ukip policies on what to do with expats

[katy]

Oh dear, now they are adopting Holocaust deniers as local election candidates - and admitting they can't vet all their candidates in advance. Will they do any better in 2015 for the General Election campaign?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dates.html

My happen a lot as they don't have multi-million pound party machines behind them to keep nutters (as there are in all the Parties) on message!

[markwilding]

Well you would wouldn't you

Actually, I thought he was unfairly cut off a few times. No suprise though with that show being exposed using selected participants

And you would say I would say that.
Doesn't change the fact he was very poor though.

[masterob]

markwilding wrote:
I thought Farage was very poor on Question Time last night.

I thought so too! Once away from his EU soapbox it was quite evident that he was struggling to offer any ideas on other issues beyond what you would expect from a typical "man in the pub". He stumbled when cornered on the topic of taxation, initially arguing for a flat 31% rate for everyone until it was pointed out that high earners would be huge beneficiaries. He tried to backtrack by saying the matter was still under consideration. As to being "cut off", perhaps he should stop constantly interupting other speakers! I best not start on that hideous smirk he has!

[Julie]

Time will tell

[Free at Last]

And there's more:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eague.html


It's beginning to look as though David Cameron's assessment of them was pretty close to the mark.

I even read somewhere this week that Neil Hamilton has joined up - if true, that would make their claim to be a departure from the murky politics of the past look a bit sick.

[frank]

Time will tell

I think you are right, and I find it quite amusing (and dare I say, infantile) of the few here desperately trying to dig some dirt on UKIP, when the other parties have proved over the last few years they have more than their fair share of cheats, liars, crooks, criminals etc. I'm not convinced by UKIP and can't see them making a big impression in the near future, but they are certainly increasingly preaching to the converted. Not sure why their knockers on here are seemingly so concerned with rubbishing them, they probably won't be voting anyway.

[Free at Last]

Not sure why their knockers on here are seemingly so concerned with rubbishing them, they probably won't be voting anyway.

And you probably won't be thinking of moving to Spain, but that never stops you finding any negative news story about the place you can, does it?

I find it a bit odd that the DM seems to have such a down on UKIP, I would have thought that along with the Express and the Sun the majority of their readership would be big fans.

[markwilding]

Not sure why their knockers on here are seemingly so concerned with rubbishing them, they probably won't be voting anyway.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I didn't realise this forum was the UKIP fan club and other opinions weren't allowed..

I watched the program because people on here have been saying how fantastic Farage is, In my opinion he came across as an eighties Thatcherite throwback.

[Lavanda]

I don't like the notion that only people who can vote can have a political opinion.

[Free at Last]

There is a rather more serious story in today's Observer:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... ons-emails

[pete_l]

Yes, FaL that is worrying (as is NF's statement about letting Northern Rock go under if he'd been prime-minister). However, it does show UKIP up as being the "none of the above" choice for voters, showing their disillusionment with all the others - rather than being actually FOR the policies they propose. From the piece you pointed to:

The emails leaked to the Observer illustrate how powerless the party is to build a manifesto as it attempts to please its politically divergent support.

So it appears that their candidates don't stand for one particular view and as Harry Nilsson once said: "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."

[Lavanda]

"worrying (as is NF's statement about letting Northern Rock go under ..."

Quickly read that and thought it was about the National Front for a moment.

[pete_l]

I think they're more worried about BNP than National Front

Mr Farage said Ukip could not vet all its 1,700 candidates, conceding that some may have already “slipped through the net”.

[Lavanda]

If they can't vet all that many candidates it might be better to put up fewer who ARE vetted. UKIP might only get one chance at this. If 30 candidates are elected (optimistic, I know) it would be better they were sound and decent people not likely to embarrass and discredit the party. Next election UKIP might just do much, much better. Or they will fail utterly having show themselves to be a party of nutters (Farage's antics are sufficient, I think) and, worse. To field candidates without vetting is irresponsible as these people MAY form a government with real power over us. I don't like that idea AT ALL.

