BS: What about the UKIP then?

Subject: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 May 13 - 05:45 PM

http://news.sky.com/story/1086321/local-council-elections-ukip-make-big-gains

Didn't vote for them myself (We had an independent who is pretty good) but I can see why a lot of people did. Not saying I agree with their policies but it seems that the other parties had better do something soon.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 03 May 13 - 06:01 PM

"largely at the expense of the Tories"

I'm not unhappy to see the right divided. Now let's have a proper opposition to see them destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 03 May 13 - 06:15 PM

There is a good summary of UKIP policy here

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 May 13 - 06:25 PM

The economy is in a mess because successive governments were in thrall to the idiotic, self-serving ideological nonsense of the neo-liberal 'free market'. They privatised and de-regulated like mad and Big Business and the Banks, freed from all restraint, went on a massive 'greed fest' until, inevitably, the whole rotten edifice came crashing down. The victims of this madness are not the politicians, or Big Business, or the bankers, but ordinary people who are currently being required to pick up the pieces. Sadly, many of these ordinary folks are, it has to be said, unthinking idiots who much prefer to identify and blame scapegoats for their plight rather than criticise the system. Unscrupulous politicians of the Right know about this tendency and exploit it ruthlessly. So along comes a bunch of right wing nutters, like UKIP, who blame all of our current woes on 'foreigners' (i.e. Europe and immigrants) and all of the scapegoating nerds and gits bite their hands off. It was ever thus!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 03 May 13 - 06:49 PM

Bunch of closet racists who can't sting anything meaningful together in terms of policies.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Kampervan
Date: 04 May 13 - 01:57 AM

Shimrod - I broadly agree with the thrust of your argument but, as you say, successive governments (both Labour, Tory and now Lib-Dems) have been involved in this catastrophe.
So who can people vote for if its 'None of the above'?

Hopefully this is just a protest vote and one of the other parties will move to address people's concerns and adopt a long term, constructive strategy that addresses social inequality as well as national econommics.

Should I hold my breath???

K/van

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 13 - 02:42 AM

Perhaps now people will start voting as they really believe, not just along party lines.....anything which weakens the grip of the media and gets people thinking about what is happening in the REAL word must be good.....well done Mr Farage and those brave enough to vote out of their "comfort zone"

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 May 13 - 03:23 AM

Think you should hold your breath, K/van - at least until you begin to turn blue!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 04 May 13 - 03:49 AM

Anything that gets those who wish to form a government to wake up and not be complacent isn't a bad thing.

Cameron is right not to dismiss them out of hand any more. A lot of voters would think he is dismissing their opinion.

As to whether they could actually be a party of government or even coalition? Their ideas and promises will get a bit of scrutiny from now on. Rightly so.

When people are confronted with more than their charismatic leader, they might notice a few things.

Abolish inheritance tax. Reduce taxes for high earners. Form barriers to 70% of our overseas trade. Abolish smoking in public places restrictions. Renage on public borrowing loans. Restrict liberties for gay people.

I love irony so seeing him on the telly last night with a cigarette in his hand preaching about The NHS. You couldn't make it up. So he did. Said that average A&E wait in Boston was 9 hours. So I checked, considering The CQC has lifted its compliance actions there recently. They are meeting their 4 hour target. Sure, that could and should be better and the measure is crude. But his source can only be the same statistics. ..

Falls at the first hurdle. Also, this was predominantly Tory territory other than the ones where Labour gained anyway.

Good idea to wake up real politicians but no alternative on view.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Acorn4
Date: 04 May 13 - 03:51 AM

It's odd because the anti-Europe stance is one held both by extreme right and extreme left - remember Tony Benn has long advocated a referendum on EEC membership - may be a case of "strange bedfellows"!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 May 13 - 04:40 AM

I would point out, that like all political parties, they get where they get, by people voting for them. Telling them they're idiots to do so, and sitting in holier than thou, I know better than you; judgement on them, changes nothing. It does however incur resentment.
Instead of criticising how people vote, or telling them how they should vote. Why not present them with positive ideas, and good policies?
UKIP is OTT, but it's telling the electorate, what they want to hear.
Most people don't give a flying fuck who runs the banks, or the railways, or the country. What they want is a decent job, at a decent wage, and lower prices for essentials.
The class based hatred and angst that they hear from left and right, is about as important to them, as the price of caviar.
That's one of the main reasons, that so few people vote.
It's all shit, and who can tell the difference between a lump of tory shit, and a lump of labour shit?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 May 13 - 04:41 AM

Eddie Mare took Farange around his policies on BBC Radio 4. nonexistant, incoherent, Eddie was almost speachless.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 04 May 13 - 05:28 AM

what yesterday says to me is that if replicated at a general election (and thats a big if) we'd be in for a Tory / UKIP coalition next time round. Not a prospect I view with any enthusiasm.

