Ship of Fools: R.I.P. Common sense, hope and fair reporting

Thread: R.I.P. Common sense, hope and fair reporting Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028055

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

So Rochester has elected a UKIP MP. Because a portion of the electorate is clearly stupid there.

And this is a "major victory for UKIP", getting a sitting MP re-elected despite having shifted his views slightly to the right. If they can actually elect people standing against sitting MPs, that would be more significant. They are still a bunch of complete wankers though, and I strongly suspect that they will lose out at the general next year.

And apparently there is a non-existent part in fourth place, because their results seem not to be reported. In this report, Labour were ahead of them, in other reports, the Libdems were behind them. I wonder who they are?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I'm ecstatic. There is a very good chance that Mark Reckless will live up to his name.

Previously he has been a rather anonymous Tory MP, but now the spotlight is shining on him. In the run-up to the vote he had to withdraw a couple of statements about Polish plumbers and whether EU immigrants were to be allowed to stay or not. He has nearly six months left to make himself and UKIP look stupid and while Douglas Carswell is reasonably clued up, I don't think this clown is. I think Farage will clap him in irons and, as far as possible, keep him out of the limelight.

For stupidity however he has a rival in a neat bit of stereotyping by the former Shadow Attorney-General.. For goodness sake, in politics, if you're not sure what to say, say nothing.

[ 21. November 2014, 12:05: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Reckless would probably have got in anyway. The Conservative voters already knew him, whereas the new candidate is a relative unknown. I suspect this election was more about personalities than parties.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Fourth in line was The Green Party, with an increase of about 3% from last time. Poor old Councillor Juby (Lib-Dem) received only about 350 votes, having apparently been completely abandoned by the pathetic so-called 'leadership' of his party. IIRC (not having the exact figures to hand), Greens polled about five times as many as him......

I remarked recently that I was fed up with seeing Reckless' face on the backs of our local buses. An acquaintance wondered if I'd rather see Reckless undera bus.......

......but I think it should be illegal for a defecting MP to stand for the same seat on behalf of the party to which he has prostituted himself.

The Tory candidate, a local lass (lives near me) rather new to the business, did quite well, all things considered, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if she won the seat back in 2015.

Meanwhile, a plague on all their houses, and especially on the Kipperbox.

Ian J.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

Private Eye sums it up nicely.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So Rochester has elected a UKIP MP. Because a portion of the electorate is clearly stupid there.

Ah, so you're taking a leaf out of Emily Thornberry's book: don't like the voters, so slag them off? Whilst I am no fan of UKIP or their policies, dishing out ad homines on their voters, albeit in Hell, rather than seeking to address some of the concerns which might have led them to vote in that way, is scarcely going to win hearts and minds.

Anyway, this seat, together with that of Clacton, will turn from purple to blue again in six months; to win a by-election on a significant protest vote is one thing, to win a seat in a general election is quite another.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

[Killing me]

At least we can now get our High Street back - it's been awash with politicos (sp?)for weeks, and walking along it has been a positive health hazard.........

*sigh* ....but I suppose they'll all be back next May...... [Help]

Ian J.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So Rochester has elected a UKIP MP. Because a portion of the electorate is clearly stupid there.

Ah, so you're taking a leaf out of Emily Thornberry's book: don't like the voters, so slag them off?

SC is absolutely right: precisely 49% of the electorate are clearly stupid, because despite the polls being open all day, they found they couldn't spare 5 minutes to put an X on a piece of paper and stick it in a box.

Fuck 'em. They got what they deserved.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Ah well, in that case I agree. I though he meant those exercising their democratic right who might have - shock horror! - voted in a way he didn't like...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because a portion of the electorate is SC is absolutely right: precisely 49% of the electorate are clearly stupid, because despite the polls being open all day, they found they couldn't spare 5 minutes to put an X on a piece of paper and stick it in a box.

Not stupid. Either lazy ("can't be bothered") or, more likely disengaged ("doesn't matter what I vote, they're all the same anyway"). We're experiencing a real disconnection by many people from the political process.

[ 21. November 2014, 15:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Indeed - though, by our usual local standards (pretty abysmal, IMHO) it was a fairly high turnout.

Ian J.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Not stupid. Either lazy ("can't be bothered") or, more likely disengaged ("doesn't matter what I vote, they're all the same anyway").

Story of the past twenty years in politics:
Labour does its best to demonstrate that they're all the same anyway; Tories successfully demonstrate that they're not the same at all.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

A portion of the electorate are stupid - the ones who voted for the UKIP candidate, because they think UKIP are a good party. Sorry, but I think stupid is appropriate, because they clearly have no real idea what they actually stand for.

A portion of the electorate is stupid because they didn't bother voting.

I don't have a problem with people voting for a candidate I don't like. I don't have a problem with people who cannot get out to vote. I do have a problem with those who make politics so bland and meaningless that this can happen.

I don't mean - ever - that everyone who votes for people I don't like are stupid. I mean a portion of the electorate are stupid because we have a stupid system, and this allows extremist parties to have successes.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
A portion of the electorate are stupid - the ones who voted for the UKIP candidate, because they think UKIP are a good party. Sorry, but I think stupid is appropriate, because they clearly have no real idea what they actually stand for.

I dunno. This isn't something I would do myself, but I can understand a mindset that says "I am really pissed off with the Tories; in this by-election I will vote for a kipper, to send a signal of my pissed-off-ness, because he will be one of 2 MPs and have exactly zero power; then come May they may have come to their senses and I will vote for them again."

It's a dangerous plan, but it's a plan.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

If I wanted to protest against the present sorry lot, I'd vote Green myself, but that's just me.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
A portion of the electorate are stupid

They deserve representation too. [Biased]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Well, quite, otherwise we sound like neo-cons complaining when electorates in the Arab world vote for people they don't like...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There are lots of stupid people - Ms Thornberry for example, apparently disdaining the kind of voter that Labour should be gagging for.

I can find little that is sensible or hopeful in all of this. English politics has become a complete dog's breakfast now. I suppose it's not stupidity at the back of it, but fear, confusion,and so on.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are lots of stupid people - Ms Thornberry for example, apparently disdaining the kind of voter that Labour should be gagging for.

I can find little that is sensible or hopeful in all of this. English politics has become a complete dog's breakfast now. I suppose it's not stupidity at the back of it, but fear, confusion,and so on.

Stupidity is there, but it's mostly old fashioned greed and selfishness. Anyway, you name any aspect of sin, and you can point to some evil or another. It has always been thus.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Voters always get the representation they deserve.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are lots of stupid people - Ms Thornberry for example, apparently disdaining the kind of voter that Labour should be gagging for.

I can find little that is sensible or hopeful in all of this. English politics has become a complete dog's breakfast now. I suppose it's not stupidity at the back of it, but fear, confusion,and so on.
Stupidity is there, but it's mostly old fashioned greed and selfishness. Anyway, you name any aspect of sin, and you can point to some evil or another. It has always been thus.

That's true, but I think that the degree of alienation today seems radical. Not just between politicians and voters, but politicians themselves are all over the place. Everyone has moved to the right, I suppose, except the Greens and the SNP. The centre cannot hold, blah blah blah.

Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :

Can anyone explain what was so bad about Thornberry's tweet? At face value it's a picture of someone's house, noting which town it's in. Seriously, what am I missing?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

For a start, she got the town wrong. It's Strood.

Second, despite that she said very little about the place, other people were able to read a lot into it that she may not have intended. She should have paid attention to a little internal voice saying "Other people may attribute meaning to the choice of white van and flags that won't do you any good." If she had no voice, that would be a problem in a politician.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Voters always get the representation they deserve.

Not necessarily. If the voting system is not fair, we might not. If there is no real choice, we don't get the system we deserve.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I keep forgetting. What do white vans represent again? Because on this side of the pond, a white van is a van is a van, and all we'd care about the color is whether you have to wash it more often.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The white van is involved in the defining of "white van man", a person not working for the sort of company which can afford to have it sign written, possibly working for himself doing a bit of this and a bit of that in the black economy. There is an assumption that he only buys the sort of newspaper that is full of pictures of underdressed women, and is given to shouting out crudely sexist remarks at any woman in earshot. He is also expected to break the speed limit, shoot red lights, park on pavements (sidewalks), and generally ignore the highway code. In short, he is a sexist, rather stupid person who is probably not, as far as the law is concerned, squeaky clean.
Stereotyped, in fact. Oh, and I forgot to mention he's probably white.

[ 21. November 2014, 19:16: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I keep forgetting. What do white vans represent again? Because on this side of the pond, a white van is a van is a van, and all we'd care about the color is whether you have to wash it more often.

It's worth understanding this a bit, because it's relevant to a pecularly British form of dereliction.

Most people are aware of what the phrase "moral panic" means. But the original work which defined that concept looked at two related ideas. The other one was called "The Folk Devil". White van man is a folk devil.

quote:
Folk devil is a person or group of people who are portrayed in folklore or the media as outsiders and deviant, and who are blamed for crimes or other sorts of social problems; see also: scapegoat.

The pursuit of folk devils frequently intensifies into a mass movement that is called a moral panic. When a moral panic is in full swing, the folk devils are the subject of loosely organized but pervasive campaigns of hostility through gossip and the spreading of urban legends. The mass media sometimes get in on the act or attempt to create new folk devils in an effort to promote controversy. Sometimes the campaign against the folk devil influences a nation's politics and legislation.

I think that's about as much as I can quote in one go. More here (Wikipedia).

In practice, the real white van man bears little resemblance to his stereotype. He seems fairly normal (genuine research), and better than some. Certainly a lot better than most who populate the political class, who still seem not to have noticed the widespread disaffection with them.

Fans of semiotics - not to mention psychology - will understand.

[ 21. November 2014, 21:56: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by cattyish (# 7829) on :

I'll be interested to see when we next have a turnout for any vote like the recent Scottish referendum turnout which impressed me way more than any of the nonsense spouted about which way we should all be hoodwinked, emotionally blackmailed or bribed into voting.

Cattish, remembering that as I left the polling station, "Won't Get Fooled Again" came on my ipod.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

In addition to the white van, there's perhaps also the view amongst people like Lady Nugee (as Emily Thornberry prefers not to be called) that anyone who displays a St George's flag (never mind three) is some kind of backward racist. George Orwell's words are probably still apt today:

quote:
In left-wing circles it is always  felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman  and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse  racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably  true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of  standing to attention during 'God save the King' than of stealing from a  poor box.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

On a day when the best thing a Labour MP could do would be to keep quiet, keep their head down and watch the Tories squirm, how can this stupid woman give the neo-Nazi press something to divert peoples' attention from the Tory train wreck?

Brainless doesn't begin to describe her. I have to wonder if she's really a Tory mole.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Oscar, if you can tell the difference between the government and opposition front benches, do let me know. It seems to be no more than tie colour.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
[H]ow can this stupid woman give the neo-Nazi press something to divert peoples' attention from the Tory train wreck?

Has the Völkischer Beobachter enjoyed unexpected popularity in Britain or something?

Lady Nugee's train wreck has succeed in diverting attention from a deeper Labour problem: Labour held this seat* until 2010. They need to win in places like this in order to form a government and yet they've managed only 17% of the vote.

*Possibly on slightly different boundaries, but I think my point still stands.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Lady Nugee (as Emily Thornberry prefers not to be called)

I never realised that she was a "Lady" ... it always strikes me as a really outdated and even sexist concept that the wife of a Lord automatically becomes a Lady, especially when the reverse is not the case. So good on her for not using it!

(Not that this changes the main issue in this debate, of Labour losing touch with its core constituency).

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Her husband is Sir Christopher Nugee, a High Court judge.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

ISTM that the two main political parties that have dominated UK political since WW1 have somehow given a foothold to a fringe party and now they have not a clue as to how to stop it from gaining ground.
It's beginning to resemble a feeling among Europeans that existed 100 yrs ago and that alone makes it more than a little unsettling.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
ISTM that the two main political parties that have dominated UK political since WW1 have somehow given a foothold to a fringe party and now they have not a clue as to how to stop it from gaining ground.
It's beginning to resemble a feeling among Europeans that existed 100 yrs ago and that alone makes it more than a little unsettling.

Something like this happened back in the 1980's when the Labour Party was subject to a similar split when a substantial element of its right-wing jumped ship to form the Social Democratic Party. Until the next general election it carried all before in be-elections and opinion polls.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are lots of stupid people - Ms Thornberry for example, apparently disdaining the kind of voter that Labour should be gagging for.

I can find little that is sensible or hopeful in all of this. English politics has become a complete dog's breakfast now. I suppose it's not stupidity at the back of it, but fear, confusion,and so on.
Stupidity is there, but it's mostly old fashioned greed and selfishness. Anyway, you name any aspect of sin, and you can point to some evil or another. It has always been thus.
That's true, but I think that the degree of alienation today seems radical. Not just between politicians and voters, but politicians themselves are all over the place. Everyone has moved to the right, I suppose, except the Greens and the SNP. The centre cannot hold, blah blah blah.

Whenever I feel despair at the state of politics in the UK, I read up on what is happening t'other side of the Pond and things don't seem so bad.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Something like this happened back in the 1980's when the Labour Party was subject to a similar split when a substantial element of its right-wing jumped ship to form the Social Democratic Party. Until the next general election it carried all before in by-elections and opinion polls.

Remember it well SS. Everyone thought Labour would never govern again. Also very similar in that there was much media enthusiasm at the time. Now it's a case of Dr. david Who? crying in the wilderness.
If this UKIP thing is media driven it will surely fizzle. If however it really is a symptom of simmering discontent over the future reality of a United States of Europe it will not.

Europe has been a powder-keg for Centuries and the EU has successfully provided the bung for the past 60 yrs. Anyone who believes that mother doesn't have the potential to blow in the future, whether they're a fat-cat or a thin-cat, has come to take European peace and harmony for granted.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Splitter!

It looks like some cracks are emerging between Nigel Farage (leader of UKIP, has never been elected to Parliament) and Mark Reckless (now elected to Parliament twice, for different parties.

This doesn't look good for Farage, UKIP or Reckless for that matter. Moreover some of those who voted for UKIP will now be thinking 'Look, are you going to keep them out or aren't you? All political parties change policies, but if UKIP give the impression of doing it in reaction to every event, any credibility they will have had will evaporate.

There is clearly a God, and He has been listening to my prayers.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Story of the past twenty years in politics:
Labour does its best to demonstrate that they're all the same anyway; Tories successfully demonstrate that they're not the same at all.

Brilliant

As for Thornberry: her label for the picture was completely noncommittal, so anyone who reads contempt into it should look to themselves. In the context of that day, it might simply have meant: 'UKIP will probably carry the day here". To say she was disrespecting the working class is ridiculous - and pretty fucking rich, coming from the Sun - as if all working class people drape their houses in flags. The Sun was trying to distract from a Tory defeat and Miliband played right into their hands. He should have told them to fuck off.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The BBC building in Portman Place had "UKIP headquarters" and "Ministry of Truth" type graffiti sprayed on it when I wandered past last night. The old bit of Portland stone. I meant to take pictures but it was raining. Someone somewhere definitely thinks it's a media campaign.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
As for Thornberry: her label for the picture was completely noncommittal, so anyone who reads contempt into it should look to themselves. In the context of that day, it might simply have meant: 'UKIP will probably carry the day here".

Was it non-committal? If one is a politician on the campaign trail and one takes the time to single out one particular house on a public forum, isn't one making some comment about it? And if the message was 'UKIP will win here', doesn't that say something about Thornberry and the Labour Party, that driving a white van / being a West Ham fan / supporting England are inimical to voting Labour?

quote:
To say she was disrespecting the working class is ridiculous - and pretty fucking rich, coming from the Sun - as if all working class people drape their houses in flags. The Sun was trying to distract from a Tory defeat and Miliband played right into their hands. He should have told them to fuck off.

Nice attempt to shift the focus on to the Sun, but criticism didn't come from some demonic 'right-wing press':

quote:
Simon Danczuk, Labour MP:
Everyone will know exactly what she meant by that comment.

I think she was being derogatory and dismissive of the people. We all know what she was trying to imply.

I’ve talked about this previously. It’s like the Labour party has been hijacked by the north London liberal elite and it’s comments like that which reinforce that view.

I want to see more people flying the British flag.

quote:
John Mann, Labour MP:
It insults people like me, it insults the people I know, my friends and family, Labour voters across the country, because white vans, England flags, they’re Labour values and actually pretty routine Labour values for most of us.

Should Ed Miliband tell them to fuck off, too?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

*didn't only come from, &c.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

I know I'm not alone in wondering what Simon Danczuk is doing in the Labour party. To his credit, he does seem to be taking action on the historical child abuse investigation, so I guess he's a man of integrity, but it seems he really believes that anyone to the left of Blair is either a Stalinist or a Trotskyist. I think he's wrong. And I also think suggesting that any leading figure in the Labour party holds ordinary working people in contempt is not only wrong but also very silly.

Both Milliband and Danczuk seem to be making the same mistake over the Murdoch press; it's a mistake Blair also made and it wrecked his integrity in the process. There's no point in trying to cosy up to Murdoch; the only way to deal with him and his minions is to know what you stand for and tough it out.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

..and John Mann? He's not exactly a Blairite, is he?

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Both Milliband and Danczuk seem to be making the same mistake over the Murdoch press; it's a mistake Blair also made and it wrecked his integrity in the process. There's no point in trying to cosy up to Murdoch; the only way to deal with him and his minions is to know what you stand for and tough it out.

There you go again. What has Rupert Murdoch got to do with this? A shadow cabinet minister tweeted a photograph. People on Twitter got riled at it and created a fuss. That fuss made its way into the press and mainstream media. I struggle to see evidence of some kind of shady goings-on here.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There you go again. What has Rupert Murdoch got to do with this? A shadow cabinet minister tweeted a photograph. People on Twitter got riled at it and created a fuss. That fuss made its way into the press and mainstream media. I struggle to see evidence of some kind of shady goings-on here.

I think the italicised part rather answers that question. Not every bullshit twitter storm makes its way to the front page of Murdoch's red-topped rag, but this one did. I suspect the reason for that has an awful lot to do with revenge for Labour promising to implement the findings of Leveson.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Seriously?!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Journalists were saying that Murdoch wants revenge on both Tories and Labour for Leveson, plus the police, plus anybody else involved.

I have no idea if this is true or not; and it may be true that currently, Murdoch is more hostile to Labour.

Plus the UKIP factor - does the Sun support them? Both anti-EU, I think.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

It could also be that Thornberry acted like an idiot and that is considered newsworthy.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It could also be that Thornberry acted like an idiot and that is considered newsworthy.

There is certainly a febrile atmosphere now; I suppose it will get worse from now on, and you can expect an all-out political assassination of Miliband.

I think Murdoch pretends that he influences politics, but as far as I can see, he tends to follow after the results, e.g. in Scotland.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It could also be that Thornberry acted like an idiot and that is considered newsworthy.

Except that she did almost nothing wrong (showing someone's number plate is a bit of a faux pas). She made no derogatory or offensive statement about the house and has in fact posted at least one picture of a flag-bedecked house with a positive message. Those who object are looking to be offended - a Muslim friend of mine commented that had the "victim" been non-white then the papers would have been full of "political correctness gone mad" stories instead had the same result happened.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I'd expect an all-out political assassination of Ed Miliband regardless of whether Murdoch owns the Sun and the Times.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It could also be that Thornberry acted like an idiot and that is considered newsworthy.
Except that she did almost nothing wrong (showing someone's number plate is a bit of a faux pas). She made no derogatory or offensive statement about the house and has in fact posted at least one picture of a flag-bedecked house with a positive message. Those who object are looking to be offended - a Muslim friend of mine commented that had the "victim" been non-white then the papers would have been full of "political correctness gone mad" stories instead had the same result happened.

I think that's incredibly naive and, as we've seen, a number of her Labour MP colleagues don't buy that story either.

And if there wasn't intended to be any derogatory statement about the house, why on earth did she tweet the photograph?

[ 23. November 2014, 14:47: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Meanwhile, back on the subject of the OP, Nick Robinson of the BBC has interviewed Nigel Farage and he has had some interesting replies.

Farage wants to cut taxes for lower paid workers, but tax cuts usually benefit those who pay more tax. Maybe Farage intends to put a tapering tax allowance in place so that those earning, £15,000 have a allowance of £15,000 so they pay no tax while the allowance is reduced until at some higher figure one pays tax on all of one's income. That 'taper' is actually a substantial part of the basis for Working Tax Credit which UKIP opposes (or did when I last saw a UKIP election leaflet).

Farage also wants to cut public spending and is now against increased private involvement in the NHS. That latter is a simple policy switch, apparently done by Farage without reference to the party faithful.

I sometimes think the LibDems are opportunists and the coalition has found them out in any number of ways, but UKIP are opportunists with no policy base, and they have yet to get involved in anything to test them. The sooner that happens the better it will be.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I think it was naive. You have to calculate how something will be received; and one day before the by-election, where UKIP are expected to win, what the fuck do you expect to be made of a photo of a white van with England flags?

It's called nous, and right now, Labour seem very short of it. But so does everybody else!

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Murdoch pretends that he influences politics, but as far as I can see, he tends to follow after the results, e.g. in Scotland.

Yes, he's quite clever at doing that. The claim in 1997 that it was The Sun "wot won it" is a case in point. Sadly, it seems the politicians have fallen for it, because - yes - Sun readers are important, but the rag itself? Maybe not so much.

Twitter storm? Funnily enough "#Cameron Must Go" has been trending since about 6pm yesterday and was still going strong last time I looked, yet has scarcely rated a mention, but a few people drawing extremely questionable conclusions about Thornberry (2+2=22) and the press were all over it.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Twitter storm? Funnily enough "#Cameron Must Go" has been trending since about 6pm yesterday and was still going strong last time I looked, yet has scarcely rated a mention,

But it's presumably the usual suspects?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Meanwhile, back on the subject of the OP, Nick Robinson of the BBC has interviewed Nigel Farage and he has had some interesting replies.

Farage wants to cut taxes for lower paid workers, but tax cuts usually benefit those who pay more tax. Maybe Farage intends to put a tapering tax allowance in place so that those earning, £15,000 have a allowance of £15,000 so they pay no tax while the allowance is reduced until at some higher figure one pays tax on all of one's income. That 'taper' is actually a substantial part of the basis for Working Tax Credit which UKIP opposes (or did when I last saw a UKIP election leaflet).

Farage also wants to cut public spending and is now against increased private involvement in the NHS. That latter is a simple policy switch, apparently done by Farage without reference to the party faithful.

I sometimes think the LibDems are opportunists and the coalition has found them out in any number of ways, but UKIP are opportunists with no policy base, and they have yet to get involved in anything to test them. The sooner that happens the better it will be.

There was an interesting article by Rawnsley in the Guardian, who argued that the worst thing for UKIP now is to be taken seriously. In other words, at the moment, people accept that their policies change from one day to the next; normally, that would be seen as chaotic and unelectable.

So UKIP are having a sort of honeymoon; but if they start being taken seriously, then the shit might hit the fan. Yes, we will deport immigrants, no we won't; yes, we support privatization in health, no we don't, and so on.

Rawnsley also made the sardonic comment, that the LibDems had always hoped for a multi-party system - now they have it, and they are being massacred.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

The parallel with the Lib Dems is presumably quite apt? They got a long way without a lot of detailed scrutiny of their policies by the press (and they managed to play the whole 'plague on both your houses' card for a very long time). Once in government, they became subject to that scrutiny.

I think the scrutiny will come to UKIP at some point, but it's a question of when. It might be that they have to reach a certain strength but it happens. If UKIP is essentially the Nigel Farage Party (and I think it probably is) there will surely come a point when it must implode in on itself.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The parallel with the Lib Dems is presumably quite apt? They got a long way without a lot of detailed scrutiny of their policies by the press (and they managed to play the whole 'plague on both your houses' card for a very long time). Once in government, they became subject to that scrutiny.

I think the scrutiny will come to UKIP at some point, but it's a question of when. It might be that they have to reach a certain strength but it happens. If UKIP is essentially the Nigel Farage Party (and I think it probably is) there will surely come a point when it must implode in on itself.

I think that's right. At the moment, it's fantasy politics, which people are enjoying, also because it discomforts the big parties, which people are in a mood to do.

But UKIP's political prospectus is utterly chaotic; but of course, they can rely on their anti-EU message, and a kind of covert 'kick the blacks out' message. Oh, hang on, no, we like the blacks, it's the Poles we want out; oh hang on, we like the Poles, it's the fucking gypsies, blah blah blah.

LibDems are a brilliant example of fantasy turning to ash in your mouth. I think Tories and Labour are used to this, and tend to bounce back.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Twitter storm? Funnily enough "#Cameron Must Go" has been trending since about 6pm yesterday and was still going strong last time I looked, yet has scarcely rated a mention,
But it's presumably the usual suspects?

Well, quite: what people on Twitter think really matters - except when they're people we disagree with.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I think a lot of Twitter is a left-wing echo chamber in which self-righteous lefties get indignant with other self-righteous lefties. To me, all that #Cameronmustgo represents is that, for a time, they've managed to coalesce around one hashtag. I don't think that's particularly noteworthy.

I clicked onto the hashtag in the trending pane and a number of the tweets and photos that came up were by 'Dr' Eoin Clarke and Jack Monroe.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think the LibDems thought that by being in a coalition, they would have some power. In fact, they seem to have none, and so get all of the flak for not getting their policies through, because they should have power. They have, I think, negotiated their coalition badly, and are really paying for it.

I think UKIP will start having problems when someone challenges Farage for the leadership. Given that he is not in fact an MP, that could happen - if one of the MPs decided they want control. If he isn't an MP after the next election, I would be very surprised if nobody challenges him*.

At the moment, UKIP policy seems to be whatever Nigel decides it is. Given that they don't bother turning up in Europe, they have no power in any local council, and no influence in parliament, it really doesn't matter that they have no consistent policy. A leadership challenge would expose their lack of actual purpose and meaning.

*And no, I am aware that this is not a necessity, as the Green Party leader is not an MP. However the UK parliament is where they are focusing, so that is where their leader should be, not failing to turn up for his European parliament seat.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think a lot of Twitter is a left-wing echo chamber in which self-righteous lefties get indignant with other self-righteous lefties. To me, all that #Cameronmustgo represents is that, for a time, they've managed to coalesce around one hashtag. I don't think that's particularly noteworthy.

There are plenty of right-wing trolls on twitter too #gamergate (for example).

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think a lot of Twitter is a left-wing echo chamber in which self-righteous lefties get indignant with other self-righteous lefties. To me, all that #Cameronmustgo represents is that, for a time, they've managed to coalesce around one hashtag. I don't think that's particularly noteworthy.

In that respect it differs from Radio 2's lunchtime phone-in, hosted by Jeremy Vine. The callers make The Daily Mail appear reasonable and balanced. There's plenty of right-wing talkspace available - try any saloon bar.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think a lot of Twitter is a left-wing echo chamber in which self-righteous lefties get indignant with other self-righteous lefties.

That makes it sound like you're completely ignorant of what happens to people who, say, want a woman (other than the Queen) represented on a bank note.

In which case, your opinion of what happens on Twitter is somewhat selective. Or wrong. Or even both.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Is anyone else having a little moment of hearing wee David Steel tell his chums in 1981 to go back to your constituencies and prepare for government...

I think Mr Farage may discover he has more in common with David Steel than he ever imagined.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

In which case, your opinion of what happens on Twitter is somewhat selective. Or wrong. Or even both.

Or Anglican't is so far to the right that they think even twitter's resident misogynist trolls are left wing.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

In which case, your opinion of what happens on Twitter is somewhat selective. Or wrong. Or even both.
Or Anglican't is so far to the right that they think even twitter's resident misogynist trolls are left wing.

I rather thought that weird, obnoxious people on the internet are weird and obnoxious. I hadn't thought about their political sway one way or another.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Compare and contrast.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I rather thought that weird, obnoxious people on the internet are weird and obnoxious. I hadn't thought about their political sway one way or another.

quote:
I think a lot of Twitter is a left-wing echo chamber in which self-righteous lefties get indignant with other self-righteous lefties.

I have a long and colourful list of descriptive words for self-righteous gobshites caught with their virtual trousers down in such a spectacular manner. I may be led to deploy some of them, you mealy-mouthed, festering toad.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

On the one hand, I was talking about the people who lumped abuse at Mary Beard, etc. On the other hand, I was referring to the type of people who have got things like #CameronMustGo trending on Twitter.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

You're still hoisted by your own rhetorical petard, I see, you gibbering simpleton.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Feel free to explain, if you care to, because I'm afraid I've rather missed your point.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Too stupid to spot the obvious disconnect between "Twitter is full of lefties calling each other names" and "oh, they're just trolls. Certainly not right-wing trolls. Oh no. Look over there! A squirrel!"?

Yes, yes you are, you pusillanimous little fart.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Well, I thought I'd expressed myself with some reasonably kind of clarity but, to be clear if not, I'd understood that there was a greater preponderance of left-wing political folk on Twitter than others. There even appears to been research into this. I think this is important when considering the newsworthiness of something like '#cameronmustgo'.

There's lots of stuff on Twitter like people posting pornography, or being generally obnoxious or complaining about the weather. I can't say I've thought about the political allegiance of such people when posting stuff like that.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, yes you are, you pusillanimous little fart.

These insults are getting better. You're coming across as tougher than this over-cooked partridge I'm struggling to eat.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

So, to sum up: you can identify left-wingers on Twitter because they come with handy tags for the hard of thinking, but when it comes to right-wingers, you have no clue at all.

Well, you're absolutely right there.

And well done on linking a study on US twitter habits when we're talking about the UK. That makes you even more precious.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Is there a left-wing or a right-wing way to post pornography, be obnoxious or complain about the weather?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Maybe Farage intends to put a tapering tax allowance in place so that those earning, £15,000 have a allowance of £15,000 so they pay no tax while the allowance is reduced until at some higher figure one pays tax on all of one's income.

There's no need for complicated horsing around with tapers and withdrawal of tax credits. Just increase the tax allowance, and increase the headline rate a little, and you get the answer you want with less confusion.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Maybe Farage intends to put a tapering tax allowance in place so that those earning, £15,000 have a allowance of £15,000 so they pay no tax while the allowance is reduced until at some higher figure one pays tax on all of one's income.
There's no need for complicated horsing around with tapers and withdrawal of tax credits. Just increase the tax allowance, and increase the headline rate a little, and you get the answer you want with less confusion.

Increase the headline rate? See you on the opposition benches, if you're lucky.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Maybe Farage intends to put a tapering tax allowance in place so that those earning, £15,000 have a allowance of £15,000 so they pay no tax while the allowance is reduced until at some higher figure one pays tax on all of one's income.
There's no need for complicated horsing around with tapers and withdrawal of tax credits. Just increase the tax allowance, and increase the headline rate a little, and you get the answer you want with less confusion.

The thing is, the tax allowance applies to everyone. Increasing it significantly - say to 15K - would help those on low incomes. Increasing the top level of tax then so that, for example, someone on 100K is paying the same amount as currently (and anyone earning more would pay more tax) would mean that those between 15 and 100 would pay less, but the total tax income would probably be higher.

Of course, this is a policy of the left more than the right. It really doesn't fit with, say Cameron's claim that he has a "moral duty" to reduce taxes (which is crap of course, but reflects the general tax position of the right).

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Increase the headline rate? See you on the opposition benches, if you're lucky.

Yes, indeed. The fact that the electorate is functionally innumerate is the ultimate enemy of a sensible tax code.

You might just get away with it if you rolled up NI into the income tax at the same time - the rules for NI are complicated enough that there's no simple percentage comparison - you have to rely on the newspapers' favourite example families, and whether or not they will be worse off.

(SC: the natural thing to do would be to tune the top rate of tax to ensure that the combination of raising the personal allowance and increasing the top rate of tax was fiscally neutral, rather than picking an arbitrary point and asking to break even for someone with that income.)

[ 24. November 2014, 04:41: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

You might just get away with it if you rolled up NI into the income tax at the same time - the rules for NI are complicated enough that there's no simple percentage comparison - you have to rely on the newspapers' favourite example families, and whether or not they will be worse off.

If you roll up NICs into income tax that that would give a tax rate of c 30% rather than 20%, and moreover everyone would pay it rather than just working people. I doubt there is a better way to lose the pensioner vote!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(SC: the natural thing to do would be to tune the top rate of tax to ensure that the combination of raising the personal allowance and increasing the top rate of tax was fiscally neutral, rather than picking an arbitrary point and asking to break even for someone with that income.)

But you can't do that if you increase the allowance, and retain a percentage rate for everyone. That is why I suggest an arbitrary level to make it break even.

But, as others have said, increasing tax is a left-wing policy. So UKIP will not do it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you roll up NICs into income tax that that would give a tax rate of c 30% rather than 20%, and moreover everyone would pay it rather than just working people.

Yes, of course. And let me be quite clear here - I think it's completely absurd that work is taxed at a greater rate than investment income. NI has long since ceased even pretending to be some kind of retirement savings scheme, so we may as well officially admit that it's just a tax.

Having a high tax threshold takes care of most pensioners, anyway - and I could probably be persuaded that increasing the age-related threshold would be reasonable.

SC: of course you can increase the allowance and set the top rate of tax to make the whole thing fiscally neutral. Fiscally neutral from the point of view of the government - obviously doing that shifts some of the tax burden from lower income to higher income people.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Twitter storm? Funnily enough "#Cameron Must Go" has been trending since about 6pm yesterday and was still going strong last time I looked, yet has scarcely rated a mention, but a few people drawing extremely questionable conclusions about Thornberry (2+2=22) and the press were all over it.

Well the good news is that #cameronmustgo has broken through into the press. The bad news is that the reports aren't exactly flattering to the tweeters.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well the good news is that #cameronmustgo has broken through into the press. The bad news is that the reports aren't exactly flattering to the tweeters.

The bad news is I have to read every link you post.

The good news is that I get to call you on another whacked-out right-wing goggled tint on a news article where one tweeter is criticised. That's tweeter (sing.) not tweeters [pl.)

And the chief critics are two Tory MPs. And the tweeter is Jack Monroe. Knock me down with a feather, I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, I thought I'd expressed myself with some reasonably kind of clarity but, to be clear if not, I'd understood that there was a greater preponderance of left-wing political folk on Twitter than others. There even appears to been research into this. I think this is important when considering the newsworthiness of something like '#cameronmustgo'.

Right-wingers are less able to cope with all this new-fangled technology? Good to know.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well the good news is that #cameronmustgo has broken through into the press. The bad news is that the reports aren't exactly flattering to the tweeters.
The bad news is I have to read every link you post.

The good news is that I get to call you on another whacked-out right-wing goggled tint on a news article where one tweeter is criticised. That's tweeter (sing.) not tweeters [pl.)

And the chief critics are two Tory MPs. And the tweeter is Jack Monroe. Knock me down with a feather, I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

And the article can't even spell Edwina Currie's name right.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, I thought I'd expressed myself with some reasonably kind of clarity but, to be clear if not, I'd understood that there was a greater preponderance of left-wing political folk on Twitter than others. There even appears to been research into this. I think this is important when considering the newsworthiness of something like '#cameronmustgo'.
Right-wingers are less able to cope with all this new-fangled technology? Good to know.

They normally get their butlers to do it for them.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

One thing I did learn from the #cameronmustgo thing is how few tweets it takes to get a hastag trending. According to this Buzzfeed article, 100,000 tweets were sent per day over the weekend with this hashtag. I'd rather assumed the theshold would be higher.

[ 25. November 2014, 08:50: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
One thing I did learn from the #cameronmustgo thing is how few tweets it takes to get a hastag trending. According to this Buzzfeed article, 100,000 tweets were sent per day over the weekend with this hashtag.

I hadn't really given the subject a great deal of thought but rather assumed the theshold would be higher.

So, presumably, if you saw 100,000 people gathered together in one place doing the same thing, you wouldn't find that noteworthy?

Because that's effectively what you're saying. You don't think 100,000 people all discussing the same subject is a large number. Even though it's enough people to overflow Wembley.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Anglican't seems to subscribe to the BBC news principle, that if a very large number of people appear outside their own offices, waving placards and chanting, it's merely a coincidence and certainly not worth reporting.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, presumably, if you saw 100,000 people gathered together in one place doing the same thing, you wouldn't find that noteworthy?

Because that's effectively what you're saying. You don't think 100,000 people all discussing the same subject is a large number. Even though it's enough people to overflow Wembley.

It appears to have been 100,000 tweets, rather than people, but my initial thought was that the number to get something trending might be higher.

Some people tweeted using the hashtag several times. If there were 100,000 tweets per day, could we say that somewhere between, perhaps, 150,000 - 200,000 people tweeted using this hashtag over the course of the weekend? That there might be this number of people who don't like David Cameron and have access to a Twitter account isn't a great surprise to me. More people have turned out to an actual protest.

It would be interesting to know how many anti-Cameron tweets are usually made over the course of a weekend (I don't know whether it's possible to measure this sort of thing) and see what the difference is (if any).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think a lot of Twitter is a left-wing echo chamber in which self-righteous lefties get indignant with other self-righteous lefties.

Twitter is an echo chamber full stop. Following users is seen as endorsing them so the tweets people receive come ready-filtered by their own preconceptions. It's like a personalised Ministry of Truth that you apply to your own head.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
One thing I did learn from the #cameronmustgo thing is how few tweets it takes to get a hastag trending. According to this Buzzfeed article, 100,000 tweets were sent per day over the weekend with this hashtag. I'd rather assumed the theshold would be higher.

It also depends on what scale it might trend. Worldwide might take a lot, fewer in the UK and fewer still in a specific city. For example, a few weeks ago there was the Christian New Media Conference in London, which I attended along with a few hundred other people, and the hashtag #CNMAC14 was trending in the UK and London, but not worldwide.

Also, when something does start to trend, it attracts the attention of spambots. They latch onto trending topics and then add their own tweets which are nonsense, porn, advertising or other rubbish, which adds to the number of tweets using the hashtag and so perpetuates the amount of time a given hashtag is trending for.

In short, once you get going, it's a self-fuelled vicious circle. Not wholly unlike capitalism!

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Following users is seen as endorsing them

Not too much of an endorsement I hope. I follow Owen Jones...

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

How very appropriate that a thread starting as "R.I.P. Common Sense..." should devolve into discussing Twitter, the last-chance saloon of the terminally vacuous.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... [UKIP] can rely on their anti-EU message, and a kind of covert 'kick the blacks out' message ...

I'm a bit confused and would appreciate enlightenment; I should add that as I no longer live in the UK, I have no axe to grind, but I still care what happens there.

When UKIP first appeared, it seemed that they were a slightly loony "single-policy party" - their sole objective was to keep the pound and get out of the EU, which must have seemed very appealing to some: no more brainless directives about straight bananas and selling things in kilos. Several years ago, this appealed to enough voters in my in-laws' (previously Tory) constituency that it handed the seat to the Liberals by splitting the Tory vote.

However, it seems there's a rather less appealing agenda: UKIP has become almost like the "acceptable face" of the BNP, and has added a raft of at best deeply iffy, and at worst rather nasty proto-racist ideologies.

Or have I got them completely wrong?

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
However, it seems there's a rather less appealing agenda: UKIP has become almost like the "acceptable face" of the BNP, and has added a raft of at best deeply iffy, and at worst rather nasty proto-racist ideologies.

Or have I got them completely wrong?

No, I'd say you've got it. I'm sure it's possible to have what for sake of argument we'll call the "sensible" non-EU policies without the rest - and I have to say that when I first became aware of Farage some years ago in recordings of him lambasting the EU Commission for their dodgy accounting practices, I had to applaud. Problem is, the "sensible" policy turned out to be a presentable facade for a lot of much more unpleasant stuff. It would be interesting to do a study of people who were initially attracted to UKIP on the EU issue alone and now wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Also, UKIP are being deliberately vague about many of their 'proto-racist' policies. Thus recently, Reckless seemed to be saying that EU migrants would be deported, if Britain left the EU, but then there was some back-tracking.

The same with Farage's comments about 'would you want to live next door to a Romanian?', after which he seemed to back down.

In one way, this is quite clever, as it's dog whistle politics; but in the end, you would think that people will tire of it, and will want some definite statements. Are you going to deport Romanians or not?

(I live next door but one to a Lithuanian; nice guy).

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
How very appropriate that a thread starting as "R.I.P. Common Sense..." should devolve into discussing Twitter, the last-chance saloon of the terminally vacuous.

Used to think that once. Then I found the list of academic philosophers on twitter and watched/joined in discussion on the metaphysics of causation. A tool is only as dumb and pointless as the one using it.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Piglet, you might be interested in this interview with the original founder of UKIP.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
How very appropriate that a thread starting as "R.I.P. Common Sense..." should devolve into discussing Twitter, the last-chance saloon of the terminally vacuous.
Used to think that once. Then I found the list of academic philosophers on twitter and watched/joined in discussion on the metaphysics of causation. A tool is only as dumb and pointless as the one using it.

Twitter is incredibly good for teaching and education too, as the one I've used most, but also environmental groups. There are school chat sessions across the country on Sunday evenings, lots of sharing of resources and support. The Headteachers who put together the alternative curriculum to Gove's and the support meetings that followed on from that all came out of Twitter.

It's also useful for transport information when travelling.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
(I live next door but one to a Lithuanian; nice guy).

Should it make any difference if he isn't? [Biased]

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Piglet, you might be interested in this interview with the original founder of UKIP.

Thanks, Firenze - it seems I was closer to the mark than I thought. [Eek!]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
(I live next door but one to a Lithuanian; nice guy).
Should it make any difference if he isn't?

Yes, because he is the ambassador for the entire Lithuanian nation, and any character flaws he possesses can be imputed to the entire Lithuanian nation from a sample size of 1.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Well, indeed: either someone has the right to live here or they don't; it should be irrelevant whether we think that they are 'nice' or not.

And of course if one reads the 'Daily Mail' or the like, then single individuals are corporately representative of their entire ethnos: "Hit and run driver was FOREIGN!!!" headline is Paul Dacre's idea of a wet dream - "A huge influx of Eastern European hit and run drivers have flooded into Britain thanks to our slack immigration policies and the EU, stealing jobs from decent law-abiding British hit and run drivers (contd p 94)"

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Back of the net

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I don't think I have ever seen a crime reported with such glee.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

We demand the right to be beaten up by locally bred criminals!

The issue isn't the nationality of these people, the issue is that (apparently) they were wanted by police.

[ 28. November 2014, 10:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Some newspapers reported that the Polish community helped in catching these guys - I wonder if the DM included that?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Nope

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Back of the net

I don't wish to defend the Daily Mail but there's one sub-headline which I find a bit disturbing:

quote:
Each gang member was let into UK despite long criminal records

When we moved to Canada, they could probably have refused us entry if we'd had so much as a parking ticket.

While there's no excuse for the Mail's xenophobia, it doesn't seem quite right that Britain should be forced take immigrants with criminal records because some unelected Eurocrats say so.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, that's a bit of a rough summary, isn't it? If you join the EU, you agree to the free movement of goods, capital, people, and services.

So to say it's at the behest of Eurocrats is a bit distorted.

As to checking EU people for criminal records - I don't know if that goes on.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

It cuts both ways.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The Brits do their bit on the Costa del Crime.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

'Zackly

Posted by marzipan (# 9442) on :

About the only checks that happen at EU borders are 'do you have a valid passport/photo ID?'
At least that's the case for the majority of EU countries. The UK doesn't even count people in and out - or at least if they do, they don't distinguish between EU citizens crossing borders on holiday and those migrating for a longer term AFAIK. Visas for non EU citizens are a bit more complicated though

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by marzipan:
About the only checks that happen at EU borders are 'do you have a valid passport/photo ID?'
At least that's the case for the majority of EU countries. The UK doesn't even count people in and out - or at least if they do, they don't distinguish between EU citizens crossing borders on holiday and those migrating for a longer term AFAIK. Visas for non EU citizens are a bit more complicated though

Every time I have entered the UK I have had to present my passport for inspection. If police forces don't share information, those doing checks at the border will not be able to stop anyone.

I've noticed that UKIP is opposed to the EU Arrest Warrant, which is another tool to simplify and strength police work across European borders.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0