprised at how many SWP there were (about 30) that they just chanted for a few minutes whilst being slowly walked out of the building. A couple of them did come into our LU meeting (on Scotland) but left quickly. Whether they didn't realise we were lefties, or just thought we were really boring, it's hard to tell.

There were five of them, who then buggered off to the pub. You couldn't ask for a more stereotypical EDLer. All looked in their fifites, the worse for many years of drinking and mouthing off. We're going to see more n more of this kind of thing.


----------



## JTG (Jun 2, 2014)

Chanted whilst chanting eh?


----------



## belboid (Jun 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Chanted whilst chanting eh?


where does it say that?????




ahem...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

belboid said:


> Whether they didn't realise we were lefties, or just thought we were really boring, it's hard to tell.



The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive - maybe the boredom is what made them realise you were lefties


----------



## JTG (Jun 2, 2014)

belboid said:


> where does it say that?????
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Must have imagined it


----------



## gosub (Jun 3, 2014)

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/06/03/why-people-voted-ukip/


----------



## treelover (Jun 3, 2014)

> By far the biggest losers in last week’s poll were David Cameron, and his useless, dying Tory Party.
> So you will have to ask yourselves why the London media spent the first half of the week claiming that Ed Miliband was the one in trouble.
> It is easier to see why the elite media spent the second half of the week snapping at the corpse of the Liberal Democrats, for they also did very badly. But you’d think it had been a Tory triumph.
> The really interesting thing is that it isn’t just the Tories’ media chums who are doing this. Many Left-wing types are involved. This is because the New Labour media faction have rightly recognised David Cameron as what he says he is, the true heir to Blair.
> ...



Hitchens article on the real losers in last weeks elections and the cover up, mentions the Guardians role as well

D/Mail article, usual proviso's but some useful insights.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 3, 2014)

Does Hitchens even vote?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2014)

What sort of response to the article is that?


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 3, 2014)

treelover said:


> Hitchens article on the real losers in last weeks elections and the cover up, mentions the Guardians role as well
> 
> D/Mail article, usual proviso's but some useful insights.





> I never knew how lucky I was in my schooldays.
> As a matter of course, I was taught the history of my country – especially its great struggles against tyranny at home and abroad.
> And I was taught its literature, which, like our dark and clouded landscape, now forms part of my character.
> Hardly a day passes when I do not meet Wilkins Micawber or Uriah Heep, or Pip Pirrip, or Mr Polly, come to that.



It is very difficult for me to work out if Hitchens genuinely believes harking back to an extreme anglocentric view of the 19th century will actually win the Tories some of UKIP's votes, if he believes it will make our land 'great' again regardless or if he is just saying this stuff to stay in a job.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 4, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> It is very difficult for me to work out if Hitchens genuinely believes harking back to an extreme anglocentric view of the 19th century will actually win the Tories some of UKIP's votes, if he believes it will make our land 'great' again regardless or if he is just saying this stuff to stay in a job.



Two seperate items.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 4, 2014)

Hitchens is a strange one - reactionary as they come yet I don't find him anywhere near as offensive or irritating as Phillips, liddle, littlejohn etc. Always remember being amused that in the debate with his brother over the Iraq war Peter was the one arguing against it.


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Hitchens is a strange one - reactionary as they come yet I don't find him anywhere near as offensive or irritating as Phillips, liddle, littlejohn etc. Always remember being amused that in the debate with his brother over the Iraq war Peter was the one arguing against it.



I've a certain sneaking respect for Hitchens.  He's wrong on most things and barmy on a few others, but every so often - such as with ID cards and suchlike - he hits the nail on the head.  He's not a bad foreign correspondent either.  Tbh I like his writing style as well - eloquent, but not laboured: it's just a shame so much of the content is drivel.


----------



## laptop (Jun 4, 2014)

treelover said:


> Hitchens article on the real losers in last weeks elections and the cover up, mentions the Guardians role as well
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-Dodgy-Dave-make-poll-disaster-disappear.html
> D/Mail article, usual proviso's but some useful insights.



All I learned from that is that Hitchens hates Cameron more than I was aware - which was not surprising given that I try not to be aware of Hitchens.

What's odd is what's not in it - support for UKIP. I conclude it's part of a leadership battle in the Tory Party. Oh, look, the next item defends Gove.

And this morning: Gove attacks Theresa May, Crispin Blunt attacks Gove: *Gove accused of using national security council to promote 'neocon' ideas
*
I think Hitchens wants Ronald Reagan to lead the Tories, though.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 4, 2014)

laptop said:


> I think Hitchens wants Ronald Reagan to lead the Tories, though.



I'm not so sure, Peter Hitchens seems to associate economic neoliberalism with the social liberalism which he despises. You can recognise a lot of disdain for the consequences of neoliberalism that you just don't see from right-wing commentators. 

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/07/the-slow-sad-death-of-detroit.html



> Its uneasy peace between business and unions, soothed by generous benefits and pensions, gave its name in 1950 to the so-called Treaty of Detroit, a national pact between capital and labour that lasted 30 years until Ronald Reagan broke it, and which many American workers look back on with nostalgia


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 4, 2014)

Peter Hitchens

... on homosexuals...



> We show tolerance to 'gays' and get tyranny in return
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1133033/PETER-HITCHENS-We-tolerance-gays-tyranny-return.html#ixzz33iE1stys



.... on drug users...



> A terrifying new conventional wisdom is growing up – a belief that drugs such as cannabis, heroin and cocaine should be legalised.
> Advocates of this nightmare don’t yet use that word – since international treaties prevent it at the moment. They speak of ‘decriminalisation’ or ‘regulation’.
> You might expect this sort of rubbish among the mumbling, frazzled relics of the Sixties.
> The ones who insist, between long vacant pauses, while they struggle to remember who and where they are, and look round the room for enemies, that dope never did them any harm.
> ...



... on climate change...



> The world was warmer than it is now in the early Middle Ages, long before industrial activity increased CO2 output, a fact that the warming fanatics have worked very hard to obscure
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231694/The-inconvenient-truths-Mr-Gore-fanatical-friends-DIDNT-tell-climate-change.html#ixzz33iElMi00



Of course, Hitchens is an expert on all these matters and more; not least economics and immigration. 

The man is a top-class cunt, not sure why anyone would want to listen to him except an ever smaller faction of the Tory party and the particularly loony part of UKIP.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 5, 2014)

You will never convince him to change or modify his thinking, you can never shown him evidence or facts, you cannot win against him. He is so up his own arse that any conversation is pointless. What's worse is the sneering attitude; he will hold you in contempt when you speak and, having not spoken in the conversion for one second, will interrupt and claim that he never gets the chance to speak. 

He is a classic swivel eyed hypocrit.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 5, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Peter Hitchens
> 
> ... on homosexuals...
> 
> ...



Nobody's suggesting that he's not a cunt - just that he's a bit different from your average frothy mouthed right winger - because he is - and he occasionally comes out with something interesting that it's hard to disagree with, however much you might want to.


----------



## treelover (Jun 8, 2014)

Report in the Sunday Times todays claims one of the Birmingham schools under fire , spent 50,000 taking (muslim only)kids to Mecca, 800 pounds on tips alone, a teacher called women, "white prostitutes" assemblies excluded anything 'christian' in approach

haven't got a link, but it says the Gov't report tomorrow will be 'explosive'

I wonder what will be UKIP's response ,

note, Times will have an agenda


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> Report in the Sunday Times todays claims one of the Birmingham schools under fire , spent 50,000 taking (muslim only)kids to Mecca, 800 pounds on tips alone, a teacher called women, "white prostitutes" assemblies excluded anything 'christian' in approach
> 
> haven't got a link, but it says the Gov't report tomorrow will be 'explosive'
> *
> ...



Surely they will wait for the full report before giving soundbites to the press?


----------



## treelover (Jun 8, 2014)

Perhaps if what is the left of the left such as Left Unity gave a measured response accepting there may be problems then UKIPs attacks would be reduced/weakened


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> Perhaps if what is the left of the left such as Left Unity gave a measured response accepting there may be problems then UKIPs attacks would be reduced/weakened


Why? Who listens to Left Unity?


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2014)

Daft middle class feminists are driving the working class to UKIP by policing language.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 8, 2014)

Santino said:


> Daft middle class feminists are driving the working class to UKIP by policing language.



Care to expand?


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Care to expand?


You'll have to ask Citizen66


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Let me know if you find one, could you?  I'm cutting my book-buying expenditure back atm...


Here we go.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 11, 2014)

Excellent - cheers butchersapron.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2014)

Here's an interesting one.

So following the resignation of Mark 'I can't live on £120,000' Simmonds, right-wing 'libertarian' headbangers at Breitbart are arguing that he is in fact resigning out of fear that he is going to lose his seat to UKIP. Thoughts on this?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Here's an interesting one.
> 
> So following the resignation of Mark 'I can't live on £120,000' Simmonds, right-wing 'libertarian' headbangers at Breitbart are arguing that he is in fact resigning out of fear that he is going to lose his seat to UKIP. Thoughts on this?



http://survation.com/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/



> We’ve analysed the results from the local elections, dissecting the divisions that contain wards that make up Westminster constituencies.  We calculate that if last Thursday’s results in these areas were at least as good in a general election (and there are factors at play that make this both more and less likely), UKIP would secure 8 MPs.
> 
> UKIP appear to have reached their “tipping point” at their current level of popularity where their vote begins to “cluster” allowing first-past-the-post victories.
> 
> ...


----------



## laptop (Aug 12, 2014)

brogdale said:


> http://survation.com/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/



Oh shi... wait. That was *May 2013*.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2014)

> Net migration to Britain has surged by 68,000 in the past year to 243,000, leaving in tatters Theresa May's promise to reduce the figure to below 100,000 by next May's general election.
> 
> The Office of National Statistics (ONS) says *two-thirds of the 68,000 increase in the 12 months to March 2014 was accounted for by a rise inEuropean Union nationals *coming to Britain, mostly for work.
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/28/uk-net-migration-soars-to-243000-theresa-may



The tories' absurd target fail hands Farage his GE agenda...gift-wrapped.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The tories' absurd target fail hands Farage his GE agenda...gift-wrapped.


Should go on the Tory incompetence/stupidity threat this one. Imagine mistaking the natural fall in immigration that happens during every recession for an effect of government policy!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

I think UKIP just got an MP.

Yes, clacton tory MP defects to UKIP.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Aug 28, 2014)

Nope, he's calling a byelection...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Nope, he's calling a byelection...


Either way, he's going into the 2015 election as a UKIP MP. Excellent politics to resign and drag this out for as long as possible given his safe return is assured - Cameron must be crying with frustration.


----------



## laptop (Aug 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Either way, he's going into the 2015 election as a UKIP MP. Excellent politics to resign and drag this out for as long as possible given his safe return is assured - Cameron must be crying with frustration.



Swivel-eyed? Nooo!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

laptop said:


> Swivel-eyed? Nooo!


Better, he's a swivel eyed ranidst


----------



## Ax^ (Aug 28, 2014)

ukip cum face thread


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 28, 2014)

Farage will be breaking out the stogies and brandy in celebration


----------



## laptop (Aug 28, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> ukip cum face thread


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 28, 2014)

Twitter is saying this guy was the first UKIP MP from April to November in 2008:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Spink


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Aug 28, 2014)

Pretty sure he just said that the pro-eu lot would win any referendum


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Pretty sure he just said that the pro-eu lot would win any referendum


The last poll had them winning by 1%. That was earlier this week i believe.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Twitter is saying this guy was the first UKIP MP from April to November in 2008:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Spink


Totally missed that. I wonder if his later reclassification from UKIP MP to independent could be retroactive - and all his votes were then recorded as for an independent, so he technically never was a UKIP MP?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Totally missed that. I wonder if his later reclassification from UKIP MP to independent could be retroactive - and all his votes were then recorded as for an independent, so he technically never was a UKIP MP?



I think pretty much everyone missed it, which doesn't say much for his impact. That reclassification would make sense.

He also seems to be a loon.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

Interesting that Matthew Goodwin  - co-author of the recent book on UKIP - has seemingly briefed every tory MP on his table ranking how vulnerable each of them are to UKIP pressure - Clacton was most favourable.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2014)

The timing with the (net) immigration stats makes this even more excruciating for tory high command.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The timing with the (net) immigration stats makes this even more excruciating for tory high command.


Do you know what i'm starting to suspect? That Farages decision to go for thanet south (144th most favourable seat for UKIP or something like that) is tied to other tory MPs in more UKIP favourable seats  "considering their options" as he put it this morning.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2014)

12000 majority over Labour, 5000 LD votes up for grabs - could be a three way race on the face of it


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do you know what i'm starting to suspect? That Farages decision to go for thanet south (144th most favourable seat for UKIP or something like that) is tied to other tory MPs in more UKIP favourable seats  "considering their options" as he put it this morning.



Yep, an intriguing, though unsurprising comment from Farage. I'm sure that they're in communication with a number of the 'swivel' tory fraternity. The 'kipper news agenda strategy looks quite sophisticated atm.

I'm not conviced that Farage has 'taken one for the team with Thanet South, though...remember that Ashcroft's July marginal poll had them on 33% even without Farage in place.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yep, an intriguing, though unsurprising comment from Farage. I'm sure that they're in communication with a number of the 'swivel' tory fraternity. The 'kipper news agenda strategy looks quite sophisticated atm.
> 
> I'm not conviced that Farage has 'taken one for the team with Thanet South, though...remember that Ashcroft's July marginal poll had them on 33% even without Farage in place.


Nor am i -  it may look that way to those desperate careerists on the tory side though. Or more pragmatically, it means a) he won't be after their personal seat and b) they may have more chance of old chums on the same benches after 2015 so they won't be the isolated new boys who have to toe the line.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2014)

JTG said:


> 12000 majority over Labour, 5000 LD votes up for grabs - could be a three way race on the face of it


Let's hope Terry Allen stands again (and a good crop of other indies) and we'll see the LD scum at seventh or worse.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2014)

Other waverers waiting for the Clacton result first? Conference season coming up, when do we reckon the Tories will move the writ? Will someone move it for them?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 28, 2014)

Wondering whether an even Con/UKIP split might let Labour through the middle here?  Not saying it's likely, but it appears possible.

Don't know this area of the world at all really.  Was surprised to read


> The stark exception is the town of Jaywick, an area that suffers from extremely high levels of deprivation.
> 
> In the Indices of deprivation 2010 an area of Jaywick was identified as the single most deprived LSOA in all of England, out of around 32,000, with unemployment estimated at almost 50%. Many homes are essentially beach huts and lack basic amenities. In the 2007 Index, this area was the third most deprived in the country.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2014)

From Carswell fanboy Oborne...



> He cannot be compared to the ordinary self-interested political defections, for instance Shaun Woodward or Quentin Davies’ departure from the Conservatives to New Labour, in 2001 and 2007 respectively. *Mr Carswell, and this is completely terrifying for David Cameron, is acting out of conviction rather than self-interest.* It is greatly to the credit of Mr Carswell that, in striking contrast to Woodward or Davies, he has called a by-election to fight his Essex constituency, where he may even stand a chance of success. *If he wins, he will have broken every known rule of politics. It has always been assumed that the individual vote which an incumbent MP can attract is a fraction of that commanded by the party which he represents.* If Mr Carswell carries Clacton, a political convulsion will have taken place.



Whilst Oborne is wrong about self-interest; all of the psychopathic elite obviously are, he is right to identify the terrifying nature of this defection for Dave. 

I don't think Oborne appreciates that Carswell's incumbency support will be eclipsed by the seismic swing from tory to UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Wondering whether an even Con/UKIP split might let Labour through the middle here?  Not saying it's likely, but it appears possible.


They'll be staying at home or voting UKIP.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Wondering whether an even Con/UKIP split might let Labour through the middle here?  Not saying it's likely, but it appears possible.



A Con / LD split in 2010 let Labour survive in some seats.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2014)

Quartz said:


> A Con / LD split in 2010 let Labour survive in some seats.


 I can't see Labour keeping the 25% they got there in 2010. Carswell will even mop up from that cohort.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They'll be staying at home or voting UKIP.


both are possible of course - by elections plague on all your houses stuff.   Still, I'd be lasering in on Carswell's voting record (bedroom tax, NHS etc) and that he shows the public school Thatcherite underbelly to Farage's "man of the people" shtick.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> both are possible of course - by elections plague on all your houses stuff.   Still, I'd be lasering in on Carswell's voting record (bedroom tax, NHS etc) and that he shows the public school Thatcherite underbelly to Farage's "man of the people" shtick.


Won't matter though. Labour voters already know all that, and they either _switched to him last time_ (huge swing to him) when it was a proper marginal or voted against. That's not going to add any votes to the labour total. And if past performances in by elections and the most recent local and euro elections in similar seats are anything to go by then UKIP will be eating into the labour vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> both are possible of course - by elections plague on all your houses stuff.   Still, I'd be lasering in on Carswell's voting record (bedroom tax, NHS etc) and that he shows the public school Thatcherite underbelly to Farage's "man of the people" shtick.


yeh. and when you'd thought about the matter for more than a microsecond?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Won't matter though. Labour voters already know all that, and they either _switched to him last time_ (huge swing to him) when it was a proper marginal or voted against. That's not going to add any votes to the labour total. And if past performances in by elections and the most recent local and euro elections in similar seats are anything to go by then UKIP will be eating into the labour vote.



I would say it's effectively become almost a three-way marginal.  If Labour is significantly behind Miliband will be very edgy indeed


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I would say it's effectively become almost a three-way marginal.  If Labour is significantly behind Miliband will be very edgy indeed


You think so? This is from the local council area that Clacton is in, from the may euros:


UKIP 48%
CON 25%
LAB 13%
LD  2%
OTH   12%

Labour votes clearly going to UKIP there. Ok, second order election, _but so is a by election_. It would be a very lazy psephologist indeed who assumes they are coming back and the 25% from the GE is solid and nailed on as a min.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I can't see Labour keeping the 25% they got there in 2010. Carswell will even mop up from that cohort.



And then there'll be the protest vote element.


----------



## hot air baboon (Aug 28, 2014)

Written by Ben Dyson (Positive Money) on September 15, 2010. 

A significant point in history happened at about 1.30pm this afternoon. Douglas Carswell MP announced a bill that would end fractional reserve banking. 


http://www.positivemoney.org/2010/0...uces-bill-to-stop-fractional-reserve-banking/

...is this going to make it into Nigel's Manifesto...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

hot air baboon said:


> Written by Ben Dyson (Positive Money) on September 15, 2010.
> 
> A significant point in history happened at about 1.30pm this afternoon. Douglas Carswell MP announced a bill that would end fractional reserve banking.
> 
> ...


Would it matter as they are not going to win the election and form the next govt? And any coalition role would obv not include any such proposal.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You think so? This is from the local council area that Clacton is in, from the may euros:
> 
> 
> UKIP 48%
> ...



Sure but Euro's obviously attract voters in a eurosceptic mindset more than other elections.  Obviously, Carswell must feel really confident otherwise he wouldn't have risked it.  So I don't doubt UKIP start as favourites.  I can't see the Tories holding it.  But if Labour is so far off the pace in the by-election there'll be a proper panic.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Sure but Euro's obviously attract voters in a eurosceptic mindset more than other elections.  Obviously, Carswell must feel really confident otherwise he wouldn't have risked it.  So I don't doubt UKIP start as favourites.  I can't see the Tories holding it.  But if Labour is so far off the pace in the by-election there'll be a proper panic.


But we're not talking about whether there will be a panic among the labour party leadership if they do shit, we're talking about your suggestion that your party are just about tied with the tories and UKIP as favs for the seat. They are two different things.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> But we're not talking about whether there will be a panic among the labour party leadership if they do shit, we're talking about your suggestion that your party are just about tied with the tories and UKIP as favs for the seat. They are two different things.



Not sure I quite said that - at a guess I'd say something like UKIP low 30s%, and Lab/Tory mid 20s.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> But if Labour is so far off the pace in the by-election there'll be a proper panic.



Why should Labour stand in the by-election?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 28, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Why should Labour stand?


to contest the idea that UKIP are the main opposition to the Tories


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Not sure I quite said that - at a guess I'd say something like UKIP low 30s%, and Lab/Tory mid 20s.


So just about tied  with UKIP and the tories. And that's what we're discussing - not how your leader would feel if your party did shit. Your grounds for the labour vote being solid seem particularly flimsy. In fact, you haven't offered any.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Why should Labour stand in the by-election?


They will. There's no more to discuss on that daft suggestion.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> to contest the idea that UKIP are the main opposition to the Tories



Seems like a waste of time and money to me, plus it could force them to reveal policies they want kept under wraps until the General Election. It's lose-lose for Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Seems like a waste of time and money to me, plus it could force them to reveal policies they want kept under wraps until the General Election. It's lose-lose for Labour.


The quartz political think-tank strikes again:

_Make yourself look like a party who doesn't give a shit about your area when you were scoring 40% in the seat 10 years ago and won it in the previous two elections. That'll be 25 grand please._


----------



## articul8 (Aug 28, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Seems like a waste of time and money to me, plus it could force them to reveal policies they want kept under wraps until the General Election. It's lose-lose for Labour.



If Labour are abandoning hope of picking up working class votes in these areas then they are even bigger trouble still


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> If Labour are abandoning hope of picking up working class votes in these areas then they are even bigger trouble still


Do you think quartz actually has an inside lane to the labour strategy committee? Of course they're not going to refuse to stand.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do you think quartz actually has an inside lane to the labour strategy committee? Of course they're not going to refuse to stand.


No - they did right not to bother when David Davis had his little pointless ego-stroking exercise. This is different.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No - they did right not to bother when David Davis had his little pointless ego-stroking exercise. This is different.


So why take his suggestion seriously and why imagine it expresses some deep malaise in your party (tastefully isolated from yourself with _they_ and other stuff)?


----------



## The Boy (Aug 28, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Why should Labour stand in the by-election?


Because there's a chance they might tie.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 28, 2014)

Maybe the tories should stick Boris up against Carswell, just for shits and giggles.

Not that Dave would let that happen, but the chaos would be pretty funny. Can we try and egg them on to do this?

I was hoping for a bit less Farage on my telly, but I suppose all this is back on now, isn't it? Shite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> ukip cum face thread


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 2, 2014)

*shudders*


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> *shudders*


*shakes fist at farage*


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Oct 2, 2014)




----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 3, 2014)

Classy.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 3, 2014)

Exploiting victims is the UKIP way.

Just like BNP and EDL et al. which doubtless is coincidence.

Recent praise for UKIP from Lennon/Robinson and Britain First will also be coincidence.

Nothing stinks. Nothing at all. If you say it stinks you are politically correct. Political correctness has gone mad, it means you think raping kids is ok.


----------



## ibilly99 (Oct 8, 2014)

This song sums it all nicely ....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

That's shit. Stop posting shit vids billy.


----------



## ibilly99 (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's shit. Stop posting shit vids billy.



constructive comments always welcome.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 8, 2014)

He's right though, it's shit, really shit even on it's own terms.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> constructive comments always welcome.


Well don't do that.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 10, 2014)

I've posted a link to this LRB article about UKIP support in Thanet in the Clacton thread, but I think it might get over-looked as that thread naturally 'withers on the vine'...

In the piece James Meek poses this challenge about "the left's" possible response to concerns about immigration...



> ‘If you don’t believe in absolute freedom for anyone in the world to live and work in Britain, where would you draw the line?’



He goes on to offer this possible response...



> The beginnings of an answer might be: ‘Where immigration is a means to undermine people’s existing rights, together with the rights of the people who are being used to undermine them.’



Hmmm


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2014)

That last bit is pretty much why the first international was set up - the recognition by organised working class groups of how capital was working to undermine them and how to react to to this in way that benefited the class across borders. Now, it seems today the unorganised sections of the class can see it happening - but their response is being monopolised by the right, by capital. And the latter can do that because of the retreat from class by the organised left. And here, i want to make clear there are people across all left-wing parties working their arse off on  a class basis in their communities and workplaces - this isn't a sectarian point. But we're not embedded collectively anymore (reason why - well there are many, i'm going to skip them for now) - we are there as people coming to communities with our pre-existing answers rather than as part of the debate that allows loads of answers to be produced. I know this is an old debate - one about left ghettos and so on - but we've not moved on in the decades we've been debating this have we?

Sorry, rambling post.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 10, 2014)

No, not a ramble...good post.
I think this has also been cast as the "where is the UKIP of the left?" debate.

Farage's 'ideological transvestism' continually resonates with sections of the working class because they can see how open migration within a federation with no federal minimum wage undermines their interests. 

I suppose, if we had a class-conscious organised 'left', they'd have to decide whether to ape the nationalism of an exit from the EU or strive to harmonise p&c across the federal supra-national state.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 13, 2014)

Not really sure if this is the right place for this, but Carswell has been talking about possible Labour defections-is that totally beyond the realms of possibility or could we see it?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 13, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Not really sure if this is the right place for this, but Carswell has been talking about possible Labour defections-is that totally beyond the realms of possibility or could we see it?


At MP level I'd be incredibly surprised, at councillor level possible but not on the same scale as Tory defections.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 13, 2014)

the way they keep going on about it is probably for one or both of two reasons.

1. Keep presenting themselves as the natural repository of the ex-Labour vote in the run up to the election.
2. It's true that one or two current or former Labour PPCs are talking to them, maybe an MP who is about to retire (Austin Mitchell for example). I don't believe there is a sitting MP who is intending to get re-elected next year who would see UKIP as a viable vehicle for that, and would be able to reconcile it with their beliefs.


----------



## Hulot (Oct 13, 2014)

It's happened before: Robert Kilroy-Silk.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 13, 2014)

Hulot said:


> It's happened before: Robert Kilroy-Silk.


Was he a serving MP when he joined UKIP?

I wouldn't say never but it's highly unlikely at the moment.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 13, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> the way they keep going on about it is probably for one or both of two reasons.
> 
> 1. Keep presenting themselves as the natural repository of the ex-Labour vote in the run up to the election.
> 2. It's true that one or two current or former Labour PPCs are talking to them, maybe an MP who is about to retire (Austin Mitchell for example). I don't believe there is a sitting MP who is intending to get re-elected next year who would see UKIP as a viable vehicle for that, and would be able to reconcile it with their beliefs.



Your first point is very true in that they clearly feel they can tap in to working class fears/ anxieties .in the absence of  a working class based response to those fears and anxieties the right wing response very often mops up. Very often the ' left ' response simply has no credibility as it doesn't relate to a lot of people's daily experiences ie no trade unions, no local working class organisation and a Labour Party that has no connection with the working class. If anything many people are driven to trying to make some money on their own initiative rather than as part of a collective as part time entrepreneurs whether it is through ebay or part time self employment.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 13, 2014)

Totally off topic but touching on the immigration issue: I am in Portugal at the moment and spent a couple of days looking at properties partly out of curiosity and partly because I have just taken redundancy. As with all these tours you end up meeting some ' independent ' legal adviser who explains the process of buying a property. He gave me some calculations of costs and when he mentioned a discount off the property tax I asked why that was. He said it was to incentivise the buying of property to stimulate  the market. There were two tables he showed me one for the Portuguese and one for foreigners ( he kept describing me as a foreigner in the nicest possible way) . The foreigners discount was bigger than the one for the Portuguese. I asked him how the Portuguese felt about foreigners getting a better deal. He said it was irrelevant as the Portuguese can't afford the houses that the foreigners buy .


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 13, 2014)

This is the response from supporters of the party of the class. To be honest I'd defect if I had to swallow shite like this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/13/working-class-labour-ukip-immigration-voters


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 13, 2014)

What specifically is the UKIP policy on immigration? Do they even have one formulated yet? Do they even have their manifesto out?


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> What specifically is the UKIP policy on immigration? Do they even have one formulated yet? Do they even have their manifesto out?


• Regain control of our borders and of immigration - only possible by leaving the EU.

• Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.

• A points-based visa system and time-limited work permits.

• Proof of private health insurance must be a precondition for immigrants and tourists to enter the UK.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 13, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> What specifically is the UKIP policy on immigration? Do they even have one formulated yet? Do they even have their manifesto out?


 
From their website:

 1. Regain control of our borders and of immigration - only possible by leaving the EU.
2. Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.
3. A points-based visa system and time-limited work permits.
4. Proof of private health insurance must be a precondition for immigrants and tourists to enter the UK.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> What specifically is the UKIP policy on immigration? Do they even have one formulated yet? Do they even have their manifesto out?


What their policy is and whether they have a manifesto out is irrelevant - it's probably the least useful question you can ask right now.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 13, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Was he a serving MP when he joined UKIP?
> 
> I wouldn't say never but it's highly unlikely at the moment.


No, he wasn't. He'd just left the BBC iirc. As soon as he joined UKIP, he made a leadership bid and was defeated. He then formed Veritas. What happened to them?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 13, 2014)

Yesterday's Torygraph was talking up Austin Mitchell's possible defection to the Kippers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...s-Austin-Mitchell-the-next-Ukip-defector.html


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2014)

Mitchell in April:

If Grimsby is Nigel Farage's best chance, then UKIP have had it, says MP Austin Mitchell




			
				austin 'that wasn't thievery it was an 'oversight' mitchell said:
			
		

> If Grimsby is UKIP's best chance, they've had it. It's a joke. They have got no better chance in Grimsby than anywhere else.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 13, 2014)

Smokeandsteam said:


> From their website:
> 
> 1. Regain control of our borders and of immigration - only possible by leaving the EU.
> 2. Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.
> ...


I've found their 'local' (presumably British) manifesto, but they list no source for most of their claims. For instance "There has been a sharp rise in the number of EU migrants without a
job living in Britain to more than 600,000 - the equivalent of a city
the size of Glasgow."

Googling to try and find out just gets me links to the likes of the Telegraph. I don't know of any reliable source to verify or disprove this stuff so it's just all rhetoric.

They also say "According to the European Commission there was a 73% increase
in the number of job-seeking EU immigrants in our country."

The only source i can find that mentions this is http://www.definitive-is.com/2013/10/eu-study-migrants-benefit-tourism-issue/ whom i have never heard of and have no idea if they are another right wing think tank. They say



> According to the study, the number of job seeking EU migrants increased by 73% between 2008 and 2011, while the total EU migrant population (active and non-active) increased by only 28% in that period. Therefore, the number of job seeking EU expanded more rapidly than the overall number of migrants. This is reflected in the unemployment rate among EU migrants which rose from 5.0% in 2008 to 7.4% in 2012.


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2014)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is the response from supporters of the party of the class. To be honest I'd defect if I had to swallow shite like this:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/13/working-class-labour-ukip-immigration-voters





> It is equally possible to imagine a future Tory party led by Liz Truss or Sajid Javid sweeping into this liberal centre ground and putting Labour out of business for a generation. As one who says he needs at least a decade to implement his programme, Ed Miliband should be really worried about this prospect.



Quite a confused article, and to say Sajid Javid is in the 'liberal centre ground' is bizarre, the Economists view of the centre ground, maybe.


----------



## youngian (Oct 13, 2014)

Mitchell can be a bit of a populist rentagob but economically he's never signed up to the neo-liberal Blair project and his anti-EU views come a desire to saw more nation planning with policies exchange controls, imports etc. If Mitchell joins a party that thinks we should leave the EU so we can have more Thatcherite economics, then this man has clearly taken leave of his senses.



treelover said:


> Quite a confused article, and to say Sajid Javid is in the 'liberal centre ground' is bizarre, the Economists view of the centre ground, maybe.



This is Cameron's view of the 'liberal centre ground'; married gays for Thatcherism


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I've found their 'local' (presumably British) manifesto, but they list no source for most of their claims. For instance "There has been a sharp rise in the number of EU migrants without a
> job living in Britain to more than 600,000 - the equivalent of a city
> the size of Glasgow."
> 
> ...



Wtf?! You not knowing any source to prove or disprove their claim doesn't make it rhetoric. It's exactly finding a source to prove or disprove it that would show if it was rhetoric or not.


Anyway, great, we're now going to waste time talking about UKIP's policies.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 13, 2014)

youngian said:


> Mitchell can be a bit of a populist rentagob but economically he's never signed up to the neo-liberal Blair project and his anti-EU views come a desire to saw more nation planning with policies exchange controls, imports etc. If Mitchell joins a party that thinks we should leave the EU so we can have more Thatcherite economics, then this man has clearly taken leave of his senses.
> 
> 
> 
> This is Cameron's view of the 'liberal centre ground'; married gays for Thatcherism


Mitchell used to write articles for Scallywag back in the day.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2014)

When they filmed tower block of commons - a program about Mps living in tower block in  residents flat - he only agreed to do if if he could move himself and his wife (all the others had to do it individually) into a flat on his own with all mod cons installed - and one in an area he got to choose. He then spent the week getting drunk at official does and having his wife cook for him. Clueless clueless careerist scum coasting on that formerly huge labour majority for 35 years - one of the people and positions that has produced UKIP.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 13, 2014)

He had his snout in the trough in the expenses scandal too didn't he?


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 13, 2014)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is the response from supporters of the party of the class. To be honest I'd defect if I had to swallow shite like this:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/13/working-class-labour-ukip-immigration-voters


"Only 39% confirm to traditional old class divisions" lol. In other words they are wrong to do so and do so despite the efforts of the political commentariat. Probably like salad cream better than mayonnaise as well.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 13, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Mitchell used to write articles for Scallywag back in the day.


Once had the misfortune of sitting opposite him on a train during the miners strike . When I had a go at Kinnock and Labour he dismissed me as being a well meaning unrealist. I refused his offer of a tea. 'That'll show him' I thought.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 13, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> He had his snout in the trough in the expenses scandal too didn't he?


Yes, he did. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...Ps-expenses-Austin-Mitchell-repays-10000.html


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 13, 2014)

Smokeandsteam said:


> From their website:
> 
> (...)
> 2. Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.
> ...



So a way of keeping the 'riff-raff' out and also a way of providing a greater market for the expansion of private healthcare. A tory wet dream.

Sooner or later that 'pay in before you get anything out' will be rolled out to the young too.  Milliband will probably bring it in.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 13, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> "Only 39% confirm to traditional old class divisions" lol. In other words they are wrong to do so and do so despite the efforts of the political commentariat. Probably like salad cream better than mayonnaise as well.


 
When, oh when, will the working class do (stand on picket lines, buy our paper etc) and think (what we tell them to think on any given matter) what is best for them?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2014)

Smokeandsteam said:


> When, oh when, will the working class do (stand on picket lines, buy our paper etc) and think (what we tell them to think on any given matter) what is best for them?


 
When they learn to listen to us properly comrade. For now the task of revolutionaires is one of edcuation; education so that the masses can understand our message. Only then will they fall in step with the march of progress.


----------



## dilberto (Oct 13, 2014)

UKIP speak the language of ordinary native British people and so are despised by the gentrified rootless metropolitan political/media establishment and those who unquestioningly follow their cosmopolitan cultural agenda including the political mainstream parties both left and right because they too have become gentrified and rootless and, believing that they have risen above their cultural origins, now despise their own cultural roots and people.

The current mainstream progressive neo-liberal multicultural consensus promotes change which, like all change, favours some groups, principally the middle class and disfavours others, principally the native working class. The political mainstream both left and right is now monopolised by parties which cater almost exclusively to those middle class interests and which finds the complaints of those groups disfavoured by that change objectionable or "racist" and so choose not to speak for them but apparently find it equally objectionable and bewildering when those people choose to vote for a party which appears willing to speak for those interests.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2014)

dilberto said:


> UKIP speak the language of ordinary native British people and so are despised by the gentrified rootless metropolitan political/media establishment and those who unquestioningly follow their cosmopolitan cultural agenda including the political mainstream parties both left and right because they too have become gentrified and rootless and, believing that they have risen above their cultural origins, now despise their own cultural roots and people.
> 
> The current mainstream progressive neo-liberal multicultural consensus promotes change which, like all change, favours some groups, principally the middle class and disfavours others, principally the native working class. The political mainstream both left and right is now monopolised by parties which cater almost exclusively to those middle class interests and which finds the complaints of those groups disfavoured by that change objectionable or "racist" and so choose not to speak for them but apparently find it equally objectionable and bewildering when those people choose to vote for a party which appears willing to speak for those interests.


Always the jews with you lot isn't it?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> When they filmed tower block of commons - a program about Mps living in tower block in  residents flat - he only agreed to do if if he could move himself and his wife (all the others had to do it individually) into a flat on his own with all mod cons installed - and one in an area he got to choose. He then spent the week getting drunk at official does and having his wife cook for him. Clueless clueless careerist scum coasting on that formerly huge labour majority for 35 years - one of the people and positions that has produced UKIP.


He wasn't the one who was shadowing the heroin addict, was he?  Awful bastard, if so.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2014)

The Boy said:


> He wasn't the one who was shadowing the heroin addict, was he?  Awful bastard, if so.


Can't really recall for sure, but i think that may have been Mark 'what's wrong with it - everyone does it' Oaten the lib-dem.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2014)

Was that a serious post from dilberto? I thought they were jumping on the parody band wagon.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 13, 2014)

rootless cosmopolitans


----------



## andysays (Oct 13, 2014)

dilberto said:


> UKIP speak the language of ordinary native British people and so are despised by the gentrified rootless metropolitan political/media establishment and those who unquestioningly follow their cosmopolitan cultural agenda including the political mainstream parties both left and right because they too have become gentrified and rootless and, believing that they have risen above their cultural origins, now despise their own cultural roots and people.
> 
> The current mainstream progressive neo-liberal multicultural consensus promotes change which, like all change, favours some groups, principally the middle class and disfavours others, principally the native working class. The political mainstream both left and right is now monopolised by parties which cater almost exclusively to those middle class interests and which finds the complaints of those groups disfavoured by that change objectionable or "racist" and so choose not to speak for them but apparently find it equally objectionable and bewildering when those people choose to vote for a party which appears willing to speak for those interests.



as my old mum used to say...


----------



## The Boy (Oct 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can't really recall for sure, but i think that may have been Mark 'what's wrong with it - everyone does it' Oaten the lib-dem.


Cheers.  I would have gone back and watched it again, but they were all a shower of utter tossers.  That Hague came across as the least contemptible says a lot about the others.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 13, 2014)

dilberto said:


> UKIP speak the language of ordinary native British people and so are despised by the gentrified rootless metropolitan political/media establishment and those who unquestioningly follow their cosmopolitan cultural agenda including the political mainstream parties both left and right because they too have become gentrified and rootless and, believing that they have risen above their cultural origins, now despise their own cultural roots and people.
> 
> The current mainstream progressive neo-liberal multicultural consensus promotes change which, like all change, favours some groups, principally the middle class and disfavours others, principally the native working class. The political mainstream both left and right is now monopolised by parties which cater almost exclusively to those middle class interests and which finds the complaints of those groups disfavoured by that change objectionable or "racist" and so choose not to speak for them but apparently find it equally objectionable and bewildering when those people choose to vote for a party which appears willing to speak for those interests.


Hilarious.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2014)

dilberto said:


> UKIP speak the language of ordinary native British people and so are despised by the gentrified rootless metropolitan political/media establishment and those who unquestioningly follow their cosmopolitan cultural agenda including the political mainstream parties both left and right because they too have become gentrified and rootless and, believing that they have risen above their cultural origins, now despise their own cultural roots and people.
> 
> The current mainstream progressive neo-liberal multicultural consensus promotes change which, like all change, favours some groups, principally the middle class and disfavours others, principally the native working class. The political mainstream both left and right is now monopolised by parties which cater almost exclusively to those middle class interests and which finds the complaints of those groups disfavoured by that change objectionable or "racist" and so choose not to speak for them but apparently find it equally objectionable and bewildering when those people choose to vote for a party which appears willing to speak for those interests.


And here's just the boy to tell us about the ordinary language of the man in the street...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2014)

dilberto said:


> UKIP speak the language of ordinary native British people and so are despised by the gentrified rootless metropolitan political/media establishment and those who unquestioningly follow their cosmopolitan cultural agenda including the political mainstream parties both left and right because they too have become gentrified and rootless and, believing that they have risen above their cultural origins, now despise their own cultural roots and people.



That's quite the most pathetic piece of shite I've seen written by you, and you've written quite a lot of shite.
UKIP don't speak for me or mine. They don't speak for the people on the council estate I live on, or for the rural poor. They speak for capital, and shape their message to appeal to elements of the electorate, just like the other major parties do. That's all.



> The current mainstream progressive neo-liberal multicultural consensus promotes change which, like all change, favours some groups, principally the middle class and disfavours others, principally the native working class. The political mainstream both left and right is now monopolised by parties which cater almost exclusively to those middle class interests and which finds the complaints of those groups disfavoured by that change objectionable or "racist" and so choose not to speak for them but apparently find it equally objectionable and bewildering when those people choose to vote for a party which appears willing to speak for those interests.



Wow, thanks for that startlingly-ancient piece of analysis. It might have had more punch had you made it 30 years ago, when it was first mooted.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> rootless cosmopolitans



It's always down to us. Wherever we go, we drag everything down, with our alien ways, and our evil "tolerance".


----------



## J Ed (Oct 13, 2014)

Rootless but no soulless


----------



## chilango (Oct 13, 2014)

I literally am a rootless cosmopolitan


----------



## tim (Oct 13, 2014)

dilberto said:


> the gentrified rootless metropolitan political/media establishment and those who unquestioningly follow their cosmopolitan cultural agenda including the political mainstream parties both left and right because they too have become gentrified and rootless and, believing that they have risen above their cultural origins, now despise their own cultural roots and people.
> .



So you blame the Jews, do you?


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 13, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> So a way of keeping the 'riff-raff' out and also a way of providing a greater market for the expansion of private healthcare. A tory wet dream.
> 
> Sooner or later that 'pay in before you get anything out' will be rolled out to the young too.  Milliband will probably bring it in.



No it's a way , arguably, about reducing the cost to the NHS. More importantly it appeals to those who feel that those adults who have not contributed should not get the same level of service as those who have contributed . People who I know ( and obviously this is anecdotal rather than anything else) who think like this  wouldn't dream of supporting anything that would apply like that that would apply to children or young people .

UKIP simply counter re privatisation that it was labour that started privatisation. 

I think arguments with working class UKIP supporters are quite complex and need more of a response than they are just Tories.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 13, 2014)

chilango said:


> I literally am a rootless cosmopolitan



It would be strange if you literally had roots.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 13, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> I think arguments with working class UKIP supporters are quite complex



Complex they certainly are.  Rational they are not.

There´s no _rational _reason to oppose immigration.  There are many, extremely complex, irrational reasons for doing so.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 13, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Complex they certainly are.  Rational they are not.
> 
> There´s no _rational _reason to oppose immigration.  There are many, extremely complex, irrational reasons for doing so.



Lol


----------



## xenon (Oct 13, 2014)

Proffs vs plebs.


----------



## chilango (Oct 13, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It would be strange if you literally had roots.



It would be stranger if I literally was a cosmopolitan.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 13, 2014)

chilango said:


> It would be stranger if I literally was a cosmopolitan.


Magazines don't hav roots except maybe in dental surgeries


----------



## murphy1970 (Oct 13, 2014)

One of UKIP's main strengths is that they have little to no internal democracy or accountability. Obviously, this isn't a good thing per se, but it allows Farage a free hand to make up policy on the hoof and clutch at whatever straw happens to be passing at the time.
When trying to combat UKIP the left have a natural disadvantage & that is that their core populist rubbish holds little or no appeal to most on the left. If you struggle to understand why folk want to scapegoat immigrants, welfare scroungers or the EU commission, then it is difficult to formulate an argument against it.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 13, 2014)

murphy1970 said:


> One of UKIP's main strengths is that they have little to no internal democracy or accountability. Obviously, this isn't a good thing per se, but it allows Farage a free hand to make up policy on the hoof and clutch at whatever straw happens to be passing at the time.



The fact that they have practically no policies also helps.


----------



## killer b (Oct 13, 2014)

neither do any of the other parties.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> neither do any of the other parties.



I don't know about rigorous costing or anything, but they definitely seem to have been coming out with things at their conferences that are more focused than UKIP's ramblings.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> neither do any of the other parties.


true enough, though none of the other party leaders are likely to declare that their last manifesto was 'drivel' written by an "idiot"


----------



## killer b (Oct 13, 2014)

They'd probably go up several points if any of them did.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> They'd probably go up several points if any of them did.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 13, 2014)

dilberto said:


> UKIP speak the language of ordinary native British people and so are despised by the gentrified rootless metropolitan political/media establishment and those who unquestioningly follow their cosmopolitan cultural agenda including the political mainstream parties both left and right because they too have become gentrified and rootless and, believing that they have risen above their cultural origins, now despise their own cultural roots and people.


I'm ordinary, I'm native (whatever the fuck that means) and UKIP say fuck-all to me. The only thing I despise is the likes of you spouting such baseless, divisive drivel.



dilberto said:


> The current mainstream progressive neo-liberal multicultural consensus promotes change which, like all change, favours some groups, principally the middle class and disfavours others, principally the native working class. The political mainstream both left and right is now monopolised by parties which cater almost exclusively to those middle class interests and which finds the complaints of those groups disfavoured by that change objectionable or "racist" and so choose not to speak for them but apparently find it equally objectionable and bewildering when those people choose to vote for a party which appears willing to speak for those interests.


Fuckin' nora...


