Jump to content

UK General Election 2010


Who do you support (and/or plan to vote for) in the upcoming British elections?  

9 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you support (and/or plan to vote for) in the upcoming British elections?

    • Labour
      1
    • Conservatives
      1
    • Liberal Democrats
      2
    • Other left-wing (SWP, SP, SSP, Greens, etc.)
      2
    • Other right-wing (UKIP, BNP, etc.)
      1
    • Scottish, Welsh or Irish nationalists
      2


Recommended Posts

Dunenewt: You have to understand that, coming from an American, accusations of isolationism have a certain amount of admiration to them. Quite frankly, I'm fairly sympathetic to a lot of the points UKIP makes about Europe: I think the French/German debt fiasco a few years ago and the Greek financial crisis today are signs that the EU isn't always hookers and booze. I suppose I didn't mean to suggest that UKIP wanted Britain to ignore the outside world (which I want the United States to do roughly 22% of the time), I think I was just trying to say that "getting out of the EU" strikes me very much as a one-issue show. Supposing UKIP one and dragged the UK out of the EU, I doubt enough would distinguish its platform from the other parties to enable it to survive long afterward. (shrugs) But, then again, I suppose at that point it would at least have accomplished what it was designed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UKIP would still remain distinct, as the Lib/Lab/Con are all practically the same, and UKIP is the fourth largest party in the UK.  They have a whole manifesto, with distinct policies from the Lib/Lab/Con.

Edit - I'd just like to point out to people that I actually study this kind of stuff at university, and I'm fed up of making the same points over and over again, to people that don't really understand them, and are prepared to swallow anything the MSM say to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you'd like to stop making the same points over and over again, then?  I'd certainly like you to.  Since, you know, we've already dealt with them, unmasking them for the most shallow, xenophobic, damaging, outrageous and untenable excuses for policies that I've seen since the BNP.

Also, "this kind of stuff"?  Sounds pretty vague.  Your next reply might cite your exact subject of study that pertains to this?  Or maybe it's an elective?  In all seriousness, I'm worried that you'd be so dismissive of your educational background in this area.  It doesn't appear to be serving you very well... I'd expect a more enlightened set of opinions from an educated young man, to be quite honest.

As far as I can tell, it's given you a few handy acronyms and the values of a retiring old man, who complains about kids these days and how things were so much better back in their day.  We're not referring to the "mass media" when we discredit the policies you describe - we're simply reading between the lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any electives.  It is suffice to say that I study a branch of Political Science, with specific modules relating to the EU.  You haven't unmasked them as racist or xenophobic, because they're quite clearly not.  Do you think the Tory Party is homophobic?  Can we trust anything the Lib Dems say?  Are Labour Party members all drink drivers?  Or do they find other ways to break the law whilst driving?  Then again, I can see why you think I'm bigoted - its easy to throw that one around these daysCan we trust a speaker that wont even pick up his tab?  I'm referring to Main Stream Media by the way, not to mass media.

UKIP Party Election Broadcast

Now contrast that with the BNP Party Election broadcast!  One is a racist party, the other is not.

If Edric, or someone else that understands politics steps in, I'd be more than willing to continue this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I do think that the Tories are, by and large, homophobic.

Am I going to provide any evidence or support for that point of view? No, I'm just going to state it as an opinion and ignore the context and surrounding points because apparently that's how we argue in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your liberal smattering of BBC, Telegraph and (laughably) Daily Mail articles do nothing but prove that you're unable to argue your own corner any longer.

Tory party homophobic due to the comments of one man?  Obviously.

Leaflets from the Lib Dems showing doctored photos?  Clearly, the entire party can no longer be taken at its word.  Also let's ban photoshop.

One Labour member gets in a car accident (your article only says she was breathalised and asked to provide blood, not that she was convicted of drink driving - don't you watch Road Wars?).  This must mean that drink driving is supported by Labour!

Ed Balls?  Driving while talking on his mobile?!  Because only politicians do this, and not a good chunk of the country, so this is clearly relevant to the discussion at hand.

And let's all gather round and waggle our fingers at a Prime Minister who has the balls to call an idiot an idiot, shall we?  How dare he call a bigoted person a bigot.

Not paying the bills at the bar?  I certainly can't think of thousands upon thousands of other Brits who don't do this either.

Now let's just watch the UKIP YouTube vid.

0:58 - Very unhappy with our EU membership?  Says who?  Oh, that's right, UKIP.  So not the general public then.  Huh.

1:01 - The majority wanted a referendum?  Wonder where he's getting the figures for that?  Perhaps from thin air.

1:50 - Money going out of the UK to help others?  I bet he loves Oxfam.

1:58 - "Elected by you to serve you"?  Yeah, that's pretty much any MP right there.

2:02 - "Britain's interests first".  Because it's not like there's a whole world out there that we need to work together with.

2:09 - Those dirty immigrants are stealing his job!  Wait... no, it wasn't his job in the first place.

2:21 - It's not as if we need any workers from abroad - everyone in the UK wants to work!

2:38 - We put victims in cells!  No, wait... Well we certainly put them on trial!  Ack, no... they're still treated worse than criminals though!

2:46 - Heh, "these people".  Because they're not like the rest of us.

3:05 - Tax juggling!  Oh this is one of my favourite shows...

3:13 - Oooh, he just flipped Inheritance Tax into the mix!  Appease the rich by making sure they don't have to pay anything to keep the cash in the family!

3:34 - Wow... the guy made a valid point.  Wait, no, you can't distract me that easily!

3:58 - Because Employers N.I. isn't there for a reason at all.  It just pays for the bubbly at the tax peoples' monthly "We're So Rich" parties in Switzerland.

4:23 - No, it's cool, I don't need to know what you classify as "wasteful government excess".  Just a vague reference to banks and government is fine.

4:30 - "UKIP believes in straight talking".  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

4:34 - Yeah, might want to go ahead and define who you class as "British people".

4:47 - No. :D

That was the most pandering piece of failure I've seen in a Party Election Broadcast.  If they had sidestepped the controversial issues any more, they'd have ended up in a parallel universe.  Perhaps there, Dunenewt, you're intelligent enough to see through this bollocks.  But alas, in this universe, you're not.  And your excuses regarding not answering my points (or more importantly, Dante's) are wearing ever more thin.