Me? I'd introduce a box on voting papers that says "none of the above", and then make voting compulsory (and electronic). We'd soon see the truth of the fact that few care / think it doesn't make any difference. "None of the above" would rule in perpetuity.....

Paws

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Musket
Date: 04 May 13 - 05:44 AM

None of the above have been ruling since Blair took politics to the middle ground...

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Will Fly
Date: 04 May 13 - 05:46 AM

Two comments:

Results at local elections don't always chime with results at national elections.

A quick look at voting turnouts for Thursday seems to show an average turnout of around 33% of the electorate actually voting. Not a huge deal, then.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 04 May 13 - 06:18 AM

Contrary to what a lot of people think, UKIP is not the BNP in blazers. Neither is it particularly racist. In fact UKIP has hardly anything in common with the blood and honour brigade of fra right nutters who vaunt white superiority as though it actually exists.

Rather, they have found that playing on people's fears of immigration is a handy way to get votes, and an equally handy way to bash the EU.

What they are is a bunch of free marketeering Thatcherites, who are hell bent on removing whatever restrictions on free trade Maggie didn't manage to get rid of. That includes membership of the EU, and the welfare state, and all the employment and equalities legislation which has been built up over the years.

And, hey guess what, they've got a public school educated son of a stockbroker in charge. Thinks, where have I heard that one before? Dunno, but I have heard Farage criticise today's crop of Westminster politicians, on the grounds of lack of experience; according to Farage, you can't run the country properly, without first having had the experience of running a business.

What did our Nige do between graduating from university and becoming a full time politician? He worked as a stockbroker that's what. Not for him, the tribulations of getting your product onto the streets at an affordable price and built to a specification which people will want. Neither does he know what it feels like, trying to survive on the sort of pittance which constitues the bottom end of the pay scale.

UKIP's performance on Thursday wouldn't have been enough to secure them a single parliamentary seat, thank God. Even so, I dread the thought that as things go from bad to worse, UKIP could increase its support to the point where it would hold the balance of power. IE., a Tory-UKIP demolition, sorry, coalition.

If you want to see a return to Thatcherism, but this time on stilts and with the lid off, go ahead and vote for them. But give me enough time to get out of the country first.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: May Queen
Date: 04 May 13 - 06:25 AM

Un-believeable views Guest Kent Folk...All my Eastern European workforce (and Spanish and Various African nationalities)do jobs quicker, better and with more care than many young British kids these days. In my experience its young British who think the world owes them a living.

I expect you agree with UKIP policies on gay equality too? See PE stops you being gay thread

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 May 13 - 06:34 AM

The thing is May Queen, Mr kent Folk is writing ironically as a p*ss take on UKIP - surely?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: theleveller
Date: 04 May 13 - 09:52 AM

I think that Ukip's success here is just a flash in the pan - a protest at the incompetence of the Condems. I have no worries about their long-term viability. If their performance in local government is anything like that in the European Parliament, where they don't even bother to turn up half the time, people will soon see that they are just a bunch of incompetent buffoons, wasters and spoilers who, despite their predelection for its products, couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. It won't be long until, like their stable-mates the BNP, they crash and burn in total disarray.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,may queen sans cookie
Date: 04 May 13 - 10:21 AM

Lets hope so Les, lets hope so!

I was in such a hurry to reply i didn't check for irony, still not sure its there tho. .I also fell into the trick of generalising about another sector of society (our young British workers) . Of course there are good and poor workers in all age groups, genders and nationalities. I just know that the flow of Eastern European workers has revolutionised my work sector ( hospitality) for the better

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 May 13 - 11:48 AM

Don't need another unacceptable (to some) party, do we?
After all, there's only so much bile, to go round ;)

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 May 13 - 11:55 AM

Tha Nasty Party with a smirk?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 May 13 - 12:10 PM

They're all nasty. There's not a drop of altruism, in any of them.
Self glorification, in the guise of do goodery, is what they're all about.
They all know what's best for you, without bothering to ask you.
They all betray, and/or ignore their manifesto. Load of tossers!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 May 13 - 03:46 PM

"Most people don't give a flying fuck who runs the banks, or the railways, or the country. What they want is a decent job, at a decent wage, and lower prices for essentials."

Yes, but far too many of them also want their elected representatives to 'punish' those that they believe to be of a lower social status to themselves (e.g. the poor, the unemployed and immigrants).

"The class based hatred and angst that they hear from left and right, is about as important to them, as the price of caviar."

I would argue that, unfortunately, class is still important to a lot of people - including Tory voters and many Labour voters who are wilfully blind to the changes that Blair wrought on their party.

"That's one of the main reasons, that so few people vote.
It's all shit, and who can tell the difference between a lump of tory shit, and a lump of labour shit?"

The other reason is that they are too wilfully stupid, selfish and bone-idle to think about the issues and drag themselves to the polling station! Since Blair, it's difficult to distinguish between Tory and Labour (both centre right parties obsessed with neo-liberal, free market ideology) but if people were more engaged with the democratic process perhaps the parties would have to distinguish themselves. If someone moans to me about the present situation, my first question is, "do you use your vote?"

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 May 13 - 04:03 PM

So you're politically savvy, and you can point them in the right direction then?
Might that be your direction?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 May 13 - 06:48 PM

Vote Labour or you get the Tories. Yes we get things wrong and we have done bad things, but that's it folks

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 05 May 13 - 04:47 AM

What I find interesting is that many, self included, are pointing at holes in their policies or lack of, questioning their intentions and presupposing their aims yet we have to my knowledge at least one regular mudcatter who claims to be a member, has been posting on other thread yet misses the opportunity to put us all right.

His choice but it does seem odd. Perhaps courage of conviction is not a strong point with their followers? A bit like the BNP councillors who had no understanding of what they were discussing and voting on. ..

---------Warning! This thread is under attack from trolls using the GUESTnames of some regulars! This POST is genuine. Mudelf.------------------

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 May 13 - 05:29 AM

Well to adapt an old saying, which originally just mentions religion.

Religion, politics, and sexual preferences, are like a penis.

It's OK to have one
It's OK to be proud of it
Taking it out and waving it about, can only offend

Tempted to add footy, to that list ;)

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 05 May 13 - 06:31 AM

Hopefully, before the next general election, the electorate will realise they are just a crowd of fruitcakes with no policies.

Having said that though, I have come across a couple of UKIP policies lately, and they should come as no surprise.

Firstly, they are opposed to gay marriage, probably on the basis that if gay marriage were allowed, the earth would cease to exist.

The other is one which I picked up a whisker of during a tv discussion. Acording 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.

Remember what happened when Maggie tried to bring in something similar in the guise of the poll tax?

I have to say that idea sounds too bizarre even for a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies like UKIP, but you just never know. Anyone care to confirm or deny?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Max Johnson
Date: 05 May 13 - 07:08 AM

@ Wolfhound person

I'd introduce a box on voting papers that says "none of the above", and then make voting compulsory (and electronic).

Being interested in politics isn't compulsory, and I don't see how it can be made to be. If someone has no interest in or knowledge of who governs them then surely it's better that they don't vote?

I agree that a 'None of the above' choice would be interesting but in the long run it would have no more effect than a non-vote, the only difference being that it would be registered.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Lavengro
Date: 05 May 13 - 07:22 AM

UKIP are basically Tories that haven't yet learnt to hide their intolerance and hatred of other races and sexual orientations etc. with the same "professionalism" that Cameron et al. have managed to accomplish after years of practice and with expensive public relations machines behind them.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 13 - 08:01 AM

Guest Giovanni.....couldn't agree more.

The system is fucked politically, economically and socially.

Fred....I wish you would stop printing stuff like "Ukip wants everyone to pay the same amount of tax"
You are being disingenuous.

As recent event have shown "tax" is meaningless under this system, unless you are on PAYE.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 05 May 13 - 08:37 AM

Akenaton. How do you work that one out? VAT (Value Added Tax) is levied at a single rate and it's still a tax and it's not linked to PAYE.

Anyway, how does that make me disingenuous?

Besides which I didn't print my last contribution. I posted it. Well, e-posted it actually. And I think you meant events, not event.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 13 - 08:54 AM

we have to my knowledge at least one regular mudcatter who claims to be a member, has been posting on other thread yet misses the opportunity to put us all right.
Who Musket?
You made a comment on another thread as if you thought I was one.
I do not know why.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 May 13 - 08:56 AM

"VAT (Value Added Tax) is levied at a single rate and it's still a tax and it's not linked to PAYE."

Errrrrrmmm, not true. There are three rates of VAT in the UK - Standard Rate 20%, Reduced Rate 5%, and Zero Rate 0%, and the rate applied depends on the nature of the goods or services it's applied to.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 05 May 13 - 09:08 AM

Use of the word "we". Dead giveaway.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 05 May 13 - 09:47 AM

What most people want is lower taxes and better and often more services. That is basically what UKIP offer - with the money coming from leaving the EU. That move has not and probably cannot be costed.

UKIP - "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" - we need to show respect for people who have taken the choice to support this party – Who said that?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 May 13 - 11:11 AM

Not 100% sure Les, but he sounds awfully scared, to me.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 13 - 12:40 PM

The "amount" of tax, and the "rate" of tax are two different things.

There are millions of people in this country, who feel as if they have no political voice.
They are represented by automatons, who all toe the party line....they dont give a flying fuck about what ordinary folk think or want, all they care about is being elected or re-elected.

They all know the system is in decline for the forseeable future but dare not admit it.

Time we started separating "social issues" from political agendas,
Most of us are social conservatives no matter how politically left wing we believe ourselves to be.

Mr Farage and his supporters have shaken neo-liberalism to its core....and a bloody good thing too, a bit of plain speaking might bring as all back to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 05 May 13 - 12:59 PM

Mr F talks rubbish

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 05 May 13 - 01:47 PM

Sorry ake, but you haven't explained in what way my comment was "disingenuous".

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 13 - 03:05 PM

Musket, one of us has made a mistake.
I do not think it was me.
Not a big issue, but you should be more careful about jumping to conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 May 13 - 05:50 PM

""Acording 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.""

I have absolutely no liking either for UKIP, or for the self obsessed eejit who leads it, but if you are going to attack policies, it is helpful to find out exactly what they are.

UKIP's tax policy is a fixed percentage of total income taxation rate (basically what we have now without the deductables and loopholes).

They don't seem sure whether they want 31% of gross, or 25% of gross, and some are suggesting two rates.

What they are not saying is rich or poor pay the same tax.

The basic premise is good, with little or no chance of evasion, but I don't think they have a clue as to how it can be done.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,SPB at work
Date: 06 May 13 - 05:01 AM

The existing tax system recognises that individuals may have needs - education, health services, support when too old to work, support when not physically or mentally able to work, keeping people safe, etc etc. It also recognises that a flat rate of tax would mean that those on the lowest levels of income would not have enough to meet their basic needs so we have a system which says that if your income if way above what you need to survive you pay a bit more.

Discussion about unifying NIC and TAX into a single tax rate is nothing new.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 06 May 13 - 05:30 AM

Thinking back to the Gang of Four , the idea of a Democratic Labour Party adopting a mix of Socialism and Capitalism SEEMED an excellent idea which came to absolutely nothing when they merged with the (then) Liberal Party .
I cant help wondering if we are going to see something similar with UKIP
in a year or two's time .

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 06 May 13 - 05:37 AM

Wyziwig. I wasn't attacking UKIP's policy on income tax. I was merely seeking clarification, which you have helpfully provided. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 06 May 13 - 06:29 AM

Unless I've missed it. How are UKIP going to finance the next election? 600 odd seats.. No money in the bank. Whether you like them or not, They just couldn't pay the millions for the campaign. It ain't a cheap thing running a political party. Particularly when you only have one name that anybody's heard of? (Can anyone name another UKIP member? Thought not) They'll disappear in the next two years. Just a waste of money....but, at least it's not my my money! I will watch what happens in the next 2 years with an interest. But they won't get a seat in Parliament

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Max Johnson
Date: 06 May 13 - 06:54 AM

Hiya Ralphie!

But they won't get a seat in Parliament

I agree with you, but while they keep threatening to win seats the other parties will try to be seen to adopt UKIP policies. Which they'll then ditch because most of them are unrealistic.
The big danger is leaving Europe imo. "Oh look; the edge of a cliff. Woohoo!"

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,SPB at work
Date: 06 May 13 - 08:19 AM

The government might decide that they personally want to leave EU, but I have a passport with nearly 9 years left on it that says European Union.

The next two year however will be a testing time for the liberals as the tories will want to move more to the right to avoid losing support of their traditional nasty xenophobes - oops sorry, voters! If they (liberals) want any smidgen of credibility, they would need to break ranks with the coalition well before then.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 06 May 13 - 08:52 AM

In which case Keith I would humbly apologise. Your posts on the subject previously have been of the possessive use of words though, hence my attitude to some of your posts. My opinion of UKIP is not a positive one.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 May 13 - 10:18 AM

UKIP is exactly what it was called before the Council elections, a bunch of clowns, and that hasn't changed.

The Tories and Libdems have had a much needed kick in the pants, which may help to steer them in a more people friendly direction.

Labour too have lost out, and in terms of their share of the total votes cast, more so than the Tories.

Their share of votes cast at the last council election was 38%, which dropped last Thursday to 29%. The Tory share was 31%, which dropped to 25% this time.

Neither has escaped the distrust of the public.

However, the history of UK politics is full of mid-term protests which bore no relation to the following general election, and that was with a moderately credible third party.

This Circus of dilletante amateurs led by a grinning publicity hound won't even ruffle the surface of parliamentary politics, thank God!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 May 13 - 10:58 AM

Well if it helps get us out of the EEC, I'll vote UKIP.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Stu
Date: 06 May 13 - 11:38 AM

"Mr Farage and his supporters have shaken neo-liberalism to its core...."

Mr Farage is a Neoliberal to the core ake, like Cameron, Thatch, Gideon and the rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 06 May 13 - 11:45 AM

Don't blame the clowns, blame the people who paid to see them.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,grumpy
Date: 06 May 13 - 12:54 PM

I see UKIP is courting the god-awful Neil Hamilton and his equally god-awful spouse as possible MEP candidates.

That says is all.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 13 - 02:00 PM

Musket, I do not believe I have used the possesive with ref to any party.
You are mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 13 - 02:47 PM

I am amused that this thread, at the moment that I type, is immediately below "Natural insect repellents". My views of UKIP precisely. They are, naturally, repellent insects.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 May 13 - 03:08 PM

Of course they are Richard. They're politicians, that's why!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 May 13 - 06:28 PM

Not saying I agree with their policies but it seems that the other parties had better do something soon."
   indeed, along with UKIP, i suggest they take PE LESSONS

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 13 - 05:28 AM

The worst thing Cameron could possibility do is to move to the right in response to the threat of UKP.

Nobody in their right mind would so legitimise their ideology.

He needs to remain somewhere in the centre ground, while firming up his commitment to an in/out referendum, and the latest idea of a draft bill before the election is also a good one.

Labour can forget about election success with Ed Millipede's almost total lack of a sense of direction.

They chose the wrong brother.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 13 - 05:39 AM

They were coming second in last weeks elections.
Labour will win by default with the Tory vote split.
No party "in their right mind" can just let that happen Don.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 May 13 - 06:14 AM

Don T. Didn't you know, Ed Millipede has had a successful charisma bypass operation? ;)

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 May 13 - 09:56 AM

Surely not, John! He comes from a show business background.

Ed Milliband
Glen Miller Band
Steve Miller Band


:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 13 - 10:35 AM

""Don T. Didn't you know, Ed Millipede has had a successful charisma bypass operation? ;)""

Didn't need one! They cloned him from John Major. That's why when he enters a room heads don't turn.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 13 - 01:25 PM

Oh, and "charisma" - for example Boris Bloody Stupid Johnson and the gurning Farage are better than a thinker? Don't be silly Don et al.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 May 13 - 01:28 PM

Hee hee.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 13 - 04:22 PM

What has looks got to do with politics?

You people are like the Tories and New labour supporters who mocked Micheal Foot for his hair and clothes....grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 13 - 06:51 PM

""Oh, and "charisma" - for example Boris Bloody Stupid Johnson and the gurning Farage are better than a thinker? Don't be silly Don et al.""

Don't you lump me in with that nonsense Ake. I already gave my opinion of Farage above (and it was worse than my take on Millipede), and I have, to my knowledge, never supported Boris either.

My point about Millipede was clearly about his lack of presence, a very concrete disadvantage in political life and debate.

I really couldn't give a shit if he looks like the north end of a southbound camel, if he could run a country.......FAT chance!

They did have the opportunity to pick the other brother. At least when he talked people knew where the noise came from.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 07:54 PM

Contrary to what a lot of people think, UKIP is not the BNP in blazers. Neither is it particularly racist...Rather, they have found that playing on people's fears of immigration is a handy way to get votes

But that is racist. If you play on people's fears, or scaremonger, in a matter such as immigration, instead of coolly explaining the facts along with what you see as the pros and cons relating to people who arrive in this country, you are racist.

I hear that Ukip+Tories got 48% of the vote. Well, the turnout was very low. Fewer than one person in ten who were eligible to vote voted Ukip. Also, most of the voting this time was outside the major urban areas. This was an unrepresentative election in several ways and caution is needed before we predict a Ukip takeover in 2015. I think that's about as likely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle. Here's what's going on. The LibDems sold their supporters down the river (as well as people like me who have always tactically voted LibDem to keep out the Tory - hah). Nobody loves LibDems any more. They are toast, and bloody good riddance. Cameron, in the biggest political failure of the century, could not get an overall majority against what even faithful Labourites regarded as an apocalyptically terrible prime minister. Cameron started badly and things have gone downhill ever since for this incompetent toff and his similarly-endowed entourage. So nobody loves the Tories either. Labour are struggling like mad to resist assaults on them, attacks which blame them (unjustly) for the economic collapse (which had it foundation in Thatchers's deregulations in the late 80s, which Blair, Brown and every Tory has enthusiastically espoused ever since: the Tories didn't see it coming any more than Gordon did). On top of that, they have a man as leader who is thoroughly decent and competent but who lacks charisma. So nobody loves Labour either. But Mr Farage had better not run away with the idea that he's now the one we love. No-one loves any of the others, but the others still got three-quarters of the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 07:58 PM

Grammar, grammar, grammar. It's been a long day. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 08 May 13 - 03:23 AM

The biggest impact of UKIP is that it has moved the centre ground in political discussion sharply to the right.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 04:10 AM

It is as if a large demographic believed that their views were being ignored by the old parties.
E.g. Europe.
They all wanted to keep us in.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 13 - 04:18 AM

Most of all UKIP's share of the vote proves that there are a large number of people who dislike the way our sovereinty has been sold for a stake in globalisation....a stake which has turnedout to be worthless, as we are now simply consumers.

People do not like being told how to legislate our own country by a committee in Brussles; we appear to no longer have control over our social system, our judicial system, or our political system.

Politicians have once again underestimated the power of the silent majority.....the media has power.....but people power is stronger.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:07 AM

That's the usual bollocks ake - support for UKIP's right wing agenda is driven by the ceaseless propaganda from the right wing press (most notably the Daily Heil) and Faux News.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:13 AM

Don't be silly Richard.
No-one here sees Fox News.

Most UKIP voters are said to be ex tories, but many are ex Lib and Labour so unlikely to see Daily Mail.

Most voters now get their news from BBC, ITV, and Sky.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket saying without rather than sans
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:17 AM

Sans sounds too much like them ruddy Johnny Foreigners what?

Agreeing with Mr Shaw here. You can't come out with racist comments and tag on "but I'm not a racist." However, if your view is a racist one, that is not necessarily something you should work on. You may be comfortable with it, you may feel it necessary if we are not all going to hell in a hand cart.

Just don't expect decent people to respect it. Mind you, some have either moved their opinion recently or are keeping it under wraps, but I digress.

Interesting that Akenaton feels Michael Foot was ridiculed for his appearance. I always thought he was ridiculed because of his Utopian La La land views. Akenaton has inadvertently picked on an interesting person there. Foot's philosophy, which I respect but largely disagree with, required a rest of the world situation that wasn't there. Eurosceptics also require a world that doesn't exist if they feel The UK could prosper without some form of horizontal integration.

Interestingly, even Th*tcher realised this. So did Powell, Barber and most of all Churchill. In the early days, European integration was very much a Tory ideal. They call themselves The Conservative and Unionist Party because they firmly believe in common approach.

Or at least, they did....

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:23 AM

Musket, I think you mean me again, but you are wrong again.
Will you stop doing that please.

Europe has split all the parties in the past.
All have their antis.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:09 AM

Richard....forget the "right wing" cliche.
I'm probably more of a socialist radical than you are, but we have to be realistic and i don't like many of the things that are happening through adherance to human right/ health and safety/anti/discrimination legislation from the EU.
Typical example, people can no longer afford to maintain their property. An elderly lady got an estimate from a large building firm to replace some lead flashings...Over £10000.....She called me and I did the job for under £1000 using ladders and a lifetime of experience instead of full scaffolding and a team of "hauders on"
My job has always entailed a degree of risk, I have seen guys killed by falling 6ft(which would not be covered by H/S)
Its like life itself....personal responsibility is required, safety has to be learned.



Ian says that Micheal Foot (whom I admire), lived in La La Land but Foot knew what was positive and what was destructive politically and economically.
Selfishly, we allowed ourselves to be bought by Global Capitalism and the housing boom....now our children and grandchildren are destined to suffer....probably three generations written off!

The racists are those who encouraged mass immigration...."as a means of making ourselves competitive in the Global Economy"

Never forget these words....or who said them!

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:10 AM

Sky News = Fox news. Murdoch owns both.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:31 AM

Ownership doe not make them the same.
Sky news is a respected source of neutral journalism.
Unlike Fox.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:31 AM

Wot DtG said.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:35 AM

Mehdi Hasan, New Statesman.
"Is Sky News biased against Labour?
No, is the short answer. Balls and Prescott are wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:42 AM

" Sky News is, like Fox News, a 24-hour rolling news channel, available on satellite and via cable, and part of Rupert Murdoch's global media empire. But in style and in substance, of course, it is nothing like the pro-war, pro-Republican, pro-Palin Fox News Channel (FNC).

For a start, we have Ofcom (which the Tories want to abolish!) and Ofcom would never allow such blatant, on-air bias in this country (God bless Ofcom!). Indeed, I defy you to find me a single anchor or reporter on Sky News who bears even a passing ideological resemblance to Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity."

