UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
^^this!^^
It's pretty pathetic to draw the parallel of Farage's Mrs being his PA in the context.
For example, just how many SME's employ their Mrs. within their companies? or are you saying that should be illegal?
the difference is that CMD is supposed to be running the country for the benefit of the country's wider population, not for the enrichment of his Fil.
you can take this a step further with the likes of Mr Blair, doing his bit on office for JPM, and now out of office being paid handsomely for his 'services'.
it's called being corrupt.
It's pretty pathetic to draw the parallel of Farage's Mrs being his PA in the context.
For example, just how many SME's employ their Mrs. within their companies? or are you saying that should be illegal?
the difference is that CMD is supposed to be running the country for the benefit of the country's wider population, not for the enrichment of his Fil.
you can take this a step further with the likes of Mr Blair, doing his bit on office for JPM, and now out of office being paid handsomely for his 'services'.
it's called being corrupt.
s2art said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
A levie like this is aimed at changing behaviour, not raising tax. Whether or not you think the govt should be changing that behaviour I will take as irrelevant for this question as it has not been asked. The predominance of private PV installations is roughly proportional to energy usage of the household- which one would expect- so it is impacting behaviour where it is needed most. Though aggregators actually tip the balance the other way- so one could argue the subsidisation there is the other way. So take your stats and twist to get the answer you want. As I say, I think it is meaningless
Not meaningless to those in fuel poverty, or to those companies which are energy intensive. BTW when you say 'changing behaviour' do you mean eating less to be able to afford heating? Or do you mean companies relocating to other countries with saner energy policies, taking the jobs and investment with them?JustAnotherLogin said:
I didn't explain that well. Let me try again. It is not unfair to the poor because the overall tax regime is very progressive. It isn't unfair just because a single tax is regressive (which this and others are) as long as the overall impact of taxation is progressive. That is the case in the UK. So, no, it is not unfai
I get what you mean, but i think your wrong.Read the links i posted above, then come back.
Gaspode said:
I'm not going to engage in pointless debates with climate change deniers.
Climate change deniers... who? Personally I am sceptical about the effect of man on climate change, I've yet to meet someone who denies that the climate changes. If instead of a 'denier' you are believer in mans effect on climate change, I trust you would vote for the greens. Let's be honest if the claims made by the IPCC and the climate change lobby are correct then what the Cons/Lab/Libs are offering isn't even a sticking plaster. It makes some effort to reduce CO2 (we've seen how well that works in adding other pollutants in London via diesel) but it doesn't remotely come close to making drastic changes needed for this oncoming apocalypse.
Enforced population control of developing countries, limiting energy consumption, enforce this if necessary on China/India (resulting war would help with population control too) banning private usage of polluting cars and aircraft, all would seem entirely rational if you beleive all of the climate change consensus... unless you're actually a denier!
UKIP is the only party who have looked at the UKs effect and made a realistic assessment of the effects of current UK policy on energy globally and locally. Globally we make little difference if any, but nationally these policies will cripple us.
and, just to change the subject a bit:
Scandal of Britain's £2.1billion wasted on European Court of Human Rights cases
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555332/Britain-ha...
Thanks Mr Blair!
so that's another £2Bn saved by telling the EU to FRO.
at this rate, we could eliminate the deficit just by quitting the EU!
Scandal of Britain's £2.1billion wasted on European Court of Human Rights cases
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555332/Britain-ha...
Thanks Mr Blair!
so that's another £2Bn saved by telling the EU to FRO.
at this rate, we could eliminate the deficit just by quitting the EU!
turbobloke said:
allergictocheese said:
turbobloke said:
Deliberate misunderstanding there? The example referred to is of a complaint (email) and a vacuous reply, not a family member in paid work. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking there was a fanatic at work typing your replies with your PH log-in.
There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
The inference from your post was that family interests were inappropriately influencing Cameron's decision making. There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
The obvious interpretation of my post follow for the self-identified hard of thinking
1) the payment of £300,000 to CMD's FiL who happens to be a rich landowner includes money from the hikes we all face in energy bills that pay for subsidies to unnecessary, costly and ineffective windymills
2) this hike in energy bills has a disproportionate impact on many pensioners, there are pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately, choosing to eat or heat, and in some cases buying large books for 50p from charity shops as cheap fuel to burn
3) when complaining to CMD about the nonsensical nature of Tory Party policy on energy and the environment - which is based around climate fairytales, and results in redistribution of wealth from poor pensioners to rich landowners - a risible reply may well have come from CMD's SiL Alice Sheffield, and I pointed out she was paid from Party funds.
Presumably you're obtuse enough to consider my mention of Alice was because I considered the nature of the reply from her desk was due to her influence on CMD
when she's clearly a button clicking stamp licker (probably not noticing they come with adhesive these days).There was no other inference to be drawn, notwithstanding strenuous efforts to find one as a figleaf for an already-failed contrived posting scenario.
Meahwhile, there was a question somewhere about which if any Party has an energy policy that is a) viable and not based on renewables (shown to be a fail) and b) would put an end to windymill proliferation.
Brilliant! I do love articulate replies. Well done. 10/10.Scuffers said:
^^this!^^
It's pretty pathetic to draw the parallel of Farage's Mrs being his PA in the context.
For example, just how many SME's employ their Mrs. within their companies? or are you saying that should be illegal?
it's called being corrupt.
I seem to recall Nigel saying that UKIP MEP's "will not employ wives, without exception". Whilst employing his own wife.It's pretty pathetic to draw the parallel of Farage's Mrs being his PA in the context.
For example, just how many SME's employ their Mrs. within their companies? or are you saying that should be illegal?
it's called being corrupt.
And when the EU banned MEP's from employing family members his wife fortunate enough to get a job with ANOTHER Ukip MEP.
It's called being hypocritical.
Countdown said:
I seem to recall Nigel saying that UKIP MEP's "will not employ wives, without exception". Whilst employing his own wife.
And when the EU banned MEP's from employing family members his wife fortunate enough to get a job with ANOTHER Ukip MEP.
It's called being hypocritical.
Maybe so, but totally irrelevant to the accusation made earlier.And when the EU banned MEP's from employing family members his wife fortunate enough to get a job with ANOTHER Ukip MEP.
It's called being hypocritical.
Countdown said:
I seem to recall Nigel saying that UKIP MEP's "will not employ wives, without exception". Whilst employing his own wife.
And when the EU banned MEP's from employing family members his wife fortunate enough to get a job with ANOTHER Ukip MEP.
It's called being hypocritical.
not much slips past you, especially important stuff like that. And when the EU banned MEP's from employing family members his wife fortunate enough to get a job with ANOTHER Ukip MEP.
It's called being hypocritical.
Good to see someone who can remember what a minor (at the time) politician said in 2004 and hold him to it 10 years later.
Bravo.
NicD said:
Countdown said:
I seem to recall Nigel saying that UKIP MEP's "will not employ wives, without exception". Whilst employing his own wife.
And when the EU banned MEP's from employing family members his wife fortunate enough to get a job with ANOTHER Ukip MEP.
It's called being hypocritical.
not much slips past you, especially important stuff like that. And when the EU banned MEP's from employing family members his wife fortunate enough to get a job with ANOTHER Ukip MEP.
It's called being hypocritical.
Good to see someone who can remember what a minor (at the time) politician said in 2004 and hold him to it 10 years later.
Bravo.
That's not to say it's not without base, but either way, it is unproven.
turbobloke said:
1) the payment of £300,000 to CMD's FiL who happens to be a rich landowner includes money from the hikes we all face in energy bills that pay for subsidies to unnecessary, costly and ineffective windymills
2) this hike in energy bills has a disproportionate impact on many pensioners, there are pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately, choosing to eat or heat, and in some cases buying large books for 50p from charity shops as cheap fuel to burn
3) when complaining to CMD about the nonsensical nature of Tory Party policy on energy and the environment - which is based around climate fairytales, and results in redistribution of wealth from poor pensioners to rich landowners - a risible reply may well have come from CMD's SiL Alice Sheffield, and I pointed out she was paid from Party funds.
And of course let us not forget that if it really were all about saving the planet from warmageddon with a bit of emotive 'think of the children' thrown in for good measure - (no one seems to give a s2) this hike in energy bills has a disproportionate impact on many pensioners, there are pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately, choosing to eat or heat, and in some cases buying large books for 50p from charity shops as cheap fuel to burn
3) when complaining to CMD about the nonsensical nature of Tory Party policy on energy and the environment - which is based around climate fairytales, and results in redistribution of wealth from poor pensioners to rich landowners - a risible reply may well have come from CMD's SiL Alice Sheffield, and I pointed out she was paid from Party funds.
t about old people shivering in the dark), then surely those in a position to do so would be offering up their land free of charge. All in the name of saving the planet right? After all, this is the future of human existence we are talking about here, not an effortless way to coin in nearly 1/2 a million quid a year...Ah, I see. In a post complaining about Tory policy, TB mentions that one relative of the PM benefits financially from said policy, whilst another family member, paid using party funds (!!), also benefits from said policy.
TB now denies he wanted anyone to draw any negative inference from these points. So why bring them up?
TB now denies he wanted anyone to draw any negative inference from these points. So why bring them up?
JustAnotherLogin said:
s2art said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
A levie like this is aimed at changing behaviour, not raising tax. Whether or not you think the govt should be changing that behaviour I will take as irrelevant for this question as it has not been asked. The predominance of private PV installations is roughly proportional to energy usage of the household- which one would expect- so it is impacting behaviour where it is needed most. Though aggregators actually tip the balance the other way- so one could argue the subsidisation there is the other way. So take your stats and twist to get the answer you want. As I say, I think it is meaningless
Not meaningless to those in fuel poverty, or to those companies which are energy intensive. BTW when you say 'changing behaviour' do you mean eating less to be able to afford heating? Or do you mean companies relocating to other countries with saner energy policies, taking the jobs and investment with them?dandarez said:
turbobloke said:
allergictocheese said:
turbobloke said:
Deliberate misunderstanding there? The example referred to is of a complaint (email) and a vacuous reply, not a family member in paid work. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking there was a fanatic at work typing your replies with your PH log-in.
There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
The inference from your post was that family interests were inappropriately influencing Cameron's decision making. There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
The obvious interpretation of my post follow for the self-identified hard of thinking
1) the payment of £300,000 to CMD's FiL who happens to be a rich landowner includes money from the hikes we all face in energy bills that pay for subsidies to unnecessary, costly and ineffective windymills
2) this hike in energy bills has a disproportionate impact on many pensioners, there are pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately, choosing to eat or heat, and in some cases buying large books for 50p from charity shops as cheap fuel to burn
3) when complaining to CMD about the nonsensical nature of Tory Party policy on energy and the environment - which is based around climate fairytales, and results in redistribution of wealth from poor pensioners to rich landowners - a risible reply may well have come from CMD's SiL Alice Sheffield, and I pointed out she was paid from Party funds.
Presumably you're obtuse enough to consider my mention of Alice was because I considered the nature of the reply from her desk was due to her influence on CMD
when she's clearly a button clicking stamp licker (probably not noticing they come with adhesive these days).There was no other inference to be drawn, notwithstanding strenuous efforts to find one as a figleaf for an already-failed contrived posting scenario.
Meahwhile, there was a question somewhere about which if any Party has an energy policy that is a) viable and not based on renewables (shown to be a fail) and b) would put an end to windymill proliferation.
Brilliant! I do love articulate replies. Well done. 10/10.
The thing that I find most "depressing" is the way that the clean generation of electricity, from a naturally occurring source, has been morphed into a tax burden, by politicians. well. there's. a. surprise.
Criminal IMHO.
Mojocvh said:
The thing that I find most "depressing" is the way that the clean generation of electricity, from a naturally occurring source, has been morphed into a tax burden, by politicians. well. there's. a. surprise.
Criminal IMHO.
I have less of a problem with solar PV, as it does actually work in a predictable fashion.
I also don't have a problem with subsidies, but, they should be in research and development, not in propping up unrealistic tariffs.
Too many people getting rich off the back of green crap that's simply not fit for purpose.
NicD said:
not much slips past you, especially important stuff like that.
Good to see someone who can remember what a minor (at the time) politician said in 2004 and hold him to it 10 years later.
Bravo.
Important insofar as it proves he's no different to any of the other hypocrites or snouts-in-troughers. Strange how most politicians would be lambasted for this but 'kippers seem to get all defensive when St Nige (PBUH) is shown as being no different.Good to see someone who can remember what a minor (at the time) politician said in 2004 and hold him to it 10 years later.
Bravo.
Countdown said:
Important insofar as it proves he's no different to any of the other hypocrites or snouts-in-troughers. Strange how most politicians would be lambasted for this but 'kippers seem to get all defensive when St Nige (PBUH) is shown as being no different.
it may 'prove' something to you. The rest of us think about substance.
On any scale it is of extremely low importance. All your huffing and puffing is laughable.
NicD said:
Countdown said:
Important insofar as it proves he's no different to any of the other hypocrites or snouts-in-troughers. Strange how most politicians would be lambasted for this but 'kippers seem to get all defensive when St Nige (PBUH) is shown as being no different.
it may 'prove' something to you. The rest of us think about substance.
On any scale it is of extremely low importance. All your huffing and puffing is laughable.
The 100 reasons to vote UKIP - 3 policies and 97 bits of dross without costings- not there
Achievements to date in office, any office: negligible to none)
Honesty- nope
Campaigning without negativity- nope
Dignity- nope
Where should I be looking
JustAnotherLogin said:
Where should I be looking
keep looking in the same place, seems to work for you 
Or, you could open your other eye.
You do realise you are just part of this hilarious sideshow trying to talk down UKIP. Toiling away, trying to sound serious and analytical.
Still, you are known by the company you keep.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff