General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[TheKnightWho]

So you're not calling him a racist but you're saying he's made racist comments ?

That's a completely meaningless distinction. I said he made racist comments - whether or not he meant them to be racist doesn't come into the equation.

I'm saying that it's hilarious that you get outraged over someone being called racist, rather than someone actually, y'know, being racist. And UKIP talk about the liberal outrage machine!

 

[me123]

Hello again John. You've been away for a while, but one of the last posts you made was:

No it isn't, the difference being the SNP is a foreign party to the rest of the UK but will wield total power over the labour party by holding it to ransom for a fabulous deal for Scotland.

I don't blame them for that at all, my point is how Sturgeon is trying to pretend she is going to improve things for the rest of the UK which is plain lies.

The SNP has already apparently drawn up a provisional list of English infrastructure projects they would seek to cancel to provide the cash for a Scottish spending spree.

A couple of us subsequently asked for evidence, although unfortunately you haven't been active since then. I appreciate that those were made quite a few pages ago, so I'll give you another chance to demonstrate the evidence that you have to make these two claims.

 

[Johnuk123]

That's a completely meaningless distinction. I said he made racist comments - whether or not he meant them to be racist doesn't come into the equation.

You're unbelievable, please carry on you're very amusing.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You're unbelievable, please carry on you're very amusing.

Sorry, but can we all just appreciate that as soon as I mentioned that discrimination of the basis of race (Eastern European, often known as Slavic) is racism that suddenly two known right-wingers got horribly outraged but yet had nothing to actually say about the accusation itself and why it apparently wasn't racism.

(It's almost like they don't want to admit that it's racism.)

As has been said in this thread before - racism and other discrimination does not have to be intentionally racist. Otherwise you end up completely ignoring perfidious, insidious and unpleasant discrimination that happens to many people every day that is often done completely unintentionally. Not all racism is of KKK ilk, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out when it occurs.

 

[Johnuk123]

Hello again John. You've been away for a while, but one of the last posts you made was:


A couple of us subsequently asked for evidence, although unfortunately you haven't been active since then. I appreciate that those were made quite a few pages ago, so I'll give you another chance to demonstrate the evidence that you have to make these two claims.

My post was based on what I heard Angus Robertson say on Sky news. He said that the party had a list of infrastructure projects they would seek to cancel within 6 months of joining Labour in a vote deal.

 

[me123]

My post was based on what I heard Angus Robertson say on Sky news. He said that the party had a list of infrastructure projects they would seek to cancel within 6 months of joining Labour in a vote deal.

Thank you for responding.

I can't find the interview you've cited, however can find some statements made at around the time where the SNP have set out their conditions for a deal with Labour. I could see no concrete evidence of any rhetoric relating to infrastructure projects being cancelled, although quite a lot was said about Trident renewal. Could that have been what he was referring to? Also, Labour have recently pledged some infrastructure cancellations - could these be areas of common ground between the two parties, for which you have to lay the blame proportionately with both parties.

However, I would be interested to see/hear the words of Mr Robertson to ascertain exactly what he was saying.

 

[Johnuk123]

Thank you for responding.

I can't find the interview you've cited, however can find some statements made at around the time where the SNP have set out their conditions for a deal with Labour. I could see no concrete evidence of any rhetoric relating to infrastructure projects being cancelled, although quite a lot was said about Trident renewal. Could that have been what he was referring to? Also, Labour have recently pledged some infrastructure cancellations - could these be areas of common ground between the two parties, for which you have to lay the blame proportionately with both parties.

However, I would be interested to see/hear the words of Mr Robertson to ascertain exactly what he was saying.

I remember what he said but can't remember if it was a clip of him on his own or with others. I do remember the interviewer saying are all these projects you seek to cancel in England and he said "some are and some aren't" and we haven't finalised anything yet"
He did say that any High speed line that went to Scotland would need to start from there first "to equalise the north/south divide on construction" or words to that effect.
Whether his views are official policy I don't know but if they aren't he shouldn't have said them, he won't be the first politician to get carried away on air.

 

[me123]

Hmm... not sure. I know the SNP support HS2, and could probably support building the line both from the North and the South simultaneously to meet up in the middle, which I don't think is realistic. I would disagree that HS2 should start in the Central Belt, and think it would be more beneficial to start from London, where the benefits are the greatest in the short-medium term, before extending to Scotland where you will see longer term benefits.

As he said, they hadn't finalised anything. So I don't think that whatever he said could be considered the policy of the SNP. So I still don't see any concrete evidence that the SNP are planning to stop investments in England to support a Scottish spending spree.

It doesn't work like that anyway. The SNP are a lot more moderate than some people in England realise, and even in their support of independence they support a strong rUK as a neighbour for Scotland. Infrastructure projects in England often benefit Scotland as well to some degree (and vice versa) in that there is a huge amount of trade between the regions. Going on a spending spree using English money would harm the SNP greatly; in the short term because they'd be seen as "stealing" from the English taxpayer, and in the long term as they'd be demonstrating that they can't survive without English subsidy (which has been shown not to be true by various economists). It's nonsense. They may well cancel some projects South of the Border, and they will undoubtedly fight for the best interests of their constituents, but I highly doubt they'll go on a spending spree.

It's also worth remembering that the SNP are a party of government, and whilst there will be points of contention regarding their exact policies up here, the country hasn't fallen apart under their leadership.

 

[Antman]

So the outrage is over calling someone racist, and not racist comments themselves.

Christ, the lack of self-awareness is hilarious.



Once again, the right-wing moans, complains and whines when people say nasty things they don't like. But when they say nasty things it's suddenly all about free speech! Why don't you try telling me why it's not racist, rather than getting uppity whilst actually saying nothing.

You're discriminating against people based on their broad geographical area - Eastern Europe. If that's not racism then I really don't know what is. Just because that's hard to accept doesn't mean it's not true.

No I am not discriminating against Eastern Europeans or anybody else, I am simply saying that the needs of the indigenous population should come first and I would expect the same in any country that I visited as a foreigner.

 

[Manchester77]

It's also worth remembering that the SNP are a party of government, and whilst there will be points of contention regarding their exact policies up here, the country hasn't fallen apart under their leadership.

Quite and we all saw the results of when labour did try to imply the SNP had done a bad job at FMQs where Kezia tried to criticise the delivery of the childcare policy in Glasgow despite the fact it is the responsibility of the Labour run council!

https://youtu.be/80ipn7JNOoY

 

[WelshBluebird]

No I am not discriminating against Eastern Europeans or anybody else, I am simply saying that the needs of the indigenous population should come first and I would expect the same in any country that I visited as a foreigner.

Germans and French are not "indigenous" though. That is the comment that TheKnightWho has taken offence to, and I agree with him. You simply cannot make such a general remark lumping all Eastern European immigrants as "bad" and lumping all Western European immigrants as "good" like you did. For one, show me the evidence to support that. And then tell me why you think it is acceptable to put all Eastern European immigrants into that same category, when many of them actually work a hell of a lot harder than many of even the indigenous population of this country.

As an aside, what even is the indigenous population of this country? Considering we have had so many waves of immigration over the centuries.

 

[Antman]

Germans and French are not "indigenous" though. That is the comment that TheKnightWho has taken offence to, and I agree with him. You simply cannot make such a general remark lumping all Eastern European immigrants as "bad" and lumping all Western European immigrants as "good" like you did. For one, show me the evidence to support that. And then tell me why you think it is acceptable to put all Eastern European immigrants into that same category, when many of them actually work a hell of a lot harder than many of even the indigenous population of this country.

As an aside, what even is the indigenous population of this country? Considering we have had so many waves of immigration over the centuries.

For goodness sake have you even read what I posted?

I haven't said that any nationality were good or bad!

 

[WelshBluebird]

For goodness sake have you even read what I posted?

I haven't said that any nationality were good or bad!

You specifically agreed with what Farage has previously implied, which is exactly that - immigration from Western Europe is good, immigration from Eastern Europe is bad.

Personally I think both are as bad or good as each other, and especially in central London we are seeing why immigration from richer countries (granted not limited to Western Europe) is bad as council houses / flats are demolished for luxury flats, often owned by rich foreigners.

And considering how many low paid but vital jobs that you find a lot of Eastern European immigrants doing, it is a very real argument that our country would be in even more of a hole if it wasn't for them.

 

[Antman]

You specifically agreed with what Farage has previously implied, which is exactly that - immigration from Western Europe is good, immigration from Eastern Europe is bad.

Personally I think both are as bad or good as each other, and especially in central London we are seeing why immigration from richer countries (granted not limited to Western Europe) is bad as council houses / flats are demolished for luxury flats, often owned by rich foreigners.

And considering how many low paid but vital jobs that you find a lot of Eastern European immigrants doing, it is a very real argument that our country would be in even more of a hole if it wasn't for them.

France and Germany have a similar standard of living to the UK.

All Eastern Europe offers is cheap labour, we have enough unskilled people out of work so why do we need more? They are driving wages down and house prices up, as I said the rich get richer and the poor are getting poorer.

 

[TheKnightWho]

France and Germany have a similar standard of living to the UK.

All Eastern Europe offers is cheap labour, we have enough unskilled people out of work so why do we need more? They are driving wages down and house prices up, as I said the rich get richer and the poor are getting poorer.

So first you deny your discrimination, and when called out you try to justify it.

Racism is racism is racism. It doesn't matter if you think it's justified or not.

 

[Antman]

So first you deny your discrimination, and when called out you try to justify it.

Racism is racism is racism. It doesn't matter if you think it's justified or not.

How on earth is questioning what Eastern European countries are bringing to the party racism?

 

[TheKnightWho]

How on earth is questioning what Eastern European countries are bringing to the party racism?

"How on earth is questioning what black countries bring to the party racism?"

Because you're questioning the worth of Eastern European people in the process.

 

[Mag_seven]

When are Cameron, Mlliband etc going to start mixing with Joe Public instead of making stage managed speeches to audiences of supporters.

 

[Manchester77]

What like Nicola's been doing?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

His origin and who he is married too is irrelevant.

I would agree with him, France and Germany are on a par with the UK. Eastern European countries are not and the only reason they are in the EU is for the unlimited supply of cheap labour.

I would be very confident that that is not the reason they were admitted to the EU. As I recall, there were many other reasons why it was thought desirable to admit them. For example, the wish to cement democracy in former communist countries, the belief that free trade would make everyone richer, etc. Besides, many EU countries placed transitional freedom of movement restrictions on Eastern European countries when they first joined - if cheap labour had been a significant motivation, it's not very likely that would have been done!

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

That's probably true, but has more to do with the Conservatives' tax and welfare changes, and the failure of successive governments to address house-building, than anything to do with the EU.

That, Antman, is racism...

You might not intend it to be, but what you're essentially doing is lumping all people from a particular area as unsuitable because of their origin, which is a form of racism.

I profoundly disagree with Antman's comments (as indicated by my replies to him). But I cannot see anything remotely racist about those comments, and once again I don't think your use of that word is helpful.

There is a world of difference between arguing that free movement only works when the countries concerned have similar standards of living (which appears to be the point Antman was making) and casting some unfavourable judgement on people purely because of their origin. It looks from your reply as if you've interpreted Antman's post in that manner, but it's certainly not what he has said. The latter would arguably be racist, but that's irrelevant because - as far as I can see - neither Antman nor anyone else in this thread has posted anything that says anything like that.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I would be very confident that that is not the reason they were admitted to the EU. As I recall, there were many other reasons why it was thought desirable to admit them. For example, the wish to cement democracy in former communist countries, the belief that free trade would make everyone richer, etc. Besides, many EU countries placed transitional freedom of movement restrictions on Eastern European countries when they first joined - if cheap labour had been a significant motivation, it's not very likely that would have been done!



That's probably true, but has more to do with the Conservatives' tax and welfare changes, and the failure of successive governments to address house-building, than anything to do with the EU.



I profoundly disagree with Antman's comments (as indicated by my replies to him). But I cannot see anything remotely racist about those comments, and once again I don't think your use of that word is helpful.

There is a world of difference between arguing that free movement only works when the countries concerned have similar standards of living (which appears to be the point Antman was making) and casting some unfavourable judgement on people purely because of their origin. It looks from your reply as if you've interpreted Antman's post in that manner, but it's certainly not what he has said. The latter would arguably be racist, but that's irrelevant because - as far as I can see - neither Antman nor anyone else in this thread has posted anything that says anything like that.

Racism has a very specific definition, and yes it's hotly debated. However "that isn't serious enough to warrant being called racism from my subjective point of view" is not a good position.

Antman's arguments entailed discrimination against the people of Eastern Europe, regardless of his justification. That is racism, plain and simple.

 

[ExRes]

When are Cameron, Mlliband etc going to start mixing with Joe Public instead of making stage managed speeches to audiences of supporters.

Politicians making stage managed speeches to audiences of supporters in the run up to an election ? ............... whatever next

As for mixing with Joe Public, ask Gordon Brown about the benefits of that

 

[Antman]

"How on earth is questioning what black countries bring to the party racism?"

Because you're questioning the worth of Eastern European people in the process.

OMG you really are beyond belief
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would be very confident that that is not the reason they were admitted to the EU. As I recall, there were many other reasons why it was thought desirable to admit them. For example, the wish to cement democracy in former communist countries, the belief that free trade would make everyone richer, etc. Besides, many EU countries placed transitional freedom of movement restrictions on Eastern European countries when they first joined - if cheap labour had been a significant motivation, it's not very likely that would have been done!



That's probably true, but has more to do with the Conservatives' tax and welfare changes, and the failure of successive governments to address house-building, than anything to do with the EU.



I profoundly disagree with Antman's comments (as indicated by my replies to him). But I cannot see anything remotely racist about those comments, and once again I don't think your use of that word is helpful.

There is a world of difference between arguing that free movement only works when the countries concerned have similar standards of living (which appears to be the point Antman was making) and casting some unfavourable judgement on people purely because of their origin. It looks from your reply as if you've interpreted Antman's post in that manner, but it's certainly not what he has said. The latter would arguably be racist, but that's irrelevant because - as far as I can see - neither Antman nor anyone else in this thread has posted anything that says anything like that.

Thank you DS, we might disagree but at least we manage to do so in a civilised way without resorting to insults.

I do actually find the knight quite amusing but I'm sure he actually expects to be taken seriously

 

[TheKnightWho]

OMG you really are beyond belief
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Thank you DS, we might disagree but at least we manage to do so in a civilised way without resorting to insults.

I do actually find the knight quite amusing but I'm sure he actually expects to be taken seriously

What I find hilarious is how outraged you get that someone could dare call you racist, and yet you refuse to engage with the reasons why they said it. You just act incredulous and call me ridiculous whilst amusingly trying to justify your racism by saying that discriminating against people on the basis on their origin is actually perfectly fine! Racism's really not a difficult concept, but you don't get to define it conveniently outside of anything you might personally do. And no, it doesn't matter whether you meant to do it or not - ignorance has never been a good legal defence, for example. The easy answer to being called racist is explaining why you aren't or changing your behaviour, you know? Calling it an insult just means you think you get to avoid actually addressing it - calling someone racist is not the same as calling them a four-letter word.

And really? I've already explained why DS's argument of "it's not serious enough!!!" is wrong. Unfortunately for you the country more and more agrees with me that racism is more than lynching and ethnic slurs, too. Laugh all you like, but that's the way things are going

I mean, it really does say a lot when someone refuses to engage with what you're saying and instead gets outraged. It's almost like they have nothing to say

 

[radamfi]

The UK was one of the poorest countries in the EEC when it joined. I got a World Atlas from WH Smith when I was a kid and I remember it had a map of Europe showing the GDP per capita of each country in 1980. The UK was something like $3000 a year, with West Germany, Netherlands and Denmark about $6000. Ireland was considerably lower than the UK. I think about $2000. I wonder if they said back then, "should we let those poor Brits and Irish into the EEC?"

Of course, the 2004 entrants into the EU were artificially held back economically by being part of the Eastern Bloc. If it wasn't for that, they would probably be on a par with western Europe given their strong work ethic. Although not all of those countries are poorer than pre-2004 EU members. Slovenia has a higher GDP per capita than Greece and Portugal. Estonia, Czech Republic and Slovakia are not far behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

In time, there will be convergence between western and eastern Europe with convergence accelerated by EU regional policy and investment and free access to western European markets. Then eastern Europe will be a market for goods and services from western Europe.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Racism has a very specific definition, and yes it's hotly debated. However "that isn't serious enough to warrant being called racism from my subjective point of view" is not a good position.

Antman's arguments entailed discrimination against the people of Eastern Europe, regardless of his justification. That is racism, plain and simple.

Well firstly, I did not at any point say anything like 'that isn't serious enough to warrant being called racism from my subjective point of view'. I have no idea where you got that from. It does rather look to me like you're reading far more into people's posts (including mine) than the posts actually say.

If I've understood Antman's arguments correctly, then he is saying that free movement is only a good idea if done between countries that have similar standards of living. You appear to be saying that's a racist viewpoint, but I don't see that. Perhaps you could explain in what manner you think that point of view is racist?

 

[Oswyntail]

....
If I've understood Antman's arguments correctly, then he is saying that free movement is only a good idea if done between countries that have similar standards of living. You appear to be saying that's a racist viewpoint, but I don't see that. Perhaps you could explain in what manner you think that point of view is racist?

I think his way of expressing it was unfortunate, and did seem racist, in that he appeared to be lumping populations together indiscriminately.
The idea itself is also flawed, as you can have proletariat cheap labour imported from Germany, just as you can have skilled and wealthy Eastern Europeans

 

[Antman]

Well firstly, I did not at any point say anything like 'that isn't serious enough to warrant being called racism from my subjective point of view'. I have no idea where you got that from. It does rather look to me like you're reading far more into people's posts (including mine) than the posts actually say.

If I've understood Antman's arguments correctly, then he is saying that free movement is only a good idea if done between countries that have similar standards of living. You appear to be saying that's a racist viewpoint, but I don't see that. Perhaps you could explain in what manner you think that point of view is racist?

You did indeed understand me correctly
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think his way of expressing it was unfortunate, and did seem racist, in that he appeared to be lumping populations together indiscriminately.
The idea itself is also flawed, as you can have proletariat cheap labour imported from Germany, just as you can have skilled and wealthy Eastern Europeans

I'm not sure what seemed racist about it, in fact the ridiculous over use of the racism card is driving many people towards UKIP.

Skilled and wealthy Eastern Europeans would seem very much the exception to the rule.

 

[DarloRich]

In other news Labour offer to suspend stamp duty on all house purchases up to £300k for first time buyers - i might hold off buying for a few weeks

 

[ExRes]

In other news Labour offer to suspend stamp duty on all house purchases up to £300k for first time buyers - i might hold off buying for a few weeks

What on earth does the BBC report mean though ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32476194

"Locals would also get "first call" on half of new homes in their area while foreign buyers would face more tax"

If this is a correct reporting of words from the mouth of Ed Miliband then where is the Labour policy on fair treatment for all heading ?, I'm sure if that sentence came from Nigel Farage we'd have the combined ranks of the anti racist brigade storming this forum