|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why UKIP Really is Scum
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I am not planning to sell my house. I don't expect the world to be like looking in a mirror.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Tell that to the 60 year old ex-steel worker living in a terraced house in Grimesthorpe, Sheffield.
I wish someone would tell him, instead of taking advantage of his false beliefs to secure his vote.
That's what so much of politics boils down to these days. It doesn't matter whether what you say is true, what matters is whether it will win you votes.
Politics is the art of promising, not of delivering, which means you can promise the impossible. You can promise that keeping out immigrants will restore industries and boost job prospects. You can promise that there will be no cultural change. You can promise that you will fix aspects of the UK economy that you actually have no control over because of the global nature of economic forces.
And people will believe you. Because they want to believe you. Believing you is easier and happier than coming to grips with a complex reality that is immune to catchy slogans and simplistic rhetoric.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
...and yet we still have FPTP. Even after 180 years or there and there abouts.
These damn colonials over here got rid of it 100 years ago. How exactly is your insistence on sticking with the old system of any credit to your nation?
It was bizarre and amusing to see all the arguments against preferential voting in the UK referendum that were based on how awful the system was in Australia. Honestly, you'd think we were some kind of country with rigged elections, not 10 places above you on the Democracy Index.
--------------------
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
|
|
toadstrike
Apprentice
# 18244
|
Posted
Personally I think the Tories will live to bitterly regret their opposition to AV.
Not that it's the best or anything like it but would have been a step in the right direction.
It would have given much less power to that mega-pratt Farage.
Posts: 24 | From: Welwyn Garden City, UK | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
My friend and I are contemplating the situation where a lot of Ukippers get seats in May. People not only with weird ideas, but with, unless they are Tory renegades, zilch experience of running anything*, of having to negotiate in meetings, of having to behave properly in properly run meetings of any sort. No union experience, obviously. No council experience. No non-conformist church meeting experience. Possibly some PCC experience. Women's Institute - maybe (but not so likely, looking at WI policies, that they were successful there).
*Except business where they were in charge and ran things by fiat.
Heaven help us.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
One response to this phenomenon is to brand UKIP voters as racist scumbags or such-like. I'm not sure how that helps.
However, they are voting for a party with unashamedly racist, homophobic policies, espoused by homophobic racists. Are you suggesting that we should congratulate them for that?
It's like that Mitchell and Webb sketch where they're playing SS officers and one turns to the other, suggesting that the black uniforms and death's head badges might be a bit much, and "Hans: you don't think we might be the bad guys, do you?"
AIUI, the National Socialist party's successful campaign in the early 1930s in Germany was on the basis that
- we are a great country;
- those nasty foreigners are to blame for our problems;
- our elected politicians have sold us down the river.
Without wanting to invoke Godwin's law, these basic messages do sound awfully similar.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by toadstrike:
Personally I think the Tories will live to bitterly regret their opposition to AV.
I'm inclined to agree. I think the biggest problem was the Lib Dems didn't even want the damn thing. AV or STV are the systems I actually LIKE, but it was hard to get enthused over 'Well we can't get what we really want, vote for the compromise we might be able to get'.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
AIUI, the National Socialist party's successful campaign in the early 1930s in Germany was on the basis that
- we are a great country;
- those nasty foreigners are to blame for our problems;
- our elected politicians have sold us down the river.
Without wanting to invoke Godwin's law, these basic messages do sound awfully similar.
Indeed similar. And who sowed the soil? Oh yes those incompetent Allies with their naused-up Versailles Treaty. So if UKIP is riding on a similar wave, we must ask -- Who, or what, has set the wave in motion on this occasion?
It's not far-right politics that's the problem, they lurk in the shadows of every culture, it's the fact that ordinary people are beginning to lend it an ear.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
AIUI, the National Socialist party's successful campaign in the early 1930s in Germany was on the basis that
- we are a great country;
- those nasty foreigners are to blame for our problems;
- our elected politicians have sold us down the river.
Without wanting to invoke Godwin's law, these basic messages do sound awfully similar.
Indeed similar. And who sowed the soil? Oh yes those incompetent Allies with their naused-up Versailles Treaty. So if UKIP is riding on a similar wave, we must ask -- Who, or what, has set the wave in motion on this occasion?
It's not far-right politics that's the problem, they lurk in the shadows of every culture, it's the fact that ordinary people are beginning to lend it an ear.
And why are those ordinary people unhappy? Seven years of economic misery brought about not by immigrants but by city types looking towards a quick return, culminating in "Securitized" loans. What a misnomer that was! Deliberately lending to the one sector of the market that wasn't already in debt, namely those who couldn't afford to repay loans.
People ought to be able to direct their anger rightly, but the very party that represents moneyed interest is in power. How the Hell did that happen???
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
...and yet we still have FPTP. Even after 180 years or there and there abouts.
These damn colonials over here got rid of it 100 years ago. How exactly is your insistence on sticking with the old system of any credit to your nation?
It was bizarre and amusing to see all the arguments against preferential voting in the UK referendum that were based on how awful the system was in Australia. Honestly, you'd think we were some kind of country with rigged elections, not 10 places above you on the Democracy Index.
Well, to be fair England and Wales also had the slightly less glowing example of Northern Ireland, closer to home to look to as well, for PR-style voting. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I'd rather have democracy than not - but there are moments when it seems one can have just a little bit too much of it! Still think it's a better system than first past the post, though.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
AIUI, the National Socialist party's successful campaign in the early 1930s in Germany was on the basis that
- we are a great country;
- those nasty foreigners are to blame for our problems;
- our elected politicians have sold us down the river.
Without wanting to invoke Godwin's law, these basic messages do sound awfully similar.
Indeed similar. And who sowed the soil? Oh yes those incompetent Allies with their naused-up Versailles Treaty. So if UKIP is riding on a similar wave, we must ask -- Who, or what, has set the wave in motion on this occasion?
It's not far-right politics that's the problem, they lurk in the shadows of every culture, it's the fact that ordinary people are beginning to lend it an ear.
And why are those ordinary people unhappy? Seven years of economic misery brought about not by immigrants but by city types looking towards a quick return, culminating in "Securitized" loans. What a misnomer that was! Deliberately lending to the one sector of the market that wasn't already in debt, namely those who couldn't afford to repay loans.
People ought to be able to direct their anger rightly, but the very party that represents moneyed interest is in power. How the Hell did that happen???
Isn't it partly because Labour drank the Kool-Aid of neo-liberalism, and therefore accepted deregulation, leveraged finance, and all the other toxic elements that led to the crash? Hence, people recoiled from Labour - into the arms of those Tory advocates of deregulation, leveraged finance, and so on!
It strikes me as a mad and unhealthy situation, where now 3 or 4, if you include UKIP, parties are basically neo-liberal, and supporters of predator capitalism.
I think it explains in part the Scots push for independence; but in England, the target now seems to be immigrants and people on benefit. Let the poor pay for the bonuses of the rich!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
AV or STV are the systems I actually LIKE, but it was hard to get enthused over 'Well we can't get what we really want, vote for the compromise we might be able to get'.
Er... isn't compromise a basic tenet of coalition governments? If you want PR, you are going to get a lot of that, so if compromise doesn't enthuse you, it's probably best if you avoid PR.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
When I read these discussions on the woes of FPTP I am struck between the illogic of complaining about the FPTP while simultaneously complaining about coalitions, ie, "not getting what you vote for", and a political establishment that does not properly represent the people.
Well, be careful what you wish for. I recently cast my vote in a PR election. I didn't vote for the party whose policies I prefer. Why? Because they were likely to go into coalition with a party whose policies I like even less than the party I did vote for. A significant proportion of the members elected are only there by choice of back-room party officials. Given the endless whinging about London-centricity, one would have thought that a system that allows locals to elect who represents their locality to be the best system.
There is of course an electoral system that avoids the worst of coalition politics, encourages centrism, reduces wasted votes and ensures that every member of parliament is elected by members of the public rather than just members of parties. That system is AV. I put its rejection down to a massive brain fart on the part of the British people.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
That system is AV. I put its rejection down to a massive brain fart on the part of the British people.
Or democracy perhaps?
Anyone actually think that the British people understand PR and the variants and actually, in the main, still want FPTP?
Is there anyone on here, apart from me and a few others, actually prepared to countenance the fact the the British people understand what YOU want, but have decided, democratically, that THEY don't?
Or is that asking too much of you? To accept that you may be out of touch with the electorate on this? Is that shaking your world a little too much?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
When I read these discussions on the woes of FPTP I am struck between the illogic of complaining about the FPTP while simultaneously complaining about coalitions, ie, "not getting what you vote for", and a political establishment that does not properly represent the people.
I struggle to think of an effective political establishment that properly represents the people. FPTP amounts to serial minority dictatorship, List PR corrects that by handing more power to party machines and removing the ability to vote for a candidate instead of a party, and other systems are effectively attempts to compromise between those two unpalatable extremes.
But the moaning about coalitions is most likely down to two things - the fact that it's never really been a likely prospect for us as a country, and the fact that it's been done very badly. These points may be related.
Because We Don't Have Coalition Governments, it's never really been discussed so that anyone knows who certain parties are likely to get into bed with, and the parties aren't used to handling a situation more complicated than being simply in government or in opposition. Having FPTP is also a factor, as it creates massive inequality in the coalition. The Tories took just 36% of the vote and the Lib Dems 23%, but the seats split 307-57. Under a more PR-based system, a coalition between the two would have been a genuine collaboration, but under FPTP it's been more like the Lib Dems being absorbed by the Tories. Nearly a quarter of the electorate voted for a party that's nominally in government but has effectively no power. Blame FPTP or Clegg's incompetence, but it's understandable if that leads to suspicion of coalitions.
FTR, I like coalition government and I think it's the best way of revitalising our moribund political discourse, but only if the system changes to make it practical and effective, by giving parties a proportion of seats that more effectively reflects their national vote.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Is this really a case though of "the people [UKIP voters] have failed us; therefore we need to elect a new people"? Do not the media have to take some of the blame for miseducating (nice Bush-style neologism!) 'the people'?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
The possible irony here is that UKIP were very much in favour of AV during the referendum, but the official pro-AV group shunned them during the campaign. Perhaps if they'd been a little more generous the result might have been closer?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I am missing how this Alliance with an agreed programme is any different from the coalition that we call "Labour", for example.
Indeed. Unlike a monolith such as the British Labour Party, in the Swedish Alliance, power is dispersed amongst its four members, their differences aren't suppressed, and, most importantly, to get a majority in the Riksdag they must get a majority of the popular vote.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
The Great Gumby illustrates a lesser known, but crucial, defect of FPTP: its creation of unnatural coalitions. (Kinda like unnatural practices, but weirder.) In both ideology & the popular vote, the Liberal Democrats and Labour are natural allies. Yet FPTP has thrown 'em into bed with a party despised by most of their supporters, and the disproportionate balance of seats has made 'em whipping boys.
FPTP works great in at least two jurisdictions: the Isle of Man and the Falkland Islands. Why? Neither has political parties. (Well, plural at least, the Manx now have the grand total of one.) It also works kinda OK in the U.S., as the Constitution separates legislative and executive functions, which, along with primaries, weakens party control and makes representatives accountable to their district.
Everywhere else, it operates on the fiction that parties don't exist, which not only hands them vast power, but ensures that issues people want discussed get suppressed. Then UKIP.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
One thing that is often talked about in mainland Europe is how our RV coalition based system can be used to 'neutralize' extreme parties.
The argument is: accept them in a coalition. Their voters will see their real face. Or their voters will dislike them when they're forced to compromise. This will hurt them in the long run.
I'm not sure if I agree with this. At least in my country this has been tried with both Fortuyn and Wilders. The jury is still out on whether this has been succesful.
But I wonder if and how this would work in a FPTP system.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Dragging the whackos into the light can work well. In England, exposure in local and European elections has reduced the British National Party from threat to laughing stock, and UKIP has now poached their voter base. The BNP has imploded.
Responsibility can also be the making of a party, but only if they step up. In Scotland, thanks to Holyrood, the SNP have gone from being a fringe band of dreamers to the natural party of government, and came within a whisker of achieving independence at the first attempt.
UKIP could, I suspect, go either way. If they stepped up, they'd have to engage meaningfully with the EU, as the SNP have with the UK. In either case, at least the issue would be confronted.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
The one parliament UKIP have been elected to in numbers has been the European one and their performance there has been less than stellar, getting into bed with some pretty unsavoury types and a number of their MEPs having their knuckles rapped for creativity on the expenses front.
If a few of their less clued-up candidates get elected, rather than turncoats and the few genuine Ukippers who have a grain of sense, then UKIPs star will fall a long way fast and their Nigel's position will be under threat.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I think UKIP are benefiting at the moment from being unknown, and also, being coy about their policies. A lot of people will say 'UKIP' without knowing too much about them, except anti-EU and anti-immigrant. They are not really being scrutinized.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think UKIP are benefiting at the moment from being unknown, and also, being coy about their policies. A lot of people will say 'UKIP' without knowing too much about them, except anti-EU and anti-immigrant. They are not really being scrutinized.
Perhaps.
But I think that there is another way of looking at this. UKIP are gaining in popularity not because no-one knows what they really stand for - but because people who actually agree with what they stand for are now in a position where they can reveal their true sentiments.
There has long been an undercurrent of "Little Englanders" in the UK, and especially in south east England. Such people may, in the past, have voted Tory or Labour, depending upon other factors. Such people also knew that their Little England sentiments would be frowned upon if they were made public.
In this view of things, all that has changed is that "Little Englanders" now have an acceptable flag to rally under.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Sioni Sais: If a few of their less clued-up candidates get elected, rather than turncoats and the few genuine Ukippers who have a grain of sense, then UKIPs star will fall a long way fast and their Nigel's position will be under threat.
I'm not sure. Experiences in the Netherlands (and perhaps in other countries) have shown that their supporters can be rather forgiving of these kind of things.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Oscar
Yes, fair comment. But it will be interesting to see if UKIP are questioned on their policies towards the minimum wage, trade unions, the BBC, privatization in the NHS, and so on. Will they seem like a right wing faction of the Tories?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If a few of their less clued-up candidates get elected, rather than turncoats and the few genuine Ukippers who have a grain of sense, then UKIPs star will fall a long way fast and their Nigel's position will be under threat.
I think that's right (assuming they don't up their game). Am I right in thinking that about 1 in 10 UKIP MEPs have ended up in prison? Not a great record, but then again not many people pay attention to what happens in Brussels and Strasbourg.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think UKIP are benefiting at the moment from being unknown, and also, being coy about their policies. A lot of people will say 'UKIP' without knowing too much about them, except anti-EU and anti-immigrant. They are not really being scrutinized.
I think this is true, too. The Lib Dems enjoyed a similar position until around mid-2010.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oscar
Yes, fair comment. But it will be interesting to see if UKIP are questioned on their policies towards the minimum wage, trade unions, the BBC, privatization in the NHS, and so on. Will they seem like a right wing faction of the Tories?
I started to prepare a long reply to this, but thought better of it.
As I see it, whilst UKIP may appear to be a right wing rival to the Tories, in reality its populist raison d'être means that it arrives at its policy positions in a very different way to the Conservative party. As such, it stand to gain a significant proportion of support from erstwhile Labour voters. I think that definitions of "right" and "left" start to break down when dealing with populist parties.
(What confuses things a little, of course, is that the Conservative party has, in recent decades, contained a significant minority of members whose natural instincts are populist rather than Tory. It could be argued that the likes of Reckless and Carswell have not really "jumped ship" but simply moved to the place where they always belonged.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
OK, although 'right-wing' and 'populist' don't contradict each other, really. At the moment, I am seeing UKIP as a classic small businessman's party, that is, in favour of low business taxes, low wages, impediments to trade unions, deregulation, with the added bonus of hostility to foreigners and Europe.
A bit like poujadism, although they were also anti-industrialization and in fact, anti-urban.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
There has long been an undercurrent of "Little Englanders" in the UK, and especially in south east England. Such people may, in the past, have voted Tory or Labour, depending upon other factors. Such people also knew that their Little England sentiments would be frowned upon if they were made public.
I wouldn't call it an undercurrent. The Mail, the Express and the Telegraph have been anti-EU and anti-immigration for years. The difference is that the larger parties understand economics and therefore won't go as far as the right-wing press would like.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
UKIP isn't benefitting from a single political factor, but a range of them. They're a populist party who are tapping into a genuine Little Englander constituency, but it goes beyond that. They also benefit from a lack of scrutiny or knowledge of their policies (some comparisons between their voters' stated priorities and actual UKIP policies have made this very clear), the focus-group-driven clustering of the main parties, and most importantly being seen as outsiders.
The economy's fucked, the future's Chinese, and the people who are feeling that most don't have anywhere to turn for answers, given a choice between 3 identikit parties* who are at least partly implicated in where we are, and whose basic strategy is to carry on cutting, while still spending money we haven't got. Add in the perception that they're all greedy backscratchers with their snouts in the trough, and you've got the perfect storm for a party like UKIP.
Because UKIP have answers. They might be dishonest, delusional or simply racist, but they have answers. Break the Brussels Dictatorship, kick out all the fuzzy wuzzies and Britain will be great again! Add in a few ill-conceived sepia-tinged ideas about returning to the 1950s, add a dash of plausible deniability for some of the more extreme policies, and you've got a platform that carries a strong appeal for a lot of people.
You know why it works? This is what UKIP and Barack Obama have in common - hope. It doesn't matter how delusional or extremist the ideas are if only one party's making any claim to be able to improve a desperate situation. It might seem a gamble on another beer-swilling public school toff, but given the alternatives on offer, what does the average UKIP voter have to lose?
* - Every time someone describes the current Labour party as left wing, I feel a shiver down my spine as the late lamented ken launches into a ghostly tirade about what the real left wing looks like.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would say hope - and fantasy. This is why Farage is often portrayed in a pub with pint in hand, part of a fantasy of the English gent in the saloon bar, who knows a damn sight more about life than these effete politicians.
So 'sepia-tinged' is spot-on, also part of the fantasy. England was once white and pure, and women knew their place in the kitchen and the bedroom, and men hewed coal, and went down the pub on a Friday night, and you've never had it so good.
We'll be invading Suez any time soon, but hang on, maybe that can be arranged, or somewhere quite close to Suez.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...men hewed coal...
From the way people on here bang on about Margaret Thatcher and the 1980s, I think it's not just Ukippers who share this nostalgic fantasy.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...men hewed coal...
From the way people on here bang on about Margaret Thatcher and the 1980s, I think it's not just Ukippers who share this nostalgic fantasy.
Absolutely. I don't think UKIP are creating these fantasies - for example, the gent in the saloon bar who is a fount of wisdom, or the monochrome nation without fuzzy-wuzzies - but they are exploiting them.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...men hewed coal...
From the way people on here bang on about Margaret Thatcher and the 1980s, I think it's not just Ukippers who share this nostalgic fantasy.
Absolutely. I don't think UKIP are creating these fantasies - for example, the gent in the saloon bar who is a fount of wisdom, or the monochrome nation without fuzzy-wuzzies - but they are exploiting them.
It's a fusion of classic Golden Age myths and tropes. "Wasn't life so much better when...?" It doesn't matter how you finish that rhetorical question, whether it's "you could leave your front door unlocked" or "Britannia ruled the waves" or even "darkies stayed away and poofs were locked up". By the time you get to the second half, a lot of people - even people who weren't born in this fabulous mythical age of streets paved with gold - have stopped listening and are lost in their own dreamworld. As so often, the Boomers dictate the terms here, regressing to their own childhood.
The dangerous part is that UKIP are essentially winning votes on the back of a promise to give the country the keys to this Never Never Land, which shows the gullibility of a large part of the electorate, and is heading for trouble whether or not they succeed. It'll get worse before it gets better, although the time's ripe for a visionary leader to build a UK that's proud of who we are, not what we were. But then when you look at the state of the main parties...
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
While I wouldn't vote UKIP for lots of reasons, I can sort of see why someone might. I think the reason why their core issues of Europe and immigration have so much traction with so many voters is that these are two issues on which politicians have taken action regardless of the views of the voters.
The EU has changed considerably since 1975 and, while other countries have had the opportunity to vote on changes in referendums (often voting several times to get the 'right' answer), the British have never had that choice from the main parties until very recently, as they have supported the major EU treaties. UKIP does at least offer an alternative on this issue that chimes with the views of a significant minority, if not a small majority, of the population.
Similarly with immigration, Britain has changed enormously thanks to post-war mass immigration. But at what point were people consulted? This seems to me to have been a phenomenon that those at the top either imposed or were indifferent to. Addressing this issue has been difficult (and Powell's Birmingham speech is perhaps a case in point) but by continuing to impose something that goes against the grain of a lot of people, having failed to make a positive, convincing case for it, is bound to create some form of disenchantment in the long term.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Let me see if I can make a case for post-1945 immigration.
Britain had a manpower shortage after the war
Britain had and has a skills shortage
There is a worldwide market for goods and services: jobs and money move freely, why not people?
If we let people come to Britain, it's easier for the British to travel to and live/get work elsewhere
A heck of a lot of British people left these shores to set up home and make their fortunes elsewhere. They still do it. Why restrict others from coming here to do the same thing now?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
(often voting several times to get the 'right' answer),
Not this bollocks again. Tell me, when someone rejects a deal, do you say "fine, you clearly don't want a deal, I'll stop asking" or do you change the terms of the deal and ask again? Pretty sure most people would go for the second, which is precisely what the EU did in negotiations over the Lisbon Treaty. It's bullshit memes like this (and the straight banana, and the banning of imperial measures, neither true) that fuel UKIP and their fuckwit fellow travellers.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
(often voting several times to get the 'right' answer),
Not this bollocks again. Tell me, when someone rejects a deal, do you say "fine, you clearly don't want a deal, I'll stop asking" or do you change the terms of the deal and ask again? Pretty sure most people would go for the second, which is precisely what the EU did in negotiations over the Lisbon Treaty. It's bullshit memes like this (and the straight banana, and the banning of imperial measures, neither true) that fuel UKIP and their fuckwit fellow travellers.
I'm sorry, but this kind of furious denial does little to help either. The version of the Lisbon treaty that was accepted was a VERY minor tweak. Polls said it would lose if it came to referendums in most countries in Europe - which it didn't. Facing the European Monetary Union, the Swedish prime minister confirmed that if the people voted no, they'd just have to wait and then do a new referendum a few years later. Now that was part of his chauvinist leadership style, but the complete lack of responses by the vice-president of the European Commission to what could be done to say a firm no to the treaty does your argument no favours either.
If there's one thing the EU should do, it's remove stupid national anachronisms such as the imperial measurements. And the food standards do exist and they do limit farmers and they do largely play to reward French farmers and massive inefficiency. Denying legitimate concerns like these is precisely the reason why we have such disrespectful anti-EU movements - respectful dissent has been loudly decried even when well-informed and reasonable.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
And the food standards do exist and they do limit farmers
The standards exist but nothing is stopping anyone selling produce that doesn't meet the class 1 standard, which is all the curvature of bananas has anything to do with. There is no ban on straight bananas, or crooked cucumbers, or discoloured oranges, or any of the things mentioned in the standards for class 1.
I think the regulations on metric usage are perfectly sensible - everything has to be labelled in metric, but it can be labelled in imperial too if you want.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
If there's one thing the EU should do, it's remove stupid national anachronisms such as the imperial measurements.
Well, they could, but I think that would make a British Exit much more likely.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
If there's one thing the EU should do, it's remove stupid national anachronisms such as the imperial measurements.
Well, they could, but I think that would make a British Exit much more likely.
Really? Aren't there better anti-EU arguments than a system of measurements that is easier to use than one based on agriculture in the Middle Ages?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
If there's one thing the EU should do, it's remove stupid national anachronisms such as the imperial measurements.
Well, they could, but I think that would make a British Exit much more likely.
I am as Euroskeptic as anyone, but seriously, the imperial measurements are as stupid as fitted carpets in bathrooms. Traders have always conformed to better, more rational standards in order to enable them to be sold in wider areas. The imperial measurements are doomed by their stupidity as well as their impopularity (stemming from their stupidity). If sticking firmly to stupidity is what'll cause your exit, I'm sure an EU exit is far from the worst thing your nation is up for in the upcoming century.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
If there's one thing the EU should do, it's remove stupid national anachronisms such as the imperial measurements.
Well, they could, but I think that would make a British Exit much more likely.
Really? Aren't there better anti-EU arguments than a system of measurements that is easier to use than one based on agriculture in the Middle Ages?
Yes, of course there are. But imperial measurements are very much part of everyday life in the UK: from pints of beer and milk to roadsigns in miles to people of all ages describing their height in feet and inches. An die Freude might think the system 'stupid' but tens of millions of Britons would disagree.
If the EU came along and said 'we're going to abolish the pint of beer and force you to change all your roadsigns' then I expect the response would be very Anglo-Saxon in nature.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
If there's one thing the EU should do, it's remove stupid national anachronisms such as the imperial measurements.
Well, they could, but I think that would make a British Exit much more likely.
I am as Euroskeptic as anyone, but seriously, the imperial measurements are as stupid as fitted carpets in bathrooms. Traders have always conformed to better, more rational standards in order to enable them to be sold in wider areas. The imperial measurements are doomed by their stupidity as well as their impopularity (stemming from their stupidity). If sticking firmly to stupidity is what'll cause your exit, I'm sure an EU exit is far from the worst thing your nation is up for in the upcoming century.
There's nothing stupid about imperial measurements - I use them all the time for practical things. Cooking, DIY, anything involving clothing or fabric. Heck, we're buying and renovating a house and all the measurements are in feet and inches. They're no more arbitrary than the metric system (seriously, an incorrectly calculated fraction of the distance between the equator and the north pole?) and certainly less than our system of time measurement. Sure, anything scientific you'll do in SI units because the derived units are easier to work with, but for everyday practical purposes there are no real advantages to metric.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
They're no more arbitrary than the metric system (seriously, an incorrectly calculated fraction of the distance between the equator and the north pole?) and certainly less than our system of time measurement. Sure, anything scientific you'll do in SI units because the derived units are easier to work with, but for everyday practical purposes there are no real advantages to metric.
The units themselves aren't any more arbitrary. The rules that dictate whether you subdivide/multiply by 8 or 12 or 16 or 29 to convert to a smaller or larger unit are spectacularly arbitrary.
The innovation of the metric system isn't the size of the SI units, it's the fact that everything is done in base 10 like our counting system so that 'conversions' merely involve shifting a decimal point. I can guarantee you I can convert between millimetres, centimetres, metres and kilometres far faster than you can convert between inches, feet, yards and miles. The first clue is in the names.
[ 17. October 2014, 09:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
[I]mperial measurements are as stupid as fitted carpets in bathrooms.
Thinking about it, both of these things are very popular amongst large sections of the British public...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The innovation of the metric system isn't the size of the SI units, it's the fact that everything is done in base 10 like our counting system so that 'conversions' merely involve shifting a decimal point. I can guarantee you I can convert between millimetres, centimetres, metres and kilometres far faster than you can convert between inches, feet, yards and miles. The first clue is in the names.
And when I need to do complex calculations I will indeed convert everything into SI units in standard form. I'm talking about everyday practical purposes, which don't require me to convert miles into inches.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, if you think using 2 separate systems for different parts of your life is efficient, knock yourself out.
--------------------
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
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The innovation of the metric system isn't the size of the SI units, it's the fact that everything is done in base 10 like our counting system so that 'conversions' merely involve shifting a decimal point. I can guarantee you I can convert between millimetres, centimetres, metres and kilometres far faster than you can convert between inches, feet, yards and miles. The first clue is in the names.
And when I need to do complex calculations I will indeed convert everything into SI units in standard form. I'm talking about everyday practical purposes, which don't require me to convert miles into inches.
Which one is cheaper by cost for the fabric, a £12.60 3'4 curtain or a £16.20 4'6 curtain? Which mathematics is easier and faster to do - (12.6/101.6)/(16.2/137.16) or (12.6/(3*12+4))/(16.2/(4*12+6)) ? Which one ends up saving lots of time if you're doing anything more complex than comparing two goods with one another, like, say, comparing ten different curtains of varying lengths and prices? For that matter, because it has been the populace's way of doing maths for 15 years at least, which one is easier to type into a regular cell phone calculator?
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
[I]mperial measurements are as stupid as fitted carpets in bathrooms.
Thinking about it, both of these things are very popular amongst large sections of the British public...
That the Brits like to give their feet urinal sponge baths hardly speaks to their benefit, IMHO.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