I eagerly await your reply, which I predict will contain derisive comments regarding how much you think I know, plus careful avoidance of addressing any of the myriad points that Dante and I have brought up, under the pretense of them somehow being below you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now let's just watch the UKIP YouTube vid.

0:58 - Very unhappy with our EU membership?  Says who?  Oh, that's right, UKIP.  So not the general public then.  Huh.

1:01 - The majority wanted a referendum?  Wonder where he's getting the figures for that?  Perhaps from thin air.

http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/dyk_pollwatch.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/7949104.stm

Maybe the minority who are for greater powers for the EU were Scottish and Welsh voters...would make sense given the rise of the SNP/PC.  Incidentally, who are you two voting for?  That would only make this debate more interesting!  I'm guessing...SNP?  Or Lib Dems?  Seeing as they are the two most pro-EU parties in your area.  Or were you considering voting Labour? 

Edit - incidentally, what was the valid point made?  YT has once again changed layouts, and it seems my timings are slightly off what you've written.  Was it to do with grammar schools (one of the points I feel very strongly about) or the one about scrapping the 50% goal for school leavers to go to uni?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I should continue to show you the little respect I currently extend towards you, in the form of addressing your arguments.  You don't seem capable of reciprocating.  I say for the umpteenth time, you are ignoring points you can't deal with.

Your pollwatch website link only aggregates all the polls that they can find to support their arguments, however tenuous and vague the link might be.  It also contains a link to your second link, so I'll move onto that.  Do please let me know if there's anything you felt I haven't addressed, since I'll actually listen.

Another BBC article?  Still unable to argue for yourself, I see, but at least this one links to a PDF with a table.  Containing figures, no less!  Aside from the questions being unfairly weighted to subconsciously induce negative assosciation with the EU, the general points to be taken from it don't really support your argument much.

- We're in the middle of a financial downturn, and we apparently don't want to bugger about switching currencies right now.  This is a shocker.

- Britain is about half and half when it comes to the EU benefiting us, but only in terms of trade and jobs.  That's not a loaded question at all.

- With those previous two questions in mind, the majority of people are now simply following through with their original answers.  It's still a wishy-washy question, though - what exactly are "close trading links"?  Want to explain or give examples, Mr. Questionnaire?  No?  Alright, I'll settle for a near 50-50 split again.

- The last question is the most ridiculous of all.  "Do you want to be consulted before changes are made, or would you rather be kept in the dark?"  This questionnaire is pretty poor show.

I'll concede that this is about the only thing you've provided that even comes close to proving your point, in that it's almost completely relevant and only a little biased.  But you still have a slew of points that you haven't addressed.  I wonder how long it will be before you acknowledge this?

I've already made my views regarding voting clear; that one vote doesn't count in the grand scheme of things.  And I maintain that position.  My opinion can't make any change in the eventual outcome, no matter how much I want it to.  My individual vote means next to nothing.  But there is something I can do, and this article has helped in no small part to make me realise this.

I can use my vote to effectively negate anothers'.  Oh of course, it still doesn't make any difference in the long run, but knowing that a vote for the UKIP won't mean a one-up against the party I agree with the closest is a warming feeling.  I also feel a sense of responsibility I didn't before - if people who appear to be educated can hold opinions like yours, then it's my duty to try and quash that stupidity.  Sort of fighting in the shade, dining in hell and whatnot.

As for who I'm voting for?  Guess away; I'm not going to give you a tangent to go off on, so that you can continue to dodge the difficult questions.  We're destroying your arguments here - don't try to change the subject. :)

The valid point?  I forget... it was padded between so much crap, it's all a brown blur.  Wait a moment while I skip to that time reference again.

"But we don't need to send everyone on to university, and we should be encouraging more of our youngsters to learn trades and learn skills."

No, it wasn't about scrapping goals or grammar schools - it was a comment he made that seemed to be a slice of wisdom among otherwise barmy proposals.  I see now, however, that it's just another cover for cutbacks and segragation.  Congratulations!  You've managed to make the entire broadcast a failure in my eyes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're against the grammar schools that are proven to increase social mobility in the link I previously posted?  I'm strongly in favour of grammar schools, and I doubt you can come up with any coherent argument against them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour are imploding!  Their election campaign is an absolute disaster.

Labour PPC calls UKIP PPC and LSE lecturer Abhijit Pandya (who is of Indian origin) a 'BNP man in a suit'.  Needless to say, people weren't impressed.

A UKIP member, Viscount Monckton, and a UKIP PPC Waheed Rafiq will be receiving a blessing from an Imam this weekend...oh wait they wont, because UKIP is a racist organisation  ::)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me explain something to you. One does not need to hate people in order to be racist. If you listen to interviews with pro-Apartheid white South Africans from the 1950's, you generally find that their attitude towards their black neighbours was, from their point of view, somewhat paternal. They believed that the black population was incapable of looking after itself, that black people were less intelligent and less culturally advanced. They believed that "seperate but equal" was perfectly fair, and that "good neighbourliness" was the best policy for all, whereby black communities lived outside their places of work and the whites controlled everything. They saw themselves as understanding father figures to a people who needed outside discipline and control in order to make anything of themselves. Though some of them did see black people as lazy, untruthful and unprincipled, they did not, in fact, hate black people at all.

Yet they were racist. Practically the definition of the word. QED.

There are many forms of racism. It isn't limited to epithet-spitting BNP crazies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your attempts are laughable!

Do you have any idea what racism is?  The continued use of the Barnett Formula and the lack of an English Parliament strike me as much more racist concepts than anything being proposed by UKIP.  UKIP are simply saying the borders need to be closed to allow our infrastructure to recover, then they will let more people in.  They believe that the huge amount of economic migration - much more than is required given the current labour surplus/unemployment - penalises those who are seeking genuine asylum.  UKIP's support for closer links with the Commonwealth rather than being tied into trading cartels within Europe have led to UKIP getting quite a few supporters amongst the British Indian community.

Racism is things like the EU's Common Agricultural Policy:

Anti-development

Criticism of the CAP has united some supporters of globalisation with the anti-globalisation movement in that it is argued that these subsidies, like those of the USA and other Western states, add to the problem of what is sometimes called Fortress Europe; the West spends high amounts on agricultural subsidies every year, which amounts to unfair competition. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries' total agricultural subsidies amount to more than the official development assistance from OECD countries to developing countries. Support to farmers in OECD countries totals 280 billion USD annually. By contrast, official development assistance amounted to 80 billion USD in 2004. OECD analysts estimate that cutting agricultural tariffs and subsidies by 50% would add an extra 26 billion USD to annual world income, equivalent to just over four dollars a year for every person on the globe. [24]

[edit] Oversupply and its redistribution

To perpetuate the viability of European agriculture in its current state, the CAP-mandated demand for certain farm products is set at a high level compared with demand in the free market (see CAP as a form of State intervention). This leads to the European Union purchasing millions of tonnes of surplus output every year at the stated guaranteed market price, and storing this produce in large quantities (leading to what critics have called 'butter mountains' and 'milk lakes'), before selling the produce wholesale to developing nations.[25] In 2007 in response to a parliamentary written question the UK government revealed that over the preceding year the EU Public Stock had amassed "13,476,812 tonnes of cereal, rice, sugar and milk products and 3,529,002 hectolitres of alcohol/wine”, although the EU has claimed this level of oversupply is unlikely to be repeated. In January 2009 the EU had a current store of 717,810 tonnes of cereals, 41,422 tonnes of sugar and a 2.3 million hectolitre 'wine lake'. The EU will also purchase and further subsidise the export of 30,000 tonnes of butter and 109,000 tonnes of powdered milk to the third world.[25][26]

By adding import tariffs to agricultural goods exported by farmers in developing countries, whilst at the same time undercutting them in their domestic market where European oversupply is "dumped" uninhibited by import levies, it is argued the CAP is throttling agricultural business within these countries whether national or global and forcing them back into an economically stunted subsistence lifestyle. According to the 2003 Human Development Report the average dairy cow in the year 2000 under the European Union received $913 in subsidies annually, whilst an average of $8 per human being was sent in aid to Sub-Saharan Africa. The 2005 HDR described the CAP as "extravagant ... wreaking havoc in global sugar markets". The report also states "The basic problem to be addressed in the WTO negotiations on agriculture can be summarized in three words: rich country subsidies. In the last round of world trade negotiations rich countries promised to cut agricultural subsidies. Since then, they have increased them" an outcome hinted at in HDR 2003.

That's from Wikipedia - and there's plenty more arguments to back them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. I told myself I wasn't going to do this, but Dragoon has made a sterling effort to rebuff the stupid in another thread and it will be a dark day indeed when I don't at least try to one-up him. So, for your edification and humiliation I present

DANTE'S TEN POINTS OF ARGUMENT

Point the First

"The UK Independence Party is committed to repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights."

I... can't believe that I have to explain how this is a bad thing. In a document on education, I remind you.

The Human Rights Act, essentially, made the European Convention on Human Rights an official consideration of British Law, legally obligating all public bodies to act in accordance with the Convention unless the wording of a British law directly contradicts it (ONOES, it's European and must therefore be evil!). In legalspeak, this also allows breachs of the Convention to be dealt with in British courts, where they would otherwise have to be taken to Strasbourg.

The Convention, for example, prohibits torture (Article 3, "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," no exceptions) and slavery (Article 4, includes "servitude and forced labour"). It also protects the rights to life (Article 2), Liberty (Article 5), Security (Article 5), Fair Trial (Article 6), Privacy (Article 8 ), Freedom of Expression and Association (Articles 10 and 11) etc. The Act also went further by completely banning all capital punishment in Britain (previously kept on the books as punishment for treason).

I suspect that the real reason that UKIP want to get rid of both of these pieces of Legislation (besides the fact that the Act was based on the Convention and we can't possibly have people outside the UK telling the UK what to do even though the UK signed and ratified the Convention along with everyone else...) is that Article 16 allows states to restrict the movements of foreign aliens, but forbids them from declaring citizens of member states to be such.

Now tell me how abolishing the Act and withdrawing from the Convention could possibly be a good thing. Do we want to restrict French travellers now? Do we want to start executing people? Do we want to remove the legal protection that protects people from discrimination (Article 14 and Protocol 12)? Because if we do, and if that legislation is somehow relevent in a school, then I stand by my earlier comment.

Worst. Party. Ever.

Point the Second

"We will insist that if contraceptives have been prescribed to under-age girls that schools and health professionals inform either the girl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your attempts are laughable!

Now you may be laughing at something, and we may be making attempts to drill through your ignorance, but the two are completely unrelated.  Unless we've set off some sort of resonant frequency response in your limbic system.  You might want to see a doctor about it.  Get that rash I mentioned seen to while you're at it. :)

Do you have any idea what racism is?  The continued use of the Barnett Formula and the lack of an English Parliament strike me as much more racist concepts than anything being proposed by UKIP.

Now I'm not sure you're thinking properly, here.  Have a lie down with a cold cloth over your head and come back in ten minutes or so.  I'll wait.

...

Now, read what you said again.  The Barnett Formula might be in need of revision, but it has nothing to do with race.  It's a population-based system, which favours different regions of the UK depending on proportionate ratios.  It even goes as far as being a general, sweeping thing; not focused on particular areas of spending, but rather an overall budget.  It works both ways - England could benefit, while all the other countries fall foul of less funding; England and Wales could benefit, while Scotland and Northern Ireland lose out, or Great Britain as a whole could undergo a re-jigging.  But it equally work in reverse.

Now tell me, how is that racist?  It's based on population density, for the love of logic!  As for a lack of an English Parliament?  You can't have it both ways for that one, I'm afraid.  Complaining about the Barnett Formula on one hand, then saying that "English people should be allowed to decide what's right for them, without the others getting in the way!"  At least, that's what I'm assuming you're saying, since your point couldn't have been any more vague if you mumbled it into a tin can in the middle of a busy airport.

UKIP are simply saying the borders need to be closed to allow our infrastructure to recover, then they will let more people in.  They believe that the huge amount of economic migration - much more than is required given the current labour surplus/unemployment - penalises those who are seeking genuine asylum.

Do you honestly believe that closing the borders of this country to immigrants will boost the economy?  Try thinking a bit bigger, little Newt.  Consider the NHS, for example.  Immigrants have been vital to the NHS since the get-go.  Unless the UKIP intends on investing extraordinary amounts in the NHS, and cutting the cost of nursing qualifications, the NHS would quickly deteriorate.  You can't reverse half a century of importing medical professionals overnight, and even if you did, 5 years is just long enough to make the damage as bad as it can be.

