Anti-UKIP Propaganda?

I don't want this to sound like a conspiracy theory, but...

It seems to me that there has been a quite concerted anti-UKIP drive in the mainstream media of late, and I doubt that this is a coincidence with the up-coming election. I think its fair to say that UKIP have rumbled a few feathers and 'the establishment'(TM) seems to be going to unusual and ethically questionable lengths to combat this.

Of particular note are two highly biased documentaries, the latter one outrageously so - BBC's 'Meet the Ukippers' and Channel 4's 'UKIP: The First 100 Days'.

I'm not a fan of UKIP, but this sort of blatant propaganda doesn't sit well with me at all. Channel 4 doesn't surprise me - this is after all the channel that seems to think of itself as being progressive with a sort of risqué edge, which it expresses by splitting its airtime evenly between reality shows making fun of poor people, and dramas glorifying all sorts of degeneracy.

The BBC on the other hand should know better, this is a state-funded channel we are talking about which is coming out with obviously partizan material to favour the establishment parties.

Am I off the mark here or has anybody else noticed this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I don't want this to sound like a conspiracy theory, but...

It seems to me that there has been a quite concerted anti-UKIP drive in the mainstream media of late, and I doubt that this is a coincidence with the up-coming election. I think its fair to say that UKIP have rumbled a few feathers and 'the establishment'(TM) seems to be going to unusual and ethically questionable lengths to combat this.

Of particular note are two highly biased documentaries, the latter one outrageously so - BBC's 'Meet the Ukippers' and Channel 4's 'UKIP: The First 100 Days'.

I'm not a fan of UKIP, but this sort of blatant propaganda doesn't sit well with me at all. Channel 4 doesn't surprise me - this is after all the channel that seems to think of itself as being progressive with a sort of risqué edge, which it expresses by splitting its airtime evenly between reality shows making fun of poor people, and dramas glorifying all sorts of degeneracy.

The BBC on the other hand should know better, this is a state-funded channel we are talking about which is coming out with obviously partizan material to favour the establishment parties.

Am I off the mark here or has anybody else noticed this?

---

The BBC is government run. At last glance over 90% of the government are against ukip. Right or wrong it would not not exactly surprise me that the guys managing the bbc would be inclined to put the spotlight on ukip's faults of which there are many.

Also ukip is the new working class party and in the last few years television has been indulging in penny-dreadful, freak-show "look at how dumb the poor are" programming more than usual. It was largely inevitable that someone would do this sort of thing. That the bbc is getting in on it is merely confirming my suspicions that their management is stocked with fornicating baboons. But that's mostly down to how much they screwed up Dr Who.

They also expose current government, past government, etc. See latest Jack Straw incident for that.

Though it seems like with any popularity, companies want to profit/capitalise on them. They did a show called "Meet the Ukippers" as people would watch it, it is rating.

Channel 4 did the same with the BNP - Young, Nazi and Proud.

Though being honest, if the purpose of 'Meet the Ukippers' is to propaganda what soap is to making yourself dirty. UKIP would look better from having their 'working class' image enhanced. There was the poll that every time 'UKIP is racist' was mentioned, they gained 1%, and they basically raised !4% in popularity in a week to the point a lot of people stopped saying it.

Is it that the racists were drawn to UKIP because they had their views? Or is it the anti establishment popularist feeling typical with the Tea Party in America being replicated here.

UKIP has the same number of MP than the Green Party: Compare how many time UKIP is the new and how many time the Green are.
Then, UKIP is needed by the 2 big parties (which only disagree on details about general and economical policies) to scare-off voters. So the 2 main needs UKIP, but not too much. With a potential strong UKIP they will be able to play the rally" to democracy cards, like they did in France. And will have the same result when 80 % of the voters will go fishing instead of voting. More and more of the so-called elected representatives are with 30% of the 20 % of the electorate.
BBC as ITV or other channels are a layer of protection for the TINA (There Is No Alternative) politic. This lack of choice (the illusion of Choice as described by George Carlin), the fact that to choose between Coca or Pepsi is not a choice (or Diet Coke vs Free Cal Coke, as the money still go to the same company) pushed the voters who can't see their will and choice represented, first to abstention, then to vote against the establishment (vote for comedian, or vote for extremes).

By all means keep doing this. It's like not inviting someone to a birthday-party he doesn't want to go to anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The BBC is government run.
That the bbc is getting in on it is merely confirming my suspicions that their management is stocked with fornicating baboons.

---

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEsUAcyw5Qw

Quote:

---

Is it that the racists were drawn to UKIP because they had their views? Or is it the anti establishment popularist feeling typical with the Tea Party in America being replicated here.

---

Ahh the old "racist" canard. Not really holding up though is it. I intend to vote UKIP if only to stop the real racists in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale, Blackpool, Birmingham, Bradord, Keighley, Nottingham.....and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

For those who are considering voting for the legacy parties at the election, I'm with Albert Einstein......

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...e-for-it/16758

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIluqUQehwQ

Compare and contrast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mqFsVUIQrg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd48kz9jeb4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7lCrGW9jvE

I would absolutily vote UKIP if I was Brittish. Established parties are afraid of them because they know very well that UKIP has a point.

Typical reaction when you don't have an answer: 'I put on my wizzard rope, grab my wand, and I cast FASCISMUS'

Not going to work, that spell can only be used so many times. I expect the UKIP will do very well next elections. I hope they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Ahh the old "racist" canard. Not really holding up though is it.

---

UKIP isn't racist - it is however supported by racists - people who would have voted BNP but are supporting UKIP because of UKIP's stance on immigration. This is what "Meet the Ukippers" showed.

Personally I wish we focused less on who supports the parties (because they all have bad supporters) and more on the parties actual policies - which in UKIP's case is mostly pie in the sky lunacy of the Libertarian kind (as opposed to the Green parties Pie in the sky Liberal style)

and frag UKIP will not do all that well - their best case scenario puts them at about the size of the Liberal Democrats which will make them an actual Westminster player but not a major one - first past the post (which ironically they supported) assures that.

They might surprise, I think the EU is much more an issue for the average UKIP voter than immigration. The EU isn't exactly popular here either and the eurosceptic parties are doing the best in polls.

Quote:

---

UKIP isn't racist - it is however supported by racists

---

You know something, I'd rather be called a racist than collude and encourage the rape of 11 year old girls.

What surprised me was the complete U-turn on the NHS.

They went from "We will privatise the NHS" to "We will ensure it remains publically funded and increase its budget by 3 billion each year"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

What surprised me was the complete U-turn on the NHS.

They went from "We will privatise the NHS" to "We will ensure it remains publically funded and increase its budget by 3 billion each year"

---

It doesn't surprise me at all - they are discarding some of the really bad ideas for one which are more electable - the NHS is well liked and respected and the idea of privatising it did not gel well with the public - as they move to become more and more mainstream you will see more of the "odd" ideas disappear - while it may cost them some fringe support they ultimately have a lot more to gain by joining the big 2 in the center on most issues and sticking to their guns on Europe and immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

What surprised me was the complete U-turn on the NHS.

They went from "We will privatise the NHS" to "We will ensure it remains publically funded and increase its budget by 3 billion each year"

---

Probably something to do with their new tactic of going after disaffected working-class Labour voters.

Seems I may have spoken a little too quickly about the Party not being racist...

Nigel Farage would axe 'much of' race discrimination laws
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31846453

Nigel has a tendency to say the darndest things.

Whilst there is an argument of attempting to recruit locals, and positive action could be taken here, the firms are choosing the Polish workers simply because of the perception they work harder and for less pay on average. Removing equality laws could have the reverse effect of having less 'Brits' as he sees them being recruited.

So the actual proposal is removing the equality act is not only laughable failing, the reasoning behind it is even more hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

Seems I may have spoken a little too quickly about the Party not being racist...

Nigel Farage would axe 'much of' race discrimination laws
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31846453

---

The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming. Didn't a certain Labour Prime Minister say summat about British jobs for British worker a couple of years back?

The establishment is terrified of UKIP.

Farage was specifically asked about "Race" laws - Nationality is only part of the laws he is proposing to scrap - Brown was specifically talking nationality (and I disagreed with him too)

It's all moot however since said laws wont actually change anything - the current laws don't "Force" companies to hire foreign workers - it just says they cant turn an applicant down purely on Race or Nationality.

As Beskar said the real reason people hire foreign workers is they generally work harder for less.

Quote:

---

As Beskar said the real reason people hire foreign workers is they generally work harder for less.

---

That, Sir, is the real racism here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

That, Sir, is the real racism here.

---

According to some conservative voting business owners I have spoken to, it is true. They say British workers generally don't work hard because they see jobs like cleaning to be menial and beneath them, preferring to be on benefits, compared to someone coming from Poland where the wages are higher than the homeland, and value the work far more, thus do a better job.

I remember a program where a farmer was trying to benefit the country by recruiting from 'locals', basically, none of the locals would work as a farm hand for £8 an hour and he was forced to hire foreign workers because no one was doing it, according to him.

According to the first result on google, from the Telegraph.

Quote:

---

The CIPD said its research had found that negative assumptions about the growth of the migrant workforce were untrue.
For example, only one in eight employers admitted they hired foreign workers “because they have lower expectations about pay and employment conditions”, it said.

---

Quote:

---

“Employers are making rational decisions to employ more experienced and qualified workers from overseas over less experienced UK workers, or are hiring migrants because there are simply not enough applicants in the local labour market.”

---

Quote:

---

Only a “small proportion” of employers polled by the CIPD, or 12 per cent, said they recruited migrant workers because they were cheaper or had lower expectations about working conditions, the report said.
The most common reason given, by 26 per cent of firms, was “difficulty attracting UK-born candidates to fill unskilled or semi-skilled jobs”.
A fifth of companies said foreign workers had better work ethic or motivation than home-grown candidates.

---

Seems it isn't purely anecdotal.

As I explicitly said, I have no issues with businesses recruiting local or recruiting from the job seekers pool as a priority. But removing legislation which also protects British workers seems counterproductive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

As I explicitly said, I have no issues with businesses recruiting local or recruiting from the job seekers pool as a priority. But removing legislation which also protects British workers seems counterproductive.

---

Agreed

I do wonder how the government could make businesses recruit more "natives" however - you would have to either incentivise hiring nationals (which is problematic since it would probably require a tax cut of some sort and the Government is already starving for money) or disincentivise hiring foreign workers... which would probably fall foul of anti discrimination laws

I sometimes suspect that an effective method would be to inundate the immigrant population with propaganda to make them adopt the same expectations in wages and benefits that the natives are raised to have.
Unfortunately all that will effect is the ones already here, and I somewhat suspect any new immigrants win be just as happy to inadvertently undermine the previous immigrants as they are the natives. Also I doubt that the nation's they came from will allow us to spread such propaganda "back home" in case the ones remaining behind start getting ideas.

I suspect that the only way to end such problems would be to make it so that there is no cheaper alternative to British labour. Which is problematic, not least because the only method I can think of that is completely moral is to raise the entire earth to our level of economic and social advancement. Even ignoring the practical impossibility of such an accomplishment, material unsustainability of entire world of technologically advanced nations etc, it would completely destroy any sense of superiority in the first world, limiting the immigration we need to sustain growth.

So you want to raise the wages to levels that the British would do those jobs for? But then the prices would go up, companies may become uncompetitive with companies from other countries and your own poor(er) people would complain about the price of groceries rising a lot.
And due to this price increase, the benefit of the now higher wages may just get nullified in the medium/long term so that people won't want these jobs any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So you want to raise the wages to levels that the British would do those jobs for? But then the prices would go up, companies may become uncompetitive with companies from other countries and your own poor(er) people would complain about the price of groceries rising a lot.
And due to this price increase, the benefit of the now higher wages may just get nullified in the medium/long term so that people won't want these jobs any more.

---

This is an argument for never raising the minimum wage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This is an argument for never raising the minimum wage.

---

No, it's an argument for changing the way the world works instead of reiterating "that's just how it works". What we do in the west is spiral prices and wages higher up and thereby we exaggerate the differences to other countries who vbecome poorer and poorer in comparison and therefore more attractive to businesses that want to cut costs in the whole price spiral thing. Meanwhile the people who finance our businesses become richer and richer in comparison to our minimum wage workers. We're entirely dependent on growth and once we cannot provide a growth inpopulation anymore, we get ourselves into trouble. In the short term our businesses work great, but in the long term I'd call all the problems we have now inherent to the system. And they won't disppear if we only keep adjusting the band aids.

It is not population growth that is driving company production. Technology is the primary lever for that.

The rich get richer because they move the industries to the poorer less regulated countries and setup tax havens. Then they complain that the government isn't doing enough as its tax base is eroded.

I believe it is one of husar's patented "here's the opposition's argument without the BS that makes it sound palatable" arguments.

Edit: never mind, he's serious.

Western countries have a problem. The amount that is spent on each person is less than received in tax. Jobs we require in the UK and in many places (germany as a significant exception) is high value exports since countries out of Europe can make things for less since there is less of a cushion for people - the sick and elderly die which is very efficient economically.

So, there are a lot of people who have had the hard fall with the loss of Empire and the inherent monopolies the West had in heavy industry and these jobs have gone, never to return to a low skilled workforce - car manufacturing required a lot of people and now it has either gone abroad or is mainly automated. This mass of people aren't trained to join the knowledge economy.

There are seaside resorts that bloomed between the trains going to the seaside and cheap airfares - lots of people going to the beach now go abroad. Again nothing has replaced the loss of income for these towns. But the population remains.

Who is going to set up industry here that the locals are capable of doing and turning a profit? No one.

So the locals are disaffected. They are not particularly educated, have no real prospects and are stagnating with their disposable income being eroded. They think that if all "foreigners" were excluded then the wage in the jobs that they are able to do would be a lot higher and hence their lives would be better - and they could in essence get more for what they want to do.

This opinion is neither Left or Right wing per se, just myopic, ignorant self interest. And as such scares all the parties as there is no answer to this - none of the mainstream parties can offer them what they want since we don't have the exports to subsidise them all and the simplistic message of UKIP appears to answer their demands. UKIP has little more than indicating that if only we could return to the "Splendid Isolation" of the Edwardian era everything would be fine.

I do think that immigration needs to be better managed - mainly something similar to what the Australians do in bringing in the best (since we've got enough native dross already and gone are the days we could export them). But even if the net immigration was negative that alone would not repair all the structural problems with the UK that are sadly politically suicidal to address.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

It is not population growth that is driving company production. Technology is the primary lever for that.

---

Yes, but which company is happy with selling the same amount of products each year? Technology hasn't stopped the wealth gap from growing, in some cases it could be argued that it has helped it grow faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The rich get richer because they move the industries to the poorer less regulated countries and setup tax havens. Then they complain that the government isn't doing enough as its tax base is eroded.

---

Yes, I see the rich as the core of our issues although I'd think most of us "poor" people would act the same way if we were in their shoes.
Why would a rich person invest into anything if it didn't make them richer in comparison to most other people? There are a few altruists and so on, but statistics pretty much prove them as the exceptions to the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

But even if the net immigration was negative that alone would not repair all the structural problems with the UK that are sadly politically suicidal to address.

~:smoking:

---

Is it actually suicide or merely risky enough that politicians are just too scared to try to run on a harsh truth platform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

We're entirely dependent on growth and once we cannot provide a growth inpopulation anymore, we get ourselves into trouble.

---

So this seems to be a solution: encourage native population growth instead of discouraging emigration or disadvantaging the newcomers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Is it actually suicide or merely risky enough that politicians are just too scared to try to run on a harsh truth platform?

---

Both come to the same end result. UKIP uses immigration an the EU as scapegoats and the other parties respond with scaremongering since they too don't have a solution.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

So this seems to be a solution: encourage native population growth instead of discouraging emigration or disadvantaging the newcomers.

---

More people = more greenhouse gas emissions, more cars, more oil use, more destruction of natural habitats to grow food, more use of wood that cannot be sustained, more electricity required and at some point way in the future people will either starve, suffocate or die because some luxuries start to fail and they do not know how to survive without them. And that even before the sun eats the earth.
If a higher population leads to an increase in climate change and this in turn leads to a decrease in arable and habitable land, we're just speeding up our progress towards a catastrophe by increasing native populations everywhere.

And even if it were possible it would not eliminate bad jobs that have to be done, bad pay or wealth inequality.

The EU could create so much food if land was used sensibly that we had massive surpluses and putting it onto the market would have destroyed agriculture in many other countries. The west also throws away c. 30% of the food that we purchase - and a ridiculous percentage never even makes it to the shops in the first place or is thrown away as it goes over the best before date.

More people who use resources like Americans = more use of resources. But if resources were more carefully managed we could have vastly more people with the same impact - cars that were efficient as opposed to designating them vans / trucks that can avoid the legislation to enforce more efficient engines.

I'm not saying that this is inherently a good thing - just it is a possible thing

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The EU could create so much food if land was used sensibly that we had massive surpluses and putting it onto the market would have destroyed agriculture in many other countries. The west also throws away c. 30% of the food that we purchase - and a ridiculous percentage never even makes it to the shops in the first place or is thrown away as it goes over the best before date.

More people who use resources like Americans = more use of resources. But if resources were more carefully managed we could have vastly more people with the same impact - cars that were efficient as opposed to designating them vans / trucks that can avoid the legislation to enforce more efficient engines.

I'm not saying that this is inherently a good thing - just it is a possible thing

~:smoking:

---

Yes, but the point was to drive up consumption by increasing the population in order to keep the ecenomy growing. If we grow the population but keep consumption at the same level, we cannot achieve economic growth from the population growth. Currently we try to increase individual consumption with a stable population, but how is that going to work out if large parts of the population steadily become poorer/have to take up debt in order to consume even at the same rate?

The population has been taking up debt in the UK/US for years. Germany I think things are different since you actually export products with value and don't view excessive consumption / debt as practically a good thing. We have a service economy which basically involves building a pyramid with nothing at the bottom and with productivity decreasing since more people are doing jobs that are worth little since they have skills with little intrinsic value.

