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

[SnowBells]

Link to BBC article here

If you don't want 16-17 year old teens to vote because they've been brainwashed by colouring books and later on even university research projects - does that mean you don't want the young to have a vote at all? So at some point, you will only grant pensioners a vote?

Because - you know - all the young ones are tainted now. They should have no say at all.

Well, let me tell you... Ms. Suzanne Evans, spokeswoman for the UKIP party. It is the future of these young people you're playing with. They have to live in this world with the mistakes made by previous generations long after you've gone. Because of this, I think there should be a system whereby the vote of the young counts more.

Currently, too many pensioners and soon-to-be pensioners have too much say due to the sheer number of people in that age group. They are the ones shaping the world of tomorrow - a world they are unlikely to live in for long. Hence, politics tends to be a lot about short-term benefits rather than taking a real long-term view.

After that comment by UKIP, I really think that whoever votes for them must be a bigger idiot than their spokespeople.

The whole country had to put up with the identikit luvvies from Oxbridge, the same PPEs in both parties, and we all had to vote for the leats worst luvvies. Hardly any of us really liked them, but we all had no choice.

Now everything has changed, the luvvies have lost it and our politics is wide open. There are people's insurgencies everywhere. There is the SNP in Scotland laying waste to the "Red Tories", the Greens are picking up votes and the People's Army is wreaking havoc in both Tory and Labour heartlands.

People in Scotland are passionate about politics, the Greens are passionate and the People's Army's middle name is passion. The only people without any passion are the luvvies from Oxbridge, spinners the lot of them. They are looking lost as the people have abandoned them and joined the insurgency.

Dear Mumsnet.

Please can I have a 'scroll past claig's post' button. It's impossible to read the thread otherwise.

Thanks awfully

Best etc.

claig
Yes but I don't quote from raw data, I post quotes from journalists and commentators and I run my own business, so I am the boss and can do what I like when I like.

And I told you exactly why quoting from journalists (or commentators - not a big difference between them these days) is not right. So your answer, just like many others, is flawed.

You can google as many articles as you like - but for each article that supports your argument there will be another that doesn't.

The country is lucky you're not a teacher, claig. As many have already mentioned, the way you try to 'debate' with us and 'teach' us about your great party makes us not want to read what you write. You're actually doing the opposite from what you want to achieve - you make it seem like UKIP supporters are, in fact, mad. You know, like those overzealous nutters who try to convert you to their religion!

Have you ever heard that the best teachers are not those who preach, but those who encourage thoughts and discussions? They don't do that by dominating the discussion. They do that by asking short and concise questions that make people think and draw their own conclusions - the result of which is more powerful than any lecture could ever be.

Farage said something like "They are all the same. For some unfathomable reason, I just can't understand, they all want to spend billions of taxpayer money on foreign aid".

Oh my. He's even more of an idiot than I thought. Is his only knowledge of how politics works based on Daily Mail articles? Seriously? He's got such an inward looking view of politics, it's unbelievable.

Everyone should really know this by now, but "foreign aid" is a highly strategic move in international relations. Yes, international relations is part of politics, Mr Farage... something you're not very good at.

This might sound cold, but for better understanding and to simplify this, I'll compare this to what companies do. Large companies very often reserve large sums for charities - in fact, many even have entire departments dedicated to this activity. They don't do this for purely altruistic reasons. Oftentimes, this may actually be money that could have been spent on marketing / PR, and it works in a not too dissimilar fashion. The charity repays the generosity by printing the company's logo on banners, brochures, etc., and inviting employees to charity events and so forth, sort of sending a message that - hey - this company is doing sth. good, making the company more likeable.

Foreign aid works like that in that it seems to buy you more clout on the international stage. Hence, why China was first viewed with suspicion when it gave out foreign aid (because, surely, they might want sth. in return?). It's also a psychological thing... because if Britain one day needs help (you never know) it's better to be known as someone who gave to others previously. It's a psychological thing - there are plenty of studies that show that people (and animals - it's really a basic / primal thing) who only take but don't give at all eventually get cast aside by the wider community. Now, extrapolate that to the international stage.

As said, this is very simplistic - the reality is much more complex. Farage doesn't care about international relations. He wants Britain to remain an island even in the political game.

But I'm not a teacher and I'm not teaching just as Farage isn't teaching and is giving a political opinion when he says that "they are all the same" and that "the politically correct political class" ignores the wishes and interests of the people. That is a political opinion.

Your debating question in the OP was

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

and I have given my opinion that the 1 in 7 of the electorate who vote for 'these idiots' do so because they disagree with you opinions. I explained why not giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds is a valid political position and of course is one that has held in our own national elections and I explained why I think that Clegg, who knows that the older generation won't fall for his chirpy sales chatter, wants to only grant the population a referendum on the EU if 16 and 17 year olds participate.

'Oh my. He's even more of an idiot than I thought.'

Farage is no idiot and the entire "politically correct political class" fear him and what he represensts (i.e. the people).

'Everyone should really know this by now, but "foreign aid" is a highly strategic move in international relations. Yes, international relations is part of politics, Mr Farage... something you're not very good at.'

Is that what the £4m for the Ethiopian Spice Girls was for when for £4m they could have dredged the Somerset Levels and prevented the homes and businesses of hardworking British taxpayers from being flooded and the insurance payouts running into millions?

'The billions Britain pours into foreign aid are actually doing harm by making corruption worse in many parts of the world, a damning report reveals.

It says projects funded by UK cash are increasing opportunities for bribery.

In some areas, they are even pushing poor people ‘towards corrupt practices’. After we spent millions on a scheme to tackle police bribery in Nigeria, locals said they were even more likely to have to pay backhanders, the report found.

It concluded that huge amounts of UK aid money is being wasted because we are either funding corrupt programmes directly or not doing enough to tackle the culture of bribery in many countries.

The findings come just days after it emerged human rights abuses in Ethiopia – where security forces are accused of burning, torturing and raping citizens – had got worse during a four-year period when the UK gave the country more than £1billion.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2815115/Confirmed-foreign-aid-fuels-corruption-Official-watchdog-s-verdict-aid-spending-Cameron-defiantly-ring-fenced.html

We seem to have more charidees than businesses, and noticeably much of our millionaire political class seem to get high-paying jobs in charidees, often funded by our taxpayer money, when they get kicked out of their seats or when their whole cadre of advisers, Spads etc are laid off when a new leader takes over after they have lost an election.

They are supposed to be stewards and guardians of the people's money. With a national debt of over 1 trillion, austerity and cuts everywhere, poor people kicked out of their homes because they can't pay the bedroom tax and a million peole using foodbanks, this political luvvie class of millionaires hands money out to corrupt regimes, counties that have space programmes and more millionaires than us, the Ethiopian Spice Girls and who knows how many charidees somtimes staffed by their luivvies.

Farage has said "No", the British people come first and he will slash the foreign aid budget by £10 billion. The luvvies are in meltdown, "how very dare he?" put the British people first.

And now we read that the Brussels luvvies, the College of Europe class, who have more power than our own Oxbridge management class, have said that our foreign aid spending must rise by another billion.

"The overseas aid budget will increase by an extra £1 billion over the next two years under new European Union rules, it has emerged.

The Department for International Development (Dfid) is preparing to change accounting methods in order to bring Britain in line with other EU countries, making it harder to meet the controversial aid target in the next parliament, according to The Times.

The UK already spends more than any other country on international agencies and is the second largest aid donor in the world."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2815115/Confirmed-foreign-aid-fuels-corruption-Official-watchdog-s-verdict-aid-spending-Cameron-defiantly-ring-fenced.html

It won't happen if Farage has anything to do with it and despite all the comedians, luvvies, slebs, popstars and charidees that the Establishment throws against UKIP, the People's Army still grows in numbers and the march of common sense continues.

'Yes, international relations is part of politics, Mr Farage... something you're not very good at.'

Farage is our only statesman, our only politician who really understands foreign relations. Apart from the formidable Alex Salmond who is also good. The rest are teenage whizzkids from Oxbridge.

Did you notice how in the 2 hour leaders' debate, there wasn't a single question on foreign relations? In a time when NATO generals warn of a possible European war with Russia, when Cameron wanted to bomb Syria and when he participated in the disaster that is Libya and after years of wars in Iraq under a Labour governmentand, and when some of our own citizens are going to Syria to join ISIS and when Jihadi John was a British citizen, we had not a single question on foreign relations?

Cameron achieved his aim of getting a 7 leader debate which helped him avoid a longer head to head with Farage, but somehow Cameron also didn't have to face any questions on foreign relations from our only expert in that field, Nigel Farage.

Farage was against the bombing of Syria, which could possibly have led to a much wider war and which would have aided the rebels fighting Assad, among whom there are Isis, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and all the rest of them.

Farage was against the disastrous intervention in Libya which has led to the country being run by bandits, jihadists and mercenaries.

Farage said that "the EU has blood on its hands over Ukraine" etc etc

Farage is different to the teenage whizzkids, he has oodles of common sense.

That is why the common sense revolution has upset the luvvies' applecart and that is why the People's Army is growing every day. The luvvies want to keep Farage out of debates and off TV because they know his poll ratings will only increase the more the people see him wipe the floor with the politically correct political class' and that then their whole game will be up.

I'm not teaching, I'm giving a political opinion. I disagree with your opinions and I disagree with the luvvies. I'm with the People's Army.

'This might sound cold, but for better understanding and to simplify this, I'll compare this to what companies do. Large companies very often reserve large sums for charities - in fact, many even have entire departments dedicated to this activity. They don't do this for purely altruistic reasons. Oftentimes, this may actually be money that could have been spent on marketing / PR, and it works in a not too dissimilar fashion. The charity repays the generosity by printing the company's logo on banners, brochures, etc., and inviting employees to charity events and so forth, sort of sending a message that - hey - this company is doing sth. good, making the company more likeable.'

Exactly.

'They don't do this for purely altruistic reasons.'

And nor do our millionaire luvvies.

What you have described the companies doing is to spend shareholder money to improve their image, their brand, their spin. But our luvvies should ask our people if we agree with them spending our money - while people are evicted from their homes because they can't pay the bedroom tax, while hospital and A&Es face tough conditions and while a million people queue up at foodbanks - in order to allegedly improve the country's image but when we have reports saying that much of our aid money is wasted and goes to corrupt regimes. Also are any of our millionaire luvvies in any charidees?

We have had enough of spin and image, Farage wants tangible spending cuts so that the tangible savings can be spent on the British people and not to benefit corrupt regimes, spin, image or possibly luvvies in charidees.

'Britain is in the grip of a ‘deep institutional crisis’ with trust in government, parliament and politicians at an ‘all-time low’, according to an internationally respected survey.

It has led to the UK having one of the lowest political participation rates in the developed world – and even scoring below Palestine and Iraq.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2296085/Britain-suffering-huge-loss-faith-institutions-Trust-politicians-slumped-time-low-say-researchers.html

This is the sad reality. All our institutions are affected, it is everything including charidees etc.

People are losing trust in the luvvie class who lord it over us.

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

That is why people vote for what you call 'these idiots'. They think they are better than 'these luvvies'.

They think they listen, respect the people, offer them local referenda and proportional representation and that they won't line their pockets with expenses or lobbyist fees and that they will serve the people who have been spun, mocked, insulted and ignored for years by a 'politically correct political class' that is formed of Oxbridge and metropolitan elites who have lost touch with ordinary people.

"Meanwhile, Labour's Simon Danczuk has said the incident "suggests there's a huge fight ahead to reclaim Labour's soul".

In an article for the Sun, the Rochdale MP said that while Mr Miliband's reaction to the tweet was "to his credit", the party was "confusing" voters with "too much bland Metropolitan smoothness and not enough grit".

"Labour's founder Keir Hardie never would have mocked proud working people and it's time the Metropolitan luvvies remembered our roots," he added."

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/labour-still-party-working-people-milibandwww.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/labour-still-party-working-people-miliband" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/labour-still-party-working-people-milibandwww.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/labour-still-party-working-people-miliband

claig

I think they should spend the money.

And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. It's IMPORTANT for the UK to be in the game. Not doing sth. other developing countries do is basically like not using a tool that's there for you.

I understand you'll never get it.

If you could now pls stop doing your copying and pasting that would be much appreciated.

As you can see, no one really likes reading your rants anyway, so why continue?

And OMG - you've now resorted to quoting articles from The Sun of all places.

Yep - great source, isn't it?!

'I think they should spend the money.'

That's OK, so does David Cameron, but UKIP doesn't think so.

Farage said something like "For some unfathomable reason, I can't understand, they all want to spend billions of our money on foregn aid".

I understand the reason and why they all are in agreement over it and I disagree with it, just as UKIP does.

'you've now resorted to quoting articles from The Sun of all places.'

But don't you know that the Sun is staffed by lots of political journalists from public schools and Oxbridge who influence millions of readers. Sun journalists aren't ignorant, even though I don't like or read the paper.

'If you could now pls stop doing your copying and pasting that would be much appreciated.'

OK, I'll try and reduce my quotes from some of our top journalists that shed light on aspects of politics.

'Foreign aid budget to outstrip defence by 2031 if spending changes continue under successive governments'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976713/Foreign-aid-budget-outstrip-defence-2031-spending-changes-continue-successive-governments.html

Cameron and the government have acted to enshrine in law a foreign aid spending of 0.7% of national income (agreed of course by our entire 'politically correct political class' bar UKIP) and yet there is no such commitment to spend a minumum of 2% on defence enshrined in law.

It's about priorities. I think providing equipment and not cutting military staff is more important than funding the Ethiopian Spice Girls or helping to combat the methane produced by the cattle manure of Columbian farmers which we are told will "harm the planet". I know I am in a minority, I know the luvvies disagree, but fortunately UKIP agree.

Claig you keep going on about the Ethiopian Spice Girls, but do you actually know the true story? It's a very small part of a UN project to help around 250m girls living in poverty in Rwanda, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya and the DRC.

The project aims to help young girls by tackling issues such as access to education, underage and forced marriage, early childbearing, HIV and domestic violence. It tries to empower girls so they break the cycle of poverty in which they exist, and improve the community as a whole. The situation is particularly bad in Ethiopia with about 7m girls living in utter poverty and half married by the age of 15.

Given the literacy rates, and the limited access to education and social interaction these girls have, the project (which does direct work in the community) puts out a national weekly radio show. This show features a drama about a manufactured band, Yegna (hence the simplistic Spice Girls comparison). Each episode tackles an issue facing young girls, such as domestic violence. The problem is addressed in the drama, and a discussion show afterwards. It has proved incredibly successful at reaching out to vulnerable children, who more traditional projects don't tend to reach.

So it's a tiny but valuable part of a big international UN project aimed at saving and improving lives. It's not paying for Ethiopian girls to sing 'Wannabee' as you seem to be making out.

No, I don't know the details. I read it in the Daily Mail. However, when we have austerity here, foodbanks here and patients not getting access to lifesaving drugs, I don't think the government should spend taxpayer money funding projects like this all over the world. If a charity collects for that from voluntary contributions from the public, that is fine, but not using taxpayer money without asking the taxpayer.

This is from the Daily Telegraph on UK aid to Ethiopia

"Britain’s foreign aid programme is riddled with waste, mismanagement and fraud, as I discovered when researching a new book on what happens to our aid money around the world.

Fortunes have been squandered on corrupt governments and on propping up oppressive regimes.
In Ethiopia, for instance, British support of £300?million has been used by the government to cement its brutal grip on power.

Starving people are told they can have food only if they support the ruling party, while British-funded training programmes for Ethiopian civil servants have been little more than instruments of indoctrination by the same party.

Just as misguided has been Britain’s support for multilateral aid initiatives, such as those run by the UN and EU.

Indeed, the EU swallows a third of all Britain’s aid expenditure, even though the former International Development Secretary Clare Short once said the European Commission ran ‘the worst development agency in the world’ and branded its operations ‘an outrage and a disgrace’.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255838/How-money-squandered-foreign-aid.html

Here is an article by Ian Birrell, who is the progressive who writes for the Daily Mail and other papers and who used to write speeches for Cameron. I hardly ever find myself in agreement with Birrell, because for me he is the quintessential luvvie Tory moderniser. But on foreign aid, amazingly enough, he goes against the trend and I think he is right in a hardhitting article that goes against the very tenets of the 'politically correct political class'.

"This foreign aid law is an expensive stunt

Spending on disabled people at home is being cut to support dubious schemes abroad"

So there we are. Our esteemed politicians have passed perhaps the stupidest piece of legislation since the dangerous dogs act of 1991. They have this week enshrined their own delusions in law by determining that regardless of events at home or abroad, 0.7 per cent of Britain’s gross domestic income will be given away to dodgy aid projects in a diminishing number of developing nations. And then they wonder why voters despair over Westminster.

It is easy to be generous with other people’s money. Why should politicians care that most Britons think too much tax revenue goes on aid when they can pose as noble saviours of the world? A recent poll by the respected Chatham House think tank found that only 11 per cent of voters want this spending to keep rising, while more than half want it to decrease – including almost two thirds of Conservatives. But parliamentarians are patting themselves on their backs for spraying our cash around the planet, trotting out the usual fraudulent clichés about how their supposed fight on global poverty also benefits Britain.

The truth is that spending on disabled people at home is being slashed to support highly dubious schemes abroad so that politicians can cloak themselves in compassion."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11462872/This-foreign-aid-law-is-an-expensive-stunt.html