Sign in to follow this  
ckn

UKIPpery

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Griff9of13 said:

Oh dear, how sad, never mind: Nigel Farage claims he is 'skint' and says 'there's no money in politics' :P

Edit to add:

And he claims he's 53; that's 2 years younger than me - he looks like he could be my parents generation! Goes to show living a life of fear, hate and resentment is bad for your health!

Hasn't he got a program on the fox fake news channel in the USA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Manc Yank said:

I may be a Yank yet I’m proud of my English Ancestors for giving Europe the boot.  You don’t need them.  Well done guys.  🇺🇸🇬🇧

Interesting to hear.

Most Americans I met who were in favour of leaving the EU were conservative and believed that the UK was ruled from Brussels rather than London.  Most who were in favour of reamining in the EU were liberals or moderate Republicans who knew London to be the capital.  

As you have experience of the UK, you are aware that it is not like California being ruled from Washington, so I wonder what your thoughts are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2017 at 2:32 AM, The Future is League said:

Hasn't he got a program on the fox fake news channel in the USA?

Nige?

 

59 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

There's no real point in writing satire any more, is there? 

No the targets are too too easy!

13 hours ago, The Manc Yank said:

I may be a Yank yet I’m proud of my English Ancestors for giving Europe the boot.  You don’t need them.  Well done guys.  🇺🇸🇬🇧

They didn't they're all brown bread.

Beeswax job this one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bob8 said:

Interesting to hear.

Most Americans I met who were in favour of leaving the EU were conservative and believed that the UK was ruled from Brussels rather than London.  Most who were in favour of reamining in the EU were liberals or moderate Republicans who knew London to be the capital.  

As you have experience of the UK, you are aware that it is not like California being ruled from Washington, so I wonder what your thoughts are?

I think the British should govern the British.  You need to have your own concerns at heart.  The Jeremy Corbyn’s and Bernie Sanders of the world will turn first world countrys into a soppy, steaming pile of 💩  I’m proud of the 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 people for breaking away   You don’t need 135 people at the EU to approve a bar stool leg   You guys are smart.  I live in CA  it won’t suvive like this   Lots of poor people moving in and lots of earners moving out to neighboring states  They knicknamed our governor ‘Moonbeam’.  He’s the kind of guy to share kale chips (crisps) and soy skim low fat latte with Jeremy Corbyn  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People and countries don't just export goods they also send ideas sadly, and the internet has made the process so much easier. So now idiocy is the worse computer virus we face. Ukipery is just one example of the kind of malware you need your mental firewalls and  antivirus downloads for. And there is plenty of evidence that trolls rule the Earth. UKIP the party might be a dead duck but it's ideas and nastiness live on. Don't concern yourself too much with fire & fury they're something you can get rid of effectively and relatively easily.

 

TB2.PNG.6805673b4d38946ca81e8180ddacc7a5.PNG

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal ...."

Edited by Oxford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Manc Yank said:

I think the British should govern the British.  You need to have your own concerns at heart.  The Jeremy Corbyn’s and Bernie Sanders of the world will turn first world countrys into a soppy, steaming pile of 💩  I’m proud of the 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 people for breaking away   You don’t need 135 people at the EU to approve a bar stool leg   You guys are smart.  I live in CA  it won’t suvive like this   Lots of poor people moving in and lots of earners moving out to neighboring states  They knicknamed our governor ‘Moonbeam’.  He’s the kind of guy to share kale chips (crisps) and soy skim low fat latte with Jeremy Corbyn 

I think this is a misunderstanding, the UK already governs the UK.  The reason it takes 135 people to approve a bar stool leg is because the are independent nations so that everyone has to agree.  One the the great strengths of the USA is the ease of movement and trade across a continent.  That is not reproducible in Europe, but there is some attempt to ease it.

I think you are being very generous to Corbyn to compare him with Sanders.  Sanders had run things and proven popular with his constituents for many decades.  Corbyn has always been party of the party and an agitator.

I spent 2016-17 in the Sacramento valley.  Great times.

Edited by Bob8
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Manc Yank said:

I think the British should govern the British.  You need to have your own concerns at heart.  The Jeremy Corbyn’s and Bernie Sanders of the world will turn first world countrys into a soppy, steaming pile of 💩  I’m proud of the 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 people for breaking away   You don’t need 135 people at the EU to approve a bar stool leg   You guys are smart.  I live in CA  it won’t suvive like this   Lots of poor people moving in and lots of earners moving out to neighboring states  They knicknamed our governor ‘Moonbeam’.  He’s the kind of guy to share kale chips (crisps) and soy skim low fat latte with Jeremy Corbyn 

Not often I do this these days but, sentence by sentence.  This post deserves it...

1. As mentioned by our thoroughly international Bob8, the British already govern the British.
2. We do, we get an ultimate veto on EVERYTHING important in the EU and actually held positions where we set the EU's stance on such things as financial services regulation.  So, not only did we get a veto on things, we led the EU in most of the ways we found important.
3. Countries.  May I refer the gentleman to the state of the governing parties at present?  You could elect a computer that randomly puts words together out of a dictionary and it'd create policies that make more sense than what we're getting now.  Corbyn and Sanders are paragons of good government compared to what we have.  Additionally, and it's annoying me that I can't find it, someone did a review of Corbyn's policies and found them to be largely to the right of Maggie Thatcher.
4. It was important you linked the ENGLISH flag as two of the four constituent nations within the United Kingdom voted REMAIN with Scotland and Northern Ireland being taken out of the EU against their will.  In the Scottish independence referendum, the Tory led government made such a big thing about Scotland being taken out of the EU if it went independent, that swayed quite a few voters, then the same Tory leadership took us out of the EU anyway.
5. I refer the gentleman to Bob8's post.  It needs all 28 nations to vote on important stuff as we are independent countries within an overall EU wrapper.
6. The British electorate would probably vote to receive 20 punts to the private parts every day on the condition that nasty immigrants and benefits scroungers got 40.
7. The two coasts of the US are largely progressive, forward-looking parts of a great nation held back by the sort of attitudes in the rest of the country that caused the Dark Ages to be aptly named.
8. The attitude of those moving that I've seen, admittedly based on what I read in the US press, is the "haves" doing a Scrooge McDuck, shovelling their money into offshore and no-tax investments just to make sure the "have nots" of the country don't get a penny.
9. If this is how he became known as "moonbeam" then surely you should be proud of him.  California in a nutshell and a very good reputation as well.
10. I'm not a fan of kale crisps, I know some people who like them though, each to their own I suppose.  I drink soya milk; dairy and I are not friends, gives me indigestion and makes me fart a lot, I can understand why a lot of people drink soya milk.  For a lot of people those symptoms I get from dairy are very reminiscent of the Republican leadership.

But... to keep the thread at least on track for a while: Have you met our Nigel?  I think you'd get on with him quite well!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ckn said:

Not often I do this these days but, sentence by sentence.  This post deserves it...

1. As mentioned by our thoroughly international Bob8, the British already govern the British.
2. We do, we get an ultimate veto on EVERYTHING important in the EU and actually held positions where we set the EU's stance on such things as financial services regulation.  So, not only did we get a veto on things, we led the EU in most of the ways we found important.
3. Countries.  May I refer the gentleman to the state of the governing parties at present?  You could elect a computer that randomly puts words together out of a dictionary and it'd create policies that make more sense than what we're getting now.  Corbyn and Sanders are paragons of good government compared to what we have.  Additionally, and it's annoying me that I can't find it, someone did a review of Corbyn's policies and found them to be largely to the right of Maggie Thatcher.
4. It was important you linked the ENGLISH flag as two of the four constituent nations within the United Kingdom voted REMAIN with Scotland and Northern Ireland being taken out of the EU against their will.  In the Scottish independence referendum, the Tory led government made such a big thing about Scotland being taken out of the EU if it went independent, that swayed quite a few voters, then the same Tory leadership took us out of the EU anyway.
5. I refer the gentleman to Bob8's post.  It needs all 28 nations to vote on important stuff as we are independent countries within an overall EU wrapper.
6. The British electorate would probably vote to receive 20 punts to the private parts every day on the condition that nasty immigrants and benefits scroungers got 40.
7. The two coasts of the US are largely progressive, forward-looking parts of a great nation held back by the sort of attitudes in the rest of the country that caused the Dark Ages to be aptly named.
8. The attitude of those moving that I've seen, admittedly based on what I read in the US press, is the "haves" doing a Scrooge McDuck, shovelling their money into offshore and no-tax investments just to make sure the "have nots" of the country don't get a penny.
9. If this is how he became known as "moonbeam" then surely you should be proud of him.  California in a nutshell and a very good reputation as well.
10. I'm not a fan of kale crisps, I know some people who like them though, each to their own I suppose.  I drink soya milk; dairy and I are not friends, gives me indigestion and makes me fart a lot, I can understand why a lot of people drink soya milk.  For a lot of people those symptoms I get from dairy are very reminiscent of the Republican leadership.

But... to keep the thread at least on track for a while: Have you met our Nigel?  I think you'd get on with him quite well!

Living in the Valley in California, it was very mixed politically, but leaned Republican.  Once you went north of San Francisco, it becomes solidly Repblublican.  But, CA as a whole is solidly Democrat.  Jerry Brown ends up being reasonably representative now, not only the hippy youth but now being a moderate Democrat.  My criticism of him would be that often his main fight is for the social rights of the top 10% against the economic demands of the top 1%, leaving the bottom 90% alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Living in the Valley in California, it was very mixed politically, but leaned Republican.  Once you went north of San Francisco, it becomes solidly Repblublican.  But, CA as a whole is solidly Democrat.  Jerry Brown ends up being reasonably representative now, not only the hippy youth but now being a moderate Democrat.  My criticism of him would be that often his main fight is for the social rights of the top 10% against the economic demands of the top 1%, leaving the bottom 90% alone.

That's the eternal politics of the US though, isn't it?  The top 10% against the top 1% and the rump 90%/99%, depending on governance, can go sodomise themselves.  There's no political gain in looking out those below that 90% mark as they don't "donate" enough to be important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ckn said:

That's the eternal politics of the US though, isn't it?  The top 10% against the top 1% and the rump 90%/99%, depending on governance, can go sodomise themselves.  There's no political gain in looking out those below that 90% mark as they don't "donate" enough to be important.

An example of that was the euthanasia bill that passed.

It was presented as very progressive and of course the Catholic Church were the evil baddies sticking to dogma.

Except hte impetus for it was from insurance companies who wanted an alternative to expensive healthcare, particularly for families who might not be able to afford proper care.  They had a full time media office who shouted out the Catholic Church when they campaigned for better healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ckn said:

 

3. Countries.  Corbyn and Sanders are paragons of good government compared to what we have.  
 

Sorry to delete so much of your post but on the point I have left insitu how can you think Corbyn could govern anything. The man is the equivalent of Labour party Marmite.

He has been "anti" everything,  his own parties policies more often than not. Trying to pin down what he is "pro" on is like knitting fog. What is his stance on Brexit? What is his stance on terrorists are there any he would condemn?

Govern? I don't think he is even an effective leader of the Opposition. We have a government in disarray and he is not even capable of exploiting their weakness. When was the last time he hit May with a barb that wasn't shrugged off like a minor irritation?

He is unelectable.With him in charge the Tories will always have an open goal and we will suffer yet more years of misrule.

Edited by Bearman
Clarification
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bearman said:

The man is the equivalent of Labour party Marmite.

You're underestimating him!

25 minutes ago, Bearman said:

I don't think he is even an effective leader of the Opposition.

25 minutes ago, Bearman said:

He is unelectable.With him in charge the Tories will always have an open goal and we will suffer yet more years of misrule.

 

Being good at being the opposition isn't anything to do with being able to govern.

So the Tories thought and that's why they went to the polls expecting a huge majority and thought sticking fox assassination could make a comeback.

Edited by Oxford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Oxford said:

You're underestimating him!

 

Being good at being the opposition isn't anything to do with being able to govern.

So the Tories thought and that's why they went to the polls expecting a huge majority and thought sticking fox assassination could make a comeback.

But they are still in and will stay there until there is a credible leader of the LP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bearman said:

But they are still in and will stay there until there is a credible leader of the LP

I think that has more to do with with other things right at this moment, and the range of factors that would affect an election outcome can't ever be just down to one leader ....... Does anyone vote for a party on the basis of who the leader is? I would have thought we'd have had far more hung parliaments when we consider the suspects we've had to choose from!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I think that has more to do with with other things right at this moment, and the range of factors that would affect an election outcome can't ever be just down to one leader ....... Does anyone vote for a party on the basis of who the leader is? I would have thought we'd have had far more hung parliaments when we consider the suspects we've had to choose from!

Labour are ahead.  I suspect that is more to do with the Tory Government than Corbyn.

You must surely wonder a little why Labour are not further ahead, beyond people being dumb, brainwashed, not getting it, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oxford said:

I think that has more to do with with other things right at this moment, and the range of factors that would affect an election outcome can't ever be just down to one leader ....... Does anyone vote for a party on the basis of who the leader is? I would have thought we'd have had far more hung parliaments when we consider the suspects we've had to choose from!

I know a number of people that voted for the Thatcher government in the 1979 election and were voting for her not the Conservatives.. When you consider the massive personal popularity of Blair in 1997 and 2001 I would be satisfied that many voted for him rather than the party.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bearman said:

But they are still in and will stay there until there is a credible leader of the LP

Unless a credible leader of the Tory party pops up in the interim!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shadow said:

I know a number of people that voted for the Thatcher government in the 1979 election and were voting for her not the Conservatives.. When you consider the massive personal popularity of Blair in 1997 and 2001 I would be satisfied that many voted for him rather than the party.

I was too young to vote in 1979 but I voted for her in the following election and the one after.  She went a bit batty after that though so even if the Tories hadn't done their usual thing of getting rid of a batty leader by stealth I wouldn't have voted for her.  In 1997 I voted for the Monster Raving Loony Party as I couldn't trust Blair as far as I would have been able to throw him had I been given the opportunity to try and by that time the Tories as a group had gone a bit batty so I couldn't vote for them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

I was too young to vote in 1979 but I voted for her in the following election and the one after.  She went a bit batty after that though so even if the Tories hadn't done their usual thing of getting rid of a batty leader by stealth I wouldn't have voted for her.  In 1997 I voted for the Monster Raving Loony Party as I couldn't trust Blair as far as I would have been able to throw him had I been given the opportunity to try and by that time the Tories as a group had gone a bit batty so I couldn't vote for them either.

I was also too young to vote in 1979 and was in Australia in 1983 so missed my chance then, although had I been able I would have voted conservative in both.  I think I voted SDP for the party in 1987, Conservative in 1992 as there was no viable opposition and Kinnock worried me then for Blair in 1997. I lived in a staunch conservative area and knew labour were going to come a very distant third but there was a chance the Lib Dems could swing it so I called the Labour mothership and asked if they would be looking for tactical voting. I was told no and that they wanted as many actual votes for Blair as possible to underline the mandate so he got mine as well. Since then I've voted for my local MP, once a conservative and twice a Lib Dem. Last time round I was campaigning for the Lib Dems and the candidate is a friend so he got my vote. Still came third though. In short I've voted for party, leader and candidate as I'm pretty sure most people have at one stage or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

Unless a credible leader of the Tory party pops up in the interim!

You are not a fan of May?

Interestingly, I think I might be more impressed by her than you are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Shadow said:

I know a number of people that voted for the Thatcher government in the 1979 election and were voting for her not the Conservatives.. When you consider the massive personal popularity of Blair in 1997 and 2001 I would be satisfied that many voted for him rather than the party.

My memory of both of those was people voting to give a woman a chance and voting for change because they were fed up with the Tories when it came to Blair.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.