We've even created a new Ponzi scheme where university students load up on debt that they give to Universities. Many of them get poor value jobs and after 30 years the government writes the debt off!

In the UK, house prices need to continue to increase so people can borrow against them to purchase things that we import. Even the latest hot air about realigning the economy has been well, a load of crap since although manufacturing has increased a bit it has still fallen as a percentage of GDP with Finance getting even bigger.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

More people = more greenhouse gas emissions, more cars, more oil use, more destruction of natural habitats to grow food, more use of wood that cannot be sustained, more electricity required and at some point way in the future people will either starve, suffocate or die because some luxuries start to fail and they do not know how to survive without them. And that even before the sun eats the earth.
If a higher population leads to an increase in climate change and this in turn leads to a decrease in arable and habitable land, we're just speeding up our progress towards a catastrophe by increasing native populations everywhere.

And even if it were possible it would not eliminate bad jobs that have to be done, bad pay or wealth inequality.

---

It is not about just more people. It is about more compatriots and less emigrants. It may be eventually less people if the emigrant influx is stemmed. And compatriots have common sense not to emit greenhouse gases, not to destruct wildlife, save electricity...

Let's make a global minimum wage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Let's make a global minimum wage.

---

You do realise that jobs are a cost to business, not a benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Let's make a global minimum wage.

---

Yeah, and a common coin to pay with it, works so well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

It is not about just more people. It is about more compatriots and less emigrants. It may be eventually less people if the emigrant influx is stemmed. And compatriots have common sense not to emit greenhouse gases, not to destruct wildlife, save electricity...

---

You're starting to confuse me, there are migrants, immigrants and emigrants, what exactly are we talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

You do realise that jobs are a cost to business, not a benefit.

---

So are resources and they still want them for some reason.
I will agree though that implementing a global minimum wage right now without any other changes would cause more problems than it would fix.
A global tax for multinational corporations would be much better.

The UK has finally thinking about a corporation tax that basically refuses to take into account accountancy practices like internal loans or licenses to hold IP in the cayman islands that miraculously means all profits disappear offshore but companies are charged at what they profited in the UK - and the second category is charged at a higher rate.

This should have been done about 40 years ago since the ability to do this has grown over the last decade or so. Of course if I were to be viewed as not paying my tax I can be audited for 7 years and have to fight to prove that I am innocent - but I am a small fish and for some reason there are different rules for the big fish.

This is a good, if small and tentative step in the right direction.

~:smoking:

"You do realise that jobs are a cost to business, not a benefit." Yes and no. They are aw well the one making the business. They benefit the business in making him profitable... No jobs, no business, low paid jobs, less business... The good old classes war...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yeah, and a common coin to pay with it, works so well.

---

I agree. It is nice not having to pay silly amounts to change currency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"You do realise that jobs are a cost to business, not a benefit." Yes and no. They are aw well the one making the business. They benefit the business in making him profitable... No jobs, no business, low paid jobs, less business... The good old classes war...

---

Quote:

---

So are resources and they still want them for some reason.

---

I was just pointing out that the idea that businesses are there to create jobs is absurd. Business is there for one thing only, to make a profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I agree. It is nice not having to pay silly amounts to change currency.

---

Ain't it, you insert your card, type your pincode, and take the money of the country you currently are. It costs me nothing to pay with Danish crones when I am in Denmark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ain't it, you insert your card, type your pincode, and take the money of the country you currently are. It costs me nothing to pay with Danish crones when I am in Denmark.

---

Depends on the bank, my current bank would charge me 2% for that. When I go abroad I want to open an account with a bank that doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You're starting to confuse me, there are migrants, immigrants and emigrants, what exactly are we talking about?

---

Any or all of them taken together. They are all busybodies disturbing the natural order and quiet around the world. Let's call them :thumbsdown:-grants.

Or to be really nasty to them let's call 'em Hughgrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Or to be really nasty to them let's call 'em Hughgrants.

---

Or grant eaters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Any or all of them taken together. They are all busybodies disturbing the natural order and quiet around the world. Let's call them :thumbsdown:-grants.

---

That would explain why the USA are a failed state that's disturbing the natural order everywhere. :idea3:
And Israel, Australia, New Zealand and so on of course, all full of :thumbsdown:-grants or "guests" as some also call them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Or grant eaters?

---

I believe that title was taken already by a Ms. Divine Brown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That would explain why the USA are a failed state that's disturbing the natural order everywhere. :idea3:
And Israel, Australia, New Zealand and so on of course, all full of :thumbsdown:-grants or "guests" as some also call them.

---

You can also add to the list all of the Americas and SAR to boot.