Did we all vote UKIP today

[DuncanRG]

Quite rightly they do in civil partnerships but some people believe that the institution of marriage is exclusive to the Church. They have a right to believe that without being labelled homophobes.

 

It's already secular. Straight people can get married in town halls! They should fight that instead.

[Batman]

It's already secular. Straight people can get married in town halls! They should fight that instead.

 

straight people cant get civil partnerships though.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Perhaps that's why I find Christians such boring people, as well as odd.

 

Go out, **** about, enjoy life as you're going to be bitterly disappointed when you die!

 

It takes all sorts to make up the world and I respect their rights even if I disagree with them.

 

I am not sure your wife would agree with *** about. I might puff out my chest a bit about my son but I would be horrified if my daughter took that view. She can wait until she has married.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

It's already secular. Straight people can get married in town halls! They should fight that instead.

 

Historically that is because people getting remarried for the second time could not do it in a church because the church would not let them. Were they discriminated against or were the Church just upholding their teachings. Now do you get where they are coming from?

[Joensuu]

So you are not opposed to the sport of falconry

 

Not overly.

[DuncanRG]

straight people cant get civil partnerships though.

 

And? Civil partnerships only exist to try and appease people who want real equality.

 

If this was really an issue about marriage being exclusive to the Church, and these people really believed in equality, then gay marriage would be no skin off their nose. State marriage would be the problem regardless of whether it's a gay couple or a straight couple getting one.

 

Historically that is because people getting remarried for the second time could not do it in a church because the church would not let them. Were they discriminated against or were the Church just upholding their teachings. Now do you get where they are coming from?

 

Both, effectively - upholding the teachings means discriminating against people who wish to remarry. They should still oppose state marriage. And indeed, if they're upholding their teachings they should oppose homosexuality as well. Their teachings are homophobic.

Edited 4 May, 2013 by DuncanRG

[Joensuu]

Quite rightly they do in civil partnerships but some people believe that the institution of marriage is exclusive to the Church. They have a right to believe that without being labelled homophobes.

 

If Civil Partnerships had the same legal rights that marriage does there would be no debate. Whatever term people wish to use for the ceremony, I firmly believe all gay or straight partnerships should legally have the same rights. The term currently used to refer to a couple who have committed to one another is 'marriage' that is used irrespective of religion. I propose that the most appropriate term to use for gay partnerships should therefore be 'marriage', and if needs be the law should be tighten to differentiate between 'holy matrimony' and marriage. The former being a type of the latter conducted by a specific religious group.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Not overly.

 

Yet the same principles apply in terms of 'sport'. Surely you should be opposed to both or none at all.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

If Civil Partnerships had the same legal rights that marriage does there would be no debate. Whatever term people wish to use for the ceremony, I firmly believe all gay or straight partnerships should legally have the same rights. The term currently used to refer to a couple who have committed to one another is 'marriage' that is used irrespective of religion. I propose that the most appropriate term to use for gay partnerships should therefore be 'marriage', and if needs be the law should be tighten to differentiate between 'holy matrimony' and marriage. The former being a type of the latter conducted by a specific religious group.

#

 

Well I might be inclined to agree with you but I am not talking about me just the rights of others to believe something else without being labelled homophobes when they are not.

[DuncanRG]

They believe in denying a right to homosexuals. That is homophobic. They have every right to believe that, but should admit that it is homophobic.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

And? Civil partnerships only exist to try and appease people who want real equality.

 

If this was really an issue about marriage being exclusive to the Church, and these people really believed in equality, then gay marriage would be no skin off their nose. State marriage would be the problem regardless of whether it's a gay couple or a straight couple getting one.

 

 

 

Both, effectively - upholding the teachings means discriminating against people who wish to remarry. They should still oppose state marriage. And indeed, if they're upholding their teachings they should oppose homosexuality as well. Their teachings are homophobic.

 

As I understand it homophobia is against a person. The church opposes a lifestyle.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Generally a party of people who have a life out of politics. You see their warts more clearly because they do not have slick PR teams to manage them like the despicable career politicians that make up most of the Labour party and much of the Lib Dems and Tories.

 

I was talking about the British public in general, not any one party.

[Joensuu]

Yet the same principles apply in terms of 'sport'. Surely you should be opposed to both or none at all.

 

Good point, and I see where you're going. Guess that for me the quick swoop and kill of a bird of prey is cleaner, and something that it would be doing naturally anyhow; whereas the elongated hunt with dogs seems unnecessarily protracted and deliberately bloody. The other main difference is that I haven't heard anyone try to argue that falconry is essential pest control. If pest control is the motivation there are far more efficient methods then blowing a bugle. There is also something of an art about falconry, the birds take years to train - a bit like the relationship between horse and rider.

 

Anyhow, in terms of fox-hunting, I prefer my pest control to be done in a cheap way with a quick, clean death, without the added 'sport' element please. I haven't yet heard a sensible argument in favour of its reintroduction.

[DuncanRG]

As I understand it homophobia is against a person. The church opposes a lifestyle.

 

"homophobia

noun

 

an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. "

 

My emphasis. Homophobia is against the sexuality, which includes the 'lifestyle' (whatever that means...) as well as any person or group of persons who hold it. Homophobia can be a slur yelled to someone on the street, choosing not to hire someone because of their sexuality or choosing to deny them a right in law because of their sexuality.

Edited 4 May, 2013 by DuncanRG

[Joensuu]

As I understand it homophobia is against a person. The church opposes a lifestyle.

 

Personally don't think homophobia is quite the right phrase, as I'm not sure there is fear involved (just small-minded disgust). Discrimination would seem more suitable.

 

No organisation should have a say over the lifestyle choices of individuals, unless those individuals are damaging people, possessions or places through their lifestyle choices. Do Christians feel that they are being damaged in any way by gay lifestyles? If so they should say so, and explain why. If not, why are they so worried about gay people getting married?

[DuncanRG]

Personally don't think homophobia is quite the right phrase, as I'm not sure there is fear involved (just small-minded disgust). Discrimination would seem more suitable.

 

No organisation should have a say over the lifestyle choices of individuals, unless those individuals are damaging people, possessions or places through their lifestyle choices. Do Christians feel that they are being damaged in any way by gay lifestyles? If so they should say so, and explain why. If not, why are they so worried about gay people getting married?

 

A lot feel they are - the Commons debate made that clear - but nobody could particularly explain why. Many (including divorcees!) pretended that the sanctity of their straight marriage would be compromised.

[Joensuu]

A lot feel they are - the Commons debate made that clear - but nobody could particularly explain why. Many (including divorcees!) pretended that the sanctity of their straight marriage would be compromised.

 

Agree. I haven't heard anyone actually provide a rational argument against allowing gay marriage, 'sanctity of straight marriage' indeed! That only makes any sense if marriage is in some way considered holy or sacred, which considering it is a legal union, and open to any religion and atheists isn't true. I can only conclude that people opposed to gay marriage like poking their nose into what other people are allowed to do in their own private lives.

[Wes Tender]

Agreed, but then that wasn't ever part of my argument was it? Straw man?

 

The important word in this sentence is 'can'. Yes, I agree they can. Again, this wasn't my argument. I was arguing against UKIP's flat tax rate policy, under which everyone, poor or rich would pay the same rate of tax. This is a very different proposition from merely cutting higher rates of tax.

 

Quite simply, UKIP are arguing that everyone should pay the same rate. They don't tell us what that rate is. But, common sense suggests that the rate would need to be between the current 20% basic, and 40% higher rates (would you agree to that point?). If so, that would mean that basic rate of tax would have to increase to counter a reduction in the higher rate (this I think is where we disagree? You are saying that any reduction in higher rate would actually increase tax income to the extent that the basic rate wouldn't need to increase?

 

I feel that the UKIP tax policy can be condensed down to, "poor pay more tax, to fund tax cut for wealthy".

 

Right, so UKIP plan to fund their tax cuts by pulling out of Europe. Hmmm, let me see, current government spending c. £720bn pa, current government income c. £612 bn (+ borrowing of c. £100bn pa to fill the spending gap). And you think that the whopping £12bn we spend on the EU each year will cover tax cuts?

 

Sorry, but for UKIP to cut taxes at all, something rather more expensive than the EU membership has to give. Will it be the NHS? (not according to UKIP - they only want to tinker with the Dept of Heath (who cost c. £10bn in total to run vs the NHS's c. £120bn annual cost)) Will it be the MoD? (again, no, UKIP want to increase spending here (will this extra money come from 'cutting the EU too?)). Education then? (Possibly, UKIP aren't clear on whether their policies will cost or save money in education).

 

Lets be honest, the UKIP numbers don't add up. They are promising everything that their core voters want to hear, without having to think about how it could possibly be financed.

 

Perhaps the Lib Dems are actually considering how much money there really is available to spend, and not just making up populist rhetoric that doesn't add up.

 

You're responding to what you think is their fiscal policy, rather than having any really clear idea of what that policy is. I found the link below which clearly states that it is a proposal by one of their spokesmen, but not necessarily UKIP policy. As far as I'm concerned, it makes quite a lot of sense in many ways.

 

But as for your comment that UKIP can turn themselves in whichever direction they think that the wind is blowing, be all things to all men, make up populist rhetoric that doesn't add up, it reminds me of another political party who have been accused of exactly the same thing. Now, who is that? Oh yes. The Lib Dems. They did that when there was no chance of them achieving power and not having to put their policies into action and cost them, but the irony is delicious now that they in bed with the Tories and their supporters are accusing UKIP of the same thing. I'm sure that the electorate are finding it quite refreshing to have another option for placing their tactical protest votes when they are fed up with the traditional three parties, but it will possibly cause the Lib Dems to shrink still further in the next election, and no bad thing either.

 

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/2993-ukip-tax-proposal

[Wade Garrett]

Personally, I believe in a trading relationship with Europe, not political integration.

 

I think the NHS is top heavy with executive management who get paid an absolute fortune. Hospitals would be better run by healthcare professionals. I also think he best nurses are the ones who start from the bottom within the NHS, rather than be jettisoned in from University.

 

All children should have access to a decent education. I'm against mixed ability classes, but also against the idea of he 2 tier education system you get with Grammar schools.

 

Not too bothered about the flat rate of tax, as long as the loopholes used by the rich and famous to pay next to nothing were closed.

 

I also believe in workers having fair and decent working conditions.

 

On balance, I wouldn't vote UKIP. But if this makes the 2 mainstream parties take notice, and change some of their policies, that can only be good.

[Wade Garrett]

You're responding to what you think is their fiscal policy, rather than having any really clear idea of what that policy is. I found the link below which clearly states that it is a proposal by one of their spokesmen, but not necessarily UKIP policy. As far as I'm concerned, it makes quite a lot of sense in many ways.

 

But as for your comment that UKIP can turn themselves in whichever direction they think that the wind is blowing, be all things to all men, make up populist rhetoric that doesn't add up, it reminds me of another political party who have been accused of exactly the same thing. Now, who is that? Oh yes. The Lib Dems. They did that when there was no chance of them achieving power and not having to put their policies into action and cost them, but the irony is delicious now that they in bed with the Tories and their supporters are accusing UKIP of the same thing. I'm sure that the electorate are finding it quite refreshing to have another option for placing their tactical protest votes when they are fed up with the traditional three parties, but it will possibly cause the Lib Dems to shrink still further in the next election, and no bad thing either.

 

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/2993-ukip-tax-proposal

 

Agree entirely with your second paragraph.

[Batman]

After the local elections I thought I’d explain politics and economics for anyone who is struggling……..

 

SOCIALISM

You have 2 cows.

You give one to your neighbour

 

COMMUNISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and gives you some milk

 

FASCISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and sells you some milk

 

NAZISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and shoots you

 

BUREAUCRACY

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the

milk away

 

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull.

Your herd multiplies, and the economy

grows.

You sell them and retire on the income

 

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM

 

You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters

of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a

debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all

four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to

a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who

sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on

one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States

, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the

release.

The public then buys your bull.

 

SURREALISM

You have two giraffes.

The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

 

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to

produce the milk of four cows.

Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

 

A GREEK CORPORATION

You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking

sheds, hay stores, feed sheds, dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese

unit and packing sheds.

You still only have two cows.

 

A FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you

want three cows.

 

A JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow

and produce twenty times the milk.

You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and

market it worldwide.

 

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows,

but you don't know where they are.

You decide to have lunch.

 

A SWISS CORPORATION

You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.

You charge the owners for storing them.

 

A CHINESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You have 300 people milking them.

You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.

You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

 

AN INDIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You worship them.

 

A BRITISH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Both are mad.

 

AN IRAQI CORPORATION

Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.

You tell them that you have none.

No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.

You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

 

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Business seems pretty good.

You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

 

A PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

One is for milking

The other is for sex

[Tokyo-Saint]

[aintforever]

In the same way that promiscuity contradicts the institution of marriage they believe that so does homosexuality. Yes that might be a traditional or old fashioned viewpoint but people should be allowed to hold it.

 

Yet it's OK for some slapper who's had half the village up her to marry the local rapist. It's a clear case of homophobia, they just cannot admit it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Their education policy has some merit to it.

 

Their health policy might work, but stands a good chance of making a mess of the NHS.

 

Their tax policy is outrageous, a flat rate of tax would see the gap between rich and poor increase dramatically, while either overall government tax income would be massively reduced (meaning even more cuts to public services), or the flat rate would have to e higher than the bar rate is currently (perhaps everyone paying, say 30% might just work, hardly fair on the majority of people though).

 

But hang on, in the section called the economy UKIP are proposing tax cuts. Where does this money come from? Or do they actually mean tax cuts for everyone earning £50k + (with the richest saving the most), paid for by the masses?

 

Personally feel that their views on Europe, gay marriage, defence, and the environment are completely wrong. Pubs are much better since smoking was banned, and the fox hunting ban should IMO be extended to include hunting with birds of prey.

 

?

 

Their education policy has a hell of a lot of merit to it. My lad goes to a Grammar school and he goes with all sorts of diverse people. Hundreds of kids from all backgrounds took the test, the 2 grammars in this catchment are extremely popular, particulary with the poor. It is the middle classes who sniff and them and don't want the kids to go, my sister being one of them. She finds the whole thing wrong and wouldn't let her kids sit the entrance exam. However, she's pretty wealthy, her kids will be ok. For the poor the Grammar maybe the only chance they get to better themselves.

 

I don't know enough about Health to comment on what the effect of their policies will be. But, I'm sure it cant be any worse than the Chuckle Brothers "from me to you" policy of the past 30 years.

 

Flat taxes are worth looking at. It's about tax take, not tax rates. If flat takes bring more money in, then surely that's worth persuading. Tax rates for the wealthy are set for political reasons or punishment at present. A % is a % and therefore a bloke earning 100k WILL pay more into society than a bloke on the minimum wage. I've never understood the moral argument that because you are good at your job and earn a lot you should pay a higher % of your wages into the Government. Surely it's fairer in the strict meaning of the word "fair" that people pay exactly the same %, or does "fairness" not extend to people earning a lot? The other thing I agree with is merging tax and NI, it all goes into the same pot and is just a con trick on the British people, the suggestion that the 10% (or what ever it is) is some sort of Insurance is laughable.

 

Tax cuts will be funded by not paying the millions into the EU. In their eyes one of the reasons for withdrawal is to save money, so it's entirely joined up thinking to use this to fund tax cuts.

 

I agree with you about smoking ban, as a non smoker it's great to come home and not smell of fags (the ciggie type, I'll come onto gay marriage in a min). However , if you are a party that believes in individual choice and freedom then having government legislate what you can and cant do in your own business seems wrong. Smoking is entirely legal and I would have much preferred pubs that want to let people smoke, do so and I'll just go to one that doesn't allow it.

 

Gay marriage, their views are the same as a lot of the population of UK. The government itself allow church to opt out of it, so they are discriminating against gays themselves.

 

 

One thing I do find rather odd is this. When asked about policies for the next Parliament Labour MP's say "it's too early to say" or "we are working on that". Yet when interviewed Farage is expected to tell us all his polices for 2015 and keeps getting quoted his 2010 manifesto. His 2010 manifesto is irrelevant, they will not be fighting the 2015 election on it. The only parties that need to stand by their 2010 manifesto are the ones in power. You know, like no tuition fees!!!!!

[Saintandy666]

Grammar schools are alright for the lucky few who manage to do well at 11 and get in, but it ****s on everyone else. Plus, I think by going to comprehensive school you are able to meet all kinds of people, which is important. I would not want a return to grammar schools.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

?

 

Their education policy has a hell of a lot of merit to it. My lad goes to a Grammar school and he goes with all sorts of diverse people. Hundreds of kids from all backgrounds took the test, the 2 grammars in this catchment are extremely popular, particulary with the poor. It is the middle classes who sniff and them and don't want the kids to go, my sister being one of them. She finds the whole thing wrong and wouldn't let her kids sit the entrance exam. However, she's pretty wealthy, her kids will be ok. For the poor the Grammar maybe the only chance they get to better themselves.

 

I don't know enough about Health to comment on what the effect of their policies will be. But, I'm sure it cant be any worse than the Chuckle Brothers "from me to you" policy of the past 30 years.

 

Flat taxes are worth looking at. It's about tax take, not tax rates. If flat takes bring more money in, then surely that's worth persuading. Tax rates for the wealthy are set for political reasons or punishment at present. A % is a % and therefore a bloke earning 100k WILL pay more into society than a bloke on the minimum wage. I've never understood the moral argument that because you are good at your job and earn a lot you should pay a higher % of your wages into the Government. Surely it's fairer in the strict meaning of the word "fair" that people pay exactly the same %, or does "fairness" not extend to people earning a lot? The other thing I agree with is merging tax and NI, it all goes into the same pot and is just a con trick on the British people, the suggestion that the 10% (or what ever it is) is some sort of Insurance is laughable.

 

Tax cuts will be funded by not paying the millions into the EU. In their eyes one of the reasons for withdrawal is to save money, so it's entirely joined up thinking to use this to fund tax cuts.

 

I agree with you about smoking ban, as a non smoker it's great to come home and not smell of fags (the ciggie type, I'll come onto gay marriage in a min). However , if you are a party that believes in individual choice and freedom then having government legislate what you can and cant do in your own business seems wrong. Smoking is entirely legal and I would have much preferred pubs that want to let people smoke, do so and I'll just go to one that doesn't allow it.

 

Gay marriage, their views are the same as a lot of the population of UK. The government itself allow church to opt out of it, so they are discriminating against gays themselves.

 

 

One thing I do find rather odd is this. When asked about policies for the next Parliament Labour MP's say "it's too early to say" or "we are working on that". Yet when interviewed Farage is expected to tell us all his polices for 2015 and keeps getting quoted his 2010 manifesto. His 2010 manifesto is irrelevant, they will not be fighting the 2015 election on it. The only parties that need to stand by their 2010 manifesto are the ones in power. You know, like no tuition fees!!!!!

 

I did not post the orginal

[Lord Duckhunter]

Grammar schools are alright for the lucky few who manage to do well at 11 and get in, but it ****s on everyone else. Plus, I think by going to comprehensive school you are able to meet all kinds of people, which is important. I would not want a return to grammar schools.

 

My lad goes to school with "all kinds of people", implying that Grammar Schools are somehow for the elite or posh kids is just not true. There are kids in his school from local council estates and with poorer background. The only thing missing is girls, but they do a lot with the local girls Grammar.

 

We only made him take the test because the school in our catchment is dire. I was surprised how normal the school and the pupils are. Just because they wear a blazer does not make it some sort of Southern Bullington Club. At the end of the day we have 2 choices in Poole, the local comprehensive or you can put your kid into the Grammar test, nobody forces you to take the test. I think it's unfair that there are kids in other areas that don't get this choice.

[Saintandy666]

My lad goes to school with "all kinds of people", implying that Grammar Schools are somehow for the elite or posh kids is just not true. There are kids in his school from local council estates and with poorer background. The only thing missing is girls, but they do a lot with the local girls Grammar.

 

We only made him take the test because the school in our catchment is dire. I was surprised how normal the school and the pupils are. Just because they wear a blazer does not make it some sort of Southern Bullington Club. At the end of the day we have 2 choices in Poole, the local comprehensive or you can put your kid into the Grammar test, nobody forces you to take the test. I think it's unfair that there are kids in other areas that don't get this choice.

 

I think you need integration of the sexes in schools as well, as again I think you miss out without being integrated. And I know grammar schools aren't for the posh, I know tonnes of grammar school people. But it does create unfairness, and I can see that by the number of comprehensive people at my uni compared to grammar school and private. Sure, it gives you a leg up, but the system ****s on everyone else who doesn't get that opportunity or who is a late developer.

 

And I don't blame you personally for sending your children to a grammar school( or people who send their children to private schools). Every parent wants to do the best for their children, but that doesn't make it fair in terms of those who aren't so lucky to be intelligent enough at 11.

[DuncanRG]

I agree with all of the above points in support of UKIP. It's about time that us normal people were represented, rather than pandering to the blacks and the gays and the disabled all the time.

 

*nibble nibble*

[Lord Duckhunter]

I think you need integration of the sexes in schools as well, as again I think you miss out without being integrated. And I know grammar schools aren't for the posh, I know tonnes of grammar school people. But it does create unfairness, and I can see that by the number of comprehensive people at my uni compared to grammar school and private. Sure, it gives you a leg up, but the system ****s on everyone else who doesn't get that opportunity or who is a late developer.

 

And I don't blame you personally for sending your children to a grammar school( or people who send their children to private schools). Every parent wants to do the best for their children, but that doesn't make it fair in terms of those who aren't so lucky to be intelligent enough at 11.

 

We sent our older 2 to the local comprehensive as it was ok. We then moved and the local is dire, the one our older 2 went to is oversubscribed and they left a number of years previously so we couldn't send number 3 there. Now our 3rd one is at Grammar I regret not making the older 2 take the test as I was genuinely surprised at how inclusive and diverse the Grammar school is. Previously I was 50/50 about Grammars, but now having seen one at close hand, I'm 100% in favour. Now I understand that it maybe a good one and also understand that there are some fantastic comprehensives, but the choice of having a Grammar school is one I would highly recommend. I'm just hoping our youngest also gets the chance to go.

 

People go on about the Comprehensive system and about mixing with diverse people, but it isn't a pure form of comprehensive that we have. Surely the very meaning of comprehensive schools is that everybody goes there from the local area. However, choice has meant that even this "fair" system can be skewed by the middle classes. Houses in the top schools catchment area carry a premium the poor cant afford. Faith schools further dilute the comprehensive ethics, my mate sent his kid to Catholic school and the vicar announces every year to a packed congregation "it's schools choice time", as his ranks are temporary filled by people wanting his signature to prove regular church going.

 

Even the Grammar schools that I support are skewed from the poor, with the rich going private until 11, and the middle classes using private tuition (we used neither). I am sure we could get a system in place which measured kids potential and IQ, which combined with a test could be used as an entrance criteria for a Grammar school, if the parents wanted to send the kid there.

 

The problem in the past was not the Grammar Schools, but the Secondary moderns. Instead of fixing them, they abolished the best route poor kids had to move up the social scale. All parties are in favour of "choice", unless that "choice" includes the Grammar option.

[tony13579]

I read in the DM today that Nigle Fararge is to fight a by-election near Portsmouth soon. Does any one know where that is?

[ecuk268]

My lad goes to school with "all kinds of people", implying that Grammar Schools are somehow for the elite or posh kids is just not true. There are kids in his school from local council estates and with poorer background. The only thing missing is girls, but they do a lot with the local girls Grammar.

 

We only made him take the test because the school in our catchment is dire. I was surprised how normal the school and the pupils are. Just because they wear a blazer does not make it some sort of Southern Bullington Club. At the end of the day we have 2 choices in Poole, the local comprehensive or you can put your kid into the Grammar test, nobody forces you to take the test. I think it's unfair that there are kids in other areas that don't get this choice.

 

I went to Grammar school in the 60's (mixed) and it was certainly no bastion of middle-classedness(?). We had a wide range of social backgrounds and the message given to us was that we were as good as anyone else regardless of our origins.

Edited 5 May, 2013 by ecuk268

[Whitey Grandad]

I went to Grammar school in the 60's (mixed) and it was certainly no bastion of middle-classedness(?). We had a wide range of social backgrounds and the message given to us was that we were as good as anyone else regardless of our origins.

 

Absolutely. Me too, and if they could take me they could take anybody.

 

Mine wasn't mixed though.

[bridge too far]

I also went to a (girls') grammar school in the 60s. And yes there were people from all backgrounds - I was from a working class family.

 

However, there was no doubt in my mind that the girls from middle class backgrounds got a more sympathetic ear when it came to applying for university. And, sadly, I was made to feel inferior because my parents couldn't afford for me to go on the school ski trip.

[View From The Top]

The grammar school debate is an interesting one. Our local one is a bastion of middle class, Range Rover driving, knobs and the vast, vast majority are fee payers. Asked my lad if he wanted to take the test, which he'd pass easily and he said no. It sums it up when their cricket tour is 3 weeks in the West Indies!

 

The grammar schools in the area I work are the polar opposite. They are working class (and very Asian) but the parents spend thousands of ££ on private tuition to get the kids in and that tuition starts at age 5.

 

There is one very good academy that parents fight to get there kids into (has a unique intake criteria) and 2 others that are now the middle class enclaves where a professional bubble has appeared that replicates the catchment area.

 

It's almost become role reversal. State school middle class, grammar schools working class.

[View From The Top]

I agree with all of the above points in support of UKIP. It's about time that us normal people were represented, rather than pandering to the blacks and the gays and the disabled all the time.

 

I see Deppo has a new username.

[Dr Who?]

They seem to have a lack of other policies.

[alpine_saint]

After the local elections I thought I’d explain politics and economics for anyone who is struggling……..

 

SOCIALISM

You have 2 cows.

You give one to your neighbour

 

COMMUNISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and gives you some milk

 

FASCISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and sells you some milk

 

NAZISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and shoots you

 

BUREAUCRACY

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the

milk away

 

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull.

Your herd multiplies, and the economy

grows.

You sell them and retire on the income

 

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM

 

You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters

of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a

debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all

four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to

a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who

sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on

one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States

, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the

release.

The public then buys your bull.

 

SURREALISM

You have two giraffes.

The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

 

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to

produce the milk of four cows.

Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

 

A GREEK CORPORATION

You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking

sheds, hay stores, feed sheds, dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese

unit and packing sheds.

You still only have two cows.

 

A FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you

want three cows.

 

A JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow

and produce twenty times the milk.

You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and

market it worldwide.

 

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows,

but you don't know where they are.

You decide to have lunch.

 

A SWISS CORPORATION

You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.

You charge the owners for storing them.

 

A CHINESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You have 300 people milking them.

You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.

You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

 

AN INDIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You worship them.

 

A BRITISH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Both are mad.

 

AN IRAQI CORPORATION

Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.

You tell them that you have none.

No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.

You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

 

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Business seems pretty good.

You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

 

A PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

One is for milking

The other is for sex

 

Superb update to an old joke. Like the RBS version.

[Joensuu]

Sorry Wes, missed your response - think a match might have distracted me.

 

You're responding to what you think is their fiscal policy, rather than having any really clear idea of what that policy is. I found the link below which clearly states that it is a proposal by one of their spokesmen, but not necessarily UKIP policy. As far as I'm concerned, it makes quite a lot of sense in many ways.

 

I find this really interesting. You're right, essentially UKIP don't have a policy on tax, which considering tax is one of the most fundamental parts of government is really rather shocking. However, they have made the 'proposal' reasonably prominent on their website, inside their 'policies' section. One might suggest that they would love to make this proposal into a real policy, but realise it is so loopy that it would make their party look completely barking.

 

So essentially, they've gone for this hybrid approach to making policies, put a crazy proposal in amongst your policies might well be enough to sway the rich right-wingers to your cause ["Look Tarquin, this party who hate those foreign sorts like you do, have something in their policy section about not taxing as much of your £800k salary, but only taxing you at a flat rate like you go on about when your drunk. Won't that save us a few hundred grand in tax each year if they get in?"], but of course, by keeping the proposal as unofficial, UKIP get a nice opt out if anyone points out that the numbers don't add up.

 

But as for your comment that UKIP can turn themselves in whichever direction they think that the wind is blowing, be all things to all men, make up populist rhetoric that doesn't add up, it reminds me of another political party who have been accused of exactly the same thing. Now, who is that? Oh yes. The Lib Dems. They did that when there was no chance of them achieving power and not having to put their policies into action and cost them, but the irony is delicious now that they in bed with the Tories and their supporters are accusing UKIP of the same thing. I'm sure that the electorate are finding it quite refreshing to have another option for placing their tactical protest votes when they are fed up with the traditional three parties, but it will possibly cause the Lib Dems to shrink still further in the next election, and no bad thing either.

 

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/2993-ukip-tax-proposal

 

You are quite right, the Lib Dems do seem to be on a hiding to nothing. I was furious with Clegg's decision to get into bed with the Tories. His only correct decision was to abstain - agree to not vote against the Tories initially so that they could form a government, and then be able to vote through Tory policies on their merit, not on some daft coalition compromise. Anyhow, I think you have me confused as being a Liberal, when I'm actually a liberal. I don't care for party, but for policy. If the Lib Dems have liberal polices I'll support them on those policies; if they adopt Tory or more Socialist policies, I'll argue against them where I feel it's appropriate to do so. So, yes, I agree, the Lib Dems do often seem to flip between populist policies, and have written policies which the wouldn't have were they in with a shot at being elected.

 

I feel the Lib Dems will suffer massively at the next general election; then replace Clegg and start polling quite well again, in, say, 4 or 5 years time. I also feel that UKIP are doing an excellent job of stealing voters from both the Tory right, and from Labour by playing on working class immigration fears. I doubt that many liberal voters will switch to UKIP - their policies are pretty much polar opposites on most things.

 

I personally am genuinely concerned by UKIP. They are a nasty party, with seemingly oblique policies. They have wide appeal amongst both societies richest, and poorest mainly by focusing on xenephobic rhetoric. They also have a highly charismatic leader, who will allow them to pick up far more votes than their policies justify. I have to admit I'm very concerned about UKIP - not in terms of UK politics, but in terms of the destruction they could bring if they ever gained enough power. Anything could happen.

[Wes Tender]

Sorry Wes, missed your response - think a match might have distracted me.

 

I find this really interesting. You're right, essentially UKIP don't have a policy on tax, which considering tax is one of the most fundamental parts of government is really rather shocking. However, they have made the 'proposal' reasonably prominent on their website, inside their 'policies' section. One might suggest that they would love to make this proposal into a real policy, but realise it is so loopy that it would make their party look completely barking.

 

Which bits were loopy or barking? He was just talking in generalities and platitudes, most of which I agree with in principle. I would counter by labelling the Lib Dems tax policies as loopy or barking and in particular I dispise their mean petty-mindiness where they wish to levy a local income tax to pay for Council services and their so-called Mansion tax. As that article quite rightly points out, tax people too heavily and you take away the incentive to work harder or be an entrepreneur, or otherwise the victims seek ways to avoid paying tax above a certain level.

 

So essentially, they've gone for this hybrid approach to making policies, put a crazy proposal in amongst your policies might well be enough to sway the rich right-wingers to your cause ["Look Tarquin, this party who hate those foreign sorts like you do, have something in their policy section about not taxing as much of your £800k salary, but only taxing you at a flat rate like you go on about when your drunk. Won't that save us a few hundred grand in tax each year if they get in?"], but of course, by keeping the proposal as unofficial, UKIP get a nice opt out if anyone points out that the numbers don't add up.

 

And equally your laughable little sketch might just go along the lines of the two of them discussing how clever they've been avoiding paying much tax at all under Labour or the Lib-Dems, because they've found all sorts of creative accountancy methods of putting their money offshore, or considering emigration to a more favourable tax environment. But of course, you are blind to that possibility, aren't you?

 

You are quite right, the Lib Dems do seem to be on a hiding to nothing. I was furious with Clegg's decision to get into bed with the Tories. His only correct decision was to abstain - agree to not vote against the Tories initially so that they could form a government, and then be able to vote through Tory policies on their merit, not on some daft coalition compromise. Anyhow, I think you have me confused as being a Liberal, when I'm actually a liberal. I don't care for party, but for policy. If the Lib Dems have liberal polices I'll support them on those policies; if they adopt Tory or more Socialist policies, I'll argue against them where I feel it's appropriate to do so. So, yes, I agree, the Lib Dems do often seem to flip between populist policies, and have written policies which the wouldn't have were they in with a shot at being elected.

 

There is no Liberal Party any longer. So I'm assuming that you either vote Lib-Dem, or abstain.

 

I feel the Lib Dems will suffer massively at the next general election; then replace Clegg and start polling quite well again, in, say, 4 or 5 years time. I also feel that UKIP are doing an excellent job of stealing voters from both the Tory right, and from Labour by playing on working class immigration fears. I doubt that many liberal voters will switch to UKIP - their policies are pretty much polar opposites on most things.

 

The trouble is, you seem to believe that the Lib-Dem vote is totally comprised of voters who support that party, whereas a large tranche of their support is comprised of tactical voters. Many of those will now have an alternative party to use when voting tactically, so I fully expect the Lib-Dems vote to slip dramatically.

 

I personally am genuinely concerned by UKIP. They are a nasty party, with seemingly oblique policies. They have wide appeal amongst both societies richest, and poorest mainly by focusing on xenephobic rhetoric. They also have a highly charismatic leader, who will allow them to pick up far more votes than their policies justify. I have to admit I'm very concerned about UKIP - not in terms of UK politics, but in terms of the destruction they could bring if they ever gained enough power. Anything could happen.

 

Perhaps the Conservatives will wake up and hold the Referendum on Europe before the next General Election, thus lancing the boil that is the growing influence of this party with a single main policy platform.

[Joensuu]

Which bits were loopy or barking?

Take for example this laughable part "The flat rate of 25%...". In plain English that's a tax rise of 5% for everyone earning under c. £40k pa; funded by a significant tax cut for everyone earning over c. £40pa. If that's not loopy, I don't know what is.

He was just talking in generalities and platitudes, most of which I agree with in principle.

Which part of taxing the poor more to pay for the rich to have a tax cut do you agree with in principle?

I would counter by labelling the Lib Dems tax policies as loopy or barking and in particular I dispise their mean petty-mindiness where they wish to levy a local income tax to pay for Council services and their so-called Mansion tax. As that article quite rightly points out, tax people too heavily and you take away the incentive to work harder or be an entrepreneur, or otherwise the victims seek ways to avoid paying tax above a certain level.

Interesting avoidance tactic there Wes; can't defend the indefensible, so lets go on the attack eh? We aren't discussing Lib Dem tax policies here, even though, let's face it, they add up which UKIP's most certainly don't. Anyhow, as I'm not a Lib Dem, I'm not sure what you are attempting to achieve by constantly trying to return the debate to them.

And equally your laughable little sketch might just go along the lines of the two of them discussing how clever they've been avoiding paying much tax at all under Labour or the Lib-Dems, because they've found all sorts of creative accountancy methods of putting their money offshore, or considering emigration to a more favourable tax environment. But of course, you are blind to that possibility, aren't you?

Are you suggesting that Labour or the Lib-Dems have actively opened new loopholes that weren't already there? Also, why not include the Tories in with other two? Surely they are more culpable than the Lib Dems, and at least on a par with Labour for any loopholes in the existing tax system.

 

Not blind to the Lewis Hamilton's of this world, and feel that the very wealthy should be made to pay fair taxes. I would suggest a rule that any money earnt in the UK must pay tax in the UK, irrespective of where a company is registered or person lives. For example, a Lord pretending to live in Belize should pay UK tax rates for any money he earns within these borders. Fair?

 

There is no Liberal Party any longer. So I'm assuming that you either vote Lib-Dem, or abstain.

You seem confused Wes. Has it ever crossed your mind that some people hold political beliefs, but don't get into bed with a political party? I am a liberal - (lower case 'l'), this means I believe in liberal values, and has nothing to do with any political party that exists or has existed. Who I vote for depends upon which party offers the closest package to my personal values. I actually feel the Green party are closer to my values than the Lib Dems. However, as the Greens don't stand in my seat, you are generally right, I have pretty straight choice of Lib Dem or abstention at the moment.

The trouble is, you seem to believe that the Lib-Dem vote is totally comprised of voters who support that party, whereas a large tranche of their support is comprised of tactical voters. Many of those will now have an alternative party to use when voting tactically, so I fully expect the Lib-Dems vote to slip dramatically.

Not at all. I recognise that many people vote tactically. When I lived in the Sheffield I tactically voted Labour, and arranged online for a Lib Dem vote to be cast in my name in another seat. So I guess you could say, all parties receive tactical votes. I am under no illusions that there are enough liberals in the country to actually vote a party to power; liberals will always be in the minority, (unless some miracle cure for stupidity is discovered). Here's an interesting read if you have time to kill http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

Perhaps the Conservatives will wake up and hold the Referendum on Europe before the next General Election, thus lancing the boil that is the growing influence of this party with a single main policy platform.

Never going to happen. Doing so would be economic suicide. It would also mess up most of our foreign policy. The Tories might buffoon about, but they aren't daft enough to actually cut off their own nose to spite their own face. Economic common sense will prevail. Edited 6 May, 2013 by Joensuu

[Lord Duckhunter]

I personally am genuinely concerned by UKIP. They are a nasty party, with seemingly oblique policies. They have wide appeal amongst both societies richest, and poorest mainly by focusing on xenephobic rhetoric.

 

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

Every party has measures to control immigaration, the Lib/Dems even had the crazy policy of regional caps at the last election. How Nazi like is that, immigrants can only work in certain areas of the country. What were they going to have, check points to check peoples papers? "you do not have a permit to delivery this Pizza in this area Pawel"

 

Gordon Brown promised "British jobs for British workers" .

 

 

The Lib/Dems are a busted flush, they have been found out. People seem to forget, that in an election against Gordon Brown, they actually lost seats. The only reason they got into power was by abandoning their principles in a mad rush for the ministerial limos. They try to be all things to all men, they make promises they have no intention of keeping and they are a bunch of hypocrites. I find it breath taking that they can accuse UKIP of being homophobic when they ran the most disgracefully homophobic by-election in living memory, despite the fact that their candidate was in the closet all along. That pompous ass Lord Oakshot was on Any Questions Friday, summing up exactly what they're like, "please call me Matthew not Lord" (well don't accept the ****ing tittle then, stand for election) and " I've never believed in referendums, they are a "a device for despots and dictators", before going on to brag about his role in calling the EEC in/out one as Woy Jenkins' special advisor. I also wondered how such an important Lib/dem figure was able to keep so quiet over his anti referendum stance during the Lib/Dem inspired AV vote one. If there is any nasty party in politics it's the Lib/Dems. They will do anything, say anything for a bit of personal power. They will not be able to fool the British public again, and I look forward to them returning to their 1970's position of a fringe party with a handful of MP's (only without the Thorpe, Cyril Smith issues).

[Joensuu]

Strange how the UKIP supporters can't think of a way to defend their chosen party, so instead try to attack others. Why not start a thread on Lib Dem policy if you're that interested in discussing it?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Strange how the UKIP supporters can't think of a way to defend their chosen party, so instead try to attack others. Why not start a thread on Lib Dem policy if you're that interested in discussing it?

 

So you can call UKIP the "nasty party", call their policies xenophobic but nobody can mention the Lib/Dems. Typical Lib/Dem response, shut down the discussion as we know best.

 

I think if you read through the thread there are plenty of examples of people defending UKIP, but surely one of the reasons people are voting for them is the policies of the Establishment parties. Seems rather strange that discussing those Establishment policies should not be posted.

[Wes Tender]

Take for example this laughable part "The flat rate of 25%...". In plain English that's a tax rise of 5% for everyone earning under c. £40k pa; funded by a significant tax cut for everyone earning over c. £40pa. If that's not loopy, I don't know what is.

 

What's loopy is you trying to interprete a policy to suit your own agenda. A flat rate of 25% might be deemed perfectly accpetable if the threshold where one starting paying tax was set high enough to preclude those that you deem to be poor. And didn't I read that this fella was proposing to combine income tax and National Insurance? As for the higher rate, we've already gone over that ground. I see no reson that anybody should pay more as a percentage just because they earn more. They would pay the same rate, so I see no problem. It has already been established that when the rate of tax is deemed to be fair, then higher earners are happy to pay it and the revenue gained increases.

 

Which part of taxing the poor more to pay for the rich to have a tax cut do you agree with in principle?

 

See above. It's all quite simple to understand. Everybody would pay the same percentage, so those earning less will pay proportionately less. The poor will probably pay nothing at all, or very little.

 

Interesting avoidance tactic there Wes; can't defend the indefensible, so lets go on the attack eh? We aren't discussing Lib Dem tax policies here, even though, let's face it, they add up which UKIP's most certainly don't. Anyhow, as I'm not a Lib Dem, I'm not sure what you are attempting to achieve by constantly trying to return the debate to them.

 

Do they add up? They will never be put into practice for anybody to find out.

 

Are you suggesting that Labour or the Lib-Dems have actively opened new loopholes that weren't already there? Also, why not include the Tories in with other two? Surely they are more culpable than the Lib Dems, and at least on a par with Labour for any loopholes in the existing tax system.

 

No I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I was merely providing another scenario to counter your jolly little piece of fantasy about Tarquin.

 

Not blind to the Lewis Hamilton's of this world, and feel that the very wealthy should be made to pay fair taxes. I would suggest a rule that any money earnt in the UK must pay tax in the UK, irrespective of where a company is registered or person lives. For example, a Lord pretending to live in Belize should pay UK tax rates for any money he earns within these borders. Fair?

 

There are already rules determining how long one can stay in this country before one is deemed to be resident here. As for companies, yes, I agree that companies like Starbucks should pay their fair share into our tax coffers if they want to set up shop here.

 

You seem confused Wes. Has it ever crossed your mind that some people hold political beliefs, but don't get into bed with a political party? I am a liberal - (lower case 'l'), this means I believe in liberal values, and has nothing to do with any political party that exists or has existed. Who I vote for depends upon which party offers the closest package to my personal values. I actually feel the Green party are closer to my values than the Lib Dems. However, as the Greens don't stand in my seat, you are generally right, I have pretty straight choice of Lib Dem or abstention at the moment.

 

I'm not confused at all. I guessed correctly that you were unlikely to vote Labour or Conservative and that the likelihood would be that you would either vote Lib Dem or abstain.

 

Not at all. I recognise that many people vote tactically. When I lived in the Sheffield I tactically voted Labour, and arranged online for a Lib Dem vote to be cast in my name in another seat. So I guess you could say, all parties receive tactical votes. I am under no illusions that there are enough liberals in the country to actually vote a party to power; liberals will always be in the minority, (unless some miracle cure for stupidity is discovered). Here's an interesting read if you have time to kill http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

 

So you accept my premise that it isn't only the Conservatives and Labour who have anything to fear from UKIP? The Lib Dems will be hit badly, I believe. I'll vote tactically for UKIP probably in the next election to get them out of Eastleigh.

 

Never going to happen. Doing so would be economic suicide. It would also mess up most of our foreign policy. The Tories might buffoon about, but they aren't daft enough to actually cut off their own nose to spite their own face. Economic common sense will prevail.

 

You might think that leaving the EU would be economic suicide, but it is proposed that we keep the trading side of it and dispose of the political and legal implications. So how will that affect the economy? We would naturally also look to trade elsewhere too. Why would it mess up most of our foreign policy? A referendum is promised already, just in the next Parliament. I don't see the problem with bringing it forward to see off UKIP.

[pedg]

You might think that leaving the EU would be economic suicide, but it is proposed that we keep the trading side of it and dispose of the political and legal implications. So how will that affect the economy? We would naturally also look to trade elsewhere too. Why would it mess up most of our foreign policy? A referendum is promised already, just in the next Parliament. I don't see the problem with bringing it forward to see off UKIP.

 

Dear EU we would like to keep the parts of our agreements with you that we like in place but get rid of all the bits we don't like. Hope that's okay with you. Yours UKIP.

 

Can't see the rest of europe having a problem with that at all......................

[Joensuu]

You might think that leaving the EU would be economic suicide, but it is proposed that we keep the trading side of it and dispose of the political and legal implications. So how will that affect the economy? We would naturally also look to trade elsewhere too. Why would it mess up most of our foreign policy? A referendum is promised already, just in the next Parliament. I don't see the problem with bringing it forward to see off UKIP.

Nice idea Wes, but do you honestly think Germany and France are going to sit back and let us stop paying for membership, but retain the perks? Surely if we suddenly announced an end to our membership, Germany might just end the open borders and free trade that we currently thrive off of.

 

I'd suggest that the economic disadvantages of terminating our membership payments would far outweight the relatively insignificant £15-20billion pa we are currently comitted to.

 

Why do you think successive Tory governments have spoken a hard line about Europe, but nevet once came close to pulling the plug? The answer lies in economics, not in the vote winning rhetoric.

[ant]

You seem confused Wes. Has it ever crossed your mind that some people hold political beliefs, but don't get into bed with a political party? I am a liberal - (lower case 'l'), this means I believe in liberal values, and has nothing to do with any political party that exists or has existed. Who I vote for depends upon which party offers the closest package to my personal values. I actually feel the Green party are closer to my values than the Lib Dems. However, as the Greens don't stand in my seat, you are generally right, I have pretty straight choice of Lib Dem or abstention at the moment.

 

I'm currently in exactly the same position.

[View From The Top]

In my experience, I cannot call a single UKIP voter I've met "normal".

 

As for Europe, the fact that "business" wants us to stay in means we will as there is no way that the tories will go against the will of their paymasters.

 

My personal position is that we should attempt to renegotiate and then have a simple in/out/new deal vote as like many I love being part of Europe, the freedom to travel and study etc but I do not like the amount of governance that Europe has over us.

Edited 6 May, 2013 by View From The Top

[Lord Duckhunter]

Dear EU we would like to keep the parts of our agreements with you that we like in place but get rid of all the bits we don't like. Hope that's okay with you. Yours UKIP.

 

Can't see the rest of europe having a problem with that at all......................

 

I think you're getting confused there Pap, that's the exact policy of the Tory party.

 

UKIP's policy is clear, leave the EU.