|
|
Post by thirdchill on Nov 23, 2014 15:58:34 GMT
On flags it was more EU that Muslim but meant to compare and contrast the blindingly obvious fact that the Thornberrys and Joes would never dare have been rude about an obviously Asian-style house with gaudy trimmings, garish colours and gold leaf. Being anti-immigration does not mean you need to be rude about these houses of which you speak. This was my hope of what would happen when UKIP supplanted the BNP as the main party to go to if you were anti-immigration. The hope was that UKIP would focus on the numbers of immigrants coming here instead fo focusing too much on their ethnicity (and in some cases equating that whole ethnicity with terrorism or child abuse). In other words, take the racist sting out of the immigration debate. Farage and others at the top of UKIP do try and do this and by and large they've avoided getting too drawn into that argument, but inevitably some of the rhetoric has become more about the ethnicity of the immigrants than the numbers of them. Although not specifically about ethnicity, one of the UKIP posters ('and whose jobs are they after?') was particularly distasteful. The other posters did not have this element to it and focused on numbers. |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873 
|
Post by Pimpernal on Nov 23, 2014 16:04:53 GMT
Labour UKIP has people it despises likes (the prole syndrome) Colour it disapproves of......White Parties it disapproves of......... Many None Property is disapproves of.........small terraced owner occupied Flags it disapproves of.........Union Flag and St. George's Views it disapproves of.........patriotism, self sufficiency, nationalism, tradition So what does it actually like despise then? Foreigners Rainbows Homosexuals (say what you mean!) The proper approved left and right Run down inner city dilapidation Flags with stars and crescents Muslims Apologizing for anything English Imports TaxesRegulations
Terminal national decline
Stroll on into oblivion. Hence why I don't like either of your parties. I find both labour and ukip to be very divisive. Although it is about opposite issues you seem fairly similar to me. This list has absolutely f*ck all to do with anything I would endorse, or what UKIP as a party would endorse. This kind of lying misrepresentation might feed some inner sense of inferiority amongst the dinosaur parties of the past, but whilst typifying the failed politics of desperation, is also being seen by the voters as not only misleading but intentionally so. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 23, 2014 17:47:52 GMT
He should at least have been *aware* of who was standing (he is the BBC political editor, after all) And thus, when he saw her ruddy great "CANDIDATE" badge, ascertained who she was to avoid any possible embarrassment. Ask yourself this - how much latitude would a politician from one of the "mainstream" parties been afforded after such a faux pas? What!! Stand next to a perfectly legal party candidate and that is a 'faux pas'? A new form of Thornberry is born. Labour has people it despises (the prole syndrome) Colour it disapproves of......White Parties it disapproves of.........Many Property is disapproves of.........small terraced owner occupied Flags it disapproves of.........Union Flag and St. George's Views it disapproves of.........patriotism, self sufficiency, nationalism, tradition So what does it actually like then? Foreigners Rainbows The proper approved left Run down inner city dilapidation Flags with stars and crescents Apologizing for anything English Imports Taxes Regulations Terminal national decline Stroll on into oblivion. Matron! Matron! Carlton's gone off on one again ....  |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 23, 2014 17:50:36 GMT
Ask yourself this - how much latitude would a politician from one of the "mainstream" parties been afforded after such a faux pas? It doesn't really matter, does it? If, let's say, a "mainstream" politician posed for a picture with his far-right/left opponent because, regardless of ideology, they were both polite and/or friendly people any, and all, press outrage would be completely absurd. The fact that, regardless of it being so absurd, there would be press outrage should have no baring on this, or any other, instance. Perhaps, however, I'm biased. I spent my teenage years (the latter, in part, observed here) hurtling from the far-right over to the extreme left (and not stopping for too long anywhere in between). Are people supposed to avoid shaking my hand, for fear of being infected with fascism? Either you believe ( somehow) that Nick Robinson was endorsing Britain First's particular brand of authoritarian nationalism or you believe he should apply an arbitrary ideological litmus test in personal interaction. Should he refuse to get his picture taken with a communist? What about an anarchist? A libertarian? A fundamentalist? Or, are we going to draw up a list of all candidates whom he is allowed to act like a human being towards? Otherwise, some could slip through the cracks, couldn't they? Some Tories, I'm sure, still think fondly of Enoch Powell. That's not on, is it? And George Galloway, he's a bit of a nutter, isn't he? No Respect candidate hand-shakes for Mr Robinson. I think there is a difference between a formal hand-shake and posing for a photo with a broad smile ..... |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Cromwell on Nov 23, 2014 17:57:32 GMT
It doesn't really matter, does it? If, let's say, a "mainstream" politician posed for a picture with his far-right/left opponent because, regardless of ideology, they were both polite and/or friendly people any, and all, press outrage would be completely absurd. The fact that, regardless of it being so absurd, there would be press outrage should have no baring on this, or any other, instance. Perhaps, however, I'm biased. I spent my teenage years (the latter, in part, observed here) hurtling from the far-right over to the extreme left (and not stopping for too long anywhere in between). Are people supposed to avoid shaking my hand, for fear of being infected with fascism? Either you believe ( somehow) that Nick Robinson was endorsing Britain First's particular brand of authoritarian nationalism or you believe he should apply an arbitrary ideological litmus test in personal interaction. Should he refuse to get his picture taken with a communist? What about an anarchist? A libertarian? A fundamentalist? Or, are we going to draw up a list of all candidates whom he is allowed to act like a human being towards? Otherwise, some could slip through the cracks, couldn't they? Some Tories, I'm sure, still think fondly of Enoch Powell. That's not on, is it? And George Galloway, he's a bit of a nutter, isn't he? No Respect candidate hand-shakes for Mr Robinson. I think there is a difference between a formal hand-shake and posing for a photo with a broad smile ..... I see. So, hand-shakes are okay but photos are not? How about if he did pose for the photo but didn't smile? What about a friendly chit-chat, or a smile on its own? Must smiles simply be kept off camera? What if someone got a picture of them both smiling, but they hadn't posed for it? |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 23, 2014 18:04:02 GMT
Hence why I don't like either of your parties. I find both labour and ukip to be very divisive. Although it is about opposite issues you seem fairly similar to me. This list has absolutely f*ck all to do with anything I would endorse, or what UKIP as a party would endorse. This kind of lying misrepresentation might feed some inner sense of inferiority amongst the dinosaur parties of the past, but whilst typifying the failed politics of desperation, is also being seen by the voters as not only misleading but intentionally so. One thing I constantly notice is the deliberate conflation in the media and politics of a wish to have greater control of immigration and a hatred of immigrants themselves. People are eager to hear what they want and expect to hear even if its not what is being said. I notice this in the reaction to the famous answer on immigration from the hustings a few days ago. Reckless was not sufficiently clear that UKIP would not advocate the deportation of legal immigrants, he can be said to be guilty of that. However immediately afterwards you had all kinds of people saying that he had said that UKIP was advocating exactly that when he had sid absolutely nothing of the kind. When Farage and others clarified the next day that UKIP has never advocated the deportation of legal immigrants they were accused of having carried out a u-turn when they had done nothing of the kind. A desire to have greater immigration control is very common. A hatred of immigrants is not. To deliberately conflate the two is highly dishonest. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 23, 2014 18:14:19 GMT
What!! Stand next to a perfectly legal party candidate and that is a 'faux pas'? A new form of Thornberry is born. Labour has people it despises (the prole syndrome) Colour it disapproves of......White Parties it disapproves of.........Many Property is disapproves of.........small terraced owner occupied Flags it disapproves of.........Union Flag and St. George's Views it disapproves of.........patriotism, self sufficiency, nationalism, tradition So what does it actually like then? Foreigners Rainbows The proper approved left Run down inner city dilapidation Flags with stars and crescents Apologizing for anything English Imports Taxes Regulations Terminal national decline Stroll on into oblivion. Matron! Matron! Carlton's gone off on one again .... I am on my medication and I notice it is always on a Sunday I break into the long grass! I have not been drinking but intend to put that right with a shoulder of lamb shortly. There was a real point underlying all that but not possible to dig it out now. Most people knew roughly what I meant, just as I know what Emily meant. In each case we betray an inner self when less guarded. With me it doesn't matter and I quite like a bit of a wind up. there is always a snapper up of the bait. But for her it was high profile and serious. I wonder if she will call it a day and look to other interests? I don't see her as a low profile back bencher. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Nov 23, 2014 18:25:07 GMT
This list has absolutely f*ck all to do with anything I would endorse, or what UKIP as a party would endorse. This kind of lying misrepresentation might feed some inner sense of inferiority amongst the dinosaur parties of the past, but whilst typifying the failed politics of desperation, is also being seen by the voters as not only misleading but intentionally so. One thing I constantly notice is the deliberate conflation in the media and politics of a wish to have greater control of immigration and a hatred of immigrants themselves. People are eager to hear what they want and expect to hear even if its not what is being said. I notice this in the reaction to the famous answer on immigration from the hustings a few days ago. Reckless was not sufficiently clear that UKIP would not advocate the deportation of legal immigrants, he can be said to be guilty of that. However immediately afterwards you had all kinds of people saying that he had said that UKIP was advocating exactly that when he had sid absolutely nothing of the kind. When Farage and others clarified the next day that UKIP has never advocated the deportation of legal immigrants they were accused of having carried out a u-turn when they had done nothing of the kind. A desire to have greater immigration control is very common. A hatred of immigrants is not. To deliberately conflate the two is highly dishonest. That's fair enough, have made the same point above. To a certain extent, I agree that the media has conflated the two, hence the general silence on immigration for years and the brief rise of the BNP. However some people in UKIP (not just Reckless) do walk themselves into this trap. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 23, 2014 18:46:25 GMT
Hence why I don't like either of your parties. I find both labour and ukip to be very divisive. Although it is about opposite issues you seem fairly similar to me. This list has absolutely f*ck all to do with anything I would endorse, or what UKIP as a party would endorse. This kind of lying misrepresentation might feed some inner sense of inferiority amongst the dinosaur parties of the past, but whilst typifying the failed politics of desperation, is also being seen by the voters as not only misleading but intentionally so. I notice you have a problem with this, but not with the lying misrepresentations of supporters of your party. Drop the double standards and the faux-outrage. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 23, 2014 18:52:06 GMT
Matron! Matron! Carlton's gone off on one again .... I am on my medication and I notice it is always on a Sunday I break into the long grass! I have not been drinking but intend to put that right with a shoulder of lamb shortly. There was a real point underlying all that but not possible to dig it out now. Most people knew roughly what I meant, just as I know what Emily meant. In each case we betray an inner self when less guarded. With me it doesn't matter and I quite like a bit of a wind up. there is always a snapper up of the bait. But for her it was high profile and serious. I wonder if she will call it a day and look to other interests? I don't see her as a low profile back bencher. OK Joe. Pax. It was the out of order homophobia slur that provoked me, as it was not based on what I said, meant, or any post I have made on any thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 19:25:03 GMT
I am on my medication and I notice it is always on a Sunday I break into the long grass! I have not been drinking but intend to put that right with a shoulder of lamb shortly. There was a real point underlying all that but not possible to dig it out now. Most people knew roughly what I meant, just as I know what Emily meant. In each case we betray an inner self when less guarded. With me it doesn't matter and I quite like a bit of a wind up. there is always a snapper up of the bait. But for her it was high profile and serious. I wonder if she will call it a day and look to other interests? I don't see her as a low profile back bencher. OK Joe. Pax. It was the out of order homophobia slur that provoked me, as it was not based on what I said, meant, or any post I have made on any thread. I accept that you didn't mean it as such. I genuinely did at the time though - misunderstanding - my fault. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 23, 2014 20:10:22 GMT
I must say that, in many years of politics, I have often found that "concern about immigration" is frequently a proxy for "I don't like foreigners".
Sorry, but that's just the way I've found it.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 23, 2014 20:37:29 GMT
A desire to have greater immigration control is very common. A hatred of immigrants is not. To deliberately conflate the two is highly dishonest. Prejudice against immigrants is quite common. Whether this counts as hatred or not is subject to debate (and arguably a subjective judgement call). I think it's fair to say that a reasonable chunk of UKIP support comes from people who are prejudiced against immigrants (in particular, UKIP voters that used to vote BNP are mostly in this camp). And it's also reasonably fair to say that this type of person reads UKIP's anti-immigration rhetoric as being anti-immigrant rhetoric - regardless of whether it was meant that way or not. So conflating the two is not just done by UKIP's opponents. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 23, 2014 21:15:58 GMT
A desire to have greater immigration control is very common. A hatred of immigrants is not. To deliberately conflate the two is highly dishonest. Prejudice against immigrants is quite common. What evidence do you have for that claim? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 21:30:09 GMT
Prejudice against immigrants is quite common. What evidence do you have for that claim? Listening too people, were in a bad place at the moment, prejudiced views are the norm sad to say.  |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 23, 2014 21:54:20 GMT
Prejudice against immigrants is quite common. What evidence do you have for that claim? He would have to define his terms for any analysis to be meaningful. IMO there is widespread prejudice by most people over a massive range of subjects. It is part of our mode of functioning, although we prefer to pretend otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 23, 2014 22:01:26 GMT
What evidence do you have for that claim? He would have to define his terms for any analysis to be meaningful. IMO their is widespread prejudice by most people over a massive range of subjects. It is part of our mode of functioning, although we prefer to pretend otherwise. Good point. What do you mean in this case by the term 'prejudice' greenchristian ? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 23, 2014 22:23:03 GMT
Peter Hitchens: "I wondered how our neutered, bootlicking, pro-government media would manage to turn David Cameron’s devastating personal and political defeat in Rochester into a disaster for Red Ed.
Piles of money, tankers laden with snake-oil, five visits by the Prime Minister himself, even a frantic plea for Guardian readers’ votes, could not save the Tories from what I reckon was the worst defeat in their entire history, losing a seat to a party which really believes in what the Tories pretend to believe in.
Yet you’d think the main event was the sacking of a Labour nobody by another nobody for doing nothing."hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 23, 2014 22:32:53 GMT
He would have to define his terms for any analysis to be meaningful. IMO their is widespread prejudice by most people over a massive range of subjects. It is part of our mode of functioning, although we prefer to pretend otherwise. Good point. What do you mean in this case by the term 'prejudice' greenchristian ? In this context, I'm talking about negative prejudice against immigrants. Even in a fairly well-integrated place like Coventry I've come across people who will make derogatory comments about immigrants that I would describe as prejudiced. One example that sticks in the mind is when I was canvassing (this time not in Coventry) for a candidate with an obviously non-English surname and a voter expressed concern about the fact that the candidate had this name. I've certainly found similar attitudes come up repeatedly on the doorstep in a variety of places. I'm talking about the same kind of person as gwynthegriff was a couple of posts back. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 23, 2014 22:38:04 GMT
Good point. What do you mean in this case by the term 'prejudice' greenchristian ? In this context, I'm talking about negative prejudice against immigrants. Even in a fairly well-integrated place like Coventry I've come across people who will make derogatory comments about immigrants that I would describe as prejudiced. One example that sticks in the mind is when I was canvassing (this time not in Coventry) for a candidate with an obviously non-English surname and a voter expressed concern about the fact that the candidate had this name. I've certainly found similar attitudes come up repeatedly on the doorstep in a variety of places. I'm talking about the same kind of person as gwynthegriff was a couple of posts back. That doesn't really answer the question as to what you mean by the term 'prejudice'. |
|
