General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[yorksrob]

We'll all be less if Britain falls apart.

Still, it's out of my hands, so there's no point worrying about it.

 

[Johnuk123]

We'll all be less if Britain falls apart.

Still, it's out of my hands, so there's no point worrying about it.

I disagree, can't see what the English would miss at all, it's the Scottish who want out so why stop them.

 

[me123]

I could list what I think you guys would miss, but let's make this a bit more interesting and turn it on its head.

What do you think that I and my fellow countrymen & women would miss if we were to go it alone?

 

[St Rollox]

We'll all be less if Britain falls apart.

Still, it's out of my hands, so there's no point worrying about it.

Must be hard if your looking at this from a 20th century view of Britain rather than a 21st century view of Europe made up of regions.

 

[Johnuk123]

I could list what I think you guys would miss, but let's make this a bit more interesting and turn it on its head.

What do you think that I and my fellow countrymen & women would miss if we were to go it alone?

Nothing, I wish you all the best, close the door on the way out.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I rather feel you should look in the mirror some time, it seems to me that nobody is allowed to argue with or question your opinions without being verbally bullied by you and I find that unacceptable but, as it's a waste of time, I won't comment further

As for your second paragraph, you obviously feel the electorate as a whole are stupid and unable to form their own opinions, if UKIP have joke policies then only a joke minority will vote for them, how then can UKIP the party be "frankly pretty dangerous to the country as a whole" ?, TUSC have joke policies, the BNP and EDL have or have had joke policies and so have many other political parties, what happens at the election booth ?, the electorate choose not to risk giving them political power and if the electorate feel that UKIP should not be trusted with political power then they will not put a cross in the UKIP box

Disagreeing with you is not silencing you! I don't see why you find it so difficult to understand that. When someone thinks your opinion is wrong it's an invitation to look at what you're saying and to explain why it's correct. It's not an invitation to whinge that your free-speech is being infringed. If you're incapable of explaining yourself then it might mean that your opinion is (shock horror) wrong, and not that they're silencing you.

And if the only thing you can say about UKIP is "they're popular" then frankly you're not going to change my mind. Golden Dawn are popular in Greece, but they're neo-fascist. It doesn't mean I'm calling UKIP fascist, but it shows that popularity means nothing for the quality of their policies which are, as I've said, a joke.

As for the other people on this thread disagreeing: it's all very well to cal me intolerant and "dangerous", but the difference is that I don't want to deport people, take away gay marriage and otherwise oppress minorities. Taking away the ability to do so is not the same as being intolerant towards you: it's stopping you being intolerant towards others.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nothing, I wish you all the best, close the door on the way out.

If Britain went it alone Britain would crash and burn. If you think we can survive on our own then I despair for the state of this country.

It's funny. This forum goes on and on about how uneducated and stupid the general public are when it comes to trains. When it comes to running the country suddenly everyone's both an expert and apparently equally as good! Being entitled to vote doesn't mean you know what you're talking about, and it's telling that the main UKIP supporters on this thread have whined and whinged about free speech, got offended and otherwise talked about everything except UKIP's policies themselves.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well then don't vote for them, the rest of us can make our own mind up:roll:

Quite honestly I think it's people like you that are pretty dangerous but as ridiculous as I find your views I fully accept that you have a right to express them, it's rather sad that you can't be a bit more tolerant to other peoples opinions

You're perfectly welcome to say whatever you like, but calling me intolerant is frankly hilarious.

It's intolerant to be against gay marriage (UKIP are). It's intolerant to campaign against people based on nationality (UKIP do). It's intolerant to impose neo-Thatcherite policies (UKIP want to). It isn't intolerant to call you intolerant, though!

 

[Antman]

Disagreeing with you is not silencing you! I don't see why you find it so difficult to understand that. When someone thinks your opinion is wrong it's an invitation to look at what you're saying and to explain why it's correct. It's not an invitation to whinge that your free-speech is being infringed. If you're incapable of explaining yourself then it might mean that your opinion is (shock horror) wrong, and not that they're silencing you.

And if the only thing you can say about UKIP is "they're popular" then frankly you're not going to change my mind. Golden Dawn are popular in Greece, but they're neo-fascist. It doesn't mean I'm calling UKIP fascist, but it shows that popularity means nothing for the quality of their policies which are, as I've said, a joke.

As for the other people on this thread disagreeing: it's all very well to cal me intolerant and "dangerous", but the difference is that I don't want to deport people, take away gay marriage and otherwise oppress minorities. Taking away the ability to do so is not the same as being intolerant towards you: it's stopping you being intolerant towards others.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If Britain went it alone Britain would crash and burn. If you think we can survive on our own then I despair for the state of this country.

It's funny. This forum goes on and on about how uneducated and stupid the general public are when it comes to trains. When it comes to running the country suddenly everyone's both an expert and apparently equally as good! Being entitled to vote doesn't mean you know what you're talking about, and it's telling that the main UKIP supporters on this thread have whined and whinged about free speech, got offended and otherwise talked about everything except UKIP's policies themselves.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You're perfectly welcome to say whatever you like, but calling me intolerant is frankly hilarious.

It's intolerant to be against gay marriage (UKIP are). It's intolerant to campaign against people based on nationality (UKIP do). It's intolerant to impose neo-Thatcherite policies (UKIP want to). It isn't intolerant to call you intolerant, though!

Opposing gay marriage is a matter of opinion, there is no right or wrong answer. Disagreeing with you does not automatically make somebody intolerant, I'd say that is an extremely intolerant view on your part.

And you clearly haven't got a clue about UKIP!

 

[CC 72100]

It doesn't mean I'm calling UKIP fascist, but it shows that popularity means nothing for the quality of their policies which are, as I've said, a joke.

Are all of their policies 'a joke' though? They have several things that I don't agree with personally but things such as:

Five-year wait before migrants can claim benefits

Hmm, similar to period before benefits can be claimed proposals by both Labour and the Conservatives.

Keep Britain’s nuclear deterrent

As also supported by Labour/Conservative/Lib Dems

Increase personal allowance to £13,500

Introduce new 30p tax band for those earning between £45,300 and £55,000, and a 40% rate thereafter

Not a million miles away Conservative tax proposals.

Extra £3bn a year for the NHS by 2020, used to fund 20,000 more nurses, 8,000 GPs and 3,000 midwives

Which isn't far from Labour: Extra £2.5bn funding for the NHS, to pay for 20,000 more nurses, 3,000 midwives and 8,000 GPs.

Don't sound to me as 'jokish'

Note: all quotes are from 'UKIP' on the BBC Policy guide: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide

Disclaimer: I'm a non-UKIP supporter, but I'd rather see individual parties on their merits even if overall, when all things are taken into account, I don't agree with them.

 

[Johnuk123]

It's intolerant to be against gay marriage, It's intolerant to campaign against people based on nationality,It's intolerant to impose neo-Thatcherite policies (It isn't intolerant to call you intolerant, though!

Having opinions other than yours does not make anybody intolerant.

You are very intolerant of other peoples views, you shouldn't be telling people what they should think.

Definition of intolerance
Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own:

If Britain went it alone Britain would crash and burn. If you think we can survive on our own then I despair for the state of this country.

That is another subject, I was talking about Scotland leaving the UK why have you altered it to suit your own agenda.

 

[ExRes]

Disagreeing with you is not silencing you! I don't see why you find it so difficult to understand that. When someone thinks your opinion is wrong it's an invitation to look at what you're saying and to explain why it's correct. It's not an invitation to whinge that your free-speech is being infringed. If you're incapable of explaining yourself then it might mean that your opinion is (shock horror) wrong, and not that they're silencing you.

And if the only thing you can say about UKIP is "they're popular" then frankly you're not going to change my mind. Golden Dawn are popular in Greece, but they're neo-fascist. It doesn't mean I'm calling UKIP fascist, but it shows that popularity means nothing for the quality of their policies which are, as I've said, a joke.

As for the other people on this thread disagreeing: it's all very well to cal me intolerant and "dangerous", but the difference is that I don't want to deport people, take away gay marriage and otherwise oppress minorities. Taking away the ability to do so is not the same as being intolerant towards you: it's stopping you being intolerant towards others.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If Britain went it alone Britain would crash and burn. If you think we can survive on our own then I despair for the state of this country.

It's funny. This forum goes on and on about how uneducated and stupid the general public are when it comes to trains. When it comes to running the country suddenly everyone's both an expert and apparently equally as good! Being entitled to vote doesn't mean you know what you're talking about, and it's telling that the main UKIP supporters on this thread have whined and whinged about free speech, got offended and otherwise talked about everything except UKIP's policies themselves.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You're perfectly welcome to say whatever you like, but calling me intolerant is frankly hilarious.

It's intolerant to be against gay marriage (UKIP are). It's intolerant to campaign against people based on nationality (UKIP do). It's intolerant to impose neo-Thatcherite policies (UKIP want to). It isn't intolerant to call you intolerant, though!

As usual your arrogance is quite breathtaking, if anyone has the temerity to disagree with a word of your gospel they are abused and talked down to while you just make things up as you go along

I said about UKIP policies "they're popular", so you claim, where and when did I say that ?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I think I've already stated my views on Jim Murphy. I had the "privilege" of seeing his soapbox referendum tour when it hit Elgin. He just stood there shouting nonsense at people - "Ah'm a patriot, Ah support the Scottish football team" (WTF does that even have to do with anything?) and getting irritated if someone dared to shout anything back at him (which is what he was doing to us in the first place). No wonder he wound people up.

Jim Murphy knows perfectly well that, if he is not elected, he kind of has to go. He'd be (I suspect) the first Scottish Labour leader who wasn't holding any office! However, I think that'll be a seat the Labour keeps a hold of. Murphy had an absolute majority of the vote (50.8%), with the Tories in second place (30.4%) and the SNP trailing in 4th place with less than 10% of the overall vote. I do not doubt that the SNP will likely rise to second place - overtaking the Lib Dems and Tories is probably inevitable, but I don't think that they'll manage to overtake Labour. I suspect that a lot of left supporters will be attracted from Labour to the SNP, but at least as many Tory and Lib Dem supporters will be pulled to Labour without.

The latest batch of Ashcroft polling in Scotland makes for grim reading for both Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems

Latest Scottish constituency polling
Friday, 17 April, 2015 in Marginal seats

By Lord Ashcroft

In my latest round of constituency polling I have returned to Scotland. This selection includes eight seats, including five I have polled before (East Renfrewshire, Glasgow South West, Paisley & Renfrewshire South, Ross, Skye & Lochaber, and Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) and three new ones (Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk, East Dunbartonshire and North East Fife).

I wanted to know whether the SNP surge had subsided in places I had previously surveyed; whether it threatened other incumbents, especially Lib Dems; and whether there were any potential surprises in store. The answers are no, yes and yes.

In the three Labour seats the SNP are further ahead than when I polled them earlier in the year. They have extended their lead from three to 21 points in Glasgow South West, and from eight to eleven points in Douglas Alexander’s seat of Paisley & Renfrewshire South. In East Renfrewshire, the one-point Labour lead I found in February has become a nine-point advantage for the SNP. However, this seat has a bigger Conservative share than many other Labour strongholds (25%), and I found Conservative voters less likely to say they would rule out voting Labour (64%) than would rule out the SNP (87%). How many Tories will decide to lend their vote to Jim Murphy to stop the nationalists?

Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale remains a very close contest. The tie I found two months ago is now a two-point lead for the SNP, putting it well within the margin of error and therefore too close to call.

But there is somewhat unexpected comfort for the Tories in Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk, where I found them a single point ahead in a three-party scrap (Conservative 30%, SNP 29%, Lib Dems 28%). Clearly this seat could go any one of three ways, and all three parties will try to tell potential tactical voters that they are the only way to stop the other two. Labour voters here say they are more likely to rule out the Tories than the Lib Dems, but how much further can the party’s 9% share be squeezed?

Elsewhere on Lib Dem territory, I found the SNP fifteen points ahead in Charles Kennedy’s seat of Ross, Skye & Lochaber, up from five points in February. I also found the SNP leading by eleven points in Jo Swinson’s constituency of East Dunbartonshire, and by thirteen points in North East Fife, where Sir Menzies Campbell is stepping down after 28 years.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/latest-scottish-constituency-polling/

 

[TheKnightWho]

Opposing gay marriage is a matter of opinion, there is no right or wrong answer. Disagreeing with you does not automatically make somebody intolerant, I'd say that is an extremely intolerant view on your part.

And you clearly haven't got a clue about UKIP!

It is an opinion, and one of those opinions is intolerant. The fact it's an opinion doesn't stop it being intolerant. It's not about disagreeing with me, it's the fact that it's intolerant in its own right!

And yes, I've followed the election very closely and watched the debates, but clearly I know nothing because I don't like UKIP :roll: all this talk of 'intolerance' of UKIP, and thinking anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant looks far more like projecting when UKIP's policies are themselves intolerant, and Kippers call anyone who disagrees with them ignorant!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As usual your arrogance is quite breathtaking, if anyone has the temerity to disagree with a word of your gospel they are abused and talked down to while you just make things up as you go along

I said about UKIP policies "they're popular", so you claim, where and when did I say that ?

So talking down to you isn't allowed now? If UKIP are good tell me why they're good - don't just call me names, claim I'm against free speech and that I'm intolerant of you.

And you said they were popular when you said that UKIP had a lot of supporters and that they're therefore not a joke.

As I've said, it's telling that Kippers never seem to do anything other than victimise themselves, which is funny as they're the ones obsessed with "victim culture". If you want people to support UKIP then explain why they're good: don't hide behind "it's just my opinion" (as though opinions can never be bad or wrong, which is simply false and naive) or claim that people are trying to shut you down. If you're so right and correct, explain why you are.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having opinions other than yours does not make anybody intolerant.

You are very intolerant of other peoples views, you shouldn't be telling people what they should think.

Disagreeing with me does not make you intolerant. Telling people who they can marry is an intolerant opinion. Shocking, right?

You shouldn't be telling people who they should marry. And yes, I will call that intolerant. Because it is.

 

[Johnuk123]

Disagreeing with me does not make you intolerant. Telling people who they can marry is an intolerant opinion. Shocking, right?

You shouldn't be telling people who they should marry. And yes, I will call that intolerant. Because it is.

I can't remember telling anybody who they can marry please quote my post and if you can't do that then apologise.

 

[me123]

The latest batch of Ashcroft polling in Scotland makes for grim reading for both Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems



http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/latest-scottish-constituency-polling/

Well, I hope that is true. I have no doubt there are plenty of decent Labour MPs up here (my local MP, Anne Begg, seems a thoroughly decent woman), but there's quite a few who I'd like to see the back of (Jim Murphy for one, also add Margaret Curran, Cathy Jamieson and Douglas Alexander to that list).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It is an opinion, and one of those opinions is intolerant. The fact it's an opinion doesn't stop it being intolerant. It's not about disagreeing with me, it's the fact that it's intolerant in its own right!

Opposing gay marriage is not by itself intolerant. It's perfectly possible for someone to oppose gay marriage (for example, for theological reasons, or because they believe that gay civil partnerships amount to the same thing) but at the same time to believe in treating gays fairly and well in every other aspect of life (and to actually do so in their personal life).

Perhaps it would be better to reserve strong and very emotionally charged phrases like 'intolerant' for cases where they are really justified?

 

[St Rollox]

Well, I hope that is true. I have no doubt there are plenty of decent Labour MPs up here (my local MP, Anne Begg, seems a thoroughly decent woman), but there's quite a few who I'd like to see the back of (Jim Murphy for one, also add Margaret Curran, Cathy Jamieson and Douglas Alexander to that list).

Anne Begg, is that not the MP that got herself photographed during the referendum with the local National Front organizer and then claimed she didn't who he was.

 

[Johnuk123]

Anne Begg, is that not the MP that got herself photographed during the referendum with the local National Front organizer and then claimed she didn't who he was.

Yes it was

http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/scottish-labour-mp-campaigned-with.html

Scottish Labour MP campaigned with National Front leader

 

[Antman]

It is an opinion, and one of those opinions is intolerant. The fact it's an opinion doesn't stop it being intolerant. It's not about disagreeing with me, it's the fact that it's intolerant in its own right!

And yes, I've followed the election very closely and watched the debates, but clearly I know nothing because I don't like UKIP :roll: all this talk of 'intolerance' of UKIP, and thinking anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant looks far more like projecting when UKIP's policies are themselves intolerant, and Kippers call anyone who disagrees with them ignorant!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So talking down to you isn't allowed now? If UKIP are good tell me why they're good - don't just call me names, claim I'm against free speech and that I'm intolerant of you.

And you said they were popular when you said that UKIP had a lot of supporters and that they're therefore not a joke.

As I've said, it's telling that Kippers never seem to do anything other than victimise themselves, which is funny as they're the ones obsessed with "victim culture". If you want people to support UKIP then explain why they're good: don't hide behind "it's just my opinion" (as though opinions can never be bad or wrong, which is simply false and naive) or claim that people are trying to shut you down. If you're so right and correct, explain why you are.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Disagreeing with me does not make you intolerant. Telling people who they can marry is an intolerant opinion. Shocking, right?

You shouldn't be telling people who they should marry. And yes, I will call that intolerant. Because it is.

The only intolerance on here has come from your direction, and you seem to be the only one that can't see that!

 

[TheKnightWho]

The only intolerance on here has come from your direction, and you seem to be the only one that can't see that!

Being intolerant of intolerance is not a bad thing. Once again, if you want to prove me wrong show how UKIP are good - don't just say I'm being unfairly biased. At least me calling them intolerant is a thing about UKIP's policies themselves, rather than your cries of intolerance which are simply "you don't like them! Stop being mean!"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't remember telling anybody who they can marry please quote my post and if you can't do that then apologise.

Replace "you" with "one". It's a form of speech.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Opposing gay marriage is not by itself intolerant. It's perfectly possible for someone to oppose gay marriage (for example, for theological reasons, or because they believe that gay civil partnerships amount to the same thing) but at the same time to believe in treating gays fairly and well in every other aspect of life (and to actually do so in their personal life).

Perhaps it would be better to reserve strong and very emotionally charged phrases like 'intolerant' for cases where they are really justified?

Intolerance is more complex than being actively and consciously prejudiced against someone. You might think it's justified intolerance, for example for theological reasons, but that's an entirely different ballgame. However, claiming that something isn't real intolerance because it's not strong enough is problematic, and is the same sort of logic used to say that something isn't real racism, where real racism is always more extreme than anything that person in particular happens to do: see the UKIP supporter who used a particular n-word (the not-quite-so-bad one) and still thought she wasn't racist.

I think it's perfectly alright to be intolerant of others being intolerant of certain lifestlyes or choices, as an example.

 

[Johnuk123]

Replace "you" with "one". It's a form of speech.

Form of speech ? - you are amazing, even by your standards.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Form of speech ? - you are amazing, even by your standards.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/one-versus-you

It's extremely common. Interpreting it in the worst possible light just so you can get on your high-horse isn't big or clever when it just makes you look ignorant.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/one-versus-you

It's extremely common. Interpreting it in the worst possible light just so you can get on your high-horse isn't big or clever when it just makes you look ignorant.

I think anybody reading this thread will see through you very easily, you make mistakes, you then refuse to apologise and try and wriggle out by posting nonsense.

To round it off you then go down your normal and well tried route of abuse.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I think anybody reading this thread will see through you very easily, you make mistakes, you then refuse to apologise and try and wriggle out by posting nonsense.

To round it off you then go down your normal and well tried route of abuse.

Disagreeing with you and explaining why your whinging is ridiculous is not abuse.

Once again, still no-one has explained what is good about UKIP. For a few pages it's still just been cries of self-victimisation and insults. At least I've been explaining why I think UKIP are bad - you've just been calling that insulting rather than addressing the points. On the other hand, even the great Farage himself cries victim all the bloody time it seems - I'm sensing a running theme here.

I mean, I'm struggling to see how literally anything I've said is abuse. Unless you mean calling UKIP intolerant, which is manifestly true, or calling people ignorant, which is also manifestly true when I can literally back that up. Or unless you mean I've been a bit arrogant, which if it's the worst thing you can say about something shows you're grasping at straws.

If you want to engage with me, show me how I'm wrong. Don't just start crying, getting outraged and whinging about it, which is exactly the sort of thing I thought UKIP supposedly hated. Apparently unless the shoe's on the other foot, it seems. The hypocrisy of Kippers knows no bounds, it seems.

 

[Johnuk123]

Disagreeing with you and explaining why your whinging is ridiculous is not abuse.

Once again, still no-one has explained what is good about UKIP. For a few pages it's still just been cries of self-victimisation and insults. At least I've been explaining why I think UKIP are bad - you've just been calling that insulting rather than addressing the points.

I mean, I'm struggling to see how literally anything I've said is abuse. Unless you mean calling UKIP intolerant, which is manifestly true, or calling people ignorant, which is also manifestly true when I can literally back that up. Or unless you mean I've been a bit arrogant, which if it's the worst thing you can say about something shows you're grasping at straws.

If you want to engage with me, show me how I'm wrong. Don't just start crying, getting outraged and whinging about it, which is exactly the sort of thing I thought UKIP supposedly hated. Apparently unless the shoe's on the other foot, it seems. The hypocrisy of Kippers knows no bounds, it seems.

You're at it again - I have not mentioned anything about anybody insulting UKIP but of course as you say it's a "form of words" in other words you're wrong once again but can't think of a way out.

Do you realise how you come across on here - you're so full of anger and desperate to start an argument, other posters have said similar but feel free to carry on as you amuse me.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You're at it again - I have not mentioned anything about anybody insulting UKIP but of course as you say it's a "form of words" in other words you're wrong once again but can't think of a way out.

Do you realise how you come across on here - you're so full of anger and desperate to start an argument, other posters have said similar but feel free to carry on as you amuse me.

I'm angry because there is a political party that literally tells me aspects of my life are abhorrent or should be banned. The fact that those very same people call me intolerant, when I'm literally telling them that they shouldn't have control over and ban aspects of my life that are none of their business (funnily enough, the definition of intolerance), is hilarious.

And please, I'd be fascinated to see how I'm wrong about that. You personally not mentioning UKIP does not mean that I'm not talking about those very people that are, who happen to be the ones that you're defending by arguing against me. Declaring yourself correct and then pouring over my posts to find minute errors or misconstruing it so that you can say I'm wrong doesn't make you correct - it just means you miss the point.

 

[Johnuk123]

I'm angry because there is a political party that literally tells me aspects of my life are abhorrent or should be banned. The fact that those very same people call me intolerant, when I'm literally telling them that they shouldn't have control over aspects of my life that are none of my business, is hilarious.

And please, I'd be fascinated to see how I'm wrong about that. You personally not mentioning UKIP does not mean that I'm not talking about those very people that are, who happen to be the ones that you're defending by arguing against me. Declaring yourself correct and then pouring over my posts to find minute errors or misconstruing it so that you can say I'm wrong doesn't make you correct - it just means you miss the point.

Don't say YOU then try and twist and wriggle when you're proved wrong, it's not hard.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Don't say YOU then try and twist and wriggle when you're proved wrong, it's not hard.

I have explained what I meant, and there is a strong precedent for it being used in that way (and I've even linked that website that explains it - I'm guessing you haven't actually read it). Telling me I meant something other than what I did and then declaring me wrong is grasping at straws.

"You might go to the shops to buy some food" being used as an example doesn't mean I'm specifically talking about you personally. It's not a hard concept, especially when you rewrite it as "One might go to the shops to buy some food". If you do that exact change on my original statement it becomes obvious, and doesn't actually change anything about what I said. You insisting on an apology and picking up on a minor point feels like you're trying to avoid actually engaging with the post itself.

 

[Oswyntail]

Form of speech ? - you are amazing, even by your standards.

It is, I believe, referred to as the "ideal second person".
When considering UKIP - or any party - policies, one need not really consider those they share with everyone else. One should look at the differentiators, and, once one does, one sees that UKIP is, indeed, intolerant. Of course, they are setting out their stall to appeal to the intolerant, so that is fine. One hopes that, come polling day, Britain is not as full of intolerant little scrotes as the UKIP leadership fondly imagine.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Intolerance is more complex than being actively and consciously prejudiced against someone. You might think it's justified intolerance, for example for theological reasons, but that's an entirely different ballgame. However, claiming that something isn't real intolerance because it's not strong enough is problematic, and is the same sort of logic used to say that something isn't real racism, where real racism is always more extreme than anything that person in particular happens to do: see the UKIP supporter who used a particular n-word (the not-quite-so-bad one) and still thought she wasn't racist.

I think you're making two mistakes.

Firstly, intolerance against gays would be things like committing violence against, or ostracising, or treating people really badly purely because those people are gay. The mere fact of believing that gay marriage should not be legalized is nothing remotely like that. I can think of a few people I know who have that opinion, but at the same time would treat gays with exactly the same respect that they do for others. So I'm not saying that that point of view is justified intolerance, I'm saying it's not (by itself) intolerance. Discriminatory, sure. Unfair, sure. But those are different things. I think you're devaluing the word 'intolerance' by applying it far more widely than it really means (Although obviously there is a bit of subjectivity about what constitutes intolerance).

But secondly, you're using the word in a way that insults and shows disrespect to others.

Suppose you're trying to persuade someone that gay marriage should be legal: Here are two possible arguments you could put:

1. Making gay marriage legal has made a massive difference to many people who otherwise feel that love and commitment to each other is not adequately represented by laws. It also removes what was arguably a discriminatory anomaly whereby some people through not fault of their own were not allowed to get married to their chosen partner. And it has achieved all this without harming anyone.
2. You're just being intolerant by opposing gay marriage.

Which of those do you think is more likely to pursuade the person you're (hypothetically) talking to?

And it's the same thing with UKIP. Personally I wouldn't dream of supporting UKIP, because I perceive so much to be wrong with not just their policies, but their whole underlying philosophy. But I have no doubt that many people who support UKIP presumably do so for genuine reasons. They are for whatever reason convinced that UKIP will somehow make life better. I think you and I both agree that those people are mistaken. But wouldn't it be more constructive to explain what specifically you think is wrong with UKIP's policies, rather than labelling them, and UKIP, with the somewhat subjective, and inflammatory, label 'intolerant' (or with similar subjective labels like 'a joke' or 'dangerous'? (Even if you personally think some of those policies do amount to intolerance)

 

[me123]

Anne Begg, is that not the MP that got herself photographed during the referendum with the local National Front organizer and then claimed she didn't who he was.

How did I miss that???

But still, I was judging her on her voting record in the House of Commons, which is more important than what I suspect was a bit of a set up. She seems like a genuinely decent person who has the interests of her constituents at heart.

Nevertheless, I shan't be voting for her.