UKIP - The Future
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
Meanwhile Ed Milliband is doing the classic thing for modern opposition - namely absolutely nothing. Just sit and wait for the government to commit suicide. Seems to be working!
From a major policy speech Milipede made last week to the Progress think tank. Here are a few excerpts :- "I know David Cameron is a man who likes to be known for a bit of relaxing, even chillaxing, but on this occasion, it beggars belief. He’s not lying on the sofa, relaxed. He’s hiding behind the sofa, too scared to confront his party and provide the leadership the country needs. He’s weak and panicked and flailing around.”
“In our society, we are not dazzled by change. But nor do we seek to recreate the past.”
“We don’t like their story about our country. And we have a much better one ourselves. A sense of mission for the country. Inclusive. Not exclusive. Outward looking. Not inward looking. Optimistic about our future.”
Nope. I haven't got a frickin clue either...
Andy Zarse said:
From a major policy speech Milipede made last week to the Progress think tank. Here are a few excerpts :-
"I know David Cameron is a man who likes to be known for a bit of relaxing, even chillaxing, but on this occasion, it beggars belief. He’s not lying on the sofa, relaxed. He’s hiding behind the sofa, too scared to confront his party and provide the leadership the country needs. He’s weak and panicked and flailing around.”
“In our society, we are not dazzled by change. But nor do we seek to recreate the past.”
“We don’t like their story about our country. And we have a much better one ourselves. A sense of mission for the country. Inclusive. Not exclusive. Outward looking. Not inward looking. Optimistic about our future.”
Nope. I haven't got a frickin clue either...
Surely that's some sort of joke? Along the lines of buzzword bingo or The Office?"I know David Cameron is a man who likes to be known for a bit of relaxing, even chillaxing, but on this occasion, it beggars belief. He’s not lying on the sofa, relaxed. He’s hiding behind the sofa, too scared to confront his party and provide the leadership the country needs. He’s weak and panicked and flailing around.”
“In our society, we are not dazzled by change. But nor do we seek to recreate the past.”
“We don’t like their story about our country. And we have a much better one ourselves. A sense of mission for the country. Inclusive. Not exclusive. Outward looking. Not inward looking. Optimistic about our future.”
Nope. I haven't got a frickin clue either...
Andy Zarse said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Meanwhile Ed Milliband is doing the classic thing for modern opposition - namely absolutely nothing. Just sit and wait for the government to commit suicide. Seems to be working!
From a major policy speech Milipede made last week to the Progress think tank.Andy Zarse said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Meanwhile Ed Milliband is doing the classic thing for modern opposition - namely absolutely nothing. Just sit and wait for the government to commit suicide. Seems to be working!
From a major policy speech Milipede made last week to the Progress think tank. Here are a few excerpts :- "I know David Cameron is a man who likes to be known for a bit of relaxing, even chillaxing, but on this occasion, it beggars belief. He’s not lying on the sofa, relaxed. He’s hiding behind the sofa, too scared to confront his party and provide the leadership the country needs. He’s weak and panicked and flailing around.”
“In our society, we are not dazzled by change. But nor do we seek to recreate the past.”
“We don’t like their story about our country. And we have a much better one ourselves. A sense of mission for the country. Inclusive. Not exclusive. Outward looking. Not inward looking. Optimistic about our future.”
Nope. I haven't got a frickin clue either...
TheHeretic said:
rudecherub said:
Ah but is that an eloquent speech? Because that really matters to some.
You really do have issues, don't you? No, that 'speech' is also not very eloquent. I await you rushing to the defense of Millipede.However the short sentences when put together don't say very much.
Unlike Nigel's lengthy ones. Which IMO are persuasive.
vonuber said:
So are UKIP going to repeal gay marriage if they get in?
Its an interesting (but of course hypothetical) question.I expect the answer would be that while they think it should never have been enacted in the first place , once it had become law and people were actually married under that law there wouldn't really be much they could do to unwind it in practise (and so it would stay).
Which, it occurs, is a remarkably close parallel to the supposedly "unacceptable" position that the Tories took with reference to the Lisbon treaty after it had become law and people (Van Rumpouy, Ashton, Barroso etc) had been put into position under it
The actual business of being in Government is perhaps not so easy/straightforward as some would like to make out
rudecherub said:
Mr Snap said:
I haven't told you anything of the sort. I don't know where you got that idea from - unless you've misread what I was saying.
Of course I adjust language according to the situation. I don't have a problem with colloquialism.
The problem with Farage's letter is that it was probably dictated off the top of his head. There aren't any glaring grammatical errors, although the punctuation could be improved. But it is sloppy in the sense that it's full of flabby, meandering, sentences. If you can't see that it doesn't matter because you don't care. What does matter is that I can see it, and if I can see it others like me will too. To the people who can see the sloppiness it matters because, for them, expressing oneself sloppily represents sloppiness of thought - whether it's colloquial or not.
Farage went to Dulwich College, one of the UK's foremost public schools, where parsing sentences in good english would have been drummed into him from an early age. He knows how to write. So, either he can't be arsed or he's pretending to be the 'common man' when he isn't. Neither of which are very flattering to his potential audience.
Ouch - I don't know why you think his time at Dulwich would result in always parsing his sentences in a manner that pleases you. My own experience at a top public school taught me that Public School boys are as sloppy in their own way as any tribal subset of humanity. Indeed the masters, many whom were old boys themselves had their own vernacular and not so friendly nicknames for one another - the whole place had it's own dialect. I imagine Dulwich was much the same.Of course I adjust language according to the situation. I don't have a problem with colloquialism.
The problem with Farage's letter is that it was probably dictated off the top of his head. There aren't any glaring grammatical errors, although the punctuation could be improved. But it is sloppy in the sense that it's full of flabby, meandering, sentences. If you can't see that it doesn't matter because you don't care. What does matter is that I can see it, and if I can see it others like me will too. To the people who can see the sloppiness it matters because, for them, expressing oneself sloppily represents sloppiness of thought - whether it's colloquial or not.
Farage went to Dulwich College, one of the UK's foremost public schools, where parsing sentences in good english would have been drummed into him from an early age. He knows how to write. So, either he can't be arsed or he's pretending to be the 'common man' when he isn't. Neither of which are very flattering to his potential audience.
It probably irks you that Farage is a good communicator - however meandering you find his long sentences - not because of his delivery, but rather the content?
You effectively told me you disliked modifying language to suit purpose when you complained that the colloquial style of Nigel's letter either meant he was deceitful by his choice of words and style - or he wasn't able to write cogently enough to legislate. I can't see how I misread that meaning. If you meant something else then you failed to communicate it clearly.
I think the language was appropriately eloquent for a full page advertisement in a Newspaper.
As said it's success will be measured in the numbers of new members UKIP acquires this week.
That aside, I note however that you're probably writing fairly rapidly, like me, yet still managing to form well constructed sentences. Thus I suspect that your school probably did you more good than you care to think. If you can do it, Nigel can do it, too.
I think Farage is an excellent communicator. There lies the rub; he isn't the ordinary bloke off the street that he pretends to be. He's a shrewd political operator with over twenty years experience who, being an excellent communicator, should have better control over his PR. Reading between the lines (sic), my interpretation is that he's either being lazy or massively manipulative. Take your pick.
Globs said:
Andy Zarse said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Meanwhile Ed Milliband is doing the classic thing for modern opposition - namely absolutely nothing. Just sit and wait for the government to commit suicide. Seems to be working!
From a major policy speech Milipede made last week to the Progress think tank.http://www.cps.org.uk/
Wombat3 said:
Its an interesting (but of course hypothetical) question.
I expect the answer would be that while they think it should never have been enacted in the first place , once it had become law and people were actually married under that law there wouldn't really be much they could do to unwind it in practise (and so it would stay).
Which, it occurs, is a remarkably close parallel to the supposedly "unacceptable" position that the Tories took with reference to the Lisbon treaty after it had become law and people (Van Rumpouy, Ashton, Barroso etc) had been put into position under it
The actual business of being in Government is perhaps not so easy/straightforward as some would like to make out
The whole gay marriage thing leaves me very confused. On one hand I am very pissed off that Cameron has gone so off piste and forced this through when it is both very unnecessary and was not in either lib or con manifesto. Its like he thinks it will win him the next election as all gay people will vote con.I expect the answer would be that while they think it should never have been enacted in the first place , once it had become law and people were actually married under that law there wouldn't really be much they could do to unwind it in practise (and so it would stay).
Which, it occurs, is a remarkably close parallel to the supposedly "unacceptable" position that the Tories took with reference to the Lisbon treaty after it had become law and people (Van Rumpouy, Ashton, Barroso etc) had been put into position under it
The actual business of being in Government is perhaps not so easy/straightforward as some would like to make out
It was in the cons manifest to give us a vote on Europe and i understand there were terms attached but they gave the impression of being anti Europe yet seem hell-bent on not giving us a vote. Sure he has made promises he will and recently due to panic of all out war in his party has decided to try spin his way out with rumours that they will try put forward a bill in this parliament.
Personality i would love to vote tory but i think due to the gay marriage debacle i simply cannot and will not. The tories are more liberal loony than the lib dems.
CommanderJameson said:
Yeah, equality. What a hippy-dippy liberal concept.
Gay marriage is not a equality issue. You already had civil partnerships which huge numbers of normal couples have too. And yes, I do mean normal, 1% of the population do not constitute or warrant the term 'normal', rather the term 'unusual'.Trying to drag religion into gay 'marriage' is a huge mistake, because frankly - you haven't a single womb between you for the foetus to gestate. Religion and words like the Holy Trinity refer to the Father the Mother and the Child, (sometimes distorted into father/son/ghost in some dogmas) because religion and survival are a celebration of life and propagation of the species, not something you're really going to be involved in.
GM also impinges upon the freedom of churches to refuse to marry because now they are open to be sued. Additionally you create a new inequality with those gay couples who have a civil partnership, now rated as second-class to your new 'marriage'.
So don't give me that crap about equality, especially when we have poor UK pensioners dying of cold in the winter while rich landowners gain millions each year from their harmful wind subsidy farms. I guess you are so much into b
ks that you fail to notice when you are speaking and writing it.Not sure if serious. Marriage has nothing to do with religion, and certainly not in this debate. The religious claptrap you wrote might mean something to you, but please refrain from bringing it into this debate, as it has no place. Marriage is a civil institution. Churches have no legal standing in the issue.
As for it being an equality issue, yes, it is. Just because you find them icky, and feel that some 'other named thing' should keep them happy does not make it all better.
It is people like you who seem to want to oppose it, and make it into a far harder task that takes up the time in the debate. Just voting it through, and being done with it would be far quicker.
As for it being an equality issue, yes, it is. Just because you find them icky, and feel that some 'other named thing' should keep them happy does not make it all better.
It is people like you who seem to want to oppose it, and make it into a far harder task that takes up the time in the debate. Just voting it through, and being done with it would be far quicker.
Globs said:
CommanderJameson said:
Yeah, equality. What a hippy-dippy liberal concept.
Gay marriage is not a equality issue. You already had civil partnerships which huge numbers of normal couples have too. And yes, I do mean normal, 1% of the population do not constitute or warrant the term 'normal', rather the term 'unusual'.Trying to drag religion into gay 'marriage' is a huge mistake, because frankly - you haven't a single womb between you for the foetus to gestate. Religion and words like the Holy Trinity refer to the Father the Mother and the Child, (sometimes distorted into father/son/ghost in some dogmas) because religion and survival are a celebration of life and propagation of the species, not something you're really going to be involved in.
GM also impinges upon the freedom of churches to refuse to marry because now they are open to be sued. Additionally you create a new inequality with those gay couples who have a civil partnership, now rated as second-class to your new 'marriage'.
So don't give me that crap about equality, especially when we have poor UK pensioners dying of cold in the winter while rich landowners gain millions each year from their harmful wind subsidy farms. I guess you are so much into b
ks that you fail to notice when you are speaking and writing it.How about a nice cup of tea?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff