• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Ukip condemned by cross-party group for running 'racist' campaign ...

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
Ukip condemned by cross-party group for running 'racist' campaign | Politics | The Guardian

Looks like the establishments backs are up, so they are ganging up. Must be those reports that they are taking labour's working class voters, and unlike the the conservatives they are for keeps come the general.

Comments section is interesting, looks like people are coming round to the age old tactics of shutting down conversations by shouting racist like some sort of social stoning, it's been so overused it is wearing off. Not sure that Europeans are a 'race' but I'm sure they will have a good go. You could argue xenaphobic, but from my interpretation 'nationalist' would be a better term, i.e. putting people of nation first, not an easy thing to argue against.

"Oh yes you see, those people from elsewhere outside of the UK need a chance an opportunity, we have a safety net for our own, these poor people have nothing of the sort, so that's where any liberal right thinking emphatic person's priority lies. Otherwise you're a racist you see."
 

Sonic67

Banned
Sky seems to be busy digging up stuff anything on UKIP at the moment.

Here's a view:

Hurling insults at Ukip is not the solution - Telegraph

First, the accusation of “racism” was bandied about in ways that were simply absurd. The contentious Ukip poster that shows a finger pointing at the (presumably British) viewer, and a warning that 26 million EU migrants are looking for work and potentially competing for his job, may be inflammatory and divisive. But to call it racist is to debase the language: it is an insult to those whose lives have been devastated, or ended, by genuine racism. As a member of an ethnic minority that was almost annihilated by an actual racist regime, I find this trivialisation of the concept seriously offensive.

In one particularly preposterous broadcast encounter, the interviewer advised Farage that the dictionary definition of racism was the assertion that one race was superior to another – and that because his poster suggested that the British worker was “superior” to the foreign one, it was inherently racist. In fact, if anything, the poster suggested precisely the opposite: that foreign workers are likely to be superior competitors who will put indigenous employees at a natural disadvantage.
 

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
UKIP as far as I know aren't so interested in race or creed, but geography and skills. If you are coming from outside the UK you need to show you have skills of value to join in. Currently the EU says if your in the EU then all is good, if your from the outside, then show us your credentials.

UKIP is proposing nothing different to the EU, just changing the geography involved to support people the UK has to support, i.e. those born and working/worked in the UK, not the whole of EU anyone that has been born or married people within the union. There is either racism in both UKIP's and the EU's approach or in neither, and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Issues like foreign criminals that are found guilty of crimes in the UK, who are of EU origin cannot be removed from the country, is one such ridiculous aspect of freedom of movement. Obviously Romanians are the current flavor of the month, but it would equally apply to a French person of a German, if they commit crime and are not here to work how is it the UK's populaces role to keep them?

Further there are government plans afoot to remove UK citizenship from convicted terrorists/treason etc, which in isolation seems like a fitting punishment, but in context as the UK government cannot remove the citizenship of a EU national i.e. anyone without a UK passport, so a terrorist born in say Ireland or Spain/France etc could not be expelled. Foreign nationals from outside the country would if such a law come into power have more rights/immunity that those born int he country.

That is just a single aspect around the freedom of movement and one that is rarely peered into.
 

domtheone

Distinguished Member
UKIP as far as I know aren't so interested in race or creed, but geography and skills.

Exactly.

All this bolony about racism this racism that is horse ****.

We don't have the cash or the resources to look after 70,80,90,100 million people on this tin pot island.

Unrestricted access/open border policy is pure madness.

All about the numbers.
 

hdsport

Prominent Member
UKIP may or may not be racist but they certainly attract racists (as well as sexists and homophobes) and those who are worried by the scaremongering stories about 'mass immigration'. I would suggest that's through the use of tactics that play to people's fears and prejudices. The fear of losing your job to 26m immigrants (although 2m of those are in this country!) is the latest message.

The Eastleigh by-election was a classic example a constituency, that according to the 2011 census had an immigrant population of only 6.9%. Yet according to an election day opinion poll immigration was the most important single issue for 55% of UKIP voters compared to 15% of all voters.
 
Last edited:

sidicks

Banned
UKIP may or may not be racist but they certainly attract racists (as well as sexists and homophobes) and those who are worried by the scaremongering stories about 'mass immigration'. I would suggest that's through the use of tactics that play to people's fears and prejudices. The fear of losing your job to 26m immigrants (although 2m of those are in this country!) is the latest message.

Given that none of UKIP's policies are racist, any UKIP representative expressing racist views has been thrown out of the policy and given that people who have previously been members of genuinely racist parties (e.g.BNP) are explicitly prevented from joining UKIP, then quite why you need to ask the question is beyond me.

Indeed, anyone that suggests that wanting to control immigration is 'racist' doesn't have the intellectual capacity to use crayons, let alone vote in an election.

Immigration has a direct impact on a huge range of issues that directly affect people - Education, NHS! Employment, welfare etc etc.

The Eastleigh by-election was a classic example a constituency, that according to the 2011 census had an immigrant population of only 6.9%. Yet according to an election day opinion poll immigration was the most important single issue for 55% of UKIP voters compared to 15% of all voters.

Maybe UKIP voters are clever enough to appreciate the wider implications of uncontrolled immigration....
 
Last edited:

hdsport

Prominent Member
Anyone that suggests that wanting to control immigration is 'racist' doesn't have the intellectual capacity to use crayons, let alone vote in an election.

Immigration has a direct impact on a huge range of issues that directly affect people - Education, NHS! Employment, welfare etc etc.
I never suggested it was. However just as the EDL claimed to be only against Islamic extremism the rhetoric some of their members/supporters suggest otherwise as it is with UKIP. Often the opposition goes beyond a rational resources vs numbers argument and in to the realms 'I'm not racist but...'.

Just taking employment as one example I wonder how many of those UKIP voters enjoy the right to paid holidays, paid parental leave and not being sacked on a whim. Yes you may not have any Romanians after your job in a UKIP Britain but don't think you'll be any more secure and whatever you do don't get pregnant.
Maybe UKIP voters are clever enough to appreciate the wider implications of uncontrolled immigration....
Or maybe they were scared by the prospect of the entire populations of Bulgaria and Romania ending up on their high street. Or as one 2010 campaign leaflet suggested being forced onto a 'reservation'.
 

sidicks

Banned
I never suggested it was. However just as the EDL claimed to be only against Islamic extremism the rhetoric some of their members/supporters suggest otherwise as it is with UKIP.

Again, your comparison with the EDL is highly offensive.

I ask you again, which of UKIP's policies are racist. What 'rhetoric' are you referring to?

Often the opposition goes beyond a rational resources vs numbers argument and in to the realms 'I'm not racist but...'.

Just taking employment as one example I wonder how many of those UKIP voters enjoy the right to paid holidays, paid parental leave and not being sacked on a whim. Yes you may not have any Romanians after your job in a UKIP Britain but don't think you'll be any more secure and whatever you do don't get pregnant.

No idea what point you are trying to make - it certainly seems irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

Or maybe they were scared by the prospect of the entire populations of Bulgaria and Romania ending up on their high street. Or as one 2010 campaign leaflet suggested being forced onto a 'reservation'.

Once again you appear to be confused between what was claimed 'could' happen and what 'would' happen.

Regardless, surely anyone can see that having the flexibility to control immigration has to be better than the alternative...
 

hdsport

Prominent Member
Again, your comparison with the EDL is highly offensive.

I compared to the EDL because it's organisation who says one thing which on the fact of it sounds sensible i.e. who would be for Islamic (or any other type of) extremism but then you look at the comments or history of their members you start wonder. The ease at which the media/other parties can get hold of these stories about UKIP (whether it's part of the so called smear campaign or not) should give people pause for thought about the nature of the people they might be voting for.
No idea what point you are trying to make - it certainly seems irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
The point is they are employee rights UKIP want to get rid of. So whilst immigration has an effect on employment (as you brought up) so does the policies of the party who is pledging to stop it and therefore voting for them should be considered 'in the round'.
Once again you appear to be confused between what was claimed 'could' happen and what 'would' happen.
No I'm not, they chose those numbers deliberately rather than try and give a realistic estimate. It's the same when UKIP will always quote the gross cost of membership to the EU (the '£55m per day') rather than the net cost (post rebate etc.). As with most politicians it's deception and scaremongering rather than facts.
 

sidicks

Banned
I compared to the EDL because it's organisation who says one thing which on the fact of it sounds sensible i.e. who would be for Islamic (or any other type of) extremism but then you look at the comments or history of their members you start wonder. The ease at which the media/other parties can get hold of these stories about UKIP (whether it's part of the so called smear campaign or not) should give people pause for thought about the nature of the people they might be voting for.

What has happened to members that have made those comments?

The point is they are employee rights UKIP want to get rid of. So whilst immigration has an effect on employment (as you brought up) so does the policies of the party who is pledging to stop it and therefore voting for them should be considered 'in the round'.

Hardly an equal comparison. And as anyone who has a basic understanding of these things will know, increasing the costs of employment simply reduces the demand for that employment....

And as explained, immigration has a impact on most key issues facing the economy, not just employment.

No I'm not, they chose those numbers deliberately rather than try and give a realistic estimate. It's the same when UKIP will always quote the gross cost of membership to the EU (the '£55m per day') rather than the net cost (post rebate etc.). As with most politicians it's deception and scaremongering rather than facts.

Shame you have to single UKIP out for this, given that, because the electorate is in the main pretty stupid, all parties have to exaggerate and scaremongering to get their message across.


Plus of course that's the direct cost, it's not unreasonable to assume that the benefits received (rebate) are more than swamped by the indirect costs on business etc.
 

logiciel

Moderator
as it is with UKIP.
Just taking employment as one example I wonder how many of those UKIP voters enjoy the right to paid holidays, paid parental leave and not being sacked on a whim.
That's a wild claim against 38% of voters!

They all do, and will continue to do - what's your point?
 

IronGiant

Moderator
I'm don't think he thought that one through very well logiciel.

I think he thinks UKIP want to cancel holiday pay, parental leave and all other workers rights. Very odd.
 

Sonic67

Banned
Just taking employment as one example I wonder how many of those UKIP voters enjoy the right to paid holidays, paid parental leave and not being sacked on a whim. Yes you may not have any Romanians after your job in a UKIP Britain but don't think you'll be any more secure and whatever you do don't get pregnant.
Is that their policies?
 

krish

Distinguished Member
Again, your comparison with the EDL is highly offensive.
A political party is being attacked
- regardless of the merits, why is that offensive?

All parties and politicians are fair game, they really have no right to take offence nor others to be offended on their behalf
- otherwise we're entering similar territory to that of religious organisations crying heresy or blasphemy
 

sidicks

Banned
A political party is being attacked
- regardless of the merits, why is that offensive?

All parties and politicians are fair game, they really have no right to take offence nor others to be offended on their behalf
- otherwise we're entering similar territory to that of religious organisations crying heresy or blasphemy

Not at all.

But comparing UKIP members / supporters to a known racist party is clearly going to be seen as offensive, just as describing Labour supporters as communists would equally be seen as offensive.
 

krish

Distinguished Member
Well I disagree ... party members and supporters are fair game
- should really have included them in my last post, as grassroots activists/supporters of all parties are often bigger wierdos than those they're campaigning for
 

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
UKIP may or may not be racist but they certainly attract racists (as well as sexists and homophobes) and those who are worried by the scaremongering stories about 'mass immigration'. I would suggest that's through the use of tactics that play to people's fears and prejudices. The fear of losing your job to 26m immigrants (although 2m of those are in this country!) is the latest message.

The Eastleigh by-election was a classic example a constituency, that according to the 2011 census had an immigrant population of only 6.9%. Yet according to an election day opinion poll immigration was the most important single issue for 55% of UKIP voters compared to 15% of all voters.
If you have a town of 100 people and the resources for 101 people but suddenly the town has 106 people then 5 are going to miss out. The long standing residents are not going to be too happy with that, and rightful so if they haven't been consulted about it. Of course this is simplified and the actual issue is far worse as some people require and use far more resources than others, for example maternity wards have a hugely disproportionate usage by immigrant women, therefore for this particular resource 1 extra person may use up 10% of the capacity.

The overflowing cup, where it just takes a drop to cause a problem as capacity is only so great, like with the floods, when banks burst suddenly you've got a massive issue. So the only 6% is I feel used disingenuous to suggest an area is being xenophobic or racist, when peering into the reality may be causing real local issues. I'm not discounting some people from being this way, but when it becomes a majority local issue, to wish it away as bigotry is in itself bigotry.

The same holds for jobs, and with a few million unemployed it suggests adding more foreign labour to an already over supplied market will only drive down wages due to competition for a limited number of jobs. There are plenty of jobs that aren't being filled due to necessary skills and training, but those are not the jobs that unskilled and even skilled individuals from the EU in the main part are taking, in part non EU immigration is often filling the skilled labour gap, as the best people far the job are often not in the EU as there is a wider world, even with the relative difficulty in giving and gaining employment.

The number of estimated immigrants in the last decade or so is 5 million not 2, although the number seems to get revised up due to the (gu)estimates forgetting to include some vital factor. Further the population as predicted by supermarket consumption* is significantly higher than the official national figure, suggesting unless mothers have been having secret babies, the amount of immigration is several factors above the often trotted out figures.

The EU cannot be blamed for lots of this though, as the UK government seems unable to count people in and out of the country, never mind have accurate records of who is in or out at anyone point, tricks like sending your passport abroad so similar looking brothers and cousins can enter the UK by simply sending it via the post office once landing are a real and obvious exploitation of HM Government's boarder control policy for decades and decades.

*City Eye: Facts on a plate: our population is at least 77 million - Business Comment - Business - The Independent
This is from 2007 I couldn't find a more upto date one, I doubt much has changed, although masses of waste and excessive trips to the supermarket could skew the figures, but regular visitors to supermarkets would be consuming on a much more regular basis, and buying to replenish hence less wastage (little and often shopping). So I wouldn't buy that idea.
 

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
Well I disagree ... party members and supporters are fair game
- should really have included them in my last post, as grassroots activists/supporters of all parties are often bigger wierdos than those they're campaigning for
There is an insinuation that as UKIP is to the right then in reality they must actually be EDL in sheeps clothing, while there will be some cross over due to the legitimate party to reflect an opinion rather than an extremist one, that should be celebrated, the tempering of the extreme to the realities of the world. Just so long as the extremists don't take over ... like say in the Anti Fascist group.

People wouldn't insinuate in a genuine way that Labour or Green party supporters are actually socialist workers or communists in disguise, even though again there will be some cross over.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
Well I disagree ... party members and supporters are fair game
- should really have included them in my last post, as grassroots activists/supporters of all parties are often bigger wierdos than those they're campaigning for

The point being made here krish is that once the political proclivities of people posting in here is known then aggressively attacking supporters of those parties can be construed as a personal attack on members in here.

It's a bit like when LGS gets too aggressive towards bankers or sidicks attacks gardeners "in general".
 

domtheone

Distinguished Member
The number of estimated immigrants in the last decade or so is 5 million not 2, although the number seems to get revised up due to the (gu)estimates forgetting to include some vital factor. Further the population as predicted by supermarket consumption* is significantly higher than the official national figure, suggesting unless mothers have been having secret babies, the amount of immigration is several factors above the often trotted out figures.

The EU cannot be blamed for lots of this though, as the UK government seems unable to count people in and out of the country, never mind have accurate records of who is in or out at anyone point, tricks like sending your passport abroad so similar looking brothers and cousins can enter the UK by simply sending it via the post office once landing are a real and obvious exploitation of HM Government's boarder control policy for decades and decades.

*City Eye: Facts on a plate: our population is at least 77 million - Business Comment - Business - The Independent
This is from 2007 I couldn't find a more upto date one, I doubt much has changed, although masses of waste and excessive trips to the supermarket could skew the figures, but regular visitors to supermarkets would be consuming on a much more regular basis, and buying to replenish hence less wastage (little and often shopping). So I wouldn't buy that idea.

77 Million. Wowza.

I could never believe the official figures (low-mid 60's?)

The population (doing a quick google) in 1980 when i was a kid was circa 56 million.

That would suggest a 38% increase over the past 30 years. Roughly 1 extra person for each 3. An incredible (not to mention unsustainable) statistic if anywhere near true.
 

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
Well I think it would only be fair to take into account that the number has been wrong for a long time, only doing is similar food based consumption study/comparison would be fair, and also account for the consistent tourist values it softens things a little, but over all I don't think many will be surprised that we have a massive number of people that mustn't be being accounted for with NI numbers etc. And/Or would a bunch of fat bloaters eating ready meals for two each on many occasions.

On the other side there is a subset of people/families that seem to subsist almost entirely on eating out/take-away, for which aren't considered here, but I'd hazard a guess that would simply be a bit of noise in the overall picture.
 

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
Looking at this, there are two sides, one is that they don't want someone who isn't there man winning, if that other side is winning people might start asking what the unions are doing for them, do they really represent them?

The other is looking at what these changes would apply to, they are almost universally for small companies where staff is a the most valuable resource but each and every one is important and required to be doing the job. Small businesses right now will not hire young females at the risk of them running away on maternity and potentially costing the company and all the other staff their jobs with unaffordable double wammy of paying maternity and having to find and train a replacement and on return having to either get rid or keep the replacement, the woman's job is guaranteed.

If a small company is legally allowed to opt out, and the staff on hiring (not changing anything for current employees) are informed then companies can hire women without them becoming a fatal threat to the business due to legislation, and women are able to get jobs which currently they will be not considered (e.g. even pre interview) or choose to only work for larger companies that can afford maternity leave as part of their standard package.
There is potential for some abuse sure and that should be tackled, but overall if both parties are in agreement, a company gets a good member of staff without risking the business and a young women will genuinely be considered where in the past she hasn't been, then it is a win on all sides and great for the economy.

It doesn't seem outlandish, although I can see people arguing against it due to principle, but workers rights without a job aren't going to help someone, and as long as any such changes apply to small companies where there is a genuine real world issue today that is fine by me, larger companies have a different level of resources so their corporate responsibility is somewhat different I'd say.
 
Last edited:

sidicks

Banned
Not just me who thinks that the GMB and others do too...

GMB - UKIP Threat To Workers Rights Exposed

Personally, I'd rather believe UKIP when discussing UKIP policies, rather than some Union dinosaurs that have zero understanding of basic economics.

Do you actually understand the impact that these forced policies have on business, in particular the increased cost of employment which means that fewer jobs are created than would otherwise be the case.

But the Unions seem oblivious to this basic fact.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 8K TV dead? Philips OLED+907, Pioneer LX505 AVR plus B&W 700 S3 Reviews & Visit + AV/HiFi News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom