UKIP go from strength to strength

Status
Not open for further replies.
The title of is thread reminds me of a joke from a manga, in which a boxer is training with his sempai's (can't think of the English word for it) at the beach, and in the course of their jogging, they are ogling girl's asses, and the boxer says, they're just running from ass to ass.

God, I feel like such a nerd.
 
(…)
So, in conclusions UKIP are doing fantastic. What do you think about that?
That it speaks very poorly of the English electorate and of the political system in general.

 
(The answer is: an Englishman. They don't even drink bitter up here, really, they drink heavy. I have no idea what I'm talking about.)

Heavy is awful stuff. And doesn't deserve the name of bitter; which it very wisely doesn't use.

It's also mostly responsible for the consumption of whiskey in Scotland: to take the taste of heavy away.

However, I'm reliably informed that there are a fair few microbreweries in Scotland, brewing a selection of more than acceptable bitters.
 
Yeah, heavy really isn't my cup of tea. I think that's part of why Scotland is relatively well-served by microbreweries, the bigger breweries just aren't up to snuff.
 
The British Liberal Democrats are like the Dutch D66: They are like an ideological avant-garde who set the tone for the politics of the society they live in by playing a role as a flag bearer for the ruling party in exchange for some of their policies (like gay marriage), though they pretty much suck at actually ruling. D66 pretty much nearly got extinct after they participated in the Balkenende II government. Likewise, Liberal Democrats may end up a similar fate. D66 seems to be rebounding to these days, though again like the Liberal Democrats, they don't have a support base (aside from eggheads and nauseatingly politically correct suburb dwellers) and rely completely on swing voters.
The D66 seems to be a more or less liberal party as well. It is fascinating that the German liberal party FDP went down badly also, almost threatened with being annihilated (after achieving about 15% at the federal election before the last federal election no less).
 
The D66 seems to be a more or less liberal party as well. It is fascinating that the German liberal party FDP went down badly also, almost threatened with being annihilated (after achieving about 15% at the federal election before the last federal election no less).

Didn't it got annihilated? Do you expect them to ever regain a seat in the Bundestag? At this point, they are as insignificant as their closest American counterpart, the Libertarian party. Not having receiving any media coverage and a vaguely classical liberal ideology will probably end up becoming the party for choice for German objectivists, Rothbardians and the like. Conversely, a Libertarian party that gets seats in Congress will be like the current Dutch D66 as well.
 
I do think UKIP are doing "well". They're not terribly consistent, though. First they were going to privatize the NHS, now they're going to increase its government funding.

Not that it matters, of course. The memory of the electorate is notoriously short-term.

I don't think Hague called Banks a nobody. I think he said he'd never heard of him.

Oh, and UKIP will pick up BNP's disillusioned too, don't you think?

Is there any party in England who advocates abolishing the NHS?
 
That it speaks very poorly of the English electorate and of the political system in general.


To associate the National Front and UKIP as some kind of similar entity is moronic.

UKIP represents the forgotten right, they're left behind by the modernizing Tories of the 1960s to the present day. UKIP desire a future beyond moral relativism and multiculturalism. They actually believe the British people are a thing with legitimate grievances and desires. Rather then some disgusting ethnic bloc which needs to be destroyed.

I lust after every slur against UKIP. It empowers us.
 
Ah, so you're a masochist. That's all right, I don't judge.

I do not agree with the slurs but it represents a typical view against British people in the last 20 years by the establishment. The message being we're unworthy of existence. Our only goal is too encourage foreign cultures to settle in our island and dominate any native way of life.
 
Oh, Quackers, really… this thread makes for excellent comedy.
 
As for making a transition to power, don't all nascent political parties have to do that? Haven't Labour and the Conservatives done so in the past? Why couldn't UKIP manage it? And the European experience can only have helped them, you don't think?

Actually, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats have had to do this. The Conservatives can be traced back to the Jacobites, so they didn't have to transition to gaining power. Their great struggle has been to accept the idea that political power is not inherited from Mummy and Daddy. :mischief:

The LDs are descended from the Liberals, who also predate democracy, and the SDP, which was formed from an elitist faction of Labour ministers.

So Labour, the SNP, and most of the N.Ireland pairs are the only ones that have to transition into political power.
Worst result they've ever got so far was 17% of the vote. Now that they're more like 7% we'll see an extermination.
Remember, Westminster doesn't use PR or even Aussie AV. If the 7% of votes were in the right places, they'd be fine. There's a new poll out today that suggests the Lib Dems have hardly lost any ground in seats they are defending against the Conservatives. I think they'll lose at least a dozen seats (especially in London and mainland Scotland) but will keep at least 30.
This kind of thing sours my belief in democracy. Like the Tea Party, the UKIP appeals both to a reactionary fringe and to the base prejudices and short term desires of the majority of uninitiated people. What results is political change of the worst kind.

All too true.

Not really. Their membership and support-base is disaffected middle-class Tories, and while they can make a fair grab at the working class racist vote in European elections, it's not consistent or reliable.



They stand for that particularly dangerous British take on 'common sense' - the largely uninformed intuition of the (privately) educated, middle-class, rural (at least at heart), white, male, Anglican, small-c-conservative. That's an archetype which people who don't naturally fit it actually aspire to; Farage is a role model just as Jeremy Clarkson or Boris Johnson can be. It's dangerous because their deceit and spin is as strong as that of any other party, but they're able to present themselves as appealing to 'common sense' and being 'no-nonsense' about things. There's not really a clearer example of that than Farage himself, whose general demeanour allows him to rail against politicians of all other flavours while he draws the politician's salary on which he's supported himself for upwards of a decade.

It amazes me that a public school ex-City financier who's worked for years as a professional politician in the European government alongside his German wife has managed to win support by saying "this country's problems are caused by immigrants, the elite and the European Union"! I think his appeal confirms three commonplaces of social science. Firstly, television is all about the pictures - pictures of Nigel in the pub outweigh the facts. Secondly, effective advertising is about a simple message - TV doesn't do complexity well. Thirdly and most importantly, it's always easier to blame your problems on the Other - in this case immigrants.

By the way, I hope we've all seen the wonderful video of UKIP's leader main interview on the BBC before the last General Election:

http://youtu.be/8hkxu51w628

The comedy starts five minutes in. Thank you, licence fee payers: the BBC has thousands of journalists so it can bring us moments like this!

I think the Liberal Democrats are in big trouble. But they've been in that for as long as I can remember. And this is the first time they've ever been near any real power. Is that what you mean by political pariahs?

As for making a transition to power, don't all nascent political parties have to do that? Haven't Labour and the Conservatives done so in the past? Why couldn't UKIP manage it? And the European experience can only have helped them, you don't think?

I don't suggest that they don't face difficulties. Just that they're not unusual or insurmountable. I wish they were.
All too true.

Not really. Their membership and support-base is disaffected middle-class Tories, and while they can make a fair grab at the working class racist vote in European elections, it's not consistent or reliable.



They stand for that particularly dangerous British take on 'common sense' - the largely uninformed intuition of the (privately) educated, middle-class, rural (at least at heart), white, male, Anglican, small-c-conservative. That's an archetype which people who don't naturally fit it actually aspire to; Farage is a role model just as Jeremy Clarkson or Boris Johnson can be. It's dangerous because their deceit and spin is as strong as that of any other party, but they're able to present themselves as appealing to 'common sense' and being 'no-nonsense' about things. There's not really a clearer example of that than Farage himself, whose general demeanour allows him to rail against politicians of all other flavours while he draws the politician's salary on which he's supported himself for upwards of a decade.

It amazes me that a public school ex-City financier who's worked for years as a professional politician in the European government alongside his German wife has managed to win support by saying "this country's problems are caused by immigrants, the elite and the European Union"! I think his appeal confirms three commonplaces of social science. Firstly, television is all about the pictures - pictures of Nigel in the pub outweigh the facts. Secondly, effective advertising is about a simple message - TV doesn't do complexity well. Thirdly and most importantly, it's always easier to blame your problems on the Other - in this case immigrants.

By the way, I hope we've all seen the wonderful video of UKIP's leader being interviewed about the party's manifesto before the last General Election:

Worst result they've ever got so far was 17% of the vote. Now that they're more like 7% we'll see an extermination.
All too true.

Not really. Their membership and support-base is disaffected middle-class Tories, and while they can make a fair grab at the working class racist vote in European elections, it's not consistent or reliable.



They stand for that particularly dangerous British take on 'common sense' - the largely uninformed intuition of the (privately) educated, middle-class, rural (at least at heart), white, male, Anglican, small-c-conservative. That's an archetype which people who don't naturally fit it actually aspire to; Farage is a role model just as Jeremy Clarkson or Boris Johnson can be. It's dangerous because their deceit and spin is as strong as that of any other party, but they're able to present themselves as appealing to 'common sense' and being 'no-nonsense' about things. There's not really a clearer example of that than Farage himself, whose general demeanour allows him to rail against politicians of all other flavours while he draws the politician's salary on which he's supported himself for upwards of a decade.

It amazes me that a public school ex-City financier who's worked for years as a professional politician in the European government alongside his German wife has managed to win support by saying "this country's problems are caused by immigrants, the elite and the European Union"! I think his appeal confirms three commonplaces of social science. Firstly, television is all about the pictures - pictures of Nigel in the pub outweigh the facts. Secondly, effective advertising is about a simple message - TV doesn't do complexity well. Thirdly and most importantly, it's always easier to blame your problems on the Other - in this case immigrants.

By the way, I hope we've all seen the wonderful video of UKIP's leader being interviewed about the party's manifesto before the last General Election:

This kind of thing sours my belief in democracy. Like the Tea Party, the UKIP appeals both to a reactionary fringe and to the base prejudices and short term desires of the majority of uninitiated people. What results is political change of the worst kind.
All too true.

Not really. Their membership and support-base is disaffected middle-class Tories, and while they can make a fair grab at the working class racist vote in European elections, it's not consistent or reliable.



They stand for that particularly dangerous British take on 'common sense' - the largely uninformed intuition of the (privately) educated, middle-class, rural (at least at heart), white, male, Anglican, small-c-conservative. That's an archetype which people who don't naturally fit it actually aspire to; Farage is a role model just as Jeremy Clarkson or Boris Johnson can be. It's dangerous because their deceit and spin is as strong as that of any other party, but they're able to present themselves as appealing to 'common sense' and being 'no-nonsense' about things. There's not really a clearer example of that than Farage himself, whose general demeanour allows him to rail against politicians of all other flavours while he draws the politician's salary on which he's supported himself for upwards of a decade.

It amazes me that a public school ex-City financier who's worked for years as a professional politician in the European government alongside his German wife has managed to win support by saying "this country's problems are caused by immigrants, the elite and the European Union"! I think his appeal confirms three commonplaces of social science. Firstly, television is all about the pictures - pictures of Nigel in the pub outweigh the facts. Secondly, effective advertising is about a simple message - TV doesn't do complexity well. Thirdly and most importantly, it's always easier to blame your problems on the Other - in this case immigrants.

By the way, I hope we've all seen the wonderful video of UKIP's leader being interviewed about the party's manifesto before the last General Election:

Not really. Their membership and support-base is disaffected middle-class Tories, and while they can make a fair grab at the working class racist vote in European elections, it's not consistent or reliable.
All too true.

Not really. Their membership and support-base is disaffected middle-class Tories, and while they can make a fair grab at the working class racist vote in European elections, it's not consistent or reliable.



They stand for that particularly dangerous British take on 'common sense' - the largely uninformed intuition of the (privately) educated, middle-class, rural (at least at heart), white, male, Anglican, small-c-conservative. That's an archetype which people who don't naturally fit it actually aspire to; Farage is a role model just as Jeremy Clarkson or Boris Johnson can be. It's dangerous because their deceit and spin is as strong as that of any other party, but they're able to present themselves as appealing to 'common sense' and being 'no-nonsense' about things. There's not really a clearer example of that than Farage himself, whose general demeanour allows him to rail against politicians of all other flavours while he draws the politician's salary on which he's supported himself for upwards of a decade.

It amazes me that a public school ex-City financier who's worked for years as a professional politician in the European government alongside his German wife has managed to win support by saying "this country's problems are caused by immigrants, the elite and the European Union"! I think his appeal confirms three commonplaces of social science. Firstly, television is all about the pictures - pictures of Nigel in the pub outweigh the facts. Secondly, effective advertising is about a simple message - TV doesn't do complexity well. Thirdly and most importantly, it's always easier to blame your problems on the Other - in this case immigrants.

By the way, I hope we've all seen the wonderful video of UKIP's leader being interviewed about the party's manifesto before the last General Election:


They stand for that particularly dangerous British take on 'common sense' - the largely uninformed intuition of the (privately) educated, middle-class, rural (at least at heart), white, male, Anglican, small-c-conservative. That's an archetype which people who don't naturally fit it actually aspire to; Farage is a role model just as Jeremy Clarkson or Boris Johnson can be. It's dangerous because their deceit and spin is as strong as that of any other party, but they're able to present themselves as appealing to 'common sense' and being 'no-nonsense' about things. There's not really a clearer example of that than Farage himself, whose general demeanour allows him to rail against politicians of all other flavours while he draws the politician's salary on which he's supported himself for upwards of a decade.

All too true.

Not really. Their membership and support-base is disaffected middle-class Tories, and while they can make a fair grab at the working class racist vote in European elections, it's not consistent or reliable.



They stand for that particularly dangerous British take on 'common sense' - the largely uninformed intuition of the (privately) educated, middle-class, rural (at least at heart), white, male, Anglican, small-c-conservative. That's an archetype which people who don't naturally fit it actually aspire to; Farage is a role model just as Jeremy Clarkson or Boris Johnson can be. It's dangerous because their deceit and spin is as strong as that of any other party, but they're able to present themselves as appealing to 'common sense' and being 'no-nonsense' about things. There's not really a clearer example of that than Farage himself, whose general demeanour allows him to rail against politicians of all other flavours while he draws the politician's salary on which he's supported himself for upwards of a decade.

It amazes me that a public school ex-City financier who's worked for years as a professional politician in the European government alongside his German wife has managed to win support by saying "this country's problems are caused by immigrants, the elite and the European Union"! I think his appeal confirms three commonplaces of social science. Firstly, television is all about the pictures - pictures of Nigel in the pub outweigh the facts. Secondly, effective advertising is about a simple message - TV doesn't do complexity well. Thirdly and most importantly, it's always easier to blame your problems on the Other - in this case immigrants.

By the way, I hope we've all seen the wonderful video of UKIP's leader being interviewed about the party's manifesto before the last General Election:
 
Takhisis strang! Takhisis guid! Takhisis oppress minorities! One-hundred an twenty-seven tribesmen I hae slain in tha rolling plains.

An noo, I keep nae a vaccine in here, th' booze be killin' one an all germs.
 
Aren't you a Clarksonite settling in Argentina?

You are a 21st century colonist. You can't talk.

I wish someone had told me earlier. Then maybe my parents wouldn't have legally bought the house and work under white American employers. Instead we could have seized the house, torture the Natives and enjoyed lazing around to our heart's content.
 
Which be wha' I hae done, lad. See ye no' yonder heids o' Indians?
 
I wish someone had told me earlier. Then maybe my parents wouldn't have legally bought the house and work under white American employers. Instead we could have seized the house, torture the Natives and enjoyed lazing around to our heart's content.

And of course, scheme ridiculous plots how to kill as much British as possible.

For freedom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom