to aak UKIP supporters if you would have voted for the Nazis too?

[wigglylines]

The brilliant Michael Rosen on UKIP.

l“I sometimes fear that people might think that fascism arrives in fancy dress worn by grotesques and monsters as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis. Fascism arrives as your friend. It will restore your honour, make you feel proud, protect your house, give you a job, clean up the neighbourhood, remind you of how great you once were, clear out the venal and the corrupt, remove anything you feel is unlike you…It doesn’t walk in saying, “Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution.”

Godwin's law.

I don't know anyone who doesn't want the HRA act repealed! It's a charter for criminals, what rights does it give law-abiding people that they didn't have before it was introduced?
The same rights as you have. Oh, and I don't want it repealed. Neither does anybody I know, but that's because I only allow nice, kind, sensible and intelligent people in my house.

Compulsory abortion of Down's Syndrome babies is not their policy, although it is the opinion of one of their prominent people.

And who the bloody hell do you think will be writing the party policy if they do get elected?

Doesn't Godwin's law refer to people dragging the Nazis into an argument? Rather than starting off with them?

It's already started.

Anyone thinks there's no parallels between ukip and the nazi party needs to go and do some research about the history and motives of the nazi party and how they were able to get to the point where the populace allowed millions of their own to be murdered.

I'm heartened to see that a lot of ukip posters around here have been defaced and I live in an area of poverty with high levels of immigration.

I am perfectly well aware of what the Nazi party did and how they got there - but I think most people are able to separate the main policies of UKIP and the Nazi party of 80 years ago. Mooncup's earlier post is more accurate - "A better comparison would be a far-right regime such as Mussolini's Italy those in Latin America in the 1980s". If we're going to draw historical parallels let's at least choose the right country/era.

news.sky.com/story/1259558/ukip-set-for-comfortable-win-in-euro-elections

It would be interesting if it wasn't so scary.

It will only be scary if the other parties continue to ignore what the voters are saying.

" A immigrant rapist couldn't be deported because the fat cats in Brussels thought he had a right to live here...because he had a cat"

fascinating! Have you got a link to that story please 'happy-go- lucky girl'?

In Finland, 57% of people said they do not trust politicians; in Sweden 59%; Denmark 61% and Germany 70%.

Voter dissatisfaction is strongest in France, where 78% of people said they do not trust politicians, leading to record levels of support for Marine le Pen's Front National.

In short, the European elections are likely to result in a wave of success for minority and protest parties; and a massive slap in the face for Europe's political leaders

Scary.

even those who have worked for it, deem it to be wrong.

May I ask Labour supporters if they would have supported a Stalinist or Maoist government? 'Cause it's all the same kind of thing, isn't it? Left-wingedness.

Are new labour very left wing? I don't think they are that left wing anymore; more just slightly left of centre. The lib dems should be quite left, but they just seem to be the Tory 'Churchill nodding dogs' nowadays.

I think that it is scary if they win this time around.
But they need to , to wake up the other parties.

The other parties have been complacent, and the shut down of proper debate about the numbers of immigrants has got to where the country is today.

It is a lesson to politicians and individuals that ignoring concerns of people makes a problem worse not better.

Then the main political parties need to get their fingers out of their collective backsides and start listening to voters - no good wringing hands over UKIP et al but not actually doing anything to rectify things.

When you say 'listening to the voters,' what do you mean?

Most voters I know are bothered about things like proper provision for disabled people and helping make immigration easier. That's entirely anecdotal, obviously, and heavily skewed by the fact a lot of the people I know are immigrants or are working in HE, where we often struggle to get good speakers/researchers because of UKBA. But that's kinda the point: aren't there lots of different voters wanting different things?

We're very lucky to have so many immigrants - the NHS would fold without them, and they make a net financial contribution, too - there are lots of people who are happy with those things.

And YY to the HRA. A immigrant rapist couldn't be deported because the fat cats in Brussels thought he had a right to live here...because he had a cat.

That is total fiction from beginning to end. Look it up.

I mean - getting out into communities, and finding out what it is they are not doing that UKIP is. I have no idea why people are voting for UKIP - I certainly don't - but it shouldn't be outwith the realms of political possibilities to listen to the voters (given that's what they are supposed to do as elected members).

I'm always wary of Godwin's Law, but it does appear to me that the idea of shutting the disabled away in "congregate communities" has chilling echoes of events in Germany in the 1930s.

Or the Camphill villages...? Hardly chilling echoes of 1930s Germany.

We managed perfectly well before the Human Rights Act was passed in 1997. It's a sort of religious document, in that it's so vague and open to interpretation, that depending on who is doing the interpreting you could rule anything illegal.

Basically instead of following the laws passed by Parliament (which while not perfect is at least elected and removeable), judges (almost completely unaccountable) make their own law.

You do have to be a special sort of twat to suggest that repealing the HRA is akin to Naziism.

UKIP do attract some pretty nasty people, but so do the Tories.

There is a lot of hysterical shrieking about things that they either never said or did say (but usually this is twisted and misrepresented) and have repudiated.

E.g., the 'congregate communities'.

disabilitynewsservice.com/2013/05/ukip-set-for-radical-change-on-disability/

"But UKIP has now appointed a disabled former Conservative party member, Star Etheridge, as its new disability spokeswoman.

In an interview with Disability News Service (DNS), she distanced herself from some of her party’s previous disability policies, and said the new version would be a “radical change” and about “common sense”, compared with the 2010 manifesto.

She suggested that leaving the European Union would bring huge savings, some of which a UKIP administration might use to reinstate the Independent Living Fund, which is set to close in 2015.

The 2010 UKIP manifesto called for key benefits such as incapacity benefit and jobseeker’s allowance to be replaced by a single, flat rate “basic cash benefit”, set at the same weekly level as jobseeker’s allowance.

But she said: “Definitely it is not something I would be putting forward. Being disabled is more expensive.”

The last manifesto included few disability policies, but called for a rethink on inclusive education and declared its support for “congregate” communities – self-contained “villages” for people with learning difficulties, such as the Ravenswood site in Berkshire, run by the charity Norwood."

And the SNP (disclaimer: some may disagree)

I would have voted National Socialist German Workers in January 1933 - they were promising massive infrastructure investment, creating jobs in a time of high unemployment, and promising increased pride in the country. Also jobs. Did I mention jobs? And look at the name: I'm proudly German (for the purposes of this illustration), I consider myself socialist and a worker. Jobs - don't forget the jobs.

The ruling elite ignored and/or derided the NSDAP as a minor party who could be controlled. The people saw a party leader they recognised as sharing their experiences, wishes and fears. And around a third of them voted for him.

The parallels are striking, though not for the reasons some claim.

Don't just shout that UKIP are crap - point out the good alternatives. Show that their plans won't work, that their fears are unfounded, and so on, and do so in calm detail. Then show them who they should vote for instead, if it's change they're after.

I don't want to be represented by UKIP. But their detractors don't speak for me either, and the smear tactics are driving voters towards them, not away.

Please vote Green. It isn't a wasted vote.

I would have voted National Socialist German Workers in January 1933 - they were promising massive infrastructure investment, creating jobs in a time of high unemployment, and promising increased pride in the country. Also jobs. Did I mention jobs? And look at the name: I'm proudly German (for the purposes of this illustration), I consider myself socialist and a worker. Jobs - don't forget the jobs.

The ruling elite ignored and/or derided the NSDAP as a minor party who could be controlled. The people saw a party leader they recognised as sharing their experiences, wishes and fears. And around a third of them voted for him.

The parallels are striking, though not for the reasons some claim.

Don't just shout that UKIP are crap - point out the good alternatives. Show that their plans won't work, that their fears are unfounded, and so on, and do so in calm detail. Then show them who they should vote for instead, if it's change they're after.

I don't want to be represented by UKIP. But their detractors don't speak for me either, and the smear tactics are driving voters towards them, not away.

Please vote Green. It isn't a wasted vote.