If you had read the 23 pages of this thread you would have noticed that for the most part the debate has been civilised and intelligent. Do you not see that resorting to labelling everyone who might disagree with you as racist, xenophobic and a string of other insults is counter productive to getting your point of view across? Why not concentrate on explaining why you think that immigration is not an issue that impacts on things like education, the NHS, housing and infrastructure thus assisting those of us who may not have a dogmatic view one way or the other to better understand a reasoned argument against UKIP?
I think you will find that the name-calling last resort is counterproductive and by the way it was done about 20 pages ago.
I am stating a widely held opinion that UKIP as a political party is racist and xenophobic. Where is the name calling? Where are the " string of insults?"
Why not actually read my posts , including the link to a very good New Statemam article on UKIP.
You are entitled to your view.
In that spirit I do find your response puzzling to Goonerhater's similarly direct comment regarding "lefties" earlier in the thread.
Is it one law for one?
No Mr Hater has repeatedly had rants over the deplorable events in Rotheram. These usually end by suggesting some sort of guilt by association in theses dispicable crimes for any Labour supporters.
The issue is cynically being used by UKIP in their targeting of the Rotheram seat.
I believe people deserve a say on the EU, we didn't sign up to political union, we signed up for a common market. That's not democracy. We are dictated to by people, many have not heard of and did not vote for. Regardless of your stance on the EU, surely we can all agree a referendum is the right choice.
I share many of your views. My problem is that a referendum will require people to be very fully informed of all the issues. I fear a simplistic yah boo slanging match which will generate heat but very little light.
You could say exactly the same about virtually any election. Perhaps we should all focus on the X Factor and leave the big decisions to the experts.
Generally though, and I include myself in this, we are not as informed about what the EU does than we are for our own country.
It was a flipant commet but I do feel that there is a great deal of contempt for 'normal' people and there views. If people are too uninformed to participate in a referendum perhaps they should also be barred from other elections. We could have exams to qualify for the vote or maybe IQ tests. The fear that offering people a choice because they might vote the wrong way leads down some pretty ugly paths.
I agree that it is wrong to consider the electorate too stupid to be consulted. What I do think though is that having a debate informed enough to enable them to make a decision will be very challenging.
Leaving the EU would have consequences of a magnitude unparalleled in modern times.
I hope people will not be voting based on the spurious arguments of scaremongers immigration figures and on being forced to have straight bananas.
It will be a very very important decision.
The loss of curved bananas is serious.
Do you really want to be the one to stop futue generations of schoolboys giggling when this is done?
IAgree said, "UKIPS main policies are withdrawal from the EU and pulling up the drawbridge."
It's a pity IAgree, that you couldn't put some more facts, to your viewpoint and not shall we say untruths. UKIP patently will not be "pulling up the drawbridge" and it is precisely those sorts of untruth, that will encourage even more people to vote UKIP. That sort of talk is akin to Gordon Brown calling the lady from Rochdale a bigot and imo, that finally "did for him".
As I've said before. I very much doubt I'd vote for UKIP. However, if I was wavering you'd be pushing me towards them.
Covered End, it's ok. You can vote for UKIP if you want. Why shouldn't you? We won't judge you, you'll still be on of the CL family.
(Your point is bang on the money though - one I'd been trying to get IAgree to see)
Basically, I believe what Mr Cameron says. Go to bed with Farage and wake up with Miliband. I don't want to start a Tory/Labour row, but personally I really do not want Ed Miliband to be PM.
If you had read the 23 pages of this thread you would have noticed that for the most part the debate has been civilised and intelligent. Do you not see that resorting to labelling everyone who might disagree with you as racist, xenophobic and a string of other insults is counter productive to getting your point of view across? Why not concentrate on explaining why you think that immigration is not an issue that impacts on things like education, the NHS, housing and infrastructure thus assisting those of us who may not have a dogmatic view one way or the other to better understand a reasoned argument against UKIP?
I think you will find that the name-calling last resort is counterproductive and by the way it was done about 20 pages ago.
I am stating a widely held opinion that UKIP as a political party is racist and xenophobic. Where is the name calling? Where are the " string of insults?"
Why not actually read my posts , including the link to a very good New Statemam article on UKIP.
You are entitled to your view.
In that spirit I do find your response puzzling to Goonerhater's similarly direct comment regarding "lefties" earlier in the thread.
Is it one law for one?
No Mr Hater has repeatedly had rants over the deplorable events in Rotheram. These usually end by suggesting some sort of guilt by association in theses dispicable crimes for any Labour supporters.
The issue is cynically being used by UKIP in their targeting of the Rotheram seat.
I believe people deserve a say on the EU, we didn't sign up to political union, we signed up for a common market. That's not democracy. We are dictated to by people, many have not heard of and did not vote for. Regardless of your stance on the EU, surely we can all agree a referendum is the right choice.
I share many of your views. My problem is that a referendum will require people to be very fully informed of all the issues. I fear a simplistic yah boo slanging match which will generate heat but very little light.
You could say exactly the same about virtually any election. Perhaps we should all focus on the X Factor and leave the big decisions to the experts.
Generally though, and I include myself in this, we are not as informed about what the EU does than we are for our own country.
It was a flipant commet but I do feel that there is a great deal of contempt for 'normal' people and there views. If people are too uninformed to participate in a referendum perhaps they should also be barred from other elections. We could have exams to qualify for the vote or maybe IQ tests. The fear that offering people a choice because they might vote the wrong way leads down some pretty ugly paths.
I agree that it is wrong to consider the electorate too stupid to be consulted. What I do think though is that having a debate informed enough to enable them to make a decision will be very challenging.
Leaving the EU would have consequences of a magnitude unparalleled in modern times.
I hope people will not be voting based on the spurious arguments of scaremongers immigration figures and on being forced to have straight bananas.
It will be a very very important decision.
I'm not saying the electorate is stupid, I'm just saying we are not informed enough to make a decision. Possibly a referendum would bring out yes and no campaigns who would put forward reasoned arguments but given how the Scottish referendum went I wouldn't hold my breath.
Same here, particularly given how those in the No campaign in the AV referendum admitted afterwards that they'd made up the figures on the costs that were splashed all over the newspapers and billboards. In order to make an informed choice, you have to have access to unbiased, accurate information, and I'm not confident we're going to get that any time soon from the majority of the papers.
Watched Question Time last night .. Labour's Angela Eagle, the Shadow Leader of the House (she's in charge boys) was so bad as to be laughable. She has recently been joined as an MP by her twin sister, as if Miliband didn't have enough to worry about. LibDemPing Ming the King was on the fence so often that he probably needed first aid afterwards for a sore arse, although he does a good line in chat, the trendy arm waving vicar was all at sea, only the cute little columnist and Hunt, the Health Secretary made any consistent sense without divulging too much. The issues under discussion were pretty predictable, immigration, the NHS and Lord Freud's comments about work and wages for the disabled. As was to be expected, the name of the game was essentially cheap points scoring against the opposition parties, the audience was full with more ideas and sensible suggestions than most of the panellists. And we wonder why UKIP is getting so much air and attention.
Spot on Lincs - exactly what I thought. It really is no suprise in this internet age that we are pissed off with politicians of all hues. The more we know about all of them the more we find to dislike.
I thought it was interesting that the audience all saw through Ms Eagles' blatant attempt at point scoring and called her out over it.
I also watched the Week afterwards (johnny Rotten was on -if he ever had a plot to lose he has lost it but made good telly). You had Andrew Neil asking fair questions about immigration and Diane Abbott answering with "UKIP this and UKIP that". Neil says "answer the question I'm asking you about immigration not UKIP!"
Back in the bow tie day, QT used to be a serious forum for political debate. If you ever get a chance go to one of the live events. It's all about entertainment now, serious political analysis is hidden away elsewhere in favour of feeding the dumb downers more pap.
Back in the bow tie day, QT used to be a serious forum for political debate. If you ever get a chance go to one of the live events. It's all about entertainment now, serious political analysis is hidden away elsewhere in favour of feeding the dumb downers more pap.
We digress from UKIP .. However, Your comments are true right across the board. BK's post about Lydon/Rotten on the Neill show is a another case in point .. he has a book to sell (the reviews condemn it as a load of old Bollocks .. I paraphrase) .. 'celebrities' appear on QT, for example the Brands (both of the useless specimens, Russell and Jo) are expected to be taken seriously as political pundits. If these gimmicks are intended to popularise politics and to glam up every show on TV, so far as I am concerned, they fail dismally. There is a time, a place and a programme for everything
I am a BIG fan of the BBC, for £3 a week it is great value .. BUT .. there should be a demarcation between allowing celebrities on air to flog their latest book/DVD/show, whatever, and telling them to shut the f*** up about anything else. Last word .. Anyway, on reflection .. The BBC should NOT be a vehicle for luvvies and/or friends, lovers and relations of BBC insiders to come on air trying to flog their wares. It is paid for by the public with nowhere to hide from the Licence fee collectors and should serve the public, not a bunch of egotistical 'stars', wannabes and neverwillbes .. I thank you
Back in the bow tie day, QT used to be a serious forum for political debate. If you ever get a chance go to one of the live events. It's all about entertainment now, serious political analysis is hidden away elsewhere in favour of feeding the dumb downers more pap.
I agree with you to a point.
However the non - politicians can sometimes add value and introduce a bit of rigour to unsettle the prepared mantras of the usual three politico puppets.
I saw a bit, not all, of it last night and from what I did see the author, Isabel Oakeshott, was the best of the lot. A couple of weeks ago Susie Boniface did well too and Peter Hitchens and Germaine Greer are always good value irrespective of whether or not one agrees with them.
I had a quick look and I don't think this has been posted. It's the result of a recent ComRes poll on EU 'Freedom of movement' - I thought it makes interesting reading:
Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
All citizens of other European Union countries should have the right to live and work in the United Kingdom
Agree 36% Disagree 46% Don’t know 19%
British people should be free to live and work anywhere in the EU
Agree 52% Disagree 26% Don’t know 22%
Half of Conservative voters (49%) think that British people should be free to live and work anywhere in the EU, compared to a third who think not (32%).
UKIP voters are divided, as many disagree (41%) as agree (37%).
Saw the UKIP Commonwealth spokesman Winston Mackenzie on Newsnight last night. Nicknamed 'token' apparently. Haven't laughed so much in years. I think he summed the party up for me, hope to see a lot more of him in the future.
Saw the UKIP Commonwealth spokesman Winston Mackenzie on Newsnight last night. Nicknamed 'token' apparently. Haven't laughed so much in years. I think he summed the party up for me, hope to see a lot more of him in the future.
Labour tooting their trumpet over winning a by-election of an elected position they would abolish if in government.
That 14% of people turned out for... Gotta love that Milliband. He gave a homeless person 2 pence today though. Should have got them a bacon sandwich they would have shown him how to eat it.
the UKIP balloon is gradually deflating methinks .. there is still a lot of love for labour nationwide despite having the silly muppet Miliband in charge .. but a 14@ turnout !!!!!!
A poll in Rochester & Strood this week gives UKIP a 48% share of the vote.
The poll puts support for UKIP on 48 per cent, with the Conservatives on 33, Labour, who came second in 2010, on 16 per cent, the Greens on two percent and the Lib Dems on just one per cent.
Comments
Do you really want to be the one to stop futue generations of schoolboys giggling when this is done?
UKIP patently will not be "pulling up the drawbridge" and it is precisely those sorts of untruth, that will encourage even more people to vote UKIP. That sort of talk is akin to Gordon Brown calling the lady from Rochdale a bigot and imo, that finally "did for him".
As I've said before. I very much doubt I'd vote for UKIP. However, if I was wavering you'd be pushing me towards them.
Covered End, it's ok. You can vote for UKIP if you want. Why shouldn't you? We won't judge you, you'll still be on of the CL family.
(Your point is bang on the money though - one I'd been trying to get IAgree to see)
Basically, I believe what Mr Cameron says. Go to bed with Farage and wake up with Miliband.
I don't want to start a Tory/Labour row, but personally I really do not want Ed Miliband to be PM.
The issues under discussion were pretty predictable, immigration, the NHS and Lord Freud's comments about work and wages for the disabled.
As was to be expected, the name of the game was essentially cheap points scoring against the opposition parties, the audience was full with more ideas and sensible suggestions than most of the panellists. And we wonder why UKIP is getting so much air and attention.
It really is no suprise in this internet age that we are pissed off with politicians of all hues.
The more we know about all of them the more we find to dislike.
But sadly we dont have a better way ...yet
I also watched the Week afterwards (johnny Rotten was on -if he ever had a plot to lose he has lost it but made good telly). You had Andrew Neil asking fair questions about immigration and Diane Abbott answering with "UKIP this and UKIP that". Neil says "answer the question I'm asking you about immigration not UKIP!"
I am a BIG fan of the BBC, for £3 a week it is great value .. BUT .. there should be a demarcation between allowing celebrities on air to flog their latest book/DVD/show, whatever, and telling them to shut the f*** up about anything else. Last word .. Anyway, on reflection .. The BBC should NOT be a vehicle for luvvies and/or friends, lovers and relations of BBC insiders to come on air trying to flog their wares. It is paid for by the public with nowhere to hide from the Licence fee collectors and should serve the public, not a bunch of egotistical 'stars', wannabes and neverwillbes .. I thank you
However the non - politicians can sometimes add value and introduce a bit of rigour to unsettle the prepared mantras of the usual three politico puppets.
I saw a bit, not all, of it last night and from what I did see the author, Isabel Oakeshott, was the best of the lot. A couple of weeks ago Susie Boniface did well too and Peter Hitchens and Germaine Greer are always good value irrespective of whether or not one agrees with them.
Mike Reid!
Fake Jamaican accent
Mike Fecking Reid.
Can Holly Johnson please ask the BBC to ban it : - )
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1293/sunday-mirror-independent-on-sunday-poll.htm
Freedom of movement
Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
All citizens of other European Union countries should have the right to live and work in the United Kingdom
Agree 36%
Disagree 46%
Don’t know 19%
British people should be free to live and work anywhere in the EU
Agree 52%
Disagree 26%
Don’t know 22%
Half of Conservative voters (49%) think that British people should be free to live and work anywhere in the EU, compared to a third who think not (32%).
UKIP voters are divided, as many disagree (41%) as agree (37%).
We should be allowed to work anywhere because we're British. Foreigners should not be allowed to work here because this is Britain.
quite right too !! ...((:>)
And nobody in here has committed suicide yet? Unbelievable!!!!
The poll puts support for UKIP on 48 per cent, with the Conservatives on 33, Labour, who came second in 2010, on 16 per cent, the Greens on two percent and the Lib Dems on just one per cent.