Post: #101

(04-01-2015 07:48 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  The BBC propaganda machine has switched on into full anti-UKIP mode. Newsnight was showing a stream of "working class" people explaining why they're voting Labour.

I literally shouted at the TV for a good minute and a half on how stupid they are. A person who works for a living, doesn't seek welfare and wants to better themselves wants to vote in a party that does the exact opposite (read history) and hates the party which enabled the UK to steer a stormy front and keep pace with Germany.

This is the average hick voter the UK can rely upon in its time of need.

Absolutely baffling as to why they would turn to the party led by a socialist as unelectable as that clown, when by all reasonable measures the economy is doing somewhat better than most others. Yes, more cuts may be coming but it's funny how spending less when you're in debt is sound advice when it's your own personal finances but when it's the country's balance sheet it's the symptom of the 'nasty' party.

Stupid. Fucking. Bell ends.

Post: #102

I'm actually looking forward to tonight's debate. Hopefully open mocking of Natalie Bennett and a few good jokes from Nigel.

God I hate socialists.

Post: #103

Labour are tying at 34% with Conservatives and apparently UKIP is third place with 13%.

Is this really happening ? everyone I speak to the U.K wants to see UKIP win or at least the conservatives. I am surprised people would even think about voting in labour let alone Milipede.
I am sure that there are those traditional labour seats which would never change, but to be tying with conservatives is a real surprise.

Post: #104

(04-02-2015 06:08 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  Labour are tying at 34% with Conservatives and apparently UKIP is third place with 13%.

Is this really happening ? everyone I speak to the U.K wants to see UKIP win or at least the conservatives. I am surprised people would even think about voting in labour let alone Milipede.
I am sure that there are those traditional labour seats which would never change, but to be tying with conservatives is a real surprise.

Perhaps you've accidentally found yourself in an echo chamber of like minded people, as can so often happen. It's only natural - after all who would want to associate with anyone who could consider Ed Miliband as Prime Minister?

It doesn't surprise me to be honest. The left's hatred and parody of the Tories as fat cats who hate the working class will always ring true with a certain crowd.

Stuff like this, while patently ludicrous (if catchy), is how some people view the conservatives.




Most people don't know what the fuck they're talking about, basically. All they know is Labour good because Tory bad. They don't understand why.

EDIT: Btw, anyone who's watching the 'debate', and I use that term in it's loosest sense, are you finding it bizarre to hear Clegg slag off David Cameron and his party? Didn't he spend the last 5 years working with him? Isn't he Deputy Prime Minister in his government?

Post: #105

Watched the whole debate. The way Miliband stared into the camera was very weird, did anyone else think so?

I hate that people think Sturgeon has done well. At least Nigel/Cameron are second in the current polls.

A Tory/UKIP coalition is the best we can hope for.

Post: #106

So apparently Farage's views on people with HIV were 'toxic'. Basically, what he was saying was that people can come over from abroad, 'suddenly' realise they've got HIV and receive treatment.

He made the point that our health system is called the NATIONAL health service, not the international health service.

Post: #107

I know its obvious to point out to people on here but the way the media can re-word what you said into a different meaning and then throw it into the mainstream consciousness of a country is almost instantaneous now.

They're making it so he meant "all those with HIV should not be served by the NHS". Its quite literally slander but he can't sue them in any way.

Post: #108

Not an expert on this, but polls seem to show it's likely for UKIP to get something like 1-5 seats.

Besides being viewed as a step forward for UKIP, is there any likelihood that this would have any effect on British policy during the next Parlaiment?

Cause in the U.S. often Democrats and Republicans do NOT vote together in lock-step, whereas in the UK it seems like the ruling coalition is basically required to unanimously vote together on legislation, otherwise you may as well call new elections because one vote with dissent is seen as the government not working.

Is that right?

Post: #109

(04-03-2015 09:43 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Not an expert on this, but polls seem to show it's likely for UKIP to get something like 1-5 seats.

