Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Unions are like cops....Everyone hates them until they need one..

How did that party initially get formed Duty? What were their founders previously? Perhaps you could enlighten us?

1) A combination of two parties merging together.

2) The founders of one of those two parties were journalists and prisoners of Nazi Germany; I can't seem to find anything out about the second party.

I fail to see the relevance to what it is today, sixty years on.

They were formed by a SS Officer.
They wear a blue cornflower to parliament, a flower used by the Nazi party.
Their current leader has posted anti Semitic drawings similar to those used in 1930s Germany.

Solid bunch of lads.

Let's not forget the ss were democratically elected and that's a good thing right?

...

What could possibly go wrong?

Hero wrote:They were formed by a SS Officer.
They wear a blue cornflower to parliament, a flower used by the Nazi party.
Their current leader has posted anti Semitic drawings similar to those used in 1930s Germany.

1) You mean their first leader was a former SS officer? They weren't formed by the same fellow.

2) I'm not sure of the relevance, here. I've seen Jeremy Corbyn speak at events with flags openly displaying the hammer and sickle - an emblem used by the infinitely worse mass-murdering Soviet Union regime, but no one has a problem with that?

3) You mean this fellow? - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-austria-strache-idUSKCN0X91NX

Yes that fellow...

Reuven Rivlin, Israel’s president, later put Mr Strache’s visit in the context of allegations over anti-Semitism in Britain’s opposition Labour party. “Political or national leaders who support anti-Semitic, racist or neo-Nazi perceptions are not welcome guests here in Israel,” said Mr Rivlin, an advocate of tolerance at a time when Israeli politics and society are displaying a strongly illiberal streak.
Rightwing nationalist politicians are on the rise across Europe, including in France and Germany. In Austria, Mr Hofer topped the poll in the first round of the presidential election on April 24, winning more than 35 per cent of the vote.
His unexpectedly strong lead gave his campaign momentum ahead of Sunday’s run-off, reducing the chances of his rival, the Greens’ Alexander Van der Bellen, successfully mobilising an anti-Freedom party movement.


The likeliest domino to fall next is Austria, where insurgents are on the rise, writes Tony Barber

During Mr Hofer’s campaign, support for Israel has been a counterpoint to his play on the fears created by a wave of refugees fleeing wars in countries such as Syria who have passed through Austria. “We have to ensure that any anti-Semitic tendencies created by immigration in Europe are nipped in the bud,” the presidential candidate told Die Presse newspaper.
Some see this as a deliberate ploy. “On the one hand, they [the Freedom party] say ‘we’re going to Israel, we like Jews’. On the other hand, they adhere to pan-German nationalistic roots,” says Ruth Wodak, a professor at Lancaster University, who studies European identities and rightwing populism. “They are addressing multiple audiences and looking for the latest scapegoats to be instrumentalised for their political aims — which is part and parcel of the populists’ approach.”

Oh and here's the relevance of the cornflower:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36342362

Can we get one thing straight though, are you in favour of this party?

Hero wrote:Oh and here's the relevance of the cornflower:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36342362

Can we get one thing straight though, are you in favour of this party?

Hero, it wouldn't take you long to dig through a few posts of Duty's and see that was all giddy with excitement with the "movement" that was happening.

Funny how UKIP voters basically expose themselves as racists eventually.

Hero wrote:Oh and here's the relevance of the cornflower:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36342362

Can we get one thing straight though, are you in favour of this party?

And as I pointed out, this is a strange double standard. The swastika, and now the cornflower (seemingly), are viewed as horrific symbols that nobody should dare to use, but there is absolutely no problem with the hammer and sickle.

Now do I support them? Well I like some of their policies, and I dislike others. They certainly seem to have a grasp of certain problems, which probably explains why nearly half voted for their Presidential candidate.

Which policies do you like? And hypothetically speaking, would you vote for them despite them being considered by many to be Far Right?

Hero wrote:Which policies do you like? And hypothetically speaking, would you vote for them despite them being considered by many to be Far Right?

Well first of all, the label 'far-right' is a foolish creation by the media in a pathetically lame attempt to discredit a party without discussing what they stand for. "You're 'far-right', you're on the fringe, you're unworthy of serious attention, so why don't you just go away?"

It seems to me that if a party is opposed to the extreme idea of mass immigration, and opposed to the idea of Euro-federalisation, then they are automatically classed as 'far-right'.

Would I vote for them? Well, I don't have a particularly broad knowledge of Austrian politics, so the most I could say is that (if I were Austrian) I would certainly consider it.

The policies that I like:

- Controlled immigration
- Opposition to the European Union; Austrian independence
- More police on the streets
- Deport foreign criminals
- Compulsory German course for migrants who don't speak the language
- Establishing Proportional Representation; having more referenda and direct democracy
- Construction of more houses (15,000 a year)
- Streamlined education

I think they're classed as 'far right' because their original leader was a SS officer, they wear a symbol of the Nazi party and their current leader has posted antisemitic drawings.
It worries me though that despite knowing this about the party you admit you would still vote for them.

Hero wrote:I think they're classed as 'far right' because their original leader was a SS officer, they wear a symbol of the Nazi party and their current leader has posted antisemitic drawings.
It worries me though that despite knowing this about the party you admit you would still vote for them.  

It worries you that I have a perfectly legitimate point of view, like nearly 50% of Austrians who voted for this party?

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:I think they're classed as 'far right' because their original leader was a SS officer, they wear a symbol of the Nazi party and their current leader has posted antisemitic drawings.
It worries me though that despite knowing this about the party you admit you would still vote for them.  

It worries you that I have a perfectly legitimate point of view, like nearly 50% of Austrians who voted for this party?

Yes?

Europe (and other countries) are in the midst of a far right movement. The parties/groups behind this movement have been found to be racist (Freedom party of Austria, France's National Front, oh and UKIP etc etc.) - their "policies" are softly worded, the message is clear though - "we don't mind the French, Italian's coming here but when you've got different colour skin, different religious views or different ways of living then we don't like you at all".

If Jews were Muslims you'd probably support Hitler.

The National Socialist German Workers Party got 37% of the vote in 1932.

Basically, some people hate foreigners, some don't.

The difference is those who don't, don't feel the need to justify their position, but those who do know it's easy for them to be labelled basically racist, ergo they'll always chime up with things like "far right is unfair/outdated", "I'm not racist, I am happy with controlled immigration" (being a handful a year, don't want too many darkies or non-natives in my kid's school class), or, may personal recent favourite which is a belter: "We're not anti foreigners, just anti EU people coming here when there are so many good people around the rest of the world (you know, all those dark skinned folk, i.e. I can't be racist) who aren't allowed to come here because we block them but let in as many Slavs as we possibly can".

TopHat24/7 wrote:Basically, some people hate foreigners, some don't.

The difference is those who don't, don't feel the need to justify their position, but those who do know it's easy for them to be labelled basically racist, ergo they'll always chime up with things like "far right is unfair/outdated", "I'm not racist, I am happy with controlled immigration" (being a handful a year, don't want too many darkies or non-natives in my kid's school class), or, may personal recent favourite which is a belter: "We're not anti foreigners, just anti EU people coming here when there are so many good people around the rest of the world (you know, all those dark skinned folk, i.e. I can't be racist) who aren't allowed to come here because we block them but let in as many Slavs as we possibly can".

I've just said I support Austrian independence, and I hate foreigners, supposedly!

Even for your levels of near-intolerable bigotry, that's quite extraordinary.

Hero wrote:The National Socialist German Workers Party got 37% of the vote in 1932.

Isn't this where I'm supposed to screech about 'Godwin's Law' and say 'you can't say that, you can't say that!'

Or is that only allowed for the charming progressives?

I note you have nothing to say about their actual policies, but instead drag up that their first leader was a former SS officer: around the same time just over sixty years ago, the Conservative party had a white supremacist and warmonger as their leader - should people take that into consideration at election time?

Ha, this thread is comedy gold. I've seen people try to claim the Nazis as a left leaning party on the internet before as they have socialist in their name.

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Basically, some people hate foreigners, some don't.

The difference is those who don't, don't feel the need to justify their position, but those who do know it's easy for them to be labelled basically racist, ergo they'll always chime up with things like "far right is unfair/outdated", "I'm not racist, I am happy with controlled immigration" (being a handful a year, don't want too many darkies or non-natives in my kid's school class), or, may personal recent favourite which is a belter: "We're not anti foreigners, just anti EU people coming here when there are so many good people around the rest of the world (you know, all those dark skinned folk, i.e. I can't be racist) who aren't allowed to come here because we block them but let in as many Slavs as we possibly can".

I've just said I support Austrian independence, and I hate foreigners, supposedly!

Even for your levels of near-intolerable bigotry, that's quite extraordinary.

You supported Austrian independence on the basis of putting yourself in Austrian residents/citizen's shoes - ergo a dislike and distrust of foreigners.

Keeping excusing yourself though, by all means...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ha, this thread is comedy gold. I've seen people try to claim the Nazis as a left leaning party on the internet before as they have socialist in their name.

In fairness, there is a thought that the political spectrum is more circular than linear, and that the further left and further right you go......you end up meeting together.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Basically, some people hate foreigners, some don't.

The difference is those who don't, don't feel the need to justify their position, but those who do know it's easy for them to be labelled basically racist, ergo they'll always chime up with things like "far right is unfair/outdated", "I'm not racist, I am happy with controlled immigration" (being a handful a year, don't want too many darkies or non-natives in my kid's school class), or, may personal recent favourite which is a belter: "We're not anti foreigners, just anti EU people coming here when there are so many good people around the rest of the world (you know, all those dark skinned folk, i.e. I can't be racist) who aren't allowed to come here because we block them but let in as many Slavs as we possibly can".

I've just said I support Austrian independence, and I hate foreigners, supposedly!

Even for your levels of near-intolerable bigotry, that's quite extraordinary.

You supported Austrian independence on the basis of putting yourself in Austrian residents/citizen's shoes - ergo a dislike and distrust of foreigners.

Keeping excusing yourself though, by all means...

Trade with our European neighbours, co-operate with our European neighbours, and get on well with them - but not as part of a political union, which seems to only benefit Germany and (at a push) France.

Is it really so difficult to grasp?

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Basically, some people hate foreigners, some don't.

The difference is those who don't, don't feel the need to justify their position, but those who do know it's easy for them to be labelled basically racist, ergo they'll always chime up with things like "far right is unfair/outdated", "I'm not racist, I am happy with controlled immigration" (being a handful a year, don't want too many darkies or non-natives in my kid's school class), or, may personal recent favourite which is a belter: "We're not anti foreigners, just anti EU people coming here when there are so many good people around the rest of the world (you know, all those dark skinned folk, i.e. I can't be racist) who aren't allowed to come here because we block them but let in as many Slavs as we possibly can".

I've just said I support Austrian independence, and I hate foreigners, supposedly!

Even for your levels of near-intolerable bigotry, that's quite extraordinary.

You supported Austrian independence on the basis of putting yourself in Austrian residents/citizen's shoes - ergo a dislike and distrust of foreigners.

Keeping excusing yourself though, by all means...

Trade with our European neighbours, co-operate with our European neighbours, and get on well with them - but not as part of a political union, which seems to only benefit Germany and (at a push) France.

Is it really so difficult to grasp?

And the elephant in the room (if that's the phrase) which you've deliberately left of your list of ideals - no immigrants.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Basically, some people hate foreigners, some don't.

The difference is those who don't, don't feel the need to justify their position, but those who do know it's easy for them to be labelled basically racist, ergo they'll always chime up with things like "far right is unfair/outdated", "I'm not racist, I am happy with controlled immigration" (being a handful a year, don't want too many darkies or non-natives in my kid's school class), or, may personal recent favourite which is a belter: "We're not anti foreigners, just anti EU people coming here when there are so many good people around the rest of the world (you know, all those dark skinned folk, i.e. I can't be racist) who aren't allowed to come here because we block them but let in as many Slavs as we possibly can".

I've just said I support Austrian independence, and I hate foreigners, supposedly!

Even for your levels of near-intolerable bigotry, that's quite extraordinary.

You supported Austrian independence on the basis of putting yourself in Austrian residents/citizen's shoes - ergo a dislike and distrust of foreigners.

Keeping excusing yourself though, by all means...

Trade with our European neighbours, co-operate with our European neighbours, and get on well with them - but not as part of a political union, which seems to only benefit Germany and (at a push) France.

Is it really so difficult to grasp?

And the elephant in the room (if that's the phrase) which you've deliberately left of your list of ideals - no immigrants.

I support immigration, but not mass immigration.

Is that really too difficult for you to understand?

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Basically, some people hate foreigners, some don't.

The difference is those who don't, don't feel the need to justify their position, but those who do know it's easy for them to be labelled basically racist, ergo they'll always chime up with things like "far right is unfair/outdated", "I'm not racist, I am happy with controlled immigration" (being a handful a year, don't want too many darkies or non-natives in my kid's school class), or, may personal recent favourite which is a belter: "We're not anti foreigners, just anti EU people coming here when there are so many good people around the rest of the world (you know, all those dark skinned folk, i.e. I can't be racist) who aren't allowed to come here because we block them but let in as many Slavs as we possibly can".

I've just said I support Austrian independence, and I hate foreigners, supposedly!

Even for your levels of near-intolerable bigotry, that's quite extraordinary.

You supported Austrian independence on the basis of putting yourself in Austrian residents/citizen's shoes - ergo a dislike and distrust of foreigners.

Keeping excusing yourself though, by all means...

Trade with our European neighbours, co-operate with our European neighbours, and get on well with them - but not as part of a political union, which seems to only benefit Germany and (at a push) France.

Is it really so difficult to grasp?

And the elephant in the room (if that's the phrase) which you've deliberately left of your list of ideals - no immigrants.

I support immigration, but not mass immigration.

Is that really too difficult for you to understand?

I think what tophat is trying to say is that we know you like the Austrian guy because he is a jew hater who pretends to be otherwise by claiming friendship with israel. In the same vein you're looking to shield yourself from accusations of being the bigot some think you are by claiming what you just did there. That you support immigration but not mass immigration.

Which is exactly the example I wrote in my original quoted post. "I'm love them jonny foreigners, definitely a fan of immigration, just as long as it's controlled/not 'mass', you know, maybe a small handful a month or something like that".

Net migration of up to 75,000 a year seems perfectly reasonable to me.

But, TopHat, you can continue to make things up if you wish.

Hang on, are we now arguing that you support immigration or don't???? and if you don't support completely uncontrolled immigration then your one of the worst bigots???

Derbymanc wrote:Hang on, are we now arguing that you support immigration or don't???? and if you don't support completely uncontrolled immigration then your one of the worst bigots???

No. He's casting doubt on Duty actually supporting any kind of immigration for any other reason apart from a shield against accusations of bigotry.

Derbymanc wrote:Hang on, are we now arguing that you support immigration or don't???? and if you don't support completely uncontrolled immigration then your one of the worst bigots???

No. The suggestion is people hide their true feelings behind statements like "I don't mind some, just not too much" and then make up completely pie in the sky unsupported figures to help justify their position.

It doesn't apply to everyone, but it's often clear who it applies to.

Derbymanc wrote:Hang on, are we now arguing that you support immigration or don't???? and if you don't support completely uncontrolled immigration then your one of the worst bigots???

Well that's TopHat's line of argument.

Duty281 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Hang on, are we now arguing that you support immigration or don't???? and if you don't support completely uncontrolled immigration then your one of the worst bigots???

Well that's TopHat's line of argument.

Except it's not. Which Shah seemed to manage to understand. Keep pretending though.

All the best.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Hang on, are we now arguing that you support immigration or don't???? and if you don't support completely uncontrolled immigration then your one of the worst bigots???

Well that's TopHat's line of argument.

Except it's not.  Which Shah seemed to manage to understand.  Keep pretending though.

All the best.

Oh I see - you're allowed to make stuff up to fit your point of view, but I can't do the same.

So you're a hypocrite as well as a bigot.

Knock off the personal stuff lads (and lasses if there are any).

I just wondered as i don't support mass immigration either but don't profess to know that much about it outside my own bubble of Manchester. Think we need some tougher laws and a more stringent policy regarding it, but as (I think) Rowley said, it's okay stating it but it's how to implement it.

It's a tough one cause you can't (and shouldn't) paint everybody with the same brush, at the same point though when your waking up every day near an area overun with drunken idiots (British) then it's bad enough, when the majority or poles/immigrants then I think it makes it worse.

Sick of hearing about immigrants sitting on their ar$es doing f*ck all every day and soaking up benefits like a sponge. I'd be happy to vote for the party that comes up with a strategy to prevent the millions of lazy f*cking c*nts who were born and raised here from sitting on their ar$es doing f*ck all every day and soaking up benefits like a sponge.

Stopping thousands of illegals from entering the country does not absolve anyone from preventing that huge amounts of Benefit fraud that already exist and continue to cost the country countless billions every year.

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 35% (+1)
LAB: 32% (+2)
UKIP: 18% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)
LDEM: 4% (-2)
(via Opinium / 07 - 10 Jun)

Well the Lib Dems aren't faring too well! To be overtaken by the Greens would equal humiliation.

I think at this point we can pretty much all agree that the big winners of the referendum are ambitious Tory MPs, since there's surely going to be a mass clearout at the top when this is over.

http://order-order.com/2016/06/26/labour-coup/

Anyone else get the sense that Corbyn's leadership is over?

Has to be. My guess is the demographic most upset about leaving the EU are broadly the same as those who elected him, and the MPs have smelt blood.

Further underlines' the gap between Labour MPs and it's members

Theresa May, the lukewarm Remain supporter, is now the bookmakers favourite to be next PM.

A lukewarm Remainer gets to be Prime Minister?

A lukewarm Remainer gets the sack?

It's all happening!

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-conservative-leader

May - 8/11
Gove - 7/2
Johnson - 4/1
Leadsom - 10/1
Crabb - 33/1

Thank heaven Boris won't get in.

Angela Eagle?

Really?

Here we go again. The result few predicted happens anyway?

If Johnson is out of the race, that's probably proof he'll get in on a landslide.

Suspect Boris may be toxic inside the Tories if their view is bringing the party back together.

Duty281 wrote:http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-conservative-leader

May - 8/11
Gove - 7/2
Johnson - 4/1
Leadsom - 10/1
Crabb - 33/1

Thank heaven Boris won't get in.

Gove isn't even running so how can he be 7/2? - edit well I stand corrected.

Given that May was on the remain side I guess that would give her a strong mandate to keep the UK in the EU if she was to win a General election.....

rodders wrote:Given that May was on the remain side I guess that would give her a strong mandate to keep the UK in the EU if she was to win a General election.....

May was in camp 'I'd like to leave but I'm not sure we can'. I doubt she's going to turn back now it's done.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

rodders wrote:Given that May was on the remain side I guess that would give her a strong mandate to keep the UK in the EU if she was to win a General election.....

May was in camp 'I'd like to leave but I'm not sure we can'. I doubt she's going to turn back now it's done.

The opposite of Boris then.

rodders wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:

rodders wrote:Given that May was on the remain side I guess that would give her a strong mandate to keep the UK in the EU if she was to win a General election.....

May was in camp 'I'd like to leave but I'm not sure we can'. I doubt she's going to turn back now it's done.

The opposite of Boris then.

It's probably the most weird period in the history of the world.