On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:06:39 +0000, charles wrote:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either
give Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys

I particularly like the suggestions that we should be more like
Switzerland or Norway.

build more mountains

Cuckoo clocks and fjords?

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:29:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general more
depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.


IMHO that says more about you than it does about Britain. You can't
create a general rule because you are and your mates have lost the will
to live!

Maybe because I'm a little older than you, and come from a poor working
class family, my perspective is different. In spite of the all the
politicians who try to ruin it, life today for most people is far better
than it was in 1950.

You have 1950 and I'll take 2015!


Charlie.

--
He who throws dirt loses ground.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:57:24 +0000, Capitol wrote:

each one costs the UK taxpayer at least £10k a
year.


Citation please - not the Daily Mail!



Charlie.


--
He who throws dirt loses ground.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:08:24 +0000, Bob Henson wrote:

That's about it - the real fascists are on the Left.

Who do you mean by the left?



--
He who throws dirt loses ground.

On 12/02/2015 21:44, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:34:09 +0000, Capitol wrote:

I see you are misquoting propaganda again. The cost of an unemployed
Briton is at least £10K per year. 1 million immigrant workers costs
£10Bn, so that is a net loss of £5Bn, which the British taxpayers have
to find.

Let's play make-believe, shall we?

You are an employer. You have a relatively generic job that needs
filling. Two people, equally able and equally motivated have applied.

One has strong connections with the local area and good communication
skills.
The other has few local connections, and relatively poor communication
skills.

Which would you give the job to?

Most employers would give the job to the candidate who would accept the
lowest pay and the weakest contract.

Now, if the second one is consistently getting the job over the first
one, then might that be because the first one is lacking in ability and/
or motivation?

So what you're suggesting is that British business should ham-string
itself by being restricted to hiring only from the second-rate candidates?

It already does.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 12/02/2015 21:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:18:51 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general
more depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Blame the banks that invested in toxic debts, not the EU.

A financial sector that a certain ex-commodity trader wants to
deregulate.

A financial sector that is about 10% of the country's GDP.

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Odd that it was a lot biogger BEFORE we even ENTERED the EU.


We didn't enter the EU, we joined the Common Market


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 12/02/2015 16:31, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 15:58, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/02/15 14:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 12/02/2015 10:53, Tim Watts wrote:

Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are somehow
worse that all this?...

They want to take us out of the EU for a start.

They probably should - we are getting hamstrung in way too many central
dictacts.

I thought we joined the EU for the common market, not the dictatorship
that the EU has developed into.
THAT's what a *lot* of people are miffed about.
The EU has been a dripping tap, slowly but surely getting more and more
powers over us.


I agreed with the decision to join the Common Market, but not the EU.

And if I'm a member of the EU, why do I have to show a passport to go
from England to France?

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:57:04 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

We didn't enter the EU, we joined the Common Market

....which we then helped to turn into the EU.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:00:37 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

And if I'm a member of the EU, why do I have to show a passport to go
from England to France?

Because the UK isn't a Schengen country.

On 13/02/2015 08:43, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:06:39 +0000, charles wrote:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either
give Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys

I particularly like the suggestions that we should be more like
Switzerland or Norway.

build more mountains

Cuckoo clocks and fjords?

I'm learning to yodel as we speak.

On 12/02/15 21:18, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
The opinion of most economists and of the Centre for European Reform:

HAHAHAHAHA,

The opinion of most economists eh?

Now who I wonder pays their salaries..?

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 12/02/15 21:36, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:18:45 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either give
Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys

I particularly like the suggestions that we should be more like
Switzerland or Norway.

Yes, but how much would it cost to build the mountains and kill off the
surplus people?



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 12/02/15 22:26, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 21:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 18:21, john james wrote:
Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are somehow
worse that all this?

Because they would produce a much more spectacular shambles if the
voters were ever actually stupid enough to let them run the country

And you know this how?


It's a self evident fact. They are a bunch of clowns at best. Nasty
fools at worst.

Ah., so its really just a case of pure bigotry on your part with no
supporting evidence of anything?


meh.

There's tons of evidence. I don't have to document it for you just
because you play dumb. Try googling 'UKIP embarrassment' for folly, then
'ukip policy' for something more nasty. They are ****s.


plenty of made up stories sure.

But that's really only evidence for how worried the MSM are.

tim W


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 12/02/15 22:37, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
I am quoting from an impartial report by an independent organisation
that investigates the effects of migration

Ok, so who pays the salaries of this 'independent organisation' then?


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2015 16:31, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 15:58, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/02/15 14:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 12/02/2015 10:53, Tim Watts wrote:

Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are somehow
worse that all this?...

They want to take us out of the EU for a start.

They probably should - we are getting hamstrung in way too many central
dictacts.

I thought we joined the EU for the common market, not the dictatorship
that the EU has developed into.
THAT's what a *lot* of people are miffed about.
The EU has been a dripping tap, slowly but surely getting more and more
powers over us.


I agreed with the decision to join the Common Market, but not the EU.

And if I'm a member of the EU, why do I have to show a passport to go from
England to France?

Because its obvious you are a wog.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 13/02/2015 08:43, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:06:39 +0000, charles wrote:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either
give Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys

I particularly like the suggestions that we should be more like
Switzerland or Norway.

build more mountains

Cuckoo clocks and fjords?

I'm learning to yodel as we speak.

Must be why those goons have rocked up in
the green van and have run in with one of those
funky canvas jackets with very long sleeves.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/15 22:37, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
I am quoting from an impartial report by an independent organisation
that investigates the effects of migration

Ok, so who pays the salaries of this 'independent organisation' then?

Who pays Farage ?

On 13/02/2015 8:48 am, Charlie wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:08:24 +0000, Bob Henson wrote:

That's about it - the real fascists are on the Left.

Who do you mean by the left?




Strangely enough, the Labour Party don't come under the fascist heading
in my eyes - a bit of a non-entity these days, they don't have the power
to act like Fascists. My Loony Left Fascists group contains a few wet
Tories, all the Liberals, The Politically Correct Brigade of all
political persuasions, the Tree Huggers, the people prepared to risk
human lives to "save" badgers but who don't care a **** about cows, the
descendants of the Green Anoraked women who used to hang around Greenham
Common but who are now re-directed to stamp out all real technological
progress and build bloody windmills instead, those who have ruined our
education system by turning it into a dysfunctional egalitarian system,
and everyone who can collectively fall into an abstract group which
might be collectively called "Big Brother" and whose aim is to prove
just how correct George Orwell was. Apart from who Big Brother turned
out to be, they succeeded.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Dolphins are smart - they train people to stand and throw them fish.

On 13/02/2015 8:57 am, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 12/02/2015 21:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:18:51 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general
more depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Blame the banks that invested in toxic debts, not the EU.

A financial sector that a certain ex-commodity trader wants to
deregulate.

A financial sector that is about 10% of the country's GDP.

A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Odd that it was a lot biogger BEFORE we even ENTERED the EU.


We didn't enter the EU, we joined the Common Market



"We" didn't - it was that bloody fool Edward Heath, who would have been
the worst PM in living memory even if he hadn't signed us up - even
worse than Wislon.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

The shinbone is a device for finding furniture in a dark room.

On 13/02/15 09:55, john james wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/15 22:37, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
I am quoting from an impartial report by an independent organisation
that investigates the effects of migration

Ok, so who pays the salaries of this 'independent organisation' then?

Who pays Farage ?

All sorts of independent people


Talking of lunatics and fruitcakes, it appears the Tory party is happy
to welcome with open arms anyone too toxic for UKIP...

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...nancial-fraud/

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 12/02/2015 8:43 pm, Capitol wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

And don't tell me that the UKIP strategy is that after 5 years of this
everyone will vote a UKIP govt in then believe me, there'll be nothing
left.

