MEP Elections

First topic message reminder :

It's the European Parliament Elections on May 22nd, with UKIP hoping to gain the most seats after second place last time out, with Labour and Liberal Democrats looking to hold onto their seats.

But, does anyone care? Only one in three people voted in the last elections, but there seems to be more of a media interest, especially with the TV debates between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg, which if you haven't seen are worth a watch. Could it be argued that by Labour and Conservatives not showing to the debates, that UKIP and LibDem will gain?

It seems that this year, there will be a higher turnout but will it be a significant amount? UKIP are certainly a more real opposition and will surely gain seats, with the opinion polls showing UKIP are likely to win.

Come now Duty.......Less of the hyperbole.........

Thatcher's ratings were as bad as Miliband's........Didn't stop her !!

How do you know what a Miliband administration would be like........Hardly likely to be too radical as I would have thought he'd like to be re-elected in 2020..

You're over-egging the pudding.......

But maybe you're right we should vote for the tolerant, equality and justice orientated UKIP...

Like I said before you make me laugh..

Well I can't vote Labour, Truss, for obvious reasons.
I can't vote Lib Dem, either, for they're even worse.
I can't vote Conservative, they're a divided party.
I can't vote Green, they terrify me.
I can't vote BNP, they're scum. Ditto the English Democrats.
I can't vote for An Independence from Europe, they've only just sprung up.

But I can vote for UKIP, despite my concerns.

Duty281 wrote:Well I can't vote Labour, Truss, for obvious reasons.
I can't vote Lib Dem, either, for they're even worse.
I can't vote Conservative, they're a divided party.
I can't vote Green, they terrify me.
I can't vote BNP, they're scum. Ditto the English Democrats.
I can't vote for An Independence from Europe, they've only just sprung up.

But I can vote for UKIP, despite my concerns.

We know you are voting UKIP you have said it on every thread even a thread about a singing contest. It gets boring listening to you repeating yourself all the time.

Not much debate but quite amusing  

It was beyond belief last week when anti-UKIP protesters were shouting racist abuse at black and Asian candidates.

You could not make it up.

At least the Guardianistas have mostly stopped that rubbish after eventually realising it was not helping their cause and with seemingly not knowing it, being hypocritical in their very own beliefs

skyeman wrote:


Not much debate but quite amusing  

  

skyeman wrote:It was beyond belief last week when anti-UKIP protesters were shouting racist abuse at black and Asian candidates.

You could not make it up.

At least the Guardianistas have mostly stopped that rubbish after eventually realising it was not helping their cause and with seemingly not knowing it, being hypocritical in their very own beliefs

Would that be the fascist group called "Unite against Facism" and the "Hope not Hate" lot?

That's the fascist left for you - using violence and intimidation to try and force their will onto people who do not want it...like Scargill's merry men all over again.

Duty281 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I'm employed now, Truss, ta for the concern.

And I'm voting UKIP with two or three concerns.

The Labour Party? Well..if you hate Britain, make sure you vote for them.

I vote Labour. I don't hate Britain.

What was that about sensible debate and no mud slinging?

That isn't mud-slinging, my dear fellow.

If you wish to see some mud-slinging, you should probably take a look at Labour's European Party Election Broadcast.

And secondly, considering the damage that the Labour Party did to Britain during their thirteen years (is that why the number is unlucky?) in power, of which we are still recovering from (Britain was the last western country to fully recover from the recession), it is rather reasonable to assume one hating Britain would vote Labour.

You mentioned equality, justice and tolerance.

You won't get equality under Labour, you'll get positive discrimination.
You won't get justice under Labour, you shall have political correctness.
You will get tolerance under Labour, but it'll be pushed to such an extent that Britain will be a soft touch.

The Labour Party are led by Ed Miliband; according to YouGov, over 50% of the country's population think that Ed Miliband is not a suitable Prime Minister. Quite right too, for he is an incompetent leader that will ruin Britain's recovery, along with Ed Balls.

A vote for Labour is a vote for sending Britain back into the abyss.

Is their party slogan still "Britain can do better than this"?

Well Britain can do better than that lot.

The mud slinging comment was a direct response to your 'hating Britain' jibe. To put it extremely politely, the 'don't do this or you hate Britain' line of debate is not an intelligent argument, for reasons which should be extremely obvious.

What 'damage' would this be? The national debt, which was lower as a percentage of GDP in 2010 than it was in 1997 when Labour took power?

Please don't tell me that you are one of those people who think that Gordon Brown should be held personally responsible for the American sub-prime mortgage crisis? How familiar are you with the factors which precipitated the sinking of Lehamn Brothers, and the 2008 financial crash?

You've mentioned the slow economic recovery in Britain. I assume you are completely unaware of the near-universal praise Gordon Brown has received for his immediate handling of the crisis? His model for immediate stabilisation was much admired and copied. You need only look it up, should you wish to actually find out more.

Presumably though, you are aware that a Conservative led coalition Government has been in power for the past 4 years? I am a little confused as to how the consequences of the past 4 years of economic management are to be attributed to Labour.

The fact that Britain has struggled so badly over that period is a direct result of austerity politics. There are a wealth of economists (Nobel Prize winners Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, for example) who have repeatedly warned that austerity would strangle growth, and that, seemingly by your own admission, has proved to be the case.

As an admirer of Keynes, it should come as no surprise to hear that I opposed austerity on the basis that I beleive Government spending in times of crisis ought to be counter-cyclical. That is, investment to quickly stabilise, and boost, a sinking economy, followed by a gradual reduction in spending once that has been achieved and tax revenues have increased.

Of course, as a working British national, all this talk of GDP is abstract. It is true that after 5 years of recession Britain's economy is now finally growing. However, until those figures are turned in to genuine and tangible benefits for the general populous, they are meaningless to the average working Briton. Standards of living have not recovered and, in some cases, have continued to fall. This is not going to change any time soon.

In fact, it is something Labour know very well. It is for that exact reason that Miliband chose to focus on the 'cost of living crisis' so many months ago. Standards of living will not recover before 2015, and, with reference to recent Conservative policies, that is a trend I would expect to continue long after 2015 under a Conservative led Government.

I'm not interested in your comments about 'political correctness' and 'soft touch Britain'. They are beyond parody.

The British public don't think Miliband a potential future PM? I assume you are not aware that, it is extremely rare for an opposition leader to be considered more prime ministerial than the current incumbent, again, for reasons which should be extremely obvious. As Truss points out, the same thing was said about Thatcher. She won 3 elections.

Voting in Labour would send Britain 'back to the abyss?' That is no more than supposition. Entirely baseless supposition as well, from what I can tell, keeping in mind Labour's domestic record between 1997 and 2010 (millions of children lifted out of poverty, introduction of minimum wage, turning the deficit they inherited from the Conservatives in 1997 in to a budget surplus by 2002, etc).

No ruling party is perfect, and Labour made mistakes in power. However, their record compares very favourably with what we currently have.

Duty281 wrote:

skyeman wrote:It was beyond belief last week when anti-UKIP protesters were shouting racist abuse at black and Asian candidates.

You could not make it up.

At least the Guardianistas have mostly stopped that rubbish after eventually realising it was not helping their cause and with seemingly not knowing it, being hypocritical in their very own beliefs

Would that be the fascist group called "Unite against Facism" and the "Hope not Hate" lot?

That's the fascist left for you - using violence and intimidation to try and force their will onto people who do not want it...like Scargill's merry men all over again.

Your comments are so boring, all you ever do is try to use scare mongering tactics and lies to try and justify why you vote UKIP.

Gentleman01 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I'm employed now, Truss, ta for the concern.

And I'm voting UKIP with two or three concerns.

The Labour Party? Well..if you hate Britain, make sure you vote for them.

I vote Labour. I don't hate Britain.

What was that about sensible debate and no mud slinging?

That isn't mud-slinging, my dear fellow.

If you wish to see some mud-slinging, you should probably take a look at Labour's European Party Election Broadcast.

And secondly, considering the damage that the Labour Party did to Britain during their thirteen years (is that why the number is unlucky?) in power, of which we are still recovering from (Britain was the last western country to fully recover from the recession), it is rather reasonable to assume one hating Britain would vote Labour.

You mentioned equality, justice and tolerance.

You won't get equality under Labour, you'll get positive discrimination.
You won't get justice under Labour, you shall have political correctness.
You will get tolerance under Labour, but it'll be pushed to such an extent that Britain will be a soft touch.

The Labour Party are led by Ed Miliband; according to YouGov, over 50% of the country's population think that Ed Miliband is not a suitable Prime Minister. Quite right too, for he is an incompetent leader that will ruin Britain's recovery, along with Ed Balls.

A vote for Labour is a vote for sending Britain back into the abyss.

Is their party slogan still "Britain can do better than this"?

Well Britain can do better than that lot.

The mud slinging comment was a direct response to your 'hating Britain' jibe. To put it extremely politely, the 'don't do this or you hate Britain' line of debate is not an intelligent argument, for reasons which should be extremely obvious.

What 'damage' would this be? The national debt, which was lower as a percentage of GDP in 2010 than it was in 1997 when Labour took power?

Please don't tell me that you are one of those people who think that Gordon Brown should be held personally responsible for the American sub-prime mortgage crisis? How familiar are you with the factors which precipitated the sinking of Lehamn Brothers, and the 2008 financial crash?

You've mentioned the slow economic recovery in Britain. I assume you are completely unaware of the near-universal praise Gordon Brown has received for his immediate handling of the crisis? His model for immediate stabilisation was much admired and copied. You need only look it up, should you wish to actually find out more.

Presumably though, you are aware that a Conservative led coalition Government has been in power for the past 4 years? I am a little confused as to how the consequences of the past 4 years of economic management are to be attributed to Labour.

The fact that Britain has struggled so badly over that period is a direct result of austerity politics. There are a wealth of economists (Nobel Prize winners Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, for example) who have repeatedly warned that austerity would strangle growth, and that, seemingly by your own admission, has proved to be the case.

As an admirer of Keynes, it should come as no surprise to hear that I opposed austerity on the basis that I beleive Government spending in times of crisis ought to be counter-cyclical. That is, investment to quickly stabilise, and boost, a sinking economy, followed by a gradual reduction in spending once that has been achieved and tax revenues have increased.

Of course, as a working British national, all this talk of GDP is abstract. It is true that after 5 years of recession Britain's economy is now finally growing. However, until those figures are turned in to genuine and tangible benefits for the general populous, they are meaningless to the average working Briton. Standards of living have not recovered and, in some cases, have continued to fall. This is not going to change any time soon.

In fact, it is something Labour know very well. It is for that exact reason that Miliband chose to focus on the 'cost of living crisis' so many months ago. Standards of living will not recover before 2015, and, with reference to recent Conservative policies, that is a trend I would expect to continue long after 2015 under a Conservative led Government.

I'm not interested in your comments about 'political correctness' and 'soft touch Britain'. They are beyond parody.

The British public don't think Miliband a potential future PM? I assume you are not aware that, it is extremely rare for an opposition leader to be considered more prime ministerial than the current incumbent, again, for reasons which should be extremely obvious. As Truss points out, the same thing was said about Thatcher. She won 3 elections.

Voting in Labour would send Britain 'back to the abyss?' That is no more than supposition. Entirely baseless supposition as well, from what I can tell, keeping in mind Labour's domestic record between 1997 and 2010 (millions of children lifted out of poverty, introduction of minimum wage, turning the deficit they inherited from the Conservatives in 1997 in to a budget surplus by 2002, etc).

No ruling party is perfect, and Labour made mistakes in power. However, their record compares very favourably with what we currently have.

Well said.

We all know what Duty is about. It wasnt that long ago he was saying that unless you were white with no foreign blood in your family history then you werent British!

Gentleman01 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I'm employed now, Truss, ta for the concern.

And I'm voting UKIP with two or three concerns.

The Labour Party? Well..if you hate Britain, make sure you vote for them.

I vote Labour. I don't hate Britain.

What was that about sensible debate and no mud slinging?

That isn't mud-slinging, my dear fellow.

If you wish to see some mud-slinging, you should probably take a look at Labour's European Party Election Broadcast.

And secondly, considering the damage that the Labour Party did to Britain during their thirteen years (is that why the number is unlucky?) in power, of which we are still recovering from (Britain was the last western country to fully recover from the recession), it is rather reasonable to assume one hating Britain would vote Labour.

You mentioned equality, justice and tolerance.

You won't get equality under Labour, you'll get positive discrimination.
You won't get justice under Labour, you shall have political correctness.
You will get tolerance under Labour, but it'll be pushed to such an extent that Britain will be a soft touch.

The Labour Party are led by Ed Miliband; according to YouGov, over 50% of the country's population think that Ed Miliband is not a suitable Prime Minister. Quite right too, for he is an incompetent leader that will ruin Britain's recovery, along with Ed Balls.

A vote for Labour is a vote for sending Britain back into the abyss.

Is their party slogan still "Britain can do better than this"?

Well Britain can do better than that lot.

The mud slinging comment was a direct response to your 'hating Britain' jibe. To put it extremely politely, the 'don't do this or you hate Britain' line of debate is not an intelligent argument, for reasons which should be extremely obvious.

What 'damage' would this be? The national debt, which was lower as a percentage of GDP in 2010 than it was in 1997 when Labour took power?

Please don't tell me that you are one of those people who think that Gordon Brown should be held personally responsible for the American sub-prime mortgage crisis? How familiar are you with the factors which precipitated the sinking of Lehamn Brothers, and the 2008 financial crash?

You've mentioned the slow economic recovery in Britain. I assume you are completely unaware of the near-universal praise Gordon Brown has received for his immediate handling of the crisis? His model for immediate stabilisation was much admired and copied. You need only look it up, should you wish to actually find out more.

Presumably though, you are aware that a Conservative led coalition Government has been in power for the past 4 years? I am a little confused as to how the consequences of the past 4 years of economic management are to be attributed to Labour.

The fact that Britain has struggled so badly over that period is a direct result of austerity politics. There are a wealth of economists (Nobel Prize winners Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, for example) who have repeatedly warned that austerity would strangle growth, and that, seemingly by your own admission, has proved to be the case.

As an admirer of Keynes, it should come as no surprise to hear that I opposed austerity on the basis that I beleive Government spending in times of crisis ought to be counter-cyclical. That is, investment to quickly stabilise, and boost, a sinking economy, followed by a gradual reduction in spending once that has been achieved and tax revenues have increased.

Of course, as a working British national, all this talk of GDP is abstract. It is true that after 5 years of recession Britain's economy is now finally growing. However, until those figures are turned in to genuine and tangible benefits for the general populous, they are meaningless to the average working Briton. Standards of living have not recovered and, in some cases, have continued to fall. This is not going to change any time soon.

In fact, it is something Labour know very well. It is for that exact reason that Miliband chose to focus on the 'cost of living crisis' so many months ago. Standards of living will not recover before 2015, and, with reference to recent Conservative policies, that is a trend I would expect to continue long after 2015 under a Conservative led Government.

I'm not interested in your comments about 'political correctness' and 'soft touch Britain'. They are beyond parody.

The British public don't think Miliband a potential future PM? I assume you are not aware that, it is extremely rare for an opposition leader to be considered more prime ministerial than the current incumbent, again, for reasons which should be extremely obvious. As Truss points out, the same thing was said about Thatcher. She won 3 elections.

Voting in Labour would send Britain 'back to the abyss?' That is no more than supposition. Entirely baseless supposition as well, from what I can tell, keeping in mind Labour's domestic record between 1997 and 2010 (millions of children lifted out of poverty, introduction of minimum wage, turning the deficit they inherited from the Conservatives in 1997 in to a budget surplus by 2002, etc).

No ruling party is perfect, and Labour made mistakes in power. However, their record compares very favourably with what we currently have.

What damage would this be? How long do you have?

1) Doubled the national debt.
2) Drove the country to the verge of bankruptcy.
3) Put the United Kingdom into an illegal war which it should have had no part in.
4) Dumbed down the education system, grade inflation, 50% should go to University etc.
5) Entrenched us further in the European Union.
6) Stretched the welfare state to such an extent that it is a way of life for some.

Presently, with a Coalition govenment in power, Britain's economy isn't just growing, it is expanding at the fastest rate of anywhere in the western world - even keeping pace with the United States of America.

Standards of living are starting to pick up, as is pay in real terms, hence why the Conservatives have nosed ahead of Labour in two polls today for the 2015 General Election by two percentage points - a lead that will steadily increase in the year leading up to the General Election.

Yes, voting for Labour would send Britain back into the abyss, in my opinion, and I wouldn't see it as entirely baseless. The Shadow Chancellor is clueless, but not as clueless as Miliband who hops from one central policy to another with reckless abandon: freezing energy prices (which he admitted shortly after he can't do), removing fixed odds betting machines (which he's shut up about since he realised it was his party that implemented them in the first place), being a champion of the middle class, the cost of living crisis, and, today, restoring the rights of patients to see their GP within forty-eight hours (even though waiting-times are up with the NHS in Wales).

I wouldn't deny that the Labour party did some good during their thirteen years in office, that would be foolish, but they also were responsible for a lot of damage - damage that Britain is still recovering from.

A vote for Labour is a vote to harm Britain's recovery.

Balrog wrote:We all know what Duty is about. It wasnt that long ago he was saying that unless you were white with no foreign blood in your family history then you werent British!

I never said that, and certainly don't believe that, but feel free to make it up.

Why do you need to justify why you'll vote UKIP?

Are you stating the unite against fascism and hope not hate haven't been guilty of what Duty says???

Did you not realise that the reason political debate was stopped last time was because instead of debating everybody started slinging insults at each other.

You don't have to agree with someone but instead of saying your stupid if you don't agree with me, state why you don't agree or point out where someone else is wrong. You never know by being polite and informative you may just get someone else to agree with what your writing about .

Derbymanc wrote:Why do you need to justify why you'll vote UKIP?

Are you stating the unite against fascism and hope not hate haven't been guilty of what Duty says???

Did you not realise that the reason political debate was stopped last time was because instead of debating everybody started slinging insults at each other.

You don't have to agree with someone but instead of saying your stupid if you don't agree with me, state why you don't agree or point out where someone else is wrong. You never know by being polite and informative you may just get someone else to agree with what your writing about .

Wonder if the moderators will do anything?

Duty281 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I'm employed now, Truss, ta for the concern.

And I'm voting UKIP with two or three concerns.

The Labour Party? Well..if you hate Britain, make sure you vote for them.

I vote Labour. I don't hate Britain.

What was that about sensible debate and no mud slinging?

That isn't mud-slinging, my dear fellow.

If you wish to see some mud-slinging, you should probably take a look at Labour's European Party Election Broadcast.

And secondly, considering the damage that the Labour Party did to Britain during their thirteen years (is that why the number is unlucky?) in power, of which we are still recovering from (Britain was the last western country to fully recover from the recession), it is rather reasonable to assume one hating Britain would vote Labour.

You mentioned equality, justice and tolerance.

You won't get equality under Labour, you'll get positive discrimination.
You won't get justice under Labour, you shall have political correctness.
You will get tolerance under Labour, but it'll be pushed to such an extent that Britain will be a soft touch.

The Labour Party are led by Ed Miliband; according to YouGov, over 50% of the country's population think that Ed Miliband is not a suitable Prime Minister. Quite right too, for he is an incompetent leader that will ruin Britain's recovery, along with Ed Balls.

A vote for Labour is a vote for sending Britain back into the abyss.

Is their party slogan still "Britain can do better than this"?

Well Britain can do better than that lot.

The mud slinging comment was a direct response to your 'hating Britain' jibe. To put it extremely politely, the 'don't do this or you hate Britain' line of debate is not an intelligent argument, for reasons which should be extremely obvious.

What 'damage' would this be? The national debt, which was lower as a percentage of GDP in 2010 than it was in 1997 when Labour took power?

Please don't tell me that you are one of those people who think that Gordon Brown should be held personally responsible for the American sub-prime mortgage crisis? How familiar are you with the factors which precipitated the sinking of Lehamn Brothers, and the 2008 financial crash?

You've mentioned the slow economic recovery in Britain. I assume you are completely unaware of the near-universal praise Gordon Brown has received for his immediate handling of the crisis? His model for immediate stabilisation was much admired and copied. You need only look it up, should you wish to actually find out more.

Presumably though, you are aware that a Conservative led coalition Government has been in power for the past 4 years? I am a little confused as to how the consequences of the past 4 years of economic management are to be attributed to Labour.

The fact that Britain has struggled so badly over that period is a direct result of austerity politics. There are a wealth of economists (Nobel Prize winners Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, for example) who have repeatedly warned that austerity would strangle growth, and that, seemingly by your own admission, has proved to be the case.

As an admirer of Keynes, it should come as no surprise to hear that I opposed austerity on the basis that I beleive Government spending in times of crisis ought to be counter-cyclical. That is, investment to quickly stabilise, and boost, a sinking economy, followed by a gradual reduction in spending once that has been achieved and tax revenues have increased.

Of course, as a working British national, all this talk of GDP is abstract. It is true that after 5 years of recession Britain's economy is now finally growing. However, until those figures are turned in to genuine and tangible benefits for the general populous, they are meaningless to the average working Briton. Standards of living have not recovered and, in some cases, have continued to fall. This is not going to change any time soon.

In fact, it is something Labour know very well. It is for that exact reason that Miliband chose to focus on the 'cost of living crisis' so many months ago. Standards of living will not recover before 2015, and, with reference to recent Conservative policies, that is a trend I would expect to continue long after 2015 under a Conservative led Government.

I'm not interested in your comments about 'political correctness' and 'soft touch Britain'. They are beyond parody.

The British public don't think Miliband a potential future PM? I assume you are not aware that, it is extremely rare for an opposition leader to be considered more prime ministerial than the current incumbent, again, for reasons which should be extremely obvious. As Truss points out, the same thing was said about Thatcher. She won 3 elections.

Voting in Labour would send Britain 'back to the abyss?' That is no more than supposition. Entirely baseless supposition as well, from what I can tell, keeping in mind Labour's domestic record between 1997 and 2010 (millions of children lifted out of poverty, introduction of minimum wage, turning the deficit they inherited from the Conservatives in 1997 in to a budget surplus by 2002, etc).

No ruling party is perfect, and Labour made mistakes in power. However, their record compares very favourably with what we currently have.

What damage would this be? How long do you have?

1) Doubled the national debt.
2) Drove the country to the verge of bankruptcy.
3) Put the United Kingdom into an illegal war which it should have had no part in.
4) Dumbed down the education system, grade inflation, 50% should go to University etc.
5) Entrenched us further in the European Union.
6) Stretched the welfare state to such an extent that it is a way of life for some.

3) As a percentage more conservatives voted to go to the war than Labour Mps.........
4) how is sending more people to get an education dumbing down the education system? Removing the barriers that were in place and stopping education from being an elitist option only is not dumbing it down, it is opening it up so it is accessible to everyone, rich or poor. Either way it never worked for you as you decided to sign on after school.
5) How is that a bad thing? I agree with the majority of EU laws
6) you were a recipient of the welfare state for a number of months so if it wasn't for the welfare state you would be homeless and starving. Either way all Labour did to welfare was to increase the amount of welfare people can get who are in employment because their wages are so low.

Duty281 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Why do you need to justify why you'll vote UKIP?

Are you stating the unite against fascism and hope not hate haven't been guilty of what Duty says???

Did you not realise that the reason political debate was stopped last time was because instead of debating everybody started slinging insults at each other.

You don't have to agree with someone but instead of saying your stupid if you don't agree with me, state why you don't agree or point out where someone else is wrong. You never know by being polite and informative you may just get someone else to agree with what your writing about .

Wonder if the moderators will do anything?

Will happily delete the thread.

Rowley wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Why do you need to justify why you'll vote UKIP?

Are you stating the unite against fascism and hope not hate haven't been guilty of what Duty says???

Did you not realise that the reason political debate was stopped last time was because instead of debating everybody started slinging insults at each other.

You don't have to agree with someone but instead of saying your stupid if you don't agree with me, state why you don't agree or point out where someone else is wrong. You never know by being polite and informative you may just get someone else to agree with what your writing about .

Wonder if the moderators will do anything?

Will happily delete the thread.

There's only one person on here trying to spoil the debate for others, Rowley.

Duty281 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Why do you need to justify why you'll vote UKIP?

Are you stating the unite against fascism and hope not hate haven't been guilty of what Duty says???

Did you not realise that the reason political debate was stopped last time was because instead of debating everybody started slinging insults at each other.

You don't have to agree with someone but instead of saying your stupid if you don't agree with me, state why you don't agree or point out where someone else is wrong. You never know by being polite and informative you may just get someone else to agree with what your writing about .

Wonder if the moderators will do anything?

Will happily delete the thread.

There's only one person on here trying to spoil the debate for others, Rowley.

To be honest your comment that 'only people who hate Britain vote for labour' was the catalyst for this thread turning into bickering and insults.

But anyway lets all debate like grown ups so that the thread remains open.

Let's just leave it....Duty has a right to his opinion..

He's certainly had plenty of rebuttal....

Btw...The Tories are leading in two polls...For the first time in 2 years..

Miliband needs to up his game.....

And George Osborne, horror of horrors, has got a positive approval rating now.

@C.S

Opening the doors for more people in the education system looks like it has watered it all down quite a bit. University's should be taking the cream of the crop and those with the best results should be getting places in front of others regardless of where they come from, social status etc.

If my kids choose to go to uni I hope they get in purely on their academics skills and not because the uni has to fill a quota of people from 'bad' areas etc.

The welfare state is in a bit of a mess, but not as much as the cons would have us believe. It is understandable why people get so irate though, especially if you happen to live in a less affluent area and work your nut off to see other people around you getting a lot more for doing nothing (<- said from experience)

Derbymanc wrote:@C.S

Opening the doors for more people in the education system looks like it has watered it all down quite a bit. University's should be taking the cream of the crop and those with the best results should be getting places in front of others regardless of where they come from, social status etc.

If my kids choose to go to uni I hope they get in purely on their academics skills and not because the uni has to fill a quota of people from 'bad' areas etc.

The welfare state is in a bit of a mess, but not as much as the cons would have us believe. It is understandable why people get so irate though, especially if you happen to live in a less affluent area and work your nut off to see other people around you getting a lot more for doing nothing (<- said from experience)

all labour did was increase funding so poor people could afford to go to uni, the increase in funding meant more demand and thus more universitys and courses opening. Your social status won't get you a 1st class degree, only hard work will.

Fair do's if that's all but my understanding was they were pushing for more people from 'diverse' backgrounds to be pushed through.

If not then my bad but it does seem like degree's aren't worth a lot these days (might have more to do with the economical climate than anything else though.)

Derbymanc wrote:Opening the doors for more people in the education system looks like it has watered it all down quite a bit. University's should be taking the cream of the crop and those with the best results should be getting places in front of others regardless of where they come from, social status etc.

Agreed. University used to be for the elite, then Labour pushed for an absurd 50% target which over-saturated the graduate market and led to some "mickey-mouse" degrees being formed (I believe you can get a BA in Football Studies, these days).

Duty281 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Opening the doors for more people in the education system looks like it has watered it all down quite a bit. University's should be taking the cream of the crop and those with the best results should be getting places in front of others regardless of where they come from, social status etc.

Agreed. University used to be for the elite, then Labour pushed for an absurd 50% target which over-saturated the graduate market and led to some "mickey-mouse" degrees being formed (I believe you can get a BA in Football Studies, these days).

You can send 100% of people to Uni but it still wont belittle the education system because only the smartest people will get the 1st class and 2:1 degrees (in most cases).


I would rather live in a more educated society where people have matured through studying than an uneducated society. There's a lot of benefits to living in a country where teengaers have spent 3 years studying for a degree.

Derbymanc wrote:Fair do's if that's all but my understanding was they were pushing for more people from 'diverse' backgrounds to be pushed through.

If not then my bad but it does seem like degree's aren't worth a lot these days (might have more to do with the economical climate than anything else though.)

Well a 1st class degree in law or medicine will be worth a massive amount. A 3rd class degree in American studies or film studies will most likely not be worth as much.

Degrees are overrated, I've got one and I'm as thick as pig s**t..

To be honest I've found in my working career that someone being well educated doesn't mean he has common sense or nous..

Degrees are over-rated.

To be honest I'm quite saddened by the choice of politicians in NI on the whole. As bad as GB politicians may seem, think you have better ones than ours, not that it would be hard.

Thankfully at Euro level there is a bit more choice, but at council level it is least worst for me.

Even from a Guardian poll  


EU referendum: poll shows 49% would vote for UK withdrawal and 40% to stay in.

Some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain's EU membership, Guardian/ICM poll shows.

There is a clear majority for staging a referendum in all social classes and regions of the UK. Men and women are similarly keen, although rather more Conservative (71%) than Labour voters (65%) are calling for a poll.

And this is why we have UKIP.

LibLabCon just don't listen. They know how the GBP would vote  What ever your party.

Milliband would win a massive majority in next years election if he 100% promised an EU referendum within six months, but that is as likely as Cameron or Clegg keeping their promises 

Even if Scotland get the YES vote this September.

Duty281 wrote:

skyeman wrote:It was beyond belief last week when anti-UKIP protesters were shouting racist abuse at black and Asian candidates.

You could not make it up.

At least the Guardianistas have mostly stopped that rubbish after eventually realising it was not helping their cause and with seemingly not knowing it, being hypocritical in their very own beliefs

Would that be the fascist group called "Unite against Facism" and the "Hope not Hate" lot?

That's the fascist left for you - using violence and intimidation to try and force their will onto people who do not want it...like Scargill's merry men all over again.

As has happened again with a UKIP MEP getting a brick through his window in the early hours; chalk that up as another pathetic attempt to intimidate a fairly-elected man with just another week and a day to go until the election.

Maybe his neighbors don't like him.

What a depressing state of affairs.

You know things are f*cked when the most credible opposition party to an incompetent government who've used a combination of artificially low interest rates, zero hr contracts and welfare cuts a long with creating a tax haven for the rich to convince the country we are in a sustainable recovery, are a bunch of racist neo- Nazi quacks dressed in sheep's clothing.

Not sure who I'll vote for but thank god for the EU - the less powers the reality jugglers at west minister have the better.

rodders wrote:What a depressing state of affairs.

You know things are f*cked when the most credible opposition party to an incompetent government who've used a combination of artificially low interest rates, zero hr contracts and welfare cuts a long with creating a tax haven for the rich to convince the country we are in a sustainable recovery, are a bunch of racist neo- Nazi quacks dressed in sheep's clothing.

Not sure who I'll vote for but thank god for the EU - the less powers the reality jugglers at west minister have the better.

Probably explains the non-white candidates UKIP have.   

rodders wrote:What a depressing state of affairs.

You know things are f*cked when the most credible opposition party to an incompetent government who've used a combination of artificially low interest rates, zero hr contracts and welfare cuts a long with creating a tax haven for the rich to convince the country we are in a sustainable recovery, are a bunch of racist neo- Nazi quacks dressed in sheep's clothing.

Not sure who I'll vote for but thank god for the EU - the less powers the reality jugglers at west minister have the better.

So, are the 70% of the GBP electorate whom are from ALL parties and want the option of a referendum. "A bunch of racist neo- Nazi quacks dressed in sheep's clothing." ?

Someone had better quickly tell Steven Woolfe, Amjad Bashir, Sarinder Joshua Duroch, Pauline McQueen, and Winston McKenzie that they're all members of a neo-nazi party.

And Nigel Farage had better work on his neo-nazi stance - saying that racists aren't needed or wanted at his party isn't the best way for a neo-nazi party to operate.

Or maybe, just maybe, UKIP aren't racist neo-nazis?

skyeman wrote:
So, are the 70% of the GBP electorate whom are from ALL parties and want the option of a referendum. "A bunch of racist neo- Nazi quacks dressed in sheep's clothing." ?

Not all of them no. Some people have genuine reasons for wanting a referendum. For example if I was involved in investment banking I might feel a banking union wasn't in my interests.

Others though are just brainwashed into believing that the cause of their woes are the polish or Romanians across the road, in much the way many people in 1930s Germany felt the Jews were the cause of theirs.

Duty281 wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, UKIP aren't racist neo-nazis?

Or maybe, just maybe it wouldn't quite be in the best interests for a party which aspires to break into mainstream politics to publically admit that they probably are?

Duty281 wrote:Someone had better quickly tell Steven Woolfe, Amjad Bashir, Sarinder Joshua Duroch, Pauline McQueen, and Winston McKenzie that they're all members of a neo-nazi party.

And Nigel Farage had better work on his neo-nazi stance - saying that racists aren't needed or wanted at his party isn't the best way for a neo-nazi party to operate.

Or maybe, just maybe, UKIP aren't racist neo-nazis?

It is this type of branding of a protest party (which the Guardianistas have been doing for weeks, until recently} that have garnered even more support for UKIP. And from ALL parties. It is utterly futile. Just, the liberal types have cottoned on now, even some of their own are switching to UKIP.

UKIP and Farage have better captured the mood of discontent of those outside of the Westminster bubble than Calamity clegg or Red Ed.

Its no surprise they are doing so well and I expect them to form the next coalition government the way things are going.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck though...

Who believes the cause of our woes are "the polish or the romanians across the road", purely out of interest?

And why would a neo-nazi party, as you say they are, ban any previous or current members of the BNP/National Front/Britain First from joining UKIP? Would seem a bit strange. Almost as strange as Farage saying he's part of multicultural Britain, and that racists aren't welcomed in his party, or letting non-white people join his party, and giving them a platform to speak.

And the controlled immigration policy that UKIP wish to adopt, based on points like in Australia or Canada, where Farage, in his own words, says he wishes to welcome "the most able and public spirited people from all around the world", seems rather strange for a racist party.

Is there a shred of evidence for UKIP being a neo-nazi party?

skyeman wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Someone had better quickly tell Steven Woolfe, Amjad Bashir, Sarinder Joshua Duroch, Pauline McQueen, and Winston McKenzie that they're all members of a neo-nazi party.

And Nigel Farage had better work on his neo-nazi stance - saying that racists aren't needed or wanted at his party isn't the best way for a neo-nazi party to operate.

Or maybe, just maybe, UKIP aren't racist neo-nazis?

It is this type of branding of a protest party (which the Guardianistas have been doing for weeks, until recently} that have garnered even more support for UKIP. And from ALL parties. It is utterly futile. Just, the liberal types have cottoned on now, even some of their own are switching to UKIP.

Agreed. It's lazy and pathetic. If it wasn't so slanderous, it would be amusing.

Other than their election posters depicting eu immigrants taking jobs or one of their own quitting and calling them racists?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2627408/The-party-deliberately-attracts-racist-vote-Ukip-poster-girl-tipped-Farage-rising-star-quits-terrifying-lurch-right.html

rodders wrote:UKIP and Farage have better captured the mood of discontent of those outside of the Westminster bubble than Calamity clegg or Red Ed.

Its no surprise they are doing so well and I expect them to form the next coalition government the way things are going.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck though...

But that is the mistake, you have the ducks in all parties.

Give the referendum, and UKIP will disappear. The GE will be different, i won't be voting UKIP then, like most i suspect. Unless LibLabCon are still not listening.

rodders wrote:Other than their election posters depicting eu immigrants taking jobs or one of their own quitting and calling them racists?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2627408/The-party-deliberately-attracts-racist-vote-Ukip-poster-girl-tipped-Farage-rising-star-quits-terrifying-lurch-right.html

That poster isn't racist, and you wish for me to take the opinion of that girl seriously?

A girl who says UKIP are anti-immigration, when they're not (controlled immigration is openly supported by Farage), and then says that UKIP are trying to attract the racist vote - despite the fact that, as I've already mentioned, BNP/National Front/Britain First members past and present are banned from joining UKIP, which doesn't seem to me to be the best way to "attract the racist vote", as it were.

And why should there be a referendum? Does the country have a referendum on everything else?

Let the parties lay down their position on whether we stay or leave Europe and then the people can decide in a general election what the future is.

A referendum is a lame time buying gimic by a spineless pro eu leader of a eurosceptic party.

Its just about avoiding tighter regulation on Britain's banks by Brussels....but of course it was the absence of regulation which led to the financial crash, but then that was on Gordon Browns watch.... everyone loves a scapegoat...

Duty281 wrote:

rodders wrote:Other than their election posters depicting eu immigrants taking jobs or one of their own quitting and calling them racists?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2627408/The-party-deliberately-attracts-racist-vote-Ukip-poster-girl-tipped-Farage-rising-star-quits-terrifying-lurch-right.html

That poster isn't racist, and you wish for me to take the opinion of that girl seriously?

I don't want you to do anything - you have a democratic right to support who you want but if you think UKIP are anything but racists/facists in suits you are deluding yourself.

rodders wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

rodders wrote:Other than their election posters depicting eu immigrants taking jobs or one of their own quitting and calling them racists?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2627408/The-party-deliberately-attracts-racist-vote-Ukip-poster-girl-tipped-Farage-rising-star-quits-terrifying-lurch-right.html

That poster isn't racist, and you wish for me to take the opinion of that girl seriously?

I don't want you to do anything - you have a democratic right to support who you want but if you think UKIP are anything but racists/facists in suits you are deluding yourself.

I've given you plenty of evidence for why UKIP aren't racist, you've given me one Daily Mail link in return.

Hmmm...I think I know which side is stronger.

rodders wrote:And why should there be a referendum? Does the country have a referendum on everything else?

Let the parties lay down their position on whether we stay or leave Europe and then the people can decide in a general election what the future is.

A referendum is a lame time buying gimic by a spineless pro eu leader of a eurosceptic party.

Its just about avoiding tighter regulation on Britain's banks by Brussels....but of course it was the absence of regulation which led to the financial crash, but then that was on Gordon Browns watch.... everyone loves a scapegoat...

Because the high % of the GBP are demanding it, why do you think the three/maybe two big parties are panicing?


"A referendum is a lame time buying gimic by a spineless pro eu leader of a eurosceptic party." WHAT!