[Guitarman]

Tex Pro, I agree 100% with you;
"Ukip is probably the only party that can save the UK.

Shame they will probably only win a few seats in parliament."

Except I'm still voting for UKIP as I have done for over ten years ago. I will be voting for my local ( very high profile) UKIP candidate come May. UKIP are the closest we have to a red pill political party. I'm not a fan of the EU, excessive immigration, do not believe climate change is man made and UKIP are an almost perfect fit for my political views. And I detest political correctness and the policy of "multi culturalism".

I disagree with you though in the "handful of seats " assessment. We can only hope they overtake the LibDems and are in position to influence the balance of power come May.

[Libertas]

(03-10-2015 06:22 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Russell Brand, haha oh well; he will get a fair number of students listening to him.

Wow, it really seems this guy has a large following over there, more than probably any single celebrity here on these matters.

Guess it's seemingly a perfect microcosm for the UK though. Guy looks and sounds like an emasculated pussy, but I don't know too much about him so I reserve final judgment.

[reppin]

There is no party that fully represent my ideology but I trust the conservatives with the economy more than the other parties who are essentially all rhetoric.

[Feisbook Control]

(03-10-2015 06:44 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

I think, most likely, I won't vote. The system is broken and intellectually I can't bring myself to support it. I like some of UKIP's policies, but the reality is they have no hope at all - they won't redress the balance. A major success for them would be to be a minor voice of dissent in the House of Commons, whilst the rest of the political spectrum shifts further to the left.

I take the point about 'Brand's pseudo-anarchism', but in some respects he is correct (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). A system that only gives you the least bad option is not a system that deserves support. A system that does not distinguish between someone on welfare and someone who has created a business that brings wealth and employment to the country (I DO NOT include corporate fat cats in this, who are essentially defrauding shareholders in my view) is a system that will never work, because there are too many of the former, and too few of the latter, so the former will always prevail, and they will vote to take more from the productive. It's just the nature of things. Why then, if you attempt to be productive, would you participate in such a system. You are quite literally acting directly contrary to your best interests.

There are things I'd like to see, such as the UK leave Europe, but the reality is it's all too late now. The Conservatives have consistently proven themselves to be the most cowardly party in existence, dating back decades. There is nothing remotely conservative about them, they are entirely a progressive party, and I suspect that many of them would like to see a Tory/Labour alliance. At that point, noone should be under any illusions, we are living under a form of soft tyranny. The point where our 'leaders' would sacrifice principle in favour of furthering their own personal power is the point where democracy has ended and a dictatorship has begun.

This election is most likely to end with a Labour/LibDem/Green/SNP coalition, and result in a dramatic swing to the left - some might call it a death throw. The majority will vote for these fantasists, because they don't have even a basic grasp of how an economy works - they just see that they'll benefit more than they would under a less 'progressive' system, and, to quote from someone highly educated on my FB feed (talking about the Greens) 'they may not know how they'd pay for them, but their ideas are right, and for that I'll be voting for them'. This person is highly educated, far more so than the vast majority of the population, and they are 58 days out from an election and are prepared to put into power a party that has no ideal how it would manage the financials.

The whole thing disgusts me and I don't want any part of it. Fuck the lot of them.

This, only I'd take it one step beyond.

The UK needs a revolution. That's not going to come from UKIP because despite positioning themselves as outsiders, they're not. People who really think UKIP is going to save the UK are living in a fantasy land, though UKIP can serve another purpose. I am an accelerationist, and I think the best way to solve the problems of the UK (and the West in general) is to make things so bad that it all comes to a head as soon as possible.

The best outcome of this election would be if there were massive voter fraud to keep UKIP out of power and people revolted at that.

The second best outcome would be if Labour and the Conservatives formed a super majority explicitly to block UKIP from having any say in government. That would hopefully cause the remaining scales to fall from people's eyes, such that they would revolt.

