UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

You seem to be quite keen to hear peoples' predictions. I must have missed your prediction. Would you mind repeating it please?

Well I did say in the post above yours that its on the previous page. But as you are hard of reading I will repeat it

UKIP to win 5 to 10 seats

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

turbobloke said:

Being disaffected with a dysfunctional barely democractic wannabe socialist superstate is by no means unusual for a business owner, which puts the other perspective into sharp relief.

It's a strange world when the 'wannabe socialist superstate' is championing the free market with their guarantee of free movement of goods, capital, services and people, and the supposedly right wing UKIP are trying to restrict those freedoms.

Now you're sounding like that soviet tovarich who saw a painting of Adam and Eve with few clothes and very little food yet still believed they were in paradise. Greeks must be feeling the same way.

Previously RYH64E said:

And as things stand we're inside the protectionist internal market

Protectionist, internal, mired in red tape and artificially high energy costs, heavily taxed, directive overloaded, but free. Aye.

RYH64E said:

I'm a good old fashioned Capitalist, unrestricted access to a free market is all I ask for, though a ready supply of hard working immigrant labour is a welcome bonus .

Be that as it may, wittingly or unwittingly you present as a capitalist with a firm tie to the EU's apron strings and all your eggs in one basket. It may not be so, you may indeed not be posting from pure corporate self-interest. If that's the case, then those blinkers must be huge.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Just heard some of David Coburn's performance on Any Questions.

What an unpleasant boor. It got to the point of the audience slow-capping him whilst he insulated them.. When Dimbleby tried asked them to stop in the name of free speech he turned on Dimbleby

It didn't matter what the question he would go off on a rant against either the EU or immigration, interrupted other speakers, and was just plain nasty.

[turbobloke]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Just heard some of David Coburn's performance on Any Questions.

What an unpleasant boor. It got to the point of the audience slow-capping him whilst he insulated them.. When Dimbleby tried asked them to stop in the name of free speech he turned on Dimbleby

It didn't matter what the question he would go off on a rant against either the EU or immigration, interrupted other speakers, and was just plain nasty.

Was that the predictable run-in with lefty students and bourgeois greens at Bristol Uni? A balanced audience just as we expect at QT.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/27/ukip-me...

^ Listen in.

[PRTVR]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Just heard some of David Coburn's performance on Any Questions.

What an unpleasant boor. It got to the point of the audience slow-capping him whilst he insulated them.. When Dimbleby tried asked them to stop in the name of free speech he turned on Dimbleby

It didn't matter what the question he would go off on a rant against either the EU or immigration, interrupted other speakers, and was just plain nasty.

From what I have read, it all started when he asked how can we plan for housing etc when we have uncontrolled immigration, a point that a lot of the audience to offences at, not defending him but the BBC are not known for impartiality when they pick audiences, Dimbleby as part of the BBC could be considered part of the problem.

[JustAnotherLogin]

turbobloke said:

Was that the predictable run-in with lefty students and bourgeois greens at Bristol Uni? A balanced audience just as we expect at QT.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/27/ukip-me...

^ Listen in.

Oh the audience was biased, no doubt about that. But he was an unpleasant boor without that.
Did he keep interrupting others? Yes
Did he keep returning to the same rants irrespective of the question? Yes
That was nothing to do with the audience

And you, like him have accused them of being bourgeois. His working class credentials are that he was funded through an expensive private school, still flunked uni, and after a couple of failed jobs ended up owning a freight company (I'm guessing with money from mummy and daddy).

You can't get any more bourgeois than him. So his (and your) insult is rather ironic and crass.

And PRTVR, as I said, Dimbleby was against the students hand-clapping and was asking for it to be stopped in the name of free speech when Coburn turned on him

[turbobloke]

JustAnotherLogin said:

So his (and your) insult is rather ironic and crass.

His observation was a description rather than an insult. No idea why you should be tetchy about it on behalf of the rude bourgeois greens in the audience. If you think a particular speaker was naughty you can take it up with them. The bourgeois greens and the lefty students were behaving badly just as the beeb once did before it apologised for not discussing certain subjects. Helen Boaden a former BBC news director has admitted the corporation held a "deep liberal bias" in its non-coverage of immigration issues. There's open discussion these days, certain people need to get used to it.

[RYH64E]

Hypocrisy surely, UKIP accusing immigrants of overloading the sewage system? I don't think it's the immigrants who are full of st .

Headline said:

Migrants add to pressure on sewerage system, says Ukip

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11440592/Migrants-add-to-pressure-on-sewerage-system-says-Ukip.html

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

Hypocrisy surely, UKIP accusing immigrants of overloading the sewage system? I don't think it's the immigrants who are full of st .

That's so funny.

[Yazar]

RYH64E said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/1144...

Wow, that click bait headline is not aligned with the articles content . Who'd a thought a news site would do such a thing.

[RYH64E]

Should I be surprised that 'Christian Soldiers in UKIP' are an officially affiliated group?

They sound like nice, well balanced people, I'm sure they'll fit in well...

[Yazar]

Everyone seen the banned thread? http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

See you soon Scuffers!

[Mojocvh]

Could be worse I suppose....

[RYH64E]

Yazar said:

Everyone seen the banned thread? http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

See you soon Scuffers!

Maybe Christian Soldiers in UKIP have a forum?

Christian Soldiers in UKIP said:

It accused the gay community of a "recruitment drive" in primary schools.

“The state is allowing the sexual grooming of our primary school children for same sex attraction,” the leaflet said.

Kids were being "indoctrinated" to "confuse theIr gender identity" and "think about and sing songs about same sex attraction".

“What the LGBT (lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender community) is achieving, of course, is a recruitment drive,” it went on.

“As such people cannot reproduce their own kind they must recruit fresh 'blood' and this is best done among children in schools, the younger the better.

[Yazar]

As I said yesterday, you anti-UKIPers are pretty crap at it.

Here is some better ammunition on the Christian soldiers:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/03/ch...

Nutters!

[Yazar]

Former boxing promoter (Frank) Kellie Maloney receives standing ovation at UKIP conference...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2973494/We...

[limpsfield]

Seems like a big loss, she was a favourite as a future leader

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31676897

UKIP candidate Diane James drops out of election race

[RYH64E]

Yazar said:

As I said yesterday, you anti-UKIPers are pretty crap at it.

There's so much material it's hard to do justice to it all (and hold down a day job).

Yazar said:

Nutters!

Officially affilated nutters.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

cookie118 said:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/ukip-l

'A UKIP spokesman said the views in the leaflet were unacceptable...groups not official...do not represent the party or its policies'

That must have been an attempt by somebody to link leaflets, that do not have an official source, with UKIP. It's bound to work, nobody will spot it.

Ah-they are 'authorised but not official, they are mechanisms for members with shared interests to associate but have no official role or status' So UKIP know about them, and authorise them but they aren't official? How does that work? Agreed they don't set the policy etc but surely if your party authorises something it means it is and can be officially linked to your party?

If it doesn't represent the party or its views, and that these are unacceptable then why do members with shared interests in it have an authorised group to promote these views?

[turbobloke]

cookie118 said:

turbobloke said:

cookie118 said:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/ukip-l

'A UKIP spokesman said the views in the leaflet were unacceptable...groups not official...do not represent the party or its policies'

That must have been an attempt by somebody to link leaflets, that do not have an official source, with UKIP. It's bound to work, nobody will spot it.

Ah-they are 'authorised but not official, they are mechanisms for members with shared interests to associate but have no official role or status' So UKIP know about them, and authorise them but they aren't official? How does that work? Agreed they don't set the policy etc but surely if your party authorises something it means it is and can be officially linked to your party?

There looks to be some confusion there. In the article a UKIP spokesman said that Groups were 'authorised but not official' not that the leaflets were authorised. That would only apply if the Group had submitted them for prior approval and the spokesman went on to say clearly that the leaflet content didn't represent Party policy. For further clarification you'd need to ask the UKIP spokeman.

cookie118 said:

If it doesn't represent the party or its views, and that these are unacceptable then why do members with shared interests in it have an authorised group to promote these views?

In the same way that any Party can house subgroups that press for one policy direction or another. Take the Conservative Party for example, and in the context of this thread, see 'Conservative Voice' which says that one of its objectives is "to win back Conservative voters who have switched to the UK Independence Party".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9534255/T...

There's also Blue Fox and others.