Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£650k for 1 MP? "aye, and there's quite a few of them too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£650k for 1 MP? "Yes the allowance is based on the % of the vote secured! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£650k for 1 MP? Yes the allowance is based on the % of the vote secured!"Thanks  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that its the public that make them worse . STOP VOTING FOR THEM " I will vote for who I like | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that." I some how think his party may have had that convo before he resigned. The man speaks with a forked tongue! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to remember how many votes Farrage got UKIP 12.6% of the votes cast "With a decent % of the vote, it shows that the public do have concerns over the issues UKIP concentrate on - and the main parties tend to ignore. It's only the 'first past the post' system that means we only have one UKIP MP - whereas the SNP with far less votes than UKIP have in excess of 50 ! What a system and have no idea how we put up with such a blatant flaw - proportional representation clearly makes sense - BUT doesn't suit the big parties | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that its the public that make them worse . STOP VOTING FOR THEM I will vote for who I like " it is your right and it is there right to spend our cash . Happy days | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to remember how many votes Farrage got UKIP 12.6% of the votes cast
With a decent % of the vote, it shows that the public do have concerns over the issues UKIP concentrate on - and the main parties tend to ignore. It's only the 'first past the post' system that means we only have one UKIP MP - whereas the SNP with far less votes than UKIP have in excess of 50 ! What a system and have no idea how we put up with such a blatant flaw - proportional representation clearly makes sense - BUT doesn't suit the big parties"It doesn't suit the people either. The referendum voted more than 2:1 against back in 2011. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that its the public that make them worse . STOP VOTING FOR THEM I will vote for who I like " Here here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to remember how many votes Farrage got UKIP 12.6% of the votes cast
With a decent % of the vote, it shows that the public do have concerns over the issues UKIP concentrate on - and the main parties tend to ignore. It's only the 'first past the post' system that means we only have one UKIP MP - whereas the SNP with far less votes than UKIP have in excess of 50 ! What a system and have no idea how we put up with such a blatant flaw - proportional representation clearly makes sense - BUT doesn't suit the big parties
It doesn't suit the people either. The referendum voted more than 2:1 against back in 2011."We weren't offered PR, we were offered constituency AV/STV, which would still have given us FPTP! It was a fudge, designed to fail, Murdoch told Sun readers it was too complicated, and now people say, "well we were offered PR and rejected it" (incidentally, we got the government Murdoch wanted, just as I predicted - no crystal ball required, every general election in my lifetime so far has gone the way Murdoch wanted, via the Sun) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£650k for 1 MP?
Yes the allowance is based on the % of the vote secured!"you get that money for having 1MP in the house of commons.. and thus your party is officially part of the opposition... it isn't based on any % vote share at all..... the greens for example are entitled to the same amount if they deem fit... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that its the public that make them worse . STOP VOTING FOR THEM I will vote for who I like Here here" People can vote for who they like,this is NOT a dictatorship | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to remember how many votes Farrage got UKIP 12.6% of the votes cast
With a decent % of the vote, it shows that the public do have concerns over the issues UKIP concentrate on - and the main parties tend to ignore. It's only the 'first past the post' system that means we only have one UKIP MP - whereas the SNP with far less votes than UKIP have in excess of 50 ! What a system and have no idea how we put up with such a blatant flaw - proportional representation clearly makes sense - BUT doesn't suit the big parties"Did you vote to change the system in 2011 referendum? Most people didn't. That's the will of the people. Just as the decision on the EU referendum will be. Carswell isn't compelled to spend the full allowance so why is his party insisting on it? The allowance is there to set up his office etc. He was a Conservative MP for years so if he feels he doesn't need to spend the full allowance that should be his decision as the MP it is designed to support. This is also the party that complains about the cost of the EU whilst claiming every and all allowances there too, so hardly surprising. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to remember how many votes Farrage got UKIP 12.6% of the votes cast
With a decent % of the vote, it shows that the public do have concerns over the issues UKIP concentrate on - and the main parties tend to ignore. It's only the 'first past the post' system that means we only have one UKIP MP - whereas the SNP with far less votes than UKIP have in excess of 50 ! What a system and have no idea how we put up with such a blatant flaw - proportional representation clearly makes sense - BUT doesn't suit the big parties
Did you vote to change the system in 2011 referendum? Most people didn't. That's the will of the people. Just as the decision on the EU referendum will be.
Carswell isn't compelled to spend the full allowance so why is his party insisting on it? The allowance is there to set up his office etc. He was a Conservative MP for years so if he feels he doesn't need to spend the full allowance that should be his decision as the MP it is designed to support.
This is also the party that complains about the cost of the EU whilst claiming every and all allowances there too, so hardly surprising.
"I voted to change - even though it was a fudge and not PR at all (see my post above), figuring that any electoral reform was a step in the right direction. I know many who didn't vote, or voted against it on principle, as it wasn't PR that was offered. But I knew it was a lost cause, as Murdoch told Sun readers that it was too complicated for them to understand (again, see my comments re the Sun and Murdoch above) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to remember how many votes Farrage got UKIP 12.6% of the votes cast
With a decent % of the vote, it shows that the public do have concerns over the issues UKIP concentrate on - and the main parties tend to ignore. It's only the 'first past the post' system that means we only have one UKIP MP - whereas the SNP with far less votes than UKIP have in excess of 50 ! What a system and have no idea how we put up with such a blatant flaw - proportional representation clearly makes sense - BUT doesn't suit the big parties
Did you vote to change the system in 2011 referendum? Most people didn't. That's the will of the people. Just as the decision on the EU referendum will be.
Carswell isn't compelled to spend the full allowance so why is his party insisting on it? The allowance is there to set up his office etc. He was a Conservative MP for years so if he feels he doesn't need to spend the full allowance that should be his decision as the MP it is designed to support.
This is also the party that complains about the cost of the EU whilst claiming every and all allowances there too, so hardly surprising.
I voted to change - even though it was a fudge and not PR at all (see my post above), figuring that any electoral reform was a step in the right direction. I know many who didn't vote, or voted against it on principle, as it wasn't PR that was offered.
But I knew it was a lost cause, as Murdoch told Sun readers that it was too complicated for them to understand (again, see my comments re the Sun and Murdoch above)" You are right, and i fear the upcoming EU referendum could also turn into a fudge, so the main parties get their own way, we will all have to see what happens there?
The last referendum in 2011 was as you point out a referendum on AV not Proportional representation, so maybe another one needs to be done now for changing it to PR instead of FPTP?
The Lib dems, Greens, UKIP, and maybe even Labour now they have lost scotland may back a proportional representation system, but no doubt the tories will want to keep First past the post now they won a majority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to remember how many votes Farrage got UKIP 12.6% of the votes cast
With a decent % of the vote, it shows that the public do have concerns over the issues UKIP concentrate on - and the main parties tend to ignore. It's only the 'first past the post' system that means we only have one UKIP MP - whereas the SNP with far less votes than UKIP have in excess of 50 ! What a system and have no idea how we put up with such a blatant flaw - proportional representation clearly makes sense - BUT doesn't suit the big parties"UKIP got 4 million votes spread over 621 constituencies ....SNP got 1.6 million spread over 59 constituencies ...their argument is flawed ...the british people were given the chance to reform the system and didnt want change  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.I some how think his party may have had that convo before he resigned. The man speaks with a forked tongue!" But the other party leaders all speak through their arses. Nigel Farage is a remarkable guy and has done a great job...it's the antiquated 'first past the post' system that thwarted UKIP...that and tactical voting. I've spoken to loads of people since the election, and many of them have said they voted Labour only because they thought that UKIP wouldn't have a realistic chance of winning against the Tories but they didn't want a Labour government in power. I hope Nigel Farage is allowed to have his summer break away from politics and then returns to lead UKIP forward again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.I some how think his party may have had that convo before he resigned. The man speaks with a forked tongue! But the other party leaders all speak through their arses. Nigel Farage is a remarkable guy and has done a great job...it's the antiquated 'first past the post' system that thwarted UKIP...that and tactical voting. I've spoken to loads of people since the election, and many of them have said they voted Labour only because they thought that UKIP wouldn't have a realistic chance of winning against the Tories but they didn't want a Labour government in power. I hope Nigel Farage is allowed to have his summer break away from politics and then returns to lead UKIP forward again. " I am sure he will come back he would want to help spend the £650k parliamentary allowance his party has! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.I some how think his party may have had that convo before he resigned. The man speaks with a forked tongue! But the other party leaders all speak through their arses. Nigel Farage is a remarkable guy and has done a great job...it's the antiquated 'first past the post' system that thwarted UKIP...that and tactical voting. I've spoken to loads of people since the election, and many of them have said they voted Labour only because they thought that UKIP wouldn't have a realistic chance of winning against the Tories but they didn't want a Labour government in power. I hope Nigel Farage is allowed to have his summer break away from politics and then returns to lead UKIP forward again. I am sure he will come back he would want to help spend the £650k parliamentary allowance his party has! " of course I'm sure all of the other parties would have refused to spend that money 
They are the most successful revolutionary party since the first world war ...........they must be doing something right! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm pretty sure the rest of the partys will be spending their allowance Too. It really anoys me how everyone jumps down UKIP's throat at every opportunity. And the whole racism tarr. The Scottish vote for SNP and it's called nationalism. I and nearly 4 million other people vote UKIP and we're branded as racist! How does that work? The SNP want scotland for the scottish, they want to put the welfare of the scottish people first yet that's nationalism. UkIP want to put the welfare of the Whole of the British population first and it's racist. I really don't get it. Immigration is out of control, it's putting a massive strain on the NHS, schools, social housing and the social welfare system. And the EU is the biggest joke I've ever seen. How many countrys has the common market bought to it's knees? UKIP may not have seasoned politicians like labour and the torys. but with the mess labour and conservatives have got the country in can UKIP really do any worse? I'd be willing to have a crack of the whip. We're all fucked anyway so what harm can it do. Rant over " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions." of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them ."Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?"You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?"Explain how they don't add up ? What inside info do you have? are you qualified to say they don't add up or is that just the opinion of the type of media you read? Which other parties have had there manifesto costed by an independent body? What makes you think its white middle class men voting? where do you get that info? let me guess , the next comment will be that all the 4 million that voted ukip are racist ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. "The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply. The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year. Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote. Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply.
The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year.
Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote.
Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful! "....and you think the other parties won't take their full allowance? Remind me again which parties were found guilty of fiddling their expenses in recent years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that." Because resigning is a unilateral decision. I resign and am gone. Whether my resignation is accepted or not does not matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
Explain how they don't add up ?
What inside info do you have?
are you qualified to say they don't add up or is that just the opinion of the type of media you read?
Which other parties have had there manifesto costed by an independent body?
What makes you think its white middle class men voting? where do you get that info?
let me guess , the next comment will be that all the 4 million that voted ukip are racist ?
"No not racist at all. Ukip’s manifesto was clearly designed knowing they would get around 4% of the vote confirmed by Nige the night before the election. The manifesto allowed for More hospitals, more kit for the armed forces, lower business rates, a £13,000 personal allowance, a new 30% rate of tax for higher earners, extra spending on social care, no bedroom tax. It is like a compilation album of the greatest hits from the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. All this carried a hefty price tag: a little shy of £32bn by the end of the next parliament. How was it all going to be paid for? No problem, according to Nige. Ukip will save £9bn by withdrawal from the EU, £11bn by cutting Britain’s aid budget, £4bn by scrapping plans for a second high-speed rail link to the Midlands and the north, and a further £5bn by getting rid of the Barnett formula that tops up per-capita public spending in Scotland. Add in a few additional non specific savings and the £32bn of giveaways are matched almost pound for pound by an equivalent amount of savings. As if anticipating that its manifesto would be greeted with scepticism, Ukip has had it costed by an economic consultancy, the Centre for Economic and Business Research. It would be within the discretion of a Ukip government to cut the amount Britain spends on aid. The UK is one of only five countries that meets or exceeds the UN target for spending 0.7% of national income on development assistance. Reducing that to 0.2% would save £11bn. Similarly, there would be substantial savings from abandoning plans for HS2. The CEBR pointed out that the wealth creation on terms of jobs and tax receipts from a infrastructure scheme such as this (which I don’t support by the way) where omitted from the overall calculation. But would withdrawal from the EU actually save £9bn a year? Economic opinions vary widely and some estimates say the UK would suffer a financial cost from withdrawal. At the moment, net UK contributions to the EU budget (ie after taking into account Britain’s rebate, payments under the common agricultural policy and support for the regions) comes to around £10bn a year. The CEBR says the £9bn saving sounds “cautious and reasonable” but adds a caveat that it cannot comment on how EU policies towards Britain would change as a result of withdrawal and further went on to say that the external effects on withdrawal had not been included in the calculations. In simple terms it was a mathematical exercise with no allowance for what actual happens in real life! Even assuming there was no direct retaliation from Britain’s former EU partners, there could be costs involved. Almost half of Britain’s exports go to other EU countries, so departure could carry an economic cost. An independent UK would also have to replace the funding that currently comes from Brussels which Nige forgot to put into the calculation. The savings from the Barnett formula are based on estimates from the Taxpayers’ Alliance, a body that lobbies for lower taxes. The CEBR report says this element of the manifesto should be treated with caution. It estimates that the formula will cost the UK £200bn over 20 years, so Ukip could save £5bn a year by phasing in its abolition. The CEBR stated in the report The numbers need to be treated with some caution and took no account of inflation. So it seems Nige had a plan and yes some ecomists looked at it but it was not really a plan of substance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply.
The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year.
Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote.
Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful!
....and you think the other parties won't take their full allowance? Remind me again which parties were found guilty of fiddling their expenses in recent years? "Lordy...........Nige is still under investigation from Electoral Commission for claiming £205k for an office is using provided free by a party supporter! He also voted against the MEP expenses being subject to external audit! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
Explain how they don't add up ?
What inside info do you have?
are you qualified to say they don't add up or is that just the opinion of the type of media you read?
Which other parties have had there manifesto costed by an independent body?
What makes you think its white middle class men voting? where do you get that info?
let me guess , the next comment will be that all the 4 million that voted ukip are racist ?
No not racist at all.
Ukip’s manifesto was clearly designed knowing they would get around 4% of the vote confirmed by Nige the night before the election. The manifesto allowed for More hospitals, more kit for the armed forces, lower business rates, a £13,000 personal allowance, a new 30% rate of tax for higher earners, extra spending on social care, no bedroom tax. It is like a compilation album of the greatest hits from the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
All this carried a hefty price tag: a little shy of £32bn by the end of the next parliament. How was it all going to be paid for?
No problem, according to Nige. Ukip will save £9bn by withdrawal from the EU, £11bn by cutting Britain’s aid budget, £4bn by scrapping plans for a second high-speed rail link to the Midlands and the north, and a further £5bn by getting rid of the Barnett formula that tops up per-capita public spending in Scotland. Add in a few additional non specific savings and the £32bn of giveaways are matched almost pound for pound by an equivalent amount of savings.
As if anticipating that its manifesto would be greeted with scepticism, Ukip has had it costed by an economic consultancy, the Centre for Economic and Business Research.
It would be within the discretion of a Ukip government to cut the amount Britain spends on aid. The UK is one of only five countries that meets or exceeds the UN target for spending 0.7% of national income on development assistance. Reducing that to 0.2% would save £11bn. Similarly, there would be substantial savings from abandoning plans for HS2. The CEBR pointed out that the wealth creation on terms of jobs and tax receipts from a infrastructure scheme such as this (which I don’t support by the way) where omitted from the overall calculation.
But would withdrawal from the EU actually save £9bn a year? Economic opinions vary widely and some estimates say the UK would suffer a financial cost from withdrawal. At the moment, net UK contributions to the EU budget (ie after taking into account Britain’s rebate, payments under the common agricultural policy and support for the regions) comes to around £10bn a year. The CEBR says the £9bn saving sounds “cautious and reasonable” but adds a caveat that it cannot comment on how EU policies towards Britain would change as a result of withdrawal and further went on to say that the external effects on withdrawal had not been included in the calculations. In simple terms it was a mathematical exercise with no allowance for what actual happens in real life!
Even assuming there was no direct retaliation from Britain’s former EU partners, there could be costs involved. Almost half of Britain’s exports go to other EU countries, so departure could carry an economic cost. An independent UK would also have to replace the funding that currently comes from Brussels which Nige forgot to put into the calculation.
The savings from the Barnett formula are based on estimates from the Taxpayers’ Alliance, a body that lobbies for lower taxes. The CEBR report says this element of the manifesto should be treated with caution. It estimates that the formula will cost the UK £200bn over 20 years, so Ukip could save £5bn a year by phasing in its abolition. The CEBR stated in the report The numbers need to be treated with some caution and took no account of inflation.
So it seems Nige had a plan and yes some ecomists looked at it but it was not really a plan of substance.
"I take it you read the guardian then ...... never would have guessed that . So i was right , its not your own inside info or opinion , its an opinion put in your head by a left leaning newspaper . anybody can cut and paste from the internet . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply.
The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year.
Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote.
Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful!
....and you think the other parties won't take their full allowance? Remind me again which parties were found guilty of fiddling their expenses in recent years? "Ukip apparently! http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/565429/Nigel-Farage-deep-shock-latest-UKIP-expenses-scandal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
Explain how they don't add up ?
What inside info do you have?
are you qualified to say they don't add up or is that just the opinion of the type of media you read?
Which other parties have had there manifesto costed by an independent body?
What makes you think its white middle class men voting? where do you get that info?
let me guess , the next comment will be that all the 4 million that voted ukip are racist ?
No not racist at all.
Ukip’s manifesto was clearly designed knowing they would get around 4% of the vote confirmed by Nige the night before the election. The manifesto allowed for More hospitals, more kit for the armed forces, lower business rates, a £13,000 personal allowance, a new 30% rate of tax for higher earners, extra spending on social care, no bedroom tax. It is like a compilation album of the greatest hits from the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
All this carried a hefty price tag: a little shy of £32bn by the end of the next parliament. How was it all going to be paid for?
No problem, according to Nige. Ukip will save £9bn by withdrawal from the EU, £11bn by cutting Britain’s aid budget, £4bn by scrapping plans for a second high-speed rail link to the Midlands and the north, and a further £5bn by getting rid of the Barnett formula that tops up per-capita public spending in Scotland. Add in a few additional non specific savings and the £32bn of giveaways are matched almost pound for pound by an equivalent amount of savings.
As if anticipating that its manifesto would be greeted with scepticism, Ukip has had it costed by an economic consultancy, the Centre for Economic and Business Research.
It would be within the discretion of a Ukip government to cut the amount Britain spends on aid. The UK is one of only five countries that meets or exceeds the UN target for spending 0.7% of national income on development assistance. Reducing that to 0.2% would save £11bn. Similarly, there would be substantial savings from abandoning plans for HS2. The CEBR pointed out that the wealth creation on terms of jobs and tax receipts from a infrastructure scheme such as this (which I don’t support by the way) where omitted from the overall calculation.
But would withdrawal from the EU actually save £9bn a year? Economic opinions vary widely and some estimates say the UK would suffer a financial cost from withdrawal. At the moment, net UK contributions to the EU budget (ie after taking into account Britain’s rebate, payments under the common agricultural policy and support for the regions) comes to around £10bn a year. The CEBR says the £9bn saving sounds “cautious and reasonable” but adds a caveat that it cannot comment on how EU policies towards Britain would change as a result of withdrawal and further went on to say that the external effects on withdrawal had not been included in the calculations. In simple terms it was a mathematical exercise with no allowance for what actual happens in real life!
Even assuming there was no direct retaliation from Britain’s former EU partners, there could be costs involved. Almost half of Britain’s exports go to other EU countries, so departure could carry an economic cost. An independent UK would also have to replace the funding that currently comes from Brussels which Nige forgot to put into the calculation.
The savings from the Barnett formula are based on estimates from the Taxpayers’ Alliance, a body that lobbies for lower taxes. The CEBR report says this element of the manifesto should be treated with caution. It estimates that the formula will cost the UK £200bn over 20 years, so Ukip could save £5bn a year by phasing in its abolition. The CEBR stated in the report The numbers need to be treated with some caution and took no account of inflation.
So it seems Nige had a plan and yes some ecomists looked at it but it was not really a plan of substance.
I take it you read the guardian then ...... never would have guessed that .
So i was right , its not your own inside info or opinion , its an opinion put in your head by a left leaning newspaper .
anybody can cut and paste from the internet ."Anyone can produce a report that is floored and based on poor information that is not researched properly! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply.
The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year.
Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote.
Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful! "Nearly 4 million votes, second place in 118 seats! I wouldn't call that a one trick pony! I know at least 10 people who would of voted ukip if they thought they stood a chance of gaining a substantial ammount of seats. But instead they voted tactically because they did not want a labour/snp coalition. Now 10 people would not of made the slightest bit if difference but how many people wanted to w vote UKIP but were scared into voting conservative? Now with the results of nearly 4 million votes and second in 118 seats how many people will see they actually stand a chance in the next election? I'd wager a fair few more than 4 million. Now 650k is a lot for one MP. But how much of the taxpayer's money have the other partys been given to mount an opposition? I totally agree with ukip HQ that they should take the money and spend it. They want mr Carswell to do a good job and he's going to need a lot of ba room staff to do it. If the constituants of his seat dont get answers to their emails/letters/phonecalls they will not be happy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
Explain how they don't add up ?
What inside info do you have?
are you qualified to say they don't add up or is that just the opinion of the type of media you read?
Which other parties have had there manifesto costed by an independent body?
What makes you think its white middle class men voting? where do you get that info?
let me guess , the next comment will be that all the 4 million that voted ukip are racist ?
No not racist at all.
Ukip’s manifesto was clearly designed knowing they would get around 4% of the vote confirmed by Nige the night before the election. The manifesto allowed for More hospitals, more kit for the armed forces, lower business rates, a £13,000 personal allowance, a new 30% rate of tax for higher earners, extra spending on social care, no bedroom tax. It is like a compilation album of the greatest hits from the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
All this carried a hefty price tag: a little shy of £32bn by the end of the next parliament. How was it all going to be paid for?
No problem, according to Nige. Ukip will save £9bn by withdrawal from the EU, £11bn by cutting Britain’s aid budget, £4bn by scrapping plans for a second high-speed rail link to the Midlands and the north, and a further £5bn by getting rid of the Barnett formula that tops up per-capita public spending in Scotland. Add in a few additional non specific savings and the £32bn of giveaways are matched almost pound for pound by an equivalent amount of savings.
As if anticipating that its manifesto would be greeted with scepticism, Ukip has had it costed by an economic consultancy, the Centre for Economic and Business Research.
It would be within the discretion of a Ukip government to cut the amount Britain spends on aid. The UK is one of only five countries that meets or exceeds the UN target for spending 0.7% of national income on development assistance. Reducing that to 0.2% would save £11bn. Similarly, there would be substantial savings from abandoning plans for HS2. The CEBR pointed out that the wealth creation on terms of jobs and tax receipts from a infrastructure scheme such as this (which I don’t support by the way) where omitted from the overall calculation.
But would withdrawal from the EU actually save £9bn a year? Economic opinions vary widely and some estimates say the UK would suffer a financial cost from withdrawal. At the moment, net UK contributions to the EU budget (ie after taking into account Britain’s rebate, payments under the common agricultural policy and support for the regions) comes to around £10bn a year. The CEBR says the £9bn saving sounds “cautious and reasonable” but adds a caveat that it cannot comment on how EU policies towards Britain would change as a result of withdrawal and further went on to say that the external effects on withdrawal had not been included in the calculations. In simple terms it was a mathematical exercise with no allowance for what actual happens in real life!
Even assuming there was no direct retaliation from Britain’s former EU partners, there could be costs involved. Almost half of Britain’s exports go to other EU countries, so departure could carry an economic cost. An independent UK would also have to replace the funding that currently comes from Brussels which Nige forgot to put into the calculation.
The savings from the Barnett formula are based on estimates from the Taxpayers’ Alliance, a body that lobbies for lower taxes. The CEBR report says this element of the manifesto should be treated with caution. It estimates that the formula will cost the UK £200bn over 20 years, so Ukip could save £5bn a year by phasing in its abolition. The CEBR stated in the report The numbers need to be treated with some caution and took no account of inflation.
So it seems Nige had a plan and yes some ecomists looked at it but it was not really a plan of substance.
"UKIP got 12% of the vote, not 4%. Still anything would sound sensible when compared next to the green party spending plans. The tories and Labour failed to outline exactly what their spending plans would be and where they would make saving from, even the IMF said that the Labour and Tory manifestos on spending/savings was vague. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply.
The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year.
Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote.
Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful!
....and you think the other parties won't take their full allowance? Remind me again which parties were found guilty of fiddling their expenses in recent years?
Ukip apparently!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/565429/Nigel-Farage-deep-shock-latest-UKIP-expenses-scandal
"And the Labour and Tory MP's who were convicted in courts, claiming for moat cleaning, duckhouses, porn films on television X and all sorts of other ridiculous crap? What of them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply.
The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year.
Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote.
Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful!
....and you think the other parties won't take their full allowance? Remind me again which parties were found guilty of fiddling their expenses in recent years?
Ukip apparently!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/565429/Nigel-Farage-deep-shock-latest-UKIP-expenses-scandal
And the Labour and Tory MP's who were convicted in courts, claiming for moat cleaning, duckhouses, porn films on television X and all sorts of other ridiculous crap? What of them? "The law should be upheld and if found guilty justice should be done? Two wrongs do not make a right. One of Nige's platforms was to break away from such sleeze..........but his party is also at it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply.
The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year.
Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote.
Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful!
Nearly 4 million votes, second place in 118 seats!
I wouldn't call that a one trick pony! I know at least 10 people who would of voted ukip if they thought they stood a chance of gaining a substantial ammount of seats. But instead they voted tactically because they did not want a labour/snp coalition. Now 10 people would not of made the slightest bit if difference but how many people wanted to w
vote UKIP but were scared into voting conservative?
Now with the results of nearly 4 million votes and second in 118 seats how many people will see they actually stand a chance in the next election? I'd wager a fair few more than 4 million.
Now 650k is a lot for one MP. But how much of the taxpayer's money have the other partys been given to mount an opposition?
I totally agree with ukip HQ that they should take the money and spend it. They want mr Carswell to do a good job and he's going to need a lot of ba room staff to do it. If the constituants of his seat dont get answers to their emails/letters/phonecalls they will not be happy.
"As stated earlier its 12% of the vote and yes they were the best of the losers in 118 seats. So you are saying that people (your 10 for instance) voted tactically to ward of a SNLAB coalition? That's why they were the best loser in all those seats! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologies yes it was 12% it was the other reactionary party that got 4%. I am mixing up my extremists!" Wondered when the extremist accusation would come out, sigh.
I suppose you will develop onto nazis and fascists later on in the thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply.
The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year.
Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote.
Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful!
....and you think the other parties won't take their full allowance? Remind me again which parties were found guilty of fiddling their expenses in recent years?
Ukip apparently!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/565429/Nigel-Farage-deep-shock-latest-UKIP-expenses-scandal
And the Labour and Tory MP's who were convicted in courts, claiming for moat cleaning, duckhouses, porn films on television X and all sorts of other ridiculous crap? What of them? The law should be upheld and if found guilty justice should be done?
Two wrongs do not make a right. One of Nige's platforms was to break away from such sleeze..........but his party is also at it!"Yes but your original comment was about Douglas Carswell, he is not being told to fiddle anything, only to claim what he is rightfully entitled to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologies yes it was 12% it was the other reactionary party that got 4%. I am mixing up my extremists! Wondered when the extremist accusation would come out, sigh.
I suppose you will develop onto nazis and fascists later on in the thread. "Who in your opinion is the party to the right in UK politics? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply.
The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year.
Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote.
Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful!
....and you think the other parties won't take their full allowance? Remind me again which parties were found guilty of fiddling their expenses in recent years?
Ukip apparently!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/565429/Nigel-Farage-deep-shock-latest-UKIP-expenses-scandal
And the Labour and Tory MP's who were convicted in courts, claiming for moat cleaning, duckhouses, porn films on television X and all sorts of other ridiculous crap? What of them? The law should be upheld and if found guilty justice should be done?
Two wrongs do not make a right. One of Nige's platforms was to break away from such sleeze..........but his party is also at it!
Yes but your original comment was about Douglas Carswell, he is not being told to fiddle anything, only to claim what he is rightfully entitled to. "Read page 9 of the UKIP manifesto. Its entitled cutting the cost of Westminster! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologies yes it was 12% it was the other reactionary party that got 4%. I am mixing up my extremists! Wondered when the extremist accusation would come out, sigh.
I suppose you will develop onto nazis and fascists later on in the thread. "The SNP have been quoted by Nige as being extremists. If you substitute the word Immigration for Westminster in a Nige and Nicky speech they are the same ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Even will the popular press against them, and people being branded a flag waving nazi for supporting them, ukip got an awful lot of votes..... the other main parties will have taken notice of that and implemented some of ukip's policy ideas... Would be suicide for them not to.... The tories certainly will/have....and even the labour party will have to if they have any chance of clawing their way back..... " That's the issue it was a protest vote in dispersed with local tactical voting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologies yes it was 12% it was the other reactionary party that got 4%. I am mixing up my extremists! Wondered when the extremist accusation would come out, sigh.
I suppose you will develop onto nazis and fascists later on in the thread. Who in your opinion is the party to the right in UK politics?"The far right would be the BNP, i see UKIP as a more centre/right party. Anyway being on the right does not make you an extremist. If it does then the same would apply to those on the left being extremists aswel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologies yes it was 12% it was the other reactionary party that got 4%. I am mixing up my extremists! Wondered when the extremist accusation would come out, sigh.
I suppose you will develop onto nazis and fascists later on in the thread. Who in your opinion is the party to the right in UK politics?
The far right would be the BNP, i see UKIP as a more centre/right party. Anyway being on the right does not make you an extremist. If it does then the same would apply to those on the left being extremists aswel. "So UKIP and It would seem the Tories occupy the centre right ground in British politics? Why didn't those 12% vote for the Tories as it would seem that UKIP and the Tories are almost the same beast? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions. of course they have an economic strategy , have you read there manifesto or listened to the debates .
they can't be that bad if they get nearly 4 million votes .......and thats with the media against them .Their figures do not add up and the endorsement from the OBR was withdrawn when the details of the Manifesto was published. Their percentage of the vote tells me that there are lots of white middle class men who voted for them?
You forgot to mention savings from cutting the foreign aid budget and scrapping the vanity project that is HS2, among other things but there you go. UKIP was the only party in the general election that had its manifesto independently assessed and verified which is more than you can say for the tories or Labour. The office for budget responsibility declined to endorse the UKIP manifesto as it did not add up quite simply.
The manifesto said it would increase defence spending by 30% and cut income tax for those earning more than £150k per year.
Face it this is one trick pony and it managed to register a substantial protest vote.
Even to today the executive have insisted that Carswell takes the £650k parliamentary allowance..........shameful!
Nearly 4 million votes, second place in 118 seats!
I wouldn't call that a one trick pony! I know at least 10 people who would of voted ukip if they thought they stood a chance of gaining a substantial ammount of seats. But instead they voted tactically because they did not want a labour/snp coalition. Now 10 people would not of made the slightest bit if difference but how many people wanted to w
vote UKIP but were scared into voting conservative?
Now with the results of nearly 4 million votes and second in 118 seats how many people will see they actually stand a chance in the next election? I'd wager a fair few more than 4 million.
Now 650k is a lot for one MP. But how much of the taxpayer's money have the other partys been given to mount an opposition?
I totally agree with ukip HQ that they should take the money and spend it. They want mr Carswell to do a good job and he's going to need a lot of ba room staff to do it. If the constituants of his seat dont get answers to their emails/letters/phonecalls they will not be happy.
As stated earlier its 12% of the vote and yes they were the best of the losers in 118 seats. So you are saying that people (your 10 for instance) voted tactically to ward of a SNLAB coalition? That's why they were the best loser in all those seats!"I'm just stating that a lot of people were scared into voting tactically. If we had a PR system how many seats do you think they would of got? Alot more than the 86 they would of got if we had a PR system. Now The first past the post/PR debate is a non starter as we'll never get that vote. UKIP And indeed the SNP have started a move away from 2 party politics. Which i think is a step in the right direction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For anyone who thinks that Nigel Farage is a c@#t, the word "farage" means vagina ib Malaysian "Ha! Always knew he was nothing more than a pussy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that its the public that make them worse . STOP VOTING FOR THEM I will vote for who I like Here here" It is actually "hear hear!!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes but your original comment was about Douglas Carswell, he is not being told to fiddle anything, only to claim what he is rightfully entitled to. " but douglas carswell is the one in parliament, and is the one who says he only needs 350k to run the westminster opperation.... he is the one who has been there... i would like the think he is a competant mp... in fact to give him his dues, I actually think he is one of the better ones on local constinuancy issues I think he would have enough experience to know what he needs over the UKIP executive.... I hope he stands firm!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that its the public that make them worse . STOP VOTING FOR THEM I will vote for who I like Here here It is actually "hear hear!!"" The Kippers do things their own way... bless 'em! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Every party in opposition is entitled to an amount for each MP they have, PLUS £33.33 for every 200 votes over 150,000 across the whole of the electorate they get. It is paid yearly. Over the 5 years of this parliament Labour will get about £32 Million SNP £6Million UKIP £3.5 Million Libs £2.5 Million Greens £1.2 Million Even Sinn Fein get Short money. In addition, Labour, as the largest opposition party, will get a further £3.75 Million to run the leader's office. It's called Short Money, after Ted Short, a Labour MP that proposed it. It's been in place since 1975, and is supposed to make up for the lack of access to civil servants that opposition parties have. No party has ever refused this money. Douglas Carswell has been consistent as both Conservative and UKIP MP in campaigning against it. The House of Lords has a similar scheme in place called Cranborne Money. " It's actually one of the things I like about Carswell. Not all of the old lot of MPs took the full amount - they took what they needed to do their job. That's the way it should be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"oh by the way.... if anyone see's any of the primary 'kippers on the board.... some still haven't got in touch with me with regards to paying up on the charity election bets..... oh dear... and i though you lot were an honourable bunch..... sits, watches, smiles...... "maybe they are following their leaders example.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"oh by the way.... if anyone see's any of the primary 'kippers on the board.... some still haven't got in touch with me with regards to paying up on the charity election bets..... oh dear... and i though you lot were an honourable bunch..... sits, watches, smiles......
maybe they are following their leaders example.."I wonder what the UKippers would say if Clegg or Miliband had resigned and immediately stated they would consider standing for re-selection after their holidays? Or if their membership had basically said, we're not a party without you don't leave us? It's interesting that the senior party members and their main donor is saying it's time for Farage to step away from the leadership role. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"oh by the way.... if anyone see's any of the primary 'kippers on the board.... some still haven't got in touch with me with regards to paying up on the charity election bets..... oh dear... and i though you lot were an honourable bunch..... sits, watches, smiles......
maybe they are following their leaders example..
I wonder what the UKippers would say if Clegg or Miliband had resigned and immediately stated they would consider standing for re-selection after their holidays? Or if their membership had basically said, we're not a party without you don't leave us?
It's interesting that the senior party members and their main donor is saying it's time for Farage to step away from the leadership role.
"Is it not time to test if UKIP is a sustainable party in terms of its support? When it centres around one man that's very hard to tell. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its a one trick pony and will be a distant memory within 2 years. The current shenanigans shows what a bunch of disparate loons this lot are and god forbid they ever have more than one seat!" IF they actually get their act together, on the basis that so many people voted for them and seem to believe they are the only people speaking the truth (whatever that is) they might actually do what they set out to do. They have "won" in that they have created enough noise that the Tories promised us a hugely expensive referendum on whether to remain in Europe. They are shooting themselves in the foot if they don't pull themselves together and campaign for the out of Europe vote. This is, after all, their reason for existing. Can they be that smart though or are they determined to remain a cult? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Can they be that smart though or are they determined to remain a cult? " Why am I imagining children of the corn? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Can they be that smart though or are they determined to remain a cult? Why am I imagining children of the corn? "I imagine them all marrying Nigel in a mass ceremony where they are all dressed in white. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Can they be that smart though or are they determined to remain a cult? Why am I imagining children of the corn?
I imagine them all marrying Nigel in a mass ceremony where they are all dressed in white.
"Probably crap at Chess and Bridge! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that. "When you resign it means you have done all you can. Did Nige not think to talk to his NEC before resigning. Seems like he is a forward planner! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that. "They'd happily be criticising Miliband or Clegg if they did the same. If UKIP want to play big politics then they take the same brickbats that everyone else gets thrown at them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
They'd happily be criticising Miliband or Clegg if they did the same.
If UKIP want to play big politics then they take the same brickbats that everyone else gets thrown at them.
"Well put ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that. "As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader? "It seems most of the criticism is from within! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader? "Your response is exactly as I expected it to be, even down the comments on why it would be wrong to compare Farage's resignation to that of Clegg's and Miliband's. Good to see you're consistent in this, even though your consistency on how may seats UKIP would get slipped a bit over the last year. Your always seeing things on the brightside for your party will serve you all well during this turbulent time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader? "so just whom is allowed to be critical of your party..? do they have to be vetted by the likes of yourself and the other kippers, by the way where are they since the election..? the election for UKIP was bad, thats been said by senior ex people and donor's yet some fail to even acknowledge this. This election weas in many ways a high point for the popularity of UKIP and in 2020 it will be a different position as the Tories will have time, funds and the strategy to win back some support.. Clegg and Miliband took the right course of action as did Farage till his ego said hang on.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ukip stand for nothing save for exit from the EU and some delusionary comments on immigration. They, like the Labour party, had no economic strategy save for cutting the OSDB and perceived savings from EU extraction. The whole party has suspicious orgins and is made up of discontented Tory right wingers who still have colonial ambitions." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader?
so just whom is allowed to be critical of your party..?
do they have to be vetted by the likes of yourself and the other kippers, by the way where are they since the election..?
the election for UKIP was bad, thats been said by senior ex people and donor's yet some fail to even acknowledge this. This election weas in many ways a high point for the popularity of UKIP and in 2020 it will be a different position as the Tories will have time, funds and the strategy to win back some support..
Clegg and Miliband took the right course of action as did Farage till his ego said hang on.."You miss the point: only the UKippers can be critical of other parties, their leaders, their actions and their supporters. I repeat that if UKIP are to play big politics they have to accept the criticism that other parties face all the time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader?
so just whom is allowed to be critical of your party..?
do they have to be vetted by the likes of yourself and the other kippers, by the way where are they since the election..?
the election for UKIP was bad, thats been said by senior ex people and donor's yet some fail to even acknowledge this. This election weas in many ways a high point for the popularity of UKIP and in 2020 it will be a different position as the Tories will have time, funds and the strategy to win back some support..
Clegg and Miliband took the right course of action as did Farage till his ego said hang on.."I disagree with you. The election for UKIP was good. They really promoted themselves and got a lot of 2nd and 3rd places. It took a few elections for the SNP to gain momentum in Scotland and that will be the same for UKIP in England, particularly the promising North. Farage has already said he plans to stand in a labour seat next time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader?
so just whom is allowed to be critical of your party..?
do they have to be vetted by the likes of yourself and the other kippers, by the way where are they since the election..?
the election for UKIP was bad, thats been said by senior ex people and donor's yet some fail to even acknowledge this. This election weas in many ways a high point for the popularity of UKIP and in 2020 it will be a different position as the Tories will have time, funds and the strategy to win back some support..
Clegg and Miliband took the right course of action as did Farage till his ego said hang on..
I disagree with you. The election for UKIP was good. They really promoted themselves and got a lot of 2nd and 3rd places.
It took a few elections for the SNP to gain momentum in Scotland and that will be the same for UKIP in England, particularly the promising North. Farage has already said he plans to stand in a labour seat next time."the SNP have been a political party for decades and have ups and downs in that time, one could say that the rise in support for UKIP is indicative of a desire for change with some given the state of the system but will predict the popularity will diminish and that they will not even poll anywhere near what they have this time in 2020.. this was their chance and with the current system 2nd means nothing.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader?
so just whom is allowed to be critical of your party..?
do they have to be vetted by the likes of yourself and the other kippers, by the way where are they since the election..?
the election for UKIP was bad, thats been said by senior ex people and donor's yet some fail to even acknowledge this. This election weas in many ways a high point for the popularity of UKIP and in 2020 it will be a different position as the Tories will have time, funds and the strategy to win back some support..
Clegg and Miliband took the right course of action as did Farage till his ego said hang on.."I'm happy for anyone to criticise, i believe in free speech, but it is funny how it always seems to be the same old names that pop up on these type of threads time and time again. So the UKIP election was bad in your opinion, others may see different, with share of the vote up massively when compared to 2010, (would've got over 80 seats in a proportional representation system), 2nd place in around 120 seats, (which no one would've dreamed of in 2010). No MP's in 2010, now gained a foothold with Douglas Carswell, the momentum is in the right direction and there is a lot there to build on for 2020, and lets not forget UKIP won the european elections last year under the leadership of Nigel Farage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"farage done up like a kipper by press and the bbc etc etc.and now local news in thanet about the votes and the boxes poss being tampered with ...police now involved.im local to thanet and people did not want him to win under any circumstances" Over 16,000 people in south Thanet may disagree with you there as that is the number of votes he got. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader?
so just whom is allowed to be critical of your party..?
do they have to be vetted by the likes of yourself and the other kippers, by the way where are they since the election..?
the election for UKIP was bad, thats been said by senior ex people and donor's yet some fail to even acknowledge this. This election weas in many ways a high point for the popularity of UKIP and in 2020 it will be a different position as the Tories will have time, funds and the strategy to win back some support..
Clegg and Miliband took the right course of action as did Farage till his ego said hang on..
I disagree with you. The election for UKIP was good. They really promoted themselves and got a lot of 2nd and 3rd places.
It took a few elections for the SNP to gain momentum in Scotland and that will be the same for UKIP in England, particularly the promising North. Farage has already said he plans to stand in a labour seat next time.
the SNP have been a political party for decades and have ups and downs in that time, one could say that the rise in support for UKIP is indicative of a desire for change with some given the state of the system but will predict the popularity will diminish and that they will not even poll anywhere near what they have this time in 2020..
this was their chance and with the current system 2nd means nothing..
"In the North of England people vote labour because they dislike the Torries more. Labour is dying and now people have something else they can vote for. When the Torries realise that they can tactically vote for UKIP to get the Labour out, they will. R.I.P Labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader?
so just whom is allowed to be critical of your party..?
do they have to be vetted by the likes of yourself and the other kippers, by the way where are they since the election..?
the election for UKIP was bad, thats been said by senior ex people and donor's yet some fail to even acknowledge this. This election weas in many ways a high point for the popularity of UKIP and in 2020 it will be a different position as the Tories will have time, funds and the strategy to win back some support..
Clegg and Miliband took the right course of action as did Farage till his ego said hang on..
I'm happy for anyone to criticise, i believe in free speech, but it is funny how it always seems to be the same old names that pop up on these type of threads time and time again.
So the UKIP election was bad in your opinion, others may see different, with share of the vote up massively when compared to 2010, (would've got over 80 seats in a proportional representation system), 2nd place in around 120 seats, (which no one would've dreamed of in 2010). No MP's in 2010, now gained a foothold with Douglas Carswell, the momentum is in the right direction and there is a lot there to build on for 2020, and lets not forget UKIP won the european elections last year under the leadership of Nigel Farage. "It's only the same people, including you, that posts on these threads. That's why it's the same people saying the same things. That's pretty self-evident just by looking at the pictures. After the European elections you weren't talking about first past the post being unfair, in fact you were gung ho that UKIP would get 40+ seats. By about February you were ready to revise to betweeen 7-20 and then to a lower number than that. The system is first past the post. People were given a chance to vote for AV and they rejected it. Your best hope now is to concentrate on winning your argument to leave the EU for the In/Out referendum but you're not even doing that as you're busy saying you're the bees knees and it's the system that has failed you. If you're very lucky the boundary changes will favour you winning some more seats. You and your party have a real chance to make your original case but you don't seem to want to do that as you'd rather stick with flying the Farage flag instead of acting like a political party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so success is a halving of ones MP's..? standing still isn't progress and going backwards no matter how its spun certainly isn't either.. my Aunt would have been my Uncle had she had a set of bollocks, IF is a big word.. " Silly Billy Miliband got less votes than Gordon Brown! The people that want his job are too much like him: metropolitan Oxbridge educated bourgeois trendy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader?
so just whom is allowed to be critical of your party..?
do they have to be vetted by the likes of yourself and the other kippers, by the way where are they since the election..?
the election for UKIP was bad, thats been said by senior ex people and donor's yet some fail to even acknowledge this. This election weas in many ways a high point for the popularity of UKIP and in 2020 it will be a different position as the Tories will have time, funds and the strategy to win back some support..
Clegg and Miliband took the right course of action as did Farage till his ego said hang on..
I'm happy for anyone to criticise, i believe in free speech, but it is funny how it always seems to be the same old names that pop up on these type of threads time and time again.
So the UKIP election was bad in your opinion, others may see different, with share of the vote up massively when compared to 2010, (would've got over 80 seats in a proportional representation system), 2nd place in around 120 seats, (which no one would've dreamed of in 2010). No MP's in 2010, now gained a foothold with Douglas Carswell, the momentum is in the right direction and there is a lot there to build on for 2020, and lets not forget UKIP won the european elections last year under the leadership of Nigel Farage.
It's only the same people, including you, that posts on these threads. That's why it's the same people saying the same things. That's pretty self-evident just by looking at the pictures.
After the European elections you weren't talking about first past the post being unfair, in fact you were gung ho that UKIP would get 40+ seats. By about February you were ready to revise to betweeen 7-20 and then to a lower number than that.
The system is first past the post. People were given a chance to vote for AV and they rejected it.
Your best hope now is to concentrate on winning your argument to leave the EU for the In/Out referendum but you're not even doing that as you're busy saying you're the bees knees and it's the system that has failed you.
If you're very lucky the boundary changes will favour you winning some more seats.
You and your party have a real chance to make your original case but you don't seem to want to do that as you'd rather stick with flying the Farage flag instead of acting like a political party.
"Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so success is a halving of ones MP's..? standing still isn't progress and going backwards no matter how its spun certainly isn't either.. my Aunt would have been my Uncle had she had a set of bollocks, IF is a big word.. Silly Billy Miliband got less votes than Gordon Brown! The people that want his job are too much like him: metropolitan Oxbridge educated bourgeois trendy. " Oxbridge are considered amongst the BEST universities in the world. Lets just have people who haven't bothered to get into a good university. I accept that taking people from a narrow range of society isn't good for politics - either end of the spectrum. But slamming them for getting into the best in the world just sounds wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that.
As usual its the "usual suspects", anti UKIP brigade on here who are doing all the criticising. They will always look to find fault with what-ever UKIP do. They can't seem to accept that Farage is well liked and a large chunk of UKIP support have asked for him to stay (despite his resignation). Comparing him to Clegg and Miliband is nonsense, as Clegg and Milibands general elections were both disasterous failures, on the other hand UKIP's was a success compared to 2010, and a big portion of the credit for that has to be handed to Nigel Farage. I wonder how much of the Labour or Lib Dem support have asked for them to stay on as Leader?
so just whom is allowed to be critical of your party..?
do they have to be vetted by the likes of yourself and the other kippers, by the way where are they since the election..?
the election for UKIP was bad, thats been said by senior ex people and donor's yet some fail to even acknowledge this. This election weas in many ways a high point for the popularity of UKIP and in 2020 it will be a different position as the Tories will have time, funds and the strategy to win back some support..
Clegg and Miliband took the right course of action as did Farage till his ego said hang on..
I'm happy for anyone to criticise, i believe in free speech, but it is funny how it always seems to be the same old names that pop up on these type of threads time and time again.
So the UKIP election was bad in your opinion, others may see different, with share of the vote up massively when compared to 2010, (would've got over 80 seats in a proportional representation system), 2nd place in around 120 seats, (which no one would've dreamed of in 2010). No MP's in 2010, now gained a foothold with Douglas Carswell, the momentum is in the right direction and there is a lot there to build on for 2020, and lets not forget UKIP won the european elections last year under the leadership of Nigel Farage.
It's only the same people, including you, that posts on these threads. That's why it's the same people saying the same things. That's pretty self-evident just by looking at the pictures.
After the European elections you weren't talking about first past the post being unfair, in fact you were gung ho that UKIP would get 40+ seats. By about February you were ready to revise to betweeen 7-20 and then to a lower number than that.
The system is first past the post. People were given a chance to vote for AV and they rejected it.
Your best hope now is to concentrate on winning your argument to leave the EU for the In/Out referendum but you're not even doing that as you're busy saying you're the bees knees and it's the system that has failed you.
If you're very lucky the boundary changes will favour you winning some more seats.
You and your party have a real chance to make your original case but you don't seem to want to do that as you'd rather stick with flying the Farage flag instead of acting like a political party.
"You must have me confused with someone else as i have never said they would win 40+ seats. I agree with you some people on here did make that prediction but i was not one of them. People were given the chance as you say to vote for AV. AV is not proportional representation, many people felt AV was too complicated a system and thats why it fell on its arse. Rupert Murdoch and the Sun newspaper did their best to make AV look too complicated. A referendum on proportional representation maybe different, and not only UKIP would support it. The greens would support it now they got 1.5 million votes and only 1 MP, the lib dems would support it and maybe even Labour now they lost scotland? First past the post worked well in a 2 party system, truth is the era of 2 party politics in this country is well and truley dead, we are now in an age of multi party politics in this country, and the voting system needs to be reformed to reflect that change. As for the EU referendum, there is plenty of time to argue the case for leaving, seeing as Cameron kicked it into the long grass with a date of 2017. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg." People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for the EU referendum, there is plenty of time to argue the case for leaving, seeing as Cameron kicked it into the long grass with a date of 2017. " I think they're trying to find a way to get it in 2016. The manifesto says "...by December 2017" meaning it can be any time between now and then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so success is a halving of ones MP's..? standing still isn't progress and going backwards no matter how its spun certainly isn't either.. my Aunt would have been my Uncle had she had a set of bollocks, IF is a big word.. Silly Billy Miliband got less votes than Gordon Brown! The people that want his job are too much like him: metropolitan Oxbridge educated bourgeois trendy. Oxbridge are considered amongst the BEST universities in the world. Lets just have people who haven't bothered to get into a good university. I accept that taking people from a narrow range of society isn't good for politics - either end of the spectrum. But slamming them for getting into the best in the world just sounds wrong. " Do you really need a University educated person to be a politician? Maybe a police officer would make a better home secretary than somebody who read History at Oxford. I am not criticising them. I am criticising the top of the labour party for being dominated by them. Many people have had enough of the Oxbridge elite dominating a so called workers party. Farage was privately educated but he never went to University. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. " Many people did not vote AV and many people did not for the Lib Dems in the election. I felt good watching the Lib Dems take ASS kicking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. Many people did not vote AV and many people did not for the Lib Dems in the election. I felt good watching the Lib Dems take ASS kicking. "And they'll feel great when the EU refendum is won. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. Many people did not vote AV and many people did not for the Lib Dems in the election. I felt good watching the Lib Dems take ASS kicking.
And they'll feel great when the EU refendum is won. "Clegg lost the televised EU debates with Farage quite convincingly, and various polls backed that up at the time. So maybe the case for leaving the EU is stronger than the case to stay in it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. Many people did not vote AV and many people did not for the Lib Dems in the election. I felt good watching the Lib Dems take ASS kicking.
And they'll feel great when the EU refendum is won. "That is fabulous news. I suppose the remaining 8 MPs can get together and have a party to celebrate how relevant they are afterwards. Personally, my money is on people voting to leave. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. Many people did not vote AV and many people did not for the Lib Dems in the election. I felt good watching the Lib Dems take ASS kicking.
And they'll feel great when the EU refendum is won.
Clegg lost the televised EU debates with Farage quite convincingly, and various polls backed that up at the time. So maybe the case for leaving the EU is stronger than the case to stay in it. "85% of businesses don't want to leave, many business advocacy groups have been set up to keep us in. Just like in the Scotland ref, the economic uncertainty, and the message of economic doom will make sure we stay in. All the messaging tactics used to keep Scotland in the UK will be deployed to keep the UK in the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. Many people did not vote AV and many people did not for the Lib Dems in the election. I felt good watching the Lib Dems take ASS kicking.
And they'll feel great when the EU refendum is won.
Clegg lost the televised EU debates with Farage quite convincingly, and various polls backed that up at the time. So maybe the case for leaving the EU is stronger than the case to stay in it.
85% of businesses don't want to leave, many business advocacy groups have been set up to keep us in.
Just like in the Scotland ref, the economic uncertainty, and the message of economic doom will make sure we stay in.
All the messaging tactics used to keep Scotland in the UK will be deployed to keep the UK in the EU.
"It does'nt matter a jot what business thinks or wants, what matters is what the ordinary man in the street wants and it will be the ordinary man in the street who votes in the referendum, not business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. Many people did not vote AV and many people did not for the Lib Dems in the election. I felt good watching the Lib Dems take ASS kicking.
And they'll feel great when the EU refendum is won.
Clegg lost the televised EU debates with Farage quite convincingly, and various polls backed that up at the time. So maybe the case for leaving the EU is stronger than the case to stay in it.
85% of businesses don't want to leave, many business advocacy groups have been set up to keep us in.
Just like in the Scotland ref, the economic uncertainty, and the message of economic doom will make sure we stay in.
All the messaging tactics used to keep Scotland in the UK will be deployed to keep the UK in the EU.
It does'nt matter a jot what business thinks or wants, what matters is what the ordinary man in the street wants and it will be the ordinary man in the street who votes in the referendum, not business. "The economy was the biggest factor at this past election - when that's put at risk people will know how to vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. Many people did not vote AV and many people did not for the Lib Dems in the election. I felt good watching the Lib Dems take ASS kicking.
And they'll feel great when the EU refendum is won.
Clegg lost the televised EU debates with Farage quite convincingly, and various polls backed that up at the time. So maybe the case for leaving the EU is stronger than the case to stay in it.
85% of businesses don't want to leave, many business advocacy groups have been set up to keep us in.
Just like in the Scotland ref, the economic uncertainty, and the message of economic doom will make sure we stay in.
All the messaging tactics used to keep Scotland in the UK will be deployed to keep the UK in the EU.
It does'nt matter a jot what business thinks or wants, what matters is what the ordinary man in the street wants and it will be the ordinary man in the street who votes in the referendum, not business.
The economy was the biggest factor at this past election - when that's put at risk people will know how to vote. "The economy may be more at risk staying in the EU in my opinion. Just look at the basket case economy that is the euro, utterly doomed to failure, its expected greece won't be able to make any re-payment this week, wonder how long before the germans get fed up with bailing them out? Who is next after greece?.... Spain, Portugal, cyprus, italy, Ireland? The euro will drag the EU down, and us down with it if we stay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. Many people did not vote AV and many people did not for the Lib Dems in the election. I felt good watching the Lib Dems take ASS kicking.
And they'll feel great when the EU refendum is won.
Clegg lost the televised EU debates with Farage quite convincingly, and various polls backed that up at the time. So maybe the case for leaving the EU is stronger than the case to stay in it.
85% of businesses don't want to leave, many business advocacy groups have been set up to keep us in.
Just like in the Scotland ref, the economic uncertainty, and the message of economic doom will make sure we stay in.
All the messaging tactics used to keep Scotland in the UK will be deployed to keep the UK in the EU.
It does'nt matter a jot what business thinks or wants, what matters is what the ordinary man in the street wants and it will be the ordinary man in the street who votes in the referendum, not business. "An employer saying that an out vote will in their opinion affect the number of employees, growth or even that the business will be relocated out of the country will very much affect how the man or woman in the street places their vote.. whilst certain parties may espouse a position and some will blindly follow that when its your families possible imminent loss of income its a different matter.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage did as he promised - he resigned, but stated at the time he didn't rule standing for re-selection. In the event, his party rejected his resignation, effectively making the statement that, in spite of his resignation, they want him to continue as leader. I don't see why people are criticising him for that." Hey, stop stating the plain truth, it spoils the argument  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Many people voted against the AV system because they knew it would upset Judas: Nick Clegg. People voted against AV to piss off Clegg? I think we've found a new definition of idiocy if that's how people make up their minds on electoral reform. Many people did not vote AV and many people did not for the Lib Dems in the election. I felt good watching the Lib Dems take ASS kicking.
And they'll feel great when the EU refendum is won.
Clegg lost the televised EU debates with Farage quite convincingly, and various polls backed that up at the time. So maybe the case for leaving the EU is stronger than the case to stay in it.
85% of businesses don't want to leave, many business advocacy groups have been set up to keep us in.
Just like in the Scotland ref, the economic uncertainty, and the message of economic doom will make sure we stay in.
All the messaging tactics used to keep Scotland in the UK will be deployed to keep the UK in the EU.
It does'nt matter a jot what business thinks or wants, what matters is what the ordinary man in the street wants and it will be the ordinary man in the street who votes in the referendum, not business.
The economy was the biggest factor at this past election - when that's put at risk people will know how to vote.
The economy may be more at risk staying in the EU in my opinion. Just look at the basket case economy that is the euro, utterly doomed to failure, its expected greece won't be able to make any re-payment this week, wonder how long before the germans get fed up with bailing them out? Who is next after greece?.... Spain, Portugal, cyprus, italy, Ireland? The euro will drag the EU down, and us down with it if we stay. "Any problems with the eurozone will affect us whether we are in the EU or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nigel is defending his remaining leader and seems to have reneged on his standing for re-selection on QT. " He's being very arrogant about it too, I'm surprised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nigel is defending his remaining leader and seems to have reneged on his standing for re-selection on QT. He's being very arrogant about it too, I'm surprised. " I am too. It sounds more and more like it's the Nigel party. His words are that he "had intended to resign" and the party knows the result of any leadership election. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nigel is defending his remaining leader and seems to have reneged on his standing for re-selection on QT. " if after his public statement about resigning he had said to them 'i have said publicly i will go and i will stand by that, however i recognise the support and will stand as a candidate for the leadership' i think he would have gained a bit more support and certainly kudos but he chose not to and it just looks like a fudge and will only attract both criticism from within and scrutiny from outside.. it was a naive thing to do.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nigel is defending his remaining leader and seems to have reneged on his standing for re-selection on QT. He's being very arrogant about it too, I'm surprised. I am too. It sounds more and more like it's the Nigel party. His words are that he "had intended to resign" and the party knows the result of any leadership election. " He's doing a lot of backtracking. Looking pretty foolish to me because he's highlighting his own hypocrisy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nigel is defending his remaining leader and seems to have reneged on his standing for re-selection on QT. if after his public statement about resigning he had said to them 'i have said publicly i will go and i will stand by that, however i recognise the support and will stand as a candidate for the leadership' i think he would have gained a bit more support and certainly kudos but he chose not to and it just looks like a fudge and will only attract both criticism from within and scrutiny from outside.. it was a naive thing to do.. " His argument is that there's no point in having a selection process as everyone is behind him and that politics is changing so it basically doesn't matter what he said before. Scratchy head emoticon here. This is going to be the Nigel Farage QT again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ouch - that audience comment on failure must have hurt! "He's Teflon coated - it all slides off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nigel is defending his remaining leader and seems to have reneged on his standing for re-selection on QT. if after his public statement about resigning he had said to them 'i have said publicly i will go and i will stand by that, however i recognise the support and will stand as a candidate for the leadership' i think he would have gained a bit more support and certainly kudos but he chose not to and it just looks like a fudge and will only attract both criticism from within and scrutiny from outside.. it was a naive thing to do.. His argument is that there's no point in having a selection process as everyone is behind him and that politics is changing so it basically doesn't matter what he said before. Scratchy head emoticon here. This is going to be the Nigel Farage QT again. " agreed, bit bizarre that his perception is being undermined from those he purports are behind him.. like la la land.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ouch - that audience comment on failure must have hurt!
He's Teflon coated - it all slides off.
"I thought that was snake oil! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so success is a halving of ones MP's..? standing still isn't progress and going backwards no matter how its spun certainly isn't either.. my Aunt would have been my Uncle had she had a set of bollocks, IF is a big word.. " . I would measure success by the share of votes . In this case , it was a very good result , especially from a low start point . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so success is a halving of ones MP's..? standing still isn't progress and going backwards no matter how its spun certainly isn't either.. my Aunt would have been my Uncle had she had a set of bollocks, IF is a big word.. . I would measure success by the share of votes . In this case , it was a very good result , especially from a low start point . " when the actual measure of success is an arse on a green seat, an arse elsewhere is the nearly ran. Thats the reality despite what we may all like, not like.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Every party in opposition is entitled to an amount for each MP they have, PLUS £33.33 for every 200 votes over 150,000 across the whole of the electorate they get. It is paid yearly. Over the 5 years of this parliament Labour will get about £32 Million SNP £6Million UKIP £3.5 Million Libs £2.5 Million Greens £1.2 Million Even Sinn Fein get Short money. In addition, Labour, as the largest opposition party, will get a further £3.75 Million to run the leader's office. It's called Short Money, after Ted Short, a Labour MP that proposed it. It's been in place since 1975, and is supposed to make up for the lack of access to civil servants that opposition parties have. No party has ever refused this money. Douglas Carswell has been consistent as both Conservative and UKIP MP in campaigning against it. The House of Lords has a similar scheme in place called Cranborne Money. It's actually one of the things I like about Carswell. Not all of the old lot of MPs took the full amount - they took what they needed to do their job. That's the way it should be. " Actually, no one has ever rejected short money. As I understand it, the 16K goes to the MP, and the rest goes to the party who then allocate it to their MPs. The issue here is that there is only 1 MP to allocate these funds to. There has been concern for years as to whether the money is actually used for its intended purpose. And the greens last parliament got £66K a year for 1 MP, now they will get £212K a year for the same.... and have already stated that they will be taking the full amount. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if/when we go to the country over EU and the people want to stay !!! What will become of ukip ???" With any luck the same fate as happened to the SNP when they lost their independence referendum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if/when we go to the country over EU and the people want to stay !!! What will become of ukip ???" The last you Gove poll says that 45% want to remain part of the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if/when we go to the country over EU and the people want to stay !!! What will become of ukip ???The last you Gove poll says that 45% want to remain part of the EU." I'm not sure what slant you're putting on that poll number, but it reported 45% for and 35% against (and 20% not stating a preference). The Yougov headline for the poll is "Record support for staying in the European Union" and it reports the results as follows: "In YouGov’s latest data tracking how people would vote in a referendum on Britain’s membership in the European Union found support for the union at an all-time high of 45%, up from 42% last month. The lead for the IN camp (+10) is also the largest YouGov has recorded since it began asking this question in September 2010. The previous record was a similar +8 found last June" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not surprised the ukip lot are in heated turmoil, they seem to have attracted above their share of rabid swivel eyed oddbods. " Looks like no one is daft enough to want to take over that party of knuckle draggers & oddballs known as The Labour party,they are dropping out like flies!. Labour outlived its title as the party of the people over half a century ago!. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not surprised the ukip lot are in heated turmoil, they seem to have attracted above their share of rabid swivel eyed oddbods. Looks like no one is daft enough to want to take over that party of knuckle draggers & oddballs known as The Labour party,they are dropping out like flies!. Labour outlived its title as the party of the people over half a century ago!. "Yes, Chukka, chucked the towel in after 3 days, lol.
If he can't take the pressure after a 3 day stint, was never going to be real serious leadership material was he? Maybe privately he came to the realisation that he would be taking over a dying party so decided to duck out? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if/when we go to the country over EU and the people want to stay !!! What will become of ukip ???The last you Gove poll says that 45% want to remain part of the EU." Is that the same yougov that got the election polls so accurate? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if/when we go to the country over EU and the people want to stay !!! What will become of ukip ???The last you Gove poll says that 45% want to remain part of the EU. Is that the same yougov that got the election polls so accurate?" Also SNP lost the referendum in Scotland, they have gone from strength to strength ever since. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if/when we go to the country over EU and the people want to stay !!! What will become of ukip ???The last you Gove poll says that 45% want to remain part of the EU. Is that the same yougov that got the election polls so accurate?" That's the one. As things turned out: Tory 34% predicted, 37% actual Labour 34% predicted, 30% actual Lib Dem 10% predicted, 8% actual UKIP 12% predicted, 13% actual Green 4% predicted, 4% actual They did quite well though the distribution of seats was very different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if/when we go to the country over EU and the people want to stay !!! What will become of ukip ???The last you Gove poll says that 45% want to remain part of the EU. Is that the same yougov that got the election polls so accurate? That's the one. As things turned out: Tory 34% predicted, 37% actual Labour 34% predicted, 30% actual Lib Dem 10% predicted, 8% actual UKIP 12% predicted, 13% actual Green 4% predicted, 4% actual They did quite well though the distribution of seats was very different. " We were being told left, right and centre by the pollsters that it would be a hung parliament, glad i did'nt put money on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if/when we go to the country over EU and the people want to stay !!! What will become of ukip ???The last you Gove poll says that 45% want to remain part of the EU. Is that the same yougov that got the election polls so accurate? That's the one. As things turned out: Tory 34% predicted, 37% actual Labour 34% predicted, 30% actual Lib Dem 10% predicted, 8% actual UKIP 12% predicted, 13% actual Green 4% predicted, 4% actual They did quite well though the distribution of seats was very different. We were being told left, right and centre by the pollsters that it would be a hung parliament, glad i did'nt put money on it. "That's one thing we can definitely agree on 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
