Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: x2lls Dec 5 2014, 09:35 PM

All the bloke did was answer a question, and just look at the trumped up media reaction.

BBC:-Nigel Farage defends breastfeeding comments amid row

What row? Check out the HYS.

And talking of BBC HYS, why are they so picky on what they allow to be commented on?

Just look at the list of headlines now (2134) and all you will see is the Farage item with comments available to Joe public.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 5 2014, 09:53 PM

Poor old Nigel, banging on about the bongo-bongos again is he?

Posted by: x2lls Dec 5 2014, 09:56 PM

Come back when you have researched the responses

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 5 2014, 10:11 PM

Sorry, just my juvenile humour - "bongos" is a euphemism for breasts, or it was at my infant school anyways!

Posted by: x2lls Dec 5 2014, 10:16 PM

LOL, np Simon.

My point is not whether Farage is right or wrong, but the way the media works.

I've never heard the term bongos used to refer to breasts. I always thought bongo was the name of a drum.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 5 2014, 10:30 PM

I think it's interesting, yes. I see what you mean about comments being disabled on other stories, and I can't readily see why that would be, but comments are enabled on this one. However, if the media are manipulating the public, I would be interested to know who is manipulating the media, because if it's the liberal-left then it's not working.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 6 2014, 12:08 AM

It's called "let's ask him a question that's impossible to answer without him upsetting someone". The media and some of the toady hangers on still haven't learnt yet. The more muck they throw, the more votes he gets.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 6 2014, 12:13 AM

Quite,

Perhaps they have yet to notice the fan behind them!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 6 2014, 07:30 AM

A pertinent photo of Farage from the BBC:

Posted by: newres Dec 6 2014, 08:30 AM

I just watched the video and I have to say it's the first time he has ever said anything sensible.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 6 2014, 07:50 PM

Yep. Bring it on. The real revolution (not that **** head Russell Brand's revolution) is happening gradually.
People are waking up. You don't have to put up with the champagne socialists, the tory toffs and the loony liberals.
And the BBC are the biggest vote winner for UKIP ever.

Time for Benyon to be put out to grass.

I'm voting for this lady. She does not look soiled by Westminster.

Posted by: user23 Dec 7 2014, 10:32 PM

I wonder if these comments about immigrants and the M4 were taken out of context too?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2864413/Now-Farage-blames-immigrants-TRAFFIC-JAMS-M4-late-25-head-Meet-Nigel-Ukip-event.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2864413/Now-Farage-blames-immigrants-TRAFFIC-JAMS-M4-late-25-head-Meet-Nigel-Ukip-event.html

Posted by: x2lls Dec 7 2014, 11:58 PM

Perhaps you ought to read the comments alongside the article. That will answer your question.

Posted by: newres Dec 8 2014, 07:23 AM

In the context of the bloke being a nutter?

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 8 2014, 07:25 AM

It highlights the need that I have previously stated to be able to improve the infrastructure at a similar rate to population growth, something that is difficult to do with an uncontrolled open door policy.

It would also be interesting to see how many foreign cars remain untaxed after the grace period which lasts I think for 3 months and how this compares to other non-taxed vehicles in the UK. We will no longer be able to tell since the abolition of the tax disc so will be unable to report vehicles that we believe have been SORN or in the country for a while and in regular use and untaxed.

Posted by: newres Dec 8 2014, 08:28 AM

So you think that the main reason for overcrowded roads is our immigration policy?

I thought that the point now was that tax discs aren't needed. Obviously I appreciate that some people do have nothing better to do than check people's tax discs.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 8 2014, 09:49 AM

I don't see how the tax disc change makes any difference? SORN and untaxed UK cars will be picked up by ANPR pretty much as soon as the vehicle goes on the road - whether the police do anything about it is another issue. And foreign vehicles that have been in the UK untaxed for more than the grace period wouldn't have a tax disc before and won't now. If they are taxed they will have a UK number plate - much easier to spot than a tax disc.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 8 2014, 07:58 PM

One of the reasons. Yes. Population growth has been massive and infrastructure has not coped.
To say that certain parts (mainly the south and south east) of England have an infrastructure crisis caused partly by unmanaged and unlimited immigration is not racist.
Its is just the truth. But a lot of people don't like the truth.

Tried to get a Doctors appointment lately?

Posted by: newres Dec 8 2014, 08:17 PM

Is that because of the immigrants too?

Posted by: user23 Dec 8 2014, 08:24 PM

This is the "best rated" comment

Posted by: user23 Dec 8 2014, 08:41 PM

What are you basing your opinion on and why did you feel the need to say your view isn't racist when no one claimed it was?

Perhaps we need more doctors from abroad to help run the NHS, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2784318/The-doctors-exodus-They-cost-610-000-train-3-000-year-leaving-life-sun-Australia-New-Zealand.html where where the demands are less intense and doctors enjoy a better work-life balance. Of course http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/ukip-assault-on-nhs-extinction so no worries there, as long as you're rich you can get an appointment whenever you want.

Back to he "immigrants made me late" excuse, if you have a look at this http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_368416.pdf#9 you'll see that there's actually been a fair bit of internal migration to the South East and West from other areas of England and Wales. What would you do about this, close the borders at Oxford and Bristol?

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 8 2014, 08:42 PM

They must have an effect surely?
250,000 a year cannot be absorbed without making a difference to services and resources can they?

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 8 2014, 09:16 PM

No they can keep their foreign number plate but still be liable for tax. Vehicles in regular use could be spotted by the public and if not displaying a disc checked for SORN / tax requested for vehicles in the UK for over a month or whatever the grace period. ANPR is unlikely to pick up vehicles from abroad liable to tax.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 8 2014, 09:25 PM

Are you saying UK public servants are lazier than foreign ones? Perhaps we should replace our inefficient local authority staff with foreigners and outsource IT services abroad - that'll free up some cash for essential services.

Posted by: user23 Dec 8 2014, 10:05 PM

UKIP seem to think this is a bad idea:

http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2014/jun/24/nigel-farage-ukip-public-services-outsourcing-crackdown

Now perhaps you could have a go at backing up what you've said about immigrants with facts?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 8 2014, 10:13 PM

Not just immigration. The overall population increase that has in the main been caused by immigration.
Population is the problem, Not immigration. Managed immigration is fine. Perhaps we ought to go the way of "Logan's Run"
We could do it every 5th of November and have a proper fireworks display.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 8 2014, 10:41 PM

Can you show how thousands of extra people have had no effect on traffic levels?

Please do share your evidence.

Sorry I forgot you are part of the Public Service lets not see the fecking obvious brigade!

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 8 2014, 10:49 PM

Exactly, population growth can be planned for and managed (Midwifery can be a problem as their is only 8 months or so to realise the requirement for a potential significant increase. Uncontrolled immigration can cause major problems especially for example if large numbers of infants accompanying their parents putting pressure on the school system.

Posted by: user23 Dec 8 2014, 11:39 PM

I didn't say the migrants from the other parts of the UK wouldn't have an effect on traffic, I asked how you would stop them from coming to South East and South West.

Since then you've just avoided the question and don't seem to have any answers. That's UKIP all over.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 9 2014, 07:39 AM

The only way we can control the movement between places in the UK is really school places - difficult for planning unfortunately. So do you believe as you can't control one influx of people that you shouldn't have any limits on others?

Posted by: newres Dec 9 2014, 08:32 AM

Not wishing to put too many facts in, but isn't the UK population falling?

https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:GBR:USA:FRA&hl=en&dl=en

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 9 2014, 10:39 AM

That is a graph showing population growth rate, not overall population. The rate of increase has slowed, but while the growth rate is above 0, you will see a population increase.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 9 2014, 10:40 AM

No. The rate of GROWTH between 2010 and 2012 fell. It still grew though and the figures for 2012 to 2014 will show a sharp increase in growth.

0.8% of 64 Million is equal to the population of Manchester EVERY year

Posted by: blackdog Dec 9 2014, 11:26 AM

The figure for 2014 is not on the graph - but 2013 is and shows a continuing decrease in the growth rate (down to 0.63%).

Population growth s the worldwide problem, it is behind most other problems, but no government apart from the Chinese have attempted to do anything about it.

Posted by: newres Dec 9 2014, 12:51 PM

So it is. Fair enough, but the population will be growing anyway - with or without immigration.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 9 2014, 01:53 PM

I understood that the birthrate in the UK from parents who were born here was in decline.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 9 2014, 05:09 PM

So therefore faster with immigration. Quad et whatever.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Dec 9 2014, 05:31 PM

You know, when a person says "with all due respect..." they are about to show very little respect.

When a person says "it's none of my business but...." you know they're about to make it their business...

And when a person says "I am not a racist but..." you have a pretty good idea of what's coming next.

I wonder how many of the UKIP supporters have realised that stopping half a dozen Polish plumbers from coming here will not really affect the increase in birthrates that seems to vex them so.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 9 2014, 06:19 PM

Like many people you seem unable to understand that being able to limit immigration is not stopping immigration nor is it racist.

I blame the eduction system!

Posted by: Strafin Dec 9 2014, 07:40 PM

Who if anyone is actually worried about whether or not someone has paid their VED or not?

Posted by: Weavers Walk Dec 9 2014, 07:56 PM

They clearly have a lot to answer for.

Posted by: Nothing Much Dec 9 2014, 08:04 PM

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 9 2014, 08:58 PM

OK if no one pays it - unfair if just a few avoid it.

Posted by: user23 Dec 9 2014, 09:15 PM

Another day, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/09/ukips-suspended-roger-bird-denies-sexual-harassment.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 9 2014, 09:44 PM

At least they dealt with it before it hit the headlines unlike some parties.

Hopefully they'll get elected - maybe even on council seats and get rid of the useless management layers in Market Street. But maybe that is some peoples motivation to highlight every bit of bad publicity.

Posted by: motormad Dec 10 2014, 12:54 AM

Am I the only one who sees through this distraction BS and doesn't actually care?

Every party has bad eggs and every politician has dirt on them. It's funny they only want to scrub over UKIP politicians now they are gaining some stronghold with voters...

Posted by: x2lls Dec 10 2014, 06:08 AM

No, you're not the only one.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 10 2014, 09:57 AM

Why should anyone be bothered? It's like people who make false insurance claims - it's obviously not going to make the slightest difference to the premiums everyone else pays.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 10 2014, 06:46 PM

Exactly.

I don't agree for everything UKIP stands for - but having waited for the existing parties to change I have decided this will be my method of protest.

Obviously the current parties are now getting scared that they will all lose some of their market share.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 10 2014, 07:25 PM

And reading between the lines, that will, hopefully, be the case.

Posted by: user23 Dec 10 2014, 07:55 PM

Now they're finding enough popularity to win a projected three MPs at the next election they're starting to get the same sort of investigation that the major parties do.

There's still a few gears to go up though, their leader hasn't been http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2400451/Awkward-moment-topless-David-Cameron-struggles-shorts-crowded-beach-Cornwall.html, or a whole gag reel of him been created http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/virals/10848760/edeats-Ed-Milibands-many-bacon-sarnie-moments.html?frame=2918111, but it'll come.

Posted by: newres Dec 11 2014, 05:34 AM

Why doesn't it surprise me that UKIP has become the party of choice for the stalwarts of this forum?

Posted by: Mr Brown Dec 11 2014, 08:04 AM

It seems to me that's because there is no other choice here. Labour don't seem to be at all active locally and there is no difference between LibDem and Tory, the only other parties here at the moment. So it's not really so surprising.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 11 2014, 11:00 AM

So, which party do you bless with your favours o perfect one?

Posted by: newres Dec 11 2014, 03:46 PM

None. If I lent any way it would be left but they are all too black and white (no pun intended) for my liking. I haven't voted for many years. If a disillusioned party started up I might join. You don't have to dig too deep to see the xenophobia in UKIP though. Farage might be married to a German.... actually.... thinking on.... that fits doesn't it?

Posted by: The Optimist Dec 11 2014, 08:34 PM

Do I sense Godwin's Law in play?

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 11 2014, 08:56 PM

I would prefer a "None of the Above" option and for that to be counted - with parties required to submit other candidates (and hopefully change their policies) should they not get the required majority.

But as the main parties are aware they cater for the party faithful rather than the electorate they are all to scared to allow this!

Posted by: On the edge Dec 11 2014, 09:02 PM

Well, that's exactly what I'm going to do, write it on my paper and tick that. If enough of us did that, spoiling our ballot papers, I suspect sone notice might well be taken. It would be interesting to hear them explain why a lot of people had actually bothered to turn out just to spoil their paper.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 01:31 AM

Anyone would think there was hordes of competent people waiting in the wings desperate for the chance to implement social justice and prosperity for all.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 12 2014, 07:42 AM

Just a few would do.

However, I suspect there are rather more 'competent people' who, given the right circumstance and incentive would be more than willing to have a go. Frankly, we don't need the desperate any longer; they are the problem not the solution.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 01:12 PM

I don't believe politicians are a special bread of person, so assuming they are human as everyone else. So as a collective, I doubt there could be much improvement, unless of course we are prepared to pay a lot more.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 12 2014, 02:37 PM

I don't think money come into it. It's more to do with breaking the stranglehold of party particularly at local level. Also, making structural changes so that localities can properly input wants and views to representatives unencumbered by party dogma. Councillors should also be able to seize back their real role in strategic leadership with a subservient executive.

Regrettably, the active Councillors we have today are indeed a special breed of people. That is, they seem to be people who seek power and influence for its own sake, rather than people who actually want to put something back into the community. Yes, a few still exist.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 03:36 PM

Maybe, but I believe the political system comes before the politicians, but saying that, who would be a councillor: it's a mugs game.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 12 2014, 05:39 PM

The interesting point is why we vote for mugs, election after election. Abe Lincoln had it, 'you can fool some of the people......

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 12 2014, 08:54 PM

I don't agree, and I believe that's a fallacy promoted by politicians to deflect criticism of their abuse of power. People don't tend to like arrogant self-serving imperious lying weasels, but it serves those weasels to have you believe that any criticism of them is unwarranted. If politicians were straight then people wouldn't despise them half as much.

As for who'd be a councillor - I would. Or let me qualify that: I'd be interested in sitting on a small parish council which saw its chief role as that of enabling and empowering its community to organise itself. So I'd be really interested for example in sitting on a council committee that worked with its allotment societies to help them run their own allotment service, and I'd be marginally interested in doing the same kind of thing for the town's market traders out of respect for the colour that a good market can bring to a town, although I feel that the BID would do a much better job of this. I think the parks are properly run by the parish, but I'd be really interested in working with volunteers to enable them to do much of the maintenance. I'd also be really interested in sitting on a parish committee that worked with local community groups to build their capacity so that they could do whatever it was that they wanted to organise to achieve, be that putting on a panto or street faire, or community picnic, or whatever.

But I hugely dislike the current model where the Council out-competes any community initiative and absorbs any grass-roots enthusiasm like the Borg, running pointless services and consuming £thousands and £thousands in administrative busy work that delivers appallingly poor service if in fact it delivers any service at all. It's power-crazed and oppressive, and I have serious concerns about anyone who would want to get themselves into a position of authority in such an organisation.

Of course what I most want to get involved in is actually running an allotment service as a self-managed federation of societies. It's perverse that the Council find it so utterly objectionable that an elected committee of allotmenteers could run their own allotment service and they find it infinitely preferable that they run the service for the allotmenteers, even though they know nothing about allotmenteering and it costs the precept-payer £100k annually.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2014, 11:13 PM

The reason I think it is a mugs game is that I believe the biggest and most powerful group of self-serving protectionist people are the electorate. If they really cared enough for others as well as their won lot, we wouldn't have the council we appear to have.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 13 2014, 12:26 PM

But to break that we need someone of the right calibre to stand. Despite not agreeing with all his views I would likely vote for RUP if he stood in my ward.

Posted by: user23 Dec 13 2014, 02:11 PM

Why not stand for election yourself then?

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 13 2014, 03:06 PM

That's it trot the same message out again. You don't need to be a politician or want to be one to see the current ones are bad. I could complain about the performance of the players in my football team without having the wish to become a footballer.

Posted by: user23 Dec 13 2014, 03:37 PM

When you criticise a footballer you're doing so in the knowledge that you don't have the same high level of physical skill and the attributes to be on a par with them.

Essentially you're saying those that criticise don't have wit or wisdom to match the local people that run for political office.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 13 2014, 04:59 PM

Maybe if they had the powers to sack the incompetent management in Market Street there would be more volunteers. Then we may get some improvements - if Only!

Of course you are saying that the the lower paid who still have to fork out Counil Tax should shut up as they don't have the ability themselves. Typical response from a WBC employee!

Posted by: user23 Dec 13 2014, 05:55 PM

Since when did being "lower paid" mean someone was less intelligent than most?

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 13 2014, 06:02 PM

Where did I say it was? As usual you are twisting what is said! Whilst some of the lower paid maybe highly intelligent, those who are less intelligent are much more likely to lower paid!

But what do you and your mates at WBC care as long as you are able to help yourselves to their hard earned?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 13 2014, 07:08 PM

Let me make it clear again. Change the system and I will. There is very little point under the existing regime ad RUP has honourably demonstrated. He did make a valiant effort. Actually; if a candidate with his ethos and convictions stood in my ward I wouldn't spoil my vote - however that ain't likely is it?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 13 2014, 07:12 PM

Oh yes MontyP if only! In answer to Users usual, I'd certainly stand then and what's more, I'd lay odds you'd join me.

Posted by: user23 Dec 13 2014, 07:32 PM

I suspect nothing's going to change anything based on a few anonymous rants on a chat board. The best way to change a political system is to get inside it.

This takes dedication, hard work and not expecting others to do it for you.

It's a shame as there are a few good ideas posted on here from time to time, but it seems many lack any sort of bottle and willingness to put in the hard graft to follow them up.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 13 2014, 08:02 PM

As I said if the system changed and we could get rid of the incompetent managers... but those in Market street would start get worried if that was allowed. in the mean time you can carry on blaming the system and being part of the problem.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 13 2014, 08:06 PM

You have hit the nail on the head it is actually getting inside the little club that is the problem and not only that but staying in and not getting victimised when not observing the rules.

And end up like RUP, Simon and others you mean..............

You probably know full well the odds are fully stacked against any sort of mass influx of unknowns getting on the inside..........your friends made up the rules to insure this in the first place didn't they?

Posted by: user23 Dec 13 2014, 08:07 PM

What a curious answer. It isn't me blaming the system for anything, but I'm glad that you acknowledge that if one has a moan but does nothing about it, then they're actually part of the problem they perceive.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 13 2014, 08:12 PM

Yes you are probably correct for once...................until enough start to moan that is?

I do live in hope though?

Posted by: user23 Dec 13 2014, 08:16 PM

The pursuit of wealth isn't everyone's number one goal, you know?

For some it's the pursuit of happiness or something they enjoy doing.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 13 2014, 08:22 PM

I didn't say the pursuit of wealth was the be all & end all. What we would like is to retain what we have without you and your colleagues in local government helping yourself to it to waste on inefficiency and hair-brained schemes.

Posted by: user23 Dec 13 2014, 08:31 PM

That's your implication though. If you're saying (generally) the most intelligent people earn the most you're implying that it's clever to peruse wealth as an ultimate aim.

I disagree and I don't think you've thought this one through very well.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 13 2014, 08:48 PM

You mean rather like WBC employees as that famous report said. The only positive thing it mentioned was the need to celebrate success more, well we all know why that's so difficult!

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 13 2014, 08:49 PM

I see you are talking Bullsh!t again to try and hide the flak being aimed at our beloved employer.

I have not implied anywhere that it is clever to pursue wealth. Just that those with intelligence are often rewarded with a greater financial package as a result of their employment.

Posted by: user23 Dec 13 2014, 09:17 PM

No need to get upset because you don't understand the implication of what you're saying.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 13 2014, 10:14 PM

Like the special "secret" payments made to certain WBC employees to "get the right staff".

Maybe that explains your keenness to protect "the club" and mock and deride those who speak against it. Is that part of Nick Carters master plan/vision and do you get the "secret" payment as Nick's little puppet?

Posted by: x2lls Dec 14 2014, 12:38 AM

Got evidence for what you are accusing of here?

Or is it a secret?

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 14 2014, 10:40 AM

They go on - but don't seem to publish them - surprising huh? It's open government for you!

Posted by: x2lls Dec 15 2014, 01:22 PM

Your response has absolutely no bearing on my question.

You can't make such derogatory remarks without some sort of proof. I get it some of you don't like User23, but for crying out loud, if you are going to sling mud then at least have the decency to have evidence that stands up to scrutiny. After all, you expect the same from the 'other side' don't you?

Excuse me for being iggerent, but what 'secret payments'? You asked a question in regard to Nick Carters master plan so I assume on that basis, you know nothing.

Posted by: nerc Dec 15 2014, 01:54 PM

Yawn/boring.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 15 2014, 04:29 PM

Perhaps you'd better pop over to facebook.

Posted by: nerc Dec 15 2014, 08:53 PM

Why? are you on there as well?

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 15 2014, 09:05 PM

They are payments to certain individuals/ positions to take their salary above that for the grade they are in the organisation.

Forgive me for not revealing my sources but I am not willing for my source to suffer the usual victimisation doled out by "the club" when anyone reveals something our local councils don't want us to know!

Posted by: user23 Dec 22 2014, 07:45 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-candidate-gay-donkey-tried-to-rape-my-horse-9940230.html

I wonder if the comments in the video of him saying them "were taken out of context"?

Posted by: newres Dec 22 2014, 08:04 PM

Another on bites the dust:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30576857

All out of context of course. Lots of support for them on here though - no surprises.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 22 2014, 08:16 PM

Yet again, selective bull****.
People need to stop swallowing controversial one-liners which claim to encapsulate UKIP policy and start looking at what their policies actually say.
They are detailed on his website at johnreesevans.uk.

Posted by: user23 Dec 22 2014, 08:57 PM

What's the one liner that claims to encapsulate UKIP policy here?

Posted by: newres Dec 22 2014, 09:26 PM

"I'm not racist but....."

Posted by: x2lls Dec 22 2014, 09:35 PM

It doesn't, it is an implication. Guilty by association, which is the way the media works.

Nice try..

Posted by: x2lls Dec 22 2014, 09:36 PM

Is NOT exclusive to UKIP.

You'll find that rubbish in many other conversations.

Posted by: user23 Dec 22 2014, 09:41 PM

Then what UKIP policy is it implying?

Posted by: x2lls Dec 22 2014, 10:39 PM

You are quite capable of making your own mind up about that. Whatever I say to you, will not be sufficient.

Another nice try

Posted by: user23 Dec 22 2014, 11:09 PM

This seems to be the standard type of answer when you ask a Ukipper about their party's policies.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 23 2014, 12:14 AM

I rest my case!!

And I WILL be voting UKIP

Posted by: JeffG Dec 23 2014, 09:50 AM

Your prerogative.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 23 2014, 10:31 AM

Evidence for why we should have basic aptitude tests for voters and perhaps an example of why the current democracy needs a overhaul.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 23 2014, 01:26 PM

So many comments are made here with absolutely no evidential backup ..

Carry on making up stuff as you go.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 23 2014, 02:37 PM

LOL, play UKIK:




https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fongames.ukick&hl=en_GB

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 23 2014, 05:13 PM

Ooh, ooh, let's do one with Ed trying to eat a bacon sandwich next, that'll be a laugh.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Dec 23 2014, 07:24 PM

So, let's be clear here, you wouldn't vote for a party because it's leader had difficulty with a rather stringy bacon sandwich, but you would vote for a party that wanted mandatory abortions for disabled children. Odd outlook.

Posted by: nerc Dec 23 2014, 07:58 PM

Poor old you i guess you have nothing better to do than make derogatory comments about many things on this site.
Perhaps you need to get a life.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 23 2014, 08:18 PM

It was meant to be ironic. Numpty.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 23 2014, 08:31 PM

Can we not have different POVs with out squabbling?

I think a 'UK exit party' is a valid position, what I would question is the standard of candidate that represents UKIP. Not that the other parties necessarily fair better in that department.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 23 2014, 08:40 PM

More out of context stuff.

He was an individual, stupid though he was, he wasn't speaking for the 'party'.
He subsequently got suspended.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 23 2014, 08:43 PM

I'm not poor, I'm not old and I have a perfectly good life thank you very much.

Posted by: user23 Dec 23 2014, 08:50 PM

There seems to be an increasing number these individuals, not speaking for the party and saying something stupid at best, racist or homophobic at worst.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 23 2014, 09:00 PM

Yes, that is true.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 23 2014, 09:39 PM

No squabbling is probably asking too much, but I agree with the substantive point. I'm leaning more and more for the "out" option as I think the argument has been made out that the EU is a self-serving gravy train and that we'll be better off out, but it's not UKIP or its supporters who have persuaded me, it's simply the evidence.

I would like to find a liberal-centrist party that wanted a small state and social justice and promoted an exit from Europe, but I don't see me voting UKIP.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 23 2014, 10:11 PM

I'm still torn, but tend towards independence. The benefits don't seem obvious. An independent UK can have as much immigration as it wants, and I doubt Spain et al. will deny our wealthy villains who flee there in their droves, it seems.

I suspect inward investment would be at risk, although I'm unsure why.
Reduced immigration will probably reduce tax yields and I suspect we would become less productive and less competitive.

I do recognise the benefits of the scale of immigration we have seen, but I also recognise that many people feel threatened by this and I understand why: it is natural.

Posted by: newres Dec 23 2014, 10:45 PM

Where it starts to go wrong is when a single issue organisation starts to aspire to being a political party. Especially when the that single issue could be construed as being a nationalistic issue. It's pretty obvious the route the policy will take and the sorts of nutters it will attract.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 23 2014, 10:54 PM

For me the argument for coming out is strong: it's as OtE says, the NTC argument: it's a gravy train. Self-serving, and unaccountable.

The argument I hear for staying in is essentially negative: it'll all end in tears if you leave. As it happens that's probably right as our service economy will likely depart and that pretty much keeps us afloat now, but I guess we'll find something else to do. The one positive voice I do listen to is Ken Clarke, and maybe he'll have more to say as the debate continues, but he never was a popular voice in the Conservatives - though he'd have been a cracking leader of the Liberal party.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 23 2014, 11:01 PM

This is the problem. An exit from Europe isn't necessarily nationalistic, and being nationalistic isn't necessarily xenophobic, but I have seen nothing from UKIP to suggest that it wants to position itself as a liberal centrist party.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 23 2014, 11:03 PM

I'm sorry but I take offence at this. Who are you defining as a "nutter"????

Someone who cares for the country and earns a lot of money and pays a lot of tax without breaking any law in the 50 years they have been in this great country?

I will vote UKIP. It's my right. And actually the best thing is that we all have the right to vote for who the **** we like.

Just be grateful. I have a feeling in a generation that you'll all end up controlled by the media and that saddens me.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 23 2014, 11:20 PM

Simon - I am always willing to listen.

What do you define as liberal centrist?

I have a lot of friends who are 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants that are even more worried about population GROWTH than I am. At the end of the day if your parents have little money you are going to have to support them and if you can't help and if they need assistance you are going to have to go to the NHS and Public Sector. More people. Fewer private patients = queues outside GP's.

I have always used the NHS and Public sector. This is a combined issue. Huge population growth. Rich getting Richer. No one taking accountability (ALL parties - that is why this is happening)

Sad. Time to get your bunker sorted for the end of days (watched SKY news today!)

Aging Population
Huge Growth in Population
Lower Wages
Huge national debt

Still - I wish you all a very happy Xmas and a healthy New Year

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 24 2014, 01:00 AM

I feel that is the case already and UKIP are a manifestation of that, as were New Labour too.


Yet I see nothing in UKIP that suggests they have a solution. If anything they are likely to help make things worse.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 24 2014, 02:12 AM

May I ask why there has been no comment on the UKIP policies as declared by UKIP themselves?
The only stuff that has been remarked upon here is that from the media or personal opinions, again, based on 'what the fat bloke down the pub told me'.


http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

Posted by: x2lls Dec 24 2014, 02:59 AM

As I have already said, the media decide who sees what.

BBC Quote

Photographer Jeremy Selwyn offers his thoughts about his picture of Britain's Labour party leader Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich which created a stir in the media.

A stir in the media, not in my house!!! Oh jeez, my case is rested yet again.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 24 2014, 09:52 AM

That's a very good point. I've never subscribed to the view that UKIP is single issue, by its very definition, it can't be. The manifesto describes well what UKIP is actually about - that is Conservative party values. In many respects, it reflects Churchill's manifesto for 1945 and it certainly fits their pre WW2 approach. Absolutley nothing wrong with any of that, in fact there is some reason to feel that in domestic policy at least, the 1930/40s Conservative policies were absolutley right. One can see exactly why Carswell and Reckless felt able to make the jump - they can honestly say they haven't changed, their previous party had.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 24 2014, 09:54 AM

OK, so let me ask you: what have UKIP activists actually done locally? Yes, I get that UKIP want power, but what will they do with that power? UKIP may not have had much opportunity to demonstrate their values at a national level, but there has been plenty of opportunity over the last five years to challenge the town-hall tyranny of the Lib Dems at the most local level, but I've seen nothing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 24 2014, 11:00 AM

I'm familiar with the manifesto, however, I am unaware if it has been costed. I am also not confident that the party have the personalities to follow through with the commitments, nor the political nous to survive.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 24 2014, 12:56 PM

How ironic, that's exactly how Nye Bevan challenged Neville Chamberlain's efforts, saying something like 'it's like a visit to Woolworths, everything properly laid out and nothing above sixpence'.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 24 2014, 05:58 PM

Where it starts to go wrong is when the main parties don't listen to the electorate but think their purpose is to purely cater for the party faithful. This results in either a low turnout or people voting for a single issue party despite some "negative issues"

Of course the main parties have been keen on Europe as it adds another layer of government and more jobs for politicians, something they are evidently and understandably keen on despite the extra cost and little extra benefit to the tax payer.

Posted by: newres Dec 24 2014, 06:51 PM

Deliberate irony? Thirty years of anti EU propaganda from a largely right wing media have created a mood of suspicion and fear that UKIP have exploited. So you are the one controlled by the media. One of many unfortunately.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 24 2014, 08:53 PM

Interesting that. So for 30 years it's just been the media that has stirred up anti EU propaganda and no one on the 'for' side noticed. Hardly. Newspapers sell to popular opinion so would have been out of business if they'd gone against public sentiment for too long. The 'for' side have never put their case or defended the institution itself. Even now, the most vigorous pro party, the LibDems are remarkably reticent. Regrettably, here you are doing exactly the same - can't defend with facts or logic so rubbish the person.

Posted by: newres Dec 24 2014, 09:12 PM

That is naive in the extreme. Newspapers manipulate public opinion by appealing to base instincts. A drip drip feed of stories about wine lakes, cheese mountains, gravy trains, French farmers, gravy trains, EU barmy this, EU barmy that and on and on. Unfortunately the popular opinion you refer to is largely uneducated and unquestioning and easily influenced by the newspapers they choose to read.

I can't think of when I last read something positive about Europe. Peace, cultural enrichment, free trade etc. Not to mention a liberal, independent European legal avenue.

The EU isn't perfect, but neither is any form of government.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 24 2014, 11:18 PM

"Newspapers manipulate public opinion by appealing to base instincts"

The BBC are the worst. Why don't they just start flying a red flag over broadcasting house. The sooner the license fee is abolished the better.


"Isn't Perfect?"

Front National (France)
National Democratic Party (Germany)
Golden Dawn (Greece)
Finns (Finland)
Danish People's Party (Denmark)
Party for Freedom (The Netherlands)
Jobbik (Hungary)
Austrian Freedom (Austria)
Lega Nord (Italy)

Good Lord... All with seats in the European Parliament

Posted by: On the edge Dec 25 2014, 12:07 AM

Of course, if you only read the Daily Mail, that's all you'll see. Try some of the quality papers such as the Independent, or the Guardian.

Stories about barmy legislation and actions abound for all our governance, EU, national and local - not just the EU. The deficiencies in the EU are recognised by its own mechanisms, for instance it's accounts fail audit year on year. It it were a commercial concern anywhere in Europe, it would have to cease trading for that. Similarly, no other Government even if in serious debt, has failed to my knowledge. We can also see the level of expenses and salaries paid to members and staff - which when compaired with other public sector remuneration creates yet further impressions of waste and imprudence.

Its a reflection of the weakness of your position to castigate those who disagree with you as less intelligent. Can you really trust an organisation that can't even satisfy its own auditors? That's what I'd call unquestioning and naive.

Posted by: newres Dec 25 2014, 04:23 PM

You missed off UKIP.

Posted by: newres Dec 25 2014, 04:41 PM

That's the problem. Most of UKIP's supporters only read the trashy papers and Facebook.

I don't really see the relevance of your arguments regarding expenses and audits. Firstly, our own system is full of holes, especially where expenses are concerned.

Secondly, regardless of audits and within reason EU financial concerns, my belief in the usefulness of the EU is more about a moral balance, integration and peace across Europe. I don't trust our government. Annoyingly and shockingly to me, a Labour government proved to be less trustworthy than any other in my living memory.

Thirdly, I have yet to hear a convincing financial case for leaving the EU. Most experts that aren't party political seem to think that our economy would suffer if we exited. Certainly none say we would be better off.

It seems to me that in the majority of cases, those that want to leave only want to because of issues like immigration - and incidentally that has been used here by UKIP supporters.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 25 2014, 06:08 PM

I don't trust government either, that's exactly why good audits and financial housekeeping is essential. Ours may be slow, but it's there and if works. After all. we did something about expenses - hard and nasty though that period was. The EU on the other hand us in total denial and has been for many years.

Ironically, and for some reason I have come across a good few, most active UMIP supporters I know have a catholic taste in news sources; unlike many taking more than one, more often than not non 'hard copy' media.

Yes, there are certain multi nationals who make a convincing case to stay. However, for everyone of those, I'll match you two in the financial and banking sector (yes, horrid bankers) who say go. Your outlook will depend very much on your personal impact of course.

For me, I am becoming more and more convinced that medium to long term we woukd survive and survive well; probably far better than being shackled to a more and more crippled European economy which will inevitably include Turkey and the other Applicant States. However, in the short term, it would hurt and our standard of living would actually decrease.

Immigration is an issue for all parties, let's face it, even in Newbury there is a sizeable number of people who are against 'incomers', even from close by, because they want to inhibit any development. That's just human nature.

I'd certainly agree with you about the Labour Party, which seems to have sold its sole and found nothing to take its place. Why for instance abolish Clause 4? Nonetheless, if you think the institution of Europe will be a protective bastion then it's clear it will afford as much protection to basic rights as NTC.

It is very sad that Labour, who were once the second party round here, seem to have disappeared. As avowed internationalists, why aren't they making the case? Or can we conclude, by their silence and that of the LibDems, the other avowed pro party, that there isn't actually a substantive pro case to made.

Posted by: r.bartlett Dec 27 2014, 09:35 AM

wow what a pompous a s s.

Posted by: newres Dec 27 2014, 10:18 AM

If you use Facebook, have a look at any "friends" that openly support UKIP, they are usually the same ones that repost all the hate filled trash around Muslims / immigrants/ Romanians get a house and ex soldiers are homeless and on drugs rubbish. It's just racism really. If you're happy with that, go ahead and vote for them.

Posted by: r.bartlett Dec 27 2014, 10:26 AM

If that is how you define your research to conclusion then your opinion isn't particularly valid past you simply reinforcing your own prejudice. If you wish to live in a self indulgent ignorance and are happy to do so, go ahead.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 27 2014, 11:35 AM

As an aside, while we're exercising out Facebook prejudices, I would be interested to see the correlation between people who re-post Britain First and those with a profile picture of themselves holding a large fish (they do know carp's an Asian immigrant, right?).