What's Italian for 'kipper? Anti-migrant stunt goes awry.
Discussion
Keep starting threads? there are several pro UKIP threads, and so what? I have started one "take the piss out of Nige and his dupes" thread, and rarely bother contributing to the UKIP love ins elsewhere in the room.
Besides, this is just a meaningless internet talking shop. We can talk about whatever we like, subject to PH rules and libel. The NPE approach to free speech appears to be "You are only allowed free speech if you support UKIP, hate the unemployed, deny AGW, hate T Blair, and so on. Any other views will be shouted down, and anyone expressing views that are not approved will be subjected to personal vitriol.", but some of us don't care about all that, and are immune to vitriol. We can start whatever threads we like, don't need or seek your permission or approval, and no one is conscripted to read threads, post on them, or give a toss about them. See also: the internet.
Besides, this is just a meaningless internet talking shop. We can talk about whatever we like, subject to PH rules and libel. The NPE approach to free speech appears to be "You are only allowed free speech if you support UKIP, hate the unemployed, deny AGW, hate T Blair, and so on. Any other views will be shouted down, and anyone expressing views that are not approved will be subjected to personal vitriol.", but some of us don't care about all that, and are immune to vitriol. We can start whatever threads we like, don't need or seek your permission or approval, and no one is conscripted to read threads, post on them, or give a toss about them. See also: the internet.
I can't remember whether it was on this thread or the other one that I offered to wager £100, payable to the registered charity of the winner's choice, that UKIP will win not a single seat in the 2015 UK General Election. No takers so far, unless I have missed one, in which case apols to whomever that is, and vive le sport. The wager remains open.
I had a shufty at the Times today. I am not a fan of Murdoch, and naturally assume that the Times may have a pro Tory anti Nige agenda, but the expenses story isn't lying down and dying just yet. Like all stories casting UKIP in any sort of negative light, it is classed by the faithful as a non story. Maybe it is a non story, but at present I'm not sure either way. It matters not, because - to paraphrase someone else - if Nige was caught on film bribing Robert Mugabe to kill cute puppies, invade Poland, shag the Queen, and key everyone's cars, we would still be told "it's just a smear story".
I had a shufty at the Times today. I am not a fan of Murdoch, and naturally assume that the Times may have a pro Tory anti Nige agenda, but the expenses story isn't lying down and dying just yet. Like all stories casting UKIP in any sort of negative light, it is classed by the faithful as a non story. Maybe it is a non story, but at present I'm not sure either way. It matters not, because - to paraphrase someone else - if Nige was caught on film bribing Robert Mugabe to kill cute puppies, invade Poland, shag the Queen, and key everyone's cars, we would still be told "it's just a smear story".
Guam, re the expenses hoo hah, I presently have no clue who is right or wrong on this one. It happens to be the lead story today in what used to be the newspaper of record. That might mean something, or it might not, but the shouty bluster how very dare you approach that Nige tends to adopt when these things come up doesn't seem to be working on this one. Maybe it will in the end.
Anyway, not very important because Nige could be proven to have shot JFK, caused the South Sea Bubble, bribed all those England penalty takers to miss, stolen Shergar and pissed on your chips and he would still be whiter than snow in the eyes of the Cultists.
Anyway, not very important because Nige could be proven to have shot JFK, caused the South Sea Bubble, bribed all those England penalty takers to miss, stolen Shergar and pissed on your chips and he would still be whiter than snow in the eyes of the Cultists.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 16th April 19:15
This is a general point about NPE rather than UKIP. It is sometimes suggested on threads such as this one that in NPE there are quite a few posters who display bigoted opinions. Those posters may or may not (let's assume not) support UKIP. In response, people often says "there is no (or not much) bigotry in NPE: is you say there is, quote some examples." Doing that can be tricky and/or tiresome because who wants to comb through old threads looking for examples of antediluvian opinions? Here, however, is a neat collection of some good old fashioned bad old fashioned stuff.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 18th April 09:41
Some of you might find this interesting: from Radio 4 today, a discussion of the nation state (which is a fairly recent and arguably an artificial thing), ideas of national identity, and possible alternatives to the nation state such as city states and super states. Meanwhile, the Observer today reports on a campaign to restore Venice to City Statehood (The Most Serene Republic used to kick ass, but was kiboshed by Napoleon in the early C19, IIRC). I am not sure that the Republic of Swindon would work, but you never know.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b040hk4r
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b040hk4r
Interesting election posters, eh? I see that the 75% of law making canard is still doing the rounds. Also the complete fib, for such it is, that there are 26 million Eurocitizens after your job. Pretty confident, not to say brazen stuff.
