In the news

it's nowhere near implicit

That's why it falls under 'dog-whistle politics'. :)

Where did I talk about a "racist agenda"?

dog-whistle politics

I'm saying it's not even that. There are plenty of regular Joes who are in no way racist but believe that immigration is detrimental to the country's economy. They may well be wrong but it doesn't mean that it's anything personal.

You suggested, I said, with the use of the phrase 'pretty reliable,' which implies, 'more often than not.'

You're like those football thugs who sidle up to mounted police, and when the officer tells them to back off they act like they're the innocent victim.

There is complete freedom of movement currently for all member states of the EU. Of which we remain one for the time being.

Has that seen large scale population movements from the (relatively) poorer south to the wealthier north? I think we all know the answer is no.

Or like those politicians talking about controlling immigration because they know it will get the taboo racist vote out in droves wile maintaining a degree of separation between from said racists....oh.

I'm saying it's not even that. There are plenty of regular Joes who are in no way racist but believe that immigration is detrimental to the country's economy. They may well be wrong but it doesn't mean that it's anything personal.

That doesn't address my point. There are also plenty of people who are racist. When politicians don't dare say a certain thing, they dog-whistle.

More worryingly, Zac Goldsmith's recent 'campaign' to be elected Mayor of London went beyond it (and failed, mercifully). I think the Tories were using it as a trial for what's going on now.

What dst said.

I'd suggest the failure to dog whistle loud enough is what's allowed UKIP to thrive.

Indeed I did suggest, and thanks for explaining what that means, really helpful. But I didn't suggest a "racist agenda", I implied, to use your helpful terminology, that people who don't like immigration often have racist views, however they may manifest themselves.

And fuck off with your cliched analogy, I stand by my original post. I was querying your pompous attempts to put words in my mouth.

Like I said, maybe I touched a raw nerve for you.

Not sure if there's a dog-whistle in there of you conceding my point. :)

I think Rudd nailed it in her speech.

The state must draw a sharp line of distinction between those who, as members of the nation, are the foundation and the support of its existence and greatness, and those who are domiciled in the State simply as earners of their livelihood there.

Me "It isn't inherently racist to want to regulate immigration"

You "But it's a pretty reliable barometer."

You implied that people who WANT TO REGULATE immigration are most likely racist. Maybe you didn't intend do, but that's the implication.

I thought my analogy was highly original, no?

"Succour"

Filthy forrin spelling.

Well, now you know how to find us.

"Spell colour! Speeellllll ittttttt!"

No it's not. But it's made personal by continuous suggestions of immigration causing issues.

Handing people loaded guns really. At some point someone gets shot and we have already seen it with post brexit xenophobia.

There is just no middle ground, exploitation of anyone should be frowned upon. Local or not.

Oh, I get you totally. Just saying that it doesn't always follow. I think most politicians don't care either way - whatever they think will win them votes.

Don't assume your inference is de-facto the implication of what I said. I posted six words and you started making assumptions. If you can't see the difference between my post (and my subsequent explanation of it) and your interpretation of it, then that's your problem.

Yeah, that's the danger - that it gets so bad and people's frustrations boil over. It's like what the NF did in the 70s/80s - recruited from economically deprived areas and found a captive audience.
But this would be a problem anywhere: it's human nature to look for scapegoats.

Yeah sorry, I misunderstood the phrase 'pretty reliable'.

No you didn't

So you do mean that wanting to regulate immigration is reliable indicator of being a racist?? I'm confused!

Oh, you and your dog-whistle irony.

Oh, I get you totally. Just saying that it doesn't always follow. I think most politicians don't care either way - whatever they think will win them votes.

I don't know what you mean by 'it doesn't always follow'. Of course dog-whistling is hard to show, as it's 'below implicit', as it were. For that reason alone, it will always just be an allegation. It's not designed to 'follow' (logically) but to be picked up by those who will hear it (and appreciate it).

I mean that just because we suppose that politicians are dog whistling, doesn't always mean they actually are. As the great Ian Svenonius once said, "Just cause they say it doesn't mean it's not true."

These are cynical times...

Indeed but scapegoating should not be encouraged.

The Shankill area here had big issues with xenophobia against Polish people. Their community group decided to explain the Polish fought hard in the RAF in ww2. Xenophobia reduced.

Instead of doing that, while acknowledging there are issues too, real or whipped up, it's just pissing pole talk. I see this in many places btw not the UK. But that doesn't make it right.