Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
questionmark

Nigel Farage hints at Ukip deal with Tories

51 posts in this topic

Nigel Farage has suggested he is prepared to do a deal with Conservatives ahead of the next election if they surrender working class seats in Essex and Kent.

Mr Farage said that if he was David Cameron, he would offer to give up 30 seats where the Tories are currently trailing behind Labour to give Ukip a clear run.

In exchange, he suggested that Ukip could agree not to fight the Conservatives in marginal seats in more affluent, middle-class areas such as Dorset.

Read more

Guess the whiff of victory smells different than this....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice the lack of putative deals with Labour :clap:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense for UKIP to do a deal with the Tory party.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we find out if the Tory party will sell its future for another crack at power.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we find out if the Tory party will sell its future for another crack at power.

they all will. its what they all crave the power of office. look at the Lib Dems they threw themselves to the wolves to get into government, seeing that it looks like another odds on for a hung parliament, you'll get them all doing what they can to be in that coalition government, even if it means doing a deal with the devil himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tories are clinging by their finger tips with Europe with all their skeptic back bench MP's. They have no chance of re-election without an EU referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Tories have proved themselves the same old ****'s as last time - twice bitten makes the electorate shy of believing a single word they have said. They will never be forgiven for their ideological attacks on the NHS.

I think they read the situation perfectly - they were always destined to be a one term Government so they went hell for leather to do all of the deeply unpopular **** they new they could never get away with if they had a chance the second time round.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they all will. its what they all crave the power of office. look at the Lib Dems they threw themselves to the wolves to get into government, seeing that it looks like another odds on for a hung parliament, you'll get them all doing what they can to be in that coalition government, even if it means doing a deal with the devil himself.

Hi Steve, Which Devil are we talking about ,Labour has nothing to offer, The Lib-Dems are a nonentity,Cam is making all kinds of E.U. comments, which the E.U. are laughing at, and the U.K.I.P. are promising glory.Its gonna be a very strange election.

And the Wurzels (turnips/swedes) down here are Colour Blind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tories have proved themselves the same old ****'s as last time - twice bitten makes the electorate shy of believing a single word they have said. They will never be forgiven for their ideological attacks on the NHS.

I think they read the situation perfectly - they were always destined to be a one term Government so they went hell for leather to do all of the deeply unpopular **** they new they could never get away with if they had a chance the second time round.

Br Cornelius

If that was the case, twice bitten Labour would be no more. there policy of high taxes, borrow spend borrow spend borrow spend, sell the gold, raid the pensions pot of millions of ordinary people, mass immigration (which they apologised for) privatised the NHS far more than the Tories, made benefits a life style choice, even through 13 years of boom they had over two million on benefits. but the NHS, the sooner we privatise at least half of it the better, the reality is we cannot continue down the path where on. its getting ridiculous.

Hi Steve, Which Devil are we talking about ,Labour has nothing to offer, The Lib-Dems are a nonentity,Cam is making all kinds of E.U. comments, which the E.U. are laughing at, and the U.K.I.P. are promising glory.Its gonna be a very strange election.

And the Wurzels (turnips/swedes) down here are Colour Blind.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If that was the case, twice bitten Labour would be no more. there policy of high taxes, borrow spend borrow spend borrow spend, sell the gold, raid the pensions pot of millions of ordinary people, mass immigration (which they apologised for) privatised the NHS far more than the Tories, made benefits a life style choice, even through 13 years of boom they had over two million on benefits. but the NHS, the sooner we privatise at least half of it the better, the reality is we cannot continue down the path where on. its getting ridiculous.

:D

Rewarding the rich for been rich and punishing the poor for the economic mismanagement is not going to give you a viable future for a country.

Remember Steve that the UK government was in surplus until the crash of 2008 and the debt burden has continued to rise since then.

Your opinion on the NHS is not shared by most in the country and its not a fair reflection on what is one of the most efficient health services in the world. New Labour attacked it by stealth (continuing Thatchers policies without a pause), but the Tories basically want to destroy the whole public provision model to replace it with something like the American system. Ideological rubbish disguised as a drive to choice and efficiency - when all the alternatives cost at least twice the per capita cost of the NHS.

Take your rose tinted glasses off and look at the reality of Tory Britain for a change.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Rewarding the rich for been rich and punishing the poor for the economic mismanagement is not going to give you a viable future for a country.

Remember Steve that the UK government was in surplus until the crash of 2008 and the debt burden has continued to rise since then.

Take your rose tinted glasses off and look at the reality of Tory Britain for a change.

Br Cornelius

Don't talk rubbish the Labour Government was in surplus, for every £ pound raised they borrowed four. running a deficit, so when the bubble burst, their 'No more boom and bus't was shown to be a lie, the country - Labour failed to set aside any money in those boom years for the bust years. because the sheer arrogance of them - they thought they'd abolished boom and bust for good.

At the end of the Day public spending needs to be got under control, but no political party will deal with the issue. they need to be honest with the people explain the problems. just look at the benefits bill, income receipts don't even cover this money raised. just think for a second, 26 million workers paying tax and every penny and more goes straight out on benefits (all benefits, unemployment/Pensions etc..) meaning everything else we fund as a country comes from general taxation.The NHS costs us £111.8 Billion pounds. 2013/14. that's more than the Education/Universities/Defence budget combined.

When will people accept we need to get a grip of public spending once and for all? Its okay blaming the Tories when comedy show goes. - Tories fix economy through tough actions, - Labour re-elected stick to Tory spending plans for two years, eventually switch to their own spending plans, run up a deficit; Tories elected, tough actions again, economy recovered, - Labour re-elected, stick to Tory spending plans. then switch to their own spending plans. crash the economy again, and the cycle continues again and again. Its a fact Labour have never left office with the economy in a better shape/condition than when they took office. There comes a point in time when you cannot squeeze the productive part of the economy to support the unproductive part.

_73109779_73109778.jpg

_73109783_73109782.jpg

_73120912_f4816163-ab6b-4de6-8ab2-eb0de07c4dd9.jpg

Edited by stevewinn
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that was the case, twice bitten Labour would be no more. there policy of high taxes, borrow spend borrow spend borrow spend, sell the gold, raid the pensions pot of millions of ordinary people, mass immigration (which they apologised for) privatised the NHS far more than the Tories, made benefits a life style choice, even through 13 years of boom they had over two million on benefits. but the NHS, the sooner we privatise at least half of it the better, the reality is we cannot continue down the path where on. its getting ridiculous.

:D

Following on from your NHS theme Steve; I would suggest that ALL elective surgery be privatised. If you want to change Gender (that's a joke because Gender is a determinant at Genetic level), then you pay; if you want breast augmentation you pay (if you show sufficient mental anxiety you can get the NHS to pay); get smokers to pay for their smoke - related illnesses BUT, only if duty and tax is removed from cigarettes (at the moment there is a strong argument that smokers pay huge duties on their legal habit for just this reason); IF a person makes it a lifestyle choice to take illegal drugs then make them pay for any treatment (illegal drugs by definition, attract no Duty or Tax).

There must be hundreds of opportunities to return the NHS to what it should be - a safety net for unexpected, unintended, or long - term illnesses for which no Insurance Company will pay, that would release huge funding for Medical research

Make people responsible for THEIR lifestyle choices, and THEIR own personal desires. I am just waiting for "Godwinism" to raise its head.... :unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There must be hundreds of opportunities to return the NHS to what it should be - a safety net for unexpected, unintended, or long - term illnesses for which no Insurance Company will pay,

Please show me where in the NHS charter that is says that. You will struggle.

That is what NICE is there to decide - what is affordable and ethical for the the NHS to provide or not. Again it is not very ethical to refuse people treatment for lifestyle choices which are generally foisted on them by Marketers. The current obesity, alcoholism and diabetes epidemics are best handled through strict regulation of food processors which is not what is happening. If you are not going to treat the causes of ill health then it is unfair to then punish the victims by refusing treatment.

Elective is by definition a restricted part of health care provision.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Following on from your NHS theme Steve; I would suggest that ALL elective surgery be privatised. If you want to change Gender (that's a joke because Gender is a determinant at Genetic level), then you pay; if you want breast augmentation you pay (if you show sufficient mental anxiety you can get the NHS to pay); get smokers to pay for their smoke - related illnesses BUT, only if duty and tax is removed from cigarettes (at the moment there is a strong argument that smokers pay huge duties on their legal habit for just this reason); IF a person makes it a lifestyle choice to take illegal drugs then make them pay for any treatment (illegal drugs by definition, attract no Duty or Tax).

There must be hundreds of opportunities to return the NHS to what it should be - a safety net for unexpected, unintended, or long - term illnesses for which no Insurance Company will pay, that would release huge funding for Medical research

Make people responsible for THEIR lifestyle choices, and THEIR own personal desires. I am just waiting for "Godwinism" to raise its head.... :unsure2:

agree that there are many procedures the NHS do today for which it was never set up to do and cost us millions, you could add tattoo removal people pay hundreds of pounds for tattoos, if these become infected they are treated free of charge, If after a few years they want the tattoo removed they can get that done free of charge on the NHS if they prove its having an mental/emotional distress. there are other areas of concern as well health tourism. a mate of mine whose grand parents are Iranian, - His nan back home in Iran was diagnosed with a heart condition and needed surgery. they flew her over, once over here they called a ambulance, 999 job, the Ambulance crew arrive detected the heart problem and took her to hospital. were they diagnosed the problem which needed surgery she was admitted to Hospital and had the operation, free of charge on the NHS. after three weeks in hospital and a few weeks later flew back home to Iran. that's one case i personally know off., others must happen. (just for the record if it was my nan in Iran i'd have done the same) but highlights extra costs.

Another incident is my mums mate whose 60 but thinks she's 18. went to India to have plastic surgery and dental work done on the cheap. come back home and got massive infection, which she nearly died from. the infection was starting while over their but she flew home and went to the Doctors over here. treated on the NHS free. more of this sort of thing must happen. in cases like this people should be made to cover costs. for the NHS having to put right wrongs done elsewhere.

just to add, its a mine field.

Edited by stevewinn
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rewarding the rich for been rich and punishing the poor for the economic mismanagement is not going to give you a viable future for a country.

Br Cornelius

Emphasis mine: you are forever "banging on " about this. So... just for once WHO qualifies as "Rich" in your eyes. What does their disposable income have to be? Who are "the poor" - what are their disposable income that qualify them as such?

If you really want to use "slogans" and "soundbites" then it is nigh time for you to qualify your statements....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please show me where in the NHS charter that is says that. You will struggle.

That is what NICE is there to decide - what is affordable and ethical for the the NHS to provide or not. Again it is not very ethical to refuse people treatment for lifestyle choices which are generally foisted on them by Marketers. The current obesity, alcoholism and diabetes epidemics are best handled through strict regulation of food processors which is not what is happening. If you are not going to treat the causes of ill health then it is unfair to then punish the victims by refusing treatment.

Elective is by definition a restricted part of health care provision.

Br Cornelius

N.I.C.E.? are you kidding? They have been embroiled in controversy ever since being founded. They appear incapable of allowing effective treatments into the NHS. Just google the controversial recommendations they have made historically.

NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY needs to accept Marketing for their own personal weaknesses. THAT is very much an individual choice.

Who else are you going to blame for an individuals preferences, and why should the population at large then become responsible for their own social inadequacies??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its simple to define the poor, those millions who require benefits or tax credits to supplement a below living wage income.

The rich is more difficult - but comprise all those who pay virtually no tax because most of their income is unearned.

A more nuanced analysis would be the people who have incomes of 8(+)x the national average wage. This is more useful since social health for the country as a whole is directly correlated to the disparity between the lowest earners and the highest earners. Multiple social consequences follow from allowing this ratio to climb to high and ultimately it hurts the GDP of the country. This is one of the primary reasons for the systemic difference between German GDP and British GDP.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N.I.C.E.? are you kidding? They have been embroiled in controversy ever since being founded. They appear incapable of allowing effective treatments into the NHS. Just google the controversial recommendations they have made historically.

They are responsible for rationing expensive treatments with poor efficacy - for which they have taken flack because it effects the bottom line of the medical companies who develop these novel treatments with marginal efficacy. Unfortunately rationing of treatment is their job and it is always going to cause controversy as some people will not get the treatment they believe they need. Without NICE the already high medical inflation would be even worse and the general medical care would suffer.

NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY needs to accept Marketing for their own personal weaknesses. THAT is very much an individual choice.

Who else are you going to blame for an individuals preferences, and why should the population at large then become responsible for their own social inadequacies??

It is a simple fact that most people do respond to marketing and that is why pre-packaged junk food dominates the market. I can make personal choices about not consuming junk food - but I am a well informed individual with an education to degree level. Most people are not and public health policy must account for the effects of marketing on peoples food choices.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its simple to define the poor, those millions who require benefits or tax credits to supplement a below living wage income.

The rich is more difficult - but comprise all those who pay virtually no tax because most of their income is unearned.

A more nuanced analysis would be the people who have incomes of 8(+)x the national average wage. This is more useful since social health for the country as a whole is directly correlated to the disparity between the lowest earners and the highest earners. Multiple social consequences follow from allowing this ratio to climb to high and ultimately it hurts the GDP of the country. This is one of the primary reasons for the systemic difference between German GDP and British GDP.

Br Cornelius

Well I guess that would include me then? I do not feel "rich", I live modestly, I create wealth for the national treasury through employing other people who also pay taxes (no need for them to claim other Social Benefits because their pay scale is well above the minimum). Just what are these "multiple Social Consequences" that you speak of?... what the heck do you mean by "Social Wealth"? Sounds like any other ultra left - wing socialist slogan to me. It means nothing.

How do I equate my income with harming the GDP? I actually enhance GDP,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UKIP is a very nasty party indeed, letting them in would be like handing over to the Third Reich, imo!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well I guess that would include me then? I do not feel "rich", I live modestly, I create wealth for the national treasury through employing other people who also pay taxes (no need for them to claim other Social Benefits because their pay scale is well above the minimum). Just what are these "multiple Social Consequences" that you speak of?... what the heck do you mean by "Social Wealth"? Sounds like any other ultra left - wing socialist slogan to me. It means nothing.

How do I equate my income with harming the GDP? I actually enhance GDP,

There is a lot of social research on the difference between high wage differential countries and low differential countries. All I can do is suggest you do a little digging to find out what those "social consequences" are. Needless to say that countries with lower differentials score higher on almost all measures of personal and societal wellbeing.

How do I equate my income with harming the GDP? I actually enhance GDP,

The evidence doesn't support this statement. High income disparity results in lower growth and lower GDP overall. The simple reason is that money spread more evenly gets spent quicker and this supports more jobs overall.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UKIP is a very nasty party indeed, letting them in would be like handing over to the Third Reich, imo!

Godwinism... such a joy to behold! Usual extremist left - wing response to anything that borders on reasoned debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of social research on the difference between high wage differential countries and low differential countries. All I can do is suggest you do a little digging to find out what those "social consequences" are. Needless to say that countries with lower differentials score higher on almost all measures of personal and societal wellbeing.

Br Cornelius

Well, considering that I pay all of my taxes, unearned income is taxed at the highest rate (you seem to have forgotten that), and I employ a number of people then I am certainly NOT responsible for any "Social disparities". I also contribute to a number of local charities because I have a social conscience and feel grateful for what I have without the need to rub it in other peoples' noses.

There is no way of changing the Political Status Quo in the UK without there first being a Revolution in peoples voting patterns. This is what I hope will happen with the surge in UKIP, clear away the last 60 years of power sharing between Tory and Labour, and get people engaged in guiding there own destinies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought UKIP was supposed to be an alternative to the other parties? As I've said all along they are just Tories

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought UKIP was supposed to be an alternative to the other parties? As I've said all along they are just Tories

With a slight difference: They are not smart enough to understand that Britain should remain in in the EU for its own sake... Most Tories actually do, even if they scream something else come elections.

1 person likes this

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  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.