Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage gives in to UKIP’s Facebook revolution over Syrian r
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage gives in to UKIP’s Facebook revolution over Syrian refugees and gives a Christmas gift to the Tories
“@chunkymark: >>“@make_trouble: Has Farage honestly said we should only accept Christian refugees from Syria?””
Best Christmas present EVER
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Nobody's saying that, but the lesson of the last 20 years is surely that christians find it easier to integrate in the UK than muslims (especially muslims of first generation).
There are plenty of peaceful, civilised muslim countries that muslims would surely find it more conducive to flee to.
'Ed Miliband rules out state funding of parties'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-new-year-video-2972413#ixzz2oxtobX1r
UKIP are a bunch of....
This confirms to me, what we've known for a while.
There's no point trying to pander to most UKIP supporters, they'll never be happy until there's no immigration/asylum available in this country.
If only Nigel Farage had a spine.
:young-turks:
The biggest issue is a lack of school systems/learning ethos or - more commonly - systems that are not backed up by managers. They want to brush 'behaviour' under the carpet to massage the stats, and put pressure on staff to put up and shut up.
It's difficult to exclude - again, the figures - and almost impossible to expel.
Attendance is another big factor - schools are now penalised on this, so a lot of resources are spent ensuring that (generally challenging) poor attenders are in school. (I was a 'determined' truant when at school and the school did nothing about it - my parents didn't know until some way down the line - but ignoring it isn't an option now; I'm not saying you should, but it's another factor in the mix).
Some parents are a pain but most appreciate it when you try to instil discipline. I've had parents asking to have their kids moved to my classes as I've got a 'rep' (according to one student).
I'm in a tough school but I don't have problems with behaviour. I only saw a phone in my classroom 3 times last term, and they weren't being used - but it still meant a detention.
The kids like it, learning comes first, my 'results' are good (though of course you may only have them for a year out of five so it's not as simple as that).
My biggest battle is with management and I stand firm, using my own systems and refusing to use theirs. This causes a hell of a lot of stress - as does trying to get managers to do their job properly - but I'm stubborn and stick it out because I value what I do and feel I owe it to the kids. The 'new, dynamic' head spent two years trying to get rid of me for 'challenging authority' until he gave up.
Many good teachers give up the battle - which can be Orwellian and, tbh, absurd - because they don't have the energy anymore.
There are bad teachers, yes - but a lot of comment on 'teachers' being the main issue in schools is, frankly, dim.
But you are equally wrong to try and claim that represents the position of most UKIP supporters. You are simply revealing your own bigotries in such a comment.
You think that'll make them happy???? I very much doubt it.
A Spain without its Catalans and Basques would certainly look very different. La Roja would still have the manpower – the likes of Iker Casillas, Sergio Ramos, Andrés Iniesta, David Silva, Pedro, Juan Mata, Santi Cazorla and David Villa – to outplay most international opponents.
They would thrash Gibraltar. But they might just struggle against Catalonia, or the eleven best Basques of Euskadi.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/spain/10541466/Catalonia-and-Basque-Country-reignite-call-for-independent-national-football-identities.html
I've been interacting with Kippers on other forums and the Kippers I know personally.
I've been Praising Farage for his initial position and defending him from Tories who said it was a shallow/cynical piece of PR from him.
Thanks
In addition, apart from being completely impractical (*how* do you test whether someone's a Christian?), there is something of a nasty smell about discriminating on religious grounds. Farage might argue that muslim countries nearby are better suited to muslim refugees but the counter-argument is so easy that I don't think it's tenable.
He'd have been better sticking to his anti-immigration guns, which would be far less confusing to voters and far more consistent as policy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mariansalzman/2013/12/29/what-will-branding-look-like-in-2014/
What I think is that it would be wrong to take people from the immediate locality who intend to return home and are best placed to do so where they are unless there is some other compelling reason such as medical treatment. We should instead try to identify those who are likely to be long term refugees and then make a commitment to them allowing them long term residence in this country, the right to work, claim benefits, education etc.
Ideally, these would be people who had the best chance of integrating into our society so they would have either relatives here or at least a little English. An attitude towards women slightly ahead of the middle ages would also be a benefit but may be too much to ask for.
In making religion a criteria Farage has insulted a large number of British citizens. It is not just an insult to them, it is an insult to our values. An unnnecessary mistake by an amateurish politician. But who will remember (other than the 1m muslims of course) in a few days time?
:stupid-is-as-stupid-will-always-do:
Has Farage been asked to justify his 'christians only' stance? I wonder what he would say.
'cause we all know how much grief Catholics have given this country.
:pfft:
* Brent-blend: 2014 prices [English] Sterling.
We do need more of a demographic breakdown of who these LD > Lab switchers are. All we can say at the moment is the Lib Dems will lose most support in areas where Labour can win.
If you had simply said that Farage was wrong in his amended view then I would have agreed with you 100%. As it was you chose to misuse his lack of spine as a reflection of the whole party.
I know that as a Tory supporter you are frightened of UKIP but I had expected better from you than the sorts of smears we were more used to seeing from Tim.
That OK ?
They know how cynical Labour and Ed Miliband were over fees vote.
Labour introduced the review prior to the election, and agreed to abide by its suggestions.
When the vote came, they put the interests of universities second to embarrassing Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems.
Univerisites are one of this countries best things.
They aren't voting for Labour who put that at risk for partisan reasons.
People who think it is so important that Farage should take part in the debates should reflect on incidents like this. At new year in 2013 this will be quickly forgotten by most. In the middle of an election campaign it could do huge damage.
I said specifically Farage didn't have a spine.
To paraphrase Blair, great leaders lead their party, crap ones follow their party.
Most Kippers do have spines.
They stick to their principles.
As eloquently expressed by Nigel4England this morning on why he won't be voting Tory.
The future for them is bleak. Muslim countries in the Middle East are largely intolerant of minority communities or unable to protect them effectively. Western governments have been very slow about speaking up about what has been happening or putting pressure on those countries to be more tolerant. It would be a tragedy if Christianity were to disappear from the region of its birth but until the Middle East changes fundamentally for the better the only hope for those Christians may well be to find shelter in friendly countries, which are likely to be Western countries.
Our Universities have wanted higher fees because they were concerned about not being able to compete with the US. They would have quite liked the level of state support given to Universities in the US aswell.
I only know people who live in the seat.
What do they and I know?
"Jesus said, 'Suffer the little children to come unto me. Except those ones.'"
Fair enough, but is this what Farage is actually saying? what are his reasons for his stance?
1. Our domestic arrangements
2. The suffering of Syrian Christians
Because if its two Farage is in danger of becoming Mr Just Like All The Rest to his base.
UKIP supporters want their politicians to put domestic voters first, second and third. Indian pauper children, Egyptian koptic christians and prisoners of conscience in the Ukraine are nowhere in their reckoning.
If all of the above suffer because we halt overseas aid, end immigration and get out of the ECHR, then so be it. Stop thinking of them - just think of us. That for me is the basis of UKIP's support.
Politicians of all stripes are having a very very hard time grasping this.
Grant Shapps said on BBC (noon) that there would be no offer of asylum to Syrian refugees - neither Christian or Muslim.
We are and always have been the only non Labour seat in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire.
FPT, Clegg won't Sheffield Hallam in a million years.
FPT marginal seats. It's not clear who's best placed to beat the Conservative incumbent when the Lib Dem vote is down 13% on 2010, and the Labour vote is up 9%.
As for Jonathan Fryer's tweet, he ignores the fact that some of those fleeing Assad are Islamists who are equally murderous and certainly not deserving of refuge or help. Indeed, as others have commented we would be mad to have such people here. How to distinguish between genuine refugees and terrorists is the question.
Most of UKIP members and supporters want the British government, any british government, to think at improving the lives of Britons (in the widely accepted sense) first and foremost, by:
1. Leaving the EU
2. Building up a modern 21st century nation. and not least:
3. Having a sense of belonging in and to one's own nation - an emotional stance, but very important.
Of course, to those that no longer believe in the nation state the whole of the UKIP phenomena is anathema.
There are a tiny number who disagreed with the original comments by Farage but the overwhelming majority were of the opinion that both politically and morally he was right.
Since his qualification there has been a clear consensus that it was a mistake to try and limit or adjust what he was saying to only include Christians and that this would undermine the original message he was giving whilst not reassuring those who opposed the whole policy in the first place.
This is also why I know TSE is so clearly wrong in his assumption that this change is driven by UKIP members. The activists are clearly behind the original support for refugees and disappointed and somewhat confused by the qualification.
Whatever reason Farage might have had for this, it was not being driven by the activists who were overwhelmingly celebrating something of a coup by Nigel yesterday.
It is a closed forum but perhaps some of the other UKIP members such as Sean Fear or MikeK who have access could confirm my report is an accurate reflection of the debate?
I don't tweet or twitter and cannot comment on what Fryer said but the point is right. We have made many serious mistakes in the past in bringing in religious zealots who disapproved of our way of life as much or more than they did of the countries they left behind.
Asylum seekers and displaced persons or refugees are not necessarily the same thing.
Does Farage propose the admission of African Christians who are being slaughtered in Nigeria solely on account of their religion? If not why not?
If you say that the policy change wasn't driven UKIP members, I accept you at your word, no need for SeanFear or anyone else to confirm that.
But I am curious on why there has been a change in policy?
Any thoughts why?
However if you followed some of the debates and arguments on Facebook, you will know that criticism was loud and voluble.
By the way, Antifrank's comments about millions of people being potentially let in are completely wrong. I am now listening to the Jeremy Vine show for the first time and one interesting comment at the start was that the UN High Commission for Refugees has said that Western countries should take a total of 30,000 refugees by the end of 2014 of which 12,000 have already been housed mostly in Germany. So that immediately shows us the scale we are looking at and is something that, even if we on our own were to do it without any other country, is easily achievable.
I suspect this will have minimal impact. I've not heard UKIP's position mentioned other than on this site, the Government certainly won't let in only Christians so it's a theoretical position rather than one that will be tested in practice, and I would guess (be interesting to see some figures, though) that UKIP supporters are disproportionately Christian.
So much as I would not use the ConHome forums as an accurate reflection of Tory activist views since it is clear a lot of UKIP members post there, I would also not believe that everyone- or even the majority of people who post on the UKIP FB pages are either UKIP members/supporters or reflect the views of the majority.
I was reading a piece by Sadiq Khan recently arguing we should stay in the ECHR.
The thrust of the argument was that we should stay in because some nasty governments are using our criticism of the court to disregard it themselves.
Now, Khan probably has a point, but lets look at what he's saying in another way.
''You, my voters, the good tax paying people of limehouse and poplar, should tolerate the odd murderer, rapist or terrorist being allowed to stay in Britain, in order for people around the world to be more free. ''
And this for me goes to the crux of what UKIP is about. Because its about saying the opposite of what Kahn is saying
ie 'we are getting rid of these people whatever the implications abroad, because the well being of the people of limehouse and poplar come first. And not just first, but second and third too. And fourth.
And as for people around the world fighting for freedom?? well, basically, scr*w them.
I have just listened to the piece as it is now on iplayer and I did so in the hope that Farage had been misquoted or poorly précised (sorry I know précis is not a verb but it is so convenient).
In fact he was not. He was quite clear in his view that the refugee offer should extend only to Christians and personally, whilst I kind of see his argument, I find it an unsupportable position.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/12/christmas-bombers-target-christians-iraq-201312263451677794.html
but for all we know that could have been the policy all along, and there was no U-turn
He also claimed he had never said "Britain is full" on the same interview, when he patently has, so maybe not the best 15 minutes for him.
That said, if he had retweeted the wrong Theresa May, no doubt people on here would have been falling over themselves to criticise him and take the piss for evermore... just shows how often people play the man not the ball
Since the UNHCR have given a figure of 30,000 it seems reasonable to use that as a figure to work on. It si not as if anyone is going to force us at gunpoint to take more refugees simply because we took our share of those the UNHCR felt were in need. We can always say enough is enough later. Right now we have taken none.
I expect most people will want to ignore this, but feel free to throw rotten tomatoes or alternative views if you're in the mood.
Thanks. Very interesting and informative post.
2013 was a relatively quiet year for British politics. No big elections were planned and none came unexpectedly. The same cannot be said for 2014, where the EU elections assume an unusual importance in the minds of political obsessives and the interminable Scottish independence referendum reaches its denouement. And we draw ever closer to the general election scheduled for May 2015. By the end of the year, the likely result of that should be clear.
Where are we now?
To work out where we are going, we first of all need to work out where we are now. At the end of 2013, the economy looks in far better shape than even George Osborne would have dared to hope at the end of 2012. We've had a year of growth and if the economists are to be believed, we can expect better growth in 2014. This has no doubt contributed to the appreciable shrinking in Labour's lead over the last year and the appreciable improvement in the Government's ratings.
In the UK as a whole, no politician commands much respect. Nick Clegg remains deeply unpopular, while Ed Miliband is not faring much better. David Cameron performs better than both, but still has negative ratings. The public dislike both George Osborne and Ed Balls a lot. Alex Salmond does a bit better in Scotland, mind. Nigel Farage does better than the three main party leaders, but largely because he is still not that well-known by the public.
The public remain in a surly mood. In an important though misreported ICM poll, the great majority of the public professed themselves to be angry or bored with politics and politicians, with nearly half choosing anger as the dominant reaction.
The importance of this is that the public are not being led. So they are heading off in their own direction, with little leadership. They won't change their minds unless some event happens to change them. It's unlikely to be the words of a politician that they don't respect, unless that is someone who they were reluctantly thinking of voting for who says something to lose their vote. Ed Miliband, as leader of a party which outstrips his own popularity, and Nigel Farage, as leader of a party of protest, have particular need to be careful about what they say and do in 2014.
It's impossible to know what is coming up with any certainty. For example, who would have thought at the beginning of the year that we would have a horticultural theme to our scandals, with both a Bloom and Flowers hitting the headlines? But we can make a stab at some things.
When the public aren't being effectively led by politicians, the economy will be disproportionately important. Is it going to do as well as expected? Personally, I have my doubts. But since I'm not an economist, I shall take my cue from the experts. If they're right, we can look forward to steady growth, at last exceeding the 2008 peak (a potentially important landmark). The deficit should continue to come down. Unemployment is expected to reduce – though with productivity at unexpectedly low levels at present, employers might instead address this first before recruiting. And earnings might - might - start outstripping inflation again.
If these things happen, you can expect George Osborne to make hay with this. It won't make the British public like him more – the public have already decided that they don't like him in the same way that they don't like Simon Cowell or Jimmy Carr. But that won't stop some of them grudgingly accepting that things might be getting better.
The result of the EU elections will set the tone for much of the rest of the year. Will UKIP remain a force to be reckoned with? Can the Conservatives secure their right flank? Can Labour get its vote out in a real election for once? Just how badly can the Lib Dems do? It's likely that all will have reasons to fret, almost regardless of the result.
We get two sporting events that might affect the politics of the nation. First, we get the World Cup. David Cameron and Alex Salmond will both be hoping for an England triumph. Neither is remotely likely to get their wish. Then (and with more plausible political consequences) we get the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. Alex Salmond and the Yes campaign will be hoping for a well-run games to get the type of fillip that the Olympics gave the UK as a whole in 2012. If the games run into trouble, however, Scotland would visibly have failed on the international stage. The consequences for the Yes campaign would be dire.
It's going to be a year of anniversaries. Many have already noted that it will be 100 years from the outbreak of the Great War, and cynics have noted that we shall reach the 700 year anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn just before the Scottish independence referendum. An anniversary that has so far been less commented-upon is the 100th anniversary of the Government of Ireland Act. Ulster was on the brink of armed insurrection as a result, and it may well prove the launchpad for some fresh perspectives on unionism (both positive and negative) in the run-up to the Scottish referendum. At the very least, it might provoke some northern Irish unionists into discussing the impact of a hypothetical Yes vote on northern Ireland.
One wildcard: we may get the Chilcot report. That would almost certainly cause fireworks, but like a Catherine wheel these might spray out in all directions.
The future is unwritten, but I don't propose to sit on the fence. I shall put my tin hat on now, because a lot of people aren't going to like these.
1. UKIP will peak at the EU elections and then decline quite sharply in their polling
In many ways, UKIP were the story of 2013. Many political observers have forgotten just how recently they have shot to prominence. At the beginning of 2012, UKIP were going nowhere. Off the back of the omnishambles budget they built a support base of lower paid voters who felt abandoned by the main parties and who in turn rejected them. In 2013, they have built on this further.
But the party leader does not seem ready for the scrutiny that he is now going to get. The UKIP annual conference was derailed by Godfrey Bloom's gaffe and by Nigel Farage's panicky reaction to it. He reacted with a complete lack of humour to an ill-advised joke by Anna Soubry at his expense. Under a storm of protest from his support base, he partially retreated from an eye-catching policy in support of taking refugees from Syria to supporting only taking Christian refugees. He seems to make up policy on the hoof and to be unsteady under fire. Interestingly, Godfrey Bloom (a longstanding friend of his) has also made similar criticisms.
This is unlikely to impede UKIP's prospects for the EU elections, which the public by and large does not treat seriously. Few vote and many of those who do will do so without giving their choice much thought. UKIP may well finish top of the poll, propelled there on a wave of angry voters telling the main parties "up yours". Labour has struggled to convert its polling into success at the ballot box and there is no obvious reason why it should start outperforming expectations in 2014. The Conservatives lack a USP for the EU elections, though their voters do at least tend to turn up. I expect something close to a photo-finish between these three parties, and they could feature in any order.
But once the raison d'etre of the party, to cause trouble in the EU, has been fulfilled, it will struggle to find a reason to be more. While voters will cast protest votes, they will like to tell themselves that they are voting for a serious party. With a leader who simply isn't good enough, I expect that many of their current supporters will drift away.
It's the economy stupid. At present voters still don't feel the improvements in the economy and many still don't believe the economy has turned the corner. If the economy performs as we currently expect, this will change. Some voters will give the Government the credit and change their voting intention accordingly. Not many need to do this to bring the Conservatives back to parity. Don't be surprised if some of the UKIP supporters who came from Labour decide to take their allegiance to the Conservatives rather than to return to Labour, using UKIP as a conduit between the two main parties. But I expect most of any increase in Conservative support to come from "don't know".
I do not, however, expect Labour's vote share to decline all that much. With the Lib Dems in government and the Greens performing hopelessly, Labour will remain the repository for most of the progressive vote.
3. Lib Dem polling may pick up a bit, but it will still look dire at the end of the year
Some progressives may conclude that the performance of the economy vindicated the Lib Dems' decision to go into government with the Conservatives. This will be a niche segment and will not boost the Lib Dems' polling much.
This is a braver prediction than in previous years: if Nick Clegg is going to go before the next election, he will do so in 2014. He has the escape route of EU Commissioner if he wishes to take it or colleagues may seek to oust him before the 2015 election, which looks to be at best challenging for the Lib Dems. But a coup would be difficult - too many senior Lib Dems have been too complicit in the coalition to make it easy for them to participate. Nick Clegg has said that he is going to lead his party into the next election, and he's famously a man of his word. I believe him. I also expect the Lib Dems to see the coalition through to the end of the Parliament. Having got this far, there's no advantage for them in changing their minds.
David Cameron and Ed Miliband both look safe to the next election, excluding accidents. David Cameron doesn't like to reshuffle (it's too complicated in a coalition). Ed Miliband will probably stick with his present team as well.
5. ...except for Alex Salmond
After the result of the Scottish referendum, I don't see Alex Salmond carrying on. Unlike many politicians, he has a hinterland (he's already retired from politics once before) and after a once in a generation referendum, I can't see him wanting to stick around, because...
6. The Scottish independence referendum will be decisively lost
If votes were measured on intensity of feeling, the Yes campaign would win comfortably - its supporters are passionate to the point of monomania. But unless Alex Salmond can turn the referendum into a referendum on the Conservatives (something which he is now trying hard to do), it's hard to see how the Yes campaign can gather the support necessary to win. It is still floundering on the process questions. Until it has a cogent answer as to why Scots should take a leap in the dark, it will struggle. Since it hasn't found one in time for the White Paper, I expect it to lose and to lose convincingly this time.
That's not to say the No campaign has been much good. It has given no positive case for Britishness. But in the short term, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt should be sufficient to see it home.
Middle aged bloke buys a Cornish pasty.
OK, What's the internal politics behind this one from the Con-kippers ? Surely, they can't expect Cameron to change policy on 31st December ? So, what are they upto ?
I note no prediction on Bercow from you this year though I assume you'd still advise backing him to remain in situ?
Looking back on 2013, Tissue Price would like to update this site with news of an Issue Price, born 9th December and named Rosalind Evelyn. All is going well :-)
On a more minor point, I think Ed Miliband will make further changes to his Shadow Cabinet. The last reshuffle included several appointments which look as though they were made, sensibly enough, to see how various promising but as yet relatively untested MPs would perform in prominent roles. He's actually got too large a team (intentionally, I think); I expect him to select a smaller, more focused team for the election period. That might include getting rid of a couple of senior shadow ministers. However, I don't expect Balls to go.
Anecdotally, it seems that many first-generation refugees and immigrants are thankful to their new home. Some of their children and grandchildren appear to have more difficulty in fitting in, regardless of their religion, or that of their parents.
A generalisation too far?
If only we could get some betting markets on John Bercow's survival. The bookies were very kind with those for a while. Yes, I'd firmly expect him to be in situ on 1 January 2015, and I'd see that as essentially an actuarial calculation.
Perhaps some nice bookie could put up odds on him being in situ on 1 January 2020.
I would think that is because the first generation refugees have experience of truly terrible, life threatening conditions to contrast with their current life, where as their grandchildren may idealise their Grandparents background without having to suffer the reality and criticise their life in the UK without knowing how much worse it could have been for them
If it is a decisive No vote in Scotland, I think it will be seen as a pro-status quo outcome, irrespective of the merits of the campaign. Those not obsessed with it will be more than a little justified to reply "what part of No do you not understand. Will you please just shut up" if the nationalists move immediately to demanding devomax. Considering that they tried to make the independence vote about bread-and-butter issues, it would be strange to then make the general election about constitutional ones.
Another thread digging out UKIP suffers when contrasted with the real world...