BS: What about the UKIP then?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 09:53 PM

The only effect their malign influence has had is the shallow mainstream parties shitting themselves and falling over each other to look tough on whatever Farage waffles on about.

That's quite a significant effect. Already the Tories seem to have decided to try outflanking UKIP on nastiness. I don't imagine One Nation Labour will be far behind.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 12:00 PM

UKIP like to pick holes in The EU. Well it can't be perfect whilst ever it can have the likes of Godfrey Bloom claiming a salary.... I notice he "represents " my neck of the woods. Looks like we have no representation then.

I often wonder how an institution can thrive when the system allows people to have a say in fettering it as part of it. Farage was disgusting when mocking the President of it, and Bloom is not fit to hold office, let alone hold his trousers up.

Just in case anyone likes to see balance, I have none to offer here. Democracy is served best by those wishing to be positive and wise. Bloom shows himself to be parochial and foolish. If he wishes to work for local needs, why not join his sister party BNP and try for a Parish councillor? That's where you fight local battles, and preferably wearing a badge that better describes your views.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 11:31 AM

Sure shot themselves in the foot with that one. Like you said, Dave, you couldn't make it up. You couldn't make UKIP up either. Bong mad the lot of them.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 10:36 AM

Anyone heard about the latest from UKIP MEP, Godfrey Bloom? Apparently he reckons our foreign aid goes to 'Bongo Bongo Land' to be spent on designer sunglasses. Look it up yourself, I couldn't make this stuff up :-)

I do like -

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/we-dont-get-any-aid-says-president-of-bongobongoland-2013080777988

Got the irony about right to get some of our regulars frothing :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 01:26 PM

My post now makes no obvious sense since it was in answer to a vanished one.

I have seen a statement from Nigel Farage where he said that a recent stunt by the government was nasty - the advertising vans suggesting that illegal immigrants should turn themselves in. I liked that. Not much else about the party.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Musket
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM

Bloody hell. Seems it still is. Well, well.

Remember the National Front? They soon crawled back under a stone. Remember BNP? Lost the deposit to where they stored their marbles. EDF? Too thick to find political candidates.

Whatever makes you think UKIP are going to get anywhere, just because their leader gives Boris Johnson a run for his money in the affable twit stakes? The only effect their malign influence has had is the shallow mainstream parties shitting themselves and falling over each other to look tough on whatever Farage waffles on about. I even heard a Tory MP talk about leaving the EU would end (blah Blah) and everything he mentioned was through NATO not EU membership. I don't mind idiots like UKIP making themselves look idiots, but real parties with real chances of running the country should try to recruit a higher calibre of candidate surely?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:06 AM

Yes Allan but we already have a default protest party...which I currently support.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:03 AM

"Speak for yourself. No-one else" Well said Penny. The very idea that UKIP is even a pan-British party of any great significance is well off the mark - or at least they are a long way off being that . At the last Westminster election the party secured 0.7% of the vote in Scotland. At the last Holyrood elections it gained 0.9% of the Regional list vote and only 0.1% of the constituency vote.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:55 AM

DtG - A guess is a Guess no matter how it is arrived at.

A system that is described by those who reviewed as being hopelessly inadequate is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:29 AM

Fine. But you are not qualified to state what the British people want. The British people include a large number who do not agree with you, and do not vote the way you do. So don't state what they want without asking first.

This is as irritating as people who start statements with "Christians believe" and go on to pontificate about a minor belief position.

Speak for yourself. No-one else.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Musket
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 04:35 AM

This thread still here?


Amazing.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 04:29 AM

Fine, TB - But it was the Office for National Statistics. A more believable body that you. Their collection methods may be flawed. Yours are non-existent.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 03:59 AM

Silly Billy Terry. Are a greater proportion of foreigners people of different races in comparison to the potential host population? If so there is classic indirect racial discrimination. Go and look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 04:54 AM

Whatever you say Dave:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19646459

Really liked this bit though:

"Ever wondered how many people are moving to, and leaving, the UK? If so, you're not the only one - the official figures are said by some experts to be based on not much more than guesswork."

1: "The e-borders scheme - which was meant to do this job - is still a work in progress" - and likely to remain so for a long, long time.

2: " the government relies on the answers given by a sample of travellers who agree to be stopped and questioned by a team of social survey interviewers at Heathrow and other main air, sea and rail points of entry to the UK."

3: "despite the increasingly high hurdles to jump through to get a visa to come to the UK, it seems there is no way of knowing if someone is still in the country when it expires."

4: "So if Britain does not count everybody in as they arrive, and count them out again as they depart, where exactly do the net migration figures announced each quarter by the government come from?

The main source is the International Passenger Survey (IPS), which was designed in the early 1960s to find out how much foreign tourists were spending in the UK - something it is still used for today.

It works something like this: There are about 240 IPS officials stationed at major airports and ports around the country.

They pick out every 30th or 40th passenger streaming through arrivals or departures, depending on how busy they are that day, and ask if they wouldn't mind taking part in a short survey.

"There may be times when, owing to a particular flood of passengers, you just cannot keep an accurate count. Do not panic if this happens but keep counting as best you can," advises the Office for National Statistics training manual."

In other words DtG - Your "official statistics" are a guestimated crock of shit, worth absolutely S.F.A.

"what do you call someone determined to rail against all foreigners, other than "a racist"? -Richard Bridge

I would call that someone "xenophobic"

A "racist" being: - A person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.

While a "Xenophobe" is: - A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:23 AM

I did indeed introduce statistics, Teribus. Ones that are verifiable rather than estimated. They are the 'official' figures as you put it but until you can come up with a way to prove that your figures are more accurate than those I know which I will believe. You may well be right but until you can prove it you are simply fueling fears that I and many others believe to be greatly overstated.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:14 AM

Why do you need to call people names at all?
Why is it not enough to argue against and challenge their views?
Is it because you can not?

Few people argue for zero immigration (none here I think).
Few deny that there is some level that would be unsustainable.
The rest of us are somewhere in between.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:07 AM

Oh, and by the way the plan for a flat rate of taxation is about as sensible as Farage usually is (ie not at all) in that while there is a reasonably consistent way to measure employment income in many cases, without limitation: -

(a) there is no easy way to determine income other than from employment (eg income from self-employment and unearned income);
(b) there is no easy way to determine chargeable capital gains;
(c) there is no easy way to determine accumulated earnings in companies, if it is not paid out as dividend or salary;
(d) there is no easy way to be sure that deductions are fair;
(e) there are always allowances, and accountants can manipulate them;
(f) in multinational cases, ensuring proper jurisdictional attribution is very hard.

Imagine the howl from the rich if pension payments were not deductible.

Farage's tongue ran away with him there (but then that has happened before). The man is more of a buffoon and an even more of a detestable character than Boris Bloody Stupid Johnson.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:56 AM

Teri - you know what was meant. "Everybody from the humblest office cleaner to the wealthiest magnate in the land would pay the same proportion of their taxable income". Even the courts apply a thing called "the slip rule", and work out what is called "the true construction of teh document".

And here we go again - what do you call someone determined to rail against all foreigners, other than "a racist"?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:08 AM

"I'm not interested in speculation. Someone may as well say there were 2 illegal immigrants. Neither that figure nor the others quoted have any evidence to substantiate them. How do we know how many such immigrants came and went? How do we know how many died or how many should be granted entry? We don't. Give us facts, not stories. - DtG

It was you Dave that introduced statistics to back your contention that immigration was dropping.

I merely asked whether the figures given actually reflect the real numbers or the "official" ones.

"Neither that figure nor the others quoted have any evidence to substantiate them." - And is that supposed to be OK then?

"How do we know how many such immigrants came and went?" - I would say that it is a pretty important thing to know wouldn't you? But in Anthony Blair's Kool Britannia keeping track of such vitally important information just dropped off the table didn't it, along with any attempt at controlling our borders ( That last bit they even had the decency to own up to)

"Give us facts, not stories." - Wish I could but due to the opening of the flood gates by Labour between 1997 and 2010 there are no facts only estimates.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 07:54 AM

"Don't be silly Teri, you know it meant rate not amount. - Richard Bridge

I know what rate means, but obviously Fred McCormick does not - as demonstrated by:

"UKIP proposes bringing in a single flat rate of taxation. IE., everybody, from the humblest office cleaner to the wealthiest magnate in the land would pay the same amount of income tax, regardless of their income."

That statement is simply wrong, incorrect, false, utter codswallop. All I did was point that out. If you wish to argue then go ahead you can talk to an empty room.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 06:23 AM

Which bit do you agree with, ake, the 20% flat rate bit or the 1,000,000 illegal immigrants or both?

DtG.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 04:09 AM

I agree with Teribus on this point....Of course Fred knew what it meant......but that is NOT what he wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:45 PM

Don't be silly Teri, you know it meant rate not amount.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:32 PM

I'm not interested in speculation. Someone may as well say there were 2 illegal immigrants. Neither that figure nor the others quoted have any evidence to substantiate them. How do we know how many such immigrants came and went? How do we know how many died or how many should be granted entry? We don't. Give us facts, not stories.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Me again
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:57 PM

Fooking hell!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 10:01 AM

Looking back on my last post, I suppose after the demise of Capitalism we will all be poor, but I lived through such a time and it is nothing to fear, lack of material things were compensated for by a real social life, folk music boomed, people danced when they were happy and to cheer themselves
We had a proper culture....we knew how to do things... everyone was involved....we had purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:56 AM

"The Office for National Statistics said 163,000 more people came to live in the UK for 12 months or more than had left, compared with 247,000 the year before. Direct quote from here. The article states quite clearly that net immigration dropped by a third in the year ended June 2012 compared to the previous year. - Dave the Gnome

I take it DtG that they are referring to "official" figures?

If they are then those figures are pretty pointless and non-indicative as no Government Agency or Ministry has got even the foggiest clue as to how many "immigrants" have entered this country since 1997, illegals alone as of January this year were estimated at between 860,000 and 1,000,000.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:45 AM

How dare you come on here talking sense Mr T! You---You----Dammit I cant think of an obnoxious enough word to describe you!!!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:40 AM

"The other is one which I picked up a whisker of during a tv discussion. According to one of the speakers, UKIP proposes bringing in a single flat rate of taxation. IE., everybody, from the humblest office cleaner to the wealthiest magnate in the land would pay the same amount of income tax, regardless of their income.- Guest Fred McCormick

Fred I suggest that you look up the meaning of the phrase:

"UKIP proposes bringing in a single flat rate of taxation."

I think that you will find out that it does not mean that everybody "in the land would pay the same amount of income tax, regardless of their income"

If the flat rate of taxation was 20% it would mean that the person earning £1,000 a year would pay £200 and the person earning £1,000,000 would pay £200,000. At the moment the top earners in the country pay almost 50% of all income tax collected, while 60% of the population take more out of the "kitty" in benefits than they pay into it - now that just cannot continue.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:39 AM

Much too simplistic Richard....that will accomplish nothing, just make you feel better.

The problem is much deeper than the Tory Party.

As long as we have a Capitalist economic system, "the poor" are a necessity

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 06:57 AM

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=523854864351179&set=a.464004967002836.1073741826.452530914816908&type=1&theater

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:37 AM

Here mudelves!

Deleting the false post in Allan's name is commendable,except it now looks as if I am arguing against myself!





Again...

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:55 AM

""but anyway, what UKIP demonstrates is the demagoguery of the same thing: blame an outsider, invent an enemy, vilify a minority - to consolidate the dutiful allegiance of a supposed majority.""

INDEED!

And the parallel with Germany 1933 - 1945 is just a tad too close for my liking.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:44 AM

That is my cookie reset so if any other posts appear from Allan Conn as a guest please note it is not me.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:47 AM

The last two posts posted using my name were not me! Someone playing games. Will have to reset the cookies again

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:37 AM

Complete bolleaux, and how amusing it is to see you the xenophobe adopt a pseudonymous surname that, in French, so well describes you (if the last letter is omitted). The facts of the matter are that the vast preponderance of immigrants are hard working and not benefit recipients, and that immigrants as a whole are net contributors to our economy. Remove them and the reduction in economic activity will increase unemployment.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:21 AM

Except bad and extrapolated figures can go either way when compared to reality...

