Non-motoring > UKIP - Volume 1   [Read only]	Miscellaneous
Thread Author: No FM2R	Replies: 200

New Mon 23 Sep 13 19:35   UKIP - Volume 1 - No FM2R

***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 ***** 1) Don't like them, wouldn't vote for them. 2) Participation in the media, and political debates, should not be down to desired or perceived popularity. I signed this. submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43153 And it shouldn't be "beat", it should be something like "show credibly". Don't say it. I still think they're rubbish. But even rubbish has rights. Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 10 Jan 14 at 10:34       1

New Mon 23 Sep 13 19:43   UKIP - Old Navy

I think that any party that can break the Labour / Conservative monopoly with the moderation that a coalition provides can't be all bad. Coalitions have not caused Germany too many problems.

New Mon 23 Sep 13 19:49   UKIP - Zero

Is there a petition to ban all leaders speeches?

New Mon 23 Sep 13 20:15   UKIP - -

Thankyou, signed. The right way to beat those who you disagree with is to show their arguments as wrong in fair debate, not by censoring. Last edited by: gordonbennet on Mon 23 Sep 13 at 20:15       1

New Mon 23 Sep 13 20:31   UKIP - No FM2R

Whilst I agree with you GB, that does rather depend on an intelligent audience who know what's going on around them.

New Mon 23 Sep 13 20:15   UKIP - Dog

>>I signed this. submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43153 ditto.       1

New Mon 23 Sep 13 20:39   UKIP - Armel Coussine

I won't be signing. But I have nothing whatsoever against Mr Vuvuzela getting a fair shout along with the other politicos. In fact it can only do him and UKIP good.

New Mon 23 Sep 13 20:35   UKIP - Haywain

Listening to the 'Giving extra childcare help to working mothers' platitudes being uttered this morning, I can't help thinking that the LibLabCons are busy rearranging deck-chairs in an appealing way whilst the party of so-called loonies, fruitcakes etc has spotted the iceberg.       6

New Mon 23 Sep 13 21:03   UKIP - NortonES2

Signed, with strong reservations about UKIP, but not the principle.       2

New Mon 23 Sep 13 22:05   UKIP - DP

Don't like them, wouldn't vote for them, but they have a right to be included. Signed.       1

New Tue 24 Sep 13 09:37   UKIP - devonite

Signed, and I will be voting for them, they may not be any better than the "Muppets" we have at the moment, but it will be nice to be robbed by someone new whilst they have a go at feathering their nest.       1

New Tue 24 Sep 13 10:54   UKIP - tyro

" . . . but they have a right to be included." Why do they have a right to be included? Do the Greens? Do the SWP? Do the BNP?

New Tue 24 Sep 13 09:34   UKIP - Alanovich

This is ludicrous. A European Election has absolutely no relation to a UK Parliamentary Election, due mainly to the perverse electoral system of the UK Parliamentary Elections. I see absolutely no reason why a successful Euro Election campaign by UKIP should mean that they are given equal footing to the main parties come a General Election. Not signing that. And it's nothing to do with my dislike of UKIP policies in general. No-one is campaigning to give the Greens equal footing - and they have gone one better than UKIP already and got a seat in Parliament. Likewise SNP, Plaid Cymru, Ulster unionists, Sinn Fein etc.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 09:46   UKIP - Zero

^^^^^^^^^^^^ the communist has a point you know ^^^^^^^^^^^

New Tue 24 Sep 13 10:03   UKIP - Clk Sec

>> they may not be any better Possibly so. I emailed a simple question to them a while back but did not get the courtesy of a response, despite resending it a couple of times. A relative down south voted for them in the last council elections, and they were the only party not to have knocked on his door, not to have delivered a flyer, and not to have put a post election note in the local rag.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 10:53   UKIP - tyro

This all raises a very basic question: How does one decide who should be included in debates and who should not be? Should the LibDems be included? Why or why not?

New Tue 24 Sep 13 11:10   UKIP - Alanovich

>> Should the LibDems be included? Why or why not? >> Winning tens of seats every election, around 20% of the vote (but not 20% of the seats, naturally (rolly eye smiley)), and forming part of the Government of the day are pretty convincing arguments. I'm staggered that it would even be questioned. And that's it. Three way debate between the parties who are representing multiple constituencies across the United Kingdom. When The LibDems/Cons/Lab have no seats and the Greens/UDRIP have several, then it should change. New parties need to prove themselves

New Tue 24 Sep 13 12:00   UKIP - tyro

And that's it. Three way debate between the parties who are representing multiple constituencies across the United Kingdom. So, if I understand you correctly (and in particular your choice of the word "multiple" and the phrase "across the United Kingdom"), your position is that debates should include any party which at the time of the debate a) holds at least two seats in parliament and b) holds a seat in at least two of Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland. Have I understood you correctly?

New Tue 24 Sep 13 12:04   UKIP - Alanovich

I don't see the b) but as particularly necessary, but that's the rough idea. IMHO of course. Feel free to debate.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 12:43   UKIP - tyro

>> I don't see the b) but as particularly necessary, but that's the rough idea. IMHO >> of course. Feel free to debate. If you don't include b) then a debate for the next election will feature the following parties: Conservative Labour Lib Dem SNP Plaid Cymru Sinn Fein DUP SDLP I have a feeling that most voters would find that to be a rather unexpected selection of parties. Or, to put it another way the phrase " across the United Kingdom" needs to be fleshed out. And yes, the Conservatives won no seats in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in 1997 (thanks for the reminder, Bromptonaut), and so would have been excluded from debates in 2001 had condition b) held. Personally, I would think that if (and I stress the word 'if') one was basing eligibility for inclusion in a debate on results of the previous General Election, it would make more sense to base it on the percentage of the vote that a party got, rather than the number of seats they won or the distribution of their seats. Last edited by: tyro on Tue 24 Sep 13 at 12:44

New Tue 24 Sep 13 12:56   UKIP - Alanovich

>> it would >> make more sense to base it on the percentage of the vote that a party >> got, rather than the number of seats they won or the distribution of their seats. >> Wouldn't that be a dandy system for determining the number of seats each party gets also? ;-)       1

New Tue 24 Sep 13 12:58   UKIP - Stuu

>>Wouldn't that be a dandy system for determining the number of seats each party gets also? << Agreed :-)

New Tue 24 Sep 13 13:01   UKIP - tyro

>> Wouldn't that be a dandy system for determining the number of seats each party gets >> also? >> >> ;-) You're preaching to the converted. I've been a supporter of the Single Transferable Vote for at least 30 years.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 14:55   UKIP - Zero

>> >> I don't see the b) but as particularly necessary, but that's the rough idea. >> IMHO >> >> of course. Feel free to debate. >> >> If you don't include b) then a debate for the next election will feature the >> following parties: But its a television debate, we have regional television so its not a problem. >> Conservative >> Labour >> Lib Dem All Regions >> SNP + in scotland >> Plaid Cymru + in Wales >> Sinn Fein >> DUP >> SDLP Not on television they just get invited to the riot in the street.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 12:24   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> And that's it. Three way debate between the parties who are representing multiple constituencies across >> the United Kingdom. >> >> So, if I understand you correctly (and in particular your choice of the word "multiple" >> and the phrase "across the United Kingdom"), your position is that debates should include any >> party which at the time of the debate >> >> a) holds at least two seats in parliament >> >> and >> >> b) holds a seat in at least two of Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland. >> >> Have I understood you correctly? Condition (b) could be troublesome unless there were seperate debates for each country in UK. There would be no rationale for wholly excluding the Nationalists or the Northern Irish parties in a Westminster or European election. It might possibly also have eliminated the Tories from debate in some elections. Even now they only hold one seat in Scotland and I think they failed to win any in Wales too at the height of the Labour landslide.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 12:59   UKIP - No FM2R

I don't see why anybody should be prevented. There needs to be some means to determine whether or not you are genuinely a party standing for election, but surely that should be the only criteria? Surely you should be heard whatever level of nuttiness, insanity, wrongness, popularity or stupidity you represent provided that you subscribe to and abide by the rules and laws of the system you wish to compete in? If nothing else, it would bring things into the light; whether that is the quality of the party speaking, or the stance of the other parties by forcing them to respond and/or pay attention. I agree with you on UKIP and its policies, but that's not sufficient reason to prevent them speaking. One day there may be a party in UKIP's position who truly do have the answer; it would be a shame if we stopped them or delayed them by refusing to let them take part in the whole system and process. And in my opinion, the only thing likely [possible] to improve the performance and behaviour of politicians is forcing them to fight for what they want and forcing them to be judged in the light.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 13:01   UKIP - Alanovich

>> I don't see why anybody should be prevented. A debate of 19 party leaders would be pointless. 3 is about as many as a debate can handle, for the purposes of a TV audience, which is what we're discussing here. I think. >> I agree with you on UKIP and its policies, but that's not sufficient reason to >> prevent them speaking. No-one's stopping them speaking. They get plenty of attention in the press. Often on Question Time, etc.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 13:07   UKIP - No FM2R

>>A debate of 19 party leaders would be pointless Depends on what you think the debate is for, and what it is supposed to achieve or add. It depends on how they are approached, there is no reason for there not to be more of them (albeit that they would be insanely boring). And again, limiting to 3 for TV effectiveness is, IMO, an inadequate and inappropriate reason for denying any viable party participation. If the debates become pointless, then I'm sure some of the parties would stop doing them - Pretty much self-determining quality and quantity I would think. For the three main parties, and others, the exclusion of some parties from those debates is not related to it harming the entertainment or educational qualities of those debates. Its about limiting publicity for competitors or those they disagree with.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 13:46   UKIP - tyro

"For the three main parties, and others, the exclusion of some parties from those debates is . . . about limiting publicity for competitors or those they disagree with." I think that there is no question that this is, to at least some extent, true. "limiting to 3 for TV effectiveness is, IMO, an inadequate and inappropriate reason for denying any viable party participation" Again, I am inclined to agree. Some people might argue that limiting it to 2 makes for better TV effectiveness. But, as I say, by the time you get to 24, it becomes problematical. But I don't know where one draws the line.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 13:06   UKIP - tyro

"Surely you should be heard whatever level of nuttiness, insanity, wrongness, popularity or stupidity you represent . . . " You can be heard (i.e. be part of the political debate) without being part of formal television debates. I think that TV debates that featured a couple of dozen political parties would be interesting, but not very practical.       1

New Tue 24 Sep 13 13:09   UKIP - Alanovich

>> I think that TV debates that featured a couple of dozen political parties would be >> interesting, but not very practical. >> This. In a nutshell, is what I was trying to convey. Introducing the SDLP leader to the majority of the UK would be pretty pointless.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 10:57   UKIP - tyro

"I emailed a simple question to them a while back but did not get the courtesy of a response, despite resending it a couple of times." Interesting. I emailed UKIP a year or two ago to take issue with one of their policies. I was most impressed that they responded and gave reasons for this policy. (FWIW I was not convinced by their reasons, and still think that this particular policy is insane, but at least they responded.)       1

New Tue 24 Sep 13 12:19   UKIP - Stuu

>>I emailed a simple question to them a while back but did not get the courtesy of a response, despite resending it a couple of times. A relative down south voted for them in the last council elections, and they were the only party not to have knocked on his door, not to have delivered a flyer, and not to have put a post election note in the local rag. << Who did you email? There has been a problem with out of date contact info that has peed off a fair few members who have had same problem as you - I know someone on the UKIP forum who is good at sorting these things out so let me know who you wanted to contact and I will ask the question if you would like me to. As for the lack of canvassing, actual door knocking is pure chance on whether they catch you in, the rest is 100% down to money as the national party doesnt fund local campaigns, so the smaller the local party, the smaller their resources as they rely on local fundraising and memberships. It should get better as the membership grows but if the local branch isnt big they will be spread thin.       1

New Tue 24 Sep 13 13:18   UKIP - Cliff Pope

I think we are mixing up two concepts here. One is the right of news media etc to interview or stage debates between anyone they think their viewers might be interested in. The other is the right of political parties to claim a specified amount of air time for them to state their cases. The first is simply supply and demand. The second has to have some kind of cut-off threshold or qualifying criteria otherwise any nutcase could claim he would win a landslide if only he were given equal air-time. But the leaders' debates are about elections to the UK parliament. If Mr Farridge is fighting in a European election then he needs to be trying to debate with Frau Merkel or M. Hollande.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 13:22   UKIP - Clk Sec

>> There has been a problem with out of date contact info >> that has peed off a fair few members who have had same problem as you >> - I know someone on the UKIP forum who is good at sorting these things >> out so let me know who you wanted to contact and I will ask the >> question if you would like me to. I'll give it another try myself, FoR. But many thanks for the info and your kind offer.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 14:11   UKIP - Stuu

>>I'll give it another try myself, FoR. But many thanks for the info and your kind offer.<< No probs. Even better than email is to ring UKIP, real people actually answer the phone - 0800 587 65 87. Might be quicker.

New Tue 24 Sep 13 14:48   UKIP - Clk Sec

I'll do that, FoR. Thanks again.       1

New Mon 30 Sep 13 17:34   UKIP - Roger.

www.totalpolitics.com/blog/423327/the-alternative-leaderand39s-speech.thtml

New Mon 30 Sep 13 17:45   UKIP - Mapmaker

Some of their policies (see website) are the ravings of an ill-educated, illiterate madman. Until they get that sorted, who'd even give them a second look. I don't approve of the debates anyway. As a voter you don't elect a PM, you elect an MP - who then chooses the PM. The last election showed that very clearly. And there's more to electing a Government than just liking its leader.       1

New Mon 30 Sep 13 19:38   UKIP - Armel Coussine

>> I don't approve of the debates anyway. Neither do I really. They're always boring, and the great unwashed being as they - I mean we - are, the wrong guy is often thought to have 'won'. Must be a nightmare for the politicos, having to argue with each other in baby language because they're on the box. There was a piece in the comic yesterday that said boring politicians were better - less goddam dangerous - than interesting ones. At last those hack carphounds have caught up with me! Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 30 Sep 13 at 19:40

New Mon 30 Sep 13 20:04   UKIP - R.P.

I wouldn't vote for them, but signed the petition. Not that it will make any difference. 'Coalitions have not caused Germany too many problems" Apart that the collapse of a coalition in Germany in the 1930s ultimately brought Hitler and his gang into power. I am scared of UKIP....no rational reason, but they scare me.

New Mon 30 Sep 13 20:16   UKIP - Stuu

>>I am scared of UKIP....no rational reason, but they scare me.<< Boo! :-)

New Mon 30 Sep 13 20:19   UKIP - No FM2R

>>I am scared of UKIP Scared might be a bit strong, but I know what you mean. Its not so much UKIP as the motivation which drives their supporters to join them. Not slinging any rocks at anyone directly, but en masse their supporters are a worrying group.

New Mon 30 Sep 13 20:53   UKIP - Haywain

"the motivation which drives their supporters to join them." I guess that, if you don't like the way the country is heading, you can either move to UKIP, or, if you have the wherewithal, move to a different country? I wouldn't blame anyone for going - sinking ship and all that ;-)       1

New Mon 30 Sep 13 20:49   UKIP - CGNorwich

It's their certainty in their cause and their devotion to their leader that I find disturbing. Like some sort of religious cult.

New Mon 30 Sep 13 21:04   UKIP - Haywain

"their devotion to their leader that I find disturbing. " The definition of 'charisma' is 'A personal magnetism that enables an individual to attract or influence people.' Who would you say is charismatic from Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage? [OK, A. Hitler was charismatic too, but let's not go there!] Last edited by: Haywain on Mon 30 Sep 13 at 21:06

New Mon 30 Sep 13 23:32   UKIP - Stuu

>>It's their certainty in their cause and their devotion to their leader that I find disturbing. Like some sort of religious cult.<< Oh please, have you never met a Labour activist? They would say and do anything if their beloved party told them to and they will defend anything it does, changing their mind only when told to do so. They have a few independant minds and they exist on the fringe for being just that. Most members are loyal to Farage but only because in terms of media performance he carries the party and he is decisive when he does things - if you are going to go and trudge around the streets for a party you want to know where you are - anyone remember after the U-turn budget when ministers were defending a policy one day and discarding it the next - no way to treat your foot soldiers putting them in that position. Farage doesnt do that - he does play the media from time to time to disturb Cameron's afternoon nap, but what he expects from members is consistant and clear - in return he delivers at what he does. That is why he has the loyalty, nothing to do with being a cult, although I think Living Colour have a good song for him. Consider this - Cameron dreams of being as popular as Farage because then he wouldnt have to spend so much time looking inward to his party and could instead address voters. Even at the Tory conference they are more interested in Farage than the men running the country - funny for me, not so much for them.       1

New Mon 30 Sep 13 23:54   UKIP - CGNorwich

"Oh please, have you never met a Labour activist? " Yep, theyr'e equally deluded . Most party activists are more that a bit odd but Ukip are in a different ball park. Farage doesn't carry the party, he is the party and his followers lap up every word he says and of course he says what they want to hear. You seem an intelligent sort of person so I I don't really understand why you can't see through him. You will eventually.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 00:02   UKIP - No FM2R

>> he is the party and his followers lap up every word I don't think that's quite true. He certainly controls the party at the moment, and he certainly sets the directions. And one of the things he is deliberately doing is saying what his target audience want to hear, and trying to ensure that's what others say/do. I might like not him, but the man is no idiot. However, I think he is not the party. I'm not sure there really is a party. Not liking all the other choices and so preferring UKIP sounds like fun, but in reality it means you've got a bunch of people together who only have one thing in common, their dislike of the others. One of two things cause that kind of bond to fall apart - Failure in which case everybody remembers they don't like each other either. Or success, when everybody realises that they should get to the front/top to make sure their opinions hold sway. In reality, they will only hold together as long as they have optimistic results but no real success. Tell me I'm wrong 3 years from now. And I bet you don't.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 00:35   UKIP - Stuu

>>He certainly controls the party at the moment, and he certainly sets the directions. And one of the things he is deliberately doing is saying what his target audience want to hear, and trying to ensure that's what others say/do. I might like not him, but the man is no idiot << He is and he isnt. Nigel is testing the members quite a bit but you have to be a policy nerd to see where. Imagine all those conservatives who joined recently over the gay marriage issue only to find Nigel advocating a marriage allowance for both same sex and hetrosexual couples - that is actually a bit risky having just let them in the door, so it isnt fair to say he is playing to the crowd, he is just doing a good job of bringing them along with him, grumpy but content to let the issue go. >>but in reality it means you've got a bunch of people together who only have one thing in common, their dislike of the others. << It isnt so much a dislike of others but a dislike of the culture that predominates in modern politics and a sense that we can do better, or atleast that we should try. >>Tell me I'm wrong 3 years from now. And I bet you don't.<< Jury is out, I am a realist, the membership has doubled since 2010 so it will be a while before it shakes out.       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 00:23   UKIP - Stuu

>>You seem an intelligent sort of person so I I don't really understand why you can't see through him. You will eventually.<< I know some things you dont about what is happening within the party, but you wouldnt believe me if I told you. I didnt just join on a whim, I joined on a firm understanding of certain things happening and they are, that is where my confidence about it comes from.       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 10:38   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> >>It's their certainty in their cause and their devotion to their leader that I find >> disturbing. Like some sort of religious cult.<< >> >> Oh please, have you never met a Labour activist? They would say and do anything >> if their beloved party told them to and they will defend anything it does, changing >> their mind only when told to do so. They have a few independant minds and >> they exist on the fringe for being just that. I was a member of Labour from 93 to 2001. Resigned over rightward drift under Blair. Activists had a wide range of views and many repeatedly argued against changes in party policy - see removal of Clause 4. Loyalty while canvassing would of course have been more pronounced but you could get them to express differences if you asked the right question. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 10:40

New Mon 30 Sep 13 20:49   UKIP - tyro

>>I am scared of UKIP.... I'm utterly terrified of Labour, the Conservatives, and the LibDems. :-0       2

New Mon 30 Sep 13 20:18   UKIP - Haywain

It boils down to having to vote for either the (untested) loonies and fruitcakes or the (proven) liars, thieves and cheats. In fact, ISTR a few years ago that of the 10 UKIP MEPs, two were serving porridge, so I doubt that they are any more honest than the regulars. The TV 'debates' between the leaders are a waste of time; I don't bother watching them, although you can't avoid soundbites from the news. Last time, I think it was reported that Clegg had done the best job; we know who'd win if Nigel took part though, don't we?

New Mon 30 Sep 13 20:35   UKIP - R.P.

At least we have our loonies in Wales to vote for. Their ex-Tory ministerial adviser is none other than the totally honest and rational Neil Hamilton. Not for me on that alone.

New Mon 30 Sep 13 21:04   UKIP - Dutchie

I think UKIP's popularity is due to the European question.The majority of the population didn't vote for a US of Europe.None of the major parties will give the voter a change to vote again to be in or out the EU. And in my opinion their is a general distrust against mainstream politicians.Let's be honest different political parties every four years and the same government.Not that I can see Nigel Farage making any difference.He reminds me of Pim Fortuin who got shot when he started to rock the boat in the Netherlands.

New Mon 30 Sep 13 21:16   UKIP - Armel Coussine

>> reminds me of Pim Fortuin who got shot when he started to rock the boat in the Netherlands. Are you putting ideas in our heads Dutchman? :o}

New Mon 30 Sep 13 21:21   UKIP - Dutchie

I'm not clever enough to put ideas about A.C. You maybe..;)

New Mon 30 Sep 13 21:14   UKIP - Armel Coussine

>> (proven) liars, thieves and cheats. Give me a professional and experienced 'liar, thief and cheat' who's just trying to keep it on the island by any means to hand any day, rather than some sod from nowhere who thinks he's right about how to run the place. We are European and in Europe. It's where we come from and where we belong. UKIP is a bit dumb really. It should keep its xenophobia for the rest of the world. Silly silly silly. And a bit dangerous, since the discourse is so easy to understand, and so tempting to the decent citizen. Tchah!       2

New Mon 30 Sep 13 21:46   UKIP - tyro

>> We are European and in Europe. It's where we come from and where we belong. The Norwegians are European and Norway is in Europe. Not, however, in the EU. There is a difference between thinking that the EU as currently constituted is not a good thing and being unenthusiastic about our European neighbours. While I don't doubt that many UKIP members are xenophobic, I certainly don't think all of them are. And I am not convinced that the party's leader is. Last edited by: tyro on Mon 30 Sep 13 at 21:51       1

New Mon 30 Sep 13 22:20   UKIP - CGNorwich

"And I am not convinced that the party's leader is." Of course he's not xenophobic. He's just clever and cynical enough to be able to give his followers the simple answers they crave to what are fundamentally complex problems.

New Mon 30 Sep 13 22:30   UKIP - Dutchie

That is the trick make it as complex as possible and nobody understands what is going on.In the land of the blind one eye is king.>) Regarding Norway,stinking rich gas and oil.Massive merchant fleet and very small population.They had a few votes on Europe and the answer was Nei.They want to keep their wealth.Human behaviour.

New Mon 30 Sep 13 22:27   UKIP - NortonES2

If we leave the EU, there will be no UK say in how it is constituted. It might be argued that we have little or no say already, but that is more a reflection of the lack of involvement in the running of the EU. God forbid, on Independence Day, that Scotland has it's own voice and that the mutilated corpse of the UK is left to the tender mercies of the Scots and our new political enemies:)

New Mon 30 Sep 13 22:34   UKIP - Dog

>>We are European and in Europe. It's where we come from and where we belong. UKIP is a bit dumb really Rubbish! you might be European Sire, being you hail from Malta, but please don't include me, I'm English/British and this sceptred isle is where I belong. I sometimes think you are a bit of a dumb ass actually, perhaps you need to adjust your medication. :o) Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 14 Oct 13 at 00:56       3

New Mon 30 Sep 13 22:39   UKIP - CGNorwich

"I'm English/British and this sceptred isle is where I belong." Thought you fancied a move to the Canary Islands.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 00:06   UKIP - Armel Coussine

I don't hail from Malta Perro. Never set foot in the place although I have seen it from a ship. And Malta's as close to North Africa as it is to Europe. Britain and even Engerlund are in Europe. Just being a bit offshore doesn't make us American. Perhaps you can help with the medication? Alas, I doubt it. Saw your leader on the box just now. He stopped going up and down on tiptoe for what must have been nearly a minute towards the end of the interview. And he'd left his pint in the dressing room. In serious mood obviously. It's not him who's sinister, it's all you cats if you ask me (all except Stu's missus).

New Tue 1 Oct 13 07:13   UKIP - Dog

Well you look Maltese to me Sire :) Our neighb gave us a bag of potatoes yesterday afternoon, fresh from her sisters farm, I cooked them at 200c for 40 mins in walnut oil, sprinkled with sea salt and freshly ground black pepper, Mmmmm! Why should I bother about poly ticks anyway, living where I do, and besides, if I were a politician, I'd hit you over the head with more than a leaflet. Rule Britannia!

New Tue 1 Oct 13 09:52   UKIP - Roger.

I was born in Malta, but that sure as hell doesn't make me Maltese!

New Tue 1 Oct 13 10:04   UKIP - CGNorwich

I think it does.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 10:10   UKIP - Alanovich

And a dog born in a stable is a horse? Didn't bother former England captain Terry Butcher very much that he was born in Singapore. Didn't make him Singaporean. I've a niece who was born in Germany whilst her father was there with the military. She has never been back there and is not, and never will be, German. People can be what they think/feel best they are. If Roger says he isn't Maltese, he isn't. It's all just lines on maps anyway. My citizenship is British. My nationality is mixed. Funnily enough, partly Maltese. Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 10:12

New Tue 1 Oct 13 10:18   UKIP - CGNorwich

Nationality is complex but but depends on basically two things, Where you were born and nationality of your parents. Being born in Malta would, I suspect, be enough to claim Maltese Nationality and have a Maltese passport. To that degree degree Roger could be said to be Maltese.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 10:24   UKIP - -

To that degree degree Roger could be said to be Maltese. >> Would the same apply if a plane overflying Malta ran into trouble and landed for an hour to get a new ignition switch fitted, and passenger Rogers mum happened to pop him out at that moment. SWMBO is Greek by birth and parentage but has lived here since a little girl, she's more fiercely and patriotically British than anyone i know, but she's unmistakably Latin in looks (especially when its sunny) temperament...and fuse length:-) Last edited by: gordonbennet on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 10:26

New Tue 1 Oct 13 10:37   UKIP - Alanovich

>> SWMBO is Greek by birth and parentage Mrs A was born in Yugoslavia. It doesn't exist any more. Her father's a Montenegrin descended Bosnian Serb and her mother is a Jewish/Hungarian descended ethnic Serb from Croatia. Her nationality? Well, it's whatever she says it is frankly. And that goes for all of us. British passport now, and this is home. If my nippers get good enough at sport to represent a nation, well they'll have a few to choose from.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 10:22   UKIP - Mapmaker

The problem with the UKIP promises is that if you're not realistically going to be in power you can promise the earth. Only when you reach power does the reality of having to deliver your promises arrive. Remember Clegg and tuition fees? The fallout if Farage ended up in government would be far, far greater, and the "betrayed" foot soldiers would really feel it.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 10:42   UKIP - movilogo

Based on what I read about UKIP on several forums (e.g. MSE, Daily Mail, here etc.) it seems they have a very strong support from many people (including myself). Still they are forming a government in next election is unlikely (I'll be voting them though). I wonder who are the people who won't vote UKIP. Do people actually understand each party's policy and vote based on their own analysis or just go to the polling station like zombies and simply vote a party whom they have always voted? It will be interesting to see how parties divide the electorates into different segments. How do they predict which part of demographics are likely to vote in their favour or against?

New Tue 1 Oct 13 10:44   UKIP - Alanovich

>> I wonder who are the people who won't vote UKIP. Yoohoo. People who want the UK to stay in the EU would be a good place to start looking. It's not that tricky.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 11:26   UKIP - Dog

>>I wonder who are the people who won't vote UKIP. Do people actually understand each party's policy and vote based on their own analysis or just go to the polling station like zombies and simply vote a party whom they have always voted? Many sheeple are only interested in what's in it for them - how much better off they will be. Milliband says he'll freeze heat(ing) costs, Labour go up in the polls, Osborne says he'll freeze fuel duty until 2015 as a counter punch to Ed, and the little dog laughed to see such sport. :}

New Tue 1 Oct 13 11:39   UKIP - -

>> Milliband says he'll freeze heat(ing) costs, Labour go up in the polls, Osborne says he'll >> freeze fuel duty until 2015 as a counter punch to Ed, and the little >> dog laughed to see such sport. I expect the freshly shuffled deck chairs looked quite pretty on the Titanic. :-)

New Tue 1 Oct 13 12:18   UKIP - No FM2R

>>Many sheeple are only interested in what's in it for them - how much better off they will be Where as all fine UKIP supporters, obviously known as "non-sheeple", don't care what's in it for them, they only want whats best for everybody else, without regard to how much better off they will themselves be. Oh dear Doug, not really worthy of you.       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 13:12   UKIP - Stuu

>>Where as all fine UKIP supporters, obviously known as "non-sheeple", don't care what's in it for them, they only want whats best for everybody else, without regard to how much better off they will themselves be.<< Anyone who joins UKIP expecting it to be the road to riches is going to be disappointed although our claim to fame if any is that our party is not in debt which I suppose makes it richer as an organisation than Labour who owe everyone a slice and are not keen to pay it back. I think Nigel could make more money as an after dinner speaker than he does right now and with far less stress to boot. Last edited by: FoR on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 13:13

New Tue 1 Oct 13 13:36   UKIP - Armel Coussine

Even UKIPpers may enjoy Michael Deacon's conference sketch in today's Terrorflag. The description of Nigel Farage as 'practically squelching with glee' really made me giggle.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 13:48   UKIP - Dog

>>Where as all fine UKIP supporters, obviously known as "non-sheeple", don't care what's in it for them, they only want whats best for everybody else, without regard to how much better off they will themselves be. I would say that the average UKIP voter is more concerned with what Britain has become over the last couple of decades, than they are about about what's in it for them, they care about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, they care about the fact that 75% of our laws are dictated to us by Brussels, they care about the effect mass immigration from the EU is having on their communities, they care about our traditional values, our way of life and how it's almost deemed offensive to say that "I am English" these days. But 'you lot' can just go on knocking us Kippers, it matters not a jot to us because we're voting for the UK Independence Party.       3

New Tue 1 Oct 13 13:56   UKIP - Alanovich

>> it's almost >> deemed offensive to say that "I am English" these days. Utter utter utter utter utter contemptible rubbish. Go on, say it to anyone, and see if they are almost offended. >> But 'you lot' can just go on knocking us Kippers, it matters not a jot >> to us because we're voting for the UK Independence Party. Single issue party, single issue name. Trouble is, there's not even an issue, as we are Independent already and there is not much danger of that changing. Pointless party, pointless noise.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 14:29   UKIP - Armel Coussine

>> we are Independent already and there is not much danger of that changing. I've made that point many times, but the kippers seem to be deaf to it. What puzzles me is why proud citizens of a rich, powerful, overbearing country with a gigantic economy and a long imperial and colonial past which has marked many areas of the planet want to pretend it is a small weak semi-failed bankrupt state being bullied by the other Europeans. How barmy can you get?       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 14:49   UKIP - diddy1234

"What puzzles me is why proud citizens of a rich, powerful, overbearing country with a gigantic economy and a long imperial and colonial past which has marked many areas of the planet want to pretend it is a small weak semi-failed bankrupt state being bullied by the other European" That is because we are broke, overspent and in debt to our eye balls. The current regime and the previous lot have done a great job of looking after their rich and powerful friends whilst screwing everyone else. It's funny how quick these Muppet's suck up to us all at voting time only to quickly forget who elected them there. At least someone has to get screwed over, may as well be the general public.       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 15:10   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> That is because we are broke, overspent and in debt to our eye balls. How are you quantifying that? What % of GDP would we need to spend on interest payments, to be considered "up to our eyeballs"?

New Tue 1 Oct 13 15:34   UKIP - diddy1234

wikipedia shows '£1,377.4 billion, or 90.7% of total GDP' so debt itself isn't an issue (as it forces money around) but 90% debt is terrible. nothing like America though.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 15:58   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> wikipedia shows '£1,377.4 billion, or 90.7% of total GDP' Yes, but that isn't debt interest, which is usually around 3-4% of GDP. >> so debt itself isn't an issue (as it forces money around) Very true. There is potentially a bigger problem with too many people paying their debt down. >> but 90% debt is terrible. Perhaps it sounds bad, but it is debt payments, or your likelihood of defaulting on them, that really counts. A brain surgeon that owes 5 times his annual income is probably fine, a newly redundant coal miner who owes twice his annual income could well be facing problems.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 16:11   UKIP - diddy1234

your right. its all relative I guess

New Tue 1 Oct 13 16:53   UKIP - Dog

>>What puzzles me is why proud citizens of a rich, powerful, overbearing country with a gigantic economy and a long imperial and colonial past which has marked many areas of the planet want to pretend it is a small weak semi-failed bankrupt state being bullied by the other Europeans. How barmy can you get? I'm not a proud citizen, of a country that invaded Iraq under false pretenses and was jointly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. ditto Afghanistan. Rich? go and tell that to the poorer citizens of the North East and the North West of England. Bullied by the other Europeans? = = = > 75% of our laws are dictated to us by Brussels. How barmy can you get?

New Tue 1 Oct 13 17:03   UKIP - NortonES2

I think you need to try a little research yourself Dog. Update, June 2012: A new German study has revisited this topic, focusing on Germany, the UK, Denmark, France, Austria and Finland. Its conclusions can be found in more detail here. Short version: UK – 15.5% Denmark – 14% Austria – 10.6% France – between 3% and 26% Finland – between 1 and 24% Germany – 39.1% Link:www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what-percentage-of-laws-come-from-the-eu/

New Tue 1 Oct 13 19:59   UKIP - Dog

>>I think you need to try a little research yourself Dog. I took that 75% figure from: www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for#1-restore-self-government-democracy

New Tue 1 Oct 13 20:29   UKIP - CGNorwich

In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies: Well they would day that wouldn't they.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 17:27   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> I'm not a proud citizen, of a country that invaded Iraq under false pretenses and >> was jointly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. >> >> ditto Afghanistan. Under which false pretenses did we invade Afghanistan? >> Bullied by the other Europeans? = = = > 75% of our laws are dictated >> to us by Brussels. Do you have any proof of that figure, or are you just repeating it? I found this: "Based on data from the UK Statute Law database, from 1980 to the end of 2009, out of 1,302 UK Acts between 1980 and 2009 (excluding those later repealed), 186 Acts or 14.3% incorporated a degree of EU influence." and this "Nigel Farage referred to the 75% flagged up by the EP President, Hans Gert Pöttering, as the percentage of EU legislation in which the EP had a say, mistaking it for an estimate of EU-based national legislation." tinyurl.com/oyyswt5

New Tue 1 Oct 13 18:48   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> Do you have any proof of that figure, or are you just repeating it? >> >> I found this: >> >> "Based on data from the UK Statute Law database, from 1980 to the end of >> 2009, out of 1,302 UK Acts between 1980 and 2009 (excluding those later repealed), 186 >> Acts or 14.3% incorporated a degree of EU influence." >> >> and this >> >> "Nigel Farage referred to the 75% flagged up by the EP President, Hans Gert Pöttering, >> as the percentage of EU legislation in which the EP had a say, mistaking it >> for an estimate of EU-based national legislation." >> >> tinyurl.com/oyyswt5 >> That sounds far more plausible to me. Of legislation in last Queen's Speech only EU influenced bit was to do with Patents/IP - and area in which aligning rules within a single market seems entirely rational.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 20:08   UKIP - Dog

>>Under which false pretenses did we invade Afghanistan? I was referring to the massacres of civilians, bombings of civilian targets, the use of torture and the murder of prisoners of war. The Taliban have never posed a threat to the UK and you'll be hard pushed to name one member of the Taliban involved in the 9/11 attacks - even Bin laden was in Pakistan not Afghanistan.       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 20:42   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> The Taliban have never posed a threat to the UK and you'll be hard pushed >> to name one member of the Taliban involved in the 9/11 attacks - even Bin >> laden was in Pakistan not Afghanistan. What on Earth are you talking about? Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden were based in Afghanistan in 2001, with the full knowledge and blessing of the Taliban. The Taliban were giving an ultimatum to eject Al Qaeda and refused. Given that Al Qaeda had killed almost 3000 innocent people in the US four weeks earlier, and had threatened further attacks on the West it would seem fairly reasonable that the US decided to invade when the Taliban refused to cooperate, and that the UK assisted. Bin Laden was eventually found in Pakistan, but that was 10 years later. There is no suggestion that he was there in 2001. Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 20:43

New Tue 1 Oct 13 20:52   UKIP - SteelSpark

Have a read of this, if your memory is a bit faulty. tinyurl.com/qc4nr7l "Within hours of President Bush's speech to Congress on Thursday night demanding that the militant Muslim clerics who rule Afghanistan hand over Osama bin Laden, their envoy gave today what was described as their final answer: ''No, no, no!''" "Ending days of shifting declarations by the Taliban, Mullah Zaeef said the Taliban were ready, if necessary, for war with the United States." Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 20:52

New Tue 1 Oct 13 19:50   UKIP - Armel Coussine

>> I'm not a proud citizen, of a country that invaded Iraq under false pretenses and was jointly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. You are proud of our country, way of life and traditions, which include, actually, imperialist aggression. Are you trying to have it both ways Perro? Does the country turn good and bad according to the bunch of politicos running it? It's the same place. Politicos come and go.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 20:34   UKIP - Dog

>>You are proud of our country, way of life and traditions, which include, actually, imperialist aggression. Are you trying to have it both ways Perro? Does the country turn good and bad according to the bunch of politicos running it? It's the same place. Politicos come and go I almost missed this one Sire, you cant always rely on the NEW post icon. I'm not proud of many things which 'our country' has done in the Muslim world over the last 12 years, and I'm certainly not proud of the way 'our country' has turned out in the 21st century. I shouldn't really concern myself with it all, as there is not much a fool living in the middle of nowhere can do to change things. But at least the fool on the hill sees the sun going down, and the eyes in his head see the world spinning round.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 23:37   UKIP - Armel Coussine

>> I'm not proud of many things which 'our country' has done in the Muslim world over the last 12 years, and I'm certainly not proud of the way 'our country' has turned out in the 21st century. But many of your posts show that you think there's something worth preserving, a substantial core with which you identify for good or ill. The country has been doing lots of bad things abroad for a very long time. Some may seem more justifiable than others but they all seemed a 'good idea at the time' to those taking the decisions. Times have changed of course and (although independent!) Britain doesn't have the sort of autonomy of action it once did. This at least means that some of the bad things done in our name were more or less forced on the government of the time. It would look worse if all the idiotic decisions were ours. It's a worrying world. But whether we the citizens like it or not some pretty rough stuff is sometimes done in our name. Not all of it is necessarily harmful. Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 23:40

New Wed 2 Oct 13 07:27   UKIP - Dog

>>But many of your posts show that you think there's something worth preserving, a substantial core with which you identify for good or ill. That's the thing about the human race I suppose, the propensity for good or evil, it has always been thus it seems. >>The country has been doing lots of bad things abroad for a very long time. Some may seem more justifiable than others but they all seemed a 'good idea at the time' to those taking the decisions Ah yes, those taking the decisions, like they almost did recently over Syria, like they did over Iraq, Afghanistan, even Serbia, more reasons (for me) to become a Kipper. >>It's a worrying world. But whether we the citizens like it or not some pretty rough stuff is sometimes done in our name. Not all of it is necessarily harmful. As I say, it's always been the same really - even 80,000 years ago, it's just that there's more of us, so more 'stuff' (good and bad) goes on. I was surprised to learn recently that the world population has tripled in our lifetime, what a frightening thought. Between thee and me, I think I'd be better orf seeing out my days in Cyprus, with some arf-decent red Leb. :o}

