Lord Duckhunter

"You can argue about the economics, but it's much less inflammatory than Gordon Brown's 2007 speech in which he referred to "British jobs for British workers". That was a line taken directly from the old National Front. If you're not going to vote UKIP because of its posters, you definitely shouldn't have been voting Labour the past few years." "Oh, that's right. References to immigration are only racist if UKIP makes them. Sorry, we forgot." http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4942/stupidest_racism_smear_yet_against_ukip

Well said Douglas. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2014/05/the-smears-against-nigel-farage-and-ukip-have-reached-spectacular-depths/

I like political quizes. Which party leader said "British jobs for British workers"? Who said they were sympathetic to suicide bombers and would probably be one ? Which Tory dressed as a nazi? Which labour politician said that west Indian mothers care more about their children. Which London mayor made racist remarks to a Jewish journo?

Well said.

Not imaginary, but not necessarily down to the EU. Still waiting for the breakdown of the "millions" that Nigel has " milked" from the system.

I was totally against Sherwood , but I was impressed with his stint on yesterdays cup final. Came across as knowledgeable and spoke his mind. Wouldn't be my first choice but would prefer him to some of the names mentioned on here.

It was a load of old ********, 90% of which would have happened anyway , and other rest was opinion. The most laughable claims are around peace and policing, airbrushing NATO and Interpol out of history. Evidently everything good that's ever happened is down to the EU.

When the State broadcaster is incapable of debating the issues in a serious and factual manner during a serious discussion show, there's something wrong.

I've just listened to the podcast of "Any Questions" whilst walking the dog, and it was the most one sided and scandalous piece of serious political discussion I've had the misfortune to hear. Ming Campbell claimed that had UKIP been running the country people couldn't have escaped from Hitler to the UK and calling people who wanted to withdraw from the EU "unpatriotic". He also tried to equate Scotland leaving the UK with the UK leaving the EU. Sadiq Khan claimed that in the EU you can marry a German (obviously a dig at Nigel). This is meant to be the flag ship BBC radio political discussion show, joke.

Gordon brown 14% Charles Kennedy 31.2% Claire short 12.6% George Galloway 10.09% Are all these people " milking " the system. Posters on here have claimed that Nigel is " milking millions" yet when asked to explain don't seem able or capable of doing so. Just throwing accusations around doesn't make it true.

lets stick to the facts shall we. UKIP Mep's voting record is 66.17%, with Stuart Agnew having a 90.9% voting record. To put that into context, cleggys voting record at Westminster is 22%. So, I repeat. The claim made was that Nigel was "milking millions". How are these "millions" broken down, and in what way is he " milking " the system? Are you seriously trying to say that having a voting record twice as high as Cleggys, that Nigel is not entittled to legitimate allowences from the EU? , and also that these allowances add up to "millions" ? It appears to me that your definition of "milking the system" is having the audacity to have different political views then you. Is Cleggy "milking" the Westminster system?

Correct, people should bare this in mind when throwing around comments like "milking the system". Hopefully,we'll soon get a breakdown on the "millions" Nigel has "milked", and we can discuss further.

His voting record in the EU is better then Clegg's in Westminster, should Clegg take his wages? Do you know the difference between expenses and an allowance? Can you break down the "millions" that he's "milked"? You posted that he "milked millions", please clarify how he "milked" the money .

I presume your going to be able to back up this claim of Nigel " milking millions from the EU". I look forward to the evidence of this prior to casting my vote.

I thought one of Nicola's policies was that the first team manager was head of department, that the club had a structure and a way of playing that meant no disruption when employees moved on. To use the modern football buzz word a holistic approach. If its all going to go tits up the first time its tested , perhaps cortese wasn't quite the genius the press make out. Certainly Ajax see relaxed about losing FDB, confident in their clubs structure , perhaps we should be the same. Pocket the compo and get another dept head in.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/liberal-democrat-mps-expenses/8508349/David-Laws-suspended-over-pages-of-expenses-claims.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25492017 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10817533/MP-claims-for-sympathy-cards-to-send-out-when-constituents-die.html

Two things; Firstly, nobody knows what Marcus would have done in this situation. I maybe wrong but wasn't the talk of a sustainable self sufficient club in the long term. Maybe he was going to spend to get us to the top table and then reign it in. And, who on earth do people think is going to spend,spend, spend and treat us as a vanity project? What is the " clubs beset interests". Did peter risdale have Leeds best interests at heart?

Anyone who thinks that Premier league clubs were scared of dealing with us under Nicola are deluded. Do people really believe that had he stayed Liverpool wouldn't be bidding for Lallana or Shaw would be staying because nobody had the Balls to ring up "The Don". How hard must Fat Sam Gold and Sullivan be, actually trying to buy Rickie whilst The Don was ruling the manor.

No, but it didn't help that Mrs Duck kept butting in. As the contact is a friend of hers it was a bit awkward to start telling her to STFU whilst I ask some questions.

Reduce the deficit? I would liken to eliminate it and then go on to become debt free. I don't believe that higher taxes automatically mean more revenue. Define "poor" Long term, I wouldn't rule it out.

I was told tonight (and believe me the person would know) that Adam genuinely hasn't made up his mind and was only focused on the world cup. I accept that the person who told me could have done so just to shut me up (as I have been badgering her for some info), but I did get the feeling it was true. I was also told some of the details of what Liverpool are offering, but am not going to post that. Only that the conversation ended "what would you do"? And a laugh. But it was "what would you do" in a "its a no brainer" way which worried me. People can believe me if they want or think I'm full of pony, but I know it happened.

A % is a %. How is somebody on 80k a year paying 40% whilst somebody on 40k a year pays 20% "fair", the richer bloke still pays more revenue into the coffers if the % was the same. Because Rickie Lambert is more skilled at his job than I am at mine, why does his % have to increase? We are talking about earnt income here. In the strictest sense of the word , a flat tax is clearly the "fairest" .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-faces-calls-to-be-sacked-after-describing-drugs-company-pfizer-as-rapists-in-astrazeneca-takeover-row-9370973.html

You only have to look to Wales to see just how safe the NHS is in labour hands. Scare stories have always been a part of the establishments political campaigning , and you can not have a proper political debate because of it. Take tax , people don't argue about what brings in the most money but " tax cuts for millionaires" . We've seen it on this thread, with flat tax , and how the poorest pay the same as the richest. No they don't, the more you earn the more you pay. There's also no mention of the tax policy overall. Merging NI & Income tax ( described as sensible by ifs) and the raising of the tax free threshold much higher than it is now ( meaning less people pay tax and ni). It is a legitimate tax policy, which the taxpayers alliance and Adam smith institute have taken seriously . According to them at present the poorest 1/3 pay 9% of their income in tax and under UK IPS proposals they'll pay 0%. This article explains it better than I can, although ukips 2010 policy allowed for a higher threshold than the 10k proposed by these people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9202370/Osborne-urged-to-introduce-30pc-income-tax-for-all.html Unfortunately instead of a grown up debate about it, there's just mud slinging and sound bites repeated over and over again. Its just a shame that Nigel appears to have let the liblabcon knock him off course on this issue.