36 replies to this topic

[ExpandMyMind]

Mr Right Wing, on 17 December 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Its ironic that the only party offering every policy which the British public wants cant get elected because its a PR disaster (BNP). That leaves us with UKIP who are scared of being anti-immigration or the Conservatives who wont do anything unless they have too.

Of course what will happen is that as UKIP become a threat the Conservatives will pull the rug out from under them by having an EU referendum. A nice strategic move but why do they only act when they have too?

If we were to elect the BNP to power this place would look like V for Vendetta in no time at all.

[Mr Right Wing]

ExpandMyMind, on 17 December 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

If we were to elect the BNP to power this place would look like V for Vendetta in no time at all.

You recon a few million people would just disappear?

[ExpandMyMind]

Mr Right Wing, on 17 December 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

You recon a few million people would just disappear?

I think you're taking my meaning just a tad too literally.

[stevewinn]

the labour government always leave office with the economy in a poor state, its a fact they always leave office with the economy worse than when they took over, people are stuck in a time warp if they think the labour party is for the working man. those days are long gone, when john smith died so did those party principles, then we had the creation of NEW Labour and the rise of one Tony Blair and the Blairiets.

we then seen the boom years. where we seen a rise in immigration the like we've never seen before, at the time anyone who dare speak out about it was called a racist but now we know the truth, the face of Britain changed forever. latest census.

They left office, even after all those boom years with a economic deficit the biggest since the end of the second world war, - when you consider in those years of peace were they ran the economy worse than 1930's war torn Britain. then we see an explosion in benefit payments. when labour came to office the benefit bill was £87Billion when they left office that had risen in 10 years to £165Billion.

we seen the rise of the nanny state, we seen government borrowing increase even though income tax receipts failed to cover all the social programs/benefit payments. i think when we had labour lose the general election and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, left a handwritten note in his desk, warning his successor that there was no money left. - that spoke volumes.

the first general election i was eligible to vote in was the 2001 general election. and i voted labour, everything was going fine, it was the 'boom years' i was in work in my first ever job. everything seemed rosy, so i voted for labour in the 2005 general election, though still in work i started to question the governments spending handling of the economy, foreign policy, health spending and benefits and Immigration.

so in 2010 i voted for the first time conservative/Tory. why? i had just witnessed an inept labour government ruin the economy from a position of strength 10 years of growth - squandered. the rise of the nanny state, welfare benefit soaring encouraging people to becoming reliant on the state help, government borrowing going through the roof, unemployment rising. the list goes on, so have read a bit of political history i wanted to know which political party had the experience in getting the country out of a recession the only political party who time and again has a track record of economic recovery were the Tory party. i support their policies on the economy,  benefit reform, reducing the public sector, the only policy i have concerns about is the Health - NHS and their stance on the EU. but the EU was minor in the grand scheme of things, but in the European Elections i voted for UKIP. fancy that me taking part in elections in a political system i dont believe in. took the approach or notion of destroy from within.

Edited by stevewinn, 17 December 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[shadowhive]

Mr Right Wing, on 17 December 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Its ironic that the only party offering every policy which the British public wants cant get elected because its a PR disaster (BNP). That leaves us with UKIP who are scared of being anti-immigration or the Conservatives who wont do anything unless they have too.

Of course what will happen is that as UKIP become a threat the Conservatives will pull the rug out from under them by having an EU referendum. A nice strategic move but why do they only act when they have too?

I doubt the bnp have many (if any) policy'sthe public could want. In any case, you're right, it has killed off its chances of being taken seriously.

The conservaties only seem to do things because they 'have to'. Funny that the people that always benefit are themselves.

[ExpandMyMind]

shadowhive, on 17 December 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

I doubt the bnp have many (if any) policy'sthe public could want. In any case, you're right, it has killed off its chances of being taken seriously.

Actually, I posted their public manifesto on here a couple of years back. It didn't seem all that unreasonable. But what a party says to get into power and what they do when they have power are two completely different things altogether. With their track record I have no doubt it would be a truly horrible future with them in power.

[spud the mackem]

ealdwita, on 17 December 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Guido Fawkes.......Where are you when you're needed?

    I can change my name if you can round up a couple of barrels of gunpowder,or do they use semtex these days ??,No point tho' as they'll all be swanning off for Xmas,and Westminster brings in lots of tourist dollars.

[spud the mackem]

A strange but true Fact is that people tend to vote for a party, because their Mum / Dad /Grandad has always voted that way, thats why we have various "strongholds", ie:- The North-East has always been a Labour fortress, The Southwest is mainly Lib/Dem ,the South-East Conservative. So in order to get a toehold the UKIP party have to really sell themselves as the up and coming opposition to Con/Labour ideals, and if they dont, well its back to normal. I wonder if Sedgefield Durham(staunch labour), have woken up to the fact that the Blair wolf is on the prowl again.

[Mr Right Wing]

ExpandMyMind, on 17 December 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Actually, I posted their public manifesto on here a couple of years back. It didn't seem all that unreasonable. But what a party says to get into power and what they do when they have power are two completely different things altogether. With their track record I have no doubt it would be a truly horrible future with them in power.

It isnt unreasonable its exactly what the people want. However the people dont want those proposing to deliver it because the suspec a secret nazi agenda.

[ExpandMyMind]

Mr Right Wing, on 17 December 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

However the people dont want those proposing to deliver it because the suspec a secret nazi agenda.

And quite rightly too.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 17 December 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[shadowhive]

Mr Right Wing, on 17 December 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

It isnt unreasonable its exactly what the people want. However the people dont want those proposing to deliver it because the suspec a secret nazi agenda.

It might be what YOU think the people want, but that's a whole different animal from what the people actually want.

[Mr Right Wing]

shadowhive, on 17 December 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

It might be what YOU think the people want, but that's a whole different animal from what the people actually want.

A few years back YouGov did a national survey and the majority of people said the BNPs policies were exactly what they wanted but they werent prepared to vote for the BNP because of who the party was. UKIP should use their brains and go anti-immigration, pro-family and capital punishment. They'd clean up.

[shadowhive]

Mr Right Wing, on 17 December 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

A few years back YouGov did a national survey and the majority of people said the BNPs policies were exactly what they wanted but they werent prepared to vote for the BNP because of who the party was. UKIP should use their brains and go anti-immigration, pro-family and capital punishment. They'd clean up.

I don't agree with either of those three.

The problem with the anti-immigration bunch is that they seem to want to go too far with it, which would mean we'd lose out on people with skills and we'd be turning away people that wwere trying to escape places where they faced persecution and death.

The problem with pro-family stuff is that it's not. Its pro ONE type of family and anti all the rest. This means people in non-traditional families would become marginalised and worse off.

Capital punishment has never sat well with me, mainly because of the obvious. If you find out someone inniocent is found guilty, you can't exactly make it up to them.

[Mr Right Wing]

shadowhive, on 17 December 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

I don't agree with either of those three.

The problem with the anti-immigration bunch is that they seem to want to go too far with it, which would mean we'd lose out on people with skills and we'd be turning away people that wwere trying to escape places where they faced persecution and death.

The problem with pro-family stuff is that it's not. Its pro ONE type of family and anti all the rest. This means people in non-traditional families would become marginalised and worse off.

Capital punishment has never sat well with me, mainly because of the obvious. If you find out someone inniocent is found guilty, you can't exactly make it up to them.

I agree with all three hence my name lol.
1. Immigration - We should increase the birthrate of our successful citizens (middle and upper classes) instead of allowing economic migrants to fill the skill gap.
2. Family - I've never come across someone who wasnt brought up in a stable family environment who didnt have issues. We need parents treating their kids correctly and kids who have a role model from each sex.
3. Capital punishment - It does more harm than good not having a deterrant. You might get the odd innocent one but crime is far lower so you do more good than evil.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 17 December 2012 - 09:48 PM.

[shadowhive]

Mr Right Wing, on 17 December 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

I agree with all three hence my name lol.
1. Immigration - We should increase the birthrate of our successful citizens (middle and upper classes) instead of allowing economic migrants to fill the skill gap.
2. Family - I've never come across someone who wasnt brought up in a stable family environment who didnt have issues. We need parents treating their kids correctly and kids who have a role model from each sex.
3. Capital punishment - It does more harm than good not having a deterrant. You might get the odd innocent one but crime is far lower so your do more good than evil.

No surprise there.

1: And in the meantime? If we deported eeryone that provided skilled services that weren't lifelong British, we'd have a big problem that would need to be soled now, not 2030 years down the line.
2: First and forever, we ned parents that treat their kids correctly that should be paramount, instead of the makeup of the family. as for stable family environments, how would you define them exactly? Theres some jobs where a parent could be away for etended periods (ie the army) and some jobs where someone could run thee risk of being seriously injured or killed (army again, the rescue services etc). Also parents can be lost by accident or disease which would, of course, impact the child. You also can't make people stay together for the kids' because that can make thingss worse. Most kids bought up in a family without both one parent (or one gender of parent) often have a substitue in place for the gender in which they lack.

So sorry, but ensuring (or enforcing) kids to have stable environments is neigh impossible unless you're willing to snatch people from their families the moment something bad happens. Which, of course most people are not willing to sign off on because they're just not that heartless.

So, personally most pro-family stuff doesn't come off as having families or chiildren in mind, but instead is mostly concerned with having children in some unrealistic ideal of a family.

3: I agree that crime needs a deterrent but I can't agree that capital punishment is it. But if it did come back, I'd only be comfortable if there was 100% certainty that people sentanced to it were guilty and that it'd be very limited in its use (ie, only used for the 'big' crimes).