Friday OT: The Reckless rise of UKIP!

warreng

And as if by magic the racist UKIP supporter I was referring to has started following me on Strava.

cookeeemonster

WarrenG wrote:

And as if by magic the racist UKIP supporter I was referring to has started following me on Strava.

You gotta take his KOM's off him

Can't believe this thread has gone on this long - it's monday now people!!

Looking back, I was too harsh and ranty on flag bearing people. I dont get this wound up in real life. Bloody internet.

jds_1981

BigMat wrote:

I think they are happy to jump on any populist bandwagon (and these tend to be right wing sadly).

I've seen this said a few times. Are you sure it's a bad thing, providing people with what they actually want? Unless you're concerned with a tyranny of the majority?
Perhaps politicians should continue ignoring the population?

and Nigel was actually pro NHS after all (ignore the last manifesto - perhaps he was tired when he OK'ed it). They are a one issue rabble, a sad reflection on mainstream politics that they have managed to do so well though.

Well, as their manifesto now says the following, perhaps he has thought it through more thoroughly and changed his mind?

– UKIP will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents.

– We will stop further use of PFI in the NHS and encourage local authorities to buy out their PFI contracts early where this is affordable.

rjsterry

jds_1981 wrote:

and Nigel was actually pro NHS after all (ignore the last manifesto - perhaps he was tired when he OK'ed it). They are a one issue rabble, a sad reflection on mainstream politics that they have managed to do so well though.

Well, as their manifesto now says the following, perhaps he has thought it through more thoroughly and changed his mind?

– UKIP will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents.

– We will stop further use of PFI in the NHS and encourage local authorities to buy out their PFI contracts early where this is affordable.

Not sure what that means: both local authorities and PCT's are all so short of money, that I can't see how this would ever be "affordable". Still, at least UKIP have identified one genuine problem.

jds_1981

Sewinman wrote:

It think is a shame that when people discuss UKIP they nearly always descend into bashing the party, rather than getting into the guts of what UKIP is all about and seems to have some traction with the electorate:

Do we have a problem with immigration in this country?

If the other parties tackled this question better I think it would take a lot of the wind out of the sails of UKIP. The subject makes people cringe and so it is easier to just rubbish UKIP.

If you look at their manifesto, you could refine the question further to "Would the country be better served by targeted migration based on required skillsets?" It's a question which by external appearances, most countries in the world answer yes to. As an example, see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/

(My personal opinion is that it's very odd that where one can travel and work in the world is set by the fortuitousness of ones birth, however for the moment there are, and should be, limitations set until an attempt has been made work through issues that would be raised by free movement of people)

il_principe

TBH I think Farage is a genius, albeit a warped one.

He's worked out that he can have all the trappings and benefits that come from being an MEP with none of the workload. And he's worked out a way of ensuring that he is continually elected to this job, despite the fact that he does very little to justify his salary. Whenever he's accused of sponging he can simply turn round and say - but I don't want this job at all, blame the EU not me. I'm only taking the money to prove a point.

This is why he'll never stand as an MP.

warreng

Isn't he standing in Thanet South in the upcoming General Election?

il_principe

Shows how closely I follow UKIP! He's still had a pretty cushy time of it for the last few years.

warreng

He seems to be untouchable for reasons I'm not clear on.

You can't challenge him on anything - none of his policies stand up to real scrutiny, none of his facts seem to stack up and whenever a UKIP spokesman/voter you're brushed off as one of the discredited public elite. They've just garnered support on the basis of emotion and not fact

surrey_commuter

The genius of Farage is that UKIP will never get into power but they have moved the political agenda

Kieran_Burns

am I the only one thinking that reckless should start with a 'f'?

vermin

Kieran_Burns wrote:

am I the only one thinking that reckless should start with a 'f'?

freckles?

Kieran_Burns

vermin wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

am I the only one thinking that reckless should start with a 'f'?

freckles?

Well spotted

rick_chasey

WarrenG wrote:

He seems to be untouchable for reasons I'm not clear on.

You can't challenge him on anything - none of his policies stand up to real scrutiny, none of his facts seem to stack up and whenever a UKIP spokesman/voter you're brushed off as one of the discredited public elite. They've just garnered support on the basis of emotion and not fact

Name 3 voters you know personally who actually go through the numbers & the details of the party promises & manifestos to see if they will actually work/be beneficial or not.

I can't think of anyone I know and I consider people I know to be well educated, politically engaged and care about that sort of thing.

Not even members of political parties look in detail at this kind of stuff.

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

WarrenG wrote:

He seems to be untouchable for reasons I'm not clear on.

You can't challenge him on anything - none of his policies stand up to real scrutiny, none of his facts seem to stack up and whenever a UKIP spokesman/voter you're brushed off as one of the discredited public elite. They've just garnered support on the basis of emotion and not fact

Name 3 voters you know personally who actually go through the numbers & the details of the party promises & manifestos to see if they will actually work/be beneficial or not.

I can't think of anyone I know and I consider people I know to be well educated, politically engaged and care about that sort of thing.

Not even members of political parties look in detail at this kind of stuff.

+1 Most people make decisions (even huge ones like house purchases) based on emotion/subconscious rather than logic/fact.

warreng

Rick Chasey wrote:

WarrenG wrote:

He seems to be untouchable for reasons I'm not clear on.

You can't challenge him on anything - none of his policies stand up to real scrutiny, none of his facts seem to stack up and whenever a UKIP spokesman/voter you're brushed off as one of the discredited public elite. They've just garnered support on the basis of emotion and not fact

Name 3 voters you know personally who actually go through the numbers & the details of the party promises & manifestos to see if they will actually work/be beneficial or not.

I can't think of anyone I know and I consider people I know to be well educated, politically engaged and care about that sort of thing.

Not even members of political parties look in detail at this kind of stuff.

True - but I was more referring to the fact that UKIP voters KNOW he is lying, they KNOW that the stats he comes out with are wrong.

I do pay attention to what my flavour of politician says - if they lie or proposes policies that go against my core beliefs then I won't vote for them. My point was a bit more broad - he can say whatever he likes and he'll still get the same vote

vermin

Kieran_Burns wrote:

vermin wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

am I the only one thinking that reckless should start with a 'f'?

freckles?

Well spotted

glad it wasn't fukip

il_principe

WarrenG wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

WarrenG wrote:

He seems to be untouchable for reasons I'm not clear on.

You can't challenge him on anything - none of his policies stand up to real scrutiny, none of his facts seem to stack up and whenever a UKIP spokesman/voter you're brushed off as one of the discredited public elite. They've just garnered support on the basis of emotion and not fact

Name 3 voters you know personally who actually go through the numbers & the details of the party promises & manifestos to see if they will actually work/be beneficial or not.

I can't think of anyone I know and I consider people I know to be well educated, politically engaged and care about that sort of thing.

Not even members of political parties look in detail at this kind of stuff.

True - but I was more referring to the fact that UKIP voters KNOW he is lying, they KNOW that the stats he comes out with are wrong.

You sure about that? He's just repeating back some of the tosh that people already/want to believe. Reinforcing their ignorance & bigotry.

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

WarrenG wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

WarrenG wrote:

He seems to be untouchable for reasons I'm not clear on.

You can't challenge him on anything - none of his policies stand up to real scrutiny, none of his facts seem to stack up and whenever a UKIP spokesman/voter you're brushed off as one of the discredited public elite. They've just garnered support on the basis of emotion and not fact

Name 3 voters you know personally who actually go through the numbers & the details of the party promises & manifestos to see if they will actually work/be beneficial or not.

I can't think of anyone I know and I consider people I know to be well educated, politically engaged and care about that sort of thing.

Not even members of political parties look in detail at this kind of stuff.

True - but I was more referring to the fact that UKIP voters KNOW he is lying, they KNOW that the stats he comes out with are wrong.

You sure about that? He's just repeating back some of the tosh that people already/want to believe. Reinforcing their ignorance & bigotry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Name 3 voters you know personally who actually go through the numbers & the details of the party promises & manifestos to see if they will actually work/be beneficial or not.

I can't think of anyone I know and I consider people I know to be well educated, politically engaged and care about that sort of thing.

Not even members of political parties look in detail at this kind of stuff.

I can name at least one.
I know they are lies but I at least like to know which lies I am voting for.

andrewc3142

Me too. Actually, I like to know which lies I'm not voting for as well.

At least the UKIP manifesto has entertainment value. Policies such as smarter dress for the theatre, making the Circle line a circle again, taxi drivers to wear uniforms and repainting trains would be a stretch for a stand-up routine, but the party is beyond parody.

Of course, Nige now says the manifesto was "drivel" and their are now only two policies: leaving the EU and bringing back grammar schools.

But, as Mr Reckless showed, they don't appear to have developed those to the point that even the two MPs are in line with their leader.

UKIP have done the protest thing, the dog whistle BNP-lite (or perhaps not so lite) thing, made Poles (such as my wife and kids) increasingly uncomfortable and the subject of more strident abuse, stigmatised those from Central & Eastern Europe in general.

They have changed the debate in the sense that the other parties (except the Greens) are spouting the same xenophobic nonsense.

Now UKIP need to address the issue that their policies are based on half-truths and smears, lacking any real basis in fact. They need to spell out the disaster that leaving the EU would be for the UK, the collapse of the NHS and the agricultural sector that would follow from their immigration policies.

For a party that claims to be built on telling "the truth" on the EU and immigration they actually do anything but.

The rantings of the pub bore have a populist appeal for some but don't cut it for the government of a major country.

DonDaddyD

Firstly on the subject of the tweet. I don't actually think the MP did anything wrong. All she did was post a tweet of someones house, which happens to have St George's hung on it cross and a white van parked outside. Everyone interpreted this to be a Labour MP criticising the everyday working man but on the face of it she wrote nothing offensive and the image itself wasn't offensive. That she was told to walk, IMO did more harm than if Labour had some backbone and said "WTF are you on about, its just a photo of a patriotic common man - and whatever way he chooses to vote, the most important thing is that he votes". Labour seems to be running scared from their own critics instead of putting up a fight.

Lefthook wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

UKIP is a party designed to appeal to white people.

I dont say this to be provocative but you are in danger of coming across as racist as the people you oppose.

Your use of skin colour as the defining issue in the argument is either lazy or mistaken.

Are you right that the people UKIP are appealing to are white? Yes.

But by phrasing it like this you deliberately, I assume, simplify an argument into racist terms you are happy with. Black vs White

Which is not helpful or productive. You are almost trying to polarise rather than accept that the argument is probably more basic and at the same time more nuanced than that. It is simply Them vs Us. A political play that will appeal to the most people.

I stand by what I said because I don't see it as wrong.

What I originally wrote is this:

The vote worries me, it seems that any of the three parties do not know what to do with UKIP as the party seemingly has the potential to appeal to just about every white British person irrespective of class

I see this as true because White British is the target demographic of UKIP's most likely voter. Pointing that out is not racist.

UKIP does have the uncanny ability to appeal to its target demographic irrespective of class, social background and/or wealth - and it does this, IMO, better than any of the other parties - and that worries me because UKIP has the potential to appeal to the masses.

Admission of the above does not mean I'm saying that all white people are racist or have the potential to be racist. That's ridiculous. You could also argue that UKIP are no longer a party just for racists (in the purest sense), and it is generally accepted now that you don't have to be racist to vote for UKIP.

Furthermore, simply stating a particular ethnicity is not racist. It is not something that should ever cause offence; people are far too quick to insult.

It's not black vs white either - UKIPs main issue is with the EU based immigration. However, should they ever win that fight it does make me wonder what next.

But where UKIP are concerned the issue is very much about ethnicity/race - the country you were born - and whether being part of Europe matters. Given that UKIPs main cause is to get Britain out of the EU and 'deal with' immigration the party itself has turned politics itself into a race/ethnicity issue. This issue itself is not racist and dismissing it as such has helped give rise to UKIP and the people who share a similar frustration that anytime they wanted to discuss this issue they were dismissed as racist. Challenging UKIP on this issue is not racist.

Jesus, I might vote UKIP just so I can discuss these issues freely without fear of being threatened with the label 'racist'.

andrewc3142

Jesus, I might vote UKIP just so I can discuss these issues freely without fear of being threatened with the label 'racist'.

Quite possibly the worst reason ever to vote for a far-right bunch of incompetent, lazy, bigoted collection of pub bores.

elbowloh

andrewc3142 wrote:

Jesus, I might vote UKIP just so I can discuss these issues freely without fear of being threatened with the label 'racist'.

Quite possibly the worst reason ever to vote for a far-right bunch of incompetent, lazy, bigoted collection of pub bores.

Why is there no "recommend" button?

rick_chasey

Is a bit much getting tinned for a picture with a mere factual caption.

For context, if you look at other tweets, she does tweet a lot of pictures from places.

But this is England, so I'm probably missing some ultra subtle inference .

andrewc3142

But this is England, so I'm probably missing some ultra subtle inference

I think so. It's like balloons on the gate for kids' parties. Flying several St George flags shows a warm and friendly welcome awaits, regardless of colour, race, origin or employment status.

This has its roots in St George, of course (born in the Middle East, of Greek background, like half our royal family), because of his status as a patron saint in Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Ukraine, Ethiopia, to name but a few countries. And he is one of the very few Christian saints respected by Muslims.

Although he never set foot in Britain, perhaps because so, it is clear that St George, represented by his flag, has the potential to bring together different cultures in an atmosphere of mutual respect and tolerance.

I'm pretty sure that's how the owner of that house saw it anyway.

bigmat

andrewc3142 wrote:

But this is England, so I'm probably missing some ultra subtle inference

I think so. It's like balloons on the gate for kids' parties. Flying several St George flags shows a warm and friendly welcome awaits, regardless of colour, race, origin or employment status.

This has its roots in St George, of course (born in the Middle East, of Greek background, like half our royal family), because of his status as a patron saint in Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Ukraine, Ethiopia, to name but a few countries. And he is one of the very few Christian saints respected by Muslims.

Although he never set foot in Britain, perhaps because so, it is clear that St George, represented by his flag, has the potential to bring together different cultures in an atmosphere of mutual respect and tolerance.

I'm pretty sure that's how the owner of that house saw it anyway.

He might have been flying the flags as an expression of support for the national football team. I remember when I moved to north Kent being a little concerned by the number of St George's flags hanging out of windows and off car wing mirrors, but they soon went when we got knocked out of the world cup. I believe he may even have given this as an explanation (not entirely convincing seeing as it is now November).

Thornberry tweet was ill advised - regardless of what was intended, it can easily be construed as a "rolling eyes" type sneer at the electorate. Never a good idea on the eve of an election. I think she was sacked for the sheer stupidity of creating such a sh*tstorm when the Tories should have been taking a kicking at the hands of the press, rather than because the actual content was so bad.

@DDD, not sure why you think UKIP's issue with immigration isn't racist. Perhaps you accept that immigration is the massive problem for the UK they present it as being. I'm far from convinced, which makes me think that they and their voters might have other reasons for wanting to "send the buggers back" (as said by a really really tired Mark Reckless).

DonDaddyD

I honestly think the tweet could have been argued - and Labour confirmed the negative perception by not challenging it.

BigMat wrote:

@DDD, not sure why you think UKIP's issue with immigration isn't racist.

No! I said:

"the party itself has turned politics itself into a race/ethnicity issue. This issue itself is not racist and dismissing it as such has helped give rise to UKIP"

Perhaps you accept that immigration is the massive problem for the UK they present it as being. I'm far from convinced, which makes me think that they and their voters might have other reasons for wanting to "send the buggers back" (as said by a really really tired Mark Reckless).

I think immigration is a problem, yes, but not completely for the reasons UKIP claim.

I also think there are other issues that immigration takes the blame for (like the gentrification of London.

I think both sides of the issue needs to be discussed.

rick_chasey

BigMat wrote:

Thornberry tweet was ill advised - regardless of what was intended, it can easily be construed as a "rolling eyes" type sneer at the electorate. Never a good idea on the eve of an election. I think she was sacked for the sheer stupidity of creating such a sh*tstorm when the Tories should have been taking a kicking at the hands of the press, rather than because the actual content was so bad.

Presumably it's a reflection of the UK's wider class snobbery than hers necessarily.

That a picture without any inflammatory caption is considered a sneer is more to do with readers being snobby about what's in the picture and projecting that back on the tweeter... I suspect.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Thornberry tweet was ill advised - regardless of what was intended, it can easily be construed as a "rolling eyes" type sneer at the electorate. Never a good idea on the eve of an election. I think she was sacked for the sheer stupidity of creating such a sh*tstorm when the Tories should have been taking a kicking at the hands of the press, rather than because the actual content was so bad.

Presumably it's a reflection of the UK's wider class snobbery than hers necessarily.

That a picture without any inflammatory caption is considered a sneer is more to do with readers being snobby about what's in the picture and projecting that back on the tweeter... I suspect.

Maybe - it could be taken as a "that's a bit chav" comment, but also as a "the locals here are flag waving nationalists, we've got no chance". Would the latter have been a job-saving explanation? Probably not.