----------



## josef1878 (Oct 13, 2014)

I've had my first General Election Junk Mail Today From Ukip. I Really Am The Last To Pull People Up On Their Punctuation but fuck me. A few things really stood out though,  the things in CAPITAL LETTERS like 4 MILLION,  1 MILLION,  EVERY WEEK,  29 MILLION  Apparently the candidate Andrew Collinson had a successful career in IT, Sales and business management.  I'm at a Crucial Turning Point for my future here. It's the legacy of Political Correctness. The stupid twat might do well to notice the existanceofaspacebartoo


----------



## dilberto (Oct 13, 2014)

The language may not be eloquent or conversational but it is not simply assertion it is an analysis.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 13, 2014)

is it fuck


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2014)

chilango said:


> It would be stranger if I literally was a cosmopolitan.



I literally did LOL at that.  Now everyone is looking at me funny.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 14, 2014)

8ball said:


> The fact that they have practically no policies also helps.


Their 'policies' are the supposed (or desired, from their point of view) effects of withdrawing from the EU and pulling up the proverbial drawbridge.

Ths includes a lot of insidious shit like pandering to nimbyists entirely and getting rid of things like wind farms.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2014)

Who knew? 78 pages in and finally we're getting somewhere.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2014)

Maybe we should concentrate on letting people know what they're really about? Expose their abhorrent policies and candidates?


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2014)




----------



## D'wards (Oct 14, 2014)

I kind of think they are like Freddy Krueger in that the more hatred and insults they get (in the media) the more powerful they become.
Hasn't hurt them so far has it?
The trouble is, we do naturally support the underdogs in the UK.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 14, 2014)

a few years ago some of the people trying to "expose" ukip were trying to promote ukip against the bnp. remember that stuff in searchlight etc from a few years back which specifically tried to promote ukip as an alternative to far-right nationalism?


----------



## youngian (Oct 14, 2014)

dilberto said:


> UKIP speak the language of ordinary native British people and so are despised by the gentrified rootless metropolitan political/media establishment and those who unquestioningly follow their cosmopolitan cultural agenda including the political mainstream parties both left and right because they too have become gentrified and rootless and, believing that they have risen above their cultural origins, now despise their own cultural roots and people.



Don't get that, it all sounds very theoretical. Could you give some examples of this massive cultural chasm that has appeared in our mono-lingual Western consumerist society? Are the metropolitan ponces watching too many BBC4 documentaries instead of the X Factor?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 14, 2014)

8ball said:


> The fact that they have practically no policies also helps.



They are big on the hopey changey stuff


----------



## 8ball (Oct 14, 2014)

J Ed said:


> They are big on the hopey changey stuff


 
We had that with the Scottish referendum too - it's a popular ploy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 14, 2014)

dilberto said:


> The language may not be eloquent or conversational but it is not simply assertion it is an analysis.



"Analysis" implies proceeding from data rather than opinion. You haven't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 14, 2014)

D'wards said:


> I kind of think they are like Freddy Krueger in that the more hatred and insults they get (in the media) the more powerful they become.
> Hasn't hurt them so far has it?



What "hasn't hurt them so far" are the inchoate "because UKIP" bullshit chucked around by the same bunch of twats who call UKIP fascists.
What *has* hurt them are some the instances where their councillors and candidates have proven to have a less-than-savoury political history.



> The trouble is, we do naturally support the underdogs in the UK.



If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and the working class would be ascendant. The so-called "underdog" in *this* story is just another wealthy neoliberal cunt.


----------



## youngian (Oct 14, 2014)

What Do Ukip Stand For? Jack from Welling on line twat explains all
http://audioboom.com/boos/2550913-w...en-s-takedown-of-this-supporter-is-effortless


----------



## Nylock (Oct 15, 2014)

Fucking Hell 

OTOH, it's hard to state what they stand for when they change their tune so often.... It must be like grabbing at fog if you're a UKIP supporter. The only things they have consistently banged on about is immigration and the EU; anything else is a constantly shifting miasma of half-commitments and policy 'ideas' without any actual concrete commitments to a position beyond their stated EU and immigration planks.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Fucking Hell
> 
> anything else is a constantly shifting miasma of half-commitments and policy 'ideas' without any actual concrete commitments to a position.



The Libdems were past masters at this. Just grab onto any half interesting sounding idea that's passing by.

One of UKIPs phoney libertarian clowns on FB is convinced that UKIP are committed to "direct democracy". The internal behaviour of NF is a give away of why we can have no confidence in that.

In other news, people who complained to the BBC disinfo network about leadership "debates" (dog and pony shows) have started to receive their automated responses. I couldn't be arsed reading, but imagine at least the subtext to be:

Dear mug...we knocked up this shite for a bot to spew out to you around the time the announcement was made. Our departments are riddled with people who have a festish for ukip. ukip ukip ukip. Also, ukip. Thanks awfully for your correspondence, now fuck off.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 15, 2014)

killer b said:


> Maybe we should concentrate on letting people know what they're really about? Expose their abhorrent policies and candidates?



Why? Firstly - most people that vote for them know they're a bit racist, regardless of whether they consider themselves racist. Secondly, people aren't really voting for them because they think they're great but because they're convinced every other party is shit. Even if you convince them not to vote UKIP, all you've really done is convince them not to vote.

Without an alternative to vote for, you physically can't stop this process.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2014)

yeah, I was taking the piss.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2014)

Though I'm no cheerleader for The Labour Party, have you noticed that when Miliband is photographed looking daft it's cast iron evidence that he's useless and unfit to lead?

When NF is photographed looking daft it's cast iron evidence that he is a veritable bundle of charisma, and we are blessed beyond words to have him usher in an era of new politics.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 15, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why? Firstly - most people that vote for them know they're a bit racist, regardless of whether they consider themselves racist. Secondly, people aren't really voting for them because they think they're great but because they're convinced every other party is shit. Even if you convince them not to vote UKIP, all you've really done is convince them not to vote.
> 
> Without an alternative to vote for, you physically can't stop this process.



That's not the case for everybody that votes for them - there are plenty of disaffected tories who know exactly what UKIP are about and are quite happy with it.  I know and am even related to some of them.  Aside from the working class vote that seems to be the focus of much of this discussion, there is a fairly substantial voter base of better off older white folk, a socially conservative older generation who is quite comfortable but frankly doesn't like the fact some of their money is taken to be put in the mouths of less deserving types, some of whom (and probably much less than they think) didn't even have the decency to be born here.  I've seen data on voting demographics which reflects this, although it is from earlier this year, and I suspect that they've broadened their appeal since then, but still, at that time that was the bulk of it.

All the media are doing by gnashing and wailing about the inroads the party is making into the working class vote is highlighting that this is a party that stands up for the working class in some way, unlike the others. Their major donor Paul Sykes (a former tory donor), who I suspect is as interested in derailing Labour as he is putting Nigel on the throne, must be grinning from ear to ear.


----------



## dilberto (Oct 15, 2014)

The opinions expressed by UKIP which their critics find objectionable were until relatively recently commonly held and freely expressed among ordinary British people, what has changed apart from the loss of that freedom is the general population and its values have become gentrified.

What else is political correctness but a reflection of the gentrification of western populations and their increasing discomfort with the realities of biological and cultural survival.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2014)

jesus.


----------



## inva (Oct 15, 2014)

dilberto said:


> The opinions expressed by UKIP which their critics find objectionable were until relatively recently commonly held and freely expressed among ordinary British people, what has changed apart from the loss of that freedom is the general population and its values have become gentrified.
> 
> What else is political correctness but a reflection of the gentrification of western populations and their increasing discomfort with the realities of biological and cultural survival.


weirdo


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 15, 2014)

dilberto said:


> The opinions expressed by UKIP which their critics find objectionable were until relatively recently commonly held and freely expressed among ordinary British people, what has changed apart from the loss of that freedom is the general population and its values have become gentrified.
> 
> What else is political correctness but a reflection of the gentrification of western populations and their increasing discomfort with the realities of biological and cultural survival.



You're not ordinary and how dare you pretend to speak for me, you white supremacist fuck.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 15, 2014)

dilberto said:


> The opinions expressed by UKIP which their critics find objectionable were until relatively recently commonly held and freely expressed among ordinary British people, what has changed apart from the loss of that freedom is the general population and its values have become gentrified.
> 
> What else is political correctness but a reflection of the gentrification of western populations and their increasing discomfort with the realities of biological and cultural survival.



That's more than 14 words ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 15, 2014)

Pretty much the same sentiment though.


> ... the realities of biological and cultural survival.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> That's not the case for everybody that votes for them - there are plenty of disaffected tories who know exactly what UKIP are about and are quite happy with it.  I know and am even related to some of them.  Aside from the working class vote that seems to be the focus of much of this discussion, there is a fairly substantial voter base of better off older white folk, a socially conservative older generation who is quite comfortable but frankly doesn't like the fact some of their money is taken to be put in the mouths of less deserving types, some of whom (and probably much less than they think) didn't even have the decency to be born here.  I've seen data on voting demographics which reflects this, although it is from earlier this year, and I suspect that they've broadened their appeal since then, but still, at that time that was the bulk of it.



Absoultely, and this is getting lost in the general panic - a panic instigated by right wing media deliberately seeking to offset the much greater damage to conservatives than labour. Yes, labour are threatened and the disruption of lots of 15+ % scores forUKIP under FPTP makes things hard to predict. But overall, we stand back and objectively view things - it's far worse for tories and it will probably provide a stronger core as the clear anti working class truth about UKIP continues to be made known (again, don't look to mainstream media for this too much)

This faction that most resonates with UKIP rhetoric might be called the "bitter bourgeoisie" or those who at least aspire that way.

Modernity and globalisation were all very well when they meant using your house as a money box and getting cheap consumables on the backs of sweatshop labour. But when that labour might look to move around a bit, or the natural consequences of funny money come home to roost....they suddenly get all miserable and moany. They are those of the generation who fucked things up to suit themselves, and now don't mind if others are continuinly fucked to keep themselves in the arrogance they have become accustomed to.

And, if the columns of their favoured rags are much to go by, they don't much like gays or foreigners  but they arent even ALLOWED to say it because of the political correctness that has GONE MAD (there's even an actual brigade FFS). But for all the bigotry, and stacks of evidence of it, we perhaps shouldn't point out that some of them are bigots (not that it seems electorally too effective anyway)

We may scoff at dilberto's points, but plenty of people believe that stuff. They seeth against multiculturalism night and day, so did Breivik but that's coincidence. Britains First and Robinson/Lennon cheerleading UKIP is coincidence too. And Farage et al playing into "diseased foreigners / muslim paedo" narratives just like Griffin did. farage calls himself "thatcherite", she managed to recapture NF votes and buddied up with Pinochet. If tories can harbour race hate filth and even hitler lickers in membership and support (check out The Monday Club and their successors, and just for good measure Rothermere's dad was another hitler licker), why not UKIP? Then there's some of the European and US types interested in what UKIP are achieving. That part of the spectrum may not be full on KKK, Jobik or whover, but it's not that dis similar or distant a cesspool, and there will always be a % who want to vote for that kind of thing given a chance (I'd say 5 to 10%).


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> That's more than 14 words ...



Curious that comparrisons between UKIP and the far right are quickly and vigourosly shot down on here. Then lo and behold... possibly the biggest UKIP apologist on the thread (of late anyway, long thread) has to be called out for Judeophobic and 14W tropes just as quickly.


----------



## chilango (Oct 16, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Curious that comparrisons between UKIP and the far right are quickly and vigourosly shot down on here. Then lo and behold... possibly the biggest UKIP apologist on the thread (of late anyway, long thread) has to be called out for Judeophobic and 14W tropes just as quickly.



It's not curious at all.


----------



## youngian (Oct 16, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> You're not ordinary and how dare you pretend to speak for me, you white supremacist fuck.


Those decadent out-of-touch liberals up there in the big city is not a new narrative for the populist far right. Particularly popular with chippy petty bourgeoisie ex-corporals who were too talentless to get into art college.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Curious that comparrisons between UKIP and the far right are quickly and vigourosly shot down on here. Then lo and behold... possibly the biggest UKIP apologist on the thread (of late anyway, long thread) has to be called out for Judeophobic and 14W tropes just as quickly.


What are you suggesting here? 

Why do you bother with the same frothing rant that no one reads every fucking night as well?

Here's some useful and largely spot-on insider thoughts for you and your type to ignore:

Is UKIP taking some progressive stances that Labour is afraid of taking?



> A simple examination of the issues surrounding the protection of the NHS lays bare the dangers to Labour from UKIP. At its conference in late September, UKIP made it quite clear – the party is to work with the trade union Unite in opposing the inclusion of the NHS in TTIP (the secretive proposed transatlantic trade agreement). This was not some weasel worded statement which you expect from the main parties about “working with partners and stakeholders to ensure the best outcome for the NHS” etc. It was a noisy and passionate defence of the NHS, by a party whose membership and voters are among the NHS’s strongest supporters. And an unusual commitment to support the campaign of another organisation, with all that that implies and carries by way of dangers.
> 
> This has wrong-footed the political class and the partisan commentators to such a degree that they have responded yet again with a patronising and inept failure to understand the nature of UKIP and the degree to which the party membership genuinely believes in such a stance, and how it has always been inevitable that a big part of its programme would encompass support for measures which might be described as left wing. They have all had plenty of warning.





> By now, almost everyone in the UK knows a friend who votes, or has voted, UKIP. Almost without fail, they know them not to be what the Westminster smear machines claim them to be. It is counterproductive, therefore, to carry on smearing.
> 
> During the European Elections campaign, I was called by many journalists who wanted me (as a former senior party member, former vice chair, leadership candidate, elected member of the London Assembly and NEC member for a turbulent decade) to slag off the party and particularly its leader. I was even offered inducements. And it has happened since as well, journalists and broadcasters planning to try and attack the party and wanting assistance with their “journalism”. What struck me most of all was that the sheer volume of negative smearing now has very little effect on those committed to vote UKIP, and an ever lessening impact on voters of other parties.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 16, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Absoultely, and this is getting lost in the general panic - a panic instigated by right wing media deliberately seeking to offset the much greater damage to conservatives than labour. Yes, labour are threatened and the disruption of lots of 15+ % scores forUKIP under FPTP makes things hard to predict. But overall, we stand back and objectively view things - it's far worse for tories and it will probably provide a stronger core as the clear anti working class truth about UKIP continues to be made known (again, don't look to mainstream media for this too much)



No - it's bad for both parties. They are taking votes from trad Labour and trad Tory voters.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> We may scoff at dilberto's points, but plenty of people believe that stuff. They seeth against multiculturalism night and day.



No, there aren't. Many people say things like "Well, there's too many of them." Very few people talk about cultural and biological survical.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What are you suggesting here?
> 
> Why do you bother with the same frothing rant that no one reads every fucking night as well?
> 
> ...



Dammit Butchers, was just about to post that!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2014)

dilberto said:


> The opinions expressed by UKIP which their critics find objectionable were until relatively recently commonly held and freely expressed among ordinary British people, what has changed apart from the loss of that freedom is the general population and its values have become gentrified.
> 
> What else is political correctness but a reflection of the gentrification of western populations and their increasing discomfort with the realities of biological and cultural survival.



Thank you for your insight, Monsieur de Benoist.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 16, 2014)

The Euro-sceptic group in the European Parliament has collapsed.


> One of the main Eurosceptic groups in the European Parliament, which includes Britain's UKIP, has collapsed after a Latvian MEP withdrew.
> 
> The Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) group had 48 members including the Five Star Movement of Italian politician Beppe Grillo.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29646414



It looks like Farage's access to one source of cash has dried up.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 16, 2014)

dilberto said:


> The opinions expressed by UKIP which their critics find objectionable were until relatively recently commonly held and freely expressed among ordinary British people, what has changed apart from the loss of that freedom is the general population and its values have become gentrified.
> 
> What else is political correctness but a reflection of the gentrification of western populations and their increasing discomfort with the realities of biological and cultural survival.


Bollocks


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 16, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The Euro-sceptic group in the European Parliament has collapsed.
> 
> 
> It looks like Farage's access to one source of cash has dried up.



Fortunately they've creamed millions from the EU gravy train for years, secured some financial backing in the UK and got their MP in just in time...


----------



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

haha http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/16/ukip-efdd-group-collapse-brussels

i know mentioned above by nino_savatte, but deserves another plug


----------



## Quartz (Oct 16, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> It looks like Farage's access to one source of cash has dried up.



Not really. It's a source of *extra* cash, but he's still on the gravy train.


----------



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

Quartz said:


> Not really. It's a source of *extra* cash, but he's still on the gravy train.


pity he won't drown in the gravy


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 16, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Not really. It's a source of *extra* cash, but he's still on the gravy train.


Hence the reason I said _one_ source of cash. Keep up.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 16, 2014)

dilberto said:


> The opinions expressed by UKIP which their critics find objectionable were until relatively recently commonly held and freely expressed among ordinary British people, what has changed apart from the loss of that freedom is the general population and its values have become gentrified.



UKIP's views are whatever Farage wants them to be, which are what he thinks will gain favour and attention. There's no solid underpinning.



> What else is political correctness but a reflection of the gentrification of western populations and their increasing discomfort with the realities of biological and cultural survival.



What are you smoking?



nino_savatte said:


> Hence the reason I said _one_ source of cash. Keep up.



Sorry, you're quite right.


----------



## DemolitionRed (Oct 16, 2014)

_I love this group and I especially love Taffboy... just saying!_


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2014)

Quartz said:


> UKIP's views are whatever Farage wants them to be, which are what he thinks will gain favour and attention. There's no solid underpinning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whose views are ukip voters?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What are you suggesting here?
> 
> Why do you bother with the same frothing rant that no one reads every fucking night as well?
> 
> ...



First, it's clear what I am suggesting : That there is a gap in logic between 

a) Being consistently scathing of the idea that we should highlight/condemn some of the nastier ideas lurking on the hard right.

And 

b)  Highlighting and Condemning some of those ideas very shortly after

Second, if I am to take advice from anyone about how to avoid repeatative behaviour on the internets, I'm afraid you won't be very near the top of the list.

Lastly, thanks for the link to UKIP and TTIP. It's the most substantive thing I've seen on the topic I think.

Whenever I quizzed UKIP people on TTIP they tended to be very evasive, mostly saying that because it was being negotiated via the EU they neednt discuss it because they wanted to pull out of the EU.

This dodge didnt make sense, because there's plenty about the EU they slag off 24/7, but not TTIP.

In any case, in or out of the EU, it's the plethora of Bi Lateral Investment Treaties (BITs) that are truly problematic but that's detail neither the kipborg or MSM don't bother with.

Now it seems that some of them have caught on to the danger, in part at least. Is it only the NHS they seem to be bothered about? They've been very badly caught out on that topic and I trust the instincts of Farage and Nuttall to privatise more than any passion on the conference floor.

As I said upthread, UKIP are now into the former LD practice of picking up on passing interesting sounding things. Opposition to HS2 is one, any Damascus moment on TTIP would be another, not that this is to be churlish - it's better than a kick in the balls. But only The left and greens the EU structure have any credible track record on opposition.

Can UKIP posture as more left than Labour on some issues? big deal if they can, it's barely the most difficult of things to manage, though I'm sure they compensate elsewhere. And while only a fool would look to labour for leadership on something like TTIP (they are more lukewarm than tories and Libdems) I imagine their rank and file would be at least as robust in defending the NHS at conference . It doesn't have to mean much, Labour don't listen to members, UKIP make up policy on the hoof and cant be depended on.

Finally, that piece makes an interesting claim that UKIP members no longer listen to the establishment or their mouthpieces. What a coincidence then that the ceaseless cyberbelming of the kipborg legion chimes so harmonically with the political line of establishment mouthpieces like Mail/Express/Star/Sun.

The "anti establishment" thing is grand hoax. 

We saw a proper establishment panic when it looked like Scotland might vote "yes". The "panic" about UKIP is nothing like as deep or threatening.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2014)

Nah. _Fuck that._


----------



## fucthest8 (Oct 16, 2014)

youngian said:


> What Do Ukip Stand For? Jack from Welling on line twat explains all
> http://audioboom.com/boos/2550913-what-do-ukip-stand-for-james-o-brien-s-takedown-of-this-supporter-is-effortless





dilberto said:


> The opinions expressed by UKIP which their critics find objectionable were until relatively recently commonly held and freely expressed among ordinary British people, what has changed apart from the loss of that freedom is the general population and its values have become gentrified.
> What else is political correctness but a reflection of the gentrification of western populations and their increasing discomfort with the realities of biological and cultural survival.





Quartz said:


> UKIP's views are whatever Farage wants them to be, which are what he thinks will gain favour and attention. There's no solid underpinning.



Doubtless many of you will be able to prove me wrong, but I really think that we* ignore all the above at our peril. Jack from Welling and dilberto above might be morons, but they are morons with a vote. Morons who believe, to paraphrase Jack, that "people only care about immigration" and that Farage is giving voice to "ordinary British people".

Quartz is spot on, but - so what? He doesn't need any solid underpinning, if they can get enough favour and attention, they get MPs.



*people who believe that we see UKIP for what they really are


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2014)

dilberto is a far-right racist playing at man-in-the-street. Man-in-the-street - UKIP included - have never had any interest in them. Working class british people have no interest in dilberto. dilberto and his types have to pretend three things 1) that they do 2) and they are are the voice of these people and 3) that him and his racist mates express these w/c interests even if w/c people don't recognise it.

How well do you think they're doing?

There are people to take seriously - the above cuckoo is not one of them.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> we* ignore all the above at our peril.



Posted on page 129 of a thread called "Ukip - why are they gaining support"


----------



## fucthest8 (Oct 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Posted on page 129 of a thread called "Ukip - why are they gaining support"



129 pages of people arguing about whether or not they pose a threat. Do you see?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> 129 pages of people arguing about whether or not they pose a threat. Do you see?


Not being funny mate, but, you ain't read it have you?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> 129 pages of people arguing about whether or not they pose a threat. Do you see?


 Not really.
What threat to whom or what are the posters on this thread ignoring?


----------



## fucthest8 (Oct 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> dilberto is a far-right racist playing at man-in-the-street. Man-in-the-street - UKIP included - have never had any interest in them. Working class british people have no interest in dilberto. dilberto and his types have to pretend three things 1) that they do 2) and they are are the voice of these people and 3) that him and his racist mates express these w/c interests even if w/c people don't recognise it.
> 
> How well do you think they're doing?
> 
> There are people to take seriously - the above cuckoo is not one of them.



Fair point perhaps re: dilberto specifically, but there are plenty of people out there who aren't playing at man-in-the street. There are plenty of working class British rascists and just plain disaffected working class British

I paid really close attention at the last council elections down here. UKIP did pretty well really in many of the working class ward. Not sure this will look very good but here goes

1st 2nd 3rd
Alphington Lab 808 Con 583 UKIP 529
Cowick Lab 813 UKIP 406 Con 400
Exwick Lab 870 UKIP 601 Con 320
Pinhoe Lab 862 Con 828 UKIP 460
Priory Lab/Co-op 1110 UKIP 721 Con 504

Gah, doesn't format nicely sorry.

The point is that whilst Labour held all those (and indeed took Pinhoe, see next point), UKIP were at their heels in two (Exwick and Priory). And yes, perhaps some shift was Con voters going to UKIP (see Pinhoe, taken from Con), it still makes for uncomfortable reading


----------



## fucthest8 (Oct 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not being funny mate, but, you ain't read it have you?



Dipped in and out over the last couple of months, but no, I haven't read all 129 pages, absolutely not. Apologies if there is more of an agreement that they are a real threat than the last few pages and the parts I have read previously gave me cause to believe. I just hear a lot of sneering still (not here, IRL) and it makes me nervous.


----------



## killer b (Oct 16, 2014)

I think the thrust of this thread has been that in order to get those numbers, their appeal is to a demographic beyond the estuary racist.


----------



## chilango (Oct 16, 2014)

Who are UKIP a threat to? And what is the nature of that threat?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 16, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> Fair point perhaps re: dilberto specifically, but there are plenty of people out there who aren't playing at man-in-the street. There are plenty of working class British rascists and just plain disaffected working class British
> 
> I paid really close attention at the last council elections down here. UKIP did pretty well really in many of the working class ward. Not sure this will look very good but here goes
> 
> ...


You seem to assume that a Labour vote is in some way a positive thing. This is the problem with a lot of anti-ukip stuff it essentially collapses into supporting Labour. In reality the possible labour government is a much more real threat to the working class than UKIP is.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 16, 2014)

chilango said:


> Who are UKIP a threat to? And what is the nature of that threat?



It was the tories, which people were generally happy about, but it looks more than that now, which is causing a bit of gnashing and wailing on the left.

Aside from political calculations and elections, their rising success is really pissing off and upsetting various friends of mine, people who've had a lifetime of struggling to feel accepted for their sexuality and now feel threatened by a party of whom prominent member speak out against them and fight against moves to give their relationships parity with other people's relationships.  Several people I know have struggled mentally with social/parental rejection, and UKIP's ascendancy is making them feel more isolated and rejected by the world.  A few years ago it felt like a battle that was being won, with even the worst of the tabloids losing their obsession with sexuality, but now there's a rising political movement with prominent members supporting discrimination.  It's one of the reasons I tend not to share some of the nuttier racist/homophobic stuff candidates come up with, not because I don't feel it should be exposed (not that that proves to be a useful tactic) but out of sensitivity to people I know that would read it.  A few immigrant friends also have a hard time with the rhetoric, but maybe not on quite as personal a level.  Feeling hated is not nice, and that's what this stuff is doing.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2014)

That's all tories/lab/lib-dem then. 

Them thinking UKIP are the real threat is laughable.  - How can they change social attitudes or legislation? They can't. Nor are these ridiculous social conservative positions theirs. 

But that's what the sort of anti-ukip nonsense that dominates debate has centred it on. Meanwhile, all the ukip voters you know are not giving a shit about poofters and just getting on with being fucking normal


----------



## fucthest8 (Oct 16, 2014)

emanymton said:


> You seem to assume that a Labour vote is in some way a positive thing. This is the problem with a lot of anti-ukip stuff it essentially collapses into supporting Labour. In reality the possible labour government is a much more real threat to the working class than UKIP is.



Not sure Labour are more of threat to the working class than UKIP, but certainly no better and arguably less "obvious" a threat, if that's the word. And yes, agree with your point about "collapsing into supporting labour" because what's the alternative?


----------



## killer b (Oct 16, 2014)

Of course they're more of a threat to the working class than UKIP. They're actually going to be in power, enacting anti working-class policies, next May. Not a problem we're facing with UKIP.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 16, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> Not sure Labour are more of threat to the working class than UKIP, but certainly no better and arguably less "obvious" a threat, if that's the word. And yes, agree with your point about "collapsing into supporting labour" because what's the alternative?


Basically what Killer b just said.


----------



## fucthest8 (Oct 16, 2014)

Got it,, thanks for being tolerant of my poor deduction.

E2A: I "look forward" to finding out if you are right.

Fucked either way though, the Government will def get in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> Fair point perhaps re: dilberto specifically, but there are plenty of people out there who aren't playing at man-in-the street. There are plenty of working class British rascists and just plain disaffected working class British



There are "plenty" of British racists *full-stop*. The majority of them, however, tend to be pragmatic and set aside their racism with regard to voting. We could say, validly in my opinion, that they could potentially form part of a UKIP vote, but that could as likely be because they saw UKIP as a pragmatic "protest vote" choice as because they happened to be racist.
As for the disaffected working class, where I am the loudest voice speaking for the disaffected is silence - they don't vote, not even as a means of protest.



> I paid really close attention at the last council elections down here. UKIP did pretty well really in many of the working class ward. Not sure this will look very good but here goes
> 
> 1st 2nd 3rd
> Alphington Lab 808 Con 583 UKIP 529
> ...



So, looks like they've done well in Labour wards by drawing off segments of the Tory and Lib-Dem, and to a much more minor extent, the Labour vote. If that's the case, then it tells us that Tories are looking for a parliamentary right alternative to the Tories (something that elements of Tory support have been after since Thatcher was deposed in 1990), and that the Orange Bookers among the Lib-Dem voters are happy to register their pissed-offness at their national party by making a protest vote to the right of their party's position.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> Dipped in and out over the last couple of months, but no, I haven't read all 129 pages, absolutely not. Apologies if there is more of an agreement that they are a real threat than the last few pages and the parts I have read previously gave me cause to believe. I just hear a lot of sneering still (not here, IRL) and it makes me nervous.



The sneering isn't surprising - a lot of people don't think beyond tripartite mainstream politics. They see The Green Party, UKIP etc as "fringe" politics, even though both parties actually engage with much of the same material as the mainstream parties. If you can't see the utility of minor parties, then sneering is a fairly benign response to something you don't understand. The only sneerers who worry me are those who are (for want of a better phrase) "politically-literate" and still sneer at UKIP.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 16, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> There are plenty of working class British rascists and just plain disaffected working class British


What do you mean by racists though? That they are hardcore ideological racists? That they hold some racial prejudices? 

I'm not saying you're doing it but there's a stupid tendency to either assign people as _racists_ or _not racists_ (I can of two or three recent threads on U75 where you can see such rubbish). It's nonsense of course, people can have nothing to do with, or even oppose, ideological racism, but still hold some racist views. This simple division into the racists and the non-racists is just ludicrous. 



fucthest8 said:


> Gah, doesn't format nicely sorry.


Agree, the lack of tables/formatting is fucking huge pain in the arse.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 16, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> Jack from Welling and dilberto above might be morons, but they are morons with a vote. Morons who believe, to paraphrase Jack, that "people only care about immigration" and that Farage is giving voice to "ordinary British people".





fucthest8 said:


> I just hear a lot of sneering still (not here, IRL) and it makes me nervous.


----------



## youngian (Oct 16, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> Doubtless many of you will be able to prove me wrong, but I really think that we* ignore all the above at our peril. Jack from Welling and dilberto above might be morons, but they are morons with a vote. Morons who believe, to paraphrase Jack, that "people only care about immigration" and that Farage is giving voice to "ordinary British people".


I won't prove you wrong but we have been here before; Ugandan Asians leading to rivers of blood, West Indian muggers, Irish bomb makers and more recently the scrounging refugees. The largest groups of immigrants are from India and Pakistan but that doesn't even seem to even be an issue anymore (in fact UKIP is open to more immigration from decent Commonwealth chaps over EU criminals). So I can't really see Gordon riots against Polish bar staff and Lithuanian farm workers on the horizon.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 17, 2014)




----------



## Manter (Oct 17, 2014)

youngian said:


> I won't prove you wrong but we have been here before; Ugandan Asians leading to rivers of blood, West Indian muggers, Irish bomb makers and more recently the scrounging refugees. The largest groups of immigrants are from India and Pakistan but that doesn't even seem to even be an issue anymore (in fact UKIP is open to more immigration from decent Commonwealth chaps over EU criminals). So I can't really see Gordon riots against Polish bar staff and Lithuanian farm workers on the horizon.


There are a lot of stories circulating on Facebook about Eastern European women snatching babies at the moment. Apparently there are loads of them at it, in Bromley, Norbury, prowling the aisles of Sainsbury's.....


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 17, 2014)

Is that YouGov poll reliable? (brogdale butchersapron)? Those second two questions look a bit like 'invite the answer' leading questions to me.

Saying that, it does look consistent with the polarised response UKIP have been shown to receive in other polls -- with at least as many being hostile to them as favourable --can't remember details, but there's been more than one poll in recent months showing very strong Marmite.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 17, 2014)

Manter said:


> There are a lot of stories circulating on Facebook about Eastern European women snatching babies at the moment. Apparently there are loads of them at it, in Bromley, Norbury, prowling the aisles of Sainsbury's.....



Facdebook -- the RL forum for 'what I heard down the pub'/'what our neighbours told me' stories. Anecdotes -- the more second and third hand, the riper. So eagerly and readily believed (and underquestioned) by those who *want* to believe them.


----------



## Manter (Oct 17, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Facdebook -- the RL forum for 'what I heard down the pub'/'what our neighbours told me' stories. Anecdotes -- the more second and third hand, the riper. So eagerly and readily believed (and underquestioned) by those who *want* to believe them.


Yes- and baby snatching is the oldest racist trope in the book.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Is that YouGov poll reliable? (brogdale butchersapron)? Those second two questions look a bit like 'invite the answer' leading questions to me.
> 
> Saying that, it does look consistent with the polarised response UKIP have been shown to receive in other polls -- with at least as many being hostile to them as favourable --can't remember details, but there's been more than one poll in recent months showing very strong Marmite.


it's a shit and worthless poll, regardless of the accuracy.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 17, 2014)

That's push-polling by the look of it, although I think the other questions would need to be seen to judge whether it's a fair survey of attitudes to all the parties.  Who paid for it?  Crosby?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Is that YouGov poll reliable? (brogdale butchersapron)? Those second two questions look a bit like 'invite the answer' leading questions to me.
> 
> Saying that, it does look consistent with the polarised response UKIP have been shown to receive in other polls -- with at least as many being hostile to them as favourable --can't remember details, but there's been more than one poll in recent months showing very strong Marmite.



I really haven't seen any publicly published YG polling for that date that includes those questions. Maybe it was part of some private polling? tbh  the results don't look very surprising given that (when the fieldwork would have been undertaken) UKIP were a young, untested party with no MPs and a leader who has described their previous manifesto as "drivel".


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

Smithson suggests that UKIP might have more to be concerned about from polling that confirms their high 'marmite" quotient....








> Those numbers are not good for the party and raise the prospect, I’d suggest, of anti-UKIP tactical voting with people not supporting their allegiance but the party most able to beat Farage’s party. It was suggested that this might have happened in the Newark by-election in June.
> 
> Several people who were “on the ground” during that by-election have told me how they’d come across quite a level a “cross-over” voting for this purpose with ex-LD and even ex-LAB voters shifting to CON for the election to stop UKIP. We have seen this in the past where the BNP have been strong in a seat.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I really haven't seen any publicly published YG polling for that date that includes those questions. Maybe it was part of some private polling? tbh  the results don't look very surprising given that (when the fieldwork would have been undertaken) UKIP were a young, untested party with no MPs and a leader who has described their previous manifesto as "drivel".


 It was polling for the "Economist". Nuff said.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 17, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> That's push-polling by the look of it, although I think the other questions would need to be seen to judge whether it's a fair survey of attitudes to all the parties.  Who paid for it?  Crosby?


 Not that weird an outcome in any case. 25% is more or less the ceiling for similar parties on the continent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2014)

youngian said:


> I won't prove you wrong but we have been here before; Ugandan Asians leading to rivers of blood, West Indian muggers, Irish bomb makers and more recently the scrounging refugees. The largest groups of immigrants are from India and Pakistan but that doesn't even seem to even be an issue anymore (in fact UKIP is open to more immigration from decent Commonwealth chaps over EU criminals). So I can't really see Gordon riots against Polish bar staff and Lithuanian farm workers on the horizon.



Well, for a start, no member of The Lords would risk their arse *directly* inciting a mob nowadays.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 17, 2014)

I don't know what Farage has been smoking, but he reckons he stands a good chance in Scotland's 'rust belt'.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...-target-rust-belt-seats-in-scotland-1-3570714

I've got more chance succeeding to the throne of HMP United Kingdom than he has taking Labour seats in Scotland.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 17, 2014)

The UKIP candidate for Basildon and East Thurrock has been mysteriously deselected. Tom Pride reckons it's because the Kippers have managed to persuade another MP to defect.
http://www.yourthurrock.com/UKIP-candidate-Kerry-Smith-selected/story-23226874-detail/story.html


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I don't know what Farage has been smoking, but he reckons he stands a good chance in Scotland's 'rust belt'.
> http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...-target-rust-belt-seats-in-scotland-1-3570714
> 
> I've got more chance succeeding to the throne of HMP United Kingdom than he has taking Labour seats.


 Meanwhile, back on earth...Smithson has graphed Ashcroft's latest (marginals) polling analysis showing where UKIP support is coming from...





That's from a sample size of 11k.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Meanwhile, back on earth...Smithson has graphed Ashcroft's latest (marginals) polling analysis showing where UKIP support is coming from...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've edited my post to say "Labour seats in Scotland". I reckon the SNP will have those.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The UKIP candidate for Basildon and East Thurrock has been mysteriously deselected. Tom Pride reckons it's because the Kippers have managed to persuade another MP to defect.
> http://www.yourthurrock.com/UKIP-candidate-Kerry-Smith-selected/story-23226874-detail/story.html


 I gather they failed to take a council by-election seat in Thurrock yesterday? Wonder if the two are somehow connected?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I gather they failed to take a council by-election seat in Thurrock yesterday? Wonder if the two are somehow connected?


Have the wheels come off their wagon?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Have the wheels come off their wagon?


 I very much doubt it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I very much doubt it.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


>



I think they still struggle to achieve a 'party machine' on the ground in many areas.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Meanwhile, back on earth...Smithson has graphed Ashcroft's latest (marginals) polling analysis showing where UKIP support is coming from...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looking at that it's not far off what I'd expect, but I am a bit surprised it doesn't show a slightly higher percentage of UKIP support coming from Labour?

I notice it's based on marginal seats, and on a comparison between 2010 (at the end of the Brown govt) and now. Certainly in Sheffield/South Yorkshire it seems to me that the percentage of traditional Labour voters in what has been considered safe Labour areas switching to UKIP is quite a bit higher than 17.3%; am I way off on that and the Tories really are losing twice as many voters to UKIP as Labour are?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Looking at that it's not far off what I'd expect, but I am a bit surprised it doesn't show a slightly higher percentage of UKIP support coming from Labour?
> 
> I notice it's based on marginal seats, and on a comparison between 2010 (at the end of the Brown govt) and now. Certainly in Sheffield/South Yorkshire it seems to me that the percentage of traditional Labour voters in what has been considered safe Labour areas switching to UKIP is quite a bit higher than 17.3%; am I way off on that and the Tories really are losing twice as many voters to UKIP as Labour are?


 
Ashcroft's obsession with the marginals is quite understandable; it's in those few tens of seats that the differential leakage to UKIP will undermine any chance of a tory majority. tbh the 'kippers can take a higher % in the safe Lab seats without much effect.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Ashcroft's obsession with the marginals is quite understandable; it's in those few tens of seats that the differential leakage to UKIP will undermine any chance of a tory majority. tbh the 'kippers can take a higher % in the safe Lab seats without much effect.



I'm not so sure...I could see some real upsets in safe Labour seats from UKIP. Mind you, since Labour in South Yorkshire have been complicit in covering up child abuse, that may be skewing my view of the national picture.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not so sure...I could see some real upsets in safe Labour seats from UKIP. Mind you, since Labour in South Yorkshire have been complicit in covering up child abuse, that may be skewing my view of the national picture.



I think the SNP pose a far greater threat tbh.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 17, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29660717

Farage is against TTIP and PFI. Currently against, that is; who knows what he'll think next week?


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 17, 2014)

PFI is a bit of a swindle, a way of keeping debt off the books (at greater cost), so I can see why the plain-speaking 'cuprinol man' would oppose it, just for the cost and nonsense.  That sort of thing does wash with me, though I don't know how appealing it is to the wider electorate as most don't have much of an idea about it.

A lot of PFI stuff is owned by the banks, when they were bailed out by the state this stuff should have been taken as collateral.


----------



## dilberto (Oct 18, 2014)

People tend to ignore the negative effects of change which favours their interests, modern progressive change (capitalist economic development) is no different, it favours the interests of the middle class because of their higher market economic value and leads to the growth of that demographic and disfavours the interests of the lower social groups because of their lower market economic value leading to the decline of their demographic which creates an overall imbalance in the demographic character of progressive societies or gentrification, mass immigration is simply the corrective consequence of that change, we eliminate the native poor and import foreign poor for reasons of economy.

Mass immigration is the means by which a gentrified economy operates, an economy which reflected better the native surviving British population would not require the mass importation of labour or population. The problem is that the debate, analysis and policy decisions are monopolised by the middle class who are favoured by that progressive change and so have a vested interest in its continuance, politically correct taboos like "racism" arguably are simply the means to dissuade people from raising those issues which are inconvenient to the economic interests of the dominant middle class.

The fact that the left have become complicit in this shows that like the mainstream left and right they too have become gentrified and are part of the progressive consensus and that is why an increasing number of people look to the parties which express a culturally conservative view like UKIP as an alternative to the current consensus to defend native interests rather than to the left.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 18, 2014)

Exactly which definition of 'gentrification' are you using? Because I'm not sure it's the one in the Shorter OED.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 18, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> ....PFI is a bit of a swindle...



...you are a master of the art of understatement, sir...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I think the SNP pose a far greater threat tbh.



In South Yorkshire?


----------



## treelover (Oct 19, 2014)

> Certainly in Sheffield/South Yorkshire it seems to me that the percentage of traditional Labour voters in what has been considered safe Labour areas switching to UKIP is quite a bit higher than 17.3%;



This vote could have gone to the left, the question has to be asked, why hasn't it?

a massive one admittedly.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

Its a question you've been asking with tedious regularity for as long as I can remember. One which has been answered many times over, yet you still ask it. Why?


----------



## treelover (Oct 19, 2014)

Because it may explain what went wrong here in England, why we have no Syriza, Podemos, no Die Linke, etc.

the European Social Forum had some bearing on the creation of these formations, the UK was central to it, but nothing like the above came out of it, the SWP wreckers?


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2014)

I think that's for another thread, one we've done (many times) before. But feel free to start one up...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> In South Yorkshire?



Obviously.


----------



## Hulot (Oct 20, 2014)

Bloody HELL!



"UKIP Calypso", by former Radio 1 DJ and former Conservative Party conference entertainer Mike Read.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 20, 2014)




----------



## dilberto (Oct 20, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Exactly which definition of 'gentrification' are you using? Because I'm not sure it's the one in the Shorter OED.




Gentrification as I use it is how a population or parts of a population adapt to the exceptional and historically atypical social conditions of an economically developed economy and in so doing deviates from its traditional and surviving character, the population becomes economically specialised in order to service that economy and to afford its higher living costs and becomes dependent on its higher levels of amenity which I would argue is the intrinsic nature of economic and social class.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2014)

Amazing - an economically developed economy - which the UK has had for the last 300 years - is 'atypical'. Yet 'the real' character which you claim is being wiped out is somehow also the 'surviving character'. You don't know what the words that you try to use mean. 'Higher levels of amenity'  You are fucking ridiculous you silly racist.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 20, 2014)

dilberto said:


> Gentrification as I use it...



  

This isn't _Alice in Wonderland_.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 20, 2014)

Hulot said:


> Bloody HELL!
> 
> 
> 
> "UKIP Calypso", by former Radio 1 DJ and former Conservative Party conference entertainer Mike Read.



The cunts really haven't got a fucking clue. 

Musically, it's appalling. Who told Mike Read he could sing?


----------



## teqniq (Oct 20, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The cunts really haven't got a fucking clue.
> 
> Musically, it's appalling. *Who told Mike Read he could sing?*


Someone who wishes him all kinds of ill-will perchance?


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 20, 2014)

Mike Read banned Frankie Goes to Hollywood's 'Relax', so there's some kind of Twitter campaign to get that to no.1 instead, not that I can see there being much of a groundswell behind Mike Read's number in comparison. It's a bit like those dicks you get as a filler article on the local news every December who claim to be having a go at attempting a Christmas No.1 with some turgid dad-rock recorded in their shed in Wakefield.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

dilberto said:


> Gentrification as I use it is how a population or parts of a population adapt to the exceptional and historically atypical social conditions of an economically developed economy and in so doing deviates from its traditional and surviving character, the population becomes economically specialised in order to service that economy and to afford its higher living costs and becomes dependent on its higher levels of amenity which I would argue is the intrinsic nature of economic and social class.



You fucking idiot. Gentrification *as it is used by every other cunt except you* isn't about social and demographic adaptation. It's about human geography and how economics influence demography.

get a fucking clue, you cuntwit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Amazing - an economically developed economy - which the UK has had for the last 300 years - is 'atypical'. Yet 'the real' character which you claim is being wiped out is somehow also the 'surviving character'. You don't know what the words that you try to use mean. 'Higher levels of amenity'  You are fucking ridiculous you silly racist.



It probably impresses his fellow-travellers, though, the dull-minded shitpokes.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 20, 2014)

Relax, don't do it, when you want to vote ukip


----------



## Nylock (Oct 21, 2014)

dilberto said:


> Gentrification as I use it is how a population or parts of a population adapt to the exceptional and historically atypical social conditions of an economically developed economy and in so doing deviates from its traditional and surviving character, the population becomes economically specialised in order to service that economy and to afford its higher living costs and becomes dependent on its higher levels of amenity which I would argue is the intrinsic nature of economic and social class.


Have you run this through google translate or summat?


----------



## Nylock (Oct 21, 2014)

Also:


dilberto said:


> ...the native surviving British population...


...and who exactly are they?

Go on, this should be good for a laugh...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Relax, don't do it, when you want to vote ukip


Vote labour instead.

See the problem?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 21, 2014)

I haven't bothered with that Mike Read thing, I've every faith it's as bad as people say. But I'm a bit intrigued so many people have laid into him (including the other thread), saying it's either attrocious or laughable. I rather expected the angle to be that we should try and _understand _how it was that the bloke came to feel this way and to _engage _with his concerns.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 21, 2014)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...oslaw-iwaszkiewicz-_n_6015116.html?1413822237

There's been quite a bit of stuff going round about the repulsive Polish outfit that UKIP have hooked up with in a European grouping. 

Brutal sexism, homophobia, racism, hitler apologism (adolf's tax policies were good and he didn't know about the holocaust apparently) and more besides.

