[Closed] Meet the UKIPers

[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.

Have you seen the greens defence policy ?

Have you seen when it was last revised, and the fact that it's being looked at again at the Spring conference in 2 weeks time, and that will be the basis of the manifesto for the May election? [url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/16/trident-is-20bn-waste-say-generals ]Even non-hippies, like former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, think Trident is a waste of money[/url].

The discussions I've seen online among those* redrafting the policy have been very sensible.

(*Green policies are written and approved by members in the open, rather than by a bunch of MPs in secret.)

In the interests of openness: I'm standing for the Greens in May.

I thought the demographic was interesting. Somewhat predictably - a bunch of pensioners.

I doubt UKIP has much support in the younger age group. Who are generally more liberal and tolerant.

The irony being, I don't know who the UKIP voters think is going to make up the tax base that will keep them in their free TV Licenses, bus passes, and winter fuel payments, that Dave has reassured them only this morning that they'll all be keeping

i see what you mean about Watermelon.. 280 billion? I'd like to see that costed.

In the interests of openness: I'm standing for the Greens in May.

How much influence will a fiver buy me 😉

best of luck

 

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

😆

You are Sarah Palin and I claim my tea bag

[img] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef01157021d859970b-500wi [/img]

[img] [/img]

How much influence will a fiver buy me

I'm standing for the council election, so if you need a pothole reporting in the Haughton and Springfield ward of Darlington, I'm your man!

Ernie if I'm Sarah Palin you're Russell Brand.

I doubt UKIP has much support in the younger age group. Who are generally more liberal and tolerant.

Can't decide if that is a tongue in cheek comment or not. I think you're confusing the STW group with the younger age group - like those nice tolerant Chelsea fans?

Are there any young people on here? I doubt it. I thought that as a mid-40's bald, cantankerous old biffer, I was fairly representative of the STW demographic. And I'm virtually a marxist compared to a lot of people on here.

My point is that all those UKIPers spouting their racist bilge all looked retired. I reckon the further down the age range you go, the less support they have. I can't see many people under 25 voting UKIP.

Which is why I raised the question: without immigrants, who on earth do these retired boomers think is going to provide the tax base to keep them in the cosseted lifestyle to which they're become accustomed?

If the boomers are indeed living a comfortable life then they will not be reliant on a state pension. They'll have private and/or final salary schemes that once drawn down won't change. They will be just fine. It's everyone else born after 1960 or thereabouts that's screwed.