UKIP

[Rowlands]

So yesterday I was talking to somebody who was berating me for wanting to vote Labour this year.

I asked who the best alternative was, and he said that UKIP was. He went into a rant about how the EU has been responsible for his losing the right to do any overtime in work. He claimed Labour was so easy on immigrants coming into the country because all immigrants would then vote labour and keep them in power, and that Labour would just brand anyone who disagreed as 'racists' to keep them from having any say.  He then went on about the usual stuff about black people being favoured over white and that all governments immediately house anyone who moves into the country and gives them all the benefits they could ask for.

It's very easy for us to sneer and say 'huh, right winged moron', but I found it hard to go against him when he complained that he lost his right to do loads of overtime if he chose to. I was also tired at the time and know little or nothing about UKIP, I'm starting a thread about it here so that you guys can deconstruct his arguments and show me exactly what to think.

Ta.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

He claimed Labour was so easy on immigrants coming into the country because all immigrants would then vote labour and keep them in power

It's very easy for us to sneer and say 'huh, right winged moron'

Yes, he makes it easy. Sounds like UKIP are a bit soft for him, even.

Even biggy would probably agree with the working time directive, given his general opposition to capitalist wage-slavery. Anyway- you do not lose your right to do overtime at work- you even have the right to opt-out of the EU working time directive: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAndTimeOff/DG_10029426
That before factoring in the huge amount of unpaid, unrewarded overtime that people in this country put in.

[Rowlands]

But then why has he been disallowed from doing overtime?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I have no idea. Either he's talking bollocks or he has some job which isn't flexible like that. Can you at least say what job he has?

[Viero_Berlotti]

But then why has he been disallowed from doing overtime?

His employers probably can't afford to pay anybody overtime. So blaming 'Europe' is a handy get out clause for them, and this chump has fallen for it.

[Rowlands]

Long distance lorry driver. He's been restricted to doing 48 hours a week, whereas he used to be able to take overtime and do up to 60, even 70 hours a week, and he does need money for his mortgage and three children.

The thing that confuses me is, how CAN I respond when he says stuff like that about immigrants? I'm getting into a position where a lot of people are right winged, but I haven't been (mostly) liberal long enough to be able to enter debates with those views. What SHOULD I say in response to his claim that they are easy on immigrants because they vote Labour, or that it can be totally simple to carry checks on every ship that enters the country. It puts me into conflict with my relatively new viewpoint and I can't bear the thought of reverting back to how I was when I was around 14, an age during which I would have agreed with what he said.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It's best not to recycle someone elses arguments- especially seeing as that's one of the major problems with his arguments (aside from being hugely fuckwitted). If you feel like you should instinctively disagree with his views then that will go some way towards developing your own arguments- even if they're similar ultimately to what other people say, you will have the satisfaction of knowing your opinions have been arrived on a more credible level. Once you reach that point you will always be in a better position in an argument than someone who recycles newspaper editorials, clichés, stereotypes and believes any of the usual received opinion guff.

He could opt out, but I'm guessing as a long distance lorry driver, he can only drive a limited amount of time anyway due to health and safety laws about not falling asleep and running your HGV into a Little Chef. I'm not sure whether they would be limited to 48 hours a week, I don't know but I'm doubtful.

In short though- no-one can tell you your own arguments. If you accept arguments on that level you're principally no better than that which you are in conflict against.

[boxofslice]

Just say you don't think that's correct and if he insists ask him to provide evidence to back up his argument.

[Rowlands]

As I said, until recently, he could do as much overtime as he wanted.

It's just foundations I need really shoulders, just WHERE to look into and then building views from there.

He actually said to me that he learnt all of this stuff from some guy on Talksport. I laughed when he said that, and he said that there is a journalist on there who actually goes into parliament or some place where Politicians shoot the breeze and reports back on the radio.

Then he started to talk about Tony Martin, the farmer who shot a burglar, and how it wasn't right that he was imprisoned, because he fired into darkness at a silhouette. To be honest, my views on that sort of thing are slightly harsher than most of the people on here, but he sorta ruined our moment of agreement when he said you should be rewarded for killing burglars and muggers, as it 'cleans that sort of muck off the streets'.

[CaledonianGonzo]

In that case, it's not the EU working time directive that affects him but this:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/freight/road/workingtime/rdtransportworkingtimeguidance?page=2#a1001

He can still do up to 60 hours a week.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

http://www.tuc.org.uk/work_life/tuc-17096-f0.cfm

Despite the clear road safety and health risks associated with drivers working long hours, one in four bus drivers work more than 49.5 hours a week, while one in four van drivers work more than 48 hours a week.

You will see further down that Individuals can opt out of the 48 hour limit. You'll also see from Caledonian Gonzo that he can work more than 48 hours a week even within those guidelines, without opting out, so long as he averages 48 hours over a 4 month period. So he's talking bollocks, as suspected.

[Emma Raducanu]

Tell him he's being a little unfair on immigrants, that you know a few who are wonderful and that you won't have a bad word said about their people. Inform him that while you are sympathetic with his recieved viewpoint that there are too many foreigners, also insist there are too many natives "clogging up the streets" and that you'd only be too happy to see them washed out to sea. Then just run away.

[Rowlands]

So, is it fair to say that he is actually being shafted by his work who don't want to pay him too much?

[Still Not George]

So, is it fair to say that he is actually being shafted by his work who don't want to pay him too much?

Definitely starting to look like it.

[Saucer51]

how CAN I respond when he says stuff like that about immigrants?  I haven't been (mostly) liberal long enough to be able to enter debates with those views. What SHOULD I say in response to his claim that they are easy on immigrants because they vote Labour

If you already oppose his views, surely you know why you do? It's of no use (to your own peace of mind) to think "he's bang out of order" but then fail to think of any reasons why. Isn't that sheeple, bandwagon-jumping stuff?  And this isn't just about this subject, but any one in the political spectrum.

[biggytitbo]

No amount of rules, EU or otherwise, are going to change the culture we have especially in the UK of working unpaid hours. Apparently you're just 'not a team player' and 'letting the side down' if you don't go along with it. I fucking hate the hero culture within the workplace.

Like I said before, there are some OK UKIP people, but I think a lot of their members are just racists who haven't got the courage of their convictions to join the BNP.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

As for the 'Labour loves immigrants' thing, a look at Yarl's Wood detention centre should shut him up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarl%27s_Wood_Immigration_Removal_Centre

A 2006 Legal Action for Women (LAW)[2] investigation into Yarl's Wood Removal Centre found that: 70% of women had reported rape, nearly half had been detained for over three months. 57% had no legal representation, and 20% had lawyers who demanded payment in advance. Women reported sexual and racial intimidation by guards. LAW's Self-Help Guide has been confiscated by guards depriving detainees of information about their rights[12].

In April 2009, the Children's Commissioner for England published a report which stated that children held in the detention centre are denied urgent medical treatment, handled violently and left at risk of serious harm. The report details how children are transported in caged vans and watched by opposite sex staff as they dress. [13] This follows earlier allegations in 2005 by the Chief Inspector of Prisons that children were being damaged by being held in the institution, citing in particular an autistic five year old who had not eaten properly in several days.[14]

In early February 2002, the building was burnt down following a protest by the detainees. This was triggered by a 55 year old woman being physically restrained by staff. When the fires started the Head of Group 4 security ordered all staff to exit the building, locking the detainees inside the timber framed building. Five people were injured in the fire.[5] It later emerged that the government had failed to install a sprinkler system[5]. Although there was an investigation, no members of Group 4 were ever prosecuted.

On February 4th 2010, a hunger strike (still current at the time of writing) began with over 70 women protesting their poor conditions, separation from their children, poor health and legal provisions and long periods of detainment. One hunger striker had been held for 15 months. Guards locked the women in an airless corridor to isolate them from other inmates. Serco and the UKBA refused to confirm the number, nationality and status of the hunger strikers.

Your taxes pay for this. It's appalling that such a place exists in this country.

[Shaun]

Are immigrants allowed to vote in general elections? I thought you had to be a British citizen. Though I suppose after some years of residence they can gain citizenship, it's not really a short-term strategy (assuming immigrants are more likely to vote for Labour).

[Desi Rascal]

 Its an urban myth  iirc EU citizens can vote in council elections but not national ones, not sure what the position is for non eu citizens, but the general thrust that Labour is using immigrants to shore up its vote is bollocks seeing as labour has alienated a large number of Naturalised British citizens from comonwealth countries by tightening up visa regulations regarding spouses/ family members from overseas coming to Britain.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Your taxes pay for this. It's appalling that such a place exists in this country.

I agree, it's the knowledge of what goes on a Yarl's Wood (Yarl's Wood is the only immigration detention centre in the country with an immigration 'court' built in) that made me sweat embryos trying to stop families from ever ending up in there.

People who are against immigration on a 'send them all back' level don't really care about people as human beings, I find. Whenever you bring arguments about the welfare of families/ECHR law that usually brings this out.

The level of discourse has been reduced to a level no higher than 'right, how do we tackle immigration?'- a default negative approach to the subject. Considering I am one of these bleeding heart liberal fellows, I tend to actually agree more or less with the current immigration rules, give or take some obnoxious exceptions.

Labour have such a schizophrenic approach to the issue- defending their record and pointing to the benefits and cultural enrichment etc, while obsessing about negative newspaper headlines. They should just accept people are never going to see them as 'tough on immigration'- and question whether being 'tough on immigration' is even a good thing to begin with- whether we should tighten up the legitimate avenues to work/settle/claim asylum in the country, or whether all that would achieve is forcing immigrants to undertake more arduous, risky and illegal methods of entering the country.

Lots of people accept this argument when it comes to legalising drugs/prostitution but seem unwilling when it comes to a more basic, fundamental question of human empathy- which is weird. Likewise people are unwilling to accept the inevitability of mass migration in a globalised world (I'll stop now before this becomes an essay).

[Saucer51]

there are some OK UKIP people, but I think a lot of their members are just racists who haven't got the courage of their convictions to join the BNP.

But why? Why does it take courage to vote for any party? Answer: Because BNP supporters have been demonised to such an extent that some are even fearful for their jobs.
As odious as I find their views, I remain uncomfortable with scaring or shaming anyone to not vote in a certain way. It appears that many of the people who have ticked the BNP box have also voted Labour before, or are even traditional Labour supporters. Simply demonising them for switching to parties that spring up in the vacuum of expedient policy making is plain wrong. I blame Labour for the rise of the BNP and they should at least do the right thing and lure people back through it's manifesto.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Calling people up on any views in conjunction with their public support for a fascist political party is just about okay, I reckon.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

People who are against immigration on a 'send them all back' level don't really care about people as human beings, I find.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/01/yarls-wood-condition-visit

Ok, so you expect some nastiness on the fucking interwebz - but some of the comments here beggar belief. "Let them all burn" for one. Sickening.

[Utter Shit]

I've got this terrible vision of Rowlands going back to this fella and quoting EU directives to him, like Brent listing his Dostoevsky facts to the temp in The Office.

[HappyTree]

I would react to the 70 hours a week this driver thinks he can do. What is he on? So he has got used to a life of massive overwork. The work-limiting directives are actually there to improve his quality of life. It's not the government's fault if he's too clueless to know what to do with his free time, he should accept the more humane working hours and figure out how to live less greedily.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/01/yarls-wood-condition-visit

Ok, so you expect some nastiness on fucking interwebz - but some of the comments here beggar belief. "Let them all burn" for one. Sickening.

First comment:

There are people living in doorways in London, some would have been tax payers in the past could you please look after them first?

Did he even read the article? Or is he asking for the homeless to be locked up in inhuman and degrading conditions with no concrete release date or legal representation?

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

I would react to the 70 hours a week this driver thinks he can do. What is he on? So he has got used to a life of massive overwork. The work-limiting directives are actually there to improve his quality of life. It's not the government's fault if he's too clueless to know what to do with his free time, he should accept the more humane working hours and figure out how to live less greedily.

Or perhaps he wants to pay the mortgage, buy his wife and kids decent food and nice things, take them on holidays etc? Perhaps he's badly paid so needs the overtime just to pay the bills? Maybe people should be left alone to improve their quality of life in way that works for them, rather than have it shoved down their throats by a bunch of cunts more used to working with statistics than people?

It's fucking offensive how you don't even know this guy and immediately jump to the conclusion that he's "clueless" and "greedy".

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

a bunch of cunts

It's fucking offensive how you don't even know this guy and immediately jump to the conclusion

fail

Maybe people should be left alone to improve their quality of life in way that works for them

Maybe people on the motorway deserve to not have to share the same roads with lorry drivers who have to down cans of Red Bull just to stay awake.

This argument is fucking pointless anyway- he can opt out of the 48hr limit if he wants to.

[HappyTree]

If you make your life expenses dependent on doing a 70-hour week then you're clearly doing something wrong.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

fail

Fair cop, guv.

Maybe people on the motorway deserve to not have to share the same roads with lorry drivers who have to down cans of Red Bull just to stay awake.

I would react to the amount of motorway driving these drivers think they can do. What are they on? So they have got used to a life of massive overdriving. The lorry drivers are actually there to improve their quality of life. It's not the lorry driver's fault if they're too clueless to know what to do with their free time, they should accept the more humane roads and figure out how to drive less greedily.

This argument is fucking pointless anyway- he can opt out of the 48hr limit if he wants to.

Yes. Especially because of this attitude:

If you make your life expenses dependent on doing a 70-hour week then you're clearly doing something wrong.

Yeah, it's that easy, isn't it?