Doubtless, someone in cyberspace  with advanced insight will be angrily typing in Polish about the many levels of wrongness to actually saying that the reactionary hitler apologists are hitler apologists.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I haven't bothered with that Mike Read thing, I've every faith it's as bad as people say. But I'm a bit intrigued so many people have laid into him (including the other thread), saying it's either attrocious or laughable. I rather expected the angle to be that we should try and _understand _how it was that the bloke came to feel this way and to _engage _with his concerns.




tedious bellend


----------



## chilango (Oct 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I haven't bothered with that Mike Read thing, I've every faith it's as bad as people say. But I'm a bit intrigued so many people have laid into him (including the other thread), saying it's either attrocious or laughable. I rather expected the angle to be that we should try and _understand _how it was that the bloke came to feel this way and to _engage _with his concerns.



Is he a significant section of the working class?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I haven't bothered with that Mike Read thing, I've every faith it's as bad as people say. But I'm a bit intrigued so many people have laid into him (including the other thread), saying it's either attrocious or laughable. I rather expected the angle to be that we should try and _understand _how it was that the bloke came to feel this way and to _engage _with his concerns.


That's because you're a pointless passive aggressive clown who hasn't understood anything said to you on this issue for years.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...oslaw-iwaszkiewicz-_n_6015116.html?1413822237
> 
> There's been quite a bit of stuff going round about the repulsive Polish outfit that UKIP have hooked up with in a European grouping.
> 
> ...


And stop crying ffs.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> tedious bellend


I was going to respond but you nailed it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2014)

just put him on ignore FFS


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 21, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

It's almost like this thread doesn't exist.


----------



## treelover (Oct 21, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


>



I wonder how many Tories secretly think this.


----------



## inva (Oct 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> I wonder how many Tories secretly think this.


why?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> I wonder how many Tories secretly think this.


And if they do? It's not going to happen.

edit: tons of people think just that. It's meaningless.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> I wonder how many Tories secretly think this.


He used to work (to use the term incorrectly) for Conservative Home.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And if they do? It's not going to happen.
> 
> edit: tons of people think just that. It's meaningless.


Its meaningless that tons of people are frothing anti democrats?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 21, 2014)

chilango said:


> Is he a significant section of the working class?



Do those of us who dont own the means of production get a cuddle and a free pass if voting for those wankers? If there are sections of support we are allowed to criticise without beijng flamed, it would be useful to have them clarified. If those sections are basically former tory petty bourgeoise types then that seems to be the biggest contingent. Read happens to have been declared bankrupt (not least after a dismal musical about Oscar Wilde bellyflopped). Theres every chance he needs to sell his labour to get by.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> I wonder how many Tories secretly think this.



Probably very few, if they're actual Tories, given that their _raison d'etre_ is to conserve the _status quo_, not to alter it.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> given that their _raison d'etre_ is to conserve the _status quo_.



I wondered how they kept going!
(This is a very old Lone Groover gag BTW)


----------



## Quartz (Oct 21, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


>



Have you got a proper cite for that? The nearest I can find is this, but it references a dead blog.



> “Should people on benefits be allowed to vote?”





> “It would be terribly ‘unfair’ of you to give equal representation rights to the chap who contributes 50 times more than the next person.  In the same way as if you own 60% of shares of a company, you’ll get 60% of the voting rights at the Annual General Meeting.”


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Its meaningless that tons of people are frothing anti democrats?



Wishing to alter/amend the electoral franchise doesn't automatically make anyone a "frothing anti-democrat", although it may make one a berk if your proposal would backfire all over your own party, as Mr Bursnall's proposal would.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> I wondered how they kept going!



Horrible, isn't it? Rossi and Parfitt, the perfect voices of reaction for the Saga generation!  When they were singing "whatever you want", they truly meant it, the free market bastards!


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 21, 2014)

I've seen that kind of opinion expressed many times on US libertarian blogs - remember one guy thinking you should get an extra vote if you owned property and so on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Have you got a proper cite for that? The nearest I can find is this, but it references a dead blog.



Which just shows that the guy is too stupid or too ideologically-smitten to perceive the vast difference between company practice and the electoral franchise. Not really surprising if you believe in all that free market pie-in-the-sky.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I've seen that kind of opinion expressed many times on US libertarian blogs - remember one guy thinking you should get an extra vote if you owned property and so on.


It's bog-standard early _pro-representative-democracy_ political theory. He who has the greatest investment in a state should have the greatest say. See the putney debates.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 21, 2014)

I remember the Daily Mail coming out against(!) such an idea in the Thatcher era. 'One man Two votes' was their front-page headline.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

It was alright for oxbridge and other posh universities right up until relatively recently.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 21, 2014)

UKIP would gladly return the majority of the electorate to pre-Victorian standards and I believe Bronterre O' Brien will be spinning like a top in his grave.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 21, 2014)

Money gives you far more power and control than voting ever will.  You'd have thought that would be enough.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It was alright for oxbridge and other posh universities right up until relatively recently.


Belfast held on to its until 1968.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

belboid said:


> Belfast held on to its until 1968.


Ulster says NO NO.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 21, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Have you got a proper cite for that? The nearest I can find is this, but it references a dead blog.



http://web.archive.org/web/20120420.../should-people-on-benefits-be-allowed-to-vote

I'll be happy to retract the image if he turns out to no longer be a capitalist scumbag.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 21, 2014)

Thanks. What an idiot.

Basic logic fail in that article:



> So, if we re-phrase Reverend Hampden’s notion, then we could assert with equal confidence that*‘no man should get representation without taxation’.*


*
*
Umm.. no. Logic doesn't work like that. If A -> B then ~B -> ~A. To reverse Hampden's notion we would have to say _representation requires taxation_. That doesn't mean only those people who actually pay tax but all those who participate in the taxation system.

I've dealt with his shareholder perspective earlier, but really, if someone as inept as I at arguing can so easily dismiss his argument, it doesn't speak much for him, does it?


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Logic doesn't work like that. If A -> B then ~B -> ~A.


I'm afraid logic doesn't work like that either.

If I am poisoned, I will die.
If I am not poisoned I will not die.

Doesn't follow, does it?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

What's the symbol for necessarily?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 21, 2014)

belboid said:


> I'm afraid logic doesn't work like that either.
> 
> If I am poisoned, I will die.
> If I am not poisoned I will not die.
> ...



You're making a similar mistake. Think A = poisoned and B = die, so your second line becomes

I will not die if I am not poisoned. (i.e. ~B -> ~A)

And the logic works.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2014)

Quartz said:


> You're making a similar mistake. Think A = poisoned and B = die, so your second line becomes
> 
> I will not die if I am not poisoned. (i.e. ~B -> ~A)
> 
> And the logic works.


Not it doesn't, and your reversal changes nothing.  It still assumes being poisoned is the only way to die.


----------



## chilango (Oct 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Do those of us who dont own the means of production get a cuddle and a free pass if voting for those wankers? If there are sections of support we are allowed to criticise without beijng flamed, it would be useful to have them clarified. If those sections are basically former tory petty bourgeoise types then that seems to be the biggest contingent. Read happens to have been declared bankrupt (not least after a dismal musical about Oscar Wilde bellyflopped). Theres every chance he needs to sell his labour to get by.



Depends whether you care more about moralistic posturing or about changing society.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 21, 2014)

chilango said:


> Depends whether you care more about moralistic posturing or about changing society.



Theres plenty of moralistic posturing here against tje idea that we should even discuss the disgusting reactionary elements of what is going on. The right wing press narratives are founded not least on moralistic posturing, they also seem to change society more than holier than thou"dont say raxists are racist " nitpickers.

ETA: dunno how many times I have to say this, but I don't think I've ever said "they're racist" to a UKIP supporter or potential supporter. I don't consider the party systemically racist, though it attracts racsists, is qquite prepared to work with racists, and the rhetoric of many supporters is replete with racist themes (not least, stuff on a "culture wars" model)

I find it pretty annoying and needless when people focus on the far right aspects in many places away from here, because it's not effective (having said that, economic and other arguments are not always effective either, for various complex reasons)

But I consider places like this to be a bit different from that, I am not addressing UKIP supporters here. 

Just because someone discusses racist aspects, it doesnt mean that's the main thing they discuss away from here. It's patronising and stupid to suppose that there's some mutal exclusivty between discussing racism and discussing other component factors of popular rightist narratives and appeal.

Can we, for once, get past that basic and erroneous supposition?


----------



## andysays (Oct 21, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Money gives you far more power and control than voting ever will.  You'd have thought that would be enough.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 21, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Thanks. What an idiot.
> 
> Basic logic fail in that article:
> 
> ...


These peopel are the first to argue they should pay less tax. So less of a vote for them.

Nevermind that voting is a human right.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

No it's not.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 21, 2014)

Now the Jewish Board Of Deputies have gone and said that racists are racist.

Where will it end?

http://www.bod.org.uk/live/content.php?Item_ID=130&Blog_ID=1302

Board Vice President Jonathan Arkush said: “The Board is gravely concerned by reports that UKIP may sit in the same parliamentary grouping as a far-right Polish MEP in a bid save its funding.  Robert Iwaszkiewicz belongs to an extremist party whose leader has a history of Holocaust denial, racist remarks and misogynistic comments.  He belongs to the far-right Polish JKM, led by Janusz Korwin-Mikke who has reportedly called into question the right of women to have the vote. 

 “Furthermore, we entirely reject UKIP’s justification that ‘All groups in the European Parliament have very odd bedfellows (and) The rules to get speaking time and funding are set by the EP, not UKIP’.  Extremists and racists should be roundly rejected, not embraced.  Even France's far right Front National rejected the JKM as being too extreme. 

 “For UKIP to choose such a figure as Robert Iwaszkiewicz as a bedfellow, apparently for money, is beyond belief. Nigel Farage now has some very serious questions to answer.  He has placed in issue the credibility of UKIP."


----------



## brogdale (Oct 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> “For UKIP to choose such a figure as Robert Iwaszkiewicz as a bedfellow, apparently for money, is beyond belief. Nigel Farage now has some very serious questions to answer.  He has placed in issue the credibility of UKIP."



The BoD are spot on there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 21, 2014)

he's said that he is gravely concerned with farage's party sharing a political bloc in the EU with holocaust denying racists. So should we all be concerned (I thought that group collapsed the other day though?).

he's not said every ukip voter is a card carrying fascist which you have.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The BoD are spot on there.



Ideally, yes. But it's the sort of thing the amazing "nige" just brushes off. After all, detail is <yawn> in the new politics. Criticism is mere "leftie smears" and top of it all, he gets photographed with pints which seems a "get out of jail free" for just about anything.

I bet Griffin kicks himself he never tried that stunt.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> he's said that he is gravely concerned with farage's party sharing a political bloc in the EU with holocaust denying racists. So should we all be concerned (I thought that group collapsed the other day though?).
> 
> he's not said every ukip voter is a card carrying fascist which you have.



If that's aimed at me, I haven't. The meme thing from a couple of weeks ago was about fascists/fascism, not about UKIP members. There are certainly enough disturbing fascist traits in membership and rhetoric, but just as I said the party are not systemcially racist nor do I believe them to be systemically fascist, still less "card carrying".


----------



## chilango (Oct 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Now the Jewish Board Of Deputies have gone and said that racists are racist.
> 
> Where will it end?
> 
> ...



Disturbing allies for sure.

Are you a member/supporter of the Green Party taffboy? I've vague memories that you are, but I could be mistaken.


----------



## killer b (Oct 21, 2014)

'the meme thing from a couple of weeks ago'

did you make it taffboy gwyrdd ?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 21, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'll be happy to retract the image if he turns out to no longer be a capitalist scumbag.



I don't think you're in any danger.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Ideally, yes. But it's the sort of thing the amazing "nige" just brushes off. After all, detail is <yawn> in the new politics. Criticism is mere "leftie smears" and top of it all, he gets photographed with pints which seems a "get out of jail free" for just about anything.
> 
> I bet Griffin kicks himself he never tried that stunt.


No, not really, I'm not sure that this will be so easy to brush off. I expect that UKIP will be banking on the notion that this sort of obscure, Euro-politics is so remote to it's growing 'core' as to make little impact, but it is the sort of 'mud' that will be easily slung in the forthcoming campaign.

If this is accurate it is an utter disgrace for any UK party to align itself with a representative of Korwin-Mikke's party:-



> In an interview with weekly magazine _Najwyzszy Czas_ in 2008, he (K-M)said: “[Jews] are so proud of the six million murdered in the Holocaust, that it sometimes seems to me that if Eichmann had objected to sending the Hungarian Jews to the death camps, he could have been accused of antisemitism because it would have decrease the number murdered, which is brought up at every occassion.
> 
> “Maybe I am exaggerating a little, but don’t you see the sick carping on the left and right that so many Jews were murdered — even four times more than in reality?
> 
> “That the more victims there were, the better?”


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> 'the meme thing from a couple of weeks ago'
> 
> did you make it taffboy gwyrdd ?



Yes. It's not about members or supporters being fascist per se, but the patronising absurdity of people continually wanting to quell discussion of fascist (or racist and other reactionary) themes.

Now Chuka Umunna has gone and touched the third rail as well.

_a stream of Ukip candidates and supporters have come out with the most offensive and racist things over the months.”

“What really worries me about this is there is not more of a row about the things we see coming out of Ukip. It’s almost as if people price this in._

The last sentence seems especially pertinant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...na-on-Ukip-vile-abhorrent-and-un-British.html


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 22, 2014)

chilango said:


> Disturbing allies for sure.
> 
> Are you a member/supporter of the Green Party taffboy? I've vague memories that you are, but I could be mistaken.



Yes I am, though I don't evangalise about it on message boards.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yes. It's not about members or supporters being fascist per se, but the patronising absurdity of people continually wanting to quell discussion of fascist (or racist and other reactionary) themes.


Pathetic.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

Gutless fuck. At least stand by the clear accusation in your shitty gif. This desperate backfilling is laughable.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yes.


Just so we get this 100% clear - that's yes, you did make this?







And you're claiming that despite you posting it on a UKIP thread and the words and logic being yours regarding UKIP, that it's not about UKIP. Is that right?


----------



## chilango (Oct 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yes I am, though I don't evangalise about it on message boards.



Then, following on from your (justified) highlighting of UKIPs despicable bedfellows, can I ask you to pursue with equal vigor some of your own Party's equally despicable bedfellows - the PVEM (Mexican Greens) whose list of crimes is long but the latest includes being involved in the paramilitary attacks and murders of Zapatistas in Chiapas recently? Afaik they are still a member of your "International".

Ta.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 22, 2014)

Taffboy is a green party member? Makes sense, bet his schtick goes down a treat with the average membership.


----------



## chilango (Oct 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Taffboy is a green party member? Makes sense, bet his schtick goes down a treat with the average membership.



Some Green Party members are sound enough.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

chilango said:


> Then, following on from your (justified) highlighting of UKIPs despicable bedfellows, can I ask you to pursue with equal vigor some of your own Party's equally despicable bedfellows - the PVEM (Mexican Greens) whose list of crimes is long but the latest includes being involved in the paramilitary attacks and murders of Zapatistas in Chiapas recently? Afaik they are still a member of your "International".
> 
> Ta.


kicked out four years ago, when they started campaigning for the return of the death penalty


----------



## chilango (Oct 22, 2014)

belboid said:


> kicked out four years ago, when they started campaigning for the return of the death penalty



I think the European greens did something, wiki has them as still part if the international though.

In fairness that could be wrong, but needs clarifying.


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Just so we get this 100% clear - that's yes, you did make this?
> 
> And you're claiming that despite you posting it on a UKIP thread and the words and logic being yours regarding UKIP, that it's not about UKIP. Is that right?



In fact, it was on the Clacton by-election thread, after the result was known.

The clear implication was not that UKIP the party are fascists, but that everyone in Clacton who voted for them is, which to my mind is actually worse.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

chilango said:


> I think the European greens did something, wiki has them as still part if the international though.
> 
> In fairness that could be wrong, but needs clarifying.


actually, yes - they are still included on the Global Greens page of affiliates - http://www.globalgreens.org/parties


----------



## chilango (Oct 22, 2014)

belboid said:


> actually, yes - they are still included on the Global Greens page of affiliates - http://www.globalgreens.org/parties


In any case my point is less to criticise the Greens and more to highlight the limits of using "dodgy bedfellows" as a method of attack.


----------



## chilango (Oct 22, 2014)

andysays said:


> In fact, it was on the Clacton by-election thread, after the result was known.
> 
> The clear implication was not that UKIP the party are fascists, but that everyone in Clacton who voted for them is, which to my mind is actually worse.



Yup.

Some posters have been far too casual in conflating the various groups of UKIP voters, UKIP members and UKIP associates into a undifferentiated mass of "racists".

Easy to do from the moral high ground, but politically useless.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Taffboy is a green party member? Makes sense, bet his schtick goes down a treat with the average membership.


True enough, but on the singular point of highlighting UKIP's cynical error of associating with Robert Iwaszkiewicz, Taffy is right. I know about broken clocks and all that....but he is correct to identify this association as extremely poor politics from UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

andysays said:


> In fact, it was on the Clacton by-election thread, after the result was known.
> 
> The clear implication was not that UKIP the party are fascists, but that everyone in Clacton who voted for them is, which to my mind is actually worse.


It's even worse than that. Leaving aside his ridiculous characterisation of UKIP and it's members and supporters, it's actually _aimed at other posters here _- and it's saying that they are, at best, appeasers of fascism and at worst actively responsible for it's growth. It's aimed at people with long records of anti-fascism and so on, at posters who were pointing out the potential for a far-right party such as UKIP to gain some traction across the classes, whilst he was actually suggesting people vote for them (the fascist UKIP) as part of an anti-fascist front. 

Its shitness i have come to expect from taffboy, but i didn't know he viewed so many of us in this way.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

chilango said:


> Yup.
> 
> Some posters have been far too casual in conflating the various groups of UKIP voters, UKIP members and UKIP associates into a undifferentiated mass of "racists".
> 
> Easy to do from the moral high ground, but politically useless.



Is it really though?

Seems to me that an awful lot of UKIP supporters are racist without knowing it, and that they'd benefit from having it pointed out to them.  

There are two main types of argument against large-scale immigration.  One is economic ("they take our jobs" etc).  That is certainly erroneous, but it is not racist.  

The other is cultural ("I feel swamped" etc).  That's often used by people who don't consider themselves racist.  But it is a racist argument, because it presumes that cultural diversity is threatening.  If people who make this argument can be made to understand that it is racist, many of them will stop making it.


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's even worse than that. Leaving aside his ridiculous characterisation of UKIP and it's members and supporters, it's actually _aimed at other posters here _- and it's saying that they are, at best, appeasers of fascism and at worst actively responsible for it's growth. It's aimed at people with long records of anti-fascism and so on, at posters who were pointing out the potential for a far-right party such as UKIP to gain some traction across the classes, *whilst he was actually suggesting people vote for them (the fascist UKIP) as part of an anti-fascist front*.
> 
> Its shitness i have come to expect from taffboy, but i didn't know he viewed so many of us in this way.



I wasn't aware of  the highlighted bit, maybe it pre-dates my time here, but if so it's certainly an "interesting" change of position.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Theres plenty of moralistic posturing here against tje idea that we should even discuss the disgusting reactionary elements of what is going on.



A lot of it just boils down to class prejudice.

There's always been an element of the Left that assumes the proletariat can _never _be reactionary.  Or if it sometimes might be, it's best not to say so.  In my experience this position is often adopted by ex-public schoolboys in revolt against their parents.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It was alright for oxbridge and other posh universities right up until relatively recently.





belboid said:


> Belfast held on to its until 1968.



There are still university constituencies in Ireland.


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Is it really though?
> 
> Seems to me that an awful lot of UKIP supporters are racist without knowing it, and that they'd benefit from having it pointed out to them.
> 
> ...



I suspect I will regret engaging with you almost immediately, but I think you're wrong to assert that for many people the economic and cultural downsides of large scale immigration are *not* all too genuine.

We're not talking about immigration as an abstract, we're talking about the actual experience of real people, experience which, on the basis of what little I know of you, I suspect is rather remote from your personal experience.

Go on dismissing other people's concerns as erroneous if it makes you feel good about yourself, but don't fool yourself into thinking it will persuade a single person not to vote UKIP.

ETA: missing"not" added


----------



## chilango (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> A lot of it just boils down to class prejudice.
> 
> There's always been an element of the Left that assumes the proletariat can _never _be reactionary.  Or if it sometimes might be, it's best not to say so.  In my experience this position is often adopted by ex-public schoolboys in revolt against their parents.



Whilst that may have an element of truth, I brought class into it for different reasons.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

andysays said:


> I suspect I will regret engaging with you almost immediately, but I think you're wrong to assert that for many people the economic and cultural downsides of large scale immigration are all too genuine.



I've discussed the economic issue above.  I think economic concerns about immigration are wrong, and foolish, but not necessarily racist.  I do insist however that...

There is no cultural "downside" to immigration.

And furthermore, it is racist to claim that there is.



andysays said:


> We're not talking about immigration as an abstract, we're talking about the actual experience of real people, experience which, on the basis of what little I know of you, I suspect is rather remote from your personal experience.



Well you're wrong there.  I actually am an immigrant.  Unlike you I suspect.  Not that we need to drag this discussion down to the personal level.


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I've discussed the economic issue above.  I think economic concerns about immigration are wrong, and foolish, but not racist.  I do insist however that...
> 
> There is no cultural "downside" to immigration.
> 
> ...



Exactly, you are an immigrant - that is part of what I meant by what I know about you. And not a typical economic immigrant struggling to find and exist on minimum wage work, so not really living the typical immigrant experience. You're also not familiar with the experience of those who are suffering economically or feeling "cultural threatened" for want of a better expression by the significant influx of people "not like them" into areas which are already relatively deprived, and where services are now even more over stretched, first because of sheer numbers but also in many cases because of issues around perceived cultural antagonism (which might be something as simple as large numbers of people unable to speak english fluently).

For people in that situation, what you glibly call cultural diversity *can* be experienced as threatening, but it's not your experience, and so you appear not only to not understand it, but to actually dismiss it as "erroneous".

I'm not bringing personal experience into this to have a pop at you, I'm not trying to "drag it down" as you suggest, I'm pointing out that you don't understand this experience and these feelings because it's not your experience. Rather than dismissing it, maybe you should attempt to imagine yourself in that position and think about what your thoughts and feelings might be.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

andysays said:


> Exactly, you are an immigrant - that is part of what I meant by what I know about you. And not a typical economic immigrant struggling to find and exist on minimum wage work, so not really living the typical immigrant experience.



Well you're wrong again.  Quite spectacularly wrong in fact.  And you know nothing of any immigrant experience, typical or otherwise.  So maybe it's best to keep personalities out of this and just stick to the issues?



andysays said:


> cultural diversity *can* be experienced as threatening



I know it can be experienced as threatening.  My point is that to experience it as threatening is racist.  It is the result of profound, often unconscious, racist assumptions.  If this is pointed out to those who hold those assumptions, many of them will stop holding them.

And now a question for you.  Just what exactly do you consider the cultural "downside" of immigration?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

andysays said:


> feeling "cultural threatened" for want of a better expression by the significant influx of people "not like them" into areas which are already relatively deprived, and where services are now even more over stretched, first because of sheer numbers but also in many cases because of issues around perceived cultural antagonism (which might be something as simple as large numbers of people unable to speak english fluently).



To be fair, maybe you already answered my question here.

I think that people who feel culturally threatened by the presence of people "not like them" are racist.  Many of them might not be aware of this fact, and many of them will stop feeling threatened when they understand the racist roots of their feeling.

And I think anyone who perceives the inability to speak English as "cultural antagonism" is a fully-conscious racist who can be labelled as such without compunction.


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Well you're wrong again.  Quite spectacularly wrong in fact.  And you know nothing of any immigrant experience, typical or otherwise.  So maybe it's best to keep personalities out of this and just stick to the issues?...



I was under the impression that you were a university academic or similar originally from Britain, sometimes living/working in Turkey, sometimes in USA, and probably other places which I've forgotten. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a typical immigrant experience. Again, I'm saying this not to attack you as an individual, but to question the experiential basis of your argument.

If I'm wrong then please accept my apologies for inadvertantly misrepresenting your experience.

And you don't actually know anything of my immigrant experiences, but my experience as it relates to this issue is not based on being an immigrant, but on living in a deprived area of inner London which has traditionally been popular with immigrants from many different countries and cultures.


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> To be fair, maybe you already answered my question here.
> 
> I think that people who feel culturally threatened by the presence of people "not like them" are racist.  Many of them might not be aware of this fact, and many of them will stop feeling threatened when they understand the racist roots of their feeling.
> 
> And I think anyone who perceives the inability to speak English as "cultural antagonism" is a fully-conscious racist who can be labelled as such without compunction.



Label away, by all means.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

andysays said:


> If I'm wrong then please accept my apologies for inadvertantly misrepresenting your experience.



Apology accepted.  Please don't do it again.



andysays said:


> And you don't actually know anything of my immigrant experiences, but my experience as it relates to this issue is not based on being an immigrant, but on living in a deprived area of inner London which has traditionally been popular with immigrants from many different countries and cultures.



OK.  And did you ever feel remotely threatened by the immigrants in your neighborhood?  Did you experience the fact that many of them didn't speak English as "cultural antagonism?"  Did you ever ache with nostalgia for the mythical monocultural England of yesteryear?

No, no and no.  Am I right?

And why not?  Because (despite your many other faults) you are NOT A RACIST.

However, those--and they are many--who do find cultural diversity unpleasant are indeed racist, though not necessarily consciously so.  In fact I would say that unease in the face of cultural diversity is a pretty good _definition _of unconscious racism.


----------



## chilango (Oct 22, 2014)

Does immigration always result in cultural diversity though?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

chilango said:


> Does immigration always result in cultural diversity though?



Ideally yes.

In practice no, because of racist immigration policies.  Personally I'd support a policy favoring immigrants from the world's poorest nations above those from rich ones.


----------



## chilango (Oct 22, 2014)

...for example.

I'd venture that instances of immigration where one population is displaced by another (especially where the immigrant population is older, wealthier and culturally homogenous) doesn't increase cultural diversity.


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Apology accepted.  Please don't do it again.
> 
> OK.  And did you ever feel remotely threatened by the immigrants in your neighborhood?  Did you experience the fact that many of them didn't speak English as "cultural antagonism?"  Did you ever ache with nostalgia for the mythical monocultural England of yesteryear?
> 
> ...



So are you saying that you are not a nomadic academic, touring the universities of the world? Another Urban myth shattered 

More seriously, I don't feel threatened *by the immigrants* in my neighbourhood.

I do, however, recognise that my neighbourhood is disproportionately affected by some of the negative consequences of *immigration*, in that people's wages are lower, unemployment levels are higher and various services are more overstretched (both numerically and by the problems that language differences can bring in schools or doctors' surgeries), than they would be if large scale immigration, focussed in particular geographical areas and sectors of the economy, did not exist.

It's not that cultural diversity is "unpleasant" in some abstract sense (though there may be some who look at it that way) but that there are real and genuine issues with the way that immigration disproportionately affects people in already deprived areas.

Does recognising that make me racist? And if not, why should it make other people feeling the same thing, but not articulating it to you on a message board be regarded as racist?

And by the way, I don't regard myself as English, just so you know for future reference


----------



## treelover (Oct 22, 2014)

> What passes for the modern left tends to be far too blase about all this. Perhaps those who reduce people’s worries and fears to mere bigotry should go back to first principles, and consider whether, in such laissez-faire conditions, free movement has been of most benefit to capital or labour. They might also think about the dread spectacle of people from upscale London postcodes passing judgment on people who experience large-scale migration as something real.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ration-politicians-david-cameron-ukip-eu-exit



Guardian writer(John Harris) breaks ranks?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

andysays said:


> More seriously, I don't feel threatened *by the immigrants* in my neighbourhood.
> 
> I do, however, recognise that my neighbourhood is disproportionately affected by some of the negative consequences of *immigration*, in that people's wages are lower, unemployment levels are higher and various services are more overstretched (both numerically and by the problems that language differences can bring in schools or doctors' surgeries), than they would be if large scale immigration, focussed in particular geographical areas and sectors of the economy, did not exist. It's not that cultural diversity is "unpleasant" in some abstract sense (though there may be some who look at it that way) but that there are real and genuine issues with the way that immigration disproportionately affects people in already deprived areas.



But none of those economic problems are caused by immigration.  Immigrants are the solution to economic problems, not the cause of them.



andysays said:


> It's not that cultural diversity is "unpleasant" in some abstract sense (though there may be some who look at it that way) but that there are real and genuine issues with the way that immigration disproportionately affects people in already deprived areas.



The only reason to object to cultural diversity is racism.  Can you think of another?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But none of those economic problems are caused by immigration.  Immigrants are the solution to economic problems, not the cause of them.



If globalised capital is the cause of those economic problems how can capital's desire for the free movement of labour be the "solution"?


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But none of those economic problems are caused by immigration.  Immigrants are the solution to economic problems, not the cause of them.
> 
> The only reason to object to cultural diversity is racism.  Can you think of another?



Immigration (as opposed to immigrants) often exacerbates existing economic problems for those at the bottom of the economic pile, but that's clearly not you, so why even worry about it.

Objecting to cultural diversity in general, in the abstract, may be racism. Recognising that cultural diversity can result in specific problems, and that people at the bottom of the pile tend to experience those problems most acutely is not racism, or if it is, then that makes me a racist too.

Lovely to chat, must do it again some time.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 22, 2014)

andysays said:


> In fact, it was on the Clacton by-election thread, after the result was known.
> 
> The clear implication was not that UKIP the party are fascists, but that everyone in Clacton who voted for them is, which to my mind is actually worse.



Not that clear, I wasn't even thinking of Clacton. There's already enough wide-of-mark psychics round here.


----------



## andysays (Oct 23, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Not that clear, I wasn't even thinking of Clacton. There's already enough wide-of-mark psychics round here.



And yet you chose to post it on a thread all about the Clacton by-election.

I think the truth is that you weren't even thinking full stop.

Interesting also that you talk of wide-of-the-mark psychics while presuming to tell us that all UKIP supporters are rascists and fascists.


----------



## co-op (Oct 23, 2014)

If UKIP's main anti-immigration policy is targeted at immigration from within the EU then I really struggle to see how it can be called racist in itself. The EU population is "whiter" than the UK's. 30 years ago, being "anti-immigration" meant being racist, almost without exception, that's not true any more.


----------



## chilango (Oct 23, 2014)

co-op said:


> If UKIP's main anti-immigration policy is targeted at immigration from within the EU then I really struggle to see how it can be called racist in itself. The EU population is "whiter" than the UK's. 30 years ago, being "anti-immigration" meant being racist, almost without exception, that's not true any more.



Yeah but the immigration being questioned isn't Germans, Danes, Dutch, French etc. it's the "Slavs" innit?

Whilst I certainly don't think all opposition to immigration is racist, or motivated by racism, I equally don't think that it can't be racist, or motivated by racism.

Lots of strands that need unpicking.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 23, 2014)

co-op said:


> If UKIP's main anti-immigration policy is targeted at immigration from within the EU then I really struggle to see how it can be called racist in itself. The EU population is "whiter" than the UK's. 30 years ago, being "anti-immigration" meant being racist, almost without exception, that's not true any more.


It's perfectly possible for white people to be racist against other white people.

On the not racist and anti immigration, you'd have to unpack what you meant by both those terms for that to make any sense.


----------



## co-op (Oct 23, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's perfectly possible for white people to be racist against other white people.
> 
> On the not racist and anti immigration, you'd have to unpack what you meant by both those terms for that to make any sense.



And so would you.

I hear lots of people grumble about "immigration", I don't hear nasty words invented for Poles, see unpleasant and aggressive anti-Polish graffitti, and see the national newspapers running campaigns about Polish muggers or urban myths about dozens of Poles being found in your attic because a Pole had moved in down the road. I don't have long conversations in pubs warding off the topic of Poles being smelly/unfriendly/unkind to animals etc etc - god I can't even remember the bullshit some people used to come out with. I don't see Polish men fetishised as predatory sexual animals who are after "our" women.

People are complaining ime about competition for resources, they do this either directly or they complain about the consequences. That isn't racism.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 23, 2014)

co-op said:


> And so would you.
> 
> I hear lots of people grumble about "immigration", I don't hear nasty words invented for Poles, see unpleasant and aggressive anti-Polish graffitti, and see the national newspapers running campaigns about Polish muggers or urban myths about dozens of Poles being found in your attic because a Pole had moved in down the road. I don't have long conversations in pubs warding off the topic of Poles being smelly/unfriendly/unkind to animals etc etc - god I can't even remember the bullshit some people used to come out with. I don't see Polish men fetishised as predatory sexual animals who are after "our" women.
> 
> People are complaining ime about competition for resources, they do this either directly or they complain about the consequences. That isn't racism.



Reckon you'd be able to find plenty of that stuff about Eastern Europeans about (although not exactly the same, obviously), arguably less of it I suppose. 

The idea of "resource competition" isn't without its problems either. Who's competing? Whose resources?


----------



## co-op (Oct 23, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Reckon you'd be able to find plenty of that stuff about Eastern Europeans about (although not exactly the same, obviously), arguably less of it I suppose.



It's not "arguably less" it's patently bloody obviously massively a lot less.

The historical comparison should be with groups like the Irish in the UK but you can't do that because that's smudged by 400 years of the British state moulding its own identity as being fundamentally anti-catholic so the Irish were de facto traitors and everyone else Loyal. It's such a particular case it's almost impossible to generalise from it.



Lo Siento. said:


> The idea of "resource competition" isn't without its problems either. Who's competing? Whose resources?



Well durr.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 23, 2014)

co-op said:


> It's not "arguably less" it's patently bloody obviously massively a lot less.
> 
> The historical comparison should be with groups like the Irish in the UK but you can't do that because that's smudged by 400 years of the British state moulding its own identity as being fundamentally anti-catholic so the Irish were de facto traitors and everyone else Loyal. It's such a particular case it's almost impossible to generalise from it.


You think? Plenty of stuff about Romanians and Bulgarians being thieves, criminals, being involved in benefit fraud etc, etc. 



> Well durr.



Well quite, and the idea that "I'm entitled to something because I'm British and you're not because you're foreign" isn't a form of racism?


----------



## co-op (Oct 23, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> You think? Plenty of stuff about Romanians and Bulgarians being thieves, criminals, being involved in benefit fraud etc, etc.



I'll give you Romanians,I think that the way they are generalised gets up to some kind of racist stereotype - although it's pretty mild compared to what non-white groups had to put up with within living memory. Never heard it with Bulgarians maybe I have just been lucky.

But I'm not saying "it's impossible for a majority white culture to construct racist theories about groups of people who also have white skin". I'm saying that as well as trying to understand why so many people are worried about immigration (and voting UKIP) we might want to wonder why shaking the "racist" fetish at them doesn't seem to be working. And one reason might be that this isn't good old fashioned racism as many people remember it. That's why UKIP can put out (eg) 9 BME candidates in the Croydon local elections in 2014, I don't remember the BNP or the NF being able to do that. In fact I'm pretty sure you won't find the_ tories_ doing that very often.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 23, 2014)

co-op said:


> I'll give you Romanians,I think that the way they are generalised gets up to some kind of racist stereotype - although it's pretty mild compared to what non-white groups had to put up with within living memory. Never heard it with Bulgarians maybe I have just been lucky.
> 
> But I'm not saying "it's impossible for a majority white culture to construct racist theories about groups of people who also have white skin". I'm saying that as well as trying to understand why so many people are worried about immigration (and voting UKIP) we might want to wonder why shaking the "racist" fetish at them doesn't seem to be working. *And one reason might be that this isn't good old fashioned racism as many people remember it. *That's why UKIP can put out (eg) 9 BME candidates in the Croydon local elections in 2014, I don't remember the BNP or the NF being able to do that. In fact I'm pretty sure you won't find the_ tories_ doing that very often.



Oh yeah, and that's related to what the mainstream definition of "racism" is and the fact that Britain tells this story about itself where we're the most unracist country in the world.


----------



## co-op (Oct 23, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Oh yeah, and that's related to what the mainstream definition of "racism" is and the fact that Britain tells this story about itself where we're the most unracist country in the world.



I must have missed that bit of Our Great National Story.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 23, 2014)

co-op said:


> I must have missed that bit of Our Great National Story.



Just read any Guardian editorial on race relations in the US or France (or anywhere), they're dripping with such assumptions.


----------



## killer b (Oct 23, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Well quite, and the idea that "I'm entitled to something because I'm British and you're not because you're foreign" isn't a form of racism?


 when it's couched in those terms, clearly it is. But it often isn't, and anyway competition for resources isn't restricted to areas of high immigration - look elsewhere on the forum for discussions on the effects of gentrification, which is the result of similar forces. The tone of those discussions seems to be quite different, for some reason...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 23, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...for example.
> 
> I'd venture that instances of immigration where one population is displaced by another (especially where the immigrant population is older, wealthier and culturally homogenous) doesn't increase cultural diversity.



Does that ever really happen though?  In modern times I mean?


----------



## co-op (Oct 23, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Just read any Guardian editorial on race relations in the US or France (or anywhere), they're dripping with such assumptions.



I haven't read a Guardian editorial for decades, but there is a greater degree of integration in the UK than in many European countries and US society is obviously riddled with serious open racism so they can flatter themselves quite easily I'm sure.

My point is that when you have an immigration group being targeted that are largely white, christian and blonder than the national population - and yes you're right this doesn't fit the southern/"mediterranean" groups who have lower status in the great global racial hierarchy - but this first group, the Poles, the Balts etc and they are often the named groups in these debates, it's really stretching things to call this racism for me. I mean they don't even seem to attract the slovenly/unrespectable tags that economic migrants (ie the poor) usually get slapped on them, if anything the reverse. 

And UKIP's policies are targeting these groups as much as anyone. Calling it racism isn't working in making UKIP support taboo, maybe this is why?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 23, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Does that ever really happen though?  In modern times I mean?


Israel?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Israel?


yeh the immigrant population was definitely aulder and more homogenous than the indigenous  tell you what, let us weigh some evidence you produce to support that statement and we'll take things from there.


----------



## chilango (Oct 23, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Does that ever really happen though?  In modern times I mean?



North Wales (or any "pleasant" rural location with few employment prospects.) Lots of seaside places. Tuscany.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 23, 2014)

chilango said:


> North Wales (or any "pleasant" rural location with few employment prospects.) Lots of seaside places. Tuscany.



I don't think the indigenous inhabitants have been displaced in any of those cases.

Israel and South Africa maybe?  But those are instances of colonization rather than immigration.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> when it's couched in those terms, clearly it is. But it often isn't, and anyway competition for resources isn't restricted to areas of high immigration - look elsewhere on the forum for discussions on the effects of gentrification, which is the result of similar forces. The tone of those discussions seems to be quite different, for some reason...


Probably something to do with power.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 23, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Does that ever really happen though?  In modern times I mean?



Farming communities up and down the country; the village where my paternal grandparents lived is now a solidly middle class 'ghetto' whereas when I was a child, there was a very apparent mix between working class, council housed farm workers (very happy not to be tied tenants) and significantly more affluent home owners. This transformation happened form 1981/2 onwards. It may be a marginal effect in terms of overall population stats, but I feel pretty confident that it has actually happened.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 23, 2014)

co-op said:


> I haven't read a Guardian editorial for decades, but there is a greater degree of integration in the UK than in many European countries and US society is obviously riddled with serious open racism so they can flatter themselves quite easily I'm sure.
> 
> My point is that when you have an immigration group being targeted that are largely white, christian and blonder than the national population - and yes you're right this doesn't fit the southern/"mediterranean" groups who have lower status in the great global racial hierarchy - but this first group, the Poles, the Balts etc and they are often the named groups in these debates, it's really stretching things to call this racism for me. I mean they don't even seem to attract the slovenly/unrespectable tags that economic migrants (ie the poor) usually get slapped on them, if anything the reverse.
> 
> And UKIP's policies are targeting these groups as much as anyone. Calling it racism isn't working in making UKIP support taboo, maybe this is why?



I don't think the whiteness of the incomers is particularly important tbh. There's always been a substantial constituency who weren't bothered if people they considered "the PC brigade" said they were racists.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 23, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Farming communities up and down the country; the village where my paternal grandparents lived is now a solidly middle class 'ghetto' whereas when I was a child, there was a very apparent mix between working class, council housed farm workers (very happy not to be tied tenants) and significantly more affluent home owners. This transformation happened form 1981/2 onwards. It may be a marginal effect in terms of overall population stats, but I feel pretty confident that it has actually happened.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



But was this due to immigration from abroad?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 23, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But was this due to immigration from abroad?



Yep Phil you've got me banged to rights; I should have read back more carefully. I would say  - not in defence but as an aside - that the middle class incomers certainly felt culturally foreign to my grandparents.

Oops - Louis MacNeice


----------



## co-op (Oct 23, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I don't think the whiteness of the incomers is particularly important tbh. There's always been a substantial constituency who weren't bothered if people they considered "the PC brigade" said they were racists.



Well obviously those people who don't care about being called racists won't care about being called racists.

The whiteness of the target immigrants seems important to me, it means that by the normal usage it's not racist to want to exclude them - and I can see why people think that. This might be why there is 77% of the UK population who want to see immigration reduced a little (21%) or a lot (56%) according to reasonably reputable polling (British Social Attitudes Survey 2013) but there's no way all of these people are racists who don't care being called a racist. Some of them are almost certainly BME...actually if they're opposing white immigration, maybe they _are_ racist...I'll have to think about that one...


----------



## emanymton (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh the immigrant population was definitely aulder and more homogenous than the indigenous  tell you what, let us weigh some evidence you produce to support that statement and we'll take things from there.


The original post said especially when older and more homogeneous, therefore being older and more homogeneous is not a necessary condition.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

emanymton said:


> The original post said especially when older and more homogeneous, therefore being older and more homogeneous is not a necessary condition.


like alan sugar i don't like people who bottle out


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 24, 2014)

> What passes for the modern left tends to be far too blase about all this. Perhaps those who reduce people’s worries and fears to mere bigotry should go back to first principles, and consider whether, in such laissez-faire conditions, free movement has been of most benefit to capital or labour. They might also think about the dread spectacle of people from upscale London postcodes passing judgment on people who experience large-scale migration as something real.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ration-politicians-david-cameron-ukip-eu-exit





treelover said:


> Guardian writer(John Harris) breaks ranks?



What ranks treelover ? 

Want to get back to that article, which I read,  tomorrow (after I've caught up with a couple of pages on this thread etc.)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 24, 2014)

andysays said:


> Interesting also that you talk of wide-of-the-mark psychics while presuming to tell us that all UKIP supporters are rascists and fascists.



no. but i've explained it enough and you'll believe and propagate what you like. It's the internet.

In other news: Someone, possibly gripped by the PC mania of the rootless metropolitan or what ever it's called, decided to ask some working class people about the effect of the immigration "debate".

However, the people asked may be the wrong sort of working class in terms of the ones UKIP pretend to represent.

The racialisation of class is one of the most insipid stunts the populist right have pulled in recent years.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/10/23/revealed-how-immigrants-feel-about-the-immigration-debate

It interests me that the report shows a difference between how people feel in their community (often fairly positively attached) and the more general national percpetion (much more hostility felt). What national forces could possibly be contingent in spreading toxic and unrealistic ideas?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 24, 2014)

How long has Farage had his own show on LBC?
http://www.lbc.co.uk/watch-nigel-farage-live-on-lbc-96464


----------



## andysays (Oct 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> no. but i've explained it enough and you'll believe and propagate what you like. It's the internet.
> 
> In other news: Someone, possibly gripped by the PC mania of the rootless metropolitan or what ever it's called, decided to ask some working class people about the effect of the immigration "debate".
> 
> ...



There are various other "national forces" which "could possibly be contingent in spreading toxic and unrealistic ideas" - large elements of the media and the three "mainstream" parties to name but two.

Or are you suggesting that your alleged growth in general national hostility to immigrants is entirely or even primarily down to UKIP?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 24, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> How long has Farage had his own show on LBC?
> http://www.lbc.co.uk/watch-nigel-farage-live-on-lbc-96464


For As long as there had been Nick Ferrari, presumably


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2014)

andysays said:


> There are various other "national forces" which "could possibly be contingent in spreading toxic and unrealistic ideas" - large elements of the media and the three "mainstream" parties to name but two.
> 
> Or are you suggesting that your alleged growth in general national hostility to immigrants is entirely or even primarily down to UKIP?



The media is exactly what I was getting at, it's a perspective that has often been slammed down here.


----------



## treelover (Oct 27, 2014)

Podemos are now second in some polls in Spain, here the insurgents are UKIP...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> Podemos are now second in some polls in Spain, here the insurgents are UKIP...


 
Why do you think there's a difference?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 27, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

Jesus.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

taffboy's been busy.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2014)

"Early-onset Alzheimer's."

LOLfest


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 27, 2014)

God that's shit, I mean even on it's own terms it's just absolute crap, about a million times less funny than the average Xmas cracker joke


----------



## treelover (Oct 27, 2014)

Ukip on 19% in latest poll

Labour on 30% as are the Tories


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 28, 2014)

treelover said:


> Ukip on 19% in latest poll
> 
> Labour on 30% as are the Tories


 
Which poll and by whom?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 28, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Which poll and by whom?


ComRes (Indy) phone poll


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2014)

andysays said:


> And yet you chose to post it on a thread all about the Clacton by-election.
> 
> I think the truth is that you weren't even thinking full stop.
> 
> Interesting also that you talk of wide-of-the-mark psychics while* presuming to tell us that all UKIP supporters are rascists and fascists*.



Aren't they, though? I've never met a UKIP supporter who hasn't made some comment about the "coloureds"/foreigners/gays etc. But maybe the fault lies with me & I'm tarring them all with the same brush.

What scares me is rather than stand up to them, the mainstream political parties seem to be copying them (hello, Mr Fallon).

And it seems to me, naive as I am, that it's suddenly becoming taboo in certain circles to criticise the party as being racist. Personally, I believe that fascism lite is creeping in by stealth and it's the thin end of the wedge.

Just my tuppence worth.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Aren't they, though? I've never met a UKIP supporter who hasn't made some comment about the "coloureds"/foreigners/gays etc. But maybe the fault lies with me & I'm tarring them all with the same brush.
> 
> What scares me is rather than stand up to them, the mainstream political parties seem to be copying them (hello, Mr Fallon).
> 
> ...



It's not taboo, it's just pointless.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Aren't they, though? I've never met a UKIP supporter who hasn't made some comment about the "coloureds"/foreigners/gays etc.



What if you separated out the 'foreigners' element? Because that is in part what UKIP are supposed to be about.



> And it seems to me, naive as I am, that it's suddenly becoming taboo in certain circles to criticise the party as being racist.



Well yes, because they're supposed to not be. UKIP's point is that they want to control *all* immigration, not just non-white. Now that of course resonates with the racists who want to get rid of non-whites, but it also resonates with a lot of other people who see the country becoming more and more crowded and themselves being undercut by immigrants in general who will accept lower wages and worse working conditions and have the freedom to move while they are tied down by bureaucracy.

How much of that is a polite fiction is another question.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2014)

if you think ukip are fascism lite then you haven't understood fascism, in modern or historical context. What ukip are not plauged by, unlike the bnp and its 'nutzi' wing (griffins term for semi-allied nf's BM's and assorted hitler cultists/out and out fash) UKIP retains some respectability (not to me but in the eyes of society) precisely because it isn't that. It's not even britain first. To align a populist right movement automatically with fascism is lazy and innacurate. Thats before we get into the motivations of ukip voters- clacton is not the fifth riech.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 28, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> God that's shit, I mean even on it's own terms it's just absolute crap, about a million times less funny than the average Xmas cracker joke


Up yours then you miserable scrote


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's not taboo, it's just pointless.



Why is it pointless to criticise them?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Why is it pointless to criticise them?


The content of your criticisms are what are pointless. To call them fascists is pointless. Leaving aside the historical ignorance.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2014)

Quartz said:


> What if you separated out the 'foreigners' element? Because that is in part what UKIP are supposed to be about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Is the country crowded? Or isn't vast swathes of it owned by the uber rich privileged elistists? Why don't UKIP have a go at them? Why pander to fears of otherness - foreigners etc?


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2014)

I wonder.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The content ofy our criticisms are what are pointless.



Yeah, do you know what? Fuck off. Just fuck off. Not all of us are perfectly versed in the entire socio economic political history of the world like you.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Yeah, do you know what? Fuck off. Just fuck off. Not all of us are perfectly versed in the entire socio economic political history of the world like you.


How are you going to question UKIP? Where are you going to criticise UKIP? _ What are you going to do?_


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How are you going to question UKIP? Where are you going to criticise UKIP? _ What are you going to do?_



Haven't you got the message yet? FUCK OFF


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2014)

krekt, you know I disagree with you often but we've never had words too rancorous have we- what do you say to post #4069 ?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> krekt, you know I disagree with you often but we've never had words too rancorous have we- what do you say to post #4069 ?



That UKIP aren't all that bad and to call them fascist is exagerating?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> clacton is not the fifth riech.



It certainly riecht though.


----------



## JimW (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> ...to call them fascist is exagerating?


More that it's a pointless criticism - it won't change the minds of people drawn to vote for them and if anything will feed the "stick one up the establishment/metropolitan luvvies' aspect of their appeal. They have shit enough policies that as has been pointed out don't chime with their voter's expressed opinions, so that would be better place to start.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Haven't you got the message yet? FUCK OFF


I think you're onto a social winner here.


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2014)

To call them fascist is totally counterproductive - it makes you look like a hysterical idiot, and drives people away from whatever cause you claim to stand for in opposition of UKIP.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> That UKIP aren't all that bad and to call them fascist is exagerating?




no to the former and yes to the latter. Nobody here wants a populist right of tory party winning seats. Its not a good look when the only left of labour seat belongs to galloway and he won't retain it next GE.

The real worry here, and I don't want to sound all vanguardist or anything, but places like clacton, working class post-indusrial towns etc... thats supposed to be 'our' parish. Write that shit off as racists and what have you if you want. And I'm not for a moment denying that some voters and most of the party display xenepobic tendencies (in the case of party members its beyond slightly). You are left with the question- why is UKIP doing so well? it really isn't because the voters hate foriegners and the eu.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2014)

JimW said:


> More that it's a pointless criticism - it won't change the minds of people drawn to vote for them and if anything will feed the "stick one up the establishment/metropolitan luvvies' aspect of their appeal. They have shit enough policies that as has been pointed out don't chime with their voter's expressed opinions, so that would be better place to start.



But any UKIP person I've engaged with don't know about the party's views on minimum wage, selling off the NHS etc etc.

They all bang on about crowding, sponging and Eastern Europeans, ad nauseum.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> But any UKIP person I've engaged with don't know about the party's views on minimum wage, selling off the NHS etc etc.
> 
> They all bang on about crowding, sponging and Eastern Europeans, ad nauseum.


Think about that.

Why do they not care about the things the anti-ukipers go on about ad-nasueum? Think.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> To call them fascist is totally counterproductive - it makes you look like a hysterical idiot, and drives people away from whatever cause you claim to stand for in opposition of UKIP.



I'm pissed off with them because apparently,


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Think about that.
> 
> Why do they not care about the things the anti-ukipers go on about ad-nasueum? Think.



Ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ ｔｈｅｙ ａｒｅ ｎｏｔ ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｅｄ ｉｎ


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ ｔｈｅｙ ａｒｅ ｎｏｔ ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｅｄ ｉｎ


People don't care about the things that you're interested in them being interested in. Why not?


----------



## JimW (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> But any UKIP person I've engaged with don't know about the party's views on minimum wage, selling off the NHS etc etc.
> 
> They all bang on about crowding, sponging and Eastern Europeans, ad nauseum.


Beyond that hard core of knobs they're getting these high polls/by-elections by successfully appealing to a wider section of people who are disaffected and feeling the impact of austerity, those are the ones who would be put off to discover what the party really stands for - nothing wrong with also pointing out the fallacies of UKIP's blame it all on immigrants approach either of course.
Kenan Malik's had some posts up on his blog that take a similar vein to the P&P regulars here - not read them all but have learned from the ones I did: http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/as-i-was-saying-about-ukip/


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Why is it pointless to criticise them?



It doesn't seem to have that much effect on the people who say they are going to vote for them. Nige can get away with anything it seems.



> Nigel Farage: 'There’s nothing wrong with white people blacking up'



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ng-with-white-people-blacking-up-9823608.html

Hope he blacks up for the election debate.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 29, 2014)

JimW said:


> those are the ones who would be put off to discover what the party really stands for



How do you know this?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> How do you know this?


Know what? That the party doesn't stand for the things they support?


----------



## xenon (Oct 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if you think ukip are fascism lite then you haven't understood fascism, in modern or historical context. What ukip are not plauged by, unlike the bnp and its 'nutzi' wing (griffins term for semi-allied nf's BM's and assorted hitler cultists/out and out fash) UKIP retains some respectability (not to me but in the eyes of society) precisely because it isn't that. It's not even britain first. To align a populist right movement automatically with fascism is lazy and innacurate. Thats before we get into the motivations of ukip voters- clacton is not the fifth riech.


Absolutely. I can't give this a proper response because I'm using my phone. But I have relatives that are going to vote ukip. It speaks perhaps to my paucity of political rhetorical skills skills or knowledge. But I couldn't argue with them at the time anyway. It is simplistic nonsense to write off those drawn by UKIP as racist bigots. And absolves You from any analysis.


----------



## xenon (Oct 29, 2014)

Yes I've had the discussion about another facet of neoliberal, Thatchers continuation et cetera. But these are voting people. In their early 70s. They're not going to go out and start raising hell or whatever. And a Sunday afternoon when they helping out with your dad has dementia. Not really the time.


----------



## JimW (Oct 29, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> How do you know this?


There's polling shows a large part of their vote expresses positions on issues like NHS privatisation, nationalisation of utilities etc that differ from stated policies of UKIP -- I presume that's true of all party voter bases versus their chosen party to an extent but disconnect seems marked enough with UKIP to suggest that what's driving their support isn't a positive endorsement of their programme.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 29, 2014)

UKIP supporters are the group that most strongly supports renationalisation of the railways from what I recall of some past polling on the issue.  They probably also want steam engines and deferential station porters in smart uniforms too, mind.

tbh Farage was on the nail with his defence of not yet wearing a poppy in that article on blacking up.  Fair play on that one, I like a bit of railing against insincere bolllocks.


----------



## laptop (Oct 29, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> UKIP supporters are the group that most strongly supports renationalisation of the railways from what I recall of some past polling on the issue.  They probably also want steam engines and deferential station porters in smart uniforms too, mind.



I seem to recall that a key plank of the transport section of their manifesto was to repaint trains and stations in the colours of the 1923 railway companies. So, yes.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> People don't care about the things that you're interested in them being interested in. Why not?



When you post, all I see is this


----------



## treelover (Oct 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> no to the former and yes to the latter. Nobody here wants a populist right of tory party winning seats. Its not a good look when the only left of labour seat belongs to galloway and he won't retain it next GE.
> 
> The real worry here, and I don't want to sound all vanguardist or anything, but places like clacton, working class post-indusrial towns etc... thats supposed to be 'our' parish. Write that shit off as racists and what have you if you want. And I'm not for a moment denying that some voters and most of the party display xenepobic tendencies (in the case of party members its beyond slightly). You are left with the question- why is UKIP doing so well? it really isn't because the voters hate foriegners and the eu.




Great post, it points to the utter failure of any established left in this country, most EU countries now have effective left of centre/far left entities now, Dutch Socialist Party, Podemos, Sryriza, but us?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> Great post, it points to the utter failure of any established left in this country, most EU countries now have effective left of centre/far left entities now, Dutch Socialist Party, Podemos, Sryriza, but us?


What does _effective _mean? Are they any further away from neo-liberalism than us?


----------



## treelover (Oct 29, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> But any UKIP person I've engaged with don't know about the party's views on minimum wage, selling off the NHS etc etc.
> 
> They all bang on about crowding, sponging and Eastern Europeans, ad nauseum.




if there was an effective left it would make it its business to inform potential UKIP voters, especially those who previously voted labour, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> if there was an effective left it would make it its business to inform potential UKIP voters, especially those who previously voted labour, etc.


An effective left would be busy informing the class what it should really think? Isn't doing just that one reason why we haven't got an effective socially implanted left?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> if there was an effective left it would make it its business to inform potential UKIP voters, especially those who previously voted labour, etc.



How would they do that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Aren't they, though? I've never met a UKIP supporter who hasn't made some comment about the "coloureds"/foreigners/gays etc. But maybe the fault lies with me & I'm tarring them all with the same brush.
> 
> What scares me is rather than stand up to them, the mainstream political parties seem to be copying them (hello, Mr Fallon).
> 
> ...



There's a large measure of difference between racism (the practice of personal prejudice against those that are "different") and fascism (which we could call "the politics of difference"). To conflate the two so that "fascism lite" follows on from racism entirely misses the point of what fascism is, and misses the fact that UKIP's politics are neoliberal, and yes, play on racism, but are not fascist.


----------



## treelover (Oct 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> An effective left would be busy informing the class what it should really think? Isn't doing just that one reason why we haven't got an effective socially implanted left?



I don't mean that, I mean it would be visible in those communities, indeed part of those communities and would be able argue its case but changing its perspectives when confronted with day to day realities, eg Palestine is not the most important issue in the UK.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> I don't mean that, I mean it would be visible in those communities, indeed part of those communities and would be able argue its case but changing its perspectives when confronted with day to day realities, eg Palestine is not the most important issue in the UK.


You need to think about just what this effective left would be and what it would be doing and how it would come to be able to do these things. How are you going to bell that cat or are you just going to say over and over that it should be belled?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a large measure of difference between racism (the practice of personal prejudice against those that are "different") and fascism (which we could call "the politics of difference"). To conflate the two so that "fascism lite" follows on from racism entirely misses the point of what fascism is, and misses the fact that UKIP's politics are neoliberal, and yes, play on racism, but are not fascist.



Ok, an exaggeration on my part. I am, clearly, blinded by my ignorance and prejudices when it comes to UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

Clearly blinded. Good one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2014)

JimW said:


> There's polling shows a large part of their vote expresses positions on issues like NHS privatisation, nationalisation of utilities etc that differ from stated policies of UKIP -- I presume that's true of all party voter bases versus their chosen party to an extent but disconnect seems marked enough with UKIP to suggest that what's driving their support isn't a positive endorsement of their programme.



And it's the fact of the difference between the aspirations of *potential* UKIPpers and the party's policies (thin on the ground as they are) which energises both Labour and the Tories to swing rightward on the immigration theme and attempt to "re-capture" those of "their" voters who may see UKIP as a useful protest vote or political alternative.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, an exaggeration on my part. I am, clearly, blinded by my ignorance and prejudices when it comes to UKIP.



It's fine to be concerned about the fact that UKIP have expressed political positions that are right-wing and reactionary, and incorporate, stimulate and appeal to racist sentiment. Comparing UKIP's racism to any form of fascism, though, misses the point of what UKIP are, and that the very institution of UKIP itself, as a populist *neoliberal* political party, isn't amenable to fascism. What UKIP is, is 19th-cnetury Jingo, dressed in early 21st-century clothing. Horatio Bottomley would feel at home in UKIP.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Oct 29, 2014)

Educate, agitate and organise. Educate? The working class need no education.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> Great post, it points to the utter failure of any established left in this country, most EU countries now have effective left of centre/far left entities now, Dutch Socialist Party, Podemos, Sryriza, but us?



Ask yourself why this is the case, and the answer is fairly obvious: In Greece, Spain, Holland, Germany and other Euro and non-Euro states, there have, for at least the last half-century, been multipartite political systems. Here, we're still very much a two party system despite the presence of the Lib-Dems and now UKIP. Some people continue to think of politics as a simple left/right binary opposition (something the media are quite willing to foster), and because this binary thinking is "normal", then people don't accept "left" alternatives in the way that occurs elsewhere - here we're still tied to the risible idea that Labour is "left", and that acts as a sizeable brake on a non-Labour left alternative coming about.
None of this is helped by the likes of Owen Jones talking up an alternative with one breath, and then asking people to "vote Labour without illusions" with the next.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> Educate, agitate and organise. Educate? The working class need no education.



Who said it's the working class that needs educating?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 29, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Why is it pointless to criticise them?


It's not pointless to criticism them. It's pointless to call them racist. 

Most people know what UKIP are. They know they're hostile to immigration, they know that they've got "official non racist" arguments for this (Skilled workers only! We're full! People are taking advantage of the system! They're pushing down wages and causing unemployment! Communities can't handle the pace of change!) and they know that lots of their members express their views in ways that verge from "a bit un-pc" to outright racist. 

People know all this, and a lot of people still think they'll vote for them. So what is calling them racist supposed to achieve, other than reinforcing their own schtick about "saying the unsayable"?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's not pointless to criticism them. It's pointless to call them racist.
> 
> Most people know what UKIP are. They know they're hostile to immigration, they know that they've got "official non racist" arguments for this (Skilled workers only! We're full! People are taking advantage of the system! They're pushing down wages and causing unemployment! Communities can't handle the pace of change!) and they know that lots of their members express their views in ways that verge from "a bit un-pc" to outright racist.
> 
> People know all this, and a lot of people still think they'll vote for them. So what is calling them racist supposed to achieve, other than reinforcing their own schtick about "saying the unsayable"?


It's supposed to achieve a sense of individual puffed up-righteousness and a warm feeling of being the modern day equivalent of _the good german._


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> Great post, it points to the utter failure of any established left in this country, most EU countries now have effective left of centre/far left entities now, Dutch Socialist Party, Podemos, Sryriza, but us?


most? A tad delusional. As is the idea that they're effective. I see you've dropped Die Linke off your usual list, probably because is rapid right-wing trajectory has made it overwhelmingly ineffective. As could be said about many of the 'new left' formations.  Whatever happened to Rifondazione, eh?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> Because it may explain what went wrong here in England, why we have no Syriza, Podemos, no Die Linke, etc.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2014)

More cheerleading and bon homie for UKIP from Britain First.

Why are UKIP so appealing to fascists? It's very puzzling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/29/britain-first-ukip_n_6066498.html


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

Because they are fascists. Simple. Fascists. Fascists.Fascists.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

Btw what is it about the your parties decentralisation policy that you think attracts fascists?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> More cheerleading and bon homie for UKIP from Britain First.
> 
> Why are UKIP so appealing to fascists? It's very puzzling.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/29/britain-first-ukip_n_6066498.html



Imagine I'm a UKIP supporter. How does that article discourage me from voting UKIP? What's your argument?


----------



## D'wards (Oct 29, 2014)

I suspect that the more criticism UKIP get in the media the more it reinforces their support - for a lot of people if they become targets for the likes of Ian Hislop, or James O'Brian or some either perceived "pinko leftie" media luvvie type then that probably means they are doing something right, as far as they are concerned.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

D'wards said:


> I suspect that the more criticism UKIP get in the media the more it reinforces their support - for a lot of people if they become targets for the likes of Ian Hislop, or James O'Brian or some either perceived "pinko leftie" media luvvie type then that probably means they are doing something right, as far as they are concerned.


It doesn't need to be a pinko leftie - just a privileged dick with an easy life . That applies to left and right. And it certainly applies to the two named. And there's no perceived about it in these cases either. 

But the same thing drives people who don't vote UKIP or don't vote at all.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Imagine I'm a UKIP supporter. How does that article discourage me from voting UKIP? What's your argument?



I've often thought "how to change the mind of UKIP voters" should be a different thread. I didn't post it for that purpose, so I don't really feel the need to answer the question.

If you were a UKIP voter, what I might say to you would depend on what else you said. There are clearly significant variations in motive for supporting the party.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I've often thought "how to change the mind of UKIP voters" should be a different thread. I didn't post it for that purpose, so I don't really feel the need to answer the question.
> 
> If you were a UKIP voter, what I might say to you would depend on what else you said. There are clearly significant variations in motive for supporting the party.


From fascism to racism apparently. Oh yeah, and being in the hitler youth.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2014)

D'wards said:


> I suspect that the more criticism UKIP get in the media the more it reinforces their support - for a lot of people if they become targets for the likes of Ian Hislop, or James O'Brian or some either perceived "pinko leftie" media luvvie type then that probably means they are doing something right, as far as they are concerned.



Hislop always struck me as centre right, which may be pretty close to Marxist by the standards of some frothers, but that perception would not be founded in anything as far flung as fact.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> From fascism to racism apparently. Oh yeah, and being in the hitler youth.



It was the hitler youth I was saying perhaps should have been listened to, sarcastically obviously.

Imagine it, Communists and others slagging off Hitler as a genocidal lunatic. "oh no, you mustn't talk about that, we must address the concerns of the petite bourgeoise and the upper proletarian sections. 

Anyway, now our leaders are listening to what the spy-on-murdered-kids media says are the concerns in modern britain, and people in the med are drowning as a result.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I've often thought "how to change the mind of UKIP voters" should be a different thread. I didn't post it for that purpose, so I don't really feel the need to answer the question.
> 
> If you were a UKIP voter, what I might say to you would depend on what else you said. There are clearly significant variations in motive for supporting the party.



What was the purpose in posting it? Do you think it answers the question put in the OP?

Being a political person, my first reaction to the thread title 'UKIP - why are they gaining support' is that people want info so they can affect what's happening.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It was the hitler youth I was saying perhaps should have been listened to, sarcastically obviously.
> 
> Imagine it, Communists and others slagging off Hitler as a genocidal lunatic. "oh no, you mustn't talk about that, we must address the concerns of the petite bourgeoise and the upper proletarian sections.
> 
> Anyway, now our leaders are listening to what the spy-on-murdered-kids media says are the concerns in modern britain, and people in the med are drowning as a result.



Fuck off. You're the sort of insufferable prick that is helping UKIP.

Why are you quoting tabloid journos in your pathetic fascist hunting btw? Why does your parties policies attract fascist support?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> What was the purpose in posting it? Do you think it answers the question put in the OP?



It's a relevant supplementary question "Why are UKIP gaining support from the far right?"

So far, no one has attempted to answer it, though I have been told to fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It's a relevant supplementary question "Why are UKIP gaining support from the far right?"
> 
> So far, no one has attempted to answer it, though I have been told to fuck off.


Supplementary to what? Where is the content that it is supplementary to?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It's a relevant supplementary question "Why are UKIP gaining support from the far right?"
> 
> So far, no one has attempted to answer it, though I have been told to fuck off.



It was a bit of a rhetorical question, was it not?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck off. You're the sort of insufferable prick that is helping UKIP



Don't know how many times I've said it, but it's the sort of conversation I have away from places like this, so I don't see that it is helping UKIP. 

I've yet to be convinced that your constant bitterness and one up ship is exactly helpful in defeating them either, but I might be more open minded than you.

Apols if this post is too devoid of swearing to have the desired impact.

Fuckity fuck fuck. Is that better?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

You clueless cunt.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It was a bit of a rhetorical question, was it not?



Not really, but there was sarcasm that could have made it rhetorical if no one answered.

The party have been a pole of attraction for some time (Butchers will cite what I said 5 years ago, but dynamics have certainly changed since then)

The propaganda is littered with dog whistle stuff. I don't see why it's so problematic to talk about the whys and wherefores without being told to fuck off by the eternal "know betters".

Repeating myself again, if we collectively actually knew the answers we wouldn't be where we are. Some modesty might be called for instead of the ceaseless recriminatory attitudes that have destroyed the left for generations.

Obviously, a common theme is that we should publicly address the neo liberal and fundamentally anti working class aspects of the UKIP program and rhetoric. That happens loads now, I'm sure we all do it.

I don't think that needs to preclude analysis of the extreme social reactionary contingent as well.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You clueless cunt.




Why have your politics not got more traction in this country Butch? 

How is it that you are so clued up?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Not really, but there was sarcasm that could have made it rhetorical if no one answered.
> 
> The party have been a pole of attraction for some time (Butchers will cite what I said 5 years ago, but dynamics have certainly changed since then)
> 
> ...



Again, it's not problematic, it's just pointless. The vast majority of UKIP members aren't fascists, they certainly aren't neo-nazis, and the party's message is not based in that tradition. The vast majority of their supporters aren't fascists or neo-nazis either, and don't see themselves in that tradition.  So pointing out that a small minority of their supporters are, whilst hinting broadly at the blindingly obvious reasons for that support, has got to be - at best - a pretty inadequate way of approaching the problem. If not an actively damaging one if it encourages people to approach the problem in that way.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Why have your politics not got more traction in this country Butch?
> 
> How is it that you are so clued up?


Because I told you to Fuck off. Clearly.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 29, 2014)

Surely there must be a limit to the usefulness of left bickering with left over ukip. Why not take it to the heart of their supporters here:

http://boards.dailymail.co.uk/news-...-racist-holocaust-denier-save-eu-funding.html

Over 40,000 views (if that is correct) in one week.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Surely there must be a limit to the usefulness of left bickering with left over ukip. Why not take it to the heart of their supporters here:
> 
> http://boards.dailymail.co.uk/news-...-racist-holocaust-denier-save-eu-funding.html
> 
> Over 40,000 views (if that is correct) in one week.


And do what?

And who says this is the heart of their supporters?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2014)

May look like an old report from last year, but isnt.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ignorant-about-almost-everything-9825116.html


----------



## JimW (Oct 29, 2014)

Just seen this on Kenan Malik's Twitter,.political quarterly special on ukip, free access until end.of Nov I think: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/poqu.2014.85.issue-3/issuetoc
(not read any yet)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2014)

Couldn't get any of them to load this morning.


----------



## JimW (Oct 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Couldn't get any of them to load this morning.


Just tried one on phone and "enhanced HTML" only seemed to get references list but snagged the PDF ok


----------



## treelover (Oct 30, 2014)

> *Nigel Farage to take power in Ukip documentary spoof*
> Channel 4 to use actors alongside real-life footage for a film imagining the party’s first 100 days in Downing Street
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/30/nigel-farage-ukip-documentary-spoof-channel-4



Incredible really, a party that has hardly any M.P's, well one at the moment, will not be in power after May 5th.


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2014)

treelover said:


> Incredible really, a party that has hardly any M.P's, well one at the moment, will not be in power after May 5th.



Is Armando I involved?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> More cheerleading and bon homie for UKIP from Britain First.
> 
> Why are UKIP so appealing to fascists? It's very puzzling.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/29/britain-first-ukip_n_6066498.html



It's not puzzling at all, if you bother to actually *think* about it.  All of the hard-right formations see the possibility of UKIP success as also a possible route to success in electoral politics for themselves, whether through entryism in UKIP, or taking the direct road of trying to get themselves elected.  They make the same mistake as you do - they assume fascism on UKIP's part while totally missing the fact that UKIP's economic logic is inimical to fascism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Because they are fascists. Simple. Fascists. Fascists.Fascists.



UKIP made me tidy my bedroom, the fascist bastards!


----------



## treelover (Oct 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not puzzling at all, if you bother to actually *think* about it.  All of the hard-right formations see the possibility of UKIP success as also a possible route to success in electoral politics for themselves, whether through entryism in UKIP, or taking the direct road of trying to get themselves elected.  They make the same mistake as you do - they assume fascism on UKIP's part while totally missing the fact that UKIP's economic logic is inimical to fascism.




You ever considered doing a political blog V/P?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It was the hitler youth I was saying perhaps should have been listened to, sarcastically obviously.
> 
> Imagine it, Communists and others slagging off Hitler as a genocidal lunatic. "oh no, you mustn't talk about that, we must address the concerns of the petite bourgeoise and the upper proletarian sections.
> 
> Anyway, now our leaders are listening to what the spy-on-murdered-kids media says are the concerns in modern britain, and people in the med are drowning as a result.



Making the illogical leap from expressions of anti-immigrant sentiment in the UK resulting in people drowning in the Mediterranean Sea has to be one of your most ridiculous claims yet. People have been drowning in the Med for as long as the Med has been used as a migratory route for labour, without "assistance" from anti-immigrant sentiment in *any* European state.
Get a fucking grip, you twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> What was the purpose in posting it? Do you think it answers the question put in the OP?
> 
> Being a political person, my first reaction to the thread title 'UKIP - why are they gaining support' is that people want info so they can affect what's happening.



To which we can add that offered even the ghost of an alternative to the current neoliberal consensus - even if that alternative is bogus, and as neoliberal as the existing politics - people will express an interest.  Some will *especially* take an interest when they are told by the existing political parties that UKIP are a "bad thing", because frankly, why *wouldn't* you want to piss off the neoliberal cockstrokers in Parliament?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It's a relevant supplementary question "Why are UKIP gaining support from the far right?"
> 
> So far, no one has attempted to answer it, though I have been told to fuck off.



I've answered it. Twice at least on this thread alone.
For you, it's a simple equation - support from the non-parliamentary right = fascists supporting fascism.
For me, having been around fascist and anti-fascist politics and action in one form or another for 35+ years, it's *never* been a simple equation. Support for UKIP comes from all political directions, from the Colonel Blimp types of the Conservative Associations, to disenchanted Labourites looking for a protest vote that has more credibility and potential to do damage than voting Lib-Dem.  You see the right as overwhelmingly a racist and fascist enterprise, when in reality racism is a minority pursuit, and fascist politics in the UK, notwithstanding the bleatings of HNH and UAF, is the purview of a couple of tens of thousands of people UK-wide, of which a small minority are actually activists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Why have your politics not got more traction in this country Butch?



Wow, another eejit who doesn't actually understand anarchism. 



> How is it that you are so clued up?



Possibly because while you're stroking your cock over your copy of Photoshop, creating cheesy propaganda that even an apolitical boy scout would cringe at, he's active in his community, doing politics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Again, it's not problematic, it's just pointless. The vast majority of UKIP members aren't fascists, they certainly aren't neo-nazis, and the party's message is not based in that tradition. The vast majority of their supporters aren't fascists or neo-nazis either, and don't see themselves in that tradition.  So pointing out that a small minority of their supporters are, whilst hinting broadly at the blindingly obvious reasons for that support, has got to be - at best - a pretty inadequate way of approaching the problem. If not an actively damaging one if it encourages people to approach the problem in that way.



It's not only inadequate, it's also alienating, and entirely ignorant of the dynamics of the electoral process. We have people from both main political positions expressing interest in UKIP, not because those people are crypto-fascist, but because they understand the electoral process, and (within the bounds of the process) are attempting to subvert the near-inevitability of a Labour or Tory or Lib-Dem win by voting tactically.  Call those people fascists and/or racists, and all you do is chase them away from their broadly-left or right position into a more narrow one.
Personally, I'd rather destroy the whole fucking system, but I also believe in working with what we have until we achieve change, so on the whole I see the "protest vote" as a good thing, especially as if UKIP attain multiple seats in Parliament, they'll need to actually put meat to the bones of their promises to *retain* votes, and putting that meat to those bones will be highly problematic for them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2014)

treelover said:


> You ever considered doing a political blog V/P?



Nope.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope.



I thought you were?

Cheers - Louis MacNiece


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wow, another eejit who doesn't actually understand anarchism.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly because while you're stroking your cock over your copy of Photoshop, creating cheesy propaganda that even an apolitical boy scout would cringe at, he's active in his community, doing politics.



How do you know im not? you must have made it up i suppose.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> How do you know im not? you must have made it up i suppose.



If you were doing anything meaningful in your local community, then you wouldn't have had to ask why he was so clued up, would you? You'd have known, because you would be "clued up" too.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I think the SNP pose a far greater threat tbh.





> *SNP take 29% lead over LAB in new Scottish poll from Ipsos-MORI*
> October 30th, 2014
> *LAB could be down to just 4 seats*



'kinnel


----------



## Ungrateful (Oct 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> 'kinnel


 
Doesn't that poll have UKIP down to 2-3% in Scotland? If so then if it is a Conservative-UKIP UK Parliamentary coalition after the next election, Scotland would be governed by the parties that are ranked 3rd and 6th and collectively represent less than 1 in 8 of the voters.... Even Thatcher represented a higher percentage of Scots than that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2014)

Ungrateful said:


> Doesn't that poll have UKIP down to 2-3% in Scotland? If so then if it is a Conservative-UKIP UK Parliamentary coalition after the next election, Scotland would be governed by the parties that are ranked 3rd and 6th and collectively represent less than 1 in 8 of the voters.... Even Thatcher represented a higher percentage of Scots than that.


Why would that result in a UKIP/tory coalition?


----------



## Ungrateful (Oct 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why would that result in a UKIP/tory coalition?


 Apologies for being unclear. My point is the difference between Scotland and England in terms of the electoral support for UKIP (and the Tories) as indicated by the latest Scottish poll. In England UKIP are rising and being portrayed as 'the likely king-makers' following 2015 election, almost certainly in coalition with Tories, whilst in Scotland they are utterly insignificant (lying within the standard margin for error). Such a UK government would represent Scotland almost as well as coalition made up of the Lib Dems and RESPECT would represent England's electoral preferences. I can't imagine the Union surviving long if it were to happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2014)

But there isn't going to be a UKIP/Tory coalition. Even on the figures in that poll.


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2014)

Let's see:



> *Current Prediction: Labour majority 42*
> 
> 
> Prediction based on opinion polls from 29 Aug 14 to 25 Sep 14, sampling 10,069 people.
> http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

laptop said:


> Let's see:


Yeah, I support the thrust of your post, but....that calculus, obviously, does not take account of what the Scot's poll is showing and, just as importantly, it's not at all certain that NuLab will achieve a near 5% advantage over the tories.

If (huge if) Miliband lost 30+ of his Scot's seats, and UKIP do a little damage, he ain't gonna get anywhere near 346.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2014)

I would not be surprised to see an informal Unionist stop-the-SNP pact in Scotland, with Labour as the main beneficiary.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I would not be surprised to see an informal Unionist stop-the-SNP pact in Scotland, with Labour as the main beneficiary.


eh?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2014)

The Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems are all unionist parties; the SNP are the real enemy.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems are all unionist parties; the SNP are the real enemy.


You think the tories see the SNP as their enemy?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems are all unionist parties; the SNP are the real enemy.


Of who?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I would not be surprised to see an informal Unionist stop-the-SNP pact in Scotland, with Labour as the main beneficiary.


Hold on a minute. In a *UK General Election* you think Labour and Tories will have a pact not to stand against each other in Scottish seats?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You think the tories see the SNP as their enemy?



They'd be foolish not to.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Hold on a minute. In a *UK General Election* you think Labour and Tories will have a pact not to stand against each other in Scottish seats?



No, I don't think they'll go as far as that. But the objective will be more to stop the SNP than stop each other, lest they split the anti-SNP vote.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> They'd be foolish not to.


Seriously; stand back and think about this for a while. The Indy Ref is over...we're on to the GE now...geddit?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Hold on a minute. In a *UK General Election* you think Labour and Tories will have a pact not to stand against each other in Scottish seats?


Have you  not signed up to his alternative think tank? It's refresherating in its oddness.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> No, I don't think they'll go as far as that. But the objective will be more to stop the SNP than stop each other, lest they split the anti-SNP vote.


So, what will they do to meet the objective? Not the thing that you suggested? Anything else they won't bother doing?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Seriously; stand back and think about this for a while. The Indy Ref is over...we're on to the GE now...geddit?



I do get it, thank you. After winning the referendum, the Unionist parties need to put the SNP firmly down and work on rebuilding the Union. A strongly SNP Scotland will not help.

Anyway, time will tell.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 30, 2014)

Taking 37 Labour seats won't help the Tories?  Eh?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

I mean, here's the thing...obviously its only Electoral calculus....but if you input some grim,(though not totally unrealistic) %s for NuLab...





...look what it does. And note, that's with the Nats (all of 'em) on 10!


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> No, I don't think they'll go as far as that. But the objective will be more to stop the SNP than stop each other, lest they split the anti-SNP vote.


So what will this informal pact do in order to stop the SNP?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I do get it, thank you. After winning the referendum, the Unionist parties need to put the SNP firmly down and work on rebuilding the Union. A strongly SNP Scotland will not help.
> 
> Anyway, time will tell.


Sorry mate, you're talking out of yer 'southern mouth' there. Aside from Gordon Lamb House, where do you suppose the loudest cheering was when they released those %s?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have you  not signed up to his alternative think tank? It's refresherating in its oddness.


If it comes up with words like refresherating, I'm in! 

(Wow. It has powers! SwiftKey actually let me type that!l)


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> If it comes up with words like refresherating, I'm in!
> 
> (Wow. It has powers! SwiftKey actually let me type that!l)



Butchers has obviously been moonlighting for the ad agency that handles the account for these






They're REFRESHERATING


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you were doing anything meaningful in your local community, then you wouldn't have had to ask why he was so clued up, would you? You'd have known, because you would be "clued up" too.


You missed the point, along with your clunky and erroneous supposition. Never mind. What constitutes"meaningful " comkujity action could be pretty subjective and hard to convince people of onlinez though im prepared to assume its true of people on urban without getting into"why im a better activist than you ".


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2014)

Just been to vote* in the PCC by-election that the kippers hope to win. They've had all of 'a couple of dozen' people in all day. The count will probably take fifteen minutes, once all the boxes arrive.





* I say 'voted', my chosen candidate wasn't actually listed on the ballot, but I'm sure they'll run a special tally for the write-ins


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 30, 2014)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/surprise-you-how-similar-britain-4530710?ICID=FB_mirror_main


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 30, 2014)

We shouldn't say UKIP are in any way comparable to nazis. In fact, if you support LGBT equality, it turns out YOU'RE the nazi. It's the new politics. Lets try and understand where they're coming from.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/30/david-coburn-ukip-gay-mep_n_6060184.html?1414667980

And on a not dis similar note:

http://games.usvsth3m.com/daily-mail-or-stormfront/


----------



## Buckaroo (Oct 30, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> We shouldn't say UKIP are in any way comparable to nazis. In fact, if you support LGBT equality, it turns out YOU'RE the nazi. It's the new politics. Lets try and understand where they're coming from.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/30/david-coburn-ukip-gay-mep_n_6060184.html?1414667980
> 
> ...



What are you? What are you on about?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 31, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> What scares me is rather than stand up to them, the mainstream political parties seem to be copying them (hello, Mr Fallon).







krtek a houby said:


> Is the country crowded? Or isn't vast swathes of it owned by the uber rich privileged elistists? Why don't UKIP have a go at them?







krtek a houby said:


> What scares me





Why are you scared that the mainstream parties are 'copying' UKIP but not scared that the mainstream parties have presided over a country ruled by "uber rich privileged elistists"?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 31, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> We shouldn't say UKIP are in any way comparable to nazis. In fact, if you support LGBT equality, it turns out YOU'RE the nazi. It's the new politics. Lets try and understand where they're coming from.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/30/david-coburn-ukip-gay-mep_n_6060184.html?1414667980



Yes, we get it, UKIP are fully of nasty bigoted weirdos. What is the point in you constantly repeating this?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why are you scared that the mainstream parties are 'copying' UKIP but not scared that the mainstream parties have presided over a country ruled by "uber rich privileged elistists"?



Because racism, xenephobia and jingoism scare me more than elitism, currently.


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Because racism, xenephobia and jingoism scare me more than elitism, currently.



What about elitism which is also racist, xenophobic and jingoistic, ie the sort of elitism we actually have ATM (and is there any other kind, TBH?)


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2014)

They've just failed to win the SY PCC


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 31, 2014)

on a ludicrous turnout


----------



## laptop (Oct 31, 2014)

Er, BBC reported at 11:04 that SY *counting* had started.

Takes an hour to count three votes, then?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 31, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Because racism, xenephobia and jingoism scare me more than elitism, currently.



Let's try again - you asked "why don't UKIP have a go at elitism" or words to that effect.

You don't appear to be asking why any of the other parties don't have a go at elitism. 

You don't even seem to realize that to a lot of people, UKIP represent an anti-establishment party.


----------



## laptop (Oct 31, 2014)

> Labour's Alan Billings... took just over 50% of the vote in the poll held following the resignation of Shaun Wright amid the Rotherham child abuse scandal.
> 
> UKIP's Jack Clarkson finished second with 32% of the vote, the Conservatives were third and the English Democrats fourth.
> 
> ...


----------



## laptop (Oct 31, 2014)

> Alan Billings won with 74,060 votes, 50.02%, with Ukip's Jack Clarkson taking second place on 46,883, 31.66%.
> ...
> Conservative candidate Ian Walker won 18,536 votes (12.52%), while English Democrat David Allen secured 8,583 (5.80%).
> 
> http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/regional/labour-sees-off-ukip-in-pcc-poll-1-6926638


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 1, 2014)

andysays said:


> What about elitism which is also racist, xenophobic and jingoistic, ie the sort of elitism we actually have ATM (and is there any other kind, TBH?)



Oh, believe me; I do so hate elitism. Including the kind of sneering, elitism some urbanites excell in on threads like these.

Ask a question, a simple question, from a simple person and there's never a straight answer. Just oneupmanship.

Well, sod UKIP and sod those who are trying to paint them as some kind of anti-establishment party. The voice of the people.

My arse they are.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 1, 2014)

Apart from glancing at the Sheffield Star the only proof I've seen in Sheffield that an election was actually happening was a pro-Labour poster in the window of a big house in a posh bit of Sheffield Hallam. Maybe it was Billings' house.

I didn't vote, I didn't even consider voting. They are all scum.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 3, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh, believe me; I do so hate elitism. Including the kind of sneering, elitism some urbanites excell in on threads like these.
> 
> Ask a question, a simple question, from a simple person and there's never a straight answer. Just oneupmanship.
> 
> ...



Nobody here is saying UKIP are an anti-establishment party. But you are singling them out as racist and nasty and beyond the pale and this is a thread about why UKIP are getting support. It therefore is surely reasonable to ask about your attitude to the 3 main equally racist and nasty parties?

What's different about UKIP, in your view?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 3, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Apart from glancing at the Sheffield Star the only proof I've seen in Sheffield that an election was actually happening was a pro-Labour poster in the window of a big house in a posh bit of Sheffield Hallam. Maybe it was Billings' house.
> 
> I didn't vote, I didn't even consider voting. They are all scum.



A TUist I know was asked to stand for Labour. He told me they said "We want someone who is a labour party member but who has no connection to the labour party."


----------



## youngian (Nov 3, 2014)

People have a right to change and be given the benefit of the doubt.Here Nigel Farage's election agent shows how far he has moved from his far right nationalist past


> Mr Heale, party leader Nigel Farage’s campaign manager in the Kent constituency of South Thanet, had previously said that his membership of the NF in the late 1970s was “a bad decision” that he “sincerely” regretted.
> 
> But in an about-turn, Mr Heale has now leapt to the defence of the organisation.
> 
> ...


http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-ea41-UKIP-OFFICIAL-DEFENDS-RACIST-NATIONAL-FRONT#.VFdMyfmsUfV


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2014)

youngian said:


> People have a right to change and be given the benefit of the doubt.Here Nigel Farage's election agent shows how far he has moved from his far right nationalist past
> 
> http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-ea41-UKIP-OFFICIAL-DEFENDS-RACIST-NATIONAL-FRONT#.VFdMyfmsUfV



To avoid any confusion about dates, this story comes from James Meek's "Farageland" published in the LRB (Oct 9th).

In which Heale does indeed talk about his NF past, but (and in no way trying to defend the indefensible) the MS extract above omits to say that, in the interim, Heale was for "a Conservative" for two decades.



> Heale was one of 17 Ukip members elected to Kent County Council last May, making them the second biggest party. (Of the eight seats in Thanet, Ukip won seven.) Before that, in 2003, Heale stood as an independent against a Tory councillor but lost. Before that, he was a Conservative for twenty years. Before that, living in London, he was in a group called the Progress Party; before that, he hung out with the anti-immigrant fringe politician Dennis Delderfield; before that, in 1978, he was a branch organiser with the National Front.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2014)

Yes, the full LRB  piece needs to be read rather than just the piece from the desperate short searchlight journo labour party member and oxbridge boy.

Good to see the MS opening up it's ranks to the w/c.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 3, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Nobody here is saying UKIP are an anti-establishment party. But you are singling them out as racist and nasty and beyond the pale and this is a thread about why UKIP are getting support. It therefore is surely reasonable to ask about your attitude to the 3 main equally racist and nasty parties?
> 
> What's different about UKIP, in your view?



I guess they appeal to people who hate politics/politicians


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 3, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I guess they appeal to people who hate politics/politicians



So a small potential constituency then?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 3, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So a small potential constituency then?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I guess that depends on the people who hate politics enough to vote to prove that they hate politics.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 3, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I guess that depends on the people who hate politics enough to vote to prove that they hate politics.



Do you think that disliking current politicians is an understandable/legitimate motivation for people's electoral choices?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2014)

youngian said:


> People have a right to change and be given the benefit of the doubt.Here Nigel Farage's election agent shows how far he has moved from his far right nationalist past
> 
> http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-ea41-UKIP-OFFICIAL-DEFENDS-RACIST-NATIONAL-FRONT#.VFdMyfmsUfV


not far from the sounds of it


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 3, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Do you think that disliking current politicians is an understandable/legitimate motivation for people's electoral choices?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I guess that would depend on whether they are voting because they feel "swamped" or whether they want to be treated better; ie; higher wages, less taxes etc


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 3, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I guess that would depend on whether they are voting because they feel "swamped" or whether they want to be treated better; ie; higher wages, less taxes etc



Interesting? So UKIP voters could be progressively motivated; e.g. looking for better terms and conditions...this would be part of UKIP's appeal? also is paying less tax necessarily being 'treated better'?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 3, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Interesting? So UKIP voters could be progressively motivated; e.g. looking for better terms and conditions...this would be part of UKIP's appeal? also is paying less tax necessarily being 'treated better'?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



They could be a gang of sassy saints and scholars for all I care. I won't be voting for them, despite your best attempts.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 3, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> They could be a gang of sassy saints and scholars for all I care. I won't be voting for them, despite your best attempts.



I'm not cheer leading for UKIP. I'm saying that if you want to stop people voting for them  - and I'm against people voting for a whole raft of reactionary anti-working class parties - then you need to understand why they have done so.  It's not as easy, or maybe as immediately satisfying, as jerking your knee or thumbing your nose, but it will be more productive in the long term.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 3, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I guess that would depend on whether they are voting because they feel "swamped" or whether they want to be treated better; ie; higher wages, less taxes etc




Why would they feel "swamped"?

And is it not possible that it's a powerful combination of both?


----------



## youngian (Nov 4, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm not cheer leading for UKIP. I'm saying that if you want to stop people voting for them  - and I'm against people voting for a whole raft of reactionary anti-working class parties - then you need to understand why they have done so.  It's not as easy, or maybe as immediately satisfying, as jerking your knee or thumbing your nose, but it will be more productive in the long term.



And it does no harm to explore some factual findings into the mentality of Kippers instead of relying on crude stereotypes


> Ukip supporters are overwhelmingly more likely to believe in ghosts and other paranormal phenomena than their Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat counterparts, according to recent polling by YouGov.


http://www.newsweek.com/ukip-supporters-more-likely-believe-ghosts-poll-finds-281788


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm not cheer leading for UKIP. I'm saying that if you want to stop people voting for them  - and I'm against people voting for a whole raft of reactionary anti-working class parties - then you need to understand why they have done so.  It's not as easy, or maybe as immediately satisfying, as jerking your knee or thumbing your nose, but it will be more productive in the long term.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



He said, patronisingly. Yeah, I think I get it now.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

It's the krtek lunch hour of happiness! 
O wonderous times!


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's the krtek lunch hour of happiness!
> O wonderous times!



What has that got to do with UKIP support, do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

We could call it _houby's half hour._


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We could call it _houby's half hour._


What has that got to do with UKIP support, do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> What has that got to do with UKIP support, do you think?


Every 12-30 to one o'c clock people would gather together around the modern televsion. It could re-ignite a sense of our common humanity through the sheer delight to each and all that it brings in equal measure.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Every 12-30 to one o'c clock people would gather together around the modern televsion. It could re-ignite a sense of our common humanity through the sheer delight to each and all that it brings in equal measure.


What has that got to do with UKIP support, do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> What has that got to do with UKIP support, do you think?


Then, of course, the terrible descent into disruptive enervating self-pity and maudlin flight to many different australia's might follow. It's a risk i think we should take given the sheer joy it might bring in the here-and-now.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Then, of course, the terrible descent into disruptive enervating self-pity and maudlin flight to many different australia's might follow. It's a risk i think we should take given the sheer joy it might bring in the here-and-now.


What has that got to do with UKIP support, do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

I must say, it's a refreshing informed set of arguments/positions/etc that you've brought to this debate houbers. Thank you for taking the time.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I must say, it's a refreshing informed set of arguments/positions/etc that you've brought to this debate houbers. Thank you for taking the time.


What has that got to do with UKIP support, do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

Oh - the end so soon. Very def farce second time around, but containing all the tragedy of the first as well. Bravo!


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh - the end so soon. Very def farce second time around, but containing all the tragedy of the first as well. Bravo!


What has that got to do with UKIP support, do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

What shall we do tmw houbs? How about you come back and offer something to thread instead of this rubbish? I've made 700 posts over two years dealing directly with the issue of the thread. Think you could maybe have a go at doing something similar? Take a few small steps first and i'm sure you'll get the swing of it in no time.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What shall we do tmw houbs? How about you come back and offer something to thread instead of this rubbish? I've made 700 posts over two years dealing directly with the issue of the thread. Think you could maybe have a go at doing something similar? Take a few small steps first and i'm sure you'll get the swing of it in no time.



What has that got to do with UKIP support, do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

Nope, i thought not. I suspect you knew that as well. I think everyone knew it actually. Oh well. It'll be adult time again soon.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, i thought not. I suspect you knew that as well. I think everyone knew it actually. Oh well. It'll be adult time again soon.



I think I've proved my point. You don't like it much when the tables are turned on you.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> He said, patronisingly. Yeah, I think I get it now.


 
Which is worse, being lightly patronised or being portrayed as some sort of UKIP fan? You do remember doing that?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I think I've proved my point. You don't like it much when the tables are turned on you.


What? 

Serious?


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2014)

He really got to you there, I can tell.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Which is worse, being lightly patronised or being portrayed as some sort of UKIP fan? You do remember doing that?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I don't understand. Let me put it this way - urban roundly condemned UKIP and their foul utterances and then, suddenly, we're not supposed to focus on the xenephobia, homophobia, jingoism and so on. We're supposed to focus on their policies. I'm not entirely sure what they are, the last one I saw was in 2010 which has been dropped by Farrage et al.

Thing is, being an ordinary drone, me - I talk to people (outside of the internet) and any UKIP supporter I've talked to isn't too pushed about the NHS, maternity leave, etc. It always, in my experience, is about immigration, "coloureds" (I kid you not) and jobs for "English people".


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't understand. Let me put it this way - urban roundly condemned UKIP and their foul utterances and then, suddenly, we're not supposed to focus on the xenephobia, homophobia, jingoism and so on. We're supposed to focus on their policies. I'm not entirely sure what they are, the last one I saw was in 2010 which has been dropped by Farrage et al.
> 
> Thing is, being an ordinary drone, me - I talk to people (outside of the internet) and any UKIP supporter I've talked to isn't too pushed about the NHS, maternity leave, etc. It always, in my experience, is about immigration, "coloureds" (I kid you not) and jobs for "English people".


 
1. What has any of that to do with you portraying me as a UKIP supporter?

2. My experience is different. Do we stick with your singular 'ordinary drone' take on UKIP or go with something that allows for a variety of approaches?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> What has that got to do with UKIP support, do you think?



I'm not sure that's likely to be a successful catchphrase as 'Stone me, what a life!' or even the one-off "A pint? Why, that's very nearly an armful!"


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. What has any of that to do with you portraying me as a UKIP supporter?
> 
> 2. My experience is different. Do we stick with your singular 'ordinary drone' take on UKIP or go with something that allows for a variety of approaches?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Ok, let's go for a variety of approaches, then. Which, I imagine, would require me taking on board the idea that not all UKIP supporters are swivel eyed loons. 

I concede that. I'm sure there are wonderful people intending to vote for UKIP and help usher in a new age of honesty, decency and prosperity in politics and British life in general.

Is that more like it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

It's actually _genuinely _pathetic.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's actually _genuinely _pathetic.



Do tell us how you'd like me to think, butchers. You know; tell me what to say, read, do, vote, whatever.

I know you're dying to. Or better still, send it to me in pm and quit clogging up the threads with your personal vendetta against me.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 4, 2014)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Do tell us how you'd like me to think, butchers. You know; tell me what to say, read, do, vote, whatever.
> 
> I know you're dying to. Or better still, send it to me in pm and quit clogging up the threads with your personal vendetta against me.


Why? Stop doing this.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't understand. Let me put it this way - urban roundly condemned UKIP and their foul utterances and then, suddenly, we're not supposed to focus on the xenephobia, homophobia, jingoism and so on. We're supposed to focus on their policies. I'm not entirely sure what they are, the last one I saw was in 2010 which has been dropped by Farrage et al.


Who's the "we" here? You can do whatever you want. You've quite clearly not bothered to read this thread.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 5, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Do tell us how you'd like me to think, butchers. You know; tell me what to say, read, do, vote, whatever.
> 
> I know you're dying to. Or better still, send it to me in pm and quit clogging up the threads with your personal vendetta against me.



No need to be flattered into thinking it a personal vendetta, that would be to cast you as alone in having the honour of being on the other end of the pompous invective.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 5, 2014)

just experimented with the ignore button and it's improved the quality of the thread no end...


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2014)

Good shout.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No need to be flattered into thinking it a personal vendetta, that would be to cast you as alone in having the honour of being on the other end of the pompous invective.


It's certainly not personal from ba, re you, every single person on the boards who has ever read your contributions agrees that you are fucking shit.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, let's go for a variety of approaches, then. Which, I imagine, would require me taking on board the idea that not all UKIP supporters are swivel eyed loons.
> 
> I concede that. I'm sure there are wonderful people intending to vote for UKIP and help usher in a new age of honesty, decency and prosperity in politics and British life in general.
> 
> Is that more like it?


 
So given the heavy handed irony of your post, you do actually think that all UKIP voters are swivel eyed loons. Thanks for the clarity; I'll leave you to your impotent, shallow, one eyed view.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. just to be clear, this isn't about telling you what to think...rather just to think a little bit harder; the idea that all UKIP voters are swivel eyed loons is risible (consider for a second all those who have and will vote for them tactically to give either the Tories or Labour a scare).


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So given the heavey handed irony of your post, you do actually think that all UKIP voters are swivel eyed loons. Thaks for the clarity; I'll leave you to your impotent, shallow, one eyed view...



In the interests of further clarity, how does describing someone as "swivel eyed" compare to describing them as "one eyed", and should we be using either term to refer to someone we disagree with?

Discuss...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> In the interests of further clarity, how does describing someone as "swivel eyed" compare to describing them as "one eyed", and should we be using either term to refer to someone we disagree with?
> 
> Discuss...


 
One eyed refers to kret's appreciation that UKIP voters have one reason for voting UKIP; i.e. they are being racist. I'm pointing out that this singular explanation lacks depth perception (and carries with it potential risks), in a way which is analogous with having one eye; which is a physical fact. Swivel eyed loons is a bit more of a pejorative, value judgement.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> One eyed refers to kret's appreciation that UKIP voters have one reason for voting UKIP; i.e. they are being racist. I'm pointing out that this singular explanation lacks depth perception (and carries with it potential risks), in a way which is analogous with having one eye; which is a physical fact. Swivel eyed loons is a bit more of a pejorative, value judgement.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Yep, there's no reason whatsoever why either term should not be applied to obsessive nationalist/Europhobes. Swivel-eyed implies no physical impairment, merely the wild eye movements of frenzy.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> One eyed refers to kret's appreciation that UKIP voters have one reason for voting UKIP; i.e. they are being racist. I'm pointing out that this singular explanation lacks depth perception (and carries with it potential risks), in a way which is analogous with having one eye; which is a physical fact. Swivel eyed loons is a bit more of a pejorative, value judgement.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Not sure which of these to use,  or


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Not sure which of these to use,  or


 
Why not both? Oh you did!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yep, there's no reason whatsoever why either term should not be applied to obsessive nationalist/Europhobes. Swivel-eyed implies no physical impairment, merely the wild eye movements of frenzy.


 
Surely the swivel eyed only works in conjunction with the loons bit?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Surely the swivel eyed only works in conjunction with the loons bit?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


As you see fit.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Surely the swivel eyed only works in conjunction with the loons bit?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I think it was a feature on some models of _Action Man_ too


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

belboid said:


> I think it was a feature on some models of _Action Man_ too


The Daniel Hannan set?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

..or


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2014)

belboid said:


> I think it was a feature on some models of _Action Man_ too


 
I think they were called eagle eyes and went with gripping hands...I don't think swivel eyes and gripping hands would have worked so well together on the adverts.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Quartz (Nov 5, 2014)

Some sense from UKIP? I feel faint.



> Voters in rural England are turning to the UK Independence Party because it is the only party that has woken up to the threat to the countryside from developers, the outgoing head of the National Trust has said.



Of course, they can say anything as they're not going to be put to the test.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Some sense from UKIP? I feel faint.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they can say anything as they're not going to be put to the test.


aah yes, Mr Reckless has been outspoken about aspects of this.  Altho only in a rather inconsistent manner, you'll be surprised to learn

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=news&issue=1378


----------



## Quartz (Nov 5, 2014)

And now Chuka Ummana is taking them on. It's good to see Labour on the attack.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 5, 2014)

"Every single person". Yes dear. Wanker.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 5, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> One eyed refers to kret's appreciation that UKIP voters have one reason for voting UKIP; i.e. they are being racist. I'm pointing out that this singular explanation lacks depth perception (and carries with it potential risks), in a way which is analogous with having one eye; which is a physical fact. Swivel eyed loons is a bit more of a pejorative, value judgement.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I didnt see kret say there was one reason for voting ukip, racism. Could someone dig it out? It would be a daft thing to say.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 5, 2014)

belboid said:


> It's certainly not personal from ba, re you, every single person on the boards who has ever read your contributions agrees that you are fucking shit.



Tbh, I thought it was about UKIP and not the fact that some posters don't like other posters.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 5, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I didnt see kret say there was one reason for voting ukip, racism. Could someone dig it out? It would be a daft thing to say.


Indeed not, I'm certain there are a myriad of different reasons why people are voting for them. In my experience, however, I haven't conversed with anyone who has much more to say than "foreigners/immigration/swamped etc etc".

In my experience.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 5, 2014)

Thanks for the clarification, looks like words may have been put in your mouth to condemn you with. I suppose its no more common a practice here than elsewhere in cyberspace.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I didnt see kret say there was one reason for voting ukip, racism. Could someone dig it out? It would be a daft thing to say.


 
Kret:

Thing is, being an ordinary drone, me - I talk to people (outside of the internet) and any UKIP supporter I've talked to isn't too pushed about the NHS, maternity leave, etc. *It always, in my experience, is about immigration, "coloureds" (I kid you not) and jobs for "English people".*​Their words not mine.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 5, 2014)

Quartz said:


> And now Chuka Ummana is taking them on. It's good to see Labour on the attack.


He has said that he has been subjected to"viscious racist " abuse by ukip supporters. Just imagine. Why would that be?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 5, 2014)

[QU"Louis MacNeice, post: 13514711, member: 5126"]Kret:

Thing is, being an ordinary drone, me - I talk to people (outside of the internet) and any UKIP supporter I've talked to isn't too pushed about the NHS, maternity leave, etc. *It always, in my experience, is about immigration, "coloureds" (I kid you not) and jobs for "English people".*​Their words not mine. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice[/QUOTE]

Any hes talked to. His experience.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 5, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Kret:
> 
> Thing is, being an ordinary drone, me - I talk to people (outside of the internet) and any UKIP supporter I've talked to isn't too pushed about the NHS, maternity leave, etc. *It always, in my experience, is about immigration, "coloureds" (I kid you not) and jobs for "English people".*​Their words not mine.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice




In my experience. I've yet to meet an UKIP supporter who is concerned about the NHS, maternity leave, minimum wage, big business, corruption and similar issues. I'm not saying there isn't, mind.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2014)

[/QUOTE]Any hes talked to. His experience.[/QUOTE]

Followed up by this heavily ironic post:

Ok, let's go for a variety of approaches, then. Which, I imagine, would require me taking on board the idea that not all UKIP supporters are swivel eyed loons.
I concede that. I'm sure there are wonderful people intending to vote for UKIP and help usher in a new age of honesty, decency and prosperity in politics and British life in general.
Is that more like it?​ 
Do you think he meant that he was really 'taking on board the idea that not all UKIP supporters are swivel eyed loons' (i.e. the always racist UKIP supporters he was on about only minutes before)?  

If you're right I'm glad he's taking a more thoughful look at UKIP.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (Nov 5, 2014)

> The most spectacular far-right victories in May’s elections were, of course, in Britain and France, during which the French Front National positioned itself to the left of the Socialist party on public ownership, Ukip turned to left-behind Labour voters, and both parties – of course – rejected any notion of universal European values.
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/05/25-years-on-berlin-wall-far-right



The esteemed left wing playwright David Edgar compares UKIP to the French FN and describes them as 'far right', not sure about this, again it will just get voters backs up, those who read the article anyway.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why would they feel "swamped"?



Racism's the only reason I can see.

Why else would anyone object to cultural diversity?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

treelover said:


> The esteemed left wing playwright David Edgar compares UKIP to the French FN and describes them as 'far right', not sure about this, again it will just get voters backs up, those who read the article anyway.



More evidence suggesting that the "left/right" metaphor is dangerously misleading in the modern world.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Racism's the only reason I can see.
> 
> Why else would anyone object to cultural diversity?



Look harder.

It's not about racism. It's not even about immigrants really.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> [QU"Louis MacNeice, post: 13514711, member: 5126"]Kret:
> 
> Thing is, being an ordinary drone, me - I talk to people (outside of the internet) and any UKIP supporter I've talked to isn't too pushed about the NHS, maternity leave, etc. *It always, in my experience, is about immigration, "coloureds" (I kid you not) and jobs for "English people".*​Their words not mine.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Any hes talked to. His experience.[/QUOTE]

I promise you I've talked to a lot more UKIP voters than you have. And the reasons are very, very different.

One of my favourites was "Yeah, I know UKIP are just posh tory bastards but so are Labour so what does it matter?".


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> He has said that he has been subjected to"viscious racist " abuse by ukip supporters. Just imagine. Why would that be?



Probably cos he's black and they're racist. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 6, 2014)

This discuess


SpackleFrog said:


> Any hes talked to. His experience.



I promise you I've talked to a lot more UKIP voters than you have. And the reasons are very, very different.

One of my favourites was "Yeah, I know UKIP are just posh tory bastards but so are Labour so what does it matter?".[/QUOTE]

Actually the point here was who Krtek had spoken to, but I have talked to plenty of supporters. I don't know if thats more or less tha you or Krtek and it's not a competition. I find the reasons varied too, but migration stuff does tend come pretty high (more so in recent years, in the early years there was a lot more informed and genuine critique of the EU). There's also the ever odd sense that UKIP are seen as "anti establishment". Certainly Labour have neglected many areas, taken thumping ward majorities for granted. It's no secret and should be seen as a big problem of itself, regardless of UKIP.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Probably cos he's black and they're racist. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?



Is it ok to say some UKIP supporters might be racist now?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This discuess
> 
> 
> I promise you I've talked to a lot more UKIP voters than you have. And the reasons are very, very different.
> ...



Actually the point here was who Krtek had spoken to, but I have talked to plenty of supporters. I don't know if thats more or less tha you or Krtek and it's not a competition. I find the reasons varied too, but migration stuff does tend come pretty high (more so in recent years, in the early years there was a lot more informed and genuine critique of the EU). There's also the ever odd sense that UKIP are seen as "anti establishment". Certainly Labour have neglected many areas, taken thumping ward majorities for granted. It's no secret and should be seen as a big problem of itself, regardless of UKIP.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think its odd that UKIP are seen as anti-establishment? Do you think its odd that the SNP are seen by some as anti-establishment too?




taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Is it ok to say some UKIP supporters might be racist now?



Nobody said it wasn't ok. What people are saying is that we're fucking bored to tears of you and krtek and dwyer repeating the same old shit, again and again. If we were in a pub and you kept repeating the same sentence over and over and over, eventually someone would lose it and punch you. Why do you think its ok on this thread?


----------



## chilango (Nov 6, 2014)

It's pretty simple.

We're at a point where something like 16-17% of the electorate (at least, it may be more now) are saying they will vote UKIP. If this amount of people are motivated to this primarily by racism (or more crudely because they are racist) then we are long past the point where drawing attention to this racism is of any use in combatting it.

However,  simply looking at the sharp rise in UKIPs vote during by elections suggests that there is a large element of conscious, tactical protest voting amongst their support. It seems idiotic to ignore this and remain merely drawing attention to those UKIP voters who may be motivated by racism.


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Is it ok to say some UKIP supporters might be racist now?



Is it OK to say some Tory/LibDem/Labour/SNP/Plaid/Green supporters might be racist?

Is it relevant/useful/productive to focus on that to the exclusion of more or less everything else?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Nobody said it wasn't ok. What people are saying is that we're fucking bored to tears of you and krtek and dwyer repeating the same old shit, again and again. If we were in a pub and you kept repeating the same sentence over and over and over, eventually someone would lose it and punch you. Why do you think its ok on this thread?



Ah, the thinly veiled threat of violence in order to shut down any and all dissent.

This country has become so racist it's taken for granted now. Fucking hell.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

Bang on time again.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Ah, the thinly veiled threat of violence in order to shut down any and all dissent.
> 
> This country has become so racist it's taken for granted now. Fucking hell.



How is 'any and all dissent' being shut down? And what does your second sentence have to do with your first one?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Bang on time again.



Yes, you are. Almost as if you waiting, ready to pounce. Here's an idea; instead of clogging up the threads with your tedious little vendetta against me - why not pm me, instead? Or do you prefer an audience to showcase your ego, you tedious old fraud?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2014)

[="krtek a houby, post: 13516859, member: 2838"]Ah, the thinly veiled threat of violence in order to shut down any and all dissent.

This country has become so racist it's taken for granted now. Fucking hell.[/QUOTE]

You're good value I'll give you that! Come off it, for a start I have no idea who you are or where you live (you might well be bigger  than me!) so I'd have to be pretty thick to threaten you. What I meant was, if you were sat round a table and somebody kept repeating the same things over and over, calling people racist UKIP supporters for no clear reason and refused to either leave or listen to anyone, at some point someone would lose it and punch them, no?

Try this for size: UKIP are gaining support. Britain is demonstrably less racist than it was 50 years ago.

Did I just make your brain explode or can you process that?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

_Smack him one Darren!_


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> How is 'any and all dissent' being shut down? And what does your second sentence have to do with your first one?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Several posters have just been threatened a "punch" because we're not towing the line. Not conforming to the "UKIP aren't that bad" groupthought.

It strikes me that racism permeates the very air we breathe in, nowadays and because UKIP are an alternative and popular with _the man on the street_ - one cannot be seen to disparage the party - less one is disaparaging of that sacred cow.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> [="krtek a houby, post: 13516859, member: 2838"]Ah, the thinly veiled threat of violence in order to shut down any and all dissent.
> 
> This country has become so racist it's taken for granted now. Fucking hell.



You're good value I'll give you that! Come off it, for a start I have no idea who you are or where you live (you might well be bigger  than me!) so I'd have to be pretty thick to threaten you. What I meant was, if you were sat round a table and somebody kept repeating the same things over and over, calling people racist UKIP supporters for no clear reason and refused to either leave or listen to anyone, at some point someone would lose it and punch them, no?

Try this for size: UKIP are gaining support. Britain is demonstrably less racist than it was 50 years ago.

Did I just make your brain explode or can you process that?[/QUOTE]

"less racist", eh? Are you white, by any chance?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Not conforming to the "UKIP aren't that bad" groupthought.


 
It's more the idea that everyone who votes for UKIP is exactly as bad as UKIP that is the bone of contention.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Ah, the thinly veiled threat of violence in order to shut down any and all dissent.
> 
> This country has become so racist it's taken for granted now. Fucking hell.


it's not a thinly veiled threat of violence.

it's not a threat of violence.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Several posters have just been threatened a "punch" because we're not towing the line. Not conforming to the "UKIP aren't that bad" groupthought.
> 
> It strikes me that racism permeates the very air we breathe in, nowadays and because UKIP are an alternative and popular with _the man on the street_ - one cannot be seen to disparage the party - less one is disaparaging of that sacred cow.



No one has been threatened. 

No one has said UKIP aren't that bad. 

The party (UKIP) is thoroughly criticised, including but not only for it's racism.


Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Several posters have just been threatened a "punch" because we're not towing the line. Not conforming to the "UKIP aren't that bad" groupthought.



No they weren't, and nobody has said that "UKIP aren't that bad." Feel free to trawl through the whole thread (you really should tbh) and look for evidence of such.



krtek a houby said:


> It strikes me that racism permeates the very air we breathe in, nowadays and because UKIP are an alternative and popular with _the man on the street_ - one cannot be seen to disparage the party - less one is disaparaging of that sacred cow.



Welcome to capitalism. The racism in society isn't a result of UKIP's popularity. Maybe you should think about where racism comes from rather than assuming all social phenomena are a direct result of mainstream political parties?



krtek a houby said:


> "less racist", eh? Are you white, by any chance?



My racial status is displayed for all to see in my tagline if you're interested. Are you white by any chance?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2014)

Let's not get started on hunting Whitey - there's loads of them on here!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Welcome to capitalism. The racism in society isn't a result of UKIP's popularity. Maybe you should think about where racism comes from rather than assuming all social phenomena are a direct result of mainstream political parties?



To pose such a question is itself racist in houby's world - see this depressing  - and by now, ridiculously familiar - thread.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2014)

[/QUOTE]"less racist", eh? Are you white, by any chance?[/QUOTE]

Rob Ford at Manchester University has done some interesting work on this looking back quite a bit further than the 50 years referred to; e.g. http://www.academia.edu/209861/Is_racial_prejudice_declining_in_Britain and http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/featured/2014/08/the-decline-of-racial-prejudice-in-britain/

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Is it ok to say some UKIP supporters might be racist now?



You mealy-mouthed fuck.
Throughout the thread people have argued against the likes of you claiming that UKIP is racist, but few have made any bones about *some* members of the party being racist, you disingenuous shit-eater.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

chilango said:


> It's pretty simple.
> 
> We're at a point where something like 16-17% of the electorate (at least, it may be more now) are saying they will vote UKIP. If this amount of people are motivated to this primarily by racism (or more crudely because they are racist) then we are long past the point where drawing attention to this racism is of any use in combatting it.
> 
> However,  simply looking at the sharp rise in UKIPs vote during by elections suggests that there is a large element of conscious, tactical protest voting amongst their support. It seems idiotic to ignore this and remain merely drawing attention to those UKIP voters who may be motivated by racism.



But...but...they is teh fash, innit? Twatboy sez so!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Ah, the thinly veiled threat of violence in order to shut down any and all dissent.
> 
> This country has become so racist it's taken for granted now. Fucking hell.



Because, of course, you're not predisposed to see threats etc from certain posters, are you? 
I mean, come the fuck on. You have to be pretty fucking goombah to twist what spacklefrog said into a veiled threat, unless you're actively seeking to read threats against you into the text.

And this country hasn't "become so racist", it's always been like this - it's the same in every country - attitudes to immigrants change with the economy. You can map most surges in racism for the last 1000 years to economic issues. All we're seeing here is the cyclic emergence of a political class that likes to use the issue of immigration and immigrants as a distraction from the actual problem, and to do that they stimulate an argument that they know will have traction precisely because they, the political class, have fucked up the economy.

What really makes me laugh with you carping about racism, is that you've mentioned moving to Japan - a state not unknown for its' own issues, and where xenophobia still plays *massively* well to the electorate.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> To pose such a question is itself racist in houby's world - see this depressing  - and by now, ridiculously familiar - thread.



Eish :/


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Yes, you are. Almost as if you waiting, ready to pounce. Here's an idea; instead of clogging up the threads with your tedious little vendetta against me - why not pm me, instead? Or do you prefer an audience to showcase your ego, you tedious old fraud?



This has given *me* an idea actually, why don't you and taffboy gwyrdd start your own little mutually re-enforcing PM version of this thread, where you can swap repetitive comments about how UKIP supporters are all racists, you two are the only ones who can perceive this amazing and insightful truth, and everyone else on this thread are a bunch of racist apologist bastards who are only posting here to indulged our collective vendetta against the two of you? 

Oh, and make sure you include plenty of witty gifs calling people out as fascists, they always go down well too...


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2014)

'are you white' the litmus test of anti-racism everywhere


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 'are you white' the litmus test of anti-racism everywhere


Even better when asked by a white person.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Even better when asked by a white person.



So krtek is an ignorant muhlungu just like me?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> So krtek is an ignorant muhlungu just like me?


Indeed. But the most persecuted one of all.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2014)

I wonder if this is what Krtek hears when people talk to him?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> This has given *me* an idea actually, why don't you and taffboy gwyrdd start your own little mutually re-enforcing PM version of this thread, where you can swap repetitive comments about how UKIP supporters are all racists, you two are the only ones who can perceive this amazing and insightful truth, and everyone else on this thread are a bunch of racist apologist bastards who are only posting here to indulged our collective vendetta against the two of you?
> 
> Oh, and make sure you include plenty of witty gifs calling people out as fascists, they always go down well too...



And make sure that butchers is on standby to make all those incisive, witty and helpful comments and check his dossier on everyone that just plain gets on his tits.

It's a day I never thought I'd see - UKIP75. Shut up about racism! It's about the honest, put upon sainted working classes who have been forced to vote for the heinous party. 

My ass it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

Asstonishing.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> And make sure that butchers is on standby to make all those incisive, witty and helpful comments and check his dossier on everyone that just plain gets on his tits.
> 
> It's a day I never thought I'd see - UKIP75. Shut up about racism! It's about the honest, put upon sainted working classes who have been forced to vote for the heinous party.
> 
> My ass it is.


Indicate where any posters said 'shut up about racism'- or make a case that they have done by weight of argument.

Don't smear.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> And make sure that butchers is on standby to make all those incisive, witty and helpful comments and check his dossier on everyone that just plain gets on his tits.
> 
> It's a day I never thought I'd see - UKIP75. Shut up about racism! It's about the honest, put upon sainted working classes who have been forced to vote for the heinous party.
> 
> My ass it is.



Are you actually reading what other people write?


Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Indicate where any posters said 'shut up about racism'- or make a case that they have done by weight of argument.
> 
> Don't smear.



"If we were in a pub and you kept repeating the same sentence over and over and over, eventually someone would lose it and punch you. Why do you think its ok on this thread?"

That sounds like being told to shut the fuck up. Surely you must be used to it, in general?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Are you actually reading what other people write?
> 
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice




I dunno, send me some of your stuff & I'll consider it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> "If we were in a pub and you kept repeating the same sentence over and over and over, eventually someone would lose it and punch you. Why do you think its ok on this thread?"
> 
> That sounds like being told to shut the fuck up. Surely you must be used to it, in general?


That clearly and cleanly is a of of bollocks that doesn't help your credibility.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What really makes me laugh with you carping about racism, is that you've mentioned moving to Japan - a state not unknown for its' own issues, and where xenophobia still plays *massively* well to the electorate.



That's it. Blame it on Japan. You fuck.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> "If we were in a pub and you kept repeating the same sentence over and over and over, eventually someone would lose it and punch you. Why do you think its ok on this thread?"
> 
> That sounds like being told to shut the fuck up. Surely you must be used to it, in general?



No, it sounds like someone who is totally exasperated with your behaviour expressing that exasperation.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I dunno, send me some of your stuff & I'll consider it.


They write on here. You ignore them. You smear them.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> That's it. Blame it on Japan. You fuck.



Get help.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That clearly and cleanly is a of of bollocks that doesn't help your credibility.



Like you fucking care about my "credibility" - you've ridiculed, mocked, bullied and abused me here for years. But heaven forbid I remind you of that because then it's all about me. Me, ME, ME


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Get help.



Get bent


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Get bent



Get smart.

And I don't think butchers is bullying you, though he is a mug to rise to you.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> That's it. Blame it on Japan. You fuck.


Of all the worst posts ever.

Time to go away again.

If anyone wants to do the chronology on this kretk went around attacking his targets on non-political stuff - asking them to martyr him. Again. WE are in the clear. His attempted manipulation, just sad.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Get smart.
> 
> And I don't think butchers is bullying you, though he is a mug to rise to you.



He has the option to ignore my posts or, as I've suggested - he can pm me and tell me what he wants me to say, think & do. Rather than bore us all to pieces.

And perhaps he could explain why he's kept up this campaign of terror and abuse for the best part of a decade now.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> He has the option to ignore my posts or, as I've suggested - he can pm me and tell me what he wants me to say, think & do. Rather than bore us all to pieces.
> 
> And perhaps he could explain why he's kept up this campaign of terror and abuse for the best part of a decade now.



A campaign of terror and abuse? Are you serious?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Time to go away again.



Please do. You stop your campaign and I'll be much more modulated and observe the decorums.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 6, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> A campaign of terror and abuse? Are you serious?



You're goddam right


----------



## emanymton (Nov 6, 2014)

What have IS, the US government and butchersapron got in common? 

They all engage in campaigns of terror.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> That's it. Blame it on Japan. You fuck.



Are you on crack son? Who blamed Japan? You total muppet.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 6, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> UKIP75



That well-known Faragist forum ....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

Blazer eating UKIPpers


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2014)

_Only two hours to go!_


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 7, 2014)

23 things that look like our beloved leader:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/things-that-look-like-nigel-farage


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2014)

Everyone ready?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Are you on crack son? Who blamed Japan? You total muppet.



Someone brought Japan into the argument which has nothing, nothing to do with UKIP and this country.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2014)

did you pop out for a sandwich before coming to the thread?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2014)

Pie and a pint


----------



## andysays (Nov 7, 2014)

.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2014)




----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


>



Reminds me of Heinz Knocke's description of Goering. _I can come to no other conclusion than that the Reichsmarschall was wearing cosmetics._


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 7, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> Reminds me of Heinz Knocke's description of Goering. _I can come to no other conclusion than that the Reichsmarschall was wearing cosmetics._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 'are you white' the litmus test of anti-racism everywhere



Everyone knows that the privilege of honkyness outweighs all other privilege.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Everyone knows that the privilege of honkyness outweighs all other privilege.




its a burden


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> That's it. Blame it on Japan. You fuck.



I haven't blamed anything on Japan. I've said that you're carping about UK racism, when the Japanese state has a reputation that's as bad as or worse than the UK (and that's without mentioning the _Ainu_).

I won't expect an apology, as you're probably too much of a self-righteous cunt to make one.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its a burden


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't blamed anything on Japan. .



Not even the bridge over the river Kwai?


----------



## JimW (Nov 7, 2014)

Another UKIP-related post from Kenan Malik: http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/populism-what-why-how/

Thought this bit was good:


> ...The ‘left behind’ have suffered largely because of economic and political changes. But they have come to see their marginalization primarily as a cultural loss. In part, the same social and economic changes that have led to the marginalization of the ‘left behind’ have also made it far more difficult to view that marginalization in political terms. The very decline of the economic and political power of the working class and the weakening of labour organizations and social democratic parties, have helped obscure the economic and political roots of social problems. And as culture has become the medium through which social issues are refracted, so the ‘left behind’ have also come to see their problems in cultural terms. They, too, have turned to the language of identity to express their discontent.
> Once class identity comes to be seen as a cultural attribute, then those regarded as culturally different are often viewed as threats. Hence the growing hostility to immigration. Immigration has become the means through which many of the ‘left behind’ perceive their sense of loss of social status. It has become both a catch-all explanation for unacceptable social change and a symbol of the failure of the liberal elite to understand the views of voters. The EU, meanwhile, has become symbolic of the democratic deficit in many people’s lives, and of the distance (social, political and physical) between ordinary people and the political class...


And here he echoes what's been said by many here:


> So, how do we challenge the populists? First, we need to stop being so obsessed by the parties themselves, and start dealing with the issues that lead many voters to support them. It is true that many of the policies, even of relatively mainstream parties such as UKIP, are repellent, and many of their leaders hold obnoxiously racist, sexist and homophobic views. It is true, too, that many of their supporters are hardcore racists. But this should not blind us to the fact that many others are drawn to such parties for very different reasons – because these seem to be the only organizations that speak to their grievances and express their frustrations with mainstream politics. Given this, simply exposing UKIP or Front National politicians as racists will change little, especially given that virtually all politicians are busy stoking fears about immigration. It is not that such exposés should not be done, but that they are futile if wielded as the principal tactic.



(Edited a bit more into first quote)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Like you fucking care about my "credibility" - you've ridiculed, mocked, bullied and abused me here for years. But heaven forbid I remind you of that because then it's all about me. Me, ME, ME



Your posts are all "me me me". You're either incapable of seeing other perspectives than your own, or unwilling to. You see any reply to your posts that doesn't agree with you as an attack. You're complicit in your own supposed abuse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Are you on crack son? *Who blamed Japan*? You total muppet.



That'd be me, apparently, even though all I did was make the accurate point that the Japanese state is as caught up in othering people as the British state is, so didn't actually blame Japan for anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2014)

Spoken like the white man kenan is.


Those quotes are perfect i think.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Those quotes are perfect i think.



Careful now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Not even the bridge over the river Kwai?



Not even.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't blamed anything on Japan. I've said that you're carping about UK racism, when the Japanese state has a reputation that's as bad as or worse than the UK (and that's without mentioning the _Ainu_).
> 
> I won't expect an apology, as you're probably too much of a self-righteous cunt to make one.



Yes, I read what you posted. I don't deny it. I've seen it first hand. Just don't know what it has to do with UKIP; that's all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Yes, I read what you posted. I don't deny it. I've seen it first hand. Just don't know what it has to do with UKIP; that's all.



So why vomit your bilious shit all over me, and invent some insult I haven't made?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> So why vomit your bilious shit all over me, and invent some insult I haven't made?


Because I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take any more


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Because I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take any more



This isn't good for you, jer, this kind of behaviour. 

I'm saying this in all sincerity. You can't fix your issues by acting like this, you can only make them worse. I know you'll interpret this as me sniping at you, but I genuinely mean it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> This isn't good for you, jer, this kind of behaviour.
> 
> I'm saying this in all sincerity. You can't fix your issues by acting like this, you can only make them worse. I know you'll interpret this as me sniping at you, but I genuinely mean it.



Thanks Brian; I don't mind when people tear my statements/questions apart in the name of healthy debate - it's when butcher's does it on every thread simply for the sake of it - year in year out; it kind of grates.

I don't like UKIP, I don't trust them. I don't trust most political parties but I have a particular dislike for this party. It's emotive, racism makes me see red and perhaps lose my reason or coherence. I'm not great at retaining all the big ideas I read here but I will try harder.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


>



If that was Miliband the press would be awash with "OMG, what a hopeless freak! He must be ditched NOW!"


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Someone brought Japan into the argument which has nothing, nothing to do with UKIP and this country.



Who did? I mean, I know who mentioned Japan, obviously. But they weren't blaming Japan, they were mocking you. So who blamed Japan?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> racism makes me see red and perhaps lose my reason or coherence. I'm not great at retaining all the big ideas I read here but I will try harder.



So why do you hate UKIP more than the other racist parties?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> So why do you hate UKIP more than the other racist parties?



Because they're getting away with it & people seem to love them; like its the answer to all their problems. Its not.


----------



## chilango (Nov 7, 2014)

JimW said:


> Another UKIP-related post from Kenan Malik: http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/populism-what-why-how/
> 
> Thought this bit was good:
> 
> ...



Fuck yeah.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Because they're getting away with it & people seem to love them; like its the answer to all their problems. Its not.



They are also more overtly racist. That's not to excuse covert racism of course, but that senior members can just trot out stuff like "bongo bongo", "ting tong" or NF's comments on Romanians and seem to get more or less clean away with it is very disturbing.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> And make sure that butchers is on standby to make all those incisive, witty and helpful comments and check his dossier on everyone that just plain gets on his tits.
> 
> It's a day I never thought I'd see - UKIP75. Shut up about racism! It's about the honest, put upon sainted working classes who have been forced to vote for the heinous party.
> 
> My ass it is.



UKIP75 is amazing


----------



## rioted (Nov 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> UKIP75 is amazing


Many a true word ...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 7, 2014)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9049

Shows transition of votes between parties over last few years.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 7, 2014)

rioted said:


> Many a true word ...



Can't wait for krtek to expose Proletarian Democracy as the crypto-UKIP group that they are, UKIP entryists have infiltrated the entryists lol


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 7, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> It's a day I never thought I'd see - UKIP75. Shut up about racism!



Actually, we've been round that block before.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 7, 2014)

Those are good articles, and I think coalesence around them would show far less disagreement on this thread than all the sweariness and sarcasm may imply (I include myself in the latter category)

But I am still weirded out by how, as Malik states, these populists get to see themselves as against the mainstream. Reactionary sentiment is pretty commonplace in the mainstream, there's no getting away from it. It's just standard stuff that they have a martyr complex, thinking that everything is dominated by "the left/metropolitan elites/pc brigade" or whatever cobwebbed cliche comes to hand.


----------



## andysays (Nov 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Can't wait for krtek to expose Proletarian Democracy as the crypto-UKIP group that they are, UKIP entryists have infiltrated the entryists lol



I thought that as good Posadists, PD were in favour of inter-galactic immigration. Can't see that being too popular with Nigel and the gang.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2014)

andysays said:


> I thought that as good Posadists, PD were in favour of inter-galactic immigration. Can't see that being too popular with Nigel and the gang.



As long as the aliens have qualifications or skills to count towards the points-based, _controlled_ inter-galactic immigration....no worries.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 7, 2014)

andysays said:


> I thought that as good Posadists, PD were in favour of inter-galactic immigration. Can't see that being too popular with Nigel and the gang.



On the contrary, thanks to Posadist entryist cadre working at the highest levels within UKIP's inner circle, the party's immigration policy is already orientated purely around "space not race".


----------



## andysays (Nov 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> On the contrary, thanks to Posadist entryist cadre working at the highest levels within UKIP's inner circle, the party's immigration policy is already orientated purely around "space not race".



And soundtracked by member in absentia Sun Ra, no doubt


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2014)

Stop bullying him!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Those are good articles, and I think coalesence around them would show far less disagreement on this thread than all the sweariness and sarcasm may imply (I include myself in the latter category)
> 
> But I am still weirded out by how, as Malik states, these populists get to see themselves as against the mainstream. Reactionary sentiment is pretty commonplace in the mainstream, there's no getting away from it. It's just standard stuff that they have a martyr complex, thinking that everything is dominated by "the left/metropolitan elites/pc brigade" or whatever cobwebbed cliche comes to hand.



Reactionaries seeing themselves as radicals is nothing new. When you're so reactionary that your views are calcified, then anything outside of that will seem to be a radical proposal or act, just as when you're that reactionary, any politics outside of your own can be categorised as "left" or "liberal" or "elite".
Of course, what goes unsaid is that UKIP's reactionary politics are just as "elite" as those of the mainstream political parties, just masked in a particular set of sentiments to appeal to protest voters and those right-wingers who believe in *parliamentary politics* (another reason why UKIP *aren't* fascist, by the way).


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Nov 9, 2014)

andysays said:


> I thought that as good Posadists, PD were in favour of inter-galactic immigration. Can't see that being too popular with Nigel and the gang.



IIRC (though I can't find anything in English) Posadas was tortured by the Argentinian authorities. His '68 onwards ramblings do make more sense if this is true.

Of course, this doesn't excuse any of his followers...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2014)

Was faffing around in Foyles yesterday,(as Slavoj Žižek swanned through with a small entourage...btw),
and realised that I'd fallen for their 25th anniversary marketing schtick by flicking through loads of the GDR themed books.

Obviously, the Ostalgie stuff was well represented, but some of the better work explored the "social trends" type polling that has explored the developing and complicated relationship that many former, particularly older, Ossis have with their former state.

I was reading accounts of how many recalled the shock of the revelations of the luxurious life led by their former elite, and the extent to which they were surveilled. And yet there were plenty of expressions of regret that they had left a society in which there was security of employment, child care, equality and fairness of welfare provision etc...and a feeling of being left behind since die wende.

Then it struck me......and much of UKIP's support is concentrated in the East as well!

UKIPstalgie.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 12, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Was faffing around in Foyles yesterday,(as Slavoj Žižek swanned through with a small entourage...btw),
> and realised that I'd fallen for their 25th anniversary marketing schtick by flicking through loads of the GDR themed books.
> 
> Obviously, the Ostalgie stuff was well represented, but some of the better work explored the "social trends" type polling that has explored the developing and complicated relationship that many former, particularly older, Ossis have with their former state.
> ...


 
I don't want to make too much of this but two things struck on reading this (and I don't think you intended them at all...so I'm not having any sort of go at you):

1. Such expressions of regret seem admirable to me. They are reflections of aspirations for an admirable society and this remains true and useful even when expressed by Ossis (with their one sided nostalgia) or UKIPers (with their back to the future dreams).

2. If societies in which there is security of employment (or the material provisions that employment provides), child care, equality and fairness of welfare provision etc., are only available in the nostalgia of Ossis and the dreams of UKIPers, then we're stuffed. If the case can't be made for such societies without recourse to past totalitarianism or future nationalism then...

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I don't want to make too much of this but two things struck on reading this (and I don't think you intended them at all...so I'm not having any sort of go at you):
> 
> 1. Such expressions of regret seem admirable to me. They are reflections of aspirations for an admirable society and this remains true and useful even when expressed by Ossis (with their one sided nostalgia) or UKIPers (with their back to the future dreams).
> 
> ...


No offence taken at all Louis...I was musing, thinking aloud and just really exploring certain parallels that suddenly struck me....it's nice of you to join in with my ramblings.

1. Absolutely; I found some of the GDR reminiscences rather moving.

2. Yes. I think one of the things that has emerged throughout this thread is the disconnect between the aspirations of some UKIP voters and those of the party machine. tbf to Owen Jones he did attempt to highlight some of the more 'left-wing' aspirations/beliefs of many UKIP voters.

I think what struck me about the Ostalgie/'Kipper parallel, (if any exists?), is that both have found some electoral expression in parties, albeit on different ends of the linear spectrum, keen to portray their outsider/"insurgent" status, despite their establishment provenance.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 12, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I think what struck me about the Ostalgie/'Kipper parallel, (if any exists?), is that both have found some electoral expression in parties keen to portray their outsider/"insurgent" status, despite their establishment provenance.



A local colleague of mine was debating politics of immigration with his father-in-law, whose Ostalgie makes him vote for Die Linke. . . and after hearing his f-in-l's views on immigration he told him "if you think like that why don't you just vote for the far right". To which I replied "what the fuck did you tell him that for?"


----------



## treelover (Nov 12, 2014)

> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/nov/12/what-nigel-farage-really-thinks-ukip-video



The Guardian has compiled a number of Farage speeches, etc on video and dissected them , it seems he has some very right wing ideas, no surprise there then,


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> A local colleague of mine was debating politics of immigration with his father-in-law, whose Ostalgie makes him vote for Die Linke. . . and after hearing his f-in-l's views on immigration he told him "if you think like that why don't you just vote for the far right". To which I replied "what the fuck did you tell him that for?"



I understand that polling has consistently shown significantly higher rates of xenophobia and anti-immigrant expression in the former GDR.
Despite the hyped fraternal "contract worker" and 'student' immigration into GDR, for most East Germans, day-to day life would have been relatively mono-cultural; foreign nationals generally being <1% of the population if Soviet troops were excluded from the data. Sure, there were workers from Vietnam, Cuba, Mozambique etc., but the state tended to ensure that such foreign nationals were generally kept quite distinct and isolated.

So, I suppose that views like that expressed by your colleague's FiL are not un-common and represent yet another facet of Ostalgie, and a rather depressing parallel with some aspects of UKIP support.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> The Guardian has compiled a number of Farage speeches, etc on video and dissected them , it seems he has some very right wing ideas, no surprise there then,



Actually, material like this could potentially be helpful in attempting to drive a wedge between working class UKIP supporters and the party elite, but I fear that there are now a good many punters out there who are so determined in their support that they would not be prepared to hear or engage with the dissonance.

A small note, but why did the Guardian decide it was a good idea to attach a soundtrack of music that appeared to imply that Farage is some sort of a comedy buffoon? I would have thought the clips powerful enough without such 'gilding'.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> The Guardian has compiled a number of Farage speeches, etc on video and dissected them , it seems he has some very right wing ideas, no surprise there then,


I liked it.

I did not like the soundtrack. 'The Entertainer' Farage is not, neither are his vile policies.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I fear that there are now a good many punters out there who are so determined in their support that they would not be prepared to hear or engage with the dissonance



Yep. Utter zealots.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yep. Utter zealots.


More like utterly disaffected and disenchanted.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2014)

brogdale said:


> More like utterly disaffected and disenchanted.



Those too for sure, but it was you who talked about a level of "determination" in support that transcends stark opposition to political interest. Determination in the face of facts is more in the ballpark of the zealot. You were talking about "punters" though, I suppose I was thinking of the legion of cheerleaders, for whom virtually all critique can be brushed off as "leftie smears".


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Those too for sure, but it was you who talked about a level of "determination" in support that transcends stark opposition to political interest. Determination in the face of facts is more in the ballpark of the zealot. You were talking about "punters" though, I suppose I was thinking of the legion of cheerleaders, for whom virtually all critique can be brushed off as "leftie smears".


Yes, I was using "punters" to indicate 'ordinary' voters, and I don't really see determination to vote UKIP as a form of fanatical commitment. I'd say that there is within working class UKIP support a determination to give the established parties a good kicking, irrespective of the vote representing a political choice against their own interest. That is why I was sceptical of the ability of material like the Guardian video to effect significant change in the perception of UKIP.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yes, I was using "punters" to indicate 'ordinary' voters, and I don't really see determination to vote UKIP as a form of fanatical commitment. I'd say that there is within working class UKIP support a determination to give the established parties a good kicking, irrespective of the vote representing a political choice against their own interest. That is why I was sceptical of the ability of material like the Guardian video to effect significant change in the perception of UKIP.




It's hard to know what would effect such change. The hoax "alternative" narrative has now set in, partly stepping into LD shoes.

For a while I hoped/suspected the froth and hype would blow over, the bubble would burst. Then I realised that, although I don't watch them, shows like X Factor and The Apprentice still get loads of attention and hype many years into their runs, churning out the same stuff. That may sound like an odd comparrison, but we are talking "showbusiness for ugly people" here and NF certainly plays up to / into a vibe of being "different" and a bit more "celeb" like (stuff like those appearances on HIGNFY at a time when the party was still in "others" having fed into the spectacle)

I've started to toy with the idea that one way to deflate the (rather unbritish) arrogance of the cheerleaders (who are numerous and certainly pretend to be "normal punters") is to highlight how UKIP are really not so different after all in many ways.

Some of the BTL stuff on the guardian article were on this theme too, and I think it can be worked at.

NF seems to have completely U turned on a major issue. They also dodge questions and indulge every other trick indulged by political parties, as well as the economic stuff being mostly straight from the neo liberal consesnsus (even if they are partly and rightly embarrassed by it now).

If Cameron, Miliband or the other one were to so publically and inexpliably change such a key position, with such a weak blag from central office, the Kippers would rip all kinds of shit out of them for doing so. UKIP genuinelly are mroe of the same bad old politics, but perhaps it will take time for that idea to settle in, and it's not an idea the press seem keen to promote any time soon.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

He's still got it...



> Sir John Major has attacked the UK Independence party (Ukip) for spreading profoundly un-British politics of “negativity and sheer nastiness”, as he warned the UK would be a less relevant nation if it left the European Union.



"....spreading politics of “negativity and sheer nastiness”...imagine that.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 16, 2014)

Who knew?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

More defectors?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 16, 2014)

Back to the TTIP thing. 
UKIP  zealots can get very know-all and sweary when challenged, claiming they are against it.

But what's this?

"The Ukip MEP for south-west England and Gibraltar and the party's spokesperson for trade, has told*IBTimes UK *that he supports the inclusion of the NHS and education in any free trade agreement negotiated between the EU and US."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ttip-exclu...de-nhs-controversial-eu-us-trade-deal-1470790

Oh dear. It's like the NHS thing, they are flip flopping all over the place. It's the new politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

Anyone got access to the piece here What Do UKIP Voters Think of the Economy? The blurb reads:



> The by-election in Rochester & Strood will fuel debate about what is driving support for Ukip. Much has been written about how the party’s voters are concerned chiefly with immigration and Europe – but what are their economic views?
> 
> The assumption is that they are like Conservatives, only a bit further to the right. Like some of Ukip’s leading activists, we are told, their voters are diehard Thatcherites and free marketeers: they want low taxes, favour big business, are unconcerned about inequality and oppose strongly any attempt to redistribute wealth.



And Goodwin- the  author of the piece - suggests the piece shows  "that Ukip voters are closer to Labour on the economy than the Tories". and "Many assume that on economics Ukip voters are ultra Tories. But they are not."


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone got access to the piece here What Do UKIP Voters Think of the Economy? The blurb reads:
> 
> 
> 
> And Goodwin- the  author of the piece - suggests the piece shows  "that Ukip voters are closer to Labour on the economy than the Tories". and "Many assume that on economics Ukip voters are ultra Tories. But they are not."


that was pretty much what the last survey found, kipper's were slightly less likely than Labour voters to agree with statements like 'the economy is run in the interests of a few, not the majority' - but they were also far less likely to believe that government could do anything about those things.  That was a poll carried out several months ago, before they got their recent boost, altho it doesnt sound like their opinions have changed much.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> that was pretty much what the last survey found, kipper's were slightly less likely than Labour voters to agree with statements like 'the economy is run in the interests of a few, not the majority' - but they were also far less likely to believe that government could do anything about those things.  That was a poll carried out several months ago, before they got their recent boost, altho it doesnt sound like their opinions have changed much.


Oh yeah, it's been fairly consistent for some years now - would just like some up-to-date info so that if i mention this people don't go - _oh but that was from before their rise. Now it's just ultra-free marketeers and libertarians.
_
Oddly enough, those same people also tend to argue UKIP supporters were always simply well off golf club tories, the extreme right of the tories.


----------



## Red O (Nov 17, 2014)

From Peter Kellner of YouGov, http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-support-british-politics-voters-labour-party

'As many as 60% of “early” Ukip supporters voted Conservative in 2010. The figure for more recent converts is just 36%, much the same as the voting public as a whole. The proportion of Ukip voters coming from the Labour party has trebled from 7% to 23%.

'The age profile of more recent switchers is also much closer to that of the wider electorate. Ukip still underperforms among the under-40s, who supply 24% of its more recent converts, compared with 37% for the electorate as a whole – but that 24% is a marked increase on the 14% it was achieving when its support first started to climb two years ago. And whereas fully 51% of its initial surge came from people over 60, that figure is down to 31% among more recent converts, which is very close to the national average of 29%.

'[W]hen it comes to social class, Ukip’s support has become less representative of the electorate as a whole. These days, 43% of Britain’s voters are working class. Ukip’s initial support was already tilted that way, with 51% working class. The figure for recent converts is much higher: 61%.

'All this is consistent with European, local and byelection results this year. Ukip is now building support in traditional working-class Labour areas. Initially, Ukip was a far greater threat to the Tories, for it took nine votes from the Conservatives for every vote it took from Labour. Since early last year, for every nine votes it has taken from the Tories it has taken six from Labour.

'That said, I would be surprised if Ukip captured many seats from Labour next May: Grimsby, perhaps, and just possibly Rotherham. Labour’s real problem is that Ukip might establish itself as the clear challenger in dozens of Labour seats across the north, with a chance of squeezing the residual Tory and Lib Dem votes in 2020, and defeating a number of Labour MPs in that election.'


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2014)

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politic...council_announces_defection_to_ukip_1_3852452

this bod is defecting in norfolk- article says he is a Cabinet member.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 19, 2014)

Yes council cabinet though not the real one


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2014)

see, I knew there was a reason it hadn't made the main news


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2014)

> Two Conservative MPs are considering jumping ship to Nigel Farage’s party if it wins the Rochester and Strood byelection, Ukip candidate Mark Reckless said on Wednesday.
> 
> Reckless, the former Tory MP whose defection triggered the contest, made the claim on the eve of a vote likely to return him as Ukip’s second MP. Further defections would be likely to prompt a crisis in Downing Street about the haemorrhaging of the Tory vote six months before the general election, and potentially a move on David Cameron’s leadership.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/19/two-tory-mps-defect-ukip-wins-rochester-reckless



Lol


----------



## Wilf (Nov 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> More defectors?



Shits deserting a sinking rat.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 19, 2014)

There's something symbolic if the Tories drop under 300 seats. Not sure what really, but it looks pretty threadbare for a party leading a government. Good.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 19, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Shits deserting a sinking rat.




i think these jumping torys are very short sighted though - in 5 years time UKIP will be in a sorry state im sure of it
anyhow, like that old rave tune goes, keep jumping you bastards!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 20, 2014)

Farage in the papers whining about the EU decision to reject Osborne and his case against capping banker's bonus is yet more evidence owhat UKIP are really about. 



> Ukip leader Nigel Farage told the Standard the court decision could influence voters in today’s crucial poll as it confirmed his party’s view that “we never win” in Europe.
> 
> He said: “A lot of people in Rochester and Strood commute to London to work in the finance industry. They will be reading about this in the Evening Standard on their way home and may well feel dismayed by the verdict.
> 
> “It is the constant drip, drip, drip of Britain losing every single negotiation and ruling. We never win and it’s time we woke up to that fact.”



http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-by-eu-court-on-day-of-ukip-poll-9872556.html


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Back to the TTIP thing.
> UKIP  zealots can get very know-all and sweary when challenged, claiming they are against it.
> 
> But what's this?
> ...


The MEP for SW england is a Green party member iirc.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> The MEP for SW england is a Green party member iirc.


There's more than one SW MEP .


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 20, 2014)

Awesome there are several meps for each region, 1 is green in the SW. I dunno if the"Gibraltar " is official, or ukip bibble.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 20, 2014)

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/20/why-ukips-rivals-are-fighting-wrong-battle/


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/20/why-ukips-rivals-are-fighting-wrong-battle/


Any comments? Anything?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/20/why-ukips-rivals-are-fighting-wrong-battle/





> The place where Ukip voters want to live is that other country, the past. By four-to-one, they would prefer to turn the clock back 20-30 years rather than continue to live in Britain as it is today. No other party’s supporters think that.



For the vast majority of people that just makes good economic sense.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 20, 2014)

Butchers - my connection is cronky, my device fiddly, both in more ways than one  

I think its a good, if unsurprising piece. Ive always suspected the point about a 10% core, the negativity (nationalism is often rooted in themes around NOT liking the country) and misinformed estimates on economy/benefits etc.

More broadly, im convinced that funelling sommany social issues down to that of migration is myopic, and lets the establishment off the hook for woeful disregards of housing, transport etc.

Its certainly an error to try and compete with ukip on anti migrant stuff, especially for the labour party, both strategically and morally i would say.


----------



## laptop (Nov 20, 2014)

* Gove '100%' certain no more Tories will defect [to UKIP] *
Damn. I have to send a message to IT support complaining that I damn well should be able to look up the bookies' odds from here, if not place a bet. They're blocking them 

CC: First World Problems


----------



## FNG (Nov 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politic...council_announces_defection_to_ukip_1_3852452
> 
> this bod is defecting in norfolk- article says he is a Cabinet member.



 Not sure if he is more of a liability to the Tories outside the party or in, managed to make a balls up of the Cromer town centre redevelopment plan. His proposal to move the market and the taxi rank were locally unpopular with public and traders alike.
Hopefully he'll fuck up Ukip even more.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 20, 2014)

J Ed said:


> For the vast majority of people that just makes good economic sense.



Indeed. The good old days of Thatcher, when you could buy your council house and not end up with a load of economic migrants living next door.


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2014)

Are you saying J Ed is a tory or wacist?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

He's saying, and it's the only thing he ever says apart from crap jokes - is that everyone else is a racist.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 20, 2014)

Certainly nothing "crap joke" about swapping "racist" for "wacist".


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Certainly nothing "crap joke" about swapping "racist" for "wacist".


Are you sure?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 20, 2014)

gave it some thought, maybe it's bobbins after all.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

> Mark Reckless has taken his oath. He was accompanied by Douglas Carswell *and Philip Hollobone*.



A clue there?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2014)

Lib Dems < 500 votes!


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2014)

The BBC article shows that UKIP is strong in Inverness; why is that?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The BBC article shows that UKIP is strong in Inverness; why is that?


Where? What seat?


----------



## mwgdrwg (Nov 21, 2014)

I keep having nightmares of living in a country run by a Tory-UKIP coalition


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The BBC article shows that UKIP is strong in Inverness; why is that?


do you think 3d place is strong? and why so?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

mwgdrwg said:


> I keep having nightmares of living in a country run by a Tory-UKIP coalition


i keep having nightmares of living in a country run by politicians.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think 3d place is strong? and why so?



Setting aside Inverness, that's a good map graphic of Ashcroft's polling...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

looking at it again i think that's 4th place


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> looking at it again i think that's 4th place


 or lower


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

The only polling i can see done in Danny Alexander's seat was the angry and bodged Oaksehott one that had UKIP in 5th on 6%. Which is why it's marked 4th or lower on the map in Quartz's link. Not sure why he thinks this is an indication of them being strong there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

i'd like to hear Quartz explain why 4th place (or lower) suggests ukip in a strong position in inverness. but i don't suppose he will.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2014)

Ah, I'd misread it as 3rd place rather than 4th or lower.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

This could easily go in the Guardian/shite thread, but....



> In his victory speech Mark Reckless said that it was now “not Ed Miliband, but Ukip, that represents the concerns of most working men and women”. (See 8.42am.)
> 
> *That sounds a bold claim. But, if you judge a party by the social class of its supporters*, it is justified. In Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box: 50 Things You Need to Know about British Elections, Matthew Goodwin has an essay saying “Ukip is Britain’s most working-class party”. Here’s an extract.
> 
> Yes, [Ukip’s] base is very socially distinctive: but it is blue-collar, poorly educated, old, white and male. Far from a rebellion of the golf club, Ukip is Britain’s most working-class party. Indeed, to find a party support base that is as disproportionately working-class you need to go back to the Labour party in the early ‘80s, and the days of Michael Foot. Since 2010, the voters who have flocked to Farage look more like Old Labour than True Blue Tories: they are older whiter men, working-class, struggling financially and poorly educated.



So Reckless' claim is right according to the G?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Ah, I'd misread it as 3rd place rather than 4th or lower.


yes. but third place isn't really a position of strength, is it? just ask the lib dems.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but third place isn't really a position of strength, is it? just ask the lib dems.


3rd? Since when?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> 3rd? Since when?


until 2010 - since then they've had to make do with fifth, sixth, seventh.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> until 2010 - since then they've had to make do with fifth, sixth, seventh.


Indeed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Indeed.


it all depends on whether 5, 6, or 7 candidates are standing.


----------



## FNG (Nov 21, 2014)

What is interesting is where UKIP cannot exploit local grievances over mass imigration,such as in their static protests in Lincoln,Boston,Spalding and the one they cancelled one in wisbech due to opposition from "We Are Wisbech"; they become the party of opposition to Big Bureaucracy and Big Business, especially with regards to planning. For example in North Norfolk at their breakthrough  last council elections they campaigned extensively against the publicly unpopular proposed King Lynn Incinerator project, 
which they managed to scupper albeit with a multi million golden handshake for the Incinerator Project owners.

 Heres a summery of their last Constituency Report Autumn 2014, delivered to ex-council now housing association estate amongst other places on their ward.

* Funding Awarded For North Norfolk Coastline Protection*

 In this section UKIP take the credit for securing £250,000 from central government for storm protection.

*New Management Structure*
 Proposed reducing number of County Council chief officers from 10 to 5

*Primary education for Holt*

proposal to build new primary school

* The Northern Distributor Road*

 Opposition to building new bypass around north Norwich,due to impact on green belt, this sectio also pays tribute to efforts to restrict wind farm development.

*Constiuency work*
List of meetings attended by M.Baker
mention of minor road plans including new roundabout for Roughton
vague mention of addressing the issue of Local affordable housing when estate planning applications are presented, no specifics given

*final piece*
 general roundup of ukip success at ballot, plea for support at General election ,contact details and membership packages.

as you can see not a mention of Immigration the EU


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 21, 2014)

FNG said:


> * The Northern Distributor Road*
> 
> Opposition to building new bypass around north Norwich,due to impact on green belt,



Might cost them Alan's vote


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2014)

Their obsessive hatred of wind farms puzzles the fuck out of me, lots of the more parochial Tories share it as well.

Why is anti-wind such a right wing cause?


----------



## FNG (Nov 21, 2014)

Nimbyism


----------



## oryx (Nov 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Their obsessive hatred of wind farms puzzles the fuck out of me, lots of the more parochial Tories share it as well.
> 
> Why is anti-wind such a right wing cause?



NIMBYism, as FNG said, plus the rich hate (real) environmental change of any sort as it will involve changes to their lifestyle they do not want e.g. less travel by big expensive car and plane, smaller homes, less use of all sorts of fuel.


----------



## laptop (Nov 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Why is anti-wind such a right wing cause?



The possibility of the presence of a wind farm on the hill induces fear of the value of their property not rising as fast as it might have done.

House prices, silly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Why is anti-wind such a right wing cause?


i expect anyone spending time with right-wingers after one of their extravagant feasts would be anti-wind too.


----------



## laptop (Nov 21, 2014)




----------



## rekil (Nov 21, 2014)

laptop said:


> * Gove '100%' certain no more Tories will defect [to UKIP] *
> Damn. I have to send a message to IT support complaining that I damn well should be able to look up the bookies' odds from here, if not place a bet. They're blocking them
> 
> CC: First World Problems


PP odds here. Hollobone was at Dulwich college with Farage.


----------



## laptop (Nov 21, 2014)

copliker said:


> PP odds here. Hollobone was at Dulwich college with Farage.



Ta 

Anyone who understand odds better than me want to estimate the bookies' take on Gove being right - zero defections?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

FNG said:


> * Funding Awarded For North Norfolk Coastline Protection*
> 
> In this section UKIP take the credit for securing £250,000 from central government for storm protection.



Ah, that'll be the quarter of a mil that central government promised back in 2012, that UKIP had nothing to do with, and which hadn't arrived when new storm flooding occurred along the N. Norfolk coast in 2013.


----------



## FNG (Nov 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, that'll be the quarter of a mil that central government promised back in 2012, that UKIP had nothing to do with, and which hadn't arrived when new storm flooding occurred along the N. Norfolk coast in 2013.



 Funnily enough the UKIP flyer fails to mention that salient point.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 24, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Their obsessive hatred of wind farms puzzles the fuck out of me, lots of the more parochial Tories share it as well.
> 
> Why is anti-wind such a right wing cause?



I suspect a certain sort of UKIP'er (there are many in my predominantly working-class area) simply hates anything that smacks of middle-class do-gooding on general principles.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 24, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Why is anti-wind such a right wing cause?



Perhaps it's because they think it's so dependent upon subsidies, and, more importantly, kills the birds they want to shoot themselves?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 24, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I suspect a certain sort of UKIP'er (there are many in my predominantly working-class area) simply hates anything that smacks of middle-class do-gooding on general principles.


That's not a ukip only attitude.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Perhaps it's because they think it's so dependent upon subsidies, and, more importantly, kills the birds they want to shoot themselves?



In the case of the UKIP party hierarchy, you need look no further than Monckton. They have hard-core deniers of ACC at the top.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 24, 2014)

surely UKIP should have a leadership crisis now - all the other parties are having one - Farage is surely now junior to Reckless and Carswell - afterall he is only an MEP

#FarageMustGo


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 24, 2014)

he's already purged all his rivals in the night of the long knives


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 24, 2014)

Nimbyism doesn't explain pro fracking.


----------



## campanula (Nov 24, 2014)

Very selective nimbyism


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Nimbyism doesn't explain pro fracking.



It's OK, it's the North that'll get fracked. It's all just a wasteland up there, right?


----------



## gosub (Nov 25, 2014)

The YouGov survey was conducted after Mr Miliband dismissed a frontbencher for a “disrespectful” tweet of a house draped in England flags with a white van parked outside. Asked which party was most in touch with the views of white working-class people, 21 per cent chose Labour and 27 per cent Ukip. The margin was even greater among white working-class people themselves, at 20 per cent and 29 per cent respectively.


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4277351.ece


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2014)

gosub said:


> The YouGov survey was conducted after Mr Miliband dismissed a frontbencher for a “disrespectful” tweet of a house draped in England flags with a white van parked outside. Asked which party was most in touch with the views of white working-class people, 21 per cent chose Labour and 27 per cent Ukip. The margin was even greater among white working-class people themselves, at 20 per cent and 29 per cent respectively.
> 
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4277351.ece


Have you read the full article?


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 25, 2014)

The 'white british working class' are just a subset of the wider working class. Is it just me that feels like the media/political pundits act like they're the the sole representative of the working class?  Marginalisation exists across all groups, is there evidence that the WWC is more or less cut off from opportunity and attention?  I know some minor anecdotal stuff through friends working in care provision, but what's the wider picture?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 25, 2014)

Not really a subset more the majority and ham fisted attempts to help minoritys often come across as either patronising or out and out discrimnatory.
 Tories have always hated us
Labours fucked off to islington with a polish nanny and some hardworking hungarian builders
 Lib dems lied and got into bed with the torys so fuck em.
 The lefts either fucking usless or obssesed with palestine
 That leaves the boot boys of the bnp and edl who can sometimes find their way out of a wet paperbag.
 So that leaves ukip.
 Who dont appear to be pod people.


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


>


http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/2...-20000-people-in-their-short-miserable-lives/
A swivell-eyed loon speaks......


----------



## laptop (Nov 28, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> A swivel-eyed loon...



Who has a house in Scotland, yes?



> Towler said... Monckton - whom he described as a "17th century pamphleteer" - was sometimes the source of "frustration" and was "very much Lord Pearson's man - they own contiguous shooting estates in Scotland".
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/jun/22/rio-20-summit-final-day-live-blog


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 28, 2014)

Draft manifesto.

https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_d...inline=1&ext=1417214810&hash=ASvxeqy0lJoe1Xgs

I've only scanned it, these are first impressions:

After not referring much to policy for some time, I anticipate the borg will fall behind this document in lock-step.

Doublespeak on green energy. Big let off on tax for the rich in inheritance, which is the opposite of meritocratic. Mostly looks sensible-ish sounding centre right populist stuff, which need not have any relation to reality. A fair few dog whistles for racists as well. Not that they are racist of course, that needs underlining.

Not racist at all. Did I make that clear?

No mention of TTIP. I suspect the recent conversion to anti PFI in the NHS is just to catch out / show up Labour.

ETA: Wondering if I haven't seen this doc before actually, maybe it's not as hot of the press as I thunk, but anyhow...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2014)

Nigel farage had a column in the independent today during which he explained why his immigration policy was less racist and unfair the the Tories. Did anyone see it? (I don't  believe him but I thought it was very interesting, both in what he was saying and how he was saying it)


----------



## Quartz (Nov 29, 2014)

This column?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Draft manifesto.
> 
> https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_d...inline=1&ext=1417214810&hash=ASvxeqy0lJoe1Xgs
> 
> I've only scanned it, these are first impressions:



That link doesn't seem to work for me.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 29, 2014)

Apols, it appears to be pretty much this, and thus not that hot off the press. Still worth perusing though.

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 4, 2014)

Champion of the working class, Alan Titchmarsh, has said that "UKIP are saying what other people are afraid to".

Is he talking about complaints about immigration? there seems to be rather a lot of that going on in a very unafraid fashion.

Come to think of it, the tories ran a 2005 General Election campaign saying "Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?" on this kind of "people are afraid to say it" stuff that people aren't afraid to say. They say they are afraid to say it because it boosts their case to foster a martyr myth.

So, that's nearly 10 years out of date for AT just to start. He probably thinks the Ford Sierra is a daring and controversial new shape.

If a BBC face like him made a similar pro Labour or Green comment there'd be calls for him to be sacked from the kipborg for such bias.

We know there's no room for hypocrite bullshit in the new politics, so await similar demands in this case.


----------



## treelover (Dec 4, 2014)

> When I look at these protestors do you know what I see? Straggly haired men brandishing cans of super strength lager, rabbles of tattooed single mothers smoking roll-ups with their untidy, dirty children who appear neglected, and semi-literate pregnant teenagers with a sense of entitlement to education, unemployment benefit and council housing.
> This rag-bag of would be revolutionaries petition us to attend to their vociferous, often foul-mouthed vituperations and yet are apparently unable to articulate a cogent argument on behalf of their cause.
> They should take heed that the most significant grass roots political movement since the Suffragettes - UKIP has risen not from the ranks of scruffy students, benefit scroungers or part-time lecturers of media studies, but from decent well dressed, hard working people of the English shires, who are sick to death of the moral depravity and corruption extant in our society. They are finally fighting back, rising up and have got the political establishment on the run!
> If you are a truly believer in revolution, radical change vote Farage and join the true People's Army!






Post on CIF about the student protests this week, etc, the true face of UKIP?


----------



## killer b (Dec 4, 2014)

Its a joke isn't it? Either way, its ridiculous. The true face of fuck all.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 4, 2014)




----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 5, 2014)

What is "ostentatious" breastfeeding?   Discrimination is common sense apparently


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 5, 2014)

It's 'common sense' again.  The public are with him, if you take note of the most 'upvoted' comments on the BBC article (which definitely isn't skewed by UKIPs army of click-happy retired supporters with too much time on their hands).


----------



## laptop (Dec 5, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> What is "ostentatious" breastfeeding?



See the thread on banned smut? Ask OFCOM?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 5, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> What is "ostentatious" breastfeeding?   Discrimination is common sense apparently



It refers to all those mums who set off the flashing lights and klaxons attached to  their knockers whilst breastfeeding in restaurants and doing a song and dance number on the table. you must have seen them.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 5, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> It refers to all those mums who set off the flashing lights and klaxons attached to  their knockers whilst breastfeeding in restaurants and doing a song and dance number on the table. you must have seen them.



Ah yes, the militant breastfeeders. Always disturbing the peace and causing distress and riots, the bastards


----------



## andysays (Dec 5, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> ...What is "ostentatious breastfeeding?"...



It's inadvertant comic genius, that's what it is.

Next week, NF calls for visably pregnant women to stay hidden away at home rather than *flaunting* the fact they have *clearly had sex* a few months before, the shameless hussies...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

Note how it slips from "ostentatious" to "ostentatious breastfeeding" in a few posts.


----------



## Ranbay (Dec 5, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> It refers to all those mums who set off the flashing lights and klaxons attached to  their knockers whilst breastfeeding in restaurants and doing a song and dance number on the table. you must have seen them.


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 5, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> What is "ostentatious" breastfeeding?   Discrimination is common sense apparently



 He just wants to be the only visible tit in the room......


----------



## Fingers (Dec 6, 2014)

OK six months after I predicated it was imminently going to happen,  the Times have rolled with the story today

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4289501.html

This shit goes right to the top 

Will and get a cut and paste of whole article


----------



## Fingers (Dec 6, 2014)

Sorry about formatting.... 

Scotland Yard is investigating claims that a serving police officer perverted 
the course of justice by warning journalists against writing about the 
“political affairs” of a Ukip MEP.

Detective Constable Tony Holden sent an unsolicited email to two reporters
from The Sunday Times and The Independent after they contacted Gerard 
Batten over the London MEP’s alleged links to far-right political 
organisations and proposed anti-Muslim policies, including banning halal
meat.

Mr
Holden, who was working on an unrelated fraud case brought by Mr Batten
against a former employee, warned the journalists against publishing 
articles “deemed to be untruthful and concerning to” the Ukip 
politician.

The
officer, a specialist in financial crime, wrote that “it has been 
bought [sic] to the attention of the Metropolitan Police” that the 
journalists had “been provided material by an unknown source concerning 
the political affairs of Mr Gerard Batten MEP”.

He
cautioned that any articles linked to Mr Batten’s ex-employee, Jasna 
Badzak, who at the time was awaiting trial for fraud, “may result in 
further arrests being made” and requested that the reporters “thoroughly
check the sources of the information, prior to contacting either Mr 
Batten or going to press”. He copied Mr Batten’s private email address 
into the correspondence.

One
of the journalists replied to Mr Holden, saying that he considered the 
email to be an attempt to warn him off writing about the MEP and a 
“potential abuse of office”. The journalist also emailed Mr Batten, 
asking for an explanation. Mr Batten appears to have forwarded the email
to Mr Holden, saying: “Dear Tony, very sorry to bother you with this. 
Please see the exchange of messages below.”

Mr
Holden’s extraordinary intervention is one of several instances of 
alleged police misconduct said to have been committed by four police 
officers and one ex-officer, all of which are under investigation by the
Metropolitan police’s serious misconduct investigation unit.

The
claims relate to Ms Badzak, who was convicted of fraud in October last 
year after a jury found that she had doctored a bank statement and 
borrowed £3,000 from Mr Batten on the false pretence that she had not 
been paid by the European parliament. Ms Badzak has since campaigned 
against her conviction, alleging that police officers in the case acted 
improperly.

The
IPCC, the independent police regulator, said in July that it was 
“concerned” about her complaints and referred them to Scotland Yard, 
which is investigating them.

The unit will also examine why Ms Badzak was told on two occasions that the officers about whom she complained did not exist.

“The
officers you have named as being officers of the Metropolitan Police 
Service are not officers with the MPS,” a police sergeant wrote. “I have
thoroughly interrogated all MPS systems and cannot find any trace of 
the officers.”

The
officer repeated this claim in July last year and it was only disclosed
to Ms Badzak in April this year that they were serving Met officers.

Last
night a Metropolitan police spokesman said that “it is not possible for
us to explain how this mistake was made” and that the officer who made 
the mistake is “on a career break”.

Bob
Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said that he 
was shocked by Mr Holden’s email. “It shows that there is something 
seriously amiss within the police when officers feel that they can 
interfere with the legitimate work of journalists,” he said. “That is 
the stuff of totalitarian states.”

Ms
Badzak has also raised concerns that police officers have used the 
criminal law in an attempt to prevent her from talking to journalists. 
In November, she received a formal harassment warning for “providing 
information . . . of a false nature” to a journalist at The Mail on 
Sunday. The warning stated that she had provided “false” information 
concerning Annabelle Fuller, a former press aide to Nigel Farage, which 
had caused Ms Fuller to be “subjected to numerous phone calls and 
emails”.

The
Times understands that Ms Badzak did not call the journalist — he 
called her to check information given to him by another source. Ms 
Fuller is under police investigation for allegedly making false claims 
of sexual assault.

Louise
Mensch, a former Conservative MP, submitted two criminal complaints 
yesterday via a senior officer in the Metropolitan police, complaining 
about the alleged conduct of officers in Ms Badzak’s case.

“It is clear to me that substantial police misconduct may have been committed,” Ms Mensch said.

The
Tory MP David Davis said that “the public should know whether this was 
an authorised intervention in the operation of a free press and if so 
who authorised it [and] what the basis for it was”.

A Met spokeswoman said: “On 25 April, 2014, a woman made a number of complaints against MPS police officers.”

She
added: “The matter is currently being investigated by the Directorate 
of Professional Standards. No police officer has been suspended or 
placed on restricted duties at this stage.”​


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Anything happen off that def true story bigger than rotherham last time?


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 6, 2014)

If Mensch is backing this then it's clearly bullshit. She's not one known for being on the side of truthfulness.

Potential damage to UKIP? About fuck all, this is 'bubble' stuff.


----------



## laptop (Dec 6, 2014)

Fingers said:


> OK six months after I predicated it was imminently going to happen,  the Times have rolled with the story today
> 
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4289501.html






			
				Firefox said:
			
		

> *This Connection is Untrusted*
> 
> You have asked Firefox to connect securely to www.thetimes.co.uk...


----------



## Fingers (Dec 6, 2014)

laptop said:


>



I got that last night ha ha


----------



## Flavour (Dec 7, 2014)

this is brilliant. balls of steel to say this with a straight face. what planet does this guy fucking live on?!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-30370570

"Nigel Farage has blamed high levels of immigration and the state of the M4 for missing a meet-the-leader event ahead of UKIP's first Welsh conference.

About 100 supporters each paid £25 for Friday's reception to meet the UKIP leader in Port Talbot on Friday evening but he did not arrive in time."


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 7, 2014)

There was an anti-Farage protest organised locally for Friday as well -- festivaldeb got various emails about it.

I doubt if many (any?) of the antis bothered to turn up in PT either.....

At least some of us preferred to head to Cardiff (by train  ), for the Madness gig instead


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 7, 2014)

Flavour said:


> this is brilliant. balls of steel to say this with a straight face. what planet does this guy fucking live on?!
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-30370570
> 
> ...


 




Shoulda taken a plane.......


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 7, 2014)

following mr farrago's comments on public breastfeeding, this is doing the rounds


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 7, 2014)

Flavour said:


> this is brilliant. balls of steel to say this with a straight face. what planet does this guy fucking live on?!
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-30370570
> 
> "Nigel Farage has blamed high levels of immigration and the state of the M4 for missing a meet-the-leader event ahead of UKIP's first Welsh conference."



Next thing is it will be 'immigrants on the line' making trains late. Chump.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 7, 2014)

Is farage losing it? The breastfeeding thing and now this utter nonsense. Its usually his minions who come out with the wing nut stuff, but hes excelling himself now. 

I mean "Fiday night traffic Jam - its them bloody immigrants". Thats almost beyond parody.


----------



## laptop (Dec 7, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Is farage losing it?



Why did he really miss the meeting?


Pissed
Appointment with Max Mosley and costumed friends
Other... speculate at will...


----------



## Quartz (Dec 7, 2014)

What was traffic on the M4 like? Surely there must be plenty of cameras to prove or disprove his story.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2014)

I'm willing to believe it was rammout in december on a friday drive time, without needing photo evidence

Just not that immigrants are really to blame


----------



## Quartz (Dec 8, 2014)

Indeed, but the cameras would capture images of the licence plates of all those Polish, Romanian, and other immigrant cars.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 8, 2014)

A guy at work always used to blame the traffic jams on the M62 on immigrants, exactly the same 'this country's too crowded' line. He pissed off to Australia about five years ago, probably still spouting the same crap without any awareness of the hypocrisy in his new situation.


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2014)

UKIP has just become one of those long line of acceptable safe protest votes.

They have zero chance of getting in so people vote for them.

The problem is the three major parties confuse what people are pissed off about in politics. It's less about johnny foreigner and more about the absolute lack of any actual representation.

I remember when if you have a problem with you local police, schools, roads, planning or environment you use to be able to visit your local councillor safe in the knowledge that they knew if a few hundred people locally became cheesed off with the issue they'd vote them out next time around. That's not to say they actually fixed anything but there was actual engagement with local politics. Now they have so little power I have to wonder why they just don't scrap them.

I'd be surprised if the majority of people who vote for UKIP think Nigel can make the buses run on time, or indeed would like to see him power. Most just detest the other three parties so much they are happy to kick them in the balls.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 8, 2014)

bemused said:


> UKIP has just become one of those long line of acceptable safe protest votes.


Acceptable?  

But yes, you have a point. There are clearly people who find it acceptable. Any point trying to engage with them? Are there even any points of contact?


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2014)

bluescreen said:


> Acceptable?
> 
> But yes, you have a point. There are clearly people who find it acceptable. Any point trying to engage with them? Are there even any points of contact?



Isn't that the challenge, if the three major parties are so awful what are you going to talk them into?


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 8, 2014)

What are you going to talk to them _about_? As this is urban, assuming you come from the left and probably despair of the labour party already, what is the point of contact with nulab let alone tories or lib dems, let alone ukippers? I don't have an answer and am despairing but think there needs to be some kind of engagement if we are ever going to get anywhere without violence.

ETA when I say 'point of contact' I mean nexus rather than purpose. But still.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 8, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> A guy at work always used to blame the traffic jams on the M62 on immigrants, exactly the same 'this country's too crowded' line. He pissed off to Australia about five years ago, probably still spouting the same crap without any awareness of the hypocrisy in his new situation.



I used to work with a bloke who emigrated to Australia on the basis that there had been a massive shift in the balance of power and culture in England and that new arrivals were pushing the native people out to the fringes.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 8, 2014)

racists love australia


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I used to work with a bloke who emigrated to Australia on the basis that there had been a massive shift in the balance of power and culture in England and that new arrivals were pushing the native people out to the fringes.



I read a thread on scumfront years ago with a load of British expats saying that they had moved to Spain to get away from the immigrants


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2014)

I don't really see UKIPs position on immigration that much different than Labours or the Tories. The only real difference is that the Red and Blue parties have been banging on about restrictions on people like Filipino health care workers coming here to staff old peoples homes whilst pretending that EU migration doesn't really count. The only difference seems to be UKIP wants everyone under the same rules.

I don't know enough about the benefits and disadvantages of migration to know if it's a huge benefit or a massive burden - and I don't really care the London melting pot is pretty cool and fine by me.

I'm just commenting on the disingenuous nature of the immigration debate.


----------



## Quartz (Dec 8, 2014)

bemused said:


> I don't really see UKIPs position on immigration that much different than Labours or the Tories.



It's very different: UKIP want control of immigration from within the EU; the Tories and Labour accept EU immigration as part of being in Europe.


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2014)

Quartz said:


> It's very different: UKIP want control of immigration from within the EU; the Tories and Labour accept EU immigration as part of being in Europe.



I get that, but how is it different? Both agree on the concept of migration controls - it's just that the Tories and Labour seem to think that half a billion people from one part of the World shouldn't be counted. 

It's just scope, there isn't much 'very' in the difference.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 8, 2014)

UKIP general sec suspended cos of unspecified shanigans. no info  other than



> allegations relating to candidate selection.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ral-secretary-candidate-selection-allegations


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 8, 2014)

The kipborg will be indulging all the pompous politico speak they can muster to try and smooth this one over. You know - the sort of stuff that they reject in favour of "plain speaking". 

Bunch of pricks.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 8, 2014)

http://saintnigepriory.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/cyber-debate-tips-for-the-peoples-army-part-2/


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

Spam - reported as such

Not funny. Reported as such to the comedy council


----------



## youngian (Dec 8, 2014)

bemused said:


> The only difference seems to be UKIP wants everyone under the same rules.



That's true they will be under a system of 'sensible managed migration'. Which basically means a farmer has to get some paperwork stamped before the migrants prevent his food from rotting. The main difference under UKIP is that he will be able to ship over Bangladeshis on £1 an hour instead of using EU labour on minimum wage. Immigration has been a fortunate bandwagon that UKIP has been able to exploit but its essentially a one issue party obsessed with the EU and all its evil works. It is an irony that its core voters have not yet been bright enough to work out that under UKIP they're more likely to see more darkies and Muzzies down their High Street and less white European Christians from Central Europe. 




bemused said:


> UKIP has just become one of those long line of acceptable safe protest votes.
> 
> They have zero chance of getting in so people vote for them.
> 
> ...



But did any far right populist party come to power because their voters had a deep ideological commitment to the philopsphy and had thought really hard about the consequences of their policies?

UKIP's appeal is visceral and Farage is yet to have a Greg Stillson moment, a figure he worryingly resembles.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 8, 2014)

A little insight into some UKIP bullying antics against a small time critic

http://ukipshenanigans.wordpress.com/


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

Much funnier.


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2014)

youngian said:


> The main difference under UKIP is that he will be able to ship over Bangladeshis on £1 an hour instead of using EU labour on minimum wage.



Yeah but now you have the Labour Party no less saying they'll refuse to pay EU migrates benefits if they haven't had a job over here - pretty much giving rogue employers a huge stick to treat them like shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> http://saintnigepriory.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/cyber-debate-tips-for-the-peoples-army-part-2/


That's your second worst yet. I feel like i'm covered in shit just by reading it. You clueless cunt.


----------



## youngian (Dec 8, 2014)

You can't turn up from Bulgaria and sign on anyway its a phantom solution to a phantom problem. Depressing though it is that Labour are even playing this game. If they were serious about confronting the problem of wage depression in the low skilled labour market they should look at abolishing Tory trade union restrictions that make collective bargaining and industry wide wage norms so difficult to fight for.


----------



## Fingers (Dec 8, 2014)

This is what happened when one of my mates wrote a letter to his local newspaper about UKIP last week.

http://ukipshenanigans.wordpress.com/


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Anything happen off that def true story bigger than rotherham last time?


I guess not eh Fingers ?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's your second worst yet. I feel like i'm covered in shit just by reading it. You clueless cunt.



_Real libertarians don’t have a problem with migration and probably wouldn’t want to double prison spaces._

Yes they would. Assuming we're talking of the ayn rand variety...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> _Real libertarians don’t have a problem with migration and probably wouldn’t want to double prison spaces._
> 
> Yes they would. Assuming we're talking of the ayn rand variety...



Ayn Rand was a migrant.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's your second worst yet. I feel like i'm covered in shit just by reading it. You clueless cunt.


I think you've lost the plot on this subject. This is a party one of whose two MPs openly spoke of 'sending them back', and you are sickened by a lampoon of such people as narrow-minded racists?

It might hit a few bum notes, but you know what I felt covered in shit by? You, hoping people would vote UKIP before a recent election. You've no business calling anyone a clueless cunt when it comes to this.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you've lost the plot on this subject. This is a party one of whose two MPs openly spoke of 'sending them back', and you are sickened by a lampoon of such people as narrow-minded racists?
> 
> It might hit a few bum notes, but you know what I felt covered in shit by? You, hoping people would vote UKIP before a recent election. You've no business calling anyone a clueless cunt when it comes to this.


Ah the liberal's liberal who is really a hardcore anarchist who thinks being anti-eu is a VOTE FOR WAR!!!! and also _you hate black people and all that because i know some damn well black people and they don't vote UKIP._

If you can source that quote about 'sending them back' btw you'd be doing a lot of journos and other liberals a big favour. Can you?

Ans yes, i'm sickened by years on year of taffboys anti- w/c prejudices dressed up as politics. You're not because you're constructed out of the same prejudices and can't actually see them. Note the way that you move from MPs to voters or supporters above. Pure uncomprehending dishonesty. Tonight's  the night though, so lets have it again. It'll go the same way last may. Remember?

How many MP's are members of parties who have 'sent them back' this parliament btq - and how many last parliament? Give me the exact number please. How many of them took part in and normalised racist behaviours and discourses?  And how many parties of these will be urging people to vote for as they are legit parties against illegitimate parties this coming may? Vote for the powerful racists not the weak racists.

Clueless, you can't even think beyond your own fucking smell and sense of self-smugness. _And you cheat at uno._


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2014)

> How many MP's are members of parties who have 'sent them back' this parliament btq - and how many last parliament? Give me the exact number please. How many of them took part in and normalised racist behaviours and discourses? And how many parties of these will be urging people to vote for as they are legit parties against illegitimate parties this coming may? Vote for the powerful racists not the weak racists.



Yep


----------



## teqniq (Dec 8, 2014)

Bee
‏@doobwhatsit
Dear @Nigel_Farage , is this what you mean by #ostentatiousbreastfeeding?  If so I will avoid it at all costs!


----------



## Betsy (Dec 9, 2014)




----------



## andysays (Dec 9, 2014)

The top picture is vaguely amusing, but the second bit just makes Private Eye look like sneery wankers.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

Accurate then.


----------



## laptop (Dec 9, 2014)

Betsy said:


>



Why 1957?

January 1

The Saarland joins West Germany.
An Irish Republican Army attack on the Brookeborough police barracks leads to the deaths of Seán South and Fergal O'Hanlon.

...


August 28 – United States Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) sets the record for the longest filibuster with his 24-hour, 18-minute speech railing against a civil rights bill.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

...and the last living private eye subscriber was born and enrolled at eton.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2014)

laptop said:


> Why 1957?
> 
> January 1
> 
> ...


end of petrol rationing in the UK, they'd like that.  But, then again, A report by the Medical Research Council reveals that there is evidence to support a link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer.[17] - they wouldnt like that

Andy Capp first appeared in the Mirror, too


----------



## youngian (Dec 9, 2014)

When Hislop took the reigns at Private Eye Peter Cook advised him if ever felt his job was futile he should take at a look at the biting satire of the Weimar Republic which stopped Hitler in his tracks.


----------



## gosub (Dec 9, 2014)

That the Berlin cabaret scene were among the first rounded up for the concentration camps was not coincidental


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 9, 2014)

andysays said:


> The top picture is vaguely amusing, but the second bit just makes Private Eye look like sneery wankers.


Well it's an excellent illustration of their, and others like taffbhoy's, opinions.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2014)

UKIP: A flash-in-the-pan or a long-term insurgent?



> Where are the defectors – the other 50% – going? In the latest wave of the BES 24% of Ukip’s voters in 2014 are planning to switch to the Conservatives in 2015, 11% are planning to vote for Labour, 1% Liberal Democrat and 11% are still undecided. This suggests that Ukip could retain more than half of its voters from the European Parliament elections and is not following the same pattern of rapid decline that we saw ahead of general elections in 2005 and 2010.
> 
> Ukip’s greater ‘staying power’ is underlined by the social profile of its base of supporters. In Revolt on the Right, Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin showed how between 2004 and 2013 Ukip established a base of financially struggling, ‘left behind’ voters who tend to be older, white, male, poorly-educated, working-class and who in earlier years might have voted Labour.





> More recent analysis of the backgrounds of Ukip supporters corroborates this argument, showing how Ukip is winning over disaffected Labour voters who gave up on Labour in the early 2000s, perhaps ‘stopped off’ with the Conservative Party in 2010 and then defected to Ukip. ‘To some degree’, note these authors, ‘what Ukip are doing is picking up already disaffected former Labour voters from the Conservatives and elsewhere’.





> Yet what remains clear is that Ukip’s current base of support is more loyal than in the past, remains socially distinctive and contains people who now identify strongly with the party. For all of these reasons Ukip may well have more staying power than is often assumed.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 10, 2014)

It's whether this support outlasts Nigel.  Farage will have a churn time like most politicians, and friction with other members already exists that could push him off his perch - something that could be exacerbated if he doesn't get a Westminster seat and others do, who go on to gain larger profiles.  What happens if the face of UKIP becomes a technocratic ex-tory rather than plain-speaking Farage?  My money is on an eventual messy split with assorted factions emerging.  Hopefully they can hold out long enough to precipitate the complete collapse of the tory party.

They are building local groups fairly successfully, so I suspect they'll be here to stay for a while, I'm just curious if they're a bit of a one-man band when seen by the wider public, and how they'd get by on policy alone.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 10, 2014)

I think I've said it before on this thread, but the UKIPpers are the people who were the backbone of the Tories ever since mass politics began. If they're prepared to split from the party that was once their natural home, then it's a safe bet that the divorce is permanent.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 10, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> I think I've said it before on this thread, but the UKIPpers are the people who were the backbone of the Tories ever since mass politics began. If they're prepared to split from the party that was once their natural home, then it's a safe bet that the divorce is permanent.



Candidates and a lot of members certainly, although some had no previous political involvement (the two party members I know didn't).  Supporters are something different, and increasingly WC in background - the unrepresented.

The general view I pick up from this thread is not to attack UKIP voters, because the reason a lot vote/support them is because they feel marginalised and ignored, so attacking them fuels this marginalisation and sense of victimhood (even among the less marginalised supporters) and is therefore counterproductive*.  But some candidates and party members are definitely fair game, especially just re-badged tory bigots.  There are things that need challenging, in particular for me because I know people who take their growing popularity personally, who feel attacked by the ugly narrative on immigration (and UKIP aren't solely to blame for this) or on sexuality (maybe on this one, for some members, they are more culpable).  Solidarity and all that.

*the other point is that being 'productive' in knocking back the UKIP rise leads only to the outcome of a regular flavour government being voted into office, which isn't really a great outcome.


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2014)

> Ukip’s greater ‘staying power’ is underlined by the social profile of its base of supporters. In Revolt on the Right, Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin showed how between 2004 and 2013 Ukip established a base of financially struggling, ‘left behind’ voters who tend to be older, white, male, poorly-educated, working-class and who in earlier years might have voted Labour.



So, how do you get these voters back to even vaguely left wing positions?, certainly not Left Unity with its near hysterical support for open borders, not even a more realistic 'defend migrants' position.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2014)

treelover said:


> Left Unity with its near hysterical support for open borders


lol


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> The top picture is vaguely amusing, but the second bit just makes Private Eye look like sneery wankers.



Private Eye sneer at everyone. That's what makes them good. Apart from other things like actually having investigations.



treelover said:


> So, how do you get these voters back to even vaguely left wing positions?, certainly not Left Unity with its near hysterical support for open borders, not even a more realistic 'defend migrants' position.



Bothering to talk to them might be a start. Ukip did it by accident, they suddenly relaised if they talked to these folks they would vote for them, because no one else apart from the BNP was doing it.


----------



## youngian (Dec 10, 2014)

gosub said:


> That the Berlin cabaret scene were among the first rounded up for the concentration camps was not coincidental


Those sneering metropolitan leftards


----------



## youngian (Dec 11, 2014)

UKIP making an impact on the youngsters


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2014)

He'll have to move his arse out of that armchair....


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2014)

Like Winston? Want more?

Fill yer boots here, then.



Skip tp 3.00 if you want to hear the Farage/Jesus comparison.

"*Owen*"


----------



## Quartz (Dec 18, 2014)

This Winston McKenzie?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2014)

No


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2014)

Quartz said:


> This Winston McKenzie?



It looks like it is him. 

Bloke looks like a homophobic dickhead from the article. However watching that video did you not think the whole posh patronising white guy thing may not go down too well with some people? I mean 'have you ever considered that politics may not be for you?'


----------



## Quartz (Dec 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> It looks like it is him.
> 
> Bloke looks like a homophobic dickhead from the article. However watching that video'



I haven't watched the video.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> It looks like it is him.
> 
> Bloke looks like a homophobic dickhead from the article. However watching that video did you not think the whole posh patronising white guy thing may not go down too well with some people? I mean 'have you ever considered that politics may not be for you?'


tbh...having looked at some of the guy's other interviews, I think that the patronising tone is more of a 'house-style'...perhaps reflective of his lack of real confidence etc?

Anyhows Winston don't need anyone to help him look like a dick...he's quite capable of it himself...


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2014)

Keeps the wealth and dishes the stealth?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2014)

He reminds me of Terry Tibs


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2014)

Or Swiss Toni


----------



## youngian (Dec 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> He reminds me of Terry Tibs


crossed with  David Owen


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 19, 2014)

> “Kerry Smith is a rough diamond. A council-house boy from the east-end of London, left school early and talks and speaks in a way that a lot of people from that background do.”
> 
> Nick Ferrari challenged this line; does being from a council house allow you to use derogatory comments?
> 
> ...


http://www.lbc.co.uk/farage-disgraced-ukip-candidate-rough-diamond-102180

Latest Farage-ism.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 19, 2014)

If Nick Ferrari is calling out your bigotry I'd be a little bit worried.  Wasn't the point that Kerry Smith was using it with unpleasant intent?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 19, 2014)

Note, it's not even a meal that the term was used for, but a person. Evasion one by the racist Farage.

Second, it's not been confirmed if the lady in question was Claire Khaw, but the description of her politics indicates it might be. Would be a story in itself if the press google searched images for her.

Third, the invocation of class to mitigate racism (rember, used about a person, not a meal) is a curious one, I wonder if NF might be persuaded to share his wisdom in this parish.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

You really are disgusting.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 19, 2014)

Butchers, leaving aside vapid personal abuse, do you have an opinion on the main issue here?

A simple question : Farage has twisted an incident (using a false comparator of a term used for a meal when it was applied to a person) and attempted to say that if an adult politician uses the term then, well, it might be ok to do so given the background of the person.

Is it an acceptable defence in your opinion? Yes, no or a qualified maybe will do for this one.

What disgusts me is that some people use "working class" not as a descriptor of place in the capital/labour relations, but in an anti working class way in that it implicitly excludes quite a lot of members of the class i.e non pink & British people.

I doubt NF was thinking of Chinese working class people in his typically intelligence-insulting blag, but then we know he's a racist, and he can hardly cite working class credentials for that.

Farage is trying to use class in a racist way, and as an excuse for racism. It's fucking rancid.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

Get stuffed. Call me a racist (and anyone else here who has offered criticism of your crude social prejudices) then ask me that shit above. Disgusting.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Get stuffed. Call me a racist (and anyone else here who has offered criticism of your crude social prejudices) then ask me that shit above. Disgusting.



I didn't call you a racist, I wouldn't because I've never had cause to think you are a racist.

Now that's clear:

Farage has twisted an incident (using a false comparator of a term used for a meal when it was applied to a person) and attempted to say that if an adult politician uses the term then, well, it might be ok to do so given their background.

Is it an acceptable defence in your opinion? Yes, no or a qualified maybe will do.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

You can get stuffed after your third point in your first post today. You know damn well what sort of smear you were implying. And now you've not even got the decency to back it up. So you can whistle.  A little like you did in that third point.

You really are a disgrace. And a long winded waffling one at that.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 19, 2014)

Cant or won't answer a simple question then. And back to your preferred territory of sneering personal abuse.

the "sort of smear" you may have in mind is that some people can seem softer on aspects of racist attitudes deemed to be from a working class source (ETA: this is not "calling you a racist", and to think it is is either paranoia or ludicrous hype) . A lot of racists do hide behind class though. Yet, there is nothing working class about racism. In fact it's anti working class, so there's no need to mitigate racism on that basis, in the way that the middle/upper class racist Farage has attempted.

I am sometimes longer winded to fully qualify statements in advance defence of pedants looking for any excuse to pick holes.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Third, the invocation of class to mitigate racism (rember, used about a person, not a meal) is a curious one, I wonder if NF might be persuaded to share his wisdom in this parish.



Taffboy translator now on:_ of course it's not for me to say that all those people who disagreed with me on the edl, on the far right and on UKIP are racists in the manner i claim farage is above. But if you read my post i think questions need to be answered.
_
Translator off. None of these people - from those who've simply laughed at his cretiginous views on the above, to those who have politically challenged the same over the last 10 years have ever argued that people using racist terms are ok if used by w/c people. That some forms of racism of acceptable by anyone ever in fact. This is why it's a smear - and a really serious one. An offence far more serious than calling someone _disgusting _or telling them to _get stuffed_ in response to what amounts to  - behind all the mealy mouthed crap above - is calling me and pretty much every other poster in the politics forum racists.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 19, 2014)

Taffboy translator now on:_ of course it's not for me to say that all those people who disagreed with me on the edl, on the far right and on UKIP are racists in the manner i claim farage is above. But if you read my post i think questions need to be answered._

That's an incorrect translation. I don't think those people are racist. I never did. It's an utterly false and groundless accusation, and far from the first of it's kind from you. It's fine to guess what people think and why, but another thing to act as if your guesses are categorically true.

If I thought some people were soft on racism and I was wrong, I apologise for that. I aint going to trawl through the archives to micro analysse every last post. It still would in no way imply they are racist, still less that "pretty much every poster here" is racist. You are being beyond absurd with that point.

I'm glad you have been clear in describing NF's views as "cretiginous". I think they are worse still, they are offenseive to the working class, and racist.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

I called _your _views cretiginous. I think they are worse still, they are offensive to the working class. 

Now i need a bath.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2014)

Meanwhile...some good news from the "_dump" _of Cronx for Winston watchers...NF has backed his 2015 candidature for Cro. North.

Yes, despite various motions of no confidence in the party's "_commonwealth spokesman_", McKenzie will be able to re-create that calypso carnival atmosphere in May.



> The comedy capers at a Croydon branch of UKIP carry on… with the national party (ie. Nigel “Pound Shop Enoch Powell” Farage) backing Winston McKenzie as their parliamentary candidate for Croydon North at next May’s General Election, while deciding to remove “the Chump from the Dump” as chairman of his local party.
> http://insidecroydon.com/2014/12/19/mckenzie-backed-as-candidate-but-not-to-run-branch-of-ukip/


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

**


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 20, 2014)

I seem to have scanned a post by one frothy bully rather too quickly. I naively thought Butchers might have passed up yet another chance to indulge false statements and personal insults against U75 posters in favour of crititicising the racist and anti working class leader of the party that this thread is actually about.

Anyhow, As discussed previously, here's an article about the possible identity of the lady in question:

https://aliberallife.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/ukip-has-nigel-farage-sat-down-with-claire-khaw/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2014)

SImple question, ba. Did you or did you not post on here that you hoped people would vote UKIP? 

If you did, what the fucking fuck were you thinking of, and who the fucking fuck do you think you are berating anyone on this subject?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 20, 2014)

There were three local by-elections in Oxford last month:

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decCD/Election_results_occw.htm

These results reveal a curiosity: when standing in an election with a UKIP candidate TUSC did badly (2%) but when there's no UKIP candidate they did considerably better (6%). UKIP got over 13% in the two they contested. This would seem to be a case of "Protest Voters of Britain, Unite!", but can it really be the case that nearly half the UKIP voters in an area like this would vote TUSC when there's no UKIP candidate standing? it would seem to confirm the theory that UKIP is attracting voters from the traditional working class (I used to think they were an external fraction of the Tory party). Or is it a case of "Protest Voters of Britain, Unite!" ? These wards cover council estates in the south of Oxford, including Blackbird Leys, the scene of riots in the early 90s and which once elected IWCA councillors. They are Labour strongholds but in these elections with UKIP coming second, even if a long way behind. Which suggests that even if UKIP can come second in places like this they are no real threat to Labour.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> SImple question, ba. Did you or did you not post on here that you hoped people would vote UKIP?
> 
> If you did, what the fucking fuck were you thinking of, and who the fucking fuck do you think you are berating anyone on this subject?



I'm not speaking for anybody else...but for my 2pworth...any pleasure taken from the rise of UKIP has been predicated on the basis of an electoral rift in the right-capital vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> SImple question, ba. Did you or did you not post on here that you hoped people would vote UKIP?
> 
> If you did, what the fucking fuck were you thinking of, and who the fucking fuck do you think you are berating anyone on this subject?


This is what i've argued - and argued for years. And this, allied with me pointing out the dangers that UKIP posed in todays conditions years and years ago before the current popularity, then correctly predicting not just their growth, but the exact social areas in which they would grow (when many others were still going on about golf clubs and blazers), based on careful monitoring of their activity and reading of actual research and analysis of wider social conditions and generally taking them and the social conditions that have given rise to their support seriously is why you should listen to what i have to say on UKIP.

Or alternatively people could listen to _late night vicarism_ that declares that there has _been no growth in UKIP support at all_ and that being anti-eu it itself_ a vote for war and racism._


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2014)

Nothing to add about "why", but Anthony @ YG, in his end of year overview, offers a useful graphic of the trajectory of UKIP polling support over the last 3 years. (Also shows extent of recent Green 'surge')


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 2, 2015)

Review of 2014

https://exposingukip.wordpress.com/...-a-round-up-of-gaffes-disasters-and-scandals/


----------



## brogdale (Jan 2, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Review of 2014
> 
> https://exposingukip.wordpress.com/...-a-round-up-of-gaffes-disasters-and-scandals/



All accurate, I'm sure, and collectively quite an indictment...but...look at that graph above...over the past year the party has seen polling rise from about 12 to 16%, 'won' a national election and secured 2 MPs.

Do you think that blogs, like the one you've linked to, are the way to address the needs and concerns of those saying they support UKIP?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2015)

Yes, was just going to comment on the juxtaposition of that graph and that blog. Then i looked at the blog - opening comments:



> It’s been quite a year for UKIP.
> 
> Here are some of the things we remember the most.



Must take some effort to remember facebook gaffes rather than a substantially enhanced national profile with serious inroads finally made into w/c and labour sections of the country and electorate, the election of two MPs, very close run parliamentary by-elections, the cornering of the protest vote across almost all parts of the country, massive rise in membership,the conitued rise in polling figures etc


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> All accurate, I'm sure, and collectively quite an indictment...but...look at that graph above...over the past year the party has seen polling rise from about 12 to 16%, 'won' a national election and secured 2 MPs.
> 
> Do you think that blogs, like the one you've linked to, are the way to address the needs and concerns of those saying they support UKIP?


He doesn't think they need addressing at all - in fact to do so, even to suggest it would a sensible thing to do is equivalent to complicity with fascism. That's why he produced this remember?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 2, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> He doesn't think they need addressing at all - in fact to do so, even to suggest it would a sensible thing to do is equivalent to complicity with fascism. That's why he produced this remember?





> _Here are some of the things we remember the most._


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 2, 2015)




----------



## frogwoman (Jan 2, 2015)

Why do people insist on calling ukip fascist?  They're just another right wing populist tory party. None of their views are what you don't find in labour or the tories.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 2, 2015)

Calling ukip fascist is just hyperbole and trivilising real fascism.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Do you think that blogs, like the one you've linked to, are the way to address the needs and concerns of those saying they support UKIP?



If I'd given an indication that it is then I suppose your question may have some point. I didn't.

It serves a purpose of summarising last years reactionary nonsense and hate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2015)

**


----------



## brogdale (Jan 2, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> If I'd given an indication that it is then I suppose your question may have some point. I didn't.
> 
> It serves a purpose of summarising last years reactionary nonsense and hate.



Well, by posting a link without any comment it wasn't really possible to discern any particular indication about why you had shared it. So asking if you thought such blogs were an effective response to the rise of UKIP did seem to have some point.

And you do seem to have answered the question in the negative.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why do people insist on calling ukip fascist?  They're just another right wing populist tory party. None of their views are what you don't find in labour or the tories.



Laziness, ignorance or stupidity, or all three in taffboy's case.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2015)

Al Murray has announced that he is to stand for FUKP against Farage in South Thanet in the GE. I assume that he feels that he will reduce Farage's chance of winning by taking some voters that might have voted for UKIP?

I'm not at all sure that the Thanet UKIP demographic will necessarily be that receptive to Murray. 

http://thepublandlord.com/


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2015)

Private school oxbridge footlights ultra-posho. What's not to connect with?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Private school oxbridge footlights ultra-posho. What's not to connect with?


 So posh I'd have thought he'd be a labour supporter? Obviously not, though; he could well sink their chances in this 3-way marginal.


----------



## krink (Jan 14, 2015)

i preferred him when he was Harry's big brother


----------



## krink (Jan 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Calling ukip fascist is just hyperbole and trivilising real fascism.



come on, be fair, not all of these bloggers n tweeters call them fascists, some call them nazis


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So posh I'd have thought he'd be a labour supporter? Obviously not, though; he could well sink their chances in this 3-way marginal.


I can't imagine him getting more than the Monster Raving Loony vote which won't necerserily come from Labour


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I can't imagine him getting more than the Monster Raving Loony vote which won't necerserily come from Labour


You're probably right, but...I can't help feeling that his candidature could potentially help Farage get over the line, particularly if Lab were to be the nearest challenger. All the polling suggests South Thanet is something of 3-way marginal and, if UKIP do generate some momentum it's likely to be the vermin that will feel most damage, so it is conceivable that Lab might be the way to stop Farage. There's always the chance that Murray might pick up enough 'usual' Lab voters to see Farage home; remember that (although different circumstances) Ester Rantzen got nearly 2000 votes in Luton in 2010!

Although it's pretty obvious that Murray is presenting himself as a UKIP spolier I can't see that many of the older UKIP demographic will warm to him; I reckon he'd likely absorb more younger/youngish voters that statistically are more likely Lab.

All in all, cheap publicity for Murray (£500) and likely to help one of the right parties of capital secure the seat.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2015)

nah he won't get more than 150 votes imo - which admittedly could be enough to tip the balance in such a tight race but I think it will be UKIP and Labours to lose - IE either party will lose because of their own mistakes rather than him, and the votes are more likely to be traded between the two. 

The only thing that might give him a boost is former Libdems seeing him as a good and liberalish protest vote.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> nah he won't get more than 150 votes imo - which admittedly could be enough to tip the balance in such a tight race but I think it will be UKIP and Labours to lose - IE either party will lose because of their own mistakes rather than him, and the votes are more likely to be traded between the two.



I hope you're right, but I fear that some of the electorate of "Planet Thanet" might be a little more receptive to Murray's schtick than we realise.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2015)

Mind you, he's not got his party registered yet, nor apparently does he have the 10 signatures from the electorate.


----------



## bemused (Jan 15, 2015)

I was toying with voting for UKIP as I don't like any of the major parties and wanted to vote for the one that annoyed them the most. However, since seeing him drone on about immigration creating Muslim enclaves he's turned out to be a bigger wanker than I initially took him for. I'm an awful softy that tries to assume 99% of the population are decent humans, meaning I step on my cock a lot.

So now I'm voting Green or whichever Jesus party is on the ticket ... can't go wrong with the baby Jesus.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2015)

YouGov polling indicating those intending to vote UKIP are most anti-semitic....

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...gnAgainstAntisemitismResults_MergedFile_W.pdf


----------



## bemused (Jan 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> YouGov polling indicating those intending to vote UKIP are most anti-semitic....
> 
> https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...gnAgainstAntisemitismResults_MergedFile_W.pdf



Howe do you answer don't know to any of those questions?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2015)

bemused said:


> Howe do you answer don't know to any of those questions?


 Rather worryingly I suppose that means 'rather not say'/shy anti-semites?


----------



## bunkum (Jan 15, 2015)

according to yougov's highly entertaining profiling website al murray's pub landlord fans are most likely to be male, aged 40-59, social grade C2DE (skilled working class / working class / non-working), very right wing, working in transport and logistics / military and defence / real estate and property, and with less than £125 spare a month.

nigel farage's fans, on the other hand, are mostly likely to be male, aged 60+, social grade C2DE (skilled working class / working class / non-working), markedly right wing, working in engineering / military and defence / transport and logistics, and with £1k or more spare a month. so a bit older, and a bit richer, but otherwise...

should be interesting


----------



## laptop (Jan 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> YouGov polling indicating those intending to vote UKIP are most anti-semitic....
> 
> https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...gnAgainstAntisemitismResults_MergedFile_W.pdf



The only result in there that surprised me was that London produces the highest proportion of candidate-antisemitic* responses to each of the questions. 


* I'm not convinced that the questions are detecting only antisemitism. "Jews' loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people" bucks the trend of increasing anti-Semitism with age for the other questions... and the actions of the state of Israel are arguably contrary to the interests of people in Britain...


----------



## gosub (Jan 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> All in all, cheap publicity for Murray (£500) and likely to help one of the right parties of capital secure the seat.




£36k full page Metro ad today


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2015)

So 36 grand for that ad. That's the claim anyway. Sort of advertising him and his management would be forking out for next months 44 date 20th anniversary tour with a brand new show starting next month anyway isn't it?


----------



## gosub (Jan 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> So 36 grand for that ad. That's the claim anyway. Sort of advertising him and his management would be forking out for next months 44 date 20th anniversary tour with a brand new show starting next month anyway isn't it?



If you are going to advertise a tour, put where you are playing and when.  Commonsense.

Another Oxbridge graduate enters the political arena, probably a multimillionaire too


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2015)

gosub said:


> If you are going to advertise a tour, put where you are playing and when.  Commonsense.


He did.


----------



## bunkum (Jan 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> So 36 grand for that ad. That's the claim anyway. Sort of advertising him and his management would be forking out for next months 44 date 20th anniversary tour with a brand new show starting next month anyway isn't it?



36k ratecard. advertising ratecards are about as reliable as political manifestos.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 15, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why do people insist on calling ukip fascist?  They're just another right wing populist tory party. None of their views are what you don't find in labour or the tories.



Since when did a political party have views? Surely you mean policies?


----------



## bemused (Jan 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Rather worryingly I suppose that means 'rather not say'/shy anti-semites?



You've got to have some shitty views if you won't own up to them in a anonymous poll.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2015)

bemused said:


> You've got to have some shitty views if you won't own up to them in a anonymous poll.


 Not strictly anonymous, though...it was sampled from their own panel-base. And yes, some people harbour very shitty views.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2015)

Defection to the tories.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...jad-Bashir-defects-to-Conservative-Party.html


----------



## killer b (Jan 24, 2015)

36k my arse.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> £36k full page Metro ad today


What a truly bizarre and shit advert.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Defection to the tories.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...jad-Bashir-defects-to-Conservative-Party.html


On the face of it it's a bit risky the tories taking somebody who has just been reported to the police for financial irregularities.  Same time dodgy expenses and financial irregularities are just about the default setting for elected ukip politicians.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2015)

Wilf said:


> On the face of it it's a bit risky the tories taking somebody who has just been reported to the police for financial irregularities.  Same time dodgy expenses and financial irregularities are just about the default setting for elected ukip politicians.



Not really something that seems to bother tories, really. Sounds like a fairly inept attempt at damage limitation by the 'kippers anyhow.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not really something that seems to bother tories, really. Sounds like a fairly inept attempt at damage limitation by the 'kippers anyhow.


Oh yeah, sure, I agree the tories wouldn't have any moral qualms, it just looked like something that could have theoretically embarrassed them later if there was anything to it. As you say though, damage limitation and the implication is the tories know that's all it is.


----------



## youngian (Jan 24, 2015)

A Kipper gives a philosophical insight into the nature of truth


> Yes, because you can prove anything with facts. Anything at all. Facts, numbers, statistics. Any argument, no matter how stupid can be proven using facts. O'Brien knows this so he goes well off course to prove his frivolous nonsense. It's the mentality of loonies like that who have destroyed the country.



Surely he's taking the rise


----------



## gosub (Jan 24, 2015)

Well,  there was a woman on BBC news earlier about how Swiss banks governed by EU rules they had no day on.   Which is true but missed that EU just elaborates on Basel accords, and there is a clue in the name as to where they are set. This other fact wasn't mentioned.


----------



## youngian (Jan 24, 2015)

Yes they talk out of their arse, most media stories about barmy Brussels directives on bananas or whatever are common trading standards drawn up at the WTO so everyone knows what they're buying and selling in an international market.


----------



## gosub (Jan 24, 2015)

If we had a referendum, it would be useful to know  how much legislation is gatt/un/wto, how much EU and what national.   None of the players seems interested in telling us


----------



## youngian (Jan 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> If we had a referendum, it would be useful how much legislation is gatt/un/wto, how much EU and what national.   None of the players seems interested in telling us


That's a lot of referendums. Unless you're directly effected no one is interested in knowing apart from the swivel eyed loons who don't know what they're talking about.


----------



## gosub (Jan 24, 2015)

No, one referendum,  but are we represented on the global bodies by EU or UK and what impact that would have


----------



## coley (Jan 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> he prefers to spend the money on beer


Sensible kind of bloke.


----------



## laptop (Jan 25, 2015)

gosub said:


> If we had a referendum, it would be useful to know  how much legislation is gatt/un/wto, how much EU and what national.   None of the players seems interested in telling us



That's because it's complicated. I suspect most politicians don't know the answer. That's why they continue to employ diplomats.

(In my experience) the UK negotiates at UN bodies as part of an EU delegation. There are delegation meetings during negotiations to settle a common line - though the EU is not itself a member of the UN body (or of the WTO).

Then, usually, the results of the UN agreement are put out as an EU Directive, the precise form of which is negotiated between the governments of the member states in the Council of Europe (and debated in the EU Parliament). 

The member states pass laws implementing the Directive. They can thus disclaim responsibility.




The short answer is that the anti-EU forces like what the WTO does. So they shut up about it.

Those few who think this far would like the UK to distance itself from the rather mild efforts of other EU states to moderate the fundamentalist-free-market proposals coming out of (largely) the US.


----------



## gosub (Jan 25, 2015)

laptop said:


> That's because it's complicated. I suspect most politicians don't know the answer. That's why they continue to employ diplomats.
> 
> (In my experience) the UK negotiates at UN bodies as part of an EU delegation. There are delegation meetings during negotiations to settle a common line - though the EU is not itself a member of the UN body (or of the WTO).
> 
> ...




Had similar experiences,in my job the whole dance through JAR before the EU was recognised as a state by the UN for example when EASA became viable without breaching the UN 1944 Chicago convention.

But that is the ground the referendum should be on, (its the pro EU that bang on about bananas) but we'd still have to have legislation about them because of WTO - how free would we be without the middle man and is our voice amplified or lost in the crowd -should be central.  Instead we get people blaming people for things when blame might be elsewhere and people talking up their responsibility when their hands are tied.

or did.  Nobody is actually talking about the EU anymore, just finding EUropean people(s) to rage against


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> 36k my arse.


you'll have no takers at that price


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2015)

Bashir =  ex RESPECT.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Bashir =  ex RESPECT.


Galloway being a little coy there as to what the actual issue was.
Anyway, pretty good going, an MEP for 2 parties after being a council candidate for a 3rd, within 21 months. What a cunt.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Bashir =  ex RESPECT.



Lol

A rival for sarf London's very own Winston.


----------



## toggle (Jan 25, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Galloway being a little coy there as to what the actual issue was.
> Anyway, pretty good going, an MEP for 2 parties after being a council candidate for a 3rd, within 21 months. What a cunt.



needs a way to go before he beats this one.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Hockney


----------



## stavros (Jan 25, 2015)

We heard from their glorious leader before Christmas of how immigrants cause congestion on the M4, but now Leicestershire councillor Lynton Yates has expanded on the party's transport policies.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2015)

toggle said:


> needs a way to go before he beats this one.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Hockney


Blimey, though in darts parlance that's good 'clustering', gets most of the right wing looncandle parties over his 'career'.


----------



## toggle (Jan 25, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Blimey, though in darts parlance that's good 'clustering', gets most of the right wing looncandle parties over his 'career'.



i think there's one bloke who made it through 5 parties as an MP in the 1930s. I've got one from a bit earlier that i've looked at who did Liberal actvist, to lib unionist mp, to tory mp, to independent labour candidate, to labour activist. but i think a lot of that was about who wasn't fucking him off for being a foreign born jew (or a lying twat) at the time.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2015)

toggle said:


> i think there's one bloke who made it through 5 parties as an MP in the 1930s. I've got one from a bit earlier that i've looked at who did Liberal actvist, to lib unionist mp, to tory mp, to independent labour candidate, to labour activist. but i think a lot of that was about who wasn't fucking him off for being a foreign born jew (or a lying twat) at the time.


Oswald Mosely had something like 5 - tory, lab and, I think, independent labour (plus New Party and Brit Union of Fascists).

Edit, ah, nearly: tory > ind > lab > new party > buf

Edit2: actually, he was only an MP for the first 4 of those.


----------



## toggle (Jan 25, 2015)

they did it proper back then


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2015)

had to stock up on extra coats to turn by the look of it


----------



## laptop (Jan 25, 2015)

stavros said:


> We heard from their glorious leader before Christmas of how immigrants cause congestion on the M4, but now Leicestershire councillor Lynton Yates has expanded on the party's transport policies.





> Shadow health minister Jamie Reed, a Labour MP, said: "It's beyond a joke now. Not so much a political party but a stag night out of control."


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> had to stock up on extra coats to turn by the look of it


Should have gone Game of Thrones style with _Turncloaks_. Much more convenient for the aspiring careerist traitor with dodgy expenses.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Galloway being a little coy there as to what the actual issue was.
> Anyway, pretty good going, an MEP for 2 parties after being a council candidate for a 3rd, within 21 months. What a cunt.


Even more - he used to be labour too.



> Amjad Bashir denies that he has ever had anything to do with the Respect party but an application form he filled in and is still held by the party proves that isn’t the case. The new Conservative MEP gives his date of birth on the form as September 17, 1952. But he also claims on the form that in the 1970s and 1980s he was a Labour party member and helped the then Bradford West MP Marsha Singh (now deceased). He also claims to have been heavily involved, and led a membership drive in Bradford, for Imran Khan’s Pakistan party the PTI (Party of Justice).


----------



## coley (Jan 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Even more - he used to be labour too.



He will undoubtedly add lustre to the Tory cluster, Millipede is probably trying to woo him over


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2015)

Apparently this is internal UKIP investigation into the irregularities which Farage was referring to


----------



## coley (Jan 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Apparently this is internal UKIP investigation into the irregularities which Farage was referring to


Sorry, the link is an invitation to subscribe to an app.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2015)

I quite like the idea of ukip carrying out its own ethical inquiry.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2015)

coley said:


> Sorry, the link is an invitation to subscribe to an app.




No it isn't, it's a crazed UKIP memo.  Which contains the greatest spelling error in the history of the universe:

"The fact that this seems to have been *aucastrated* by a man in the employment of...."

I'd vote for them if I thought that was deliberate.


----------



## coley (Jan 25, 2015)

Bugger it, I quite like the idea of a group of greens, independents,kippers etc getting into Westminster and screwing the comfy arrangements up, but the realistic side of me realises they would be bought by the 'establishment' within days of their arrival.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2015)

makes me think of an antipodean eunuch


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> makes me think of an antipodean eunuch



I read it as "auto-castrated" the first time.

I wonder how many immigrants to the UK lack such basic skills in the English language?


----------



## coley (Jan 25, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> No it isn't, it's a crazed UKIP memo.  Which contains the greatest spelling error in the history of the universe:
> 
> "The fact that this seems to have been *aucastrated* by a man in the employment of...."
> 
> I'd vote for them if I thought that was deliberate.


*aucastrated?*


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2015)

coley said:


> *aucastrated?*



You'd almost think they were straight off the boat from BongoBongoland eh what?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2015)

coley said:


> Sorry, the link is an invitation to subscribe to an app.



Goes straight to a scribd document for me, maybe it is different on mobile if you are accessing it that way?


----------



## coley (Jan 25, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> You'd almost think they were straight off the boat from BongoBongoland eh what?


Haven't got a clue where your coming from with this, clicked the original link and got invited to some twatterwatch app. Not interested


----------



## coley (Jan 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Goes straight to a scribd document for me, maybe it is different on mobile if you are accessing it that way?


I pad.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2015)

coley said:


> Haven't got a clue where your coming from with this, clicked the original link and got invited to some twatterwatch app. Not interested


Click the x to the top right of the ad.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2015)

coley said:


> Haven't got a clue where your coming from with this, clicked the original link and got invited to some twatterwatch app. Not interested



No Coley, this one's* really* easy.

The link is to a UKIP document, which contains the spelling error: "aucastrate."  That's funny.  Especially coming from them.

Do you get it now?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Click the x to the top right of the ad.



You don't even have to do that.  The link is direct, just scroll down.


----------



## coley (Jan 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Click the x to the top right of the ad.


Aye, got two pages then again asked to subscribe, can't be arsed, but it's seems heavily redacted?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2015)

coley said:


> Aye, got two pages then again asked to subscribe, can't be arsed, but it's seems heavily redacted?



Just. Scroll. Down.

Though it's pretty uninteresting other than the spelling.  The document tells of an attempt by three Asian men to "aucastrate" their selection as UKIP candidates, seemingly under false pretences.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2015)

((((Orcs)))))


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2015)

Wilf said:


> ((((Orcs)))))


thats 'yrch' in sindarin elvish. Not sure what it is in quernya.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2015)

yrchestrated


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 28, 2015)

http://www.ukip.org/100_days_till_the_election_100_reasons_to_vote_ukip

some of these are just fucking stupid.
some contradict each other and there is plenty of mistakes....
Bonkers.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2015)

Top marks for spin on this one:

"Introducing a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000 – taking many public sector workers out of top rate of tax"

Won't somebody think of the heads of department?


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 28, 2015)

*Erm, how will this work? you get a nasty letter and no fine?*

*24.* Ending the use of speed cameras as revenue raisers – they should be a deterrent

*How could you all forget *

*95.* Emphasising the immediate need to utilise forgotten British infrastructure like Manston Airport


*The TROOPS!*

*8.* Stopping our endless, foreign wars
*12.* Ensuring our armed services are properly equipped for when we do need them
*13.* Establishing a Veteran’s Administration to look after those who looked after us
*58.* Guaranteeing a job in the police, prison, or border forces for anyone who has served 12 years in the Armed Forces
*59.* Priority social housing for ex-service men and women, and those returning from service
*60.* Veterans to receives Veteran’s Card to ensure they’re supported in event of mental health care and more
*61.* All entitlements to be extended to servicemen and women recruited from overseas
*62.* Establishing a National Service Medal for all those who have served


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 28, 2015)

Also, if we stop the immigrants coming wont we need less airports?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2015)

B0B2oo9 said:


> *How could you all forget *
> 
> *95.* Emphasising the immediate need to utilise forgotten British infrastructure like *Manston* Airport



That's Manston airport in err...Thanet, Kent.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2015)

Can't we just give them an island somewhere, maybe one with a forgotten airport, and let them just get on with this shit?  If it works we'll let them back in to run things the way they like here.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 28, 2015)

It would be need to be big enough for them to drive their coal fired 4x4's to the morris dancing events.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 28, 2015)

*35.* Full prison sentences should be served, parole on case-by-case basis

I guess all the people we have spare in the forces could work at the extra prisons we need to build for people to serve full terms?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2015)

Coal-fired prisons. with matrons.


----------



## gareth taylor (Feb 2, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Coal-fired prisons. with matrons.


 I did support ukip for a while but realise they are just scum of the earth,


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2015)

Ooer...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

Looking at the rise of UKIP, (as evidenced from the NS's 'Poll of polls' graph), the period of the European Election campaign in April 2014 does genuinely appear to be something of a turning point for the nature of their support.

Until the spring of 2014 the form of the UKIP polling line appears very much as a 'mirror-image' of the vermin's, but after that campaign fluctuations in UKIP support appear to have little, if any, linkage with the blue line. The relationship over the last 10 months appears to be between the purple and red lines.







(also posted in Polling thread)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2015)

Excellent  and important observation.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2015)

Smithson needs to be reading this thread...


----------



## likesfish (Feb 16, 2015)

People are rightly pissed off with a cozy professional class of politicians.
The alternatives are green Hippy's or ukip daily mail readers "the left" don't even rate SWP if they stood would be eaten alive the rape allegations make Gary glitters fan club more electable


----------



## treelover (Feb 16, 2015)

likesfish said:


> People are rightly pissed off with a cozy professional class of politicians.
> The alternatives are green Hippy's or ukip daily mail readers "the left" don't even rate *SWP if they stood would be eaten alive the rape allegations make Gary glitters fan club more electable*




Er, no they don't, Glitters crimes are on another level, though not diminishing their failures.


----------



## treelover (Feb 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Smithson needs to be reading this thread...





Who is getting the former UKIP votes then..


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 16, 2015)

The channel 4 '100 days of UKIP' thing was a bit shit, but the reaction of the UKIP twats on Twitter is good value.

(Note that 'UKIP twats on Twitter' - the sort that go on about the BBC being a 'nest of commies' is just a small subset of UKIP supporters before I get called out for slagging off all UKIP voters/supporters)


----------



## Fingers (Feb 17, 2015)

Kippers just got a huge dose of their own politics of fear tonight and they are going mental about it on Social Media. Love it even thought the programme was rather odd


----------



## gosub (Feb 17, 2015)

Am I missing something?  a twitter search of #ukip and #ukip100days seems quite subdued for what has to be one of the most trolltastic pieces of mainstream broadcasting ever, (at least I assume so, only read the damning Telegraph review)


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> The channel 4 '100 days of UKIP' thing was a bit shit, but the reaction of the UKIP twats on Twitter is good value.
> 
> (Note that 'UKIP twats on Twitter' - the sort that go on about the BBC being a 'nest of commies' is just a small subset of UKIP supporters before I get called out for slagging off all UKIP voters/supporters)




It was absolutely dreadful, it could have been made by a sixth former in the SWP, they gave a lot of prominence to their placards, etc.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Apparently this is internal UKIP investigation into the irregularities which Farage was referring to



I find the idea that that was a Labour plot entirely believable to be fair.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> The channel 4 '100 days of UKIP' thing was a bit shit, but the reaction of the UKIP twats on Twitter is good value.
> 
> (Note that 'UKIP twats on Twitter' - the sort that go on about the BBC being a 'nest of commies' is just a small subset of UKIP supporters before I get called out for slagging off all UKIP voters/supporters)



I'm watching it now on 4oD, in between massive bouts of slightly racist/sexist adverts. It's nearly done, and I've found it a bit bizarre to be honest. Obviously it's totally and utterly fantastical, so I'm not sure anyone will take it seriously. Key messages seem to be:

1) Don't vote UKIP because big business will take away all the jobs to punish you.

2) Don't vote UKIP because they'll put a brown woman in charge. 



Spoiler



Who will eventually betray you.



3) Don't vote UKIP because they will 



Spoiler



carry out Gestapo style dawn raids on thousands of innocent people.


 Funnily enough this was the bit I found most fantastical in a way. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Fingers (Feb 17, 2015)




----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> It was absolutely dreadful, it could have been made by a sixth former in the SWP, they gave a lot of prominence to their placards, etc.


Yes, it was dreadful but the reaction from the kippers has been priceless.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm watching it now on 4oD, in between massive bouts of slightly racist/sexist adverts. It's nearly done, and I've found it a bit bizarre to be honest. Obviously it's totally and utterly fantastical, so I'm not sure anyone will take it seriously. Key messages seem to be:
> 
> 1) Don't vote UKIP because big business will take away all the jobs to punish you.
> 
> ...




I wonder if Oona King, Ch4's equal opportunities tsar had a hand in it,

btw, apparently there have been over 1000 complaints to OffCom and Ch4, wonder how many were because it was rubbish?

main actress was ok though


----------



## pesh (Feb 17, 2015)

Fingers said:


>



he's gone a nice shade of UKIP purple though. dedication.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 17, 2015)

The highlight of the programme for me was when the 'angry' Eurobus workers met their MP.

Being working class and working in a manual trade they could only communicate by inserting the word 'fucking' after every other word or by lobbing bricks through windows (maybe the writer is a member of Class War?)

Also interesting was the suggestion that the only issues of interest to the entire media/political bubble are illegal immigration and TU/UAF and EDL marches attended by about 12 people per side.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 17, 2015)

pesh said:


> he's gone a nice shade of UKIP purple though. dedication.


His purple majesty.


----------



## Fingers (Feb 17, 2015)

The angry purple Kipper (as featured in the video above) has apologised for getting so angry last night and hopes to bring us some more videos
of a higher standard in the future

http://order-order.com/2015/02/17/angry-kipper-sorry-for-swearing-cameron-still-chicken-sht-though/


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2015)

Former chair of Labour NEC declares support for UKIP.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Labour-figure-dumps-Ed-Miliband-for-Ukip.html


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2015)

> Mrs Yeo has previously attacked the "awful" culture inside her trade union and said she has witnessed "outrageous" behaviour behind closed doors.
> 
> She recounted how male colleagues deliberately organised a lap-dancing party to clash with a black-tie dinner that had been arranged by female union officials to celebrate 100 years of International Women’s Day.



Big defection, but she is joining UKIP, which has people like Godfrey Bloom in it.


----------



## gosub (Feb 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Big defection, but she is joining UKIP, which has people like Godfrey Bloom in it.


He left, as he found UKIP too politically correct


----------



## gosub (Feb 17, 2015)

2 polls in a week have UKIP down below 10 %,	Ipsos Mori poll for the Evening Standard, & Guardian/ICM opinion poll.  



 Marker down: decline predates Channel 4 program


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2015)

gosub said:


> 2 polls in a week have UKIP down below 10 %,	Ipsos Mori poll for the Evening Standard, & Guardian/ICM opinion poll.
> 
> 
> 
> Marker down: decline predates Channel 4 program



All the others from recent weeks have them between 13-16%.


----------



## gosub (Feb 18, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> All the others from recent weeks have them between 13-16%.




Even those are starting to trend downwards reletive to themselves


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Former chair of Labour NEC declares support for UKIP.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Labour-figure-dumps-Ed-Miliband-for-Ukip.html





> Mrs Yeo was previously chairman of the National Executive Committee, which oversees the Labour Party, and president of the Transport and Salaried Staffs' Association union and has been involved in the trade union movement for more than 20 years.



Go on, people... what party was she in 20 years ago? (Or what "we're not a party, we're a tendency within the Labour Party, honest!"?)


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 18, 2015)

gosub said:


> 2 polls in a week have UKIP down below 10 %,	Ipsos Mori poll for the Evening Standard, & Guardian/ICM opinion poll.


Only the incredibly politically ignorant weren't going to expect that their vote, like the rest of the minor parties, wouldn't be squeezed a bit as the election got closer. The question is how great that squeeze will be, IMO I think they'll still take a greater share of the vote than will put them in third place.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> Go on, people... what party was she in 20 years ago? (Or what "we're not a party, we're a tendency within the Labour Party, honest!"?)



Go on then tell us


----------



## J Ed (Feb 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> Go on, people... what party was she in 20 years ago? (Or what "we're not a party, we're a tendency within the Labour Party, honest!"?)



If UKIP's leadership wasn't full of classist private school boys then they would be smart and follow the FN's strategy of actively recruiting disenchanted trade unionists.


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Go on then tell us



I don't know. I could spend an hour looking - or I could wait for someone here who knows to show up


----------



## gosub (Feb 18, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Only the incredibly politically ignorant weren't going to expect that their vote, like the rest of the minor parties, wouldn't be squeezed a bit as the election got closer. The question is how great that squeeze will be, IMO I think they'll still take a greater share of the vote than will put them in third place.



I think 4th, behind SNP. if only on seats rather than vote share


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2015)

gosub said:


> I think 4th, behind SNP. if only on seats rather than vote share


who UKIP??  Its all but impossible for the libscum to get a lower vote than the SNP, there's no way it'll happen.  Tho they will be probable losers in terms of seat number (delicious irony). In terms of vote, it's going to be close for third, I suspect the scum (yellow version) will just beat the purple scum, and be (comparatively) well ahead of the green scum.


----------



## gosub (Feb 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> who UKIP??  Its all but impossible for the libscum to get a lower vote than the SNP, there's no way it'll happen.  Tho they will be probable losers in terms of seat number (delicious irony). In terms of vote, it's going to be close for third, I suspect the scum (yellow version) will just beat the purple scum, and be (comparatively) well ahead of the green scum.



I know Scotland is only 10% of the UK population, but there is still something in the air since the referendum, so turn outs will be up,whilst in the rest of the country; "what colour bread do you want on your shit sandwich?" isn't going to have people voting in droves.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> Go on, people... what party was she in 20 years ago? (Or what "we're not a party, we're a tendency within the Labour Party, honest!"?)




I remember being on the picket line with the Liverpool Dockers, when one of the scabs went sailing past, it was one of the '47' the Militant Liverpool councillors who had refused to set a budget in the mid 80's.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2015)

> I am currently involved with a group of individuals who want to work with Christian candidates. Some of these candidates may, because of their disillusionment with the main parties, stand as independents. This means I cannot in all honesty join another party yet. I am leaving my options open
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ficial-reveals-why-she-now-supports-Ukip.html



Bit of a journey then, is she not aware that if we leave the EU, its very likely all the gains she must have fought for, such as the working time directive, will go out of the window


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2015)

gosub said:


> I know Scotland is only 10% of the UK population, but there is still something in the air since the referendum, so turn outs will be up,whilst in the rest of the country; "what colour bread do you want on your shit sandwich?" isn't going to have people voting in droves.


9%, and the SNP have dipped way below 50% now, so no way they'll get more than 4%, absolute max


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Bit of a journey then, is she not aware that if we leave the EU, its very likely all the gains she must have fought for, such as the working time directive, will go out of the window



I think she's a bit doolally:



> It is understood that Mrs Yeo left the Labour party after she was deselected on Monday night as a candidate for the 2015 local elections. It followed suggestions that she had failed to attend local council meetings.
> 
> _Torygraph_


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> I don't know. I could spend an hour looking - or I could wait for someone here who knows to show up



So you're dropping a hint that she used to be in The Militant because...?


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> So you're dropping a hint that she used to be in The Militant because...?



Nah, that was just one of the possibilities. Looked her up a little bit, and it seems more likely that she caught anti-EU rhetoric off others in her union...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Bit of a journey then, is she not aware that if we leave the EU, its very likely all the gains she must have fought for, such as the working time directive, will go out of the window



In case you haven't noticed the working time directive is irrelevant.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> I remember being on the picket line with the Liverpool Dockers, when one of the scabs went sailing past, it was one of the '47' the Militant Liverpool councillors who had refused to set a budget in the mid 80's.



Which one?


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> In case you haven't noticed the working time directive is irrelevant.



How so? It's one of the real reasons for UKIP's existence, and the wish to get out of it is a major driver of the _garagiste_ part of their funding, no?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> How so? It's one of the real reasons for UKIP's existence, and the wish to get out of it is a major driver of the _garagiste_ part of their funding, no?





It's commonplace in the kind of jobs where employers want to break the working time directive to insist that any new staff sign a waiver before being hired. If your employer doesn't ask you to sign a waiver at interview, they don't care about the working time directive.

Do you honestly think there are people funding UKIP so they can push for withdrawal from the EU _purely to get rid of the working time directive?_

Think it through eh?

E2A: If the working time directive mattered, the Tories would scrap it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 18, 2015)

Harriet Yeo was not a "top Labour politician" as described by the Telegraph. She had been a local councillor and leader of a big trade union but was no longer either at the time of her resignation. The fact that she had not been attending council meetings suggests that she had become detached for a while. Her involvement with a Christian group seems a bit odd as well.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Harriet Yeo was not a "top Labour politician" as described by the Telegraph. She had been a local councillor and leader of a big trade union but was no longer either at the time of her resignation. The fact that she had not been attending council meetings suggests that she had become detached for a while. Her involvement with a Christian group seems a bit odd as well.



Why do you think it's odd that she's a Christian?

She was Chair of the national exec of the party, that's pretty important, more so than being a councillor.


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Do you honestly think there are people funding UKIP so they can push for withdrawal from the EU _purely to get rid of the working time directive?_




Not solely, of course 



SpackleFrog said:


> E2A: If the working time directive mattered, the Tories would scrap it.



How would they do that without referral to the CJEU?



SpackleFrog said:


> Think it through eh?



Over to you...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> Not solely, of course
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The reasons for small sections of business want out of the EU has nothing to do with workers rights of any kind - the EU doesn't safeguard those in any meaningful way. How do you think Greek workers feel about EU safeguards on their rights?

Major opted out of the social chapter, it wouldn't be immensely difficult for the Tories to opt out if they wanted to. That they don't bother shows it doesn't matter here (i know from personal experience of several jobs) and I'm guessing it's not an issue for employers elsewhere either.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 18, 2015)

gosub said:


> I think 4th, behind SNP. if only on seats rather than vote share


The SNP will take more seats than UKIP but there's no way they'll end up with a higher share of the vote. The UKIP vote would have to crash for that to happen.


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2015)

> [UKIP members] also seem outraged at the fact that in the program [_Ukip: The First 100 Days_, C4] this immigration crackdown is shown to create disorder on the streets. Well, it would. And I know it would, because if Ukip followed through with the policy of forced repatriation* it floated during the Rochester by-election*, I’d be *one of the people out on the streets causing it*.




A total putdown of UKIP as "the BNP in tweed".

What made me drop my marmalade was the fact that the bolded phrase appears in...









The _Telegraph_.


----------



## gosub (Feb 18, 2015)

But it's Dan Hodges so it doesn't count.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 19, 2015)

gosub said:


> But it's Dan Hodges so it doesn't count.



Dan Hodges is one of those people who I would want to be on whichever the opposite side of me is. Also fuck him, he wants to riot for Frankfurt, Brussels and Camembert - Blairites don't give a shit about immigrants. It's not as if there haven't been multiple mass expulsions of immigrants from EU member states, and legislation in the north of the EU in multiple countries is moving towards the expulsion of EU migrants who are out of work. Anyone who rioted for the free movement of capital would be an idiot and Dan Hodges fits that bill.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Dan Hodges is one of those people who I would want to be on whichever the opposite side of me is. Also fuck him, he wants to riot for Frankfurt, Brussels and Brie - Blairites don't give a shit about immigrants.



He really does want to riot for Brussels. That's pretty, er, special right there.


----------



## elbows (Feb 19, 2015)

Not 'So Macho' in Cov:



> UKIP’s plan to parachute ‘pop preacher’ George Hargreaves into Coventry to stand as one of its General Election candidates has been scrapped after widespread criticism.
> 
> National party bosses had removed locally elected Coventry South candidate Mark Taylor and party members were briefed that this was to make way for the Rev Hargreaves, writer of Sinitta’s 1980s gay anthem ‘So Macho’.
> 
> ...



http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ukip-scraps-general-election-plan-8670771


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Only the incredibly politically ignorant weren't going to expect that their vote, like the rest of the minor parties, wouldn't be squeezed a bit as the election got closer. The question is how great that squeeze will be, IMO I think they'll still take a greater share of the vote than will put them in third place.


Minor party squeeze over the course of an election campaign is certainly the conventional wisdom but, in the case of UKIP's (realistic) electoral prospects, I really don't think the headline, national % of popular vote is very relevant or useful. 

The key question is how UKIP perform in the few tens of seats which they are actually targeting.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 19, 2015)

It's the tory collateral damage I'm looking forward to, if everything goes to plan, then the delightful massive piss-and-moanfest on the right afterwards for the kipper vote having 'let Labour in'.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> It's the tory collateral damage I'm looking forward to, if everything goes to plan, then the delightful massive piss-and-moanfest on the right afterwards for the kipper vote having 'let Labour in'.


Yeah, but what we don't know enough about yet is the way the UKIP shedding will fall. There's evidence that those voters most recently attracted to UKIP have been former/potential Labour voters, but will they be more likely to 'return to mother' or will it be those former tories that have dallied longer with the 'kippers?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2015)

4 new tory held UKIP target seats polled by ashcroft (i'll check what # in the target seats they are in a sec):









> In the four seats as a whole, 22% of 2010 Conservative voters naming a party said they intended to vote for UKIP in their constituency in May – though only just over half (51%) of Conservative-UKIP switchers said they ruled out going back to the Tories by election day.
> 
> More than one fifth (21%) of 2010 Labour voters also said they would switch to UKIP, as did 23% of 2010 Lib Dems (only one quarter of whose supporters from the last election said they would stay with them at the next).


----------



## articul8 (Feb 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> I remember being on the picket line with the Liverpool Dockers, when one of the scabs went sailing past, it was one of the '47' the Militant Liverpool councillors who had refused to set a budget in the mid 80's.


  this sounds like an unlikely story - who?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 19, 2015)

Not even Deggsy would do that.


----------



## andysays (Feb 19, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> 4 new tory held UKIP target seats polled by ashcroft (i'll check what # in the target seats they are in a sec):...



Something that seems to be missing there is any idea of how many previously-not-voters are now intending to vote UKIP (or whatever).

I don't think I've seen that being measured anywhere (though I might have missed it) and I'm wondering if it's potentially significant in confirming that support for UKIP is more about protest or rejection of the established parties than explicit agreement with the UKIP position (assuming we can completely seperate the two, which is probably not possible).

ETA crucial missing word "agreement"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2015)

Good timing this: Pictured with Nigel Farage: ex-public schoolboy in Chelsea fans racism storm


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Good timing this: Pictured with Nigel Farage: ex-public schoolboy in Chelsea fans racism storm


how convenient.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2015)

andysays said:


> Something that seems to be missing there is any idea of how many previously-not-voters are now intending to vote UKIP (or whatever).
> 
> I don't think I've seen that being measured anywhere (though I might have missed it) and I'm wondering if it's potentially significant in confirming that support for UKIP is more about protest or rejection of the established parties than explicit with the UKIP position (assuming we can completely seperate the two, which is probably not possible).


Not had time to go through the data tables but they usually take 2010 vote/non-vote into account.


----------



## andysays (Feb 19, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Not had time to go through the data tables but they usually take 2010 vote/non-vote into account.



OK, I'm not asking you to spoon feed me - I haven't seen it before, but I'm happy to accept that I've missed it.

So is there (assuming you can remember without going through your database) any evidence to suggest that previous non-voters are more likely to now support UKIP than other parties, taking into account the relative size of support of those other parties?


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 19, 2015)

I'd assume UKIP voters will be more motivated and likely to vote, enthused by the 'new', both main parties aren't really offering much that even their own supporters can engage with strongly.  It would have made a big difference in the Euro elections (where a lot of people can't be arsed getting out), probably less so in a national election.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2015)

andysays said:


> OK, I'm not asking you to spoon feed me - I haven't seen it before, but I'm happy to accept that I've missed it.
> 
> So is there (assuming you can remember without going through your database) any evidence to suggest that previous non-voters are more likely to now support UKIP than other parties, taking into account the relative size of support of those other parties?


Can't recall off top of head, i suspect (given the research Goodwin etc have done identifying UKIP supporters) there is support amongst alienated previous non-voters - the sort of people who the BNP were making inroads into 6 or 7 years back. In the BNP's case it mean they had some room to grow without having to directly win votes from the other parties to drop (but that was always limited due to their history etc). I think UKIP have very probably eaten up all that possible non-voting support now and so are going to have to win actual voters from other parties.


----------



## andysays (Feb 19, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Can't recall off top of head, i suspect (given the research Goodwin etc have done identifying UKIP supporters) there is support amongst alienated previous non-voters - the sort of people who the BNP were making inroads into 6 or 7 years back. In the BNP's case it mean they had some room to grow without having to directly win votes from the other parties to drop (but that was always limited due to their history etc). I think UKIP have very probably eaten up all that possible non-voting support now and so are going to have to win actual voters from other parties.



Thanks for that.

Your last point addresses an additional question that I wasn't asking about, but that's interesting/significant too.


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2015)

articul8 said:


> this sounds like an unlikely story - who?



I've no idea, the dockers started shouting as he drove past and shouted scab, one of them saying how he was one of the 47.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> I've no idea, the dockers started shouting as he drove past and shouted scab, one of them saying how he was one of the 47.



Oh, right, so before it was you saying one of the 47 crossed a picket line and now it's someone else?

Convenient.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 19, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why do you think it's odd that she's a Christian?
> 
> She was Chair of the national exec of the party, that's pretty important, more so than being a councillor.



Chairing the NEC hasn't had much kudos (or power) since new Labour turned the NEC into purely a rubber-stamping exercise for party policy back during Blair's first term.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 19, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Chairing the NEC hasn't had much kudos (or power) since new Labour turned the NEC into purely a rubber-stamping exercise for party policy back during Blair's first term.



Yeah but it's more important than being a councilor and has some symbolic value.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> 4 new tory held UKIP target seats polled by ashcroft (i'll check what # in the target seats they are in a sec):


 Anthony @YG expresses some surprise that Ashcroft chose to include NE Cambs in the list of marginals...


> North East Cambridgeshire seems like a rather odd choice to begin with, it doesn’t look like an obvious place for UKIP success and while Ashcroft doesid find UKIP in second place, the poll gives the Conservatives a very solid 21 point lead. (detailled tabs)


----------



## Fingers (Feb 22, 2015)

Jaw dropping


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 22, 2015)

"I don't know whether it's something in my psyche or whether it's karma from a previous life". 

This one is not only a racist in denial but she believes in mumbo-jumbo too.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 22, 2015)

Why is racism juxtaposed with those with those dolls somehow worse?


----------



## Fingers (Feb 22, 2015)

"I used the word 'negroes' as you would do Asians, Chinese, Muslims, Jews. It's a description, it's not an insult - in the same way as you would say, 'What do you mean by Jewish? Well, they belong to a community, they have got a certain faith, they have usually got noses that have got a bit of a curve to them, married women - if they are orthodox Jews - wear wigs.' It's description."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31565770


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 22, 2015)

She's the kind of person who would complain "Well, why can't I call a black person a n*gger? They use it all the time to each other".


----------



## brogdale (Feb 22, 2015)

"..._whether something happened to me as a very young person, and I've *drawn a veil over it*_..."

How multi-cultural.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 22, 2015)

At least she prefaced her comments by saying she's not racist, because racism could have seemed distinctly possible otherwise. This is the problem though, you cant even say you don't like negros these days without some yoghurt knitter *screaming *about you being racist. Imagine if she was racist though, what might she have said then?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 22, 2015)

tbf to 'dog-sitting friend'; she seemed none too impressed.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Feb 22, 2015)

Twitter's just exploded on the #MeetTheUkippers hashtag over this documentary shown on the BBC just now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0544dry


----------



## gosub (Feb 22, 2015)

I loved when Mr Farage explained before x date (in run up to the EUro elections) very few people thought UKIP were racist, then loads of people did, and attributed this change to the media..... Not the rather nasty billboards UKIP put up and down the country.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 23, 2015)

Rozanne Duncan was still digging herself a hole on Twitter earlier. At this rate, they'll be hiring her for the next major tunnelling project.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 23, 2015)

Her attitude is weird, more like a phobia than a prejudice.  It's bewildering that she can't recognise what's wrong with it.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 23, 2015)

So many levels of wrongness.  Second item on Woman's Hour today - women standing for UKIP.


----------



## laptop (Feb 23, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Rozanne Duncan was still digging herself a hole on Twitter earlier. At this rate, they'll be hiring her for the next major tunnelling project.



So long as she is buried in Hackney and goes to Chelsea, not the other way around


----------



## gosub (Feb 23, 2015)

Ironically, its Channel 4 thats saved UKIP's arse today, with the Dispatches story on Straw and Rifkind getting the media attention.


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 23, 2015)

Even the BBC doc is not going to harm ukips core support its how they think.

As far as they think Why should they not be able to say things like that without being labelled as racist, 

Trying to hide their own prejudice under the umbrella of free speech


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 23, 2015)

gosub said:


> Ironically, its Channel 4 thats saved UKIP's arse today, with the Dispatches story on Straw and Rifkind getting the media attention.



Less ironic when you consider it was a joint sting with the Daily Telegraph, although their loyalty to the tory flag doesn't make them the biggest fans of UKIP.

Having this and the fictional C4 '100 days of UKIP' running in within a few days isn't exactly going to quash the narrative of a liberal media/establishment plot to stitch up UKIP, a paranoia that they feed off very nicely.  This allows the party to portray any scandal or exposure as a stitch-up and present themselves as the victims.  It's useful to them.


----------



## gosub (Feb 23, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Less ironic when you consider it was a joint sting with the Daily Telegraph, although their loyalty to the tory flag doesn't make them the biggest fans of UKIP.
> 
> Having this and the fictional C4 '100 days of UKIP' running in within a few days isn't exactly going to quash the narrative of a liberal media/establishment plot to stitch up UKIP, a paranoia that they feed off very nicely.  This allows the party to portray any scandal or exposure as a stitch-up and present themselves as the victims.  It's useful to them.



Telegraph gave it 5* this morning, rightly I think.

C4 you could say was a stitch up, but the Beeb one, well you would chose Thanet coz thats where their most prominent politician is standing, and then you would talk to the elected councillor, the deputy chairman the lcal press officer etc.... and they hit paydirt.  Hard to use media distortion or few bad apples as a defense. but yep its useful with half of UKIP voters admitting they are racially prejudiced, water off a ducks back in some respect.

The damage it does to No to EU in any forthoming referendum though, that's another story.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2015)

it was car crash telly - and UKIP can't even complain that they were duped or it was secret filming - they invited the camera crew in ffs


----------



## treelover (Feb 23, 2015)

Prince Rhyus said:


> Twitter's just exploded on the #MeetTheUkippers hashtag over this documentary shown on the BBC just now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0544dry



But Twitter won't be voting, plenty of pensioners will though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Did i hear right from that clip - this woman had some say (professional or as a result of being elected - doesn't matter) in the allocation of supported housing (or employment in same) for young adults and was dispensing on the basis of her dislike of 'negroid features'?


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> tbf to 'dog-sitting friend'; she seemed none too impressed.


 but didn't really challenge her at the time, and got the chair to give her the boot


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Why is racism juxtaposed with those with those dolls somehow worse?


 they had a clown collection - nearly 2000 fucking clowns!


----------



## Dan U (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Did i hear right from that clip - this woman had some say (professional or as a result of being elected - doesn't matter) in the allocation of supported housing (or employment in same) for young adults and was dispensing on the basis of her dislike of 'negroid features'?



i fucking hope not.

ime that say is down to officers though, not elected members.


----------



## gosub (Feb 23, 2015)

she (clown woman) should have got the boot too, a press officer that didn't stop the interview or even tell anyone BBC now had some footage that might prove damaging. 

And bought into the bullshit idea that its language thats a problem rather than underlying attitude, but then quite a lot of people do sadly


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2015)

marty21 said:


> but didn't really challenge her at the time, and got the chair to give her the boot


Quite. Now I've seen the documentary I've realised she wasn't just the doggy-sitter.


----------



## treelover (Feb 23, 2015)

> *David Baddiel*‏@*Baddiel* 15 hrs15 hours ago
> 
> There's something worse than the parochial ism and the xenophobia and the Little Englanderness: the clothes. #*MeetTheUkippers*



Ill fitting suits?


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Quite. Now I've seen the documentary I've realised she wasn't just the doggy-sitter.


the Press officer no less, who had told everyone to be careful with what they said in public and then didn't challenge her racist friend when she did it in front of the cameras and avoided her at their Christmas do, where they had a lovely inspiring speech from ex bnp chairman

you couldn't make it up!


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2015)

treelover said:


> Ill fitting suits?


Yeah, that's the issue, isn't it? The clothes.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Dan U said:


> i fucking hope not.
> 
> ime that say is down to officers though, not elected members.


1:30-2:20.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Did i hear right from that clip - this woman had some say (professional or as a result of being elected - doesn't matter) in the allocation of supported housing (or employment in same) for young adults and was dispensing on the basis of her dislike of 'negroid features'?



Think she seems to be talking about something in the late '80's, and I'm not sure if she was involved in the scheme or just recanting a conversation she had with someone who was.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2015)

Dan U said:


> i fucking hope not.
> 
> ime that say is down to officers though, not elected members.


 she might have sat on an allocations committee - but councillors tend to not get involved with day to day stuff - and usually understand that we can't change procedures on their say so.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Think she seems to be talking about something in the late '80's, and I'm not sure if she was involved in the scheme or just recanting a conversation she had with someone who was.


From what i can tell someone involved in the scheme _asked _her if she felt there were any people supported accommodation would not be relevant to. And she replied with her racist stuff. Why would she be asked if not in some position of authority or influence though? This might not have even been to do with the council either - she might have worked there. She may not have been a cllr at the time. Needs checking out i think.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> From what i can tell someone involved in the scheme _asked _her if she felt there were any people supported accommodation would not be relevant to. And she replied with her racist stuff. Why would she be asked if not in some position of authority or influence though?



i need to listen to the clip really (am at work atm)

as marty21 says Councillors/Members can have roles in steering policy etc. but really that kind of shit would/should just be ignored (at worst, fucking reported at best!)

eta - sorry, replied to the wrong post, was trying to reply to the one with the clip times in


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2015)

And now, she's a landlord.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2015)

I did work for a TMO years ago (Tenant Management Organisation) and we had a London Cabbie on the allocations committee - they insisted on interviewing the viewers for our available properties - and did sometimes say no - if they 'didn't like the look of them' . Their argument at the time was that they wanted to ensure that the estate was kept free from trouble I was a temp there at the time - did mention this to the manager but they weren't arsed, just shrugged their shoulders and said there was nothing they could do about it


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> And now, she's a landlord.
> 
> View attachment 68061


 tbf - she loved her mutts


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2015)

marty21 said:


> tbf - she loved her mutts


not on the lino of her slum lets though


----------



## treelover (Feb 23, 2015)

> Channel 4’s spoof docudrama about Ukip is to be investigated by the media watchdog after it sparked more than 6,500 complaints.
> 
> The programme, Ukip: the first 100 Days, imagined Nigel Farage as prime minister and used actors alongside real-life documentary footage.
> 
> ...



Although the BBC doc showed some home truths, that is a bit dodgy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 23, 2015)

gosub said:


> she (clown woman) should have got the boot too, a press officer that didn't stop the interview or even tell anyone BBC now had some footage that might prove damaging.
> 
> And bought into the bullshit idea that its language thats a problem rather than underlying attitude, but then quite a lot of people do sadly


She reminded me of a Poundland Sybil Fawlty.


----------



## youngian (Feb 23, 2015)

gosub said:


> I loved when Mr Farage explained before x date (in run up to the EUro elections) very few people thought UKIP were racist, then loads of people did, and attributed this change to the media..... Not the rather nasty billboards UKIP put up and down the country.


Those pesky Bolshevik tabloids. Other nuggets included the couple that were fed up with the "London centric parties" while putting on his City of London cufflinks. They clearly didn't regard decent chaps in the City as 'London centric' which I assume is UKIP PC language for foreigners, liberals, book readers, woofters, darkies etc. Basically anyone who's not them such as Bulgarians who have the audacity to stand around in Thanet and speak foreign.

And their attempts to capture the animal welfare vote by standing up against exporting meat to horse hungry Frogs was pure comedy gold. It all begs the questions as to what are the Kippers they didn't want to put up for the documentary like.



nino_savatte said:


> She's the kind of person who would complain "Well, why can't I call a black person a n*gger? They use it all the time to each other".


Or "I don't care if they're black, blue, purple or whatever"


----------



## gosub (Feb 23, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> She reminded me of a Poundland Sybil Fawlty.



I'd say they come across more Dad's Army than Fawlty Towers, but then so would they


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 23, 2015)

gosub said:


> I'd say they come across more Dad's Army than Fawlty Towers, but then so would they


I think it was her accent and the way she spoke. She was also fond of the word 'scenario' but it was used in such a fucked up way.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2015)

youngian said:


> Those pesky Bolshevik tabloids. Other nuggets included the couple that were fed up with the "London centric parties" while putting on his City of London cufflinks. They clearly didn't regard decent chaps in the City as 'London centric' which I assume is UKIP PC language for foreigners, liberals, book readers, woofters, darkies etc. Basically anyone who's not them such as Bulgarians who have the audacity to stand around in Thanet and speak foreign.
> 
> And their attempts to capture the animal welfare vote by standing up against exporting meat to horse hungry Frogs was pure comedy gold. It all begs the questions as to what are the Kippers they didn't want to put up for the documentary like.
> 
> ...


 funnily enough, I've had arguments on Google + with kippers (they seem to love it there) one claimed they won the Reckless by election because they pledged to preserve a bird sanctuary - (threatened with closure due to a planned development of 5000 new homes)  big lol


----------



## gosub (Feb 23, 2015)

marty21 said:


> funnily enough, I've had arguments on Google + with kippers (they seem to love it there) one claimed they won the Reckless by election because they pledged to preserve a bird sanctuary - (threatened with closure due to a planned development of 5000 new homes)  big lol



Was an issue iirc, Tories put out literature saying you couldn't trust Reckless coz he had been in favour of the development when he was a Tory.   (would hazard a guess the developer was a tory)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 23, 2015)

Watching now on iPlayer, was struck by Martyn "I was only in the NF for a year" Heale and his belief that UKIP would be successful because they were the underdogs. Obviously lots of minor parties have gained massively in the last few years and he's not wrong - but what does he think will happen if they ever weren't the underdog?

Also had cause to wonder what's worse; being in the Tories for 22 years or the NF for 14 months...


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2015)

gosub said:


> Was an issue iirc, Tories put out literature saying you couldn't trust Reckless coz he had been in favour of the development when he was a Tory.   (would hazard a guess the developer was a tory)


 it was an issue - but not a crucial one I'd say - Europe , giving the Tories a kicking, and Immigration would have trumped anything else


----------



## youngian (Feb 23, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I think it was her accent and the way she spoke. She was also fond of the word 'scenario' but it was used in such a fucked up way.


I think Cybil would remain a Tory or possibly a Lib Dem. Basil would certainly be sympathetic but likes busy EU workers to order around. Whereas the Major, he is UKIP.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 23, 2015)

A gift that keeps on giving. Snail eating Frenchies, distrustful Croatians. It's all in there. At least she's not racist though.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...the-caribbean-and-found-it-okay-10064359.html


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 23, 2015)

youngian said:


> I think Cybil would remain a Tory or possibly a Lib Dem. Basil would certainly be sympathetic but likes busy EU workers to order around. Whereas the Major, he is UKIP.


nah the major is one of Jimmy's fighters


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 23, 2015)

I found that ukip woman doing her defense well uncomfortable. Thats a middle aged woman, my mums age. I'm pre-disposed through my upbringing to grant them some respect, even if they are annoying. But then the Father Ted style 'Not a Racist' justifictions come out and I'm actually right fucked off.  More fucked off than I would be if it was from someone my own age who I could challenge. WTF do I have to say to a woman like that though, where can I get through. She'd just dismiss me as a boy. Its uncomfortable to see the..veneer.


----------



## youngian (Feb 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I found that ukip woman doing her defense well uncomfortable. Thats a middle aged woman, my mums age. I'm pre-disposed through my upbringing to grant them some respect, even if they are annoying.


Cut them some slack because they're from a different generation is a regular Ukip defence despite most of them being 30 years younger then Tony Benn. Roger Helmer I think is younger than David Bowie but they do all look like they've just step out of an Ealing comedy.

But according to rising UKIP intellectual thinker Steven Woolfe 


> Ukip members like to see themselves as “insurgents”, and Woolfe compares the party not only to the New Model Army, but also to the Levellers, the Diggers, the Chartists and even the Suffragettes.


http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...bishops-after-report-on-belligerent-politics/


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2015)

None of this seems to have dented their polling, are protest votes bullet proof?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 24, 2015)

bemused said:


> None of this seems to have dented their polling, are protest votes bullet proof?



YouGov and Populous have UKIP down on last week, Ashcroft has them significantly down at 11%.


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> YouGov and Populous have UKIP down on last week, Ashcroft has them significantly down at 11%.



I need to stop following the BBC trackers.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 24, 2015)

I wonder if the recent press attention is making a difference in the minds of softer supporters? And where will the votes of those who were going to vote for UKIP go, if people are changing their minds?

Could just be anomalies in the polls, of course.


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2015)

Already put a marker down, pointing out they were falling in the polls before the two broadcasts


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 24, 2015)

From the commentariat thread but I think it's worth posting here. (credit to froggie and BA).


----------



## J Ed (Feb 27, 2015)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/26/ukips-lgbt-chair-quits-i-couldnt-defend-the-party-any-more/



> The Chair of UKIP’s official LGBT group has quit his role and resigned his party membership.
> Tom Booker, who has led the group for three years, announced that he would step away from the party after a string of anti-gay comments from UKIP politicians.
> 
> He tweeted: “Last night I stepped down as Chairman of LGBT* in UKIP and gave up my membership of #ukip. I’ll remain unaffiliated…for now ;-)
> “I found that I couldn’t defend the party or convincingly campaign for it any more. It became increasingly difficult for me to argue for a non-Classical Liberal manifesto.”



Second person to step down from this position iirc.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/26/ukips-lgbt-chair-quits-i-couldnt-defend-the-party-any-more/
> 
> 
> 
> Second person to step down from this position iirc.


To be fair, it's probably not the most widely supported post in the party.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 27, 2015)

I wonder how David Coburn's going to spin this one


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 28, 2015)

they've made it look like spocks a bastard, juxtaposing him with that headline


----------



## laptop (Feb 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they've made it look like spocks a bastard, juxtaposing him with that headline



UKIP? Illogical!


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 4, 2015)

articles like this don't exactly help dismantle those UKIP tropes.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/the-17-most-wa..._most_wanted_foreigners_living_in_london/2277

Think this comes from a Met press release . Fuck sake.


----------



## gosub (Mar 4, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> articles like this don't exactly help dismantle those UKIP tropes.
> 
> http://www.lbc.co.uk/the-17-most-wa..._most_wanted_foreigners_living_in_london/2277
> 
> Think this comes from a Met press release . Fuck sake.



Er no, what would help UKIP is the notion of trying to sweep rapists, people traffickers, murderers under the carpet because some people think it would be politically expedient to.  Would be Rotherham all over again.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Mar 4, 2015)

Erm...



> UKIP has been dealt a blow ahead of the general election in Barrow after its candidate announced he has had to step down.
> 
> Noel Matthews was selected as the party's candidate for Barrow and Furness.
> 
> ...



What does he propose to do if his party wins?


----------



## andysays (Mar 4, 2015)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Erm...
> 
> What does he propose to do if his party wins?



So EU regs mean there's a conflict of interest in an assistant to an MEP standing for election as an MP, but not in an actual MEP standing for election as an MP...


----------



## gosub (Mar 4, 2015)

andysays said:


> So EU regs mean there's a conflict of interest in an assistant to an MEP standing for election as an MP, but not in an actual MEP standing for election as an MP...




http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/about_us/faqs.html#TOP 
*7. Can an MEP also serve as an MP?*
No, European Council decision of 2002 states that "the office of MEP is incompatible with that of member of a national parliament". An MEP who is elected as an MP, or appointed a Peer, therefore has to stand down from the European Parliament.


Farage would have to take a salary cut.


----------



## andysays (Mar 4, 2015)

gosub said:


> http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/about_us/faqs.html#TOP
> *7. Can an MEP also serve as an MP?*
> No, European Council decision of 2002 states that "the office of MEP is incompatible with that of member of a national parliament". An MEP who is elected as an MP, or appointed a Peer, therefore has to stand down from the European Parliament.
> 
> Farage would have to take a salary cut.



OK, I was unaware of that, so thanks for the info. It was possible in the past to be both an MP and an MEP - Ian Paisley is the example that springs to mind.

So have Farage and whoever the other UKIP MEPs are (assuming they're standing as MPs) also had to stand down as MEPs for the duration of the entire General Election period?


----------



## gosub (Mar 4, 2015)

andysays said:


> OK, I was unaware of that, so thanks for the info. It was possible in the past to be both an MP and an MEP - Ian Paisley is the example that springs to mind.
> 
> So have Farage and whoever the other UKIP MEPs are (assuming they're standing as MPs) also had to stand down as MEPs for the duration of the entire General Election period?



rules changed in 2002. fully enforced by 2009.   don't have to stand down unless they win


----------



## andysays (Mar 4, 2015)

gosub said:


> rules changed in 2002. fully enforced by 2009.   don't have to stand down unless they win



So it *is* the case that assistants to MEPs have to first stand down in order to stand as MPs, but actual MEPs don't.


----------



## hot air baboon (Mar 4, 2015)

weepiper said:


> I wonder how David Coburn's going to spin this one



...having heard Mr Coburn's performance on Any Questions last week I doubt he could spin a child's top in a centrifuge...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 4, 2015)

andysays said:


> So it *is* the case that assistants to MEPs have to first stand down in order to stand as MPs, but actual MEPs don't.


Instead of typing out the same question a couple of times you could just do what everyone else does, consult Wikipedia and cut n paste the anaswers here as your own original research.


----------



## Nylock (Mar 5, 2015)

hot air baboon said:


> ...having heard Mr Coburn's performance on Any Questions last week I doubt he could spin a child's top in a centrifuge...


was he the shouty knobhead that fully pandered to the kipper stereotype? He did get a load of digs in against the libdem on the panel which was funny at first but what was funnier was that at one point an answer of his turned into a conference-esque tirade that ended (for him) on a high note of applause expectancy only to be greeted with silence from the audience


----------



## brogdale (Mar 5, 2015)

Not so much "Why" as "Where", but Goodwin's piece in the Tele offers this useful map...








> Ukip already has four seats “in the bag” at the general election, one of Britain’s leading election forecasters has said and should win at least two more.
> 
> Matthew Goodwin, an associate professor of politics at Nottingham University, also said that Ukip will “indirectly damage” the Tories in 69 seats at the election, and Labour in 59 constituencies.
> 
> ...


----------



## andysays (Mar 5, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Instead of typing out the same question a couple of times...



The first time it was a rhetorical question, and the second time (the one you actually quoted) wasn't a question at all, it was a statement, a conclusion based on information provided by the two posters I was responding to.



Spanky Longhorn said:


> ...you could just do what everyone else does, consult Wikipedia and cut n paste the anaswers here as your own original research.



Please don't assume that everyone else's contributions are the same low standards as yours


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not so much "Why" as "Where", but Goodwin's piece in the Tele offers this useful map...



Looking at that map, it appears people living on the coast are the most fearful of outsiders.  I suppose they'd be the first casualties of the incoming 'tidal wave' of immigrants, terrified of the Romanian hordes in their amphibious landing craft.


----------



## laptop (Mar 5, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Looking at that map, it appears people living on the coast are the most fearful of outsiders.  I suppose they'd be the first casualties of the incoming 'tidal wave' of immigrants, terrified of the Romanian hordes in their amphibious landing craft.



...and, apparently, coming up the Valleys in their little coracles...


----------



## 2hats (Mar 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


>


ONS: percentage of population over 65...


----------



## laptop (Mar 5, 2015)

2hats said:


> ONS: percentage of population over 65...



At a glance, that explains almost everything _except_ the Welsh Valleys...

Does anyone have a moment to overlay the maps? (XOR? Subtractive?)


----------



## Dan U (Mar 5, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Looking at that map, it appears people living on the coast are the most fearful of outsiders.  I suppose they'd be the first casualties of the incoming 'tidal wave' of immigrants, terrified of the Romanian hordes in their amphibious landing craft.


They still remember the Normans and the Vikings


----------



## brogdale (Mar 5, 2015)

laptop said:


> At a glance, that explains almost everything _except_ the Welsh Valleys...
> 
> Does anyone have a moment to overlay the maps? (XOR? Subtractive?)


I think it's a good deal more complex than just age. It's possible to look at other (surrogate) spatial patterns of deprivation and see areas of correlation...


----------



## laptop (Mar 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I think it's a good deal more complex than just age. It's possible to look at other (surrogate) spatial patterns of deprivation and see areas of correlation...



Ah! "By inspection" (as the lecturer who hadn't prepared armwaved), that plus aged population would seem to correlate almost totally with UKIP vote.


----------



## 2hats (Mar 6, 2015)

<voice="Peter Snow"> Just a bit of fun </voice> - _very roughly_ combining no qualifications and over 65 then comparing to the earlier map of hotbeds of kippery:


----------



## laptop (Mar 6, 2015)

2hats said:


> <voice="Peter Snow"> Just a bit of fun </voice> - _very roughly_ combining no qualifications and over 65 then comparing to the earlier map of hotbeds of kippery:
> View attachment 68473 View attachment 68474



Ah! Living on the West Welsh coast, in Dorset or within shouting distance of Brighton have a protective effect 

But little else does


----------



## Diamond (Mar 6, 2015)

Am coming very late to this thread but is the emergent hypothesis that UKIP supporters correlate with the old and those lacking qualifications?


----------



## laptop (Mar 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Am coming very late to this thread but is the emergent hypothesis that UKIP supporters correlate with the old and those lacking qualifications?



Erm, as far as I'm concerned it's a sort of statistical joke. But...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Am coming very late to this thread but is the emergent hypothesis that UKIP supporters correlate with the old and those lacking qualifications?


 
The maps merely suggest a spatial correlation between areas of marked UKIP support and above (national) average levels of elderly and various indicators of deprivation. To test such a 'hypothesis', (if it is one?), much more detailed fieldwork would be required. Work like that of Goodwin and Ford certainly suggests that the correlation(s) are based in reality.



> Divides in the social and economic experiences of voters have appeared, their values and priorities have been widening, and a new electorate of "left behind" voters has grown up. These voters are on the wrong side of social change, are _*struggling on stagnant incomes, feel threatened by the way their communities and country are changing, and are furious at an established politics that appears not to understand or even care about their concerns.*_ And it is these left-behind voters who have finally found a voice in Farage's revolt.





> Ukip has virtually no support among the financially secure and the thirty- and fortysomething university graduates who dominate politics and the media. Support is weak among women, white-collar professionals and the young. Ethnic-minority voters shun the party totally.
> 
> Make no mistake, this is a revolt *dominated by white faces, blue collars and grey hair: angry, old, white working-class men who left school at the earliest opportunity and lack the qualifications to get ahead in 21st-century Britain.*


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2015)

They're starting to make inroads into the younger population:



> Linked to age, there has been a shift in the pattern of Ukip support by housing tenure. Early supporters were far more likely to own their homes outright, and far less likely to rent privately. This is what one would expect when you have more than three times as many supporters over 60 than under 40. As Ukip voters have become younger, so fewer of them are outright homeowners and more of them rent privately.
> 
> On the other hand, when it comes to social class, Ukip’s support has become less representative of the electorate as a whole. These days, 43% of Britain’s voters are working class. Ukip’s initial support was already tilted that way, with 51% working class. The figure for recent converts is much higher: 61%.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They're starting to make inroads into the younger population:


True enough, though how 'sticky' such newer support will prove is questionable. I'd guess that quite a high proportion of the reported 'leakage' over the last month or so might well be the younger demographic peeling away? Just a hunch.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> True enough, though how 'sticky' such newer support will prove is questionable. I'd guess that quite a high proportion of the reported 'leakage' over the last month or so might well be the younger demographic peeling away? Just a hunch.


Might be worth a quick trawl through the data later, haven't time now - one thing though, _if _(and it's far from something we should take for granted) the UKIP blip has led to the tory upward movement, that may suggest it's the older voters wobbling.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Might be worth a quick trawl through the data later, haven't time now - one thing though, _if _(and it's far from something we should take for granted) the UKIP blip has led to the tory upward movement, that may suggest it's the older voters wobbling.


Yeah, definitely time to have a look at the tabs; if I get more time later I might have a little trawl? Green 'surge' might be relevant for the young'uns?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2015)

I should think so yes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 6, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Looking at that map, it appears people living on the coast are the most fearful of outsiders.  I suppose they'd be the first casualties of the incoming 'tidal wave' of immigrants, terrified of the Romanian hordes in their amphibious landing craft.



With reference to Folkestone, Dover and environs, they've also had 20+ years of their xenophobic local paper (The Herald)  putting the boot in and stirring shit.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Mar 9, 2015)

Unfortunately I can't make it, but thought this might be of interest to some on here (apols if it's a repost).



> Thu 19 Mar 2015, 19:30, Conway Hall
> 
> *The Rise of UKIP: Where did it come from, and how far can it go in the general election?*
> 
> With just weeks to go until arguably the most unpredictable General Election in a generation, London Thinks invites you to a discussion in which we try to understand the UK Independence Party. We will be discussing the party's origins, who its supporters are and just why its message has been so effective. Will the "UKIP earthquake" continue on to the general election, and what could that mean for the future of British politics?


----------



## marty21 (Mar 9, 2015)

If anyone does want to 'engage' with the kippers, they are all over Google +, there are a group of them who constantly post pro-kipper stuff, and a group of us who constantly argue with them -


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2015)

They are all over social media, Guardian CIF, Local Fora, Telegraph, then you get the anti's, lots of discussions get lost in the firefight.


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2015)

> Make no mistake, this is a revolt *dominated by white faces, blue collars and grey hair: angry, old, white working-class men who left school at the earliest opportunity and lack the qualifications to get ahead in 21st-century Britain.*



Ford is very robust and unequivocal in his findings, one would think he is trying to make a name for himself.


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 9, 2015)

I think they're probably useful at taking up a lot of flak from 'online activists' etc. that might otherwise be directed at the other right-wing parties in power, a bit like the BNP used to be.  Just seems like a big circle jerk while the political groups with power carry on unmolested.

(the difference with the BNP is that the BNP never really had a chance of going anywhere given the organisational calibre of the organisation - UKIP do have some potential to influence power beyond just making the other guys look less reactionary)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> Ford is very robust and unequivocal in his findings, one would think he is trying to make a name for himself.




he HAS made a name for himself. you're - as usual - well behind the curve. he has written at least at least 2 books and 20 articles or chapters.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> Ford is very robust and unequivocal in his findings, one would think he is trying to make a name for himself.


oh - and you don't seem to have noticed that article's from last may.


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2015)

God, you are pedantic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> God, you are pedantic.


you're full of fail. you don't recognise someone's ALREADY made a name for himself & you have difficulty (and not only on this thread) with the dates news was published. there's nothing pedantic about either of those points.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Unfortunately I can't make it, but thought this might be of interest to some on here (apols if it's a repost).


Looks interesting; thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately it costs £15 to hear these people speak, so not for me.


----------



## laptop (Apr 18, 2015)

The _Telegraph_ lifts parts of this thread today:



> *Mapped: where is Ukip's support strongest? Where there are no immigrants*
> * What happens when you put a map of Ukip voters next to a map of immigrants in England and Wales? It turns out the two have very little in common *
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-strongest-Where-there-are-no-immigrants.html


----------



## Poot (May 4, 2015)

Did anyone just hear Nigel Farrage on Radio 4? He was talking - I think - about how there were scholarships at his school, so he had grown up with a broad range of people from all sorts of backgrounds. In other words, to paraphrase, he was claiming that he met people of all walks of life at Dulwich College.


----------



## bemused (May 4, 2015)

Poot said:


> Did anyone just hear Nigel Farrage on Radio 4? He was talking - I think - about how there were scholarships at his school, so he had grown up with a broad range of people from all sorts of backgrounds. In other words, to paraphrase, he was claiming that he met people of all walks of life at Dulwich College.



To be fair I'm not sure any of the major three parties meet too many normal folk, unless it's on a pre-arranged visit. Whenever I see these folks out about about all that's missing to make it a parody of a Kim Jong-un photo op is the party members carrying note books. 

The one thing I do give him over the other lot is he's actually had a real job.


----------



## belboid (May 4, 2015)

bemused said:


> The one thing I do give him over the other lot is he's actually had a real job.


commodities trading is a real job?


----------



## bemused (May 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> commodities trading is a real job?



It's more real than political researcher and script writer. 

I'm not going to vote for him but when I hear interviewers like yesterday on LBC ask him what he thinks about a black nurse helping deliver the royal baby I just facepalm. 

E


----------



## Poot (May 4, 2015)

bemused said:


> To be fair I'm not sure any of the major three parties meet too many normal folk, unless it's on a pre-arranged visit. Whenever I see these folks out about about all that's missing to make it a parody of a Kim Jong-un photo op is the party members carrying note books.
> 
> The one thing I do give him over the other lot is he's actually had a real job.


The "real job" thing may be a fair point, but the complete lack of any kind of self-awareness is another thing entirely. It's actually a bit scary. I mean, even more scary than the others.


----------



## belboid (May 4, 2015)

It _may _be a 'real job' - but it's also one of the ones based on the principles that just wholly fucked the economy.


----------



## bemused (May 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> It _may _be a 'real job' - but it's also one of the ones based on the principles that just wholly fucked the economy.



I didn't say it was a good job, just a real one.


----------



## Blagsta (May 4, 2015)

bemused said:


> I didn't say it was a good job, just a real one.



What defines a "real job"?


----------



## malatesta32 (May 5, 2015)

ho ho!


----------



## Idris2002 (May 5, 2015)

I never found that show remotely funny.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 5, 2015)

bemused said:


> It's more real than political researcher and script writer.


How?


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> I never found that show remotely funny.


nobody's perfect


----------



## Idris2002 (May 5, 2015)

belboid said:


> nobody's perfect



Except for me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> I never found that show remotely funny.



Too much like home?


----------



## gosub (May 5, 2015)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/robert-blay-ukip-suspends-parliamentary-5641537


----------



## Idris2002 (May 5, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Too much like home?


Yes, actually.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 7, 2015)

Dan U said:


> it's ok everyone, Alex Wood wasn't making a nazi salute,



Just an update on this: the Mirror has apologised.



> We now accept that these allegations were wrong and there is no reason to believe that Mr Wood is a racist or a Nazi. The photograph, one of a series of photographs appearing on his Facebook page, was taken out of context. Mr Wood was reaching out to stop a friend taking a photo on a mobile phone. The comments on Facebook purportedly made by Mr Wood were not made by him and the police have confirmed that they were not made by Mr Wood.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 19, 2015)

UKIP gold. 

A woman is a special sort of a man.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 19, 2015)




----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 19, 2015)

UKIP are down to 7% in the latest IPSOS


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2015)

ICM have them on 12% and Survation on 16%. That must be unprecedented in a non-pre-election period.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2015)

And the IPSOS figure is 8% really.


----------