[Free at Last]

Yes, FaL that is worrying (as is NF's statement about letting Northern Rock go under if he'd been prime-minister). However, it does show UKIP up as being the "none of the above" choice for voters, showing their disillusionment with all the others - rather than being actually FOR the policies they propose. From the piece you pointed to:

The emails leaked to the Observer illustrate how powerless the party is to build a manifesto as it attempts to please its politically divergent support.

So it appears that their candidates don't stand for one particular view and as Harry Nilsson once said: "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."

Exactly. The state of affairs revealed by the multi-millionaire backer of UKIP (which in itself runs rather contrary to the impression some like to give of them being a brave little effort run from Nigel Farage's spare room thus unable to operate as a fully fledged political party) shows that they are what some of us have said all along, a collection of dissatisfied individuals who have flirted with one or more (lots, in some cases) other parties in the past and who would have no real idea of what they wanted to do, let alone how to achieve it, should they actually gain office. They may like to present themselves as a party run by "real people" rather than career politicians, but Stuart Wheeler and his co-correspondent have so much faith in the ability of those "real people" to formulate credible policy that they would rather buy their policies off the shelf from right wing think tanks.

[janda_grant2]

I read the candidate statements in our local paper on Sdaturday, and would love to copy them here, but can't find them online! What is available online is that 4 of the local candidates all have the same surname - Ransome - which is causeing a bit of amusement locally! Of the 7 candidates in Boston, only one made any references to what they hope to achieve for the community - the rest gave personal reasons for wanting to be on the council, incluing one who said she wanted to be elected so she could give her 'fat cat' salary for the job to charity, and another one was not going to claim any travel expenses - all we needed was world peace and to save a tree and we had Miss World! Good reasons to vote for them I'd say.

It was also worrying to read all the headlines in the past 3 months about candidiates that have been deselected - one for claimng the holocaus was the fault of the jews, another for wanting compulsory abortions for downs syndromw babies, another for racist remarks and a further one for being an ex BNP member. Do we really want such a party in charge of us? I know the other parties also have their "baddies" but this is a small, relatively new party and you would think they would be attracting people with zeal and passion this does not seem to be the case. I dread to think what will ahppen is they win!

[Lavanda]

Well they are obviously bonkers to let just anyone stand for them without vetting them. Bye-bye UKIP.

[katy]

Frank said
I think you are right, and I find it quite amusing (and dare I say, infantile) of the few here desperately trying to dig some dirt on UKIP, when the other parties have proved over the last few years they have more than their fair share of cheats, liars, crooks

Yes, some appear scared *beep* that the tolerant friendly Spanish may kick them out if they could! For purely selfish reasons they would like the UK to continue throwing 57 million a day down the gutter. As was said on BBC discussion, all parties have their fair share of nutters and extremists, particularly at local council level , but are treated as just a storm in a teacup. Also stated that the Tories handed over a 100 page dossier to a national newspaper on Friday with stuff gleaned from sites such as Facebook etc…..remember what I wrote recently when I said UKIP should prepare for smears as their popularity soars! Supposing I was standing…I have over the years commented on here about Gyppos, immigrants etc.and probably would have done on ársébook if I used it!

So, they haven’t any policies…like labour has!! UKIP’s main aims…referendum and withdrawal from Europe, reduce immigration, less windfarms and no building on agricultural land will do for me!!

The smear tactics seem to have backfired judging by the comments on one article in the Telegraph (over 1000 comments in favour of UKIP)

[markwilding]

Yes, some appear scared *beep* that the tolerant friendly Spanish may kick them out

That would have to be a parallel universe where UKIP stood a chance of winning or The conservatives winning the next election and then The UK voting Britain out of the UE. Even then most on here would have separate resident rights due to their length of stay.

So, they haven’t any policies…like labour has!! UKIP’s main aims…referendum and withdrawal from Europe, reduce immigration, less windfarms and no building on agricultural land will do for me!!

Most want quite a lot more

[Mowser]

I like their overturning of the smoking ban.