UKIP are now a parliamentary party

[cunning fergus]

No, it doesn't matter what my distinction of 'old' and 'elderly' is - you made that distinction yourself by bringing WWII into it. I'm not desperate at all, I've made a point that your referencing of the war was ridiculous, and you've tried your best to twist out of it - the thing is, you're again making a better fist of your argument leaving the war out of it - proving my point. We're only here now because you can't admit you were wrong in that first instance.

Now it seems, 'maturely', you're just trying to drag me into your generalising that everyone criticising UKIP is being sanctimonious, denigrating or…what was the other term you used - embittered. Can you really not see how hypocritical you're being? It's like telling people to stop throwing tomatoes by throwing tomatoes at them.

I am not twisting out of my argument, the point I made originally still stands, because it is true. If someone wants to deride the "old" white working class men for voting for UKIP it is a natural consequence that within that constituency of "old" white working class men some will be WW2 veterans, and that is not to exclude the immediate families of WW2 veterans. The only dramatic or ridiculous aspect of this logical assessment is your view that "old" cannot mean WW2 veterans aged 85 plus.

You may not want this country's history to be an active dimension in debates about the EU, however for many people of that generation the struggle for independence that this country went through in WW2 is a point of reference that colours their view of how this country should be governed.

Laws imposed on the UK by unelected EU technocrats that prevent the democratically elected UK govt deporting criminals or controlling immigration (by way of examples) are a constant reminder of the impotence of our own Govt, and how things have changed.

My old man is 84 he missed ww2 but served in Malaya, his brother and other members in our wider family served in ww2 and some died. The loss of the UK's sovereignty is an anathema for him and others in his generation.......I know, I go to their funerals. They are predominantly old blue collar working class Brightonians and have been Labour voters all their lives. Guess who they will be voting for next........if they live that long.

Accordingly, people can choose to either:

A) attack them (and other old white working class men) for their voting intentions and conclude this it's the consequence of them being a bit thick and/or racist, or
B) understand why lifelong socialists are turning their back on the Labour Party.

Which option do you think is the sanctimonious approach, and which the more mature?

 

[Soulman]

I am not twisting out of my argument, the point I made originally still stands, because it is true. If someone wants to deride the "old" white working class men for voting for UKIP it is a natural consequence that within that constituency of "old" white working class men some will be WW2 veterans, and that is not to exclude the immediate families of WW2 veterans. The only dramatic or ridiculous aspect of this logical assessment is your view that "old" cannot mean WW2 veterans aged 85 plus.

You may not want this country's history to be an active dimension in debates about the EU, however for many people of that generation the struggle for independence that this country went through in WW2 is a point of reference that colours their view of how this country should be governed.

Laws imposed on the UK by unelected EU technocrats that prevent the democratically elected UK govt deporting criminals or controlling immigration (by way of examples) are a constant reminder of the impotence of our own Govt, and how things have changed.

My old man is 84 he missed ww2 but served in Malaya, his brother and other members in our wider family served in ww2 and some died. The loss of the UK's sovereignty is an anathema for him and others in his generation.......I know, I go to their funerals. They are predominantly old blue collar working class Brightonians and have been Labour voters all their lives. Guess who they will be voting for next........if they live that long.

Accordingly, people can choose to either:

A) attack them (and other old white working class men) for their voting intentions and conclude this it's the consequence of them being a bit thick and/or racist, or
B) understand why lifelong socialists are turning their back on the Labour Party.

Which option do you think is the sanctimonious approach, and which the more mature?

Talking of WW2 veterans.......

 

[GT49er]

Talking of WW2 veterans.......

If this conversation didn't actually take place, it should have!

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Yes i saw that one programme......also seen a fair few with a different outlook.

Then you have to look at what agenda said program/ newspaper/ media source has. I find myself more trusting when representatives from the NHS, HMRC etc say that immigration has little effect on the aformentioned aspects of modern Britain than I am of anything that UKIP spout to get votes or the Daily Fail says to sell newspapers.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Not really, no. It just depends on what statistics you're looking at. Statistically it is 100% possible that for any given set of statistics there is another set of statistics that 'prove' exactly the opposite.

Then the debate will be on going because a single truth can never be established. That's the problem with these kind of topics. Even if one side can conslusively say that Immigration is positive or negative the other side won't believe it.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I am not twisting out of my argument, the point I made originally still stands, because it is true. If someone wants to deride the "old" white working class men for voting for UKIP it is a natural consequence that within that constituency of "old" white working class men some will be WW2 veterans, and that is not to exclude the immediate families of WW2 veterans. The only dramatic or ridiculous aspect of this logical assessment is your view that "old" cannot mean WW2 veterans aged 85 plus.

You may not want this country's history to be an active dimension in debates about the EU, however for many people of that generation the struggle for independence that this country went through in WW2 is a point of reference that colours their view of how this country should be governed.

Laws imposed on the UK by unelected EU technocrats that prevent the democratically elected UK govt deporting criminals or controlling immigration (by way of examples) are a constant reminder of the impotence of our own Govt, and how things have changed.

My old man is 84 he missed ww2 but served in Malaya, his brother and other members in our wider family served in ww2 and some died. The loss of the UK's sovereignty is an anathema for him and others in his generation.......I know, I go to their funerals. They are predominantly old blue collar working class Brightonians and have been Labour voters all their lives. Guess who they will be voting for next........if they live that long.

Accordingly, people can choose to either:

A) attack them (and other old white working class men) for their voting intentions and conclude this it's the consequence of them being a bit thick and/or racist, or
B) understand why lifelong socialists are turning their back on the Labour Party.

Which option do you think is the sanctimonious approach, and which the more mature?

But why would a lifelong socialist vote for a very un-socialist party? That bit of your argument makes no sense. There are plenty of parties out there who are, for want of a better phrase, anti-Europe and come without the tag of being a party for racists and xenophobes and would be more in keeping with traditional Labour beliefs.

 

[Soulman]

Then you have to look at what agenda said program/ newspaper/ media source has. I find myself more trusting when representatives from the NHS, HMRC etc say that immigration has little effect on the aformentioned aspects of modern Britain than I am of anything that UKIP spout to get votes or the Daily Fail says to sell newspapers.

In your haste to blame the DM and UKIP my post stated programmes not newspapers or political parties....on tv.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

In your haste to blame the DM and UKIP my post stated programmes not newspapers or political parties....on tv.

I wasn't in a rush to blame anyone. I was merely comparing several nutural sources (The NHS, HMRC) with two sources with a clear anti immigration agenda. I thought that was relatively clear.

 

[daveinprague]

TV not a media source?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I am not twisting out of my argument, the point I made originally still stands, because it is true. If someone wants to deride the "old" white working class men for voting for UKIP it is a natural consequence that within that constituency of "old" white working class men some will be WW2 veterans, and that is not to exclude the immediate families of WW2 veterans. The only dramatic or ridiculous aspect of this logical assessment is your view that "old" cannot mean WW2 veterans aged 85 plus.

You may not want this country's history to be an active dimension in debates about the EU, however for many people of that generation the struggle for independence that this country went through in WW2 is a point of reference that colours their view of how this country should be governed.

Laws imposed on the UK by unelected EU technocrats that prevent the democratically elected UK govt deporting criminals or controlling immigration (by way of examples) are a constant reminder of the impotence of our own Govt, and how things have changed.

My old man is 84 he missed ww2 but served in Malaya, his brother and other members in our wider family served in ww2 and some died. The loss of the UK's sovereignty is an anathema for him and others in his generation.......I know, I go to their funerals. They are predominantly old blue collar working class Brightonians and have been Labour voters all their lives. Guess who they will be voting for next........if they live that long.

Accordingly, people can choose to either:

A) attack them (and other old white working class men) for their voting intentions and conclude this it's the consequence of them being a bit thick and/or racist, or
B) understand why lifelong socialists are turning their back on the Labour Party.

Which option do you think is the sanctimonious approach, and which the more mature?

Twist. I never said cannot. Amazing. Of course the old can and will include WWII veterans and people of that era, but there will be MORE from that era that still vote Tory, or Labour, or Lib Dem, and still believe in the UK and Europe, and there will also be proportionally more below the age of 80 that have alternative views. YOU decided to concentrate on WWII and make it a political statement.

Your whole premise above is trying to suggest that a huge number of those from WWII are politically motivated to turn to UKIP because they are disenfranchised with the UK and the EU, and you simply cannot know that to be true, and you cannot therefore represent their opinion as any kind of consensus or majority - which is what you are doing, especially this statement:

You may not want this country's history to be an active dimension in debates about the EU, however for many people of that generation the struggle for independence that this country went through in WW2 is a point of reference that colours their view of how this country should be governed.

VE Day was 'VE' for a reason. We were Allies for a reason. They fought for a free Europe. The Expeditionary Force fought with the French as allies. I do detest it when people suggest that their sacrifice in WWII is somehow linked to wanting out of the EU, or about immigration. It is frankly ridiculous. Those veterans voting for UKIP has nothing to do with the war, it is to do with how they currently feel and their personal politics. Their votes will be split proportionally between parties just like everybody else is.

You can't see that your using an historical event for political gain, and it just isn't right.

 

[Soulman]

TV not a media source?

Of course, but the reply from MR slating the DM and UKIP was in reply to "Yes i saw that one programme......also seen a fair few with a different outlook."

 

[daveinprague]

fair enough

 

[SingitLoud]

Here here, Bring it on !

 

[GT49er]

But why would a lifelong socialist vote for a very un-socialist party? That bit of your argument makes no sense.

Some of us have, and will do again. Where does that leave your argument? (That is a rhetorical question, by the way).

There are plenty of parties out there who are, for want of a better phrase, anti-Europe.

Very interesting. Name one (a proper one).

a party for racists and xenophobes and would be more in keeping with traditional Labour beliefs.

Ah - the racist card....how adroit! Still, as a Brighton supporter I'm used to this logic: it is used by the more pig ignorant supporters of some of the teams we play against. "You want out of Europe, so you're a racist" is exactly the intellectual equivalent of "You are a Brighton fan, therefore you are queer (sic) - does your boyfriend know you're here?"

 

[cunning fergus]

Twist. I never said cannot. Amazing. Of course the old can and will include WWII veterans and people of that era, but there will be MORE from that era that still vote Tory, or Labour, or Lib Dem, and still believe in the UK and Europe, and there will also be proportionally more below the age of 80 that have alternative views. YOU decided to concentrate on WWII and make it a political statement.

Your whole premise above is trying to suggest that a huge number of those from WWII are politically motivated to turn to UKIP because they are disenfranchised with the UK and the EU, and you simply cannot know that to be true, and you cannot therefore represent their opinion as any kind of consensus or majority - which is what you are doing, especially this statement:

You may not want this country's history to be an active dimension in debates about the EU, however for many people of that generation the struggle for independence that this country went through in WW2 is a point of reference that colours their view of how this country should be governed.

VE Day was 'VE' for a reason. We were Allies for a reason. They fought for a free Europe. The Expeditionary Force fought with the French as allies. I do detest it when people suggest that their sacrifice in WWII is somehow linked to wanting out of the EU, or about immigration. It is frankly ridiculous. Those veterans voting for UKIP has nothing to do with the war, it is to do with how they currently feel and their personal politics. Their votes will be split proportionally between parties just like everybody else is.

You can't see that your using an historical event for political gain, and it just isn't right.

Got it now, you accept that there are WW2 veterans voting for UKIP but (in your view) just not that many. So whilst I was right all along you want to ignore the UKIP voting veterans because (again) in your view many many more veterans are supporting the other parties. You cannot prove your conjecture of course........it's a belief.

I don't seek to represent the views and motives of all "old" UKIP voters, I say as I see from my experience of that demographic in my own life. You cannot however, without the same consensus prove their motives are otherwise.

I can see you detest the referencing of historical events to contemporary politics, probably if you were honest only when such views cut across your own ideological preferences though right?

Fact is that I would wager that the men and women who fought and suffered during that time never did so with an understanding that so many aspects of the state would be controlled and legislated by unelected Europeans, or that the British judiciary would be subordinate to the whims of foreign judges.

All of this without a by your leave from the electorate..........

 

[cunning fergus]

But why would a lifelong socialist vote for a very un-socialist party? That bit of your argument makes no sense. There are plenty of parties out there who are, for want of a better phrase, anti-Europe and come without the tag of being a party for racists and xenophobes and would be more in keeping with traditional Labour beliefs.

Fair enough, and I think is clash of old Labour and new Labour.

The unions in the 70s were anti EEC because of the threat to the British working class, and their fears were proved right. If you don't control the supply and demand to your labour market you should not be surprised at falling wage levels and zero hour contracts.

Only one political party is currently prepared to do anything radical about it..........and it's not the Labour Party.

 

[Soulman]

Got it now, you accept that there are WW2 veterans voting for UKIP but (in your view) just not that many. So whilst I was right all along you want to ignore the UKIP voting veterans because (again) in your view many many more veterans are supporting the other parties. You cannot prove your conjecture of course........it's a belief.

I don't seek to represent the views and motives of all "old" UKIP voters, I say as I see from my experience of that demographic in my own life. You cannot however, without the same consensus prove their motives are otherwise.

I can see you detest the referencing of historical events to contemporary politics, probably if you were honest only when such views cut across your own ideological preferences though right?

Fact is that I would wager that the men and women who fought and suffered during that time never did so with an understanding that so many aspects of the state would be controlled and legislated by unelected Europeans, or that the British judiciary would be subordinate to the whims of foreign judges.

All of this without a by your leave from the electorate..........

Cracking post. This time i shall come out with a cliche......my Dad, my Grandads and probably my Uncle and Aunty, would all be turning in their graves.

 

[GT49er]

Cracking post. This time i shall come out with a cliche......my Dad, my Grandads and probably my Uncle and Aunty, would all be turning in their graves.

Seconded.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Some of us have, and will do again. Where does that leave your argument? (That is a rhetorical question, by the way).

Very interesting. Name one (a proper one).

Ah - the racist card....how adroit! Still, as a Brighton supporter I'm used to this logic: it is used by the more pig ignorant supporters of some of the teams we play against. "You want out of Europe, so you're a racist" is exactly the intellectual equivalent of "You are a Brighton fan, therefore you are queer (sic) - does your boyfriend know you're here?"

Well done on taking my point about racism and xenophobia completely out of context. At no point did I say "they are a party for racists". If that's the only way you can try to debate then I really do not see the point in even being involved in a discussion with you.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Got it now, you accept that there are WW2 veterans voting for UKIP but (in your view) just not that many. So whilst I was right all along you want to ignore the UKIP voting veterans because (again) in your view many many more veterans are supporting the other parties. You cannot prove your conjecture of course........it's a belief.

I don't need to prove it, I'm the one countering your argument that is seeking to suggest a large number of them are disenfranchised and turning to UKIP - I merely stated that that isn't the case, we know this because UKIP have 1 seat, we'll have to wait until May to prove that either way. But you just twist it round so you argue the same thing I am putting to you, and just evade what is being put to you.

I don't seek to represent the views and motives of all "old" UKIP voters, I say as I see from my experience of that demographic in my own life. You cannot however, without the same consensus prove their motives are otherwise.

Only the fact that you do….

Little wonder they are in revolt.......................especially when people like you smear shit on their sacrifice because they have the temerity to want to create change through democracy.

I can see you detest the referencing of historical events to contemporary politics, probably if you were honest only when such views cut across your own ideological preferences though right?

Again, you try to twist the point. I said I detest the referencing of historical events for political gain - this is quite different from referencing history in an analysis of politics. One is propaganda, the other is intellect.

Fact is that I would wager that the men and women who fought and suffered during that time never did so with an understanding that so many aspects of the state would be controlled and legislated by unelected Europeans, or that the British judiciary would be subordinate to the whims of foreign judges.

All of this without a by your leave from the electorate..........

There is no fact in this other than your imagination. You cannot wager what you think a consensus of people would or do think. You simply don't know, and that is why your whole argument falls flat on its face.