Should UKIP be involved in the TV debates.....If they keep their share in the polls ?

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

It's the same old Labour, never again!  I don't understand this point because as far as I am aware Labour were praised for their commitments to education. The amount of money spent on education increased under Labour and many incentives were created for poor young people to enter education eg EMA, free bus bass in london for students, maintenance grants for university students from a poor background, surestart programme for young children.  Education, education, education. Said Tony Blair.

And we got education. A very dumbed-down education system at that, with millions of students in that time now having attained worthless degrees.

Actually, my daughters went to university in the 1990's / early 2000's and got excellent degrees that have been very useful to them (it cost me a bloody fortune).   The thing is, they were born in the early 80's and we were all told back then that the children of that time would be "Thatcher's Lost Generation".... that there was no hope for them.... that they would never work in their lifetimes....  The reality has been completely different.  They're now highly qualified, professional women who are happy, fulfilled and have good lives.  My eldest said to me when all this sort of rhetoric was being dredged up just before Thatcher's funeral:  "What's not to like about being born in the 80's?"

Moral of the story:  The problem with listening to political propaganda, is that you really shouldn't listen to it.

And no.  Leaving the EU wouldn't make things better.

Duty281 wrote:

How can Labour freeze energy prices? They can't.
What are Labour going to do about the EU? Nothing
Do Labour have any economic sense? No.
Will there be loads more immigrants (and plenty of illegals) under Labour? Yes.
Will education improve under Labour? No.

It's the same old Labour, never again!

Duty281 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

It's the same old Labour, never again!  I don't understand this point because as far as I am aware Labour were praised for their commitments to education. The amount of money spent on education increased under Labour and many incentives were created for poor young people to enter education eg EMA, free bus bass in london for students, maintenance grants for university students from a poor background, surestart programme for young children.  Education, education, education. Said Tony Blair.

And we got education. A very dumbed-down education system at that, with millions of students in that time now having attained worthless degrees.

Actually, my daughters went to university in the 1990's / early 2000's and got excellent degrees that have been very useful to them (it cost me a bloody fortune).   The thing is, they were born in the early 80's and we were all told back then that the children of that time would be "Thatcher's Lost Generation".... that there was no hope for them.... that they would never work in their lifetimes....  The reality has been completely different.  They're now highly qualified, professional women who are happy, fulfilled and have good lives.  My eldest said to me when all this sort of rhetoric was being dredged up just before Thatcher's funeral:  "What's not to like about being born in the 80's?"

Moral of the story:  The problem with listening to political propaganda, is that you really shouldn't listen to it.

And no.  Leaving the EU wouldn't make things better.

Perhaps not if we're talking with regards to education. With regard to immigration and actually being in control of the country, yes it bloody well would.

No surrender. Democracy, not bureaucracy.

And I see Cameron's p!ssed off the EU today with some legal changes. Well done to him for that.

Duty281 wrote:Of course I would accept the decision if Britain voted to stay in the EU.

Presently though, no one in the age 18-55 bracket has had a vote on Britain's presence in the EU, and even when we did have a vote in 1975, I don't think the British people were voting in the knowledge that Strasbourg would become the highest law-maker and court in the land, and the EU's policy on immigration. That doesn't seem awfully democratic to me - it's time for another vote.

And of course, the EU itself (largely) isn't a democratic body.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Of course I would accept the decision if Britain voted to stay in the EU.

Presently though, no one in the age 18-55 bracket has had a vote on Britain's presence in the EU, and even when we did have a vote in 1975, I don't think the British people were voting in the knowledge that Strasbourg would become the highest law-maker and court in the land, and the EU's policy on immigration. That doesn't seem awfully democratic to me - it's time for another vote.

And of course, the EU itself (largely) isn't a democratic body.

I'm glad to hear that you would accept the will of the people without question.  Democracy is alive in England's green and pleasant land...!!

You're quite right that it is only silly old so-and-so's like me who have had a say in the matter and of course there is a strong case for a referendum now.  

However......... I must disagree with you on the debate that was held back in the 70's.  There were strong cases put by the "No Lobby" and I can clearly recall some saying in public debate that Britain's legislative process would be affected.  

There was a comment made recently on the Daily Politics, when Jo Coburn said to Nigel Farage that BBC researchers had, indeed, found entries in Hansard which show that this very subject was raised in Parliament at the time by a certain MP..... now... what was her name..... Oh, that's it.  Margaret Thatcher.

So I think you may be a tad mistaken when you argue that we poor cloth-eared 70's peasants were ill informed and didn't know what we were doing.
As for the EU not being a democratic body, in which way would that be..?   You have had the opportunity to vote for your MEP, as have I and every other eligible person in the country.  Indeed, Nigel Farage himself has the letters MEP after his name, and the speculation is that his party will be putting up large numbers of candidates come the next EU Elections.  

Candidates...?   Elections...?  MEP's...?   Sounds pretty democratic to me.

They all go to a place called Strasbourg where they debate issues relating to Europe, a vote is taken and the motion either carried or defeated by the number of votes cast one way or the other.  

Pray tell me....... How is this not democratic..?

Duty281 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Of course I would accept the decision if Britain voted to stay in the EU.

Presently though, no one in the age 18-55 bracket has had a vote on Britain's presence in the EU, and even when we did have a vote in 1975, I don't think the British people were voting in the knowledge that Strasbourg would become the highest law-maker and court in the land, and the EU's policy on immigration. That doesn't seem awfully democratic to me - it's time for another vote.

And of course, the EU itself (largely) isn't a democratic body.

I'm glad to hear that you would accept the will of the people without question.  Democracy is alive in England's green and pleasant land...!!

You're quite right that it is only silly old so-and-so's like me who have had a say in the matter and of course there is a strong case for a referendum now.  

However......... I must disagree with you on the debate that was held back in the 70's.  There were strong cases put by the "No Lobby" and I can clearly recall some saying in public debate that Britain's legislative process would be affected.  

There was a comment made recently on the Daily Politics, when Jo Coburn said to Nigel Farage that BBC researchers had, indeed, found entries in Hansard which show that this very subject was raised in Parliament at the time by a certain MP..... now... what was her name..... Oh, that's it.  Margaret Thatcher.

So I think you may be a tad mistaken when you argue that we poor cloth-eared 70's peasants were ill informed and didn't know what we were doing.
As for the EU not being a democratic body, in which way would that be..?   You have had the opportunity to vote for your MEP, as have I and every other eligible person in the country.  Indeed, Nigel Farage himself has the letters MEP after his name, and the speculation is that his party will be putting up large numbers of candidates come the next EU Elections.  

Candidates...?   Elections...?  MEP's...?   Sounds pretty democratic to me.

They all go to a place called Strasbourg where they debate issues relating to Europe, a vote is taken and the motion either carried or defeated by the number of votes cast one way or the other.  

Pray tell me....... How is this not democratic..?

Where did I say that? I don't think that anyone knew in the 70s that Strasbourg WOULD become the highest court in the land. At any rate, people in this country aged 18-55, two (perhaps three) generations of people who haven't had a say on their country's independence - surely we need another vote?

As for democracy, you appear to be referring to the European Parliament. The European Commission, on the other hand, contains appointed members, and I believe it wields far greater power than that of the Parliament. And this Herman Van Rompouy chap, who exactly voted for him to be President of the European Council?

Duty281 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Of course I would accept the decision if Britain voted to stay in the EU.

Presently though, no one in the age 18-55 bracket has had a vote on Britain's presence in the EU, and even when we did have a vote in 1975, I don't think the British people were voting in the knowledge that Strasbourg would become the highest law-maker and court in the land, and the EU's policy on immigration. That doesn't seem awfully democratic to me - it's time for another vote.

And of course, the EU itself (largely) isn't a democratic body.

I'm glad to hear that you would accept the will of the people without question.  Democracy is alive in England's green and pleasant land...!!

You're quite right that it is only silly old so-and-so's like me who have had a say in the matter and of course there is a strong case for a referendum now.  

However......... I must disagree with you on the debate that was held back in the 70's.  There were strong cases put by the "No Lobby" and I can clearly recall some saying in public debate that Britain's legislative process would be affected.  

There was a comment made recently on the Daily Politics, when Jo Coburn said to Nigel Farage that BBC researchers had, indeed, found entries in Hansard which show that this very subject was raised in Parliament at the time by a certain MP..... now... what was her name..... Oh, that's it.  Margaret Thatcher.

So I think you may be a tad mistaken when you argue that we poor cloth-eared 70's peasants were ill informed and didn't know what we were doing.
As for the EU not being a democratic body, in which way would that be..?   You have had the opportunity to vote for your MEP, as have I and every other eligible person in the country.  Indeed, Nigel Farage himself has the letters MEP after his name, and the speculation is that his party will be putting up large numbers of candidates come the next EU Elections.  

Candidates...?   Elections...?  MEP's...?   Sounds pretty democratic to me.

They all go to a place called Strasbourg where they debate issues relating to Europe, a vote is taken and the motion either carried or defeated by the number of votes cast one way or the other.  

Pray tell me....... How is this not democratic..?

Where did I say that? I don't think that anyone knew in the 70s that Strasbourg WOULD become the highest court in the land. At any rate, people in this country aged 18-55, two (perhaps three) generations of people who haven't had a say on their country's independence - surely we need another vote?

As for democracy, you appear to be referring to the European Parliament. The European Commission, on the other hand, contains appointed members, and I believe it wields far greater power than that of the Parliament. And this Herman Van Rompouy chap, who exactly voted for him to be President of the European Council?

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Of course I would accept the decision if Britain voted to stay in the EU.

Presently though, no one in the age 18-55 bracket has had a vote on Britain's presence in the EU, and even when we did have a vote in 1975, I don't think the British people were voting in the knowledge that Strasbourg would become the highest law-maker and court in the land, and the EU's policy on immigration. That doesn't seem awfully democratic to me - it's time for another vote.

And of course, the EU itself (largely) isn't a democratic body.

I'm glad to hear that you would accept the will of the people without question.  Democracy is alive in England's green and pleasant land...!!

You're quite right that it is only silly old so-and-so's like me who have had a say in the matter and of course there is a strong case for a referendum now.  

However......... I must disagree with you on the debate that was held back in the 70's.  There were strong cases put by the "No Lobby" and I can clearly recall some saying in public debate that Britain's legislative process would be affected.  

There was a comment made recently on the Daily Politics, when Jo Coburn said to Nigel Farage that BBC researchers had, indeed, found entries in Hansard which show that this very subject was raised in Parliament at the time by a certain MP..... now... what was her name..... Oh, that's it.  Margaret Thatcher.

So I think you may be a tad mistaken when you argue that we poor cloth-eared 70's peasants were ill informed and didn't know what we were doing.
As for the EU not being a democratic body, in which way would that be..?   You have had the opportunity to vote for your MEP, as have I and every other eligible person in the country.  Indeed, Nigel Farage himself has the letters MEP after his name, and the speculation is that his party will be putting up large numbers of candidates come the next EU Elections.  

Candidates...?   Elections...?  MEP's...?   Sounds pretty democratic to me.

They all go to a place called Strasbourg where they debate issues relating to Europe, a vote is taken and the motion either carried or defeated by the number of votes cast one way or the other.  

Pray tell me....... How is this not democratic..?

Where did I say that? I don't think that anyone knew in the 70s that Strasbourg WOULD become the highest court in the land. At any rate, people in this country aged 18-55, two (perhaps three) generations of people who haven't had a say on their country's independence - surely we need another vote?

As for democracy, you appear to be referring to the European Parliament. The European Commission, on the other hand, contains appointed members, and I believe it wields far greater power than that of the Parliament. And this Herman Van Rompouy chap, who exactly voted for him to be President of the European Council?

You confuse democracy with politics.  The two are not necessarily one and the same thing.

The European Commission is the executive body of the EU.  It proposes legislation, implements decisions and upholds the union's treaties.  

Read that last paragraph carefully  It proposes legislation and then implements it once it has been voted on.  It does not take part in the actual vote.  Proposing legislation is politics.  Voting on it is democracy.  

In upholding treaties it holds to account any state that is thinking of turning rogue.  David Cameron's plans to change the law regarding benefits to migrants are being gone through with a very fine toothed comb, methinks.   And quite rightly, too.

The commission acts as in the same way as a cabinet, with one member per member state who all get a vote on what legislation they wish to propose, and the way that passed legislation is implemented.  Britain has it's say.  Again, it sounds pretty democratic to me.

Now, if you were thinking of suggesting that this is not democratic, and Britain would be better off out of it because our system is superior, I would say just three words to you.  House of Lords.   If ever there was an undemocratic legislative body anywhere in the world, it's right in the Palace of Westminster.  

As for van Rompuy, he is the first President of the European Council, a post created by the Treaty of Lisbon.  Although he was directly appointed at first without a vote being held, as an interim measure, he was subsequently elected by the Heads of State of all the member countries in June of 2012.  Britain had a vote in his election, so sorry, mate.... democracy again.   His term of office ends in November 2014, so if you want to lobby your MEP to vote for his successor, you are within your rights to do so.  

You have a voice.  Use it.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Of course I would accept the decision if Britain voted to stay in the EU.

Presently though, no one in the age 18-55 bracket has had a vote on Britain's presence in the EU, and even when we did have a vote in 1975, I don't think the British people were voting in the knowledge that Strasbourg would become the highest law-maker and court in the land, and the EU's policy on immigration. That doesn't seem awfully democratic to me - it's time for another vote.

And of course, the EU itself (largely) isn't a democratic body.

I'm glad to hear that you would accept the will of the people without question.  Democracy is alive in England's green and pleasant land...!!

You're quite right that it is only silly old so-and-so's like me who have had a say in the matter and of course there is a strong case for a referendum now.  

However......... I must disagree with you on the debate that was held back in the 70's.  There were strong cases put by the "No Lobby" and I can clearly recall some saying in public debate that Britain's legislative process would be affected.  

There was a comment made recently on the Daily Politics, when Jo Coburn said to Nigel Farage that BBC researchers had, indeed, found entries in Hansard which show that this very subject was raised in Parliament at the time by a certain MP..... now... what was her name..... Oh, that's it.  Margaret Thatcher.

So I think you may be a tad mistaken when you argue that we poor cloth-eared 70's peasants were ill informed and didn't know what we were doing.
As for the EU not being a democratic body, in which way would that be..?   You have had the opportunity to vote for your MEP, as have I and every other eligible person in the country.  Indeed, Nigel Farage himself has the letters MEP after his name, and the speculation is that his party will be putting up large numbers of candidates come the next EU Elections.  

Candidates...?   Elections...?  MEP's...?   Sounds pretty democratic to me.

They all go to a place called Strasbourg where they debate issues relating to Europe, a vote is taken and the motion either carried or defeated by the number of votes cast one way or the other.  

Pray tell me....... How is this not democratic..?

Where did I say that? I don't think that anyone knew in the 70s that Strasbourg WOULD become the highest court in the land. At any rate, people in this country aged 18-55, two (perhaps three) generations of people who haven't had a say on their country's independence - surely we need another vote?

As for democracy, you appear to be referring to the European Parliament. The European Commission, on the other hand, contains appointed members, and I believe it wields far greater power than that of the Parliament. And this Herman Van Rompouy chap, who exactly voted for him to be President of the European Council?

You confuse democracy with politics.  The two are not necessarily one and the same thing.

The European Commission is the executive body of the EU.  It proposes legislation, implements decisions and upholds the union's treaties.  

Read that last paragraph carefully  It proposes legislation and then implements it once it has been voted on.  It does not take part in the actual vote.  Proposing legislation is politics.  Voting on it is democracy.  

In upholding treaties it holds to account any state that is thinking of turning rogue.  David Cameron's plans to change the law regarding benefits to migrants are being gone through with a very fine toothed comb, methinks.   And quite rightly, too.

The commission acts as in the same way as a cabinet, with one member per member state who all get a vote on what legislation they wish to propose, and the way that passed legislation is implemented.  Britain has it's say.  Again, it sounds pretty democratic to me.

Now, if you were thinking of suggesting that this is not democratic, and Britain would be better off out of it because our system is superior, I would say just three words to you.  House of Lords.   If ever there was an undemocratic legislative body anywhere in the world, it's right in the Palace of Westminster.  

As for van Rompuy, he is the first President of the European Council, a post created by the Treaty of Lisbon.  Although he was directly appointed at first without a vote being held, as an interim measure, he was subsequently elected by the Heads of State of all the member countries in June of 2012.  Britain had a vote in his election, so sorry, mate.... democracy again.   His term of office ends in November 2014, so if you want to lobby your MEP to vote for his successor, you are within your rights to do so.  

You have a voice.  Use it.

Took the words out of my mouth

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Must say some of the responses...No matter If I agree or not have been good.......

Both sections of the divide...

Think we can all agree......That the next election Is a fight between mediocrity.........

Duty281 wrote:http://survation.com/2013/12/alan-bown-polls-4-new-constituencies/

What have we got ourselves here?

70% of UKIP voters didn't vote Conservative at the last election.

Well, they wouldn't be able to, would they..? If they voted UKIP, how could they vote Conservative..? Actually, I'm thinking that figure of 70% is interesting. Shouldn't it be 100%..? Or is there some electoral malpractice going on somewhere..?



4 out of 5 UKIP voters say it isn't a protest vote.

They would, wouldn't they..?



38% of UKIP voters would not vote if UKIP weren't standing in their constituency - that was the most popular choice.

So, they're saying they're not going to vote unless they get the candidate of their choice. Wow....... New Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives must be trembling in their boots to know that some voters, who don't intend to vote for them, intend not to vote at all


Maybe UKIP are more popular than people give them credit for?

Not so long ago, the same thing was being said about the BNP. Come to think of it, there isn't a lot of difference between the BNP and UKIP, really. Good luck with forming a government after the next election.


And perhaps, with another unpopular wave of uncontrolled immigration in a couple of weeks, therefore further eroding national identity, that support will only increase over the months and years? Especially with UKIP favourite to win the European elections next year.

I refer you again to my comment above


Oh and not to mention what Marks and Spencer have done recently. It absolutely beggars belief and it really is...Political Correctness gone mad.

Yes, let's do away with all this wishy-washy liberal civilisation. Let's elect Nigel so he can return Britain to good old fashioned Victorian values, such as sending children up chimneys, throwing homosexuals into prison for the crime of falling in love, and reintroducing birching for such offences as being black or working class. It would be soooooooo UKIP for Britain to want to show the world how we do things again. Yep.... let's vote UKIP and watch Britain take a giant leap into the 19th Century...!!

Duty281 wrote:No 4th Lion, 70% of people who are CURRENTLY going to vote for UKIP didn't vote for the Conservatives last time out - pouring scorn over the comments that all UKIP do are allowing an easy march to no.10 for Ed Miliband.

 OK, I know my last post was being a bit obtuse in a cheeky sort of way, but again you misrepresent.  It may have been more accurate for you to say something along the lines of: "70% of people who live in areas of high immigration, when asked loaded questions at a time when they were in a pretty annoyed state of mind following shock-horror headlines about immigration in outrage newspapers like the Daily Mail, said they MAY vote UKIP".   Nobody has put X's on ballot papers yet, and there is plenty of time for people to change their minds.  

One of the oldest political tricks in the book is to go looking for opinion, from people who are most likely to support you, when they are at their least well informed and then tinker with the results to make them look more impressive than they actually are.   Would a similar poll have been so favourable to UKIP in, say, Cornwall,  after it was found that Sue Bowen, the UKIP candidate for Tintagel had been a former member of the BNP.?   Oh..... so, would that have been the  BNP  that UKIP doesn't allow to join..?   Hmmmmm... Either somebody isn't doing their checks thoroughly or...........

No Duty, going for a poll at that time, in that area, would not have garnered the same results.  Which is why they didn't do it.



The next two paragraphs refer to how UKIP seemingly has an identity of its own, without being a protest vote.

Of course it has an "identity" of its own, but only in a marketing sense.  In truth, it is no different to any other extreme right-wing nationalist party that has gone before.  What it has done, though, is to very cagily avoid red, white and blue in conjunction, or the Union Flag.  The pound symbol is evocatively "British" but in a friendly sort of way.   That isn't an independent identity, it's merely marketing that doesn't fall into the same old traps that other fascist organisations have.



I'll ignore your pathetic UKIP/BNP comparison - although did you know that you can't join UKIP if you've previously been a member of BNP. National Front and a couple of other parties, but you're perfectly free to join Labour or the Conservatives?

I refer you to my comment above, re:  Sue Bowen.   Of course, UKIP dropped her like a red hot brick as soon as she was rumbled.  Phew, that was a close one.  I'm sure they are much more careful about vetting potential members from now on, but of course, not all extremists have been former members of BNP.  Ladies and Gentlemen, if offer you the UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber,  Godfrey Bloom.  Yes, that Godfrey Bloom.  He of the  "Send 'em all back to Bongo Bongo Land" and "No businessman in his right mind would employ a woman of child bearing age" quotes.   He also promotes state sponsored terrorism by, for instance, congratulating the French government for sinking the Rainbow Warrrior.

