UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[mrpurple]

XJ Flyer said:

mrpurple said:

XJ Flyer said:

Scuffers said:

XJ Flyer said:

Unbelievable Farage caves in,leaving his Rochester candidate hung out to dry,at the first sign of the pro immigration cause,raising the issue of wether UKIP's 'immigration policy' applies retrospectively,if we leave the EU.So exactly what are we voting for in the case of UKIP's supposed anti immigration policy.Being that UKIP obviously agrees with the amounts of immigration which we've already got and has no intention of actually reversing the pro immigration policy which it supposedly stands against.

are you really that shallow and gullible?

have you not bothered listening/reading UKIP's policies on Immigration?

I'm obviously not gullible which is why I'm asking the question why isn't a supposedly anti immigration Party at least doing what it says on the tin.At present Farage's message is yes an open door EU immigration policy is bad.But then he says we have to accept whatever numbers the pro immigration cause have let in up to the point where we leave.In which case it won't be difficult to foresee an even greater rush into the country in case a UKIP balance of power 'eventually' decides to close the door only to new entrants.Which also obviously contradicts the message originally put out by his prospective candidate for Rochester.The logical conclusion of which would either be a split in the UKIP vote to more a fringe Party option with a harder line on the immigration issue.Or at best a lower turnout on the basis of why bother they are all the same and as bad as each other.Which is a choice which this fiasco will probably result in,at least in my case,in the General Election.Which is a damning indictment of our 'democratic' system.

Doh wrong again...... UKIP are NOT I repeat NOT "anti immigration" they are pro CONTROLLED immigration...if you can't get this basic fact in your head how on earth can you expect anybody to read past the 1st line of your posts?

According to their Rochester candidate they are/were obviously a lot more anti than pro regarding the issue of retrospective closure of the doors to EU ( cheap labour east European ) immigration.

At what point does anti become pro and at what point does anyone who is on the 'anti' side decide that there is no difference worth the name in UKIP's policy v the LabLibdemCon coalition.In this case as I've said UKIP's immigration policy is effectively the same as the Cons on the basis of the door is open until such time as we 'might' possibly close it.In which case the result is obvious.IE a mass rush of EU immigration on the basis of no time like the present because the door 'might' be closed to 'new' entrants in the future.In which case no I think at least the UKIP labour vote is looking for a lot more 'anti' than that.Therefore its my guess that Farage has just said goodbye to a significant part of that vote who'll probably stay at home if they've got any sense thereby handing the next election to Labour.On the basis of if we must have a cheap labour agenda then Labour,as always,is the best placed to alleviate the worst aspects of that on the working classes.

Sorry I can't understand most of that so all I will add is - if you or anybody else is "anti immigration" for whatever reason, then there are other parties to vote for. If that means UKIP do less well then so be it.

I shall now leave it to others to reply further if they so wish but I won't reply to you on this issue any further.

[don4l]

XJ Flyer said:

But we should have the right to expect better and different in the case of UKIP.

Why?

[XJ Flyer]

Scuffers said:

XJ Flyer said:

According to their Rochester candidate they are/were obviously a lot more anti than pro regarding the issue of retrospective closure of the doors to EU ( cheap labour east European ) immigration.

Only if you believe the wildly bias and selective reporting.

Why would the reporting need to be biased.Assuming,that is,UKIP's aim isn't to appease the cheap labour/socialist pro immigration cause and therefore doesn't need to appeal to that voter base or the establishment media agenda.Everything points to Farage moving closer to Cameron and compromising on appealing to the Labour anti immigration vote in favour of appealing to the Cons cheap labour pro immigration agenda.

[XJ Flyer]

don4l said:

XJ Flyer said:

But we should have the right to expect better and different in the case of UKIP.

Why?

Because that is what UKIP 'says' it is 'supposedly' all about.

[XJ Flyer]

mrpurple said:

XJ Flyer said:

mrpurple said:

XJ Flyer said:

Scuffers said:

XJ Flyer said:

Unbelievable Farage caves in,leaving his Rochester candidate hung out to dry,at the first sign of the pro immigration cause,raising the issue of wether UKIP's 'immigration policy' applies retrospectively,if we leave the EU.So exactly what are we voting for in the case of UKIP's supposed anti immigration policy.Being that UKIP obviously agrees with the amounts of immigration which we've already got and has no intention of actually reversing the pro immigration policy which it supposedly stands against.

are you really that shallow and gullible?

have you not bothered listening/reading UKIP's policies on Immigration?

I'm obviously not gullible which is why I'm asking the question why isn't a supposedly anti immigration Party at least doing what it says on the tin.At present Farage's message is yes an open door EU immigration policy is bad.But then he says we have to accept whatever numbers the pro immigration cause have let in up to the point where we leave.In which case it won't be difficult to foresee an even greater rush into the country in case a UKIP balance of power 'eventually' decides to close the door only to new entrants.Which also obviously contradicts the message originally put out by his prospective candidate for Rochester.The logical conclusion of which would either be a split in the UKIP vote to more a fringe Party option with a harder line on the immigration issue.Or at best a lower turnout on the basis of why bother they are all the same and as bad as each other.Which is a choice which this fiasco will probably result in,at least in my case,in the General Election.Which is a damning indictment of our 'democratic' system.

Doh wrong again...... UKIP are NOT I repeat NOT "anti immigration" they are pro CONTROLLED immigration...if you can't get this basic fact in your head how on earth can you expect anybody to read past the 1st line of your posts?

According to their Rochester candidate they are/were obviously a lot more anti than pro regarding the issue of retrospective closure of the doors to EU ( cheap labour east European ) immigration.

At what point does anti become pro and at what point does anyone who is on the 'anti' side decide that there is no difference worth the name in UKIP's policy v the LabLibdemCon coalition.In this case as I've said UKIP's immigration policy is effectively the same as the Cons on the basis of the door is open until such time as we 'might' possibly close it.In which case the result is obvious.IE a mass rush of EU immigration on the basis of no time like the present because the door 'might' be closed to 'new' entrants in the future.In which case no I think at least the UKIP labour vote is looking for a lot more 'anti' than that.Therefore its my guess that Farage has just said goodbye to a significant part of that vote who'll probably stay at home if they've got any sense thereby handing the next election to Labour.On the basis of if we must have a cheap labour agenda then Labour,as always,is the best placed to alleviate the worst aspects of that on the working classes.

Sorry I can't understand most of that so all I will add is - if you or anybody else is "anti immigration" for whatever reason, then there are other parties to vote for. If that means UKIP do less well then so be it.

I shall now leave it to others to reply further if they so wish but I won't reply to you on this issue any further.

As I've said Farage has effectively handed the election to Labour.Being that he needs the alienated anti immigration Labour vote.However if we must keep the cheap labour pro immigration regime then we obviously might as well have a Party which can minimise the effects of low pay on the working class.

[jogon]

XJ Flyer said:

As I've said Farage has effectively handed the election to Labour.Being that he needs the alienated anti immigration Labour vote.However if we must keep the cheap labour pro immigration regime then we obviously might as well have a Party which can minimise the effects of low pay on the working class.

FIF posted this earlier and despite the length is well worth a read.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/nigel...

With SNP rise in Scotland and PC and UKIP in Wales and recent events in Heywood and Middleton make Labours northern dominance look ever so precarious.

Edited by jogon on Wednesday 19th November 21:48

[brenflys777]

XJ Flyer said:

don4l said:

XJ Flyer said:

But we should have the right to expect better and different in the case of UKIP.

Why?

Because that is what UKIP 'says' it is 'supposedly' all about.

Provide some quotes from UKIP themselves to support your interminably weak arguments. If you are right in thinking that UKIP are anti any immigration or that they propose to 'send back' immigrants British born descendants, then UKIP can stuff off if they expect my vote.

I don't think that's the case though, I think you are just deluded. You seem to have values closer to BNP than UKIP.

[FiF]

IIRC, and will look up the details if given the chance tomorrow, voters expressing an intention to vote UKIP were asked what they thought was "the right level of immigration". Wasn't the figure somewhere around 40 - 50 thousand per year?

[steveT350C]

JustAnotherLogin said:

jogon said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Liberal garbage

So if speaking up against vile organisations such as UAF and Tel Mama etc is racist then so be it I could not care one bit.

Despite being asked why you hate them so much, you have not added anything to the fact that they are opposed to racism against muslims.

That is not vile, nor liberal garbage. It is your racism that is vile

@JustAnotherLogin.

You also use the profile TuscanOwner. Clearly, from your posts using this profile, you do not own a TVR Tuscan.

Your points of view therefore are invalid.

Schill?

[XJ Flyer]

jogon said:

XJ Flyer said:

As I've said Farage has effectively handed the election to Labour.Being that he needs the alienated anti immigration Labour vote.However if we must keep the cheap labour pro immigration regime then we obviously might as well have a Party which can minimise the effects of low pay on the working class.

FIF posted this earlier and despite the length is well worth a read.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/nigel...

As usual he's totally missed the point that the left are an erroneous reaction to low wage employment.While one of the reasons for that low wage employment is the alliance of the socialist and cheap labour pro immigration agendas of both Labour and the Cons.

Assuming UKIP's ideology shares that same pro immigration agenda,in the form of a so called non retrospective closure and 'controlled' ( therefore pro ) immigration policy,then what's in it for any Labour to UKIP swing vote.

[jogon]

XJ Flyer said:

As usual he's totally missed the point that the left are an erroneous reaction to low wage employment.While one of the reasons for that low wage employment is the alliance of the socialist and cheap labour pro immigration agendas of both Labour and the Cons.

Assuming UKIP's ideology shares that same pro immigration agenda,in the form of a so called non retrospective 'controlled' ( pro ) immigration policy,then what's in it for any Labour to UKIP swing vote.

The problem is for you lot IT IS happening, you may choose to deny it, but the signs are very clear and the dissent is growing amongst the ranks it is almost like wildfire.

If your a hard working, low income, not so smart Brit it is much easier to relate with Farage than Miliband the socially awkward plonk can't even eat a bacon sarnie without looking like a freak.

[steveT350C]

2nd UKIP MP 36 odd hours away, followed by a few high profile defections makes for a fun run up to Xmas.


Anti-kippers....................






Failed

[XJ Flyer]

brenflys777 said:

XJ Flyer said:

don4l said:

XJ Flyer said:

But we should have the right to expect better and different in the case of UKIP.

Why?

Because that is what UKIP 'says' it is 'supposedly' all about.

Provide some quotes from UKIP themselves to support your interminably weak arguments. If you are right in thinking that UKIP are anti any immigration or that they propose to 'send back' immigrants British born descendants, then UKIP can stuff off if they expect my vote.

I don't think that's the case though, I think you are just deluded. You seem to have values closer to BNP than UKIP.

I think the idea of a retrospectively applied non EU immigration policy assuming we leave the EU is actually closer to the reasoning of the Labour to UKIP swing vote than the BNP.IE what's the point of a party that 'says' it will stop the import of cheap east European labour thereby reducing downward pressure on wages if that policy isn't applied retrospectively.

As for place of birth being the definition of nationality we've seen where that is going in the case of so called 'British' Jihadists.

[JustAnotherLogin]

steveT350C said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

jogon said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Liberal garbage

So if speaking up against vile organisations such as UAF and Tel Mama etc is racist then so be it I could not care one bit.

Despite being asked why you hate them so much, you have not added anything to the fact that they are opposed to racism against muslims.

That is not vile, nor liberal garbage. It is your racism that is vile

@JustAnotherLogin.

You also use the profile TuscanOwner. Clearly, from your posts using this profile, you do not own a TVR Tuscan.

Your points of view therefore are invalid.

Schill?

This sort of crap is an example what is worst about the attitude of some kippers on here. What difference does it matter what cars I have owned or own? For the record I have had a couple of Tuscans, and other performance cars. So I see no issue with being on Pistonheads. I did create the account you mention, but haven't used it to post, so there is no deception. Before you accuse me of anything else, I am not engaged by, or a member of, any political party, nor have I ever been. That cover it?

So putting aside your irrelevancies which are also baseless, why is it an example of the worst? Some of you are zealots, blinded by your beliefs. Now you get zealots in many fields, but that of religion is probably most familiar

Farage is the true prophet, pure and always tells the truth. Anyone who dares say he is a politician as slimy as the rest is a heretic and guilty of attacking the person not the policy (but it is OK to make personal attacks on priests of other creeds)

The UKIP manifesto are the gospels, full of promise for the future. Anytime they are proved to have an incorrect basis in fact or in probability then they are merely allegorical, and non-believers are too mundane to see their worth

Anyone who attacks the faith is a blasphemer, and must have been sent by the devil (the Tories) or cannot be believed (because they don't own a Tuscan).

Again, just as I say Jogon is a racist, but not only Kippers, so I say some on here are zealots but not all Kippers.

[XJ Flyer]

jogon said:

XJ Flyer said:

As usual he's totally missed the point that the left are an erroneous reaction to low wage employment.While one of the reasons for that low wage employment is the alliance of the socialist and cheap labour pro immigration agendas of both Labour and the Cons.

Assuming UKIP's ideology shares that same pro immigration agenda,in the form of a so called non retrospective 'controlled' ( pro ) immigration policy,then what's in it for any Labour to UKIP swing vote.

The problem is for you lot IT IS happening, you may choose to deny it, but the signs are very clear and the dissent is growing amongst the ranks it is almost like wildfire.

If your a hard working, low income, not so smart Brit it is much easier to relate with Farage than Miliband the socially awkward plonk can't even eat a bacon sarnie without looking like a freak.

I think you'll find that the average Labour swing voter to UKIP is smart enough to realise that any so called anti EU immigration policy that isn't applied retrospectively isn't worth the paper it is written on.As for Miliband they are also smart enough to realise that it is the socialist and cheap labour pro immigration agendas of the LabCon alliance which is helping to keep those low incomes low.There is no way that any non retrospective 'controlled' immigration policy will fix that.Probably the opposite in that there will now be a massive spike in the figures on the basis that any sensible EU immigrant will be thinking get in now or possibly never.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 19th November 22:17

[mrpurple]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I did create the account you mention, but haven't used it to post, so there is no deception.

Not quite true though is it?

"TuscanOwner

Saturday 30th August quote all
I had that on a previous Tuscan. I'm afraid it was a garage job.

IIRC they only had to replace one part of the clutch, but because it was sold as a single item the warranty only covered the item that had failed and I had to pay for all the other bits. I was not impressed and haven't used that dealer again"

[JustAnotherLogin]

mrpurple said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

I did create the account you mention, but haven't used it to post, so there is no deception.

Not quite true though is it?

"TuscanOwner

Saturday 30th August quote all
I had that on a previous Tuscan. I'm afraid it was a garage job.

IIRC they only had to replace one part of the clutch, but because it was sold as a single item the warranty only covered the item that had failed and I had to pay for all the other bits. I was not impressed and haven't used that dealer again"

I apologise, my mistake. One post. On Tuscan's rather politics. Still struggling to see the big deception

ETA
Having looked, I actually made 8 posts from that account. Odd. I created an account and then couldnb't get in. Created another with a very similar name (this one) and used that. Changed name to what it is now (and even mentioned that on this thread). But I seem to have made some posts with the other account. Not deliberate, I can only assume my phone logs into it or something. Still no deception, or relevance

Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Wednesday 19th November 22:34

[eharding]

XJ Flyer said:

jogon said:

XJ Flyer said:

As usual he's totally missed the point that the left are an erroneous reaction to low wage employment.While one of the reasons for that low wage employment is the alliance of the socialist and cheap labour pro immigration agendas of both Labour and the Cons.

Assuming UKIP's ideology shares that same pro immigration agenda,in the form of a so called non retrospective 'controlled' ( pro ) immigration policy,then what's in it for any Labour to UKIP swing vote.

The problem is for you lot IT IS happening, you may choose to deny it, but the signs are very clear and the dissent is growing amongst the ranks it is almost like wildfire.

If your a hard working, low income, not so smart Brit it is much easier to relate with Farage than Miliband the socially awkward plonk can't even eat a bacon sarnie without looking like a freak.

I think you'll find that the average Labour swing voter to UKIP is smart enough to realise that any so called anti EU immigration policy that isn't applied retrospectively isn't worth the paper it is written on.As for Miliband they are also smart enough to realise that it is the socialist and cheap labour pro immigration agendas of the LabCon alliance which is helping to keep those low incomes low.There is no way that any non retrospective 'controlled' immigration policy will fix that.

Can I just say at this point that watching two of the most demented, reactionary, bigoted and downright odious spacktards we've seen of late in the PH shire battle it out for the title of Biggest Throbbing Pure Blood 'Kipper Bell-End is deeply, deeply satisfying.

Poor old Nigel. Trying to keep a lid on UKIP's natural disposition to pick a fight with everyone and everything - themselves included - must be like keeping a pack of blood-crazed rabid ferrets stuffed down his trousers. No wonder he keeps wincing.

[BGARK]

JustAnotherLogin said:

This sort of crap is an example what is worst about the attitude of some kippers on here. What difference does it matter what cars I have owned or own? For the record I have had a couple of Tuscans, and other performance cars. So I see no issue with being on Pistonheads. I did create the account you mention, but haven't used it to post, so there is no deception. Before you accuse me of anything else, I am not engaged by, or a member of, any political party, nor have I ever been. That cover it?

So putting aside your irrelevancies which are also baseless, why is it an example of the worst? Some of you are zealots, blinded by your beliefs. Now you get zealots in many fields, but that of religion is probably most familiar

Farage is the true prophet, pure and always tells the truth. Anyone who dares say he is a politician as slimy as the rest is a heretic and guilty of attacking the person not the policy (but it is OK to make personal attacks on priests of other creeds)

The UKIP manifesto are the gospels, full of promise for the future. Anytime they are proved to have an incorrect basis in fact or in probability then they are merely allegorical, and non-believers are too mundane to see their worth

Anyone who attacks the faith is a blasphemer, and must have been sent by the devil (the Tories) or cannot be believed (because they don't own a Tuscan).

Again, just as I say Jogon is a racist, but not only Kippers, so I say some on here are zealots but not all Kippers.

Did you write that whilst bashing your keyboard with a crucifix?

Anyway for me voting UKIP means I might get 75% of a good thing, everyone else seems to represent less than 50%, with the other 50% just being plain mental.

No one is perfect and I don't trust any politician or pretend to be an expert in much of this but we have to put an X next to someone, no?

[mrpurple]

BGARK said:

Did you write that whilst bashing your keyboard with a crucifix?

Anyway for me voting UKIP means I might get 75% of a good thing, everyone else seems to represent less than 50%, with the other 50% just being plain mental.

No one is perfect and I don't trust any politician or pretend to be an expert in much of this but we have to put an X next to someone, no?

I like this post.....for me I would say I agree with about 80% of what, I consider, UKIP stands for. Which is far higher than the % that I agree with any other party.