***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 25 *****
As above.*
* this site does not endorse any political party in any shape or form. Any posts/links deemed offensive by moderators will be removed
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 12 May 15 at 10:07
|
|
New volume...sorry about the delay, conscious of comments before of chopping debates off in their prime, or in some cases in mid-post..
|
>> I'm not suggesting a conspiracy or that anti semitism played a large or indeed any part in >> EM's downfall. I don't think AC is either.
>> The question is whether it was there. If it was then what does that say about our society?
Well there's bound to be the odd anti-semite out there... but what we've been talking about is whether anti-semitism played a part in Labour's defeat because the Labour leader has a Jewish heritage.
... and most people on here are saying 'no', that did not have a part in Labour or Ed's downfall ... and I agree with that and think it foolish if Labour were to think that, they'd be taking their eye off the ball and missing the real reasons.
|
>> Well there's bound to be the odd anti-semite out there... but what we've been talking
>> about is whether anti-semitism played a part in Labour's defeat because the Labour leader
AC's original comment was:
But we are a racist bunch. There's an anti-Semitic undercurrent to a lot of this anti-Miliband stuff.
I agreed to extent of saying I wish I was convinced he was wrong.
Cue clucking from Dog, Mark and Zero.
Neither of us suggested it played a significant part in defeat. The question is whether there was an undercurrent. Like AC I'm left wondering if some of you understand the word undercurrent.
My misunderstood reference to Maserati man was about Gareth, the Jewish surveyor from Manchester who's forum name was a Maserati model and who flounced over one member's alleged anti semitism. He came back for a day three or four weeks ago but went again.
Posts as Happy Blue in t'other place.
|
>> Neither of us suggested it played a significant part in defeat. The question is whether
>> there was an undercurrent. Like AC I'm left wondering if some of you understand the
>> word undercurrent.
We do and there wasn't even that.
|
>>Cue clucking from Dog, Mark and Zero
What does "clucking" mean?
If you mean I think your view is pathetic, immature and a desperate attempt to pretend that there is something unfair in your glorious bland leader's total hammering, then I guess you're correct.
In all honesty, your rather silly position on this has harmed your credibility in my eyes. Much as I disagree with many, perhaps most, of your views, I have never before felt the need to check up on the facts behind what you say.
Now I understand your criteria better, that will no longer be the case;
1) There's no evidence so it must be true.
2) Everybody says my accusations are ridiculous, which is absolute proof that they are true.
|
>>I agreed to extent of saying I wish I was convinced he was wrong.
No.
You agreed to the extent of saying there was evidence in the media but that you couldn't be bothered to root it out for us.
AC gets a bit weird after the sun has risen over the yardarm, I didn't realise that you followed a similar pattern.
|
>> You agreed to the extent of saying there was evidence in the media but that
>> you couldn't be bothered to root it out for us.
Nice bit of misrepresentation. I said I suspected there were examples in the Mail, Express and possibly the Telegraph. I wasn't prepared to spend all day seeking them out for an audience with closed minds. Not same thing as couldn't be bothered.
>> AC gets a bit weird after the sun has risen over the yardarm, I didn't
>> realise that you followed a similar pattern.
I don't. I just wish I was convinced there was no hint of anti Jewish sentiment in coverage of Miliband family.
Not just Ed but his brother and father too. Notwithstanding the 'wrong brother' crapola now being recited by the media they'd have gone for David in exactly same way. Remember the banana?
Easy to laugh off the bacon sarnie stuff but neither you nor Z have responded re the assaults from the Harmsworth and other press on his Father.
|
>> Easy to laugh off the bacon sarnie stuff but neither you nor Z have responded
>> re the assaults from the Harmsworth and other press on his Father.
His father was of a different time and a different beast. The time was Nazi Germany when the jewish question was high on everyones agenda and coloured his thinking, and he was an outspoken uber left wing marxist fundamentalist to whom all the radical left wing thinkers and commentators of the age flocked to.
But more to the point as he died in 1994 WTF does it have to do with Ed in 2015?
I repeat - its unfounded and looking for excuses. People didn't like him because, frankly, he was weird and out of place.
|
>> But more to the point as he died in 1994 WTF does it have to
>> do with Ed in 2015?.
>
Indeed.
So why did the Daily Mail spread Ralph Miliband's 'disloyalty' over a front page in 2014?
|
>> So why did the Daily Mail spread Ralph Miliband's 'disloyalty' over a front page in
>> 2014?
>>
Because he was an outspoken uber left wing marxist fundamentalist to whom all the radical left wing thinkers and commentators of the age flocked to.
As you can imagine, stuff like that goes down a storm in the Mail.
|
>> As you can imagine, stuff like that goes down a storm in the Mail.
QED then?
|
>> >> As you can imagine, stuff like that goes down a storm in the Mail.
>>
>>
>> QED then?
Did I mention anything to do with anti semitism?
|
>> QED then?
>>
You are so wrapped up in the 'Left is the correct way'... that you cannot see that plenty of other rational, normal people don't see it the same way.
You are searching for an angle that just isn't there.
|
>> So why did the Daily Mail spread Ralph Miliband's 'disloyalty' over a front page in
>> 2014?
Because he was of the extreme Left... and he brought up 2 sons, both of whom went into politics.. and one of those sons became the leader of the Labour party... and the Mail supports Right of Centre or Right politics and looks down its nose at the Left.
So by highlighting Ralph's deficiencies and the potential for influencing his sons (as parents do) some of that negativity, when published, would rub off on Red Ed.
Simples.
|
>> I just wish I was convinced there was no hint of anti Jewish sentiment in coverage of Miliband family.
In that case I've got good news for you.
There isn't.
|
>> In that case I've got good news for you.
>>
>> There isn't.
That's your view. I remain sceptical at best.
You'll note that Z now concedes the Mail's readership lapped up stories about Miliband Pere's 'disloyalty'.
|
>> You'll note that Z now concedes the Mail's readership lapped up stories about Miliband Pere's
>> 'disloyalty'.
I ask you again WHERE did I say it had anything to do with being Jewish?
I quote
Rabbi Alan Plancey, a Conservative councillor in Elstree, Hertfordshire, saw nothing antisemitic in the article. “The Daily Mail are having a go at Mr Miliband and this is nothing to do with him being Jewish. The word isn’t mentioned and I don’t think we should start digging it up and making it into something it isn’t… This is a battle against Labour. The Daily Mail is a Conservative paper, so it’s political.â€
Conservative MP Lee Scott commented: “Any tone of xenophobia or prejudice didn’t come across to me in the original article, but I was looking at it from a political angle.â€
But he sympathised with Ed Miliband’s reaction and said he would be “quite upset if someone had a go at my father who was no longer aliveâ€.
Former Labour MP Eric Moonman said: “I don’t think for a moment that it’s antisemitism. I must admit, like most Jews, I see dangers everywhere, but I don’t see it in this case.â€
A souce at the Mail said: “This was purely about politics and Ed Miliband’s anti-freemarket views — such as his threats against energy companies, grabbing land from housebuilders and raising taxes against big corporations. The article sought to trace the origins of Ed Miliband’s views and that led back to Ralph Miliband.
“We find any suggestion of antisemitism in what is a purely political debate to be absolutely spurious.â€
Both the author of the article, Geoffrey Levy, and the paper’s deputy editor, Jon Steafel, are Jewish.
|
>>I remain sceptical at best.
Wow! Sceptical at best!!!
1) There's no evidence.
2) Everybody thinks its a dumb statement.
Therefore "I am Sceptical at best".
You must be proud of your evidential standards.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 10 May 15 at 21:16
|
>> 1) There's no evidence.
>> 2) Everybody thinks its a dumb statement.
>>
>> Therefore "I am Sceptical at best".
>>
>> You must be proud of your evidential standards.
I remain sceptical at best that there was no anti semitic message.
There is some evidence albeit disputed by 'everybody'.
The audience here isn't exactly a cross section of social outlooks is it?
|
>>There is some evidence albeit disputed by 'everybody'.
Really? You didn't seem to think so before.
>That's the point. It's done without leaving obvious fingerprints.
>That's the British way. No explicit stuff about jew boys just Dog whistles.
>I've no proof either way
|
"I remain sceptical at best that there was no anti semitic message."
This takes racist-sniffing to a new level.
|
I don't think the majority of the British public took to Ed Milliband.Even less to Ed Balls.
Just my observation.Nick Clegg took all the flack for what when wrong the last five years.The Tories all the benefits.
The next five years will be fun,more cuts to plenty of folk.Let's hope the economy picks up.
|
>> I don't think the majority of the British public took to Ed Milliband.Even less to
>> Ed Balls.
No, because they seem to think they can spend their way out of a financial mire, even if they don't have it to spend.
>>
>> Just my observation.Nick Clegg took all the flack for what when wrong the last five
>> years.The Tories all the benefits.
I think Nick Clegg is a principled man who did a good job and doesn't deserve the flack he's received.
>>
>> The next five years will be fun,more cuts to plenty of folk.
Some of it is needed, whether or not there's pain with it. The basic principle of not spending what you don't have is IMO sound.
The Left seem to think that the Tories are all about 'wealth creation' only... and that 'wealth re-distribution' is what it should be about...I think one has to go with the other.
|
>> I think Nick Clegg is a principled man who did a good job and doesn't
>> deserve the flack he's received.
He made just one cock up, Student Tuition. Scrapping the fees was a major plank in their 2010 manifesto, they made a big thing about it, yet chucked it down the crapper when they joined the coalition, ironically its probably one thing they could have stuck to their guns over and got Tory agreement on.
Pity - he will be a loss.
|
What will happen to the N.H.S.as we know it in the future? I still think it gradually will be more insurance based on top of the N.I people already pay.
The 8 billion promised will just cover the cracks at the moment.I hope you are right about wealth distribution. Because if that doesn't happen we need more than a burglar alarm to protect us.Let's be positive and hope that the Conservatives with a small c have a say in government policies.
|
>> What will happen to the N.H.S.as we know it in the future? I still think
>> it gradually will be more insurance based on top of the N.I people already pay.
I'm rather hoping a leaner, trimmed down version comes out, with the basic principles intact. They can get rid of the immense layers of management and back room staff.
>>
>> The 8 billion promised will just cover the cracks at the moment.I hope you are
>> right about wealth distribution. Because if that doesn't happen we need more than a burglar
>> alarm to protect us.Let's be positive and hope that the Conservatives with a small c
>> have a say in government policies.
I hope so too.
|
>> What will happen to the N.H.S.as we know it in the future? I still think
>> it gradually will be more insurance based on top of the N.I people already pay.
If healthcare can survive under the Thatcher regime,it can survive Cameron. It has to change, either under Labour or Tory, but the basic tenent of the poorer being able to get treatment will continue.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 10 May 15 at 23:13
|
>> In that case I've got good news for you.
>>
>> There isn't.
All but 48 hours after this kicked off I remain surprised, shocked even, by the vehemence and apparent conviction with which so many of you deny the possibility of anti semitism in the British media.
Particularly people like NoFM and Zero who I'd normally regard as at least giving debate o this nature some thought.
But there you go - forum discussions for you.
|
>>Particularly people like NoFM and Zero who I'd normally regard as at least giving debate o this nature some thought
Perhaps, if EVEN people like NoFM and Zero think its nonsense, then perhaps it is?
|
>> if EVEN people like NoFM and Zero think its nonsense, then perhaps it is?
If even smart, well-informed and shrewd individuals like Zero and FMR assert with furious vehemence that something is so, perhaps they are revealing a dim unconscious awareness that it may not be.
I wish to God I hadn't started this crap. Someone will get a heart attack if it goes on, and it could be me.
|
>> gets a bit weird after the sun has risen over the yardarm
Risen over, or about to sink below? I've often wondered.
But never mind that. 'A bit weird' isn't the half of it, but never mind that either.
Honestly FMR, do you imagine that I am too permanently drunk or stoned to understand simple discourse or make critical sense of it?
Have to say, I wish I hadn't mentioned anti-Semitism or racism. Cans of worms, best not mentioned even to adults alas. Even politics in all its raw horror is safer than that.
|
>Honestly FMR, do you imagine that I am too permanently drunk or stoned to understand simple discourse or make critical sense of it?
Permanently? No.
After 6pm? Frequently.
|
>> After 6pm? Frequently.
Very seldom actually if ever.
You can't help being a cheeky sod FMR. But that's all right in my book. Believe me I've met real experts in cheek, know them intimately... saw a dozen or more in London today not to mention Herself.
You're a goddam amateur by adult standards. You don't have to believe me though. I don't give a whassername.
|
>>You can't help being a cheeky sod FMR. But that's all right in my book. Believe me I've met real experts in cheek, know them intimately... saw a dozen or more in London today not to mention Herself.
>> You're a goddam amateur by adult standards. You don't have to believe me though. I don't give a whassername.
I read this at 6.50am and it made me LOL anyone that can make me laugh at that time of the morning is an ok geezer in my books.
if I had Lud's sort of money I'd send you a few bob to put some juice in that Bentley of yours.
:o}
|
I have to say that, for me, this is reminiscent of a thread much earlier in the year where Bromptonaut flagged what he perceived as a slight against my sexuality in a completely innocuous thread on speed cameras.
And I think the same obervation I made then can be made now: "The increase in PC speak and those offended on behalf of others is, often, a result of people layering their perceptions based on how things used to be onto a world that's moved on. Not everyone of course. But enough. And let's be honest, if we try we can all be offended by something if we choose to. I just hadn't expected quite some many drama queens on Car4Play ;-)"
I can't image in that anyone of my generation or younger is even aware of the potential for any anti-semite undercurrent; the thought that religion, actual or otherwise, is in the slightest bit relevant doesn't occur to us... But, Millliband is a blundering fool who didn't understand what mattered to the electorate. And worse, had that ability of all champagne socialists, to appear remarkably patronising ;)
Sort out the policies and the leader, and people will engage. Stick dogmatically to things people don't support if you like, but don't be surprised when they don't vote for you. When they don't vote for you don't look for excuses and either accuse them of discriminating in some way, or not 'getting it'. The electorate is not as gullible as political parties like to think ;)
Just my thoughts...
|
>> I can't image in that anyone of my generation or younger is even aware of
>> the potential for any anti-semite undercurrent; the thought that religion, actual or otherwise, is in
>> the slightest bit relevant doesn't occur to us..
There are plenty of your generation who'd happily latch onto anti-Semitism. For obvious reasons it has a particular echo for some who sympathise with the Palestinian cause.
And that's before we take account of the older generation who'll lap that stuff up too
|
I disagree. Plenty is a massive overstatement. Of course there are some, but plenty? Never in a million years. It really is not on the vast majoriy's radar...
And frankly it's laughable to think that swayed the election. Labours problem, as ever, is that it thinks it know better than the electorate what's best for them... Address that and people will vote. Simple as that. Blair, for all his faults, recognised that :)
|
I am of the older generation. My father was an old style Liberal who was strongly against discrimination in all its forms. He fought in the war and was wounded.
I find blanket condemnation of an older generation based on today's mores typical of a PC and unthinking set.
Thankfully I don;t have to put up with that sort of rubbish from this government. And If Labour and its supporters continue on their mission to make martyrs of everyone but the English, I;ll not have to suffer it for decades.. and I'll be past caring then.
Last edited by: madf on Sun 10 May 15 at 20:22
|
And further,it's VE day. No doubt the comments about an older generation would also refer to those who fought and died for us..
Crass, wrong, disrespectful and plain bigotted (as a certain G Brown would have said).
|
|
Miliband lost because Socialism is dead. Whenever the Labour party swerves to the left, it loses. Blair knew that, much as I disliked the man. Even Kinnock knew that. As a non-Labour voter, I always thought it odd that the other Miliband didn't get voted in. I find the whole election funny, great to see Balls losing his seat and the Lib Dems now irrelevant. Labour will now enter a period of in-fighting, blaming everyone and everything except the real cause of their defeat - cretinous policies.
|
"Miliband lost because Socialism is dead."
You know that; I know that; anyone capable of adding two and two knows that ......... maybe someone should explain to the Scots?
Oh - and to Brompto who, in his defence, is very good on bicycle tyres ;-)
|
>anti-Semitism
And may I say, its idiotic s***e like this which gives other people the option to go on about crying-wolf-racism.
You discredit the fight against stuff which actually exists.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 10 May 15 at 21:04
|
Plenty of spirited stuff from No FM2R in this thread.
But why does he have to make it personal?
In a fairly calm discussion we suddenly get this:
"If you mean I think your view is pathetic, immature and a desperate attempt to pretend that there is something unfair in your glorious bland leader's total hammering, then I guess you're correct... your rather silly position on this has harmed your credibility in my eyes."
"AC gets a bit weird after the sun has risen over the yardarm, I didn't realise that you followed a similar pattern."
"You must be proud of your evidential standards." (Meant with sarcasm, I assume.)
He does get carried away, emotionally, doesn't he?
|
>> And that's before we take account of the older generation who'll lap that stuff up
>> too
What? All of them?
Is that not an incredibly sweeping statement?
Are they all wrong and you right?
Maybe some of the older generation have been around long enough and learnt enough to know what's what and make their own judgments.
Just a guess.
|
>> >> And that's before we take account of the older generation who'll lap that stuff
>> up
>> >> too
>>
>> What? All of them?
>>
>> Is that not an incredibly sweeping statement?
Context, Peter said something to effect that anti semitism was unknown in his age group.
For my part I expressed doubt about that and pointed out that still left the anti-semites amongst the older generation. With hindsight I should have referred to those of the older generation who lap this stuff up.
My Mother is regularly shocked by degree of racism etc expressed amongst her age 70+ circle.
|
>> Context, Peter said something to effect that anti semitism was unknown in his age group.
>>
>> For my part I expressed doubt about that and pointed out that still left the
>> anti-semites amongst the older generation. With hindsight I should have referred to those of the
Whilst it's nice that you expressed doubt that anti semitism was unknown in my age group, if a little patronising - as is the labour way... ;) - I thought I'd just add another data point. My statement was based on our circle of friends, colleagues and acquaintance, who vary from late teens to mid fifties from a wide range of backgrounds. . However this this week I'm at Cranfield on a course. There are 18 of us, aged between early 30s and mid 50s. All of whom also laughed at the suggestion that that was the reason Ed lost the election... So I'm intrigued as to the back story to your conspiracy theory...
|
>> at the suggestion that that was the reason Ed lost the election... So I'm intrigued
>> as to the back story to your conspiracy theory...
FFS how often do I need to repeat this.
I NEVER SAID ED LOST THE ELECTION BECAUSE OF ANTI SEMITISM
Neither did I suggest a conspiracy.
What I did was agree with another member that an anti Jewish undercurrent might be present in some commentary. Surprised by the vehemence with which others denied even the possibility I sought to explore where and how such a subtext might exist.
End of.
|
"End of. "
Good. I felt there might be a trolling undercurrent present yesterday, when you were trying to goad No FMR2 and Zero into further comment.
|
I wasn't trying tp goad anybody.
I was and remain genuinely surprised at their responses.
|
|
On the plus side, his gravestone, sorry, stone tablet of pledges could, I'm sure, be re-worked into quite a nice worktop for one of his kitchens... Shame to waste it; I'd heard it cost £30k... ;)
|
>>I'd heard it cost £30k
That's quite a lot. I wonder where the money came from. In fact I wonder, and I have no idea, how political party spending on such things is authorised?
I presume that there must be some oversight process, whichever party one looks at.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 10 May 15 at 22:26
|
I know you know really, but some of the money came from us, the tax payer, some from members and some from the Unions. Though of course, it is labour... So I expect a large chunk was borrowed... :)
Anyway, it wasn't spending. It was an investment in winning ;) Though any fool could see using a tombstone was only ever going to end badly...
|
Actually. I didn't mean quite that.
I wonder how they choose or authorise what the money is spent on, which buckets it comes from, and how it is recovered later.
Or perhaps its just a single, large bucket.
Because wouldn't you think someone in the Labour Party would be answering to someone else in the Labour Party about £30k on a lump of rock?
|
Ah well, in that case it's just marketing spend. I sure it seemed like a good idea... Signed off by a senior election strategist no doubt. probably a Director of Information, Communciation and Knowledge ;)
I'm not sure Labour staff would look on the gross waste in the same way you I would though. After all, it wasn't their money, and money grows on trees doesn't it :p
|
>>Director of ....
I'm slow, but the second time I read it I clicked.
|
>> >>Director of ....
>>
>> I'm slow, but the second time I read it I clicked.
>>
:)
It's getting late - here at least!!
|
>> Because wouldn't you think someone in the Labour Party would be answering to someone else
>> in the Labour Party about £30k on a lump of rock?
The campaign managers decide, they will have (based on past campaigns) effectiveness cost ratios.
Apart from these rules
www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-party-spending-at-elections
its basically just a big bucket.
|
Can't find any numbers on 2015, but last time round they spend £8m on the election. The Conservatives spent more than double....
Even so, the campaign has only really been running for 3 months in ernest hasn't it? So assuming Labour spent a similar amount this time that's very roughly £100k a day isn't it? So a tombstone is a drop in the ocean!
www.ukpolitical.info/Expenditure.htm
|
>> Just my thoughts...
The 'voice of reason' PeterS
|
|
Yes, just keep yawping on about mind-boggling sums of money as if you knew how to count. That seems to be a comfort zone for many on this site... a bit like fantasy football. Unbelievably pathetic to a grownup.
|
>> Yes, just keep yawping on about mind-boggling sums of money as if you knew how
>> to count. That seems to be a comfort zone for many on this site... a
>> bit like fantasy football. Unbelievably pathetic to a grownup.
>>
Spoken like a true lefty.
Money grows on trees..
Other People's Money is worthless - spend it as you like...
And mock those who have different values.
|
What?
You've inverted the meaning of my post madf you silly fellow.
|
>> What?
>>
>> You've inverted the meaning of my post madf you silly fellow.
>>
Oh dear.. my heartfeilt apologies.
It's my dementia - or not being awake or my medication or the gin.. or I'm just thick... I'll settle for the latter...
|
>> It's my dementia - or not being awake or my medication or the gin.. or I'm just thick... I'll settle for the latter...
Perhaps the telegraphic obscurity of my post had something to do with it as well.
:o}
|
Nigel Farage unresigns.. tinyurl.com/p6sxear
So Nigel is a man who keeps his promises? Right.. Just like Ed's Stone, tablets of stone are not for keeping..
Proves he lies like any other politician..
|
Technically, it seems that the party has rejected Farages' resignation.
Not the same as you're making out.
|
>> Nigel Farage unresigns.. tinyurl.com/p6sxear
>>
>> So Nigel is a man who keeps his promises? Right.. Just like Ed's Stone, tablets
>> of stone are not for keeping..
Nigel Farage is to remain as UKIP leader after the party rejected his resignation.
Mr Farage said he would stand down after failing to win a seat in last week's general election.
But the party said there was "overwhelmingly evidence" the UKIP membership did not want Mr Farage to go.
It said: "He has therefore been persuaded to withdraw his resignation and remains leader of UKIP."
|
Statement from Steve Crowther, Chairman of UKIP:
"As promised Nigel Farage tendered his official resignation as leader of UKIP to the NEC. This offer was unanimously rejected by the NEC members who produced overwhelmingly evidence that the UKIP membership did not want Nigel to go.
"The NEC also concluded that UKIP's general election campaign had been a great success. We have fought a positive campaign with a very good manifesto and despite relentless, negative attacks and an astonishing last minute swing to the Conservatives over fear of the SNP, that in these circumstances, 4 million votes was an extraordinary achievement.
"On that basis Mr Farage withdrew his resignation and will remain leader of UKIP. In addition the NEC recognised that the referendum campaign has already begun this week and we need our best team to fight that campaign led by Nigel. He has therefore been persuaded by the NEC to withdraw his resignation and remains leader of UKIP.".
|
>> Statement from Steve Crowther, Chairman of UKIP:
>>
>> "As promised Nigel Farage tendered his official resignation as leader of UKIP to the NEC.
>> This offer was unanimously rejected by the NEC members who produced overwhelmingly evidence that the
>> UKIP membership did not want Nigel to go.
I think that's read as a realisation that they've nobody even close to taking over the party. They need to start getting some other people ready for a high profile, otherwise they are a one man band. Maybe it's too late already.
|
Oh dear, that's naive at best.
He'd have had so much stronger a story if he'd have put himself up for the leadership contest and won than by going this way.
Its a bit of a shame really, he always had seemed to be a man of his word, and the spirit of his word, not just the letter.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 11 May 15 at 16:19
|
|
Its a tacit admission that without Nige, the party is toast.
|
|
Indeed. UKIP need to give media training to some other people in their hierarchy and get their mugs a bit more prominent. Or maybe Farage likes to dominate everyone?
|
>> Indeed. UKIP need to give media training to some other people in their hierarchy and
>> get their mugs a bit more prominent. Or maybe Farage likes to dominate everyone?
I think his irascible demeanour in the debates and reports of the closed nature of 'open' campaign meetings suggests latter.
|
To lead a political party and to seek office, one must want to lead to one extent or another, and be some level of control freak. Neither do those roles lend themselves to shy, retiring people.
But Farage never struck me as someone with a need to dominate. I think his demeanour came from a lack of tolerance of the slow on the uptake and the askers of stupid questions, more than a need to dominate.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 11 May 15 at 17:16
|
Follow the money on Mr Farage... Donors insisted he was retained..
blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/revealed-why-nigel-farage-is-still-ukip-leader/
Never mind , UKIP is untainted by vested interests... say its naive followers.. :-)
He 's a good comedy act...
Last edited by: madf on Mon 11 May 15 at 17:58
|
I suspect that with the pretty much universal support that Farage still enjoys from members, undented by the election result, none of the possible candidates wanted to follow him at this stage.
I dont blame them, UKIP supporters dont see Farage as a loser, just unable to beat the odds which they saw as stacked against him. In that context it will likely drive his support up further, it plays perfectly into the anti-politics narrative.
UKIP will always tread its own path rather than please media pundits and we are very much a member-led organisation. On that front, ive not yet met a member who didnt say to me they hoped he would reconsider which tells me it was the right choice.
His term ends in 2018, things may be different then.
Headline on Isabel hardman's piece in the Speccie made me laugh "Nigel Farage to remain UKIP leader until the end of time".
|
Stuu
You utterly miss the point.
Members are converts. You need lots more converts. New believers.
Your message was that Farage could be trusted. He was different.
That message is shown as untrue.
A wonderful opening for his opponents..and a warning to anyone relying on UKIP promises.
Last edited by: madf on Mon 11 May 15 at 20:40
|
Good that he is back but I also think UKIP needs to create more leaders like him.
Also, UKIP should work on how to handle media in a positive way [very difficult task]
To be successful, one needs to [1] do something good [2] tell everyone how good you are
UKIP achieved [1] but failed on [2].
Continuous negative publicity by the media did cost them several votes.
Anyone counted how many U turns Cameron made? As per following website, it is 42.
cameronscorkers.org/
|
>> To be successful, one needs to [1] do something good [2] tell everyone how good
>> you are
>>
>> UKIP achieved [1]
What was that then?
|
>> What was that then?
1. 4 million votes [more than LibDem & SNP combined]
2. Forcing Cameron to announce accelerated EU referendum
3. Pushing Labour in to identity crisis (UKIP ate more Labour votes than Tories)
4. A lot of people are now in favour of PR than FPTP
|
>> >> What was that then?
>> 2. Forcing Cameron to announce accelerated EU referendum
err no - that was Tory policy before UKIP came into being - mostly driven by his own back benchers.
>> 3. Pushing Labour in to identity crisis (UKIP ate more Labour votes than Tories)
Nothing to do with UKIP. The Tory vote put them into crisis.
>> 4. A lot of people are now in favour of PR than FPTP
Err No. Where do you get the numbers to support that.
you missed out
5. Went into the Election with two MPS, came out with 1.
6. The leader of the party didn't get elected. The man the party have admitted IS the party.
7 worse than expected showing in the council elections (one where it should have been much easier to get bums on seats)
All in all, UKIP have rugger all to celebrate.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 11 May 15 at 21:24
|
UKIP have done a pretty good job as a minority party and there is every sign that they can continue to do so.
- sniping at the heels, making sure awkward stuff stays in the news and appealing to popular beliefs. All good and necessary stuff.
But if they want to be more than the noisy popular party, then they've got a bunch of stuff to do;
- Clean up their own act
- Decide what they want to be and keeping to it (I could quite see them in LG)
- Decide what is their evolution beyond Europe and Immigration
- Become more than one man and his mates
(Because I would pretty much guarantee that neither of those will be an issue in 2020, one way or another)
|
Well, we can have arguments and counter arguments - that's what the forums are for.
I was never interested in politics but somehow I got intrigued by UKIP's common sense talks.
UKIP tells everything in crude and raw manner - probably that's why I find them so interesting. Every politician makes U turns but only UKIP is thrashed for everything.
If UKIP were not there, discussion about politics would not be that fun in C4P forums (or any forums as such).
Just ask yourself, they got only 1 seat yet everyone is talking about them and not about Plaid Cymru or similar parties with more seats! Why?
|
>> Just ask yourself, they got only 1 seat yet everyone is talking about them and
>> not about Plaid Cymru or similar parties with more seats! Why?
We (well the country) is talking much more about the SNP. Now there is a mob who have much to celebrate
|
>>1. 4 million votes
You forgot the word "only".
About the same as the UK supporters of Arsenal and Manchester United added together. Ok, its not nothing, but its hardly undying support from the masses, is it?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 11 May 15 at 21:49
|
Well, he did resign, otherwise the NEC would have had nothing to reject.
It does give opponents an angle, ill grant you that, but UKIP never got anywhere by listening to our opponents, so why start now?
The idea that because a party makes a successful effort to retain someone who resigns is somehow dishonest is a bit barmy. It was a matter of pride on his part, the party took a more practical view and the latter won out.
It is amusing that you are trying to make it into more than it is, but id expect nothing less tbh. Go for it, it is a well worn path.
|
I'm delighted that Nigel Farage will still be the UKIP leader.
( I very nearly shortened his name to his initials to save on keyboard strokes but then realised, whoops, that might be misconstrued )
;-)
|
>>It does give opponents an angle, ill grant you that,
Farage said he was a man of his word. A pretty strong statement and most impactful, especially given the dodgy characters in the other parties. It certainly added to the message that Farage and UKIP were different.
Now we are in a position where he has indeed kept to the letter of his word, but not really to the spirit.
Next time he makes a strong statement and tells us he is a man of his word, I guess we should believe him but look carefully for the get out that will technically comply but not cause him actually to change anything.
As we do for all politicians.
Showing that Farage is no better and no worse than the others, just a bog standard politician.
|
>>Now we are in a position where he has indeed kept to the letter of his word, but not really to the spirit <<
I think it was his intention to step down but I dont think he quite expected the reaction that ive seen. My guess is that he expected to be seen as a failure if he didnt win which was his reasoning, but UKIP supporters can more pragmatic than they are given credit for, so they let the leadership know that his mind had to be changed. They knew the headwinds that he and the party faced, so have instead recognised the advances are sufficient in that context to justify him staying in place.
Kippers are known for their online activism, they had a petition up within 24 hours and would have been relentless. It would have been an ongoing distraction to the aims of the party, not to mention undermining whoever replaced him, so I can fully see the practical reasons why they asked him to reconsider. When he said it was for the party, I think he is being honest, he understands kippers very well.
A few snotty headlines will die away as journalists get bored of trying to find an angle and will move on.
|
"Your message was that Farage could be trusted. He was different."
If this statement is contingent upon your belief that Farage "unresigned" then that has been shown to be untrue.
You seem astonishingly bitter about UKIP, to judge from this and other posts.
|
|
.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 11 May 15 at 21:54
|
>> You seem astonishingly bitter about UKIP, to judge from this and other posts.
>
Madf strikes me as a Tory and if he's bitter about UKIP I suspect that's limited to their role in denying Cameron a majority beyond that enjoyed my Major in 1992.
Farage's performance in the debates showed him to be no better than the rest of them. Abandoning his 'tells it like a man in the pub' persona to make bitter sounbites about AIDS patients or to deny his own previous views on health policy just made him look like another politico.
His second problem is, as surmised, his retraction of his resignation which shows two things:
(a) he'd have had more public stature if he'd stood and been re-elected - as John Major did to confound the 'illegitimates' in 1995
(b) Notwithstanding (a) it illustrates the lack of prominent UKIP members who might credibly replace him.
|
To be honest I'm a bit surprised he did it.
Aside from anything else Farage looked like a man in desperate need of a rest and a relax [unsurprisingly]. I suspect a summer without pressure before rejoining for a leadership contest in September may have done him a power of good.
|
>>To be honest I'm a bit surprised he did it.
Aside from anything else Farage looked like a man in desperate need of a rest and a relax [unsurprisingly]. I suspect a summer without pressure before rejoining for a leadership contest in September may have done him a power of good<<
On that I agree. I thought he would be back but at a later date. I can tell you, the pressures in an election season are intense and sustained, I am worn out myself just from my small role, so I cannot imagine how he must feel.
|
"...his retraction of his resignation..."
What??
|
>> "...his retraction of his resignation..."
>>
>> What??
>
Press reports suggest that, following representations from party members, he's withdrawn (ie retracted) his resignation.
Is there another account/interpretation?
|
>>Is there another account/interpretation? <<
Yes. The party NEC said there is nowhere you can go to, nowhere you can hide that we wont find you, so dont be daft and get on with the task at hand.
|
"Press reports suggest that, following representations from party members, he's withdrawn (ie retracted) his resignation.
Is there another account/interpretation?"
Press reports suggest the party has not accepted his resignation and has demanded he continue.
As I said before.
Last edited by: Observer on Mon 11 May 15 at 22:31
|
youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
Excellent explanations of the problems with FPTP
|
>> "Press reports suggest that, following representations from party members, he's withdrawn (ie retracted) his resignation.
>>
>>
>> Is there another account/interpretation?"
>>
>> Press reports suggest the party has not accepted his resignation and has demanded he continue.
And difference is?
|
"And difference is?"
Really, it seems there's no point in attempting to explain.
|
>> "And difference is?"
>>
>> Really, it seems there's no point in attempting to explain.
He could still have resigned
|
>>He could still have resigned<<
Yes and he was convinced to change his mind. The world hasnt stopped spinning.
|
>>The world hasnt stopped spinning.
Indeed not. And coming from, for example, Clegg or Milliband it would be unsurprising, hardly worthy of comment, worth a bit of a laugh.
*But*
- it was Farage and UKIP who said they were different from the other politicians and their parties
- It was Farage who made a big thing about being a man of his word
And yet they are seemingly no different. One cannot expect to have "we're different" as a battle cry and then behave exactly the same.
As the behaviour of a politician I am unsurprised. As the behaviour of Farage I am partly surprised because I thought he would have gone through with it and partly surprised because he will have well known how it would play in the press.
|
UKIP Debate - Volume 24 - R.P.