***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 28 *****
=============================================================
As above.*
* this site does not endorse any political party in any shape or form. Any posts/links deemed offensive by moderators will be removed
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 4 Apr 16 at 10:29
|
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ignominious.
That's all.
P.s. ha ha ha ha Farage ha ha ha UKIP ha ha ha
|
The power of the immigrant block postal vote has succeeded yet again.
Yes - a poor result for UKIP.
The people of this country are sleepwalking to an Islamic future, as the late Col. Gaddaffi said in a speech.......
"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."
I despair for the future of this country and it is people like some of the inhabitants of this forum (yes you, NoFM2R, Zero et al) who are aiding and abetting the decline of our native civilisation.
The manufacturers of orange jump suits and hunting knives are looking forward to that, I bet.
As I approach 80, later this month, I am giving up on politics (although not my beliefs).
I hope you and your descendants enjoy reaping the bitter harvest you have helped to sow.
I think I will "flounce" for a while, which will no doubt be a matter of rejoicing for those of you who are inimical to a patriotic Englishman's views.
TTFN
|
Ah, so it has been Rivers of Blood all along. Europe may be dirty and foreign but the real offence is to be brown.
Another Ukip triumph goes begging and it's still everyone else's fault. Time for an electoral pact with the Monster Raving Loony Party - or to see whether the BNP is ready to forgive and forget?
|
>> As I approach 80, later this month, I am giving up on politics
>> I think I will "flounce" for a while, which will no doubt be a matter
>> of rejoicing
Actually not rejoicing at all. This could be the boost that UKIP needs.
|
Rog showing his true colours, and they match those of an uncomfortable number of kippers including the usual suspects awarding thumbs and scowlies here.
I think Nigel is clutching at straws blaming the postal vote. Even if it's increased the Labour vote by half (which I doubt) it doesn't account for UKIP's candidate getting fewer votes than in the GE.
He must put his evidence, should he have it, in front of an electoral court. Tweeting about impeccable sources just sounds like sour grapes.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 4 Dec 15 at 08:14
|
I think the whole postal vote thing stinks. A lot. It should only be allowed if you are registered disabled or over a certain age, say 80.
Voting for your representative in Parliament is important, and if you cannot be assed to get to a polling station in person then it shows how little interest you have. If you cannot be bothered to vote you should keep your mouth shut about politics. And those people who are away on holiday and cannot vote must be a very small percentage so cannot realistically affect the outcome.
|
How about those who work away from home all week?
There are thousands of lorry drivers who never come home until the weekend and have a postal vote, should they all be penalised by not being allowed to vote because of the job they do?
Pat
|
>> How about those who work away from home all week?
>>
>> There are thousands of lorry drivers who never come home until the weekend and have
>> a postal vote, should they all be penalised by not being allowed to vote because
>> of the job they do?
Yup. We must do everything we can to penalise lorry drivers. Just because they are lorry drivers. I am going to start a new political party
CAT
Castigate all truckers
|
Of course JC would say castrate:)
Pat
|
|
Damn, that much punchier than mine.
|
>> I think the whole postal vote thing stinks. A lot. It should only be allowed
>> if you are registered disabled or over a certain age, say 80.
>> Voting for your representative in Parliament is important, and if you cannot be assed to
>> get to a polling station in person then it shows how little interest you have.
>> If you cannot be bothered to vote you should keep your mouth shut about politics.
>> And those people who are away on holiday and cannot vote must be a very
>> small percentage so cannot realistically affect the outcome.
I completely agree with all you say.
|
An interesting result. Two key points I feel.
This was a set of perfect timing and circumstances creating the perfect storm for UKIP to do well, and they failed miserably. So badly it could even be the end of UKIP as we know it.
JC. Have we all read the mood of the country wrong? does the electorate, not just the activists, think JC's very left wing pacifist principals are the way to go?
Or being a by-election, is it all a perverse result, as they so often are.
|
>>JC. Have we all read the mood of the country wrong? does the electorate, not just the activists, think JC's very left wing pacifist principals are the way to go?<<
What do you mean by 'all'?
There's a world outside this website, although some people might never notice.
|
>>Rog showing his true colours, and they match those of an uncomfortable number of kippers including the usual suspects awarding thumbs and scowlies here.
