UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
MGJohn said:
I've just further convinced myself to vote UKIP. My long trip today saw a few more UKIP posters in front gardens and rather more Labour ones have since sprung up where until two days ago there were none! Not seen a single Tory poster anywhere locally. So my large ( for me ) bet on the local Tory holding onto his seat may be in jeopardy ...
Interestingly, here in Jeremy Hunt's seat there's a noticeable lack of any political posters. Far fewer than I recall from 2010. Election material through the door has been sparse, there's been no canvassing on our road that I've seen or heard about, although our UKIP candidate was down at the local train station the other day.You'd almost be forgiven for not realising that there was an election coming up.
Scuffers said:
Legend83 said:
Why was there no UKIP defence spokesman on the Daily Politics debate?
Ask the BBC...My guess is that UKIP's defence policy is too powerful a message for the Leftie BBC
Lets look at UKIPs defence policy:
1) "increase spending" on defence to 2% from its current level or, umm 2%
2) Retain our nuclear deterrent. With no specifics apart from renewal, which the majors also support but with more detail
3) Continue with the carriers that Labour & coalition have built, but with an investigation into an unaffordable change based on uninformed speculation
4) Create 1 new job
5) Relieve armed services from paying tax when overseas on operational duty, but with no definition of what counts as overseas or operational. But leaves the possibility (for example) of RN in port at Dubai not paying tax whilst soldiers in NI do not
6) Opposing an EU army- which obviously would not happen if we leave the Eu. Though whilst UK army operating under European command they make no mention of where NATO commanders are European
Has powerful been redefined to mean "like being swatter with a piece of limp lettuce"?
Which is not to say that any of the parties defence policies has been good at this election, but UKIPs is no better than the rest
JustAnotherLogin said:
1) "increase spending" on defence to 2% from its current level or, umm 2%
The problem is that none of the main parties want to commit to that 2% and it's from next year that it looks as though we'll fail to meet it. Cameron has even asked ministers to look into whether intelligence agencies budgets can be counted as "defence spending". Ministry of Defence officials have already managed to boost the amount included in Nato calculations significantly this year by adding war pensions, worth slightly more than £800m annually, to its Nato submission for 2015-16.Suffice to say, we can expect all kinds of creative accountancy to keep us at or close to the target.
Using prostitution and the illegal drugs market to boost GDP figures really is having a knock on effect beyond the extra billion or so to the EU.
UKIP's defence policy is mostly focussed to treating veterans well. After that comes some fairly loose spending commitments, but when tied into its foreign policy (which is basically drawbridges up and don't use the forces unless under attack) it seems that the military would have money spent on it so that it's looks nice for when Nigel or the Queen wants to inspect it.
Greg66 said:
but when tied into its foreign policy (which is basically drawbridges up and don't use the forces unless under attack)
Otherwise known as not f
king around in unstable countries and making things far worse. As a foreign policy that one seems to be eminently sensible imho.
Edited by jagnet on Tuesday 28th April 23:27
JustAnotherLogin said:
Too powerful a message?
Lets look at UKIPs defence policy:
1) "increase spending" on defence to 2% from its current level or, umm 2%
2) Retain our nuclear deterrent. With no specifics apart from renewal, which the majors also support but with more detail
3) Continue with the carriers that Labour & coalition have built, but with an investigation into an unaffordable change based on uninformed speculation
4) Create 1 new job
5) Relieve armed services from paying tax when overseas on operational duty, but with no definition of what counts as overseas or operational. But leaves the possibility (for example) of RN in port at Dubai not paying tax whilst soldiers in NI do not
6) Opposing an EU army- which obviously would not happen if we leave the Eu. Though whilst UK army operating under European command they make no mention of where NATO commanders are European
Has powerful been redefined to mean "like being swatter with a piece of limp lettuce"?
