Barry Sanchez Posted 3 May, 2013 Share Posted 3 May, 2013 Wrong. Spoiled ballots are the same as abstentions - a legitimate and honourable option. Think about it - it means that a person took the trouble to come to the polling station, but then indicate that they do not favour any of the potential candidates. I spoil my ballots nearly as much as I vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 3 May, 2013 Share Posted 3 May, 2013 I spoil my ballots nearly as much as I vote. Spoiling the ballot is a legitimate position but you also have to think that if none of the candidate are good enough then shouldn't you stand yourself if you think you could do better? These are all people who are trying to make a difference and ultimately no one is going to be able to exactly match your views, because everyone is different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 3 May, 2013 Share Posted 3 May, 2013 Yes, because along with a lot of other conservative voters I wanted to send a message to the Tory party. Sort out the Liberal PM and start acting like Tories if you want my support in the next GE. If the Tories act like Tories the vote will return in droves. Nail down a referendum and let the population decide the EU question. And hand power to labour because elections are won on the middle ground. Although I would love the tories to return to the failed right wing policies that lost consecutive elections to Tony Blair... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 3 May, 2013 Share Posted 3 May, 2013 Nope.. not a racist Why does voting UKiP mean being a racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 3 May, 2013 Share Posted 3 May, 2013 Spoiling the ballot is a legitimate position but you also have to think that if none of the candidate are good enough then shouldn't you stand yourself if you think you could do better? These are all people who are trying to make a difference and ultimately no one is going to be able to exactly match your views, because everyone is different Are you absolutely sure about that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 3 May, 2013 Share Posted 3 May, 2013 Just as on another thread here where we wait in anticipation of cockups and in fighting that is sure to happen at a certain football club so I think we can wait in the same way for what is going to happen to ukip now they are, if not in charge of councils on their own, at least have a large say in what is going to happen at them. What are the inexperienced newly elected ukip councillors going to do once they find that their powers extend only to deciding which public services they have to cut and are nothing to do with the UK's interaction with europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 3 May, 2013 Share Posted 3 May, 2013 There's two people I would have liked to have heard from today. The leftie green leader who on weds said "there's one thing certain Thursday, we'll end up with more councillors than Ukip". So sure was she that she bet Andrew Neil £5. And of course the Ukip recruiting Sargent Ken " clown" Clarke. Highlight of the day was Simon Hughes saying forget about share of the vote, lib/dems got more councillors than Ukip . The ridiculous sight of the old hipercrite using fptp to defend the liberals performance was a sight to see. All day long farage wiped the floor with them, from saying he wanted Ken Clarke to speak at Ukip's party conference to his performance on BBC need where ed davey , the lab bloke chuka and Chris grayling were taken to the cleaners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 3 May, 2013 Share Posted 3 May, 2013 Hahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 3 May, 2013 Share Posted 3 May, 2013 I'm far from a UKIP supporter but it's been highly amusing to see the snobby tory Alexis Mcevoy get voted out as our councillor in South Waterside. This I like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 I did vote for Sandra Gidley. Our ex-MP. Sadly she did not get in. I know that she worked hard on NHS issues as an MP. Because I followed the parlementry questions she issued. I noticed that when we voted we were the only voters at the polling station. What was the turnout? If UKIP got 21% of a poor turnout? Do local Elections get a older turnout? My perception is that the grey voters are more vocal about immigrants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Why does my council need national independence party representation? What benefit will I get from having a single issue party on the council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 (edited) Why does my council need national independence party representation? What benefit will I get from having a single issue party on the council? Because people voted for them, I would question why the average working man votes for a tory from Sloane Square or Eton who has never worked nor has anything in common with them? I can see the honest attraction of Farage as he speaks to people openly and not in a patronising manner which is the norm of all the mainstream elites, politics in this Country has been stagnant and boring now since the 90's, all parties searching for the middle ground because they believe it shall win them the election and not because their parties traditions believe it, its false and sad. Hopefully one day we shall have proportional representation and more political parties in this Country, more choice, more say. Edited 4 May, 2013 by Barry Sanchez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690 Oddly, I find myself agreeing with quite a few of their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 In the elections up here UKIP actually lost 2 of the 4 seats they held on the CC, the LDs lost all of theirs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Flat tax, anti-marriage equality, "sceptical about the existence of man-made climate change", seventy-seven billion pounds worth of cuts and that lovely bit about 'political correctness' which in my experience tends to be a phrase wheeled out by the guy down the pub who loves a racist joke and slaps the barmaid's arse. No thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 again, why does voting UKIP mean being racist. That is such a lazy arguement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 QUOTE=Wade Garrett;1682312]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690 Oddly, I find myself agreeing with quite a few of their beliefs. Their education policy has some merit to it. Their health