The third best outcome would be a broad coalition of the left (Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP) that would get to implement all of their craziest ideas, again, so that the scales would fall from people's eyes and there would be a revolt.

The UK is a frog in a pot. There are two ways to stop the frog from being boiled alive. The first way -- that has been tried again and again, unsuccessfully -- is to fight with the person trying to boil the frog in order to turn the gas down. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Time for a different approach.

The second way is not only to refuse to resist the person trying to turn the gas up, but to quickly turn the gas up as high as it will go so that the frog will get a shock and jump out of the pot before it is too late.

If the UK continues to muddle along for another couple of decades, it's game over economically, culturally and demographically. Things need to come to a head within the next decade.

[Lizard King]

(03-10-2015 08:54 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:22 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Russell Brand, haha oh well; he will get a fair number of students listening to him.

Wow, it really seems this guy has a large following over there, more than probably any single celebrity here on these matters.

Guess it's seemingly a perfect microcosm for the UK though. Guy looks and sounds like an emasculated pussy, but I don't know too much about him so I reserve final judgment.

Russell Brand tells people not to vote.

Political apathy is bad enough already. His comment serves the ruling elite.

I'm no fan of the UK political process, but telling people to not vote is just idiotic in my view, especially from someone who tries to come across as politically savvy.

Voters need to get involved, even if it is just to register a protest vote.

[H1N1]

(03-10-2015 10:34 AM)Lizard King Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 08:54 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:22 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Russell Brand, haha oh well; he will get a fair number of students listening to him.

Wow, it really seems this guy has a large following over there, more than probably any single celebrity here on these matters.

Guess it's seemingly a perfect microcosm for the UK though. Guy looks and sounds like an emasculated pussy, but I don't know too much about him so I reserve final judgment.

Russell Brand tells people not to vote.

Political apathy is bad enough already. His comment serves the ruling elite.

I'm no fan of the UK political process, but telling people to not vote is just idiotic in my view, especially from someone who tries to come across as politically savvy.

Voters need to get involved, even if it is just to register a protest vote.

Respectfully, I disagree.

Voters need to get involved is a 'ruling elite' mantra, designed to give legitimacy to their mandates. The whole point of democracy is the idea of legitimacy given to those in power through voter participation. If people don't vote for you, you aren't legitimate. If you don't believe the right to rule of the current crop of political parties is legitimate, why would you advocate participation in a system that affords them legitimacy?

We quite literally have a status quo where parties try to gain power without having to present detailed accounts, and demonstrate where their funding for their ideas will come from. If I tried to sell a business, or ask investors for money, but refused to provide accounts or demonstrate an understanding of how I would provide growth and return on investment, why should I expect to be taken seriously, or accorded any legitimacy? It is an insane state of affairs, that has demonstrably led to ruin. Yet you would advocate that the public should none-the-less accord these snake oil salesmen legitimacy because they wear a political cap badge?

Votes are political currency. By not voting, you starve a political party of their currency, and metaphorically bankrupt them. Protest voting is the petulant cry of the intellectually lazy. If you support the democratic system in its current form then get up and stand yourself, or vote for one of the fringe contenders who stands for what you believe in. If you don't support the current system, then it is madness to invest your political capital in it, and it is you yourself who is lessened by doing so.

[britchard]

Constitution45, you may as well vote UKIP. Especially if you live in an area where they could potentially get in.

One more thing, I didn't mention that the Greens want to get rid of the army. Fantasists.

[komatiite]

Is there serious vote splitting between UKIP and the Cons?

[Candlejack]

I agree with Britchard that the Greens are fantasists. The best thing for the Conservatives would be a coalition with Labour with Milliband as Deputy PM as it would keep the Establishment in power and their scandals in check. But I cannot see it as political analysts and the liberal media would require a balance with a smaller minority party. As Jeremy Clarkson said “The problem is that television executives have got it into their heads that if one presenter on a show is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed heterosexual boy, the other must be a black Muslim lesbian.”

[komatiite]

Ugh that pic is fucked ^^ edit it out before 30 mins elapses!!!

[Phoenix]

Do people vote 'Conservative' because they are 'Left but just not that Left?'. Does anyone actually think Cameron is a conservative?

I can't imagine anyone right of center voting for anyone but UKIP. What success record do the conservatives have in reducing taxes and welfare, controlling immigration, controlling crime, increasing liberties, maintaining national sovereignty, and pretty much any form of social conservatism? I'd love to hear it.

To quote Cameron in 2011:

Quote:

I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.

The Conservatives ended male primogeniture in the monarchy. The Conservatives did that, after it had been in place for hundreds of years. This wasn't some minor thing either - it required the other 16 commonwealth realms to pass Acts to match. Just for the sake of women succeeding the figurehead throne equally to men.

[Marlfox]

(03-10-2015 08:54 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:22 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Russell Brand, haha oh well; he will get a fair number of students listening to him.

Wow, it really seems this guy has a large following over there, more than probably any single celebrity here on these matters.

Guess it's seemingly a perfect microcosm for the UK though. Guy looks and sounds like an emasculated pussy, but I don't know too much about him so I reserve final judgment.

I would't get it too twisted about Russell Brand, for the most part he's seen as a clown in the UK. He's not well known in the US because we push him as exemplary Brit, but because he appears in movies.

[Que enspastic]

I see May 2015 as an particularly interesting and revealing election that more than anything marks widespread public dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the mainstream parties.


The 'average British' voter (nominally the man from Essex) has now realised that Labour and the Conservatives are scarcely distinguishable. They both support the status quo and represent corporate and vested interests.


The Conservatives are perhaps more open about cutting the benefits of society's underclass, Labour more willing to posture for the sake of the workers, but in practice there is little difference between them.


The Conservative message is limited and unremarkable in its vision, and they march to the beat of Lyndon Crosby, Cameron's Australian election strategist who orchestrated former Australian PM John Howard's impressive election triumphs over a decade ago.


The British public view the Tory party's assertions of economic recovery as fundamentally hollow seeing that the average person has less disposable income than they had at the start of the Coalition's term in office beginning in 2010.


At the same time, the economic incompetence of Labour, particularly during the Brown years in which the state's debt began to spike drastically, remains fresh in the minds of voters.


In short, the public disapprove of both mainstream parties. The public wants economic competence and fairness in a nutshell - they see neither party offering this key demand.


This election is fascinating because it is really about the rise of the minor parties.


The Lib Dems have collapsed in support as their betrayal of students over tuition fees has harmed them greatly but they will still carry a decent number of seats.


The Scottish Independence Party will carry the vast majority of seats in Scotland, traditional Labour heartland.


UKIP have already won two by-elections. They may win an additional one or two seats but they will feel shortchanged.


Though UKIP are possibly the 3rd or 4th most popular party across the general population, the UK's first past the post democratic system ensures they will not win many seats relative to the number of people in the UK who vote for them.


The Greens are ascendant, picking up many lost Liberal Dem votes. They will achieve their best result in a General Election to date. Northern Ireland and Wales will elect various regionalist parties.


No one will win a majority. I expect Labour to win a handful more seats than the Conservatives and the popular vote to be almost evenly split. Incumbent parties rarely win more seats than at the previous election and opinion polls do not suggest this time will be different.


The Conservative heartland is the prosperous home counties and neighbouring counties. Labour is solidly backed by the North. The metropolitan centres such as London tend to vote left although not within established middle class / elite areas.


Labour will form a majority with SNP, Greens and Lib Dems. Milliband will be Prime Minister after all. There will not be a Conservative-Labour coalition, even though technically it could be achieved.


The key issues never get mentioned by politicians or the print media


This is why there is much frustration among the general public. There is a real concern that life is getting worse unless you are already placed within the elite rungs of society. Little do they know it will turn into a horror show.


The best years of 1945-85 will become a historical blimp of good times and prosperity, nostalgia will be felt for this period of time not just in the UK but across the West in general.


What do the parties have to say about the fact UK's £1bn state debt will rise to £13bn, bankrupting the nation, unless unlimited liabilities in the form of state pensions and govt pensions are abandoned or drastically curtailed?


What do they say about the NHS, which will certainly collapse from the immense financial strains placed upon it by a relatively small ratio of future tax payers to retirees in our rapidly ageing population? That is, unless it too is cut back drastically or the number of tax payers are greatly increased through presumably even more immigration?


What about the rising wealth divide in the country which is linked to house prices, whereby younger people cannot save for a deposit let alone a retirement as their income is being consumed by rising rents and cost of living?


Why not admit that there is no way to build more houses at cheap cost under present market conditions, that governments and banks have colluded in inflating and maintaining an asset bubble that will screw the young if it continues to grow and screw absolutely everyone if it pops?


Will pensioners continue to enjoy taxpayer provided benefits that are not means tested despite a huge number of these recipients being millionaires?


What about the UK's legal inability to restrict immigration in any form from the EU unless it withdraws from the EU? What financial, social and political repercussions will this have if net +600,000 immigrants continue to arrive each year for the next decade?


Given the dismal state of state provided education, how will the next generation of UK workers cope over the next decades with the decline of manufacturing, shift to automation, offshoring of basic jobs and rise of unskilled numbers of immigrants into the country?


I'm not a politician. There are no easy answers. People who don't feel inspired to vote want to hear solutions to some seriously lethal and intractable problems.


The political mainstream would prefer to hold onto pockets of political support among those they take good care of (Baby Boomers, property owners), and see the next generation sit it out at home.

[tylerdurden1993]

Any of you guys read Peter Hitchens' blog. He's my favourite journalist here in the UK and think a lot of guys here on the forum would like his stuff.

Here's the link to his blog http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

[Teedub]

My main issue of contention with UKIP (and this is also with the mainstream 'three') is that they know full well that immigration is a hot topic, but they use white immigration from Eastern Europe as their scapegoat... Yes, a million poles in a few years is bad, for logistical/economic reasons, but if you ask most people, they'd prefer a million Poles to a million Pakistanis, for reasons discussed at length on here.

Politicians are so scared of being called racist, so they demonise EE immigration, even though they integrate immediately, compared to other groups from outside Europe.

UKIP want to increase immigration from former commonwealth countries (Caribbean, India/Pakistan, Africa etc) but limit it/stop it from EE - I completely disagree with that.

A lot of people complain that mass immigration is due to 'lefties' and so on, and whilst lefties agree with it for SJW reasons, the main thing that has caused mass immigration is international capitalism. Even modern feminism has been fueled by it, it's the commodification of feminism to sell shitty articles, products and so on to women. The idea that Blair's New Labour was a socialist thing is silly. Yes, it advocated plenty of inane PC policies, but the economic policy in regards to mass immigration was to appease big business - pure capitalism. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No party in the UK has the answer, unless you go for fringe parties that tie too heavily to neo-fascism/white nationalism etc, which nobody here would want either.

That said, how anyone could vote for Milliband's Labour is beyond me, literally beyond me. UKIP is the bet bet, just for their hostility to PC. However, their hostility to people from EE is daft, when they know full well that the major social issues come from those from Muslim countries.

[amity]

@Teedub I'd say UKIP's beef with Eastern and SE Europe is the sheer amount of them that have come to the UK (and Irl) in such a short space of time.
Demographically speaking, it's a shock to any country to get hundreds of thousands from these countries in less than a decade, even if they are culturally closer to indigineous Brits.
Plus the strain these extra people place on health services and public transport, not to mention the welfare payouts for the ones that aren't working.
I think their (UKIP's) points based' system makes sense though.

[britchard]

If there is a Labour/Green/SNP I vow leave the country as soon as my studies allow me to.

[Phoenix]

(03-10-2015 06:32 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

UKIP want to increase immigration from former commonwealth countries (Caribbean, India/Pakistan, Africa etc) but limit it/stop it from EE - I completely disagree with that.

However, their hostility to people from EE is daft, when they know full well that the major social issues come from those from Muslim countries.

A gross mischaracterisation. It just happens to be the case that borders to EE countries are going to be opened. If they were going to open their borders to Thailand they'd oppose that too. And where did they say they specifically want more Pakistanis? They have said they want a point based system that favours 'quality' immigrants.

[Akula]

(03-10-2015 06:32 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

A lot of people complain that mass immigration is due to 'lefties' and so on, and whilst lefties agree with it for SJW reasons, the main thing that has caused mass immigration is international capitalism. Even modern feminism has been fueled by it, it's the commodification of feminism to sell shitty articles, products and so on to women. The idea that Blair's New Labour was a socialist thing is silly. Yes, it advocated plenty of inane PC policies, but the economic policy in regards to mass immigration was to appease big business - pure capitalism. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is often overlooked but pretty true. We have a somewhat similar thing in the US - probably even more so than in the UK.

It's sort of an unholy tacit alliance between the left (for SJW purposes and buying votes, both of which are pretty odious) and the right (who are all about outsourcing, low wages, job growth and conspicuous consumption).

Mind you both sides never agreed to cooperate on it - sort of just ended up this way and suited both sides I guess, then just got made part of the whole way of doing things.

[MarcusAbbertini]

(03-10-2015 06:32 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

My main issue of contention with UKIP (and this is also with the mainstream 'three') is that they know full well that immigration is a hot topic, but they use white immigration from Eastern Europe as their scapegoat... Yes, a million poles in a few years is bad, for logistical/economic reasons, but if you ask most people, they'd prefer a million Poles to a million Pakistanis, for reasons discussed at length on here.

Politicians are so scared of being called racist, so they demonise EE immigration, even though they integrate immediately, compared to other groups from outside Europe.

UKIP want to increase immigration from former commonwealth countries (Caribbean, India/Pakistan, Africa etc) but limit it/stop it from EE - I completely disagree with that.

A lot of people complain that mass immigration is due to 'lefties' and so on, and whilst lefties agree with it for SJW reasons, the main thing that has caused mass immigration is international capitalism. Even modern feminism has been fueled by it, it's the commodification of feminism to sell shitty articles, products and so on to women. The idea that Blair's New Labour was a socialist thing is silly. Yes, it advocated plenty of inane PC policies, but the economic policy in regards to mass immigration was to appease big business - pure capitalism. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No party in the UK has the answer, unless you go for fringe parties that tie too heavily to neo-fascism/white nationalism etc, which nobody here would want either.

That said, how anyone could vote for Milliband's Labour is beyond me, literally beyond me. UKIP is the bet bet, just for their hostility to PC. However, their hostility to people from EE is daft, when they know full well that the major social issues come from those from Muslim countries.

I'm quickly beginning to realise that this place might not be for me and instead just full of people trying to direct there hate. The more I read "Everything Else" the more obvious the racist undertones become. I don't care if I get banned and I might actually be quite off the mark (I've been wrong before) but this thinly veiled racism is becoming more apparent with the more I read. It's a shame because I love the self improvement aspects of this forum and can't find that sort of talk condensed anywhere else online.

[amity]

@MarcusAbbertini With respect, I think you've misinterpreted Teedub's comments and taken them somewhat out of context.
The key line is one you didn't highlight: 'Politicians are so scared of being called racist, so they demonise EE immigration, even though they integrate immediately, compared to other groups from outside Europe.'
Eastern European countries tend to be culturally closer to native UK inhabitants and their people generally integrate better in the UK than people from non-European cultures.
This is merely stating the facts.
It's also a fact that problems of integration tend to come with people who are culturally very different to native Brits, and yes, although some people would rather we don't say it, much of the problems of integration are with poorly educated people from poor (predominantly) Muslim countries.
I really don't think there's anything wrong with stating what is true.

[Phoenix]

Lets steer off the r-word. UKIP doesn't actually have anything to do with that topic.

[freeuser]

I think it´s fascinating how a lot of UKIP voters, tend to think the EU is responsible for all their problems, for me, it´s a very similar narrative to the one used by the femicunts blaming the evil "Patriarchy" for everything, instead of growing up. I understand the frustration with mass emigration, as it´s something happening in many parts of Europe. But mostly with immigrants from non western countries with other values or religion.

I don´t think that leaving the EU would solve the problem since wanting to keep access to the common market, would still imply adapting your own legislation to the EU legislation and having open borders like Norway or Switzerland. And in this case, without having a voice in the decision making, if you´re not a part of the union. Which is absolutely mental.

Furthermore many immigrants would still come to Britain or do you really think the elites or establishment would not let immigrants from the 3rd Wold flock into the country? Don´t be naive guys.

I hate Russell Brand too by the way. I can´t stand rich hypocrites talking about inequality.

[H1N1]

(03-11-2015 06:22 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

I think it´s fascinating how a lot of UKIP voters, tend to think the EU is responsible for all their problems, for me, it´s a very similar narrative to the one used by the femicunts blaming the evil "Patriarchy" for everything, instead of growing up. I understand the frustration with mass emigration, as it´s something happening in many parts of Europe. But mostly with immigrants from non western countries with other values or religion.

I don´t think that leaving the EU would solve the problem since wanting to keep access to the common market, would still imply adapting your own legislation to the EU legislation and having open borders like Norway or Switzerland. And in this case, without having a voice in the decision making, if you´re not a part of the union. Which is absolutely mental.

Respectfully, I disagree. Again, this is the typical leftist mantra that 'if you want the common market you have to have open borders, those are the EU's rules, and if you don't play by them you don't get a say in decision making'.

The cold hard fact about UK membership of the EU, when you strip aside all of the other nonsense, is that we are a net contributor. That means, however you dice it, the EU gains more from our membership than we get in return. The only purpose then, from a UK perspective, is to provide the political class with a supra-national platform for playing political games on. The UK is fantastically productive compared to most European countries (if you go by the conventional economic narrative that ignores the ridiculous, crazy debt that we can never repay, and indeed have no intention of paying). The loss of the UK to the European project would be far greater than the loss to the UK itself. Fundamentally, that puts us in a stronger negotiating position. I firmly believe that as a net contributor, we could negotiate access to the common market, and benefit from free trade, without having to accept any of the EU's crazy mandates.

This is obviously a drastic oversimplification of the position, but anyone who has studied EU law knows that to expand upon it in any detail would run to pages of dry analysis.

[PeruLover12]

(03-10-2015 08:54 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

Wow, it really seems this guy has a large following over there, more than probably any single celebrity here on these matters.

Guess it's seemingly a perfect microcosm for the UK though. Guy looks and sounds like an emasculated pussy, but I don't know too much about him so I reserve final judgment.

The delivery of the message is not important, just judge the content. How his voice sounds is an irrelevance.

Alexander the Great was banging Hephaistiun and countless other men but he was still a supreme tactician and leader, it doesn't detract from his achievements that he was probably camper than Kenneth Williams.

Brand is right to say don't vote, because in all honesty no matter who gets in will serve the corporations and elites and not us. I'm totally apathetic this time round. There is not one leader or party putting forward something that inspires me and makes me believe that real change will come about. Issues that matter to me are being swept under the carpet.

The final straw was lowering the flag on Downing Street and Buckingham Palace for a Saudi despot. Revolting.