[Closed] Meet the UKIPers

So it showed that UKIP ers were racist , out of touch and unrepentant

WHo knew?

[img] [/img]
More sense here

Absolutely terrifying that people are considering voting for these people in such numbers.

I've said it God knows how many times before, but is there any more damning indictment of the main political parties that people are looking to that as an alternative?

Them and the Green Party Binners. Very scary stuff. Lunatic fringe.

I think its an equally damning indictment of the electorate as well Binners

I watched, open mouthed, agog before shouting 'JUST STOP TALKING' at the tv. Her justification being that if it was ok because it was a description, just like the Jews with shape of their nosJUST STOP TALKING!

I think its an equally damning indictment of the electorate as well Binners

geetee1972 - Member
Them and the Green Party Binners. Very scary stuff. Lunatic fringe.

Okay, I'll bite, what's lunatic and scary about the Greens?

Have you seen the greens defence policy ?

geetee1972 - Member
Them and the Green Party Binners. Very scary stuff. Lunatic fringe.
Okay, I'll bite, what's lunatic and scary about the Greens?

They don't want you to drive your car, which even on a cycling forum, is s s scaaaary !

Ha, just watched it, the Press Secretary arranged for the BBC to film an outspoken racist..

Then resigns.

I wonder if she's secretly the labour party Press Officer..

In a way though the sheer naivety comes through, i don't think it'll do UKIP any harm, lots of folk don't like having to guard every word they utter for fear of being branded this and that and every time this happens all it does is garner more support for UKIP from that quarter and there is lots of it down here in the South East.

Bit more of an honest programme than that first 100 days of UKIP though and it totally shows Farage for what he is these days, he's a 'sleb,' proper in love with himself with an ego a mile wide now, if it wasn't so pathetic it would be scary.

parkesie - Member
Have you seen the greens defence policy ?

Yep, which part do you have a problem with?

[url= http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html ]Actual policy[/url]

Okay, I'll bite, what's lunatic and scary about the Greens?

fruitcakes, loonies and closet communists 😉

As with UKIP! the Greens problem is the number of sheer nutters drawn to the cause, which is why for every example of a 'kipper going off reservation and saying something stupid and/or racist, there's a Green Party wonk telling us how electromagnetism is dangerous, homeopathy cures cancer/backache/Ebola, or egging people on to destroy GM science experiments.

Lifer - Member
parkesie - Member
Have you seen the greens defence policy ?
Yep, which part do you have a problem with?

Er this bit will do for starters..

PD205 Nuclear weapons are political weapons of terror, and are disproportionate to any threat. Further, since there is a finite possibility that the policy of nuclear deterrence will fail, and the ecological and social consequences of such a failure would be catastrophic, the deterrence system must be abandoned. The Green Party is committed to pursuing immediate and unconditional nuclear disarmament.

The Green Party is committed to pursuing immediate and unconditional nuclear disarmament.

Come on Derek, it worked well for Ukraine...

[i]Er this bit will do for starters..

PD205 Nuclear weapons are political weapons of terror, and are disproportionate to any threat. Further, since there is a finite possibility that the policy of nuclear deterrence will fail, and the ecological and social consequences of such a failure would be catastrophic, the deterrence system must be abandoned. The Green Party is committed to pursuing immediate and unconditional nuclear disarmament.[/i]

Fair point, we should be voting for parties that want to continue to hold a threat of nuclear war over our heads to keep us subdued.

Just out of interest, why would anyone sane want to vote for a party than continues to support nuclear arms? Given that a nuclear war would see us all dead.

How about increasing the size of the T.A. We'll ignore that its not been called the T.A for years and take a look at how well the current drive to increase the size of the T.A is going. 🙂
Get rid of all that expensive stuff like ships and planes and if the need arises we'll just magic it all out of thin air as weve re purposed the industry that makes it and made it illegal to buy.
Do away with expensive training exercises and have volunteers play hide and seek in nature reserves.

Just out of interest, why would anyone sane want to vote for a party than continues to support nuclear arms? Given that a nuclear war would see us all dead.

Surely if we [i]unilaterally[/i] disarmed as the Green Party propose, then nuclear war would still see [u]us[/u] all dead?

The only difference being there would be no risk to the enemy of [u]them[/u] all being made dead in retaliation? In which case, what's to stop them doing it?

That's not what they propose though.

Yes they do

[i]PD402 In the absence of effective international agreements on the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminate action, [b]a Green Government would unilaterally dismantle and dispose of its stocks[/b], while continuing to campaign for others to follow suit.[/i]

Not only no more nuclear deterrent which is a great idea that on some levels i agree with they will stop all research into intercepting icbms as a defence as its expensive and would provoke a arms race.

They actually propose that a green government (which won't happen any time soon due to the wealth of self-absorbed, money-orientated voters in the uk), that they would remove all stocks (that will take longer than a government term of four years by the way) of nuclear arms whilst simultaneously encouraging other nations to destroy theirs. There is no benefit to starting a nuclear war to anyway, the fallout spreads around the world. Even if only one unarmed nation is targeted, the fallout spreads. Everyone suffers.

If you think nuclear arms posturing is done without politicians thinking about he consequences to themselves then vote UKIP. If you think they're actually smart enough to consider how it will impact them then think a bit longer and choose a party that will help rid the world of nuclear arms.

if we all beat our chests and show how hard we hard, the problem will never go away. Ever. It's nuts to consider any option where we carry on waving our fists at each other with munitions we'll (hopefully) never use.

The reason I love this forum... a thread about clear nutjobs, UKIP, has within a handful of posts dissolved into the moral obligation of Nuclear disarmament as viewed by a political party on the polar opposite side to UKIP.

By way of adding to the debate, having been an immigrant of the UK I despise their close mindedness. Their talk of jobs is redundant because how many of them would be willing to work minimum wage cleaning toilets in McDonalds at 4am? Anyway, I'm Irish... so as far as they're concerned all I'm good for is building railroads and canals. As for the Greens... I'd consider myself ideologically Labour/Green... but I've yet to see a Labour party (Either Irish or English) I agree fully with and the same goes for the Greens.

I'm honestly astounded that any adult would consider a continued investment in nuclear arms a viable proposition. How many good ways can that end?

How many good ways can one of the big guns pulling out end? Anything other than saying 'end this now' is the wrong thing to do, surely?

Them and the Green Party Binners. Very scary stuff. Lunatic fringe.

Have you seen the greens defence policy ?

The Green Party is committed to pursuing immediate and unconditional nuclear disarmament.

Because the alternative, spending £100 billion on weapons which everyone agrees cannot and will never be used, to replace weapons which were never used, is absolutely sensible and perfectly sane?

The overwhelming majority of countries in the world have no nuclear weapons, presumably this means that they are governed by lunatics?

Hopefully sanity will on day prevail and eventually every country in the world will have nuclear weapons, yes?

Its a wonderful idea ill put my gun down because i believe that you will as well, what do you mean get in the boot or you'l shoot me your supposed to play nice, ok ok ill get in the boot just dont hurt any kittens.

Hopefully sanity will on day prevail and eventually every country in the world will have nuclear weapons, yes?

Basically it's a we will give up ours and ask really nicely that everyone else does. Probably over a cup of organic, GM free, biodynamic nettle tea.

(Edited far too long a post for brevity.)

Because the alternative, spending £100 billion on weapons which everyone agrees cannot and will never be used, to replace weapons which were never used, is absolutely sensible and perfectly sane?

My car and house insurance costs loads, never had to use it, I reckon I'll cancel it next year and save the money.

I don't think anyone has ever bought life insurance thinking 'I hope I get to use this' either

You think you can uninvent them?

First major war and the race would be back on to develop them, the Manhattan project all over again

They can't be uninvented, but we can choose not to make them. We choose not to make chemical or biological weapons, because they are horrendous and evil, nuclear weapons are the same.

Or because we know that unlike Nukes, we can ramp up production in a matter of days using existing commercial facilities if we ever really needed to 😉

Atleast the greens have policies that are born out of something nice even if i dont agree with them. Ukip on the other hand seem to just have one policy and thats to be a bunch of pricks and when one gets pulled up for being a colossal bellend the will disown them.

Basically it's a we will give up ours and ask really nicely that everyone else does. Probably over a cup of organic, GM free, biodynamic nettle tea.

Ha ha ha, that's funny because you mentioned "a cup of organic, GM free, biodynamic nettle tea". And everyone knows that you win an argument against the Green Party when you mention funny stuff like that.

Although for added hilarity you should have also mentioned something about yogurt and muesli 💡

BTW nuclear weapon disarmament is a requirement and obligation for Britain under the Non-Proliferation Treaty which it freely signed. And developing new nuclear weapons is in complete violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which Britain freely signed.

Although presumably only "lunatics" comply with and respect international treaties which they have freely signed, eh?

Glad you found the joke funny ernie, I going to go with sandal wearing diplomats but couldn't quite get both in there. The rest of the post was the serious part which was about how the chance of a unique green policy making it into a government plan is somewhere close to a snowballs chance in hell. The thing that is more scary than owning a nuclear deterrent is that somebody may have to do a deal with UKIP and some of their policies will actually make it.

The worst bit about all of this is how a discussion on UKIP is so easily derailed onto a discussion about the Greens. Classic diversion smoke and mirrors.

The worst bit about all of this is how a discussion on UKIP is so easily derailed onto a discussion about the Greens.

There have been a lot of threads on here about UKIP, I can't say I recall any previous discussions about UKIP ending up talking about the Green Party. What do you mean discussions about UKIP easily end up as a discussion about the Green Party? Can you explain?

And why the reference to [i]"smoke and mirrors"[/i]? The term as I understand it means to create an illusion, how is that relevant in the context of this thread?

Im glad were talking about the greens and not ukip. People having a relevant political discussion without shouting racist. And anything that takes the spotlight away from ukip is a good thing in my eyes.

And why the reference to "smoke and mirrors"? The term as I understand it means to create an illusion, how is that relevant in the context of this thread?

The source of the name is based on magicians' illusions, where magicians make objects appear or disappear by extending or retracting mirrors amid a distracting burst of smoke.

Probably a poor choice of words, more alluding to the idea that UKIP avoid scrutiny of their policies in many ways in the main stream media. They are able to appeal to a wide range of people based on select policies where the full range of UKIP policies would probably horrify some of those intending to vote for them. I will try harder to choose my words more carefully next time, perhaps I'll send it to you to proof read.

Im glad were talking about the greens and not ukip. People having a relevant political discussion without shouting racist. And anything that takes the spotlight away from ukip is a good thing in my eyes.

My car and house insurance costs loads, never had to use it, I reckon I'll cancel it next year and save the money.

The difficulty with this analogy is that it is clearly ethically permissible to make a claim on your car insurance.

🙂

I'm honestly astounded that any adult would consider a continued investment in nuclear arms a viable proposition. How many good ways can that end?

Nuclear arms were the best thing that ever happened to world peace. if they hadn't existed, sometime between 1945 and 1950 the Red Army would have taken Paris and millions would have died in a protracted convential war against the USSR. India and ****stan would have killed each other to death at some point and China would be invading every country that bordered it.

We choose not to make chemical or biological weapons

Hah!

Seriously guys, you can't come onto a thread or any thread, the motivation for which is to highlight what you all agree are 'extreme' policies of UKIP, only to then defend the policies of another party that is equally extreme, just at the other end of the spectrum.

I'm not saying that you're wrong in supporting The Green Party, far from it. Just that it's hypocrisy to presume that it's OK to hold extreme political views if they are at the far left of the spectrum rather than the far right.

Plenty of people find UKIP repellent because of their far right policies.

Plenty of people also find The Greens, well maybe repellent isn't the right word, but certainly very scary, for exactly the same reason.

I read The Green's manifesto some months ago and it left me feeling thankful that they are still a marginal party. Their economic policies sound great in theory and, in my view, would be a disaster if implemented. I respect their ideals and their right to hold them and ask to be elected on them, but I still think they are deeply misguided.

Dear Mr Putin,

As we have now got rid of all our nuclear weapons would you mind awfully getting rid of yours? As I'm sure you understand that makes us strategically defenseless, so there is no need to send those nasty looking bear planes flying past Skegness, Mabelthorpe and Newquay. This sort of thing upsets the holidaymakers and is not fair or the right thing to do.

Yours

The Green Party.

Dear the Green Party,

Thank you for your interesting letter, could you please get my rooms ready at Buckingham Palace. I'll be along next week.

Yours in Power

Mr Putin (soon to be King of Britain).

Is britain actually capable of launching a nuclear strike on it's own? I read somehwere that without the yanks facilitating trident it would fall on it's arse in a matter of months.

It all seems like a bit of a moot point when conventional weapons are used all the time to kill millions.

[i]Nuclear arms were the best thing that ever happened to world peace. if they hadn't existed, sometime between 1945 and 1950 the Red Army would have taken Paris and millions would have died in a protracted convential war against the USSR. India and ****stan would have killed each other to death at some point and China would be invading every country that bordered it.[/i]

Have a word with yourself. All foreigners are held back in their nasty slitty eyed vodka fuelled ambitions only by the threat of our clean cut fresh faced jolly good god fearing good 'ole nuclear bombs?

At least your post makes clear what level of attention they should be paid in the future in terms of your grasp of reality

Both are fringe parties
The difference is that the greens saying nukes are bad won't change anything

The kippers saying foreigners are the cause of all the nations ills emboldens racist Chelsea fans, for example and is helping force a referendum that could redraw our entire economy

UKIP appeals to a broad section of the electorate because sadly, that is how a broad section of the electorate thinks, looks and sounds in day-to-day life.

It has taken years of 'refinement' for the other parties to come up with the kind of on-camera vanilla techniques to appeal to the maximum number of voters possible.

UKIP Health spokesman was unveiling their policies this morning. As expected, they were fairly LibDem in nature. Aspirational and sound nice, as they will obviously never have to be properly costed or implemented.

[quote=kimbers said]and is helping force a referendum that could redraw our entire economy

The Greens also want an in/out EU referendum don't they ?

What's wrong with "mutually assured destruction". It's been the comfort blanket of the east and west since the 2nd world war. 🙂 It all got a bit scary when those nutters in the USA thought the concept of a limited nuclear war was going to be possible. What they meant was nuclear war in Europe not the USA. I'd not trust the Russians in any peace agreement (based on recent and historical evidence) and I'd not trust the USA with the defense of the UK. I like those nuclear subs looking after my peace of mind (there a bargin).

What's wrong with "mutually assured destruction"

The statistical near-certainty, over a sufficiently long time horizon, of an accidentally-triggered nuclear exchange destroying large parts of the habitable earth and massacring a meaningful percentage of humankind.

🙁

The kippers saying foreigners are the cause of all the nations ills

They aren't saying that though are they, they are saying that [i]immigration [/i]is the problem. It's an important difference because it's a perfectly valid question to ask.

And being a perfectly valid question also means there is a potentially valid answer.

And indeed there have been numerous studies done by economic think tanks that clearly show, economically speaking (and at the time they were conducted) immigration has been very good for this country. It was part of the driving force behind the economic prosperity we enjoyed in the early noughties and the reports suggest that the recession might have been a lot worse if immigration hadn't been at the level it was.

So valid question, valid answer that refutes the question.

bigdummy

"The statistical near-certainty, over a sufficiently long time horizon, of an accidentally-triggered nuclear exchange destroying large parts of the habitable earth and massacring a meaningful percentage of humankind."

We are managing to do this very well without a nuclear war. Humankind has no rights over the planet and is considered by some to be its worst occupants. There will be 9bn of us soon, for some life on earth that means death. The planet and many of it's creatures would do well if we were gone. Does that bring us back to to UKIP or the Greens?

there a bargin

The planet and many of it's creatures would do well if we were gone

You asked what the matter was with mutually assured destruction.

If the answer is seriously "[i]nothing! It will eventually destroy mankind, which will be awesome[/i]" then we're not really having a conversation about British defence policy any more...

Have a word with yourself. All foreigners are held back in their nasty slitty eyed vodka fuelled ambitions only by the threat of our clean cut fresh faced jolly good god fearing good 'ole nuclear bombs?

The veiled racism accusation is hilarious, do you seriously think the USSR would have stopped at Berlin if Stalin thought he had the upper hand?

The statistical near-certainty, over a sufficiently long time horizon

Nukes will be renderrd obsolete before its ever a statistical certainty. Also, we are at a lower risk of an accidental exchange than we ever have been as communications and intelligence have improved.

The argument that nuclear weapons helped preserve peace or at least stop large-scale war over the post-war period has a lot of merit. Whether they're still useful now is a different argument. And whether the UK's deterrant is any use whatsoever is a pretty simple one- no it's not. I can say "fact" at the end of that if you like but it doesn't really need it. Trident was an expensive white elephant, Trident replacement is a joke long gone sour.

And whether the UK's deterrant is any use whatsoever is a pretty simple one- no it's not

I'm not going to try and enter that argument other than to say our permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which does mean we have the opportunity to be of great influence in world affairs, is precisely because we have a nuclear deterent.

The rise of UKIP is completely representative of the total failure of mainstream parties, and a direct result of their political cowardice, and detachment from voters legitimate concerns

The problem is that Immigration is a mixed bag of advantages and disadvantages, which are in different proportions depending on who, and where you are, and how far up the food chain you are. Which class you're from? Where in the country you live?

If you're in a working class constituency with very high unemployment, then large scale immigration is most definitely a legitimate issue, as it is genuinely forcing down pay rates, and putting strain on core services that have seen funding decimated under the austerity agenda (which labour would continue in government). It isn't racist to point this out. These are the facts on the ground!

Probably not so much of a pressing issue so much if you've just got a more qualified nanny at very reasonable rates. Or the polish blokes who built your new extension were very polite. In that case, the advantages are more apparent.

The Tories don't even pretend to give a toss about this, but Labour MP's like Simon Simon Danczuk in constituencies like Rochdale (which has also become an effective dumping ground for asylum seekers too, along with some Liverpool constituencies) have been pleading with the labour leadership to actually take this issue seriously, as it seriously impacts on their core vote.

But the labour leadership completely refuses to engage with the issue, just parroting the same mantra, and expressing a similar attitude to Gordon Brown with his 'bigoted woman' comment.

So into this policy vacuum happily skips UKIP. Nigel grinning awy. Offering simplistic solutions to complex problems, and blaming brown people, and 'Johnny foreigners' for all the countries ills. They're seriously targeting northern working class 'safe' labour seats, as well as places like we saw last night as they smell the opportunity to spread their toxic, racist message! And its working because there is no coherent message coming to counter it!

So what this represents is a disconnect from the labour party, and a working class vote who feel totally abandoned, in favour of Eds [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/23/ed-miliband-cease-hampstead-heath-politics-win-general-election-says-labour-mp ]'Hampstead Heath'[/url] agenda. Everyone is focussing on UKIP being a tory problem, but I predict that they're going to take a massive chunk out of the labour core vote, that they've taken for granted for so long. You wouldn't know it to look at the party leadership though. Who still have their heads resolutely buried in the sand, complacently assuming that their votes will just come back to them come May. But why should they? They're in for a rude awakening!

They aren't saying that though are they, they are saying that immigration is the problem. It's an important difference because it's a perfectly valid question to ask.

And being a perfectly valid question also means there is a potentially valid answer.

Perhaps not as valid as you claim, since to be fair to UKIP they are not claiming that 'immigration is the problem' nor are they planning to stop immigration, they have stated clearly that

[i]UKIP isn’t opposed to immigration, but we are opposed to uncontrolled immigration. It’s an important distinction, and one that our opponents ignore so that they can caricature us.[/i]

So, what's the problem with that?

Yes fair point.

I think most of the issues that people have with UKIP stem from the fact that they don't believe their (UKIP's) official line. The problems seem to be based on a belief that they say one thing but deep down inside mean/believe something else, specifically something inherently racist/prejudice/distasteful etc.

If you came to this situation completely cold, with no preconceived ideas or prejudices (of your own), you might end up regarding UKIP as a perfectly valid party with an important message.

But that's not how politics works and your history and the story of how you got there is as important as what you're saying at any given moment. If some of your members say were former members of the NF or BNP (and I'm not 100% sure that this is the case with UKIP but one of the candidates being interviewed seemed to suggest that was the case)then you're going to have a hard time if you claim not to be racist.

What a choice we have though, Tory, Labour, UKIP Green, all bloody useless for one reason or another it's no wonder Russell Brands brand of anarchy seems to be catching on. Our UKIP parliamentary candidate my Mrs pointed out to me over breakfast this morning as we were discussing that programme, is Mrs Ting Tong, you have to laugh...
Maybe it'll be back to wasting my vote as I have done these past 40 odd years on the bloody lib dems, much as I hate Clegg..

Very well put binners.

This interview put me off of voting for the greens..

BBCSP: Green's Natalie Bennett car crash interview on policies (25Jan15):

binners - Member
The rise of UKIP is completely representative of the total failure of mainstream parties, and a direct result of their political cowardice, and detachment from voters legitimate concerns

The problem is that Immigration is a mixed bag of advantages and disadvantages, which are in different proportions depending on who, and where you are, and how far up the food chain you are. Which class you're from? Where in the country you live?

If you're in a working class constituency with very high unemployment, then large scale immigration is most definitely a legitimate issue, as it is genuinely forcing down pay rates, and putting strain on core services that have seen funding decimated under the austerity agenda (which labour would continue in government). It isn't racist to point this out. These are the facts on the ground!

Probably not so much of a pressing issue so much if you've just got a more qualified nanny at very reasonable rates. Or the polish blokes who built your new extension were very polite. In that case, the advantages are more apparent.

The Tories don't even pretend to give a toss about this, but Labour MP's like Simon Simon Danczuk in constituencies like Rochdale (which has also become an effective dumping ground for asylum seekers too, along with some Liverpool constituencies) have been pleading with the labour leadership to actually take this issue seriously, as it seriously impacts on their core vote.

But the labour leadership completely refuses to engage with the issue, just parroting the same mantra, and expressing a similar attitude to Gordon Brown with his 'bigoted woman' comment.

So into this policy vacuum happily skips UKIP. Nigel grinning awy. Offering simplistic solutions to complex problems, and blaming brown people, and 'Johnny foreigners' for all the countries ills. They're seriously targeting northern working class 'safe' labour seats, as well as places like we saw last night as they smell the opportunity to spread their toxic, racist message! And its working because there is no coherent message coming to counter it!

So what this represents is a disconnect from the labour party, and a working class vote who feel totally abandoned, in favour of Eds 'Hampstead Heath' agenda. Everyone is focussing on UKIP being a tory problem, but I predict that they're going to take a massive chunk out of the labour core vote, that they've taken for granted for so long. You wouldn't know it to look at the party leadership though. Who still have their heads resolutely buried in the sand, complacently assuming that their votes will just come back to them come May. But why should they? They're in for a rude awakening!

Aye up bigdummy lad, if you recall it was you that brought the earth and humankind into the discussion. I was just following your lead there.
Apologies if you thought we could only discuss Britain, for me that seems a bit UKIP.

[url= https://mafhom.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/23-things-they-dont-tell-you-about-capitalism.pdf ][i][b]Thing 3[/b][/i]
[i][b]Most people in rich countries are
paid more than they should be[/b][/i][/url]

[b]What they tell you[/b]

In a market economy, people are rewarded according to their productivity. Bleeding-heart liberals may find it difficult to accept that a Swede gets paid
fifty times what an Indian gets paid for the same job, but that is a reflection of their relative productivities. Attempts to reduce these differences artificially –
for example, by introducing minimum wage legislation in India – lead only to unjust and inefficient rewarding of individual talents and efforts. Only a free
labour market can reward people efficiently and justly.

[b]What they don’t tell you[/b]

The wage gaps between rich and poor countries exist not mainly because of differences in individual productivity but mainly because of immigration
control. If there were free migration, most workers in rich countries could be, and would be, replaced by workers from poor countries. In other words,
wages are largely politically determined. The other side of the coin is that poor countries are poor not because of their poor people, many of whom can
out-compete their counterparts in rich countries, but because of their rich people, most of whom cannot do the same. This does not, however, mean that
the rich in the rich countries can pat their own backs for their individual brilliance. Their high productivities are possible only because of the historically
inherited collective institutions on which they stand. We should reject the myth that we all get paid according to our individual worth, if we are to build a truly
just society.

I think most of the issues that people have with UKIP stem from the fact that they don't believe their (UKIP's) official line. The problems seem to be based on a belief that they say one thing but deep down inside mean/believe something else

Ah well, yes, there we see many peoples issue with the Green Party also laid bare

But that's not how politics works and your history and the story of how you got there is as important as what you're saying at any given moment. If some of your members say were former members of the NF or BNP (and I'm not 100% sure that this is the case with UKIP but one of the candidates being interviewed seemed to suggest that was the case)then you're going to have a hard time if you claim not to be racist.

Exactly why the greens can't shake off their 'watermelon' tag.

The difficulty with both the greens and UKIP is clearly the fact that both suffer Lib Dem 2010 syndrome: with little chance of seeing power they can afford to play to the gallery by offering up blatantly populist policies that would never work in the cold light of day,

WRT the Green's Disarmament policy – No manifesto from any party is free from ideas many people find they don’t agree with, so endless quarrelling about one aspect is counterproductive.

The main difference is that the Greens are mostly from a different and more diverse background than the others, and with significantly less in the way of ties with big business [revolving door issue]and what that entails is a more representative and less corrupt slice of government, which really is about the biggest issue the country faces.

“The report we have published today, Lifting the Lid on Lobbying, suggests that the vulnerability in our political system that David Cameron predicted in 2010, when he said that lobbying was 'the next big scandal waiting to happen', has arrived. It has not come in one big scandal, but in a series of small but serious events. In fact, there have been no fewer than fourteen scandals since he made that remark.
Our research tells us three important things:
• You can't just regulate lobbying - it has to go hand in hand with regulating political party funding and the 'revolving door', otherwise the problem will just migrate to the least well regulated area.
• The system that exists to regulate it is in serious disrepair - there are at least thirty-nine loopholes we have identified; and the Lobbying Act has not only solved nothing, although barely a year old it is a thoroughly discredited piece of legislation.
• The House of Commons has the worst regulations - now we have parliaments and assemblies in different parts of the UK, we can compare them for the first time. Bad news for the Commons.
”

http://www.transparency.org.uk/news-room/12-blog/1210-is-there-a-problem-with-lobbying
http://www.transparency.org.uk/our-work/uk-corruption
Oh, and if you think the Americans will stand about while someone threatens/uses nukes on the UK then you’re out of your tree.

EDIT:

"The difficulty with both the greens and UKIP is clearly the fact that both suffer Lib Dem 2010..."

Well, while they sure dun goofed, they are also in a position of more power than in the last, what, 50 years

geetee1972 - Member

I'm not going to try and enter that argument other than to say our permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which does mean we have the opportunity to be of great influence in world affairs, is precisely because we have a nuclear deterent.

Interesting claim this- actually we got our permanent seat because we won ww2. We didn't have a nuclear deterrant in 1946. And we've kept it since then on the strength of military expenditure and it being a fairly absurd members club that nobody can agree how to fix. Though overdue reform, when it comes, is incredibly unlikely to lose us our position.

The other thing is, what do we use this influence for? How has it benefited us recently? That handy veto that we used in the 80s?

Also / the argument we should totally be spending oodles on defence ¨esp nukes* while a large part of the population relies on food banks or goes hungry, in the face of a resurgent Russian armed force/bellend leader is pretty funny, seeing as that´s what bankrupted and starved the USSR.

Derek - I read that Ed was going to parachute Two Jags into the 'Oop There Be Dragons' country, north of Watford, and thought to myself ... OH FFS!!! could you possibly be any more *ing condescending?!!

But they're all probably slapping ecch others backs, thinking 'job jobbed'. Well it worked for Tony, after all. We'll just put our working class fig leaf back in place eh?

Well how about you * right off Ed, you patronising ****!!

Nigels UKIP canvassers must be rubbing their hands with glee

This interview put me off of voting for the greens

@gofasterstripes - Hmm, the USSR was spending 20% of its GDP on defence though, not the 2-3% of GDP we are (of which only about 6% is spent on nukes, does anyone think that a 6% bigger military would offer the same deterrent effect?)

Agreed binners. Is that really the best Ed can do? Bring back Johnny Two-Jags who was never exactly a model of propriety at the best of times. I despair, I really, really do.

Hmm, the USSR was spending 20% of its GDP on defence though, not the 2-3% we are...

And how much are we considering spending on new/gen weapons, not %, in Pounds?

of which only about 6% is spent on nukes

you all agree are 'extreme' policies of UKIP, only to then defend the policies of another party that is equally extreme, just at the other end of the spectrum.

I had to read that several times to make sure you really were saying what you appeared to be saying, and you were.

So another "equally extreme" party at the "other end of the spectrum" ? Well stop and try to think about that ridiculous and absurd claim. Since the only UKIP policy which everyone can be 100% sure about is withdrawal from the EU this must therefore mean that another equally extreme party at the other end of the spectrum must support full integration into a single European superstate - obviously.

Just one example of Green Party stance on the EU :

[i] [b] We recognise the value of the original goal of the founders of the European Communities, who sought to remove the threat of another war between European states. This has been distorted by vested political and economic interests into a union dominated by economic interests, which lacks democratic control, and promotes the goals of multinational corporations which are interested in profit not people, and which runs counter to the professed core values of the Union.[/b] [/i]

They don't sound that enthusiastic about the EU, do they? Although they are in essence pro-EU. Their position is "yes we agree with the EU but would like to see some major changes to make it more democratic and serve the needs of the people". What a bunch of extremists.

Other UKIP policies appear to be much more fluid and are dependent on Nigel Farage's answer during an awkward interview, so it's difficult to make many more comparisons to see if your claim that the Green Party stands "at the other end of the spectrum" is true.

But we do know that the Green Party is a left of centre social-democratic party which supports a mixed economy and a universal welfare state. If this makes them a bunch of extremists then it is a measure of how successful Margret Thatcher was is shifting the entire British political spectrum to the right. And presumably she wasn't an extremist - just those who happened to be opposed to her were.

BTW geetee1972 I assume that you don't cooperate with your local council recycling schemes? After all door to door recycling collections was once the "extremist" policy of the Greens and firmly rejected by the more "moderate" main parties.

But we do know that the Green Party is a left of centre

I think they're a bit more than left of centre. They are as close to communist as you'll get in today's political landscape.

Look, this is as straight forward as the saying 'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' (apt really when you consider PD443 in their manifesto). I think The Green Party is extreme. You think UKIP is extreme (as do I).

But I also think that they are both equally important views that should be part of mainstream politics because if nothing else they moderate the centre ground and force the other political parties to speak to the issues that a lot of people feel are important.

If in speaking to these issues you chose to vote for them or for someone else then our democracy has done it's job.

Having watched this clip, I feel sure that I won't be voting Green any time soon.

Having watched this clip, I feel sure that I won't be voting Green any time soon.

Jeez....I'm surprised the men in white coats didn't arrive after the opening exchanges!(5 mins in)

Hilarious!

They are as close to communist as you'll get in today's political landscape.

My ex wife is a Green, but I don't think even she could support that woman, my god and they're indoctrinating kids with it, i see what you mean about Watermelon.. 280 billion? I'd like to see that costed.

Depressing Monday...

Whereas I watched it and I still will.

Which is the beauty of democarcy.