UKIP's colouring book comment - who votes for these idiots?

Wow Snowbells, no need to stifle debate. Why not let everyone have their say?

Fantastic UKP politicaal broadcst just now.

Focus on Farage who speaks, not some Labour actor luvvie as Labour had in their broadcast.

Farage summed it up

"The reason we call it the People's Army is because it is ordinary people against the political class".

Brilliant.

The people's revolution continues, the people's inurgency rolls on and luvvies tremble in their lair, they're tearing out their hair.

'do you have an actual job?'

Absolutely and a very fulfilling one

'I could write essays like you do'

It is not as easy as it looks. Common sense is not as common as all that.

'Or do you get paid for posting what you post?'

Unfortunately not, I do it for free, for the people's revolution.

The Oxfam quote

"Wealthy elites have co-opted political power to rig the rules of the economic game, undermining democracy"

The Oxfam quote applies to the Western world even more than the third world, because we live in democracies whereas many third world countries may not.

Farage and UKIP put the priorities of British people and British voters above the people across the rest of the world, because they are a political party that is voted for by British voters.

Whereas the luvvies spend ring-fenced billions of British taxpayer money all over the world, to countries that have more millionaires than we do, have space programmes etc and for the Ethiopian Spice Girls and cattle farmers in Colummbia to combat the elite's manmade climate change game while cutting NHS services, life-saving drugs to British people and imposing austerity on British people, UKIP will slash the foreign aid buget by about 10 billion pounds and spend it on the British people since it is their taxpayer money to start with.

The luvvies say it is not politically correct to say that foreign aid will be slashed, they want UKIP to shut up about it, but UKIP is not politically correct and Farage will expose the luvvies over their lavish spending and sometimes waste of hardworking British taxpayers' money. That is why they curse Farage under theri breath, he gives them the first challenge they have ever had.

'Modern usage seems to have evolved the term to the version that I am familiar with, i.e. avoiding insulting or marginalising people.'

Yes but this is like Orwellian Ministry of Truth thought crime. lokk at the original meaning of the term - which meant not challenging the approved political orthodoxy. It has changed over time as the luvvies have sought to narrow any possible divergence to what they consider politically correct thought. It is all about trying to control thought and free expression. Farage has blown their whol game wide open by his straight talking and that is what has shocked them, tat someone had the courage to challenge them, and that is why so many people have started supporting Farage as they see him a s a breath of fresh air against the rest who are "all the same", are "all in it together" and "all speak they same".

It will be political correctness that is the elite's and the luvvies' Achlles Heel, it is that that will end their whole game. They rigged markets, they rigged the system

"Wealthy elites have co-opted political power to rig the rules of the economic game, undermining democracy and creating a world where 85 richest people own the wealth of half of the world's population,

and they tried to control free speech. It will be their rigging of free speech that will bring them down, not the rigging of markets, money and finance. They reached too high, like Icarus they thought they were capable of anything and that the people would put up with everything.

"Wealthy elites have co-opted political power to rig the rules of the economic game, undermining democracy and creating a world where 85 richest people own the wealth of half of the world's population.

"Lord Ashcroft: voters defecting to Ukip because they are fed up with political correctness

Lord Ashcroft spent thousands doing polls and he sussed what is really going on.

Voters are defecting from the Conservatives to Ukip because they are fed up with political correctness, not because of Europe, Lord Ashcroft said today."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/9752197/Lord-Ashcroft-voters-defecting-to-Ukip-because-they-are-fed-up-with-political-correctness.html

"I am also interested in the notion that charities ought not to have political objectives."

It depends what the objectives are and who the luvvies employed at the charities are. Charities should be independent of political bias otherwise they risk losing their good reputation of impartiality and charitable giving. It is similar to how the Queen is above party politics and is supposed to represent the people and not any individual luvvies in political parties.

'Public losing faith in charities after fat-cat revelations and Syria claims '

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10920297/Public-losing-faith-in-charities-after-fat-cat-revelations-and-Syria-claims.html

"How Labour STILL rules the quangos: Party stuffed public bodies with its supporters while in power to establish 'government in exile' which holds sway even today"

CHARITIES
The notorious ‘Quango Queen’ Dame Suzi Leather was accused of using her £80,000-a-year (plus perks) job heading the Charity Commission to wage war on private schools, by attempting to strip some of them of their charitable status.

The former polytechnic lecturer earned huge sums from the public purse. Her senior quango posts included Consumer Focus, Exeter NHS trust, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Food Standards Agency.

Her reign was finally brought to an end in 2012, though last year, she resurfaced as a member of the governing body of the General Medical Council.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551264/How-Labour-STILL-rules-quangos-Party-stuffed-public-bodies-supporters-power-establish-government-exile-holds-sway-today.html

Charities must always serve the people and must avoid being staffed by Labour luvvies or amu other luvvies. it is vital that they retain the respect of the public and are not seen as politically biased in any way.

'Are all politically correct statements by definition wrong?'

Yes, in that if they are "correct", they disallow disagreement and say that any challenge is "wrong". There is no "right" and "wrong" opinion, there are just diverse opinions which should be put to the people in a democratic vote.

I might agree with some "politically correct" views, but that doesn't mean I think that views that differ to mine are "incorrect".

It is all about freedom, liberty of expression and respect for the people. No elite luvvie Oxbridge political class has the right to determine what is allowable and not allowable to think.

This is from Oxfam

"Wealthy elites have co-opted political power to rig the rules of the economic game, undermining democracy and creating a world where 85 richest people own the wealth of half of the world's population, worldwide development organisation Oxfam warns in a report published today.

Working For the Few, published ahead of this week's World Economic Forum in Davos, details the pernicious impact that widening inequality is having in both developed countries and in developing countries, helping the richest undermine democratic processes and insist on policies that promote their interests at the expense of everyone else."

www.oxfam.org.uk/blogs/2014/01/rigged-rules-mean-economic-growth-is-increasingly-winner-takes-all-for-rich-elites

What we are seeing all over Europe is a right wing challenge to this, a challenge to the Oxbridge, College of Europe, metropolitan elites and their rigged games.

The Oxbridge PPE Labour party was never a challenge to the elites, it was part of them, the Labour unions never challenged the elites and did not win back rights for workers as zero hour contracts proliferated. All of the left has abandoned the people.

Now the right has challneged the elites. UKIP is now the most working class party. They are not like the Greens who want zero and negative growth. UKIP want booming growth and prosperity and jobs for working people, but they challenge the liberal elites over climate change, foreign aid, the EU, immigration, national sovereignty, political correctness and much else. The elite were never challenged by Labour, but now they are in a real fight.

Are all politically correct statements by definition wrong?

That definition in the Oxford Englis dictionary is wrong because it is too narrow. It is the definition the luvvies like to use.

The term "political correctness" was originally used by socialist groups as a term that mocked hardline Stalinist communists with whom thy disagreed. "Political correctness" was the political line of the Stalinists and the socialists mocked it.

"Political correctness" is a view that is "correct" i.e allowed or wished for politically. So it is not now politically correct to say that manmade climate change is bunkum, that some charidees have political rather than charitable objectives, that smoking in pubs should be brought back, that postal voting can lead to some fraudlent votes in some cases etc etc

Those have nothing to do with marginalizing groups, they are all about challenging orthodoxy and daring to sy the Emperor has no clothes.

'you seem to worship Farage to the point of obsession'

I don't worship him because sometimes I have my doubts whether he is for real and whether he wil cave in and accept a Lordship and go away and give the luvvies an easy time. He keeps saying he will stand down if he loses South Thanet (which would be the luvvies' dream) and that he will not lead UKIP and the people in 2020.

Wil he cave in, will he luvvies get to him, will they offer him a Lordshipand will he abandon the people and join the luvvies? I don't know, only time wil tell.

But, I along with millions of people, can only hope he is for real and will bring change for the people and end the luvvies' game.

I don't worship him, he says some things that are wrong, but I hope he does well and gives hope to the downtrodden people and ends the metropolitan elite's game.

'How are you defining 'politically correct'?'

Politically correct means following the Establishment line, not daring to oppose the orthodoxy. On nearly every issue, Farage challenges political correctness and sticks two fingers up to the Establishment

It is about freedom, free expression, courage, straight talking and common sense. That is what Farage represents and that is the opposite of what the luvvies represent.

'He has spent all his life as a privileged member of the elite.'

They don't like him. They want him out. He is giving them nightmares, with him they know their whole game is up. They mock him, call him racist and every name under the sun. He is not invited to their clubs, they sneer at him in their TV interviews and they called his supporters "fruitcakes", "looneys" and "closet racists". He is not one of them because he has dared to challenge them. Do you realise what a huge challenge to their whole game it is to say that he will immediately repeal their Climate Change Act?

They are in panic mode. Teenage whizzkids from Oxbridge are on overtime and all sorts of bonuses try and stop Farage. They have never been in a fight like this ever. The people are challenging the whole game.

It doesn't matter how posh he is. What matters is whose interests does he have at heart - the people's or the luvvies'? And the fact that the luvvies are so panicked and so determined to end his challenge to them shows you that he has the people's inteests at heart.

Five years ago, UKIP was on 3% and the luvvies mocked them, now UKIP are on 15% and the luvvies are in panic mode. They are no longer laughing, now they are praying, the people are cheering and the Bullingdon Club is cursing.

'but the rest of his party are not?'

Too any of them lack courage,they arepolitically correct, they are afraid to challenge consensus and that way lies defeat. the luvvies know that they can defeat anyone who lacks courage. The luvvies know that they cannot defeat Farage. that is why the luvvies have resorted to turning their Establishment comedians against him, to try and mock him and seek approval of the people that way,by using slebs, pop stars, charidees and comedians to turn the people against him. But the luvvies from Oxbridge underestimate ordinary people, the metropolitan elite sneer at ordinary people and they will find out that ordinary people are not that easy to fool.

The people's revolution continues, try as hard as the luvvies might, they know they are in a real political fight and that is why they are in such a fright.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that someone from Farage's background is actually for the people. He has spent all his life as a privileged member of the elite. What did he ever do for the people when he was a Tory and a London broker? His lifestyle now is one of the political elite, he's hardly down with the people!

I just don't see the appeal of the same kind of posh, old, private school boorish bloke. He's not exactly a radical departure from our typical politicians.

'So Farage isn't a luvvie then? Is that what you're saying?'

Absolutely not because a luvvie by definition is politically correct and Farage is the antithesis of political corrdctness which is why he has the highest approval ratig of any British politician with the people.

Farage is the scoure of the luvvies and that is why they fear him.

In tonight's debate ,they will all unite against him, but he has no fear, he won't be silenced by the luvvies, because he knows that the people are cheering him on and the Bullingdon Club are cheering the luvvies and the Oxbridge PPEs on.

Suanne Moore in the Guardian is no fan of UKIP, but she gives good reports of what is happening with the people.

"We are in Broadstairs, in South Thanet, where Farage is standing and I have met a good few “Alisons” – decent people who are veering towards Ukip. I wish I could say they were all bonkers and racist, but they aren’t. I will say the party they are voting for is."

It’s all a lot more complicated than that. I come from Suffolk, so I feel in my bones how far away psychologically these places are from the governing state of mind that is London. Their feeling of abandonment is not conjured out of thin air, and it is no good to just say their emotions are imaginary."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/01/nigel-farage-needs-thanet-much-more-than-thanet-needs-nigel-farage

It doesn't matter how rich you are, where you went to school or how privileged you are, all that matters is whose side are you on - the people's or the elite's and the luvvies'.

Farage is with the people which is why UKIP is now the most working class party and Labour is the liberal, metropolitan elite, Oxbridge party.

So Farage isn't a luvvie then? Is that what you're saying? Or, he is, but the rest of his party are not? Your post, whilst impressively stirring and enthusiastic, was not very clear.

There is an epic battle going on. The people against the elites, the people against the luvvies and Farage is leading the people. Our entire future depends on the outcome. The luvvies are praying that Farage will lose in South Thanet, because if he does ten the people's rebellion will be over and the elites and luvvies will breathe a sigh of relief and carry on as per usual.

Lots of UKIP's other spokespeople are not very good, all too politically correct, all lacking the courage to take the luvvies on. The Deputy, Paul Nuttall, is good. But it is Farage who has driven fear into the hearts of the luvvies because he has no fear and is not politically correct. They have no answer to Farage and that is why they are praying that he will lose in South Thanet. With 00 Farages, UKIP would be unstoppable, but a Farage only comes along once in a while. If the luvvies beat Farage, they will beat the people.

It's not over yet. There are people all over the country cheering Farage on, and the Bullingdon Club, Oxbridge, the EU and the College of Europe are cheering the luvvies on.

But Nigel Farage is the son of a stockbroker who went to a private school. He then worked as a commodities trader in London for many years. His four children all went/go to private school. How is he not as privileged, out of touch etc as any other politician? The only difference I can see is that he didn't go to university, but it doesn't seem to have harmed his privileged lifestyle much!