[Closed] Is voting for UKIP wrong?

[quote=jambalaya ]@allthepies - that chart can't possibly make sense, it basically says the UK born population doesn't sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?What's the current level of the deficit again?

jambalaya - Member

Does North Borneo have different laws to the rest of Malaysia - how does that work ?

The piece said it was a local law, so yes it seems they do. Plenty of countries have different regional/local laws and certainly different interpretations/implementations. Easy to imagine Borneo could have different laws than mainland Malaysia, plus then you have the majority Indonesian part of the Island plus Brunei

The Sharia law is only applicable to Muslim only I am afraid regardless of what they say. However, they are slowly encroaching/eroding others' rights by trying to impose such law. In fact there are many transgender people employ by non-Muslim businesses. You will find that the Indonesia might be more tolerant than M'sia since their country is so diverse. Brunei is different story as the country is ruled by the King i.e. absolute monarchy therefore the King can do as he wishes. His country so do as he likes. In other part of SE Asia like Thailand, Philippines, Laos, Vietnam etc transgender is not a big deal. It is only the countries that proclaim themselves to be Is-lam that have such draconian law against their own transgender population. Therefore, by trying to export Human Rights law to those embracing Sharia law might actually be counter productive. Unless you have Sharia Law or other draconian law in EU that infringes on gender issue I do not see the added value of Human Rights which current law has already covered.

it basically says the UK born population doesn't sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?

To balance the population yes, which in turn will pay for our state pensions....

To balance the population yes, which in turn will pay for our state pensions....

Relying on someone else to pay our pensions is madness.

jambalaya - Member
@allthepies - that chart can't possibly make sense, it basically says the UK born population doesn't sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?

footflaps - Member
Immigration has added to the strain a bit, but not as much as demographic changes which have happened in the UK, mainly smaller house holds, mass migration from rural areas to cities and economic migration to the SE. These have put enormous pressure on the housing market in certain areas and we've had successive governments who have no real interest in building new houses and are quite happy to let a housing bubble concentrate wealth in an elite few (those born before 1970). Even without migration we'd still have these problems.

footflaps - Member
You could blame immigration, but economic policy since 1979 has been focussed on enriching those that already have wealth (esp housing assets) at the expense of those that don't.

The number of Bulgarians and Romanians who applied for National Insurance Numbers rose 576% last year from 27,700 to 187,300

[url= http://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/new-open-europe-report-securing-free-trade-eu-brexit-likely-goods-sectors-far-harder-services/#section-4 ]link[/url]

deleted

jambalaya - Member

@allthepies - that chart can't possibly make sense, it basically says the UK born population doesn't sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?

Nah, it's just too simplistic, similiar to the point I made up the page it only looks at tax paid by the individual, as if that's the sum economic contribution of a person. It's somewhat useful as a comparison between different groups of taxpayers but that's all.

hands up who has had their opinion changed by this thread and is now going to/not going to vote UKIP 😀

Not that anyone new is going to come to this thread, nor that most people are going to bother....

...but here's an interesting interview with [s]The Messiah[/s] Nige, that doesnt tear into him quite has harshly as most.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/im-taking-on-the-establishment-and-they-hate-me-for-it/16758#.VP3aeFUgiiz

[quote=Stoner said]The Messiah Nige

Now you know Stoner, he's not the Messiah, he's a very....

I'm following this thread. I'm not very politically well read or knowledgeable so wouldn't comment as such, but I'm trying to learn. I did the "vote for policies" form and it gave me exactly 50/50 con/lib dem, which was a bit of a relief in a way, 0% UKIP. I do find "the usual suspects" posts interesting and admire some of your knowledge.

The frightening thing about UKIP is that they are able to make otherwise intelligent people swallow BS on immigration. It is cheap, nasty and poor politics but unsurprisingly works!

Immigration in a minor issue. If anything it has a mild positive impact in UK and other developed EU economies but he impact is as small as the issue itself. There are far more important issues that need to be addressed that do not rely on the hidden (or not so hidden) veil of xenophobia/mild racism or basic deceit.

The Idea that UKIP or any of the other fringe parties would have a dramatic impact on how things work in the UK is equally absurd as a quick tour of EU states today will show.

nor that most people are going to bother....

I made an effort because you recommended it Stoner but I gave up after about 6 paragraphs.

It didn't start off too good imo with this :

[i] ‘I judge everybody by two simple criteria. Number one: would I employ them? And number two: would I want to have a drink with them? To pass the Farage Test, you only have to pass one of those. [/i]

Obviously he doesn't mean that nonsense but it's a measure of what a muppet he is that he should apparently offer it as a serious example of one of his personal tenets.

Farage for all his self-created man of the people image is very much a product of his affluent class upbringing. The fact that he knows and is willing to exploit the fears, insecurity, and prejudices, of less well educated people does not diminish that.

He is "anti-establishment", if you believe that, not in the sense of fighting existing wealth and privilege but anti-establishment in the sense that the US Tea Party Republicans are anti-establishment, ie, they were created, by people with great power and wealth - despite their allegedly grassroot character, to take on the official Republican Party "establishment". And by doing so strengthen and guarantee the neoliberal free-market fundamentalist direction of the Republican Party.

The entire philosophy behind both UKIP and the Tea Party Republicans depends on turkeys voting for Christmas.

BTW not long ago I found myself in close proximity to Nigel Farage as we both shared the same bus from Bromely to Biggin Hill, however unlike the punters in your article the only thing which I felt a strong urge to shake him by was his throat, not his hand. Despite the obvious appeal of having an altercation with a posh public school educated toff on an omnibus I resisted such temptations.

I do fairly regularly cycle pass his house though, so the opportunity to shake him warmly might still present itself again.

Well he obviously lacks your compassion and humanity blacknose.

teamhurtmore - Member

The frightening thing about UKIP is that they are able to make otherwise intelligent people swallow BS on immigration. It is cheap, nasty and poor politics but unsurprisingly works!

I am afraid not all people agree with open door "welcome" immigration policy by the way.

Can you survive a plan crash? He is a lucky chap looking at that photo.

ernie_lynch - Member

... however unlike the punters in your article the only thing which I felt a strong urge to shake him by was his throat, not his hand.

Do you dare do the same to a known hate preacher if you are in the bus with that person?

🙄

[quote=chewkw ]

teamhurtmore - Member
The frightening thing about UKIP is that they are able to make otherwise intelligent people swallow BS on immigration. It is cheap, nasty and poor politics but unsurprisingly works!

Are you attempting to prove that you're otherwise intelligent?

aracer - Member
Are you attempting to prove that you're otherwise intelligent?

That is an interesting response. 😆

I think we are on the same boat if I can understand you correctly regarding intelligence so move on otherwise we would be going in circle challenging each others' "intelligent" right down to being anal counting and comparing each others' IQ or EQ etc ... 😆

My reply was simply saying that some people just do not like open door policy. I was not trying to twist words etc ...

Yes, I might be stating the obvious but I was just saying that because I know my reason but I do not know others' reason(s) for rejecting the open door policy. All we can do is to speculate that they are racists.

What say you?

🙄

The frightening thing about UKIP is that they are able to make otherwise intelligent people swallow BS on immigration. It is cheap, nasty and poor politics but unsurprisingly works!

All of that is ONLY true if you support a curb on immigration or blame immigration. Otherwise they are banging a drum, chanting half truths and appealing to baser human emotions in order to garner support.
As for easily deny racism it would be much easier if their own members and their own elected representatives stopped saying racist things on the tv.
It is certainly not a message that is universally accpeted a splenty on here consider them to be racist.

Personally I think the party is jingoistic and it attracts racists rather than it is an out an out racist party like the BNP. Basically its the place for little englanders who want to keep johnny foreigner at bay.

Despite the obvious appeal of having an altercation with a posh public school educated toff on an omnibus I resisted such temptations.

You're just not the radical you once were, Ernie. For shame! 🙂

I'm glad you read (some) of the article. As you emphasised, I think unintentionally, one of the points of the article:

Obviously he doesn't mean that nonsense but it's a measure of what a muppet he is that he should apparently offer it as a serious example of one of his personal tenets.

Namely, that it doesnt necessarily matter what the politics are, but the inability of the political body to communicate comfortable, natively, with the electorate is one of the major problems for democracy today in the UK.

Yes, we can argue about what [i]policies[/i] we all favour (or not - and we are surely going to differ here) but those of us who come into these threads arent the ones that are going to choose the next government (or the car crash of a coalition anyway), we are (for better or worse) politically literate. A massive majority of the electorate would vote for a monkey in a tie...OR someone appealing to them on a much more personal basis.

Think of Nige as comparable to the (late, great, nay massive) Bob Crow. A political animal that talks to the people who want to hear him.

I quite like the man. Obviously.

