UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
wc98 said:
mrpurple said:
mmmmmmmmmmm
About a month ago, I left the Liberal Democrats to go UKIP and obviously a lot of them don't like it, so they are producing stuff like [the flyer] and putting it out and putting my name to it.
Read more: http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/UKIP-councillor-Fro...
interesting first comment under the article regarding the so called "teacher" .About a month ago, I left the Liberal Democrats to go UKIP and obviously a lot of them don't like it, so they are producing stuff like [the flyer] and putting it out and putting my name to it.
Read more: http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/UKIP-councillor-Fro...
"Suzy Howlett does not appear on the national registrar of the teaching council as can be found out with the following link. http://tinyurl.com/nd2csgg One of her friends on her face book page however is FROME's mayor Councillor Peter Macfadyen...."
Read more: http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/UKIP-councillor-Fro...
For years I've argued with a close relative who spent most of their career at the BBC. For ages insisted they were riddled with left wing types with huge influence and I disagreed. That was until about ten years ago and particularly more recently when the bias imbalance has emerged plainly in many areas of their news and political affairs content.
I was amazed when Farage had the wossnames to state as much in that most recent five sided debate. It really needed to be said and Farage said it. The way that "selected" audience applauded the others speakers most noticeably the chopsy Scots woman said it all.
I was amazed when Farage had the wossnames to state as much in that most recent five sided debate. It really needed to be said and Farage said it. The way that "selected" audience applauded the others speakers most noticeably the chopsy Scots woman said it all.
I can't find much (anything) in the media about the latest ONS deficit and debt figures:
Whilst happy to claim credit for increased employment, Osborne seems to be a little quieter about this on his Twitter feed.
ONS said:
General government net borrowing (‘deficit’) was £101.8 billion in the calendar year 2014 (5.7% of GDP), an increase of £3.5 billion compared with 2013.
General government gross debt at the end of the calendar year 2014 was £1,601 billion (89.4% of GDP), an increase of £105 billion compared to the end of 2013.
ONSGeneral government gross debt at the end of the calendar year 2014 was £1,601 billion (89.4% of GDP), an increase of £105 billion compared to the end of 2013.
Whilst happy to claim credit for increased employment, Osborne seems to be a little quieter about this on his Twitter feed.
cookie118 said:
NicD said:
Well one purports to be an independent, academic report, the other is from a party manifesto.
If your 'logic' equates the two, I feel sorry for you.
According to you:If your 'logic' equates the two, I feel sorry for you.
One is a report purporting to come from an independant instution (a university) that finds in favour of it's funder (the EU) and apparently that makes it rubbish
One is a report purporting to come from an independant institution (the cebr) that finds in favour of it's funder (UKIP) and apparently we are just to believe it?
And where do I (or anyone say ) what you wrote.
You brought in the word 'logic', try applying it.
NicD said:
cookie118 said:
NicD said:
Well one purports to be an independent, academic report, the other is from a party manifesto.
If your 'logic' equates the two, I feel sorry for you.
According to you:If your 'logic' equates the two, I feel sorry for you.
One is a report purporting to come from an independant instution (a university) that finds in favour of it's funder (the EU) and apparently that makes it rubbish
One is a report purporting to come from an independant institution (the cebr) that finds in favour of it's funder (UKIP) and apparently we are just to believe it?
And where do I (or anyone say ) what you wrote.
You brought in the word 'logic', try applying it.
Scuffers said that the LSE reports paid for by the EU on immigration are worthless, so if reports that find in favour of policies of who pays for them are worthless-why should we attach any worth to the UKIP funded costing of their manifesto?
cookie118 said:
Sorry I got you and Scuffers mixed up.
Scuffers said that the LSE reports paid for by the EU on immigration are worthless, so if reports that find in favour of policies of who pays for them are worthless-why should we attach any worth to the UKIP funded costing of their manifesto?
Why are you asking?Scuffers said that the LSE reports paid for by the EU on immigration are worthless, so if reports that find in favour of policies of who pays for them are worthless-why should we attach any worth to the UKIP funded costing of their manifesto?
It doesn't matter what answer you get, you aren't going to change your position.
The truth is that UKIP are the only major party who have made any effort to cost up their proposals.
You should be far more worried that neither the Conservatives nor Labour have made any effort to do so. After all, one of them is likely to form the next government.
cookie118 said:
Sorry I got you and Scuffers mixed up.
Scuffers said that the LSE reports paid for by the EU on immigration are worthless, so if reports that find in favour of policies of who pays for them are worthless-why should we attach any worth to the UKIP funded costing of their manifesto?
No problem, I cant speak for Scuff but I would say the report is worthless not because who paid for it (though that may have a bearing) but because of what was omitted and the assumptions used to arrive at the conclusion Scuffers said that the LSE reports paid for by the EU on immigration are worthless, so if reports that find in favour of policies of who pays for them are worthless-why should we attach any worth to the UKIP funded costing of their manifesto?
And the UKIP manifesto, like all manifestos must be taken with salt because of what it is.
Nic
Guam said:
Watched Dianne James on sky
Pretty impressive more and more capable folk appearing for UKIP on these shows now
Good to see they are less and less a one man band
It's the main issue that has concerned many potential voters over the last few months
Interesting to see who appears next that we may never have heard of before
She's been around a while, did QT couple of years back and did really well.Pretty impressive more and more capable folk appearing for UKIP on these shows now
Good to see they are less and less a one man band
It's the main issue that has concerned many potential voters over the last few months
Interesting to see who appears next that we may never have heard of before
Interesting how UKIP actually have quite a few very capable women on their front bench without any artificial lists etc.
UKIP continue to pick up new support.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571342/All-night-...
article said:
"Nigel Farage and Ukip have some form for garnering hardcore support in the most unlikely of places – but they have now got an entire church congregation in Pakistan praying for success at the polls!"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571342/All-night-...
TKF said:
McWigglebum4th said:
BURN ALL BBC VIEWERS AS THEY ARE COMMUNISTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That should cover the next 30 posts from turbobloke
I wonder if he'll stop paying his TV licence in protest or just bleat about it on the internet?That should cover the next 30 posts from turbobloke
I already pointed out that if people, or their family members, want to watch live-to-air broadcasts without breaking the law, then there's no option but to pay the BBC tax and fund left-wing propaganda. As for bleating, since when has pointing out a nonsensical position been bleating? Information was posted from people who spent decades immersed in the bias at their place of work, and who recognise that - due to the unique position of the BBC - their bias seriously distorts public debate.
When people point out the obvious, with evidence, what do you do apart from bleat about their posts?
Scuffers said:
Guam said:
Watched Dianne James on sky
Pretty impressive more and more capable folk appearing for UKIP on these shows now
Good to see they are less and less a one man band
It's the main issue that has concerned many potential voters over the last few months
Interesting to see who appears next that we may never have heard of before
She's been around a while, did QT couple of years back and did really well.Pretty impressive more and more capable folk appearing for UKIP on these shows now
Good to see they are less and less a one man band
It's the main issue that has concerned many potential voters over the last few months
Interesting to see who appears next that we may never have heard of before
Interesting how UKIP actually have quite a few very capable women on their front bench without any artificial lists etc.
turbobloke said:
TKF said:
McWigglebum4th said:
BURN ALL BBC VIEWERS AS THEY ARE COMMUNISTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That should cover the next 30 posts from turbobloke
I wonder if he'll stop paying his TV licence in protest or just bleat about it on the internet?That should cover the next 30 posts from turbobloke
I already pointed out that if people, or their family members, want to watch live-to-air broadcasts without breaking the law, then there's no option but to pay the BBC tax and fund left-wing propaganda. As for bleating, since when has pointing out a nonsensical position been bleating? Information was posted from people who spent decades immersed in the bias at their place of work, and who recognise that - due to the unique position of the BBC - their bias seriously distorts public debate.
When people point out the obvious, with evidence, what do you do apart from bleat about their posts?
TKF said:
turbobloke said:
TKF said:
McWigglebum4th said:
BURN ALL BBC VIEWERS AS THEY ARE COMMUNISTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That should cover the next 30 posts from turbobloke
I wonder if he'll stop paying his TV licence in protest or just bleat about it on the internet?That should cover the next 30 posts from turbobloke
I already pointed out that if people, or their family members, want to watch live-to-air broadcasts without breaking the law, then there's no option but to pay the BBC tax and fund left-wing propaganda. As for bleating, since when has pointing out a nonsensical position been bleating? Information was posted from people who spent decades immersed in the bias at their place of work, and who recognise that - due to the unique position of the BBC - their bias seriously distorts public debate.
When people point out the obvious, with evidence, what do you do apart from bleat about their posts?
That said, as I'm not a Labour or LibDim voter I'm accustomed to helping myself wherever possible but in terms of self-reliance and self-responsibility, not in the sense you wrongly attribute to me.
I could have said something in reply to either McWigglebum, or you, that was wholly of a personal angle, as you both did. What you got back with the bleat repetition was fair comment.
It would be helpful if either or both of you replied to post content, rather than try (and fail) to shoot the messenger.
Neither of you offered the slimmest piece of evidence that the 20-year time served beeb people like Sissons, Aitken or Sewell for that matter, have got it wrong - and that's because they've got it right, and you cannot show otherwise.
TKF said:
Yeah, we get it, you hate the BBC.
Stop giving them money. To keep paying for something you despise so much is insanity.
Totally wrong, again. It's not about me, again.Stop giving them money. To keep paying for something you despise so much is insanity.
The BBC takes money from people who want to watch live programming on other channels, and uses it to produce and broadcast left-wing propaganda, when they're supposed to be an impartial national broadcaster.
Top BBC people (Sissons, Sewell, Aitken) point out from a combined ~70 years' service that this is exactly what's happening.
Objecting to this unacceptable state of affairs is not hate, it's purely rational. I don't despise anyone personally, and I'm perfectly sane not least since I can reason about the BBC with evidence to support my position.
And if I stopped buying a licence, the biased beeb wouldn't change, and the situation would still be wrong in terms of impartiality (lacking) and funding mechamism.
NicD said:
'Jack Monroe: Man posing as Ukip candidate arrested for abusing gay poverty campaigner'
Avon and Somerset Police confirmed that a 22-year-old man had been taken in for questioning following an investigation into a series of tweets.
What motives scum like this?
welcome to the internet!Avon and Somerset Police confirmed that a 22-year-old man had been taken in for questioning following an investigation into a series of tweets.
What motives scum like this?
facebook and twater are full of sick sad individuals.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jack-monr...
22 years old Joshua Bonehill is just another one,
not really different to Amy Rutland (Labour junior shrill)
Laurel Green said:
Farage was on LBC not thirty minutes ago saying he would be writing to the BBC asking how the 'pickage came about. Never mentioned lawyers.
Whether or not lawyers are involved I'm surprised that nobody within UKIP hasn't tried to take him to one side and point out a few uncomfortable truths.1. Whether or not the BBC has a left-wing bias or not (and I'm not getting into that argument here), the majority of the UK population and almost all of the civilised world think that it is one of the least biased news organisations on the planet. Taking a pop at the BBC will not get UKIP any new supporters, and it may well alienate some that might have voted UKIP.
2. Rule 1 of political campaigning is "don't slag off your audience." Even if you think that you are the solo voice of common sense in the room facing a load of swivel-eyed lefties, it is best just to think it and not say it out loud. For evidence, ask Gordon Brown about bigots
3. To many potential UKIP supporters who have not yet made up their minds, Farage came across as somebody throwing their toys out of the pram. Politicians do better when they keep their toys next to them in circumstances like these.
4. There is a well-known saying in politics "when you are already in a hole, stop digging"
And before anybody posts a reply on the lines of "he said it like it is!" think of it this way. If UKIP currently have about 15% in the polls, it therefore follows that 85% do not support them. If 85% of the population do not (yet) directly support or intend to vote for a political party, it stands to reason that there will be a number, and quite a large number, of opponents in any studio audience.
Farage did himself and the party no long term favours by having this little tantrum on live TV
rs1952 said:
Whether or not lawyers are involved I'm surprised that nobody within UKIP hasn't tried to take him to one side and point out a few uncomfortable truths.
1. Whether or not the BBC has a left-wing bias or not (and I'm not getting into that argument here), the majority of the UK population and almost all of the civilised world think that it is one of the least biased news organisations on the planet. Taking a pop at the BBC will not get UKIP any new supporters, and it may well alienate some that might have voted UKIP.
2. Rule 1 of political campaigning is "don't slag off your audience." Even if you think that you are the solo voice of common sense in the room facing a load of swivel-eyed lefties, it is best just to think it and not say it out loud. For evidence, ask Gordon Brown about bigots
3. To many potential UKIP supporters who have not yet made up their minds, Farage came across as somebody throwing their toys out of the pram. Politicians do better when they keep their toys next to them in circumstances like these.
4. There is a well-known saying in politics "when you are already in a hole, stop digging"
And before anybody posts a reply on the lines of "he said it like it is!" think of it this way. If UKIP currently have about 15% in the polls, it therefore follows that 85% do not support them. If 85% of the population do not (yet) directly support or intend to vote for a political party, it stands to reason that there will be a number, and quite a large number, of opponents in any studio audience.
Farage did himself and the party no long term favours by having this little tantrum on live TV
not so sure about that...1. Whether or not the BBC has a left-wing bias or not (and I'm not getting into that argument here), the majority of the UK population and almost all of the civilised world think that it is one of the least biased news organisations on the planet. Taking a pop at the BBC will not get UKIP any new supporters, and it may well alienate some that might have voted UKIP.
2. Rule 1 of political campaigning is "don't slag off your audience." Even if you think that you are the solo voice of common sense in the room facing a load of swivel-eyed lefties, it is best just to think it and not say it out loud. For evidence, ask Gordon Brown about bigots
3. To many potential UKIP supporters who have not yet made up their minds, Farage came across as somebody throwing their toys out of the pram. Politicians do better when they keep their toys next to them in circumstances like these.
4. There is a well-known saying in politics "when you are already in a hole, stop digging"
And before anybody posts a reply on the lines of "he said it like it is!" think of it this way. If UKIP currently have about 15% in the polls, it therefore follows that 85% do not support them. If 85% of the population do not (yet) directly support or intend to vote for a political party, it stands to reason that there will be a number, and quite a large number, of opponents in any studio audience.
Farage did himself and the party no long term favours by having this little tantrum on live TV
bit like the HIV subject in the first debate, all the press/analysts said it was a mistake, the voting public went with him (50% for vs. 34% against)
I suspect he's working on the same effect, BBC = establishment, fair game, and I think it's probably going to work!
I see ICM and all have dropped them another 2 points, but the online polls are way up...
I think the established polls are just trash now, no idea why, but they are clearly not representative.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff