ukip (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
nickgusset  Shizzlehurst 15 Nov 14 11.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 10.38am
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 10.00am
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 9.53am
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 9.49am
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 8.39am
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 12.24am
And there was me thinking we were in so much debt because of a global financial crisis caused by deregulation in the financial sector started in the Thatcher era and continued through successive governments voted in by both major parties. Wasn't it the financial sector that over leveraged itself to the max (using mortgage payments, savings and pension schemes as their reserves) in order to make all kinds of insane bets on crap like Spanish and Irish property assets, Greek government bonds and complex derivatives (like Collateralised Debt Obligations) that they clearly didn't even understand? It's a bit dull hearing the "always cleaning up Labour's mess" line over and over again; as if increasing the national debt by 11% of GDP in 13 years (as New Labour did) is somehow significantly worse than George Osborne's record of increasing the national debt by 26% in just 5 years. On the two occasions that a Labour government oversaw increases in the national debt there were the mitigating circumstances of huge global financial crises. The Ramsay MacDonald government of 1929-31 coincided with the Wall Street Crash (they left a 12% increase in the debt to GDP ratio), and the Blair-Brown government of 1997-2010 coincided with the 2008 financial sector insolvency crisis (an 11% increase). The other Labour governments all reduced the scale of the national debt.
Now before you say you don't support the Tories and what has thisgot to do with UKIP... ...UKIP is bankrolled by ex bankers and Tories - like our Nige himself is, can we expect more stupendous gambling with our finances if they get anything like a sniff of power? Also, what's been going on with the selection process for Boston and Skegness? Seems they held the selection meeting in a brewery. That old Tory fave, Neil Hamilton reckons he's a dead cert for candidacy in that manor. However no-one will say who was chosen. Could the delay in announcing the victor have anything to do with the leading candidate being, errr, Neil Hamilton? There’s certainly no love lost between Farage and the brown-envelope-loving former Tory MP. And having finally ditched Godfrey Bloom, UKIP might be loathe to fill the vacant position of Gaffe-Generator-In-Chief with a candidate who is not only less personable but also became a byword for 1990s corruption and sleaze. Buying themselves a few day’s breathing space, is it possible that the party plan to get their National Executive Committee to overrule a Hamilton victory?
Edited by nickgusset (15 Nov 2014 12.30am)
Lutfur Rahman. It doesn't look good, does it? Who are amongst his key supporters? Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and Len McCluskey. That's Len McCluskey of Unite. One of the Trade Unions you unquestioningly support. I am sure this is conspiracy dreamt up by 'right wing press barons' and the bourgeoise courts to suppress the working man, or some similar tosh. Deflect Deflect Deflect
I take it you won't respond on the above then? Scotland Yard have cleared Tower Hamlets of any wrongdoings in an investigation. Edited by nickgusset (15 Nov 2014 10.02am) You didn't appear to have any question other than Hamilton was a dead cert for the candidacy and the NEC will overrule him being selected. As Hamilton has ruled himself out, that would appear academic, wouldn't it? So if there is no evidence against Rahman, why is there going to be a full judicial review into Tower Hamlets? No wrongdoings had been found in an enquiry lead by Scotland Yard. Some cynics might say that Tories want to get into tower hamlets because it's a lucrative area that encompasses the environs of Canary Wharf. Why has the Boston candidate selection for UKIP been held in such secrecy. Hardly open and honest democracy is it?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 matt_himself Matataland 15 Nov 14 12.48pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 11.38am
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 10.38am
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 10.00am
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 9.53am
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 9.49am
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 8.39am
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 12.24am
And there was me thinking we were in so much debt because of a global financial crisis caused by deregulation in the financial sector started in the Thatcher era and continued through successive governments voted in by both major parties. Wasn't it the financial sector that over leveraged itself to the max (using mortgage payments, savings and pension schemes as their reserves) in order to make all kinds of insane bets on crap like Spanish and Irish property assets, Greek government bonds and complex derivatives (like Collateralised Debt Obligations) that they clearly didn't even understand? It's a bit dull hearing the "always cleaning up Labour's mess" line over and over again; as if increasing the national debt by 11% of GDP in 13 years (as New Labour did) is somehow significantly worse than George Osborne's record of increasing the national debt by 26% in just 5 years. On the two occasions that a Labour government oversaw increases in the national debt there were the mitigating circumstances of huge global financial crises. The Ramsay MacDonald government of 1929-31 coincided with the Wall Street Crash (they left a 12% increase in the debt to GDP ratio), and the Blair-Brown government of 1997-2010 coincided with the 2008 financial sector insolvency crisis (an 11% increase). The other Labour governments all reduced the scale of the national debt.
Now before you say you don't support the Tories and what has thisgot to do with UKIP... ...UKIP is bankrolled by ex bankers and Tories - like our Nige himself is, can we expect more stupendous gambling with our finances if they get anything like a sniff of power? Also, what's been going on with the selection process for Boston and Skegness? Seems they held the selection meeting in a brewery. That old Tory fave, Neil Hamilton reckons he's a dead cert for candidacy in that manor. However no-one will say who was chosen. Could the delay in announcing the victor have anything to do with the leading candidate being, errr, Neil Hamilton? There’s certainly no love lost between Farage and the brown-envelope-loving former Tory MP. And having finally ditched Godfrey Bloom, UKIP might be loathe to fill the vacant position of Gaffe-Generator-In-Chief with a candidate who is not only less personable but also became a byword for 1990s corruption and sleaze. Buying themselves a few day’s breathing space, is it possible that the party plan to get their National Executive Committee to overrule a Hamilton victory?
Edited by nickgusset (15 Nov 2014 12.30am)
Lutfur Rahman. It doesn't look good, does it? Who are amongst his key supporters? Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and Len McCluskey. That's Len McCluskey of Unite. One of the Trade Unions you unquestioningly support. I am sure this is conspiracy dreamt up by 'right wing press barons' and the bourgeoise courts to suppress the working man, or some similar tosh. Deflect Deflect Deflect
I take it you won't respond on the above then? Scotland Yard have cleared Tower Hamlets of any wrongdoings in an investigation. Edited by nickgusset (15 Nov 2014 10.02am) You didn't appear to have any question other than Hamilton was a dead cert for the candidacy and the NEC will overrule him being selected. As Hamilton has ruled himself out, that would appear academic, wouldn't it? So if there is no evidence against Rahman, why is there going to be a full judicial review into Tower Hamlets? No wrongdoings had been found in an enquiry lead by Scotland Yard. Some cynics might say that Tories want to get into tower hamlets because it's a lucrative area that encompasses the environs of Canary Wharf. Why has the Boston candidate selection for UKIP been held in such secrecy. Hardly open and honest democracy is it?
How do I know about the Boston selection? I didn't know anything about it until you posted the link to what turned out to be an incorrect blog. Why don't you tweet Nigel on Twitter and ask him? Also, I wouldn't start in democracy. The left and democracy are hardly compatible. Lest we forget Comrade Delta... Edited by matt_himself (15 Nov 2014 12.50pm)
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| matt_himself Matataland 15 Nov 14 12.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 15 Nov 2014 11.15am
Below is a post by Paul Nuttall, MEP and UKIP Deputy Leader about the NHS, favouring privatisation. Once it got wider attention, he deleted it. What some might see in recent days as Nigel Farage admirably listening to voices within his party and then proclaiming his support for the NHS (thus showing what a virtuous politician he is), might be seen by others as another example of a classic old school politician chopping and changing what he says to suit the audience and trying to deflect attention away from what he and other influential people in his party really believe the future for the NHS should be; privatisation. Its funny how some of those those proclaiming support for Farage's supposed virtues in "clarifying" that he supports the NHS whole heartedly might be the first to jump on politicians in other parties should they be caught out saying what they really thought about an issue as opposed to what they wanted the wider public to believe they thought. "I would like to congratulate the coalition government for bringing a whiff of privatisation into the beleaguered National Health Service. The fact that successive governments have undertaken what they call ‘substantial’ changes to the NHS should tell us all we need to know: there is something fundamentally wrong with how we treat the ill in our country. The NHS is the second biggest employer in the world, beaten only by Walmart, but as with all state monopolies, it is costly, inefficient and stuffed with bureaucrats. In New Labour’s NHS, for every nurse there is a manager and vital workers, such as midwives, are falling in numbers. The problem, however, goes far deeper. I would argue that the very existence of the NHS stifles competition, and as competition drives quality and choice, innovation and improvements are restricted. Therefore, I believe, as long as the NHS is the ‘sacred cow’ of British politics, the longer the British people will suffer with a second rate health service. Paul Nuttall MEP"
Edited by legaleagle (15 Nov 2014 11.17am) That's already been posted by Gusset and then ignored by most sensible thinking people. The above appears to be an attempt to start a debate about he NHS. What's wrong with that?
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 15 Nov 14 1.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Nothing wrong with a debate about the NHS including politicians' views towards it (and our response to and interpretation of those views) at all. Some might think my post was furthering that aim, even if you personally might not.If you think, within that debate, the views of UKIP's deputy leader on the future of the NHS are something to be "ignored" by most "sensible thinking" people, that's entirely a matter for you.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 15 Nov 14 1.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 15 Nov 2014 1.01pm
Nothing wrong with a debate about the NHS and politicians' views towards it (and our response to and interpretation of those views) at all. Some might think my post was furthering that aim, even if you personally might not.If you think, within that debate, the views of UKIP's deputy leader on the future of the NHS are something to be "ignored" by most "sensible thinking" people, that's entirely a matter for you.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 Nov 14 1.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 12.48pm
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 11.38am
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 10.38am
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 10.00am
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 9.53am
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 9.49am
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 8.39am
Quote nickgusset at 15 Nov 2014 12.24am
And there was me thinking we were in so much debt because of a global financial crisis caused by deregulation in the financial sector started in the Thatcher era and continued through successive governments voted in by both major parties. Wasn't it the financial sector that over leveraged itself to the max (using mortgage payments, savings and pension schemes as their reserves) in order to make all kinds of insane bets on crap like Spanish and Irish property assets, Greek government bonds and complex derivatives (like Collateralised Debt Obligations) that they clearly didn't even understand? It's a bit dull hearing the "always cleaning up Labour's mess" line over and over again; as if increasing the national debt by 11% of GDP in 13 years (as New Labour did) is somehow significantly worse than George Osborne's record of increasing the national debt by 26% in just 5 years. On the two occasions that a Labour government oversaw increases in the national debt there were the mitigating circumstances of huge global financial crises. The Ramsay MacDonald government of 1929-31 coincided with the Wall Street Crash (they left a 12% increase in the debt to GDP ratio), and the Blair-Brown government of 1997-2010 coincided with the 2008 financial sector insolvency crisis (an 11% increase). The other Labour governments all reduced the scale of the national debt.
Now before you say you don't support the Tories and what has thisgot to do with UKIP... ...UKIP is bankrolled by ex bankers and Tories - like our Nige himself is, can we expect more stupendous gambling with our finances if they get anything like a sniff of power? Also, what's been going on with the selection process for Boston and Skegness? Seems they held the selection meeting in a brewery. That old Tory fave, Neil Hamilton reckons he's a dead cert for candidacy in that manor. However no-one will say who was chosen. Could the delay in announcing the victor have anything to do with the leading candidate being, errr, Neil Hamilton? There’s certainly no love lost between Farage and the brown-envelope-loving former Tory MP. And having finally ditched Godfrey Bloom, UKIP might be loathe to fill the vacant position of Gaffe-Generator-In-Chief with a candidate who is not only less personable but also became a byword for 1990s corruption and sleaze. Buying themselves a few day’s breathing space, is it possible that the party plan to get their National Executive Committee to overrule a Hamilton victory?
Edited by nickgusset (15 Nov 2014 12.30am)
Lutfur Rahman. It doesn't look good, does it? Who are amongst his key supporters? Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and Len McCluskey. That's Len McCluskey of Unite. One of the Trade Unions you unquestioningly support. I am sure this is conspiracy dreamt up by 'right wing press barons' and the bourgeoise courts to suppress the working man, or some similar tosh. Deflect Deflect Deflect
I take it you won't respond on the above then? Scotland Yard have cleared Tower Hamlets of any wrongdoings in an investigation. Edited by nickgusset (15 Nov 2014 10.02am) You didn't appear to have any question other than Hamilton was a dead cert for the candidacy and the NEC will overrule him being selected. As Hamilton has ruled himself out, that would appear academic, wouldn't it? So if there is no evidence against Rahman, why is there going to be a full judicial review into Tower Hamlets? No wrongdoings had been found in an enquiry lead by Scotland Yard. Some cynics might say that Tories want to get into tower hamlets because it's a lucrative area that encompasses the environs of Canary Wharf. Why has the Boston candidate selection for UKIP been held in such secrecy. Hardly open and honest democracy is it?
How do I know about the Boston selection? I didn't know anything about it until you posted the link to what turned out to be an incorrect blog. Why don't you tweet Nigel on Twitter and ask him? Also, I wouldn't start in democracy. The left and democracy are hardly compatible. Lest we forget Comrade Delta... Edited by matt_himself (15 Nov 2014 12.50pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 15 Nov 14 1.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
. Edited by legaleagle (15 Nov 2014 1.23pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 15 Nov 14 1.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 15 Nov 2014 1.11pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 Nov 2014 1.01pm
Nothing wrong with a debate about the NHS and politicians' views towards it (and our response to and interpretation of those views) at all. Some might think my post was furthering that aim, even if you personally might not.If you think, within that debate, the views of UKIP's deputy leader on the future of the NHS are something to be "ignored" by most "sensible thinking" people, that's entirely a matter for you.
A number of people's stream of anti (and be in no doubt about it stream of pro on the other side of the equation) shrill (if that is your interpretation of them) posts about UKIP don't make the Deputy Leader's published views on the NHS any more or less valid for evaluation (particularly in terms of the leader's prior comments on the NHS in a speech and later pronouncements this week.) The leader's and deputy leader's (arguably) real views are seemingly at odds with what the leader wants the public to believe the party stands for. Same old style politics. Same old saying whatever might get more votes. Just my opinion
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 15 Nov 14 2.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Hilarious innit. That those who take the p1ss out of the left with their 'student' ideals are quite happy to view UKIP with an uncritical eye and see Farage as a political knight in shining armour who can do no wrong. Awww - up the EU revolution!
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 Nov 14 2.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 15 Nov 2014 2.10pm
Hilarious innit. That those who take the p1ss out of the left with their 'student' ideals are quite happy to view UKIP with an uncritical eye and see Farage as a political knight in shining armour who can do no wrong. Awww - up the EU revolution! Matt_himself is just on a wind up Kermit. Probly best just to ignore him.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kevpofcpfc 15 Nov 14 4.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Classic :
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 Nov 14 4.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
hmmm.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.