Welcome to Vox Political! Today is : April 19, 2024
Bringing you the latest news and insights, every day!
All original material created for this site is © Mike Sivier. Posts may be shared, provided full credit is given to Mike Sivier and Vox Political, along with a link back to this site. Using any of my writing for a commercial purpose is not allowed without my express permission. Excerpts and links, including paraphrasing, may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Mike Sivier and Vox Political with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. Unless otherwise credited, all content is the site author’s. The right of Mike Sivier to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Well the Preston Comment is rather strange as you have to live in the area to be a local government candidate. The emigration of local people from the area seems to match the influx of europeans. It would appear that the younger people are having to leave through lack of employment, without knowing the local status on job loss/creation that is not a worthwhile comment. It looks to me like someone from another party trying to make a point, does UKIP run that council and if so what number of councillors does it have, and how much input have the other parties had on creating that position.
It doesn’t look like someone from another party trying to make a point. It looks like someone with a foreign partner (that is their interest in this) pointing out UKIP’s errors.
Preston is the name of an area within the town of Weymouth as well as being the name of a somewhat larger town in Lancashire. Weymouth is a seaside town which is true blue politically, matched by the blue rinse of its ageing population. In other words, a typical south coast seaside town.
UKIP has one policy only – that of limiting immigration – and so I rather pity the local council candidates in areas where you rarely see a black face, because they have to prey on fear of immigration rather than those inconvenient facts quoted above.
The true irony is that, as a country, we need young immigrants to balance the growing number of older British people: there are more of them (baby boomers of the 1940s); they are living longer; and they have more complex medical needs than ever before. This puts a strain on our social security and health budgets, which has to be paid for through increased taxation. With fewer people of working age, we need migrant workers, just as we need working people to work longer and delay receiving their pension. The Weymouth demographics illustrated above perfectly encapsulate this political truth that none of the major parties dare acknowledge.
There is a clear intention to demonise UKIP. I don’t support UKIP but the fact Jason ignores that the words “flocking into” are in reference to the whole of the UK, and then he gives data just for his area makes this intention clear.
I don’t think your claim holds up. There is a clear intention to expose UKIP’s omissions and errors. If the claim of a local candidate is that foreigners are “flocking into” the country, then it is obvious that they are including their own area in this migration – otherwise, why mention it? The constituent simply points out the discrepancy.
Besides, there’s no real need to demonise UKIP or its members. As other articles both here and elsewhere have shown, UKIPpers are quite capable of doing enough damage by themselves.
> If the claim of a local candidate is that foreigners are “flocking into” the country, then it is obvious that they are including their own area in this migration
I don’t think so. Most immigrants go to places like London and Birmingham, which I live far away from, but I’m still concerned about the numbers in the country as a whole, even though no significant numbers of immigrants are likely to settle in my own area for a few years. The local candidates do vote on national policy don’t they?
No – this is a local government candidate. The person would be sitting on a local council and voting on local issues. Therefore local residents would expect to receive communications from this person about local issues.
…and in the areas where immigration is highest (the cities) there is a shortage of candidates for the jobs they are taking. It is also fact that young people have always moved away from rural areas toward the “bright lights” in response to career and social opportunities, so the “rotation” argument falls…. And which comes first: The young people moving because there are (allegedly) no jobs, or the migrants moving in to take the jobs the young people cannot find? Since clearly, if there were jobs before the migrants move in, then the young people would take them….. so it would be the migrants that would be jobless. Wouldn’t they?
As with immigration in the ’50s; many of the immigrants are also taking work which local people will simply not do. (Sometimes for very good reasons it’s true) but the UKip rallying call is that repeated throughout history by those seeking influence: Find a minority; demonise is with simplistic argument and play on myths and prejudices and people will follow.
How long before we have vigilante groups roaming the streets daubing “Immigrant” on doors and shop-windows?
Couldn’t happen? I bet that’s what the Germans thought in 1930.
[…] Read this email exchange in which a local resident takes apart UKIP. […]
I think you’re living in dreamworld Mike. If it’s all to do with local issues, why then do local government candidates align themselves with national parties? It’s not so they can get funding, get elected and push forward the national parties agendas, is it??
And as for the original poster. I don’t think his partner is the typical immigrant that people are concerned about.
(I haven’t seen many gangs of Danes hanging about street corners in Nottingham.)
Jason doesn’t say whether he and his partner are working but I’m guessing they are. I’m also guessing that everyone in the family speaks very good English and doesn’t need much assistance in that area.
My best advice would be for Jason and his partner to emigrate to Denmark while he can, and get his kids educated there. They’ll do a lot better!
I don’t think I’m in any dreamworld; I think I’m pretty well-up on why people join political parties. After all, I’m a member of one myself, remember.
You should also remember that this was a person seeking election on a local authority, who was therefore expected to base their campaign on local issues. Yes, the national party’s policies do come into this, but ONLY as they impact on the local situation. To suggest otherwise is to muddy the, well, issue.
I think the original poster would agree that his partner is not a typical immigrant that people are concerned about, either. That’s not the point. The point is that UKIP’s policies relate to her and her family, whether they were intended to do so, or not.
Your comments about emigrating to Denmark where they have a much better system are apposite, though.
I’m not really educated enough to discuss stuff with you. (I had to google apposite! )
But I’ll try!
You might be up on why people join political parties.
It would be better if you were up on why they don’t!
Politics IS muddy, that’s one reason. And you treat the average voter with contempt.
Back to the subject..
I don’t think Jasons family would be affected by UKIP policy. Unless they’re trying to bring Aunty Freja in or sending loads of money back to family in Copenhagen.
Aren’t UKIP just planning to reduce immigration? I don’t think they have a policy to kick anyone out yet.
I know some will say, that’s the next step , but I doubt it.
This exchange of emails doesn’t really “take apart” UKIP. Jason just comes across as a bit of a “smart alec” !
Of course I don’t treat the average voter with contempt. For example, the voter in this particular instance – who, for all we know, is as average as anybody else – was capable of drilling holes through the candidate’s communication in a very efficient way. Any publication of that fact would suggest that the person doing so had more respect for the voter than they did for the candidate. That’s the opposite of contempt.
Your comment that “Jason … comes across as a bit of a ‘smart alec'”, on the other hand. That really could be seen as contemptuous.
It seems clear that you are interested in defending the UKIP side of this debate. You undermine yourself with belittling remarks about “Aunty Freja” and “family in Copenhagen” – you know nothing about Mr West’s partner’s family or where they live, and these assumptions communicate more about you than they do about this family. Also, you do not have the authority to deny that UKIP has plans to deport foreign migrants. Suppose somebody votes for them on the basis of that comment, UKIP got in, and then it was announced that foreign migrants would be deported (I know it’s unlikely, but it is a possibility). If that person said they had been hoodwinked into voting for UKIP by what you said, it would make no difference to anyone because you’re not a representative of UKIP. You do not know what UKIP has planned, therefore you should not speculate misleadingly (unless, of course, you ARE a representative of UKIP, operating at a level high enough to know that party’s future plans).
“Of course I don’t treat the average voter with contempt. For example, the voter in this particular instance – who, for all we know, is as average as anybody else – was capable of drilling holes through the candidate’s communication in a very efficient way….”.
.
I don’t agree. I don’t think an average voter would do this. Some sort of activist maybe?
“Any publication of that fact would suggest that the person doing so had more respect for the voter than they did for the candidate. That’s the opposite of contempt”
You’ve lost me with that bit. I was talking about politicians contempt for voters,, Is Jason a politician then?
Maybe not,, I’ll await a simpler summary from you.
The belittling remarks ? Assumptions about his family? Are you serious?
This communicates what about me ? That I make a joke now and then ?
Politicians only have a sense of humour when it suits them.
I’m not a UKIP voter. The last time I voted was for Dennis Skinner and I never vote in Euro elections now.
I was hoodwinked when I voted to go into the Common Market.
No, I didn’t know what they had planned for us!
I voted Tory for a bit, then Labour but I didn’t know they were going to destroy Iraq.
Any wonder I don’t like the Political masters?
I’m just enjoying UKIP putting the frighteners on the LibLabCon men.
So I will speak up for them.
I still think Jason’s a smart alec! I think we must be related!
Your opinion about the gentleman in question is your own business. Mine is that he is not an activist – although he may become one after the exchange chronicled in this blog post.
As for you discussing “politicians’ contempt for voters”, that is not how your comment came across. You appeared to be claiming that I, myself, had contempt for this particular voter. My opinion at this time is that this assessment is correct and you are now trying to backslide out of it. Or are you suggesting that I, myself, am a politician? Your remarks suggest this.
While I am not currently a paid politician (membership of a political party does not make one a member of the political class), I can assure you that I have an extremely highly-developed sense of humour and what you were suggesting simply wasn’t funny.
Your remaining comments speak for themselves and I see no reason to remark upon them.
‘Some sort of activist…..’
Ah, do you mean someone who takes an active interest in politics? Sounds like the average voter to me!
I don’t know you Mike. I came across this page via a link on Facebook.
This page, at first glance looks like a politicians page. That’s why I presumed you were a politician of some sort.
You twist things, like a politician….
” You appeared to be claiming that I, myself, had contempt for this particular voter.”
No I didn’t!
Why would I say you had contempt for this particular voter. You support this man Jason, don’t you?
I said “The average voter”
You talk like a politician.
You don’t answer the question, just like a politician.
Don’t kid yourself… you are a politician. A strange one, going by this previous statement.
” Also, you do not have the authority to deny that UKIP has plans to deport foreign migrants.”
Laughable…
I haven’t twisted anything at all. Where you said “You treat the average voter with contempt,” the only obvious way to take that was that you considered Mr West to be an “average voter” and that I was the person treating him badly. Anyone reading what you wrote will see that (and I invite other readers to do so).
As for why you would say such a thing – I don’t know.
You go on to suggest that I am a politician because I “don’t answer the question, just like a politician” but I have been far more straight-talking than you! I’m not the one who has had to backslide on statements in order to save face.
You have tried to undermine both myself and Mr West and failed, and now you’re trying to accuse me of dirty tricks. That seems more like a politician’s behaviour than anything I have done.
I’ll leave it for readers to decide.
This particular reader, having read the entire thread, agrees with Mike. Liam does appear to be trying to confuse a number of issues and turn a political matter which Mike has merely highlighted, into a personal attack on Mike himself.
Which issues am I confusing Elspeth?
I’m not attacking Mike, as a person.
I just see him as part of the existing political club of Tories and socialists, who have joined together in attacking UKIP.
Mike said…
“I haven’t twisted anything at all. Where you said “You treat the average voter with contempt,” the only obvious way to take that was that you considered Mr West to be an “average voter” and that I was the person treating him badly. Anyone reading what you wrote will see that (and I invite other readers to do so).”
…………………………………
No. It isn’t obvious at all. Have another look at my post from May 6th 9.06
Liam said……
“I’m not really educated enough to discuss stuff with you. (I had to google apposite! )
But I’ll try!
You might be up on why people join political parties.
It would be better if you were up on why they don’t!
Politics IS muddy, that’s one reason. And you treat the average voter with contempt.
Back to the subject..
I don’t think Jasons family etc…”
Do you see where I said about treating the average voter with contempt?
Then back to the subject?
Do you and Elspeth really think I was talking about MrJason West in the first paragraph?? Maybe you missed “back to the subject”!
I think Elspeth, that it’s really Mike that is confusing the issues!
And I’m still not sure how UKIP policy will affect Jason and his family.
Anyway Mike, I’ll put it another way…
UKIP are getting support because You (the political class) treat the average voter (Not necessarily Mr West) with contempt
“Back to the subject” indicating, in my understanding, back to what had been happening, rather than the person involved.
I don’t think you’re going to win this. Quit while you’re ahead?
Mike said.. “Back to the subject” indicating, in my understanding, back to what had been happening, rather than the person involved.
I don’t think you’re going to win this. Quit while you’re ahead?”
A typical politicians reply.
We’ll have another look!
Liam said… “Politics IS muddy, that’s one reason. And you treat the average voter with contempt.
Back to the subject..
I don’t think Jasons family would etc etc…”
How clearer can it be that I didn’t say you treated Jason with contempt?
There’s none so blind as those who won’t see!
You know I’m right on this point but maybe you misread my post.
Which is understandable occasionally. It’s a shame you don’t admit it.
Where’s Elspeth to back me up?
She’s probably got bored. I hope I haven’t lost you any readers, Mike.
We do seem to have gone off on a tangent in our discussion!
You can’t lose me any readers. In fact, thanks to another post, this is my most successful day in a couple of weeks.
Anyway, as I indicated before, I think you’re on a hiding to nothing so I’ll just leave your comment to speak for itself.