UKIP go from strength to strength

[Samson]

Why shouldn't they? They as well as the SNP have around, if not more, representatives in government than UKIP did, especially before the clacton by-election.

I know you like to claim the bbc etc are all left-wing, but UKIP has recieved a disproportionate amount of coverage in comparison to other parties.

I have been wondering about this. Who is making the decision? If this is the networks, say ITV, what cause would the Greens have to sue them? If they think getting UKIP on will get more people to watch, so more people to watch the adverts, so more value to buy say coca cola, so coca cola to pay ITV more, then why should they not be able to make this decision? If they think getting the Greens on will only get hippies to watch, and they will not buy coca cola any way, should they not be allowed to make this decision?

I quite agree it is bad for democracy, but can you sue because of that?

 

[Quackers]

Why shouldn't they? They as well as the SNP have around, if not more, representatives in government than UKIP did, especially before the clacton by-election.

The Greens have three times less electoral support than UKIP (general election 2010). They are not undergoing a massive two year surge in popular support, unlike UKIP. They have completely failed in governing their only Green held constituency (Brighton Pavilion) so they're likely to lose that.

The BNP got more votes than the Greens did in 2010. They may even beat the Greens again in 2015 despite having no money and nobody with any media exposure. If you want the Greens involved, then you must include the BNP.

I'm not entirely opposed to a Green appearance in the debates but they need to prove they have enough support. Perhaps a fourth debate with the other minor parties?

I know you like to claim the bbc etc are all left-wing, but UKIP has recieved a disproportionate amount of coverage in comparison to other parties.

EDIT: Read my link wrong. There is a media watchdog which makes recommendations but it cannot enforce its point of view. It appears that media outlets have followed their advice anyway.

 

[Traitorfish]

You think too much in terms of political power. Much as I loathe democracy, the rituals and traditions are just as important as the actual rôle of a monarchy in day-to-day politics, if not more. The US presidents may have political power resembling that of a monarch - even then not quite - but ultimately 'President' is a fairly mundane to describe a political leader. It lacks the bigger-than-lifeness and the transcendental elements of an actual monarchy.

That may be the case. (And as Smellingcoffee suggests, the American presidential cult is powerful enough and the British monarchical cult weak enough that it may not be the case any more. We're a long way from the Protestant hero-kings of yore.) But it doesn't have anything much to do with the question of whether the American attitude towards monarchy is more "right-wing" or "left-wing" than the British.

 

[brennan]

Well, if they ever remove the monarchy, and maybe constitute French as their actual language, everyone will realise England is nothing more than an overseas department of France.

 

[Truronian]

EDIT: Read my link wrong. There is a media watchdog which makes recommendations but it cannot enforce its point of view. It appears that media outlets have followed their advice anyway.

This link is great.

First I saw this:

"Ofcom said Ukip must be treated as a "major party" in England and Wales for election broadcasts."

*coughregionalpartycough*

Then I saw this:

Read: Farage defends new Ukip slogan previously used by BNP

Nigel Farage has defended the party's new slogan "Love Britain. Vote Ukip" after it emerged the BNP had used a similar line.

Reusing old BNP slogans FTW!

Finally I saw this:

Ukip leader Nigel Farage said he "would do a deal with the devil" after the General Election in 2015 to get a referendum on Europe.

Spoiler :

 

[Oruc]

Read: Farage defends new Ukip slogan previously used by BNP

Reusing old BNP slogans FTW!

Whats so bad about this? saying "love Britain" is quite innocuous, if the slogan was "kill darkies, throw out all foreigners" then I could understand. The BNP also uses the British flag alot and they have dodgy eyes. I never understood the why this was a thing then or now.

 

[Truronian]

Whats so bad about this? saying "love Britain" is quite innocuous, if the slogan was "kill darkies, throw out all foreigners" then I could understand. The BNP also uses the British flag alot and they have dodgy eyes. I never understood the why this was a thing then or now.

There's nothing especially wrong with the slogan (apart from the subtle implications inherent in asking people to 'love' a particular group), but when you're trying to play down comparisons with the BNP, reusing one of their slogans is something of a PR gaffe. That was back in February anyway, so it's hardly topical. This is just the first I'm hearing of it.

 

[Arakhor]

Implications are a thing. E.g. no one reputable uses "blood and honour" any more, because it was the motto of the Hitler Youth and is still used by fascists and neo-Nazis today.

 

[Quackers]

Should we give up the Union Jack then?

 

[Arakhor]

You mean, should I stop being white? Don't be disingenuous - you know the difference between a group co-opting a nation's flag and a later group using an earlier's group catchphrase.

 

[Takhisis]

Imperial Presidency FTW! With the added bonus that we get to choose every four years rather than having to pick sides with awesome names like Roundheads and Cavaliers and whack each other.

What about those silly names you give to your football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and handegg teams?

Should we give up the Union Jack then?

Not a bad idea. I'd rather get rid of the monarchy, myself.

 

[bhsup]

What about those silly names you give to your football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and handegg teams?

What about them? They're only sporting rivalries. We'd only unify and rally around one in a nationalistic sense when facing foreigners.

WOLVERINES!!!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hey! Don't poke the bear.

 

[Takhisis]

What about them? They're only sporting rivalries. We'd only unify and rally around one in a nationalistic sense when facing foreigners.

WOLVERINES!!!

Well, if you're going to go Red Dawn on me, I'll go mediæval Pope on you. The only people who'd accuse others of using witchcraft being Communists are people who believe in witchcraft Communism themselves. See? The US have Communist -i.e. funded by mandatory taxation- roads, schools, gas, a subsidised agriculture, the post service, libraries, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. etc.
US even has red as one of the main colours in their flag! You're all secretly Commies!

 

[bhsup]

Hey! Don't poke the bear.

You say to-may-toe poke, I like to-mah-toe skewer...

 

[Traitorfish]

Should we give up the Union Jack then?

They call it "the Butcher's Apron" for a reason.

 

[Flying Pig]

A small but distinct component of the population is quite proud to be able to exercise the power implicit in that title. To use an army phrase, if we live in a world of bears, we may as well be a grizzly bear. After all, if the threat of force makes the actual use of force unnecessary, then we've saved a lot of mess and effort.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Saved a lot of mess and effort" doesn't really describe Britain's imperial history.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, once one party - that is, the British government - has decided that its ends are best served by naked aggression, it's better that the conflict is resolved by the other party backing down in fear of the force that the first might deploy than that the matter actually has to come down to a contest. I remember a particularly audacious battalion commander convincing an enemy general to surrender simply by stating that the 2nd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment was facing his forces and that if he insisted on fighting then he would be held responsible in the eyes of the world for the consequences - despite being outnumbered by several times. The feeling when we realised that the enemy backed down was one of the proudest I've ever felt. Frankly I'm glad it ended that way rather than us having to make good on our threats.

EDIT: I'm not sure that you can reconcile such a philosophy with the concept of human rights, but then I stand by my belief that one has renounced the claim to respect such things as soon as one employs force - whether that's in the organisation of a state or the prosecution of war, it's operating under a different moral code. I freely admit that this is inconsistent, but then I don't see any way to resolve it - in my view, the world is sufficiently complicated that any coherent moral system must be relying on an oversimplification.

 

[Takhisis]

Flamethrowers, gas bombs, nuclear warfare, cannon fodder… concentration camps, genocide, culturicide, linguicide, forced migration… no, it's not something easily reconcilable with human rights, not even for the Empire's own fighting men.