Anyone watch that Clegg/Farage debate?

[northbank123]

LDB I agree with you on Farage. His intelligence, charisma and populist views on Europe make him personally dangerous. And I'm sure UKIP will perform strongly in the European Parliament elections in May. But over the following 12 months when UKIP will actually start to be seen as a credible party in the eyes of the electorate, the media will actually start scratching below the surface. At the moment barely anyone knows (or cares) what UKIP stand for beyond Europe - come election run-up the opposition parties will not have a difficult time dragging up tens of stories as ammunition and pointing out gaping holes in the rest of their manifesto. Frankly the party is still an absolute joke. In fact I bet the other parties have all got massive files stored away that they've been waiting until UKIP grew in strength to use. Add to that UKIP can also make considerable gains and still barely any seats as the FPTP system isn't particularly favourable to them. They will have a big say in shaping the election but themselves will not delivery many (if any) seats.

As for your view on EU legislation if you really are that passionate about our parliamentary sovereignty etc then fair enough. But your response to my question about troublesome or unjust EU laws is crap. Politicians at Westminster would point out their hands are tied by Europe at the first possible opportunity. It may be the case that a considerable portion of our current legislation comes from Europe but most of it is just nonsense regulations that has little or no impact on us. And the main gripes in the past have come from those sorts of regulations that for one reason or another have particular impact on us - like the Factortame or Metric Martyrs cases.

[QuartzGooner]

There are some fantastic politicians like Daniel Hannan who expose this racket for what it is but at the end of the day he has no audience and also comes up against attitudes like Quartz's. Don't care about who rules you until suddenly you have no power to change it.

Woah!

Who says I do not care, where do you get that from?

I wrote that I am unable to decide whether we should stay in the EU or leave it because information I need to decide is not available.

As for corruption, it is in Westminster too.

The EU has been steadily eroding our democracy for 60 years and yet nobody gives a shit?

60 years?

- The UK only had full adult suffrage from 1970.
Until 1832 it had hardly any democracy.

- The UK only joined the EEC in January 1973.
In June 1975, 67% of the UK electorate voted to stay in the EEC in a referendum.

Unfortunately I'm in a profession where it's best for me not to get politically involved

What is that?
Why have a go at people on here who hold a different view?
How many people read this section of the Forum?
Seems to me you have strong anti-Europe views and should be standing as a UKIP MP or MEP.

[the playing mantis]

LDB I agree with you on Farage. His intelligence, charisma and populist views on Europe make him personally dangerous. And I'm sure UKIP will perform strongly in the European Parliament elections in May. But over the following 12 months when UKIP will actually start to be seen as a credible party in the eyes of the electorate, the media will actually start scratching below the surface. At the moment barely anyone knows (or cares) what UKIP stand for beyond Europe - come election run-up the opposition parties will not have a difficult time dragging up tens of stories as ammunition and pointing out gaping holes in the rest of their manifesto. Frankly the party is still an absolute joke. In fact I bet the other parties have all got massive files stored away that they've been waiting until UKIP grew in strength to use. Add to that UKIP can also make considerable gains and still barely any seats as the FPTP system isn't particularly favourable to them. They will have a big say in shaping the election but themselves will not delivery many (if any) seats.

As for your view on EU legislation if you really are that passionate about our parliamentary sovereignty etc then fair enough. But your response to my question about troublesome or unjust EU laws is crap. Politicians at Westminster would point out their hands are tied by Europe at the first possible opportunity. It may be the case that a considerable portion of our current legislation comes from Europe but most of it is just nonsense regulations that has little or no impact on us. And the main gripes in the past have come from those sorts of regulations that for one reason or another have particular impact on us - like the Factortame or Metric Martyrs cases.

lazy points. the media are constantly scratching under the surface of ukip, the grauniad, indi, not to mention the bbc channel 4 and the new statesmen are always attempting to go after them. once the likes of bloom are weeded out ukip will be on a sound footing and can only continue to grow even more credibly.

population growth is the key issue for this country. it has knock on impacts in every area, housing, welfare, education, nhs, infrastructure, education, destruction of the countryside. currently the major cause of population growth is immigration. solve that hot potato, by putting a quota/points based system and letting those professions/experts that are actually needed in on work permits, or indeed unskilled workers, as and when you need them and you go a long way to solving the problem and knockon impacts at a stroke. the next task would be reforming the british 'underclass' who supposedly refuse to work. that would take time, a generation perhaps, so let in people to fill in those shortages until that problem is resolved.

farage is not racist. likewise his points about putin are also overblown.

a semi autoonmous/governed area wants to join another nation. they have a vote. the people are mostly russian...is this not the self determination that is a cornerstone of the UN??

[northbank123]

You've said lazy points but only actually responded to one? The media have not 'gone after' UKIP to any serious extent. Bloom is a loud-mouthed clown who comes with his own self-promotional bandwagon and brings about his own ridicule. After a strong showing in the MEP elections and Farage banging the drum in the lead-up to elections the other parties will take UKIP seriously and throw some shit. Not just talking about major party figures, it wouldn't be too difficult to dig up past quotes, views, personal controversies from tens of people standing as UKIP candidates and the party will be branded a bit of a joke still at Westminster. There is certainly a lot less competition to stand as a UKIP candidate and the vetting process is extremely superficial, they just want to get as many people standing as they can.

As for the Crimea situation you can hardly rely on a democratic principle like self-determination when a referendum takes place in the middle of an armed occupation. For a start the question essentially lacked a "no" option and the softer answer was still demanding more autonomy. Do you really think a 95%+ 'yes' vote in a territory where about 40% of the people are either ethnic Ukrainian or Tatars who were treated appallingly by Russia is democratically sound?

[Theoperator1]

All parties going to pose a serious threat in Westminster elections in the foreseeable future. Scratch beneath the surface and they are filled with border-line lunatics.

Fixed that for you mate

[the playing mantis]

You've said lazy points but only actually responded to one? The media have not 'gone after' UKIP to any serious extent. Bloom is a loud-mouthed clown who comes with his own self-promotional bandwagon and brings about his own ridicule. After a strong showing in the MEP elections and Farage banging the drum in the lead-up to elections the other parties will take UKIP seriously and throw some shit. Not just talking about major party figures, it wouldn't be too difficult to dig up past quotes, views, personal controversies from tens of people standing as UKIP candidates and the party will be branded a bit of a joke still at Westminster. There is certainly a lot less competition to stand as a UKIP candidate and the vetting process is extremely superficial, they just want to get as many people standing as they can.

As for the Crimea situation you can hardly rely on a democratic principle like self-determination when a referendum takes place in the middle of an armed occupation. For a start the question essentially lacked a "no" option and the softer answer was still demanding more autonomy. Do you really think a 95%+ 'yes' vote in a territory where about 40% of the people are either ethnic Ukrainian or Tatars who were treated appallingly by Russia is democratically sound?

sorry you make good point re arsenal and are spot on and factual, but your points here are simply wrong. as a nature of my work my company gets all the major and minor papers, and the left wing or 'centre' outlets hammer ukip and are always spouting about kooks and cranks and NF compatisons. c4 and the bbc also portray them as loons, contrast with itv.

the 3 main parties are shit scared of ukip, evidenced by camerons bleatings (which have quietened in recent times as the need for a potential deal gets more likely) and cleggs desperate attempt at a debate evidenced.

as for crimea, again,the simple facts are, these people consider themselves Russian, its not recent, its nothing to do with the 'occupation' its nothing to do with the semantics of the plebiscite, crimea has always been banging on about autonmy from ukraine and reunification with mother russia. they constantly elected pro russia governors until kiev didnt like it and stepped in removing them.

[northbank123]

You've said lazy points but only actually responded to one? The media have not 'gone after' UKIP to any serious extent. Bloom is a loud-mouthed clown who comes with his own self-promotional bandwagon and brings about his own ridicule. After a strong showing in the MEP elections and Farage banging the drum in the lead-up to elections the other parties will take UKIP seriously and throw some shit. Not just talking about major party figures, it wouldn't be too difficult to dig up past quotes, views, personal controversies from tens of people standing as UKIP candidates and the party will be branded a bit of a joke still at Westminster. There is certainly a lot less competition to stand as a UKIP candidate and the vetting process is extremely superficial, they just want to get as many people standing as they can.

As for the Crimea situation you can hardly rely on a democratic principle like self-determination when a referendum takes place in the middle of an armed occupation. For a start the question essentially lacked a "no" option and the softer answer was still demanding more autonomy. Do you really think a 95%+ 'yes' vote in a territory where about 40% of the people are either ethnic Ukrainian or Tatars who were treated appallingly by Russia is democratically sound?

sorry you make good point re arsenal and are spot on and factual, but your points here are simply wrong. as a nature of my work my company gets all the major and minor papers, and the left wing or 'centre' outlets hammer ukip and are always spouting about kooks and cranks and NF compatisons. c4 and the bbc also portray them as loons, contrast with itv.

the 3 main parties are shit scared of ukip, evidenced by camerons bleatings (which have quietened in recent times as the need for a potential deal gets more likely) and cleggs desperate attempt at a debate evidenced.

as for crimea, again,the simple facts are, these people consider themselves Russian, its not recent, its nothing to do with the 'occupation' its nothing to do with the semantics of the plebiscite, crimea has always been banging on about autonmy from ukraine and reunification with mother russia. they constantly elected pro russia governors until kiev didnt like it and stepped in removing them.

Congratulations on reading every paper currently in publication but since the last general election UKIP have commanded a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the column inches and TV running time that the Conservatives and Labour have. They are simply not subject to the same scrutiny as the other political parties but you can bet stories about some of the buffoons they have in the lower reaches of the party will become increasingly common towards the general election. Labour or Conservative party members who have slipped up have had their names dragged through the mud (rightly so in many cases) whereas outside a few individuals the public and the media couldn't give two shits about what tinpot UKIP members have done. I agree with you about the other parties being scared of UKIP (or Farage specifically); despite the fact they don't pose much danger of winning seats due to the first past the post system, where they pinch their votes from could have a decisive impact on the election. They are still fundamentally a one-issue party who will do well in the European Parliament elections which are generally met with apathy and a chance to throw a protest vote.

And if you're going to brush over overt aggression and intimidation and (para-)military occupation as well as not having a remotely fair range of options on display in the backdrop of such an important referendum as 'semantics' I don't really need to say much. Especially when you are citing a fundamental DEMOCRATIC principle like self-determination. It is tantamount to referring to Hitler as a democratically-elected leader and citing the results of Reichstag elections where his was the only name on the ballot with SA officials violent coercing people into not spoiling their ballots. The democratic apparatus was in place for such a referendum and if it had been achieved via those means the results and outcome would have been indisputable.

[the playing mantis]

You've said lazy points but only actually responded to one? The media have not 'gone after' UKIP to any serious extent. Bloom is a loud-mouthed clown who comes with his own self-promotional bandwagon and brings about his own ridicule. After a strong showing in the MEP elections and Farage banging the drum in the lead-up to elections the other parties will take UKIP seriously and throw some shit. Not just talking about major party figures, it wouldn't be too difficult to dig up past quotes, views, personal controversies from tens of people standing as UKIP candidates and the party will be branded a bit of a joke still at Westminster. There is certainly a lot less competition to stand as a UKIP candidate and the vetting process is extremely superficial, they just want to get as many people standing as they can.

As for the Crimea situation you can hardly rely on a democratic principle like self-determination when a referendum takes place in the middle of an armed occupation. For a start the question essentially lacked a "no" option and the softer answer was still demanding more autonomy. Do you really think a 95%+ 'yes' vote in a territory where about 40% of the people are either ethnic Ukrainian or Tatars who were treated appallingly by Russia is democratically sound?

sorry you make good point re arsenal and are spot on and factual, but your points here are simply wrong. as a nature of my work my company gets all the major and minor papers, and the left wing or 'centre' outlets hammer ukip and are always spouting about kooks and cranks and NF compatisons. c4 and the bbc also portray them as loons, contrast with itv.

the 3 main parties are shit scared of ukip, evidenced by camerons bleatings (which have quietened in recent times as the need for a potential deal gets more likely) and cleggs desperate attempt at a debate evidenced.

as for crimea, again,the simple facts are, these people consider themselves Russian, its not recent, its nothing to do with the 'occupation' its nothing to do with the semantics of the plebiscite, crimea has always been banging on about autonmy from ukraine and reunification with mother russia. they constantly elected pro russia governors until kiev didnt like it and stepped in removing them.

Congratulations on reading every paper currently in publication but since the last general election UKIP have commanded a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the column inches and TV running time that the Conservatives and Labour have. They are simply not subject to the same scrutiny as the other political parties but you can bet stories about some of the buffoons they have in the lower reaches of the party will become increasingly common towards the general election. Labour or Conservative party members who have slipped up have had their names dragged through the mud (rightly so in many cases) whereas outside a few individuals the public and the media couldn't give two shits about what tinpot UKIP members have done. I agree with you about the other parties being scared of UKIP (or Farage specifically); despite the fact they don't pose much danger of winning seats due to the first past the post system, where they pinch their votes from could have a decisive impact on the election. They are still fundamentally a one-issue party who will do well in the European Parliament elections which are generally met with apathy and a chance to throw a protest vote.

And if you're going to brush over overt aggression and intimidation and (para-)military occupation as well as not having a remotely fair range of options on display in the backdrop of such an important referendum as 'semantics' I don't really need to say much. Especially when you are citing a fundamental DEMOCRATIC principle like self-determination. It is tantamount to referring to Hitler as a democratically-elected leader and citing the results of Reichstag elections where his was the only name on the ballot with SA officials violent coercing people into not spoiling their ballots. The democratic apparatus was in place for such a referendum and if it had been achieved via those means the results and outcome would have been indisputable.

well done, you have got onto comparing it to hitler...ridiculous and you know it.

crimea is russian. the history of the region electorally is massively pro russian. the majority want to be russian and consider themselves russian. the autonomy of crimea has led it to elect pro Russian officials until kiev didnt like it and foisted pro kiev leaders upon them. look at the defections of those in positions of influence and power to russia. ignore the facts if you will. or do you deny the crimea has a history of being massively pro russia (bar the tartar minority). in everything it does and the officials it elects to govern itself?

obviously ukip receive less coverage than labour/tories. they are not sitting mp's they are not elected officials bar a few councillors and meps that the public are not particularly interested in. as non sitting members the public dont care generally as they havent elected them. but thats digression, its not about what there members have done, the topic is about the party and its policies/what it stands for as a whole. as a whole and nige get extensive scrutiny and coverage. its a simple fact. when you consider thats they are a party with no mps or history of mps they are covered and scrutinised even more disproportionally by the media, and unless you scour the papers everyday how do you know how many column inches they generate? the political leaders/comments in the right wing papers even scrutinise them regularly in the likes of the sunday times/telegraph.. you have no justification of your points bar your opinion!

[Nos89]

I might be wrong here but as far as I understand it UKIP want us to leave the EU. UKIP do not have any MP's in houses of parliament, but do have representation in the European parliament, which they want us to leave. If a referendum was held and we voted to pull out the EU, UKIP would not be represented anywhere therefore be totally redundant as a political party, end of Farage and his clan. Isn't there something wrong with that policy?

[Nos89]

You've said lazy points but only actually responded to one? The media have not 'gone after' UKIP to any serious extent. Bloom is a loud-mouthed clown who comes with his own self-promotional bandwagon and brings about his own ridicule. After a strong showing in the MEP elections and Farage banging the drum in the lead-up to elections the other parties will take UKIP seriously and throw some shit. Not just talking about major party figures, it wouldn't be too difficult to dig up past quotes, views, personal controversies from tens of people standing as UKIP candidates and the party will be branded a bit of a joke still at Westminster. There is certainly a lot less competition to stand as a UKIP candidate and the vetting process is extremely superficial, they just want to get as many people standing as they can.

As for the Crimea situation you can hardly rely on a democratic principle like self-determination when a referendum takes place in the middle of an armed occupation. For a start the question essentially lacked a "no" option and the softer answer was still demanding more autonomy. Do you really think a 95%+ 'yes' vote in a territory where about 40% of the people are either ethnic Ukrainian or Tatars who were treated appallingly by Russia is democratically sound?

sorry you make good point re arsenal and are spot on and factual, but your points here are simply wrong. as a nature of my work my company gets all the major and minor papers, and the left wing or 'centre' outlets hammer ukip and are always spouting about kooks and cranks and NF compatisons. c4 and the bbc also portray them as loons, contrast with itv.

the 3 main parties are shit scared of ukip, evidenced by camerons bleatings (which have quietened in recent times as the need for a potential deal gets more likely) and cleggs desperate attempt at a debate evidenced.

as for crimea, again,the simple facts are, these people consider themselves Russian, its not recent, its nothing to do with the 'occupation' its nothing to do with the semantics of the plebiscite, crimea has always been banging on about autonmy from ukraine and reunification with mother russia. they constantly elected pro russia governors until kiev didnt like it and stepped in removing them.

Congratulations on reading every paper currently in publication but since the last general election UKIP have commanded a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the column inches and TV running time that the Conservatives and Labour have. They are simply not subject to the same scrutiny as the other political parties but you can bet stories about some of the buffoons they have in the lower reaches of the party will become increasingly common towards the general election. Labour or Conservative party members who have slipped up have had their names dragged through the mud (rightly so in many cases) whereas outside a few individuals the public and the media couldn't give two shits about what tinpot UKIP members have done. I agree with you about the other parties being scared of UKIP (or Farage specifically); despite the fact they don't pose much danger of winning seats due to the first past the post system, where they pinch their votes from could have a decisive impact on the election. They are still fundamentally a one-issue party who will do well in the European Parliament elections which are generally met with apathy and a chance to throw a protest vote.

And if you're going to brush over overt aggression and intimidation and (para-)military occupation as well as not having a remotely fair range of options on display in the backdrop of such an important referendum as 'semantics' I don't really need to say much. Especially when you are citing a fundamental DEMOCRATIC principle like self-determination. It is tantamount to referring to Hitler as a democratically-elected leader and citing the results of Reichstag elections where his was the only name on the ballot with SA officials violent coercing people into not spoiling their ballots. The democratic apparatus was in place for such a referendum and if it had been achieved via those means the results and outcome would have been indisputable.

well done, you have got onto comparing it to hitler...ridiculous and you know it.

crimea is russian. the history of the region electorally is massively pro russian. the majority want to be russian and consider themselves russian. the autonomy of crimea has led it to elect pro Russian officials until kiev didnt like it and foisted pro kiev leaders upon them. look at the defections of those in positions of influence and power to russia. ignore the facts if you will. or do you deny the crimea has a history of being massively pro russia (bar the tartar minority). in everything it does and the officials it elects to govern itself?

obviously ukip receive less coverage than labour/tories. they are not sitting mp's they are not elected officials bar a few councillors and meps that the public are not particularly interested in. as non sitting members the public dont care generally as they havent elected them. but thats digression, its not about what there members have done, the topic is about the party and its policies/what it stands for as a whole. as a whole and nige get extensive scrutiny and coverage. its a simple fact. when you consider thats they are a party with no mps or history of mps they are covered and scrutinised even more disproportionally by the media, and unless you scour the papers everyday how do you know how many column inches they generate? the political leaders/comments in the right wing papers even scrutinise them regularly in the likes of the sunday times/telegraph.. you have no justification of your points bar your opinion!

The media have only picked up on farage because he is different from the very grey middle ground leaders of the three main parties. The phrase would be a farage is "a breath of fresh air" but that air is the smoke filled dankness found in pubs from the 1970's/80's. It ain't as pleasant in the modern world as it is through rose tinted glasses. On the point of democracy in the UK, that's laughable. Precisley, who voted for Gordon Brown's government and the current coalition government? That's right no one did. There should've been a re-election yet the media seem to gloss over that. We have lived the last 6 years under different regimes that nobody voted for, that nobody agrees with, that nobody likes. The only people that have benefitted are bankers, GP's, teachers and women. IMO the reason there are fewer women MP's nowadays is that they worked out, they are better off being a banker, a GP or a teacher.

[northbank123]

You've said lazy points but only actually responded to one? The media have not 'gone after' UKIP to any serious extent. Bloom is a loud-mouthed clown who comes with his own self-promotional bandwagon and brings about his own ridicule. After a strong showing in the MEP elections and Farage banging the drum in the lead-up to elections the other parties will take UKIP seriously and throw some shit. Not just talking about major party figures, it wouldn't be too difficult to dig up past quotes, views, personal controversies from tens of people standing as UKIP candidates and the party will be branded a bit of a joke still at Westminster. There is certainly a lot less competition to stand as a UKIP candidate and the vetting process is extremely superficial, they just want to get as many people standing as they can.

As for the Crimea situation you can hardly rely on a democratic principle like self-determination when a referendum takes place in the middle of an armed occupation. For a start the question essentially lacked a "no" option and the softer answer was still demanding more autonomy. Do you really think a 95%+ 'yes' vote in a territory where about 40% of the people are either ethnic Ukrainian or Tatars who were treated appallingly by Russia is democratically sound?

sorry you make good point re arsenal and are spot on and factual, but your points here are simply wrong. as a nature of my work my company gets all the major and minor papers, and the left wing or 'centre' outlets hammer ukip and are always spouting about kooks and cranks and NF compatisons. c4 and the bbc also portray them as loons, contrast with itv.

the 3 main parties are shit scared of ukip, evidenced by camerons bleatings (which have quietened in recent times as the need for a potential deal gets more likely) and cleggs desperate attempt at a debate evidenced.

as for crimea, again,the simple facts are, these people consider themselves Russian, its not recent, its nothing to do with the 'occupation' its nothing to do with the semantics of the plebiscite, crimea has always been banging on about autonmy from ukraine and reunification with mother russia. they constantly elected pro russia governors until kiev didnt like it and stepped in removing them.

Congratulations on reading every paper currently in publication but since the last general election UKIP have commanded a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the column inches and TV running time that the Conservatives and Labour have. They are simply not subject to the same scrutiny as the other political parties but you can bet stories about some of the buffoons they have in the lower reaches of the party will become increasingly common towards the general election. Labour or Conservative party members who have slipped up have had their names dragged through the mud (rightly so in many cases) whereas outside a few individuals the public and the media couldn't give two shits about what tinpot UKIP members have done. I agree with you about the other parties being scared of UKIP (or Farage specifically); despite the fact they don't pose much danger of winning seats due to the first past the post system, where they pinch their votes from could have a decisive impact on the election. They are still fundamentally a one-issue party who will do well in the European Parliament elections which are generally met with apathy and a chance to throw a protest vote.

And if you're going to brush over overt aggression and intimidation and (para-)military occupation as well as not having a remotely fair range of options on display in the backdrop of such an important referendum as 'semantics' I don't really need to say much. Especially when you are citing a fundamental DEMOCRATIC principle like self-determination. It is tantamount to referring to Hitler as a democratically-elected leader and citing the results of Reichstag elections where his was the only name on the ballot with SA officials violent coercing people into not spoiling their ballots. The democratic apparatus was in place for such a referendum and if it had been achieved via those means the results and outcome would have been indisputable.

well done, you have got onto comparing it to hitler...ridiculous and you know it.

crimea is russian. the history of the region electorally is massively pro russian. the majority want to be russian and consider themselves russian. the autonomy of crimea has led it to elect pro Russian officials until kiev didnt like it and foisted pro kiev leaders upon them. look at the defections of those in positions of influence and power to russia. ignore the facts if you will. or do you deny the crimea has a history of being massively pro russia (bar the tartar minority). in everything it does and the officials it elects to govern itself?

obviously ukip receive less coverage than labour/tories. they are not sitting mp's they are not elected officials bar a few councillors and meps that the public are not particularly interested in. as non sitting members the public dont care generally as they havent elected them. but thats digression, its not about what there members have done, the topic is about the party and its policies/what it stands for as a whole. as a whole and nige get extensive scrutiny and coverage. its a simple fact. when you consider thats they are a party with no mps or history of mps they are covered and scrutinised even more disproportionally by the media, and unless you scour the papers everyday how do you know how many column inches they generate? the political leaders/comments in the right wing papers even scrutinise them regularly in the likes of the sunday times/telegraph.. you have no justification of your points bar your opinion!

The policies of UKIP get extensive scrutiny? I bet 90% of the electorate couldn't name a UKIP policy beyond withdrawing from the EU! They are still in the eyes of just about everybody a single-issue party.

And the reality with Crimea is that if the diplomatic procedure that was in place had been followed properly nobody could have any complaint. Your argument is based on democratic principles such as suffrage and self-determination, but overlooks Russia relying on a referendum that wouldn't be out of place in Nazi Germany or North Korea. I'm not disagreeing with their obvious pro-Russian tendencies and don't have a problem with Crimea returning to Russia but that was an 18th-century approach in the 21st century.

I don't understand why you seem to view yourself as an oracle on this, let's be fair you're clearly not an expert. And as for no justification bar my opinion? You're not exactly just quoting stats, you are just interpreting events differently and putting different weight on different factors. That is what is known as an opinion and it's pure arrogance of you to pass it off as fact and be so dismissive.

[the playing mantis]

....

i doubt the public could name a labour or conservative policy, as these parties stand for little.

ukip stand for what a proper conservative party used to and i think that the public get that, sure the single issue is the main one, but its not difficult for joe public to guess they are pro work, anti wind energy, pro free trade, anti welfare etc. basicially they are what they are. right wing. i dont know labour or conservative policies, they are a mess and much of a muchness fighting for the centre and yet trying to pretend to be true to their right or left wing roots with some veneer to the traditionalists.

[northbank123]

And I don't have a problem with UKIP. I don't generally buy into the (closet) racist dismissal and like many I look forward to their presence drawing the other parties out on their policies and philosophies. I enjoy Farage as a character and I am grateful that they've brought Europe to the forefront of debates as it is an issue of massive importance and whatever your pro- or anti- Views I think nearly everyone would welcome greater focus in depth on the merits of the EU and greater transparency on process and what it means for us.

I just think their electoral performance is inevitable where they will do well at the European Parliament elections and then flop at Westminster. For all the hot air I personally don't believe that the public see them as a feasible governing party when it comes to the crunch, the FPTP system works massively against them and I think the above two points will be exacerbated by smear campaigns and possibly a degree of scaremongering as the election draws closer. Like a pacesetter in a long-distance race they will play an important role and could well help decide the winner but by the end of the race they will have faded right away.

[DB10GOONER]

Wow. Just.... wow.

WORST.

THREAD.

EVER.

[northbank123]

Watch out here comes the bully mod to try and derail a thread because it doesn't interest him. If you haven't got anything nice to say don't say anything at all