<<
For the record, none of them were from me so I think your judgement could be flawed there Bromp.
Perhaps the scowlies could be for Roger flouncing at a time when he should want to stand his ground to the criticism.
You can't expect to post links and then runaway forever without people disapproving.
Pat
|
Sorry Pat... I totally agree with you that it isn't fair to deprive people of a vote purely on the grounds that they are working away from their home constituency.
It really is a minefield isn't it? Normal people who are ill and cannot get to vote, those in hospital, etc
There is no simple solution, but maybe it's a case of a small majority being denied a vote due to the nature of their circumstances ( on holiday, working away, in hospital or ill) in order to mitigate electoral fraud.
|
|
Maybe Pat would prefer ' cuddle all truckers' ?
|
Postal Voting is a relatively new phenomena (in the past many people didn't vote because of workcircumstances) with only recent years being a significant factor*. And yes its been a honeypot for electoral fraud. It is a serious problem there are many proven cases of fraudulent voting and it does need a resolution. I can't see that "I am on holiday" is sufficient to claim a postal vote.
*No national election however has been won on the back of fraudulent voting, despite what NF claims. It has swung council voting however.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 4 Dec 15 at 08:53
|
>> I can't see that "I am on
>> holiday" is sufficient to claim a postal vote.
I postal vote and have done for years. I find it convenient.
I cannot work out why I should have that privilege taken away, purely because other people abuse the system.
Why not address the abusers?
Classic example of the innocent being penalised because some are crooked.
|
>> >> I can't see that "I am on
>> >> holiday" is sufficient to claim a postal vote.
>>
>> I postal vote and have done for years. I find it convenient.
>>
>> I cannot work out why I should have that privilege taken away, purely because other
>> people abuse the system.
Because convenience is insufficient excuse. You want to vote? you make the ruddy effort. A load of people made a load of effort for that right. Or do you think making sure it is scrupulously fair is effort to far?
|
>> Because convenience is insufficient excuse. You want to vote? you make the ruddy effort. A
>> load of people made a load of effort for that right.
I really cannot work out your angle.
When there was no posting vote, I used to trot up to the polling station, just like everyone else.
I have voted every single time.
Then they made it easier, so I availed myself of the privilege.
Now there's talk of taking it away... because some people have abused the privilege.
Why the flying f*** should I have that privilege taken away, just because some scumbag has taken a liberty and abused it? Why on earth hasn't the abuser been dealt with first?
|
It is a minefield but it has a lot of flaws as it is.
I had a postal vote for years when I was lorry driving full time but was surprised that I have been allowed to keep that since I've come of the road.
There doesn't seem to be any checking of why you need one at all, which does concern me.
Pat
|
|
You don't need to give a reason to have a postal vote, a preference is reason enough.
|
>> For the record, none of them were from me so I think your judgement could
>> be flawed there Bromp.
I didn't have you in mind when I posted this morning Pat. At the time the score was 2 green thumbs to Roger and at least one scowlie each to Mark and Alanovic for their observations.
|
>> Rog showing his true colours, and they match those of an uncomfortable number of kippers
>> including the usual suspects awarding thumbs and scowlies here.
I think you should keep an open mind and not be so quick to jump on one side.
If there has been some electoral fraud here... and there could be, we don't know at this time... then it should be thoroughly investigated and depending on the scale, would depend on what needed to be done about it.
In reality though, I don't think electoral fraud has skewed this election result.. but if what Nigel Farage has said is accurate, then it's not acceptable and needs to be discussed, investigated and people prosecuted... not swept under the carpet in case it offends anyone, regardless of the motives of the person complaining about it.
>>
>> I think Nigel is clutching at straws blaming the postal vote. Even if it's increased
>> the Labour vote by half (which I doubt) it doesn't account for UKIP's candidate getting
>> fewer votes than in the GE.
Agreed....but...
No one thought there was anything untoward going on in Rotherham with the child exploitation scandal... because they didn't want to see it... it was on the 'too difficult' pile.
Is this the same? We won't know unless we look, will we?
Then if there's a decent investigation and the complaint of fraud is found to be miniscule or non existent, NF looks a pillock and the reputation of Asian voters in Oldham is restored.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 4 Dec 15 at 09:51
|
>> Then if there's a decent investigation and the complaint of fraud is found to be
>> miniscule or non existent, NF looks a pillock and the reputation of Asian voters in
>> Oldham is restored.
>>
Why has the reputation of Asian voters in Oldham taken a hit in your mind already? Because Farage says it's so? Are you prepared to believe Farage when he shouts 'corruption' at Asians, but not Corbyn when he says he isn't a pacifist? You speak fine words about investigating, but your final comment there sounds like ( ;-) ) you've made your mind up already.
|
>> Why has the reputation of Asian voters in Oldham taken a hit in your mind
>> already? Because Farage says it's so? Are you prepared to believe Farage when he shouts
>> 'corruption' at Asians, but not Corbyn when he says he isn't a pacifist? You speak
>> fine words about investigating, but your final comment there sounds like ( ;-) ) you've
>> made your mind up already.
>>
FFS
Asian voter fraud has been bandied about before, this isn't a brand new allegation.
I have no idea how prevalent it is.
It could be no different than any other persons voter fraud.. or... it could be a specific problem with that community. No one will know unless the allegation is investigated.
A prominent politician has made that allegation.
If it's investigated and found to be small beer, then the reputation of that section of society is found to be not wanting.
That's it, no more, no less.
It seems your ideas of an open mind is to ignore things... well that's how Rotherham happened.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 4 Dec 15 at 10:16
|
>> Asian voter fraud has been bandied about before, this isn't a brand new allegation.
Making things about 'Asians' rather than the allegations at hand is how Rotherham happened. Farage would be better advised to exclude any consideration of race or 'communities' if he thinks voter fraud has taken place and contact the police.
FFS.
|
Postal voting fraud is more prevalent (tho not confined to) within asian immigrant communities, simply because of the nature of those families - multiple members within a single household, unable to communicate in english, bullying, and traditions. It is a fact, no point trying to bandy over it, its easy to furnish proven examples.
However, I am not prepared to make a "they are destroying my convenience" racist stance over it. One needs to take practical robust measures to prevent it, and it will, in time become a thing of the past.
|
>> Postal voting fraud is more prevalent (tho not confined to) within asian immigrant communities, simply
>> because of the nature of those families - multiple members within a single household, unable
>> to communicate in english, bullying, and traditions. It is a fact, no point trying to
>> bandy over it, its easy to furnish proven examples.
That is well put and echoes my own thoughts
>>
>> However, I am not prepared to make a "they are destroying my convenience" racist stance
>> over it.
That is not well put.
Why is the convenience angle racist?
If it's nothing to do with the convenience angle and is the mere uttering of the word 'Asian', then surely your comment above fits that as well... or do some people have the 'authority' to mention race and others not?... or perhaps if you bung in 'racist' it'll have the other guy back down?
Which is it to be then?
|
>> Which is it to be then?
I'll tell what its not to be. Its not to be me making a big deal out of something thats not really, so I can jump up and down claiming my rights are infringed by a racial group.
Thats what.
|
>> I'll tell what its not to be. Its not to be me making a big
>> deal out of something thats not really, so I can jump up and down claiming
>> my rights are infringed by a racial group.
>>
>> Thats what.
>>
Who is doing that?
|
>> Who is doing that?
>
Guess. Try a mirror if you need a clue.
|
>> Guess. Try a mirror if you need a clue.
>>
Yes, I obviously thought that, but gave you the option to re-consider.
What part of my post gave you that impression?
I moaned because my ease of voting might be curtailed through someone else's criminality.
If you've read into that more than that, then that's come from your mind, not mine.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 4 Dec 15 at 19:15
|
>
>> If you've read into that more than that, then that's come from your mind, not
>> mine.
Yeah sure.
|
>> Yeah sure.
>>
Quick to judge... hmm, I thought you were against that sort of thing?
|
>> >> Yeah sure.
>> Quick to judge... hmm, I thought you were against that sort of thing?
Quick? ooo no its been a lengthy process.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 4 Dec 15 at 23:36
|
>> Quick? ooo no its been a lengthy process.
>>
Yes, I could believe that. Somewhat closed mind though, eh?
|
>> I think you should keep an open mind and not be so quick to jump
>> on one side.
It wasn't the immigrant bloc postal votes line I had in mind so much as the guff about decline of our native civilisation and sleepwalking into an Islamic future. Orange jumpsuits and knives FFS?
>> If there has been some electoral fraud here... and there could be, we don't know
>> at this time... then it should be thoroughly investigated and depending on the scale, would
>> depend on what needed to be done about it.
As I said previously. If NF has evidence he needs to put it to the returning officer and the police. If not then he shouldn't be tweeting about it. If it was being swept under the carpet Lutfur Rahman would still be in post.
>> No one thought there was anything untoward going on in Rotherham with the child exploitation
>> scandal... because they didn't want to see it... it was on the 'too difficult' pile.
I've argued before that the cultural issues that allowed Rotherham to go on had far less to do with race than sexism and a failure to recognise the victims for what they were.
|
I've got no view on the current discussion but can't let Bromp's assertions pass without comment.
Anyone is free to disbelieve the official report into Rotherham if they choose, and arrive at their own conclusions which may fit their agenda better, but just for the record it said, amongst other things, that "because the majority of perpetrators were Asian or of Pakistani heritage, several council staff described themselves as being nervous about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others, the report noted, "remembered clear direction from their managers" not to make such identification". Also "In the broader organisational context, however, there was a widespread perception that messages conveyed by some senior people in the Council and also the Police, were to 'downplay' the ethnic dimensions of CSE."
Lutfur Rahman's misdeeds were being reported for ages (years I'd say) in, at least, Private Eye before anything serious happened. This Andrew Gilligan article has some dates around it and it seems that it was going awry from 2010
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100200249/lutfur-rahman-some-facts-the-guardian-forgot-to-mention/
And an article in the Guardian had this to say www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/25/tower-hamlets-dictatorship-east-end-lutfur-rahman
"Come on, admit it – it’s not just in the East End you see these tricks played. The postmodern universities and identity-obsessed scour speech for the smallest hint of bigotry, real or imagined. They seize on it – and with a whoop of triumph – cry that the mask has slipped to expose the true face of prejudice. Surely you have noticed, too, that in the paranoia that follows, careerists and charlatans flourish.
"Do not forget either that Rahman at all times enjoyed the mulish support of Ken Livingstone and elements of what now passes for the British left. The BBC, the Daily Telegraph, Private Eye and Ted Jeory, a fantastic Tower Hamlets reporter, who exposed on his blog the corruption stories that local papers wouldn’t print, fought back. But with honourable exceptions, London’s leftwing press ignored the stink in its own backyard and dismissed the accusations against Rahman as evidence of a “deep substrate of†– you guessed it – “racismâ€.
"You might think that at least the Labour party stood firm. But it left it to four Tower Hamlet residents to take on the huge financial risk of fighting Rahman. The judge wondered whether “like so many others who have come up against Mr Rahman, the party was not prepared to risk the accusations of racism and Islamophobia that would have been bound to follow any petitionâ€."
|
Smokie,
I don't doubt that difficulty of dealing with the perps due their ethnicity was an element but it's a mistake to see race and 'Asian' culture as the main issue.
The executive summary of the Jay report identifies
Within social care, the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers. At an operational level, the Police gave no priority to CSE*, regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime.
*CSE = Child Sexual Exploitation.
|
OK, - just that you said further up that “I've argued before that the cultural issues that allowed Rotherham to go on had far less to do with race than sexism…..
Without quoting the whole report, and us getting into a ding-dong over it, the exec summary also says
"By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."
What with Chapter 11 dealing solely with "Issues of ethnicity" I do think the report concluded that ethnicity was more than just "an element" and that for your own reasons you are playing it down.
If anyone wants to read the Rotherham report to foerm their own conclusion it's here. www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham
|
>> I've argued before that the cultural issues that allowed Rotherham to go on had far
>> less to do with race than sexism and a failure to recognise the victims for
>> what they were.
>>
I don't think so. In fact I know so.
I think they both had their part to play, fair enough...but the driver was the race angle, and the powers that be i.e. police and social services failed to deal because they were too afraid of being labelled racists... so they took the easy option of ignoring it.
I would find it laughable if it weren't so serious.. that vulnerable young female citizens are totally ignored, purely because of PC attitudes and the fear of offending someone / a group.
I KNOW this to be the case, because I worked amongst such things for 31 years... and it p's me off.
|
>> I think they both had their part to play, fair enough...but the driver was the
>> race angle, and the powers that be i.e. police and social services failed to deal
>> because they were too afraid of being labelled racists... so they took the easy option
>> of ignoring it.
Hmm Jimmy Saville was white English. As was a certain large Mr Smith. Loads of conveniently ignored evidence swept under the carpet there, where do they fit into the theory?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 4 Dec 15 at 23:51
|
>> Hmm Jimmy Saville was white English. As was a certain large Mr Smith. Loads of
>> conveniently ignored evidence swept under the carpet there, where do they fit into the theory?
Easily... both were famous and one was a politician with contacts.
Again, the easy option was taken because fear of the consequences of getting it wrong or receiving negative publicity, which is very, very wrong.
If it were me or you, we'd be rightly done for it.
You really do see bogey men when it comes to race don't you?
I see no difference between Rotherham and Jimmy Savile, different reasons, but same principle.
|
>> You really do see bogey men when it comes to race don't you?
No you are the one playing the race angle not me, Quote "the driver was the race angle" . Getting a bit confused are we?
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 5 Dec 15 at 00:08
|
>> Getting a bit confused are we?
No, not in the slightest.
I mentioned race, as did you.... in the same context... and I agreed with you.
Then you mentioned racist/ racism... which I disagreed with and wrote why.
|
>> I would find it laughable if it weren't so serious.. that vulnerable young female citizens
>> are totally ignored, purely because of PC attitudes and the fear of offending someone /
>> a group.
As above. Professor Jay found the police gave no priority to Child Sexual Exploitation. The reasons had more to do with the police view of the victims culpability than worries about the abuser's race (analogy - police attitude to repeat victims of domestic violence). It was made more difficult by fact that, as Jay again reports, many of the girls saw themselves as girlfriends and not victims.
As with most sexual abusers the perps chose their victims carefully, emotionally insecure girls all or most of whom had been in care, and groomed them well.
|
>> As above. Professor Jay found the police gave no priority to Child Sexual Exploitation. The
>> reasons had more to do with the police view of the victims culpability than worries
>> about the abuser's race (analogy - police attitude to repeat victims of domestic violence).
That may have had something to do with it.. yes... but that's not the whole picture by any stretch of the imagination and in many respects is a red herring.. remember, by the time of Rotherham, domestic violence had very much become a priority crime and had been for many years*.... CSE had been a priority for ages, there were specific units set up to deal with both, police control rooms would have instructions to ensure those types of calls had thorough results, managers like me would have to oversee those sorts of calls and ensure a crime was recorded and if not why not. There were many checks / balances slipped into the system to pick these things up... all of which were overridden in a sort of perverse 'Emperor's got no clothes on'.
Look if you don't want to believe what I type, fair enough, carry on. Just remember I worked within that environment, directly... for over 3 decades.
* because that's by far how most women are killed in this country and that sort of extreme violence starts with the lower grade stuff.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 5 Dec 15 at 09:59
|
>>I think I will "flounce" for a while, which will no doubt be a matter of rejoicing
Well now, that's mixed emotions. Frankly glad to see the back of your nasty little views, but you do more harm to UKIP by being visible than I ever could.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 4 Dec 15 at 09:34
|
>> Well now, that's mixed emotions. Frankly glad to see the back of your nasty little
>> views, but you do more harm to UKIP by being visible than I ever could.
>>
I fail to see why you need to post in such an unpleasant fashion.
You disagree with Roger.
He disagrees with you.
All of us have our opinions and we are perfectly entitled to have them, why as an educated man do you need to be so rude?
|
>>I fail to see why you need to post in such an unpleasant fashion.
Because there are many people I disagree with, but I find Roger's views disgusting, despicable and hateful.
And if you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that I was insulting his views, nothing else - this time, at least.
However, there truly is no limit as to how rude people with attitudes and views like Roger make me feel like being.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 4 Dec 15 at 09:58
|
>> Because there are many people I disagree with, but I find Roger's views disgusting, despicable
>> and hateful.
Yes, but it detracts from your message.
If you are poles apart from someone else, surely the polite, informed approach wins more over to your viewpoint.
|
>>Yes, but it detracts from your message.
Why on earth would one need a message when dealing with an ignorant, bigoted racist? Well beyond saying "there's an ignorant, bigoted racist".
If such a person was actually capable of understanding logic, objectivity, reasonableness and other points made to them then they wold most likely not be an ignorant, bigoted racist in the first place.
Ditto their supporters. If they had a brain, they wouldn't support an ignorant, bigoted racist.
Now you see, I think that delivers my message quite well.
|
>>If you are poles apart from someone else, surely the polite, informed approach wins more over to your viewpoint.
Depends what you're poles apart on. If one of you is an ignorant, bigoted racist and one of you isn't, then whilst you are indeed poles apart there doesn't appear to be a polite or informed way of communicating. Or indeed, any reason to bother.
|
|
Calm down, NoFM, and tell us, what is your definition of a racist?
|
|
I am calm thank you. Even more calm since one of the racists ran away.
|
>>I am calm thank you. Even more calm since one of the racists ran away.
Still plenty more about though guv'nor ya know.
:o}
|
|
I do know indeed. But one less is one less.
|
>> I do know indeed. But one less is one less.
I don't think Roger is all that racist really. He's just a bit uptight and a traditionalist. He may think he doesn't like brown or black people but I doubt that he'd be rude to one in person. He knows perfectly well that this is a multicoloured society.
|
>>
>>
>> The people of this country are sleepwalking to an Islamic future,
>
Or as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle put it, England is sleepwalking to a Norman future.
|
"Or as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle put it, England is sleepwalking to a Norman future."
and of course the were right
|
|
Modified in 1688, by the invasion of the Orangemen:)
|
A very interesting result, isn't it. Labour put a Blairite candidate in. They kept The Leader out of the constituency (of course, it was always the convention that the PM and party leaders kept away from by-elections, I can't remember who it was who broke that convention, probably Mr Blair, possibly though Mr Major). And they had a large Muslim population who don't like bombing Muslims who would have gone for Corbyn - for all that it was putting a Blairite in. And a very popular local candidate who was tipped to go far.
With all that, they managed an increased majority over, what were they called, ah, UKIP.
Whom would I prefer to be HM's loyal opposition, Labour or UKIP. A good question.
|
It is interesting.
Specifically though, I think my preferred opposition needs to be strong, quite distinct from the Government, and a viable alternative to run the country.
Clearly that rules out UPIK, or whatever they were called, so a JC Labour is probably a very good choice for such a role. However, I expect the Blairites to eventually win through and the Labour part to come scampering back from the left side fairly soon.
Which is a shame.
|
>>the Labour part to come scampering back from the left side fairly soon.
Maybe. Problem is that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. After all it was people like us* who voted for TB, and it will be a long time before people like us will think that Labour is safe to vote for.
________________________________________________
*"That’s why people like me voted to ban fox-hunting". What Mr Blair didn’t say was that he personally had not voted to ban fox-hunting. He knew that his words would make people think that he had.
|
Will there be any more need for the UK Independence if the British people vote to leave the European Union.?
What will Nigel Farage do if we vote OUT. Will he quit and join the Conservative Party?
How many UKIP voters are really closet Conservatives?
|
It is just a perception that they are single issue party. If you look at their website, they have some good policies. I recall they advocated for merging Income Tax + NI into a single tax and introducing something like 25% flat tax for everyone.
|
I recall they advocated for merging Income Tax + NI into a single tax and introducing something like 25% flat tax for everyone.
Which won't fly. Think pensioners with a bit of savings income. Yes I know that from April 6th the first £1000 is exempt, but savings rates are at a current all time low.
|
>>Which won't fly. Think pensioners with a bit of savings income.
Those with dividend income are now paying an effective 27.5% tax rate (in 'old' money - for all that they came with a non-refundable tax credit).
Legislation designed (presumably) to catch cab drivers operating through their own company now catching grannies.
|
|
Why vote UKIP now that we have an EU IN/OUT vote on Europe.
|
If 4 million people would not have voted UKIP, Cameron would not have offered EU referendum.
UKIP acted as catalyst.
I wonder why anyone would vote Labour or LibDem or small regional parties.
|
And how many people never vote or couldn't care less who rules them.
You will always have a minority party in charge with the voting system we have.
Not saying any other way is better it is the way it is.
|
Rumour mills says a rebranding of UKIP may be on the cards.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35949705
What should it be called?
|
|
I suppose it was inevitable, win or lose the referendum there would always be an upheaval. They are just positioning for change.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 2 Apr 16 at 11:41
|
LIPP
Live in the Past Party.
|
|
Social Party Of Our Kingdom?
|
|
"A-wop-bop-a-loo-bop-a-lop-bam-boom!"?
|
|
British Organization of Likers Of Xenophobia (BOLOX)?
|
|
Trade Union of Reactionary Democrats
|
|
British Alliance of Libertarian Liking Socialists (BALLS)?
|
|
Party Against European Domination Of Surrey
|
NOX
Noxious Old Xenophobes.
|
|
MEGA! - Make England Great Again.
|
>> Party Against European Domination Of Surrey
Oh I say!
|
|
If we vote to leave the E.U. was is the point in UKIP still existing.
|
|
I presume all the UKIP voters will go back and vote for the Conservative Party, if the U.K. does vote to leave the E.U.
|
>> I presume all the UKIP voters will go back and vote for the Conservative Party,
>> if the U.K. does vote to leave the E.U.
>>
Not so - we have a considerable number of both members and voters from the Labour left. In fact one of our branch members was a Labour politician at local level (not in this area) for 35 years and one of his offspring was a Labour MP.
|
>> Not so - we have a considerable number of both members and voters from the
>> Labour left.
And lets not forget the BNP contingent.
|
We may have some ex BNP voters, but not knowingly, ex BNP as members.
I fact we deny membership to previous BNP, EDL, Britain First members and if they slip in and they are discovered, we chuck 'em out.
Unlike the Labour Party, for sure, and probably the Tories too.
|
|
Party Of Xenophobic Yobbos.
|
|
I fully agree with you Armel Coussine.
|
|
Actually we are nice, ordinary people :-)
|
Definition of "nice" -
Latin nescius 'ignorant', from nescire 'not know'
Well, there you go...
|
"Definition of "nice" -
Latin nescius 'ignorant', from nescire 'not know'"
Cheap shot. Derivation is NOT the same as definition. Words change their meanings, sometimes even to the opposite of the original.
|
|
Hell of a coincidence though.
|
>> "Definition of "nice" -
>>
>> Latin nescius 'ignorant', from nescire 'not know'"
>>
>> Cheap shot. Derivation is NOT the same as definition. Words change their meanings, sometimes even
>> to the opposite of the original.
>>
We in UKIP are used to cheap shots and visceral hatred from the established parties and their supporters.
To a point, the blanket negative campaign has worked, I'm afraid, to the extent that opinion has absolutely polarised and to the "antis" nothing we propose is of value and is automatically derided, (whatever its merits) as are the people proposing it.
I'm not sure what will happen to UKIP once the referendum is over; one thing for sure is that the current in-fighting is deeply unhelpful at a time when all the energies of those wishing for a Leave vote should be on that objective.
|
>> Definition of "nice" -
>>
>> Latin nescius 'ignorant', from nescire 'not know'
>>
>> Well, there you go...
>>
So - you're not "nice". I'm sure you do not think that you are a know-nothing!
Does that infer you are nasty?
:-)
Last edited by: Roger. on Sun 3 Apr 16 at 09:52
|
|
Is UKIP now the nasty party.
|
|
I presume UKIP has replaced the Conservative Party as a right wing odd bunch of clowns.
|
|
Your presumption is incorrect - Labour, under one J. Corbyn has that dubious honour (for the Loony Left, though.)
Last edited by: Roger. on Sun 3 Apr 16 at 18:25
|
>>Does that infer you are nasty?
Imply.
|
I judge myself to be in the moderate centre of British politics.
I do believe in the market economy but I also believe you have to help the sick and disabled.
|
|
That sick and disabled includes pensioners, the unemployed, single mothers, working poor and the non working poor.
|
|
So how much of your money do you give, over and above what you have to?
|
|
I donate a direct debit to a number of charities such as Cancer Research UK and Alzheimers Research UK
|
In our first past the post electoral system it is difficult for a minor party to have a breakthrough.
Despite all the bluster coming from UKIP they only have one M.P. in the House of Commons.
It is proportional representation that is giving UKIP its only chance. Coming second wins you no seats in the House of commons.
|
UKIP - Oldham - No FM2R
