UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
Scuffers said:
yes, you have, and unless you are truly stupid, you know exactly what your doing.
He is not the first to misrepresent things and he will not be the last.I've never put an X in the kipper box and not likely to but it's obvious the game which is being played by some. The next thing will be to pick up on an unfortunate typo/auto correct.
I am not Fif.
Scuffers to answer your question:
1) the reason why selling in imperial meassures should be banned. Because there should be 1 single set of weights and measures so that everyone knows what they are getting. Reduces the potential for people to be cheated. I accept that some older people have found it harder during the transition, but going forward the metric system is much easier and simpler for all. To allow some traders to sell in a different system will just confuse people
2) You may not be anti-islam, but how else am I to interpret this response:
3) Tax rates. All in favour of simplification. As I said the Tories have been trying that with partial success for some time. But a completely flat rate tax system is a different matter. No significant political party in this country (including UKIP) support such an approach, and with good reason. So if you want such a system you need a new party
Scuffers to answer your question:
1) the reason why selling in imperial meassures should be banned. Because there should be 1 single set of weights and measures so that everyone knows what they are getting. Reduces the potential for people to be cheated. I accept that some older people have found it harder during the transition, but going forward the metric system is much easier and simpler for all. To allow some traders to sell in a different system will just confuse people
2) You may not be anti-islam, but how else am I to interpret this response:
someone said:
Religious tolerance will be the death of this country as we know it. What will it take for the Guardianistas to realise that with a certain religion the tolerance only goes one way? Vote LibLabCon - get Rochdale, Rotherham and Tower Hamlets.
I never knew UKIP had proposed controls on mosque-building, suggests they are just as anti-Islam as I hope they'll turn out to be.
Also, please, do tell me where there is positive discrimination in favour of muslims in this country. Because I am damned if I can think of anywhere. Positive discrimination for women I have heard about, but not muslimsI never knew UKIP had proposed controls on mosque-building, suggests they are just as anti-Islam as I hope they'll turn out to be.
3) Tax rates. All in favour of simplification. As I said the Tories have been trying that with partial success for some time. But a completely flat rate tax system is a different matter. No significant political party in this country (including UKIP) support such an approach, and with good reason. So if you want such a system you need a new party
JustAnotherLogin said:
Also, please, do tell me where there is positive discrimination in favour of muslims in this country. Because I am damned if I can think of anywhere. Positive discrimination for women I have heard about, but not muslims
I'd say the atrocities in Rotherham were a direct result of positive discrimination and appeasement of Muslims. Gangs of white English men would not have been facilitated in grooming/raping children for years on end.HonestIago said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Also, please, do tell me where there is positive discrimination in favour of muslims in this country. Because I am damned if I can think of anywhere. Positive discrimination for women I have heard about, but not muslims
I'd say the atrocities in Rotherham were a direct result of positive discrimination and appeasement of Muslims. Gangs of white English men would not have been facilitated in grooming/raping children for years on end.What about Saville? Cyril Smith and his cohort?
Were they muslim?
JustAnotherLogin said:
No?
What about Saville? Cyril Smith and his cohort?
Were they muslim?
You're comparing apples with oranges. Saville et al were protected by the BBC/political establishment due to having corrupt friends in high places. Is that not obvious?What about Saville? Cyril Smith and his cohort?
Were they muslim?
The Pakistani Muslims in Rotherham (and everywhere else) who are abusing children tend to be take-away owners and taxi-drivers. Hardly the same.
HonestIago said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
No?
What about Saville? Cyril Smith and his cohort?
Were they muslim?
You're comparing apples with oranges. Saville et al were protected by the BBC/political establishment due to having corrupt friends in high places. Is that not obvious?What about Saville? Cyril Smith and his cohort?
Were they muslim?
The Pakistani Muslims in Rotherham (and everywhere else) who are abusing children tend to be take-away owners and taxi-drivers. Hardly the same.
There will always be people like that
There are and will be people who favour muslims. That much is true
There will be others who favour whites, blacks, asians, often (but not always) because it is their skin-colour.
There are people who favour people because they are famous, or rich, or just about anything
I agree that all such bias should be avoided, but judging from some of the earlier comments there are some on here that would disagree with that. And they aren't pro-muslim
But there is no systematic, or formal, or legalised positive discrimination in favour of muslims in this country as far as I am aware.
But if you are calling for all people to be treated alike, irrespective of race, skin colour or religion, then I am in complete agreement.
JustAnotherLogin said:
But if you are calling for all people to be treated alike, irrespective of race, skin colour or religion, then I am in complete agreement.
A sentiment few would disagree with. Also completely in line with UKIP policy. The UKIP proposals on fairer rules for immigration to this country should be attractive to you then. To get to Cameron's figure of tens of thousands net immigration with free movement in the EU will require a massive reduction in immigration from non EU countries regardless of the applicants qualities or situation.Guam said:
turbobloke said:
1. welcome back
2. you must be joking
2. you must be joking
Summary. All previous predictions still appear to be reasonably valid. Except for the three main parties appear to be trying even harder to lose and brass as many off as possible and demonstrating general cluelessness. Greens coming up on the outside.
TheRealFingers99 said:
sjn2004 said:
Much is made by the anti-UKIPers that come the General Election they won't have enough boots on the ground to mount a decent campaign.
Well it could actually be the reverse. Somebody who I know in the Heywood and Middleton Ward has had 5 leaflets from UKIP (only one delivered by the postman), 2 Labour leaflets (one via postman) and 1 Conservative(delivered by the postman). It seems UKIP can get a lot more boots on the ground than the traditional parties, at this by election anyway.
Another way of looking at it -- especially if the leaflets are identical -- is that UKIP either can't co-ordinate their leaflet drops or that they're using "professional" leaflet droppers: the 5 leaflets through the same box trick is an old stunt to finish early.Well it could actually be the reverse. Somebody who I know in the Heywood and Middleton Ward has had 5 leaflets from UKIP (only one delivered by the postman), 2 Labour leaflets (one via postman) and 1 Conservative(delivered by the postman). It seems UKIP can get a lot more boots on the ground than the traditional parties, at this by election anyway.
Guam said:
Just caught up with the thread having been in the states for a couple of weeks, nice to see the same old sniping and barbed comments are still here "wacists" etc.
I had hoped it might have moved on a bit in the last couple of weeks.
Quick Question was the UKIP manifesto released as expected in September (apologies if I missed it in my skim through the backlog).
I won't copy & paste the lot I had hoped it might have moved on a bit in the last couple of weeks.
Quick Question was the UKIP manifesto released as expected in September (apologies if I missed it in my skim through the backlog).
"The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
sjn2004 said:
Sorry, all different leaflets, delivered on different days. Delivered by volunteers.
Well, it shows enthusiasm, at least, poor wee buggers. Here we get just Labour and Lib Dem. There used to be an old lady who came round for the Tories, but I think she passed away. Still, wake me up after you've got 5 seats at a real election.
mrpurple said:
I won't copy & paste the lot
"The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
I'm liking that a lot. "The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
JustAnotherLogin said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Well I can' speak for him but just to start with, restoring feet and inches in place of metres would be just dumb and pointless, and a referendum on building mosques would be a betrayal of our traditions of religious tolerance.
As for proportional taxation as opposed to progressive, please highlight any evidence where a country has tried this and it has worked as a justification for change. Even Farage has distanced himself from a flat rate tax, whilst proposing a two tier flat rate tax, i.e. a progressive tax
So the responses I have are essentially:As for proportional taxation as opposed to progressive, please highlight any evidence where a country has tried this and it has worked as a justification for change. Even Farage has distanced himself from a flat rate tax, whilst proposing a two tier flat rate tax, i.e. a progressive tax
1) The crown mark on the pint is essential and should be fought for. Never mind that we can serve beer in pints, we don't have the right mark
2) We hate muslims so they shouldn't be allowed to build mosques and/or we have only practised complete religious tolerance for a century or so so we can discard it (I'm not saying that is the view of all Kippers, just the responses I have received
3) We agree with a complete flat rate tax that even UKIP and Farage have recognised was a mistake, because successful countries such as Abkhazia have such a system. Note that I have not cherry-picked a country, that was first on the list that was proposed. By all means pick another country from the list if you think it makes your case more successfully. Bolivia? Russia? Nagorno-Karabakh?
Gents, by all means say I have mis-represented your case on these issues, but frankly I have not done so deliberately and I don't need to. The responses of the last few pages from the supporters of these policies have done more than I ever could to ridicule them.
Britain historically has been very very religiously intolerant. Even during the "enlightenment" we were a massively t
ttish bunch of ppl who it came to religion. It arguably took until post WWII for a "new" society to emerge that attempted to undertake tolerance for one's fellow man and their beliefs. Many would argue that still wasnt the case till the 60s.A flat rate country wide tax system I don't support massively, allowing individual counties to set tax rates however I think would be a very interesting experiment. The only trouble with that would be that it comes up against my instinctive loathing of "local" political types in the Uk who I generally regard as the most incompetent people on the earth. In the hands of genuine and competent administrators I have direct experience of it working well and of society benefitting massively.
Brenflys. I'm not against the use of the points system in principle, but I think some of the mandatory rules have a few holes in them. The private health insurance clause for a start.
On that subject, what I have not seen is any statement from UKIP about their intentions regarding asylum seekers. Anyone have any idea?
On that subject, what I have not seen is any statement from UKIP about their intentions regarding asylum seekers. Anyone have any idea?
FiF said:
Summary. All previous predictions still appear to be reasonably valid. Except for the three main parties appear to be trying even harder to lose and brass as many off as possible and demonstrating general cluelessness. Greens coming up on the outside.
You think? Over the last year the polls show fairly static numbers for pretty much everyone, certainly the top 4. Bit of a ramp up on the Tories at the end (following conference), but time will show whether that is just a brief flare or something more permanentJustAnotherLogin said:
Brenflys. I'm not against the use of the points system in principle, but I think some of the mandatory rules have a few holes in them. The private health insurance clause for a start.
On that subject, what I have not seen is any statement from UKIP about their intentions regarding asylum seekers. Anyone have any idea?
The private health insurance seems like a sensible precaution to me. If I were going to another country as an economic migrant who wanted to contribute, the cost of health care for a period of time seems a reasonable investment.On that subject, what I have not seen is any statement from UKIP about their intentions regarding asylum seekers. Anyone have any idea?
FiF said:
Summary. All previous predictions still appear to be reasonably valid. Except for the three main parties appear to be trying even harder to lose and brass as many off as possible and demonstrating general cluelessness. Greens coming up on the outside.
You think? Over the last year the polls show fairly static numbers for pretty much everyone, certainly the top 4. Bit of a ramp up on the Tories at the end (following conference), but time will show whether that is just a brief flare or something more permanentRegarding asylum policy I've heard Nigel Farage say on interview that UKIP would meet all the legal obligations for genuine asylum seekers, but I can't find a link. Last Year when Cameron was gearing up to bomb Syria and arm the rebels (now terrorists) Nigel Farage made clear that the distinction between economic migrant and asylum seekers was important. Farage was positively encouraging about taking genuine refugees, as we should be as a developed nation.
The UKIP leader said: ‘I think refugees are a very different thing to economic migration and I think this country should honour the 1951 declaration on refugee status that was agreed.
mrpurple said:
I won't copy & paste the lot
"The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
Looks good to me. Why isn't this being plastered everywhere?"The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
Art0ir said:
mrpurple said:
I won't copy & paste the lot
"The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
Looks good to me. Why isn't this being plastered everywhere?"The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
Art0ir said:
mrpurple said:
I won't copy & paste the lot
"The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
Looks good to me. Why isn't this being plastered everywhere?"The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people?utm_campai...
I don't particularly like the idea of a society of lazy scroungers waiting around for the day mummy & daddy pop their clogs so they can flog the house & then live off that.
I'm surprised, because I thought UKIP stood for traditional core values such as hard work & standing on your own two feet. Competition & survival of the fittest. That sort of thing.
Oh well. Another illusion shattered.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff