The Rise and Rise of UKIP

[windy_miller]

anyway, last night's Question Time - Farage vs Brand. A damp squid.

I'd even go so far as to say that Farage got the better of it. It should have been Will Self, as he at least can string a coherent idea together.

[windy_miller]

The shenanigans in the audience were more interesting than the panel last night. No idea what that crazy woman at the back was banging on about apart from calling every person who spoke a racist.

Brand just looked terrified to me, and his voice was even whinier and more patronizing than ever.

Edited December 12, 2014 by windy_miller

[LondonTom]

Your communist utopia would pay almost everyone something no one could live off but at least everyone (almost) is equal right ?

Fuck it, if you are a road sweeper or a cleaner, you should be grateful for just room and board. Just enough to keep them nourished so they can actually do the job mind eh?

Edited December 12, 2014 by LondonTom

[russycarps]

The shenanigans in the audience were more interesting than the panel last night. No idea what that crazy woman at the back was banging on about apart from calling every person who spoke a racist.

Brand just looked terrified to me, and his voice was even whinier and more patronizing than ever.

I loved the way one woman calmly called the shouter the rudest woman she'd ever met. I bet she'll watch that over and over and over.

shame she was a ukip sympathiser.

[windy_miller]

The blue haired woman was supposedly Bunny La Roche, who seems to have a personal vendetta against UKIP and Farage

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/thanet-stand-up-to-ukip-21736/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/question-time-forget-russell-brand-and-nigel-farage-the-bluehaired-woman-stole-the-show-9919731.html

Edited December 12, 2014 by windy_miller

[Big Vern]

The shenanigans in the audience were more interesting than the panel last night. No idea what that crazy woman at the back was banging on about apart from calling every person who spoke a racist.

Brand just looked terrified to me, and his voice was even whinier and more patronizing than ever.

It was the usual pre-scripted rubbish but slightly more amusing than usual. Yes the extreme left wing anarchist fossil at the back was the highlight of the show. Anybody mentioned the word immigration and it was "RACIST!"

Farage still has nothing to offer than his one party line - immigration. Tapping into a very unsavoury ignorance perpetuated by the media that the UKs current financial problems are caused by immigrants and not the ultra rich and big corporations and financial sectors. Its not our fault, we are constantly bombarded with benefits this and benefits that on tv documentaries but how many documentaries are there on the ultra rich and big corporates not paying the taxes they should be paying?

Brand, although I do find some of his views interesting and agree with, he looked like a little boy lost last night. It's easy to align yourself with the common man on the street and shine bright, but when faced with others that know how to handle arguments, he shrunk very quickly. Indeed, why doesnt he stand as an mp, he has the short sighted support I'm sure.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Big Vern

[eFestivals]

Anybody mentioned the word immigration and it was "RACIST!"

in the discussions we're getting at the moment it invariably is, tho.

Because it's undoubtedly the case that everything that gets blamed on those immigrants could equally be laid against the govts lack of serving the people (and I'#m not meaning by tighter immigration controls) - and so we don't get a balanced argument that evaluates all facts, we only get an anti-immigrant tirade.

Farage still has nothing to offer than his one party line - immigration.

How quickly people forget.

Farage's line is not anti-immigrant, it's anti-EU - because for him and his rich-individual friends, the EU holds them to account and stops their frauds.

He's merely been the lucky recipient of the anti-immigrant argument that some others have put forwards, which - like everything else that crops up - he gives a populist line for the very stupid.

Brand, although I do find some of his views interesting and agree with, he looked like a little boy lost last night.

Yep. He knew before he even started that he was out of his depth.

Farage was able to sit back and let Brand give him his win, when Farage can't handle even the smallest things of real substance.

Edited December 12, 2014 by eFestivals

[Big Vern]

in the discussions we're getting at the moment it invariably is, tho.

Because it's undoubtedly the case that everything that gets blamed on those immigrants could equally be laid against the govts lack of serving the people (and I'#m not meaning by tighter immigration controls) - and so we don't get a balanced argument that evaluates all facts, we only get an anti-immigrant tirade.

How quickly people forget.

Farage's line is not anti-immigrant, it's anti-EU - because for him and his rich-individual friends, the EU holds them to account and stops their frauds.

He's merely been the lucky recipient of the anti-immigrant argument that some others have put forwards, which - like everything else that crops up - he gives a populist line for the very stupid.

Yep. He knew before he even started that he was out of his depth.

Farage was able to sit back and let Brand give him his win, when Farage can't handle even the smallest things of real substance.

I appreciate his main aim is to get out of the EU, but he's latching on to the immigration issue to influence the votes of shall we say the more narrow minded amongst us and unfortunately he's doing a bloody good job.

[eFestivals]

.... but he's latching on to the immigration issue to influence the votes of shall we say the more narrow minded amongst us and unfortunately he's doing a bloody good job.

He's doing exactly the same on EVERY issue.

If you saw QT last night and that was your first taste of Farage, you'd walk away thinking he was a new champion for the NHS, not someone who's party policy has been to abolish it - and still is.

Edited December 12, 2014 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

An old, but rather good article, on immigration, the media and political portrayal of it, and how it's actually a class issue:

http://www.transform-network.net/journal/issue-102012/news/detail/Journal/immigration-is-good-immigration-is-bad-migration-is-a-fact.html

This section is particularly pertinent:

The use of the term “parallel society” with its reproachful and pejorative connotations is particularly insidious. What does an Austrian entrepreneur who likes being a member of the Lions Club have in common with an Austrian worker who is a fan of the Rapid football club? Both of them are actively involved in clubs, which after all are small “parallel societies”. What does a single mother of two children from Linz who is active in the parent teacher association at her children’s school have in common with a female Freedom Party politician organising a choir in Carinthia? All around us, including the “Austrian Austrians”, there exist only “parallel societies”, exclusively. So why should this be different with people coming from somewhere else? And why is this phenomenon turned into a reproach against them?

The so-called “immigration problem” or the “issue of integration” (in politically more correct terms) is the good old class issue. Wealthy immigrants from a bourgeois background, quickly arranging themselves with the prevailing conditions and the economic system, are considered good, while those from poor social backgrounds, who have become workers here, are identified as bad. Their culture is called backward and it is forgotten that for a long time no institution of the destination country paid any attention to them culturally. It is blocked out that bourgeois immigrants even in their immigration situation can normally count on more social support than their much poorer, less educated counterparts, the “guest workers”.

This discrimination of former workers and their different culture follows a clear political objective, since it can be interpreted as “a shot across the bow” of the native-born employees, who are thus kept silent by scare mongering and discouraged from raising their justified demands.

Moreover, a wedge is thus driven into the workforce. If we, the native employees find ourselves in such a bad situation, this must be somebody’s fault, and if I am politically badly educated, I tend to think that it is not the fault of the conditions (which have to be changed), but of Savo, my Serbian colleague, or of Mesud, the Turkish man driving the forklift truck. This tactic fulfils a double purpose; it is clever and really devilishly ingenious.

Since people no longer speak of class conflict in the public arena, the focus of the discourse has shifted: now we are dealing with “ethnicising” and “culturalising” the social consequences of the economic imbalance – which is structurally determining for capitalism.

Edited December 12, 2014 by kaosmark2

[Big Vern]

An old, but rather good article, on immigration, the media and political portrayal of it, and how it's actually a class issue:

http://www.transform-network.net/journal/issue-102012/news/detail/Journal/immigration-is-good-immigration-is-bad-migration-is-a-fact.html

This section is particularly pertinent:

Very true. 99% of the UK population would have no problem with for example a French surgeon moving in next door to them, indeed it would become a bragging point for many! But an Albanian brick layer, good god, I bet he's part of a rape gang!

[eFestivals]

Since people no longer speak of class conflict in the public arena, the focus of the discourse has shifted: now we are dealing with “ethnicising” and “culturalising” the social consequences of the economic imbalance – which is structurally determining for capitalism.

And there you have the reason why those who say there is no left and right anymore are wrong.

Class conflict is not over, it's coming back so strong that people can't see it. They think it's the natural order of things, and not a human construct.

[Flasher]

I've a feeling my father will be voting UKIP in May.

I don't begrudge him that, we disagree on a lot of things.

But what irks me is that he thinks a vote for UKIP is a vote for change.

Because obviously, nothing says 'change' quite like voting for a load of rich, old, white neo-thatcherites.

[Big Vern]

And there you have the reason why those who say there is no left and right anymore are wrong.

Class conflict is not over, it's coming back so strong that people can't see it. They think it's the natural order of things, and not a human construct.

Indeed. The argument on QT last night for bringing back grammar schools was disturbing to me. What we should be bringing back is support and resources for our teachers to provide grammar school level eduction for all schools, not creating more class divides. Like the lady said in the audience who went to grammar school, but was from a council estate, she was bullied because no doubt she stood out like a cock in a bun compared to the majority of other kids.

[eFestivals]

But what irks me is that he thinks a vote for UKIP is a vote for change.

Because obviously, nothing says 'change' quite like voting for a load of rich, old, white neo-thatcherites.

You missed out the bit where tory MPs change into UKIP MPs. That's real change.

But, yeah ... there's an awful lot of people like that, who have failed to grasp anything of what UKIP are and what they're about. There's plenty of their supporters saying that they're a left wing party, which is as wacky as it gets.

UKIP have been promised Nick Griffin's vote - which i think says it all.

[eFestivals]

The argument on QT last night for bringing back grammar schools was disturbing to me.

I don't think you should let it disturb you too much. Displays of stupidity don't come much clearer.

You only have to ask any grammar school campaigner if they're also campaigning for the return of substandard schools for the 70% of 'thick' kids to see them crumble.

Edited December 12, 2014 by eFestivals

[eonerf]

Suprised that people thought Brand did badly at QT. He did seem nervous but I thought he did a lot better than most people I've seen debate Farage as he did not patronise him too much (like Nick Clegg did and Farage used this to his advantage in their EU debate). That 'Pound Shop Enoch Powell' comment was fantastic and stuck in a lot of people's mind

[grumpyhack]

Interesting article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11291406/Revealed-how-Nigel-Farage-and-Ukip-begged-for-Enoch-Powells-support.html

If the Torygraph is having a go at Farage the Tories must be worried.

[eonerf]

I thought Russell had his moments. He's overdoing it though and being perceived as more than a little hysterical a lot of the time. When the guy was challenging Russell to stand as a politician, he looked genuinely lost... I thought he was going to cry (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

Looks like he might have been a UKIP plant after all plus in Russell's defense they guy was pretty much shouting at him before the blue haired woman interrupted

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30448645

[viberunner]

Indeed. The argument on QT last night for bringing back grammar schools was disturbing to me. What we should be bringing back is support and resources for our teachers to provide grammar school level eduction for all schools, not creating more class divides. Like the lady said in the audience who went to grammar school, but was from a council estate, she was bullied because no doubt she stood out like a cock in a bun compared to the majority of other kids.

I went to a school that in effect had a grammar and comprehensive within it, highly selective streaming. The point is the kids from poorer, more chaotic backgrounds for the most part bullied the brighter, more able kids mostly from middle class backgrounds. I was an exception, there was a few of us, in that I came from a poorer background was but academically able, I've long-term dated women who (how can I put this delicately?) are from my social background, but also middle-class, professional, successful, able, forceful women who sent their children to state school.

The problem a lot of children face at comprehensives is not a lack of teacher ability, this is a professional class now - degree with postgrad training and constant assessment - but the fact from childhood they are raised by parents who had failed outcomes themselves at school and consider school and teachers to be the enemy, or at least an "other". More than that their peers are from the same background... anyone who attempts academic achievement is seen as a teacher's pet, is seen as a social traitor.

On the other hand middle-class parents not only raise their children with the concept that education is of vital importance, they also raise their children with educational capacity, from "big" stuff like teaching reading, writing, mathematics, but also secondary elements such as the parents reading and thus being seen to read, encouraging reading, providing good reading materials, the selection of TV choices and channels (more BBC2 and BBC4 than ITV2 and E4) along with the choices of radio channels (R3, R4, World Service over the various pop channels).

Grammar Schools do not encourage social mobility, but they do provide the children of the middle classes with an opportunity to study in a safe environment.

The theory that in mixing all children together the brightest raise the dimmest is I think a myth; I think it's more the children from the most chaotic and deprived backgrounds resent the "posh" kids and take it out on them.

[Gucci Piggy]

When I was at school I saw no evidence of the higher achievers getting more attention from teachers. Mostly it was the kids who dicked around and took their education completely for granted who got most of the attention and one-to-one help, and as someone who put effort in and did well, it was fucking annoying.

Also agree with the above point that they don't need to do well at school and go to uni. Judging by the people I went to school with, the ones who did badly and have gone into apprenticeships in manual jobs seem more likely to find a job than average-smart kids who go to study mediocre degrees with poor graduate prospects.

[eFestivals]

Grammar Schools do not encourage social mobility, but they do provide the children of the middle classes with an opportunity to study in a safe environment.

... and extend their privileges.

[eFestivals]

That is probably true but it doesn't happen in most schools anyway. Most schools do stream the kids... The kids will be in guided reading / maths group to match their abilities.

My daughters primary school streams the children. So in effect the brighter kids aren't with the slower kids.

and the advantage of streaming over complete-separation (grammars) is that it's streamed by subject - so someone in (say) the top group for maths might also be in (say) the bottom stream for English.

It gives each and every kid the chance to excel in the subjects they're good at, rather than throwing 70% of kids away as useless at everything.

[grumpyhack]

When I was at school I saw no evidence of the higher achievers getting more attention from teachers. Mostly it was the kids who dicked around and took their education completely for granted who got most of the attention and one-to-one help, and as someone who put effort in and did well, it was fucking annoying.

As an adult ed tutor I find a lot of courses are putting the sticking plaster on people who 'fell through' the system when they were at school but have realised later in life that they want to catch up.

I also find that those who stand out and I remember from classes are either the very keen/bright ones who put in good assignments or those at the bottom who still don't 'get it.'

The people I feel sorry for are those in the middle who just get swallowed up in the grey area and don't stand out because they are neither good nor bad.

[viberunner]

In your post are you saying this "bullying" is holding back these middle class children ? Are you saying they aren't getting the grades they could ? Or are you saying, as the quoted post suggests, we should reintroduce grammar schools just to stop some kids getting bullied ?

Partly direct bullying, partly due to the mentality of the institution. GSs exist to enable children to flourish, academically and artistically, whereas many comprehensives are more on a "harm minimisation" path (which takes a very great amount of resources and focus).

... and extend their privileges.

You mean by that wanting and expecting the taxes they've paid to be usefully used to educate their children?

The selfish bastards!