UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
mrpurple said:
Written by one N. Farage, it is worth pointing out.10 Pence Short said:
mrpurple said:
Written by one N. Farage, it is worth pointing out.mrpurple said:
Why do you think the responsibility falls to you to point that out?
Why do you think the responsibility falls to you to post the article? Why does anybody feel the responsibility to do anything?Joking aside.
My point is that an article by someone about themselves carries less weight than it would do were it written by another, who perhaps might carry a more critical eye. Knowing how minor details like who the author is regularly get missed or ignored around these parts, it's worth pointing out my initial scepticism regards the article.
10 Pence Short said:
mrpurple said:
Why do you think the responsibility falls to you to point that out?
Why do you think the responsibility falls to you to post the article? Why does anybody feel the responsibility to do anything?Joking aside.
My point is that an article by someone about themselves carries less weight than it would do were it written by another, who perhaps might carry a more critical eye. Knowing how minor details like who the author is regularly get missed or ignored around these parts, it's worth pointing out my initial scepticism regards the article.
t you are....... "poor old PH'ers may be too stupid to realise the article was written by that horrible man Nigel Farage so I better point it out to them so that they know."You carry on the good work
Just popped back briefly to say that I thought mr purple calling 10PS an arrogant tt was perhaps a bit strong. Then I actually read the linked article.
Must say, even though I have a poor opinion of the average poster's ability to read and understand the text in front of them, if someone managed to miss the author of that article they need to stop wasting their time on here and get off down to specsavers. Three times in quite large font right at the top and the smallest font also in red text.
When Dave writes in the Telegraph people should point out that the author is actually the Prime Minister. Except nobody ever links those articles.
t was perhaps a bit strong. Then I actually read the linked article. Must say, even though I have a poor opinion of the average poster's ability to read and understand the text in front of them, if someone managed to miss the author of that article they need to stop wasting their time on here and get off down to specsavers. Three times in quite large font right at the top and the smallest font also in red text.
When Dave writes in the Telegraph people should point out that the author is actually the Prime Minister. Except nobody ever links those articles.
Edited by FiF on Saturday 26th April 11:22
10 Pence Short said:
Why do you think the responsibility falls to you to post the article? Why does anybody feel the responsibility to do anything?
Joking aside.
My point is that an article by someone about themselves carries less weight than it would do were it written by another, who perhaps might carry a more critical eye. Knowing how minor details like who the author is regularly get missed or ignored around these parts, it's worth pointing out my initial scepticism regards the article.
Well, the article is about Dave Cameron.Joking aside.
My point is that an article by someone about themselves carries less weight than it would do were it written by another, who perhaps might carry a more critical eye. Knowing how minor details like who the author is regularly get missed or ignored around these parts, it's worth pointing out my initial scepticism regards the article.
It wasn't written by Dave Cameron.
Is there anything specific in the article that you disagree with?
FiF said:
Just popped back briefly to say that I thought mr purple calling 10PS an arrogant tt was perhaps a bit strong. Then I actually read the linked article.
Must say, even though I have a poor opinion of the average poster's ability to read and understand the text in front of them, if someone managed to miss the author of that article they need to stop wasting their time on here and get off down to specsavers. Three times in quite large font right at the top and the smallest font also in red text.
When Dave writes in the Telegraph people should point out that the author is actually the Prime Minister. Except nobody ever links those articles.
Please note I said "condescending tt was perhaps a bit strong. Then I actually read the linked article. Must say, even though I have a poor opinion of the average poster's ability to read and understand the text in front of them, if someone managed to miss the author of that article they need to stop wasting their time on here and get off down to specsavers. Three times in quite large font right at the top and the smallest font also in red text.
When Dave writes in the Telegraph people should point out that the author is actually the Prime Minister. Except nobody ever links those articles.
Edited by FiF on Saturday 26th April 11:22
t" not an "arrogant tt."10 Pence Short said:
mrpurple said:
Why do you think the responsibility falls to you to point that out?
Why do you think the responsibility falls to you to post the article? Why does anybody feel the responsibility to do anything?Joking aside.
My point is that an article by someone about themselves carries less weight than it would do were it written by another, who perhaps might carry a more critical eye. Knowing how minor details like who the author is regularly get missed or ignored around these parts, it's worth pointing out my initial scepticism regards the article.
WinstonWolf said:
10 Pence Short said:
mrpurple said:
Why do you think the responsibility falls to you to point that out?
Why do you think the responsibility falls to you to post the article? Why does anybody feel the responsibility to do anything?Joking aside.
My point is that an article by someone about themselves carries less weight than it would do were it written by another, who perhaps might carry a more critical eye. Knowing how minor details like who the author is regularly get missed or ignored around these parts, it's worth pointing out my initial scepticism regards the article.
mrpurple said:
Please note I said "condescending tt" not an "arrogant tt."
Correct you did my sincere apologies. t" not an "arrogant tt."I jumped straight from the comment about arrogance straight to the t
t and missed out the condescending. Highly ironic and embarrassing as it turns out I'm just as bad as everyone else at failing to accurately interpret the written text.
Yes that is my taxi. Eye thang yew.
Zod said:
f the Conservative party did enough to make every Conservative voter who has moved to UKIP happy, it would lose at least as many voters with more moderate views.
Your attitude is the quixotic "I don't like what the Conservative Party is doing, so I'm going to punish it by voting for a party that says things that I like to hear, even though I know it has no hope of being elected and the effect of my vote and those of others like me will be to put Ed Milliband into Downing Street, who will do all sorts of things that I will hate".
It's childish. It is unlikely that there will ever be a party that will be electable and offer an agenda that satisfies you entirely. A rational person will vote for the party whose agenda is least annoying/worrying to him. That is called compromise. Getting on in life is all about compromise, except for young children who don't understand why they cannot have everything their way.
No doubt someone will respond that his vote doesn't matter anyway because he lives in a safe Labour or Conservative seat. That is fine, but an awful lot of people live in marginal seats and their votes decide elections.
This attitude is what will lose the Conservative Party the next election. Everyone has different priorities and views, and will consider how they vote accordingly. Millions of former Conservatives consider the broken promise from Cameron on the EU, and all of the associated current Conservative guff as unacceptable enough to stop voting for them again. The Conservative Party (and posters such at the one above) will have to learn they do not 'own' a section of the voting public no matter what they do. Your attitude is the quixotic "I don't like what the Conservative Party is doing, so I'm going to punish it by voting for a party that says things that I like to hear, even though I know it has no hope of being elected and the effect of my vote and those of others like me will be to put Ed Milliband into Downing Street, who will do all sorts of things that I will hate".
It's childish. It is unlikely that there will ever be a party that will be electable and offer an agenda that satisfies you entirely. A rational person will vote for the party whose agenda is least annoying/worrying to him. That is called compromise. Getting on in life is all about compromise, except for young children who don't understand why they cannot have everything their way.
No doubt someone will respond that his vote doesn't matter anyway because he lives in a safe Labour or Conservative seat. That is fine, but an awful lot of people live in marginal seats and their votes decide elections.
Most of what UKIP believe in are perfectly reasonable, Conservative policies, acceptable to all current Tory voters. This is the reason why we see attacks 'against the man' not the ball - it's hard to argue against wanting the power to limit immigration, lower taxes, and grammar schools when you believe in them yourself. Far better call UKIP fruitcakes, desperately try and find some scandal, look at allowances - anything so as to avoid dealing with the issue via policy.
Cameron isn't completely stupid; he is a slick enough political operator. As we get close to the election he will take big steps to get the UKIP vote back on side.
0a said:
Cameron isn't completely stupid; he is a slick enough political operator. As we get close to the election he will take big steps to get the UKIP vote back on side.
And, assuming he gets re-elected, is he then going to do what a minority of the population want, or what the majority want?Countdown said:
And, assuming he gets re-elected, is he then going to do what a minority of the population want, or what the majority want?
Who knows, he's not exactly got a great track record. A referendum on the EU and real controls on EU and non-EU migration are certainly what the majority want in any case. But your guess is as good as mine regarding the relationship between what he says and what he will do. It does seem unlikely he will be in power after the next election in any case though.
0a said:
This attitude is what will lose the Conservative Party the next election. Everyone has different priorities and views, and will consider how they vote accordingly. Millions of former Conservatives consider the broken promise from Cameron on the EU, and all of the associated current Conservative guff as unacceptable enough to stop voting for them again. The Conservative Party (and posters such at the one above) will have to learn they do not 'own' a section of the voting public no matter what they do.
Most of what UKIP believe in are perfectly reasonable, Conservative policies, acceptable to all current Tory voters. This is the reason why we see attacks 'against the man' not the ball - it's hard to argue against wanting the power to limit immigration, lower taxes, and grammar schools when you believe in them yourself. Far better call UKIP fruitcakes, desperately try and find some scandal, look at allowances - anything so as to avoid dealing with the issue via policy.
Cameron isn't completely stupid; he is a slick enough political operator. As we get close to the election he will take big steps to get the UKIP vote back on side.
You just don't get that a large majority I this country does not agree with UKIP. Adopting UKIP's policies to appease former and potential Conservative votes would lose the Tories at least as many votes as it would gain them.Most of what UKIP believe in are perfectly reasonable, Conservative policies, acceptable to all current Tory voters. This is the reason why we see attacks 'against the man' not the ball - it's hard to argue against wanting the power to limit immigration, lower taxes, and grammar schools when you believe in them yourself. Far better call UKIP fruitcakes, desperately try and find some scandal, look at allowances - anything so as to avoid dealing with the issue via policy.
Cameron isn't completely stupid; he is a slick enough political operator. As we get close to the election he will take big steps to get the UKIP vote back on side.
Daniel Hannan writes an interesting article on why we should vote Conservative in the EU elections.
Most interesting, and questionable to me, is this paragraph..
"The Conservative Party which I joined 25 years ago was split over Europe. Today, the Tory MPs who want to give more powers to Brussels can be counted on one hand. The last few Heathite MEPs have just retired, and leadership has passed to that impeccably patriotic Thatcherite, Syed Kamall. Most party members say they’d vote to leave the EU tomorrow, and MPs have trooped through the lobbies in support of a Brexit referendum."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100...
Most interesting, and questionable to me, is this paragraph..
"The Conservative Party which I joined 25 years ago was split over Europe. Today, the Tory MPs who want to give more powers to Brussels can be counted on one hand. The last few Heathite MEPs have just retired, and leadership has passed to that impeccably patriotic Thatcherite, Syed Kamall. Most party members say they’d vote to leave the EU tomorrow, and MPs have trooped through the lobbies in support of a Brexit referendum."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100...
steveT350C said:
Daniel Hannan writes an interesting article on why we should vote Conservative in the EU elections.
Most interesting, and questionable to me, is this paragraph..
"The Conservative Party which I joined 25 years ago was split over Europe. Today, the Tory MPs who want to give more powers to Brussels can be counted on one hand. The last few Heathite MEPs have just retired, and leadership has passed to that impeccably patriotic Thatcherite, Syed Kamall. Most party members say they’d vote to leave the EU tomorrow, and MPs have trooped through the lobbies in support of a Brexit referendum."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100...
That needs to be converted into ability to execute. So, enough votes to be the main party.Most interesting, and questionable to me, is this paragraph..
"The Conservative Party which I joined 25 years ago was split over Europe. Today, the Tory MPs who want to give more powers to Brussels can be counted on one hand. The last few Heathite MEPs have just retired, and leadership has passed to that impeccably patriotic Thatcherite, Syed Kamall. Most party members say they’d vote to leave the EU tomorrow, and MPs have trooped through the lobbies in support of a Brexit referendum."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100...
Also need to properly tackle the disconnect big business has with us ordinary people, and tax avoidance. Unlikely to happen.
As always, I will be choosing the least worse possibility, with lots of hope.
excellent article from Janet Daley 'Hurling insults at Ukip is not the solution'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/1078...
Edited by NicD on Sunday 27th April 06:11
Edited by NicD on Sunday 27th April 06:12
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff