***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 14 *****
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
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 30 May 14 at 01:42
|
UKIP polled about 10.5% in the Euro elections (in Scotlandshire) which should get them a Scottish MEP.
Should be 2 for SNP, 2 for Labour, 1 for Tories.
LDs in 6th place behind Greens, rather than 5th place elsewhere (where there isn't an SNP)
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 26 May 14 at 00:50
|
|
Lets hear it for The Peoples Army <><><><> HURRAY!
|
I have no doubt the apologists for the status quo will mumble on about the EU elections not being important to UK voters, the turnout was miserably low, it's a protest vote and so on, but the clear message is that the party of "IN" has been nearly obliterated, whilst the party of "OUT" has won comprehensively.
|
Of course, but I'd vote for the devil if he got me across a shark-infested river. It doesn't mean I'd want his company for the rest of the trip.
One might imagine that having elected our representatives to the EU parliament, they would now form the EU government, and the old lot would be packing their bags and looking for real jobs. But that would be too democratic I suppose.
|
>>
>> One might imagine that having elected our representatives to the EU parliament, they would now
>> form the EU government, and the old lot would be packing their bags and looking
>> for real jobs. But that would be too democratic I suppose.
>>
The EU has 766 elected MEPs. The UK contributes 73 of those.. tinyurl.com/nj8ucln
I assume you think 23 UKIP MEPs can overrule non-UKIP 743 MEPs.. from your comment... :-)
|
>> the party of "IN" has been nearly obliterated,
>>
Indeed, they managed to come in 9th out of 10 in the SE.
|
I suspect The Lib Dem stance on the EU has very little to do with the kicking they received in the polls.
I think you'll find that alienating their voters by sidling up to the Tories and abandoning pretty much every principle they had has played a far bigger part in it. Grabbing a shot at power by joining forces with a party with which they share virtually no ideological common ground, and which most of their voters see as the enemy of everything they stand for would kill your support pretty effectively.
Linking the electoral drubbing of the Lib Dems with the EU question and the success of UKIP is pretty disingenuous.
|
Speaking of obliteration, since the European and local elections, the BNP is, to all intents and purposes, extinct.
It now holds 0/650 seats in the House of Commons, 0/73 in the European Parliament, 1/21,871 in local councils. Its membership is probably well down on the last reliable figure of four thousand-odd at the end of 2012.
Griffin has no seat, having won 1.87% of the votes in his European constituency.
Not before time.
|
>> the BNP is, to all intents and purposes, extinct.
Never mind those stupid ruffians, three people with asbos and a lame pitbull... the French NF is another matter, anyway in the Euros, anyway to the extent that UKIP has empurpled the constituency maps in the Euros and locals.
One hopes and trusts that these tendencies are temporary, Euro-only, and that things will seem more normal after the general election next year. But there is a sort of putrid right-wing sirocco blowing through the whole world at the moment. Nevertheless Marine Le Pen has pulled off a bit of a blinder, reinventing herself and her party anyway to the satisfaction of unstable Frogs...
|
>>One hopes and trusts that these tendencies are temporary, Euro-only, and that things will seem more normal after the general election next year
Oh dear God, I hope not - that's precisely why us Kippers voted for Dear Leader, because we are FED UP with politicians ideas of "normal".
|
We've had a Great Financial Crash. The last one was in 1929. The next ten years saw the rise of Moseley, Mussolini, Tojo and Hitler. The following 6 years saw their fall.
Big crashes take a long time to heal and the resulting austerity creates the right scene for new parties promising "a "new way of doing politics".
Politics are ephemeral, economics are permanent.
|
>> We've had a Great Financial Crash. The last one was in 1929. The next ten
>> years saw the rise of Moseley, Mussolini, Tojo and Hitler.
Mussolini came to power in 1922.
Tojo came to power in 1941.
You can't claim that either was as a result of the crash in 1929.
|
>>
>> Mussolini came to power in 1922.
>> Tojo came to power in 1941.
>> You can't claim that either was as a result of the crash in 1929.
Possibly true. But you can't dissociate Hitler's rise from the economic situation of the twenties/thirties nor that of Mosely.
|
You can make a case for the French being to blame for the rise of Hitler as the economic conditions in Germany were a direct result of the treaty of Versailles. Things in Germany were going to pot long before the 1929 crash in America and its knock on effects.
Conditions in Germany were right for an extreme nationalist take over and had Hitler not been there, it possible similar policies could have come from somebody else.
|
>>
>> Possibly true. But you can't dissociate Hitler's rise from the economic situation of the twenties/thirties
>> nor that of Mosely.
>>
It is true - I looked them up !
I agree that in general Hitler's rise owed a lot to economic conditions, but the 1929 crash is I think now seen as not being the trigger previously thought. Hitler of course tried to exploit it, but economic forces were moving against him by the early thirties, and his share of the vote was slipping. Really I suspect he got in by a combination of inspired violence, unprecedented ruthlessness in intimidating voters, general public weariness with the whole chaotic process, and ultimately Hindenburg's senility and despairing willingness to let him have a go.
I don't see many analogies between the situation then and ours with UKIP now, but as always, quite a lot of danger with trying to force historical precedents which aren't really there. Like generals always being very good at fighting the previous war.
|
>>>that's precisely why us Kippers voted for Dear Leader, because we are FED UP with politicians ideas of "normal".
But hasn't Farage said he has no interest in high office or longevity... he just wanted to stir things up then wander off to do whatever he fancies next.
|
Dear Leader has about as much chance of achieving 'high office' as I have of becoming king.
But ... what he actually stated (I believe) is that his master plan is to get us out of Europe, and then wander orf.
|
>> But ... what he actually stated (I believe) is that his master plan is to
>> get us out of Europe, and then wander orf.
Classic ex-banker behaviour. Work your way into a massive and utterly predictable mess then wander off whistling insouciantly while squillions are needed to put it right.
|
" Work your way into a massive and utterly predictable mess then wander off whistling insouciantly while squillions are needed to put it right."
As practiced by Blair and Brown.
|
>The Peoples Army
But all voters are "Peoples". And didn't more voters vote for other parties than voted for UKIP? Doesn't that mean that the "Peoples" lost?
|
>> And didn't more voters vote for other parties than voted
>> for UKIP?
Isn't that nearly always the case though? More people vote against the 'winners' - although it's worse in a 'first past the post' system.
I was very surprised at the support they got in Scotland - didn't see that coming.
|
>>Isn't that nearly always the case though?
Pretty much, but all this "peoples army" stuff is pretty awful.
|
>>this "peoples army" stuff is pretty awful.
I'm with ^^this^^ geyser.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKsR_wUSfA
:o}
Last edited by: Arjades on Mon 26 May 14 at 22:00
|
|
I was reading about this trickery yesterday, it cost UKIP a 3rd seat in the SW, shameful behavour IMHO.
|
>> I was reading about this trickery yesterday, it cost UKIP a 3rd seat in the
>> SW, shameful behavour IMHO.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the British public!!!
The comparison with Plaid Cymru is a bit silly though as barely 5% of electorate is in Wales.
Neither do I buy the folding the ballot paper conspiracy b*ll*x. If it happened produce the witnesses and complain to the returning officer.
|
>>Never underestimate the stupidity of the British public!!!
Easily done though, especially if one has a postal vote and is getting on in years ... like me!
|
|
Judging by the rules and regulations and all the 'safety' features outlined in the 'Handbook for Polling Station Staff', you would think that the Electoral Commission had thought of everything. Then they let a stupid thing like this get past them
|
Just checked the full reuslts for East Midlands.
UKIP topped poll with 369k.
An Independence got 21k votes, considerably more than the 18k for BNP so either they have real support or a lot of people were suckered.
The Greens pipped the LibDems for fourth.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu-regions/E15000004
|
Can't stand the man normally, but found myself nodding in agreement on the way to work this morning. Nails it for me.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27585260
|
What an amazing coincidence that the day after the results are announced, David Cameron just happens to be phoning the other EU members asking for discussions. And he might so easily by sheer chance have made the phone calls a week ago.
One might almost believe that voting for UKIP had made the difference. But that would be silly of course, because UKIP is a fringe party run by fruitcakes.
|
Politician responds to voice of public?
I thought that's what we wanted them to do?
Last week, he wasn't listening. This week, we've spoken, it's obvious he is listening, and we get posts like this. Unfathomable.
Which way do people want it? Do our politicians listen or don't they? Do we want them to or should he now be ploughing on regardless? Would that please you?
Your last sentence remains spot on, however.
|
"Politician responds to voice of public?
I thought that's what we wanted them to do?"
Yes, I think that CP was merely pointing out that lib/lab/con was taking no notice until the collective voices of the public were channelled via UKIP. This has rather shaken them. They would like us to believe that UKIP only attracts the 'protest' vote, but they now realise that isn't the case. My wife wanted to protest - so her vote went to the Greens. What's more, lib/lab/con tried to tar UKIP with the racist brush; of course, if I were a racist, I would have voted BNP etc.
However, I'm not convinced that the EU and immigration from Europe are the principle concerns of voters. Intelligent people have the wit to realise that it doesn't make sense to keep importing immigrants, wherever they are from, into an already overcrowded country. This is not a sustainable answer to anything. I suspect also, that people feel uncomfortable with the inexorable rise of a religion that cannot live with itself, let alone live alongside other religions.
|
>>I thought that's what we wanted them to do?<<
We did...when they were first elected, not when their backs were finally against the wall.
Too little too late, I'm afraid for me.
Pat
|
>> >>I thought that's what we wanted them to do?<<
>>
>> We did...when they were first elected,
Eh? We elected the Tories on their 2010 manifesto. Why should they have been changing tack between then and now? Because Daily Mail?
After an election is exactly the right time for politicians to be reacting to the legitimate, substantiated voice of the people. Why are you expecting the government to have been doing a hot shoe shuffle on Europe when they're simply maintaining, up to this point, the course they said they would take?
Actually, if anything, the Tories HAVE been modifying their stance on Europe since the 2010 election with their 2017 referendum promise.
I seriously can't see what it is people are blathering about here.
The coalition has turned the country around and has ceded no further powers to Europe. Isn't that what the Conservatives (who, as you know, I didn't vote for) said they would do?
There's been an increase in Eurosceptic parties across the continent in this week's election, and our PM and other countries' representatives are responding to that. Were they supposed to have consulted their crystal balls and pre-empted the election results?
This is what elections are for. It's not hard.
|
>> There's been an increase in Eurosceptic parties across the continent in this week's election, and
>> our PM and other countries' representatives are responding to that. Were they supposed to have
>> consulted their crystal balls and pre-empted the election results?
The issues and people's concern with the EU at this election are hardly anything new. I think that is the point being made.
|
>> The issues and people's concern with the EU at this election are hardly anything new.
>> I think that is the point being made.
>>
I beg to differ. It is new.
The people have shown a remarkable lack of ability in expressing those opinions, if they are not new, in significant quantity, through the ballot box. Until this week, we have always returned a winning party proposing a pro-European agenda of varying degrees. For decades. In General and European elections.
It is "new" that a party such as UKIP has received this portion of the vote. So what's the problem? You can't accuse the other parties of not listening if we've constantly elected them to office. Now, however, we've officially expressed this opinion through the ballot box for the very first time.
The ballot box is where the nation speaks. It has now spoken differently on this issue for the very first time. However, I do expect the ballot box voice will revert much closer to type come the next General Election.
|
>>
>> >> The issues and people's concern with the EU at this election are hardly anything
>> new.
>> >> I think that is the point being made.
>> >>
>>
>> I beg to differ. It is new.
Don't confuse voting for UKIP in new large numbers, with the much older underlaying issues with the EU. The issues aren't new at all. People have pushed the issue further up the agenda, but it's always been there.
|
" Were they supposed to have consulted their crystal balls and pre-empted the election results?
This is what elections are for. It's not hard."
You may say so.
The electorate, in its present mood of cynicism and disenchantment with the main political parties, just sees patronising, posturing politicians who they feel don't care about the voters and who first of all ignored UKIP, then laughed them off and only at the last minute deemed them worthy of any kind of respect.
The UKIP phenomenon is as much about an attitude towards mainstream politics as about Europe or immigration.
|
We elected the Tories on their 2010 manifesto.
True if they'd won the election, but they didn't, did they?
|
>> We elected the Tories on their 2010 manifesto.
>>
>> True if they'd won the election, but they didn't, did they?
>>
Quite right of course, but I'm posting in a bit of a rush as usual so just trying to get across the general principle that we didn't elect an anti-European government last time, nor indeed ever, nor indeed a winning anti-European party in a European election.
|
...And he might so easily by sheer chance have made the phone calls a week ago.
When they were all busy electioneering, as he was.
|
>>Can't stand the man normally, but found myself nodding in agreement on the way to work this morning. Nails it for me.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27585260
No one in their right mind listens to the opinion of a war criminal.
|
>>No one in their right mind listens to the opinion of a war criminal.
I agree with Blair on pretty much nothing. But he is neither stupid nor evil. Nor has he been convicted of anything.
The comment is simply emotive mud slinging and beneath you.
So there. Nyaah.
|
Yes, this war criminal stuff is very silly.
I tried to explain ages ago that any leader of a powerful country whose military are for use, not ornament, will quickly become a 'war criminal' in that sense, barring miracles.
No one listened of course. Most people's political awareness is restricted to fantasies about the imaginary personalities of the politicians they have heard of.
|
|
Yes, I would say that if you wanted to you could find grounds for every prime minister being a "war criminal" on some pretext or other. All modern wars involve killing innocent men women and children.
|
Must be out of my mind then as I agree with WdB.
Tony Blair a war criminal? I don't think so. An intelligent and effective politician. Would vote for him tomorrow.
|
>>
>> No one in their right mind listens to the opinion of a war criminal.
>>
Really? That's your counter-argument?
|
I really can't stand Blair.
The man is as close to being a liar as dammit, was a consummate wriggler out of taking responsibility for anything his government got wrong ("Teflon Tone" I believe they called him), was/is a consummate politician - with all that that implies in terms of both skill and cunning. I don't trust anything he says - even less than I would almost any other politician.
And I think he may actually have got it wrong over UKIP. He seems to be exhorting little Ed to face up to the threat of Farage and stick to Labour's pro-Europe stance. That won't go down well with voters who know when they're being patronised. After all, Labour's refusal to offer a referendum amounts to them saying, "We know better than you what's good for you and for the country." Some politicians have virtually said as much.
|
Both Labour and Tories are already committed to Europe, like all sane British people. It's just that unlike the Lib Dems they won't come clean on it, shillyshallying about an in-out referendum. Flattering the electorate by pretending to reflect its confused ambivalence.
Look, there probably won't be a referendum. If there is, and the vote goes against Europe, it will simply be ignored. We're in Europe, and a damn good thing too.
|
>> We're in Europe, and a damn good thing too.
>>
>>
No, it is not!
I'm OK with a trade deal, (not exclusively via the EU, though - there IS a bigger market outside Europe) but not a political deal.
Last edited by: Roger. on Tue 27 May 14 at 18:22
|
I listened to the Mr Blair interview. And towards the end he said something that amounted to: "I believe we should be in Europe, and therefore I do not want Miliband offering the nation the opportunity to vote on it."
If that isn't Westminster politicians telling the non-London part of the nation what's good for them - which I think is the main reason for the Farage rise - then I don't know what is. Repulsive evidence of anti-democracy.
(And I sit rather on the fence here, on the in-or-out. I think we're quite comfortable where we are and would be foolish to rush out.)
|
>>If that isn't Westminster politicians telling the non-London part of the nation what's good for them - which I think is the main reason for the Farage rise - then I don't know what is. Repulsive evidence of anti-democracy.
<<
Some rather surprising insight into the rest of the country Mapmaker, and I don't mean that nastily either.
I'm pleasantly surprised;)
Pat
|
>> I listened to the Mr Blair interview. And towards the end he said something that
>> amounted to: "I believe we should be in Europe, and therefore I do not want
>> Miliband offering the nation the opportunity to vote on it."
The main message I took away was a view that pretty much mirrors my own. We simply cannot have the influence and power that we need to succeed in the 21st century, with the rise of new superpowers who don't have the shared history and values that we have traditionally enjoyed with the US, without being part of something much bigger and more influential. That, for all its faults which I don't dispute, is the EU.
It's actually the first time in my entire life I've agreed with Blair on anything. I dislike the man intensely, but it's rare that someone in politics echoes my view pretty much to the letter on a subject.
But then I am the kind of heretic who thinks immigration on balance has been a good thing for the UK, and free movement of people (in and out) is to be encouraged, so UKIP would probably consider me a lost cause by default.
I just hope if an EU withdrawal is ever firmly scheduled, the open arms welcome the French and other governments have hinted will be offered to skilled British migrants and companies to relocate before the borders close actually materialises. I love the UK, but I will not live in UKIP's vision of it.
|
Neither would I, DP, but we won't have to. Ukip won 27 percent of a 36 percent turnout, or about 10 percent of those eligible to vote. Factor in the protest factor, which brought out Ukip supporters in disproportionate numbers, and the fact that (some) people will vote in a European election in ways they'd never dream of in a UK general election (I admit even I struggle with the relevance of the European Parliament) and you have the components of Ukip's result here. It's safe to say they won't get 27 percent of the extra 30 percent or so we can expect to vote next May.
This is as good as it gets for them, although they will probably take enough votes from Tories next year to prevent an overall Tory majority, and hence a referendum.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Tue 27 May 14 at 16:48
|
|
So President Bliar doesn't like UKIP. Well I don't like him for what he did to this country and I have no interest in any of his opinions !
|
I don't think Blair is a war criminal, but I do however think he's utterly immoral.
Him and his press advisor and awful interfering wife cynically played it without an ounce of integrity.
I preferred Brown to Blair in an awful lesser of the evils way.
I really cannot imagine Ed Miliband as PM .. I'm rather hoping we don't have that to come. Time will tell.
|
UK's David Cameron says "Brussels has got too big, too bossy, too interfering" as he arrives for EU leaders' dinner.
Cameron urges EU leaders to listen to voters' concerns
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27583545
Perhaps our Dave and others just might be getting the message or just frit!
|
So... all those politicians that thought UKIP were a bunch of loons and racist... are now falling over themselves to replicate their policies into their own manifestos.
So either they were making it up when they thought UKIP were loons and racists.. or they still think it, but are nevertheless willing to go with it to garner votes.
Unprofessional an unpalatable whichever way you look at it.
|
Innocent question or two here chaps.
Was looking at various maps of share of vote of the different parties as here
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27576104
and reading about the reasons for the distribution of votes.
One of the reasons for UKIP's poor showing in London was given by various people as "Londoners are more cultured and better educated than elsewhere and are not taken in by UKIP" (this is not an exact quote but near enough!)
What occurred to me was that many of the "more cultured and better educated" may well work in London but do they actually live there and vote there?
It just seems odd that UKIP did well in "commuter land" - are people who live there less "cultured and better educated"?
It also stands out that Labour did well in London but not anywhere else south of a line from the Wash to Bristol. Is that because of "cultured and better educated Guardianistas" or the traditional vote for Labour of the working class"?
Interested in your thoughts (If you can be bothered!!)
P
|
London has a higher proportion of furriners than the 'burbs.
Simples.
|
"London has a higher proportion of furriners than the 'burbs."
I think it's called 'white-flight'. Is everyone comfortable with that?
|
>> "London has a higher proportion of furriners than the 'burbs."
>>
>> I think it's called 'white-flight'. Is everyone comfortable with that?
>>
Known issue in USA but is it seriously happening in London?
IME movement to suburbs and beyond and on to long distance commuting is more about income and class perception than race.
|
>> Known issue in USA but is it seriously happening in London?
Oh yes....without a shadow of a doubt.
|
>> Oh yes....without a shadow of a doubt.
Where though, and I don't men odd collections of streets in areas long inhabited by immigrants. Thirty years ago Brixton might have been a candidate but it's becoming more 'gentrified' as are a lot of other candidates.
|
London becomes more cosmopolitan by the day. A you say Brixton has become an expensive area to live. Most people looking for a place to live in London are looking for an up coming area to live that they can afford. For the vast majority the colour of the faces next door is not an issue and even if it is it is likely to be outweighed by financial considerations.
|
>>
>> >> Oh yes....without a shadow of a doubt.
>>
>> Where though, and I don't men odd collections of streets in areas long inhabited by
>> immigrants.
I lived for 20 years in the same house in the London Borough of Barnet, at one edge of it, near the border with the London Boroughs of Enfield and Haringey.
Then, 18 years ago when I got divorced I became a regular of a local pub in East Barnet (a***nal and occasional Tottenham pub) and soon became mates with a load of tradesmen, builders, lads from the water board and a couple of businessmen, etc.
My observation is based on my own experiences (both as a resident and for the last 6 years, policing that area as well) and comment/observations from those around me, who could see change in their environment and didn't necessarily like it.
The locals were gradually moving further out to Hertfordshire, Potters Bar was one destination. Some went to Essex. The ex-pats would occasionally come back for a pint in their old local.
My old neighbour was another good reference point, he'd lived in his house for over 45 years.
Another good source was the main local newsagent about 500 yards away, Mr Patel, he who works every hour that there is and will proudly show anyone that shows interest pictures of his three daughters, all of whom went to Uni and got good professional jobs. I've had many a chin wag with him at 0600 when grabbing my paper after a night shift.
|
London's "problem" is not one of the inhabitants fleeing but one of everyone wanting to live there. The astronomical cost of living anywhere near the centre inevitably causes a movement of those desiring a little more space for their money to dormitory suburbs
|
""London has a higher proportion of furriners than the 'burbs."
I think it's called 'white-flight'. Is everyone comfortable with that?"
I see that someone has given that post a frownie. Is that because they are uncomfortable with the observation, or in denial?
I daresay there will be a thread shortly about this morning's reported survey on racism; it will make an interesting discussion.
|
>> I see that someone has given that post a frownie. Is that because they are
>> uncomfortable with the observation, or in denial?
Why is it 'denial' to look for some facts? I worked in London for 35yrs. While there may have been a few spots of 'ghettoisation' in the past the demand for housing is such that the vast majority of inner boroughs are very mixed indeed.
|
>> I think [in London] it's called 'white-flight'. Is everyone comfortable with that?
Are you serious, Haywain? When did you last visit London? I live in inner London, just round the corner from where Dog was brought up. He left, I arrived. Inner London is a complete mix, with all races living pretty much harmoniously together.
Now, the blacks knife and shoot other blacks. And the death rate amongst black youths is a tragedy.
And the Muslims beat up other Muslims if they don't vote for the right candidate. Or don't wear the right clothing for the region (Tower Hamlets...)
I wouldn't begin to imagine what the Muslims and the Hindus do to each other; I've no idea. I suspect they live in different parts of town so as to avoid each other.
But without the Romanians, Bulgarians, Poles and Spaniards (don't forget Spain has youth unemployment of near enough half of their youths), nobody would: build walls, iron shirts, pour coffees, drive buses. And without the Pakistanis newspapers and petrol wouldn't be sold, and the middle-eastern market traders keep us in apples at 12 for £1.
And as a white middle class professional, I see none of the trouble living amongst it, and reap the benefits of the immigrants' hard work. So this is why I couldn't imagine voting UKIP. If they all 'went back home' then we'd be totally stuffed.
Pat>>Some rather surprising insight into the rest of the country Mapmaker
I think it's something that has come out of these elections that I hadn't picked up on before, but seems to be widely described in the papers this week. It is a problem that the working classes in the regions have with their metropolitan rulers.
|
>>I live in inner London, just round the corner from where Dog was brought up. He left, I arrived. Inner London is a complete mix, with all races living pretty much harmoniously together.
That's the problem ... not a problem as such of course, but where I live I never see any 'foreigners'.
Apart from the Engerlish in summertime.
My sister who lives just orf Lee High Rd. in Lewisham, tells me when she gets on the bus she can often be the only white face there - I don't think that's right.
My other sister lives just orf Forest Hill Rd. in East Dulwich, she calls Peckham, Africa (not in a derogatory way)
I don't think that's right either.
I'm staying up here 'til they carry me out in a wooden overcoat.
(*_*)
|
>> often be the only white face there - I don't think that's right.
>> she calls Peckham, Africa (not in a derogatory way). I don't think that's right either.
WTF do you think is wrong then Perro?
|
|
not on here thank-you
Last edited by: R.P. on Wed 28 May 14 at 19:10
|
Not really...too many too quickly so they have formed their own community instead of integrating into ours.
I always gently rebuke our Eastern Europeans at work about talking to each other in their own language when we are present. I explain it is rude to do that and very few do it twice.
Pat
|
>>I explain it is rude to do that
Because you want to listen to their conversation?
I presume that when you are in another country, then you don't speak English if there's anyone else around?
|
>>then you don't speak English if there's anyone else around? <<
No, I explain my knowledge of their language isn't too good but ask if they would try and help me to talk it better.
That way they don't feel excluded as we often do in this country.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 28 May 14 at 18:24
|
>>That way they don't feel excluded
aaahhh, do you feel excluded if someone is having a conversation without you?
|
>> I always gently rebuke our Eastern Europeans at work about talking to each other in
>> their own language when we are present. I explain it is rude to do that
>> and very few do it twice.
I used to work in a multi-lingual, 24 hour call centre, and the rule was always that English only was spoken on the floor between colleagues. Spanish, Russian, German, French, Urdu, Punjabi, Portuguese, Afrikaans, Albanian, Serbo-Croat, Thai, the list of languages we spoke was endless.
Nobody minded.
|
>> Nobody minded.
Probably because no-one could understand what you were all talking about ;~)
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 30 May 14 at 01:37
|
>>Too many blacks.
Ah, so not too many foreigners, specifically too many blacks?
|
>>>> Too many blacks.
Is this what you said in response to my rude question Perro? I was going to apologise for its rude form. But perhaps I won't this time after all.
I mean, too many for what FFS? Honestly! I don't think you really think like that.
|
= = = > not on here thank-you < = = =
Adieu.
|
>> Adieu.
And if that's a flounce, I hope it's just from this thread.
|
|
Well it is the permanent one, au revoir is the goodbye for now (or till we meet again).
|
"Are you serious, Haywain? When did you last visit London?"
It must be a year since I was in central London, but I was there for a year as a student. Of course, coming from Leicester, I thought it very white, middle class in comparison and, yes, it could have changed.
|
>>I think it's something that has come out of these elections that I hadn't picked up on before, <<
It really is something we feel strongly about in the sticks.
>>But without the Romanians, Bulgarians, Poles and Spaniards (don't forget Spain has youth unemployment of near enough half of their youths), nobody would: build walls, iron shirts, pour coffees, drive buses. And without the Pakistanis newspapers and petrol wouldn't be sold,<<
I'm not against immigration but I am against the numbers allowed when it means I'm living in a foreign country in my own country.
In your quote above, I feel we should force our long term unemployed to take on these jobs to keep them off benefits. I'm sure the various jobs would be done, just not so politely and willingly, in fact I can imagine the tone would be 'grudgingly'!
I have to say though, it is a pleasure to be served by a foreigner as opposed to an Englishman, these days.
Pat
|
Specifically for the person who gave me a scowly face....when I go into firms premises and the Health & Safety notices are in various different languages but NOT in English, when I stand in front of a coffee machine and nothing written on the selection is in English I consider we have a problem, don't you?
Pat
|
>> Is that because of "cultured and better
>> educated Guardianistas" or the traditional vote for Labour of the working class"?
Lygonos has it right, with a bit of the above thrown in as well.
How on earth Boris was ever voted in as mayor, God alone knows. Pleasant surprise though and he's done a good job.
|
>> How on earth Boris was ever voted in as mayor, God alone knows. Pleasant surprise
>> though and he's done a good job.
The voting pattern for his year of first election, 2008, is here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London2008mayorresults.svg
Inner/east London going Labour, outer/west Conservative. A pattern that would have been recognisable in GLC elections years ago.
|
>> Inner/east London going Labour, outer/west Conservative. A pattern that would have been recognisable in GLC
>> elections years ago.
Look at the map for councils now, there's not much blue.
|
>> Look at the map for councils now, there's not much blue.
>>
Again, I suspect, repetition of previous patterns during a Tory government.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_local_elections,_2014
Interesting that failure of Kippers in capital was not just an inner boroughs phenomenon. Bexley, Bromley and Havering are only councils where they were elected. Protest votes seem to have gone to Labour and Green with implosion of LD vote benefiting both.
|
By and large, our organisation in London is below par - acknowledged by UKIP Head Office.
The electoral flim-flam (the swear filter obviously would not allow the correct description) in Tower Hamlets is interesting, is it not?
|
>> The electoral flim-flam (the swear filter obviously would not allow the correct description) in Tower
>> Hamlets is interesting, is it not?
>>
>>
have they not declared yet?
|
"The electoral flim-flam in Tower Hamlets is interesting, is it not?"
I think it's awful - what does Brompto think?
I was a Presiding Officer in rural Suffolk where we do it the traditional British way - which I admit is not 100% perfect.
|
Brompto thinks it's pretty grim as well, though probably in a more ethnically nuanced way than Haywain does. Lutfur Rahman and his cronies need thoroughly investigating - hopefully the electoral commission are on the case.
The traditional British way isn't just white rural Suffolk though. It also includes the Ulster variants too where personation and double voting are so prevalent that voters have to present ID. And manipulating the candidate selection in safe seats is another trad British thing - in all three major parties.
|
|
I remain amazed that ID is not a requirement. Mind you, I believe in ID cards. I had to carry one in Germany, and don't see it as an imposition. Could eliminate quite a few dodges if implemented.
|
I like having an ID card (Chile & Brazil). It makes life sooo much simpler. None of this bring a utility bill and three forms of whatever malarkey.
I've never really understood the argument against them, other than the professional argue_againsters.
|
A perspective from an Israeli.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltoUgV7TPbc
I do not know how accurate the data is in this video: if it is, it gives serious food for thought for the future of our children and children's children.
|
Dis-graceful!! .. we should have a revolution, do a Romanov on the guvnors and, put Dutchie in charge.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH9zG28GQEg
|
|
I'm heartily sick of all this - Thank you and good night.
|
Racism is disgusting and disgusts me.
Racists are disgusting lowlife bigots who disgust me and ought to be ashamed of themselves.
UKIP, intentionally or not, is facilitating racism.
Listening to racists, even those who do not believe that they are, and people who suffer from foreign_people_phobia, trying to rationalise and justify their beliefs is an appalling waste of life.
|
>> people who
>> suffer from foreign_people_phobia, trying to rationalise and justify their beliefs is an
A phobia is an irrational fear, not a belief.
You wouldn't say "I really hate people with claustrophobia"
|
|
Alison Pearson seems to be following the footsteps of Melanie Phillips. A once decent liberal writer and campaigner becoming increasingly irrational and right wing as age advances.
|
"increasingly irrational and right wing as age advances."
I started life somewhere to the left of Michael Foot but experience, particularly since 1997, has hit me with a nasty dose of realism. People are entitled to change their views.
|
Alison Pearson seems to be following the footsteps of Melanie Phillips. A once liberal
writer and campaigner becoming increasingly rational as age advances.
There: put it right for you! :-)
|
La Phillips is so far off the political compass she's no longer writing for Mail's 'Right Minds' segment.
Her husband, Joshua Rosenberg though is the doyen of legal correspondents.
|
>> A once decent liberal writer and campaigner becoming increasingly irrational and right wing as age advances.
Allison (two Ls) Pearson is a fairly reliable middleweight columnist rather to the left end of the Terrorflag spectrum. I read today's piece, which simply surveys what has become rather a dishevelled, haystack-like range of subjects recently much discussed. It doesn't seem especially right-wing, just a bit confused and confusing. She says nothing that hasn't been said here ad nauseam.
|
It doesn't seem especially right-wing, just
>> a bit confused and confusing. She says nothing that hasn't been said here ad nauseam.
It doesn't seem 'confusing' to me. It exactly covers what I think.
|
>> Racism is disgusting and disgusts me.
>>
>> Racists are disgusting lowlife bigots who disgust me and ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>
This post has been bugging me since I read it at 2.30am this morning.
>> Listening to racists, even those who do not believe that they are, and people who
>> suffer from foreign_people_phobia, trying to rationalise and justify their beliefs is an appalling waste of
>> life.
This sentence is not logical in any way at all.
I need some clarification.
Can you accurately define a racist for me please?
Pat
|
>>Can you accurately define a racist for me please?
Look it up or search for a previous note where I have done just that.
>> Listening to racists, even those who do not believe that they are, and people who
>> suffer from foreign_people_phobia, trying to rationalise and justify their beliefs is an
>> appalling waste of life.
>
>This sentence is not logical in any way at all.
Let me try to help you understand -
Listening to;
1) racists, even those who do not believe that they are
&
2) people who suffer from foreign_people_phobia
while both 1) and 2) are;
- trying to rationalise and justify their beliefs
is
a waste of time, oxygen, life and existence.
There are disgusting views voiced in here; so I wish to have nothing to do with those views, not even arguing with them.
I am still concerned with being involved in a forum where such points of view are at least tolerated, if not supported and admired.
However, since I otherwise enjoy this place I shall try and keep away from this subject, and the most offensive of the people, and see if that works out for me.
|
>> I am still concerned with being involved in a forum where such points of view are at least tolerated, if not supported and admired.
Wouldn't a forum without a normal percentage of f*****g c***s seem a bit boring and pedestrian?
|
Made me smile big, AC, a first in this thread.
And you got a frownie for it!! Not from me, I'm about to give you a thumb!
|
>> Wouldn't a forum without a normal percentage of f*****g c***s seem a bit boring and
>> pedestrian?
>>
Fair enough AC, you can have a green thumb from me as well.
|
>>Wouldn't a forum without a normal percentage of f*****g c***s seem a bit boring and pedestrian? <<
I wish I'd said that AC:):), but of course a lady wouldn't, would she?
I gave you a frownie face for that post FMR. I really don't see where you're coming from and don't think it's because I'm thick. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I get by.
The reason we have a problem with immigration is tackling the subject of numbers, even bringing it up for discussion, by the various governments, has resulted in calls of racism.
For people like me, to make a statement saying I'm concerned about the sheer numbers of immigrants outweighing the UK citizens in parts of our country results in being deemed racist.
Is it any wonder Cameron, Brown and Blair have tried to swerve the problem?
We have an NHS that can no longer cope efficiently, a welfare benefits system which sees child benefits going to children who don't live in this country, and our long term unemployed allowed to squander their benefits while the immigrants do our jobs, mostly better than our work ethic is too.
Do we want this to carry on? How long before we totally lose the British culture?
What we need is someone, anyone, to stand up and say this must be regulated without fear of being called a racist.
It is not racist to state facts and never will be.
Pat
|
mega snip quote for the lazy person who couldn't be bothered to do it themselves!
>> It is not racist to state facts and never will be.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Well said Pat
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 30 May 14 at 01:39
|
"Can you accurately define a racist for me please?"
Very difficult Pat, when "race" is so difficult to define!!
Try reading this - I did!! I'm not sure that it clarified the matter for me!!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
Perhaps we should not use the terms "race/racism" but instead "culture/culturalism"??
I don't know - I hesitate to offer any opinion on the matter these days.
P
|
>> Racism is disgusting and disgusts me.
>>
>> Racists are disgusting lowlife bigots who disgust me and ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> UKIP, intentionally or not, is facilitating racism.
>>
>> Listening to racists, even those who do not believe that they are, and people who
>> suffer from foreign_people_phobia, trying to rationalise and justify their beliefs is an appalling waste of
>> life.
Where do you sit then, for circumstances where differentiating people by race is needed or desired.. for example, where certain people's from certain races commit certain crimes ..and the rest of us wish to discuss that or the deal with it.
The police use an 'Identity Code' system (it used to be called a 'Race Code' or RC)...
The IC codes are:
IC1 – White person, northern European/northern America type
IC2 – Mediterranean European/Hispanic
IC3 – African/Afro-Caribbean person
IC4 – Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Maldivian, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, or any other (South) Asian person
IC5 – Chinese, Japanese, or South-East Asian person
IC6 – Middle Eastern, Arabic or Maghreb person
IC0, IC7 or IC9 – Origin unknown
Furthermore, if I lived in certain areas of South London, I'd be moaning about the crime statistics with regards to street robberies (muggings) and other crimes ...and an enormous chunk of the perpetrators of those crimes, according to the victims, are young black men.
Would I be racist to mention the above in conversation? Would it be racist to circulate the description of a suspect defined by his race? Would it be racist to bemoan the way that community had evolved when you include the above observations? ...(hence my previous post about dictionary definitions and the difference between a rational or irrational take on race).
I will add the proviso of course that the vast majority of people's who'd be called 'black' do not commit crime and there's various sub elements to such racial profiling that utterly confuses things, such as the differences between Africans and Caribbeans or the differences between all the African backgrounds... however, barring people from raising a subject for fear of being labelled racist only perpetuates the problem, because the annoyance about the issue remains.. and on the merry go round continues, getting us all absolutely nowhere.
|
|
Are you using my name in vain Dog.>:) A good read this forum by intelligent people.
|
|
Where have you been Dutchman? Stick around.
|
What a lovely surprise Dutchie, I've missed you:)
Pat
|
>> What a lovely surprise Dutchie, I've missed you:)
>>
Anybody else we know on the bus - Iffy, Zero, L'es etc?
After you've been checked over by the medics you must tell us about your experiences and that amazing rescue by paratroopers.
|
What is UKIP's policy on farm subsidies?
"Farming is subsidised, with subsidies to farmers totalling £3.19 billion (after deduction of levies) paid in 2010. These mostly originate from the EU Common Agricultural Policy."
tinyurl.com/ac3xwjy
Are they going to tax us to replace EU subsidies.. or let many farmers go broke?
|
|
You're not getting this, are you? When we leave the EU, we'll save so much money it'll be like Brewster's Millions here. No worries.
|
|
I understood that we were a net contributor to the EU so, if we weren't paying that money, it could be used to subside whatever we wanted. Or, is the EU able to manufacture magic money out of thin air?
|
We pay the EU around £53million per day. Some of that is returned as grants for EU approved projects and some as subsidies, mostly for agriculture.
Much of our contribution is spent in other EU countries. We are a net contributor to EU funding.
In the middle of this circular flow of money sits the spider in the web - the EU commission syphoning off vast sums for bureaucracy and fraudulent payments to dodgy organisations and criminals.
Why do we not use our £53 million per day in the UK, directly, with no deductions and on projects and services of our own choice?
|
Because we think that levelling the playing field a bit by providing some funding to less wealthy nations in our locality will help them up the ladder a bit and provide stronger, richer customers for our businesses and industries.
When did isolationism ever work? Albania under Hoxha? North Korea under the Kims? I'd say UKIP are barking up the wrong tree, but they haven't even got the scent of the squirrel yet, let alone sight of the woods.
|
|
UKIP will no doubt want to give up our seat on the Security Council as it means talking with foreigners...
|
>> talking with foreigners...
>>
"to", not "with". So it's OK.
|
>> >> talking with foreigners...
>> >>
>>
>> "to", not "with". So it's OK.
>>
I thought the English talked AT foreigners. LOUDLY.
|
That was Margaret Thatcher.
I've just been reading a biography. It's staggering the way she really was rude to foreigners, ignoring centuries of diplomatic protocol. Perhaps Farage would be the same.
|
On the subject of political figures, Frederick Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead comes to mind and a quote (or perhaps a paraphrase of a quote) attributed to him which seems to fit this thread rather well;
Judge: I've listened to you for an hour and I'm none wiser.
Smith: Perhaps, my lord, but doubtless better informed.
|
“Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.”
Mark Twain
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 29 May 14 at 21:19
|
UKIP Debate - Volume 13 - Dog
