You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic
April 25 2024 1.46am

ukip (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 105 of 311 < 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 >

Topic Locked

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 30 May 14 9.56pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 30 May 2014 8.54pm

[Link]

Not just me then...


I hope you are enjoying those sour grapes......The sound of you munching on them is deafening.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 30 May 14 10.00pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 30 May 2014 9.56pm

Quote nickgusset at 30 May 2014 8.54pm

[Link]

Not just me then...


I hope you are enjoying those sour grapes......The sound of you munching on them is deafening.


Not sour grapes. Despair maybe, but not sour grapes.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
legaleagle Flag 31 May 14 1.01am

Quote davenotamonkey at 27 May 2014 10.18pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 27 May 2014 1.08pm

Quote taylors lovechild at 27 May 2014 12.37pm

Without knowing the whole story, it would appear he unlawfully bought his way into power then acted in a manner that no major party would allow. He may have picked Labour for the reasons you described, or it may just be they were the most likely party to win votes in his area. Either way, he clearly isn't a believer in multiculturalism....so you have that in common

In all seriousness, what this election has shown me is how clueless most of us are about the EU and politics in general. Most people probably don't know: what powers the EU has, how decisions are made, how their vote affected Britains representation or what benefits it gives us (for example what is the free trade agreement.) From the UKIP side the only rational arguments I've heard for voting for UKIP is as a protest vote for the major parties inefficiencies, but then whenever I ask people what those are they just reel out the media standards without any understanding of what policies have been introduced, removed, or brought to the table. The anti-UKIP side is often not much better with simple accusations of fascism, etc.

We live in a democracy in which a large swathe of the country votes on one-liners and spin without truly understanding what they're voting for or taking the time to read and find out.

I wouldn't and will not vote for UKIP because I don't believe immigration is the route of all evil, I don't believe you could actually simply close the doors on immigration even if you wanted to (do you think anyone would trade with us if we refused to allow any immigrants in?) they are basically the back bench/extremists of the tory party and so stand against everything I believe in (equality, workers rights, freedom of choice, etc) plus they have created economic policy which has no realistic way of working ("scrap VAT/inheritence tax, etc""- and replace it with what?)

I didn't make my mind up on this by reading the papers. I read UKIP's own policies and then saw what they were. A bunch of c***s.

Hopefully what UKIP will have done is wake up the major parties into showing some real fight. I only pray that they won't listen to the ill-conceived politics that are parked in the Farrage garage.



You say you're read Ukip's policies and say that they want to stop immigration........What?

They want controlled immigration no one in Ukip is saying no one can come in.....What are you on about?

You blame people for not knowing enough about politics before voting and then you show that you clearly don't know or care about knowing Ukip's declared policies before you mischaracterise them.

You are the type of person you yourself are criticizing.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 May 2014 1.09pm)

I slow-clapped as I read TL's post here. It was fabulously ironic. I will assume the cluelessness extends to the author as well? It's like he reeled off the same tired twitterspeheric diatribe written on the back of their collective fag packet.

"do you think anyone would trade with us if we refused to allow any immigrants in"

You mean like no-one trades with Australia, Canada, umpteen other (over 50% of UN countries in fact) states that think it smart to DECIDE whom to let in and whom to kick out?

Yes, Labour really has woken up and started to show some real fight. Miliband has really taken the lesson in from the election results:

[Link]

So, I'll tell you what: you lot can keep banging the one-issue drum that you think UKIP is about, whilst more and more people wake up to the fact that our hands are progressively more tied by an EU that interferes (and will continue to do so, and will seek to interfere more) with the running of our country in the way we wish it run (case in point: child benefits today).

Don't worry though. The lessons have been learnt all the way up to Maoist president of the EU, whom is all for "shaping a global order". Those who "voted in protest" (the fcuking nerve of it) will enjoy "decisive political action" and a "truly democratic debate" (ha, coming of course from the technocrats with no mandate):

[Link]


Just on one point. Yes, Australia has a points-based immigration system (not all that different to the EU stance towards immigration from outside the EU).

But Australia has an economic association agreement with New Zealand which allows for free trade in goods and most services. Australia also allows any New Zealand national the unfettered right to come and live in Australia.

As other posters have noted, its an inherent logic that if a country wants the benefits of free movement of goods, services, etc, the free movement of labour as a principle tends logically to be part of the package. Of course, countries like Canada trade with other countries. Whether they get the same trading benefits of free movement of goods and services
in those trading relationships, might be another matter.

Incidentally, after New Zealand lost its preferential trading position with the UK in 1973, due to the UK joining the European Economic Community,partly as a result, from 1970 to 1990, the relative New Zealand GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power declined from about 115% of the OECD average to 80%.So,it traded, but not as well...

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View taylors lovechild's Profile taylors lovechild Flag 31 May 14 10.37am Send a Private Message to taylors lovechild Add taylors lovechild as a friend

Quote davenotamonkey at 27 May 2014 10.18pm

I slow-clapped as I read TL's post here. It was fabulously ironic. I will assume the cluelessness extends to the author as well? It's like he reeled off the same tired twitterspeheric diatribe written on the back of their collective fag packet.

"do you think anyone would trade with us if we refused to allow any immigrants in"

You mean like no-one trades with Australia, Canada, umpteen other (over 50% of UN countries in fact) states that think it smart to DECIDE whom to let in and whom to kick out?

Yes, Labour really has woken up and started to show some real fight. Miliband has really taken the lesson in from the election results:

[Link]

So, I'll tell you what: you lot can keep banging the one-issue drum that you think UKIP is about, whilst more and more people wake up to the fact that our hands are progressively more tied by an EU that interferes (and will continue to do so, and will seek to interfere more) with the running of our country in the way we wish it run (case in point: child benefits today).

Don't worry though. The lessons have been learnt all the way up to Maoist president of the EU, whom is all for "shaping a global order". Those who "voted in protest" (the fcuking nerve of it) will enjoy "decisive political action" and a "truly democratic debate" (ha, coming of course from the technocrats with no mandate):

[Link]


I see what you did there, you basically reconfirmed my position. You say UKIP are not a one policy party, but then only focus on that part of my post. You then fail to provide any reason to vote UKIP.

As I stated someway back, I did get carried away when saying UKIP wanted to "close the door on immigration", but from everything I hear from many UKIP supporters that's what they are expecting if UKIP get in.

One of my points was that if we don't have similar free movement of labour as the rest of the EU then why would they allow us to share all the benefits of membership. It's a valid point and one which you've not answered, but instead only pointed to countries who have never belonged to the EU (obviously.) I'm sure we would establish trade agreements, but it's harder to bargain with people from the outside, plus some of our biggest exporters such as car manufacturing may well get hit with taxes they've previously been exempt from.

The Telegraph pointed to a 120 billion pound gap in their economic policy, which is not surprising since UKIP claim they will cut VAT, cut inheritence tax, but increase military spending by 40% (increase from approximately 2.3% of GDP to 3.2% GDP.) They want to fund this by further cuts to public spending (I saw somewhere a figure of upto 70%.) They want to move the NHS and schools towards the private sector and they want to cut workers sick pay and benefits to help employers. And on top of all this they say they want to introduce a flat rate of tax (like the Hong Kong system I presume?) but give no figures or idea what this will be. And they don't believe in mandmade climate change and want to cut green spending, despite the overwhelming evidence showing this to be the case.

Now as I have already said, I don't believe the anti-UKIP side have managed their campaign very well, and instead should have focused on the major flaws in UKIP's policy. I don't support any of the "big three" parties, but I still believe that despite these results if we hald a referendum tomorrow Britain would remain in the EU.

I look forward to more baseless attacks about how I've been brainwashed by the media (despite the Mail, Express and others throwing support to UKIP, not "the other lot", or am naive, without any arguments to support UKIPs policies. Plus, you know there is a reason not a single respected, intelligent member of society has thrown their support behind UKIP...oh wait, you have Joan Collins.

If like stirling you just voted in protest then fine, but if like DTM you believe them to be more than a one trick pony then I'm all ears on how their policy will "save us."


p.s. I referred to the well publicised expulsion of BNP members from UKIP not because I'm saying it was UKIP's fault they joined, but because it shows how similar the ideologies are.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View nickyf's Profile nickyf 01 Jun 14 12.47pm Send a Private Message to nickyf Add nickyf as a friend

I know its the daily mail and not every ones cup of tea when it comes to newspapers,

here are some of ukips plans according to the mail

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 01 Jun 14 3.03pm

One problem with the anti-immigration stance, is that it could very much lead to an increase in 'offshoring' of more jobs, as a result of it being more efficient to move the work to where the labour is cheap, rather than importing that labour.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View Willo's Profile Willo Flag South coast - west of Brighton. 01 Jun 14 3.13pm Send a Private Message to Willo Add Willo as a friend

Quote nickyf at 01 Jun 2014 12.47pm

I know its the daily mail and not every ones cup of tea when it comes to newspapers,

Certainly my 'Cup of tea'! I am an avid reader of the 'Mail' and 'Mail on Sunday' ! I am also partial to the good old 'Telegraph' !

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 01 Jun 14 3.16pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2014 3.03pm

One problem with the anti-immigration stance, is that it could very much lead to an increase in 'offshoring' of more jobs, as a result of it being more efficient to move the work to where the labour is cheap, rather than importing that labour.


Not really.....Dare I say it but is this scare mongering?

Most companies are small.....We are a nation of small businesses.....Lots of them aren't oriented to working aboard for starters.

Where jobs can be out-sourced abroad by companies they already are because the minimum wage is far higher here than the wages that would need to ba paid aboard...

So in manufacturing for companies that are large enough this happens already.

For service industries outsourcing in most situations is unpractical......And again where it can be shipped abroad it already is.

Really Jamie.....Really.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jun 2014 3.21pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 01 Jun 14 4.05pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote taylors lovechild at 31 May 2014 10.37am

p.s. I referred to the well publicised expulsion of BNP members from UKIP not because I'm saying it was UKIP's fault they joined, but because it shows how similar the ideologies are.


Your post wasn't pleasant.....But this p.s thing is a bit out of order.

Labour supporters aren't communists. Ukip supporters aren't BNP.

Ukip has black and asian councilors and supporters......This kind of thing is a bit off.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jun 2014 4.09pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
Palace_denizen Flag filed under " time wasters " 01 Jun 14 5.43pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2014 3.03pm

One problem with the anti-immigration stance, is that it could very much lead to an increase in 'offshoring' of more jobs, as a result of it being more efficient to move the work to where the labour is cheap, rather than importing that labour.


that is fine by me. I would rather a third-world type living in the third-world. do you really want them in Thornton 'Eaf ?

 


Laughing at Charlton - Every London Clyub's fourth or fifth most hated team -
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
Palace_denizen Flag filed under " time wasters " 01 Jun 14 5.54pm

Quote taylors


p.s. I referred to the well publicised expulsion of BNP members from UKIP not because I'm saying it was UKIP's fault they joined, but because it shows how similar the ideologies are.


Mother therese of Calcutta and the genocidal Crusaders all had a similar ideology - ie Catholicism, just saying.

 


Laughing at Charlton - Every London Clyub's fourth or fifth most hated team -
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View TUX's Profile TUX Flag redhill 01 Jun 14 5.59pm Send a Private Message to TUX Add TUX as a friend

Farage's plan for Britain: Tax free minimum wage, a grammar school in every town and help for the rich
-------------------------------

I completely agree with the first two plans but the third!
Rich people are 'rich' so where's the need for help?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post

Topic Locked

Page 105 of 311 < 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic