For me this should be the end of …

Comment posted Mull Independent joins Coalition for Progress by Integrity? Not in the CondemAll.

For me this should be the end of it (with the addition of Michael Breslin should he be elected on Thursday). Of the previous administration there were two obvious targets from those who voted the school closures through and they were Mary Jean Devon and Alex MacNaughton. This is because of their initial opposition (although they then voted to push ahead once their areas were not directly in the firing line). Since that time Mary Jean Devon decided enough was enough with the Alliance (and I accept there are different opinions about this) and walked of her own accord whereas Alex MacNaughton’s lack of action suggests he is quite happy to continue being aligned to the Alliance group.

The other member of the Alliance that we often thought might be unhappy was Elaine Robertson as she just appeared very uncomfortable with the process although she did vote to continue with it. Given that these thoughts were in some of our heads the ‘defection’ of Cllr Robertson was not a great surprise and, for me anyway, the only one of the previous administration whose defection is palatable.

I would be very uncomfortable with any of the other Alliance members choosing to jump ship (and being accepted) as not once did I get the impression that they were troubled by the botched job being made by the Council and the juvenile manner in which they scoffed at suggestions that they might have got things wrong.

The numbers are there now, there is no need to increase them by welcoming any more members who are quite clearly not a proper fit for this new group.

Recent comments by Integrity? Not in the CondemAll

• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  Not sure if I agree with putting fascism and Islam on the same shelf (as it were).
  However interestingly, and a little ironically, if there is a massively generalised criticism of the Islamic faith it is its traditional resistance/opposition to multiculturalism – a criticism that could be made of UKIP with little difficulty.
• Walsh to lead all but Lib Dems, Conservatives and George Freeman
  ‘more honest and upfront’

  Really?

• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  On the issue of accusing people of being fascists I, in a rare moment, agree with Malcolm due to the people in history who have, through their actions, defined the term (although its proper definition has doens’t necessarily mean you need to be a mass murderer).

  It is a little bit of double standards though because in another post you refer to Farage as ‘good old’ yet he descibed the protesters as ‘fascist thugs.’ So an offensive remark by him in your eyes Malcolm?

• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  Using violence against it is obviously contradictory however it is often the action of very last resort. It is a good line by Arden although worth putting it in the context of the play it comes from which focuses on military deserters who are sickened by a war they are being forced to be a part of. Apartheid and the America civil rights movement is a very different context where years of suppression, violence, and some of the most heinous acts were committed on people for no other reason than bitter inbred prejudice.
• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  The NIMBY, of all political persuasion, certainly isn’t a rare bird however their existence in place A, or of persuasion B, doesn’t detract from criticism of specific examples of it.

  I agree it is unsafe to use fringe views to represent a whole group and you make a fair point about the need for clarity in the overall ‘cause’. For me though, UKIP cause it not clear and I don’t see these issues as the views of a minority within the group, or a collection of rogue members.
  Your point about Alex Salmond’s potential reaction to similar treatment of one of his own party (or himself) is valid and is a point I made in an earlier post. At the risk of repeating myself (well not a risk as I am doing it!) I believe the best course of action would have been for him to openly state that he didn’t approve of the actions of the crowd and, in the same statement, making it clear that the group was not representing either the SNP or the Scottish independence movement.

  I am sure he, as any of us would, be shaken by such an experience. The fact that there was no actual physical violence doesn’t for a second mean anger/abuse at such close proximity is not hugely intimidating and a politician, irrespective of opinion, should be allowed to perform their role without being out in a position where they are fearful for their safety. Tony Blair would, almost definitely, face a similar reaction in certain places, as would a number of other politicians over the years. Like you I would argue that this is not the best way to express discontent. Only in a very small number of occasions would I condone taking protest to the point of physical intimidation and I reserve that to some of the most significant ‘upheavals’ in modern times (examples being the fight against apartheid and the civil rights movement in the US) – even then there would be a line I, personally, couldn’t step over.

  Drifting away from the point a little (although I must say it is refreshing to be debating something other than Scottish Independence or A&B Council!). My overall point is that I believe UKIP to be a party with an inherent bigotry at the core of it and this is clearly evidenced by the actions, statements, and affiliations of too many of its members for it to be brushed off as a the actions of a fringe minority. If the same number of statements (of the same nature) had been made by members of any of the mainstream parties (on both sides of the border) then they would face a far bigger backlash from the media and opposition supporters despite the actual percentage representation being far lower.

powered by SEO Super Comments