Shouty bloke deputy to Farage on the Today prog being shouty. John Humphreys gently nailed him.
Shouty bloke deputy to Farage on the Today prog being shouty. John Humphreys gently nailed him.
Here, for the hard of Googling, are some pics of the posters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27105374
On the subject of ruffling the chattering classes, this is a further indication that Farage is a deeply unserious politician. He is the archetype of the fourth form wag, laughing at his own rather duff jokes. He has nothing serious to offer the electorate, just merry japes and wheezes pour épater la bourgeoisie. Jokes are fun, but politics also needs a bit of seriousness.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27105374
On the subject of ruffling the chattering classes, this is a further indication that Farage is a deeply unserious politician. He is the archetype of the fourth form wag, laughing at his own rather duff jokes. He has nothing serious to offer the electorate, just merry japes and wheezes pour épater la bourgeoisie. Jokes are fun, but politics also needs a bit of seriousness.
Alas, I have no cohorts, and certainly none gleaming in purple and gold. It would be a sad day if jokes were banished from politics. I do not like Osborne, but I liked his Magna Carta gag in the budget speech. Farage needs better jokes, although I suppose that his party is quite a good one.
Guam, still on the Whataboutism 101 course? Thought you had finished it by now.
Guam, still on the Whataboutism 101 course? Thought you had finished it by now.
Hate it when that happens.
PS: I don't think that I got any takers for my hundred quid bet on UKIP getting zippo MPs in the 2015 General Election. WW said on the other thread that someone popped up to take the bet, but if someone did I missed it amidst all the chattering from the non chattering classes.
How about a side book on who will be the next PM after Cameron? My bet is Osborne, much as I hate to say it. Johnson? Probably not. Milliband? I doubt it.
PS: I don't think that I got any takers for my hundred quid bet on UKIP getting zippo MPs in the 2015 General Election. WW said on the other thread that someone popped up to take the bet, but if someone did I missed it amidst all the chattering from the non chattering classes.
How about a side book on who will be the next PM after Cameron? My bet is Osborne, much as I hate to say it. Johnson? Probably not. Milliband? I doubt it.
t jobs in my time, but that one's too sEsseesse said:
Breadvan72 said:
Interesting election posters, eh? I see that the 75% of law making canard is still doing the rounds. Also the complete fib, for such it is, that there are 26 million Eurocitizens after your job. Pretty confident, not to say brazen stuff.
Shouty bloke deputy to Farage on the Today prog being shouty. John Humphreys gently nailed him.
Does it matter if there are 26 million or just 26 people that want to come to the UK? Either way we should be able to decide who we do and don't want.Shouty bloke deputy to Farage on the Today prog being shouty. John Humphreys gently nailed him.
Secondly, who are "we", and by what species of fundamental right do "we" get to decide to raise up the gangplank that "we" and/or all of our ancestors used to get here? I am being partly rhetorical, but, questions of what national identity may mean aside, I do wonder whether any one nation state is big enough to cope with the problems of interdependency that modernity entails. I would, however, still prefer any coming Federal superstate to be a democratic one, so I might (I said might) still vote for an exit in a referendum.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 22 April 10:49
mrpurple said:
Not Arrods I know but one for BV to enjoy anyway.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/17/overhea...
Saw it last week, thanks. I haven't set foot in Harrods since I finished my Mcjob as a porter there in 1984. I go to Waitrose mainly for the MILFs.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/17/overhea...
I am not sure that I would say racist, and I think that racist is a misplaced term anyway, as there is only one human race, subdivided into ethnic, national, cultural and religious sub groups. I think that the stance reflected by the UKIP Posters can fairly be classed as xenophobic. It is all about "them" coming over here and mucking it up for "us". The definitions of "them" and "us" are mutable over time. As noted above, the stance adopted is protectionist and anti competition. To this extent the right wing UKIP adopts an anti-capitalist policy that you might think was more left wing, but the left tends in general (with exceptions) more towards internationalism. People sometimes forget that the EU is all about a particular form of regulated free market capitalism operating within a tariff barrier, despite its more lefty social policies.
