UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
According to this article the BBC denied the EU had any part in funding one of the films that the TPA identified as receiving cash:
http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2015/08/...
Credibility relies on the BBC being open, honest and impartial. They can't seem to do this in relation to UKIP or the EU.
http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2015/08/...
Credibility relies on the BBC being open, honest and impartial. They can't seem to do this in relation to UKIP or the EU.
I suppose it's always true that a party's fortunes depend on factors beyond their control, but it seems like UKIP could be doing more. The migrant crisis all summer has been a massive open goal they seem to have just dawdled past. The so called renegotiations are being shown to be completely empty, and even some of Cameron's ministers are looking wobbly. Labour are looking farcical and it's partly thanks to UKIP.
But they don't seem very interested in any of it.
IMO they made a mistake by saying they could get 5-10 seats in the election. A mistake I made too as I thought they genuinely could win a few. The reality is that a bit chunk of people across the country support UKIP's ideas and share their concerns but the FPTP system is a bit harder to break. They didn't have the strength of local support in the constituencies to overturn established majorities.
They should have been celebrating on May 8th - they'd destroyed the Labour vote, and become the 3rd party in terms of votes, quite capable of changing the result of a Lab/Con marginal. Instead they were all aggreived that they didn't have the handfull of MPs they were hoping for, and wrangling over Farage's hot headed pledge to stand down if he didn't win Thanet.
But they don't seem very interested in any of it.
IMO they made a mistake by saying they could get 5-10 seats in the election. A mistake I made too as I thought they genuinely could win a few. The reality is that a bit chunk of people across the country support UKIP's ideas and share their concerns but the FPTP system is a bit harder to break. They didn't have the strength of local support in the constituencies to overturn established majorities.
They should have been celebrating on May 8th - they'd destroyed the Labour vote, and become the 3rd party in terms of votes, quite capable of changing the result of a Lab/Con marginal. Instead they were all aggreived that they didn't have the handfull of MPs they were hoping for, and wrangling over Farage's hot headed pledge to stand down if he didn't win Thanet.
brenflys777 said:
According to this article the BBC denied the EU had any part in funding one of the films that the TPA identified as receiving cash:
http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2015/08/...
Credibility relies on the BBC being open, honest and impartial. They can't seem to do this in relation to UKIP or the EU.
Curious if it did receive funding that they should deny it. Perhaps it was an oversight? A bit like all those expenses various meps and MPs have strenuously denied then admitted to. Or perhaps like NFs promise to stand down if he didn't win a seat in the election?http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2015/08/...
Credibility relies on the BBC being open, honest and impartial. They can't seem to do this in relation to UKIP or the EU.
AJS- said:
I suppose it's always true that a party's fortunes depend on factors beyond their control, but it seems like UKIP could be doing more. The migrant crisis all summer has been a massive open goal they seem to have just dawdled past. The so called renegotiations are being shown to be completely empty, and even some of Cameron's ministers are looking wobbly. Labour are looking farcical and it's partly thanks to UKIP.
But they don't seem very interested in any of it.
IMO they made a mistake by saying they could get 5-10 seats in the election. A mistake I made too as I thought they genuinely could win a few. The reality is that a bit chunk of people across the country support UKIP's ideas and share their concerns but the FPTP system is a bit harder to break. They didn't have the strength of local support in the constituencies to overturn established majorities.
They should have been celebrating on May 8th - they'd destroyed the Labour vote, and become the 3rd party in terms of votes, quite capable of changing the result of a Lab/Con marginal. Instead they were all aggreived that they didn't have the handfull of MPs they were hoping for, and wrangling over Farage's hot headed pledge to stand down if he didn't win Thanet.
I may not agree with you on some of what you've said but I think this is an excellent summary of the reality that UKIP faces. I don't think Farage came across at all well on the today programme when asked to clarify whether he felt Syrian refugees should be offered refuge here.But they don't seem very interested in any of it.
IMO they made a mistake by saying they could get 5-10 seats in the election. A mistake I made too as I thought they genuinely could win a few. The reality is that a bit chunk of people across the country support UKIP's ideas and share their concerns but the FPTP system is a bit harder to break. They didn't have the strength of local support in the constituencies to overturn established majorities.
They should have been celebrating on May 8th - they'd destroyed the Labour vote, and become the 3rd party in terms of votes, quite capable of changing the result of a Lab/Con marginal. Instead they were all aggreived that they didn't have the handfull of MPs they were hoping for, and wrangling over Farage's hot headed pledge to stand down if he didn't win Thanet.
968 said:
Curious if it did receive funding that they should deny it. Perhaps it was an oversight? A bit like all those expenses various meps and MPs have strenuously denied then admitted to. Or perhaps like NFs promise to stand down if he didn't win a seat in the election?
I'm generally supportive of your views on here, but that's a poor comparison.There is, however, a difference between not listing something (be it accidental or deliberate) and denying something. Did the BBC actively deny the funding, or just not publish it?
968 said:
A bit like all those expenses various meps and MPs have strenuously denied then admitted to. Or perhaps like NFs promise to stand down if he didn't win a seat in the election?
Bit like posting @ 0.39am " I'm off to bed now as have clinic all day tomorrow so will be very busy"AW111 said:
I'm generally supportive of your views on here, but that's a poor comparison.
There is, however, a difference between not listing something (be it accidental or deliberate) and denying something. Did the BBC actively deny the funding, or just not publish it?
Yes perhaps it was slightly tongue in cheek and not the best comparison. It's odd that the BBC should feel the need to lie about the funding. It'll be interesting to see if it's clarified in future. Oh and I'm in clinic but have 2 minutes whilst I'm waiting for the next patient to come through.There is, however, a difference between not listing something (be it accidental or deliberate) and denying something. Did the BBC actively deny the funding, or just not publish it?
968 said:
AW111 said:
I'm generally supportive of your views on here, but that's a poor comparison.
There is, however, a difference between not listing something (be it accidental or deliberate) and denying something. Did the BBC actively deny the funding, or just not publish it?
Yes perhaps it was slightly tongue in cheek and not the best comparison. It's odd that the BBC should feel the need to lie about the funding. It'll be interesting to see if it's clarified in future. Oh and I'm in clinic but have 2 minutes whilst I'm waiting for the next patient to come through.There is, however, a difference between not listing something (be it accidental or deliberate) and denying something. Did the BBC actively deny the funding, or just not publish it?
968 said:
I don't think Farage came across at all well on the today programme when asked to clarify whether he felt Syrian refugees should be offered refuge here.
OK, how exactly do you suggest we deal with the people from Just Syria?Syria is in civil war effectively, so who are you going to claim are the 'persecuted'?
ignoring that, the population of Syria is some 22 million, are we supposed to throw open the doors to all 22 million of them?
where do you propose all these people go? we don't have houses for the population we have now?
and this is before you think about all the people coming from North Africa, Libya, etc.
the overriding point here is that the way to resolve these issues is to go to the source of the problem and deal with it, not stand on the side lines then look at all the fallout of it.
Libya for example used to be a decent country, people actually wanted to go and live and work there, however, since we (the EU and us) decided to support the overthrow of Gaddafi, the place has turned into a total disaster area, you could argue the same for Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
Like I said up front, what is your solution?
Scuffers said:
OK, how exactly do you suggest we deal with the people from Just Syria?
Syria is in civil war effectively, so who are you going to claim are the 'persecuted'?
ignoring that, the population of Syria is some 22 million, are we supposed to throw open the doors to all 22 million of them?
where do you propose all these people go? we don't have houses for the population we have now?
and this is before you think about all the people coming from North Africa, Libya, etc.
the overriding point here is that the way to resolve these issues is to go to the source of the problem and deal with it, not stand on the side lines then look at all the fallout of it.
Libya for example used to be a decent country, people actually wanted to go and live and work there, however, since we (the EU and us) decided to support the overthrow of Gaddafi, the place has turned into a total disaster area, you could argue the same for Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
Like I said up front, what is your solution?
For starters be sensible enough to acknowledge that all the Syrians are refugees, which Farage couldn't. Secondly no one is saying that all of the Syrians should be located in one country, various countries can accommodate whatever numbers of refugees they feel able to. Germany is managing 800000 which is an incredible number. Iceland was going to offer sanctuary to 80 but then 10000 (out of 300k) have offered to shelter Syrian children/families so the govt there is changing its policy. What Farage wouldn't answer was how many refugees he'd consider offering safety to, because he's a politician of course. The honest thing would've been to say none or x thousand. I have no answer for what the UK can offer because I'm not a government official and have no idea what sort of support could be offered for a short, mid or long term solution, however I think we should offer sanctuary to a significant number.Syria is in civil war effectively, so who are you going to claim are the 'persecuted'?
ignoring that, the population of Syria is some 22 million, are we supposed to throw open the doors to all 22 million of them?
where do you propose all these people go? we don't have houses for the population we have now?
and this is before you think about all the people coming from North Africa, Libya, etc.
the overriding point here is that the way to resolve these issues is to go to the source of the problem and deal with it, not stand on the side lines then look at all the fallout of it.
Libya for example used to be a decent country, people actually wanted to go and live and work there, however, since we (the EU and us) decided to support the overthrow of Gaddafi, the place has turned into a total disaster area, you could argue the same for Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
Like I said up front, what is your solution?
Just seen a fairly long interview on skyNEWS with Nigel Farage.
As usual, he came across really well and answered the questions. Even the pointlessly silly "how long is a piece of string" type questions like "How many should we take". Yet again the doddle of an easy job of the media question posers totally deliberately ignoring or forgetting that the "official" conservative current net immigration intake figures are already excessive. Farage, in common with an increasing number of lower profile ordinary folks strongly suspect those "official" figures, worrying as they are, are well below the true numbers. For obvious reasons whichever way those figures are presented, must be of serious concern to those we entrust to the Nation's longer term well being even though they are loath to admit that in their "nothing to worry about here" spin world.
Farage was on the Severn Bridge near the Toll Gates for those wanting to access another country ... Wales...
Apparently the already high toll charges to enter Wales for both private and commercial vehicles are set to rise further in the not too distant future. It should be withdrawn completely if only to benefit the folks living in the Chepstow and surrounding areas who suffer high traffic density by the numerous cars and massive trucks avoiding those excessive and inconvenient tolls. Fiscal blindness.
As usual, he came across really well and answered the questions. Even the pointlessly silly "how long is a piece of string" type questions like "How many should we take". Yet again the doddle of an easy job of the media question posers totally deliberately ignoring or forgetting that the "official" conservative current net immigration intake figures are already excessive. Farage, in common with an increasing number of lower profile ordinary folks strongly suspect those "official" figures, worrying as they are, are well below the true numbers. For obvious reasons whichever way those figures are presented, must be of serious concern to those we entrust to the Nation's longer term well being even though they are loath to admit that in their "nothing to worry about here" spin world.
Farage was on the Severn Bridge near the Toll Gates for those wanting to access another country ... Wales...
Apparently the already high toll charges to enter Wales for both private and commercial vehicles are set to rise further in the not too distant future. It should be withdrawn completely if only to benefit the folks living in the Chepstow and surrounding areas who suffer high traffic density by the numerous cars and massive trucks avoiding those excessive and inconvenient tolls. Fiscal blindness.I didn't hear the interview but to expect Farage to just pluck a number out of the air and say we can take x thousand Syrians would be a bit foolish IMO. And if that many Syrians how many Libyans, Somalians, Eritraens etc. There are many troubled countries in the world.
As for getting to the root of the problem, we tried that in Iraq and Afghanistan and ended up making things worse. The vote on Syria shows there is little appetite for this policy.
I'm pretty much a worldosceptic in this regard. We can't fix every country in the world and we can't house every refugee in the world. IMO we need to set sensible numbers for what we can take and above all stick to them.
I don't know what a sensible nunber is but 600,000 is not.
As for getting to the root of the problem, we tried that in Iraq and Afghanistan and ended up making things worse. The vote on Syria shows there is little appetite for this policy.
I'm pretty much a worldosceptic in this regard. We can't fix every country in the world and we can't house every refugee in the world. IMO we need to set sensible numbers for what we can take and above all stick to them.
I don't know what a sensible nunber is but 600,000 is not.
968 said:
For starters be sensible enough to acknowledge that all the Syrians are refugees, which Farage couldn't.
your first premmis is patently wrong.if Mr Assad came knocking, you would class him as a refugee would you?
Back to numbers, Syria is only one country that's currently having a civil war, what about all the others?
is your solution to this that the EU becomes the host to every person from any country at war?
Scuffers said:
your first premmis is patently wrong.
if Mr Assad came knocking, you would class him as a refugee would you?
Back to numbers, Syria is only one country that's currently having a civil war, what about all the others?
is your solution to this that the EU becomes the host to every person from any country at war?
With regards to Assad, it depends on your point of view. If you were Putin, Assad and his allies would be refugees of they fled the country much like Gaddafi might've been to Tony Blair, however, if Assad fled to the U.S. He'd be arrested for war crimes.if Mr Assad came knocking, you would class him as a refugee would you?
Back to numbers, Syria is only one country that's currently having a civil war, what about all the others?
is your solution to this that the EU becomes the host to every person from any country at war?
With regards to the worlds politics the EU can play a part of offering refuge to many displaced by war. It has enough resources and land to manage a large number and indeed many European countries have an entirely different viewpoint about this issue compared to yourself. However, I don't believe the EU alone should have to be the only safe haven, I think the U.S. China and other Asian countries could offer refuge.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff