I’ve been following with interest the babbling in both the MSM and Facebook, regarding the furore over comments said, or supposedly said, by a few UKIP candidates. It appears that UKIP are beginning to worry all three parties to the degree they have to join hands and collectively decry UKIP as being racist (with a capital R). Now, some of what was said by the candidates, I don’t personally agree with, but it’s as with all things in life, I don’t have to listen to them. If they were the candidate in my area, then I would balance these personal views against what they were claiming to be able to do for their constituents. In the same way I have done for every other candidate that I have considered voting for over the years. When I last voted Conservative (a while ago mind) I didn’t personally like the chap who was candidate. He came door stepping and I thought he was an arrogant twit. But the policies he was advocating were better than those of the local Labour, LibDem or other parties. In short, I was voting for the party policies and not the man. And that’s where it’s all come unstuck over the last few years. People are voting for personalities, the same way as they vote on ‘Britains got Talent’, instead of actually judging whether the person can sing the right song, in tune. We have become so superficial, that judging a person by their deeds has gone out of the window and it’s all looks and sound-bytes. It also essentially dubs those people who agree with the main thrust of UKIP’s proposals, as a bunch of racists. As Farage said this week:
“This is like the incident between Gordon Brown and Gillian Duffy at the last general election writ large – this time it is not merely one person being slandered by one establishment party but huge numbers of decent British people under attack and all three Westminster parties levelling the charge of racism and bigotry. So they are trying to browbeat the British public into abandoning Ukip and sticking with open-door immigration by using the most disgraceful slurs. This is the classic tactic of any cartel whose position is threatened by a new competitor in the market place.
“When Ukip was perceived mainly as a threat to the Conservative party, it was David Cameron and his colleagues who used this tactic. Now we are recognised as a threat to the entire establishment it is all three parties that are slinging mud.”
Now in my mind, the Labour party especially, but to a lesser degree, LibDems and Conservative, think that if you are white, male, middle-class, hold down a decent job and have a mortgage, smoke, drink and do all the normal things that people do, then you are lower than low. Someone to be milked of tax, vilified for smoking, vilified for wanting to improve your life and that of your kids, and generally being decent and hard working. So can I level the racists slur at them? Can I accuse them of racism because I feel marginalised in my own country? Can I complain that my vote counts for nothing because of who I am, and therefore I have been disenfranchised? Well, I should be able to, and the only way I see of doing that is through a party such as UKIP, who do hold those things as worthy, who do recognise our history and what made Britain great, and why the vast majority of middle-england are the wealth generators in the country. And I think they also understand that most of middle-england feels as I do, disenfranchised.
On another note, I see much excitement has bubbled up over Clarkson’s nigger reference. First of all, it never went to air and therefore was essentially said in private. Secondly, if it had gone to air, why is it any different to a lot of words that are routinely used in films or plays. Up until a few years ago, the word ‘cunt’ would never been uttered on television or on the radio. Now it is. So what is different between using the word nigger, as part of an old children’s Nursey Rhyme, and calling someone a cunt? The latter is usually said in a highly aggressive manner and therefore is addressed to someone personally. Nigger in the context that Clarkson used it was not, and therefore is just a word. Of course, the back story, as usual, is far more interesting than this bit of noise. The usual culprits have come out of the wood-work claiming this wouldn’t have happened if more black and asian people were employed at the BBC. Why? And if B&A people apply for jobs at the BBC and they are the best there is for the job, then they will get it. Unless the BBC operate a system which says they ignore B&A applicants, which would be quite wrong. No-one should get a job BECAUSE of their sex or race. They should get it on merit. That’s what happens if you are white, male, middle class etc etc and its the rules everyone else should be following. Anything else is positive discrimination and that is quite wrong.
Mrs N and I were having a conversation a few days ago about racism and how it is now perceived. I threw her this one: If I had never met a nice person from say, Scotland (I have by the way), I could say that ‘I haven’t met a nice Scottish person yet’. And people probably wouldn’t bat an eyelid. But, using the same criteria I said, ‘I haven’t met a nice Black person yet ‘(or Asian etc take your pick), how do you think people would react?