Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Phantom Hoover on April 04, 2015, 01:01:33 pm
-
IDK, I guess we should have one. It's proving more interesting than any we've had for a while.
-
I enjoy watching any democratic election, this is no exception. And there's certainly some interesting players in the field this time around. I will be watching, and I don't even live in the UK.
-
I'm kind of amazed at how well the SNP have managed to keep up the momentum after losing the referendum. Especially Sturgeon's performance; Salmond was such a central figure in the party that it seemed like she'd always be working in his shadow, but she's managed to propel herself to the national stage in no time at all.
-
SNP are one of those parties which are good for national pride.... you just dont want them in power types as their focus is very narrow and ultimately short term as should independence be achieved to my knowledge they havent been very big on the details beyond that
-
I've been watching the debate tonight and I do not hide the fact that I am a UKIP voter, as to me they speak the most sense although I do sometimes have concerns about some of the members. But anyway, here is my take on the rest of the parties and I will leave a conclusion to highlight my political stance. So in no particular order:-
Lib Dem
I cannot take these people seriously as they are proven liars and have policies which, in my opinion, will end up bankrupting the country. The only thing I will grant Nick Clegg is that he was humble enough to say "sorry" and admit to the mistakes.
Labour
Bloody hell... where do I begin with these! They have done so much damage to the UK and everytime they have been in power, they have left the country in debt. I live in Swansea in Wales which is, unfortunately, a traditional Labour stronghold. This is something that I cannot get my head around as a lot of the Welsh peoples will vote Labour because there Dad voted Labour, and their Dad voted Labour because Maggie Thatcher closed all those mines. But hang on a minute... Tony Benn who was the Labour energy minister before Thatcher came to power closed more mines then she ever did! In my eyes, they are the reason why we have so much debt and why so my lives were lost in Gulf War II of which a "sexed up dossier" was used to take us in. I could go on... and on... and on... and on... but I won't!
Conservatives
Apart from UKIP, these would be the only viable option for me as they would give us a referendum on EU membership. Whereas I do agree with a lot of the values they hold, I do no agree with the way that they go about doing things.
The Greens
Absolute waste of time, led by someone who is essentially a traitor to her home country. I cannot take the Greens seriously. The only two things that interest me about the Greens are the policies of giving people a referendum on EU membership and changing the law relating to cannabis. Otherwise they are a party that would end up introducing more tax, more borrowing and more spending. That's more "no thanks" from me. As for climate change... well I personally don't believe in man-made climate change and doing more in the UK would not have a significant impact on the problem, if it was a man-made problem. IF man-made climate change is actually true (left open to debate), then the US, China and India are the countries that need to be tackled as they are the biggest contributors to so called "Green house" gases.
Plaid Cymru
Just no! Plaid Cymru are a National Socialist party. Do I need to echo Germany of 1933? As it goes, Plaid were originally the Welsh National Party and this party had so much spite for England that they did a deal with Hitler which said, "If you invade the UK, we will not stand in your way." I don't care how many years later we are now, but that stance is totally undefendable. Also, at the last Welsh Assembly Government, they jumped into bed with Labour to form a coalition. That on its own would be enough to put me against the party, as if the opening fact about Plaid wasn't true.
SNP
Not a party I can vote for anyway, but not one that I would if I could. Again, this party is a National Socialist party. But this party is also led by one of the biggest hypocrites I have seen in politics. Nicola Sturgeon's parents originally bought their house via the "right to buy" scheme which was a scheme introduced by Thatcher's government. When Sturgeon came to power in Scotland, one of the first things she did was to scrap it! I seriously believe that Nicola Sturgeon would not have been standing on that stage this evening if it wasn't for right-to-buy. Also, she wants to get in to bed with Miliband faster than he can pull his kegs round his ankles, which again, is another reason why I want nothing to do with that party.
Conclusion
Obviously, this post will probably tread on a few toes here on HLP and for that I apologise. However, this is my view. Yes, I vote UKIP and the reason being is because they have the most common sense policies and they appear to be listening too and saying what a large proportion of the UK public are thinking. I won't say a majority, because I am not a pollster and I do not have access to the figures. But in my line of work, I meet people from all walks of life and I listen to their concerns which do tend to be echoed by UKIP whether people like it or not.
I am by no means racist or bigoted as the UK left-wing political establishment would lead you to believe. I have met a lot of foreign people in the UK and I do not have a problem with them or the reasons why they chose to come the UK, as they are fuelled by basic human nature. Now, in a lot of countries in the EU, typically the former Eastern Bloc, those nations do not have much in the way of wealth or welfare. The same can be said of countries outside of the EU, so I do not blame these people coming to the UK for a better way of life... in fact if I was in their shoes, I would probably do the same. The UK has a small land mass and high population density which is not good for us. There is only so much that the tax payer can support which is why the UK faces a £90 billion deficit and a stupid amount of debt... something like £1.5 trillion.
I am not particularly charitable, but for ethical reasons. I also do not appreciate that the government decides to send my tax to foreign countries and governments who in some cases do not need it. For example, David Cameron sent money to India who did not need nor want the money. Also, it is documented that the UK government has been funding Chinese and Russian governments... why? As for foreign aid, whereas in principle, I agree with helping those who need it, what I do not agree with is the amount of money which is sent, of which I have no choice over, especially when the money is bottle-necked at the top by dictators and warlords who are paid massive bribes, just so mere pennies reach the people who need the money.
My final stance is to do with weapons and military. Even though the Trident nuclear deterrent is expensive, it is necessary. Britain is a target of terrorists thanks to the actions of Mr Blair, the so called middle-east peace ambassador. The film "Lord of War" has two of the most hard hitting facts when it comes to violence and firearms. The first one quoted by Ethan Hawke's character is, "The AK47 is the real weapon of mass destruction. Those nuclear missiles just sit in the silos whereas small arms kill tens of thousands of people every year." That statement could not ring more true, especially considering foreign aid money is ending up in warlords' pockets. The second quote is the fact that the five permanent members of the UN Security council are the biggest traders in firearms. This is the same UN that demands that 0.7% of GDP be sent to foreign aid... go figure!
In conclusion, this should highlight why I vote UKIP. I could go on further about the our NHS, housing stock and other public services. But I think I have said enough and probably upset a few people by now. If you have made it this far down this post then well done to you!
I would like to finish off that if you views differ from mine, I will not hold it against you and I would ask that you do not hold it against me. At the end of the day, we all want what we believe is best but we will not always agree... that is politics!
Good night all! xxx
-
When politics will stop being about winning a communication contest, maybe I shall put some interest into.
Here in France the only guys that have implementable ideas (things that go a little further and are smarter than "increase taxes" or "decrease taxes") don't get past the first turn, mostly because they do not have the required communication.
And I have the feeling that we vote someone not because he has good ideas, but because he has a good voice, he seems convincing when he speaks.. Or he spams demagogical ideas (decrease taxes, decrease unemployment, raise aids.. These are results, not how to achieve that. Of course we all want that, but what I want to hear out of these politicians is how we will achieve this.)
Oh, and political debates in France are funny. President candidate #1 sends a spike to president candidate #2, and then instead of answering the spike, he replies with another spike, which results in a completely disconnected speech from beginning to end. How can they call that a political debate ? That's not even a debate !
Anyway, that was mostly about France. Maybe it's different in the States.
-
Again, this party is a National Socialist party.
hahahahahaha jesus christ
-
For the first time in a long time, I'm not sure I'll know who I will vote for until I'm actually standing in the cublicle. Right now it feels like choosing the best of several evils, but then, that's applicable to most elections.
I won't be voting UKIP, whatever Farage wants for the party, you can be certain that the number of people below him with even more extreme views will end up tearing that party apart once the elections are over, the unity is only because an election is coming up, and I won't be voting Tory because any group that promises to save 14bn on the Benefit/Allowance system, but states that they'll only tell us how after they get voted in quite obviously has something to hide.
The problem is, every other party has provided a piss-poor showing so far as well.
-
UKIP: is a no go for me, the UK just does not have the economy to go it alone, we have a rough time as it is and without the trade advantages of the EU. Yes the EU really needs rebuilding from the ground up but it does at least provide us with a trading region with reduced impediment.
Labour: 1997 and through the first term did so well UK growth was pretty damn good but then got so high on their own success that they just just didnt see or react to global changes that were important. Also being so far up Bus's ass didnt help either
Conservatives: just dont get the idea of the welfare state or the idea that money needs to move for an economy to work.
Lib Dem: ahhh I just want to love you guys but the current coalition indicates how spineless you might be in power and I dont want to take that risk.
Green: useful for awareness but defo would not trust them in power
-
I'd never vote UKIP on the grounds that any party which can be successfully infiltrated by the BNP and fail to notice is obviously rotten to the core.
I would vote Lib Dem if it weren't for exactly the reason headdie mentioned. They whored themselves out for a vote on PR and then lost it anyway. I can't trust them any more.
-
I'd never vote UKIP on the grounds that any party which can be successfully infiltrated by the BNP and fail to notice is obviously rotten to the core.
:yes:
I honestly have given this not enough thought but am registered and good to go.
-
I'd never vote UKIP on the grounds that any party which can be successfully infiltrated by the BNP and fail to notice is obviously rotten to the core.
:yes:
I honestly have given this not enough thought but am registered and good to go.
For some reason I had the impression that UKIP and BNP were the same, and were your version of our disgusting Republicans.
-
BNP were crazy racists trying to become mainstream by reframing themselves as anti-immigration, UKIP are opportunistic scumbags who have beaten them to it by starting from scratch with a clean image.
-
I'd never vote UKIP on the grounds that any party which can be successfully infiltrated by the BNP and fail to notice is obviously rotten to the core.
:yes:
I honestly have given this not enough thought but am registered and good to go.
For some reason I had the impression that UKIP and BNP were the same, and were your version of our disgusting Republicans.
- UKIP grew out of our participation in Europe as a voice against membership which has degraded into a collection of extreme and in several important cases immoral views on several topics.
- BNP are a bunch of White Supremacy leaning thugs trying to turn their often illegal views into a legitimate political position but are often caught out by the press and occasionally the law in morally/legally questionable activities relating to their views.
There are differences between the two though both contain some pretty disgusting characters.
-
- UKIP grew out of our participation in Europe as a voice against membership which has degraded into a collection of extreme and in several important cases immoral views on several topics.
Such as?
-
In the last few posts I have seen evidence of the clear problem of the current political state. Mud-slinging and name calling.
The problem with ALL political parties are that there are characters in them that are questionable. Yesterday, we have heard of a Labour MP who cannot be convicted on paedophilia because he now has dementia. Do I even dare mention Cyril Smith? Lets not forget the massive expenses scandal which blighted British politics. The problem is that the electorate seems to have a very short term memory. Then there is Rotherham sex trafficing which is another disgusting story. Although, one of the most disgusting stories was children who were removed from foster care, just because the foster carers voted UKIP... so much for freedom of political free speech eh?!
Fine to laugh at me saying that the SNP are a Nationalist socialist party... but it is he plain truth! They are the Scottish NATIONALIST Party. The SNP are also socialist. By definition, they are a Nationalist Socialist party. In 1933 the German citizens voted for a centre left party an look what happened!
As I said in my post, I do have some reservations about UKIP. But in recent weeks we have seen them consistently weed out and eject people from the party who have brought them in to disrepute. Can that honestly be said about any other party?
My opinion is that ConLibLab are an absolute no go as voting for them means more of the same. Green just grate against me and the other two are just dangerous and hell bent upon breaking up the UK which leaves me with only one option.
As for the EU... this is the most undemocratic constitution in existence. To say that leaving the EU would hurt Britain's trade is just simply not true. The EU prevents the UK from making its own decisions at the trading table. The UKs biggest trading partners are not a select group of 30 odd states if which most have crumbing economies. I shouldn't even need to refer to the example of the Euro! I'm all for free trade with the EU, which is the original premise on which it was formed, but as for political union... that is just a big no no! You can't have political union with 30 countries who have 30 different cultures and way of thinking.
Now lets look at Greece in the EU. This is a country I really feel sorry for as the have essentially been denied their sovereignty by the EU. Greece were having a bit of a political revolt and contemplating leaving the EU. The top powers at the EU then removed Greece's Prime Minister and instated their own political puppet. I think it was Angela Merkel who said, "Under no circumstances will Greece be allowed to leave the EU!" This is fundamentally wrong and politicians are elected to work for the people, not to enforce corrupt and undemocratic practices on people.
If I recall correctly, France's economy isn't currently that great. Also, Spain and Italy's economies are not fantastic and I believe the Germany's is also questionable. Those are the major players of the EU and I personally believe that it is not sensible to try and trade exclusively with economies that are either in tatters or weakening. Bolshevist states have next to no welfare system (correct me if I am wrong) and then you have the situation which is Ukraine, exacerbated by the EU trying to recruit them.
Whereas the GE is the most exciting it has been for decades, this is not a result of dynamic selection of policies. You vote Plaid Cymru, SNP, or Green... you end up with a dangerous coalition of Labour. For me, UKIP are not proven to be a bunch of liars or thieves which is refreshing in politics. Yes, there are some questionable characters, but they exist all over the political spectrum. I'm willing to give them a try based on that and give them the benefit of the doubt to get some proper change in the country. I'm by no means fan of David Cameron, but I would rather him than the bigoted left wing who scream "racist" every time a politically inconvenient truth is raised. Although overall, I'd rather have Farage for Prime Minister because he will not avoid the key political issues and smoke screen them with irrelevant policies which mean nothing to the well being of the general populus.
I will pose a challenge to those who disagree with this post. The challenge is to show me the hard, cold and raw facts without any political spin or manipulated statistics without having to resort to name calling, political slur, mud-slinging and only dealing in reality. Although, I suppose a better question would be... tell me what your concerns are, what is important to you and how you would address the issues!
-
Fine to laugh at me saying that the SNP are a Nationalist socialist party... but it is he plain truth! They are the Scottish NATIONALIST Party. The SNP are also socialist. By definition, they are a Nationalist Socialist party. In 1933 the German citizens voted for a centre left party an look what happened!
i can't breathe it's like someone started making brass eye again
-
Personally, I don't find it funny. I find it quite worrying. If you disagree with the statement, please debunk it!
-
so who's nicki going to be rounding up into the death camps then
-
Fine to laugh at me saying that the SNP are a Nationalist socialist party... but it is he plain truth! They are the Scottish NATIONALIST Party. The SNP are also socialist. By definition, they are a Nationalist Socialist party. In 1933 the German citizens voted for a centre left party an look what happened!
Being nationalist and being socialist is not the same as being national socialist. If you honestly believe that the NSDAP was center left, you have some reading to do. The NSDAP grew out of already existing nationalist, racist and populist groups (The so-called Freikorps); they labelled themselves "socialist worker's party" in order to muddy the waters with regards to the actual socialist and communist partys that were operating in Weimar Germany.
-
Gee1337, I will admit that for most things I only have feeling to go on but I both said that leaving the EU was a mistake but the System needs rebuilding from the ground up as like you pointed out there are glaring problems with the system as it stands.
Leaving the EU in the next 6 months - 2 years say will cause issues because as it stands our economy is mostly based on EU trade and even there we have a number of hurdles to deal with like exchange rate with the euro, cost of worker time, cost of shipping, etc and there is less impediment to trade through the EU than is normally the case with international trade. The UK economy needs a lot of help before we will be in a position for our business to be able to compete without EU backing and I fear that UKIP will rush to make good on leaving the EU, hopefully via referendum but in doing so potentially leave us vulnerable to a global economic situations we have only had limited contact with for a number of decades now and without the EU's economy backing us up which while far from being in an ideal position has much more impact than we ever could on our own.
-
@ Phantom:- I'm sure Sturgeon won't put anyone into death camps as it is not really a possible thing to do these days and no it wouldn't happen. But I do find it a dangerous prospect of Labour and SNP forming a coalition as it is my belief that the damage to the country could not be reversed.
@ The E:- I think we will have to agree to disagree with regards to what the definition is. I am reasonably well read on the build up to the Nazis, to the point where I know why Hitler was so anti-semetic. In 1933 people thought that they were voting for a centre-left party, because of the state that Germany had been left in as a result of WW1 and the sanctions imposed on them by the Treaty of Versailles. Obviously, they weren't "centre left"! I honestly don't like talking politics in such as one dimensional state of being either left wing or right wing, as I believe that politics just isn't that one dimensional. Ok, I have used terms like left-wing liberals etc... but I don't like to do it, but the media depicts politics as such and it is too difficult to escape it as a result. The point I was making (although bad communication from part got in the way... too much whisky haha) is that it is what people thought they were voting for. Obviously, they were a party with pre-determined prejudices, but in all honesty I see Plaid Cymru and the SNP has already having pre-determined prejudices towards the English. In the SNP case, their support for the Barnett Formula supports this statement. In the case of Plaid... well I made that case in my first post in this thread (true story as well... though it would be denied).
@ headdie:- Leaving the EU does not mean "stop trading with the EU". I want to leave the EU, but I am happy to continue trading with them. This is the original reason why the EU was EEC was built on the premise of trade, not political union. I don't think it is right to pump all the money into the EU who have not had their so called "auditted accounts" actually signed off since... well I don't know... and the reason being is because of the financial black hole in this accounts.
There are stronger economies outside of the EU that we could trade with and I believe that the UK should be in a position where it can open the doors easier to trade with those countries without EU sanctions blowing the whole deal, which we cannot do at the moment because we have to trade as an EU member. Around 60% of UK exports go the EU and I am happy for the actual amount in "x millions of product" to continue going there, but I would also like to see us open up more trade routes with Commonwealth states such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, then expand on trade with the Commonwealth states that we already trade with such as India. There is no reason why we should trade predominantly exclusively with the EU states as the world wide market is a much bigger market than the EU.
Setting up trade agreements with those countries could eliminate the negative factors that you talk about. Any exit from the EU after a referendum would not happen instantly at the drop of the result, but would happen over a period of time and it is that time between the result and leaving the EU and the result that those agreements could be made.
The other problem with the EU for me, is that they are in a position which could hold Britain to ransom. That is a position that makes me extremely uncomfortable. Britain is a massive contributor to the EU coffers and if Britain was to exit than I believe the EU would collapse. So, the EU commision do not want this as they are quite happy to sit in unelected seats of power pulling the strings and making our lives difficult and take home massive salaries for it. Another worry is that with Britain withdrawing from the EU, the commission might put additional sanctions on British produce in that final period of time, but this should not be a problem as we can impose our own sanctions on EU goods, such as BMW, Mercedes, Citroen and Peugeot, just to use cars as an example, then encourage our own internal market to grow and open up those alternative avenues of trade.
So whereas I understand peoples' worrys about the trade situation, I believe it to be an unjustified worry.
There are other reasons which I could go into, but the treading on toes might become a bit more of a stamp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway I think we should put this one to rest, as I did ask what people's actual real world concerns were at the moment and how you would want to see them dealt with, whether it be immigration, economy, social welfare, NHS etc...
:)
-
What we need is a good long world war to get it all back on track.
#obviouslyjoking
-
you cannot make this **** up (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/nigel-farage-english-victims-racism-uk-scotland)
-
ed balls
-
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/ballot-monkeys/on-demand
Good old channel four :yes:
-
http://www.patriotic-socialist.org/
While looking through the list of underdogs here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide)
I found a party which evoked thoughts of confed mixed with norsefire based on their logo :lol:
-
:banghead:
Double post...
http://www.ubuntuparty.co.uk/?m=1
-
Bah, this constituency doesn't have any fun candidates running.
-
Well looks like Conservatives will win again, question is by how much
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
-
Lib Dems got what they ****ing deserved. Bunch of ****ing sell-outs are paying the price for what they did last time. I actually kinda hope it's the end of them as a political party cause we need a real centerist party to take their place.
As for the rest, well, that's another 4-5 years before I consider coming back to live in the UK.
-
Lib Dems got what they ****ing deserved. Bunch of ****ing sell-outs are paying the price for what they did last time. I actually kinda hope it's the end of them as a political party cause we need a real centerist party to take their place.
As for the rest, well, that's another 4-5 years before I consider coming back to live in the UK.
Its all right for some lol
-
Not really, I might have moved back within a year or two otherwise. The current government is actually one of the reasons why I'm not already back. I only planned to live in China for a year, but since I have a good life out here, after the election I figured I'd see how much the Tories would wreck the country before I considered going back.
-
fair play to you.
-
I am going to enjoy the logical aerobatics Labour breaks out to try and somehow blame this result on the SNP, in ignorance of basic mathematics.
At least UKIP, the Lib Dems and Scottish Labour are done for.
-
Actually I'm not as unhappy as I expected with this result.
If Cameron forms a government with only a 1-3 seat majority as looks likely then he's basically stuck with the Sword of Damocles hanging over him for the next 5 years. Anyone remember the horrific term John Major had? For 5 years he lurched from disaster to disaster knowing that any 2 or 3 people on his team could die, resign or lose a by-election and cost him government. IIRC he made it to the election with a majority of only 1 seat. On top of which he had to cope with the fact that any small group of back-benchers could automatically torpedo his plans.
Major would actually have been in a better position if he'd had someone like Clegg who was willing to take it in the arse with regularity in order to have some small amount of power. So I'll actually be happier to see the Tories win outright than be forced to ask Clegg for the pitiful 8 seats he has remaining.
EDIT: The only thing I'm really worried about is that damn European Referendum he keeps promising. The electorate have already proved themselves to be turkeys voting for Christmas once. I certainly don't trust the public to make a decision as complicated as pulling out of Europe on merit.
-
EDIT: The only thing I'm really worried about is that damn European Referendum he keeps promising. The electorate have already proved themselves to be turkeys voting for Christmas once. I certainly don't trust the public to make a decision as complicated as pulling out of Europe on merit.
And there's a really good chance that such a referendum would (if successful) trigger another bid for scottish independence, which if successful (and I do believe that in the face of further cuts to government spending in Scotland and further dismantling of the NHS such a bid has a much higher chance of success) would create something of a constitutional crisis in the UK.
-
Exactly. But a threat to leave the UK if they do leave Europe could completely backfire on Cameron after all his "Keep the UK together" stuff last year.
-
"If Scotland votes Yes its future in the EU is uncertain!"
-
What this Election shows me is that First Past the Post is a really broken system. Not that I wanted Ukip in power but they had 3 million votes and 1 seat, SNP had 1.5 million and 56 seats.
-
That's a situation the Lib-Dems have been complaining about for years, but they chickened out and put forward a half-assed system at the Referendum about it.
-
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/77c8298c54c74bec586f209165acc6ce/tumblr_no16dz087R1twd6iao1_500.jpg)
-
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/77c8298c54c74bec586f209165acc6ce/tumblr_no16dz087R1twd6iao1_500.jpg)
The NHS will soon be impaled on those spikes in the background.
-
Well Mr Skinner MP Bolsover didnt take long to start bashing UKIP - https://www.facebook.com/bbcdailyandsundaypolitics/videos/1013474218669436/
-
5-seat majority for the Tories.
They had 4 times that much in Major's government and they'd lost it within 5 years. Karajorma has the right idea.
-
5-seat majority for the Tories.
They had 4 times that much in Major's government and they'd lost it within 5 years. Karajorma has the right idea.
the thing about a slim majority like this is that 5 seats is nothing, 5 back benchers decide they dont like the party line and rebel then the government has to go begging to the other parties to ensure success, but unlike with coalition all the power is then in the hands of the other MPs so it is much harder to bully or coerce support
-
It will be interesting to watch Cameron get support together for the European Referendum with such a small majority, so little UKIP presence and the rest of the house pretty much pro-Europe. He may find trouble in the ranks with MP's who have enough business know-how to see where the wind would blow if that were to happen.
-
Parliamentary systems make my head hurt.
-
the thing about a slim majority like this is that 5 seats is nothing, 5 back benchers decide they dont like the party line and rebel then the government has to go begging to the other parties to ensure success, but unlike with coalition all the power is then in the hands of the other MPs so it is much harder to bully or coerce support
Unlike the earlier coalition there isn't a them vs us dynamic to it now. Cameron can't bully his party with the threat of staying strong against their partners.
What this Election shows me is that First Past the Post is a really broken system. Not that I wanted Ukip in power but they had 3 million votes and 1 seat, SNP had 1.5 million and 56 seats.
I'm still not completely convinced about that though. UKIP had 3 million votes but with a ballot paper that only said "UKIP" and "Anyone but UKIP" wouldn't you see a large majority of people who didn't want them? PR sounds like a fairer method but it often allows extremists power that they would never get otherwise. Do you really want to live in a country with BNP MPs in it? They got ****ed over in this election but in previous ones they might not have done too badly.
This (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32651781) was quite interesting, especially It costs £500 to run for parliament, a deposit that is only returned if the candidate receives at least 5% of the vote.
In 2010, the Lib Dems didn't lose a single deposit. By the end of Friday morning, they had lost £169,000 in deposits for 2015, meaning that they failed to get 5% of the vote in at least 338 constituencies.
Remember that when people start complaining about them only having 8 seats with 2.4 million votes. If they can't get even 5% of the vote in more than half of the constituencies, do they really deserve more seats?
-
PR sounds like a fairer method but it often allows extremists power that they would never get otherwise. Do you really want to live in a country with BNP MPs in it? They got ****ed over in this election but in previous ones they might not have done too badly.
You could have proportional representation but with a cutoff point of lets say, 5%. Parties below this threshold would not get into parliament. Such system exists here in Slovakia and I like it a lot, it successfully keeps communists and fascists out of parliament while allowing for an entire spectrum of parties that are pretty representative of peoples opinions.
-
PR sounds like a fairer method but it often allows extremists power that they would never get otherwise. Do you really want to live in a country with BNP MPs in it? They got ****ed over in this election but in previous ones they might not have done too badly.
You could have proportional representation but with a cutoff point of lets say, 5%. Parties below this threshold would not get into parliament. Such system exists here in Slovakia and I like it a lot, it successfully keeps communists and fascists out of parliament while allowing for an entire spectrum of parties that are pretty representative of peoples opinions.
Do you cap parties representation as well? For example one party cant't have more than 50% to stop them from being in complete control?
-
Um... why would you do that? If a majority of people vote for a party that party should have a majority in the government.
This is especially true in more moderate systems than full PR (which puts a lot of power in the hands of party leaders and gives the people very little say in the actual individual people who end up in government), because they normally split the country into smaller districts which each proportionately elect a handful of candidates, and it's quite likely that one party would dominate the vote in some regions.
-
Well if one party had say 70% representation then they would have little to no opposition meaning they could get away with anything, a caped representation with Single transferable vote would insure people elect who they want, but those elected stay in check in case they go against the public interest
-
There's already a system of checks in most democracies against a dominant party going out of control, in the form of judicial review. Denying a democratic mandate to a huge majority of the people is a fundamentally unacceptable way of accomplishing the same thing.
-
If I'm honest, the election result is one of the better possibilities (imho)... obviously will we have to agree to disagree with this!
I've already said that I voted UKIP and I will probably continue to do so, even with Farage gone as there is a lot of sense in what they say. There has been a lot of false stigma and unfairness towards UKIP. They have been a victim of their own rapid growth. I firmly believe that they are more "centre" than people care to admit or believe, when it is considered that they have attracted voters from both sides of the political spectrum. What they have done this election is to mould themselves into a respectable party and they have weeded out people who have brought them into dis-repute with a variety of unpopular remarks, which the mainstream media have jumped on at every opportunity, especially the BBC! I am very disappointed that Farage didn't get elected as I think that parliament needs a colourful character like him in there to shake things up, however the tories did throw vast resources against him in the Thanet South campaign. I think that Farage will return as UKIP leader and he will stand somewhere in 2020, and by this time I believe that UKIP will be a much more respectable party and a lot of the problems they have succumbed too at this election will not repeat themselves at the next election. This is the first time that UKIP as stood in pretty much every seat going and they got second place in 118 of them, which to me speaks volumes. If they do not make major in-roads at the next GE, then yes it will most likely be the end of them.
One thing that does get me about the election is the representation of the country. There are several points which highlight this problem such as 37% to 30% of the electorate for Tory Vs Labour, but that 7% meant almost 100 more seats for Tory because of the marginals. Also, there is the issue of 8% meant 8 seats for the Lib Dems, yet 12.6% only meant 1 seat for UKIP. I believe that the way round this is to merge a lot of the constituencies and base them on population, meaning that a constituency size should be based on how many voters there are, but there should also be less seats.
The biggest thing that gripes me about the electorate in this country, is the constant want for change but yet they still end up voting ConLabLib (obviously less Lib), and the real truth here is that there is not much difference between the mainstream parties anyway. Even though Mr Cameron says he will deliver a EU referendum, I believe this to be a bit of a Trojan Horse as he will either fold on this promise, or he will throw vast resources at a campaign to stay in, because the reality is that all these parties want to stay as part of the EU anyway. If Cameron doesn't deliver what he has put forward in this GE's manifesto, then it will be the end of the Tories as they can no longer blame a coalition partner. Labour have taken a massive hit this time round and I believe that the Labour party are currently in decline (which in my opinion is a good thing).
I think the electorate's expectation of change happening this time round was too high, and I am guilty of thinking this as well, but change is happening. I think we all need to wake up and realise that it will take a little bit longer than anticipated.
As a final note regarding UKIP... people have branded them and will continue to brand them as racist, and this branding is done by progressive socialists and it is completely false. However, if it were true, I think I'd rather vote for a racist than a paedo (which both Labour and Conservatives of guilty of having), although ultimately I'd rather vote for neither!
-
I mean the fact that UKIP were expelling candidates from the party every other day for saying horrendously racist **** wasn't helping their image
-
A slight exaggeration "every other day" ... and I don't think that all the comments were "horrendously" racist.
However, the principle in what you are putting across there, I actually agree with you... it did not help their image! But I have never been a person suade by image, I go by substance and it was their manifesto and common sense ideology which won me over.
Expelling those people from the party for said comments can actually be positively spun to say that UKIP do not tolerate it. I seriously believe they will come back stronger in 2020.
Until then though... the next big topic for me is the EU referendum (if it actually happens).
-
UKIP got effectively shut out of parliment and that is almost certainly a good thing. Under a PR system they might have ended up with 30 to 60 MPs.
-
Expelling those people from the party for said comments can actually be positively spun to say that UKIP do not tolerate it.
It'd be nice if they backed that up by trying to filter out the racists before having them run for parliament.
-
I disagree karajorma. As a result of this election, we are in for more of the same bunch of scandalous and corrupt pillocks that we have had for decades. Atleast there is some form of honesty with UKIP, whether people disagree with it or not and they have raised a lot of important issues that would have otherwise been glossed over.
In an ideal world Phantom, yes I agree... it would have been nice. Unfortunately though, there are those that will always slip through the net. UKIP are not exclusive to having questionable candidates, as Labour and Conservative have had the same problem over the years. The difference is that the media haven't jumped on it the same way, because they main parties are considered as the "norm". However, I think UKIP did back it up, as they expelled or suspended those from the party pending investigations... hence they do not tolerate it.
An example of an exaggerated smear was David Colbourn's comment calling Hamza Yousif (think that was the name of the SNP candidate), "Abu Hamza" and accusing Mr Colbourn of comparing Mr Yousif to a terrorist. I don't think this was an accurate reflection of the scenario, but rather a misguided play on the name "Hamza", such as "Beckingham Palace" or someone being called Bruce Willis then nicknaming them John McClane.
-
Would be interesting to know the background for that dark lord image. Photoshopped or real? Does BBC fall on the left side, I suppose they'll say they don't take sides, but is it really so?
Interestingly, UK's result mirrors ours which took place a couple of weeks ago - in our case the right wing conservatives also won the elections. I'm interested to see what happens with Scotland, things just got a bit more interesting in the European politics.
The general EU line seems quite left and libertarian to me, so right wing conservatives gathering support could be seen as a counter balance to that.
-
An example of an exaggerated smear was David Colbourn's comment calling Hamza Yousif (think that was the name of the SNP candidate), "Abu Hamza" and accusing Mr Colbourn of comparing Mr Yousif to a terrorist. I don't think this was an accurate reflection of the scenario, but rather a misguided play on the name "Hamza", such as "Beckingham Palace" or someone being called Bruce Willis then nicknaming them John McClane.
The fact that you cannot see anything objectionable in comparing a Muslim MP to a militant Islamist because his name sounds a bit similar sums up why UKIP and its supporters are rightfully called racist.
-
You think it's OK to call the SNP Nazis and compare them to terrorists, but when UKIP get called racist you can do nothing but whine about biased media narratives. Grow some ****ing self-awareness.
-
Am I the only who finds it hilarious that Farage resigned, only to say he may stand again in the leader election in September? I mean, if you're going to resign, at least do it properly. Not this "Brb, I'm resigning, taking the summer off and then be back in September" :rolleyes:
I also think Ed would have made a great PM, I'll definitely miss him.
And if you disagree with me: Then debate me... one ... on ... one. :(
The general EU line seems quite left and libertarian to me, so right wing conservatives gathering support could be seen as a counter balance to that.
I'm not sure, judging by recent results in Europe I wouldn't put Europe that far to the left. Maybe compared to America, but overall there seems to be a trend of countries electing a conservative government.
-
Don't get on your high horse Phantom, and calm down ffs...
I never said that I couldn't see anything objectionable. I said that I thought that the comparison was not an accurate reflection. By the logic you are advocating, you are saying that anyone called "Abu Hamza" is instantly a terrorist. "Abu Hamza" is actually just a name, nothing more or less. It just happened to be an infamous name, made infamous by bad deeds. Whereas I did say it was a play on the name "Hamza", I also said it was a MISGUIDED play, which is because of the context. So really speaking it is wrongfully called racist.
A race is a white, black, mongaloid etc... I do not count religion as being "race" because religions are made of people from various "races". The fact that people seem to mix up race and religion is exactly why the term "racism" has been diluted. Also, I wasn't "whining", I was stating something that happened... media narratives are biased. If you cannot see this then you need to open your eyes! Disconnect from progressive liberal thinking and you will see the hypocrisy that it promotes. I suggest you have a look into what Pat Condell tells us about progressive liberalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXW-Ezs7fRo
I have nothing more to say on this!
-
mongaloid
hahahahaha jesus
the best proof that ukip are racists trying to look respectable is a 5-minute conversation with any ukip voter
-
mongaloid
hahahahaha jesus
the best proof that ukip are racists trying to look respectable is a 5-minute conversation with any ukip voter
to be fair that isnt strictly speaking the party but the people they attract, while there is an argument that one attracts the other it dosnt prove the relationship by itself.
now before you get off on the wrong foot I agree that UKIP policies and rhetoric has racist leanings/tone but on a purely interlectual level the above needs to be pointed out
-
To have a political party you do actually need people joining it, running for parliament for it and voting for it, and if those people are constantly showing themselves to be racist then the party itself is too.
-
To have a political party you do actually need people joining it, running for parliament for it and voting for it, and if those people are constantly showing themselves to be racist then the party itself is too.
The party is racist when its program is racist. I dont think UKIP is racist according to this criterion at all.
UKIP being the biggest anti-immigration party is going to attract some racists by definition. But that alone does not make the party racist, not unless the racists also have major influence in the party, which I doubt is the case.
-
Yeah they pretty clearly do given the sheer number of influential members they had to expel because they made their racism public.
-
Yeah they pretty clearly do given the sheer number of influential members they had to expel because they made their racism public.
and there in is the problem, the ones we can confirm with discriminatory viewpoints have been expelled, which in itself is a proof of the opposite, the fact that we believe the rest are as bad but covering their asses is exactly that, a belief, until they in turn are proven otherwise, at which point the party expels them, and on it perpetuate.
Its a classic human problem and as someone who has received several rounds of therapy for clinical depression one I am very familiar with which is the distinction between fact and thought. a fact is something we can objectively prove, events that are recorded to happen, numbers added together these can be proven and as such are facts. Thoughts are how we piece these together, how we make sense of it all, thing is as they are affected by matters of perspective they can be wrong no matter how much we believe them to be true and the kicker is they are easier to believe than fact as they are a result of our natural thought process. (incidentally this is why the distinction is so important to depression and other illness because even when very wrong, thoughts are much more believable)
-
When it comes to UKIP I will say that the suspension thing makes me suspect that they aren't like the BNP, openly racist amongst themselves in private and putting a non-racist face on it in public. More likely the members are simply racist on an ignorant personal level and every once in a while that slips out in a way they simply can't disguise their ignorance. You can't expose that by talking to their supporters (who suffer from the same problem, as Gee1337 just demonstrated), but if you amend Phantom Hoover's statement to
The best proof that UKIP are racists trying to look respectable is a 5-minute conversation with any ukip member
I suspect it would be bang on the money.
-
I suppose the thing about UKIP is that it doesn't want to be a racist party, but the racists don't know that.
See, I'm not against concepts such as point-based immigration in certain cases etc, but I'm also pretty much pro-Europe in concept, though if it wants to become more politically centric instead of market-centric then I think I see a crisis coming with the way it manages itself, but I don't think that will be resolved by walking away from the deal.
The problem for me with UKIP was that Farage, whilst not someone who inspired confidence in me, at least gave the impression of trying to moderate the party, but whilst members were constantly rising into the public eye with racist comments, they could not break that association between UKIP and groups like the EDL and BNP.
I suspect like the other two groups, UKIP will, post election and sans Farage, slowly deflate like the other groups did. There is a warning in the rise of these Xenophobic aspects, but not really a threat to them.
I'm not saying Nationalist Parties cannot possibly get into power, look at Scotland, but you have to offer something that is unique, and the Conservatives took the wind clean out of UKIP's sails early in the election with offer of a Referendum, that's what it was all about so in a way UKIP achieved their main goal without even getting into Power.
-
Farage being an utter hypocrite regarding the EU Parliament's corruption did not help his case in the least.
-
Looking like Arthur Daley's somewhat shifty cousin didn't help him either ;)
-
Looking like Arthur Daley's somewhat shifty cousin didn't help him either ;)
Meaning Arthur Daley wasn't "Somewhat shifty" himself?
-
On a related note, BNPs votes dropped by 99.7% this election. Makes me think all those racist voters must have voted for someone else, I wonder who?
-
This is part of the argument around what "racism" actually is! I have not said nor condone anything racist. What I despise is the dilution of the word to be used to smear people who have genuine concerns. I am not being ignorant about the situation and I voted for UKIP on a variety of points such as how they want the education system run, the energy situation, making sure our soldiers are properly equipped and not to enter wars that the likes of Tony Blair will never answer for.
Take the migrant crisis in the med now, caused by the bombing of Libya! It's things like this I want stopped. We have no place in the world to police it. UKIP are not the only party that have suffered from racist candidates. Both Labour and Tory have been guilty of this in the past, but no one bats an eyelid to them.
It makes me wonder how many people actually watched that Pat Condell video I posted. No one likes being branded a racist, but unfortunately for UKIP, the branding stuck mainly do to the repetition of accusations made against them and the interactions of a few bad eggs and over exaggeration by the media made it stick like sloppy faecal matter! The benchmark for mod-pop culture has clearly been set by a bunch of people who are out of touch of what the problems the country faces really are about, and it goes beyond immigration such as education, energy and the scam of global warming (watch me get ostracized for this one *sigh*) .
On another note, people need to stop making false accusations about the NHS going to pot just because the tories are in power. This is yet again more scare-mongering by progressive liberals. If I am proved wrong in five years time, I will hold my hands up and be humble enough to say that I was wrong, but until then I am not buying into the blatent BS being peddled by dis-gruntled socialists.
I'm not going to apologise for my views and anyone that accuses me of being racist needs to stop diluting the definition and throwing the brand around like it's going out of fashion, which is what has happened for so many years. My job is working with people which means that I meet a lot of people from all walks of life and from a variety of different countries and I have seen various patterns form from various people's social standings and backgrounds. I base my viewpoints on what I witness on a daily basis.
It's actually got the point where I cannot contribute to this thread any more so this will be my last post on this thread, due to the distortion of definitions, then being called "ignorant" for my definitions being very clear. If anything, the Pat Condell video I posted earlier has just been justified by a lot of the views made in this thread.
Time to get back to things more FS2!
Peace!
-
EDIT: Deleted what I posted. I don't want to get into an argument about Global Warming.
-
Just leave him. He's so wrong about everything he opens his trap about that you'd never be able to coax him into sanity without driving yourself mad from the effort.
-
Yeah, I don't want to turn this forum into the YouTube comment section.
-
Just leave him. He's so wrong about everything he opens his trap about that you'd never be able to coax him into sanity without driving yourself mad from the effort.
here is another problem ph, Gee1337 is expressing well worded views in a manner that encourages debate on topics, All i have seen from you are 1 - 2 line drive by posts of an inflammatory nature with nothing backing anything up.
I voted Labour as a) I disagree with certain UKIP policies like exiting Europe, b )dont trust my normal go-to paty the lib dems after the farce of the last parliament, c ) fundamentally disagree with Tory policies of save over spend, d ) am uncomfortable with how UKIP seems to relate to people who's ancestry is from outside of the UK from in the last 3 generations previously.
-
Well no, I'm not going to write walls of text addressing everything Gee1337 says when I can point to the specific sentences that show his political views are completely idiotic.
-
Well no, I'm not going to write walls of text addressing everything Gee1337 says when I can point to the specific sentences that show his political views are completely idiotic.
and yet concise informative rebuttals are the core of reasoned debate
-
I'm not terribly concerned with having a ~reasoned debate~ in a Freespace modding forum with someone who says the SNP are Nazis and calls Asian people 'Mongaloids'.
-
Attack the idea, not the person PH.
Both Labour and Tory have been guilty of this in the past, but no one bats an eyelid to them.
I don't think that either of them have had anywhere near the number that UKIP has had though. And when they do have them, they also kick them out.
It's actually got the point where I cannot contribute to this thread any more so this will be my last post on this thread, due to the distortion of definitions, then being called "ignorant" for my definitions being very clear.
Would you be happier if we start calling UKIP bigoted instead? You seem to take exception to them being called racist over their islamophobia, I assume you have no problem with me calling them bigots then?
As for being ignorant, even by your own definitions you have used racist words on this thread. You used the term mongoloid to describe a race. You're in the UK. You can't possibly claim to have not realised that the term is pejorative in the UK without actually being ignorant.
-
Would you be happier if we start calling UKIP bigoted instead? You seem to take exception to them being called racist over their islamophobia, I assume you have no problem with me calling them bigots then?
It is a better word for sure. But you also have to realize that one mans bigotry is another mans justified, rational aversion. So again, whether UKIP is bigoted or not is a matter of perspective and pretty subjective.
-
There's a rational, justified aversion to Islam?
-
There's a rational, justified aversion to Islam?
There's a rational, justified stance towards Islam or any other similarly bonkers religion that isn't aversion? :doubt:
You're pretty much asking whether there's a rational, justified aversion to an irrational, unjustified set of beliefs. Yes, of course there is.
-
You're right, that was a stupid thing to say.
Let me rephrase then. There's a rational, justified aversion towards immigration?
Also, good job, Britain. You're soon going to be joining Belarus in not following the European Convention on Human Rights. How does it feel to be named in the same context as the only actual dictatorship in Europe?
-
Let me rephrase then. There's a rational, justified aversion towards immigration?
Of course there is. Not that all immigrants should be kicked out (which is not what UKIP wants anyway). But there are certainly rational reasons to argue for more strict regulations of who gets in and in what numbers.
-
Ah, I see. You were talking about arguments, not aversion (aversion being an emotional dislike).
-
So you were asking if there was a circular square or something to that effect?
Let's not forget we are talking about human beings being human here, we do think with our emotions as the intuitive machines they are, and then we try to rationalize them into a coherent argument. When we can't, it's a good hint our emotions are wrong, etc., but still, lets us not forget their usefulness, and not dismiss them if you, again, feel them to be bigoted at its core.
I do think that the fear of your own home, place and culture being overwhelmed by a foreign one for which there is little acknowledgement of its sophistication is a real one. Urban dwellers will find this fear a tad alien (no pun) because they already live in a city, that is, a homeless place filled with a multitude of multicultural masses, but they should not be smug or condescending about it. People like change but not revolutions. People don't mind immigration but they do worry if at a certain point their own culture will fail to integrate these people, leading to horrendous mismanagements like Rotherham, or the acceptance of sharia law within the UK, when there should be only one law, etc.
Are the solutions to be "racist" and so on? Well, this is the wrong question I think. I think that if you abolish any possibility of having this discussion in a civilized, rational and calmed manner, the discussion will once again go underground and feed from bigger paranoias and hatreds. The only parties that won't mind being called racists for having this discussion will be the only ones doing it, and they will be the racist parties themselves. And if these parties are really racist and nevertheless get so many votes themselves, then that's not the fault of the voting population per se, but of the political intelligentsia which was absolutely unable to represent, reason and solve these concerns, but instead buried them with the fear of being called out - yes, this is the true consequence of "political correctness", it doesn't solve inherent hatreds, it just stops reasonable political conflicts to be solved through legitimate means, which then raises tensions and furthers hatreds and creates whole problems by themselves.
So, by all means, demonize the UKIP as you want. I have little knowledge of them myself, I just find it funny that in the same breadth that you condemned the media for having created a huge fearmongering surrounding Labour before the elections, you just trust it to be fair in its condemnation of UKIP. But my point is this: demonize them. All you want. The only thing that you'll be achieving by doing this is to bury UKIP and substitute it for something even worse. I mean, it's not as if Europe is doing all of this **** all over the place. Just look at France. Or, alternatively, look at Greece, where europe is saying Syriza is a bunch of irresponsible radicals that will waste money like hell. Well, that will work. Instead of talking to them, instead of having a productive conversation to solve these issues, why not tell the Greek electorate that Syriza wasn't enough? Perhaps they will tire themselves out as well and elect Golden Dawn. Now, unless you're of "the worse the better" inclination, you'd see the folly in doing that.
People are even too afraid to be seen talking to each other, lest they be accused of "guilt by association" (the extreme left loves these pathetic games*), let alone talk about these issues. Well, lets us remain shut up then. That will solve everything.
*I'm being unfairly wrong here. The right also does this ridiculous game, albeit it doesn't "love it", it's just ashamed of it. Just look at the pathetic dance around more right wing governments talking to Syriza, politicians afraid of coming in support of their ideas lest they be accused of being irresponsible communists as well. I see walls being built everywhere in our political conversations. That american graph where they showed increased balkanization of american congress throughout the years is just another evidence of this fact. This trend seems to be universal and scary. I have no idea where this will take us, but if you remember that violence is usually the consequence of an impotence of communication and negotiation, the future does indeed look bleak.
-
Yeah cause refusing to discuss anything with the BNP resulted in the rise to power of the UKIP party.....oh wait, isn't that the exact other way round from what you were claiming would happen?
Simple fact is that while talking about immigration, etc is important, the UKIP really have no place in that discussion. They don't have any answers to the questions being asked, you're simply asking that they are present because they ask the questions. Is that enough to make them worthy of being involved? **** no. They won't say anything that isn't utterly simplistic and crowd pleasing. Far better to take the questions back ourselves and have the conversation amongst those capable of actually doing something useful.
-
You missed my central point. I don't care what you, I or any other think the UKIP is capable or incapable of doing. I've seen many reports of their amazing racist remarks and so on, but given how much I really distrust the media, my refrain of directly criticize them head on comes solely from a point of huge skepticism towards this image. If the image ends up being a correct representation, then of course I have no love for these people. But, again, this is beyond the point.
No, my main point is that all these votes for the BNP or the UKIP or what have you show, is that the political intelligentsia, the "bourgeois" centrist politicians, have utterly failed to have this conversation you say it should have been left for them to do. ERGO, they didn't. They were incompetent at doing it, and the public is yelling this out loud. The centrist parties no longer represent the "people", so to speak. Long gone are the days when Labour would be a good representative of the "working class people", now they look more like socialites from the bankster elites from London.
Again, were they and are they being populist and winning? Well, that merely means I'm right. It means that the centre has failed their people. The only true method of getting good discussions back from populists to those "capable of actually doing something useful" is by actually such "people" (I do wonder where these are) start actually *having this conversation and doing something useful*. If this doesn't happen, the people will vote to those who are the only ones talking about these issues, the populists. Fasten your seatbelts, it's only going to get worse.
-
Simple fact is that while talking about immigration, etc is important, the UKIP really have no place in that discussion. They don't have any answers to the questions being asked, you're simply asking that they are present because they ask the questions.
They dont have any answers? I thought their answer to the question is pretty clear - less immigration. Which is a perfectly valid answer.
-
Simple fact is that while talking about immigration, etc is important, the UKIP really have no place in that discussion. They don't have any answers to the questions being asked, you're simply asking that they are present because they ask the questions.
OK, I looked up what UKIP wants regarding immigration and here it is:
Points system used to select migrants with skills and attributes needed to work in the country
Immigration capped at 50,000 people a year for skilled workers
Five-year ban on immigration for unskilled workers
Five-year wait before migrants can claim benefits
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11536535/manifesto-2015-summary.html
In my opinion that is exactly how a sane immigration policy should look like, I am surprised most of those things arent a policy already. It is also much less harsh than I expected, considering that they are painted as some kind of a far right party one step removed from the nazis. It is absolutely a legitimate party, judging by their policies.
Of course, you can always claim that they are secret racists and their real policies would be much worse or something, but I find that argument highly dubious. Leaving the EU is a very bad idea IMHO, but still I wouldnt call it extremism in any way.
-
They do the same with Syriza: their policy proposals are incredibly modest, and yet everyone treats them as "radicals", etc. It's incredible. I think this is the kind of public discourse you get when the big central intelligentsias start losing power over the populace.
-
You do realise that an immigration cap of 50,000 would effectively destroy the NHS (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service) given that India alone provides us with 18,000 doctors, right?
And that's before we get into the effects of the other policies.
No, my main point is that all these votes for the BNP or the UKIP or what have you show, is that the political intelligentsia, the "bourgeois" centrist politicians, have utterly failed to have this conversation you say it should have been left for them to do. ERGO, they didn't. They were incompetent at doing it, and the public is yelling this out loud. The centrist parties no longer represent the "people", so to speak. Long gone are the days when Labour would be a good representative of the "working class people", now they look more like socialites from the bankster elites from London.
Again, were they and are they being populist and winning? Well, that merely means I'm right. It means that the centre has failed their people. The only true method of getting good discussions back from populists to those "capable of actually doing something useful" is by actually such "people" (I do wonder where these are) start actually *having this conversation and doing something useful*. If this doesn't happen, the people will vote to those who are the only ones talking about these issues, the populists. Fasten your seatbelts, it's only going to get worse.
Except UKIP are not being populist and winning. They are being populist and getting 1 seat out of 600. My entire point is that we do not need these people in the discussion. We need to have the discussion without them precisely because they aren't capable of bringing anything useful to the table.
-
I'm glad that you have preemptively decided this to be so. Really sounds very democratic of you. Regarding your 18k doctors from India, are you saying that the UK are importing 18k doctors from India per year? Perhaps you were, and that was just a gaffe on your end. Regardless, I think numbers are very debatable. What concerns me is not any particular figure, but the perspective that, if you bring up the topic of immigration, a cloud of suspicion already hovers on your head, and perhaps you should leave that topic alone. Again, I'm not seeing anyone challenging this notion, so I guess I'm right.
e: by "winning", I mean in the sheer number of total votes. That the UK has a system that fails to give voice to 3 million british people is a failure of the british political system, not the absence of these views.
-
You do realise that an immigration cap of 50,000 would effectively destroy the NHS (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service) given that India alone provides us with 18,000 doctors, right?
And that's before we get into the effects of the other policies.
You are comparing apples and oranges here, it is not 18,000 Indian doctors per year, but 18,000 in total. It wouldnt destroy the NHS at all. But I do admit it is a pretty strict limit, Id prefer a higher number and it could harm the economy. Still, with a ban on unskilled immigration and a points based system, those 50,000 would all be skilled workers such as doctors, which is where the main economic gains of immigration are anyway.
-
I don't know about the UK as a whole, but in Scotland we have an imminent demographic crisis if we can't get more young, productive people immigrating to counterbalance the ageing population and falling birthrates. I don't really want to see my home wither because a segment of the English populace can't stand the sight of people unlike themselves.
-
I'm glad that you have preemptively decided this to be so. Really sounds very democratic of you.
Democracy is a farce and you really should know that by now. It's a ****ty system that simply produces better results than the other ****ty systems we've thought up. In the past we've had large numbers of people voting for the BNP, does that mean we should also invite them to the table?
Regarding your 18k doctors from India, are you saying that the UK are importing 18k doctors from India per year? Perhaps you were, and that was just a gaffe on your end.
Of course I wasn't saying that. If I was saying per year, I would have said per year. 18,000 from one country alone is a very large number however, even if it's taken them years to get here. As non-British natives, they are expected to jump through hoops every year just to remain in the country. Do you honestly believe that making it harder to get in (not to mention making it harder to bring spouses and dependents with them) is going to result in the same number of people coming here?
What concerns me is not any particular figure, but the perspective that, if you bring up the topic of immigration, a cloud of suspicion already hovers on your head, and perhaps you should leave that topic alone. Again, I'm not seeing anyone challenging this notion, so I guess I'm right.
Then you need to read more carefully. That has been my entire point when I said we need to take back the debate from people like UKIP. The reason that cloud appears is entirely because of who says it.
-
Personally, I am comparing UKIP with Germany's AfD (Alternative für Deutschland). Both are parties that were formed because the nominally conservative party has shifted left or centrist over the years, and has thus left a void on certain issues. Both parties filled that void through being more populist, more simplistic and louder than any other and both parties had to deal with an influx of people from the actual far right.
And both parties are a complete mess. Both parties have a real problem with their representatives opening their mouths in unguarded moments and letting idiocy out. In essence, yes, it is absolutely necessary that parties exist that address these concerns. But the parties that are currently addressing these issues seem more prone than usual to corruption and incompetence (Look at UKIP's record in working in the european parliament, for example).
-
I consider both them and the Tea Party to be a symptom of the same issue.
And I'm not denying them the right to exist, just the right to demand we listen to them rather than simply addressing the problems directly.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32725167
Police investigating possible electoral fraud over Farage's seat. Now, this could mean one of two things, either this is just a set of accusations put forward by somewhat bitter UKIP members (much like the fact that the LibDem concept of proportional representation only sinks in when it bites them in the ass as well - most people didn't even bother to vote at that referendum - I'll have to sit down and work out how many seats UKIP would have if it had gone through, it might be interesting), or the conservatives have been really, really stupid. I suspect the former, but could be wrong.
-
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'"
All hail Dark Lord Cameron.
-
@ Karajorma
I don't think that is true. It's very easy to me to imagine the reaction of the entire media landscape if Cameron started the conversation about immigration in order to do "something about it". I have this nagging suspicion that every single time anyone speaks about immigration, they better have some background that people recognize as absolutely anti-racist (and even then...), so to shield them for the inevitable onslaught of accusations of racism and / or islamophobia and whatever. Your past will be scanned for any thoughtsin over that subject, yours and your friend's.
Personally, I don't even think that "immigration" might be "the problem". It could be that all the fears and concerns that people might have regarding that subject can be addressed in other ways. But I do think it is a taboo, that anyone who touches it is perceived as being "infected" with some xenophobic virus, and in this vein, it's all too simple to predict that increasingly only racist groups will touch it, increasing even more the stigma of it, etc. It's a kind of nefarious feedback loop, which goes against the interest of having this being "thrown back to rational people", etc. I just think this is not going to happen before all the name calling and calling out behaviors stops.
Regarding the "democracy is a fraud" thing, well, it is if the status quo keeps being in place, but ask Greece if democracy is unable to rock the boat. I'm sure that in China the word "democracy" is a kind of a joke, but I wonder if that doesn't show a tad of an inner hidden envy about this western tradition. Just like soviets used to sneer at "color tvs" or "blue jeans", etc.
-
Only Nixon could go to China.
-
I'm sure that in China the word "democracy" is a kind of a joke, but I wonder if that doesn't show a tad of an inner hidden envy about this western tradition. Just like soviets used to sneer at "color tvs" or "blue jeans", etc.
You do realise I'm not Chinese, right? :p
As for the rest, the reason why I'm against the UKIP having a voice is cause not only is everything they say stupid bull****, but it causes those around them to be infected by the same stupid bull****. Is there anyone on this board who really thinks Britain should leave the EU? I very much doubt that if there is, they can actually make a logical, factual case for why. UKIP preys on emotion rather than any practical notions of what actually might work. But because of them, and the numbers they were getting for their bull**** referendum on whether the UK should stick our collective dicks in a blender, we now have the tories making the same promise. So now until 2016, instead of a rational discussion on what Britain's place in Europe should be, we have a discussion which only has two outcomes, collective suicide or a MASSIVE waste of time.
And you wonder why I think we shouldn't let them speak any further?
-
Only Nixon could go to China.
That line crossed my mind as well.
It's probably very very true, but the question is, are there those kinds of Nixons anymore? That picture of increased polarization of american congress is a symptom in western politics of increased balkanization. And we are seeing the fruits of it in Europe, with the increased popularization of marginal parties everywhere (curiously except for Portugal). Obama begrudgingly started a different path towards Cuba because there was 0 chance that Ted Cruz or whomever else from the GOP would ever do it. Ed Milliband didn't seem like the guy to start this conversation at all (if anything, go further with "battling islamophobia").
But yes, that is the best counterpoint to what I've been saying.
You do realise I'm not Chinese right? :p
I know you live there!
As for the rest, the reason why I'm against the UKIP having a voice is cause not only is everything they say stupid bull****, but it causes those around them to be infected by the same stupid bull****. Is there anyone on this board who really thinks Britain should leave the EU? I very much doubt that if there is, they can actually make a logical, factual case for why. UKIP preys on emotion rather than any practical notions of what actually might work. But because of them, and the numbers they were getting for their bull**** referendum on whether the UK should stick our collective dicks in a blender, we now have the tories making the same promise. So now until 2016, instead of a rational discussion on what Britain's place in Europe should be, we have a discussion which only has two outcomes, collective suicide or a MASSIVE waste of time.
Why are you so hard on people being euroskeptic, especially since what has happened in Europe since 2008? I think it's actually very very healthy to keep euroskeptics having a voice and criticize what is happening so that eurocrats don't get too much into groupthink (almost an impossible task at that though). If you watch Farage's speeches on european parliaments regarding the behavior of Europe, I'd say his voice was bang on, and much much needed. Is he a silly man? A buffoon? An idiot? A populist? Well, I'd say that most of european politicians are worse than Farage, for they have allowed Europe to have come to this ridiculous position that it is in, in the brink of total collapse, merely held by corruption, fear, collusion and a banking system of complete systemic control.
And you wonder why I think we shouldn't let them speak any further?
I'm always uneasy when I see people advertising their willingness to stop others from speaking.
-
If you watch Farage's speeches on european parliaments regarding the behavior of Europe, I'd say his voice was bang on, and much much needed. Is he a silly man? A buffoon? An idiot? A populist? Well, I'd say that most of european politicians are worse than Farage, for they have allowed Europe to have come to this ridiculous position that it is in, in the brink of total collapse, merely held by corruption, fear, collusion and a banking system of complete systemic control.
Not that Farage was any better at being a european politician, going by his attendance record for the European Parliament and its various committees. It's one thing to be critical of EU politics and policies. It's another to be blatantly hypocritical and not doing anything to change the situation if you have the chance.
-
I have no idea about Farage's competence. I am 100% skeptical of the idea that he could have done anything to stop what went wrong. He had no political power at all. Could he have written "reports" after "reports" so that the euro bureaucrats could "read them", stamp some stamps on them and proceed to ignore them? I guess so. I guess that's a way to see things. I also think that it would have been just a waste of time. The eurotrain was on automatic and there was nothing he could have done. The problems are just too big to be "solved" by an UKIP politician.
-
I know you live there!
So? I did say that I thought that democracy was the least ****ty form of government. So I don't know why you'd even bring up the country I happen to live in. The entire argument pretty much smacks of an attempt to claim I've never lived in a democratic country and don't know what democracy is.
Why are you so hard on people being euroskeptic
Euroskeptic is one thing. To actually believe Britain should pull out of Europe requires a special kind of stupid. But go on, prove me wrong. Explain why it would be a good thing.
And you wonder why I think we shouldn't let them speak any further?
I'm always uneasy when I see people advertising their willingness to stop others from speaking.
I shouldn't have to make it clear that I simply mean that they can speak all they want, but we're equally entitled to not invite them to any serious discussion on the matter until they grow the **** up. Free speech does not mean that we have to give them a platform. I really shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.
EDIT :
I have no idea about Farage's competence.
Actually, why don't you read up (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/ukip-party-bigots-lets-look-evidence) on the asswipes you've spent so long defending instead of continually saying you know nothing about them.
-
Why not look at another media hit job on people they despise? Well, ok, I have looked and it's a despicable hit job, something I have come now to expect from the media to do with anyone they hate themselves. The only damning thing in there is the connection with the EFD, all other **** is either circumstantial, wild extrapolations, guilt by associations, or confusing difference of opinion with bigotry (which is bigoted by itself, but what can you do, the left's ability to lack self-awareness is never surprising).
Would I vote them? Bloody not. I don't see myself represented in his party. You must be confused about my stance here, I'm not a fan of Farage here.
So? I did say that I thought that democracy was the least ****ty form of government.
Indeed you did and I missed it!
Why are you so hard on people being euroskeptic
Euroskeptic is one thing. To actually believe Britain should pull out of Europe requires a special kind of stupid. But go on, prove me wrong. Explain why it would be a good thing.
I'm not "euroskeptic", my dreams are of an "United States of Europe", the exact opposite of what he dreams of. Unfortunately, he was right from the get go, the present architecture of Europe is crumbling it in the most disgusting and destructive possible manner: through slow burning. It will take decades to crumble at this pace. He believes Britain (and all others) should live under their own bridges, rather than deciding to build a building and live within it. I disagree. I think the building could be amazing. Regardless of the difference between my stance and his, I think I'd rather live under the bridge than forced to live inside a building that is about to collapse.
And you wonder why I think we shouldn't let them speak any further?
I'm always uneasy when I see people advertising their willingness to stop others from speaking.
I shouldn't have to make it clear that I simply mean that they can speak all they want, but we're equally entitled to not invite them to any serious discussion on the matter until they grow the **** up. Free speech does not mean that we have to give them a platform. I really shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.
I always wonder what is this "we" that you keep referring. Do you think you have any power, any say on who gets to have platforms and who doesn't? What kind of community do you see yourself belonging to that does indeed have this kind of power? Should this even exist? Should only people you like get the "mike"? Freedom comes with these things, it's also the freedom to be at the risk of having douchebags having a say in our societies.
And, again, I am not defending the UKIP. I'm saying that this rethoric anti-UKIP and anti-Tea Party, combined with the unwillingness to solve many problems that were being detected by a lot of people, were the actual things that have *created* these parties in the first place. Don't repeat the same mistake.
-
And, again, I am not defending the UKIP. I'm saying that this rethoric anti-UKIP and anti-Tea Party, combined with the unwillingness to solve many problems that were being detected by a lot of people, were the actual things that have *created* these parties in the first place. Don't repeat the same mistake.
You might not have noticed this, Luis, but we are essentially agreeing with you. Yes, there is a need for the points raised by these people to be addressed, but the people doing so at the moment are not doing a good job of it.
Farage is a euroskeptic. Fine. He is critical of the EU. Great. Hey, he even got elected as MEP, campaigning on that skepticism and criticism etc, calling the members of the european parliament out on their massive salaries that go to waste.
What did he do in parliament? Did he make an effort to reform the system? No. Did he make an effort to represent british interests in the committees? No. He and his party set record lows for attendance. Their behaviour was consistently obstructionist and non-constructive (http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.de/2014/05/ukip-fish-and-ivory-voting-record.html). That is not effective policymaking.
He did, however, take home a good salary for his tenure. So there's that.
No matter how much you go on about how the media is corrupt and biased and evil, those are matters of record.
-
Yeah that fish stuff looks terrible in his resumé. The rest depicted there is at least ideologically consistent - to vote in a "patriotic" direction would make him an hypocrite, not a patriot.
-
the whole out of Europe rather than reform Europe into something more workable is why i believe UKIP is wrong on a policy level regarding Europe
-
In news related to my contention that thanks to UKIP we're dealing with laws designed to look anti-europe which make no sense, the Tories are continuing in their foolish decision to try to scrap the Human Rights Act. Unfortunately it looks like the wheels are already coming off (http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/12/scottish-government-human-rights-act-conservatives) that plan.
-
Actually, why don't you read up (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/ukip-party-bigots-lets-look-evidence) on the asswipes you've spent so long defending instead of continually saying you know nothing about them.
An article that describes UKIP or True Finns as "far right" is obviously written from a biased leftist perspective. When I hear the word "far right" I imagine a party that wants to kick out all foreigners and gas the Jews. I do not imagine anything like UKIP, a standard right wing party which has problems with some of their members being more to the right than others. According to that logic, if UKIP is far right then Labour is far left, lol. I am sure you could cherry pick some of Labour members who are communists or radical leftists and have said some questionable things, too. Yet it does not make the party itself far anything unless those of a more extreme persuation have major influence in the party, which doesnt seem to be the case.
The article does bring up some good criticisms, tough. But is it enough to justify marginalizing the UKIP and trying to keep them out of serious discussions? Not at all, IMHO.
-
Their idiotic policy on Europe is enough for that.
Seriously is there anyone here who wants to try to defend it?
-
In news related to my contention that thanks to UKIP we're dealing with laws designed to look anti-europe which make no sense, the Tories are continuing in their foolish decision to try to scrap the Human Rights Act. Unfortunately it looks like the wheels are already coming off (http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/12/scottish-government-human-rights-act-conservatives) that plan.
It also contravenes the Good Friday Agreement and the Welsh devolution bills. If you needed clearer proof that the Union is falling apart...
-
And yet the Tories won't give it up as a bad idea, most likely.
In more amusing news, UKIP seem to be intent on fighting amongst themselves (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/may/14/ukip-in-turmoil-as-campaign-chief-condemns-farage-politics-live).
-
Are you telling me that a political party is having a political infighting over the leadership of itself after a terrible election result? Come on. And, lol, as if the Guardian won't spin this in the most terrible way possible for their image.
-
Oh **** off Luis, will you? Yes, UKIP's post-election infighting is pretty funny. So's Scottish Labour's. Would you please stop derailing any commentary on it by making it out to be some sort of meanspirited bias? Farage's farcical non-resignation certainly goes above and beyond the call of humiliation answered by the other losing parties.
-
Did I touch your nerves, Phantom, or are you just being typically yourself? I'm sorry if my commentary is not to your liking, should I submit it first to you in PMs to get your approval?
To get a very old donor of the party in the mike saying Farage should probably leave and call this a "coup", a "turmoil" and so on is ludicrous. Journalism at its best I guess? Just typical schadenfreude? Every way you want to look at it, it's not serious. And that link proves it, with a reporter implying that Farage is getting drunk in his lunch at a restaurant. I have no personal pride in our own journalists, but I don't think they ever stooped this low.
Farage's 180 is hilarious in itself, of course it is, but nowhere near the territory of our deputy prime minister who, in 2013, resigned "irrevocably" from the government, only to recant in less than a week (and getting the deputy prime minister job at it). So color me "meh" at it. It will cost him a lot of political strength. And it may lead to others, hey, like the Guardian, smell "blood" and get "LIVE COVERAGE" at the TURMOIL, CRISIS, COLLAPSE, APOCALYPSE at UKIP. I have no sympathy for Farage, but I also have no patience for fools and foolish boorish media like this. In fact, I just have disgust.
-
Fine. Please take your ranting about the media elsewhere then. The rest of us want to discuss the politics of the UK, not your conspiracy theories about the media.
-
Media spin is now a conspiracy theory? AHAHAHAH, oh GOD, I'm so out of here.
-
Right, now we can get down to discussing the whole thing with Prince Charles secret lobbying letters (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/prince-charles-black-spider-memos-published-after-10-year-legal-battle). Given the strongly anti-science bent of some of those letters, I really do wish he'd take a lesson from his mother and keep it shut when it comes to politics.
-
What I loved about those was that the Palace complained that releasing them might affect the Princes' impartiality...
As if the fact he was sending them had no impact on it at all...
-
Media spin is now a conspiracy theory? AHAHAHAH, oh GOD, I'm so out of here.
tell me more about the left-wing bias of the uk media
-
It's not left wing bias. It's status quo bias. It's the same in America, it's the same everywhere. There are the Murdoch newspapers that got Cameron's back, there are the Guardians and whatnots who have the centre left's back. Hell, even Fox news is derided by the Tea Party people as the "Jeb News".
-
The thing is, a Party is like an Employer, their Party policies take priority over the members own personal ones. It's ironic really that a Politician, in some ways, has less 'Freedom of Political Speech' than any other person in the country.
-
meanwhile in the scottish labour headless chicken cluster****, their leader won a vote of no confidence by 3 votes and promptly resigned anyway
-
lol
-
i've received alarming reports that south thanet may have been an inside job
-
I'm not sure where it was but one guy ran independently and voted for himself as did his family, but the results says he got no votes.
EDIT: The article was clickbait so it's not exactly reliable but still, if it did happen then odd stuff is going on.
-
what was all that about the SNP really being national socialists (http://www.channel4.com/news/meet-the-national-socialist-6-000-people-voted-for)
-
given what he is saying I found this bit especially amusing
'Weeding out the lunatics'
-
I wonder what would you call a party that has nationalistic and socialist agenda, but without the extremist parts? Like a party that supports both strong welfare state and strict immigration control, sort of a hybrid of Labour and UKIP? Considering that "national socialist" is a dirty word.
-
either Nationalist or Socialist, as SNP stands for Scottish National Party and their primary objective is an independent Scotland then I would call them Nationalists. They just have Socialist leanings.
-
so you are saying that the SNP are a bunch of national socialists
-
either Nationalist or Socialist
LOL.
edit: this post is without substance
-
Almost all political positions are Nationalist at heart, it's kind of the point really, it's just that the UK Government defines the 'Nation' somewhat differently to Holyrood, and this is totally to be expected considering Holyrood is designed to represent just Scotland and therefore considers National issues as those involving Scotland, whereas Westminster consider National issues to be those involving the the Union.
The situation is a bit of a mess really, I remember the Poll Tax being issued in Scotland a year before anyone else got it, as an 'experiment', that sort of thing sticks in the public psyche and gives a very definite impression of your position in the pecking order from the perspective of Westminster.
Is the SNP 'Nationalist' in the way it is meant here, that's a difficult to answer, they are Separatist for Nationalistic reasons, certainly, but it's a chicken and egg question, is thinking Scotland would be better off without the rest of the UK 'Nationalist' or does it depend on whether that is true or not?
That said, the Scottish people have spoken twice, they've voted in the SNP as the power-incumbent for Scotland and they've voted to remain a part of the Union, which is a defiance of the core tenet of the very party they later voted in. There's a feeling of remoteness from Southern England, both physically and politically in Scotland that Westminster simply fails to connect with, the SNP provides that 'homegrown' feeling but I don't think Scotland want independence, they just want to feel someone 200 miles away gives a ****.
-
Everyone forgets that the SNP won the election because the people who want to remain part of the union split their vote amongst the other parties far more than the people who wanted independence. It's not really cause they had a change of heart so quickly.
That said, I agree that Westminster needs to start giving a **** about Scotland. More importantly perhaps, it needs to start giving a **** about the north of England.
-
Oh, I don't doubt that was the case, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a fair number of people who voted No to Independence also voted SNP in the election, especially with the Referendum behind them and extremely unlikely to rear its head again for around a decade, at some point I'll have to compare total votes in the two and see if I can get some kind of idea whether that is the case.
-
Oh I'm sure they did. Many of the people who voted no wanted more devolution, just not an end to the union.