Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Support Of Ukip?
With UKIP's popularity growing, do you see a point between now and the next General Election, where a national newspaper comes out in support of the party?
If so - which paper do you think will be first out of the gate?
I've always found it odd that the Daily Mail hasn't thrown it's weight behind the party as the paper's stance on so many areas dove-tails perfectly with UKIP.
If so - which paper do you think will be first out of the gate?
I've always found it odd that the Daily Mail hasn't thrown it's weight behind the party as the paper's stance on so many areas dove-tails perfectly with UKIP.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The thing is, it's not "all about policies." I hate the synthetic, unprincipled politics that has become so common in westminster - but your level of trust for the people leading these parties surely needs to be a factor. It doesn't matter how appealing someone's policies sound if you can't trust them to enact them.
Has Farage really shown himself to be that different in this respect? No, not really. He consistently lies about things which are demonstrably false (a good example was the trip to Romania he undertook with Channel 4 early this year, which he barefacedly lied about on QT afterwards). He masquerades at being a "man of the people" just as much as Miliband and Cameron - the only difference being he does so more skilfully.
He also consistently promises that UKIP will tighten up its membership requirements, only for yet another nutcase to emerge who the party has attempted to get into a position of public office. He assures us how much he believes in the NHS, only for it to emerge that he was in favour of an insurance-based healthcare system not two years ago. The list is endless.
These aren't irrelevant ad-hominem attacks. They are serious questions about the reliability and trustworthiness of someone who an increasing number of people seem willing to throw their weight behind. And they are constantly ignored by people who support him.
Has Farage really shown himself to be that different in this respect? No, not really. He consistently lies about things which are demonstrably false (a good example was the trip to Romania he undertook with Channel 4 early this year, which he barefacedly lied about on QT afterwards). He masquerades at being a "man of the people" just as much as Miliband and Cameron - the only difference being he does so more skilfully.
He also consistently promises that UKIP will tighten up its membership requirements, only for yet another nutcase to emerge who the party has attempted to get into a position of public office. He assures us how much he believes in the NHS, only for it to emerge that he was in favour of an insurance-based healthcare system not two years ago. The list is endless.
These aren't irrelevant ad-hominem attacks. They are serious questions about the reliability and trustworthiness of someone who an increasing number of people seem willing to throw their weight behind. And they are constantly ignored by people who support him.
I am not sure about that being statesmanlike blackadder ! It would be very un-Faragelike, that's for sure !
I have heard, and seen him make the assertion many times that if Britain were to come out of the EU, "his job would be done and UKIP could dis-band" But he is really being duplicitous, as he enjoys being in the limelight and nobody sees him misbehave in Brussels, unless they watch him on YouTube. He wants a bigger audience, like all loudmouths and that is why he wants to get his behind on those green leather benches.
I have heard, and seen him make the assertion many times that if Britain were to come out of the EU, "his job would be done and UKIP could dis-band" But he is really being duplicitous, as he enjoys being in the limelight and nobody sees him misbehave in Brussels, unless they watch him on YouTube. He wants a bigger audience, like all loudmouths and that is why he wants to get his behind on those green leather benches.
Mikey, the first is that people should vote out of principle, not out of expediency. There may be cases (in fact I'm sure there are) when voting tactically IS the right thing to do. Those cases would be where there is strong evidence that a greater good can be achieved (or a greater evil averted) by voting against your inclinations..
The totally unfounded belief that a Tory victory will guarantee any worthwhile vote on EU membership any time soon does not seem (to this KDB) such a case.
The totally unfounded belief that a Tory victory will guarantee any worthwhile vote on EU membership any time soon does not seem (to this KDB) such a case.
vetuste_ennemi....I am not disputing anybodies right to vote for whoever they like, even tactically, if that is their wish. But my question, and that of Blackadder, still remains :::
If someone is voting UKIP, than there has to be a strong possibility that they want out of the EU. But only by voting Tory can that come any closer, as the Tories are the only Party that has promised a referendum, AND have a chance of winning next May. So what will be achieved by voting UKIP ?
I am sorry if all this appears to be too logical !
If someone is voting UKIP, than there has to be a strong possibility that they want out of the EU. But only by voting Tory can that come any closer, as the Tories are the only Party that has promised a referendum, AND have a chance of winning next May. So what will be achieved by voting UKIP ?
I am sorry if all this appears to be too logical !
You're very good on the broad brushstroke stuff, Mikey, and less comfortable with the nuances and subtle shading of a position. More Jackson Pollock than Manet, I would say.
Your bald assertion that what Farage wants can only be achieved (if at all) by voting for Cameron may be true. But it may be false. What is obvious is that the referendum pledge would NOT have been made unless people HAD voted UKIP in the first place. Equally, Miliband's newly hatched policy over benefits to migrants was a concession to UKIP, and not made by the prospect of a Farage government, or even UKIP as power-broker in a hung parliament. The concession was made by Ed's well-founded suspicion that UKIP was appealing to a significant section of Labour's natural constituency. So something at least has been achieved by voting UKIP, yes?
Your bald assertion that what Farage wants can only be achieved (if at all) by voting for Cameron may be true. But it may be false. What is obvious is that the referendum pledge would NOT have been made unless people HAD voted UKIP in the first place. Equally, Miliband's newly hatched policy over benefits to migrants was a concession to UKIP, and not made by the prospect of a Farage government, or even UKIP as power-broker in a hung parliament. The concession was made by Ed's well-founded suspicion that UKIP was appealing to a significant section of Labour's natural constituency. So something at least has been achieved by voting UKIP, yes?
Yes...something IS being achieved by voting UKIP...it is making a Labour victory next May more likely by the day.
With respect, I must correct you on one point. The Tory party has always been Euro-sceptic, or septic, as my old Mum used to say. Its Euroscepticism was a large factor in losing Major the election in 1997. It has been the cancer that eats away at the heart of the Party for many years. The ironic aspect of all this is that Mrs Voldemort actually voted YES in the previous referendum !
As I remember it, dave has offered a referendum about membership for some time now and certainly pre-dates any danger that he has felt from Farage.
And its the only party that will offer an referendum, be sure of that.
With respect, I must correct you on one point. The Tory party has always been Euro-sceptic, or septic, as my old Mum used to say. Its Euroscepticism was a large factor in losing Major the election in 1997. It has been the cancer that eats away at the heart of the Party for many years. The ironic aspect of all this is that Mrs Voldemort actually voted YES in the previous referendum !
As I remember it, dave has offered a referendum about membership for some time now and certainly pre-dates any danger that he has felt from Farage.
And its the only party that will offer an referendum, be sure of that.
ChillDoubt - "Your link refers to the Holocauts - not sure why you have linked to that, since I did not mention the Holocaust, and neither did you.
------------
Erm, I sort of did though:
Ok, let's take it to extremes if you want to be argumentative. 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust.
That was defined as genocide. 4 million voted for UKIP at the Euro election, yet you're trying to pass it off as a piffling amount."
Erm, you sort of didn't.
You referred to genocide, incorrectly and then in your response, you brought up the Holocaust, which you did not mention, and to which I made no reference.
"That was defined as genocide. 4 million voted for UKIP at the Euro election, yet you're trying to pass it off as a piffling amount."
I am not trying to pass it off as anything - I made no reference to the UK vote at all.
You may call me a 'hair splitter' - but that refers to items that are similar, which your reference are not.
So may I refer to you as a skimmer' - since you appear not to read posts to a level of basic understanding before you pitch in with your sarcastic replies.
------------
Erm, I sort of did though:
Ok, let's take it to extremes if you want to be argumentative. 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust.
That was defined as genocide. 4 million voted for UKIP at the Euro election, yet you're trying to pass it off as a piffling amount."
Erm, you sort of didn't.
You referred to genocide, incorrectly and then in your response, you brought up the Holocaust, which you did not mention, and to which I made no reference.
"That was defined as genocide. 4 million voted for UKIP at the Euro election, yet you're trying to pass it off as a piffling amount."
I am not trying to pass it off as anything - I made no reference to the UK vote at all.
You may call me a 'hair splitter' - but that refers to items that are similar, which your reference are not.
So may I refer to you as a skimmer' - since you appear not to read posts to a level of basic understanding before you pitch in with your sarcastic replies.
andy,
What in the name of Jeezus Aitch Kerrist are you going on about? Are you saying that the Holocaust was NOT genocide?
http://
Or are you (as ever) attempting to make some minor point of order that only YOU and you alone appear to have seen and will perpetually do so throughout the thread in order just to 'have the last word'?
It seems I can only concur with what Sqad said recently so I'll ask this:
From now on, PLEASE do not feel the need to respond to ANYTHING I post and I'll make sure I reciprocate, as I rarely see what exactly it is you're trying to prove.
What in the name of Jeezus Aitch Kerrist are you going on about? Are you saying that the Holocaust was NOT genocide?
http://
Or are you (as ever) attempting to make some minor point of order that only YOU and you alone appear to have seen and will perpetually do so throughout the thread in order just to 'have the last word'?
It seems I can only concur with what Sqad said recently so I'll ask this:
From now on, PLEASE do not feel the need to respond to ANYTHING I post and I'll make sure I reciprocate, as I rarely see what exactly it is you're trying to prove.
