Ukip - why are they gaining support?

[Awesome Wells]

View attachment 53614

Too old a story to matter now?

Where's the fake sheikh when you need him?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You have misunderstood; i do not say they should have no place at all in the debate, or on the shows like QT.

They have been gifted airtime and a spotlight the likes of the greens would kill for,while having no MPs.

You use the word "debate".
If you ponder the word for a few moments, you'll realise that programmes like QT aren't about debate, they're about entertainment - political entertainment, and Farage hasn't been "gifted airtime", he's proven himself substantively-entertaining - the editions of QT he appears on add about 10% to their ratings over other editions - and that's why he's invited on.

I doubt they are the fourth largest party, and if they are the difference between third and fourth place is very big indeed. I bet the greens are bigger (hopefully! ).

You'd lose your bet.
And while the gap between the Lib-Dems and UKIP is currently substantial, there is absolutely NO way of predicting how much that gap might shrink given a good UKIP Euro-result and Clegg's inability to move his party beyond a narrative that says "we screwed you all by teaming up with the Tories, but we're pretending that we're a check on their excesses, in order to gull you out of your vote".

 

[Awesome Wells]

IMO part of the problem is that (much as the anti-UKIPpers protest otherwise), they're still looking at UKIP through an anti-fascist lens, and using the same tactics that were used against the BNP in B & D. The big issue with that is that while some of UKIP's councillors and candidates are indeed racist scum, not all of them are - many of them are bog-standard hard-right populists who think that Hitler and Nazism were horrific, and that Fascism is a Dago perversion. They may be "little Britain" Xenophobes, but their combination of rhetoric and (extremely) amorphous policy intentions are currently attractive to a whole skew of the electorate, from disengaged and/or disenchanted Tories, to old-fashioned Labour rightists.
Doing sensationalised exposés of UKIPpers won't work. Part of the reason such actions worked against Griffin's mob, is that the BNP were trying to hide a lot of baggage. It was simple to point up glaring contradictions between public and private rhetoric , and make political points from that. With a majority of UKIP's candidates and councillors, their dirty laundry is already public, so the same game doesn't work - in fact it looks petty and pathetic.
I hope that some of the more voluble "UKIP are fascist Nazi racists" types realise that, before May 2015.

It may be public, but it doesn't mean that everyone knows about it. If they do, they might care - or they might not. it's pretty obvious that ukip supporters either don't care they will be voting for MEP's like Nuttal who can't be arsed to do their job while happily receiving their 70 odd grand a year. In fact some of them probably agree with his stance.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It may be public, but it doesn't mean that everyone knows about it. If they do, they might care - or they might not. it's pretty obvious that ukip supporters either don't care they will be voting for MEP's like Nuttal who can't be arsed to do their job while happily receiving their 70 odd grand a year. In fact some of them probably agree with his stance.

And you think this doesn't actually apply beyond UKIP, to the wider party-political world?

 

[Awesome Wells]

You use the word "debate".
If you ponder the word for a few moments, you'll realise that programmes like QT aren't about debate, they're about entertainment - political entertainment, and Farage hasn't been "gifted airtime", he's proven himself substantively-entertaining - the editions of QT he appears on add about 10% to their ratings over other editions - and that's why he's invited on.

Whether you call it political entertainment or not, it feautures prominent politicians - good or bad, skilled or not - who give views on issues of the day, or at least what the BBC thinks are relevant issues.

I really don't care why he's invited on. I care that he constantly talks over everyone else and is allowed to give a particular message while the opposing message, as Carolin Lucas tried to explain, is immediately shut down.

There are few avenues on public media for people to put their views across and when people like her are marginalised in this way it just gives UKIP more credence than they deserve. I haven't once said they shouldn't be allowed on there at all, but it's very easy for UKIP to flourish in an already favourable environment, one created partly by an out of touch elite and partly by a nasty right wing media. Unfortunately he is part of that elite and any attempt by opposing speakers to explain this gets shut down by him talking over them and Dimbedore saying 'nope, can't say that'.

 

[Awesome Wells]

And you think this doesn't actually apply beyond UKIP, to the wider party-political world?

It may well be. Doesn't make it right. I'm not sure what the point is.

 

[butchersapron]

Could someone requote that ofcom ruling please as he has me on ignore.

 

[Awesome Wells]

I would certainly like to see more focus on exposing and deconstructing UKIP's policies, as the labour guy on Any Questions tried last night. But how can this be done effectively agianst a backdrop of UKIP self pity and hectoring, and a right wing media, in which i include the bbc?

This is rapidly becoming a no win situation if people can't even express their feelings about these ridiculous idiots on here. I don't advocate throwing eggs or sending shit in the post for one minute; those are silly actions (though i can understand them). But telling people they can't have a say on ukip while talking down to those who watch or even attend Question Time is hypocrisy.

And I would call ukip fascist: their attitudes toward social justice, unemployed, workers rights, womens rights, parents rights, and rights in general, are extremely regressive. I don't want these tossers anywhere near government.

 

[nino_savatte]

You use the word "debate".
If you ponder the word for a few moments, you'll realise that programmes like QT aren't about debate, they're about entertainment - political entertainment, and Farage hasn't been "gifted airtime", he's proven himself substantively-entertaining - the editions of QT he appears on add about 10% to their ratings over other editions - and that's why he's invited on.

The one thing that's lacking in the entertainment show that is QT is the clap-o-meter. I reckon Grunt Scrapps would have done poorly, judging by the lack of applause he received.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The one thing that's lacking in the entertainment show that is QT is the clap-o-meter. I reckon Grunt Scrapps would have done poorly, judging by the lack of applause he received.

You'd have to reanimate Hughie Green or Bob Monkhouse to replace Dimblebum as host, though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It may well be. Doesn't make it right. I'm not sure what the point is.

The point is simple: It's that members of the electorate do care, but may (for a variety of reasons) choose to vote in a particular way because the other choices offer them less traction on the political process, or because a vote a certain way will act as a "protest" vote" in terms of putting a shot across the bows of other political parties.
it's about a hell of a lot more than the simplistic idea that if you vote for X, then you're a racist.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Whether you call it political entertainment or not, it feautures prominent politicians - good or bad, skilled or not - who give views on issues of the day, or at least what the BBC thinks are relevant issues.

I really don't care why he's invited on. I care that he constantly talks over everyone else and is allowed to give a particular message while the opposing message, as Carolin Lucas tried to explain, is immediately shut down.

There are few avenues on public media for people to put their views across and when people like her are marginalised in this way it just gives UKIP more credence than they deserve. I haven't once said they shouldn't be allowed on there at all, but it's very easy for UKIP to flourish in an already favourable environment, one created partly by an out of touch elite and partly by a nasty right wing media. Unfortunately he is part of that elite and any attempt by opposing speakers to explain this gets shut down by him talking over them and Dimbedore saying 'nope, can't say that'.

Having watched a couple of the Farage-os, both recently, and further back, the main reason "opposing speakers" are shut down is because rather than asking (for example) "Nigel, your close colleague G. Bloom is a proven sexist racist, do you sanction those views", they come out with stuff more along the lines of "but Nigel, Bloom is a racist sexist, so you must be too!". It's arsery, and it doesn't address the sort of questions that should be asked of Farage:
What are your specific policy prescriptions for X, Y and Z?
How will you, prior to referendum on EU membership, legally limit immigration from other EU members?
How will you deal with any "tit for tat" actions concomitant to limiting immigration, including effects on business?
What are your policies/theories/concepts about reviving manfacturing?
Will a profitable manufacturing sector be achievable without exploitation of other members of the Commonwealth?
etc
etc
etc.

 

[Awesome Wells]

As I said, i'd prefer they spent more time deconstructing their policies.

But that doesn't change the fact that Farage just talks over everyone.

 

[J Ed]

But that doesn't change the fact that Farage just talks over everyone.

Take off the ideological blinkers for a second, he just does not do that any more than most politicians on QT and less than some.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Take off the ideological blinkers for a second, he just does not do that any more than most politicians on QT and less than some.

so?

 

[emanymton]

Guess what these figures are:

UKIP 41K
CONSERVATIVES 4K
SNP 3484
LABOUR 3K
LIBDEMS 968

Not a clue, so go on put me out if my misery.

 

[Lo Siento.]

IMO part of the problem is that (much as the anti-UKIPpers protest otherwise), they're still looking at UKIP through an anti-fascist lens, and using the same tactics that were used against the BNP in B & D. The big issue with that is that while some of UKIP's councillors and candidates are indeed racist scum, not all of them are - many of them are bog-standard hard-right populists who think that Hitler and Nazism were horrific, and that Fascism is a Dago perversion. They may be "little Britain" Xenophobes, but their combination of rhetoric and (extremely) amorphous policy intentions are currently attractive to a whole skew of the electorate, from disengaged and/or disenchanted Tories, to old-fashioned Labour rightists.
Doing sensationalised exposés of UKIPpers won't work. Part of the reason such actions worked against Griffin's mob, is that the BNP were trying to hide a lot of baggage. It was simple to point up glaring contradictions between public and private rhetoric , and make political points from that. With a majority of UKIP's candidates and councillors, their dirty laundry is already public, so the same game doesn't work - in fact it looks petty and pathetic.
I hope that some of the more voluble "UKIP are fascist Nazi racists" types realise that, before May 2015.

I'd question the extent to which it "worked" on the BNP and all. The BNP was on a steady upward incline that was largely halted by their own financial and political ineptitude rather than people publicising their very obvious links to white supremacist ideology and Hitler worship. There's lots of people for whom demonisation as racist by the mainstream media is a positive sign that the party is challenging established interests...

 

[Awesome Wells]

Not a clue, so go on put me out if my misery.

This isn't a thread about other parties. It's about UKIP.

This is a pretty common fallacy: farage's bullishness isn't justified if he's one of many. I don't want people talking over each other for obvious reasons. It's also typical of the class he pretends not to be part of.

 

[butchersapron]

Not a clue, so go on put me out if my misery.

Facebook likes this month.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'd question the extent to which it "worked" on the BNP and all. The BNP was on a steady upward incline that was largely halted by their own financial and political ineptitude rather than people publicising their very obvious links to white supremacist ideology and Hitler worship. There's lots of people for whom demonisation as racist by the mainstream media is a positive sign that the party is challenging established interests...

i'd agree with that, to a point. however, the organisational model of the bnp relied on continual success and the retardation of people leaving the party - at the height of their 'success' something like 80% of members left within five years. utter loyalty to griffin was necessary to retaining high office within the party, so when people fell out with him (or perhaps, at least in the case of sadie whatserface, did their job and disrupted the party, off they went. afaics all the alternative leadership who could have succeeded griffin are gone - people like paul golding and so on. it's less financial issues which have fucked them, rather it's griffin who, in protecting his own interests, has royally buggered the party. the number of people they influenced has been out of all proportion to their size or electoral impact but it is worth noting that both in tower hamlets in 1994 and in barking & dagenham in 2010 although bnp candidates lost at local elections their vote none the less increased.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'd question the extent to which it "worked" on the BNP and all. The BNP was on a steady upward incline that was largely halted by their own financial and political ineptitude rather than people publicising their very obvious links to white supremacist ideology and Hitler worship. There's lots of people for whom demonisation as racist by the mainstream media is a positive sign that the party is challenging established interests...

In B & D, despite HnH and UAF's rhetoric, what defeated the BNP was a broad front of aligned and non-aligned activists (not just Swappies and Spotlighters) intensively canvassing the constituency for 7-10 days before the election. If it hadn't been for that surge of activism (some of it from way outside the constituency) , things might have been different.
But yeah, in the overall scheme of things, the BNP shot themselves in the foot with all the financial finagling and dodginess.

 

[andysays]

The one thing that's lacking in the entertainment show that is QT is the clap-o-meter. I reckon Grunt Scrapps would have done poorly, judging by the lack of applause he received.

Maybe the next election should be run as a Question Time/Big Brother mash up, where the various party leaders all have to answer a series of questions, and in each round there's a phone-in poll* and one of them is eliminated, until we get a winner who becomes PM

Facebook likes this month.

*or voting by Facebook likes

 

[Corax]

Maybe the next election should be run as a Question Time/Big Brother mash up, where the various party leaders all have to answer a series of questions, and in each round there's a phone-in poll* and one of them is eliminated, until we get a winner who becomes PM

I'm sure Galloway would be well up for that.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe the next election should be run as a Question Time/Big Brother mash up, where the various party leaders all have to answer a series of questions, and in each round there's a phone-in poll* and one of them is eliminated, until we get a winner who becomes PM

when you say 'eliminated', just how permanently do you mean?

 

[andysays]

I'm sure Galloway would be well up for that.

The line between satire and reality is becoming increasingly blurred

 

[andysays]

when you say 'eliminated', just how permanently do you mean?

I was originally thinking "eliminated from the competition and being interviewed by Davina McColl before disappearing to a life of deserved obscurity" but I'm open to suggestions

 

[Pickman's model]

I was originally thinking "eliminated from the competition and being interviewed by Davina McColl before disappearing to a life of deserved obscurity" but I'm open to suggestions

if by 'disappearing to a life of deserved obscurity' you mean 'being shipped to the falklands to clear mine fields with nothing more than a spoon and a stick' then i'm with you.

 

[andysays]

if by 'disappearing to a life of deserved obscurity' you mean 'being shipped to the falklands to clear mine fields with nothing more than a spoon and a stick' then i'm with you.

There's potential there for further reality TV excitement, so although it wasn't part of my original idea, I'm sure we could make that work.

I suggest a representative of Urban75 TV Production Company needs to tout it round the various broadcasters ASAP. Once we've got approval from one of them, I'm sure any constitutional issues can be swiftly and easily dealt with.

 

[frogwoman]

And I would call ukip fascist: their attitudes toward social justice, unemployed, workers rights, womens rights, parents rights, and rights in general, are extremely regressive. I don't want these tossers anywhere near government.

You'd have to say the same about all the parties then.

 

[chilango]

QT isn't a chat show.

Yes it is.

It is a bunch of people promoting themselves and their political brands through the medium of choreographed superficial discussion.