New UKIP leader

[Nearly Sane]

He would gave got on well with Hitler!

That's just pointless hyperbole.

[Nearly Sane]

Heereeerrrrrre's Paul...

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11/28/the-extreme-right-wing-views-of-new-ukip-leader-paul-nuttall

to be fair, I don't think these  are extreme right wing views (though in the main I disagree with them), but it was the best summary of his positions I found.

[Harrowby Hall]

He is making a bid for the tribal working class. He has clearly studied the result of the last election ...

[Nearly Sane]

He is making a bid for the tribal working class. He has clearly studied the result of the last election ...

To be fair to him, I don't think this is a triangulation, they appear to be pretty much what he believes.

[floo]

His views are pandering to those who are unpleasant bigots.

[Aruntraveller]

His views are pandering to those who are unpleasant bigots.

Well yes and no. I don't think it is useful to brand a whole bunch of voters as unpleasant bigots. I know someone who votes for UKIP who is in many ways the nicest guy you could meet - he votes for them on what he sees happening in his local neighbourhood where a large number of Eastern Europeans have moved in and have disrupted the local community in negative ways. That this is down to the failure of government at various levels leads to dissatisfaction with politics as usual and allows UKIP to gain credibility.

My friend is neither racist nor prejudiced in any other way as far as I can see - he is fed up with a system which appears to him to disregard his and his families well being. I could list the issues that affect him, which in themselves are relatively minor, but it is the build up of resentment that is causing the problem and a lot of mainstream politicians are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge it.

[floo]

Why would anyone who isn't prejudiced in some way vote for UKIP?

[Aruntraveller]

Why would anyone who isn't prejudiced in some way vote for UKIP?

For the reasons given above. They see their area decline in all sorts of different ways due to a sudden influx of people from elsewhere.

An example - my friends mother is an amputee and he needs access for his car to get her out and about to Drs, shopping, visiting family - you know ordinary life activities, and he frequently has problems with a white van left parked outside his house which is used to ferry workers to a well known Sports clothing discounter in our area. No matter what he has tried - council, police, putting his own fake bollards up nothing stops this van. Now it is not racist or bigoted to want access in this case, the fact that he has been let down by various areas of civic responsibility makes him listen to people who offer an alternative and he maybe screens out the racist stuff or disregards it in some way. But you have to understand that some people are not served by the current system and they will turn to others who seem to offer solutions. That they don't is kind of beside the point because my friend is already at the end of his tether - so much so that he is thinking of indulging in a bit of petty criminal activity just so that he can ensure that he can get his mother out of the house.

[Sebastian Toe]

For the reasons given above. They see their area decline in all sorts of different ways due to a sudden influx of people from elsewhere.

An example - my friends mother is an amputee and he needs access for his car to get her out and about to Drs, shopping, visiting family - you know ordinary life activities, and he frequently has problems with a white van left parked outside his house which is used to ferry workers to a well known Sports clothing discounter in our area. No matter what he has tried - council, police, putting his own fake bollards up nothing stops this van. Now it is not racist or bigoted to want access in this case, the fact that he has been let down by various areas of civic responsibility makes him listen to people who offer an alternative and he maybe screens out the racist stuff or disregards it in some way. But you have to understand that some people are not served by the current system and they will turn to others who seem to offer solutions. That they don't is kind of beside the point because my friend is already at the end of his tether - so much so that he is thinking of indulging in a bit of petty criminal activity just so that he can ensure that he can get his mother out of the house.

Can't your friend apply for a disability parking space to be placed outside his mothers house?

[Aruntraveller]

Can't your friend apply for a disability parking space to be placed outside his mothers house?

Declined as he has a drive. It is the driveway that is blocked frequently. And (as I do go down this road on my way to another friends house) - it is often difficult to find a parking space anywhere on the road.

Anyway we digress, my basic contention, rather as with Mr Trump' supporters, you cannot dismiss a whole swathe of voters as racist or whatever.

It may give certain people a glow of self-righteousness to proclaim their moral superiority but it doesn't help defeat the malign forces at work. In my opinion it helps them rather than suppresses them. Once you've come out and said you are racist it's a sort of full stop. It ends any meaningful discussion which may lead to a person thinking more deeply about the issues. It leads to more of an "OK you think that about me why should I pay any further attention to your comments" reaction.

[wigginhall]

I guess UKIP voters don't mind the NHS being dismantled, advocated by the new leader.    Ah well, we'll be white, poor and ill.

[Hope]

Heereeerrrrrre's Paul...

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11/28/the-extreme-right-wing-views-of-new-ukip-leader-paul-nuttall

It is interesting how the article suggests that he will attract Labour supporters.  Certainly here in Wales, it seems to have been the Welsh Labour support who migrated to UKIP in recent elections, as opposed to the Tory support.

[Hope]

Why would anyone who isn't prejudiced in some way vote for UKIP?

For much the reasons that Trent outlines.  Large chunks of the electorate feel that both the Labour and Tory parties have abandoned them (especially true in the South Wales Valleys where staunch Labour supporters are asking when the Labour-led government in Cardiff are actually going to do anything to improve their - often - sorry conditions).

[Nearly Sane]

It is interesting how the article suggests that he will attract Labour supporters.  Certainly here in Wales, it seems to have been the Welsh Labour support who migrated to UKIP in recent elections, as opposed to the Tory support.

The article says that us what he is aiming for not that he will actually attract them.

[Brownie]

Trent, I wonder if your friend has actually asked the driver/users of the white van to park somewhere else and given his reasons?  It's amazing how effective a simple request can be.  The sports clothing workers are human beings too and would probably want to oblige.

[jeremyp]

Anyway we digress, my basic contention, rather as with Mr Trump' supporters, you cannot dismiss a whole swathe of voters as racist or whatever.

Actually, you can. You can dismiss them as racist - or more accurately as enabling racism - but that is a strategy that only entrenches their opinions. The ultimate objective is to persuade them to vote for more rational choices and you aren't going to do that by insulting them or trying to shut them up.

[Brownie]

jeremyp:  The ultimate objective is to persuade them to vote for more rational choices and you aren't going to do that by insulting them or trying to shut them up.

That is sound.

[Anchorman]

Apparently, the latest UKIP numpty in chief is as barking as his predecessors.... (According to the Daily Diana, anyway.....) http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/736427/Paul-Nuttall-UKIP-demands-scottish-parliament-out-house-of-commons-nicola-sturgeon

[Nearly Sane]

Actually, you can. You can dismiss them as racist - or more accurately as enabling racism - but that is a strategy that only entrenches their opinions. The ultimate objective is to persuade them to vote for more rational choices and you aren't going to do that by insulting them or trying to shut them up.

no, you aren't but you are wrong if you think they are all racist, and if you are merely lying to them but think they are racist, it is unlikely to work.

[jeremyp]

Apparently, the latest UKIP numpty in chief is as barking as his predecessors.... (According to the Daily Diana, anyway.....) http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/736427/Paul-Nuttall-UKIP-demands-scottish-parliament-out-house-of-commons-nicola-sturgeon

Actually, ignoring the rhetoric of the Express, the idea sounds like a reasonably serious suggestion.

[jeremyp]

no, you aren't but you are wrong if you think they are all racist,

That's why I wrote "more accurately, enabling racism".

and if you are merely lying to them but think they are racist, it is unlikely to work.

If somebody is racist, you can either try to shut them down completely or try to persuade them that their views are wrong. I would suggest that, in the run  up to Brexit and the US Presidential election, too much of the former was done snd not enough off the latter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, ignoring the rhetoric of the Express, the idea sounds like a reasonably serious suggestion.

Nut tall should have the balls to name his party what it is ...the English Independence Party.
All warmed up EVEL served up as innovation.

[Anchorman]

Actually, ignoring the rhetoric of the Express, the idea sounds like a reasonably serious suggestion.

Sorry, Jeremyp;
It may well - on the surface - sound like  a reasonable suggestion (reasonable? UKIP? er.......)
However the UKIP 'policy' on devolution is even more elusive than the rest of their mouthings.
In the past five years they've changed it so often that even their sole rep in Scotland - the completely pathetic Coburn - is lost.
As late as lAast week he was advocating the dissolution of ALL devolved authorities in the so-called UK, and all power being returned to Westminster, the regions (in which this so-called 'Scot' included Scotland, by the way) would be governed by secretaries of state appointed by Westminster....as it was (supposed) to be before 1999.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, Jeremyp;
It may well - on the surface - sound like  a reasonable suggestion (reasonable? UKIP? er.......)
However the UKIP 'policy' on devolution is even more elusive than the rest of their mouthings.
In the past five years they've changed it so often that even their sole rep in Scotland - the completely pathetic Coburn - is lost.
As late as lAast week he was advocating the dissolution of ALL devolved authorities in the so-called UK, and all power being returned to Westminster, the regions (in which this so-called 'Scot' included Scotland, by the way) would be governed by secretaries of state appointed by Westminster....as it was (supposed) to be before 1999.

That UKIP are inconsistent on thus doesn't mean that Nuttall's suggestion does not have merits. It would create some consistency at least in approach and gets rids of the HoL.

[Anchorman]

Oh, I agree it has some merit, NS. And it may well be UKIP policy for ten minutes - until they change it - again. A fully federal 'UK' is the only real alternative to the present situation, if Westminster wants to avoid the increasing mess in which they find themselves. To ignore this possibility plays into the hands of those advocating the break up of what they/we see as an increasingly moribund union; whether that break up is swift or long and drawn out is the only question.