So, let's get this right...... UKIP would not allow anybody with racist or sexist views, or anybody who promotes terrorism to join their party.  I'm glad we cleared that up.



As for the last comment - am I right in assuming that you believe it's perfectly fine for a woman of the Islamic faith to refuse to serve non halal-meat/alcohol even though it's her job? Wonder where this one will end?

Ahhhhhhhhh. the straw man argument.  I was wondering when we'd see that.   When you cannot adequately dispute the other person's argument, throw out a counter claim that has nothing to do with the focus of the discussion.  We are not talking about Labour, or Conservative or Liberal policies here.  This is a discussion about UKIP.  Let's keep the discussion on track, yeah..?  

By the way, no I wouldn't agree  with the situation above.  In my opinion, if any person works in a service industry and is required to perform a task within his or her terms of employment, then they should do so regardless of faith.  Indeed, Labour introduced legislation which made discrimination on grounds of faith illegal  (The Equality Act 2010).  You may have read of cases where guest house owners have been prosecuted for refusing to allow homosexuals to share a room on their premises.  I believe it is one of UKIP's stated policies (in the extremely unlikely event of ever forming a government) to repeal the Equality Act.  So..... UKIP would repeal the very legislation which makes practices you say your party  finds so abhorrent, illegal.

Now, as you brought the subject of refusal to carry out contractual obligations on grounds of religion, I will draw your attention to a similar case involving the hypocrite Lillian Ladele, a devoutly (she said) Christian registrar with Haringey Council, who refused to perform Civil Partnership ceremonies on the grounds of religious conviction..... a position that was supported at the time by Nigel Farage.  She sued Haringey Council for unfair dismissal and a British employment  tribunal upheld her case, although this was later overturned on appeal.

Ms Ladele then appealed to the European Court who, in May 2013, rejected her appeal.  Well done Europe for overcoming faith based bigotry, I say.

So.........   not only would UKIP repeal the Equality Act, but Nigel Farage supported a hypocrite who was attempting to exploit religion to support a homophobic attitude, a position which the European Court rejected.    Well done Europe, I say.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Duty281 wrote:No 4th Lion, 70% of people who are CURRENTLY going to vote for UKIP didn't vote for the Conservatives last time out - pouring scorn over the comments that all UKIP do are allowing an easy march to no.10 for Ed Miliband.

 OK, I know my last post was being a bit obtuse in a cheeky sort of way, but again you misrepresent.  It may have been more accurate for you to say something along the lines of: "70% of people who live in areas of high immigration, when asked loaded questions at a time when they were in a pretty annoyed state of mind following shock-horror headlines about immigration in outrage newspapers like the Daily Mail, said they MAY vote UKIP".   Nobody has put X's on ballot papers yet, and there is plenty of time for people to change their minds.  

One of the oldest political tricks in the book is to go looking for opinion, from people who are most likely to support you, when they are at their least well informed and then tinker with the results to make them look more impressive than they actually are.   Would a similar poll have been so favourable to UKIP in, say, Cornwall,  after it was found that Sue Bowen, the UKIP candidate for Tintagel had been a former member of the BNP.?   Oh..... so, would that have been the  BNP  that UKIP doesn't allow to join..?   Hmmmmm... Either somebody isn't doing their checks thoroughly or...........

No Duty, going for a poll at that time, in that area, would not have garnered the same results.  Which is why they didn't do it.

It is a poll merely from a few places in the UK. I wasn't trying to highlight UKIP's growing support, I was highlighting how the majority of UKIP voters were saying that their vote wasn't merely a protest vote - contrary to many opinions.

The next two paragraphs refer to how UKIP seemingly has an identity of its own, without being a protest vote.

Of course it has an "identity" of its own, but only in a marketing sense.  In truth, it is no different to any other extreme right-wing nationalist party that has gone before.  What it has done, though, is to very cagily avoid red, white and blue in conjunction, or the Union Flag.  The pound symbol is evocatively "British" but in a friendly sort of way.   That isn't an independent identity, it's merely marketing that doesn't fall into the same old traps that other fascist organisations have.

Yes an identity, not a mere flash in the pan, protest party, as many think UKIP are. And I wouldn't say UKIP are extreme or, at least, Farage certainly isn't as he wants some Syrian refugees to come to the UK. That is a stance which many right-wing extremists would disagree with.

I'll ignore your pathetic UKIP/BNP comparison - although did you know that you can't join UKIP if you've previously been a member of BNP. National Front and a couple of other parties, but you're perfectly free to join Labour or the Conservatives?

I refer you to my comment above, re:  Sue Bowen.   Of course, UKIP dropped her like a red hot brick as soon as she was rumbled.  Phew, that was a close one.  I'm sure they are much more careful about vetting potential members from now on, but of course, not all extremists have been former members of BNP.  Ladies and Gentlemen, if offer you the UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber,  Godfrey Bloom.  Yes, that Godfrey Bloom.  He of the  "Send 'em all back to Bongo Bongo Land" and "No businessman in his right mind would employ a woman of child bearing age" quotes.   He also promotes state sponsored terrorism by, for instance, congratulating the French government for sinking the Rainbow Warrrior.

So, let's get this right...... UKIP would not allow anybody with racist or sexist views, or anybody who promotes terrorism to join their party.  I'm glad we cleared that up.

Didn't Farage push old Godfrey out?

As for the last comment - am I right in assuming that you believe it's perfectly fine for a woman of the Islamic faith to refuse to serve non halal-meat/alcohol even though it's her job? Wonder where this one will end?

Ahhhhhhhhh. the straw man argument.  I was wondering when we'd see that.   When you cannot adequately dispute the other person's argument, throw out a counter claim that has nothing to do with the focus of the discussion.  We are not talking about Labour, or Conservative or Liberal policies here.  This is a discussion about UKIP.  Let's keep the discussion on track, yeah..?  

By the way, no I wouldn't agree  with the situation above.  In my opinion, if any person works in a service industry and is required to perform a task within his or her terms of employment, then they should do so regardless of faith.  Indeed, Labour introduced legislation which made discrimination on grounds of faith illegal  (The Equality Act 2010).  You may have read of cases where guest house owners have been prosecuted for refusing to allow homosexuals to share a room on their premises.  I believe it is one of UKIP's stated policies (in the extremely unlikely event of ever forming a government) to repeal the Equality Act.  So..... UKIP would repeal the very legislation which makes practices you say your party  finds so abhorrent, illegal.

Now, as you brought the subject of refusal to carry out contractual obligations on grounds of religion, I will draw your attention to a similar case involving the hypocrite Lillian Ladele, a devoutly (she said) Christian registrar with Haringey Council, who refused to perform Civil Partnership ceremonies on the grounds of religious conviction..... a position that was supported at the time by Nigel Farage.  She sued Haringey Council for unfair dismissal and a British employment  tribunal upheld her case, although this was later overturned on appeal.

Ms Ladele then appealed to the European Court who, in May 2013, rejected her appeal.  Well done Europe for overcoming faith based bigotry, I say.

So.........   not only would UKIP repeal the Equality Act, but Nigel Farage supported a hypocrite who was attempting to exploit religion to support a homophobic attitude, a position which the European Court rejected.    Well done Europe, I say.

My party?

Anyway, I was throwing out what Marks and Spencer have done recently as an example of the rampant PC attitude we are seeing these days, and is something that has happened. That is another example of why some people may choose not to vote for any of the "big 3" parties but find themselves more aligned with UKIP

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My advise is not to reply.............You've had your butt handed to you more time than I've had hot dinners..

ShahenshahG wrote:I dont think so Galted. More like Ian Hislop - Paxman doesnt bother responding to things he thinks beneath him

Galted wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:I dont think so Galted. More like Ian Hislop - Paxman doesnt bother responding to things he thinks beneath him

  

He's quite intimidating though and I find Paxman quite terrifying.  If there was a cartoon about a talking willy it would look just like Hislop.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You are never lonely If you have a good imagination............

As I always tell Meg Ryan.

DAVE667 wrote:

Galted wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:I dont think so Galted. More like Ian Hislop - Paxman doesnt bother responding to things he thinks beneath him

  

He's quite intimidating though and I find Paxman quite terrifying.  If there was a cartoon about a talking willy it would look just like Hislop.

There was an old cartoon strip called Wicked Willy

"describe the worst blow job you ever had"
"Fantastic"

TopHat24/7 wrote:Did this need necroposting?

Be shut within minutes anyway.