Well Sir Thomas More managed to "make up" Utopia five hundred years ago, so apparently one can "make it up". And "left wing HQ"? Seriously?
Left-wing HQ - ie the 'Powers That Be'. Their job is to brainwash the gullible... works with some people, but not nearly as many as they'd like.
Hence the daily attempts to discredit UKIP by shouting 'Racist!' in the run-up to the European elections. Just a coincidence? Don't remember it happening a year ago, do you?
Fortunately, people can see through it these days.
Left-wing HQ - ie the 'Powers That Be'. Their job is to brainwash the gullible... works with some people, but not nearly as many as they'd like.
Hence the daily attempts to discredit UKIP by shouting 'Racist!' in the run-up to the European elections. Just a coincidence? Don't remember it happening a year ago, do you?
Fortunately, people can see through it these days.
I've seen many attacks on UKIP coming from right wing sources - Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems. Are they all resident in "Left Wing HQ"?
Lib Dems are right wing, are they? Lovely stuff. You'd best let their voters know, they'd be mortified. Oh, wait, there aren't any, are there...
I suspect one of the reasons they've haemorrhaged voters is because, like Labour, they decided to lurch to the right in order to try and win middle England. I can vividly recall plenty of outrage from left-wing voters when the Lib Dems allianced themselves to the Tories. Labour has the same problem - a once left-wing party moved to the right and now continues to try and mop up left wing support due, in the main, on there being no alternative (and its past as a left wing party). Thatcher did say her proudest achievement was New Labour...
In reality, the UK offers various degrees of right wing parties; the Tories and UKIP are, at least, unashamed in their principles. Labour and the Lib Dems like to rest on their left wing histories whilst espousing centre-right policies.
Labour and Lib Dems are right wing ? What are you on ??.
They are right wing. I suggest you look up their policies or, if that's too taxing, their place on any current political compass. I'm sorry the last twenty years seems to have bypassed you...
Labour and Lib Dems are right wing ? What are you on ??.
Are you one of those traditionalist and stubborn people who always votes Labour no matter what they do and is in denial that they are actually the Tory-Lite party and very much right wing?
And again this is why Nigel Farage is striking a chord with what many people think and have experienced.
Living in London especially, from about 2005/6 it was extraordinarily noticeable that there was far less English being heard on public transport, particularly on buses where there is more conversation and mobile phone use. I don't object to that ordinarily as, living in the capital city, that's expected amongst the many tourists who visit, however, from that time about seven to eight years ago it became very alienating for English speakers and gave the impression that there was a segregation taking place.
When people who have been born in a country begin to feel alienated because the native language has noticeably diminished it's very understandable that they should feel dispossessed, uncomfortable and awkward.
I could take people to parts of London that are so heavily populated with those who have English as a second language there is the perception that this is not England.
That's what Nigel Farage is highlighting and those who've experienced it will think, "Yes, this guy knows what I'm feeling".
Well said. But it's something the "liberal" media will not acknowledge - at least not in public.
I could take people to parts of London that are so heavily populated with those who have English as a second language there is the perception that this is not England
You'd have hated it in the 1670s then, with the flood of immigration of French Huguenots. They settled all over the UK, but primarily in London - Shoreditch was full of 'em, all speaking their funny Froggy language.
And you'd have hated the Indian immigration in the late 1600s and then the mid-1800s... the African immigration in the mid-1700s... the German immigration in the 1850s... the Russian Jews in the early 1900s... and don't get me started on the Vikings and the Normans...
You'd have hated it in the 1670s then, with the flood of immigration of French Huguenots. They settled all over the UK, but primarily in London - Shoreditch was full of 'em, all speaking their funny Froggy language.
And you'd have hated the Indian immigration in the late 1600s and then the mid-1800s... the African immigration in the mid-1700s... the German immigration in the 1850s... the Russian Jews in the early 1900s... and don't get me started on the Vikings and the Normans...
They were invited by a two-bit fanatic called Cromwell.
You'd have hated it in the 1670s then, with the flood of immigration of French Huguenots. They settled all over the UK, but primarily in London - Shoreditch was full of 'em, all speaking their funny Froggy language.
And you'd have hated the Indian immigration in the late 1600s and then the mid-1800s... the African immigration in the mid-1700s... the German immigration in the 1850s... the Russian Jews in the early 1900s... and don't get me started on the Vikings and the Normans...
Totally irrelevant . These so called immigrations you speak of involved much smaller numbers and one nationality at a time . For a long time now we are seeing mass immigration from literally dozens of countries all at the same time . Big difference .
Why is it irrelevant? Ennerjee said "I could take people to parts of London that are so heavily populated with those who have English as a second language there is the perception that this is not England" - I was pointing out that there is absolutely nothing new about this. It's been happening for hundreds of years.
Totally irrelevant . These so called immigrations you speak of involved much smaller numbers and one nationality at a time . For a long time now we are seeing mass immigration from literally dozens of countries all at the same time . Big difference .
...and there is also a difference between accepting political refugees as opposed to opportunist migrants...
Why is it irrelevant? Ennerjee said "I could take people to parts of London that are so heavily populated with those who have English as a second language there is the perception that this is not England" - I was pointing out that there is absolutely nothing new about this. It's been happening for hundreds of years.
...and do you also have the transcripts of how happy native Londoners were to have this influx of migrants / refugees? Also, I believe that during the periods that you describe it was down to the Crown to decide who came to the country. How does that differ with the present day....
Comments
Left-wing HQ - ie the 'Powers That Be'. Their job is to brainwash the gullible... works with some people, but not nearly as many as they'd like.
Hence the daily attempts to discredit UKIP by shouting 'Racist!' in the run-up to the European elections. Just a coincidence? Don't remember it happening a year ago, do you?
Fortunately, people can see through it these days.
Tell us about the UKIP extremists.
I've seen many attacks on UKIP coming from right wing sources - Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems. Are they all resident in "Left Wing HQ"?
Lib Dems are right wing, are they? Lovely stuff. You'd best let their voters know, they'd be mortified. Oh, wait, there aren't any, are there...
Why?
UKIP do it themselves.
The entire party? What have they done/said/planned that makes them extremists?
The entire party? Not necessarily. But they contain people who espouse extreme beliefs (anti gay, religious mania, xenophobia etc...).
I suspect one of the reasons they've haemorrhaged voters is because, like Labour, they decided to lurch to the right in order to try and win middle England. I can vividly recall plenty of outrage from left-wing voters when the Lib Dems allianced themselves to the Tories. Labour has the same problem - a once left-wing party moved to the right and now continues to try and mop up left wing support due, in the main, on there being no alternative (and its past as a left wing party). Thatcher did say her proudest achievement was New Labour...
In reality, the UK offers various degrees of right wing parties; the Tories and UKIP are, at least, unashamed in their principles. Labour and the Lib Dems like to rest on their left wing histories whilst espousing centre-right policies.
Who are we talking about again, UKIP members or Muslims?? Oops, I can't say that, can I, that's racist.
Cheers buddy, you've made my day with that one!
Labour and Lib Dems are right wing ? What are you on ??.
They are right wing. I suggest you look up their policies or, if that's too taxing, their place on any current political compass. I'm sorry the last twenty years seems to have bypassed you...
Just because they are not as to the right as you are, doesn't mean they are not right wing. Hope this helps.
A thousand times this! Not being extreme enough for some right wingers does not a left wing party make.
Are you one of those traditionalist and stubborn people who always votes Labour no matter what they do and is in denial that they are actually the Tory-Lite party and very much right wing?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/UK_political_compass.PNG
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif
Well said. But it's something the "liberal" media will not acknowledge - at least not in public.
And you'd have hated the Indian immigration in the late 1600s and then the mid-1800s... the African immigration in the mid-1700s... the German immigration in the 1850s... the Russian Jews in the early 1900s... and don't get me started on the Vikings and the Normans...
They were invited by a two-bit fanatic called Cromwell.
Totally irrelevant . These so called immigrations you speak of involved much smaller numbers and one nationality at a time . For a long time now we are seeing mass immigration from literally dozens of countries all at the same time . Big difference .
...and there is also a difference between accepting political refugees as opposed to opportunist migrants...
...and do you also have the transcripts of how happy native Londoners were to have this influx of migrants / refugees? Also, I believe that during the periods that you describe it was down to the Crown to decide who came to the country. How does that differ with the present day....
What is this "Peoples Army"?