Very dangerous party. Floating voters are attracted to them because they like Whales and Trees (don't we all) and because they are disillusioned with the other mainstream party's. But they have pie in the sky socialist ideals more aligned with the communist party and increasingly less to do with environmental issues.
Difficult one this. Patriotism is a phenomenon that clearly exists although it ebbs and flows. We have 'my country right or wrong' which I don't subscribe to, but I also think it is a good and healthy thing to celebrate ones cultural heritage. There has been mention here of the Falklands, which when we were at war with Argentina was described as 'two bald men fighting over a comb'. Now others may say 'ah yes, but now we can control any oil and stuff that may be in the vicinity'. Was it 'patriotic' to fight for the Falklands, was it an economic war, or was it more about a fight for principle and the rule of law? Patriotism exists, but we are all part of the same planet. It amuses me that if the fabled Martians land and say 'take me to your leader', the answer would be, 'well which one of the 200 or so do you mean?' A border drawn around a country is sometimes geographical, sometimes arbitrary, and most often about power and might. To talk of 'my' or 'our' country is in my view a dangerous diversion, when maybe we ought to be talking about a shared planet. UKIP try to sell their policies as ones of economic progress, but to me they are more about isolation and selfishness. They talk also of returning to 'British values' in the educational system, where there is nothing British about them, they are civilized values which are not exclusive to Britain.
I saw her on Sky News a few weeks ago on a very staged interview and she did well. Complete collapse today and she shouldn't have pulled out of LBC tonight. She could have saved herself a lot of grief by going ahead with that.
@Folev the red Makes an excellent point. The majority of British voters will vote purely on media appearances and public speaking. That's why Farage is so dangerous, as regardless of what you think of his party's policies, he is an excellent speaker….most of the time. Cameron is even better but I'd expect nothing less from an ex-PR man. Although the Tories are petrified of putting him in for the debates.
Great point, UKIP are going to do fantastically well, why? A lot of voters are going to vote for them (mostly because of the open immigration policies of other parties), but will not say they are, because they don't want to be labelled as racist.
I just watched/listened to that Sunday Politics interview. I agree, it's a case of people who are detached from reality making clueless statements about stupid ideas.
They appear to live in a fluffy world, where we can get rid of our Armed Forces and make it legal to be a member of terrorist organisations and expect no consequences.
As for her financial ideas, god help us. Start income tax @£3k pa, in order to give everyone £270 pm.
I saw her on Sky News a few weeks ago on a very staged interview and she did well. Complete collapse today and she shouldn't have pulled out of LBC tonight. She could have saved herself a lot of grief by going ahead with that.
@Folev the red Makes an excellent point. The majority of British voters will vote purely on media appearances and public speaking. That's why Farage is so dangerous, as regardless of what you think of his party's policies, he is an excellent speaker….most of the time. Cameron is even better but I'd expect nothing less from an ex-PR man. Although the Tories are petrified of putting him in for the debates.
Great point, UKIP are going to do fantastically well, why? A lot of voters are going to vote for them (mostly because of the open immigration policies of other parties), but will not say they are, because they don't want to be labelled as racist.
Greenie, they're really not. The electoral system will see to that, and when it comes to a General Election most people will vote for a goverment. Ironically I live in one of the few areas where they may (although personally I think at present that Farage himself may well lose) but the quality of their representatives at local level is frighteningly bad. Indeed, if you watch the Meet the Ukippers programme, their only councillor elected as Ukip to Thanet District Council says she doesn't want them to run the council after the election because given the candidates they have they would be setting themselves up to fail.
I saw her on Sky News a few weeks ago on a very staged interview and she did well. Complete collapse today and she shouldn't have pulled out of LBC tonight. She could have saved herself a lot of grief by going ahead with that.
@Folev the red Makes an excellent point. The majority of British voters will vote purely on media appearances and public speaking. That's why Farage is so dangerous, as regardless of what you think of his party's policies, he is an excellent speaker….most of the time. Cameron is even better but I'd expect nothing less from an ex-PR man. Although the Tories are petrified of putting him in for the debates.
Great point, UKIP are going to do fantastically well, why? A lot of voters are going to vote for them (mostly because of the open immigration policies of other parties), but will not say they are, because they don't want to be labelled as racist.
Greenie, they're really not. The electoral system will see to that, and when it comes to a General Election most people will vote for a goverment. Ironically I live in one of the few areas where they may (although personally I think at present that Farage himself may well lose) but the quality of their representatives at local level is frighteningly bad. Indeed, if you watch the Meet the Ukippers programme, their only councillor elected as Ukip to Thanet District Council says she doesn't want them to run the council after the election because given the candidates they have they would be setting themselves up to fail.
Hmmm. I take all your points on board, but considering some of the muppets that are allowed to vote (and that immigration is to blame for everything in this country from the financial crash to Charltons league position) Folevs point about media appearances is very worrying. I think Farage and Co will get a vastly improved percentage of the vote. I guess we'll see in May.....
I saw her on Sky News a few weeks ago on a very staged interview and she did well. Complete collapse today and she shouldn't have pulled out of LBC tonight. She could have saved herself a lot of grief by going ahead with that.
@Folev the red Makes an excellent point. The majority of British voters will vote purely on media appearances and public speaking. That's why Farage is so dangerous, as regardless of what you think of his party's policies, he is an excellent speaker….most of the time. Cameron is even better but I'd expect nothing less from an ex-PR man. Although the Tories are petrified of putting him in for the debates.
Great point, UKIP are going to do fantastically well, why? A lot of voters are going to vote for them (mostly because of the open immigration policies of other parties), but will not say they are, because they don't want to be labelled as racist.
Greenie, they're really not. The electoral system will see to that, and when it comes to a General Election most people will vote for a goverment. Ironically I live in one of the few areas where they may (although personally I think at present that Farage himself may well lose) but the quality of their representatives at local level is frighteningly bad. Indeed, if you watch the Meet the Ukippers programme, their only councillor elected as Ukip to Thanet District Council says she doesn't want them to run the council after the election because given the candidates they have they would be setting themselves up to fail.
Hmmm. I take all your points on board, but considering some of the muppets that are allowed to vote (and that immigration is to blame for everything in this country from the financial crash to Charltons league position) Folevs point about media appearances is very worrying. I think Farage and Co will get a vastly improved percentage of the vote. I guess we'll see in May.....
Yes, I agree they will do well by any historical standard in terms of votes for a party in England that is not one of the traditional three. I'd be surprised if this translates into anything much in terms of seats, however. Indeed, I'd expect Mark Reckless to lose Rochester and Strood, despite having won the recent by-election. I just think on the morning after there will be a lot of people scratching their heads and wondering what all the fuss was about. It's a very unpredictable election and I think people voting Ukip will have an impact on the outcome, it just won't translate into a situation where Ukip have any influence in parliament once it's over.
I'm not against immigration but I think we should adopt Australia's view on it .
Australia's immigration control is only largely practical due to the fact it is surrounded by ocean and it doesn't have a super-national entity forcing immigration on it.
Whereas the UK has an entity forcing it to accept immigration from certain countries and even though it is an island, it has a tunnel and a crossing between it and a country that is actively helping and encouraging immigrants to cross into the UK.
The Green's open and active immigration policy is in direct conflict with its environmental proposal to reduce/limit the population of the UK. We cannot reduce our ecological footprint or protect our green spaces if we are welcoming immigrants from all over the world, especially if, as their manifesto states, those immigrants are coming from the world's poorest parts. Who is going to pay for their impact on the environment or to protect the environment if we are spending money housing and feeding even more poor?
I saw her on Sky News a few weeks ago on a very staged interview and she did well. Complete collapse today and she shouldn't have pulled out of LBC tonight. She could have saved herself a lot of grief by going ahead with that.
@Folev the red Makes an excellent point. The majority of British voters will vote purely on media appearances and public speaking. That's why Farage is so dangerous, as regardless of what you think of his party's policies, he is an excellent speaker….most of the time. Cameron is even better but I'd expect nothing less from an ex-PR man. Although the Tories are petrified of putting him in for the debates.
Why is Farage dangerous?
Given your remark in the Moscow thread- which I gave a like to - you might want to look up his remarks on Russia and Putin. You'll find the answer there
I'm not against immigration but I think we should adopt Australia's view on it .
Australia's immigration control is only largely practical due to the fact it is surrounded by ocean and it doesn't have a super-national entity forcing immigration on it.
Whereas the UK has an entity forcing it to accept immigration from certain countries and even though it is an island, it has a tunnel and a crossing between it and a country that is actively helping and encouraging immigrants to cross into the UK.
The Green's open and active immigration policy is in direct conflict with its environmental proposal to reduce/limit the population of the UK. We cannot reduce our ecological footprint or protect our green spaces if we are welcoming immigrants from all over the world, especially if, as their manifesto states, those immigrants are coming from the world's poorest parts. Who is going to pay for their impact on the environment or to protect the environment if we are spending money housing and feeding even more poor?
Even more dramatic might be the sudden return of 2million British people who are now living in EEC countries.
That interview confirms that there are only two political parties that are capable of actually making a fist of running the country. .....and I really didn't want to vote for either of them!
That interview confirms that there are only two political parties that are capable of actually making a fist of running the country. .....and I really didn't want to vote for either of them!
To be fair to those two parties, the Tories and Lib Dems aren't that bad. I do agree that the rest really couldn't manage a tuck shop.
I'm not against immigration but I think we should adopt Australia's view on it .
Australia's immigration control is only largely practical due to the fact it is surrounded by ocean and it doesn't have a super-national entity forcing immigration on it.
Whereas the UK has an entity forcing it to accept immigration from certain countries and even though it is an island, it has a tunnel and a crossing between it and a country that is actively helping and encouraging immigrants to cross into the UK.
The Green's open and active immigration policy is in direct conflict with its environmental proposal to reduce/limit the population of the UK. We cannot reduce our ecological footprint or protect our green spaces if we are welcoming immigrants from all over the world, especially if, as their manifesto states, those immigrants are coming from the world's poorest parts. Who is going to pay for their impact on the environment or to protect the environment if we are spending money housing and feeding even more poor?
Even more dramatic might be the sudden return of 2million British people who are now living in EEC countries.
Only the equivalent of 3-4 years of immigration in their current numbers then
I'm not against immigration but I think we should adopt Australia's view on it .
Australia's immigration control is only largely practical due to the fact it is surrounded by ocean and it doesn't have a super-national entity forcing immigration on it.
Whereas the UK has an entity forcing it to accept immigration from certain countries and even though it is an island, it has a tunnel and a crossing between it and a country that is actively helping and encouraging immigrants to cross into the UK.
The Green's open and active immigration policy is in direct conflict with its environmental proposal to reduce/limit the population of the UK. We cannot reduce our ecological footprint or protect our green spaces if we are welcoming immigrants from all over the world, especially if, as their manifesto states, those immigrants are coming from the world's poorest parts. Who is going to pay for their impact on the environment or to protect the environment if we are spending money housing and feeding even more poor?
Even more dramatic might be the sudden return of 2million British people who are now living in EEC countries.
I imagine there would be a massive ECHR case for those settled in other countries in the unlikely event the UK left the EU if their host countries attempted to deport them en masse.
The divvying up of the world's resources between the world's people is an obvious challenge for humankind. Pulling up drawbridges won't solve that problem.
The divvying up of the world's resources between the world's people is an obvious challenge for humankind. Pulling up drawbridges won't solve that problem.
It will if too many people want to live in the same place
I saw her on Sky News a few weeks ago on a very staged interview and she did well. Complete collapse today and she shouldn't have pulled out of LBC tonight. She could have saved herself a lot of grief by going ahead with that.
@Folev the red Makes an excellent point. The majority of British voters will vote purely on media appearances and public speaking. That's why Farage is so dangerous, as regardless of what you think of his party's policies, he is an excellent speaker….most of the time. Cameron is even better but I'd expect nothing less from an ex-PR man. Although the Tories are petrified of putting him in for the debates.
Great point, UKIP are going to do fantastically well, why? A lot of voters are going to vote for them (mostly because of the open immigration policies of other parties), but will not say they are, because they don't want to be labelled as racist.
Greenie, they're really not. The electoral system will see to that, and when it comes to a General Election most people will vote for a goverment. Ironically I live in one of the few areas where they may (although personally I think at present that Farage himself may well lose) but the quality of their representatives at local level is frighteningly bad. Indeed, if you watch the Meet the Ukippers programme, their only councillor elected as Ukip to Thanet District Council says she doesn't want them to run the council after the election because given the candidates they have they would be setting themselves up to fail.
Meet the Ukippers was the funniest (and saddest) programme I have seen on TV for a while. Even Farage looked embarrassed when being introduced to his prospective future Councillors.
The divvying up of the world's resources between the world's people is an obvious challenge for humankind. Pulling up drawbridges won't solve that problem.
No one is suggesting a complete closed-door policy so not sure what you're arguing against. However the Greens are suggesting a blanket open door policy, the effects of which go against the environmental aims which should be the centrepiece of any manifesto of a party claiming of the mantle of 'Green'.
The divvying up of the world's resources between the world's people is an obvious challenge for humankind. Pulling up drawbridges won't solve that problem.
It will if too many people want to live in the same place
Or if everyone else keeps their drawbridges up.
We're not talking about the "divvying up of the world's resources" either; if we had the world's resources then the situation would be different. Unfortunately, we're talking about the "divvying up of the UK's resources" - something on a vastly smaller scale.
All political angles are advocating cuts of some form or another; this is because we simply don't have enough cash to support the population and standard of living that we've become costumed too. Cuts to key areas are actually a key principle of the Green party - their victim of choice was the Armed Forces.
Opening the doors to even more immigration, without filtering of profession or status, is a wonderful idea but in reality would be absolutely terrible. All those services we can't sustain now (Schools, Hospitals, Emergency Services...) would be absolutely swamped.
It just takes a walk through certain areas (Whitechapel anyone?) to see that, if anything, the drawbridges need to be made harder to cross than they currently are. We need people who will integrate, who will contribute and who wont simply be a drain on an economy which is already a bit thin.
I'm proud of where I come from; I guess that makes me patriotic - I celebrate the history of my country, it's unique little quirks and it's attitudes and values. However, opening the entrance any wider will leave me taking the exit; as it is I'll be surprised if I still work in this country within 12 months.
Does that make me hypocritical if I move abroad? Maybe. You can be damn sure I'll be learning the language though (I have courses worked out for my chosen area, and have even got textbooks I'm going through now), I'll respect their customs and culture and that I'll be working my ass off as I do in this country - and therefore contributing to their economy. If I move abroad, I'll be the type of immigrant I'd like to see in my own country.
The divvying up of the world's resources between the world's people is an obvious challenge for humankind. Pulling up drawbridges won't solve that problem.
It will if too many people want to live in the same place
Or if everyone else keeps their drawbridges up.
We're not talking about the "divvying up of the world's resources" either; if we had the world's resources then the situation would be different. Unfortunately, we're talking about the "divvying up of the UK's resources" - something on a vastly smaller scale.
All political angles are advocating cuts of some form or another; this is because we simply don't have enough cash to support the population and standard of living that we've become costumed too. Cuts to key areas are actually a key principle of the Green party - their victim of choice was the Armed Forces.
Opening the doors to even more immigration, without filtering of profession or status, is a wonderful idea but in reality would be absolutely terrible. All those services we can't sustain now (Schools, Hospitals, Emergency Services...) would be absolutely swamped.
It just takes a walk through certain areas (Whitechapel anyone?) to see that, if anything, the drawbridges need to be made harder to cross than they currently are. We need people who will integrate, who will contribute and who wont simply be a drain on an economy which is already a bit thin.
I'm proud of where I come from; I guess that makes me patriotic - I celebrate the history of my country, it's unique little quirks and it's attitudes and values. However, opening the entrance any wider will leave me taking the exit; as it is I'll be surprised if I still work in this country within 12 months.
Does that make me hypocritical if I move abroad? Maybe. You can be damn sure I'll be learning the language though (I have courses worked out for my chosen area, and have even got textbooks I'm going through now), I'll respect their customs and culture and that I'll be working my ass off as I do in this country - and therefore contributing to their economy. If I move abroad, I'll be the type of immigrant I'd like to see in my own country.
Isn't the bit I have highlighted a pointer though?
The UK's resources?
If the UK weren't able to get some resources that originate outside the UK's jurisdiction the country would collapse, or are we self sufficient in everything now?
''Meet the Ukippers was the funniest (and saddest) programme I have seen on TV for a while. Even Farage looked embarrassed when being introduced to his prospective future Councillors''
You obviously didn't watch Immigration Street last night. Derby Road, Southampton, allegedly used to be full of Prostitutes, now the scum of the Earth!
''Meet the Ukippers was the funniest (and saddest) programme I have seen on TV for a while. Even Farage looked embarrassed when being introduced to his prospective future Councillors''
You obviously didn't watch Immigration Street last night. Derby Road, Southampton, allegedly used to be full of Prostitutes, now the scum of the Earth!
UKIP will not have more than 3 M.P.s after general election and if I was to bet I would say 0 or 1 at most.
Agreed, had a bet with someone that if they managed to get 5 MP's, I will run down my street naked whistling colonel bogey with a daffodil in my rear end
Watching that youtube interview posted by LuckyReds, UKIP have more chance of getting my vote and that's about as likely as me getting a season ticket at selhurst for nex season............
Comments
Vote away people!
There has been mention here of the Falklands, which when we were at war with Argentina was described as 'two bald men fighting over a comb'. Now others may say 'ah yes, but now we can control any oil and stuff that may be in the vicinity'.
Was it 'patriotic' to fight for the Falklands, was it an economic war, or was it more about a fight for principle and the rule of law?
Patriotism exists, but we are all part of the same planet. It amuses me that if the fabled Martians land and say 'take me to your leader', the answer would be, 'well which one of the 200 or so do you mean?'
A border drawn around a country is sometimes geographical, sometimes arbitrary, and most often about power and might. To talk of 'my' or 'our' country is in my view a dangerous diversion, when maybe we ought to be talking about a shared planet.
UKIP try to sell their policies as ones of economic progress, but to me they are more about isolation and selfishness.
They talk also of returning to 'British values' in the educational system, where there is nothing British about them, they are civilized values which are not exclusive to Britain.
They appear to live in a fluffy world, where we can get rid of our Armed Forces and make it legal to be a member of terrorist organisations and expect no consequences.
As for her financial ideas, god help us. Start income tax @£3k pa, in order to give everyone £270 pm.
I guess we'll see in May.....
Whereas the UK has an entity forcing it to accept immigration from certain countries and even though it is an island, it has a tunnel and a crossing between it and a country that is actively helping and encouraging immigrants to cross into the UK.
The Green's open and active immigration policy is in direct conflict with its environmental proposal to reduce/limit the population of the UK. We cannot reduce our ecological footprint or protect our green spaces if we are welcoming immigrants from all over the world, especially if, as their manifesto states, those immigrants are coming from the world's poorest parts. Who is going to pay for their impact on the environment or to protect the environment if we are spending money housing and feeding even more poor?
.....and I really didn't want to vote for either of them!
We're not talking about the "divvying up of the world's resources" either; if we had the world's resources then the situation would be different. Unfortunately, we're talking about the "divvying up of the UK's resources" - something on a vastly smaller scale.
All political angles are advocating cuts of some form or another; this is because we simply don't have enough cash to support the population and standard of living that we've become costumed too. Cuts to key areas are actually a key principle of the Green party - their victim of choice was the Armed Forces.
Opening the doors to even more immigration, without filtering of profession or status, is a wonderful idea but in reality would be absolutely terrible. All those services we can't sustain now (Schools, Hospitals, Emergency Services...) would be absolutely swamped.
It just takes a walk through certain areas (Whitechapel anyone?) to see that, if anything, the drawbridges need to be made harder to cross than they currently are. We need people who will integrate, who will contribute and who wont simply be a drain on an economy which is already a bit thin.
I'm proud of where I come from; I guess that makes me patriotic - I celebrate the history of my country, it's unique little quirks and it's attitudes and values. However, opening the entrance any wider will leave me taking the exit; as it is I'll be surprised if I still work in this country within 12 months.
Does that make me hypocritical if I move abroad? Maybe. You can be damn sure I'll be learning the language though (I have courses worked out for my chosen area, and have even got textbooks I'm going through now), I'll respect their customs and culture and that I'll be working my ass off as I do in this country - and therefore contributing to their economy. If I move abroad, I'll be the type of immigrant I'd like to see in my own country.
The UK's resources?
If the UK weren't able to get some resources that originate outside the UK's jurisdiction the country would collapse, or are we self sufficient in everything now?
You obviously didn't watch Immigration Street last night.
Derby Road, Southampton, allegedly used to be full of Prostitutes, now the scum of the Earth!