BS: What about the UKIP then?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:34 PM

There was a funny incident on the radio, Richard. One of the 'I'm not a racist but...' brigade was on the Jeremy Vine show. Now, I don't have a lot of time for Mr V's debates - He is usually antagonistic and deliberately riles people for a reaction but he treated this one beautifully. The caller commented that she would welcome anyone from the commonwealth but not east Europeans. Jeremy tried to explain that the population of India was the second highest in the world and as a commonwealth country she was suggesting that they would all be welcome. But she would be confused by facts either :-) Out of interest I looked it up. The population of India is in the region of 1.2 billion. The combined populations of Romania and Bulgaria is around 28 million.

Makes you wonder at the thought processes of some folk.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:23 PM

(163,000/62,641,000)x100=0.2602129595632254. The 62 million is the UK population in 2011. The 163K is the net immigration in 2012. The population increased by 0.26%. Even if every single one that went was a rocket scientist and every single one that came was a terrorist would 1/4 of a percent really make that much difference? How come the Torygraph etc. does not report this. Or how come it's readership is not capable of working it out themselves?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 04:35 PM

Don't confuse them with facts, DtG. They aren't racists - but (yadda yadda)

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 13 - 02:37 PM

Remember the "brain drain"?

Its who's coming and who's going that matters.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 13 - 02:10 PM

All parties have stated the need to reduce immigration.

The Office for National Statistics said 163,000 more people came to live in the UK for 12 months or more than had left, compared with 247,000 the year before. Direct quote from here. The article states quite clearly that net immigration dropped by a third in the year ended June 2012 compared to the previous year.

Just who is trying to kid who here? Immigration is going down so why try to cause a panic over it? To mis-quote Mark Twain, there are liars, damned liars and politicians.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Green Man
Date: 08 May 13 - 11:21 AM

Politicians are like nappies, and they should be changed frequently for the same reason.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Fabian Way
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:22 AM

Akenaton, I didn't call Foot La La, and I said I respect his views. I said his aims were however purely in La La land because even then, over thirty years ago, globalisation and lack of national influence on commerce was prevalent and for his Utopia to exist, you needed the degree of isolation from the real world presently enjoyed only by North Korea.

Interesting isn't it. Farage's own Utopia includes a flat rate of income tax at a fairly low rate, abolition of inheritance tax and other policies aimed at keeping the rich even richer. yet many who voted for his party wouldn't benefit at all, assuming he could make the sums add up, (presumably on the back of a fag packet...) I however haven't done too badly over the years so you would think I would look forward to not paying 45% tax, enjoy the idea of my lads getting their inheritance free of tax...

But I'm not. And neither are UKIP voters supporting his neo Th*tcherite policies.

Anyone care to explain how manifestos really work??

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:17 AM

Musket, you said you did mean me the first time, so it was natural to assume you were doing it again.
You may be losing your marbles because I have trawled and I was right.
I have never used the inclusive "we" in the context of politics.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans coincidence
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:13 AM

Keith, at the risk of upsetting you anyway, I reckon you are being over sensitive if you think my comment regarding those keeping quiet was aimed at you.

Sorry to prick your bubble but I was thinking about real people actually, politicians who used to fly the Eurosceptic flag but have clammed up until they see which way the wind is really blowing and their party's reaction, (and indeed risk of losing the whip.)

I never thought of you to be fair. I have said that if I am wrong I apologise and I just haven't got the requisite lack of a life to trawl through your posts on various subjects to find your use of the inclusive "we" other than unless I am losing my marbles, (possible) I am sure you did in one of your more forthright posts a few months ago.

You are the one bringing it up still, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:08 AM

It's called mud slinging Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 08:37 AM

All parties have stated the need to reduce immigration.
In what way is UKIP different, and why are you all focussing on that issue alone?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 May 13 - 08:13 AM

The utterances of the left wing, contain lies and half truths as well. You see, people tell lies to get what they want!
I refer you to the previous comment about politicians. "Their lips are moving, they MUST be lieing"
Whoever said 'Charity begins at home?"

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 07:34 AM

If you don't think that Sky News is right wing propaganda you aren't watching it.

And yes, newspaper owners DO prowl the corridors late at night checking journos' desks.   I have at times dealt with quite a lot of litigation about the late unlamented Maxwell.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 13 - 07:28 AM

Ukip can hardly come out with explicitly racist statements, Fred, but, as your excellent post demonstrates, they do allow the plethora of lies and half-truths about immigrants, peddled by the right, to stand and do their dirty, fearmongering work. You won't find many Ukip candidates explaining things your way, the right way. That's what's wrong and that's what's racist, I think. Iron fists behind velvet gloves do it for Ukip.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 13 - 07:20 AM

Most of all UKIP's share of the vote proves that there are a large number of people who dislike the way our sovereinty has been sold for a stake in globalisation

Let's not get carried away. Fewer than one in ten eligible voters turned out for Ukip, in an election with a very low turnout held mostly in the Shire Counties. We've seen the Liberals/LibDems do this mid-term on countless occasions (and, unlike Ukip, they often managed to win an outrageous seat or two), but they have yet to take the nation by storm (they may be "in power" now, but their performance in the last election was worse than in the one before, lest we forget). Farage has a long way to go. His cheeky-chappie beer (and lots of it) 'n' fags reputation is going to come under some very heavy scrutiny, and I'm confident that he will once more emerge as the racist, xenophobic, fruitcake, plane-crash clown he always was.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 08 May 13 - 07:19 AM

Steve Shaw. "But that is racist. If you play on people's fears, or scaremonger, in a matter such as immigration, instead of coolly explaining the facts along with what you see as the pros and cons relating to people who arrive in this country, you are racist."

Forgive the brevity of what follows, because I'm just on my way to Keswick jazz festival. However, there is a significant difference between those who hate people of other races and those who express concern at the numbers of people coming in. The latter is understandable (although in my view insupportable). The former is inexcusable. The problem is that people who "legitimately" fear that there won't be enough jobs, housing, schools or whatever are preyed on by the lies and propaganda of the far right.

My own view, and I admit that it's very Adam Smith, and very free market, is that these things are self righting. IE., people will only come here if they can't get a better deal on the jobs market anywhere else. On that basis, I've never understood why it is that Tory/UKIP free marketeers are among the first to complain about immigration. As free marketeers, one would expect them to support the free movement of labour.

I'm going to be away for the best part of a week, and won't be able to take part in any more discussion until I get back. However, I'll leave you with four thoughts.

One. The notion that huge waves of foreigners are coming to live on state benefits is absolute crap. The overwhelming majority of immigrants migrate to work and to better themselves, and I say good luck to them.

Two. There's a notion abroad that we about to get swamped by hordes of Romanians and Bulgarians, who will change our way of life forever. Again, it's bunkum, as anyone who has ever studied patterns of European migration will concur. People from Eastern and Southern Europe usually migrate for fairly short periods. IE., they move abroad, work like hell for a few years, make as much money as possible, and then they go home. I'm not sure why, but I think it may be linked to the joint peasant family structure which prevails over most of Eastern Europe. IE., where you get several generations of the one family all living together, it may be that, once the children reach a certain age, it becomes their turn to migrate and make money to support the rest of the family. Dunno. That's just a hunch, but one way or another we are not going to get swamped.

Three. In view of the free market ideas expressed above, I'd better add that my interest in this is mainly humanistic. IE., I regard the entire human race as a single entity and that, irrespective of skin colour or social culture, we are all fundamentally the same. We all descend from the same tiny group of people and, even though acclimatisation might have induced minor physiological changes, our brain patterns - and cerebral capacities - are pretty much the same the world over. I just wish that those who moan about immigration would worry more about the hardship and suffering which drives people to emigrate, and stop regarding them as though they were some species of cattle. We are all of us thinking, sensate, emotive beings. Wew are all of us the same human race the world over. And if there are no major biological differences between the various peoples of mankind, what the hell is the far right shouting about?

Four. I'm keying this in just about the time that the State opening of Parliament is taking place. Among the legislation outlined in the Queen's speech is a bill to control immigration. It has been designed by the Tories to save their miserable skins from UKIP,

None of which explains why I think UKIP's stance on immigration is more opportunistic than racist. Certainly, there are closet racists within UKIP, but if any of their official policies peddle the kind of racist filth which organisations to the right of them openly indulge in, I have yet to find it.

And just for the record, I still hate UKIP, and I totally oppose its policy on immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:42 AM

" Sky News is, like Fox News, a 24-hour rolling news channel, available on satellite and via cable, and part of Rupert Murdoch's global media empire. But in style and in substance, of course, it is nothing like the pro-war, pro-Republican, pro-Palin Fox News Channel (FNC).

For a start, we have Ofcom (which the Tories want to abolish!) and Ofcom would never allow such blatant, on-air bias in this country (God bless Ofcom!). Indeed, I defy you to find me a single anchor or reporter on Sky News who bears even a passing ideological resemblance to Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity."

"But to accuse Sky News of pursuing "political influence" is a desperate claim. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest there is a co-ordinated anti-Labour, pro-Conservative campaign on the part of Sky News. John Ryley, the Sky News boss, Chris Birkett, his executive editor, and Jonathan Levy, the head of the broadcaster's political unit in Millbank -- all of whom I consider friends of mine -- are not Tories, and, if they are, they've done a damn fine job of hiding it from me and countless others.

Adam Boulton, meanwhile, is the semi-sympathetic biographer of Tony Blair -- and married to Blair's former "gatekeeper", Anji Hunter. Oh, and to those of you who have never worked in a TV newsroom, let me be very clear: Rupert Murdoch doesn't ring up each evening to discuss and decide the running orders with Messrs Ryley and Birkett. In fact, in my two years at Sky News HQ in Isleworth, Middlesex, Murdoch Sr physically turned up just once -- and, that too, to open a new building, not to pontificate on day-to-day editorial matters."
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/05/sky-news-murdoch-labour

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:35 AM

Mehdi Hasan, New Statesman.
"Is Sky News biased against Labour?
No, is the short answer. Balls and Prescott are wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:31 AM

Wot DtG said.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:31 AM

Ownership doe not make them the same.
Sky news is a respected source of neutral journalism.
Unlike Fox.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:10 AM

Sky News = Fox news. Murdoch owns both.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:09 AM

Richard....forget the "right wing" cliche.
I'm probably more of a socialist radical than you are, but we have to be realistic and i don't like many of the things that are happening through adherance to human right/ health and safety/anti/discrimination legislation from the EU.
Typical example, people can no longer afford to maintain their property. An elderly lady got an estimate from a large building firm to replace some lead flashings...Over £10000.....She called me and I did the job for under £1000 using ladders and a lifetime of experience instead of full scaffolding and a team of "hauders on"
My job has always entailed a degree of risk, I have seen guys killed by falling 6ft(which would not be covered by H/S)
Its like life itself....personal responsibility is required, safety has to be learned.



Ian says that Micheal Foot (whom I admire), lived in La La Land but Foot knew what was positive and what was destructive politically and economically.
Selfishly, we allowed ourselves to be bought by Global Capitalism and the housing boom....now our children and grandchildren are destined to suffer....probably three generations written off!

The racists are those who encouraged mass immigration...."as a means of making ourselves competitive in the Global Economy"

Never forget these words....or who said them!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:23 AM

Musket, I think you mean me again, but you are wrong again.
Will you stop doing that please.

Europe has split all the parties in the past.
All have their antis.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket saying without rather than sans
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:17 AM

Sans sounds too much like them ruddy Johnny Foreigners what?

Agreeing with Mr Shaw here. You can't come out with racist comments and tag on "but I'm not a racist." However, if your view is a racist one, that is not necessarily something you should work on. You may be comfortable with it, you may feel it necessary if we are not all going to hell in a hand cart.

Just don't expect decent people to respect it. Mind you, some have either moved their opinion recently or are keeping it under wraps, but I digress.

Interesting that Akenaton feels Michael Foot was ridiculed for his appearance. I always thought he was ridiculed because of his Utopian La La land views. Akenaton has inadvertently picked on an interesting person there. Foot's philosophy, which I respect but largely disagree with, required a rest of the world situation that wasn't there. Eurosceptics also require a world that doesn't exist if they feel The UK could prosper without some form of horizontal integration.

Interestingly, even Th*tcher realised this. So did Powell, Barber and most of all Churchill. In the early days, European integration was very much a Tory ideal. They call themselves The Conservative and Unionist Party because they firmly believe in common approach.

Or at least, they did....

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:13 AM

Don't be silly Richard.
No-one here sees Fox News.

Most UKIP voters are said to be ex tories, but many are ex Lib and Labour so unlikely to see Daily Mail.

Most voters now get their news from BBC, ITV, and Sky.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:07 AM

That's the usual bollocks ake - support for UKIP's right wing agenda is driven by the ceaseless propaganda from the right wing press (most notably the Daily Heil) and Faux News.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 13 - 04:18 AM

Most of all UKIP's share of the vote proves that there are a large number of people who dislike the way our sovereinty has been sold for a stake in globalisation....a stake which has turnedout to be worthless, as we are now simply consumers.

People do not like being told how to legislate our own country by a committee in Brussles; we appear to no longer have control over our social system, our judicial system, or our political system.

Politicians have once again underestimated the power of the silent majority.....the media has power.....but people power is stronger.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 04:10 AM

It is as if a large demographic believed that their views were being ignored by the old parties.
E.g. Europe.
They all wanted to keep us in.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 08 May 13 - 03:23 AM

The biggest impact of UKIP is that it has moved the centre ground in political discussion sharply to the right.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 07:58 PM

Grammar, grammar, grammar. It's been a long day. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 07:54 PM

Contrary to what a lot of people think, UKIP is not the BNP in blazers. Neither is it particularly racist...Rather, they have found that playing on people's fears of immigration is a handy way to get votes

But that is racist. If you play on people's fears, or scaremonger, in a matter such as immigration, instead of coolly explaining the facts along with what you see as the pros and cons relating to people who arrive in this country, you are racist.

I hear that Ukip+Tories got 48% of the vote. Well, the turnout was very low. Fewer than one person in ten who were eligible to vote voted Ukip. Also, most of the voting this time was outside the major urban areas. This was an unrepresentative election in several ways and caution is needed before we predict a Ukip takeover in 2015. I think that's about as likely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle. Here's what's going on. The LibDems sold their supporters down the river (as well as people like me who have always tactically voted LibDem to keep out the Tory - hah). Nobody loves LibDems any more. They are toast, and bloody good riddance. Cameron, in the biggest political failure of the century, could not get an overall majority against what even faithful Labourites regarded as an apocalyptically terrible prime minister. Cameron started badly and things have gone downhill ever since for this incompetent toff and his similarly-endowed entourage. So nobody loves the Tories either. Labour are struggling like mad to resist assaults on them, attacks which blame them (unjustly) for the economic collapse (which had it foundation in Thatchers's deregulations in the late 80s, which Blair, Brown and every Tory has enthusiastically espoused ever since: the Tories didn't see it coming any more than Gordon did). On top of that, they have a man as leader who is thoroughly decent and competent but who lacks charisma. So nobody loves Labour either. But Mr Farage had better not run away with the idea that he's now the one we love. No-one loves any of the others, but the others still got three-quarters of the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 13 - 06:51 PM

""Oh, and "charisma" - for example Boris Bloody Stupid Johnson and the gurning Farage are better than a thinker? Don't be silly Don et al.""

Don't you lump me in with that nonsense Ake. I already gave my opinion of Farage above (and it was worse than my take on Millipede), and I have, to my knowledge, never supported Boris either.

My point about Millipede was clearly about his lack of presence, a very concrete disadvantage in political life and debate.

I really couldn't give a shit if he looks like the north end of a southbound camel, if he could run a country.......FAT chance!

They did have the opportunity to pick the other brother. At least when he talked people knew where the noise came from.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 13 - 04:22 PM

What has looks got to do with politics?

You people are like the Tories and New labour supporters who mocked Micheal Foot for his hair and clothes....grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 May 13 - 01:28 PM

Hee hee.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 13 - 01:25 PM

Oh, and "charisma" - for example Boris Bloody Stupid Johnson and the gurning Farage are better than a thinker? Don't be silly Don et al.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 13 - 10:35 AM

""Don T. Didn't you know, Ed Millipede has had a successful charisma bypass operation? ;)""

Didn't need one! They cloned him from John Major. That's why when he enters a room heads don't turn.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 May 13 - 09:56 AM

Surely not, John! He comes from a show business background.

Ed Milliband
Glen Miller Band
Steve Miller Band


:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 May 13 - 06:14 AM

Don T. Didn't you know, Ed Millipede has had a successful charisma bypass operation? ;)

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 13 - 05:39 AM

They were coming second in last weeks elections.
Labour will win by default with the Tory vote split.
No party "in their right mind" can just let that happen Don.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 13 - 05:28 AM

The worst thing Cameron could possibility do is to move to the right in response to the threat of UKP.

Nobody in their right mind would so legitimise their ideology.

He needs to remain somewhere in the centre ground, while firming up his commitment to an in/out referendum, and the latest idea of a draft bill before the election is also a good one.

Labour can forget about election success with Ed Millipede's almost total lack of a sense of direction.

They chose the wrong brother.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 May 13 - 06:28 PM

Not saying I agree with their policies but it seems that the other parties had better do something soon."
   indeed, along with UKIP, i suggest they take PE LESSONS

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 May 13 - 03:08 PM

Of course they are Richard. They're politicians, that's why!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 13 - 02:47 PM

I am amused that this thread, at the moment that I type, is immediately below "Natural insect repellents". My views of UKIP precisely. They are, naturally, repellent insects.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 13 - 02:00 PM

Musket, I do not believe I have used the possesive with ref to any party.
You are mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,grumpy
Date: 06 May 13 - 12:54 PM

I see UKIP is courting the god-awful Neil Hamilton and his equally god-awful spouse as possible MEP candidates.

That says is all.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 06 May 13 - 11:45 AM

Don't blame the clowns, blame the people who paid to see them.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Stu
Date: 06 May 13 - 11:38 AM

"Mr Farage and his supporters have shaken neo-liberalism to its core...."

Mr Farage is a Neoliberal to the core ake, like Cameron, Thatch, Gideon and the rest.

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

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 May 13 - 10:58 AM

Well if it helps get us out of the EEC, I'll vote UKIP.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 May 13 - 10:18 AM

UKIP is exactly what it was called before the Council elections, a bunch of clowns, and that hasn't changed.

The Tories and Libdems have had a much needed kick in the pants, which may help to steer them in a more people friendly direction.

Labour too have lost out, and in terms of their share of the total votes cast, more so than the Tories.

Their share of votes cast at the last council election was 38%, which dropped last Thursday to 29%. The Tory share was 31%, which dropped to 25% this time.

Neither has escaped the distrust of the public.

However, the history of UK politics is full of mid-term protests which bore no relation to the following general election, and that was with a moderately credible third party.

This Circus of dilletante amateurs led by a grinning publicity hound won't even ruffle the surface of parliamentary politics, thank God!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 06 May 13 - 08:52 AM

In which case Keith I would humbly apologise. Your posts on the subject previously have been of the possessive use of words though, hence my attitude to some of your posts. My opinion of UKIP is not a positive one.