Which is not to say that any of the parties defence policies has been good at this election, but UKIPs is no better than the rest
Russel Brand you are not, quit the poor attempt at sarcasm and stick to your droning on .Lets look at UKIPs defence policy:
1) "increase spending" on defence to 2% from its current level or, umm 2%
2) Retain our nuclear deterrent. With no specifics apart from renewal, which the majors also support but with more detail
3) Continue with the carriers that Labour & coalition have built, but with an investigation into an unaffordable change based on uninformed speculation
4) Create 1 new job
5) Relieve armed services from paying tax when overseas on operational duty, but with no definition of what counts as overseas or operational. But leaves the possibility (for example) of RN in port at Dubai not paying tax whilst soldiers in NI do not
6) Opposing an EU army- which obviously would not happen if we leave the Eu. Though whilst UK army operating under European command they make no mention of where NATO commanders are European
Has powerful been redefined to mean "like being swatter with a piece of limp lettuce"?
Which is not to say that any of the parties defence policies has been good at this election, but UKIPs is no better than the rest
How is it 'no better'?
Looks a s
t lot better than what we have had under the last two administrations.JustAnotherLogin said:
Too powerful a message?
Lets look at UKIPs defence policy:
1) "increase spending" on defence to 2% from its current level or, umm 2%
2) Retain our nuclear deterrent. With no specifics apart from renewal, which the majors also support but with more detail
3) Continue with the carriers that Labour & coalition have built, but with an investigation into an unaffordable change based on uninformed speculation
4) Create 1 new job
5) Relieve armed services from paying tax when overseas on operational duty, but with no definition of what counts as overseas or operational. But leaves the possibility (for example) of RN in port at Dubai not paying tax whilst soldiers in NI do not
6) Opposing an EU army- which obviously would not happen if we leave the Eu. Though whilst UK army operating under European command they make no mention of where NATO commanders are European
Has powerful been redefined to mean "like being swatter with a piece of limp lettuce"?
Which is not to say that any of the parties defence policies has been good at this election, but UKIPs is no better than the rest
Unlike the Tory manifesto, which drills right down to the details - maintaining Trident and replacing it in time, the details! I may faint at the tidal wave on information! UKIPs is so sparse by comparison "UKIP does not believe now is the time to be talking about nuclear disarmament and we support Tridents reneweal"..... Lets look at UKIPs defence policy:
1) "increase spending" on defence to 2% from its current level or, umm 2%
2) Retain our nuclear deterrent. With no specifics apart from renewal, which the majors also support but with more detail
3) Continue with the carriers that Labour & coalition have built, but with an investigation into an unaffordable change based on uninformed speculation
4) Create 1 new job
5) Relieve armed services from paying tax when overseas on operational duty, but with no definition of what counts as overseas or operational. But leaves the possibility (for example) of RN in port at Dubai not paying tax whilst soldiers in NI do not
6) Opposing an EU army- which obviously would not happen if we leave the Eu. Though whilst UK army operating under European command they make no mention of where NATO commanders are European
Has powerful been redefined to mean "like being swatter with a piece of limp lettuce"?
Which is not to say that any of the parties defence policies has been good at this election, but UKIPs is no better than the rest
2% of GDP commitment! But they don't mention being desperate to lump military pensions into that do they?
Bringing both of the new aircraft carriers to completion so "one is available for use at any time"...... One
Edited by Axionknight on Wednesday 29th April 07:26
JustAnotherLogin said:
Too powerful a message?
Lets look at UKIPs defence policy:
1) "increase spending" on defence to 2% from its current level or, umm 2%
2) Retain our nuclear deterrent. With no specifics apart from renewal, which the majors also support but with more detail
3) Continue with the carriers that Labour & coalition have built, but with an investigation into an unaffordable change based on uninformed speculation
4) Create 1 new job
5) Relieve armed services from paying tax when overseas on operational duty, but with no definition of what counts as overseas or operational. But leaves the possibility (for example) of RN in port at Dubai not paying tax whilst soldiers in NI do not
6) Opposing an EU army- which obviously would not happen if we leave the Eu. Though whilst UK army operating under European command they make no mention of where NATO commanders are European
Has powerful been redefined to mean "like being swatter with a piece of limp lettuce"?
