Welcome to UKIPland- a nightmare vision of future britain

Post Reply New Topic

Simple things like the tax on certain items. The smoking ban (for some of them). The decline of their towns and cities.

You have to ask them - they are too diverse to be pigonholed. The ex-Labour activist I know joined them because his political outlook had changed. He wanted to see a freer market and to see the state radically reformed. Direct democracy was one of those things. The state must become accountable to the people, and leaving the EU was the first step.



By giving people a chance to set their own destiny. By freeing people up to do what they want to do. By lifting regulations (both EU inspired and not) that strangle us. By giving people a voice.

Oh, and by not constantly talking ourselves down. By actually speaking up for ourselves, like most other countries do.



By deregulation and cutting the size of the state.



Most of the media, most politicians (of all three parties), big business.

Pro-EU, pro-mass immigration, pro-'multiculturalism', pro-environmentalism, anti-democracy, anti-free choice.



Hand it to the people of this country to let themselves decide how they want to be governed.

UKIP don't want the control for themselves, you know.

Oh, so nothing like dealing with the stagnating minimum wage, the skyrocketing cost of living, the two tier health and education system or freezing pensioners and fuel poverty? Thats before I even touch on the shoddy treatment of disabled people.



Yes, because that has worked out brilliantly so far under the tories hasn't it?

"Deregulation isn't working, whats the solution? We need to Deregulate even faster!"



...Which in reality translates to giving even more power and clout to unelected figures in big business and even more pandering to the United States regarding our foreign policy.

Thanks for doing my work for me.

I used to think people from Labour backgrounds were all lunatics. Being in UKIP and actually conversing with people has actually shown that, besides the tribalism of the two major parties, we are often a lot more similar than the two-party divide would have us believe. What we believe in shouldn't really divide us by party. I'd rather spend time with a genuinely liberal centre-left type than a very socially conservative right-wing type.



It's been done in a very corrupt and cack-handed way. The way the Tories have done it, only they and their big business friends win and the real problems that need fixing aren't fixed.

This is the nature of top-down, closed, crony government.

UKIP doesn't have friends in big business. They're pro-free market, which big business is not keen on. Consider that UKIP is constantly lobbying against EU spearheaded anti-competitive legislation (like the one on e-cigarettes). The smaller vaper manufacturers will be put out of businesses by the pharmaceuticals. UKIP is against this happening.



UKIP is non-interventionist in its foreign policy. We want a stronger military but otherwise to be pretty much left alone. We want to be more distant from the U.S. than we are now.

And again, UKIP's main supporters are small and medium-sized businesspeople. There are a few wealthy figures that back us but we aren't funded by megacorporations.

Oh dear, that doesn't bode well Tequila, old bean.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/05/u ... -election/

Looks like a by-election to come. Hopefully the greens or labour take it.

UKIP quite clearly don't want to let people decide how they want to be governed. You're an authoritarian party. You're against worker's rights, you're against freedom of movement, you're against freedom of marriage, you want to increase the size of the prison population, you want to control what people can wear.

Anti-environment. Anti-multiculturalism. Anti-workers. If you weren't anti-intellectual, you'd fit in fine in China. Maybe UKIP should relocate there so they don't destroy the country they claim to love.

They are anti intellectual, remember? They don't like the London electorate, too well educated apparently.

Thick racist oiks, that is Farage's kind of people.

No, we're not. We support the right of workers to choose their employer. We want to make it easier for people to be able to work.



Yes, we are. It harms both the countries that are losing their brightest and best, and puts a lot of people out of work in richer countries. It means we lose the right to decide who we want to live and work here, and, depending on who exactly is coming, means we get all the problems of other countries too.

It's an iniquitous policy and should be scrapped. You don't see most other countries having freedom of movement, not even those with fairly high immigration rates.



Actually, we're only against it because of what the ECHR will inevitably say. That the state church (and possibly other churches) will be forced to perfom marriages that they object to.

Personally, I am in favour of a similar form of gay marriage to that which exists in Portugal. Basically, you can have a partnership with anyone you like. All people go through that system, and it's legally recognised.



If people have broken the law, they should be punished. In many cases, that requires a custodial sentence.



Not true. We want a prohibition on concealment of the face in public buildings, like in most civilised countries. You can look like a ninja in the street if you want.



Nah, we just don't fancy killing our economy and industry to prove some insane green dream.

No to windmills. Evil-looking things.



It's a divisive and racist policy. Every culture on Earth is fine in Britain except for, seemingly, the British one. I look forward to it being scrapped and we can celebrate what unites us rather than constantly harping on about what divides us.

London is a different country. It's so different from the rest of England.

Much UKIP sentiment is a rebellion against London and its ways.

And Sked can, you know, provide some evidence by that quote? Or is Sked making things up?

A man famous for his sour grapes against UKIP. If you read about the early days of UKIP, you'll find out much about Sked and his vision for the party. He wanted it to be a sort of pressure group for intellectuals - the name Anti-Federalist League even referenced the Land League of the 1830s. Jolly good if you get the reference, but most people wouldn't. Basically, Farage and others wanted it to be a proper political party and it was then called UKIP. Sked got pushed out.

I very much doubt that's the kind of thing Nigel would ever say.

He did threaten to set up his own political party last year, which was to be a centre-left anti-EU party called New Deal but it never happened.

I'm still seething over that idiot Nattrass. He cost us at least one MEP (Paul Oakley in London) and probably more than that. In the European elections, we would have won my local borough with the 100-odd votes he took from us!

As for Dave Small - I'm glad we're rid of him. I'm glad he's being swiftly investigated. He sounds like an idiot. In fact, one thing UKIP should be doing is investigating people properly before they become council candidates... but we simply don't have the resources for that.

That's an Orwellian statement worthy of Minitru.

The erosion of workers' rights, tilting the table in favour of employers doesn't create more jobs--it simply creates cheaper jobs. It means that people working 40 hours a week no longer earn enough money to support themselves above the poverty line. It further entrenches the income inequality gap, and gives rise to the social problems that economists have been pointing to for years that arise from that.



So if both countries are losing their best and their brightest, where are they going to? Are they evaporating in some interdimensional rift?

Free movement of labour creates opportunities. While Britain is certainly a net recipient of migration within Europe, nonetheless there is a vast amount of opportunity that is available to Britons that would be summarily eliminated without reciprocation.

Furthermore, the erosion of workers' rights is precisely a contributing factor to net migration. By allowing employers to hire workers at exploitive rates, the only people willing to work for those wages are economic migrants. If employers were required to provide wages and working conditions what would attract local labour, then local labour would be able to squeeze out migrant labour.



Utter and complete BS. When the ECHR forces the Roman Catholic Church to perform marriages of previously divorced people, then I will lend some credence to your argument. But no court has ever touched the Church's right to refuse sacraments to people who are not canonically eligible.



That's a nice answer that completely evades the public policy question that lies at its root. The American experiment has amply demonstrated that 'tough-on-crime' policies play well politically, but are utterly wasteful and do nothing to promote public safety. For a party that wants to cut the size of government, this is a hypocritical policy approach.



But you cannot demonstrate a legitimate public policy interest in that prohibition. If you are going to infringe on the right of an individual to free expression, then you must demonstrate that there is a legitimate interest the justifies the infringement.

For a party that is grounded in freeing the citizen from the restrictions of government, this policy is another wrongheaded hypocrisy.



Well, I think there is still an open question to be answered about whether a failure to adopt more rigorous environmental standards is going to prove unsustainable. What is the benefit of a short term lifeline to obsolete industry? Sure the more intelligent approach is to provide the means for capital to migrate from old, inefficient industry to new industries. The future does not lie in manufacturing--that economy has moved off shore, never to return. The new economy lies in services, and the faster that government provides the means for the economy to retool, the greater the prosperity that the economy will realize.



It's a divisive and racist policy. Every culture on Earth is fine in Britain except for, seemingly, the British one. I look forward to it being scrapped and we can celebrate what unites us rather than constantly harping on about what divides us.[/quote]

The rhetoric of victimisation.

Britain (and England before it) has always been the most multi-cultural country in Europe. Britain's prosperity and global dominance in the 17th through 19th century was firmly rooted in its multiculturalism--particularly that of London. Britain was only supplanted when a larger, more multicultural trading entity emerged in the form of the United States.

British prosperity depends entirely on trade, and it has done for the better part of 500 years. While there is romantic appeal in cultural unity, the reality is that this is inimical to prosperity.

Visagrunt probably articulated it as well as is necessary but 'being able to choose their employer' doesnt pass much muster whenever all available choices are equally poor. 'Making it easier for people to be able to work' is a loaded statement that the tory spin machine would be proud of.


I just hope that a hypothetical UKIP government would put its money where its mouth is, and brings home the expatriates living in Costa Del Little England and other places. You can't have it both ways.



The UK has a skills deficit, and needs immigration for reasons other than being charitible to refugees. You make out that immigration is inherently malignant, which is a common lie from the gutter right.



You'll find that among the religious groups that object to gay marriage, they are homophobic to the hilt so the couples that would seek to benefit from same sex marriage are unlikely to be members of said religious groups.



The problem is that with the stealth privatisation of the British probation system, we are becoming more like america where populating prison cells becomes a for-profit endeavour. I don't see UKIP, a fan of deregulation looking to oppose that so you'll find that they form the creation of asinine new laws for no other reason than the detainment of new prisoners for the sake of detaining people. No maker of laws is ever an absolute moral authority.



The problem here is that some peoples religions dictates they cannot remove face concealment even in public buildings, so it becomes a matter of freedom to religion rather than freedom to apparel.

I want no big brother state telling me what i can and cant wear, where i can and cant wear it. That is another reason UKIP can f**k off in my book.

The alternative is some insane reality where the coastline is lost to the sea and most of North- Western Europe is underwater.



'Britain' is already tearing itself at the seams, with the rise of Scottish and Welsh seperatism. I hope with every sinew of my being that Scottish independence is realised, so that we can begin the dismantlement of this unequal, forced marriage that was never intended to make the celtic constituent nations equal partners in the first place.

The fact that Scotland unanimously rejected the UKIP project should be a shot across your bows.

Like with Britain and the EU, better to be on the inside pissing out...
Think how bad the permanent Tory government would manage to screw you over.

I think the union is between the wrong nations. If I had my way, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Douglas, Belfast and Dublin would club together and let London manage its own affairs, and take home its nuclear arsenal as a diminutive ̶̷̷c̷h̷a̷t̷t̷l̷e̷ ̷t̷o̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷U̷S̷A̷ partner in the Anglo-American alliance.

If UKIP wants their little England 1940s dystopia, they are welcome to it but leave me out of it.

The argument that England will be doomed to permanent tory rule without Scotland is a fallacy of the anti independence naysayers to propagate the idea that Scotland makes an effectual difference in westminster. It doesn't. On each occasion that Labour has won, the Scottish vote did nothing to ensure this. If anything, you could argue that its completely un-democratic for Scotland to be ruled by a government that won an election when Scottish people had little or no sway in determining or preventing their victory. Its an arrangement that Edward Longshanks could only have dreamed of.

I'm not a UKIP supporter,but I'd have to acknowledge that Scotland didn't unanimously reject them,they actually gained 1 of the 6 seats
available. This was much to the SNP's dismay as they can no longer use the idea of outright rejection of UKIP to support their assertion that Scotland has totally different demographics.

I tend to think that most people who voted UKIP don't have extreme views,but are disillusioned that the EU has become less of the
'Free Trade' area it was meant to be,rather than the 'Free-For-All' it has become,with many EU citizens able to move to their chosen adopted countries and claim entitlement to benefits.

Immigration itself isn't the problem in my opinion,it's been the lack of checks and balances to ensure that the resident populations
aren't swamped and unfairly disadvantaged. Trying to make things fairer from within would be the best option instead of withdrawing from the free trade area altogether.

David Coburn MEP - Glasgow-born and openly gay - would love to hear you say that. He is living proof that you spout utter horse manure.