Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun May 05, 2013 9:37 am  

Oh, and, no religious institution would be compelled to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people. I think this is what Minty was referring to when she mentioned UKIP voters being incapable of rational thought.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun May 05, 2013 9:50 am  

Kosh wrote:

UKIP are the party for not-too-bright xenophobes. No amount of 'protest vote' nonsense is going to change that.

What you call "xenophobes" are the great majority of the British public. Too much immigration is very high on the agenda of most people I've ever spoken too. The traditional working class and traditional middle class are opposed to it. Go to any discussion with politicians and you see that. Why can't people of a certain minority, mentaliity just accept that rather than trying to villify people?

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun May 05, 2013 10:16 am  

Horatio Yed wrote:

I'm all for controlled immigration based on a points system.

Labour introduced that in 2007/8. If you think it isn't controlled ask some large companies about recruiting skilled staff, and don't believe the crap in the papers

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun May 05, 2013 10:21 am  

Dally wrote:

What you call "xenophobes" are the great majority of the British public. Too much immigration is very high on the agenda of most people I've ever spoken too. The traditional working class and traditional middle class are opposed to it. Go to any discussion with politicians and you see that. Why can't people of a certain minority, mentaliity just accept that rather than trying to villify people?

Because vilifying immigrants is what its all about instead?

Unfortunately, a lot of people who have a "problem" with immigration don't really understand it, and for example would allow say Luis Suarez (an immigrant) to come here without complaining, because he plays football, yet moan about say A N Other from India who is a highly skilled computer professional, when he may be filling a post that keeps perhaps hundreds of UK citizens in work. That may be an extreme example, but thats what it comes down to, a one fits all rejection of foreigners.

Kylie Minogue should go back to Oz too (although she's ok to stay as she's pretty )

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun May 05, 2013 10:48 am  

Horatio Yed wrote:

... This leads me to Nigel's view on gay marriage which you twisted to fit your own agenda Minty.
He believes that an organisation that doesn't support it shouldn't have legislation forced upon it for the sake of being PC. He's not against gay people or marriage of gay people, if the church supported gay marriage Farage would also support it...

And no law is being proposed that would force clergy to marry gay people. So Farage is claiming to be opposed to something that isn't being even remotely proposed.

And people believe him.

So how stupid do you want?

And on the basis of the Telegraph forums over recent months, many* of those who have been declaring that they would vote UKIP were opposed, pure and simple, to equal marriage. FFS, some were calling for "civil disobedience" to 'defend' marriage. Is this the sign of rational, thinking people?

Horatio Yed wrote:

I find it offensive that the usual leftwingers on here have to resort to childish name calling and insults just because people have a different view...

I gave a specific anecdote of my own father's idiocy. Do you think his attitude was coherent on the basis of what I posted?

Do you consider the conflation of Europe and the EU is a sign of intelligent debate?

Is it the sign of great intellects to assume that any problems that the UK has are the fault of the EU, however flawed those political institutions are?

Now you may well not agree with the above and I have not suggested that you do – but which of the above do you not consider to be signs of irrational attitudes?



* Note: that was "many" not 'all'.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun May 05, 2013 11:45 am  

Mintball wrote:

As the anecdote I posted earlier illustrated, it's not rational thinking - it's gut politics. And anyone with a brain cell would not have any respect for so wing that works on the basis of: 'oh, I'll completely duck a point and just come out with a bit of dumbs hit rhetoric instead'.

And as has been pointed out, it's largely disenchanted Conservative right wingers switching - so hardly likely to be considering the entire spectrum of political options on a ballot paper.

Going back to Standee's point: two things.

First: I'm not sure that anyone really knows that the middle ground is any more. That could arguably be because of 30-odd years of neo-liberalism, which for many, doesn't fit within the old political certainties. Labour moved to the right to become electable, ditching, for instance, Clause 4 on public ownership, which, in effect, said that it was no longer a socialist party; the Conservatives moved to the right to try to become electable - and failed - and then have moved to some socially liberal positions in an effort to distance themselves from being 'the nasty party'.

One of the elements behind UKIP's current position is serious anger about equal marriage. I think that's actually an ideal illustration of a number of things - not least how far many in society, from across the mainstream political spectrum, have moved on social issues in just a generation. Which itself also suggests that 'the middle ground' has shifted, certainly on social attitudes.

I think that this is also born out by the point I raised a while back, that someone had done research showing just how many politicians, from across the mainstream spectrum, had done exactly the same course at exactly the same institution, reflecting a very limited range of political, philosophical and economic ideas across that same spectrum. It's part of the reason that there is actually little to differentiate between the main parties on the big issues at present - which inevitably offers opportunities (whether taken or not) by parties further to either side of the spectrum.

But there's another factor at play too. And that is the media.

I can't remember, off the top of my head, who it was, the other day, who wrote a piece asserting that, if the 1970s had seen the question being asked 'who really runs the country' as one about the power of the trades unions, then the same question today produces a different answer, in big finance and the bulk of the mainstream media. And for the latter, blaming 'Europe' for everything Is a delightfully useful and effective tactic - and I would not, for a moment, suggest that the EU is anything other than, at best, a deeply flawed political institution, but part of the problem the is the way that Europe and the political institutions of the EU have become conflated.

In conjunction with that, and perhaps in part because of widespread disillusionment with the state of domestic politics in 'the middle', we have seen an increasing militaristic culture growing over the last decade, and with that goes increased patriotism/nationalism, cultures that themselves are also added to by issues around a variety of subjects including immigration and perceptions of a culture under attack, multiculturalism v integration and so on. Again, there are legitimate questions, but the way in which the most successful newspapers in the UK present these is rather more one-sided - and again, it distracts from what is happening economically, which is a continued neo-liberal agenda, pursed with ever greater rigour as the last 30 years have passed.

In summary, I think that the point about a middle ground is a good one, but the shifting sands of domestic mainstay politics, and the influences of the mass of the media, mean it's far from a simple one, and certainly is not a question of there being some sort of old-fashioned left cabal running the roost.

OK this is a true case - my parents are in their 70s have always voted Tory but they have a some serious issues
1. They will be vote for the Torys whilst Cameron is in charge - the gay marriage thing was a final straw, call them what you will, but their view is as valid as yours.
2. The incumbent Tory MP is a homosexual - again this is something they find hard to deal with especially in a seat predominantly filled with young families.
3. They come from a generation where having the vote is precious.
4. No way they will vote Labour, the will not vote Liberals because they see their part in the current government so what is left - UKIP or BNP so they will probably vote for UKIP.

This is why people are voting UKIP because the government is rubbish and Labour don't have a credible platform.

The issue about gay marriage is more about your sensitivity than anything it is a non-issue to virtually everyone else. Gay people have been having relationships since creation why is there a sudden need to formalise it? The whole point of marriage was to formalise matters for procreation and removing the stigma from the offspring. That is also now a non-issue thankfully.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun May 05, 2013 12:02 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

OK this is a true case - my parents are in their 70s have always voted Tory but they have a some serious issues
1. They will be vote for the Torys whilst Cameron is in charge - the gay marriage thing was a final straw, call them what you will, but their view is as valid as yours...

I'd suggest that their right to an opinion is as valid as mine or anyone else's, but unless they can provide a sound, reasoned explanation of why equal marriage is a bad thing (including actual evidence of what damage equal marriage would do to the institution of marriage, their own marriage, the country etc etc) then their view does not have the same validity as a view that does (from whatever side of the argument).

Sal Paradise wrote:

2. The incumbent Tory MP is a homosexual - again this is something they find hard to deal with especially in a seat predominantly filled with young families.

Okay. They have a view. They are entitled to that. But on what basis do they link sexuality – and "young families"? Is it a rational one?

Sal Paradise wrote:

3. They come from a generation where having the vote is precious.

I certainly hope that such a feeling is not limited to a single generation.

Sal Paradise wrote:

4. No way they will vote Labour, the will not vote Liberals because they see their part in the current government so what is left - UKIP or BNP so they will probably vote for UKIP...

Well, there are other parties.

Sal Paradise wrote:

... The issue about gay marriage is more about your sensitivity than anything it is a non-issue to virtually everyone else...

I mentioned the Telegraph forums for a reason. For people there, declaring that they would vote UKIP precisely because of the issue of equal marriage, and for those calling for "civil disobedience" over the same matter, it clearly is not just a "non-issue".

And you're contradicting yourself anyway, since you've said, in this same post, that it was enough of an issue for your own parents that it was "the final straw".

Sal Paradise wrote:

... Gay people have been having relationships since creation why is there a sudden need to formalise it? The whole point of marriage was to formalise matters for procreation and removing the stigma from the offspring. That is also now a non-issue thankfully.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun May 05, 2013 12:04 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The issue about gay marriage is more about your sensitivity than anything it is a non-issue to virtually everyone else.

Everyone except your intolerant parents, apparently.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun May 05, 2013 12:11 pm  

I've ong said this about party politics, if we could chose specific policy we'd be better off, UKIP are abhorrent for their views on equality, Labour are equally abhorrent on their socialist ideals, as are the Conservatives for protecting greed. I wish I could criticise the Limp Dems, but they don't seem to stand for anything.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun May 05, 2013 12:43 pm  

Standee wrote:

I've ong said this about party politics, if we could chose specific policy we'd be better off, UKIP are abhorrent for their views on equality, Labour are equally abhorrent on their socialist ideals, as are the Conservatives for protecting greed. I wish I could criticise the Limp Dems, but they don't seem to stand for anything.

I don't even think we have that choice at present.

As mentioned earlier (in this thread or another?) one of Blair's first acts was to ditch Clause 4 on public ownership, which was, in effect, a way of taking the Labour Party away from any standard socialist philosophy.

Now it could be said that that was an inevitable consequence of the previous election defeats with more obviously socialist manifestos and/or because of the representations of the mass media (again, see previous post).

But once in power, Blair and his government continued with privatisation and deregulation – general approaches that I doubt anyone would seriously describe as socialist. And 'the third way' was arguably an attempt to step away from the left v right of previous decades (in this case, largely by furthering the neo-liberal agenda on the one hand while also investing in public services in the hope of mitigating the worst effects of 'trickle down' or lack thereof).

One of Brown's first acts as Chancellor was to deregulate the Bank of England – hardly a sociality action. And PFI, having been begun under Major, was carried on with a vengeance under Blair – and disastrously, if we look at the problems that have occurred as a direct result.

I go back to what I said previously: I think that part of the problem is that the 'old' rather obvious policies of the mainstream parties have changed on economics (not just that, but let's stick with that) and many of the electorate don't know what is what any more. And do not feel that there is a meaningful choice among the main parties – simply because they are so similar on so much. Conservatism, in the sense that it was used when I was growing up, is as much a thing of the past as socialism in the sense of old Labour.