UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
Yep good points there brenflys777.
It's what I really hate about many of the Westminster set and Cameroons in particular. We used to have an MD like that even to the accent. Always on the box, would even ditch vital work stuff at moment for the chance to appear.
Full of empty phrases which sounded positive and statesmanlike. But in terms of actually knowing what to do or having any suggestions, however impractical, of what should actually be done strategically, not a clue.
As written earlier empty vessels just looking for the last opportunity to turn up stick out their chest and take the credit.
It's what I really hate about many of the Westminster set and Cameroons in particular. We used to have an MD like that even to the accent. Always on the box, would even ditch vital work stuff at moment for the chance to appear.
Full of empty phrases which sounded positive and statesmanlike. But in terms of actually knowing what to do or having any suggestions, however impractical, of what should actually be done strategically, not a clue.
As written earlier empty vessels just looking for the last opportunity to turn up stick out their chest and take the credit.
George Osborne on the news now saying a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. What an inspiring message he promotes!
If only we give them five more years then they really will address the EU, immigration etc, etc... because it's the nasty lib Dems fault that they haven't, and if they lose it's because UKIP voters let labour in not because the conservatives failed....they just don't seem to be able to lose the sense of entitlement and adapt.
If only we give them five more years then they really will address the EU, immigration etc, etc... because it's the nasty lib Dems fault that they haven't, and if they lose it's because UKIP voters let labour in not because the conservatives failed....they just don't seem to be able to lose the sense of entitlement and adapt.
brenflys777 said:
George Osborne on the news now saying a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. What an inspiring message he promotes!
If only we give them five more years then they really will address the EU, immigration etc, etc... because it's the nasty lib Dems fault that they haven't, and if they lose it's because UKIP voters let labour in not because the conservatives failed....they just don't seem to be able to lose the sense of entitlement and adapt.
If they lose it will be because people did not want to vote for them.....simples.If only we give them five more years then they really will address the EU, immigration etc, etc... because it's the nasty lib Dems fault that they haven't, and if they lose it's because UKIP voters let labour in not because the conservatives failed....they just don't seem to be able to lose the sense of entitlement and adapt.
mrpurple said:
brenflys777 said:
George Osborne on the news now saying a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. What an inspiring message he promotes!
If only we give them five more years then they really will address the EU, immigration etc, etc... because it's the nasty lib Dems fault that they haven't, and if they lose it's because UKIP voters let labour in not because the conservatives failed....they just don't seem to be able to lose the sense of entitlement and adapt.
If they lose it will be because people did not want to vote for them.....simples.If only we give them five more years then they really will address the EU, immigration etc, etc... because it's the nasty lib Dems fault that they haven't, and if they lose it's because UKIP voters let labour in not because the conservatives failed....they just don't seem to be able to lose the sense of entitlement and adapt.
brenflys777 said:
George Osborne on the news now saying a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. What an inspiring message he promotes!
If only we give them five more years then they really will address the EU, immigration etc, etc... because it's the nasty lib Dems fault that they haven't, and if they lose it's because UKIP voters let labour in not because the conservatives failed....they just don't seem to be able to lose the sense of entitlement and adapt.
Ah, the old tactical voting wheeze, still it works I suppose, lots on here still fall for itIf only we give them five more years then they really will address the EU, immigration etc, etc... because it's the nasty lib Dems fault that they haven't, and if they lose it's because UKIP voters let labour in not because the conservatives failed....they just don't seem to be able to lose the sense of entitlement and adapt.
brenflys777 said:
You may feel a moral obligation to protect treaties that are not in the public interest and were not within the politicians mandate. I certainly don't.
WOW indeed. Just to be clear, you are advocating ignoring the law when you don't like it?
Should this apply to all laws & treaties or just the ones we don't like on a Monday?
FiF said:
That's the point I've been trying to get across for ages.
If a major issue in this forthcoming GE is the ability to provide a referendum then it follows to ask the question as to what will be that referendum question.
Yes we know it will be a global in/out question possibly but nobody knows Cameron's position.
He could kill this immediately with saying what reforms he will be wanting from the EU. What are the lines in the sand that should he not be successful then he would recommend out. But there is nothing from him or any of the rest and I include quite a few of you on here in that. The question has been asked many times to only get silence by way of reply.
My conclusion to that is that he and you have no answer. Empty vessels make a lot of noise.
I may be proved wrong and if so willing to change my opinion. But so far the arguments are not at all convincing.
So if the referendum point is so important for a Conservative vote then put some meat on the argument. Have some f
king spine. Stand up and say THIS is what I/we want and stand for. Because at this moment the empty meaningless waffle will just be assumed to be exactly that as setting out the ground for the usual political muddle of ghost along and then spin to make the best appearance in face of the facts.
The big problem for UKIP voters is that they can have a huge influence on the outcome of an election without actually having a huge influence at the end of the day. 3 to 6 seats which is my prediction is not enough really. Yes it's sending a message but I for one don't trust the current cosy sets to listen to any message. They will indeed try and engineer things to their advantage for the future. Labour definitely so. Tories less convinced as under Cameron they are broken. They have to get rid but too late now.
There is a very simple (political) reason there is no meat on the bones yet on the EU negotiation. As frustrating as you may find it , it is not in his interests to have the thing descend into a detailed debate about EXACTLY what he might be able to achieve (or not) and therefore have the thing pre-judged - because that is EXACTLY what you want to be able to do - and so does Miliband. Starve the fire of oxygen & all that.If a major issue in this forthcoming GE is the ability to provide a referendum then it follows to ask the question as to what will be that referendum question.
Yes we know it will be a global in/out question possibly but nobody knows Cameron's position.
He could kill this immediately with saying what reforms he will be wanting from the EU. What are the lines in the sand that should he not be successful then he would recommend out. But there is nothing from him or any of the rest and I include quite a few of you on here in that. The question has been asked many times to only get silence by way of reply.
My conclusion to that is that he and you have no answer. Empty vessels make a lot of noise.
I may be proved wrong and if so willing to change my opinion. But so far the arguments are not at all convincing.
So if the referendum point is so important for a Conservative vote then put some meat on the argument. Have some f
king spine. Stand up and say THIS is what I/we want and stand for. Because at this moment the empty meaningless waffle will just be assumed to be exactly that as setting out the ground for the usual political muddle of ghost along and then spin to make the best appearance in face of the facts. The big problem for UKIP voters is that they can have a huge influence on the outcome of an election without actually having a huge influence at the end of the day. 3 to 6 seats which is my prediction is not enough really. Yes it's sending a message but I for one don't trust the current cosy sets to listen to any message. They will indeed try and engineer things to their advantage for the future. Labour definitely so. Tories less convinced as under Cameron they are broken. They have to get rid but too late now.
Presumably he thinks the statement that the referendum would be an "In-Out" referendum is clear enough for most people. I also don't see anyone in the media or in political circles questioning what that one means.
Elections are about "Macro" positioning. His position is clear enough for most of the electorate on the EU in that respect
...and so is Miliband's.
Wombat3 said:
brenflys777 said:
You may feel a moral obligation to protect treaties that are not in the public interest and were not within the politicians mandate. I certainly don't.
WOW indeed. Just to be clear, you are advocating ignoring the law when you don't like it?
Should this apply to all laws & treaties or just the ones we don't like on a Monday?
The deals with the EU are similar to the mis-sold bank PPI schemes. People bought in without being aware what they were agreeing to.
I'm puzzled by your willingness to dismiss renegotiation or withdrawal. If they aren't possible what does Cameron plan to do if a referendum doesn't go his way? Have another vote?
Wombat3 said:
There is a very simple (political) reason there is no meat on the bones yet on the EU negotiation. As frustrating as you may find it , it is not in his interests to have the thing descend into a detailed debate about EXACTLY what he might be able to achieve (or not) and therefore have the thing pre-judged - because that is EXACTLY what you want to be able to do - and so does Miliband. Starve the fire of oxygen & all that.
Presumably he thinks the statement that the referendum would be an "In-Out" referendum is clear enough for most people. I also don't see anyone in the media or in political circles questioning what that one means.
Elections are about "Macro" positioning. His position is clear enough for most of the electorate on the EU in that respect
...and so is Miliband's.
Or an even simpler non political explanation. If something appears to lack substance, it is often because it's insubstantial.Presumably he thinks the statement that the referendum would be an "In-Out" referendum is clear enough for most people. I also don't see anyone in the media or in political circles questioning what that one means.
Elections are about "Macro" positioning. His position is clear enough for most of the electorate on the EU in that respect
...and so is Miliband's.
You and Cameron can rely on faith, many others require evidence. I don't think Cameron's renegotiation is cloaked. I think it's absent.
0a said:
Zod said:
o sensitive.
I happen to have been acquainted with this man. He is an odious character.
His defection and its manner change nothing in that respect.
It is interesting how you chose not to mention this until the precise moment the chap stops being a Tory...I happen to have been acquainted with this man. He is an odious character.
His defection and its manner change nothing in that respect.
Zod said:
0a said:
Zod said:
o sensitive.
I happen to have been acquainted with this man. He is an odious character.
His defection and its manner change nothing in that respect.
It is interesting how you chose not to mention this until the precise moment the chap stops being a Tory...I happen to have been acquainted with this man. He is an odious character.
His defection and its manner change nothing in that respect.
I only ask because there's a rumour that UKIP haven't finished poaching yet....
Wombat3 said:
There is a very simple (political) reason there is no meat on the bones yet on the EU negotiation. As frustrating as you may find it , it is not in his interests to have the thing descend into a detailed debate about EXACTLY what he might be able to achieve (or not) and therefore have the thing pre-judged - because that is EXACTLY what you want to be able to do - and so does Miliband. Starve the fire of oxygen & all that.
Presumably he thinks the statement that the referendum would be an "In-Out" referendum is clear enough for most people. I also don't see anyone in the media or in political circles questioning what that one means.
Elections are about "Macro" positioning. His position is clear enough for most of the electorate on the EU in that respect
...and so is Miliband's.
No sorry flatly disagree. Presumably he thinks the statement that the referendum would be an "In-Out" referendum is clear enough for most people. I also don't see anyone in the media or in political circles questioning what that one means.
Elections are about "Macro" positioning. His position is clear enough for most of the electorate on the EU in that respect
...and so is Miliband's.
It would be clearly in his interests to say
THESE are the things that I would like to see reformed.
He could even indicate things where he thinks that it will be really difficult to get reform but will try to do so.
He has also said that he may in the event recommend an out vote. That means there must be some things that are lines in the sand. So why not say what they are?
My opinion fwiw is that he has no lines in the sand, the I may recommend an out vote is empty rhetoric imvho but will wait and see.
Strongly feel that he would win more people onto his side if there were more than the empty soundbites.
As for playing into what Miliband wants. Labour are currently kings of empty rhetoric. Get some details in front of them and they are stuffed, time and time again.
But at the moment I don't trust Cameron further than I could have thrown Cyril Smith with my little finger. There are many others like me out there. The man is not fit for office.
brenflys777 said:
Zod said:
0a said:
Zod said:
o sensitive.
I happen to have been acquainted with this man. He is an odious character.
His defection and its manner change nothing in that respect.
It is interesting how you chose not to mention this until the precise moment the chap stops being a Tory...I happen to have been acquainted with this man. He is an odious character.
His defection and its manner change nothing in that respect.
I only ask because there's a rumour that UKIP haven't finished poaching yet....
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/pictures/Bridge/pic...
Ah that's nice...so much better than red, blue, yellow or green don't you think?
Ah that's nice...so much better than red, blue, yellow or green don't you think?
Esseesse said:
brenflys777 said:
Zod said:
0a said:
Zod said:
o sensitive.
I happen to have been acquainted with this man. He is an odious character.
His defection and its manner change nothing in that respect.
It is interesting how you chose not to mention this until the precise moment the chap stops being a Tory...I happen to have been acquainted with this man. He is an odious character.
His defection and its manner change nothing in that respect.
I only ask because there's a rumour that UKIP haven't finished poaching yet....
NicD said:
IainT said:
So, the UKIP fans default is to believe that any bad press is an unfounded smear and any bad press of other parties is true and good reporting?
My interest right now is to see if UKIP can actually put out coherent polices that amount to more than 'anti' positions. Right now I still can't distinguish UKIP from a single-issue separatist party and they're not even consistent on that.
Which rock have you been hiding under for the past months? My interest right now is to see if UKIP can actually put out coherent polices that amount to more than 'anti' positions. Right now I still can't distinguish UKIP from a single-issue separatist party and they're not even consistent on that.
Perhaps you need to 'distinguish' with rather more effort, I certainly will not waste words because you are lazy (or one eyed).
Secondly - it is a UKIP supporter thing or just your choice to default to insulting someone who isn't convinced by UKIP as opposed to some kind of reasoned rebuttal?
There are some issue I agree with UKIP in broad terms some I'm very much in opposition to but that's the way it is with all the parties. None represent my views fully. I'm very much interested in actually seeing detail on policy rather than the mostly high-level aspirations. Maybe it's unreasonable to expect that to be in place a year from election but Farage's skills in oratory are not a good reason to give him my vote.
Given the recent voting history of my seat a vote for UKIP from a previously Tory voter is a vote for Labour.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff