|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A misunderstood man?
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That most dangerous of creatures, because of their rarity: a British populist. A joker, a wildcard in the pack. The Mule in Britain's Foundation.
[ 21. May 2014, 07:00: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The Mule in Britain's Foundation.
If I didn't know my Asimov, that sentence would come across as very curious.
Personally, I find it difficult to see things from Farage's perspective. We have totally different worldviews.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Signaller
Shipmate
# 17495
|
Posted
He's trying to be a politician, but he isn't very good at it.
Regardless of ideology, he's a prat.
Posts: 113 | From: Metroland | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle
...the apparent liberal media mud fest...
The liberal media's approach is self-defeating. If there is anything likely to increase UKIP's vote it's this dirty tricks campaign. I am amazed at how thick and stupid the mainstream media actually is at times. They must assume that most of us are idiots and we cannot see the obvious fact that if you want to defeat a political party, then take on its arguments and refute them. Anyone with any intelligence can see that personal attacks are an admission that they cannot refute the arguments. Therefore this behaviour effectively becomes a tacit endorsement of their opponent's position.
I imagine that Nigel Farage is positively delighted at this approach by the mainstream media. All it is doing is enhancing his populist appeal.
I am not a supporter of UKIP, but from a purely political point of view in terms of generating sympathy for one's cause, I think Farage is a genius in terms of his manner and relaxed approach. That is not to say that I agree with him, of course. Once you look behind Farage and consider the other representatives of UKIP, then the party looks rather less attractive (and I am not just talking about the nutters who've made headlines)...
[ 21. May 2014, 07:44: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I don't think he's trying to be a politician. He recognises that the electorate are dissatisfied with politicians (with expenses scandals etc) and is trying to present himself as an ordinary bloke. It is, of course, as much a political move as the politicians who employ focus groups to tell them what policies to concentrate on to maximize votes.
It's a bit unfair to say he sucks at being a politician when he doesn't have any significant experience of political office.
I don't have a big problem with Nigel Farage himself. I disagree with practically every aspect of UKIP policy. Some of the "witch hunt" aspects of the media over the last few months disgusts me. But, media handling of politics is generally awful anyway.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
He's against the EU, so he can't be that bad.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
Not a politician - a millionaire who has chosen to get involved in politics.
The one phrase about Margaret Thatcher that explained her (to me) more than anything else was: the first thing she did was marry a millionaire. (I can't find the source of the quote - sorry.)
NF serves money. Everything else is knee-jerk populism designed solely to win votes - and UKIP has decided that the xenophobe vote is one worth harvesting.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
He has a luxurious position at the moment, as he has no power. Ironically, this gives him carte blanche to say all manner of xenophobic things, and just grin. And if his supporters say even more outrageous things, about gays for example, he can still grin, and call them idiots.
So it's all a bit unreal at the moment. I don't know whether a point might come when he becomes sinister - for example, if UKIP did win MPs, and formed a coalition with the Tories. That would probably be a very right-wing govt., but I suppose if the economy keeps improving, it's unlikely.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Is he against the EU? He certainly wants the UK to be independent of the EU. Whether other European nations want to maintain a Union is something UKIP don't seem to have a policy on (and, probably fair enough). It's one of my big issues with UKIP policy, I think the EU needs reform ... but to simply pick up our toys and stomp out doesn't seem to be something that would benefit anyone, neither the UK nor the rest of Europe. Even the European anti-EU parties (some of which are distinctly unpleasant, even more than the BNP let alone UKIP) want to keep the EU but significantly reform it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
One thing is worth stressing, though:
No matter how much you may hate the mainstream political parties (and such hatred is entirely justified IMHO) and no matter how unacceptable the alternatives are, for the sake of whoever or whatever you worship, VOTE!
Spoil your paper. Vote for a no-hoper. Make a protest vote for the candidate you hate the least. Just DON'T stay away from the ballot box.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I've never really understood the call for people to use their vote, even if it has to be a negative thing. I get the difference between voter apathy and antipathy, but what is gained by using one's vote for the sake of it? It seems unlikely we'd ever lose our privilege to elect a government simply by low turnout. Anyone care to educate me on this?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Farage is a xenophobe, a racist, and someone whose party policies are vile.
He also comes over as a lovable buffoon. Not unlike Boris, who was funny until he actually got elected.
And he is dangerous, because he might actually get his members elected. They have no policies, other than "we hate others people". Oh and making the Tories look good.
Misunderstood? Yes, because people seem to think he is just a loveable rogue who is working for the ordinary people. Whereas he is a devious, manipulative politician, like so many of the other scum, but worse.
Vote, yes, to keep people like him out.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's Cat
Farage is a xenophobe, a racist...
I think that might need some qualification.
I find it hard to believe that he hates his wife for being German, and despises the black and Asian members of UKIP (some of whom are actually candidates).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
I've never really understood the call for people to use their vote, even if it has to be a negative thing. I get the difference between voter apathy and antipathy, but what is gained by using one's vote for the sake of it? It seems unlikely we'd ever lose our privilege to elect a government simply by low turnout. Anyone care to educate me on this?
I think that a high turnout sends a message to politicians not to take the electorate for granted.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Plenty of misogynists are married, EE. And every racist proverbally has several best friends who are black.
Not that that proves Farage is any of these things; I don't actually think he is, but he does seem to have put together a set of policies that attracts people who are like wasps to jam.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Farage is a xenophobe, a racist, and someone whose party policies are vile.
The sheer desperation is highly amusing. Liberals having to face up to the fact that their outlook is not the only one around and perhaps it won't prevail.
Leaving the over-the-top ad hominems aside which UKIP policies are so vile? The policies about leaving Europe? Hardly vile to want a different form of political organisation? The ones about immigration? The aspiration to reduce immigration was Labour and Conservative policy in 2010.
Given that they are unlikely to be a party of government their policies are mostly irrelevant. They undoubtedly attract some unpleasant followers but supporters of the other parties have said and done equally reprehensible things in recent times. Very difficult to police all your supporters.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I found it pretty queasy watching Farage talking about Romanian men moving next door, and then struggling to extricate himself, and making it worse really.
This seems to appeal to the most base of human instincts, fear and dislike of the Other, especially from a different nationality or ethnicity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think that might need some qualification.
I find it hard to believe that he hates his wife for being German, and despises the black and Asian members of UKIP (some of whom are actually candidates).
There's just been a huge US news story about the owner of an NBA basketball team who has a history of racism against black people - and yet had a 1/2 black girlfriend, who he encouraged to portray herself as white or Latina instead. Racism is complicated, and in many cases a racist will use any ethnic minorities around them as "evidence" that they are not racist, while maintaining the view personally that those minorities in his or her life are "exceptions."
Farage's entire platform is based on the idea that there are "good" and "bad" foreigners. "Good" ones are Western Europeans, Americans/Canadians/Australians and doctors/lawyers/scientists from any country. "Bad" ones are everybody else. His comments about not wanting Romanians to move next door but being OK with Germans is pretty clear. The jobs issue is a red herring.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I find it hard to believe that he hates his wife for being German, and despises the black and Asian members of UKIP (some of whom are actually candidates).
I agree. Being a xenophobe (who hates foreigners) is not identical with being a racist. The racist tends to see race as defining characteristics of a particular group ("Roumanians are criminals").
To take a benign example, two Jewish friends of mine moved to a tiny village in the depths of rural Warwickshire. Every one was very friendly. B was invited to join the Cricket Club. It was assumed that as a Jew he wouldn't want to play but might like to be club treasurer as he would be 'good with money', i.e. he was assumed to exemplify stereotypes associated with his 'race'. This seems to me to be at the heart of racism rather than hatred. It is racist to assume that black men are better athletes than white, Jews better with money, or that Christians are more moral than non-Christians.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
We have more personality politics nowadays, and Farage is an example of this. He's seen as an anti-politician, a figure in contrast to the liberal political establishment, hence why attacks advocating a liberal establishment position are backfiring.
His/UKiIps success draws support from a number of groups with probably irreconcilable views (working-class labour, right wingers).
I think it is largely a reaction against a sense that the political parties are broadly the same (economically right, socially left), that change is happening (not for the better), exemplified by mass immigration, and that much the same thing will happen whoever one votes for.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
The basic problem for the Telegraph and Mail and so on is that they've been peddling the UKIP line of bullshit for donkeys years. Now UKIP have come along and are threatening to act on that line of bullshit, and in doing so are threatening to squeeze the Tories. Given that the Tory vote is a bit squeaky at the moment, the right-wing media is suddenly trying to put their genie back in the bottle. Their problem is that Farage is just saying all the stuff that they've been saying, but didn't expect anyone to do anything about.
There was a mayor of Vienna in the interwar years who campaigned on an anti-semitic platform, and then got alarmed when some people actually started taking that stuff he was saying seriously.
The Guardian and Independent aren't entirely blame-free: they've followed the herd in taking UKIP more seriously than the Greens, for example. But the Guardian doesn't need to argue against UKIP: it can presume that the average Guardian reader is diametrically opposed to UKIP on almost everything UKIP actually stands for.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Farage is a xenophobe, a racist, and someone whose party policies are vile.
The sheer desperation is highly amusing. Liberals having to face up to the fact that their outlook is not the only one around and perhaps it won't prevail.
We know it's the not the only one around. Let's all shout "hurrah for the Blackshirts", give massive tax cuts to the rich, frack everything in sight, roll back justice both here and abroad, gut the NHS and privatise everything that isn't already sold off. But it's okay if you want a massive increase in the armed forces and a doubling of our nuclear weapons. Just who the hell are we supposed to be fighting?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
So long as UKIP don't yield any power, then all they do is suck the right wing nutter vote away from the Tories. And diluting the Conservative vote is just about always a good thing.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
It is racist to assume that ......Christians are more moral than non-Christians.
Completely absurd statement.
Also absurd is Doc Tor's binary universe in which if you don't agree with him you must be a fracking blackshirt.
There's a certain amount of distortion going on of things that Farage has said. My understanding is that he's been banging on about the threat of Romanian criminal gangs and in that context was asked whether he would prefer to live next to a German family or Romanian men? Whether he is right or wrong about criminality from Romania, I hardly think he is saying that all Romanians are criminals. In fact that would be as absurd as Doc Tor's binary universe or the assertion that Christianity is a race.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
To take a benign example, two Jewish friends of mine moved to a tiny village in the depths of rural Warwickshire. Every one was very friendly. B was invited to join the Cricket Club. It was assumed that as a Jew he wouldn't want to play but might like to be club treasurer as he would be 'good with money', i.e. he was assumed to exemplify stereotypes associated with his 'race'.
Well haven't you just gone and stereotyped people who live in tiny villages. Do you really think that all of us rural types are completely unsophisticated, dense and xenophobic?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
But it's okay if you want a massive increase in the armed forces and a doubling of our nuclear weapons.
In the context of this thread, you seem to be implying that UKIP is militaristic.
Actually it's the liberal establishment which has been fomenting wars for years. Nigel Farage has spoken against this.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Leaving the over-the-top ad hominems aside which UKIP policies are so vile?
Vile isn't a word I'd use, and personally I think you need to start looking at the likes of the BNP to find policies where such language may be applied. There do appear to be some UKIP supporters who would interpret UKIP policies in a particularly vile way.
There are lots of UKIP policies I disagree with. As a brief summary:
Immigration and migration within the EU (two different issues IMO, but if UKIP drag us out of Europe they'll be the same). While I accept there are local issues where immigration into some parts of the country has created local housing and resource (eg: school places) this is a relatively minor problem, and more to do with national population disparities than immigration - why do so many people want to live in London and the surrounding areas? Pursue policies that actively encourage migration of business out of the SE corner of the country and people will follow - easing population pressure in London and increasing prosperity in other parts of the country at the same time. Of course, in Scotland the government is trying to actively encourage immigration to increase the work force to maintain services for the increasing retired population.
Migration in the EU works both ways. UK citizens are free to work elsewhere in Europe, and many do. If it's wrong for Poles to work in Britain, it's equally wrong for Brits to work in Poland. I wonder how many UKIP supporters have second homes in France, and do they realise they'd need visas and stuff to live there in retirement if UKIP drag us out of the EU?
In summary, UKIP policy is driven by the population pressure of a small part of the UK, ignoring the needs of other areas. It's short sighted and fails to appreciate the value of freedom of movement within Europe that so many UK citizens enjoy and benefit from. Where there aren't real issues with resources (most of the UK) UKIP policy only really appeals to various bigots who's objection to immigrants is simply "they're not like us".
Environment. UKIP environmental policy is frankly bizarre. They propose scrapping practically every environmental incentive going - the incentives that make creating renewable generation capacity economically sustainable, fuel duties to discourage excess private car use and support public transport, investment in public transport (it's woefully inadequate as it is, much less if it's chopped even more) including schemes like high speed rail that will help businesses relocate outside the overcrowded SE. As for abolishing CO2 reduction targets, it's almost as though 20+ years of high quality and incontravertable science that shows beyond doubt that human emissions of greenhouse gases are dangerously high doesn't exist.
That's just two issues I have enormous problems with. I've already said I'd like a significant reform of the EU, which isn't UKIP policy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Spawn -
Great posts!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There's a certain amount of distortion going on of things that Farage has said. My understanding is that he's been banging on about the threat of Romanian criminal gangs and in that context was asked whether he would prefer to live next to a German family or Romanian men?
If that is the way the question was framed, he was very, very silly to answer it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Also absurd is Doc Tor's binary universe in which if you don't agree with him you must be a fracking blackshirt.
Nope. There's plenty of perfectly decent people to the right of me. Who knows, you may even be one of them.
But - if you look approvingly at UKIP policies, then yes, I have a problem with that. Why, precisely, do we need another four nuclear-armed submarines at a cost of tens of billions? Why, precisely, do we need to give those earning over £50k a 10p in the pound tax cut? Why, precisely, are we against the European arrest warrant which we use with remarkable regularity to get our old lags back from Spain and into court? Why, precisely, are renewable energy alternatives bad, and coal-fired power stations good? Why, precisely, are they against maternity leave and the job security that comes with it?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There's a certain amount of distortion going on of things that Farage has said. My understanding is that he's been banging on about the threat of Romanian criminal gangs and in that context was asked whether he would prefer to live next to a German family or Romanian men?
If that is the way the question was framed, he was very, very silly to answer it.
'Silly' - pretty much the worst thing you can say about him. like Boris, he has a habit of saying silly things. it's the anti-politics thing that people seem to like. But trying to paint him as a bad, evil, or racist man is a step too far.
[ 21. May 2014, 10:54: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There's a certain amount of distortion going on of things that Farage has said. My understanding is that he's been banging on about the threat of Romanian criminal gangs and in that context was asked whether he would prefer to live next to a German family or Romanian men?
If that is the way the question was framed, he was very, very silly to answer it.
'Silly' - pretty much the worst thing you can say about him. like Boris, he has a habit of saying silly things. it's the anti-politics thing that people seem to like. But trying to paint him as a bad, evil, or racist man is a step too far.
But the reason I'm saying it's silly is because it opened him up to accusations of racism.
There are two alternatives - either that he really is racist, or that he's too foolish to avoid an obvious trap to depict him as racist. I'm not sure either of those alternatives is a great alternative in politics.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I don't think we have to paint him as anything. Just hand him the brush, and he'll do a perfectly good job of showing what he's made of, as the recent LBC interview showed.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. There's plenty of perfectly decent people to the right of me. Who knows, you may even be one of them.
But - if you look approvingly at UKIP policies, then yes, I have a problem with that. Why, precisely, do we need another four nuclear-armed submarines at a cost of tens of billions? Why, precisely, do we need to give those earning over £50k a 10p in the pound tax cut? Why, precisely, are we against the European arrest warrant which we use with remarkable regularity to get our old lags back from Spain and into court? Why, precisely, are renewable energy alternatives bad, and coal-fired power stations good? Why, precisely, are they against maternity leave and the job security that comes with it?
Their manifesto counts for diddly-squat because they are a party of protest not power. By all means pick apart their manifesto if they are within sight of forming a government. On taxation plenty of Tories take the same view. To take one example, there is nothing sacred about 50 per cent or even 45 per cent rate. Gordon Brown had a 40 per cent rate for about a decade. I
On the European arrest warrant - this is the party that wants to take us out of Europe? Do you think we'll get to keep the European Arrest Warrant when the whole edifice comes crashing down? One moment they are in favour of fracking everywhere and then you are criticising them for favouring dirty coal. It looks to me that they support a balanced energy policy but who cares because they are not going to be running the country. Same goes for their policy to get rid of some red tape for small businesses. It is not going to happen.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But - if you look approvingly at UKIP policies, then yes, I have a problem with that. Why, precisely, do we need another four nuclear-armed submarines at a cost of tens of billions?
See, I sort of agree with where you're coming from. As an ex-RN officer I apply the defence test to party manifestos because it's the thing I have the deepest understanding of. I don't mean that I see whether or not I agree with/approve of what they're saying, so much as does it make sense?
In the case of the UKIP manifesto, what they're not saying here is, we need 8 nuclear armed nuclear submarines at all, they're saying we need to replace the 4 we've got like-for-like at the end of their lives. That's identical to Conservative policy, and when it comes down to it it's identical to Labour policy. It differs from the Lib Dems and Greens.
The Conservatives want it because they think it makes them strong on defence, Labour will do it regardless of internal dissent because when it comes down to it they don't want to be outflanked by the Tories on defence, and neither do they want to make everyone in Barrow in Furness (where they build them), Devonport (where they maintain them), or Faslane (where they're based) redundant at a stroke.
All of which is a totally different argument to whether we should have nuclear weapons at all. So, UKIP aren't saying anything out of the ordinary here, and they're emphatically *NOT* saying double the bomber boat force.
All of which is by the by. Where, applying my defence test, they're getting into the realms of fantasy is much more (off the top of my head, because I've read the 2010 manifesto so you don't have to, and it appears to have been removed from the web but these gems stuck in my mind for four years...):
"keeping open Britain's three naval bases at Rosyth, Portsmouth and Plymouth" - er Nige, I think you mean Faslane, Rosyth closed in the mid 1990s....
So they've got a policy to keep open a closed naval base, or, more charitably, they've just confused it with a different one on the opposite coast of Scotland....
Restoring traditional regiments - loony cap badge politics, but justified by their belief that the regimental amalgamations have been to prepare the forces to be subsumed into "planned European battlegroups" - tinfoil hattery alert...
Interestingly, they appear to have taken down the last defence policy consultation paper that they published earlier this year (or at least they've hidden it very well). That was talking about not renewing Trident at all, but fitting nuclear cruise missiles onto conventional submarines. Actually the LiB Dems have been mulling the same thing, but it suggests (whether or not you want nuclear weapons at all) that they have no idea about
- the comprehensive test ban treaty
- nuclear cruise is outlawed by international treaty because it would increase proliferation and the likelihood of some idiot using the damn things (small payload attacks rather than MAD)
- no one else is doing it so the UK would have to completely re-design a new warhead rather than sharing costs with the US - so it could actually be more expensive than just buying son-of-trident
- a wilful lack of understanding of the difference between bomber boats and fleet boats, and why not routinely arming fleet boats with nukes could actually lead to escalation at times of international tension - making things a whole lot worse.
I could go on.
Anyway, I think wanting to renew Trident is a perfectly legitimate position to take, it's the actual fruitcakery suggesting they don't know what they're talking about or own a map of the UK which bothers me...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
This is not original to me but I think sums things up perfectly:
Nigel Farage is not a racist is the same way a wasp is not a Coke can.
AFZ
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
A thread like this makes me long for ken to burst Farage's balloon with some carefully aimed facts.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Sorry, I should probably clarify re-reading that that nuclear cruise isn't actually banned per se, but SALT II (or strategic arms limitation treaty II for non-students of the Cold War) does hedge their use to such an extent (for the reasons I gave) that it would be actually more of a waste of money than strategic weaponry.
No one wants to use strategic weaponry, but when it comes down to it we haven't actually signed anything that says we won't. SALT II would make it very difficult to develop, test or use sub-strategic nuclear weaponry (particularly to a new design), and would fly in the face of post Cold War British nuclear docrine since the retirement of the free-fall nuclear bomb from the RAF, and the Lance tactical missile from the British Army.
I'm agnostic about whether or not we should have nuclear weapons, but I do think the conversation should be about maintaining a strategic weapon or not having them; not the apparent UKIP or LibDem (Coalition agreement investigation mode) superficially attractive idea of "let's just have smaller ones as a compromise - I mean, that must be cheaper and safer right?" No to both actually.
Like I say, my test is not "do I agree with what they're saying about something I know about, so much as does what they're saying make any sense?"
UKIP fail it for me, epically.
Other views may differ.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And every racist proverbally has several best friends who are black.
Yes, so they all say.
I think there's a business opportunity there. An organisation for putting right-wing political candidates in contact with members of minority groups (black, Muslim, disabled, all the varieties of queer...) who are prepared to rent out their friendship on a per hour basis. Sort of like an escort agency, but more immoral.
If I could get Farage to endorse it, I'd be made.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Their manifesto counts for diddly-squat because they are a party of protest not power.
Actually, it counts for an awful lot. While they might not be (yet) in a position to put any of it into practice, I can reasonably assume that people who vote UKIP do so because at least some of their policies are attractive to them. I know then who to avoid.
Also, fracking and coal-fired power stations are not mutually exclusive. 'Balanced energy policy' it isn't. Reminds me of the plaintive cry "what if we created a clean, renewable energy future, and we didn't have to?"
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Their manifesto counts for diddly-squat because they are a party of protest not power.
Well, one assumes that they aren't created by amalgamating scribbles on various pieces of paper - so it gives an insight into their thought processes. Whilst not as severely barmy as previous UKIP manifesto it still indicates that a number of members have issues with thinking logically.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In grossly simplistic terms, every manifesto has two parts - "this what we think is wrong" and "this is how we'll do things better". The "what we think is wrong" is important for all parties. For those with no chance of political power, the "what we're going to do" doesn't mean very much - which is probably why in most cases it's totally unrealistic, they don't need to propose something that will actually work.
UKIP is looking for the protest votes, those who broadly agree with their assessment of what's wrong.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Actually, it counts for an awful lot. While they might not be (yet) in a position to put any of it into practice, I can reasonably assume that people who vote UKIP do so because at least some of their policies are attractive to them. I know then who to avoid.
As usual, Alan puts it a lot better than I do. Quite simply it is what UKIP is against which counts. So you can expect the high point of their polling at council elections and European elections and the low point at General Elections.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Actually, it counts for an awful lot. While they might not be (yet) in a position to put any of it into practice, I can reasonably assume that people who vote UKIP do so because at least some of their policies are attractive to them. I know then who to avoid.
As usual, Alan puts it a lot better than I do. Quite simply it is what UKIP is against which counts. So you can expect the high point of their polling at council elections and European elections and the low point at General Elections.
Actually Alan's point is rather irrelevant to the current discussion for the reasons that Doc Tor identifies. It still gives you an indication as to the sorts of people their party is comprised of and what their thought processes are.
Imagine two parties both of which wanted out of Europe. One of which proposed a 90% tax and re-nationalisation of all utilities, the other proposes a 20% tax and an end to the welfare state. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that there was no substantive difference between the two.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Yes, and UKIP are against furrins, clean energy, workers' (especially womens') rights, and anything starting with "Eu-". My point stands.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Actually Alan's point is rather irrelevant to the current discussion for the reasons that Doc Tor identifies. It still gives you an indication as to the sorts of people their party is comprised of and what their thought processes are.
Well you hardly need to read a UKIP manifesto to realise that they are of the right. On the other hand, my next door neighbour spends an inordinate amount of time campaigning for them but tells me he's a Socialist. My argument is that the UKIP showing in the polls tomorrow will have nothing whatsoever to do with what's in their manifesto (it's only been read by half a dozen right-wing, swivelling loons and countless scores of drooling left-wing anoraks). It will be to do with an inchoate unease about mass immigration, Europe and politics as usual.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My understanding is that [Farage] been banging on about the threat of Romanian criminal gangs and in that context was asked whether he would prefer to live next to a German family or Romanian men?
Apparently, the percentage of all prisoners in England and Wales who are Romanian (as at 31/12/13) is 0.6%, whereas the percentage of individuals who have served as a UKIP MEP who were subsequently improsoned is 9.1%.
I know who I'd prefer to live next to.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My argument is that the UKIP showing in the polls tomorrow will have nothing whatsoever to do with what's in their manifesto
That again is irrelevant. UKIPs manifesto is entirely written by UKIP themselves, and it therefore tells you something about UKIP ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
In this case, the fact a large amount of it is simply incoherent and/or reactionary is a good indication of how their party is likely to be run.
[ 21. May 2014, 13:47: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That again is irrelevant. UKIPs manifesto is entirely written by UKIP themselves, and it therefore tells you something about UKIP
In this case, the fact a large amount of it is simply incoherent and/or reactionary is a good indication of how their party is likely to be run.
It might tell you something about the people who wrote the manifesto in 2010 (though probably not as much as you think) but not necessarily a lot about their activists in 2014, and certainly not much about people prepared to vote for them tomorrow.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