I dont like most of his policies: I'm a free for all, labour and goods free trade mishmash junky myself.
But he wouldnt exist if there wasnt a lot, really a lot, of people who look at Milliband and Cameron and go "**** no".

vote as you see fit. That's how voting works (in theory at least) i have much more respect for someone voting Ukip than I do for the average Joe who will only vote tactically. Lab just to keep call me Dave out or visa versa. Cutting off ones nose to spite the face?

Having said that, while I respect Nigel as a bloke, I really reckon he's an ok bloke probably, the daily mail comments section makes me think I would rather cut out my eyes than vote for his party. That man who shouts at "bloody cyclists", he votes Ukip, no doubt.

Vote Green please.

"Obviously he doesn't mean that nonsense but it's a measure of what a muppet he is that he should apparently offer it as a serious example of one of his personal tenets"

[b]Namely, that it doesnt necessarily matter what the politics are, but the inability of the political body to communicate comfortable, natively, with the electorate is one of the major problems for democracy today in the UK.[/b]

But let's remind ourselves what the according to him the "Farage Test" is :

[i]‘I judge everybody by two simple criteria. Number one: would I employ them? And number two: would I want to have a drink with them? To pass the Farage Test, you only have to pass one of those. [/i]

OK the "would I want to have a drink with them" fulfills the communicating comfortably with people but where does the or "would I employ them" come in? Politicians should talk to the electorate as if they employ them?

As a general rule it's stupid idea to judge people full stop. It's even more stupid to strictly judge people on the basis of two arbitrary requirements. He couldn't have been serious - so why did he even mention it?

A massive majority of the electorate would vote for a monkey in a tie...OR someone appealing to them on a much more personal basis.

I don't know whether it is a massive majority of the electorate but I do know that it isn't a good thing. And I am also of the opinion that it shouldn't be encouraged - the dumbing down of politics to the level of a game show/reality TV/beauty contest and putting personalities before policies.

And so for those reasons alone, politics aside, I certainly wouldn't applaud Farage.

Having said all that seeing Farage get on a bus on his own did get him a very slight twinge of respect from me, despite my urge to shake him warmly by the throat. It's pretty much the only thing he's ever done to vaguely impress me. And tbf Ken Livingstone used to get the tube regularly so he's hardly the first easily recognizable politician to use public transport.

[quote=Olly ]That man who shouts at "bloody cyclists", he votes Ukip, no doubt.

Perfect choice for some on here then.

Having said that, while I respect Nigel as a bloke, I really reckon he's an ok bloke probably,

And I am also of the opinion that it shouldn't be encouraged - the dumbing down of politics to the level of a game show/reality TV/beauty contest and putting personalities before policies.

Oh I agree.

But then that would have ruled out the Bob Crows as much as the Nigels, and what a loss that would have been.

I think an Idea I read somewhere else (Below the line, not a pretty place usually) would work well to fix that - a statutory obligation to put to parliament every policy in a winning government's party manifesto (with, obviously a 3 line). A technocratic approach to policy is surely a cracking way of ripping the personality (and the woolly, floppy obfuscation) out of politics, no?

[bedtime, catch you tomorrow Ernie]

chewkw - Member
I am afraid not all people agree with open door "welcome" immigration policy by the way.

Good job we don't have one then isn't it?

Many seem to love an open door policy as long as it only swings one way - xenophobia combined with hypocrisy?

chewkw - Member
.........

Anyway,in a democratic society (yes, democracy) aren't people entitled to vote for any party of their choice? Isn't it better than not voting at all then complain later? I mean I will accept whoever come into power etc.

The trouble is whilst we are in the EU, we are not in a democratic society. When we vote this May, unless something dramatic happens all we will decide is who will the next Prime Manager (not Minister) will be.
Gordon Brown's use of the costly PFI's were (in my opinion) because he complied with the Maastricht Treaty that set out the terms for entry/convergience for the Euro. He announced his (or was it the EU's) Golden rule and PFI's were a way of not technically adding to the Deficit or the Debt.

I have seen in previous posts people saying that the UK still has control of immigration from outside the EU. Please tell me why that every EU national who comes to work in the UK has the right bring up to seven generations of family dependents,that is Great-Grandparents to Great-Grandchildren, from anywhere in the world to the UK, yet a UK national does not have this right.

Also have a look at this video of EU leaders such as Martin Shultz planning to take control of immigration from outside the EU off nation states.

all we will decide is who will the next Prime Manager (not Minister) will be.

Browns tests were clearly set so we could not enter the Euro.

every EU national who comes to work in the UK has the right bring up to seven generations of family dependents

But then that would have ruled out the Bob Crows as much as the Nigels, and what a loss that would have been.

Oh come on Stoner, politics, very specific and easily identifiable politics, was at the very heart of Bob Crow's success. You are really short changing the RMT membership if you are suggesting that the huge support Bob Crow enjoyed was down to him being "a bit of a character" who knew how to hold a pint of beer.

The support he enjoyed, and the huge increase in membership the RMT experienced under his leadership, was down to the fact that he was highly successful in achieving real and tangible benefits for the RMT membership.

Obviously having the right personality and skills to achieve those goals was a vital requirement. But Bob Crow's success wasn't simply down to the fact that he was an affable guy who knew how to smile and hold a pint whilst his photo was being taken.

I reckon it was all those extra days off he negotiated them ernie, who wouldn't want an extra weeks (unpaid) holiday a year 😉

Junkyard - lazarus

all we will decide is who will the next Prime Manager (not Minister) will be.

We dont decide who the PM is nor do we even get to vote on it.

The next Prime Manager will be Miliband or Cameron and how we vote will decide which one. Unless something dramatic happens.

Browns tests were clearly set so we could not enter the Euro.

I disagree Brown's tests were what was was needed in his mind in the back of a cab to gain entry. His Golden rule was based on Maastricht treaty 104C.

every EU national who comes to work in the UK has the right bring up to seven generations of family dependents
never heard of that one any credible source please? To take advantage for 7 generations even at 16 for each child that is 96 years old for the eldest and 0 for the youngest. Impressive breeding there

Credible source [url= http://www.uk-wp.com/permits/others/eu-residence-permits-and-worker-registration/ ]null[/url]

"Dependents

An EU national also has the right to have their non-EEA family members join them in the UK. ‘Family members’ can include spouses, children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren aged under 21. If the children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren are aged 21 or over, dependency on the EU national must be established. This right can also relate to dependent parents, grand parents or great-grandparents. Other family members (e.g. siblings) can also be admitted to the UK but this is on a discretionary basis."

The odds of anyone bringing great grandkids and great grandparents are pretty damn slim 😆

Apologies if already posted, I have not read the previous 6 pages properly...

"Why the media are wrong about UKIP..."
[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/media-wrong-ukip-theyre-not-5258390 ]UKIP Party Conference Report[/url]

[img] [/img]

The next Prime Manager will be Miliband or Cameron and how we vote will decide which one. Unless something dramatic happens.

every EU national who comes to work in the UK has the right bring up to seven generations of family dependents

can include spouses, children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren aged under 21. If the children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren are aged 21 or over, dependency on the EU national must be established. This right can also relate to dependent parents, grand parents or great-grandparents. Other family members (e.g. siblings) can also be admitted to the UK but this is on a discretionary basis."

EDIT: I really should not have got distracted there as i just repeated what he said [ though I had not read his comments] so safe yourself some reading time.

The next Prime Manager will be Miliband or Cameron and how we vote will decide which one

Brown's tests were what was was needed in his mind in the back of a cab to gain entry

Interesting re the third point news to me but there are a number of caveats there not least showing dependency and as NW notes it would be hard to manage 7 generations, Any idea what the record number is as it wont be 7.

Oh and proof a UK national cannot do this as we are EU nationals again out of interest

mikewsmith - Member

The next Prime Manager will be Miliband or Cameron and how we vote will decide which one. Unless something dramatic happens.

that is the outlook, however you vote for MP's, the party who forms government is able to choose their leader. That Leader will be the PM. There is no guarantee that the Leader at the election will be the PM for the term.

My original post said that all we choose is the next Prime Manager (unless something dramatic happens) if he gets ousted later on like Maggie Thatcher did, it still does not invalidate my statement.

every EU national who comes to work in the UK has the right bring up to seven generations of family dependents

from what you quoted

can include spouses, children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren aged under 21. If the children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren are aged 21 or over, dependency on the EU national must be established. This right can also relate to dependent parents, grand parents or great-grandparents. Other family members (e.g. siblings) can also be admitted to the UK but this is on a discretionary basis."

Right to bring Children, Grand kids and GG Kids - 3 extra generations.
Discretionary as to bringing Parents, GP & GGP.
In total an EU migrant can bring in 6 generations, though only 3 are allowed by default and the older ones can be refused so it's not a right to bring 7 generations into the country. This only applies to non EEA family members as the EU members can travel here freely anyway just as you can go and live in their countries.

Something went wrong with my previous post. The credible source is [url= http://www.uk-wp.com/permits/others/eu-residence-permits-and-worker-registration/ ]Credible Source[/url]

You appear to have missed the "Spouse" generation. This makes seven.

All though unlikely, legally 7 generations of DEPENDEN[b]T relatives from anywhere in the WORLD can live here. The point I am making is that (NON UK) EU nationals have this right but UK citizens do not have this right.

it still does not invalidate my statement.

When we vote this May, unless something dramatic happens all we will decide is who will the next Prime Manager (not Minister) will be.

The point I am making is that (NON UK) EU nationals have this right but UK citizens do not have this right.

Spouse is the same generation as the migrant.
The other key part is dependant, proving over 21's as dependent is going to be hard. Anyone of working age is likely to be declared as not dependent. Siblings is discretionary and to ship over your grand parents will be tough.

So is this another case of reading the rules and making a completely worst possible case situation to highlight the problem when in fact the chances of somebody bringing 30 relatives with them is slim? (they have to have got to the EU first while all their dependents survived without them)

How many people have brought in 5 or more generations? 4 or more?

Just had a UKIP flyer through the door. On it's way to the recycling bin I had a browse through their policies.

Leaving the immigration/racist issues aside, they propose to repeal the Climate Change Act, re-develop British fossil fueled power stations, and stop subsidies for wind/solar. Green taxes will be abolished. It seems on these points they propose to ignore the scientific community despite their policies being pro-science, medicine, technology, engineering and maths degrees (removal of tuition fees for just those subjects).

Two Government departments would be abolished - Culture Media and Sport, and Energy and Climate Change.

They also propose to bring back smoking in pubs, and oppose plain paper packaging in tobacco.

Not hard to think who the main financial contributers to this party are?

Just a few of the salient points that make voting for them wrong. Kind of goes against everything I stand for, before we even get to the immigration and discrimination debate. So I'm afraid I'm out.

They also propose to bring back smoking in pubs

They propose to let pubs decide whether to allow smoking or not.
It's not "bring back". It's libertarianism.
Even the smokers in my local pub wouldnt want to return to smoking in the our pub.
But the change would permit specific locations to allow people to smoke legally.

But the change would permit specific locations to allow people to smoke legally.

Have they made any comment on protection of employees' health?

Mike Smith
UKIP Candidate for Wales and Stuff 😉

but seriously the smoking one is bad, the climate change is worse there has only been one government who has gone back on climate change legislation and it's run by this man
[img] [/img]
His other great idea was to try and rough up Putin a bit over the plane stuff.

Just a quick one - if it's wrong to vote UKIP, who is it right to vote?

All of that is ONLY true if you support a curb on immigration or blame immigration. Otherwise they are banging a drum, chanting half truths and appealing to baser human emotions in order to garner support.

This.

[i]But[/i] at the end of the day though, your vote is yours to do with as you please. Whether there is a party that appropriately represents your views is another conversation entirely. I'd argue that voting in the first place is more important than who you vote for.

The campaign by the Ministry of Sound back in '96/97 still sticks in my mind:

[img] [/img]

patriotpro - Member

Just a quick one - if it's wrong to vote UKIP, who is it right to vote?

😯 Good question! 😆

Let's see the responses ...

UKIP may be the right vote for racists, xenophobes, climate change deniers and those who think everything was much better in the 50's.

and those who shop based on the skin colour of the owners

Junkyard - lazarus
and those who shop based on the skin colour of the owners

Yaaaaawwwn

avoiding the question comes as no surprise.

mikewsmith - Member
UKIP may be the right vote for racists, xenophobes, climate change deniers and those who think everything was much better in the 50's.

Is that you then?

not really, think anyone who's met me know that.

Please bear in mind I not aligned to left, centre or right

The story goes like this I just had a "heated" conversation with a Conservative friend of mine where I was asked who I was going to vote. Me said UKIP.

Yaaaaawwwn

avoiding the question comes as no surprise.

so why do you base your shopping on the skin colour of the owner?
As for your question

People can vote for whom they like and I have not said otherwise voting is one where we all make our own moral choices as to whom best fits with our values.

your turn ...taps desks patiently.

For all those saying it's stupid to vote UKIP based on their 'manifesto', whilst working on elections in a past life I've lost count of the following question in the voting stations:

"Dad, which one do I vote for again?"

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member

Please bear in mind I not aligned to left, centre or right

The story goes like this I just had a "heated" conversation with a Conservative friend of mine where I was asked who I was going to vote. Me said UKIP.

If you're going to contradict yourself, you might want to do it in separate posts.

Contradiction? Are you saying there must be some sort of ideology alignment in order to vote for a party? 😯

Yes, I am not aligned to any of them ideology wise i.e. left, centre or right, but surely voting for a party does not require ideological alignment or do you?

For example, voters that switched/intend to switch their voting pattern from say Labour to Green as protest vote or from Conservative to UKIP. Are they aligned? You might argue that they are aligned left to left left or right to right right but what if a person switches voting pattern from say Green/Labour to Conservative/UKIP etc. Isn't that a contradiction in some way or another? Surely people vote for the party "best fit" whatever their are thinking at that particular moment in time and not necessary aligned to them totally? Yes? Perhaps, contradiction in voting pattern is the norm for some people but definitely it is difficult to say ideologically they are in contradiction. i.e. having contradictory thoughts all the time hence normal? Yes? On the other hand being a die hard supporter of an ideology perhaps might not be the norm? Yes?

However, to answer your question, you vote for the party you want to whether other people agree with you or not.

Yes, I understand that i.e. I can vote according to my preference, but it is my fascination with some of the aggressive reactions I got, especially from my colleagues, that prompted me to ask some questions. I find it interesting to see the different responses (including STW folks) and basically want to understand them better.

Simply being a poorly educated racist misogynistic hypocrite with the attention span of a goldfish and an IQ which begins with a decimal point does not bar you from voting for the party which you feel you most identify with.

The above quote make you highly irrational and illogical from a person who consider himself better than other(s). A sweeping statement associated with generalisation I thought is normally being labelled on me only but there you go.

May I ask if you have voted for a same party throughout your life?

May I also ask who you intend to vote for in the coming election?

😀

No I would not vote for any party that is racist or prejudiced.

Not sure who to vote for now!

Green peace yay lol

Probably labour again after the Tories did a rubbish job.

a poorly educated

Well

The above quote make you highly irrational and illogical from a person who consider himself better than other(s). A sweeping statement associated with generalisation I thought is normally being labelled on me only but there you go.

ChubbyBlokeInLycra - Member

a poorly educated

Well

Perhaps poorly educated by western standard but hey I am a minor bureaucrat here doing a job of minor bureaucrat like so many so how educated do you need to be to do that job?

The above quote make you highly irrational and illogical from a person who consider himself better than other(s). A sweeping statement associated with generalisation I thought is normally being labelled on me only but there you go.

is so meaningless it pretty much proves that point.

😆 Let me explain.

Simply being a poorly educated racist misogynistic hypocrite with the attention span of a goldfish and an IQ which begins with a decimal point does not bar you from voting for the party which you feel you most identify with.

He is equating poorly educated person with being racist. Now this is a sweeping statement that anyone who is poorly educated is naturally racist. So if you finished school (completed your education) at 16 or perhaps less than that (I am just making assumption) and become a successful business man/woman you are a racist? Am I correct? Correct me if I am wrong with that sentence.

Fast forward to 2015 where most people will have a University education at some point so considered educated ... problem I see. What if your parents have not been to University at all and by present day standard that is uneducated so does that mean they are all racists? Crikey. 😯

How does he define poorly educated? You might be educated but what if you do not agree does that make you poorly educated then?

As for being a hypocrite how does that equate with short attention span? I thought hypocrite is someone who is having fork tongue? Anyway, what if a person has a short attention span, disinterest etc, does that make the person a hypocrite?

IQ, how does he know the IQ of a goldfish? Has he tested the IQ of a goldfish or can you test the IQ of a goldfish? You tell me.

As for you saying that it is meaningless. If you intentionally choose not to understand, when you know exactly what it means, then some may consider that as a hypocritical action. But I give you the benefit of a doubt that you do not understand my "English". So this case nobody knows except yourself. Hypocrite? You decide as I am not labeling you. Let others be the judge.

😀

Let me explain.

Please, mummy, make it stop.

He isn't equating anything. If he says that you are a, b and c, that doesn't mean that all a people are b, etc. Draw yourself a Venn diagram to help work it out..

[img] :large[/img]

If Chewk and JHJ ending up disagreeing on a thread who knows what will happen..

DrJ - Member

Let me explain.

Please, mummy, make it stop.

He isn't equating anything. If he says that you are a, b and c, that doesn't mean that all a people are b, etc. Draw yourself a Venn diagram to help work it out..

I am afraid that is how I read it.

You lot are very good at twisting words just like my experience with larger ZM bureaucrats today.

Junkyard - lazarus

If Chewk and JHJ ending up disagreeing on a thread who knows what will happen..

Who is JHJ? FFS! Stop using abbreviation ... 🙄

kimbers - Member

I don't smoke weed if that helps.

Who is JHJ? FFS! Stop using abbreviation ...

😀

Very good.

I don't smoke weed if that helps.

Ok folks I think I need to sum up my views on UKIP etc as this thread is slowly turning into something else.

It's time to give you my 3rd world view on the current politic of UKIP so that's that ...

The way I see them is as follows: (very simple or too simplistic to many with PhDs ... )

(Generally speaking ... yes, yes, I know ... but bear with me in being racist etc)

1. They do not like being controlled ZM Eurocrats.
2. They do not like being part of a bureaucratic entity.
3. They want to take charge of their own affairs rather than told by others.
4. They want out etc ...

Things then developed further as I can recall ...

5. They started "shouting" against those bureaucratic entity ...
6. They started campaigning against them ...
7. They started to sell the ideas to the public regarding the potential danger of bureaucrats ...
4. They call for the people to support them ...

What did they get? Nothing much apart from being called attention seeking so and so ... they( UKIP) really did not know what else they could do to gather public support until ...

Luck was slowly developing on their side ... Then things moved on another level on the hot topic ... 'immigration'. The favourite topic for all as the recession hit.

As the media started shifting their attention to immigration and the public started to be wind up by the media, UKIP jumped on the bandwagon and were so happy that finally there was something that they could use to get the people's attention. It's like someone (the media) gave them a free cake to eat! Naturally, UKIP expanded and extended the "call" by the media to focus on immigration and the public "loved" it considering everyone has been hard up all these years ... It comes natural to UKIP because of point 1 - 4. i.e. You get out of EU you control your boarder etc.

For the media ... ya, they got their bogeyman. In fact they created the bogeyman and in return the media maintain their revenue stream and secure their own position in the public eyes. The nice guy.

However, things developed in a different twist and getting a bit out of hand as the immigration issue has now evolved into equating UKIP with racism because the main parties, realising that they missed the bandwagon of riding the public adulation of focusing on the issue of immigration, decided that the best course of action to put them (UKIP) in their place by portraying them as racist. The spin machines start ... But this slightly backfired because the more they spin the more the so called "racists" come out from their wood work with increasing number. Now everyone that supports UKIP now is labeled as racist. The snowballing effect started ...

The spin machines although successfully done their job by annihilating UKIP "people image" replacing them as a racist party, it will be interesting to see if the bogeyman will survive the election and become the real racist party as portrayed by others.

The creation of UKIP the bogeyman is now complete.

As for the main parties it should be interesting to see how they fend off the bogeyman.

My view - You lot are screwed! Screwed! 😆

I actually hope UKIP get some MP's as hopefully it will wake up the current lot to start listening to people and also will wake up all the people who find UKIP abhorrent racists yet can't be arsed to vote.
Maybe this will be a reawakening of an interest in politics in the uk.

Edit - To clarify this is for Chewkw
However by ranting on about everyone being screwed you do not exactly paint yourself in a good light, but if you are happy with that then power to you.

Oh and btw you have two number 4's in your list

grahamt1980 - Member
Edit - To clarify this is for Chewkw
However by ranting on about everyone being screwed you do not exactly paint yourself in a good light, but if you are happy with that then power to you.

C'mon that should be light hearted. You just need to imagine the highly extroverted movie character shouting "You are screwed! Moowwwhhhhaaaa!"

Oh and btw you have two number 4's in your list

D'Oh! That should be 8 ... now I cannot count. Damn! 🙁

1. They do not like being controlled ZM Eurocrats.
2. They do not like being part of a bureaucratic entity.
3. They want to take charge of their own affairs rather than told by others.
4. They want out etc ...

Why would a vote for UKIP shake any of the other parties up? If anything it will send UK politics deeper into the public contempt when people realise that the whole party is a sham designed to support one bloke's ego.

mikewsmith - Member

1. They do not like being controlled ZM Eurocrats.
2. They do not like being part of a bureaucratic entity.
3. They want to take charge of their own affairs rather than told by others.
4. They want out etc ...

1) So they got elected to the EU parliament took the expenses but didn't bother to get involved with the decision making.

I think it's more like shouting from the corner but the majority just thought they were bunch of clowns to be honest. They were outnumbered.

2) So being part of the UK isn't a bureaucratic entity?

It is ... but by comparison to the ZM Eurocrats monster you are side dish.

3) Unless we all have our own state somebody is going to be telling you what to do

We cannot even make our own society a better place to live and yet we decided we should add to the complication by having the ZM Eurocrats? That is unbelievable. I know the whole EU thing started with good intention but as it evolved it has turn into a big monster.

4) Admirable they want something but the impact of doing that is huge.

There is no magic bullet and I don't think they can change that much that soon. Perhaps see it this way as the beginning of British political change. Hopefully for good ...

D'Oh! That should be 8 ... now I cannot count. Damn!

You should vote UKIP. Have you seen their spending plan? 😉

Well, go for the guys with the track record of not playing because they don't like it.
The only way to change things is to be involved not to just complain (and take a massive pay packet)

Why would a vote for UKIP shake any of the other parties up?

I am a minor bureaucrat here doing a job of minor bureaucrat like so many so how educated do you need to be to do that job?

EDIT As a matter of interest, as you seem to like using the term zombie maggot to describe bureaucrats, are you referring to yourself as a zombie maggot, and from that can I infer that that's what you think of UKIP voters?

the immigration issue has now evolved into equating UKIP with racism because the main parties, realising that they missed the bandwagon of riding the public adulation of focusing on the issue of immigration, decided that the best course of action to put them (UKIP) in their place by portraying them as racist.

... is completely incorrect. I know that doesn't make it unique amongst everything said, but still.

They are 'portrayed' as being racist because their members have exhibited racist behaviour and used racist language and rhetoric. Farage can claim that the party isn't racist but ultimately they must be judged by their actions, or lack thereof in addressing the racist core of their members and supporters.

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member

I am a minor bureaucrat here doing a job of minor bureaucrat like so many so how educated do you need to be to do that job?

Not very, obviously.

EDIT As a matter of interest, as you seem to like using the term zombie maggot to describe bureaucrats, are you referring to yourself as a zombie maggot, and from that can I infer that that's what you think of UKIP voters?

You Don't need much education to do the job to be honest as they are all pre-programmed right down to the way you express yourself. You cannot say something beyond the parameter put it this way. I found out that when I questioned something the standard response would be "computer says no". The persons (larger ZMs) then without listening to what I said read me the "riot act" ... I mean they simply quote the rules. Which implied that I either I fit in or I get out. I want to get out but who are going to feed me that is the question?

Yes, I am fair person so yes I am a minor (low pay grade hence minor) Zombie Maggot since my work involves me saying "computer says no" to other unfortunate beings. 😮

As for other UKIP supporters I don't know. I am happy to be labeled as ZM because of the job that I have and the way I see it impact on others yet I cannot do anything to ease their "pain". I have larger ZM breathing down my neck and put me in my place. These are really nasty ZMs and you certainly do not want to deal with them if you want to maintain your health. Also where I work I think I am the only one so far that intend (or voted for local council recently) to vote UKIP.

If you intend to speak/challenge the ZMs my advice is to have all the "black and white" print out clearly (I try to avoid those paper works but usually end up the one facing the music) ... then you argue about the definition of all terms which usually end up with ZMs interpreting them to their liking by employing power and authority. If you are up to it then be prepared for lengthy "argument" ... The possibility of you winning can be very slim. 😀

buck53 - Member

the immigration issue has now evolved into equating UKIP with racism because the main parties, realising that they missed the bandwagon of riding the public adulation of focusing on the issue of immigration, decided that the best course of action to put them (UKIP) in their place by portraying them as racist.

... is completely incorrect. I know that doesn't make it unique amongst everything said, but still.

They are 'portrayed' as being racist because their members have exhibited racist behaviour and used racist language and rhetoric. Farage can claim that the party isn't racist but ultimately they must be judged by their actions, or lack thereof in addressing the racist core of their members and supporters.

There is no way you can control or be responsible for those who intend to vote for you. That is practically impossible. 😯

members

Members, not supporters. If you don't like a member you can kick him out. If you don't, it suggests you agree with him.

DrJ - Member

members

Members, not supporters. If you don't like a member you can kick him out. If you don't, it suggests you agree with him.

I doubt they can really control them too. Yes, they can kick them out but nothing beyond that if they still behave as they are and still intend to support the party.

Yes, I am fair person so yes I am a minor (low pay grade hence minor) Zombie Maggot since my work involves me saying "computer says no" to other unfortunate beings