Bolitics UKIP Nutters

[snowychap]

...I actually agreed with that idiot Shapps earlier when he was asking UKIP to explain views on things like High Speed rail networks etc, the answers were nowhere to be found and anything that had previously been said totally contradicted manifesto's etc

Well he should know about having difficulties explaining things - to be honest, he could have been describing his own 'business' practices.

[drat01]

Is it detailed anywhere which parties lost seats to UKIP?

[Awol]

 Many of the centre and left have realised the xenophobic at best, overtly racist at worst thinking from within the UKIP following, and this thread while light-hearted shows that to have a fair degree of truth.

:-)  No, it really doesn't. The fact that the VT leftie brigade all repeat each others assertions that UKIP are horrible racist Nazi's doesn't actually make it so. Besides, the adherents of that comically cretinous pillock Ed Miliband should be popping the Lambrini corks, short of Cameron making some incredible policy changes then UKIP will totally scupper any chance of a Tory majority in 2015.  Even so Labour really haven't done that well in these elections given the obvious failings of the coalition.  From UKIP to go from 9 councilors 4 years ago to 140 today is a stunning advance and even people who hate them should be able to recognise that fact.

[blandy]

Many of the centre and left have realised the xenophobic at best, overtly racist at worst thinking from within the UKIP following, and this thread while light-hearted shows that to have a fair degree of truth.

:-)  No, it really doesn't. The fact that the VT leftie brigade all repeat each others assertions that UKIP are horrible racist Nazi's doesn't actually make it so. Besides, the adherents of that comically cretinous pillock Ed Miliband should be popping the Lambrini corks, short of Cameron making some incredible policy changes then UKIP will totally scupper any chance of a Tory majority in 2015.  Even so Labour really haven't done that well in these elections given the obvious failings of the coalition.  From UKIP to go from 9 councilors 4 years ago to 140 today is a stunning advance and even people who hate them should be able to recognise that fact.

Some of the UKIP people - prospective candidates and some (a minority) of their supporters are indisputably extremist, and not extremist compared to some soft middle, but genuinely extreme. From holocaust denial, to racism - all kinds. But that's not why they proved popular. That's just evidence of a kind that they're actually a shambles. I doubt as a core value, they are racist or extreme. It's just that they are a rag-tag bunch. Their policies are a ludicrous mix of "no to everything", because they've based their appeal initially on a single issue (anti EU) and then as their internal e mails reveal, got themselves into a position where the rest of their so called policies are just an ill thought through add on, not agreed to by anyone within the party as their coherent views. So much so they've talked about just getting a think tank to draw them some up. They're just a bunch of things that sound good to certain ears, and kind of a desire to go back to the imaginary past, somehow.

Their success reflects multiple things - the continuing break up of two party politics, the unpopularity of the tories amongst their own supporters - there's now two tory parties - the Ken Clark middle ground one, and the close to UKIP section. It reflects Labour not having any policies, it reflects the Lib Dems no longer being the party of protest, as they're part of the Gov't. And it reflects that UKIP have successfully appealed to a part of the electorate that thinks no one really represented them.

I agree with you about Cameron and Labour's problems.

[drat01]

AWOL for you to deny that UKIP has quite a few openly racist members and it's mainly campaigned with policies to be based on a Xenophobic response is nothing more than a denial of what is blatantly true. You may not like to hear and see it but them's the facts. As Pete says when you remove that bit of the equation what you are left with is basically a bunch of ludicrous people with very little in the way of structured polices for any sort of day to day running of the country - or councils for that matter.

[PaulC]

Can anyone explain to me why they consider the UKIP to be a racist party. Is it their views on multiculturalism? Have any of their members any affiliation to the BNP or the UDL? I understand they suspended a member for being racist!

[Awol]

 

 

Many of the centre and left have realised the xenophobic at best, overtly racist at worst thinking from within the UKIP following, and this thread while light-hearted shows that to have a fair degree of truth.

:-)  No, it really doesn't. The fact that the VT leftie brigade all repeat each others assertions that UKIP are horrible racist Nazi's doesn't actually make it so. Besides, the adherents of that comically cretinous pillock Ed Miliband should be popping the Lambrini corks, short of Cameron making some incredible policy changes then UKIP will totally scupper any chance of a Tory majority in 2015.  Even so Labour really haven't done that well in these elections given the obvious failings of the coalition.  From UKIP to go from 9 councilors 4 years ago to 140 today is a stunning advance and even people who hate them should be able to recognise that fact.

Some of the UKIP people - prospective candidates and some (a minority) of their supporters are indisputably extremist, and not extremist compared to some soft middle, but genuinely extreme. From holocaust denial, to racism - all kinds. But that's not why they proved popular. That's just evidence of a kind that they're actually a shambles. I doubt as a core value, they are racist or extreme. It's just that they are a rag-tag bunch. Their policies are a ludicrous mix of "no to everything", because they've based their appeal initially on a single issue (anti EU) and then as their internal e mails reveal, got themselves into a position where the rest of their so called policies are just an ill thought through add on, not agreed to by anyone within the party as their coherent views. So much so they've talked about just getting a think tank to draw them some up. They're just a bunch of things that sound good to certain ears, and kind of a desire to go back to the imaginary past, somehow.

Their success reflects multiple things - the continuing break up of two party politics, the unpopularity of the tories amongst their own supporters - there's now two tory parties - the Ken Clark middle ground one, and the close to UKIP section. It reflects Labour not having any policies, it reflects the Lib Dems no longer being the party of protest, as they're part of the Gov't. And it reflects that UKIP have successfully appealed to a part of the electorate that thinks no one really represented them.

I agree with you about Cameron and Labour's problems.

 

I don't doubt that some people who vote UKIP are extremists, the same goes for other parties. You could argue that it's better those individuals are voting for a mainstream party that doesn't share their extremist views than some  of the real nasty b*stards out there - like Ed Balls   Wanting a properly structured immigration policy is not racist, it's common sense.

 

Obviously I don't agree with much of the rest of the sentiment you express regarding lack of policy, but even if that were true the official opposition have no policies whatsoever. Seemingly that is an issue UKIP should be bashed for while Labour are given a pass despite supposedly being political "grown ups". How does that work, isn't it just rank hypocrisy from the Labour cheerleaders? - which I'm not suggesting you are, btw.    Yes UKIP are taking advantage of the genuine grievances against the established parties by tapping into otherwise ignored issues of major concern to large parts of the electorate. Well done them, that is their job.

[snowychap]

A 'properly structured' immigration policy?

Is that something being put together by the same people producing leaflets (in some, many or all areas?) with a headline 'massive threat to our local services' and then talking about 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians 'gaining the right to live, work and draw benefits here'?

[chrisp65]

I've thought deeply on the subject, I've done deep dive research and I've poured over their slightly 'thin' manifesto.

 

But mostly, it's the fact that they all begin every sentence with the words "I'm not racist, but...."

 

it's a classic give away

[drat01]

Interesting that you consistently use Labour as your justification for UKIP, when reality shows that the Tory party especially are the ones that should be the real subject for your arguments, no?

 

As has been stated before the links that Farage etc encourage and have entered into with other far right organizations across Europe makes you wonder what the real objectives are for a party that is or was supposed to be moderate and just protecting the UK (or is it just England?) from the terror that is the EU. The party and many of its supporters have been shown to have quite radical (and not in a good way) views. You have even seen that in this topic. Look at the invite to Geert Wilders, was that ill advised or just an exposing of what the membership actually think? What about people like Lord Pearson and his public anti-Muslim views? What about Paul Wiffen and his views? Abhijit Pandya and his published views on repatriation? etc etc etc

 

Searchlight article here makes interesting reading - http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/ukip-at-the-crossroads - and there many others out there.

 

While at the moment UKIP are stealing votes from the Tory party (and hooray for the disruption and forcing of the Tory party to show it's true colours), I suspect that the lowest common denominator approach to campaigning that they employ at the moment will be out in force in the next 24 months. What that will bring though is more and more scrutiny of the UKIP beliefs and as importantly those that run it. I suspect it aint going to be pretty reading

[peterms]

Can anyone explain to me why they consider the UKIP to be a racist party. Is it their views on multiculturalism? Have any of their members any affiliation to the BNP or the UDL? I understand they suspended a member for being racist!

 

The BNP is a racist party.  It's their core value, their reason for being.  Ditto the EDL, whose whole purpose seems to be Islamophobia.

 

Ukip is different.It's not a racist party, but rather one which contains more racists than the mainstream parties.  You will find in attitude surveys, Ukip members as a whole tend to be somewhere between the BNP and the mainstream parties on questions of immigration, Islamophobia and so on.  See for example the table on page 35 of this study.

 

So they would renounce all-out racism as displayed in the BNP, yet its members tend to be more likely than mainstream parties to hold views which most of us would regard as racist.

 

It's not surprising that some of its candidates get caught from time to time displaying fairly extreme views, because people like that are more likely to be in Ukip than, say, the Tory party.

 

It's also not surprising that Ukip see this as potentially enormously damaging, and feel they need to be seen to stamp out overt displays of racist or neo-fascist attitudes when they surface.  It's pretty poisonous electorally.

 

I think the kind of attitudes you get in Ukip are not the barking mad weirdos who celebrate Hitler's birthday and so on, more the kind of person who will utter some pretty disparaging remarks about immigrants, Moslems and so on when among friends, when they can relax their guard.  In public, they are more likely to adopt a cautious position.  I think this accounts for both their acute resentment of "political correctness" (they don't like having to suppress their views for the sake of social acceptability), and the fact that many of the incidents which attract bad publicity tend to be when they are caught off guard, like a photo of what was meant to be a private event, or a drunken remark.

[Eames]

I am no fan of Cameron and certainly no fan of Farage or UKIP at all, so I find it even more interesting to see the "siblings" fight like this, especially with Cuckold Clegg looking at his own party and wondering why it's been so royally screwed now it struggles to beat MonsterRavingLooney

As this thread has shown though UKIP has more than a fair share of what most reasonable people would deem to be as extremists or questionable views at best. Add to that lack of real policies on matters that concern away from the headline grabbers they keep beating on about show them to be nowhere near a political party that should be touching Gvmt (ooo eerrr missus). I actually agreed with that idiot Shapps earlier when he was asking UKIP to explain views on things like High Speed rail networks etc, the answers were nowhere to be found and anything that had previously been said totally contradicted manifesto's etc

In addition to agreeing with Shapps I also agreed with Eames in this thread, the world is certainly a strange place today :-)

eloquent as ever drat....

[leviramsey]

A 'properly structured' immigration policy?

Is that something being put together by the same people producing leaflets (in some, many or all areas?) with a headline 'massive threat to our local services' and then talking about 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians 'gaining the right to live, work and draw benefits here'?

Amplifying the point:

To argue that British people deserve social welfare benefits and others do not is by definition xenophobic. It doesn't make the policy xenophobic, but it does make the person or group advancing the argument xenophobic.

[Awol]

 

A 'properly structured' immigration policy?

Is that something being put together by the same people producing leaflets (in some, many or all areas?) with a headline 'massive threat to our local services' and then talking about 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians 'gaining the right to live, work and draw benefits here'?

Amplifying the point:

To argue that British people deserve social welfare benefits and others do not is by definition xenophobic. It doesn't make the policy xenophobic, but it does make the person or group advancing the argument xenophobic.

 

Not if we are using the English definition of xenophobic. Wishing to see one's government put it's own people first doesn't denote fear or hatred of foreigners, any more than wishing to leave the EU makes one a racist who hates Europeans. It's that misuse of language in favour of reasoned argument that is creating the space for UKIP to thrive. If these election results (and the fact UKIP have come second in 4 of the last 5 by-elections) are anything to go by then as a strategy it is clearly failing.  UKIP are forcing issues onto the political agenda that have been deemed taboo by the cosy consensus politics of recent decades - Cameron wouldn't have promised an EU referendum in 2017 without the pressure from UKIP on his general election prospects - which is healthy and essential for a robust democratic process. That is the value in what they are doing and imho, the reason why they are rapidly becoming more popular.   

 

I do wonder whether a similar insurgent party to the left of Labour and more in tune with the prevailing VT politics would receive the same level of opprobrium on here? 

[snowychap]

Wishing to see one's government put it's own people first doesn't denote fear or hatred of foreigners, any more than wishing to leave the EU makes one a racist who hates Europeans. It's that misuse of language in favour of reasoned argument that is creating the space for UKIP to thrive.

I'm not sure how you can post that (without a mischievous smirk) in the face of the evidence of how UKIP put forward their case on immigration (and not just in the odd leaflet for which an individual - say Woolas, for example - might be accused of cynically playing upon immigration fears to whip up the electorate in one particular area/constituency).

I cannot see how you (or anyone else) can seriously argue that for them to couch it in the terms that they do (e.g. to talk about what is the entire population of both countries whose status changes on Jan 1st) is not intended to make people fearful (of these two countries' nationals and by extension any other immigrants - especially when they also say in the same leaflet, "Proposed new housing developments are due largely as a result of mass immigration from within Europe").

[Kingfisher]

So basically playing on people's fears and lying to gain votes. Who votes for that, you're either A) a moron B like being lied to or C) a xenophobic tw@t jus like them.

* yes they're nearly all the same to an extent, though I quite like the Green Party, to nail my colours to the mast.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Kingfisher

[Awol]

 

Wishing to see one's government put it's own people first doesn't denote fear or hatred of foreigners, any more than wishing to leave the EU makes one a racist who hates Europeans. It's that misuse of language in favour of reasoned argument that is creating the space for UKIP to thrive.

I'm not sure how you can post that (without a mischievous smirk) in the face of the evidence of how UKIP put forward their case on immigration (and not just in the odd leaflet for which an individual - say Woolas, for example - might be accused of cynically playing upon immigration fears to whip up the electorate in one particular area/constituency).

I cannot see how you (or anyone else) can seriously argue that for them to couch it in the terms that they do (e.g. to talk about what is the entire population of both countries whose status changes on Jan 1st) is not intended to make people fearful (of these two countries' nationals and by extension any other immigrants - especially when they also say in the same leaflet, "Proposed new housing developments are due largely as a result of mass immigration from within Europe").

 

If they said that 29 million people from R & B will have access to the UK from 1st of Jan then that is a statement of fact. Does that mean they will all move here? No. Does that mean they would in theory have the legal right to do so if they wished? Yes, it does.  From what I've seen and read of Farage's arguments he has presented the potential problems associated with a large influx of migrants from these countries in three main ways:

 

1. The potential strain on the benefits system and public services , i.e. health, education and housing.  Are these services not already over strained? Is there money available to make further substantial investments in these services at the moment? I don't think there is or one would assume those investments would already be happening.  If someone from those countries comes to UK and claims they are self employed and looking for work then they can access the benefits system within weeks. That benefits system allegedly provides a level of income that exceeds the average wage in R & B. It's not difficult to imagine what the result might be.

 

2. Youth unemployment. With one million young unemployed Britons currently looking for work, is a potential influx of unskilled labour (who will be prepared to be exploited by employers for sub-minimum wage conditions) going to make it even more difficult to get those people into jobs? I think the answer to that is fairly obvious and much like the mass immigration from Poland enabled employers to drive down wages for both artisan tradesman and unskilled workers it would be reasonable to expect a repeat of that situation - while accepting that migrants from R & B will have more EU countries to choose from than Polish migrants did when they came to UK.   I'm not anti-immigration, it is essential to fill gaps in the skilled labour market. I do think that being unable to control the flow of unskilled immigration is potentially damaging to those sections of our society least able to afford it.

 

3. Crime. It is obviously offensive to suggest an entire population are basically crooks, however Farage was trotting out a statistic from the Met Police in the run up to these elections that was so inflammatory that if it was incorrect he would he been crucified for it. In last 3 years there have been 30,000 arrests of Romanians in London out of a total Romanian population of 80,000...That's a staggering number and looking at those figures is it really illegitimate to raise the question of whether we should actually be able to control the flow of people from that country?  If you don't control your own borders then you are not really a sovereign nation. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I'll be interested to see how many of UKIP's financial backers come from the defence industry.

[Dr_Pangloss]

 

 

Wishing to see one's government put it's own people first doesn't denote fear or hatred of foreigners, any more than wishing to leave the EU makes one a racist who hates Europeans. It's that misuse of language in favour of reasoned argument that is creating the space for UKIP to thrive.

I'm not sure how you can post that (without a mischievous smirk) in the face of the evidence of how UKIP put forward their case on immigration (and not just in the odd leaflet for which an individual - say Woolas, for example - might be accused of cynically playing upon immigration fears to whip up the electorate in one particular area/constituency).

I cannot see how you (or anyone else) can seriously argue that for them to couch it in the terms that they do (e.g. to talk about what is the entire population of both countries whose status changes on Jan 1st) is not intended to make people fearful (of these two countries' nationals and by extension any other immigrants - especially when they also say in the same leaflet, "Proposed new housing developments are due largely as a result of mass immigration from within Europe").

3. Crime. It is obviously offensive to suggest an entire population are basically crooks, however Farage was trotting out a statistic from the Met Police in the run up to these elections that was so inflammatory that if it was incorrect he would he been crucified for it. In last 3 years there have been 30,000 arrests of Romanians in London out of a total Romanian population of 80,000...That's a staggering number and looking at those figures is it really illegitimate to raise the question of whether we should actually be able to control the flow of people from that country?  If you don't control your own borders then you are not really a sovereign nation. 

 

30,000 arrests but very unlikely to be 30,000 distinct individuals, power laws and all.

[snowychap]

If they said that 29 million people from R & B will have access to the UK from 1st of Jan then that is a statement of fact.

What is the purpose of UKIP using this statement as an opening gambit (whilst intentionally not putting this in to context) if not to inflame and prey upon people's fears?

It is not the opening gambit of anyone who wants to have a sensible discussion on immigration (the perils and pitfalls alongside the benefits and necessities of it).

I don't think that point 2 is as much supported by the evidence as you believe, btw. I remember reading a paper on the effects of A8 migration on employment and wages (I'm pretty sure I posted the link on VT about 4 years ago) the conclusion of which was something along the lines of it not having had a great effect in comparison to other factors (that were also at play in those countries not affected by that immigration surge).

As for point 3, as Pangloss highlights - it's a statistic taken out of context in order to scare. That's not saying that it doesn't highlight a problem with potential influxes of criminal gangs from other countries (Romania being the one in question here) but should that be extrapolated and used in terms of a general debate about immigration? Not unless it's actually the case that a significant proportion of Romanians legally in this country are also committing crimes. Surely that statistic on its own should have someone (if they are indeed concerned about getting to the truth of the matter about immigration) asking questions rather than leaping on it to further the political case they wish to make?

Edited May 4, 2013 by snowychap