Which is not to say that any of the parties defence policies has been good at this election, but UKIPs is no better than the rest
you really are a blinkered old tory troll!Lets look at UKIPs defence policy:
1) "increase spending" on defence to 2% from its current level or, umm 2%
2) Retain our nuclear deterrent. With no specifics apart from renewal, which the majors also support but with more detail
3) Continue with the carriers that Labour & coalition have built, but with an investigation into an unaffordable change based on uninformed speculation
4) Create 1 new job
5) Relieve armed services from paying tax when overseas on operational duty, but with no definition of what counts as overseas or operational. But leaves the possibility (for example) of RN in port at Dubai not paying tax whilst soldiers in NI do not
6) Opposing an EU army- which obviously would not happen if we leave the Eu. Though whilst UK army operating under European command they make no mention of where NATO commanders are European
Has powerful been redefined to mean "like being swatter with a piece of limp lettuce"?
Which is not to say that any of the parties defence policies has been good at this election, but UKIPs is no better than the rest
Just for you:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Too powerful a message?
Lets look at UKIPs defence policy:
1) "increase spending" on defence to 2% from its current level or, umm 2%
you know like the rest of us that's total b0ll0cks, even with them fiddling the books massively to include the kitchen sink, it's not 2%.Lets look at UKIPs defence policy:
1) "increase spending" on defence to 2% from its current level or, umm 2%
JustAnotherLogin said:
2) Retain our nuclear deterrent. With no specifics apart from renewal, which the majors also support but with more detail
What do you want them to put in their election manifesto? the complete RFP for Tridents replacement? (and remind us again what detain the Lib/Lab/Cons have put forward?)JustAnotherLogin said:
3) Continue with the carriers that Labour & coalition have built, but with an investigation into an unaffordable change based on uninformed speculation
once again, what do you expect in a manifesto?I, for one agree with them, the decision to not equip them for CAT/Trap is catastrophically stupid, quite apart from the ongoing farce that is the F-35B programme, the shear cost per unit of the F35B (~$104m) vs. the F/A-18 Super Hornet ($60m), (and the ongoing maintenance costs) makes it a ridiculous proposition as the sole aircraft available to a carrier - and that's before we consider the needs for cross-decking within NATO.
The whole carrier build programme has been one huge political bodge, starting with the decision NOT to make them nuclear powered, they should have been finished by now, at half todays projected costs, all they're currently is a job creation scheme for the Scott's (and look how thankful they are!)
JustAnotherLogin said:
4) Create 1 new job
WTF are you on about?JustAnotherLogin said:
5) Relieve armed services from paying tax when overseas on operational duty, but with no definition of what counts as overseas or operational. But leaves the possibility (for example) of RN in port at Dubai not paying tax whilst soldiers in NI do not
don't be childish, this kind of detail takes seconds to define.JustAnotherLogin said:
6) Opposing an EU army- which obviously would not happen if we leave the Eu. Though whilst UK army operating under European command they make no mention of where NATO commanders are European
This is almost comical, you clearly have no idea of the difference between NATO and the EU (clue, it's not about the nationality of the staff).I used to think you were an intelligent person arguing from a solid personal viewpoint, several hundred posts later I can see your just another blinkered tory muppet without a clue.
A good speech from NF in Hartlepool. I do think that there's going to be some surprises for Labour in the north.
Once again in the Q&A session there's journalists trying to paint UKIP as a racist party. A suitable response to that from Farage who is clearly getting very very frustrated by it.
Once again in the Q&A session there's journalists trying to paint UKIP as a racist party. A suitable response to that from Farage who is clearly getting very very frustrated by it.
THank you. That's one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me, including my wife and children.jagnet said:
A good speech from NF in Hartlepool. I do think that there's going to be some surprises for Labour in the north.
Once again in the Q&A session there's journalists trying to paint UKIP as a racist party. A suitable response to that from Farage who is clearly getting very very frustrated by it.
As was pointed out in the video, UKIP are the only party with a "colour blind" immigration policy.Once again in the Q&A session there's journalists trying to paint UKIP as a racist party. A suitable response to that from Farage who is clearly getting very very frustrated by it.
All the other parties have policies that favour white immigrants. UKIP's policies would result in reduced immigration, but more non-white immigration. Yet, people get away with labelling UKIP as "racist".
Eight days to go!
jagnet said:
A good speech from NF in Hartlepool. I do think that there's going to be some surprises for Labour in the north.
Once again in the Q&A session there's journalists trying to paint UKIP as a racist party. A suitable response to that from Farage who is clearly getting very very frustrated by it.
Indeed it was very good. Especially the Q&A.Once again in the Q&A session there's journalists trying to paint UKIP as a racist party. A suitable response to that from Farage who is clearly getting very very frustrated by it.
We've all known for some time that every little UKIP misdemeanour hits the national press - and gets highlighted here.
Well, today Guido exposes the hypocrisy. He lists 84 convictions of mainstream party members who have failed to make the national press. It is very clear that if any of these cases had involved a UKIP member, then we would have heard about them.
In fact, in the last 4 months, 291 LibDem, Tory and Labour Councillors/candidates have hit the (local) headlines for the wrong reasons.
Well, today Guido exposes the hypocrisy. He lists 84 convictions of mainstream party members who have failed to make the national press. It is very clear that if any of these cases had involved a UKIP member, then we would have heard about them.
In fact, in the last 4 months, 291 LibDem, Tory and Labour Councillors/candidates have hit the (local) headlines for the wrong reasons.
Guido said:
Research by ‘Nope No Hope’ reveals 21 paedos, 2 rapists, 1 terrorist, 13 racists, 6 sexists or homophobes, 1 drug fiend, 8 expenses cheats, 4 benefit fraudsters, and 28 thieves:
More here...Guam said:
don4l said:
Jeez it took him long enough, we have been discussing these issues on here for at least a year.He should get out more
Link to source pdf
He should get out moreI simply don't believe that chart. 21 paedophiles from one of the three main parties and it doesn't make the headlines? Yeah, right.The link to the source pdf is at the top of this post.
Now haven't personally investigated the links in that pdf which went to make the graph. Suspect from a few quick looks that the definition of paedophile may include people who in legal terms are not, but are certainly guilty of not fulfilling their duties in terms of combating CSE and other offences against children.
Another thing that's clear is that the claim is these haven't made main stream media, yet links to Telegraph and Mail are in evidence to name but two.
On the other hand the base premise of the claim is fair that all parties are equal but some are more equal than others.
To some extent casual observations suggest that locally, thank the Lord, the councillors who have been publicly shamed for something fully deserved it. One example plucked at random is a councillor shamed for misuse of taxpayer provided IT who presents the usual public face but when out and about as a citizen is one of the more obnoxious individuals one could hope not to meet.
blindswelledrat said:
Guam said:
don4l said:
Jeez it took him long enough, we have been discussing these issues on here for at least a year.He should get out more
Now haven't personally investigated the links in that pdf which went to make the graph. Suspect from a few quick looks that the definition of paedophile may include people who in legal terms are not, but are certainly guilty of not fulfilling their duties in terms of combating CSE and other offences against children.
Another thing that's clear is that the claim is these haven't made main stream media, yet links to Telegraph and Mail are in evidence to name but two.
On the other hand the base premise of the claim is fair that all parties are equal but some are more equal than others.
To some extent casual observations suggest that locally, thank the Lord, the councillors who have been publicly shamed for something fully deserved it. One example plucked at random is a councillor shamed for misuse of taxpayer provided IT who presents the usual public face but when out and about as a citizen is one of the more obnoxious individuals one could hope not to meet.
mrpurple said:
Can I suggest an alternative title. "The great leader again demonstrates he has no idea how the EU or asylum works."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff