UKIP 'Diversity Carnival' Croydon - A total disaster?

[Lordieth]

What irritates me most is the constant actions of the try-hards trying to portray the entire party as racist. It's extremely irritating. No other political party has its members' opinions and comments scrutinised so heavily.

This is actually not true in the slightest.

UKIP is under as much scrutiny as any other party. It looks like more because UKIP have gone from almost zero scrutiny to some scrutiny. There is more to come out about UKIP, there is more that needs publicising. Farage's expensives, UKIPs allies in the European Parliament and plenty of other stuff.

Supporters of UKIP decry political correctness and try to hide behind the banner of free speech. They should learn that there is a difference between free speech and consequence free speech. UKIP is now learning that difference.

I can't recall the last time I heard of a Tory or Labour member having their entire twitter feed scrutinised. There's a difference between exposure, and looking for dirt that affirms a certain view. In this case, the media is digging out every racist or potentially racist comment they can find. They want to portray UKIP as racists. That's undeniable.

I'm pretty sure racists aren't just confined to UKIP, either The major difference is that it's not public/media interest in those cases, but someone being racist? From UKIP? Headline seller.

I do agree that part of the reason is more exposure, but this is as much about political and media motivation as it is about UKIP's inherent attitudes.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ostroeuropa has a point. There's no point in making an argument your opponent is perfectly prepared to make for you.

The issue is that UKIP is an alliance of racists and other political factions.

It isn't a racist party.
It's a party that contains a lot of racists. That is a distinction worth making, since all parties contain some racists.

Constantly calling UKIP a racist party is slandering a lot of it's members.

I have yet - after a number of years of looking - to see any real evidence of that claim.

[Alyakia]

This is actually not true in the slightest.

UKIP is under as much scrutiny as any other party. It looks like more because UKIP have gone from almost zero scrutiny to some scrutiny. There is more to come out about UKIP, there is more that needs publicising. Farage's expensives, UKIPs allies in the European Parliament and plenty of other stuff.

Supporters of UKIP decry political correctness and try to hide behind the banner of free speech. They should learn that there is a difference between free speech and consequence free speech. UKIP is now learning that difference.

I can't recall the last time I heard of a Tory or Labour member having their entire twitter feed scrutinised. There's a difference between exposure, and looking for dirt that affirms a certain view. In this case, the media is digging out every racist or potentially racist comment they can find. They want to portray UKIP as racists. That's undeniable.

I'm pretty sure racists aren't just confined to UKIP, either The major difference is that it's not public/media interest in those cases, but someone being racist? From UKIP? Headline seller.

I do agree that part of the reason is more exposure, but this is as much about political and media motivation as it is about UKIP's inherent attitudes.

actually there are constat gaffes over labour MPs twitters. don't you remember all the whining the one time someone mentioned colonialism? please understand that 1) looking at what people post in public is not massive scrutiny 2) yes basically all MPs are having their twitters scrutinized, by their own party and their opponents, every message (maybe if UKIP wasn't such an unprofessional band of tits they'd be doing better at this)

e: no "racist MP" is headlines in all cases, even completely made up cases. you're either not paying attention or playing a very small fiddle.

[Lordieth]

Ostroeuropa has a point. There's no point in making an argument your opponent is perfectly prepared to make for you.

The issue is that UKIP is an alliance of racists and other political factions.

It isn't a racist party.
It's a party that contains a lot of racists. That is a distinction worth making, since all parties contain some racists.

Constantly calling UKIP a racist party is slandering a lot of it's members.

Saying they are in alliance with political racism is apt.

Is it that it contains a lot of racists, or that more racists are just coming to light in UKIP due to media scrutiny of them? Because I think it would be difficult to prove one or the other. Maybe I'm just a cynic, though.

[Britcan]

It's perfectly possible to both protest UKIP and support another party simultaneously. Doing one doesn't prevent you from doing the other.

I'd imagine that's because the Greens are pretty much opposed to everything on UKIP's platform and would prefer that people vote for just about anyone else. I believe they have been trying to position themselves as the anti-UKIP recently, so doing that makes sense.

I know, however time would be better spent spreading that parties message rather than just criticizing another. Negative campaigning is lazy and worst of all tends not to work - notice how UKIPs poll rating remain ever high despite the fact were told every single time someone says something riduclous (no matter how minor)

Except its incredibly hypocritical of the Greens, they repeatedly accuse UKIP of being the "nasty party" or "negative" and they are putting a positive message forward. Yet part of their campaign (admittedly a tiny one) is just saying "do anything but vote UKIP". It's also quite a poor strategy if they want to grow as a party if part of their message is just "dont vote for those guys"

Criticising your opponents is an important element of political campaigning, all parties do it. If it didn't work political parties wouldn't do it this much. UKIP are also not as persecuted as Farage & co. try to make out.

It's a perfectly legitimate tactic on the part of the Greens to create the image they want. If you want to portray yourselves as the anti-UKIP the best thing you can do is say "don't vote for UKIP".

[Greater-London]

1. Depends on the member of the police, doesn't it.

2. Because we all have to get along, that's why. And being politically incorrect on purpose (ie rude to people who're already put-upon for the sake of it) doesn't help with that.

3. Reason enough.

1. Yes, but the fact that police office could move me on if they wanted to on the grounds that I was being inflammatory proves my point

2. It would be good if we all got a long. The problem is because of ignorance and hate we don't. The solution to that isn't being Political Correct which solves absolutely nothing. The people who want to say un PC things still do they just now complain about it.

3. Fine, I like saying the word "Paki". Will it offend someone? yes. Do you have a right to not get offended? NO.

[Lordieth]

I can't recall the last time I heard of a Tory or Labour member having their entire twitter feed scrutinised. There's a difference between exposure, and looking for dirt that affirms a certain view. In this case, the media is digging out every racist or potentially racist comment they can find. They want to portray UKIP as racists. That's undeniable.

I'm pretty sure racists aren't just confined to UKIP, either The major difference is that it's not public/media interest in those cases, but someone being racist? From UKIP? Headline seller.

I do agree that part of the reason is more exposure, but this is as much about political and media motivation as it is about UKIP's inherent attitudes.

actually there are constat gaffes over labour MPs twitters. don't you remember all the whining the one time someone mentioned colonialism? please understand that 1) looking at what people post in public is not massive scrutiny 2) yes basically all MPs are having their twitters scrutinized, by their own party and their opponents, every message (maybe if UKIP wasn't such an unprofessional band of tits they'd be doing better at this)

Well, in any party's defence, you can't moderate every single comment that comes out of one of your members. I think "UKIP is racist" sells papers, so anything that sells papers is going to come under heavier scrutiny. Just as much as the Tories are caricatured as a bunch of Eton toffs. These are stereotypes.

UKIP has racist members - yes. The Conservatives have members who went to Eton. UKIP is not a racist party and The Conservatives are not a party of toffs.

[Greater-London]

Criticising your opponents is an important element of political campaigning, all parties do it. If it didn't work political parties wouldn't do it this much. UKIP are also not as persecuted as Farage & co. try to make out.

It's a perfectly legitimate tactic on the part of the Greens to create the image they want. If you want to portray yourselves as the anti-UKIP the best thing you can do is say "don't vote for UKIP".

I agree, however this has to be done constructively otherwise it doesn't work. It has to have some sort of reasoned argument behind it other than "RACISTS" "FASCISTS". Also those who tired to scupper the event today weren't doing it on behalf of say the Greens they seemed to being doing it because they are "anti UKIP".

I'd also have to challenge you on that second point. The campaign against Farage and Company has been constant for the last month and its so SO boring. Not that they don't bring it upon themselves to a certain degree, more often than not someone connected to UKIP is saying something embarrassing. The coverage say of the Lib Dem Councillor who recently told a Romanian barmaid to "fuck of home" or the Tory Councillor who admitted to benefit fraud has been next to nothing. Especially when compared to the various non UKIPer's who do something awful.

I'm not saying its an illegitimate tactic (someone with more political nous than me has thought it through). However I believe if you don't want someone to vote for UKIP you should tell them "vote Green beacuse of X Y Z" not "Dont vote for UKIP they beleive X Y Z"

[The Scientific States]

This spring has been a wreck for the UKIP. That's a good thing.

[Alyakia]

actually there are constat gaffes over labour MPs twitters. don't you remember all the whining the one time someone mentioned colonialism? please understand that 1) looking at what people post in public is not massive scrutiny 2) yes basically all MPs are having their twitters scrutinized, by their own party and their opponents, every message (maybe if UKIP wasn't such an unprofessional band of tits they'd be doing better at this)

Well, in any party's defence, you can't moderate every single comment that comes out of one of your members. I think "UKIP is racist" sells papers, so anything that sells papers is going to come under heavier scrutiny. Just as much as the Tories are caricatured as a bunch of Eton toffs. These are stereotypes.

UKIP has racist members - yes. The Conservatives have members who went to Eton. UKIP is not a racist party and The Conservatives are not a party of toffs.

yeah, labour is racist or tories are racist also sells paper.

why are UKIP so much worse at it? a) they are incompetent b) their members all vastly undertrained and underprepared c) their members have a significantly higher number of racists etc. in their ranks d) combo. none of these shine a particularly bright light on the party.

from the alyakia perspective, the BNP is for labourites who are annoyed labour wasn't racist enough and UKIP is for tories who are annoyed that "if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote liberal or labour" went out of vogue. you can say that yeah not literally every member of UKIP or the conservative part is a steaing rich racist, but they didn't pull those stereotypes out of the air. the tories are significantly more biased towards businesses interests and the rich and my answer to the UKIP conundrum posed earlier is a, b and c. (d?)

[Calimera II]

The UKIP isn't even that bad.

[Britcan]

Criticising your opponents is an important element of political campaigning, all parties do it. If it didn't work political parties wouldn't do it this much. UKIP are also not as persecuted as Farage & co. try to make out.

It's a perfectly legitimate tactic on the part of the Greens to create the image they want. If you want to portray yourselves as the anti-UKIP the best thing you can do is say "don't vote for UKIP".

I agree, however this has to be done constructively otherwise it doesn't work. It has to have some sort of reasoned argument behind it other than "RACISTS" "FASCISTS". Also those who tired to scupper the event today weren't doing it on behalf of say the Greens they seemed to being doing it because they are "anti UKIP".

I'd also have to challenge you on that second point. The campaign against Farage and Company has been constant for the last month and its so SO boring. Not that they don't bring it upon themselves to a certain degree, more often than not someone connected to UKIP is saying something embarrassing. The coverage say of the Lib Dem Councillor who recently told a Romanian barmaid to "fuck of home" or the Tory Councillor who admitted to benefit fraud has been next to nothing. Especially when compared to the various non UKIPer's who do something awful.

I'm not saying its an illegitimate tactic (someone with more political nous than me has thought it through). However I believe if you don't want someone to vote for UKIP you should tell them "vote Green beacuse of X Y Z" not "Dont vote for UKIP they beleive X Y Z"

I would wholeheartedly say that I would much rather see genuine criticisms of UKIPs policies, as there is certainly no shortage of those, rather than the hysterical screaming that we see at these sorts of protests. However, that's the nature of protests and counter protests today.

The reason that UKIP have been bombarded in the media lately isn't due to any persecution, but because they've been out of the spotlight for so long. Up until recently UKIP weren't a big enough force for the media to look at all their councillors, but now that they are the media are exposing all the unpleasant individuals in the party. The other big parties have been under the media microscope for longer and thus their bad apples have already been largely exposed and ejected. The fact that UKIP is much worse at moderating it's members than other parties and contains more extreme individuals is only their own fault.

Their aim isn't to make people not vote for UKIP, but to make people see them as the Anti-UKIP by saying don't vote UKIP. They seem to be trying to attract people who are dissatisfied with the big parties, but vehemently oppose UKIP.

[Parti Ouvrier]

So basically a bunch of social justice warriors ruin an event. I'm no fan of UKIP, but the constant braying that they are racist simply doesn't hold water.

I agree, Ukip isn't a racist party. Of course there are a few racists and homophobes in Ukip (if exposed they're promptly kicked out), but you could just as easily find a few racists and homophobes in the Tory party. On that logic, the popular frontist StandUptoUkip TM campaign protesters might as way portray the Tories as a racist party.

[Parti Ouvrier]

I agree, however this has to be done constructively otherwise it doesn't work. It has to have some sort of reasoned argument behind it other than "RACISTS" "FASCISTS". Also those who tired to scupper the event today weren't doing it on behalf of say the Greens they seemed to being doing it because they are "anti UKIP".

I'd also have to challenge you on that second point. The campaign against Farage and Company has been constant for the last month and its so SO boring. Not that they don't bring it upon themselves to a certain degree, more often than not someone connected to UKIP is saying something embarrassing. The coverage say of the Lib Dem Councillor who recently told a Romanian barmaid to "fuck of home" or the Tory Councillor who admitted to benefit fraud has been next to nothing. Especially when compared to the various non UKIPer's who do something awful.

I'm not saying its an illegitimate tactic (someone with more political nous than me has thought it through). However I believe if you don't want someone to vote for UKIP you should tell them "vote Green beacuse of X Y Z" not "Dont vote for UKIP they beleive X Y Z"

Their aim isn't to make people not vote for UKIP, but to make people see them as the Anti-UKIP by saying don't vote UKIP. They seem to be trying to attract people who are dissatisfied with the big parties, but vehemently oppose UKIP.

Don't vote Ukip, so another similar right-wing national-chauvinist party like the Tories is ok then? That's the stupidity of Stand Up to Ukip.TM

[Greater-London]

Don't vote Ukip, so another similar right-wing national-chauvinist party like the Tories is ok then? That's the stupidity of Stopukip.

A good way to stop people voting UKIP would be to stop attributing terms to them incorrectly.Especially considering I think about 54% of people thought the recent poster campaign weren't racist.

[Britcan]

Their aim isn't to make people not vote for UKIP, but to make people see them as the Anti-UKIP by saying don't vote UKIP. They seem to be trying to attract people who are dissatisfied with the big parties, but vehemently oppose UKIP.

Don't vote Ukip, so another similar right-wing national-chauvinist party like the Tories is ok then? That's the stupidity of Stopukip.TM

I would imagine a large amount of people, Green supporters included, would say that the Tories are vastly preferable to UKIP.

However, as I've already pointed out, that by saying "don't vote UKIP" the Greens are portraying themselves as the anti-UKIP, an image that they are likely trying to foster.

[Grave_n_idle]

3. Fine, I like saying the word "Paki".

So long as you don't say it where anyone hears you, we can keep having a mature discussion and pretend your opinion is as worthy as mine.

[Grave_n_idle]

Don't vote Ukip, so another similar right-wing national-chauvinist party like the Tories is ok then? That's the stupidity of Stopukip.TM

I would imagine a large amount of people, Green supporters included, would say that the Tories are vastly preferable to UKIP.

They are, if for no other reason than their 'tent' is bigger. UKIP sucks off the cream of the tories ('cream' is a substance that is thick, rich, and full of clots) and appeals to their narrow extremist spectrum. The tories have to appeal to a somewhat bigger spectrum, so they are a little less extreme and objectionable.

[Parti Ouvrier]

I would imagine a large amount of people, Green supporters included, would say that the Tories are vastly preferable to UKIP.

They are, if for no other reason than their 'tent' is bigger. UKIP sucks off the cream of the tories ('cream' is a substance that is thick, rich, and full of clots) and appeals to their narrow extremist spectrum. The tories have to appeal to a somewhat bigger spectrum, so they are a little less extreme and objectionable.

I find both the Tories and Ukip more or less equally objectionable.

[Britcan]

They are, if for no other reason than their 'tent' is bigger. UKIP sucks off the cream of the tories ('cream' is a substance that is thick, rich, and full of clots) and appeals to their narrow extremist spectrum. The tories have to appeal to a somewhat bigger spectrum, so they are a little less extreme and objectionable.

I find both the Tories and Ukip more or less equally objectionable.

I'd suspect that you may well be in the minority there.

[Grave_n_idle]

They are, if for no other reason than their 'tent' is bigger. UKIP sucks off the cream of the tories ('cream' is a substance that is thick, rich, and full of clots) and appeals to their narrow extremist spectrum. The tories have to appeal to a somewhat bigger spectrum, so they are a little less extreme and objectionable.

I find both the Tories and Ukip more or less equally objectionable.

I've been living in the US too long to have such a view. I look at the tories and see a party still well to the left of the allegedly-leftwing over here. The tories are collectively fairly centrist, UKIP are far more objectionable.

[MERIZoC]

I find both the Tories and Ukip more or less equally objectionable.

I've been living in the US too long to have such a view. I look at the tories and see a party still well to the left of the allegedly-leftwing over here. The tories are collectively fairly centrist, UKIP are far more objectionable.

Tories to the left of the Dems? No way. Especially not socially.

[Grave_n_idle]

I've been living in the US too long to have such a view. I look at the tories and see a party still well to the left of the allegedly-leftwing over here. The tories are collectively fairly centrist, UKIP are far more objectionable.

Tories to the left of the Dems? No way. Especially not socially.

Having lived in both the UK and the US, yep, absolutely.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Tories to the left of the Dems? No way. Especially not socially.

Having lived in both the UK and the US, yep, absolutely.

There is very little to distinguish between the Tories and Ukip, only the latter wants to get out of the EU. Yet somehow Ukip are more objectionable? Non sequitur much?

[Grave_n_idle]

Having lived in both the UK and the US, yep, absolutely.

There is very little to distinguish between the Tories and Ukip, only the latter wants to get out of the EU. Yet somehow Ukip are more objectionable? Non sequitur much?

Apparently, 'non sequitur' is a phrase you probably shouldn't use. There's no reason why that issue on it's own wouldn't be enough to make the one more objectionable than the other, so you're misusing the term.

But given that UKIP and the Conservatives differ drastically on taxation, foreign policy, healthcare, defence... in fact, pretty much every issue on which there is any kind of stated policy - the fact that you're misusing 'non sequitur' is irrelevant. In this case, you're not just using the wrong words, you're just plain (objectively) wrong.