UKIP Thread

[Alty]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...deal-with-far-right-to-save-european-grouping

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015...mments-on-the-plague-of-interracial-marriage/

Lovely bunch

First article is a bollocks point. That MEP is less 'extreme' than almost all of those in the Tories' European grouping.

Second article - this isn't someone they hold up as a great guy. They've binned him off.

 

[silkyman]

They have to 'bin off' racist fuckwads quite often.

That was the last one though, yeah? no more hiding in there who are just about smart enough to not post that sort of idiocy on facebook? Nah. That'll be the lot.

If the Tories have linked up with holocaust denying racists, then they are wankers too.

 

[Alty]

They have to 'bin off' racist fuckwads quite often.

That was the last one though, yeah? no more hiding in there who are just about smart enough to not post that sort of idiocy on facebook? Nah. That'll be the lot.

If the Tories have linked up with holocaust denying racists, then they are wankers too.

Not quite following your point in the first half of that post. Wouldn't disagree that UKIP have a racist following, but that certainly doesn't mark them out from their competitors. If you sidelined the Labour and Tory elites and heard directly from their bases in Yorkshire and Essex respectively, you'd hear some very dodgy stuff. But you hear little from them becasue senior party press officers like it that way.

Okay. they're wankers then. But much as I like to stick the boot into Tories, what does it matter really? This is the European Parliament. A joke institution. A Parliament barred from initiating legislation...What's the point?

 

[silkyman]

I'm not defending the European parliament, just pointing out the sort of people UKIP are happy to get into bed with just to maintain their funding from an organisation we all pay for, but they make a point of not attending.

The first point was that ukip have had to sack plenty of people for being racist, homophobic or just looks, but really just for being thick enough to air their views in public.

The party clearly attracts that sort of person, but how many candidates at the election will believe the same stuff but be savvy enough to keep it quiet?

It doesn't happen anywhere near as often with other parties.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Do you have stats to back that up Silky? Because a quick Google search and you'll find loads of examples from the mainstream parties that are barely covered. Not that I would be surprised if lots of unsavoury people were attracted to UKIP simply because they want to curb immigration, but so what? If it wasn't them it would be whichever next party took it most seriously. I wouldn't paint them as racists or wronguns because of attracting those people any more than I would call the Greens terrorists for attracting lots of violent animal rights activists.

 

[Alty]

Channel 4 have a fictional docudrama about UKIP winning the election at 9pm tonight. I fear it'll be crap but will give it a chance.

 

[Alty]

Gave up after 10 mins. Awful. Treated the audience like imbeciles, frankly.

 

[silkyman]

Aiming it squarely at UKIP voters then?

 

[Alty]

Aiming it squarely at UKIP voters then?

Well yes. And it struck exactly the haughty, sneering, anti-working class tone you have there.

"Hello there stupid factory workers...you know, you would actually lose your jobs within 3 weeks of a UKIP Government"

Absolutely embarrassing.

 

[Stevencc]

Gave up after 10 mins. Awful. Treated the audience like imbeciles, frankly.

I saw the advert for that - it looked ridiculous even from that short glimpse. What a ludicrous notion for a program, at least in the format that they set for themselves.

 

[Aberstone]

I didn't watch this fictional docudrama but it's been panned from what I can see on Twitter as well. Nigel Farage will use this no doubt to validate claims that the media are against UKIP.

 

[Tilbury]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/19/ukip-candidate-renewable-energy-runs-out
What happens when renewable energy runs out. Often wondered that.

 

[Modernist]

NME vote Farage the villian of the year.

Might have to start reading the NME again.

 

[silkyman]

I didn't watch this fictional docudrama but it's been panned from what I can see on Twitter as well. Nigel Farage will use this no doubt to validate claims that the media are against UKIP.

Although he has rejected the chance to talk about it on Newsnight.

Worried he really thinks it was a bit too accurate?

 

[Viv Aldi]

I didn't watch this fictional docudrama but it's been panned from what I can see on Twitter as well. Nigel Farage will use this no doubt to validate claims that the media are against UKIP.

No smoke without fire

 

[Aberstone]

Although he has rejected the chance to talk about it on Newsnight.

Worried he really thinks it was a bit too accurate?

Maybe he thinks it's all petty games and doesn't think it's worth engaging in? Regardless I'd still love to hear what Farage has to say on any other issues aside from the EU and the NHS.

 

[silkyman]

If he wasn't worried about it, he could have used it to go on the attack at the media for bias. But I suspect he knows that they have probably only used potential reactions to known ukip policy. 'Yeah... We'll lose a fuckload of jobs by leaving the EU' isn't a good election pitch.

 

[Alty]

If he wasn't worried about it, he could have used it to go on the attack at the media for bias. But I suspect he knows that they have probably only used potential reactions to known ukip policy. 'Yeah... We'll lose a fuckload of jobs by leaving the EU' isn't a good election pitch.

No. Because only a one-eyed idiot would think those were realistic reactions to UKIP policies. His response was the correct one. Call the docudrama out as biased rubbish and move on. Giving a lengthy interview about it would have been seen as taking it more seriously than it deserved.

 

[silkyman]

The main crux of it was the important local firm going belly up after withdrawal from Europe. It was dramatised and certainly wouldn't happen within 100 days but the deportations and the international pull outs are all things that have already been threatened. There's already been anti ukip demonstrations and if they did start kicking down doors to chuck people out, you bet it would lead to unrest. It was all 'worst case scenario' , but the promise of leaving Europe and 'kicking out the forrins' is a big part of why a lot of people support Ukip. Otherwise, what's the point of them?

And if they had really wanted to go worst case apocalypse on them, they could have thrown in a mass shooting or two.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...lised-and-licensed-Nigel-Farage-has-said.html

Anyway, at least UKIP can be certain that this will have been absolutely, definately, 100% certainly the LAST racist freak in their ranks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31565770

 

[Alty]

Except UKIP's policy is not to enforce mass deportations. Farage has repeated this on numerous occasions. People who entered legally, even as a result of bollocks FMOP rules, would be allowed to stay.

Re the mad racist...I think we've all established that the only party advocating a drastic reduction in immigration is going to be attractive to racists. But every time one of these people turns up they're binned off. What is it you actually expect of UKIP?

 

[SUTSS]

C4 are very good at making documentaries that are just there to provoke people. This was one of them.

 

[silkyman]

Except UKIP's policy is not to enforce mass deportations. Farage has repeated this on numerous occasions. People who entered legally, even as a result of bollocks FMOP rules, would be allowed to stay.

Re the mad racist...I think we've all established that the only party advocating a drastic reduction in immigration is going to be attractive to racists. But every time one of these people turns up they're binned off. What is it you actually expect of UKIP?

So just because they ditch the mad racists when they out themselves, you're happy to support a party who will (and you know they WILL) have more of them hiding out in their ranks.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So just because they ditch the mad racists when they out themselves, you're happy to support a party who will (and you know they WILL) have more of them hiding out in their ranks.

The alternative is not not support any party.

 

[silkyman]

Other parties don't have to publically ditch mad racists as often. It's clear that the anti EU, anti immigration party would be like a sponge for racist supporters, so perhaps they are serving a purpose by getting so many of them in one place so people can ignore them.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Other parties don't have to publically ditch mad racists as often.

That's something that's said quite often but it's really rather unsubstantiated. I have no idea what the numbers look like in terms of sackings for racism and I suspect you don't either. I for one had never even heard about Councillor Stephen Fenwick of the Lib Dems having to resign last year for a drunken racist attack, the mainstream media didn't seem too interested. I wonder how many more cases like that there are?

It's clear that the anti EU, anti immigration party would be like a sponge for racist supporters, so perhaps they are serving a purpose by getting so many of them in one place so people can ignore them.

But that's just guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy. Those people have to support someone, and if it wasn't UKIP it would be the Conservatives, and if not them then Labour, etc etc.

 

[SUTSS]

There are obviously going to be more racist supporters of UKIP because their policies are more appealing to that demographic. There is also a larger likelihood of them having racist councillors and candidates because of how fast they have expanded meaning the vetting process has been very lax. I don't think Farage and Nuttall and others of the top end of UKIP are genuinely racist but I also don't think they mind attracting those sorts of voters and have often played up the rhetoric in an attempt to attract these people.

Further, I don't think shouting racist at everyone that UKIP does is particularly effective at dealing with them nor does it deal with the root issue of UKIPs rise. The sneering at UKIP voters that goes on (which I've probably been guilty of at some point) only reinforces their beliefs. UKIP appeal because they hark back to a golden age that never really existed but is seductive to those that feel that the modern world has left them behind. Great Britain has changed a hell of a lot in the last 25-30 years and there is a significant part of the population who never got to partake in the economic boom and have seen their values and traditions being eroded away.

Of course there are some UKIP patrons and voters who are too Tory for the Tory party and they would have stayed a fringe party if they had of kept appealing to that demographic solely. Just look at where UKIP's support is coming from, it is mainly poor seaside towns in the East and South East. Areas that have seen great prosperity but have poor areas that have been forgotten and it isn't hard to imagine why these people would be seduced by an idea that they can return Britain to the mythical land of milk and honey that UKIP promise.

Much has been made that UKIP support exists in areas of low immigration that are near areas of high immigration. This is why Norfolk is a hot bed of UKIP support. You can see areas that have changed because of the abundance of Eastern Europeans (places like Boston for example) without ever meeting an immigrant and realising that they're not that different after all. But there is a secondary similar issue here. These places are also places that have seen huge economic growth in areas whilst they have seen nothing improving around them.

The only way that you will defeat a party like UKIP isn't by sneering at them, it isn't by pandering to them. The way you'd defeat them is by addressing the issues that have left these people behind in the last 30 years.

 

[Alty]

There are obviously going to be more racist supporters of UKIP because their policies are more appealing to that demographic. There is also a larger likelihood of them having racist councillors and candidates because of how fast they have expanded meaning the vetting process has been very lax. I don't think Farage and Nuttall and others of the top end of UKIP are genuinely racist but I also don't think they mind attracting those sorts of voters and have often played up the rhetoric in an attempt to attract these people.