Then there's the lack of skilled labour elsewhere.  I'm sure you're still operating under the delusion that if there were no more immigrants, that the nation's unemployed would suddenly get off their collective arses and get a job, because Johnny Employer wouldn't have anywhere else to turn?  Think about this for a second.  Legal immigrants are subject to the same minimum wage requirements as any UK citizen.  They're hired because they're more skilled.  This proposal would simply wreck the country from the ground up, and you're talking out of your arse if you think otherwise.  The two points I've mentioned above are only the barest beginnings of the issues the UKIP would cause.  Seriously, take a step back and look at what you're proposing, man.

They believe that the huge amount of economic migration - much more than is required given the current labour surplus/unemployment - penalises those who are seeking genuine asylum.

Ah, now there's a thing.  You've moved seamlessly from immigration to asylum seekers.  Because those who face persecution or death in their home countries should all be turned away, because the UKIP went and bought a "Do Not Disturb" sign.  Let's just bundle them all together, and just call them "aliens", eh?  Now that is the kind of borderline racism that the UKIP is famous for.  You'd be best off realising that the vast, vast majority of people in the UK dislike, or even hate, the UKIP, second only to the BNP.

We're in the middle of a financial crisis recovery.  That's the whole world, not just Britain.  The solution is certainly not to halt anyone coming into the country, because as the economy heals, there is going to be increased demand for jobs.  If the UK plans on filling those vacancies with skilled workers, and we don't have enough in the UK (which we don't, we haven't for a good long time), then we're going to lose out.  The UK as a place for businesses to set up will become an even less attractive prospect, and other countries (in the EU, for example) will take full advantage of this surplus.  Where will the UK be then, Dunenewt?  5 years behind in economic recovery, with no way to catch up.

UKIP's support for closer links with the Commonwealth rather than being tied into trading cartels within Europe have led to UKIP getting quite a few supporters amongst the British Indian community.

Define "closer ties", please.  Does it mean they're going to let people from India in to the UK, because they're special?  Or does it mean that they'll get preferential treatment somehow, because they're easier to exploit than the EU?  Maybe it has something to do with outsourcing; perhaps the UKIP see this as a viable alternative to ease the lack of immigration?  You need to be much more specific with your points, Dunenewt.

Racism is things like the EU's Common Agricultural Policy

You keep coming back to this CAP issue.  Perhaps this is due to your belief that, by proving yourself right on this specific point, the rest of your arguments must logically follow suit.  I hate to break it to you, but not only is that wrong, so is the point you're trying to make.  Bit of a let down, really.

I'll just post this picture to make my point clear.

Dunenewt-Fail-1.jpg

If you want a more detailed rebuke of your Wikipedia-quoted argument (so not really your thoughts, per se... more like getting others to do it for you), please get some proper sources, there's a good chap.

Labour are imploding!  Their election campaign is an absolute disaster.

Labour PPC calls UKIP PPC and LSE lecturer Abhijit Pandya (who is of Indian origin) a 'BNP man in a suit'.  Needless to say, people weren't impressed.

Conservatives are imploding!  Their election campaign is an absolute disaster.

Rising Tory star Philippa Stroud ran prayer sessions to 'cure' gay people.  Needless to say, people weren't impressed.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought for a moment that we were arguing UKIP's questionable politics.  It appears that we're simply linking news articles that show one person's worldview and then try to link that to the views of an entire political party, in a feeble attempt to say "Look at how maligned we are!  Poor UKIP!".  You've failed.  But the article I linked does, ironically, make one look at the Tories differently, since the woman in question has close ties with the leader and various policies.  Sorry if I embarrassed you.

A UKIP member, Viscount Monckton, and a UKIP PPC Waheed Rafiq will be receiving a blessing from an Imam this weekend...oh wait they wont, because UKIP is a racist organisation  ::)

When you learn to distinguish religion from nationality, come back and we'll discuss why you're wrong.  As it stands, it'd be like trying to give directions to someone who doesn't know their left from right.  Or even how to drive, by the looks of things.

Oh, and one final point - quoting an entire post, when you only intend to address (badly, I might add) one point?  Bad form. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you may be laughing at something, and we may be making attempts to drill through your ignorance, but the two are completely unrelated.  Unless we've set off some sort of resonant frequency response in your limbic system.  You might want to see a doctor about it.  Get that rash I mentioned seen to while you're at it. :)

The point I'm making is that you're failing to come up with any coherent argument, and ignoring points I've already made every time you post something new.

Now I'm not sure you're thinking properly, here.  Have a lie down with a cold cloth over your head and come back in ten minutes or so.  I'll wait.

...

Now, read what you said again.  The Barnett Formula might be in need of revision, but it has nothing to do with race.  It's a population-based system, which favours different regions of the UK depending on proportionate ratios.  It even goes as far as being a general, sweeping thing; not focused on particular areas of spending, but rather an overall budget.  It works both ways - England could benefit, while all the other countries fall foul of less funding; England and Wales could benefit, while Scotland and Northern Ireland lose out, or Great Britain as a whole could undergo a re-jigging.  But it equally work in reverse.

Now tell me, how is that racist?  It's based on population density, for the love of logic!  As for a lack of an English Parliament?  You can't have it both ways for that one, I'm afraid.  Complaining about the Barnett Formula on one hand, then saying that "English people should be allowed to decide what's right for them, without the others getting in the way!"  At least, that's what I'm assuming you're saying, since your point couldn't have been any more vague if you mumbled it into a tin can in the middle of a busy airport.

And thus, you've proved my point.  The Barnett Formula isn't racist, its just unfair towards the English and Welsh, just like the current levels of immigration are unfair on UK taxpayers.

Also, an English Parliament doesn't necessarily mean that the Barnett Formula has to be totally disbanded.

.  Although I believe (from looking at their official FB amongst other things), that they have quite a racist following, the English Democrats make a strong and well made point for an English Parliament. 
  Again, I know it takes a while for these points to hit home, but this doesn't make UKIP racist in the slightest.

To the other point you made here, yes, UKIP do want to make nursing training cheaper, but more effective, by taking training away from university, and back into the hospitals.  My girlfriend is a nurse, and she says that one of the main problems was that they spent too much time in the class, rather than being on the wards and seeing things first hand.

Ah, now there's a thing.  You've moved seamlessly from immigration to asylum seekers.  Because those who face persecution or death in their home countries should all be turned away, because the UKIP went and bought a "Do Not Disturb" sign.  Let's just bundle them all together, and just call them "aliens", eh?  Now that is the kind of borderline racism that the UKIP is famous for.  You'd be best off realising that the vast, vast majority of people in the UK dislike, or even hate, the UKIP, second only to the BNP.

We're in the middle of a financial crisis recovery.  That's the whole world, not just Britain.  The solution is certainly not to halt anyone coming into the country, because as the economy heals, there is going to be increased demand for jobs.  If the UK plans on filling those vacancies with skilled workers, and we don't have enough in the UK (which we don't, we haven't for a good long time), then we're going to lose out.  The UK as a place for businesses to set up will become an even less attractive prospect, and other countries (in the EU, for example) will take full advantage of this surplus.  Where will the UK be then, Dunenewt?  5 years behind in economic recovery, with no way to catch up.

Covered most of this above, although I must add that your point about UKIP being despised must only be a Scottish thing, after all, if you look at the last nationwide elections, UKIP was the second biggest party, gaining MEPs throughout England and Wales.  Its safe to say the SNP are much more widely despised than UKIP.

Define "closer ties", please.  Does it mean they're going to let people from India in to the UK, because they're special?  Or does it mean that they'll get preferential treatment somehow, because they're easier to exploit than the EU?  Maybe it has something to do with outsourcing; perhaps the UKIP see this as a viable alternative to ease the lack of immigration?  You need to be much more specific with your points, Dunenewt.

I'm sorry, I assumed you did some research before claiming UKIP was racist...

UKIP wants to introduce closer cultural ties with the Commonwealth, as well as a Commonwealth Free Trade Area, which has nothing to do with Indians being easier to exploit, and more to do with the fact that India's economy is booming, whereas Germany's is stagnating.

You keep coming back to this CAP issue.  Perhaps this is due to your belief that, by proving yourself right on this specific point, the rest of your arguments must logically follow suit.  I hate to break it to you, but not only is that wrong, so is the point you're trying to make.  Bit of a let down, really.

I'll just post this picture to make my point clear.

Dunenewt-Fail-1.jpg

If you want a more detailed rebuke of your Wikipedia-quoted argument (so not really your thoughts, per se... more like getting others to do it for you), please get some proper sources, there's a good chap.

So because I admitted they're from Wikipedia, you choose not to answer them.  May I suggest that this is because you do not have a come back to this point, and regarding sources, I have given you some suggested reading material beforehand, although may I also point out, that the Greens and UKIP are both against the CAP, which shows that across the political spectrum, CAP is seen as bad thing.

Conservatives are imploding!  Their election campaign is an absolute disaster.

Rising Tory star Philippa Stroud ran prayer sessions to 'cure' gay people.  Needless to say, people weren't impressed.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought for a moment that we were arguing UKIP's questionable politics.  It appears that we're simply linking news articles that show one person's worldview and then try to link that to the views of an entire political party, in a feeble attempt to say "Look at how maligned we are!  Poor UKIP!".  You've failed.  But the article I linked does, ironically, make one look at the Tories differently, since the woman in question has close ties with the leader and various policies.  Sorry if I embarrassed you.

Again, you fail to see my point.  I'm using your (and Dante's) method of arguing in this thread (I say in this thread, because usually both of you make well thought out arguments when replying in PRP), seems to be looking at one piece of information, and taking it to an extreme to get the your own results.

When you learn to distinguish religion from nationality, come back and we'll discuss why you're wrong.  As it stands, it'd be like trying to give directions to someone who doesn't know their left from right.  Or even how to drive, by the looks of things.

Oh, and one final point - quoting an entire post, when you only intend to address (badly, I might add) one point?  Bad form. :)

I know the difference between nationality, religion, race, and the rest.  I will be quite happy to elaborate on it all if you need teaching.  May I suggest you tackle Samuel P Huntington's 'Clash of Civilisations'.

As for the other points, I will tackle them when I have time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. I told myself I wasn't going to do this, but Dragoon has made a sterling effort to rebuff the stupid in another thread and it will be a dark day indeed when I don't at least try to one-up him. So, for your edification and humiliation I present

DANTE'S TEN POINTS OF ARGUMENT

Point the First

"The UK Independence Party is committed to repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights."

I... can't believe that I have to explain how this is a bad thing. In a document on education, I remind you.

The Human Rights Act, essentially, made the European Convention on Human Rights an official consideration of British Law, legally obligating all public bodies to act in accordance with the Convention unless the wording of a British law directly contradicts it (ONOES, it's European and must therefore be evil!). In legalspeak, this also allows breachs of the Convention to be dealt with in British courts, where they would otherwise have to be taken to Strasbourg.

The Convention, for example, prohibits torture (Article 3, "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," no exceptions) and slavery (Article 4, includes "servitude and forced labour"). It also protects the rights to life (Article 2), Liberty (Article 5), Security (Article 5), Fair Trial (Article 6), Privacy (Article 8 ), Freedom of Expression and Association (Articles 10 and 11) etc. The Act also went further by completely banning all capital punishment in Britain (previously kept on the books as punishment for treason).

I suspect that the real reason that UKIP want to get rid of both of these pieces of Legislation (besides the fact that the Act was based on the Convention and we can't possibly have people outside the UK telling the UK what to do even though the UK signed and ratified the Convention along with everyone else...) is that Article 16 allows states to restrict the movements of foreign aliens, but forbids them from declaring citizens of member states to be such.

Now tell me how abolishing the Act and withdrawing from the Convention could possibly be a good thing. Do we want to restrict French travellers now? Do we want to start executing people? Do we want to remove the legal protection that protects people from discrimination (Article 14 and Protocol 12)? Because if we do, and if that legislation is somehow relevent in a school, then I stand by my earlier comment.

Worst. Party. Ever.

Point the Second

"We will insist that if contraceptives have been prescribed to under-age girls that schools and health professionals inform either the girl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're singling out UKIP for wanting to repeal the ECHR when David Cameron has also said he will scrap it, and replace it with a UK 'Bill of Rights'.  If you bothered to read up on the ECHR, you'd see that the UK (and many other countries) have taken a very pick'n'mix approach with signing and ratifying articles in it.  There are several things in the ECHR that really do need to be scrapped/reworked.  Maybe you aren't aware of any problems of it, but I have first hand experience.  Because of the ECHR, it is very hard to get rid of bands of travelling criminals who turn up in public playing fields, ruin them, and then move on, leaving a piles of rubbish, human and animal faeces.  This happened last year, and is not a one off occurrence.  If you don't believe me when I say they're criminals, I personally saw some of them get arrested for attempted theft.
1) You want me to attack the Tories as well? Alright. Scrapping the Human Rights Act is a stupid idea no matter who suggests it.

2) Reworking legislation is not grounds for scrapping it.

3) And what parts need to be scrapped, exactly?

4) I saw a man being arrested once. I tried to have him, his family and everyone he knows arrested as well, but apparently that's not how the law works. Weird, eh? I mean they were obvious criminals.

You're trying to make out that UKIP would simply scrap the ECHR, and then fail to provide any kind of protection for human rights, which is simply not true.  As David Cameron suggested, a British 'Bill of Rights' would take its place.
Words in mouth again old boy, you must be careful of doing that. I don't think that UKIP would leave the matter unattended, I think they would invent a spurious piece of legislation to do the same job that the Human Rights Act is already doing. Because that's not a complete waste of time and money at all.

"British Bill of Rights" would be somehow superior through being British? That's the impression I'm getting here. There's a word for behaviour like that you know.

Article 16 - aliens

Article 16 allows states to restrict the political activity of foreigners. The Court has ruled that European Union member states cannot consider the nationals of other member states to be aliens.

Well, if UKIP had its way, we'd be out of the EU anyway, so the second sentence would be irrelevant anyway.

My point exactly. Basically, UKIP would like to be able to consider individuals from EU states to be aliens, when they feel like it. They can't do that right now, hence this whole rigmarole.
Yet again, we've got the good ol'Strawman argument coming out.  UKIP is not proposing that abstinence is to be the sole method of contraception, it is only part of the international approach on preventing STDs/unwanted pregnancies called the ABC approach.  Abstinence, Being faithful (I guess this is where tax breaks for married couples come in cf. Tories), Condoms.  All UKIP is saying here, is it wants to encourage 12 year olds that perhaps its not a good idea to go off and have sex with a randomer, and perhaps you should wait a bit.  That seems reasonable enough to me.
You're terrible at structuring an argument around a quote, you know. Divide the quote into pieces and deal with them seperately, it makes it much easier for readers to relate points to each other and cuts down on needless scrolling.

"Abstinence" is a loaded word these days. And to mention America, where silver rings and the like symbolise a movement that has largely failed, just shows that UKIP is rather missing the point. Abstinence is not an effective lesson, especially as it is nearly impossible to teach it in a way that it doesn't come across as "DO AS WE SAY AND NOT AS WE DO: DO NOT HAVE SEX." As I said before, there is only so much you can influence the behaviour of other people, and if they are going to have sex then the last thing society should do is condemn them for not being morally strong enough (an argument that creeps into any discussion on abstinence). Feel free to encourage people to wait until they're ready, but don't bring the language of the mistaken moralists into it.

As for your point about the CHILD's human rights... you cannot be serious??  This is a prime example of where the ECHR fails.  We are talking about CHILDREN here.  I think it is right that parents should be told on these issues.  Either way, this is a personal opinion on both our sides, and to continue this argument would be pointless.  A school should be able to find a responsible adult, and this is all part of restoring some morals and values into the Jeremy Kyle generation.
No. Children have a right to privacy as much as anyone else, and the Human Rights Act is doing its job if it prevents teachers and the like from releasing sensitive infomation to a child's parents, guardians, "trustworthy cousins," etc. Not only is a child a seperate person from their parents, and might on occasion wish to keep secrets from their parents, they will also one day become an adult. Or at least, they will if you treat them like one.

As for "restoring some morals and values," that's just the familiar diktat from the political Right, toxic and judgemental of everything that doesn't fit with its rose-tinted vision of children doffing their caps to old ladies. "Broken Britain" and such poisonous rhetoric: it's disgusting, and I find it the most offensive thing about right wing organisations. The accusation, implicit or otherwise, that an individual is somehow corrupt because they do not fit into someone else's ideal of what they should be.

"What they should be."

It's foul.

Yet again you really don't understand the point of this.  Other countries, such as the US, Canada, Australia, etc, all have their own international student exchanges, and if we can have our own, which is less of a burden on the UK taxpayer because it isn't full of propaganda, then why not?  I'm currently on an Erasmus year, but there are people doing exactly the same as me, but from non EU countries.  This doesn't mean the quality or experience is affected in any way!  As for the Jean Monnet professors...you really should read up on this!  These people are paid by the EU (by the UK taxpayer) to solely promote the EU.  If UKIP took us out the EU, it wouldn't make sense to have Jean Monnet professors.
You're going to have to explain how propaganda costs more money, I'm afraid. Also, it seems to me that you didn't really deal with the argument. Sure, other countries have their own exchanges. Other countries also have their own wars. Do we need to get our own just because Australia might have one? And what does the quality of the experience have to do with the argument? If anything, replacing a system with another system that does exactly the same thing sounds like a waste of time.

Besides which, all this emphasis on "the UK taxpayer" rather ignores the fact that the UK also receives substantial funds from the EU itself. It's not just a matter of the EU taking everyone's money and bathing in it, it's the EU taking money and redistributing it. In 2008, for example, Britain received roughly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well look at this!  And all it took was a page or two of constant prompting for you to draft a decent reply!  I'm almost proud of you. :)

The point I'm making is that you're failing to come up with any coherent argument, and ignoring points I've already made every time you post something new.

No, I'm really not.  I challenge you to point out any point I've missed, and I will deal with it presently.  I'm not having you - the King of Point-Ignoring (and we all know who is Queen) - telling me that I'm not dealing with your arguments.  I'm being meticulous here.  So go ahead and show me, with quoted evidence, where I've failed to address your points.

And thus, you've proved my point.  The Barnett Formula isn't racist, its just unfair towards the English and Welsh, just like the current levels of immigration are unfair on UK taxpayers.

Now hold on just a second there, young man.  You said, and I quote, "The continued use of the Barnett Formula and the lack of an English Parliament strike me as much more racist concepts than anything being proposed by UKIP."  You're making a very poor attempt to backpedal here, and it's not going to wash.  You can't say "X is more racist than Y", then when I prove it's not racist at all, claim that I've somehow "proved your point"?  I've done nothing of the sort.  I've done the exact opposite and disproven it, yet again.  The UKIP have a particular flavour of racism that manifests itself most evidently in xenophobia and isolationism.

And how - just how - do you get from the Barnett Formula to immigration policy?  Their respective "unfairnesses" have no correlation to eachother.  One system gives preference to one or more countries over others, whereas the other... oh, wait, you didn't provide any supporting evidence for your claim that it hurts UK taxpayers.  Feel like coming up with some proof for that?  And do remember to look at the bigger picture this time.

Also, an English Parliament doesn't necessarily mean that the Barnett Formula has to be totally disbanded.

.  Although I believe (from looking at their official FB amongst other things), that they have quite a racist following, the English Democrats make a strong and well made point for an English Parliament.  
 Taxes and cuts, it would seem - no plan to offset this training cost.  Even going as far to cull jobs that are funded in roundabout ways.  That's what we need right now, UKIP!  Job cuts!

And now you say that the UKIP would close the borders, but open them selectively to let in a few doctors because we're running a bit short?  Bit hypocritical, no?  Where's all your talk of skilled British workers now?  It all smacks of you and/or the UKIP being wholly confused and trying to mislead people.  A halt on immigration isn't a halt if you're picking and choosing, now is it?  If their policies were any more wishy-washy, they'd be better than a box of Fairy Non-Bio.

Now where is my lack of comprehension here?  Where does any misunderstanding or lack of knowledge show through?  Because I'm fairly certain I've given your points a thorough dressing down.  If I missed a sock, do let me know.

The current welfare system is stretched to the brink, and if you think it isn't, you are deluded.  All UKIP is saying, is that a 5 year moratorium is needed, to get the welfare system back up to a condition where it can cope with the growing population, and then it will reopen the borders with a points system, the same as Labour have recently introduced, and the same as the Tories want.  This 5 year moratorium is only on permanent settlement.  I have to be honest, you're probably from an area with a low rate of immigration, and you don't know what it is like to have services that are pressed to the limit.  NHS not ready for immigration.  Again, I know it takes a while for these points to hit home, but this doesn't make UKIP racist in the slightest.

Of course the welfare system is stretched to breaking, that's sort of my point.  A stop on immigration isn't going to change that.  Do you know why?  Because immigrants come here to work, not to claim Jobseeker's Allowance.  Points-based or not, I repeat that you are deluded if you think that people will suddenly up and start working because there's a need for it.  As you've already admitted, the UKIP will simply open the borders if they feel the need, and by god will they feel it.  If anything, the UKIP's plans will put more strain on the benefits system, since they're going to need to provide all this "training" to get back to work (i.e. more benefits) and still end up hiring foreign talent anyway.  Permanent residence or temporary, it makes no difference.  This 5 year gap will result in a net loss all round.

Also, if you're trying to use that BBC article as your reason, you'd do well to consider that it's two years out of date.  Also, consider why these families are deciding to have children here in the UK.  Could it be because they have a job, and can financially support a child?  Then that means they're paying their taxes and their N.I., just like the rest of us.  Which means that there's proportionately more money available to fund the NHS and deal with what they agree was simply a surprising and unexpected rise.  And the UKIP's plans are perhaps not overtly racist, but one has to wonder why they don't take a less drastic approach.  One that wouldn't condemn these children to be born in places where they won't grow up with the assurances of healthcare and education.  Because only British born children deserve that, right?

Seriously, Newt, you'd be better off at least trying to argue by yourself, instead of linking news website articles and YouTube videos.  They're not doing you any favours.

To the other point you made here, yes, UKIP do want to make nursing training cheaper, but more effective, by taking training away from university, and back into the hospitals.  My girlfriend is a nurse, and she says that one of the main problems was that they spent too much time in the class, rather than being on the wards and seeing things first hand.

That wasn't my point, oh Newt o' Dune.  My point was that such training takes time.  Ask your girlfriend how long her training took.  Now, even with Super-Special UKIP Streamlined Nursing Training, this amounts to years.  Consider how long it would take for doctors.  The UKIP are closing the borders for 5 years.  What are we meant to do in the mean time?

Also, good job on the double-standards again.  "The NHS is crippled!  But yeah, sure, we'll place the burden of training a fleet of nurses on them!".

Covered most of this above, although I must add that your point about UKIP being despised must only be a Scottish thing, after all, if you look at the last nationwide elections, UKIP was the second biggest party, gaining MEPs throughout England and Wales.  Its safe to say the SNP are much more widely despised than UKIP.

Covered most of... oh, the cheek of it.  You've addressed nearly nothing.  I'll be brief, and cite specific points that you need to address:

- What happens to genuine asylum seekers, who will be persecuted or killed if turned away?

- What does the UKIP plan to do to counter the mass exodus of businesses who already find the UK a harsh business climate?

- How does the UKIP plan to overcome the 5 year lag behind the rest of the world in terms of economic recovery?

Those are some pretty big points you missed, there.  And regarding your comparison between the UKIP and SNP in terms of widespread hate?  I don't see the newspapers and websites you love to quote speaking of parties like the SNP in anywhere near the level of vehemence and disapproval as they do with the UKIP.  Could this be because the UKIP have much more controversial policies?  Could their more widespread acceptance than the SNP be due to, oh I don't know, only around 8% of the UK population having a vested interest in the SNP?  I guarantee you that a lot more than 8% of the population of Britain as a whole is stupid enough to follow the UKIP.

I'm sorry, I assumed you did some research before claiming UKIP was racist...

UKIP wants to introduce closer cultural ties with the Commonwealth, as well as a Commonwealth Free Trade Area, which has nothing to do with Indians being easier to exploit, and more to do with the fact that India's economy is booming, whereas Germany's is stagnating.

No, I'm sorry.  I'd assumed you were a reasonable person, able to see the truth, even if you didn't like it.  It's becoming clear that you'll cut your nose off to spite your face.

You're going to have to provide more details about this "Commonwealth Free Trade Area", because it smells fishy to me.  You see, I'm apparently incapable of doing research on my own, so I wouldn't be able to point out that the UKIP says that "membership is open to any state that adheres to individual liberty, accepts the English language as the predominant means of communication..." (source)  Now that's straight from the horses mouth.

Which means that India... well, I'll let you figure it out for yourself.  But please, feel free to continue to criticise me for my lack of research, you arrogant streak of unpleasant liquids.

So because I admitted they're from Wikipedia, you choose not to answer them.  May I suggest that this is because you do not have a come back to this point, and regarding sources, I have given you some suggested reading material beforehand, although may I also point out, that the Greens and UKIP are both against the CAP, which shows that across the political spectrum, CAP is seen as bad thing.

You may not suggest, especially given your track record of failure throughout this thread.  The reason I chose not to dissect the criticism with meticulous detail is not because they're from Wikipedia, but because they do not cite any references or sources.  And the only "reading material" you've suggested has been either news articles or books which bear only a passing relevance to the issues as they stand today.  As soon as you can come up with some criticisms that have merit, then I'll be happy to tear them down in front of you, as you stand aghast at yet another trouncing of your world view.

Alternatively, I could just go ahead and provide cited and well-sourced arguments for the CAP, but that would leave you in a bit of a lurch, since then you'd be woefully unable to provide an answer.  Frantically linking the BBC News homepage and saying "Look here, my answer is in here somewhere!".  Nobody wants to see that, Newt.  Nobody.

But just say the word, and I'll indulge you. :)

Again, you fail to see my point.  I'm using your (and Dante's) method of arguing in this thread (I say in this thread, because usually both of you make well thought out arguments when replying in PRP), seems to be looking at one piece of information, and taking it to an extreme to get the your own results.

Oh please, do let me know what your point was.  Because all I could garner from your vague news-article-quoting jiggery-pokery is that you see the UKIP as being unfairly viewed when compared to the actions of other parties.  My point is that your point is invalid, as there are people everywhere who are stupid, regardless of their political allegiance.  It just so happens that the bigots, xenophobes and closet racists have all congregated under the UKIP banner.

And this method we're using?  It's called being detailed.  Almost Socratic.  Answering every point.  Examining every claim.  Responding to, and refuting, every.  Idiotic.  Statement.  It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.  Your emulation of us is touching, but your refutations are found lacking.  Keep trying, and before you know it, you'll find that you've backpedalled all the way into Lake Logic.  You might even start to question why you hold such imbecilic beliefs, and why you ever supported a party like the UKIP.

I know the difference between nationality, religion, race, and the rest.  I will be quite happy to elaborate on it all if you need teaching.  May I suggest you tackle Samuel P Huntington's 'Clash of Civilisations'.

You do know the difference?  Splendid!  Time for a surprise quiz then.  Only one question, pass or fail.

1. How does whether or not a couple of UKIP members get blessed by a religious figure have any bearing on their views on race?

Now think carefully, because this will no doubt be tricky for you.  Good luck, and no looking at the desk of the boy next to you.

As for the other points, I will tackle them when I have time.

Are you and Hwi the same person?  Because you're using all the same mannerisms, and now you're even using the same excuses for not having all the answers.

But don't worry, I'll wait until you "have time".  I'm sure those Daily Mail journalists and the good folk at the BBC will produce another article you can use to subsidise, or even replace, your own thoughts with. :)

EDIT: Tidied up my phrasing / grammar.  At 5 A.M., these things can slip past a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread's pretty epic.

Let me just ask you folks this.

An American question. The question that gave us 8 years of a president.

Which one of these guys you want to sit down and have a beer with?

Elect the other guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex, you've done what the others can't - you've defeated me!  UKIP is the self proclaimed party of the pub, and the only party which is remotely friendly to the pub industry, so it would have to be the other guy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To mark this day The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is lauching our Manicfesto. Well thought out, Diverse and free from the knee jerk policies of the other parties we are confident that this manicfesto will stir the great British public to vote for us.

1. Health & Safety: We propose to ban Self Responsibilty on the grounds that it may be dangerous to your health.

2. M.P's Expenses:    We propose that instead of a second home allowance M.P's will have a caravan which will be parked outside the Houses of Parliament. This will make it easier as flipping a caravan is easier than flipping homes

3. Eurofit: The European Constitution which will be sorted out by going for a long Walk. "As everyone knows that walking is good for the constitution"

4. The speaker in the House of Commons will be replaced by the latest audio equipment

5. To help the Israel/Palestinian Problem, we will get rid of the old road map, and replace it with a new sat nav instead

6. European Union: It is proposed that the European Union end its discrimination by creating a "Court of Human Lefts" because their present policy is one -sided.

7. Education: We will increase the number of Women teachers throughout the education System as we are strong believers of 'Female Intuition'

8. Immigration and Population: I propose that we cap the population of this country. We have too many people for such a small country, so we will Cap the number of people residing here at present rates (approximately 63 million, give or take 10 mill ) on the basis of one out, one in (excluding Births).

Regarding Immigration... Any Person who can prove that they or their descendants emigrated to the U.K  before 55 A.D can stay. All the others will be repatriated to their original country. (Well we have to draw the line somewhere)

9. We will ban all forms of Greyhound racing. This will help stop the counrty going to the dogs.

10. Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on terror. Theirs nothing funny about this. however as we have not found any taliban terrorists in Derbyshire. Our Soldiers can all come home now.

Well I'm convinced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, they actually had some councillors near me!  Couple of other policies that I remember from them...any MP that sells off a school playing field has to have their own garden free for use to the public.  The other one I think is the 99p coin!

Spot the two odd things in the candidate list for Brighton Pavilions (where hopefully the Greens will get their first seat):

The full list of candidates for Brighton Pavilion is: Leo Atreides, Independent; Nigel Carter, UK Independence Party; Ian Fyvie, Socialist Labour Party; Soraya Kara, Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality; Caroline Lucas, Green; Bernadette Millam, Liberal Democrat; Nancy Platts, Labour; Charlotte Vere, Conservative.

As for TV debates...I wanted to see Boris Johnson, John Prescott, and Lembit Opik up there.  Either that or Farage up there against Cam/Clegg/Brown.  Also, Clarke v Mandelson was good in the business debate on 'The Daily Politics'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm torn between my love of the Atreides and my feeling of conviction for protecting the undead. Really I'm honestly torn guys, who should I vote for? One who would commit the UK to the Golden Path? Or one who wants to help cure the zombie plague?

Gahhh My braiinnnnn

mmm brains

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.