You keep peddling the "everyone has been manipulated" and "protest vote" cards. It might actually, miraculously, be taken seriously if enough people are ignorant and arrogant enough to believe that people haven't thought for themselves.
UKIP have taken up issues raised by the electorate that the three stale mainstream parties have ignored through fear.
If you've got any issues, take them up with those that have ignored public opinion as opposed to those that have, at last, broken the back of taboo subjects in this country.
Innit.
Right so accuse me of doing something I haven't and when asked to explain what you mean you refuse?
On your point about mainstream parties ignoring issues through fear, it is precisely the sort of fear UKIP are (incorrectly) peddling that has caused a lot of this. UKIPs policies breakdown simply to: 1. We want out of the EU as it costs us billions. Whilst true that we pay billions towards it there is no mention of the benefits we have received and continue to receive in exchange for our enrolment and contributions. 2. We want out of the EU as there are lots of immigrants coming over. A valid point, but to ignore all the benefits that immigrants bring is ridiculously blinkered. We have benefited from EU migrants and at a time we desperately needed them. Is it sustainable long term? Probably not but to just close the border completely to lower skilled EU migrants does not seem to be the answer. Besides we allow more non EU migrants in on a points based system anyway, yet the discussion is always around EU migrants.
That's about it as far as their policies go. Oh yeah the NHS, apparently Nigel thinks we should privatise it but then realised that was a mistake and so he doesn't really mean that at all.
Now on their two points, what percentage of the population actually think those two are the most important factors facing their lives at the moment? Personally it wouldn't be in my top 5, probably not even in my top 10. Yet, UKIP have manipulated enough people into believing these are two of the most important factors facing Britain today, they really aren't and to believe so is just wrong.
I haven't refused, just decided it to be counterproductive to argue against an immovable object such as the 'manipulation' tag banded about by those that disagree with UKIP.
There you go again, peddling opinion as fact re what issues people see as being important. Your top 5 may not be the same as somebody else's but that doesn't mean their top 5 is wrong. This goes full circle to the whole arrogance thing.
It's those sort of backhanded insults that you throw around that drive people to vote for the likes of UKIP......oh, and the fact that politics in this country is stale, center leaning and beige.
Did you mean centre ?
Yes, but without the space between 'centre' and the question mark.
At the same time a report emerged stating that the typical working wage went up by £1 not allowing for inflation - so down again as it has been every year since this government took office...down to the lowest level since the year 2000.
I'm guessing that statistic doesn't take into account the effects of personal taxation and does not refer to "disposable income".
Here's a fairly recent extract from stats published by the ONS:
"The average disposable income in 2012/13 was unchanged from 2011/12, but it remains lower than at the start of the economic downturn, with equivalised disposable income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. " (My emphasis)
That's sort of what we'd expect isn't it? But here's the interesting bit:
"The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (5.2%).
In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, the average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (3.5%)."
Not great figures I agree (and there are pockets of nastiness for 18 to 25-year-olds in particular) but it seems that under this Govt. (despite the "global financial crisis") there has been some actual real wealth redistribution. I'd expect there to be a further improvement for the poorer when the latest £10,000 personal tax allowance works its way into the figures.
Of course these statistics are not really what the two Eds want you to see because it dents their living standards crisis argument somewhat.
Because we live in a democratic society, we do have to listen to and sometimes implement the will of the people - even if in your view, it's ignorant.
I completely agree with democracy and free speech. That isn't my issue. My issue that opinions based on false facts and manipulation are wrong.
This notion that you cannot say someone's opinion is wrong is nonsense. If I were to say "in my opinion Burnley will win the Premier League this year." well that's fine to say and it would be an opinion, but it would still be wrong. I'm not saying, people aren't allowed to have these opinions or that they aren't allowed to express them merely that what they are expressing is incorrect.
But if enough people vote for it as a policy it has to be taken into consideration. Look at the liberal reforms at the turn of the 20th century that really only came about because of the sudden (and at the time people said "dangerous") rise of the Labour Party. You'd say now that it would've been the "right" thing to do but at the time you'd have made a good arguement that it was uneconomical to create national insurance, or even unethical.
My hatred for UKIP even outdoes my hatred for Millwall. Tomorrow the UKIP core support will be wearing blue and white in my opinion.
Not sure what you base this on, besides the fact you hate both Millwall and UKIP, therefore Millwall fans are more likely to be UKIP voters than Charlton fans? Politics and football shouldn't mix. I hate Labour but understand that many Charlton fans are Labour voters and I don't think any less of them because of that.
Labour really are in a lose-lose situation with the press at the moment. On the one hand they're castigated for being in thrall to the unions on the other they're being accused of being middle class champagne socialists out of touch with the working class. One of these must be wrong surely?
Don't think the two facts need to be mutually exclusive. One would think the unions would simply cut out the middle-men and stand for election themselves instead of bankrolling a bunch of upper-class twits who once walked past a socialist demonstration at which prestigious university they snuck into, thus allowing them to claim that they understand working class values.
Unfortunately, when you look at the public faces of the unions, you see thuggish louts who are barely able to string together a comprehensive sentence, such as McCluskey, O'Grady and of course the late Bob Crow. Sure, these people win elections amongst their own lot (with turnouts as high as 15%!) but at a national level they are basically unelectable. Hence the need for the posh twits that make up the majority of their MPs. They might be stupid and out-of-touch but at least they're photogenic (as long as a beggar, a bacon sandwich, a copy of the Sun, an England flag or Myleene Klass aren't about).
I think this is an interesting contribution to the debate. The union leaders could stand for election, in fact maybe they should, but then who would run the unions?
This debate goes round and round so I'll leave it there.
Shows what a state the main parties are in if the electorate are turning to UKIP - the country is very divided. Farage is a conman like Boris Johnson and probably just as nasty.
At the same time a report emerged stating that the typical working wage went up by £1 not allowing for inflation - so down again as it has been every year since this government took office...down to the lowest level since the year 2000.
I'm guessing that statistic doesn't take into account the effects of personal taxation and does not refer to "disposable income".
Here's a fairly recent extract from stats published by the ONS:
"The average disposable income in 2012/13 was unchanged from 2011/12, but it remains lower than at the start of the economic downturn, with equivalised disposable income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. " (My emphasis)
That's sort of what we'd expect isn't it? But here's the interesting bit:
"The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (5.2%).
In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, the average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (3.5%)."
Not great figures I agree (and there are pockets of nastiness for 18 to 25-year-olds in particular) but it seems that under this Govt. (despite the "global financial crisis") there has been some actual real wealth redistribution. I'd expect there to be a further improvement for the poorer when the latest £10,000 personal tax allowance works its way into the figures.
Of course these statistics are not really what the two Eds want you to see because it dents their living standards crisis argument somewhat.
It's fantastic to see the "big three" taking a beating in these by elections, but losing them to UKIP taints it heavily for me.
It's such a shame that people aren't aware of other alternatives such as the Green Party and others that I'll be looking into over the coming months and that I hope to give my vote to in May.
Why is it that people are unaware of these and think UKIP is the only alternative? They are the new media darlings.
ask those living in Brighton if they still think Green is a decent alternative.
And another thing, it is things like that woman tweeting a picture of a mans van and St.George's flags and negatively stereotyping him that drives people to UKIP. It's like the 3 main parties don't want to compete.
Can someone explain please how Emily Thornberry negatively stereotyped the bloke whose house she photographed? Given that the only caption was "Image from Rochester", which presumably is true, any negative stereotype is in the eye of the beholder surely? Which possibly says more about the prejudices about the "metropolitan liberal elite" of those who kicked up a stink about it, than it does about her.
And another thing, it is things like that woman tweeting a picture of a mans van and St.George's flags and negatively stereotyping him that drives people to UKIP. It's like the 3 main parties don't want to compete.
Can someone explain please how Emily Thornberry negatively stereotyped the bloke whose house she photographed? Given that the only caption was "Image from Rochester", which presumably is true, any negative stereotype is in the eye of the beholder surely? Which possibly says more about the prejudices about the "metropolitan liberal elite" of those who kicked up a stink about it, than it does about her.
She didn't do so directly. She did however have the sense to see that she was in the process of scoring an untimely own goal and to swiftly resign to try and curtail the debate about it- the one that you are continuing. When resigning she acknowledged she was wrong to have done it and apologised. Want to know why? Try asking her why she tweeted it....
There are plenty of working people who Labour would like to call "core voters" who simply cannot identify with the sort of posh, middle class, Islington dwelling, "cycle to work because I can afford to live here" people who are in control of the party. She took the perfect opportunity to highlight that at a time when Labour could have kept its head down whilst the Tories squirmed. Apart from Skinner and Mann, how many working class Labour MPs can you think of?
Anyone who does not think Labour will lose a large slice of its vote to UKIP at the election is kidding him/herself. That's why Cameron, if he had any sense, would be talking to Farage about a pragmatic electoral pact rather than living in a perpetual state of denial.
It's fantastic to see the "big three" taking a beating in these by elections, but losing them to UKIP taints it heavily for me.
It's such a shame that people aren't aware of other alternatives such as the Green Party and others that I'll be looking into over the coming months and that I hope to give my vote to in May.
Why is it that people are unaware of these and think UKIP is the only alternative? They are the new media darlings.
ask those living in Brighton if they still think Green is a decent alternative.
Not saying the Greens are our saviours. I'd need to know more before I put my support behind them, they were just the first party that came to mind outside of the four already mentioned.
It's fantastic to see the "big three" taking a beating in these by elections, but losing them to UKIP taints it heavily for me.
It's such a shame that people aren't aware of other alternatives such as the Green Party and others that I'll be looking into over the coming months and that I hope to give my vote to in May.
Why is it that people are unaware of these and think UKIP is the only alternative? They are the new media darlings.
ask those living in Brighton if they still think Green is a decent alternative.
Not saying the Greens are our saviours. I'd need to know more before I put my support behind them, they were just the first party that came to mind outside of the four already mentioned.
Look at their last manifesto then - it's very scary indeed - certainly not bedtime reading unless you like nightmares!
At the same time a report emerged stating that the typical working wage went up by £1 not allowing for inflation - so down again as it has been every year since this government took office...down to the lowest level since the year 2000.
I'm guessing that statistic doesn't take into account the effects of personal taxation and does not refer to "disposable income".
Here's a fairly recent extract from stats published by the ONS:
"The average disposable income in 2012/13 was unchanged from 2011/12, but it remains lower than at the start of the economic downturn, with equivalised disposable income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. " (My emphasis)
That's sort of what we'd expect isn't it? But here's the interesting bit:
"The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (5.2%).
In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, the average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (3.5%)."
Not great figures I agree (and there are pockets of nastiness for 18 to 25-year-olds in particular) but it seems that under this Govt. (despite the "global financial crisis") there has been some actual real wealth redistribution. I'd expect there to be a further improvement for the poorer when the latest £10,000 personal tax allowance works its way into the figures.
Of course these statistics are not really what the two Eds want you to see because it dents their living standards crisis argument somewhat.
Interesting commentary from Blanchflower. Despite his politics and the persistent voting the wrong way when he was on the MPC at the BoE, he does talk sense.
I think the last bit was telling: yes there are high-skill jobs and there is and always will be a supply of low-skill jobs but it certainly is true that many mid-skill jobs are fast disappearing. All those desk jockeys really have been replaced by computers: bank clerks by on-line banking; ticket office staff by swipe cards; travel agents, nah, just book it on-line; etc, etc. There are countless examples: the jobs have gone forever.
Unless you can train as something like an aero engine specialist, doctor, lawyer, accountant or don't mind collecting the recycling you really are going to be struggling. There doesn't seem to be much in the middle any more.
If I was doing it all again now, I think I'd try to opt for training as an electrician or plumber/heating engineer: we'll surely still always need those won't we?
Would anyone really want to live next door to a man who hangs England and West ham flags from his house during the world cup and leaves them there until they decay? He needs to take down the flags clean his block paving and stop behaving like a slob. Guess I've failed the snob test.
Would anyone really want to live next door to a man who hangs England and West ham flags from his house during the world cup and leaves them there until they decay? He needs to take down the flags clean his block paving and stop behaving like a slob. Guess I've failed the snob test.
I think it's only snobby if you have just lost an election, are a shadow cabinet minister (regular shadow ministers don't count) and live in a £2.5 million house and pretend to be in touch with the ordinary voter.
Personally I wouldn't dream of living near or even photographing a west ham fan's house.
UKIP are doing well because they represent the working class, Labour do not, and are not called "The Conservatives."
Also did you know that despite Farage being another one of these posh boys bla bla bla who earnt a load of money in the city bla bla bla, he didn't go to University?
Would anyone really want to live next door to a man who hangs England and West ham flags from his house during the world cup and leaves them there until they decay? He needs to take down the flags clean his block paving and stop behaving like a slob. Guess I've failed the snob test.
I would hate to live next door to such a house. This is because I hate the working class. They are smelly, noisy, there's far to many of them, it's time the government did something to restrict their uncontrolled spawning and quite frankly it's kinder not to educate them. It's reassuring that such distain for the working class is shared with Labour; A party that is supposed to represent them.
Comments
1. Mackay should be hung.
2. Well done UKIP.
My hatred for UKIP even outdoes my hatred for Millwall. Tomorrow the UKIP core support will be wearing blue and white in my opinion.
huh?
Hollow victory I would say.
This debate goes round and round so I'll leave it there.
Farage is a conman like Boris Johnson and probably just as nasty.
Mackay calls a Chinese person a Chinky and there appears to be uproar.
Yet there is very strong support for UKIP.
Very perplexing to me.
I'm struggling with what's right & wrong. Bizarre.
It's wrong to think of women as sexual objects, yet we have would yu's & Melanie Sykes is getting her body out on I'm a celebrity.
Am I supposed to admire Melanie's beatiful body or be screaming at the telly for her to put her clothes on.
Most Britrish people would say the niqab (sp) totally covering up of women is wrong and yet it's wrong for men to lust after women.
It's all too confusing ! Genuine comments, we're going round in circles, or at least I am.
He's furious.
There are plenty of working people who Labour would like to call "core voters" who simply cannot identify with the sort of posh, middle class, Islington dwelling, "cycle to work because I can afford to live here" people who are in control of the party. She took the perfect opportunity to highlight that at a time when Labour could have kept its head down whilst the Tories squirmed. Apart from Skinner and Mann, how many working class Labour MPs can you think of?
Anyone who does not think Labour will lose a large slice of its vote to UKIP at the election is kidding him/herself. That's why Cameron, if he had any sense, would be talking to Farage about a pragmatic electoral pact rather than living in a perpetual state of denial.
Guess I've failed the snob test.
Personally I wouldn't dream of living near or even photographing a west ham fan's house.
Also did you know that despite Farage being another one of these posh boys bla bla bla who earnt a load of money in the city bla bla bla, he didn't go to University?
It's reassuring that such distain for the working class is shared with Labour; A party that is supposed to represent them.