Besides being viewed as a step forward for UKIP, is there any likelihood that this would have any effect on British policy during the next Parlaiment?

Cause in the U.S. often Democrats and Republicans do NOT vote together in lock-step, whereas in the UK it seems like the ruling coalition is basically required to unanimously vote together on legislation, otherwise you may as well call new elections because one vote with dissent is seen as the government not working.

Is that right?

If one party cannot hold a majority, they normally enter agreements with other parties to form a coalition government. These obviously aren't as stable. Parties are generally 'whipped' by a 'party whip', which tells them which way to vote (according to the 'party line') and 'how seriously he means it'. A money bill must be voted in favour of for the government to maintain power (since it must be able to spend money), but others aren't critical.

Basically as long as Farage gets a seat, and is thus physically present in the parliament, and can there berate the current parties, it will be a small win.

Post: #110

(04-03-2015 09:50 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Basically as long as Farage gets a seat, and is thus physically present in the parliament, and can there berate the current parties, it will be a small win.

Wait but aren't the seats in the UK decided by first past the post? I thought it was possible for some random UKIP person to get in cause Wintebrourne Stickland voted heavily for UKIP? Or is it if UKIP gets 1 seat then it just goes to the party leader, wherever that seat was won from?

Post: #111

I watched the debates and I will admit that I was quite surprised when the leader of Plaid Cymru agreed with Nigel Farage that there was nothing that could be done about the free movement of peoples as long as the UK is part of the EU.

It was hilarious to watch Ed Miliband try to defend his record on the NHS. After all, it's pretty much the only thing they haven't ruined and so cling to it like a lifebelt. They wrecked the schools by destroying the grammar schools, they repeatedly wrecked the economy and their nationalization program turned out to be a disaster. There's really nothing they can lay claim to except the NHS.
Hell, I wouldn't even trust Ed Miliband to carry in some heavy bags of groceries he's so weedy.

Aside from that it was just the usual rhetoric coupled with back-and-forthing and empty promises.
Unless UKIP gains a large number of votes and seats and has the influence to demand concessions prior to the formation of another coalition then I really don't see anything other than business as usual in the coming years.

Post: #112

(04-03-2015 10:01 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:50 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Basically as long as Farage gets a seat, and is thus physically present in the parliament, and can there berate the current parties, it will be a small win.

Wait but aren't the seats in the UK decided by first past the post? I thought it was possible for some random UKIP person to get in cause Wintebrourne Stickland voted heavily for UKIP? Or is it if UKIP gets 1 seat then it just goes to the party leader, wherever that seat was won from?

They always put the leader of the party in the district that most favours the party, thus giving him the highest chance of getting a seat. Yes its theoretically possible that that district changes its mind en masse, but another district suddenly increases its support and votes in a UKIP candidate, but its not that likely.

Post: #113

(04-03-2015 10:13 AM)Hardy Daytona Wrote:  I watched the debates and I will admit that I was quite surprised when the leader of Plaid Cymru agreed with Nigel Farage that there was nothing that could be done about the free movement of peoples as long as the UK is part of the EU.

It was hilarious to watch Ed Miliband try to defend his record on the NHS. After all, it's pretty much the only thing they haven't ruined and so cling to it like a lifebelt. They wrecked the schools by destroying the grammar schools, they repeatedly wrecked the economy and their nationalization program turned out to be a disaster. There's really nothing they can lay claim to except the NHS.
Hell, I wouldn't even trust Ed Miliband to carry in some heavy bags of groceries he's so weedy.

Aside from that it was just the usual rhetoric coupled with back-and-forthing and empty promises.
Unless UKIP gains a large number of votes and seats and has the influence to demand concessions prior to the formation of another coalition then I really don't see anything other than business as usual in the coming years.

I had a few drinks that night before watching that, and occasionally shouted at the tv like it was a football match but I was silently stunned by that, someone else actually backing up what Nigel Farage said.

Apart from that thought all three women showed a lot by not getting involved on most of the debates on important issues. Not just because their women but also because their parties don't matter that much. I have been trying to copy natalie bennetts accent though, health kehh

It seems UKIP party are the only party that don't insult your intelligence by speaking in vague feel good speeches, and actually talk mainly about facts, and then say exactly how much they will save in one area, and where they are going to spend that money.

Post: #114

With the recent news regarding the discovery of the Gatwick oil fields. How do you guys think the parties may spin this to their favour. Does anyone believe that the Conservatives may be able to come up with a reasonable policy that may sway many of the potential UKIP supporters.

I think that the conservative may be able to sell this off as having less of a need for imported oil, possibly with an allure of lower fuel costs for motorists. The additional income from any exported oil may be used as bait to win over a few labour voters as they could "ease off" from planned social benefit reductions.

Although I haven't thought about this too much I think the Conservatives set to profit the most out of this discovery as it occurred under their government and can be used as further "proof" that the economy under their stewardship is improving. Thousands of jobs can be created and I have heard that there are further discoveries to be made in the north of England.

Not that any of this changes who I am going to vote for but I do think that it is something to consider for the future.

Post: #115

(04-09-2015 01:32 PM)JordanH Wrote:  With the recent news regarding the discovery of the Gatwick oil fields. How do you guys think the parties may spin this to their favour. Does anyone believe that the Conservatives may be able to come up with a reasonable policy that may sway many of the potential UKIP supporters.

I think that the conservative may be able to sell this off as having less of a need for imported oil, possibly with an allure of lower fuel costs for motorists. The additional income from any exported oil may be used as bait to win over a few labour voters as they could "ease off" from planned social benefit reductions.

Although I haven't thought about this too much I think the Conservatives set to profit the most out of this discovery as it occurred under their government and can be used as further "proof" that the economy under their stewardship is improving. Thousands of jobs can be created and I have heard that there are further discoveries to be made in the north of England.

Not that any of this changes who I am going to vote for but I do think that it is something to consider for the future.

Well the discovery certainly doesn't help the left, as they are vehemently against any exploitation of natural resources.

Post: #116

(04-09-2015 01:32 PM)JordanH Wrote:  With the recent news regarding the discovery of the Gatwick oil fields. How do you guys think the parties may spin this to their favour. Does anyone believe that the Conservatives may be able to come up with a reasonable policy that may sway many of the potential UKIP supporters.

I think that the conservative may be able to sell this off as having less of a need for imported oil, possibly with an allure of lower fuel costs for motorists. The additional income from any exported oil may be used as bait to win over a few labour voters as they could "ease off" from planned social benefit reductions.

Although I haven't thought about this too much I think the Conservatives set to profit the most out of this discovery as it occurred under their government and can be used as further "proof" that the economy under their stewardship is improving. Thousands of jobs can be created and I have heard that there are further discoveries to be made in the north of England.

Not that any of this changes who I am going to vote for but I do think that it is something to consider for the future.

Well first thing first. The Tories can tell the SNP to fuck off with their oil card.

Post: #117

I really do tire of the whole 'Scottish Independence' rhetoric.
If I was elected into office my entire stance would be the following: "You get free university and free healthcare because of English taxes. The Barnett formula is weighed heavily in your favour. If you become independent then you can kiss all of that goodbye. Now put up or shut up."

Post: #118

I can't stand Nicola Sturgeon! Does anyone else find it particularly annoying when she assures the audience she'll defend Scotland's interests but also improve the UK?

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #119

Relevant.

Post: #120

Pathetic Polish Prince Prepares to...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics...ments.html

Ah fuck it, this attention seeker with some sort of connection to past polish royalty wants to duel Nigel Farage in a sword fight because Farage mentioned something about immigration meaning more traffic, and thats upset him, because he's polish.

I'm pissed off this is trending right now, and this passes for news, and the complete anti-UKIP agenda from the media.

Post: #121

It seems odd that everyone now seems to be regarding another coalition Government as a certainty, whereas before 2010 it was an unthinkable outcome. Just today Nigel Farage was suggesting to his voters that they should vote Tory in areas where UKIP could not hope to win.

I agree.

Post: #122

(04-13-2015 01:42 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  Pathetic Polish Prince Prepares to...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics...ments.html

Ah fuck it, this attention seeker with some sort of connection to past polish royalty wants to duel Nigel Farage in a sword fight because Farage mentioned something about immigration meaning more traffic, and thats upset him, because he's polish.

I'm pissed off this is trending right now, and this passes for news, and the complete anti-UKIP agenda from the media.

As an outsider (American) the UKIP hate from most of the UK's mainstream press if off the charts...far worse than the mainstream media's anti-Republican attacks back home. I guess the rise of Fox News (which is really just an anti-establishment attack on the elitist left-wing press in America) has something to do with that, but IMO if you're just reading newspaper headlines you'd think that the average UKIP'er is just a Neanderthal and probably attacking Muslims in the streets (as opposed to the other way around).

In the US the lefty press/academia/professional protestor element has a harder time attacking many parts of the right due to the persistence of religious morales and backgrounds...not so true here in the US and Europe (unless the lefties are defending Islam of course). US is so spread out that it's also harder to attack everyone at all times. Here the power is much more concentrated due to the smaller size of the nation.

The fact that you guys need to pay a large fee annually to the BBC to let them spew their crazy biased spin is pretty amazing. I mean even if you aren't right wing can't you see that these people are pushing agendas and narratives left, right and center?

Post: #123

Yeah I think a lot of English just don't want to think about it. They like the soft soothing paternal talk of the existing parties and don't like the uncomfortable idea of voting in something new and unfamiliar that could actually arrest the country's freefall. Just the other day I talked to someone from England, who supported Margaret Thatcher, but spoke of UKIP as 'dangerous'.

One thing I like to do to make them uncomfortable is the good-old 'time contemplation' trick. I say 'imagine 20 more years have passed in England in the same manner as the last 20 years, does it look better or worse? Now imagine 40 years have passed, what does it look like now?'. They get very uncomfortable very quick, because the act of contemplating this scares them, since deep-down they know. They just want to keep comfortable and think only as far as tomorrow. They don't want to think about plugging holes in the boat because it raises attention to the fact that its sinking.

Post: #124

(04-13-2015 06:32 PM)Akula Wrote:  As an outsider (American) the UKIP hate from most of the UK's mainstream press if off the charts...far worse than the mainstream media's anti-Republican attacks back home. I guess the rise of Fox News (which is really just an anti-establishment attack on the elitist left-wing press in America) has something to do with that, but IMO if you're just reading newspaper headlines you'd think that the average UKIP'er is just a Neanderthal and probably attacking Muslims in the streets (as opposed to the other way around).

In the US the lefty press/academia/professional protestor element has a harder time attacking many parts of the right due to the persistence of religious morales and backgrounds...not so true here in the US and Europe (unless the lefties are defending Islam of course). US is so spread out that it's also harder to attack everyone at all times. Here the power is much more concentrated due to the smaller size of the nation.

The fact that you guys need to pay a large fee annually to the BBC to let them spew their crazy biased spin is pretty amazing. I mean even if you aren't right wing can't you see that these people are pushing agendas and narratives left, right and center?

The BBC license fee is a demand on the people because they have no advertisements and that you need some sort of permission to view television. The only BBC program I watched was Top Gear.

There is a joke going round that if Clarkson was accused of molesting a child he would still have his job at the BBC.

They're actually lobbying for a law to create a license fee tax on every home and business by default. The balls on these bastards beggars belief and yet it has seen no airtime, like their own cover up and largesse for paying obscene amounts to presenters and staff.

Then you have people following their agenda in the hate for UKIP and a love for SNP & Labour.

US politics has its pathetic donkey show but its nothing compared to ours.

Post: #125

So, now Labour leads Conservatives by 2 points. Brace yourselves, Miliband is the NEXT Prime Minister. Are UK people that stupid?