UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[9mm]

I think it's helpful to see an ideological difference between the parties. It's clear that, to a greater or lesser extent, Labour, Tories and Lib Dems are are broadly supportive of the general idea that immigration is a good thing. UKIP clearly have a different view, one that's very much more sceptical. It may be that their view is that it's absolutely a bad thing but I think that's an assumption too far.

At any rate, I like being able to see clear water between parties, in much the same way as we could back in the 70s and 80s. The metropolitan, multi-cultural, diversity is wonderful ideal has gone unchallenged for a long time and any debate has been stifled with accusations of racism. It's good to see that there are now sufficient people speaking up to ensure that people can't easily be intimidated into silence any more.

Edited by 9mm on Wednesday 17th December 12:33

[Scuffers]

e21Mark said:

I'm not really too up on politics but I do feel for that poor Mr Farage fella. Evidently he can barely afford his mortgage and doesn't own an expensive car. (I imagine that chauffeur driven Range Rover was someone else's?)

that would be funny, but you can't even tell the difference between an range rover and a discovery! (and this is a car forum)

so, you think he should have driven himself around (especially when he had been drinking)?

and of course, we (the TAXpayer) don't foot the bill for Cameron/Clegg et all to be driven round in chauffeur driven cars?

Out of interest, I wonder what milage Nigel clocks up these days? he seems to be everywhere, when does he get the time to sleep?

I bet if you divide his MEP pay by the hours he puts in, the figure would be scary...

[chris watton]

9mm said:

I think it's helpful to see an ideological difference between the parties. It's clear that, to a grater or lesser extent, Labour, Tories and Lib Dems are are broadly supportive of the general idea that immigration is a good thing. UKIP clearly have a different view, one that's very much more sceptical. It may be that their view is that it's absolutely a bad thing but I think that's an assumption too far.

At any rate, I like being able to see clear water between parties, in much the same way as we could back in the 70s and 80s. The metropolitan, multi-cultural, diversity is wonderful ideal has gone unchallenged for a long time and any debate has been stifled with accusations of racism. It's good to see that there are now sufficient people speaking up to ensure that people can't easily be intimidated into silence any more.

I think all parties, no matter what political ideologies are supportive of immigration.

I think the main issue is with unchecked mass immigration. if they calculate how many are expected to enter, and they are way off with their estimation, what pressure are health, education and housing services put under.

this is the crux of the matter, I think. As far as I am aware NO mainstream party, including UKIP have stated they are against immigration - it is uncontrolled immigration that is the problem.

[FredClogs]

jagnet said:

FredClogs said:

Farage himself said he "wouldn't want a family of Romanians living next door" -

Did he? Care to find a source for that?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27459923

He was speaking on your behalf, he suggested you would be worried if they moved in next door, he himself is above that sort of thing because he's minted, but the little people like you are going to worry about Romanians next door... That's the sort of guy Farage is, concerned for you...

Like I said, it's Jazz man.

[blindswelledrat]

9mm said:

I think it's helpful to see an ideological difference between the parties. It's clear that, to a grater or lesser extent, Labour, Tories and Lib Dems are are broadly supportive of the general idea that immigration is a good thing. UKIP clearly have a different view, one that's very much more sceptical. It may be that their view is that it's absolutely a bad thing but I think that's an assumption too far.

At any rate, I like being able to see clear water between parties, in much the same way as we could back in the 70s and 80s. The metropolitan, multi-cultural, diversity is wonderful ideal has gone unchallenged for a long time and any debate has been stifled with accusations of racism. It's good to see that there are now sufficient people speaking up to ensure that people can't easily be intimidated into silence any more.

All of that is a fair point I think.
The problem I have with the 'clear water' theory is that when you examine these political hot-potato issues like immigration they are never ever black and white and therefore any party that tries to argue categorically one way or the other is wrong/lying.
In other words, if there is a clear divide between two standpoints then both parties are wrong and lying and therefore shouldn't get our vote.
Yet if either party tried to edge towards the middle they are vilified by their traditional voters.

[league67]

don4l said:

league67 said:

don4l said:

league67 said:

That poster is pointing at the fearful and the faithful and telling them that 26mil people are after their job. Which is an obvious lie. After all, we know that those lazy, unskilled immigrants, only come here to leach. All on benefits, living 10 to a room, and sending money to Romania to build palaces.

As to discussing issues; according to your brother in arms (you still didn't answer the question if you are member of People's Army) Dan4l, this is not a place for discussing issues and policies. This is the place for quiet contemplation of everything that we hold dear.

The bit in bold is a lie. UKIP have not said what you wrote.

The fact that you have to make up stuff just demonstrates the weakness of your position.

It would be a lie if I was attributing that to the UKIP spokesperson. I wasn't.

HTH.

So why did you write it if you knew that it was a lie?

Do you think that it is funny to just make stuff up?

Wow.

Read my previous reply, slowly, out loud. Several times.

[brenflys777]

league67 said:

Really?

You think that 'Democratic Party' would disregard stated wish of their members, again, two to one against joining PEPP (sp?) and taking money. What is democratic about UKIP?

While all other parties have their loons please point out where followers of any party were trying to redefine dictionary entry for 'homophobic' in order to justify what the chosen few have said.

As for the poster;



That poster is pointing at the fearful and the faithful and telling them that 26mil people are after their job. Which is an obvious lie. After all, we know that those lazy, unskilled immigrants, only come here to leach. All on benefits, living 10 to a room, and sending money to Romania to build palaces.

As to discussing issues; according to your brother in arms (you still didn't answer the question if you are member of People's Army) Dan4l, this is not a place for discussing issues and policies. This is the place for quiet contemplation of everything that we hold dear.

I'm not a member of UKIP. I might consider joining. I will probably vote for them again though so consider myself a supporter. I 'still haven't answered because I didn't notice anyone asking'.

You're coment about UKIP giving a message of curing gays was an absolute lie!

The poster you seem desperate to get upset about is no worse in my opinion than 'British jobs for British workers'!

I don't know about a membership vote on it bar reference to it in that Guardian article, was it a membership vote, or an NEC vote or another exaggeration!

[jagnet]

FredClogs said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27459923

He was speaking on your behalf, he suggested you would be worried if they moved in next door, he himself is above that sort of thing because he's minted, but the little people like you are going to worry about Romanians next door... That's the sort of guy Farage is, concerned for you...

Like I said, it's Jazz man.

I still can't see a reference to "wouldn't want a family of Romanians living next door" in that. Do try again.

[9mm]

chris watton said:

9mm said:

I think it's helpful to see an ideological difference between the parties. It's clear that, to a grater or lesser extent, Labour, Tories and Lib Dems are are broadly supportive of the general idea that immigration is a good thing. UKIP clearly have a different view, one that's very much more sceptical. It may be that their view is that it's absolutely a bad thing but I think that's an assumption too far.

At any rate, I like being able to see clear water between parties, in much the same way as we could back in the 70s and 80s. The metropolitan, multi-cultural, diversity is wonderful ideal has gone unchallenged for a long time and any debate has been stifled with accusations of racism. It's good to see that there are now sufficient people speaking up to ensure that people can't easily be intimidated into silence any more.

I think all parties, no matter what political ideologies are supportive of immigration.

I think the main issue is with unchecked mass immigration. if they calculate how many are expected to enter, and they are way off with their estimation, what pressure are health, education and housing services put under.

this is the crux of the matter, I think. As far as I am aware NO mainstream party, including UKIP have stated they are against immigration - it is uncontrolled immigration that is the problem.

I think that's right. Perhaps to refine what I'm saying, the difference may be that UKIP are clearly distinguishing themselves by their statements about just how much they would manage immigration. The other parties makes noises, but since these seem to be largely in response to the perceived threat from UKIP, coupled with a failure to deliver on previous promises, they have a real credibility problem. I for one, simply don't believe that the three other parties have the stomach or the desire to do anything about changing the status quo, whatever they might say.

[jagnet]

9mm said:

I for one, simply don't believe that the three other parties have the stomach or the desire to do anything about changing the status quo, whatever they might say.

Nor do they have the ability to do anything about it, short of leaving the EU which none of them want to do.

[9mm]

blindswelledrat said:

9mm said:

I think it's helpful to see an ideological difference between the parties. It's clear that, to a grater or lesser extent, Labour, Tories and Lib Dems are are broadly supportive of the general idea that immigration is a good thing. UKIP clearly have a different view, one that's very much more sceptical. It may be that their view is that it's absolutely a bad thing but I think that's an assumption too far.

At any rate, I like being able to see clear water between parties, in much the same way as we could back in the 70s and 80s. The metropolitan, multi-cultural, diversity is wonderful ideal has gone unchallenged for a long time and any debate has been stifled with accusations of racism. It's good to see that there are now sufficient people speaking up to ensure that people can't easily be intimidated into silence any more.

All of that is a fair point I think.
The problem I have with the 'clear water' theory is that when you examine these political hot-potato issues like immigration they are never ever black and white and therefore any party that tries to argue categorically one way or the other is wrong/lying.
In other words, if there is a clear divide between two standpoints then both parties are wrong and lying and therefore shouldn't get our vote.
Yet if either party tried to edge towards the middle they are vilified by their traditional voters.

Maybe the closest we will get to clear water is that UKIP are stating something that the other parties know that they can't or won't deliver, namely, that they will force a change in the rules surrounding free movement across the EU (or take us out). I agree it's not clear water as in no immigration versus open borders but you can see that the other parties are rattled because they simply will not engage in a discussion about the free movement element of the treaty, when we all know that unless that is addressed, nothing much is going to change.

[9mm]

jagnet said:

9mm said:

I for one, simply don't believe that the three other parties have the stomach or the desire to do anything about changing the status quo, whatever they might say.

Nor do they have the ability to do anything about it, short of leaving the EU which none of them want to do.

I agree - see my reply to blindswelledrat. That's why they prefer to distract by talking about immigration from non-EU countries.

[FredClogs]

jagnet said:

FredClogs said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27459923

He was speaking on your behalf, he suggested you would be worried if they moved in next door, he himself is above that sort of thing because he's minted, but the little people like you are going to worry about Romanians next door... That's the sort of guy Farage is, concerned for you...

Like I said, it's Jazz man.

I still can't see a reference to "wouldn't want a family of Romanians living next door" in that. Do try again.

You're mental.

[jagnet]

9mm said:

I agree - see my reply to blindswelledrat. That's why they prefer to distract by talking about immigration from non-EU countries.

Absolutely. I'd also add in to that the subject of benefits paid to migrants, when that's never really been the issue for UKIP unlike oversupply, wage compression, strain on infrastructure and inability to plan, etc.

And all whilst taking the populace for fools with promises to cut immigration to the tens of thousands when they knew all along that it wasn't a promise that they could possibly hope to keep. Similarly an arbitrary cap on numbers makes about as much sense as an arbitrary 50% target for university places, apart from making a useful soundbite.

[jagnet]

FredClogs said:

jagnet said:

FredClogs said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27459923

He was speaking on your behalf, he suggested you would be worried if they moved in next door, he himself is above that sort of thing because he's minted, but the little people like you are going to worry about Romanians next door... That's the sort of guy Farage is, concerned for you...

Like I said, it's Jazz man.

I still can't see a reference to "wouldn't want a family of Romanians living next door" in that. Do try again.

You're mental.

You've not found a source yet then?

[2013BRM]

[9mm]

The QT thread has already been derailed by insults and going off topic. Is there any chance everyone could make the effort to keep the discussion polite and keep the personal jibes to themselves?

[Scuffers]

FredClogs said:

jagnet said:

FredClogs said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27459923

He was speaking on your behalf, he suggested you would be worried if they moved in next door, he himself is above that sort of thing because he's minted, but the little people like you are going to worry about Romanians next door... That's the sort of guy Farage is, concerned for you...

Like I said, it's Jazz man.

I still can't see a reference to "wouldn't want a family of Romanians living next door" in that. Do try again.

You're mental.

no, he's not, you are.

the quote you have above is not accurate, quite simply, it's deliberately edited for effect.

the actual quote was:

Farage on LBC said:

"You know what the difference is," Mr Farage replied.

He added: "I was asked if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned? And if you lived in London, I think you would be."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27459923

so, remind me who the mental case is again?

[allergictocheese]

If I recall correctly and to paraphrase, Farage said that people would worry if Romanians moved in next door.

There are a few inferences in there which people are free to ignore or dispute to suit whatever point of view they have.

If I put myself in the shoes of a Romanian, would I consider what was said pejorative?

[FredClogs]

jagnet said:

FredClogs said:

jagnet said:

FredClogs said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27459923

He was speaking on your behalf, he suggested you would be worried if they moved in next door, he himself is above that sort of thing because he's minted, but the little people like you are going to worry about Romanians next door... That's the sort of guy Farage is, concerned for you...

Like I said, it's Jazz man.

I still can't see a reference to "wouldn't want a family of Romanians living next door" in that. Do try again.

You're mental.

You've not found a source yet then?

It's clear what he said and what he meant I don't know quite what you're on about, please expand or stop, your jazz is of poor quality.