Our owners, the 1% that all loony tory voters keep in power and so safeguard their billions, want mass immigration to divide and rule, and to drive down wage costs.
By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
Do you genuinely believe that? If you do, where does it officially say that UKIP will place any restrictions on non white British?
I await their latest manifesto. But as I wrote earlier UKIP MEP Janice Atkinson has referred to Orientals using a racist term (Ting Tong's), and that kind of mindset amongst the UKIP high ups worries me.
Seth,
I refer to Scottish people as jocks and sweaty socks. Does that mean I would discriminate against them? No of course not. The ting tong reference is from a sketch show programme - I've heard it plenty of times inc orientals joking themselves about it. It's a silly name that's all. In her position she probably should not have made the remark, but I'd rather her be making silly jokey generalisation remarks than be fiddling her expenses etc. Far too much emphasis is placed on silly throw-away remarks these days. I genuinely don't believe someone making that remark is necessarily being racist.
I've made plenty of (what would be considered by some) suspect (though humorous to me and people I associate with) remarks in the past.
But I can say hand on heart that I'd never, ever discriminate against someone based on any difference they may have (be that religion, race, nationality etc).
I also agree that not all UKIPers are racist* but if the comments section in my local paper for example is anything to go by there are plenty that are and are very happy to nail their nasty, small minded colours to the UKIP mast. Some truly shocking comments get posted by UKIP supporters on there that would certainly lead to a justifiable ban on CL.
UKIP will never gain any meaningful power because the public is far too wedded to the LibLabCon love-in to go left or right. Sure they pick up seats here and there but power will be firmly concentrated on the centre ground for the foreseeable future.
However lets just play along with this fantasy that UKIP, against all odds, win a majority of seats in 2015 and form a government. The idea being put forward that all non-whites and non-British nationals will be deported as soon as Farage is sworn in as Prime Minister is, to put it bluntly, bollocks. That's not only because this isn't actually something they have stated they want to do, despite the BBC's and Channel 4's attempts to persuade the public otherwise, but because there are dozens of legal safeguards that would make it nigh-on impossible for them to proceed to deport those who were already legally in this country, as well as the inevitable public disorder that would lead to the unseating of the government should mass deportations be attempted. Yes, you can find an example of some nobody UKIP councillor sitting in Racist-on-Aintree or somewhere in the arse-end of Middle England who has said Lenny Henry should move to Africa to back up your hysteria, but then for every one of those you could also find a Labour councillor or MP who has expressed publicly either support for terrorists who have targeted members of the Conservative party in Government, or posted photos of them drinking champagne because a former PM had died after a series of strokes, or something equally as disgusting. The point of this is that any party can be made to look unelectable if you concentrate on the loonies. If the Labour Party's gaffes were covered with a similar level of coverage that UKIP's were by the national broadcasters and press then there would be exactly the same level of disgust at them as there is for UKIP.
You don't need to concentrate on the fringe loonies to try to bring UKIP's name into disrepute since their lack of coherent narrative at a national level provides more than enough ammo to discredit them on a public platform. Attacking them for having loonies in their party has had the opposite effect and only served to increase their popularity.
By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
Do you genuinely believe that? If you do, where does it officially say that UKIP will place any restrictions on non white British?
I await their latest manifesto. But as I wrote earlier UKIP MEP Janice Atkinson has referred to Orientals using a racist term (Ting Tong's), and that kind of mindset amongst the UKIP high ups worries me.
Seth,
I refer to Scottish people as jocks and sweaty socks. Does that mean I would discriminate against them? No of course not. The ting tong reference is from a sketch show programme - I've heard it plenty of times inc orientals joking themselves about it. It's a silly name that's all. In her position she probably should not have made the remark, but I'd rather her be making silly jokey generalisation remarks than be fiddling her expenses etc. Far too much emphasis is placed on silly throw-away remarks these days. I genuinely don't believe someone making that remark is necessarily being racist.
I've made plenty of (what would be considered by some) suspect (though humorous to me and people I associate with) remarks in the past.
But I can say hand on heart that I'd never, ever discriminate against someone based on any difference they may have (be that religion, race, nationality etc).
I hope that come across in the way I intended.
I get that. Did you see the lady on Meet the Ukippers going on about black people, how she wouldn't attend a social event if a black person was there? More than a throw away remark, and if that is what gets exposed, what else is below the surface? I find myself wondering about the UKIP people because I'm thinking 'what's really in their mind' is it the smile on the face of the crocodile? I admit to being sensitive to casual racism for reasons I've stated above, and when I see manifestations (like the Chelsea/Paris incident) I think will my wife or son have to put up with that kind of stuff? As an example of how it might play out, apart from Gok Wan and Ken Hom I don't recall seeing many Chinese people in the media even though there has been an established Chinese 'British' community here for centuries. When UKIP talk about schools teaching British values, I wonder if that takes into account British diversity and if UKIP have the faintest idea about Chinese Britishness.
This is the real issue = HEADCOUNT, not race/religion/ethnicity and it's gets clouded by debates about how many UKIP racists it takes to change a light bulb.
Quite simply - there is not enough room in UK for the current population trend to continue, so which party is going to address it and how ?
Nope, the real issue is demographic distribution. The baby boomer generation started retiring about 9 years ago, and given the increase in life expectancy and drop in the birth-rate to those born in the UK, without immigration we're going to suffer major skills shortages as well as have to massively increase the taxes levied on the dwindling working population in order to fund their pensions, their social care and their healthcare. Unfortunately, the chances of any politicians putting in place policies that'll do the long-term restructuring needed to deal with these demographic changes are small, cos they're likely to be unpopular.
Skills shortages in what sectors?
Not sure those that are coming are bringing any specific skill that we need - but it could well be the case.
If we needed 300,000 people to come in 2014 due to skill shortages then we are in big trouble already.
UKIP will never gain any meaningful power because the public is far too wedded to the LibLabCon love-in to go left or right. Sure they pick up seats here and there but power will be firmly concentrated on the centre ground for the foreseeable future.
However lets just play along with this fantasy that UKIP, against all odds, win a majority of seats in 2015 and form a government. The idea being put forward that all non-whites and non-British nationals will be deported as soon as Farage is sworn in as Prime Minister is, to put it bluntly, bollocks. That's not only because this isn't actually something they have stated they want to do, despite the BBC's and Channel 4's attempts to persuade the public otherwise, but because there are dozens of legal safeguards that would make it nigh-on impossible for them to proceed to deport those who were already legally in this country, as well as the inevitable public disorder that would lead to the unseating of the government should mass deportations be attempted. Yes, you can find an example of some nobody UKIP councillor sitting in Racist-on-Aintree or somewhere in the arse-end of Middle England who has said Lenny Henry should move to Africa to back up your hysteria, but then for every one of those you could also find a Labour councillor or MP who has expressed publicly either support for terrorists who have targeted members of the Conservative party in Government, or posted photos of them drinking champagne because a former PM had died after a series of strokes, or something equally as disgusting. The point of this is that any party can be made to look unelectable if you concentrate on the loonies. If the Labour Party's gaffes were covered with a similar level of coverage that UKIP's were by the national broadcasters and press then there would be exactly the same level of disgust at them as there is for UKIP.
You don't need to concentrate on the fringe loonies to try to bring UKIP's name into disrepute since their lack of coherent narrative at a national level provides more than enough ammo to discredit them on a public platform. Attacking them for having loonies in their party has had the opposite effect and only served to increase their popularity.
I generally agree with you. I don't think they are a racist part per se, however, they do attract racists to their party. That's where the problem lies. I suspect Farage likes the growth in support for his party but is wary of how many are fueled by a racial desire.
As for the media I also agree but I can understand it. It's not entirely their fault. THe majority of the population have no interest in party policies or manifestos. So picking apart UKIPs policies bit by bit, whilst would prove very telling isn't going to interest the masses. Publishing a sensationalist headline will do that though. I don't like it but if it means that people don't vote for them then I can stomach it.
UKIP are a racist party. That is not me making a statement because I don't like them, that is me stating a fact. So, how do I know? A very dear friend of mine is the brother in law of a very senior member of Ukip. I was unfortunate enough to be at a dinner party where this pratt got pissed. He then started to talk about politics and the ' bloody foreigners ' we have in this country. He was very close to Farage and he had moved to Kent to support him and the party. I am still waiting for the EU to steal everyone's pensions and it is amazing that the gay affair going on between Blair and Brown still hasn't been exposed (he predicted both ) . This ridiculous man has been marginalised by the party over the past couple of years because the media would destroy him. However, his good mate Farage shares his views there is no doubt about that. So, how do I know they are racist ? Because they told me so.
UKIP are a racist party. That is not me making a statement because I don't like them, that is me stating a fact. So, how do I know? A very dear friend of mine is the brother in law of a very senior member of Ukip. I was unfortunate enough to be at a dinner party where this pratt got pissed. He then started to talk about politics and the ' bloody foreigners ' we have in this country. He was very close to Farage and he had moved to Kent to support him and the party. I am still waiting for the EU to steal everyone's pensions and it is amazing that the gay affair going on between Blair and Brown still hasn't been exposed (he predicted both ) . This ridiculous man has been marginalised by the party over the past couple of years because the media would destroy him. However, his good mate Farage shares his views there is no doubt about that. So, how do I know they are racist ? Because they told me so.
Our owners, the 1% that all loony tory voters keep in power and so safeguard their billions, want mass immigration to divide and rule, and to drive down wage costs.
So Tory voters are loonys then? What a sweeping statement.
By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
Do you genuinely believe that? If you do, where does it officially say that UKIP will place any restrictions on non white British?
I await their latest manifesto. But as I wrote earlier UKIP MEP Janice Atkinson has referred to Orientals using a racist term (Ting Tong's), and that kind of mindset amongst the UKIP high ups worries me.
Seth,
I refer to Scottish people as jocks and sweaty socks. Does that mean I would discriminate against them? No of course not. The ting tong reference is from a sketch show programme - I've heard it plenty of times inc orientals joking themselves about it. It's a silly name that's all. In her position she probably should not have made the remark, but I'd rather her be making silly jokey generalisation remarks than be fiddling her expenses etc. Far too much emphasis is placed on silly throw-away remarks these days. I genuinely don't believe someone making that remark is necessarily being racist.
I've made plenty of (what would be considered by some) suspect (though humorous to me and people I associate with) remarks in the past.
But I can say hand on heart that I'd never, ever discriminate against someone based on any difference they may have (be that religion, race, nationality etc).
I hope that come across in the way I intended.
I get that. Did you see the lady on Meet the Ukippers going on about black people, how she wouldn't attend a social event if a black person was there? More than a throw away remark, and if that is what gets exposed, what else is below the surface? I find myself wondering about the UKIP people because I'm thinking 'what's really in their mind' is it the smile on the face of the crocodile? I admit to being sensitive to casual racism for reasons I've stated above, and when I see manifestations (like the Chelsea/Paris incident) I think will my wife or son have to put up with that kind of stuff? As an example of how it might play out, apart from Gok Wan and Ken Hom I don't recall seeing many Chinese people in the media even though there has been an established Chinese 'British' community here for centuries. When UKIP talk about schools teaching British values, I wonder if that takes into account British diversity and if UKIP have the faintest idea about Chinese Britishness.
. You don't like the term ting tong which is understandable but will use sweaty sock. You can't have it both ways.
By that I suppose I think that ultimately when UKIP make the tightest of rules then my wife and son will be threatened because they are not white British, or at the very least could be described as not having 'British Values' as defined by UKIP.
Do you genuinely believe that? If you do, where does it officially say that UKIP will place any restrictions on non white British?
I await their latest manifesto. But as I wrote earlier UKIP MEP Janice Atkinson has referred to Orientals using a racist term (Ting Tong's), and that kind of mindset amongst the UKIP high ups worries me.
Seth,
I refer to Scottish people as jocks and sweaty socks. Does that mean I would discriminate against them? No of course not. The ting tong reference is from a sketch show programme - I've heard it plenty of times inc orientals joking themselves about it. It's a silly name that's all. In her position she probably should not have made the remark, but I'd rather her be making silly jokey generalisation remarks than be fiddling her expenses etc. Far too much emphasis is placed on silly throw-away remarks these days. I genuinely don't believe someone making that remark is necessarily being racist.
I've made plenty of (what would be considered by some) suspect (though humorous to me and people I associate with) remarks in the past.
But I can say hand on heart that I'd never, ever discriminate against someone based on any difference they may have (be that religion, race, nationality etc).
I hope that come across in the way I intended.
I get that. Did you see the lady on Meet the Ukippers going on about black people, how she wouldn't attend a social event if a black person was there? More than a throw away remark, and if that is what gets exposed, what else is below the surface? I find myself wondering about the UKIP people because I'm thinking 'what's really in their mind' is it the smile on the face of the crocodile? I admit to being sensitive to casual racism for reasons I've stated above, and when I see manifestations (like the Chelsea/Paris incident) I think will my wife or son have to put up with that kind of stuff? As an example of how it might play out, apart from Gok Wan and Ken Hom I don't recall seeing many Chinese people in the media even though there has been an established Chinese 'British' community here for centuries. When UKIP talk about schools teaching British values, I wonder if that takes into account British diversity and if UKIP have the faintest idea about Chinese Britishness.
. You don't like the term ting tong which is understandable but will use sweaty sock. You can't have it both ways.
The quoting system was messed up earlier, I have not said I use the term sweaty sock it was organiser.
UKIP are a racist party. That is not me making a statement because I don't like them, that is me stating a fact. So, how do I know? A very dear friend of mine is the brother in law of a very senior member of Ukip. I was unfortunate enough to be at a dinner party where this pratt got pissed. He then started to talk about politics and the ' bloody foreigners ' we have in this country. He was very close to Farage and he had moved to Kent to support him and the party. I am still waiting for the EU to steal everyone's pensions and it is amazing that the gay affair going on between Blair and Brown still hasn't been exposed (he predicted both ) . This ridiculous man has been marginalised by the party over the past couple of years because the media would destroy him. However, his good mate Farage shares his views there is no doubt about that. So, how do I know they are racist ? Because they told me so.
This is the real issue = HEADCOUNT, not race/religion/ethnicity and it's gets clouded by debates about how many UKIP racists it takes to change a light bulb.
Quite simply - there is not enough room in UK for the current population trend to continue, so which party is going to address it and how ?
Nope, the real issue is demographic distribution. The baby boomer generation started retiring about 9 years ago, and given the increase in life expectancy and drop in the birth-rate to those born in the UK, without immigration we're going to suffer major skills shortages as well as have to massively increase the taxes levied on the dwindling working population in order to fund their pensions, their social care and their healthcare. Unfortunately, the chances of any politicians putting in place policies that'll do the long-term restructuring needed to deal with these demographic changes are small, cos they're likely to be unpopular.
Skills shortages in what sectors?
Not sure those that are coming are bringing any specific skill that we need - but it could well be the case.
If we needed 300,000 people to come in 2014 due to skill shortages then we are in big trouble already.
The thought of approx 45000 extra lorries on the road right now and 150000 going forward is helping make up my mind about where I want to spend my retirement.
This is the real issue = HEADCOUNT, not race/religion/ethnicity and it's gets clouded by debates about how many UKIP racists it takes to change a light bulb.
Quite simply - there is not enough room in UK for the current population trend to continue, so which party is going to address it and how ?
Nope, the real issue is demographic distribution. The baby boomer generation started retiring about 9 years ago, and given the increase in life expectancy and drop in the birth-rate to those born in the UK, without immigration we're going to suffer major skills shortages as well as have to massively increase the taxes levied on the dwindling working population in order to fund their pensions, their social care and their healthcare. Unfortunately, the chances of any politicians putting in place policies that'll do the long-term restructuring needed to deal with these demographic changes are small, cos they're likely to be unpopular.
Skills shortages in what sectors?
Not sure those that are coming are bringing any specific skill that we need - but it could well be the case.
If we needed 300,000 people to come in 2014 due to skill shortages then we are in big trouble already.
The thought of approx 45000 extra lorries on the road right now and 150000 going forward is helping make up my mind about where I want to spend my retirement.
Very true! But I think it's mainly to do with old drivers retiring and no one filling the vacancies rather than extra trucks on the road.
The thought of approx 45000 extra lorries on the road right now and 150000 going forward is helping make up my mind about where I want to spend my retirement.
This is the real issue = HEADCOUNT, not race/religion/ethnicity and it's gets clouded by debates about how many UKIP racists it takes to change a light bulb.
Quite simply - there is not enough room in UK for the current population trend to continue, so which party is going to address it and how ?
Nope, the real issue is demographic distribution. The baby boomer generation started retiring about 9 years ago, and given the increase in life expectancy and drop in the birth-rate to those born in the UK, without immigration we're going to suffer major skills shortages as well as have to massively increase the taxes levied on the dwindling working population in order to fund their pensions, their social care and their healthcare. Unfortunately, the chances of any politicians putting in place policies that'll do the long-term restructuring needed to deal with these demographic changes are small, cos they're likely to be unpopular.
Skills shortages in what sectors?
Not sure those that are coming are bringing any specific skill that we need - but it could well be the case.
If we needed 300,000 people to come in 2014 due to skill shortages then we are in big trouble already.
The thought of approx 45000 extra lorries on the road right now and 150000 going forward is helping make up my mind about where I want to spend my retirement.
Very true! But I think it's mainly to do with old drivers retiring and no one filling the vacancies rather than extra trucks on the road.
Thinking of the youth unemployment we have, why don't we teach our young people to drive (taxi or truck) to a high standard for free (Gov't funded) and then reclaim the costs in a similar way to student loans - i.e. once they are earning.
That way we could up the standard of driving on our roads, reduce youth unemployment, fill a skill shortage. Most teenagers want to learn to drive, but struggle with the cost of the process.
This is the real issue = HEADCOUNT, not race/religion/ethnicity and it's gets clouded by debates about how many UKIP racists it takes to change a light bulb.
Quite simply - there is not enough room in UK for the current population trend to continue, so which party is going to address it and how ?
Nope, the real issue is demographic distribution. The baby boomer generation started retiring about 9 years ago, and given the increase in life expectancy and drop in the birth-rate to those born in the UK, without immigration we're going to suffer major skills shortages as well as have to massively increase the taxes levied on the dwindling working population in order to fund their pensions, their social care and their healthcare. Unfortunately, the chances of any politicians putting in place policies that'll do the long-term restructuring needed to deal with these demographic changes are small, cos they're likely to be unpopular.
Skills shortages in what sectors?
Not sure those that are coming are bringing any specific skill that we need - but it could well be the case.
If we needed 300,000 people to come in 2014 due to skill shortages then we are in big trouble already.
The thought of approx 45000 extra lorries on the road right now and 150000 going forward is helping make up my mind about where I want to spend my retirement.
Very true! But I think it's mainly to do with old drivers retiring and no one filling the vacancies rather than extra trucks on the road.
Thinking of the youth unemployment we have, why don't we teach our young people to drive (taxi or truck) to a high standard for free (Gov't funded) and then reclaim the costs in a similar way to student loans - i.e. once they are earning.
That way we could up the standard of driving on our roads, reduce youth unemployment, fill a skill shortage. Most teenagers want to learn to drive, but struggle with the cost of the process.
There isn't any money in the job anymore. That's why people are leaving the industry in droves. A mate of mine was doing a 70 hour week and was only at home 2 nights a week before he jacked it in. Although the driving hours restrictions are a good thing for safety, they make the job a bloody nightmare.
Also, firms want drivers who have experience and are very reluctant to take on newly qualified drivers.
This is the real issue = HEADCOUNT, not race/religion/ethnicity and it's gets clouded by debates about how many UKIP racists it takes to change a light bulb.
Quite simply - there is not enough room in UK for the current population trend to continue, so which party is going to address it and how ?
Nope, the real issue is demographic distribution. The baby boomer generation started retiring about 9 years ago, and given the increase in life expectancy and drop in the birth-rate to those born in the UK, without immigration we're going to suffer major skills shortages as well as have to massively increase the taxes levied on the dwindling working population in order to fund their pensions, their social care and their healthcare. Unfortunately, the chances of any politicians putting in place policies that'll do the long-term restructuring needed to deal with these demographic changes are small, cos they're likely to be unpopular.
Skills shortages in what sectors?
Not sure those that are coming are bringing any specific skill that we need - but it could well be the case.
If we needed 300,000 people to come in 2014 due to skill shortages then we are in big trouble already.
The thought of approx 45000 extra lorries on the road right now and 150000 going forward is helping make up my mind about where I want to spend my retirement.
Very true! But I think it's mainly to do with old drivers retiring and no one filling the vacancies rather than extra trucks on the road.
Thinking of the youth unemployment we have, why don't we teach our young people to drive (taxi or truck) to a high standard for free (Gov't funded) and then reclaim the costs in a similar way to student loans - i.e. once they are earning.
That way we could up the standard of driving on our roads, reduce youth unemployment, fill a skill shortage. Most teenagers want to learn to drive, but struggle with the cost of the process.
I've highlighted the big flaw in this idea.
Student loans are Government funded at present. This idea is not very different to the current paid apprenticeship schemes that the Government currently promotes. If someone is currently unemployed - the Gov is partly "funding" them while not working anyway.
As for new drivers - yes it's a valid point, that's why I suggested that the Gov training should be of a high standard and thus highly accredited.
Our owners, the 1% that all loony tory voters keep in power and so safeguard their billions, want mass immigration to divide and rule, and to drive down wage costs.
So Tory voters are loonys then? What a sweeping statement.
No. Only those that don't earn over say £15000 year. Loony probably not right word. They lack some basic human instincts like compassion and empathy. Not their fault just the way they are.
Our owners, the 1% that all loony tory voters keep in power and so safeguard their billions, want mass immigration to divide and rule, and to drive down wage costs.
So Tory voters are loonys then? What a sweeping statement.
No. Only those that don't earn over say £15000 year.
Literally one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Not everyone who lives on a low wage wants the government to wipe their bum for them.
Our owners, the 1% that all loony tory voters keep in power and so safeguard their billions, want mass immigration to divide and rule, and to drive down wage costs.
So Tory voters are loonys then? What a sweeping statement.
No. Only those that don't earn over say £15000 year.
Literally one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Not everyone who lives on a low wage wants the government to wipe their bum for them.
What a twatish reply. Why work hard to keep the 1% in power.
Our owners, the 1% that all loony tory voters keep in power and so safeguard their billions, want mass immigration to divide and rule, and to drive down wage costs.
So Tory voters are loonys then? What a sweeping statement.
No. Only those that don't earn over say £15000 year.
Literally one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Not everyone who lives on a low wage wants the government to wipe their bum for them.
Do I want the nhs the police the courts the fire service the army the street cleaners the etc etc to wipe my bum rather than just that of the 1% then yes please
Our owners, the 1% that all loony tory voters keep in power and so safeguard their billions, want mass immigration to divide and rule, and to drive down wage costs.
So Tory voters are loonys then? What a sweeping statement.
No. Only those that don't earn over say £15000 year.
Literally one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Not everyone who lives on a low wage wants the government to wipe their bum for them.
What a twatish reply. Why work hard to keep the 1% in power.
Thatcher and Major came from working class backgrounds. Blair and Miliband grew up in far more privileged circumstances. The idea that the Tories are the party of the rich any more than the Labour Party are doesn't stand up to even the faintest whiff of scrutiny.
Our owners, the 1% that all loony tory voters keep in power and so safeguard their billions, want mass immigration to divide and rule, and to drive down wage costs.
So Tory voters are loonys then? What a sweeping statement.
No. Only those that don't earn over say £15000 year.
Literally one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Not everyone who lives on a low wage wants the government to wipe their bum for them.
What a twatish reply. Why work hard to keep the 1% in power.
Thatcher and Major came from working class backgrounds. Blair and Miliband grew up in far more privileged circumstances. The idea that the Tories are the party of the rich any more than the Labour Party are doesn't stand up to even the faintest whiff of scrutiny.
Every policy this Tory government follows is to transfer money etc from us the state to the private ownership of their kind the 1%.
Our owners, the 1% that all loony tory voters keep in power and so safeguard their billions, want mass immigration to divide and rule, and to drive down wage costs.
So Tory voters are loonys then? What a sweeping statement.
No. Only those that don't earn over say £15000 year.
Literally one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Not everyone who lives on a low wage wants the government to wipe their bum for them.
What a twatish reply. Why work hard to keep the 1% in power.
Thatcher and Major came from working class backgrounds. Blair and Miliband grew up in far more privileged circumstances. The idea that the Tories are the party of the rich any more than the Labour Party are doesn't stand up to even the faintest whiff of scrutiny.
Every policy this Tory government follows is to transfer money etc from us the state to the private ownership of their kind the 1%.
You do realise this isn't actually true and that this is a rather childish and delusional view.
Comments
Seth,
I refer to Scottish people as jocks and sweaty socks. Does that mean I would discriminate against them? No of course not.
The ting tong reference is from a sketch show programme - I've heard it plenty of times inc orientals joking themselves about it. It's a silly name that's all. In her position she probably should not have made the remark, but I'd rather her be making silly jokey generalisation remarks than be fiddling her expenses etc. Far too much emphasis is placed on silly throw-away remarks these days. I genuinely don't believe someone making that remark is necessarily being racist.
I've made plenty of (what would be considered by some) suspect (though humorous to me and people I associate with) remarks in the past.
But I can say hand on heart that I'd never, ever discriminate against someone based on any difference they may have (be that religion, race, nationality etc).
I hope that come across in the way I intended.
*plus.......some are only sexist instead. :-)
However lets just play along with this fantasy that UKIP, against all odds, win a majority of seats in 2015 and form a government. The idea being put forward that all non-whites and non-British nationals will be deported as soon as Farage is sworn in as Prime Minister is, to put it bluntly, bollocks. That's not only because this isn't actually something they have stated they want to do, despite the BBC's and Channel 4's attempts to persuade the public otherwise, but because there are dozens of legal safeguards that would make it nigh-on impossible for them to proceed to deport those who were already legally in this country, as well as the inevitable public disorder that would lead to the unseating of the government should mass deportations be attempted. Yes, you can find an example of some nobody UKIP councillor sitting in Racist-on-Aintree or somewhere in the arse-end of Middle England who has said Lenny Henry should move to Africa to back up your hysteria, but then for every one of those you could also find a Labour councillor or MP who has expressed publicly either support for terrorists who have targeted members of the Conservative party in Government, or posted photos of them drinking champagne because a former PM had died after a series of strokes, or something equally as disgusting. The point of this is that any party can be made to look unelectable if you concentrate on the loonies. If the Labour Party's gaffes were covered with a similar level of coverage that UKIP's were by the national broadcasters and press then there would be exactly the same level of disgust at them as there is for UKIP.
You don't need to concentrate on the fringe loonies to try to bring UKIP's name into disrepute since their lack of coherent narrative at a national level provides more than enough ammo to discredit them on a public platform. Attacking them for having loonies in their party has had the opposite effect and only served to increase their popularity.
Oh, and is Farage a racist? No. And for those continuing to espouse this myth that he is, here is a link from the Guardian that says he isn't a racist.
I refer to Scottish people as jocks and sweaty socks. Does that mean I would discriminate against them? No of course not.
The ting tong reference is from a sketch show programme - I've heard it plenty of times inc orientals joking themselves about it. It's a silly name that's all. In her position she probably should not have made the remark, but I'd rather her be making silly jokey generalisation remarks than be fiddling her expenses etc. Far too much emphasis is placed on silly throw-away remarks these days. I genuinely don't believe someone making that remark is necessarily being racist.
I've made plenty of (what would be considered by some) suspect (though humorous to me and people I associate with) remarks in the past.
But I can say hand on heart that I'd never, ever discriminate against someone based on any difference they may have (be that religion, race, nationality etc).
I hope that come across in the way I intended.
I get that.
Did you see the lady on Meet the Ukippers going on about black people, how she wouldn't attend a social event if a black person was there? More than a throw away remark, and if that is what gets exposed, what else is below the surface? I find myself wondering about the UKIP people because I'm thinking 'what's really in their mind' is it the smile on the face of the crocodile?
I admit to being sensitive to casual racism for reasons I've stated above, and when I see manifestations (like the Chelsea/Paris incident) I think will my wife or son have to put up with that kind of stuff?
As an example of how it might play out, apart from Gok Wan and Ken Hom I don't recall seeing many Chinese people in the media even though there has been an established Chinese 'British' community here for centuries. When UKIP talk about schools teaching British values, I wonder if that takes into account British diversity and if UKIP have the faintest idea about Chinese Britishness.
As for the media I also agree but I can understand it. It's not entirely their fault. THe majority of the population have no interest in party policies or manifestos. So picking apart UKIPs policies bit by bit, whilst would prove very telling isn't going to interest the masses. Publishing a sensationalist headline will do that though. I don't like it but if it means that people don't vote for them then I can stomach it.
So, how do I know they are racist ? Because they told me so.
I ain't voting for any party that might be racist.
Did you see the lady on Meet the Ukippers going on about black people, how she wouldn't attend a social event if a black person was there? More than a throw away remark, and if that is what gets exposed, what else is below the surface? I find myself wondering about the UKIP people because I'm thinking 'what's really in their mind' is it the smile on the face of the crocodile?
I admit to being sensitive to casual racism for reasons I've stated above, and when I see manifestations (like the Chelsea/Paris incident) I think will my wife or son have to put up with that kind of stuff?
As an example of how it might play out, apart from Gok Wan and Ken Hom I don't recall seeing many Chinese people in the media even though there has been an established Chinese 'British' community here for centuries. When UKIP talk about schools teaching British values, I wonder if that takes into account British diversity and if UKIP have the faintest idea about Chinese Britishness.
. You don't like the term ting tong which is understandable but will use sweaty sock. You can't have it both ways.
The quoting system was messed up earlier, I have not said I use the term sweaty sock it was organiser.
The thought of approx 45000 extra lorries on the road right now and 150000 going forward is helping make up my mind about where I want to spend my retirement.
That way we could up the standard of driving on our roads, reduce youth unemployment, fill a skill shortage. Most teenagers want to learn to drive, but struggle with the cost of the process.
Also, firms want drivers who have experience and are very reluctant to take on newly qualified drivers.
This idea is not very different to the current paid apprenticeship schemes that the Government currently promotes.
If someone is currently unemployed - the Gov is partly "funding" them while not working anyway.
As for new drivers - yes it's a valid point, that's why I suggested that the Gov training should be of a high standard and thus highly accredited.