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans respectability
Date: 10 May 13 - 01:18 AM

I was under the impression they had taken over from Monster Raving Looney Party.

After all, their attraction seems to be honest upfront radical views that leave the electorate under no illusion what they stand for. And what they stand for could never work.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 May 13 - 01:22 PM

have UKIP taken over from the BNP?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 May 13 - 12:40 PM

Apologies, that should read "ivvir whit"!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 May 13 - 11:38 AM

N'yur freens Ben n' Phil soond a bit iffae tae me!
Bit it's whitivver rocks yur boat ...eh no?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 May 13 - 11:32 AM

Aw izaat rite?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 09 May 13 - 09:54 AM

Och aye. We have'nae got a pot to piss in but thanks to Granddad's clever use of his ballot paper, at least we can enjoy fuck all with pride.

Now, pass me a wee dram of Itchifanni Japanese Single Malt for its a braw breek moonlit neet the 'noo. How much is it these days for a deep fried Mars bar? 20 groats more than yesterday eh? Canny Zimbabwe trade handouts sure help keep the wild haggis from the bothy door.

Where can we go for a wee heavy the 'noo? What's that? Only the gay bar doon the road still open? All right for some. Ben Doon and Phil McCavity were always canny businessmen. We're all doooommed!



Etc ad nauseum.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 May 13 - 05:48 AM

Thankfully, the next couple of decades are unlikely to involve me, but if we embrace Independence, my grandchildren will at least have some national pride to alleviate the gloom.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 13 - 05:26 AM

Cassandra is alive and well, and mumbling into her beard north of the border.

What a miserable life you must lead Ake.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 May 13 - 05:18 AM

Ian says..."Eurosceptics also require a world that doesn't exist if they feel The UK could prosper without some form of horizontal integration."
Now who's living in "La La Land" :0)

No part of the developed world can expect to prosper! the next couple of decades will be about survival, not prosperity.

As such, our politicians should be concentrating on looking after our own populace, which will be asked to survive much lower living standards, than on what we are told is "altruism".

Sorry to break it to you, but we cannot save the world.....only an acceptance that a universal change of mindset is required can do THAT.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 09 May 13 - 04:52 AM

Ah! I wondered where they were going to fund their policies. .

The cost of dismantling The UK if Scotland pulls up the drawbridge would be a saving in their eyes if they don't let it happen.

Methinks they have it wrong though. If Salmond with his access to treasury slide rules can't understand the price of devolution I doubt these chancers have sussed it. .. Their saving grace is questioning what the Scottish electorate are being sold, even though they have no clue why they are asking.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 May 13 - 03:05 AM

UKIP fought the Scottish 2011 election stating that they would dismantle the Scottish Parliament. Or at least they would replace MSPs with Westmisnter MPs from Scottish constituencies. In other words go back to basically how it was before the creation of the Scottish Parliament except they've got a new building to sit in. UKIP's claim was that

"Scotland's democratic spirit now has no champions but the UK Independence Party. UKIP alone, among the serious political parties, says no one but we, the people of Scotland, or those we elect should make our laws or tax us."

How on earth could that statement equate with the idea that a party which is significant only south of the border talking about abolishing something described by other unionist parties as "the settled will of the Scottish people"? In the subsequent election UKIP received only 0.13% of the Constituency Vote and in the Regional List vote they came in with only 0.91% of the vote some way behind the Scottish Senior Citizens Party

They were also at one time talking the same way about Northern Ireland though I think they are back tracking on that recently. Having only Westminster MPs sit for Northern Ireland would end power sharing at a stroke and be a serious threat to the peace settlement.

Some of their other policies have been a bit strange to say the least. At the last UK election, in the midst of economic problems, their manifesto called for a 40% increase on defense spending!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:38 PM

I have just made a connection - a twerp who used to teach a uni course I inherited used also to teach another course called something like "The legal theory of the outsider". When he ran off I had to do some of the finals marking (and it was clear that he had succeeded in leaving the students largely mystified) - but anyway, what UKIP demonstrates is the demagoguery of the same thing: blame an outsider, invent an enemy, vilify a minority - to consolidate the dutiful allegiance of a supposed majority.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:35 PM

Oh - and change hands...

:D