On 14/04/14 11:38, . wrote:


wrote in message ...

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:31:30 +0100, Vidcapper
wrote:

On 13/04/2014 22:00, Let It Be wrote:

*IF* and it's a big If they get into power, then that's the only time
you'll
see UKIP's true agenda - and then it will be too late.

Again, that applies to all parties once they get into power - but you
seem to be suggesting that UKIP would be worse than anyone else?

UKIP would be so utterly hopeless at governing Britain, that the whole
edifice of government would collapse like a pack of cards within about
two weeks of the election. One would be able to perceive the derisory
hoots of laughter from across the Channel.

Like the way its all happening in France, Spain., Greece, Portugal...

....and here, already? Do you REALLY think Farage and his people would
be, could be LESS competent than Clegg, Milband, Cameron?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:18:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...and here, already? Do you REALLY think Farage and his people would
be, could be LESS competent than Clegg, Milband, Cameron?

Farage and WHAT people? We do not have a clue who they all are. Farage
only ever appears alone. The other UKIPpers are mostly invisible. Only
Nuttall pops up occasionally. If Bloom hadn't been kicked out, then he
would have become a major contender for a seat in government were
Farage to win power. And what office of state would Bloom have
occupied, do you think? Minister for Gender Equality, perhaps?

On 16/04/14 07:02, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:18:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...and here, already? Do you REALLY think Farage and his people would
be, could be LESS competent than Clegg, Milband, Cameron?

Farage and WHAT people? We do not have a clue who they all are. Farage
only ever appears alone. The other UKIPpers are mostly invisible. Only
Nuttall pops up occasionally. If Bloom hadn't been kicked out, then he
would have become a major contender for a seat in government were
Farage to win power. And what office of state would Bloom have
occupied, do you think? Minister for Gender Equality, perhaps?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Helmer for a start - if you read his
energy policy for UKIP it makes far more sense than anything any of the
main parties are doing (hint greenwash out, nuclear in, sod the CO2 in
the meantime to ensure stable supply).

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:

...and here, already? Do you REALLY think Farage and his people would
be, could be LESS competent than Clegg, Milband, Cameron?

Oh yes! Do you REALLY think he would be more competent?

On 16/04/14 10:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:31:33 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On 16/04/14 07:02, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:18:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...and here, already? Do you REALLY think Farage and his people would
be, could be LESS competent than Clegg, Milband, Cameron?

Farage and WHAT people? We do not have a clue who they all are. Farage
only ever appears alone. The other UKIPpers are mostly invisible. Only
Nuttall pops up occasionally. If Bloom hadn't been kicked out, then he
would have become a major contender for a seat in government were
Farage to win power. And what office of state would Bloom have
occupied, do you think? Minister for Gender Equality, perhaps?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Helmer for a start - if you read his
energy policy for UKIP it makes far more sense than anything any of the
main parties are doing (hint greenwash out, nuclear in, sod the CO2 in
the meantime to ensure stable supply).

Well, that's my vote sorted.


OK - you'd probably better read it then instead of taking my word

http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file...-lights-on.pdf

It's quite readable and only 17 pages.

That's one criticism I have of UKIP - their website sucks - links
disappear and stuff like this is not on there...

On 16/04/14 10:42, Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:

...and here, already? Do you REALLY think Farage and his people would
be, could be LESS competent than Clegg, Milband, Cameron?

Oh yes! Do you REALLY think he would be more competent?

Absolutely.

Besides hisreally only got one jib to do: Like Thatcher and the Unions,
he gets elected to get us out of Europe.

One thats done, normal politics can resume.

Well normal for those of us who remember 'Life before the EU' anyway,
when what party you voted for actually made some difference...



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 16/04/14 10:54, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/04/14 10:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:31:33 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On 16/04/14 07:02, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:18:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...and here, already? Do you REALLY think Farage and his people would
be, could be LESS competent than Clegg, Milband, Cameron?

Farage and WHAT people? We do not have a clue who they all are. Farage
only ever appears alone. The other UKIPpers are mostly invisible. Only
Nuttall pops up occasionally. If Bloom hadn't been kicked out, then he
would have become a major contender for a seat in government were
Farage to win power. And what office of state would Bloom have
occupied, do you think? Minister for Gender Equality, perhaps?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Helmer for a start - if you read his
energy policy for UKIP it makes far more sense than anything any of the
main parties are doing (hint greenwash out, nuclear in, sod the CO2 in
the meantime to ensure stable supply).

Well, that's my vote sorted.


OK - you'd probably better read it then instead of taking my word

http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file...-lights-on.pdf

It's quite readable and only 17 pages.

That's one criticism I have of UKIP - their website sucks - links
disappear and stuff like this is not on there...

Tell me about it. I think the last IT guy was working for the Tory party.

Well they have, but its not a lot better either.

I told em the site sucked and would never work and was insecure as hell
and they needed to start again. But who am I? I didn't offer to charge
em 100k a year to fix it, so they didn't listen.

Sigh. Around Nigel, are some good people, lower down, I am afraid there
are some career committee types who just dont belong...

The standard trick is to increase the workload, and then offer to 'help
out' by reducing their responsibilities, before ,moving them sideways..







--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 16/04/14 13:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 16/04/14 10:42, Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...and here, already? Do you REALLY think Farage and his people would
be, could be LESS competent than Clegg, Milband, Cameron?

Oh yes! Do you REALLY think he would be more competent?

Absolutely.

Besides hisreally only got one jib to do: Like Thatcher and the
Unions, he gets elected to get us out of Europe.

But he won't get elected, will he. Thass the problem. You should all be
joining your local Tory Association to effect the selection of
Eurosceptic candidates. Much more effective.

No.

I KNOW the tories wont take us out of Europe so a try vote is a wasted
vote innit?

I'd love you to indicate just ONE thing in the EU that tory MEPS have
been able to change..

Evrybody knows being an MEP means lots of money for old rope, but only
Nigel admits it.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In message , *
writes
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:18:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...and here, already? Do you REALLY think Farage and his people would
be, could be LESS competent than Clegg, Milband, Cameron?

Farage and WHAT people? We do not have a clue who they all are. Farage
only ever appears alone. The other UKIPpers are mostly invisible. Only
Nuttall pops up occasionally. If Bloom hadn't been kicked out, then he
would have become a major contender for a seat in government were
Farage to win power. And what office of state would Bloom have
occupied, do you think? Minister for Gender Equality, perhaps?
You are forgetting the Hamiltons.
--
bert

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:03:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Besides hisreally only got one jib to do: Like Thatcher and the Unions,
he gets elected to get us out of Europe.

Because, of course, that won't give a metric ****load of serious work
needing to be done, like NOW, will it?

This is what's so scary about UKIP. "Oooh, we want to get everything back
from Brussels". Well, great. If that's your thing, fine. But... let's
actually pause and think about the consequences, shall we?

All those things which, according to Nigel, are currently spoon-fed to us
by the EU... Well, great, but somebody's gotta do 'em. And if that's
going to be you, Nigel, at least give us a hint as to what you'll be
doing in the place of Brussels.

Somehow, I very much doubt that the first thing Nigel'll do - should he
get to no10 and extricate the UK from the EU - is resign and call an
immediate general election, saying "My work is done..."

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:18:26 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I KNOW the tories wont take us out of Europe

Really? I mean, they're the one party who've said they'll give an in-out
referendum. So either you're accusing them of blatant lying (fair
enough), or you think that the referendum will not come back with "the
right result".

If that latter scenario IS the case, then surely that tells you
something? Or would you refuse to abide by the results of such a
referendum?

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:53:58 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

vickyford MEP Today we ensured UK will NOT pay any costs of Eurozone
banking Union €“ UKIP didn't turn up to negotiations & voted AGAINST the
deal.

vickyford MEP The UK will NOT pay any costs of Eurozone banking Union.
Confirming we are not part of their ever closer union. Voted&delivered.

€œ@CCHQPress: pity Nigel didn't bother to turn up to EU vote on
controlling our borders then http://pic.twitter.com/JrSiwoI4n7€� so true

This is what ****es me off with UKIP MEPs. If you're going to get the
job, bloody well DO it.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:15:53 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

Some UKIP policies have some sense behind them.

They do? I have no idea, since they have no manifesto.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:31:23 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Which means that, ultimately, you're OK with there being no England,
Wales, France, etc, but a bunch of regions.

England and Wales haven't been independent countries since the 13th
century. England was only united about 300 years before uniting with
Wales, and spent half of that time under French rule.

And if you really think that the French or the Germans or the Italians
have less patriotism than we do, and want their countries to be subsumed
into some US of EU, then you've clearly never been past Dover in your
life.

On 16/04/14 15:15, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:15:53 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

Some UKIP policies have some sense behind them.

They do? I have no idea, since they have no manifesto.

Manifestos aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on.

Limp dumb energy policy in lib dem manifesto
No more coal, no more nuclear, lots of windmills

Cameron: Bonfire of the quangos. More like a damp squib..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:18:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Some UKIP policies have some sense behind them.

They do? I have no idea, since they have no manifesto.

Manifestos aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on.

They're a damn sight more trustworthy than having to try to second guess
from conflicting information given out in various speeches.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:41:31 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Of course, it's also the reason that coalitions, and the electoral
systems that tend to produce them, are a very bad idea, because under
such systems the chances of a party having to be held to its manifesto
are slight. So they can say, write, and promise what they like.

Not necessarily.

Party A's values and priorities are known.
Party B's values and priorities are known.

So the coalition document will tend towards a compromise - somewhere
between Party A & Party B's manifestos. Some of A's policies and
intentions will get through, untouched, where B aren't heartily against
them, and vice versa. Where both are entrenched, then either a mid-point
that both can agree on will come forth, or it'll get parked.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:06:05 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

To an extent I agree. But look what happened to Cleggy and the tuition
fees business. Clearly no one in this country understands the process,
cos poor old Cleggy continues to get stick about the issue.

On the Tory side, any idea of having a referendum before the next
election had to go in the bin, and the kippers don't seem to understand
that.

Equally, they don't understand that once Brown signed Lisbon, an
incoming government can't just say (i.e., if the Tories had had a
majority in 2010), well, we'll have a referendum on it. Other parties to
it would be justified in saying, but it's signed already; they're not
interested in UK internal politics. You start to repudiate treaties on
change of government at the drop of a hat and your rep for reliability
takes a dive.

Well, quite. Depressing, isn't it, just how many idiots believe
conspiracy theorists, melodrama and the newspapers.

On 16/04/14 17:43, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:41:31 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Of course, it's also the reason that coalitions, and the electoral
systems that tend to produce them, are a very bad idea, because under
such systems the chances of a party having to be held to its manifesto
are slight. So they can say, write, and promise what they like.

Not necessarily.

Party A's values and priorities are known.
Party B's values and priorities are known.


How naive..

All you 'know' is what they say they are.

In reality they could be, and usually are the polar opposite.


So the coalition document will tend towards a compromise - somewhere
between Party A & Party B's manifestos. Some of A's policies and
intentions will get through, untouched, where B aren't heartily against
them, and vice versa. Where both are entrenched, then either a mid-point
that both can agree on will come forth, or it'll get parked.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:37:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Party A's values and priorities are known.
Party B's values and priorities are known.

How naive..

All you 'know' is what they say they are.

In reality they could be, and usually are the polar opposite.

Yet you implicitly trust the word of a party who freely admit that their
most recently published manifesto was "drivel"?

On 16/04/14 18:35, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:06:05 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

To an extent I agree. But look what happened to Cleggy and the tuition
fees business. Clearly no one in this country understands the process,
cos poor old Cleggy continues to get stick about the issue.

On the Tory side, any idea of having a referendum before the next
election had to go in the bin, and the kippers don't seem to understand
that.

Equally, they don't understand that once Brown signed Lisbon, an
incoming government can't just say (i.e., if the Tories had had a
majority in 2010), well, we'll have a referendum on it. Other parties to
it would be justified in saying, but it's signed already; they're not
interested in UK internal politics. You start to repudiate treaties on
change of government at the drop of a hat and your rep for reliability
takes a dive.

Well, quite. Depressing, isn't it, just how many idiots believe
conspiracy theorists, melodrama and the newspapers.

Nearly as many as believe in the concept of truthful honest politicians
who mean what they say.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 16/04/14 18:43, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:37:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Party A's values and priorities are known.
Party B's values and priorities are known.

How naive..

All you 'know' is what they say they are.

In reality they could be, and usually are the polar opposite.

Yet you implicitly trust the word of a party who freely admit that their
most recently published manifesto was "drivel"?

No.

I don't trust anyone. I go by what they do, not what they say.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:50:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Party A's values and priorities are known.
Party B's values and priorities are known.

How naive..

All you 'know' is what they say they are.

In reality they could be, and usually are the polar opposite.

Yet you implicitly trust the word of a party who freely admit that
their most recently published manifesto was "drivel"?

No.

I don't trust anyone. I go by what they do, not what they say.

Yet UKIP haven't actually ever _done_ anything. Lots of talk. Some of it
consistent. Some of it even credible.

Actually, not quite true. They have done things, of course. They've
repeatedly made fools of themselves because of what various councillors
keep saying.

On 16/04/14 18:57, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:50:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Party A's values and priorities are known.
Party B's values and priorities are known.

How naive..

All you 'know' is what they say they are.

In reality they could be, and usually are the polar opposite.

Yet you implicitly trust the word of a party who freely admit that
their most recently published manifesto was "drivel"?

No.

I don't trust anyone. I go by what they do, not what they say.

Yet UKIP haven't actually ever _done_ anything. Lots of talk. Some of it
consistent. Some of it even credible.

At a local level they have done a heck of a lot actually.

Actually, not quite true. They have done things, of course. They've
repeatedly made fools of themselves because of what various councillors
keep saying.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In message , Jethro_uk
writes
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:31:23 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:54:27 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On 16/04/14 10:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:31:33 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On 16/04/14 07:02, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:18:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...and here, already? Do you REALLY think Farage and his people
would be, could be LESS competent than Clegg, Milband, Cameron?

Farage and WHAT people? We do not have a clue who they all are.
Farage only ever appears alone. The other UKIPpers are mostly
invisible. Only Nuttall pops up occasionally. If Bloom hadn't been
kicked out, then he would have become a major contender for a seat
in government were Farage to win power. And what office of state
would Bloom have occupied, do you think? Minister for Gender
Equality, perhaps?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Helmer for a start - if you read
his energy policy for UKIP it makes far more sense than anything
any of the main parties are doing (hint greenwash out, nuclear in,
sod the CO2 in the meantime to ensure stable supply).

Well, that's my vote sorted.


OK - you'd probably better read it then instead of taking my word

http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file...-lights-on.pdf

It's quite readable and only 17 pages.

That's one criticism I have of UKIP - their website sucks - links
disappear and stuff like this is not on there...

Some UKIP policies have some sense behind them. Unfortunately I'm a
believer in the UK being in the EU.

Which means that, ultimately, you're OK with there being no England,
Wales, France, etc, but a bunch of regions. You're also OK with there
being continental-style law rather than English law, (which includes
being guilty until you're proved innocent - although it has to be said
that we seem to be going that way already), and a new layer of
unaccountable bureaucrats, who will also turn out to have immunity from
prosecution.

Cos that's the way it's going.

You may think that - I don't. One thing I do know, is that the UK has
never really leveraged the EU to it's own advantage.

To be honest, I think it's moot anyway. I can't see UKIP making much of a
dent in real elections - even if they did it would just encourage a
Labour majority, so we'd end up in the EU without a referendum. Which
(IMHO) is the same if the Tories won outright, since I wouldn't count on
call-me-Dave to honour anything he promises now.
Maybe not, but you could count on a sizeable part of the conservative
party to kick him out as leader.
--
bert