"But to accuse Sky News of pursuing "political influence" is a desperate claim. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest there is a co-ordinated anti-Labour, pro-Conservative campaign on the part of Sky News. John Ryley, the Sky News boss, Chris Birkett, his executive editor, and Jonathan Levy, the head of the broadcaster's political unit in Millbank -- all of whom I consider friends of mine -- are not Tories, and, if they are, they've done a damn fine job of hiding it from me and countless others.

Adam Boulton, meanwhile, is the semi-sympathetic biographer of Tony Blair -- and married to Blair's former "gatekeeper", Anji Hunter. Oh, and to those of you who have never worked in a TV newsroom, let me be very clear: Rupert Murdoch doesn't ring up each evening to discuss and decide the running orders with Messrs Ryley and Birkett. In fact, in my two years at Sky News HQ in Isleworth, Middlesex, Murdoch Sr physically turned up just once -- and, that too, to open a new building, not to pontificate on day-to-day editorial matters."
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/05/sky-news-murdoch-labour

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 08 May 13 - 07:19 AM

Steve Shaw. "But that is racist. If you play on people's fears, or scaremonger, in a matter such as immigration, instead of coolly explaining the facts along with what you see as the pros and cons relating to people who arrive in this country, you are racist."

Forgive the brevity of what follows, because I'm just on my way to Keswick jazz festival. However, there is a significant difference between those who hate people of other races and those who express concern at the numbers of people coming in. The latter is understandable (although in my view insupportable). The former is inexcusable. The problem is that people who "legitimately" fear that there won't be enough jobs, housing, schools or whatever are preyed on by the lies and propaganda of the far right.

My own view, and I admit that it's very Adam Smith, and very free market, is that these things are self righting. IE., people will only come here if they can't get a better deal on the jobs market anywhere else. On that basis, I've never understood why it is that Tory/UKIP free marketeers are among the first to complain about immigration. As free marketeers, one would expect them to support the free movement of labour.

I'm going to be away for the best part of a week, and won't be able to take part in any more discussion until I get back. However, I'll leave you with four thoughts.

One. The notion that huge waves of foreigners are coming to live on state benefits is absolute crap. The overwhelming majority of immigrants migrate to work and to better themselves, and I say good luck to them.

Two. There's a notion abroad that we about to get swamped by hordes of Romanians and Bulgarians, who will change our way of life forever. Again, it's bunkum, as anyone who has ever studied patterns of European migration will concur. People from Eastern and Southern Europe usually migrate for fairly short periods. IE., they move abroad, work like hell for a few years, make as much money as possible, and then they go home. I'm not sure why, but I think it may be linked to the joint peasant family structure which prevails over most of Eastern Europe. IE., where you get several generations of the one family all living together, it may be that, once the children reach a certain age, it becomes their turn to migrate and make money to support the rest of the family. Dunno. That's just a hunch, but one way or another we are not going to get swamped.

Three. In view of the free market ideas expressed above, I'd better add that my interest in this is mainly humanistic. IE., I regard the entire human race as a single entity and that, irrespective of skin colour or social culture, we are all fundamentally the same. We all descend from the same tiny group of people and, even though acclimatisation might have induced minor physiological changes, our brain patterns - and cerebral capacities - are pretty much the same the world over. I just wish that those who moan about immigration would worry more about the hardship and suffering which drives people to emigrate, and stop regarding them as though they were some species of cattle. We are all of us thinking, sensate, emotive beings. Wew are all of us the same human race the world over. And if there are no major biological differences between the various peoples of mankind, what the hell is the far right shouting about?

Four. I'm keying this in just about the time that the State opening of Parliament is taking place. Among the legislation outlined in the Queen's speech is a bill to control immigration. It has been designed by the Tories to save their miserable skins from UKIP,

None of which explains why I think UKIP's stance on immigration is more opportunistic than racist. Certainly, there are closet racists within UKIP, but if any of their official policies peddle the kind of racist filth which organisations to the right of them openly indulge in, I have yet to find it.

And just for the record, I still hate UKIP, and I totally oppose its policy on immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 13 - 07:20 AM

Most of all UKIP's share of the vote proves that there are a large number of people who dislike the way our sovereinty has been sold for a stake in globalisation

Let's not get carried away. Fewer than one in ten eligible voters turned out for Ukip, in an election with a very low turnout held mostly in the Shire Counties. We've seen the Liberals/LibDems do this mid-term on countless occasions (and, unlike Ukip, they often managed to win an outrageous seat or two), but they have yet to take the nation by storm (they may be "in power" now, but their performance in the last election was worse than in the one before, lest we forget). Farage has a long way to go. His cheeky-chappie beer (and lots of it) 'n' fags reputation is going to come under some very heavy scrutiny, and I'm confident that he will once more emerge as the racist, xenophobic, fruitcake, plane-crash clown he always was.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 13 - 07:28 AM

Ukip can hardly come out with explicitly racist statements, Fred, but, as your excellent post demonstrates, they do allow the plethora of lies and half-truths about immigrants, peddled by the right, to stand and do their dirty, fearmongering work. You won't find many Ukip candidates explaining things your way, the right way. That's what's wrong and that's what's racist, I think. Iron fists behind velvet gloves do it for Ukip.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 07:34 AM

If you don't think that Sky News is right wing propaganda you aren't watching it.

And yes, newspaper owners DO prowl the corridors late at night checking journos' desks.   I have at times dealt with quite a lot of litigation about the late unlamented Maxwell.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 May 13 - 08:13 AM

The utterances of the left wing, contain lies and half truths as well. You see, people tell lies to get what they want!
I refer you to the previous comment about politicians. "Their lips are moving, they MUST be lieing"
Whoever said 'Charity begins at home?"

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 08:37 AM

All parties have stated the need to reduce immigration.
In what way is UKIP different, and why are you all focussing on that issue alone?

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:08 AM

It's called mud slinging Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans coincidence
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:13 AM

Keith, at the risk of upsetting you anyway, I reckon you are being over sensitive if you think my comment regarding those keeping quiet was aimed at you.

Sorry to prick your bubble but I was thinking about real people actually, politicians who used to fly the Eurosceptic flag but have clammed up until they see which way the wind is really blowing and their party's reaction, (and indeed risk of losing the whip.)

I never thought of you to be fair. I have said that if I am wrong I apologise and I just haven't got the requisite lack of a life to trawl through your posts on various subjects to find your use of the inclusive "we" other than unless I am losing my marbles, (possible) I am sure you did in one of your more forthright posts a few months ago.

You are the one bringing it up still, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:17 AM

Musket, you said you did mean me the first time, so it was natural to assume you were doing it again.
You may be losing your marbles because I have trawled and I was right.
I have never used the inclusive "we" in the context of politics.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Fabian Way
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:22 AM

Akenaton, I didn't call Foot La La, and I said I respect his views. I said his aims were however purely in La La land because even then, over thirty years ago, globalisation and lack of national influence on commerce was prevalent and for his Utopia to exist, you needed the degree of isolation from the real world presently enjoyed only by North Korea.

Interesting isn't it. Farage's own Utopia includes a flat rate of income tax at a fairly low rate, abolition of inheritance tax and other policies aimed at keeping the rich even richer. yet many who voted for his party wouldn't benefit at all, assuming he could make the sums add up, (presumably on the back of a fag packet...) I however haven't done too badly over the years so you would think I would look forward to not paying 45% tax, enjoy the idea of my lads getting their inheritance free of tax...

But I'm not. And neither are UKIP voters supporting his neo Th*tcherite policies.

Anyone care to explain how manifestos really work??

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Green Man
Date: 08 May 13 - 11:21 AM

Politicians are like nappies, and they should be changed frequently for the same reason.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 13 - 02:10 PM

All parties have stated the need to reduce immigration.

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.

Just who is trying to kid who here? Immigration is going down so why try to cause a panic over it? To mis-quote Mark Twain, there are liars, damned liars and politicians.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 13 - 02:37 PM

Remember the "brain drain"?

Its who's coming and who's going that matters.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 04:35 PM

Don't confuse them with facts, DtG. They aren't racists - but (yadda yadda)

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:23 PM

(163,000/62,641,000)x100=0.2602129595632254. The 62 million is the UK population in 2011. The 163K is the net immigration in 2012. The population increased by 0.26%. Even if every single one that went was a rocket scientist and every single one that came was a terrorist would 1/4 of a percent really make that much difference? How come the Torygraph etc. does not report this. Or how come it's readership is not capable of working it out themselves?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:34 PM

There was a funny incident on the radio, Richard. One of the 'I'm not a racist but...' brigade was on the Jeremy Vine show. Now, I don't have a lot of time for Mr V's debates - He is usually antagonistic and deliberately riles people for a reaction but he treated this one beautifully. The caller commented that she would welcome anyone from the commonwealth but not east Europeans. Jeremy tried to explain that the population of India was the second highest in the world and as a commonwealth country she was suggesting that they would all be welcome. But she would be confused by facts either :-) Out of interest I looked it up. The population of India is in the region of 1.2 billion. The combined populations of Romania and Bulgaria is around 28 million.

Makes you wonder at the thought processes of some folk.

DtG

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

Oh - and change hands...

:D

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:48 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: 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 - 11:32 AM

Aw izaat rite?

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 - 12:40 PM

Apologies, that should read "ivvir whit"!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 09:56 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 - 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,Me again
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:57 PM

Fooking hell!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Musket
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 04:35 AM

This thread still here?


Amazing.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.