Further, I don't think shouting racist at everyone that UKIP does is particularly effective at dealing with them nor does it deal with the root issue of UKIPs rise. The sneering at UKIP voters that goes on (which I've probably been guilty of at some point) only reinforces their beliefs. UKIP appeal because they hark back to a golden age that never really existed but is seductive to those that feel that the modern world has left them behind. Great Britain has changed a hell of a lot in the last 25-30 years and there is a significant part of the population who never got to partake in the economic boom and have seen their values and traditions being eroded away.

Of course there are some UKIP patrons and voters who are too Tory for the Tory party and they would have stayed a fringe party if they had of kept appealing to that demographic solely. Just look at where UKIP's support is coming from, it is mainly poor seaside towns in the East and South East. Areas that have seen great prosperity but have poor areas that have been forgotten and it isn't hard to imagine why these people would be seduced by an idea that they can return Britain to the mythical land of milk and honey that UKIP promise.

Much has been made that UKIP support exists in areas of low immigration that are near areas of high immigration. This is why Norfolk is a hot bed of UKIP support. You can see areas that have changed because of the abundance of Eastern Europeans (places like Boston for example) without ever meeting an immigrant and realising that they're not that different after all. But there is a secondary similar issue here. These places are also places that have seen huge economic growth in areas whilst they have seen nothing improving around them.

The only way that you will defeat a party like UKIP isn't by sneering at them, it isn't by pandering to them. The way you'd defeat them is by addressing the issues that have left these people behind in the last 30 years.

Best post in 1FF Politics section ever.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I think the reason UKIP has such support in those areas is because those people are close enough to see the effects of mass immigration without being under the same intense social pressures that make UKIP support taboo. I also think mainstream liberals are utterly oblivious to the attitudes of these people in general, especially if they think that they're against immigration because they don't like immigrants. It's such dated language it's disappointing to see it still being trotted about. 60% of first and second generation immigrants want less immigration for crying out loud. The issue has not been about little Englanders disliking Johnny foreigner for a long time now.

 

[silkyman]

I agree with a lot of that, but when the racism is as out-and-out as some of it, then it should be picked up and shoved under the spotlight.

And to be honest, sneering is a large part of british politics. Labour sneer at the Tories, the Tories sneer at Labour, everyone else sneeds at Lib Dem, Green and Ukip.

PMQs is basically just both sides sneering in each other's general direction.

As for the issues that they are worried about, some of this needs to be down to educating people. So many of the lies trotted out by the likes of the Mail et al are geared up to be divisive. 'They all come over here, take all our jobs (and somehow also our benefits) get handed a car and a house on a plate etc etc..

It's easy for the right to spew the rhetoric and enough people are still content to just believe whatever they read.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

There are obviously going to be more racist supporters of UKIP because their policies are more appealing to that demographic. There is also a larger likelihood of them having racist councillors and candidates because of how fast they have expanded meaning the vetting process has been very lax. I don't think Farage and Nuttall and others of the top end of UKIP are genuinely racist but I also don't think they mind attracting those sorts of voters and have often played up the rhetoric in an attempt to attract these people.

Further, I don't think shouting racist at everyone that UKIP does is particularly effective at dealing with them nor does it deal with the root issue of UKIPs rise. The sneering at UKIP voters that goes on (which I've probably been guilty of at some point) only reinforces their beliefs. UKIP appeal because they hark back to a golden age that never really existed but is seductive to those that feel that the modern world has left them behind. Great Britain has changed a hell of a lot in the last 25-30 years and there is a significant part of the population who never got to partake in the economic boom and have seen their values and traditions being eroded away.

Of course there are some UKIP patrons and voters who are too Tory for the Tory party and they would have stayed a fringe party if they had of kept appealing to that demographic solely. Just look at where UKIP's support is coming from, it is mainly poor seaside towns in the East and South East. Areas that have seen great prosperity but have poor areas that have been forgotten and it isn't hard to imagine why these people would be seduced by an idea that they can return Britain to the mythical land of milk and honey that UKIP promise.

Much has been made that UKIP support exists in areas of low immigration that are near areas of high immigration. This is why Norfolk is a hot bed of UKIP support. You can see areas that have changed because of the abundance of Eastern Europeans (places like Boston for example) without ever meeting an immigrant and realising that they're not that different after all. But there is a secondary similar issue here. These places are also places that have seen huge economic growth in areas whilst they have seen nothing improving around them.

The only way that you will defeat a party like UKIP isn't by sneering at them, it isn't by pandering to them. The way you'd defeat them is by addressing the issues that have left these people behind in the last 30 years.

Yeah, good post. I particularly agree with the last sentence, but to a large extent this is why I find UKIP so problematic. In consistently framing the debate around one topic (a perfectly pertinent issue in its own right) the various other issues don't get a look in, even though it's quite clear that social decay isn't primarily a product of increased immigration. I don't think offering crude, simplistic solutions to complex problems aids the national discourse, especially when it often ends up spilling over into overtly racist or xenophobic rhetoric. I think, if they want to be taken more seriously, that this is something that UKIP's supporters and sympathisers should be prepared to acknowledge.