New Wed 2 Oct 13 09:32   UKIP - Haywain

"I was surprised to learn recently that the world population has tripled in our lifetime, what a frightening thought." Whenever I've banged on about this in the past, I've been called an alarmist and a racist. Since 1985, the population of Ethiopia for example, has more than doubled.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:02   UKIP - Dog

Population of the UK in 1900 = 38,000,000 Population of the UK in 2012 = 64,000,000 World population in 1960 = c3billion World population in 2012 = c7billion Estimated world population in 2046 = 9billion

New Wed 2 Oct 13 09:55   UKIP - Alanovich

>> even Serbia This sounds a bit like you're offended on someone else's behalf. Which is a common cry from the right regarding made up stories about banning Christmas and the like. Most people I've come across in Serbia acknowledge that their country and its leadership was deeply in the wrong at the time, and although no-one would ever vote to be bombed, they do realise there was little else that could be done to influence Milosevic. The scale of protests against the regime at the time in terms of size and timeframe (millions of people in the streets over periods encompassing years) supports this. There's hardly a soul outside of the Serbian equivalents of Cornwall who would have the dictator back.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 11:29   UKIP - Dog

It's the bombing of a former ally of ours in WW2, who played a part in achieving an Allied victory, that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. And here we go again: c500 civilian deaths caused by NATO bombing 2,238 Serb civilians killed or missing in Kosovo 230,000 Kosovo Serb, Roma and other non-Albanian civilians expelled from Kosovo And the 3 Chinese journo's The KLA was regarded by the United States, the United Kingdom and France as a terrorist group until 1998, when it was de-listed without explanation :)

New Wed 2 Oct 13 11:47   UKIP - Alanovich

And the alternative? This was the final (so far, Bosnia could easily erupt again) act in an horrific war, brought it to an end and removed a hated dictator who would otherwise have remained in place. Now we have Serbia on the verge of EU membership. Milosevic was as evil to his own as to others - my brothers-in-law barricaded themselves in to cellars for months on end to avoid Arkan's roving press gangs, who were sending thousands of unwilling young men to kill and be killed in Kosovo. Would that the whole thing hadn't started and they'd stayed together. Yugoslavia would have been a big, influential and wealthy member of the EU many years ago.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 12:19   UKIP - Dog

You obviously know more about the area and the times than I do of course, I'd probably have been hard pressed to pinpoint it on an atlas not too many decades ago, perhaps Lud is correct in stating: "It's a worrying world. But whether we the citizens like it or not some pretty rough stuff is sometimes done in our name. Not all of it is necessarily harmful".

New Wed 2 Oct 13 12:53   UKIP - movilogo

>> I'm not proud of many things which 'our country' has done in the Muslim world over the last 12 years, Illegal immigrants coming from muslim world (to UK) don't seem to take any notice of that.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 13:10   UKIP - -

>> Illegal immigrants coming from muslim world (to UK) don't seem to take any notice of >> that. Some, not necessarily illegals already here and their offspring do, theres a couple i have in mind.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 11:11   UKIP - Westpig

there's not even an issue, as we >> are Independent already and there is not much danger of that changing. ...but not independent enough. I want our elected govt to be making ALL the decisions that affect our country, not just some of them or most of them...and I don't want a European Court interfering with British Courts decision making. Pointless party, pointless >> noise. ..so therefore not pointless at all.       4

New Wed 2 Oct 13 11:18   UKIP - -

>> ..so therefore not pointless at all. >> When such a pointless one trick party of no hope with equally no hope supporters causes this much hysterical reaction then you know there's all the more reason for their existance and continued growth. What exactly are the 2.5 cheeks worried about if UKIP haven't a cat in hells chance, they ought to be thankful that the fruitcakes and loons are sidelined and impotent.       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 13:59   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> I would say that the average UKIP voter is more concerned with what Britain has >> become over the last couple of decades, than they are about about what's in it >> for them So, they are concerned by how this change has affected everyone else, but not them? >> they care about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, Good to see they can prioritize the important stuff >> they care about our traditional values, our way of life and how it's almost >> deemed offensive to say that "I am English" these days. More important stuff. Not just vague nonsense, completely detached from the real needs that a government should be worried about.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 14:03   UKIP - -

You speak for me there too Dog. The least dangerous of the two and a their tail on any particular day is no longer an option for rapidly increasing numbers of us, the European elections next year will prove the point despite the coincidence of no UKIP publicity virtually across the board since May unless its something to kick them with. The internet has opened the eyes of millions, hence the efforts to put the genie back in the bottle where thats concerned, too late. '' it matters not a jot to us '', spot on, we simply don't care what others think of us, we think and speak freely not as instructed, don't like it don't read or listen.       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 14:08   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> The internet has opened the eyes of millions, hence the efforts to put the genie >> back in the bottle where thats concerned, too late. Opened the eyes of millions to what? Intelligent design, the fact that the US government was behind 9/11, that the moon landings were faked, that the MMR vaccine causes autism? The internet can open the eyes of millions to any old (well spun) tosh. Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 14:10

New Tue 1 Oct 13 14:44   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> '' it matters not a jot to us '', spot on, we simply don't care >> what others think of us, we think and speak freely not as instructed, don't like >> it don't read or listen. I wouldn't get too carried away, as there is nothing particularly special about speaking your own mind, or going against the perceived consensus. You can go into any pub and easily find some loudmouth who is quite happy to speak their own mind, even if what they say is complete cobblers. But, yes, people can be tuned out quite easily. Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 14:46

New Tue 1 Oct 13 14:53   UKIP - -

>> But, yes, people can be tuned out quite easily. >> Please hurry up.       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 15:07   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> >> But, yes, people can be tuned out quite easily. >> >> Please hurry up. Oh no, I won't tune you out GB. Your stuff is gold.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 15:43   UKIP - No FM2R

What a splendid group of chaps the EFD is... Members: Belgium - Frank Vanhecke (independent) Bulgaria - People for Real, Open and United Democracy Denmark - Danish People's Party Finland - The Finns Party France - Movement for France Greece - Popular Orthodox Rally Italy - Northern League Italy - I Love Italy Lithuania - Order and Justice Netherlands - Reformed Political Party Poland - United Poland Slovakia - Slovak National Party United Kingdom - UK Independence Party And the latest addition.... National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria And before you tell me only people on the inside of UKIP understand, I suspect that Nikki Sinclaire and Mike Natrass understood pretty well.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 16:15   UKIP - Dutchie

Sounds like a Heil Hitler group.History repeats itself.>)

New Tue 1 Oct 13 16:30   UKIP - Haywain

"Sounds like a Heil Hitler group." Nigel dislikes Europe - I can't see him wanting to invade it!       3

New Tue 1 Oct 13 16:56   UKIP - Stuu

>>Nigel dislikes Europe - I can't see him wanting to invade it!<< Not quite true, he dislikes the EU, not Europe, he likes Europe, although he is scathing about Brussels as a place to visit.       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 17:09   UKIP - CGNorwich

"although he is scathing about Brussels as a place to visit." Why - makes a nice weekend break. Great restaurants.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 17:19   UKIP - Haywain

"Not quite true." Quite - I thought someone would point that out; either that, or the fact that his missus is German or that he has been there for his holidays, or that he eats at an Italian bistro ;-)       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 17:24   UKIP - Stuu

>>Quite - I thought someone would point that out; either that, or the fact that his missus is German or that he has been there for his holidays, or that he eats at an Italian bistro ;-)<< I love Europe, Germany and Austria especially, but those countries and cultures have little to do with how I feel about the EU, I think of the EU is a culture all of its own.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:10   UKIP - MJM

Well, it’s sort of like this really. When I was younger, so much younger than today, (If Dog can use Beatles lyrics so can I) I looked at the available options and thought Labour had the right ideas. That was 1974. It didn’t take long before I realised just how bad they were. Interest rates and inflation were only heading one way. I’m surprised that BL made so many bad cars because they didn’t seem to be at work for more than one day a week. So I voted Conservative next time. The Thatcher era was better and the country’s finances improved. That government eventually became stale. Even so I stuck with voting Conservative, having seen how quickly Labour could foul things up. Then Blair and his cronies arrived. To be fair it took them a lot longer to foul things up than the previous Labour lot but they got there in the end. With the Blair lot it was as much the weasel words, double dealing and general contempt with which the voter was treated as the financial incompetence. I thought Cameron and his crew would be different. They aren’t. The final straw for me was the gay marriage law. It goes against my beliefs for a start. It also seemed to be totally unimportant compared to other real events of the day; it was not quoted in their manifesto and it was rushed through parliament with little thought of the consequences. So whom do I vote for now? Labour – no chance. Conservative – no chance. Lib Dems – no chance, they’re withering on the vine. That leaves Greens, Independent candidates, BNP, UKIP and probably a few others. It depends upon who stands in my area, really. It will have to be a non-mainstream party because they’re all “shot”. Looking at the list of alternatives UKIP seems to be the favourite. If there is a candidate in my area then I will be voting for him. How can he be worse? I would also like a box to tick on the ballot paper to indicate that I cared enough to vote but none of the candidates were suitable.       4

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:15   UKIP - Alanovich

>> The final straw for me was the gay marriage law. It goes against my beliefs for a start. You believe you have the right to tell other people who they can love and how they should arrange their personal affairs in light of that. If that's just a start, I'd hate to hear the rest. >> How can he >> be worse? You really haven't learnt from your previous mistakes, have you? >> I would also like a box to tick on the ballot paper to indicate that I cared enough to vote but none of the candidates were suitable Allied to compulsory voting, a good idea. Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 2 Oct 13 at 10:15

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:22   UKIP - MJM

>>You believe you have the right to tell other people who they can love and how they should arrange their personal affairs in light of that. If that's just a start, I'd hate to hear the rest.<< I have no right to impose my beliefs on anyone else. I have not claimed that right in the post. I have the right to my beliefs. >>You really haven't learnt from your previous mistakes, have you?<< Man who make no mistakes do nothing.       4

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:28   UKIP - Stuu

>> I have the right to my beliefs.<< He thinks you should only have that right if you hold the same beliefs as he does.       3

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:36   UKIP - Alanovich

>> I have no right to impose my beliefs on anyone else. I have not claimed >> that right in the post. Nonsense. You wish to see legislation which goes against your personal beliefs prevented. You seek to prevent others from having the same rights as you and do so by selecting a party to vote for which supports that position. If that's not claiming the right and attempting to impose your beliefs on others then I don't know what is. >> Man who make no mistakes do nothing. Man who not learn from mistakes silly sausage. Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 2 Oct 13 at 10:37

New Wed 2 Oct 13 14:42   UKIP - Manatee

>> Nonsense. You wish to see legislation which goes against your personal beliefs prevented. Don't we all want to see that? You have constructed a charge of hypocrisy, on the basis that MJM has the right to be married but wishes to deny it to others. But that is a straw man if it isn't the same thing. In his eyes it clearly isn't. You have extrapolated too far. I was agin it (it's history now) because while I have no problem with people 'loving' whomever they want, and for that matter with civil partnerships conferring similar rights to marriage - it isn't marriage. If parliament says fish and chips is cottage pie does it make it so? I can see both sides. Quakers, usually a good touchstone for this kind of thing, have been on the side of homosexual marriage for a while, because they consider that as well as a legal status there is a spiritual one that cannot be conferred by civil partnerships. O tempora, o mores. But I have better things to do than lie in front of a steamroller, and I don't think we should be calling each other names over it. Incidentally, I don't think UKIP are against it as such - IIRC they were concerned less about rights than the interference with religion and possible actions in the ECHR. In any case, they are very unlikely to unravel it even if elected. As for playing to the gallery, a charge often levelled at UKIP, isn't that what Cameron was doing when he was pushing it? He was just out of touch, as usual, and probably wished he had never gone near it before he'd finished.       3

New Wed 2 Oct 13 14:50   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> If parliament says fish and chips is cottage pie does it make it so? Another perspective: Parliament says you can only have Fish and Chips when you're sharing it with a person of the opposite sex. If you're sharing with a person of the same sex it's fish cakes and lump it. Sounds like injustice to me. I think most of the Country, in so far as they are bothered, are supportive of Gay Marriage. Cameron's problems were with the opponents in his own party and the established church.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 14:53   UKIP - Armel Coussine

>> I think most of the Country, in so far as they are bothered, are supportive of Gay Marriage. Cameron's problems were with the opponents in his own party and the established church. I expected greater resistance from the Tory grass roots, and am a little surprised by its absence. The nation is more depraved than I thought it was.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:06   UKIP - Stuu

>>I expected greater resistance from the Tory grass roots, and am a little surprised by its absence. << Give it another ten years and the serious opponents to it will most likely have departed this life, it has gone awfully quiet now it has happened, as predicted. The only lasting damage is to Cameron within his own party membership unless something dramatic happens re the ECHR which would re-open the debate but I think those that would have sparked such an issue have chalked it up as a win and moved on.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:10   UKIP - -

Cameron's problems were with the opponents in his own party and the established church. >> Now thats where it becomes irony. We have millions of people (here inc) taking the P out of Christianity...silent as the grave about the M faith mind not quite so forgiving that one...sky fairies and other jibes, but oh Mr Cast Iron we want to be married in church like all the hetero folks...why if you disbelieve unless its mischief making, and why does anyone else who's faith is non existent feel they have a right to use church buildings and ceremony to bless their union, pure hypocrisy. Those same sexed relationships who do have faith and practice of course do have the same rights as hetero couples, and also the same rights not to be hypocrites. I do have faith for what its worth, tested sorely at times, but sadly lapsed and struggling to regain, yet SWM and i did not feel that we earned the right to marry in a church. There is such a thing as the registry office. The church also has the right to do as it thinks fit in its own house, whether Christian Catholic Muslim Hindu Buddhist Sikh or any you could mention, its not the government of the days place to play petty vote grabbing politics with such, and nor should trendy church leaders play at party politics either, thats seriously hypocritical and they of all people should know better than to act like politicians.       1

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:26   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> Cameron's problems were with the opponents in his own party and the established church. >> >> >> >> Now thats where it becomes irony. >> >> We have millions of people (here inc) taking the P out of Christianity...silent as the >> grave about the M faith mind not quite so forgiving that one...sky fairies and other >> jibes, but oh Mr Cast Iron we want to be married in church like all >> the hetero folks...why if you disbelieve unless its mischief making, and why does anyone else >> who's faith is non existent feel they have a right to use church buildings and >> ceremony to bless their union, pure hypocrisy. Now in a way I'd agree with that. I've no faith and neither has Mrs B, one reason why we never actually married. If that changed for any reason I'd not have the nerve to ask the vicar about using the church. Equally though I see no reason why people of faith who are also gay should be denied the same right to marry under the eye of their God and his son. Incidentally, marriage is way behind access to church schools in the league table for Damascene conversions!!

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:26   UKIP - Cliff Pope

>> >> You believe you have the right to tell other people who they can love and >> how they should arrange their personal affairs in light of that. But that's just it - they are personal affairs. So why so much excitement about wanting to draw the state into the matter in the first place? There seems to be a desire for "marriage", however widely drawn, to be sanctified by the state. Why, if it is a personal matter? If you believe that the state has any role at all in marriage, then surely you are by definition relinquishing some of your rights and freedoms to a wider interest, which may not always be as inclusive as yours? Why not simply say that marriage has nothing whatever to do with the state? Anybody can define it however they like, marry anyone they like, draw up any rules and conventions they like? Then, as an entirely separate matter, if it appears there is a need for it, have a state-endorsed form of partnership between two (or more?) people of any persuasion whatsoever, who would make a legal undertaking to bind their affairs together, for any purpose they like? But I wouldn't tell people how they should arrange their personal affairs, and I am surprised that libertarians seem so ready to do so, albeit with a wider franchise.       4

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:35   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> >> Why not simply say that marriage has nothing whatever to do with the state? Anybody >> can define it however they like, marry anyone they like, draw up any rules and >> conventions they like? >> Then, as an entirely separate matter, if it appears there is a need for it, >> have a state-endorsed form of partnership between two (or more?) people of any persuasion whatsoever, >> who would make a legal undertaking to bind their affairs together, for any purpose they >> like? >> >> But I wouldn't tell people how they should arrange their personal affairs, and I am >> surprised that libertarians seem so ready to do so, albeit with a wider franchise. The problem there is that the state recognises marriage in all sorts of ways, not least in the tax and benefits system. While a marriage allowance was only formally announced this week Inheritance Tax contains massive concessions to marriage. Further, since the state is inevitably involved in sorting out the mess when marraige fails it's not unreasonable for it to have a roll in defining trhe institution.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:42   UKIP - Cliff Pope

>> >> Further, since the state is inevitably >> involved in sorting out the mess when marraige fails it's not unreasonable for it to >> have a roll in defining trhe institution. >> When a legal partnership fails, yes. But why try and make that partnership coincidental with the concept of marriage? Why not restrict the state's role to one of sorting out legal formalities, obligations, debts, property, maintenance, etc, and leave marriage free for anyone who wants it as an adjunct to love? It's all just words, but underneath it all there are really only two distinct concepts, one private, one state.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 14:14   UKIP - tyro

>> You believe you have the right to tell other people who they can love and >> how they should arrange their personal affairs in light of that. I must confess that if one takes that view, logically there should be no rules at all about who one can or cannot marry (other than, perhaps having a minimum age). I should, therefore be permitted to have two or three spouses or more. I should also be permitted marry my father, my mother, my son AND my daughter (assuming that they have reached the appropriate age). I cannot for the life of me see why HMG is keen to permit same sex marriage, but seems totally unwilling to permit polygamy (especially since polygamy has long been acceptable in certain cultures which are part of the rich tapestry of British life), and totally unwilling to permit loving relationships between members of the same family.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:21   UKIP - Slidingpillar

Well since the electorate didn't go for single transferable vote, one cannot really show the truth, and if you vote, you can only choose the least worse candidate. Years ago, when my students union held elections, they went for a transferable vote system, but if there were say three candidates there would be four boxes, the fourth being "none of the above is suitable". It was rare, but it did happen, and the election would have to be held again, with different candidates.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:34   UKIP - -

It was rare, but it did happen, and the election would have to be held again, with different candidates. >> As should happen in a democracy. Could you really imagine any of the parties agreeing to this, imagine if such a result came through where any one of the party leaders or their poodles were standing, ''i'll fall on my sword for my country and for democracy''...yeah right. In practice despite how low the turnout so long as there's a majority of one vote, that one vote is declared a victory. In the recent vote on Dave and his boy Baseball Cap's very own little war in Syria, much hooha was made of the defeat as being democratic, but it was hardly a landslide, a handful only but us uneducated little england plebs were eternally grateful for that small mercy, even if just truns out to be a postponement.       1

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:22   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> Well, it’s sort of like this really. When I was younger, so much younger than >> today, (If Dog can use Beatles lyrics so can I) I looked at the available >> options and thought Labour had the right ideas. >> That was 1974. It didn’t take long before I realised just how bad they were. >> Interest rates and inflation were only heading one way. There is another observation about Labour and financial crises. In 64-70 and 74-79 Governments the alarm bells sounded very shortly indeed after election. In both cases the previous Tory adminstration (Chancellors Maudling and Barber) had tried to engineer pre-election booms based on borrowing etc with inevitable result that the bubble burst. While Liam Byrne's message about their being no money left is in current folklore we've forgotten the one Maudling left for Callaghan in 64 - 'Sorry to leave things in such a mess old cock!'

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:29   UKIP - Zero

>> There is another observation about Labour and financial crises. In 64-70 and 74-79 Governments the >> alarm bells sounded very shortly indeed after election. Oh I see, its the Tories fault.       2

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:37   UKIP - Manatee

>> Oh I see, its the Tories fault. ...as well as Labour's.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:41   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> >> >> Oh I see, its the Tories fault. In relation to the crises of 65-7 and 74-5 at least in part yes. The economy is like a supertanker; it takes a long time for action at the helm to produce results. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 2 Oct 13 at 10:42

New Wed 2 Oct 13 10:46   UKIP - Zero

>> >> >> >> >> Oh I see, its the Tories fault. >> >> In relation to the crises of 65-7 and 74-5 at least in part yes. The >> economy is like a supertanker; it takes a long time for action at the helm >> to produce results. But it can be run aground pretty quickly...       2

New Wed 2 Oct 13 13:05   UKIP - NortonES2

Especially with the help of the de-regulated financial industry, with their very own party. Strange how the perpetrators are still not brought before the courts.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 14:46   UKIP - Stuu

www.economicvoice.com/heseltine-is-a-dinosaur-says-ukips-amjad-bashir/ Now this would be an interesting debate and I have no doubt the old man hasnt got the guts.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:04   UKIP - Manatee

>> Now this would be an interesting debate and I have no doubt the old man >> hasnt got the guts. I have no doubt that he has the guts. I don't have a problem with UKIP, democracy needs the bag shaking now and again to mean anything. To call it racist insults many decent people who find it appealing. But there's no doubt in my mind that it doesn't mind using language that appeals to the closet kind. I was disappointed when the UKIP flyer fell through the door last week. There are four bullet points on it - - Leave the costly, meddling EU - End mass immigration - Stop soaring energy bills - Cut foreign aid So two loaded statements, one endorsement of motherhood and apple pie, and a poke at the foreigners. Not really quality debate, just claptrap. Just like the others in fact.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:11   UKIP - Stuu

>>I was disappointed when the UKIP flyer fell through the door last week. There are four bullet points on it - - Leave the costly, meddling EU - End mass immigration - Stop soaring energy bills - Cut foreign aid So two loaded statements, one endorsement of motherhood and apple pie, and a poke at the foreigners. Not really quality debate, just claptrap. Just like the others in fact.<< Policy is in a bit of a lull at the moment as we await the 2015 manifesto - not defending it, but worth going to the UKIP website to read some of the thinking on things like energy - feel free to disagree but gives an idea what might be coming up. You have an election coming up then?

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:33   UKIP - Manatee

>> You have an election coming up then? Well, yes. But I don't think the parish council results will make national headlines even if the UKIP man gets in. It will be a straw in the wind if he does, as he is the only candidate who doesn't live in the parish. www.dacorum.gov.uk/home/council-democracy/elections/elections-2013#Tring

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:39   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> Well, yes. But I don't think the parish council results will make national headlines even >> if the UKIP man gets in. >> >> It will be a straw in the wind if he does, as he is the >> only candidate who doesn't live in the parish. >> >> www.dacorum.gov.uk/home/council-democracy/elections/elections-2013#Tring Our parish electorate would run a mile at candidates standing on a party ticket. Nice to see posts getting enough prospective Councillors for an election though. Ours are usualy strong armed and then co-opted for a casual vacancy. What are UKIP's policies in relation to Tring's parish council?

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:49   UKIP - Manatee

>> What are UKIP's policies in relation to Tring's parish council? They're going to take us out of the EU. You lot might still be in it, that makes no difference. Actually the flyer is a generic national one by the look of it. I hadn't heard of the bloke until the notice went up this week. Usually ours co-opts as well. There are people who have been there for decades, and and and I'm not sure they were elected. It did occur to me that, there being 5 candidates available for 2 seats, they should put themselves up for re-election now the election has to be held.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:48   UKIP - Stuu

>>It will be a straw in the wind if he does, as he is the only candidate who doesn't live in the parish.<< That is the trouble with being a small party - you dont always have someone in every parish etc that is willing to stand, 31,000 members doesnt spread that far nationally!

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:12   UKIP - tyro

>> Not really quality debate, just claptrap. Just like the others in fact. >> Yup. Politicians don't have a high opinion of the intelligence of the electorate. At times one suspects that they might be right.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:09   UKIP - tyro

"The former Conservative MP told Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics: "Of course it is racist, who doubts that? " Seriously? Heseltine said that? Personally, I don't think that's helpful for the Tory Party.       1

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:12   UKIP - Stuu

>>Personally, I don't think that's helpful for the Tory Party << Helps us though, and that buffoon Clarke.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:31   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> Helps us though, and that buffoon Clarke. Do you meant the late Alan or Cuddly Ken? The latter talks a deal of sense.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:30   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> "The former Conservative MP told Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics: "Of course it is >> racist, who doubts that? " >> >> Seriously? Heseltine said that? >> >> Personally, I don't think that's helpful for the Tory Party. >> Was it meant to be? To me it reads like an open assertion that parts of UKIP policy are dog whistling to racists. And the antics of some of their MEP's suggests they've elected a few as well.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:37   UKIP - Stuu

>>Was it meant to be? To me it reads like an open assertion that parts of UKIP policy are dog whistling to racists. And the antics of some of their MEP's suggests they've elected a few as well.<< Which MEP? Racists are morons, they would follow anyone for a bag of sweets and most of them that I have met dont even understand UKIP policy, let alone support it.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 15:44   UKIP - Bromptonaut

>> Which MEP? >> >> Racists are morons, they would follow anyone for a bag of sweets and most of >> them that I have met dont even understand UKIP policy, let alone support it. I was thinking particulalry of the now admittedly defenestrated Mr Bloom. But the company they keep in in Brussels includes the Northern League and some far out types from the Baltic. And while racist ideas certainly appeal to some morons other racists are clever with it and bastedise science to support their views.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 16:05   UKIP - Stuu

Bromptonaut you are better than that. As a euronut you know very well how European Parliament politics works and the way the groupings works. It is a working arrangement to be effective in the Parliament, nothing more, unholy coaltions are the way it is in your beloved EU. I dont think Bloom is racist, I think his langauge is questionable though, - he is afterall married to a Polish woman so he is terrible at being a racist if he is one. I think there is a distinction between using inappropriate langauge and having a genuine dislike/hatred of people based on their ethnicity such as Gawain Towler who clearly isnt guilty of the latter but perhaps the former. I have a deep seated hatred of racists and I mean it is one of the few things that makes my blood boil, but nothing I have seen from within UKIP tells me I am in the belly of the beast, especially since our campaign manager is of arabic descent.       2

New Wed 2 Oct 13 16:31   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> he >> is afterall married to a Polish woman so he is terrible at being a racist >> if he is one. She's actually a British born white woman, although she did have foreign parents and a foreign sounding maiden name. Is marrying a British white woman with a foreign sounding surname considered proof that a person isn't racist? Last edited by: SteelSpark on Wed 2 Oct 13 at 16:32

New Wed 2 Oct 13 17:50   UKIP - Stuu

>> Is marrying a British white woman with a foreign sounding surname considered proof that a person isn't racist? << Sorry but that is pretty racist, her father was a Polish war hero, do have some class. It is proof that if he is racist, he isn't very good at it. His sense of humour and language is dated but I don't think it is rooted in race issues but a refusal to join the 21st century. How do you explain Gawain Towler then?

New Wed 2 Oct 13 18:31   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> It is proof that if he is racist, he isn't very good at it. Because he married a white British woman? Last edited by: SteelSpark on Wed 2 Oct 13 at 18:32

New Wed 2 Oct 13 19:00   UKIP - Stuu

>>Because he married a white British woman?<< Any good racist would object to Polish in-laws, if you were going to really commit to it as a way of thinking.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 16:12   UKIP - tyro

>>I was thinking particulalry of the now admittedly defenestrated Mr Bloom. But the company they keep in in Brussels includes the Northern League and some far out types from the Baltic. So Bloom is a buffoon. The same could be said for a lot of MPs of other parties over the years. So the Northern League would probably not be my preferred party in Italy, and some of their MPs have been pretty dubious. The same could be said for other parties in Italy. Far out types in the Baltic? They may not be the parties I would vote for - but so what? I keep hearing about these far out parties in the EFD group, but when I read up on them, I can't for the life of me see what all this "Ooooohhh! how horrible! Unclean, unclean!" is about. Maybe not my cup of tea, but certainly nothing so outrageous as to put them beyond the pale. Certainly no worse that the evil, blood-sucking Tories. ;-)

New Wed 2 Oct 13 11:16   UKIP - Westpig

>> You speak for me there too Dog. ...and me....and I'm not a UKIP voter... (yet, who knows, I agree with a lot of what they are about). >> '' it matters not a jot to us '', spot on, we simply don't care >> what others think of us, we think and speak freely not as instructed, don't like >> it don't read or listen. Yes, the sniffy look down the nose isn't going to work any more is it. I agree with the point about the genie being out of the bottle now. Interesting times ahead. My take on it all, is UKIP will ensure the Tories cover some of the areas they've neglected, (being too worried about political correctness and similar)...so that will be a good thing. What would be wrong with a Tory/UKIP coalition?       3

New Wed 2 Oct 13 11:19   UKIP - Alanovich

>> What would be wrong with a Tory/UKIP coalition? >> UKIP. But let's see them win a single seat first before we get all tumescent about them being in coalition. FPTP, remember? We've still got it.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 11:31   UKIP - -

>> What would be wrong with a Tory/UKIP coalition? Nothing in theory so long as we have a Conservative party and particularly its leadership who put the nations interests first and foremost, and ALL decisons taken here in Britain with the sole obective of putting Britain first...but if this was the case UKIP wouldn't exist at all, there would be no reason for it. UKIP isn't really an alternative semi right wing party in my eyes, UKIPs leaders members and philosophy is about good common sense with the UK and its citizens being the most important consideration, and nothing wrong with that in my eyes. That doesn't seem to be shared by the current Conservative party hence the loss of support to UKIP from many at grass roots level. If the Tories had stayed true then the realisation of the true horror of Bliar and all he brought would have rendered NuLab to the opposition benches for decades, until they also remembered which country they should be fighting for and which people. Last edited by: gordonbennet on Wed 2 Oct 13 at 11:31       1

New Wed 2 Oct 13 11:41   UKIP - Manatee

>>UKIPs leaders members and philosophy is about good common sense An alcoholic is someone who drinks more than me. A mimser is just somebody who likes to drive slower than I do. A person with common sense is just somebody I agree with. The difficult question as always is what does putting the nation's interests first consist of? It isn't just ignoring everything else going on in the world. I happen to think that there's no right or wrong answer to UK staying in or leaving the EU. The only certainty is that our fortunes are very much linked to those of its members, in or out, so we can't ignore it. Similar considerations apply to places and events beyond Europe.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 13:54   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> I wonder who are the people who won't vote UKIP. Do people actually understand each >> party's policy and vote based on their own analysis or just go to the polling >> station like zombies and simply vote a party whom they have always voted? The answer is, of course, that the vast majority of voters (yes, even those of UKIP) have very little grasp of the various policies of the parties. Of those people that really do take the time to fully study the policies, the vast majority do not have the depth of knowledge to properly analyse and critique them. Who here, for example, is properly qualified to understand the complex interactions between immigration and the economy? Or the interactions between various punishments and the total impact of crime on society? We'll all have an opinion, of course. Some more informed than others. >> Still they are forming a government in next election is unlikely (I'll be voting them >> though). Like a zombie? Or will you be reading and analyzing all of the parties' policies, before deciding to vote UKIP regardless?

New Tue 1 Oct 13 14:43   UKIP - Cliff Pope

You can analyse the policies and manifestos to your heart's content, but it doesn't make any difference to what they do if they get elected, and there isn't in practice much difference between any of the parties. Governments just lurch from side to side down a broadly predetermined valley of options, reacting to public opinion, outcries, scandals, press exaggerations, financial pressures, and their own vanities and love of power. I found this quotation somewhere: " It's called the trilateral system. Two parties run by the same hidden hands that say the opposite of each other and an unelectable third party who try to legalise drugs paedophilia and ban petrol. It gives the illusion of democracy and diverse political choice where there is in fact very little."       6

New Tue 1 Oct 13 15:09   UKIP - Alanovich

an unelectable third party who try to legalise >> drugs >> paedophilia and ban petrol. Which has been elected and proposes to do none of the above. A smear. A very nasty smear, actually. Especially point 2. Quite offensive, actually.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 15:18   UKIP - No FM2R

>>I found this quotation somewhere: I bet it was somewhere well-researched, authoritative, objective and generally admired for its competence. Oh. Perhaps not then. www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=55311&v=t&m=627907 Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 15:18       1

New Tue 1 Oct 13 15:22   UKIP - SteelSpark

>> >>I found this quotation somewhere: >> >> I bet it was somewhere well-researched, authoritative, objective and generally admired for its competence. >> >> Oh. Perhaps not then. >> >> www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=55311&v=t&m=627907 To be fair, Cliff got two thumbs up...so at least it is peer reviewed.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 08:20   UKIP - Cliff Pope

>> >> To be fair, Cliff got two thumbs up...so at least it is peer reviewed. >> Four now. But there are probably late results still coming in. I think the quoted passage was tongue-in-cheek. As always, irony does not work too well here. The gist of the point is that despite all the symbolic arguing and simulated passions in parliament, all governments do roughly the same thing in practice. A policy that for a time seems to have steered events off to the right or left gets rescinded after a certain threshold of damage has been done, amid the usual recriminations about U-turns. I don't see anything offensive in pointing that out, it's just how it is, or seems to me. (Also to John Cole, whose excellent book I am just reading)       1

New Wed 2 Oct 13 08:37   UKIP - Cliff Pope

>> >> >> >> Four now. But there are probably late results still coming in. >> Yes, a box from the remoter islands has just pushed the count up to five.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 08:40   UKIP - Zero

>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Four now. But there are probably late results still coming in. >> >> >> >> >> Yes, a box from the remoter islands has just pushed the count up to five. I think the voting is on Geo-Political lines, just like Cyprus always votes for Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 08:44   UKIP - Cliff Pope

>> >> I think the voting is on Geo-Political lines, just like Cyprus always votes for Greece >> in the Eurovision Song Contest. >> Oh, right, just the usual suspects then, not people I'd care to be seen dead with or invite into my club.

New Wed 2 Oct 13 08:11   UKIP - Manatee

>> >>I found this quotation somewhere: >> >> I bet it was somewhere well-researched, authoritative, objective and generally admired for its competence. >> >> Oh. Perhaps not then. >> >> >> www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=55311&v=t&m=627907 >> There's another good quote in that thread- "However a late Hungarian friend of mine who had lived under both systems did come up with a good comment on British democracy: 'The two-party system is the perfect one-party system.'" Good slogan for a Kipper flyer actually, if suitably updated.

New Tue 1 Oct 13 15:21   UKIP - NortonES2

Well said, SS. Last edited by: NIL on Tue 1 Oct 13 at 15:22

New Tue 15 Oct 13 10:04   UKIP views - Stuu

www.ukipdaily.com/ An interesting site run by Donna Edmunds, not long launched - good reading for those who want the broader UKIP views and plenty of contributions from lesser UKIP figures and ordinary members.

New Wed 16 Oct 13 13:38   UKIP - Alanovich

So is this an example of the EU dictating each and every one of our laws? An example of the ECHR reigning supreme and trampling all over the sorry, bloodied corpse of our democracy? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24545294 No, obviously. Now, what exactly do we need "independence" from again?

New Wed 16 Oct 13 13:49   UKIP - No FM2R

A more interesting question will be what do if we've exited from the EU, stopped all immigration and found out that things didn't get better? Who will we use for a scapegoat then? People just needs something to blame to make themselves feel better through feeling aggrieved, and this week its immigration and the EU.       1

New Wed 16 Oct 13 14:23   UKIP - Manatee

Immigration is a real issue because of the UK benefits system including the NHS . It doesn't for the most part require the recipient to have contributed in order to benefit. Try doing that in other EU countries. It's not just about numbers, it's about the imbalance between the UK and elsewhere. In effect the UK has the risk of welfare costs without the control of who gets it. That is unlikely to be sustainable unless we bring our benefits more into line with the EU norm. But there would be blood on the streets before we got anywhere near managing that. When you ignore all the noise and political dogma, and look at the options for dealing with the results of the current asymmetry, it comes down to put up with it and risk the consequences to the budget, renegotiate, or leave the EU. There is in my opinion no chance of meaningful renegotiation. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10375358/True-scale-of-European-immigration.html Those who see conspiracy everywhere should look at the EU consensus, not just climate change and renewable energy. (not the Daily Mail, amazingly)       1

New Wed 16 Oct 13 15:07   UKIP - Roger.

>> A more interesting question will be what do if we've exited from the EU, stopped >> all immigration and found out that things didn't get better? Who will we use for >> a scapegoat then? >> >> People just needs something to blame to make themselves feel better through feeling aggrieved, and >> this week its immigration and the EU. An equally interesting question is, if we don't exit the EU and things do get worse, who will we blame for stopping our exit?       1

New Wed 16 Oct 13 15:18   UKIP - Stuu

>>A more interesting question will be what do if we've exited from the EU, stopped all immigration and found out that things didn't get better? Who will we use for a scapegoat then?<< Largely irrelevant unless you are one of the handful of BNP activists left, UKIP policy isnt to stop all immigration. I assume the way a points based immigration system works is above your understanding given that is what we advocate and it clearly doesnt 'stop' immigration - ask Australians. The by-product of allowing free access to the UK for EU citizens has been that the government has imposed draconian restrictions on non-EU immigrants to back up their claims of doing something about numbers - and Labour too. The irony that UKIP is the only party offering all immigrants equal opportunity to come to the UK isnt lost on most of us, funny world. The drastic cut in numbers from the EU would give alot of room to relax certain aspects of the points system for non-EU migrants comapred to what they face now while keeping figures at a publically acceptable level. EU lovers hate equality really, the EU is just protectionism on a large scale for the terminally blinkered.

New Wed 16 Oct 13 15:27   UKIP - Alanovich

>>the EU is just protectionism on a large scale for >> the terminally blinkered. >> As opposed to UKIP proposing protectionism on a smaller scale for the terminally blinkered.

New Wed 16 Oct 13 17:18   UKIP - No FM2R

>>is above your understanding Must you resort to such comments?

New Wed 16 Oct 13 17:45   UKIP - Stuu

>>is above your understanding Must you resort to such comments?<< Well you continually misrepresent UKIP immigration policy so it is either a case of you dont understand a points based immigration system or you are intentionally doing it so UKIP fits your personal, misguided stereotype - I would rather assume you are ignorant than THAT petty, but only you know the answer to that. If it is the latter, I would find it puzzling that someone of seemingly reasonable intellect would need to go to those lengths to try and find a negative, surely the actual policies are enough to find fault with if that is what you want to do, I have no issue with constructive criticism.       1

New Wed 16 Oct 13 17:55   UKIP - No FM2R

I made no comment about UKIP or its policies.

New Wed 16 Oct 13 18:04   UKIP - Stuu

>>I made no comment about UKIP or its policies.<< You do see the thread title dont you? Excellent swerve when caught, slippery like Blair, mucho admiration :-)

New Wed 16 Oct 13 18:10   UKIP - No FM2R

You really are a very silly little man sometimes.       1

New Wed 16 Oct 13 18:18   UKIP - Stuu

>>You really are a very silly little man sometimes << It passes the time and by the way, bazinga! :-)

New Wed 16 Oct 13 18:20   UKIP - No FM2R

I don't understand?

New Wed 16 Oct 13 18:23   UKIP - Stuu

>>I don't understand?<< Which bit, being silly passing the time or the pop culture reference? I didnt think either was at mastermind level :-)

New Wed 16 Oct 13 15:04   UKIP - Roger.

>> So is this an example of the EU dictating each and every one of our >> laws? An example of the ECHR reigning supreme and trampling all over the sorry, bloodied >> corpse of our democracy? >> >> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24545294 >> >> No, obviously. >> >> Now, what exactly do we need "independence" from again? It's not over until the fat lady sings................................       1

New Wed 16 Oct 13 15:09   UKIP - Alanovich

There's that good old British blitz spirit again, Roger.

New Sun 27 Oct 13 17:09   UKIP - Roger.

i115.photobucket.com/albums/n297/penfro/817665555_zpse9da3a48.jpg