UKIP

[Lucky13]

The problem I have with UKIP is that they take otherwise Tory votes, which makes it more likely for Labour to get back in - if that happens we might as well collectively top ourselves.

By all means feel free to lead the way.
I hear Dignitas have some cracking Christmas offers on.
I can organise a whip round of Cellarites keen to donate.

A new low on this forum.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Ok, so the very mention of UKIP seems to bring out the right-leaning 'BNP in suits' types and in equal measure the strange folk who apparently find that preventing/closing any actual discussion by relying on lazy 'racist' accusations, or indeed BNP comparisons. Sadly it is probably the (silent) majority in the middle that don't comment that probably have a sensible opinion.
My own opinion is that it's very dodgy to try and snuff out political engagement with extreme views by adopting a fashionably liberal viewpoint that 'can't' be argued with for PC reasons as it lets the extremists off the hook. Much better to engage and let any silly, racist, or extreme views reach their inevitable dead end. It's happened to the NF and the BNP and it will happen to UKIP -if they are nutters.
I think UKIP will get my vote in Euro elections as it's nice to see Farage giving it to those twats in Brussels, but I don't think I'm quite ready to see him as our next PM. I'd rather have the 'none of the above' option on the voting slip as mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[Ye Olde Hamiltonian]

as for benefits. Benefits yadda yadda. No person from outside the UK can claim benefits until they have been registered as living here for 2 years. 2 years. Thats the rules you cant bypass them unless you are one of the 17,000 asylum seekers who the state under the Geneva convention has the obligation to support until there request has been approved or denied.



Wrong and in the case of increasing numbers coming from countries outwith the Eastern European market,the rules are more lax.

I don't have problems with folk who have worked here and claimed taxes like many of the earlier Poles etc,but the same restrictions are not in place for other countries where,for example benefit is exported to the UK.That's why you can have Swiss nationals claiming nearly 400 quid pro rata Jobseekers Benefit.

By the way,there's plenty coming here now and going onto benefits like Income Support and ESA thanks to friendly doctors,benefit advisors and others who assuage early passage.

As someone who has worked with benefits,there are ways and means round the rules.Plenty folk have helpers who facilitate this............unfortunately for the GB taxpayer.

Just wait until all the Romanians and Bulgarians arrive here and start sucking the teat which is increasingly becoming drier.

Took a lot of thought that.Just wait till the country is bankrupt and no money is left in the coffers.I often find that at union meetings,the ultra leftist types shout " waycist" and other jibes when they don't like what members are saying...............even funnier when they shout it at the Indian guy on the committee,but there's your stereotype for you.

We missed a great chance in the 90's to get long term people out of benefits and into work.Factory near me was always short of staff.Hard working Poles arrived and have made a success of the job.Those long term unemployed then are still unemployed now in the main and will I suspect go through the rest of their days unemployed...........sad for them and sad for society.

The issue for me is about economics.When you have a society with only 40% contributing,then the tax burden is being borne mainly be those taxpayers who can least afford it.Such a society is slowly strangling itself as skilled people leave to be replace by unskilled people in the main.

 

[Skashion]

Ok, so the very mention of UKIP seems to bring out the right-leaning 'BNP in suits' types and in equal measure the strange folk who apparently find that preventing/closing any actual discussion by relying on lazy 'racist' accusations, or indeed BNP comparisons. Sadly it is probably the (silent) majority in the middle that don't comment that probably have a sensible opinion.
My own opinion is that it's very dodgy to try and snuff out political engagement with extreme views by adopting a fashionably liberal viewpoint that 'can't' be argued with for PC reasons as it lets the extremists off the hook. Much better to engage and let any silly, racist, or extreme views reach their inevitable dead end. It's happened to the NF and the BNP and it will happen to UKIP -if they are nutters.
I think UKIP will get my vote in Euro elections as it's nice to see Farage giving it to those twats in Brussels, but I don't think I'm quite ready to see him as our next PM. I'd rather have the 'none of the above' option on the voting slip as mentioned earlier in this thread.

My attempts to compare UKIP and BNP have been far from lazy. They are all fact-based:

• Fact #1. BNP and UKIP compete in a statistically-improbable of seats. Even if there is no electoral pact between them, and I'll quite happily believe there isn't, they understand they're competing for the same vote and so get out of each other's way.
• Fact #2. There are plenty of people, especially in the BNP, or former UKIP members. But, despite an official ban on former BNP members in UKIP, many still slip through. See Steve Mason, UKIP's Thurrock council candidate in 2012, was on the BNP's membership list in 2007.
• Fact #3. Nigel Farage has consorted with the likes of Mark Deavin and Tony Lecomber. If you want to see the type of man Lecomber is, read this: <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Lecomber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Lecomber</a>

Here's a raft of other complaints about them if you are to read: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/theres ... t-ukip.pdf</a>

It is not racist to support a referendum on the EU, nor to believe that immigration needs to be restricted. Indeed, neither are left/right issues at all. You can be completely left-wing and anti-EU and anti-immigration. However, it doesn't mean there aren't compelling reasons to be suspicious of UKIP and what motivates them.

 

[hgblue]

Ok, so the very mention of UKIP seems to bring out the right-leaning 'BNP in suits' types and in equal measure the strange folk who apparently find that preventing/closing any actual discussion by relying on lazy 'racist' accusations, or indeed BNP comparisons. Sadly it is probably the (silent) majority in the middle that don't comment that probably have a sensible opinion.
My own opinion is that it's very dodgy to try and snuff out political engagement with extreme views by adopting a fashionably liberal viewpoint that 'can't' be argued with for PC reasons as it lets the extremists off the hook. Much better to engage and let any silly, racist, or extreme views reach their inevitable dead end. It's happened to the NF and the BNP and it will happen to UKIP -if they are nutters.
I think UKIP will get my vote in Euro elections as it's nice to see Farage giving it to those twats in Brussels, but I don't think I'm quite ready to see him as our next PM. I'd rather have the 'none of the above' option on the voting slip as mentioned earlier in this thread.

My attempts to compare UKIP and BNP have been far from lazy. They are all fact-based:

• Fact #1. BNP and UKIP compete in a statistically-improbable of seats. Even if there is no electoral pact between them, and I'll quite happily believe there isn't, they understand they're competing for the same vote and so get out of each other's way.
• Fact #2. There are plenty of people, especially in the BNP, or former UKIP members. But, despite an official ban on former BNP members in UKIP, many still slip through. See Steve Mason, UKIP's Thurrock council candidate in 2012, was on the BNP's membership list in 2007.
• Fact #3. Nigel Farage has consorted with the likes of Mark Deavin and Tony Lecomber. If you want to see the type of man Lecomber is, read this: <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Lecomber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Lecomber</a>

Here's a raft of other complaints about them if you are to read: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/theres ... t-ukip.pdf</a>

It is not racist to support a referendum on the EU, nor to believe that immigration needs to be restricted. Indeed, neither are left/right issues at all. You can be completely left-wing and anti-EU and anti-immigration. However, it doesn't mean there aren't compelling reasons to be suspicious of UKIP and what motivates them.

1. UKIP are going to be competing in all Parliamentary seats at the next General Election. If the BNP has realised that it's vote gets decimated in seats where they compete with UKIP, and have decided to avoid competing with them, then that's hardly UKIPs fault. In fact, they have all but finished the BNP as an electoral force, which is surely a good thing?
2. UKIP have no interest in having former BNP members in their party, and if some have slipped through the net, then I'd suggest it's due to them not declaring their previous associations with the BNP, which is hardly UKIPs fault.
3. Guilt by association. Really? So Tony Blair is an Irish Nationalist because he met with Gerry Adams?
The majority of European countries wish to proceed down the road to political and monetary union, and the time has come for the British people to have a vote to decide whether we wish to join them or say 'bon chance', and the best way to achieve this is a sizeable vote for UKIP.

 

[Skashion]

1. UKIP are going to be competing in all Parliamentary seats at the next General Election. If the BNP has realised that it's vote gets decimated in seats where they compete with UKIP, and have decided to avoid competing with them, then that's hardly UKIPs fault. In fact, they have all but finished the BNP as an electoral force, which is surely a good thing?
2. UKIP have no interest in having former BNP members in their party, and if some have slipped through the net, then I'd suggest it's due to them not declaring their previous associations with the BNP, which is hardly UKIPs fault.
3. Guilt by association. Really? So Tony Blair is an Irish Nationalist because he met with Gerry Adams?
The majority of European countries wish to proceed down the road to political and monetary union, and the time has come for the British people to have a vote to decide whether we wish to join them or say 'bon chance', and the best way to achieve this is a sizeable vote for UKIP.

1. It's a two-way process. UKIP have avoided the BNP as well. Indeed, it is a good thing. Racism doesn't sell well in this country because Britain is not a racist country. Unfortunately I fear UKIP are similarly motivated in many parts.
2. They should at least have a duty to check the BNP membership lists that have leaked out and ensure their candidates aren't on them. Otherwise, their official no BNP policy is merely hot air.
3. Utter bollocks. Two people meeting politically is not the same as people meeting in an official capacity. What official capacity did Nigel Farage meet Tony Lecomber in?

 

[hgblue]

1. UKIP are going to be competing in all Parliamentary seats at the next General Election. If the BNP has realised that it's vote gets decimated in seats where they compete with UKIP, and have decided to avoid competing with them, then that's hardly UKIPs fault. In fact, they have all but finished the BNP as an electoral force, which is surely a good thing?
2. UKIP have no interest in having former BNP members in their party, and if some have slipped through the net, then I'd suggest it's due to them not declaring their previous associations with the BNP, which is hardly UKIPs fault.
3. Guilt by association. Really? So Tony Blair is an Irish Nationalist because he met with Gerry Adams?
The majority of European countries wish to proceed down the road to political and monetary union, and the time has come for the British people to have a vote to decide whether we wish to join them or say 'bon chance', and the best way to achieve this is a sizeable vote for UKIP.

1. It's a two-way process. UKIP have avoided the BNP as well. Indeed, it is a good thing. Racism doesn't sell well in this country because Britain is not a racist country. Unfortunately I fear UKIP are similarly motivated in many parts.
2. They should at least have a duty to check the BNP membership lists that have leaked out and ensure their candidates aren't on them. Otherwise, their official no BNP policy is merely hot air.
3. Utter bollocks. Two people meeting politically is not the same as people meeting in an official capacity. What official capacity did Nigel Farage meet Tony Lecomber in?

1. I just disagree that UKIP is racially motivated. They wish to see Britain out of the European Union which isn't a racist position to hold. In fact, the majority of British people agree with them.
2. You are going to guarantee that there are no former BNP members in any other political party?
3. For all you know Farage could have been meeting the BNP leader to tell him to get stuffed. Pure speculation on your part, and to brand someone a racist because he's met someone who's racist seems quite bizarre to me.
Trust me, if I believed UKIP were racially motivated there's not a chance I'd consider voting for them. In my opinion, it's a total red herring, because their rivals are running scared and realise that the EU is not popular in the country, so debating the actual issue isn't a goer.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Tony Lecomber has 'consorted' with Farage according to the wiki article Skashion pointed to. Lecomber is clearly a shitbag on many many levels, but it's safe to say his wiki page has not been constructed by himself or the BNP. Consorted is a pretty vague term TBH, for instance many of us will be 'consorting' with rags next week.

 

[Hez]

as for benefits. Benefits yadda yadda. No person from outside the UK can claim benefits until they have been registered as living here for 2 years. 2 years. Thats the rules you cant bypass them unless you are one of the 17,000 asylum seekers who the state under the Geneva convention has the obligation to support until there request has been approved or denied.



Wrong and in the case of increasing numbers coming from countries outwith the Eastern European market,the rules are more lax.

I don't have problems with folk who have worked here and claimed taxes like many of the earlier Poles etc,but the same restrictions are not in place for other countries where,for example benefit is exported to the UK.That's why you can have Swiss nationals claiming nearly 400 quid pro rata Jobseekers Benefit.

By the way,there's plenty coming here now and going onto benefits like Income Support and ESA thanks to friendly doctors,benefit advisors and others who assuage early passage.

As someone who has worked with benefits,there are ways and means round the rules.Plenty folk have helpers who facilitate this............unfortunately for the GB taxpayer.

Just wait until all the Romanians and Bulgarians arrive here and start sucking the teat which is increasingly becoming drier.

Took a lot of thought that.Just wait till the country is bankrupt and no money is left in the coffers.I often find that at union meetings,the ultra leftist types shout " waycist" and other jibes when they don't like what members are saying...............even funnier when they shout it at the Indian guy on the committee,but there's your stereotype for you.

We missed a great chance in the 90's to get long term people out of benefits and into work.Factory near me was always short of staff.Hard working Poles arrived and have made a success of the job.Those long term unemployed then are still unemployed now in the main and will I suspect go through the rest of their days unemployed...........sad for them and sad for society.

The issue for me is about economics.When you have a society with only 40% contributing,then the tax burden is being borne mainly be those taxpayers who can least afford it.Such a society is slowly strangling itself as skilled people leave to be replace by unskilled people in the main.

Stop talking sense, it's not allowed.

 

[Skashion]

1. I just disagree that UKIP is racially motivated. They wish to see Britain out of the European Union which isn't a racist position to hold. In fact, the majority of British people agree with them.
2. You are going to guarantee that there are no former BNP members in any other political party?
3. For all you know Farage could have been meeting the BNP leader to tell him to get stuffed. Pure speculation on your part, and to brand someone a racist because he's met someone who's racist seems quite bizarre to me.
Trust me, if I believed UKIP were racially motivated there's not a chance I'd consider voting for them. In my opinion, it's a total red herring, because their rivals are running scared and realise that the EU is not popular in the country, so debating the actual issue isn't a goer.

1. I fear they are. Did you read the other link I posted? The rest of that is just a straw man. I have not now, nor will I ever, say that advocating withdrawal from the EU is a racist position. It's not even a left/right position.
2. I know of no mainstream party that has had a known former BNP member stand for them in an election. I'd be happy to be corrected on that.
3. I didn't brand him a racist but forgive me for being suspicious of the company one keeps.<br /><br />-- Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:07 am --<br /><br />

Tony Lecomber has 'consorted' with Farage according to the wiki article Skashion pointed to. Lecomber is clearly a shitbag on many many levels, but it's safe to say his wiki page has not been constructed by himself or the BNP. Consorted is a pretty vague term TBH, for instance many of us will be 'consorting' with rags next week.

It's not according to a Wiki article. I posted a picture of them together on page two. Now, this does not make Farage guilty of anything. It does not make him a racist. It doesn't even mean he liked Lecomber or Deavin, but, politically, him being involved with them, makes me suspicious of him. If I was genuinely not racist, I'd stay well away from those two.