Views from a car.

[eponymousarchon]

You know, local elections always bring out the worst in some people, and parties.

Returning home from Farnborough yesterday, myself and Kit noticed that we were passed a sign for one of the 'issue' political parties (the UKIP, I believe), poking over a fence insisting "Say NO to unlimited immigration".

Being wishy-washy Guardian readers, we were both annoyed by this but Kit was the one who broke and commented on it first:

Kit: "You know, no-one's actually advocating unlimited immigration. At all."
Me: (picking up the theme) Say NO to misrepresented issues!"
Kit: (immediate) "Say NO to straw men!"
Me: (thinks) "Actually, that's what both they and us are saying - but we mean very different things by it."

And by then the car was well past the sign and the conversation changed.

Comments

[clarisinda.livejournal.com]

What I don't quite understand, is that apparently it's bad and nasty and awful for certain parties to be advocating a tightening of rules on immigration, but actually EVERYONE is pro having some sort of immigration laws - noone is suggesting we let anyone and everyone in. But having some laws is ok, but having other laws where the line is drawn slightly differently is bad and evil. I just don't quite get it.

[kyte.livejournal.com]

I tend to worry about any party who is using the tightening of immigration laws *as a campaign tactic*. That's dangerous ground.