UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

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.

So the group is authorised but the leaflet isn't? I can understand that the political parties will have these groups and the party may seek to authorise them to make sure their name isn't being used to support things that don't agree with the pary-which begs the question of why this group is authorised?

Having said that they may choose to de-authorise them soon which would answer the question!

[Yazar]

Yazar said:

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

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

[distraction tactic] I think we should instead reflect on this more [/distraction tactic]

[turbobloke]

cookie118 said:

turbobloke said:

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.

So the group is authorised but the leaflet isn't?

It would appear so from the article.

[turbobloke]

Yazar said:

[distraction tactic] I think we should instead reflect on this more [/distraction tactic]

Can't fail!

[RYH64E]

limpsfield said:

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

Unexpected standing-down for personal reasons, I wonder if there's a skeleton about to escape it's closet?

[NicD]

Yes that is the usual reason for members of the 'established' parties to stand down. Lets wait and see.

[dandarez]

RYH64E said:

limpsfield said:

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

Unexpected standing-down for personal reasons, I wonder if there's a skeleton about to escape it's closet?

If there is, do you want a round of applause before or after you jump in with 'Told you so'?

If there isn't, and it is, as she says, a sick relative, will you apologise for your crass anti-kipper commment?

[RYH64E]

dandarez said:

RYH64E said:

limpsfield said:

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

Unexpected standing-down for personal reasons, I wonder if there's a skeleton about to escape it's closet?

If there is, do you want a round of applause before or after you jump in with 'Told you so'?

If there isn't, and it is, as she says, a sick relative, will you apologise for your crass anti-kipper commment?

Crass anti-kipper comment, really? I think you need to get out more.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

It is not entirely surprising, even if Mr Clegg tries to spin it.

I wonder why we need 600+ full time, paid MP's in this case.

Comprehensive Study Finds 64.7% of UK Laws Made in Brussels

[FiF]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

It is not entirely surprising, even if Mr Clegg tries to spin it.

I wonder why we need 600+ full time, paid MP's in this case.

Comprehensive Study Finds 64.7% of UK Laws Made in Brussels

This is what I was saying at the time of the Farage-Clegg debates and got shouted down by supposed legal experts who only succeeded in demonstrating their partiality and lack of knowledge.

This report misses the point in two further ways.

By only examining a set number of years what went on before is discounted. Years during which far higher numbers of EU direct and influenced legislation was enacted. Truly a Herculean task to go back through all that and determine what still stands and the situation of any amendments so frankly don't blame the authors too much for that.

The second point missed is that in the way they have done the analysis, they have missed, probably because it's also an impossible task, to determine the influence of so called Soft law and the Open Method of Coordination. This is where UK regulations and authority behaviour has been influenced by EU opinions, not specific law nor directives. They've caught some of these but by no means all imo.

Now it may well be that the laws and regulations subject of EU influence may be in many cases desirable regulations or aims and generally worthwhile.

But let the argument stop that the EU has little or no influence.

It does open up the question of why so many MPs and at what cost.

It also opens up the question of the democratic deficit when our elected MEPs have so little power.

[brenflys777]

The Airbus chief praises free movement of people as contributing to their success, but also confirms businesses will keep doing business regardless of the EU referendum result, with a commitment to remain in the UK.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysi...

[Pesty]

Former labour mayor and councilor on 15 charges of fraud. This would be reported in other places than Shorpe if it was ukip.

http://www.shorpetelegraph.co.uk/Court-told-ex...

[BGARK]

Not sure if posted or available yet. When are the full UKIP, CON, LAB manifesto's available for reading?

[steveT350C]

brenflys777 said:

The Airbus chief praises free movement of people as contributing to their success, but also confirms businesses will keep doing business regardless of the EU referendum result, with a commitment to remain in the UK.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysi...

apparently the EMEA boss of Ford said pretty much the same thing on R4 this morning.

need to confirm this though

[ralphrj]

BGARK said:

Not sure if posted or available yet. When are the full UKIP, CON, LAB manifesto's available for reading?

Probably around Easter.

[BGARK]

ralphrj said:

Probably around Easter.

Thank you, all parties usually around the same date then?

[ralphrj]

BGARK said:

Thank you, all parties usually around the same date then?

Usually within a few days of each other so that they don't lose press coverage to another party by launching on the same day.

[FiF]

http://gu.com/p/469kx

Home secretary reckons that the Tory manifesto will declare a net migration target. Number Ten still going for net 100,000.

[Einion Yrth]

FiF said:

http://gu.com/p/469kx

Home secretary reckons that the Tory manifesto will declare a net migration target. Number Ten still going for net 100,000.

By making the place so crap that everyone who can leave does?

[Esseesse]

FiF said:

http://gu.com/p/469kx

Home secretary reckons that the Tory manifesto will declare a net migration target. Number Ten still going for net 100,000.

I'm not sure if this is worse than just accepting defeat on immigration number.