UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[Scuffers]

ClaphamGT3 said:

And he's at it again;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-far...

I defy any same person to stand by what he has said here.

Did you actually listen to what he said on LBC?

Once again, the reports are at odds with the words.

What he said in the context he said it in is 100% right.

Anybody that says they have never called a Chinese takeaway a ie is lieing.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Scuffers said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

And he's at it again;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-far...

I defy any same person to stand by what he has said here.

Did you actually listen to what he said on LBC?

Once again, the reports are at odds with the words.

What he said in the context he said it in is 100% right.

Anybody that says they have never called a Chinese takeaway a ie is lieing.

Don't think that is the point though. We have got better at avoiding using racist language. Such language undoubtedly used to be common, but when was the last time you used that expression?

Many years for me.

You can call the avoidance of such expressions political correctness gone mad if you like, but I see it as part of the general trend towards a more civilised society. I think anyone that watched the recent 2 part programme on C4 about 1970s television will know what I mean.

[Mrr T]

Digga said:

blindswelledrat said:

I would re-phrase that as 'there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but think that UKIP is a terrible vehicle to achieve it'

Granted being anti UKIp and pro-EU reform are not mutually exclusive, but I would say there is a noisy element, especially but not only from the left of centre who still insist on tarring UKIP and its supporters as bigots and racists.

The reason for this is that increasingly UKIP is not about leaving the EU (after all they have no idea how to achieve that) but about immigration.

[Digga]

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

blindswelledrat said:

I would re-phrase that as 'there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but think that UKIP is a terrible vehicle to achieve it'

Granted being anti UKIp and pro-EU reform are not mutually exclusive, but I would say there is a noisy element, especially but not only from the left of centre who still insist on tarring UKIP and its supporters as bigots and racists.

The reason for this is that increasingly UKIP is not about leaving the EU (after all they have no idea how to achieve that) but about immigration.

An issue about which no other party appears to want to engage their voters in a mutual discourse. What has been mooted by the LabCons of late is, no doubt, inspired greatly by the threat UKIP now pose in this regard.

[s2art]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Scuffers said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

And he's at it again;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-far...

I defy any same person to stand by what he has said here.

Did you actually listen to what he said on LBC?

Once again, the reports are at odds with the words.

What he said in the context he said it in is 100% right.

Anybody that says they have never called a Chinese takeaway a ie is lieing.

Don't think that is the point though. We have got better at avoiding using racist language. Such language undoubtedly used to be common, but when was the last time you used that expression?

Many years for me.

You can call the avoidance of such expressions political correctness gone mad if you like, but I see it as part of the general trend towards a more civilised society. I think anyone that watched the recent 2 part programme on C4 about 1970s television will know what I mean.

Pretty common usage in my neck of the woods.

[brenflys777]

Just as a counter to the EU centric attraction of UKIP, some of the other policies wrt climate change, immigration and foreign aid are all consensus points with the other main parties.

Ukips 'common sense' approach is also a point of difference. Take foreign aid (everyone else does!) - I dont know of any conservative supporters or former voters like myself who think we should be increasing foreign aid whilst making cuts like this one to public services.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/12/18/west...

It's as though the sense of moral superiority has allowed the other parties to become completely isolated from common opinion even amongst their own supporters. Why are the conservatives so keen to be seen to support foreign aid more than the Police for instance? Priorities seem all wrong to me.

[Mrr T]

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

blindswelledrat said:

I would re-phrase that as 'there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but think that UKIP is a terrible vehicle to achieve it'

Granted being anti UKIp and pro-EU reform are not mutually exclusive, but I would say there is a noisy element, especially but not only from the left of centre who still insist on tarring UKIP and its supporters as bigots and racists.

The reason for this is that increasingly UKIP is not about leaving the EU (after all they have no idea how to achieve that) but about immigration.

An issue about which no other party appears to want to engage their voters in a mutual discourse. What has been mooted by the LabCons of late is, no doubt, inspired greatly by the threat UKIP now pose in this regard.

Other than Owen Patterson a leader of the EU sceptic wing of the conservative party and ex minister who presented a detailed plan to deal with renegotiation of the EU treaties/leaving the EU some days ago.

More than we have had from anybody in UKIP.

[Digga]

Of the people to whom immigration is their primary issue of concern, neither Labour, who opened the borders in the late 90s, or the Conservatives, who provided weak opposition to this action and have done little since to redress the matter, are if interest. There is no longer any trust. Actions, or lack of them, have spoken louder than any words and the bigotgate type responses to previously voiced concerns will not be forgotten. For those who live in areas affected by some of the worst side effects of current policy - Rotherham etc. - there is no doubt who they feel let down by.

[fatboy18]

Digga said:

Of the people to whom immigration is their primary issue of concern, neither Labour, who opened the borders in the late 90s, or the Conservatives, who provided weak opposition to this action and have done little since to redress the matter, are if interest. There is no longer any trust. Actions, or lack of them, have spoken louder than any words and the bigotgate type responses to previously voiced concerns will not be forgotten. For those who live in areas affected by some of the worst side effects of current policy - Rotherham etc. - there is no doubt who they feel let down by.

good post, completely agree.

[allergictocheese]

ClaphamGT3 said:

And he's at it again;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-far...

I defy any same person to stand by what he has said here.

It's a clever ploy used by Farage. I've said 'chinky' when talking about a takeaway, though more in the past than I do now. A large proportion of the voting public, particularly those who are middle aged, will have done, too. We know it's not strictly what should be said and I doubt many would describe a chinese person themselves in that way.

The clever bit? Farage knows that the 'push back' by those in the press and the established party will be over done. They will try and tell the public that it's a despicable thing to say or even think, at which point, all those people who have used it before will think to themselves "hang on a minute! I understand it's not strictly the thing to say these days, but if you think it's abnormal to use it, you're not living in the real world". And at that moment, Farage has won his little battle. Even making the thing a story at al plays into his hands.

It says little good about our politicians and press that they keep falling for it time and again.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Digga said:

Of the people to whom immigration is their primary issue of concern, neither Labour, who opened the borders in the late 90s, or the Conservatives, who provided weak opposition to this action and have done little since to redress the matter, are if interest. There is no longer any trust. Actions, or lack of them, have spoken louder than any words and the bigotgate type responses to previously voiced concerns will not be forgotten. For those who live in areas affected by some of the worst side effects of current policy - Rotherham etc. - there is no doubt who they feel let down by.

This reminds me of a question I mean to ask.

When we are talking about policy, Kippers say they want controlled immigration (not no immigration), which we can't have whilst we are in the EU. Several have explicitly said that they just want the same controls applied for EU immigrants as non-EU

However when the subject of how bad immigration is, it is not long before the subject of Rotherham crops up, which has nothing to do with EU immigration (even ignoring the argument that given other groups including those in the news at the moment, that it has nothing to do with any type of immigration

So which is it. EU or non-EU that concerns you. And how will controlled immigration stop problems such as that in Rotherham?

[Scuffers]

JustAnotherLogin said:

However when the subject of how bad immigration is, it is not long before the subject of Rotherham crops up, which has nothing to do with EU immigration (even ignoring the argument that given other groups including those in the news at the moment, that it has nothing to do with any type of immigration

must argue that point

the issue with Rotherham is not the (levels of) immigration itself, so much as the Labour attitude towards any issues involving it.

ie. don't mention crimes perpetrated by an ethnic group as it's racists

[JustAnotherLogin]

Scuffers said:

must argue that point

the issue with Rotherham is not the (levels of) immigration itself, so much as the Labour attitude towards any issues involving it.

ie. don't mention crimes perpetrated by an ethnic group as it's racists

Firstly that is not how I would read several of the posts - including that of Digga above.

But I should have said not just Rotherham, but Islamic issues generally

[steveT350C]

As we have been suggesting on this thread for last couple of years, there is no negotiating with the EU. First France, now Poland..

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/547856/Davi...

Either CMD is stupid or a liar.

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

. And how will controlled immigration stop problems such as that in Rotherham?

Strawman alert!!!!

Have UKIP said that controlled immigration will help curb child sex gangs?

No, they haven't... So, why on Earth are you asking this in a UKIP thread? Are you a bit confused, or are you being disingenuous?

You would be better off putting your question to your Common Purpose friends.

[don4l]

steveT350C said:

As we have been suggesting on this thread for last couple of years, there is no negotiating with the EU. First France, now Poland..

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/547856/Davi...

Either CMD is stupid or a liar.

Maybe he is both.

[handpaper]

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

. And how will controlled immigration stop problems such as that in Rotherham?

Strawman alert!!!!

Have UKIP said that controlled immigration will help curb child sex gangs?

No, they haven't... So, why on Earth are you asking this in a UKIP thread? Are you a bit confused, or are you being disingenuous?

You would be better off putting your question to your Common Purpose friends.

UKIP have not pointed to Rotherham (et al) as evidence of a failed or absent immigration policy. But...
UKIP policy of a points-based immigration system, along with the reintroduction of the primary purpose rule, has the potential to massively reduce immigration from India and Pakistan. Perhaps, over time, this will lead to better integration of these ethnicities?

[johnxjsc1985]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Don't think that is the point though. We have got better at avoiding using racist language. Such language undoubtedly used to be common, but when was the last time you used that expression?

Many years for me.

You can call the avoidance of such expressions political correctness gone mad if you like, but I see it as part of the general trend towards a more civilised society. I think anyone that watched the recent 2 part programme on C4 about 1970s television will know what I mean.

do you really compare todays TV with its violence and ugliness to the 1970's.
the language today may be more PC but the violence in society is far far worse.

[NoNeed]

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

. And how will controlled immigration stop problems such as that in Rotherham?

Strawman alert!!!!

Have UKIP said that controlled immigration will help curb child sex gangs?

No, they haven't... So, why on Earth are you asking this in a UKIP thread? Are you a bit confused, or are you being disingenuous?

You would be better off putting your question to your Common Purpose friends.

I would like to know how does voting labour help those poor sods in rotherham

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

. And how will controlled immigration stop problems such as that in Rotherham?

Strawman alert!!!!

Have UKIP said that controlled immigration will help curb child sex gangs?

No, they haven't... So, why on Earth are you asking this in a UKIP thread? Are you a bit confused, or are you being disingenuous?

You would be better off putting your question to your Common Purpose friends.

Well your Kipper friends seem to. For example as I explicitly stated on the previous page, Digga linked the two:

Digga said:

Of the people to whom immigration is their primary issue of concern, neither Labour, who opened the borders in the late 90s, or the Conservatives, who provided weak opposition to this action and have done little since to redress the matter, are if interest. There is no longer any trust. Actions, or lack of them, have spoken louder than any words and the bigotgate type responses to previously voiced concerns will not be forgotten. For those who live in areas affected by some of the worst side effects of current policy - Rotherham etc. - there is no doubt who they feel let down by.

So Kippers are linking the two. Not me. Perhaps by ignoring the post I pointed to (which is after all only on the previous page) you are being disingenuous? Or are you just confused as usual?

But rather than trying to concentrate on one small detail you will answer the question, is your issue with uncontrolled immigration from the EU, or the already controlled immigration from non-EU, or both?

Simple enough question surely for you to cope with?