policy might work, but stands a good chance of making a mess of the NHS. Their tax policy is outrageous, a flat rate of tax would see the gap between rich and poor increase dramatically, while either overall government tax income would be massively reduced (meaning even more cuts to public services), or the flat rate would have to e higher than the bar rate is currently (perhaps everyone paying, say 30% might just work, hardly fair on the majority of people though). But hang on, in the section called the economy UKIP are proposing tax cuts. Where does this money come from? Or do they actually mean tax cuts for everyone earning £50k + (with the richest saving the most), paid for by the masses? Personally feel that their views on Europe, gay marriage, defence, and the environment are completely wrong. Pubs are much better since smoking was banned, and the fox hunting ban should IMO be extended to include hunting with birds of prey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 (edited) again, why does voting UKIP mean being racist. That is such a lazy arguement It's not my argument, though by voting for them you are most certainly supporting homophobia. Edited 4 May, 2013 by DuncanRG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Honestly can't see much merit to the UKIP policy set. But if they did ever carry out all of that, the UK would be in a proper mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Flat tax, anti-marriage equality, "sceptical about the existence of man-made climate change", seventy-seven billion pounds worth of cuts and that lovely bit about 'political correctness' which in my experience tends to be a phrase wheeled out by the guy down the pub who loves a racist joke and slaps the barmaid's arse. No thanks! Sounds like the UK Tea Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Pretty much. It's protest party policy at the minute - don't expect all of that to stay if they ever grow powerful enough. They didn't take a single seat from Labour on Thursday and the Greens still have far more councillors than UKIP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 They may not have stolen a single labour seat, but lab, lib and cons should all be worried. Lab should have gained from the mess in Westminster. A split of the Tory/ ukip vote should have opened the door to lab. The libs should be horrified at losing seats in Eastleigh. The cons can't get away from the Europe issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 It's not my argument, though by voting for them you are most certainly supporting homophobia. why are you making stuff up? quite odd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 What am I making up? They're against gay marriage. They want to defend traditional marriage, but traditional marriage is homophobic. They want to keep homophobia in marriage. You can argue why it ought to stay (traditional values, changing the definition etc) but it is still homophobia and UKIP are still fighting for it to remain part of the institution of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 What am I making up? They're against gay marriage. They want to defend traditional marriage, but traditional marriage is homophobic. They want to keep homophobia in marriage. You can argue why it ought to stay (traditional values, changing the definition etc) but it is still homophobia and UKIP are still fighting for it to remain part of the institution of marriage. the definition of marriage it so do so in a church involving a man and a woman. its up to the church if they want to and they are not forced to. so cant see much difference there you also said UKIP voters are racists.? does that mean 1/4 of the UK are 'rabid racists' today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 (edited) the definition of marriage it so do so in a church involving a man and a woman. its up to the church if they want to and they are not forced to. so cant see much difference there you also said UKIP voters are racists.? does that mean 1/4 of the UK are 'rabid racists' today? Straight couples can already get married in a town hall if they like, the equal marriage bill is about changing the legal definition and allowing gay couples to do that as well. Churches don't have to allow it but they will now be able to if they so wish. They couldn't do that before! I didn't say UKIP voters are racists and I certainly never said a thing about 'rabid racists'. Most supporters/sympathisers I've met, however, carry a fair amount of prejudice, if not in a 'burn the black people, kick them out!' way. Perhaps what I should have said earlier which I didn't is that this is in my experience. Edited 4 May, 2013 by DuncanRG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Their education policy has some merit to it. Their health policy might work, but stands a good chance of making a mess of the NHS. Their tax policy is outrageous, a flat rate of tax would see the gap between rich and poor increase dramatically, while either overall government tax income would be massively reduced (meaning even more cuts to public services), or the flat rate would have to e higher than the bar rate is currently (perhaps everyone paying, say 30% might just work, hardly fair on the majority of people though). But hang on, in the section called the economy UKIP are proposing tax cuts. Where does this money come from? Or do they actually mean tax cuts for everyone earning £50k + (with the richest saving the most), paid for by the masses? Personally feel that their views on Europe, gay marriage, defence, and the environment are completely wrong. Pubs are much better since smoking was banned, and the fox hunting ban should IMO be extended to include hunting with birds of prey.Just because their tax policies are the polar opposite to what the Lib Dems want does not make it wrong. It has already been proven under Thatcher that top income tax rates can be decreased and result in a higher tax revenue, which rather takes the rug from under your feet. Where does the money come to finance tax cuts? Well, I'll hazard a guess that they are probably counting on making some substantial savings by not having to prop up the overwheening bureacracy of Brussels for one and I'm pretty certain that the same could be said for our own governmental bureacracy, targetting benefit cheats, etc. You label their policies on those other matters as being completely wrong, but then they are policies that will probably garner more support amongst the voters than the Lib Dems policies on those same topics, which just goes to show what idiots the electorate are, doesn't it? However, I do agree that their support for smoking in pubs is total lunacy. And why stop at banning hunting with birds. How about ferrets too? Fishing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 the definition of marriage it so do so in a church involving a man and a woman. its up to the church if they want to and they are not forced to. so cant see much difference there you also said UKIP voters are racists.? does that mean 1/4 of the UK are 'rabid racists' today? 1/4 of the what? 40% turnout, in a limited number of councils & wards? Hardly 1/4 of the UK is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 1/4 of the what? 40% turnout, in a limited number of councils & wards? Hardly 1/4 of the UK is it. So do you trust opinion polls because they use a tiny sample of the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 So do you trust opinion polls because they use a tiny sample of the public. You are aware of the difference between the two aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 You are aware of the difference between the two aren't you? Yes one is a poll of 1500-2000 and one is a poll of several million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 QUOTE=Wade Garrett;1682312]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690 Oddly, I find myself agreeing with quite a few of their beliefs. Their education policy has some merit to it. Their health policy might work, but stands a good chance of making a mess of the NHS. Their tax policy is outrageous, a flat rate of tax would see the gap between rich and poor increase dramatically, while either overall government tax income would be massively reduced (meaning even more cuts to public services), or the flat rate would have to e higher than the bar rate is currently (perhaps everyone paying, say 30% might just work, hardly fair on the majority of people though). But hang on, in the section called the economy UKIP are proposing tax cuts. Where does this money come from? Or do they actually mean tax cuts for everyone earning £50k + (with the richest saving the most), paid for by the masses? Personally feel that their views on Europe, gay marriage, defence, and the environment are completely wrong. Pubs are much better since smoking was banned, and the fox hunting ban should IMO be extended to include hunting with birds of prey. Have you ever actually ever seen falconry? Or is your opinion based purely on your own perception of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Yes one is a poll of 1500-2000 and one is a poll of several million. True & yet the former is more accurate, in the case of this week, that the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 True & yet the former is more accurate, in the case of this week, that the latter. Not necessarily. UKIP have a poll rating of 13 or 14% in the opinion polls yet in the recent by elections from Eastleigh to South shields have registered 25% as they did in the local elections. In the Euro elections they will score in my opinion 30%. In the general election they will poll 4%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Not necessarily. UKIP have a poll rating of 13 or 14% in the opinion polls yet in the recent by elections from Eastleigh to South shields have registered 25% as they did in the local elections. In the Euro elections they will score in my opinion 30%. In the general election they will poll 4%. Sorry, I was referring to a general election. I don't disagree with your other %. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 you also said UKIP voters are racists.? does that mean 1/4 of the UK are 'rabid racists' today? A mixture of racists, xenephobs and dullards I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 A mixture of racists, xenephobs and dullards I'd say. Generally a party of people who have a life out of politics. You see their warts more clearly because they do not have slick PR teams to manage them like the despicable career politicians that make up most of the Labour party and much of the Lib Dems and Tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Generally a party of people who have a life out of politics. You see their warts more clearly because they do not have slick PR teams to manage them like the despicable career politicians that make up most of the Labour party and much of the Lib Dems and Tories. As many tories are career politicians as Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 As many tories are career politicians as Labour. I include lawyers as career politicians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Generally a party of people who have a life out of politics. You see their warts more clearly because they do not have slick PR teams to manage them like the despicable career politicians that make up most of the Labour party and much of the Lib Dems and Tories. True enough, but do we (hypothetically) accept racism or xenophobia as 'warts'? I hope that's not what you're insinuating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 True enough, but do we (hypothetically) accept racism or xenophobia as 'warts'? I hope that's not what you're insinuating I think its very dangerous to start labelling people racists and homophobes because you disagree with them - that makes you the intolerant one. Just because you disagree with gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. Opposing the current relationship with Europe does not make you Xenophobic. Thank god there were people to fight us going into the Euro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 (edited) I think its very dangerous to start labelling people racists and homophobes because you disagree with them - that makes you the intolerant one. Just because you disagree with gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. Opposing the current relationship with Europe does not make you Xenophobic. Thank god there were people to fight us going into the Euro. Agreed on the xenophobia point and I'd never call someone xenophobic for holding that view. Disagreeing with gay marriage means agreeing with prejudice against gay people as regards marriage. You seek to deny them that right. It doesn't mean you want to round up all the gays and sterilise them but that doesn't mean it's not homophobic. Most people see it as upholding Christian values but these Christian values are homophobic. It's like saying you disagree with women being allowed to vote, because it's always been the exclusive realm of men, then claiming you aren't a sexist. Traditions are not free of prejudice just because they're traditions. I only asked the question because you answered a post accusing them of racism/xenophonia by saying they've got 'warts'. I didn't say they were racist or xenophobic, just that if they were (hence me saying hypothetically) those characteristics should not be overlooked as 'warts'. Edited 4 May, 2013 by DuncanRG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Just because their tax policies are the polar opposite to what the Lib Dems want does not make it wrong. Agreed, but then that wasn't ever part of my argument was it? Straw man? It has already been proven under Thatcher that top income tax rates can be decreased and result in a higher tax revenue, which rather takes the rug from under your feet. The important word in this sentence is 'can'. Yes, I agree they can. Again, this wasn't my argument. I was arguing against UKIP's flat tax rate policy, under which everyone, poor or rich would pay the same rate of tax. This is a very different proposition from merely cutting higher rates of tax. Quite simply, UKIP are arguing that everyone should pay the same rate. They don't tell us what that rate is. But, common sense suggests that the rate would need to be between the current 20% basic, and 40% higher rates (would you agree to that point?). If so, that would mean that basic rate of tax would have to increase to counter a reduction in the higher rate (this I think is where we disagree? You are saying that any reduction in higher rate would actually increase tax income to the extent that the basic rate wouldn't need to increase? I feel that the UKIP tax policy can be condensed down to, "poor pay more tax, to fund tax cut for wealthy". Where does the money come to finance tax cuts? Well, I'll hazard a guess that they are probably counting on making some substantial savings by not having to prop up the overwheening bureacracy of Brussels for one and I'm pretty certain that the same could be said for our own governmental bureacracy, targetting benefit cheats, etc. Right, so UKIP plan to fund their tax cuts by pulling out of Europe. Hmmm, let me see, current government spending c. £720bn pa, current government income c. £612 bn (+ borrowing of c. £100bn pa to fill the spending gap). And you think that the whopping £12bn we spend on the EU each year will cover tax cuts? Sorry, but for UKIP to cut taxes at all, something rather more expensive than the EU membership has to give. Will it be the NHS? (not according to UKIP - they only want to tinker with the Dept of Heath (who cost c. £10bn in total to run vs the NHS's c. £120bn annual cost)) Will it be the MoD? (again, no, UKIP want to increase spending here (will this extra money come from 'cutting the EU too?)). Education then? (Possibly, UKIP aren't clear on whether their policies will cost or save money in education). Lets be honest, the UKIP numbers don't add up. They are promising everything that their core voters want to hear, without having to think about how it could possibly be financed. You label their policies on those other matters as being completely wrong, but then they are policies that will probably garner more support amongst the voters than the Lib Dems policies on those same topics, which just goes to show what idiots the electorate are, doesn't it? Perhaps the Lib Dems are actually considering how much money there really is available to spend, and not just making up populist rhetoric that doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Christians do not approve of the lifestyle not the person. In the same way that promiscuity contradicts the institution of marriage they believe that so does homosexuality. Yes that might be a traditional or old fashioned viewpoint but people should be allowed to hold it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Have you ever actually ever seen falconry? Or is your opinion based purely on your own perception of it? Yes, very graceful and highly skilled. For reference: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hunts-use-loopholes-to-carry-on-killing-512129.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Christians do not approve of the lifestyle not the person. In the same way that promiscuity contradicts the institution of marriage they believe that so does homosexuality. Yes that might be a traditional or old fashioned viewpoint but people should be allowed to hold it. They're allowed to hold it, but it is homophobic. They should be honest about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Christians do not approve of the lifestyle not the person. In the same way that promiscuity contradicts the institution of marriage they believe that so does homosexuality. Yes that might be a traditional or old fashioned viewpoint but people should be allowed to hold it. Who cares whether Christians (or anyone else for that matter) approve or not about an individual's lifestyle choice. Live and let live. Nobody is asking for equal rights to 'holy matrimony' - just equal rights in the law when it comes to marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Yes, very graceful and highly skilled. For reference: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hunts-use-loopholes-to-carry-on-killing-512129.html So you are not opposed to the sport of falconry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Who cares whether Christians (or anyone else for that matter) approve or not about an individual's lifestyle choice. Live and let live. Nobody is asking for equal rights to 'holy matrimony' - just equal rights in the law when it comes to marriage. Quite rightly they do in civil partnerships but some people believe that the institution of marriage is exclusive to the Church. They have a right to believe that without being labelled homophobes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 4 May, 2013 Share Posted 4 May, 2013 Christians do not approve of the lifestyle not the person. In the same way that promiscuity contradicts the institution of marriage they believe that so does homosexuality. Yes that might be a traditional or old fashioned viewpoint but people should be allowed to hold it. Perhaps that's why I find Christians such boring people, as well as odd. Go out, **** about, enjoy life as you're going to be bitterly disappointed when you die! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now