So reelecting Camoron will solve all the problems? I'm with self
sufficiency and UKIP.

Th only way to get a referendum is to elect Cameron with a majority
govt. None of the leftwing (Greens, Labour, Libs, SNP) parties will
support that in a coalition.

And if Cameron gets such a majority and then says that because the EU
has agreed to a rebate of tuppence-ha'penny a year starting in 2050, he
no longer supports a referendum, he'd be dumped as leader the same day.


You really do believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't
you? Camoron will weasel out immediately if he had a majority. The only
hope is UKIP and a change at Westminster.


Absolutely. Cameron has no intention of getting out of the EU - he and
his cronies see hanging onto Frau Merkel's skirts (OK, she no more wears
skirts then the last couple of Germans who tried to take over Europe) in
the EU as their passport to hanging on to as much power as possible.
Like the even more sycophantic Froggies, he will be quite surprised when
she ditches them. Our only hope is in UKIP getting a sufficiently large
vote to force Cameron's hand. I think we can forget Labour as saviours,
and thankfully the Liberals may even more or less disappear after this
election - so it's up to Nigel.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Why is there only one Competition Commission?

On 13/02/2015 09:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 22:37, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
I am quoting from an impartial report by an independent organisation
that investigates the effects of migration

Ok, so who pays the salaries of this 'independent organisation' then?


That really is clutching at straws.

--
Colin Bignell

Tim Watts wrote:
I have a long memory and it horrifies me how much state interferance
there is now compared to 1975. But the new generation do not know any
better.


The new generation are leaving with great speed, at least, the
productive/creative ones.

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 12/02/2015 16:31, Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 15:58, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/02/15 14:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 12/02/2015 10:53, Tim Watts wrote:

Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are somehow
worse that all this?...

They want to take us out of the EU for a start.

They probably should - we are getting hamstrung in way too many central
dictacts.

I thought we joined the EU for the common market, not the dictatorship
that the EU has developed into.
THAT's what a *lot* of people are miffed about.
The EU has been a dripping tap, slowly but surely getting more and more
powers over us.


I agreed with the decision to join the Common Market, but not the EU.

And if I'm a member of the EU, why do I have to show a passport to go
from England to France?

The French couldn't care less. It's the UK that insists on it.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 13/02/15 10:18, Bob Henson wrote:
On 12/02/2015 8:43 pm, Capitol wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

And don't tell me that the UKIP strategy is that after 5 years of this
everyone will vote a UKIP govt in then believe me, there'll be nothing
left.

So reelecting Camoron will solve all the problems? I'm with self
sufficiency and UKIP.

Th only way to get a referendum is to elect Cameron with a majority
govt. None of the leftwing (Greens, Labour, Libs, SNP) parties will
support that in a coalition.

And if Cameron gets such a majority and then says that because the EU
has agreed to a rebate of tuppence-ha'penny a year starting in 2050, he
no longer supports a referendum, he'd be dumped as leader the same day.


You really do believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't
you? Camoron will weasel out immediately if he had a majority. The only
hope is UKIP and a change at Westminster.


Absolutely. Cameron has no intention of getting out of the EU - he and
his cronies see hanging onto Frau Merkel's skirts (OK, she no more wears
skirts then the last couple of Germans who tried to take over Europe) in
the EU as their passport to hanging on to as much power as possible.
Like the even more sycophantic Froggies, he will be quite surprised when
she ditches them. Our only hope is in UKIP getting a sufficiently large
vote to force Cameron's hand. I think we can forget Labour as saviours,
and thankfully the Liberals may even more or less disappear after this
election - so it's up to Nigel.


Cameron will do what his puppet masters tell him

The EU favours at the moment the principle of raiding little taxpayers,
feeding it through big government and using that to force little
businesses out through regulations and thereby favouring big business
that can afford to buy the eurocrats and do the lobbying.

Right now big business likes the EU. Because what it likes is European
wide anticompetitive directives and what it doesn't like is little
businesses that are more efficient with better products springing up.

Ergo as long as the EU favours Big Money, the Tories will be bought lock
stock and barrel.

What is happening though, is that banks are beginning to worry about the EU.

And the politicians are beginning to worry about it too, because it and
its big business chums are killing thge goose that laid te golden eggs,

Its energy policy makes it totally uncompetitive.
Its social policies make it totally uncompetitive.
Its social policies and its immigration policies render it a target for
'quiet invasion' by economic migrants
Its diversity policies make it unable to maintain a coherent culture in
the face of the above immigration
Its citizens are sick to death of being told what to do when it makes
things worse.


Britain may not need to leave the EU: The EU may well collapse first.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Nightjar posted
They want to take us out of the EU for a start. They also don't seem to
have any polices, other than opposition to immigration and the EU. That
is not enough of a basis to run a country.

Do you really believe that UKIP's aim is to "run the country"? Is it not
clear to you that their purpose is to gain sufficient leverage to force
a referendum on EU membership?

--
Les

On 13/02/2015 09:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 13/02/2015 08:43, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:06:39 +0000, charles wrote:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either
give Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys

I particularly like the suggestions that we should be more like
Switzerland or Norway.

build more mountains

Cuckoo clocks and fjords?

I'm learning to yodel as we speak.

Must be why those goons have rocked up in
the green van and have run in with one of those
funky canvas jackets with very long sleeves.

I did wonder why they turned up unnanounced.

On 12/02/2015 09:55, Adrian wrote:


So why on _earth_ does Farridge keep allowing so many wierdos, bigots and
monomaniacs to represent the party?


He probably has no more wierdos etc. than any other political party.
What he doesn't have is the 3 line whip system to keep them in check.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 13/02/2015 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 10:18, Bob Henson wrote:
On 12/02/2015 8:43 pm, Capitol wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

And don't tell me that the UKIP strategy is that after 5 years of
this
everyone will vote a UKIP govt in then believe me, there'll be
nothing
left.

So reelecting Camoron will solve all the problems? I'm with self
sufficiency and UKIP.

Th only way to get a referendum is to elect Cameron with a majority
govt. None of the leftwing (Greens, Labour, Libs, SNP) parties will
support that in a coalition.

And if Cameron gets such a majority and then says that because the EU
has agreed to a rebate of tuppence-ha'penny a year starting in 2050, he
no longer supports a referendum, he'd be dumped as leader the same day.


You really do believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't
you? Camoron will weasel out immediately if he had a majority. The only
hope is UKIP and a change at Westminster.


Absolutely. Cameron has no intention of getting out of the EU - he and
his cronies see hanging onto Frau Merkel's skirts (OK, she no more wears
skirts then the last couple of Germans who tried to take over Europe) in
the EU as their passport to hanging on to as much power as possible.
Like the even more sycophantic Froggies, he will be quite surprised when
she ditches them. Our only hope is in UKIP getting a sufficiently large
vote to force Cameron's hand. I think we can forget Labour as saviours,
and thankfully the Liberals may even more or less disappear after this
election - so it's up to Nigel.


Cameron will do what his puppet masters tell him

The EU favours at the moment the principle of raiding little taxpayers,
feeding it through big government and using that to force little
businesses out through regulations and thereby favouring big business
that can afford to buy the eurocrats and do the lobbying.

Right now big business likes the EU. Because what it likes is European
wide anticompetitive directives and what it doesn't like is little
businesses that are more efficient with better products springing up.

Ergo as long as the EU favours Big Money, the Tories will be bought lock
stock and barrel.

What is happening though, is that banks are beginning to worry about the
EU.

And the politicians are beginning to worry about it too, because it and
its big business chums are killing thge goose that laid te golden eggs,

Its energy policy makes it totally uncompetitive.
Its social policies make it totally uncompetitive.
Its social policies and its immigration policies render it a target for
'quiet invasion' by economic migrants
Its diversity policies make it unable to maintain a coherent culture in
the face of the above immigration
Its citizens are sick to death of being told what to do when it makes
things worse.


Britain may not need to leave the EU: The EU may well collapse first.


Probably when Greece slips out (poor pun intended).

On 13/02/2015 11:00 am, Bod wrote:
On 13/02/2015 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 10:18, Bob Henson wrote:
On 12/02/2015 8:43 pm, Capitol wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

And don't tell me that the UKIP strategy is that after 5 years of
this
everyone will vote a UKIP govt in then believe me, there'll be
nothing
left.

So reelecting Camoron will solve all the problems? I'm with self
sufficiency and UKIP.

Th only way to get a referendum is to elect Cameron with a majority
govt. None of the leftwing (Greens, Labour, Libs, SNP) parties will
support that in a coalition.

And if Cameron gets such a majority and then says that because the EU
has agreed to a rebate of tuppence-ha'penny a year starting in 2050, he
no longer supports a referendum, he'd be dumped as leader the same day.


You really do believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't
you? Camoron will weasel out immediately if he had a majority. The only
hope is UKIP and a change at Westminster.


Absolutely. Cameron has no intention of getting out of the EU - he and
his cronies see hanging onto Frau Merkel's skirts (OK, she no more wears
skirts then the last couple of Germans who tried to take over Europe) in
the EU as their passport to hanging on to as much power as possible.
Like the even more sycophantic Froggies, he will be quite surprised when
she ditches them. Our only hope is in UKIP getting a sufficiently large
vote to force Cameron's hand. I think we can forget Labour as saviours,
and thankfully the Liberals may even more or less disappear after this
election - so it's up to Nigel.


Cameron will do what his puppet masters tell him

The EU favours at the moment the principle of raiding little taxpayers,
feeding it through big government and using that to force little
businesses out through regulations and thereby favouring big business
that can afford to buy the eurocrats and do the lobbying.

Right now big business likes the EU. Because what it likes is European
wide anticompetitive directives and what it doesn't like is little
businesses that are more efficient with better products springing up.

Ergo as long as the EU favours Big Money, the Tories will be bought lock
stock and barrel.

What is happening though, is that banks are beginning to worry about the
EU.

And the politicians are beginning to worry about it too, because it and
its big business chums are killing thge goose that laid te golden eggs,

Its energy policy makes it totally uncompetitive.
Its social policies make it totally uncompetitive.
Its social policies and its immigration policies render it a target for
'quiet invasion' by economic migrants
Its diversity policies make it unable to maintain a coherent culture in
the face of the above immigration
Its citizens are sick to death of being told what to do when it makes
things worse.


Britain may not need to leave the EU: The EU may well collapse first.


Probably when Greece slips out (poor pun intended).


I'm crossing my fingers on that one - it would save us a lot of trouble
if the EU disappeared up it's own corruption.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?

On 13/02/2015 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 22:26, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 21:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 18:21, john james wrote:
Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are somehow
worse that all this?

Because they would produce a much more spectacular shambles if the
voters were ever actually stupid enough to let them run the country

And you know this how?


It's a self evident fact. They are a bunch of clowns at best. Nasty
fools at worst.

Ah., so its really just a case of pure bigotry on your part with no
supporting evidence of anything?


meh.

There's tons of evidence. I don't have to document it for you just
because you play dumb. Try googling 'UKIP embarrassment' for folly, then
'ukip policy' for something more nasty. They are ****s.


plenty of made up stories sure.

But that's really only evidence for how worried the MSM are.

Conspiracy theories again.

--
Colin Bignell

On 13/02/15 10:44, Big Les Wade wrote:
Nightjar posted
They want to take us out of the EU for a start. They also don't seem
to have any polices, other than opposition to immigration and the EU.
That is not enough of a basis to run a country.

Do you really believe that UKIP's aim is to "run the country"? Is it not
clear to you that their purpose is to gain sufficient leverage to force
a referendum on EU membership?

First of all UKIP per se is not a unitary organism and different people
are in it for different reasons.


The common them however is that all who are in it find that whatever
they consider needs doing *cannot be dome on account of the EU*.

And largely even out of the EU, could not be be done without dismantling
fairly large swathes of existing QUANGOS etc.

So the aim is very simple: exit the EU and save a huge amount, then stop
funding useless NGOS and save a lot more - obviously the useless members
of those NGOS then become a social security burden, but any that are any
good will get jobs in a newly de regulated private sector that will
flourish because it has the minimum level of bureaucracy standing in its
way.

Just as Thatcher was elected to do a specific task, take on and reduce
Union power for the good of the non Union nation, so UKIP will be
elected to do a specific job. Reduce centralised government interference
and burden to improve economic productivity. Once done arguably UKIP has
no reason left to exist.

Once the UK is an independent self-governing nation again then politics
can resume its usual tawdry course: The difference being that the
politicians who subsequently get elected will have the power to carry
out any electoral promises and will be accountable for the results of
their meddling.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 13/02/15 11:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 22:26, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 21:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 18:21, john james wrote:
Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are
somehow
worse that all this?

Because they would produce a much more spectacular shambles if the
voters were ever actually stupid enough to let them run the country

And you know this how?


It's a self evident fact. They are a bunch of clowns at best. Nasty
fools at worst.

Ah., so its really just a case of pure bigotry on your part with no
supporting evidence of anything?


meh.

There's tons of evidence. I don't have to document it for you just
because you play dumb. Try googling 'UKIP embarrassment' for folly, then
'ukip policy' for something more nasty. They are ****s.


plenty of made up stories sure.

But that's really only evidence for how worried the MSM are.

Conspiracy theories again.

Some conspiracy theories are in fact true.

Or do you believe Nixon was entirely innocent?

That Rotherham happened just by accident?

That 911, was a mistake by air traffic controllers?

That Arthur Andersen were whiter than white?



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 13/02/2015 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 11:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 22:26, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 21:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 18:21, john james wrote:
Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are
somehow
worse that all this?

Because they would produce a much more spectacular shambles if the
voters were ever actually stupid enough to let them run the country

And you know this how?


It's a self evident fact. They are a bunch of clowns at best. Nasty
fools at worst.

Ah., so its really just a case of pure bigotry on your part with no
supporting evidence of anything?


meh.

There's tons of evidence. I don't have to document it for you just
because you play dumb. Try googling 'UKIP embarrassment' for folly,
then
'ukip policy' for something more nasty. They are ****s.


plenty of made up stories sure.

But that's really only evidence for how worried the MSM are.

Conspiracy theories again.

Some conspiracy theories are in fact true.

Very, very rarely. That UKIP is the only political party not to attract
sleazy politicians and that any evidence to the contrary is fabricated
by the media is certainly not one of them.

Or do you believe Nixon was entirely innocent?

One of the very few that proved to be true.

That Rotherham happened just by accident?

To be a conspiracy theory, the theory has to exist before the conspiracy
is uncovered. That didn't happen in this case.

That 911, was a mistake by air traffic controllers?

That would, itself, be a conspiracy theory. I certainly don't believe
that the towers were felled by controlled demolition, which is the main
conspiracy theory for 9/11.

That Arthur Andersen were whiter than white?

I think they were quite possibly incompetent, rather than willing
conspirators. However, that also fails as a conspiracy theory as there
was no theory before the Enron accounting fraud was uncovered.


--
Colin Bignell

Not addressing this point specifically and replying to BLW for no good
reason other than, well, I was here anyway...

Isn't it interesting that any argument involving UKIP basically settles
out to a homogenous blend of:

1 Argumentum ad ignorantiam

2 Guilt by association

3 Argumentum ad populum

4 and a sprinkling of argumentum ad hominem


And these are used by both sides!

1 - Noone knows how competent UKIP would be in power until they actually
prove themselves (one way or another)

2 - Some swivel eyed loons were senior UKIP members (and there might
still be some). All groups, political or otherwise are guaranteed to
have a certain number of undesirables even if it is not in line with the
group's stated position. Look at the 2 main parties for plenty of examples.

3 - Guaranteed in any political debate.

4 - well...



I say, if you like UKIP, vote for them. They clearly are not the EDL.
And if you think they are all swivel eyed loons, don't.

On 13/02/15 12:16, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 11:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 22:26, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 21:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 18:21, john james wrote:
Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are
somehow
worse that all this?

Because they would produce a much more spectacular shambles if the
voters were ever actually stupid enough to let them run the
country

And you know this how?


It's a self evident fact. They are a bunch of clowns at best. Nasty
fools at worst.

Ah., so its really just a case of pure bigotry on your part with no
supporting evidence of anything?


meh.

There's tons of evidence. I don't have to document it for you just
because you play dumb. Try googling 'UKIP embarrassment' for folly,
then
'ukip policy' for something more nasty. They are ****s.


plenty of made up stories sure.

But that's really only evidence for how worried the MSM are.

Conspiracy theories again.

Some conspiracy theories are in fact true.

Very, very rarely. That UKIP is the only political party not to attract
sleazy politicians and that any evidence to the contrary is fabricated
by the media is certainly not one of them.

Te theory dpesnt say they dont attract sleaze. Indeed we suspect many
sleazeballs join because they are paid to discredit the party. The
theory says that sleaze is actively ignored in all the other parties and
actively 'discovered' in UKIP and made to look far worse than it is by
dint of an MSM that is largely controlled by the same broad interests
that control the main political parties.


Or do you believe Nixon was entirely innocent?

One of the very few that proved to be true.

That Rotherham happened just by accident?

To be a conspiracy theory, the theory has to exist before the conspiracy
is uncovered. That didn't happen in this case.

That 911, was a mistake by air traffic controllers?

That would, itself, be a conspiracy theory. I certainly don't believe
that the towers were felled by controlled demolition, which is the main
conspiracy theory for 9/11.

That Arthur Andersen were whiter than white?

I think they were quite possibly incompetent, rather than willing
conspirators. However, that also fails as a conspiracy theory as there
was no theory before the Enron accounting fraud was uncovered.


You never had them as your auditors did you? Guilty as hell m8. They
actively encouraged pure fraud.

Long before Enron surfaced it was all known as was Enron.

What you need to consider is that 99% of all news that you read, is not
nbew2s at all.

It is carefully slanted propaganda designed to sell you one product or
another, whether that be wind,mills or the Labour party.

Lets say a road floods in Somerset. That's the fact.

What the 'news' will do is
- show how its all down to 'global warming'
- show how 'windmills will fix it'
- show how its all down to tory cronyism as the road wasn't maintained
properly by the (tory) council
- show how UKIP are idiots because in a jokey aside a UKIP (but ex-tory)
counsellor blames it on the biblical sin of homosexuality
- find some demented female to complain her kids can't get to school
because a tory council wont put on state sponsored 4x4s to wade through
the floods.
- find a green to blame it all on 4x4s...

etc etc.

Its called building and emotional narrative, or agitptrop, or simply
marketing.

It consists in working out the impression you want to give, and then
accumulating a few actual facts and then spinning them into propaganda
to make them deliver the impression you want.

If you dont understand that this is what the MSM does/is paid to do full
time, then you are more naive than I ever imagined.








--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 13/02/2015 12:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 12:16, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 11:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 22:26, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 21:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 18:21, john james wrote:
Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are
somehow
worse that all this?

Because they would produce a much more spectacular shambles if
the
voters were ever actually stupid enough to let them run the
country

And you know this how?


It's a self evident fact. They are a bunch of clowns at best. Nasty
fools at worst.

Ah., so its really just a case of pure bigotry on your part with no
supporting evidence of anything?


meh.

There's tons of evidence. I don't have to document it for you just
because you play dumb. Try googling 'UKIP embarrassment' for folly,
then
'ukip policy' for something more nasty. They are ****s.


plenty of made up stories sure.

But that's really only evidence for how worried the MSM are.

Conspiracy theories again.

Some conspiracy theories are in fact true.

Very, very rarely. That UKIP is the only political party not to attract
sleazy politicians and that any evidence to the contrary is fabricated
by the media is certainly not one of them.

Te theory dpesnt say they dont attract sleaze. Indeed we suspect many
sleazeballs join because they are paid to discredit the party.

Another conspiracy theory.

The
theory says that sleaze is actively ignored in all the other parties and
actively 'discovered' in UKIP and made to look far worse than it is by
dint of an MSM that is largely controlled by the same broad interests
that control the main political parties.

Still a conspiracy theory.

UKIP almost certainly does have a much higher percentage of sleazy
politicians than other parties. It is relatively new and it is going to
attract rejects from other parties and people, like a couple of ex-BNP
members I know, who see it as a way to get greater acceptance of their
extreme right wing views. Instead of blaming others for the party's
woes, you should be weeding out the bad apples before they are found
out. It is what other parties try to do.


--
Colin Bignell

On 13/02/15 13:40, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 12:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 12:16, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 11:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 22:26, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 21:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 18:21, john james wrote:
Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are
somehow
worse that all this?

Because they would produce a much more spectacular shambles if
the
voters were ever actually stupid enough to let them run the
country

And you know this how?


It's a self evident fact. They are a bunch of clowns at best.
Nasty
fools at worst.

Ah., so its really just a case of pure bigotry on your part with no
supporting evidence of anything?


meh.

There's tons of evidence. I don't have to document it for you just
because you play dumb. Try googling 'UKIP embarrassment' for folly,
then
'ukip policy' for something more nasty. They are ****s.


plenty of made up stories sure.

But that's really only evidence for how worried the MSM are.

Conspiracy theories again.

Some conspiracy theories are in fact true.

Very, very rarely. That UKIP is the only political party not to attract
sleazy politicians and that any evidence to the contrary is fabricated
by the media is certainly not one of them.

Te theory dpesnt say they dont attract sleaze. Indeed we suspect many
sleazeballs join because they are paid to discredit the party.

Another conspiracy theory.

The
theory says that sleaze is actively ignored in all the other parties and
actively 'discovered' in UKIP and made to look far worse than it is by
dint of an MSM that is largely controlled by the same broad interests
that control the main political parties.

Still a conspiracy theory.

UKIP almost certainly does have a much higher percentage of sleazy
politicians than other parties. It is relatively new and it is going to
attract rejects from other parties and people, like a couple of ex-BNP
members I know, who see it as a way to get greater acceptance of their
extreme right wing views. Instead of blaming others for the party's
woes, you should be weeding out the bad apples before they are found
out. It is what other parties try to do.


Its relative newness and lack of chance to get people elected actually
means it has a far higher percentage of people who believe in its
principles than career politicians that infest the other parties.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 17:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general
more depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Obviously. A Tory government run riot cutting the living standards of
all but the richest. That has been their vision since Thatcher.

you really are a card. 15 years of Blair and 40 years of the EU has
destroyed peoples will to live.

You're not really into facts, are you?

Blair was PM for 10 years, not 15.

So I'd guess you're not interested in statistics about the average
standard of living from 1997 to date either?

You really should get your nose out of the Daily Mail.




It was worst under Blair.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bod wrote:
YUp, one day we are buying our fruit and the next day we can't buy the
wrong shape of bananas.

You just love to believe what you read?

--
*I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.