UKIP .... the BNP for softies...

peterg1965

bigheadxx wrote: »

The only "similarity" is withdrawal from the EU, something supported by half of all Labour and Conservative voters.

Something that the whole country is denied a say on. I reckon any referundum on staying in the EU would result in an overwhelming two fingers to Brussels. That is why Politicians will always have excuses not to let us have a say.

chewmylegoff

peterg1965 wrote: »

Something that the whole country is denied a say on. I reckon any referundum on staying in the EU would result in an overwhelming two fingers to Brussels. That is why Politicians will always have excuses not to let us have a say.

if a majority of people in this country want out, and care about it so much that it is very important for this to happen, then presumably UKIP would be anticipating an overall majority in the general election.

therefore if a majority of people do want out as you say, they must not care about it enough for it to override other considerations.

leveller2911

Cleaver wrote: »

If you think black / asian / women only shortlists are evidence of racism and sexism then you are clearly not that bright and see things in a very simplistic way. Sorry to be that blunt, but I can't see any other reason why you would think this. By all means criticise why they are a stupid idea (some wouldn't agree with you, I personally would) but to say that they are evidence as to why Labour are more racist than the BNP is completely dumb.

Glad you cleared that up Cleaver, good to know that anyone who dis agrees with you on the definition of "Racism" is "clearly not birght".

What makes you think "your right"?. You have an opinion and thats it, nothing more and nothing less.

IMO it does exist and Nu Labour call it "Positive discrimination" its the same thing as racism.

A friend of mine is a London Firefighter.His brother wanted to join up and he told his brother to phone up and ask for the appropriate forms.He gave his details (name,address etc) on the phone only to be told that they weren't recruiting at that time.


My friend thought it strange as he had heard through the service that they were,so another collegue suggested he phoned again but advised him to give an Asian name (the word on the grapevine in the service was that the "Managers" in the service had been told that they needed to be more "Diverse").He phoned up again ,giving his details as a British asian and was told by the service that "Yes we are recruiting and we will send you an application form"......

Sorry Cleaver but "Positive discrimination " is a form of Racism IMO.People should be employed on the grounds that they are the best qualified to do the job and not the colour or background of a person.


Just one last point regarding sexism, just to give you an idea how pathetic the system is becoming another South East Fire service employed a woman as a firefighter, she was around 5 feet tall and couldn't reach the ladders to get them off the Fire appliances so the service paid £ thousands to alter the appliance only for her to get pregnant within a few months and leave the service.Nearly all of the previous rules regarding recruitment in the Fire Service has been dulled down just to pacify the loony Left Nu Labour tw@ts at the expense of safety.

There should never be people in the Fire Service who are clearly not up to the job,it doesn't matter if its a man,woman,TS or TV if they can't do the job properly they shouldn't have been employed in the first place.

StevieJ

peterg1965 wrote: »

Something that the whole country is denied a say on. I reckon any referundum on staying in the EU would result in an overwhelming two fingers to Brussels. That is why Politicians will always have excuses not to let us have a say.

Is that because they think the electorate are mentally !!!!!!?

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if a majority of people in this country want out, and care about it so much that it is very important for this to happen, then presumably UKIP would be anticipating an overall majority in the general election.

therefore if a majority of people do want out as you say, they must not care about it enough for it to override other considerations.

You second paragraph rather clarifies it is possible that the majority of people don't want EU but are more imminently concerned with other things. I love that we can work and travel freely in EU and believe it is a benefit to us, but have other concerns with EU. Again, it will not make me vote for UKIP.

peterg1965

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if a majority of people in this country want out, and care about it so much that it is very important for this to happen, then presumably UKIP would be anticipating an overall majority in the general election.

therefore if a majority of people do want out as you say, they must not care about it enough for it to override other considerations.

No. I believe people who vote for the main parties do not necessarily do so on the basis of voting on single issues. Ask yourself why Gordon Brown did not let us have a referendum on the EU Consitution/Lisbon Treaty? If he thought that he would easily win a vote he would have not gone through the pain which came when he denied us a say, he knew full well it would, at best, be very very close or more likely a resounding no vote. And 'we' would not have let him have a second bite of the cherry, as happened in Eire.

Europhiles still reign in the Tory Party, my hope is that as PM, Cameron becomes much more euro sceptic. He missed a huge opportunity in reversing his decision on a referendum.

Cleaver

leveller2911 wrote: »

Glad you cleared that up Cleaver, good to know that anyone who dis agrees with you on the definition of "Racism" is "clearly not birght".

What makes you think "your right"?. You have an opinion and thats it, nothing more and nothing less.

Plenty of people disagree with me on here and I don't normally say that they're not bright. There is plenty of room for debate on opinion on these black / women only lists. I personally think that they're an awful idea. Others may think they're great.

Abaxus said that they make Labour more racist than the BNP. They don't. The people behind these things do it so that boards of people reflect the communities they serve. I think, again, that it's an awful way of doing it, but I stand by my comment that if you think this is an example of racism worse than the BNP, then you're not very bright.

leveller2911 wrote: »

A friend of mine is a London Firefighter.His brother wanted to join up and he told his brother to phone up and ask for the appropriate forms.He gave his details (name,address etc) on the phone only to be told that they weren't recruiting at that time.

My friend thought it strange as he had heard through the service that they were,so another collegue suggested he phoned again but advised him to give an Asian name (the word on the grapevine in the service was that the "Managers" in the service had been told that they needed to be more "Diverse").He phoned up again ,giving his details as a British asian and was told by the service that "Yes we are recruiting and we will send you an application form"......

Sorry Cleaver but "Positive discrimination " is a form of Racism IMO.People should be employed on the grounds that they are the best qualified to do the job and not the colour or background of a person.

I agree.

The interesting angle to this is that study after study shows that public bodies (NHS, Fire, Police, Councils etc.) give better service and are more cost effective when they are made up of staff, from top to bottom, that more or less reflects the people they serve. That isn't really opinion anymore, it's proven through studies.

So the debate is how you do this. I think positive action schemes (or whatever you want to call them) are divisive and not the answer to the problem. As you've rightly pointed out, people feel alienated by them. I don't really have the answer though of how best to achieve the goal.

Was your friend a victim of racism? Or was he the victim of a stupid recruitment policy? Wouldn't the fire service be better targetting their advertising and recruitment in other areas, therefore getting more applicants from other backgrounds, but then taking the best that then apply from the whole of society? That's what I'd do.

Just to be clear again, the only issue I took with abaxas was that these type of schemes somehow make Labour (or whoever comes up with them) more racist than the BNP. They don't.

chewmylegoff

peterg1965 wrote: »

No. I believe people who vote for the main parties do not necessarily do so on the basis of voting on single issues. Ask yourself why Gordon Brown did not let us have a referendum on the EU Consitution/Lisbon Treaty? If he thought that he would easily win a vote he would have not gone through the pain which came when he denied us a say, he knew full well it would, at best, be very very close or more likely a resounding no vote. And 'we' would not have let him have a second bite of the cherry, as happened in Eire.

Europhiles still reign in the Tory Party, my hope is that as PM, Cameron becomes much more euro sceptic. He missed a huge opportunity in reversing his decision on a referendum.

well, people obviously don't care enough about being denied a referendum on the lisbon treaty for it to make the EU a very high level priority for this election.

in any case, even if there had been a no vote, it would have most likely been misleading as the biggest vote would have been "dont care" i.e. the people who didn't turn up to vote.

no one is talking about leaving the EU as being important, or of their anger at being robbed of a referendum. people are actually concerned about mps expenses, the budget deficit, the recession, policies for families and the nhs. they care about all of these things more than leaving the eu.

therefore asking "do you want to leave the EU" and getting a response of 60% yes is misleading. you need to ask the question "and how important is that to you" afterwards - the opinion polls show you that it isn't a "must have" for people.

Cleaver

abaxas wrote: »

Quick question, have you ever been the victim of racism?

Just curious.

How is this relevant?

abaxas

Cleaver wrote: »

How is this relevant?

I'm just curious. Since I'm a white 'anglo saxon' I've only been the 'vicim' once.

It was a job in the NHS. Magically someone with less skills and much less experience got the job. Infact I wouldnt have got the job anyways, but since I ahve 'inside info'. It was mad when I found out the person they employed almost had to me non white.

Brought it all home to me.