Monday, September 23, 2013
Bloom - Walking The Tightrope But Not Going Down The Road Of Political Correctness - A "LibDem" Blogger's View
"Anyone who doubts the Farage phenomenon should watch this clip of his speech to deeply uncomfortable looking German bankers in the European parliament, taking what seems to me to be a genuinely liberal line on the euro crisis. Politics does need people like that.
But what I wanted to say was this. I realise I must be the only person in the world, apart from Farage's colleague Godfrey Bloom, to feel sorry for Godfrey Bloom.
There he is making a deeply unwise comment about women not cleaning behind the fridge in a fringe meeting, and the next thing he knows, he is out on his ear.
And of all the things that Farage might need to apologise for - his brand of populism, his strange other-worldly policies on crime, military spending and immigration (they have to speak "fluent English" apparently) - what really upsets him is that Bloom has not realised that the word 'sluts' has changed in meaning since he was a boy, some centuries ago.
Personally I don't clean behind my fridge. I've never actually been there. It is uncharted territory. It may be a black hole sucking in dark matter for all I know. No doubt Godfrey Bloom would forgive this on the grounds that, as a man, I ought to be outside slaying things.
But what this strange incident tells me is that UKIP has started worrying about political correctness. It has started agonising about the impression it gives beyond its core support. It means they are just like other political parties - and that will blunt Farage's straight-talking. like nothing else
First, you complain about your colleagues understanding of four letter words. The next thing you know, you are dissembling like all your opponents. It is a slippery slope and it is fascinating to see that UKIP are now on it."
I think UKIP are quite aware of this problem, made, as I say in comments, far worse by the fact that our state owned media monopoly, is clearly trying to do everything possible to puff up smears against us - something the Pseudo-Liberals obviously do not suffer from. How this tightrope is ultimately walked is, fortunately not up to me. I think our reaction is nearly right though if asked I would say that game theory suggests counter attack is usually better, in the long term, than turning the other cheek.
In that vein Nigel did speak during the conference about the incident where Bloom hit Michael Crick. Crick is a nasty lying little fascist prostitute who well deserves hitting, but Bloom should not have hit him. He should have stuck to saying that in mentioning one UKIP photo which, as is bound to happen sometime by random chance, showed only white people Crick and the Channel 4 were showing themselves to be racist - which is undoubtedly true. This was reinforced when Farage later pointed out several other photos in that conference book had coloured people in them and with some irony, that if Channel 4 had actually opened the book they would have known this.
I strongly suspect that, at least once, some C4 researcher must have opened the book. in which case Crick was not just being racist, he was being deliberately dishonest, presumably on C4 instructions. If at all honourable Channel would apologise for thus lying in the totalitarian cause.
I'm sure they won't apologise but the very fact that C4, the BBC et al felt they had to run with the story of the word rather than of the reporter being hit suggests they believe the public would think he well deserved it. Which in turn means they know they are close to being rumbled as some of the most biased and totalitarian broadcasters in the world.
From my comment on David's blog:
"The problem is that UKIP know that the media, led by the BBC, legally required to be "balanced" but in fact one of the most slanted totalitarian broadcasters in the world, is looking for any smear it can. As you say the word was not intended to be, nor taken by women in the audience as, insulting and the media certainly know it.
But UKIP have to ensure we give no hostages to these propagandists.
Most of the reason they have to rely on smears is because they know perfectly well that in virtually every instance UKIP's policies are both far more sensible (at least for parties with the nation's interest in mind) and far more popular than those of any faction of the totalitarian cartel in charge.
This was shown in the "bongo" case where. to attack him, the media had to actually explain a little of what Bloom actually said and found that most people agreed that giving increased "aid" that only enriches corrupt politicians was not a good thing after all.
You only have to play the man when you can't play the ball and it is quite obvious that this is the position your totalitarians are in."
David did not disagree with any of that.
I am going to have to disagree with David's opinion of our policies - "populism" if it simply means being popular rather than adopting policies purely because they are popular, is not a bad thing. By the alternative definition there have been many attempts by the old parties at populism of the other sort, not least the nominal hardening of Pseudo-Liberal immigration policies since Eastleigh; I agree with seriously opposing crime; I see nothing strange about wanting immigrants to be fluent in English; while was not enthusiastic for UKIP policy on increasing military spending it is clear that we are now moving to doing better rather than more expensive (eg getting rid of most of the 70k MoD procurement clerks who have procured so much stuff that was late, overpriced and doesn't work) and that seems sensible to me (though if the X-prize budget were to be given some of the military budget, like DARPA in the US, I would be ecstatic).