WinstonWolf said:
So when the EU want to restrict trade to people who pay to be in their trade club it's good, but when UKIP suggest we should be playing in the global market it's bad?
Nothing I wrote could suggest that I take that view. In any event, the UK does play in the global market. I add that among my concerns about the EU is the effect on developing nations of EU trade and agricultural policies. If we could only get a democratic EU then we might be able to do something about that, but I am not holding my breath. As for choosing who comes in, the people who come in are mostly coming to be economically active. Where are the floods of migrant skivers that we were promised? There are some migrant skivers, and some migrant criminals, but floods?
On what rational principle should UK jobs be reserved for UK citizens? If you welcome industrious types, what are you really worried about? Is it cultural differences? Polyglot High Streets? Why do those things matter? Pressure on public services is a real issue in some areas, and Government planning for this has been piss poor, but are the agencies of the State really being overwhelmed by a tide of migrants, across the nation?
Does immigration have some negative aspects as well as positive ones? Yes. Does UKIP ramp the negatives up? I think it does.
As I said many pages ago, it is striking to see how the focus has shifted from "Eeeek! Muslims and brown people!" to "Eeeek! Europeans!", with the strange implication that the poor old muslims and brown people are now getting a raw deal. The reality, I suggest, is that UKIP plays to whatever the current boogey man demon appears to be. It is an organisation that promotes and thrives on fear, ignorance, and division.
Those of you who support UKIP, please have a long, hard and intellectually honest look at those posters and tell us that you aren't embarrassed by them. If you aren't, then we pretty much know where you stand.
10 Pence Short said:
NicD said:
I can't keep track,
are the usual suspects now agreeing there is a serious immigration problem or what?
No.are the usual suspects now agreeing there is a serious immigration problem or what?
Immigration causes some problems. These problems are localised, transient, and not insurmountable.
How many here are actually suffering because of immigration? If your only problem is that you feel uncomfortable if you pass through an urban area that has many immigrants or descendants of immigrants in it, why does that bother you?
I was in Sparkhill in Birmingham the other day. It's a vibrant and cheerful place. Young women wearing hijabs and designer shades driving in convertibles with the tops down. Lots of shops and restaurants. Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, with assorted temples and mosques. By contrast, Small Heath just down the road is grotty. Mostly East Africans at present, Small Heath being a long established grotty part of Brum where people go soon after they get off the boat (my parents lived there after arriving from Dublin in the 50s, it's where I was born, and it was grotty and poor then as it is grotty and poor now).
Go to some parts of London and other cities and you will find pressures on public services, tensions between groups, and problems of lack of integration. Lots of classic problems associated with poverty such as bad housing and crime. Integration issues apart, these problems are not uniquely related to migrancy, or insurmountable given political will and resources.
Meanwhile, all of this cultural stuff now seems to be put second to the argument about British jobs for Brits (whatever Brits are taken to be).
Guam, have you looked at all the posters yet?
I give you credit for some intellectual honesty and courage as you have expressed reservations about the two that you saw yesterday. No other UKIP supporter in the thread has responded to the invitation to look at the posters and tell us whether or not they they find them embarrassing. That may be somewhat telling in itself.
It's sad to see a bloke like you who once held (small l) liberal views being seduced by the Siren call of the charlatans and xenophobes. The zeal of the convert may know no bounds (look at Woodrow Wyatt and Paul Johnson for example of journeys from left to far right), but it's a shame to abandon reason and embrace fear.
I give you credit for some intellectual honesty and courage as you have expressed reservations about the two that you saw yesterday. No other UKIP supporter in the thread has responded to the invitation to look at the posters and tell us whether or not they they find them embarrassing. That may be somewhat telling in itself.
It's sad to see a bloke like you who once held (small l) liberal views being seduced by the Siren call of the charlatans and xenophobes. The zeal of the convert may know no bounds (look at Woodrow Wyatt and Paul Johnson for example of journeys from left to far right), but it's a shame to abandon reason and embrace fear.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff