| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 18:56 - Nov 29 with 2356 views | THEBUSH |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 16:21 - Nov 29 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
Anyone here think there should not have been a referendum . |
Yes and I said so ages ago.
Imo, it's one the most stupid things for any government to have done, since the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor  |  | |  |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:15 - Nov 29 with 2321 views | Hunterhoop |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 16:16 - Nov 29 by Discodroids |
I understand that and the mirror reflection of that, is when i visit my Sister In Thame where i counted on the last visit , zero people of colour, and to a man jack her and her collective , all vote Labour and speak of corbyn in the same reverential tones as George Harrison the Maharishi.
They all posses a gamma ray rage for ukip and openly call The people of the east end and essex Racist scum and stormtroopers while comparing altitude experiments at buchenwald to putting your 'x' against a ukip candidate in a voting booth. All from a safety net munching on a cinnamon twirl 50 miles away in their sensory deprivation tanks( costa coffee) and Still thinking that the Krays are having a cup of tea with mum Vi in Vallance road.
She's lived there for the last 30 years and never, ever goes back to the east end, and wont even take me up on my generous offer of a white paper boiler suit to burn after her visit.
Earlier this year she and her mates ( all teachers), showed their support for ethnic minorities suffering 'brexit hate crime', by wearing sari's for the evening and a bindi down the local prezzo while getting pissed on pinot grigio..
as a socially progressive experiment, I think her and her like minded kin in these more enlightened affluent areas , would impress me a lot more if they offer to live above a paddy power in green street, upton park with their husbands and children for 3 months and use the local services , i.e schools, doctors etc and thus in a position to make a more informed view of those they malign and ridicule. .
Being judged by leftist shaolin monk 5th dan level virtue signallers who live in a different time zone is getting very very boring [Post edited 29 Nov 2016 16:27]
|
Disco,
Always been fascinated by your take on things politically. From what you've said about your life, career history, background, current job, etc, plus your extremely well worded posts, you are clearly intelligent, aware, and not a racist. Many of the points you are making, whilst shrouded in exuberant metaphor, do get to the heart of a few issues.
I think I understand where you're coming from in your support for UKIP and it's very interesting to hear Nuttall's first speech; it plays to exactly what you are saying, or at least I think some of it does. It is also where I see UKIP's biggest political opportunity: the working man.
Whilst you know I'm not a UKIP supporter, I'm intrigued to get your take on a few things UKIP. As you probably know I am a liberal - in the John Stuart Mills sense, ie, social liberalism, but economically tend to sit nearer Keynesian economics than neoliberal economics.
Am I right in saying you are coming to UKIP as a former Labour supporter, because you feel none of the major parties are truly looking out for the working man, whether than be a steel worker in Port Talbot or a delivery driver in East Ham, or a nurse in Brixton, etc, etc? I tend to agree that all major parties, have shifted too far towards neoliberal economics, have failed to facilitate integration alongside immigration, and have done too little to help out the "losers" from globilisation (which I'm broadly in favour of, I should note).
I completely agree that politicians from across the political spectrum don't really know/understand the working man. I agree that many in the media do fit the wonderfully verbose descriptions you come up with, save for your unjustified and inaccurate use of the the word "liberal". 
However, without getting into all that, what I'm interested, is whether you think UKIP truly are, can become or even truly want to become, the party of the working man?
For me, they appear to have two incongruent strands.
On the one hand much of UKIP's support comes from low income, working, white, males, many of whom actually come into little contact with immigrants. This was true of their 3.8m votes at the last election. It's similar to Trump supporters in the Rust Belt. I truly believe their fear of immigrants and "globalisation", which in some instances is justified, but is, in the in the main, misguided, drives this support. Fear driven by media owned by extremely wealth, white establishment men.
On the other hand, UKIP were a party founded, led and funded entirely (until now) by very wealthy, private school educated, white men, who favour neoliberal economics, a reduction in the size of the state and a return to the days of "Great" Britain. They utilised rhetoric which was anti immigrant in order to gain the support of those I mentioned in the first strand....As a result, this attracted some people to their party who are actual racists. That does need to be acknowledged.
Now, clearly, these two strands clash. As far as I can see it, UKIP have a choice. These are:
1) Become the true party of the working man (whilst Labour and the north Islington set pissball about with socialism, which helps few about from those governing, just like neoliberalism), supporting local workers, engaging and trying to woo the trade unions, opposing the EU, opposing immigration, espousing protectionist economic approaches, etc. However, at the same time, they need to drop the neoliberal economic aspects several in the party espouse; they need to champion the NHS and welfare, not criticise it and they need to leave behind the former old school Conservative "Jag and Gin" set they have historically courted, because the "Jag and Gin" set are entirely opposed to the concept of the supporting the working man.
I think this is what you want. Tell me if I'm wrong. If so, I think this is absolutely fine, They would, in effect, become the true "labour" party. Not socialist, not liberal, and not conservative. A country should have a political party representing this demographic.
Option 2) They pander to the "Jag and Gin" set who made their money in the 70s and 80s and want to hark back to that country where there were TV shows openly racist, where Britain was great and Johnny Foreigner should be kept out, and where money could be made (especially if you had money in the first place!). In this instance, they are really going after the right wing aspects of the Conservative vote. For me, this is really where Farage sits and comes from.
This I'm less fine with. I consider it regressive, broadly rascist and self serving.
At present, they are trying to woo both strands, but I simply don't think they can put forward a credible narrative by trying to be both. There is some cross over (albeit for different reasons) that both strands have, notably immigration, hence why they play so hard on it. But it isn't really a road to electoral success, especially when either (or both) of the following happen: 1) Britain regains total control of its borders (post Brexit taking effect). 2) An economic impact is felt, in terms of increased cost of living, which worsens livings standards, which isn't offset by improved national salaries/employment, after Brexit takes affect.
What's your take?
As I've said I'm broadly in favour of globilisation (most economic studies show it has a net improvement on a country's standard of living), but only globalisation with a conscience, where governments put far more effort and money towards retraining the minority who lose out (in the job sense) from globilisation, and the globilsation serves people (through jobs, living standards, opportunity and choice), not big corporations' shareholders. A "John Stuart Mills" globilisation, if you will, albeit that's a horribly crude concoction of political theory.
I'm in favour of immigration. I believe it is not just necessary, but desired, to improve and develop any developed country's economy and living standard (and society, frankly!). But I think governments should do a lot more to invest in infrastructure to handle additional migrants, without worsening the infrastructure available to their citizens, and to ensure social integration. Again, this has been a huge failing from recent governments. Huge. Both Labour and the Tory's are at fault here.
I broadly favour investment in infrastructure during economic downturns (money is so cheap, why not borrow to create work, disposable income, etc, which will all flow cyclically around the economy), but believe countries gains more from having people employed by profitable private companies than employed in needless state sector roles, it drives the economic progression of a country in comparison with other countries, thus improving living standards.
And I'm broadly in favour of some small redistribution of wealth, albeit I am no socialist.
But with your background and political views, do you really think UKIP are or will be a party that matches your political views? And, if they don't fully go down that strand....what then?
In my view, the demographic you (possibly rightly) feel have been forgotten and ignored for too long, would actually be best served, in today's political climate, by the Lib Dems. Not saying they are the party of the working man. But neither do I truly believe UKIP are, ever were, or ever will be. Labour haven't been since Foot, and are a mess at the minute. Socialism, whilst supposedly being in the interests of the working man, almost always leads to a worse standard of living than capitalism and I don't think the people you often refer to in your posts as having lost out, actually really want this. And in my view, one I think you share, Labour today are a Champagne Socialist group who's lack of competence would mean everyone would be worse of. Workers benefit from successful business. They provide jobs, disposable income, and opportunities. However, unfettered capitalism, that neoliberalism I refer to, vastly favours those with capital already. Globalisation with a conscience, social liberalism, investment in public services, and a little redistribution of wealth....would this not be in the interests of the working man?
I think politics in the UK and globally needs tweaking, a rebalancing if you will...not a complete overhaul and harking back to authoritarian socialist, neoliberal OR closed borders "lock 'em out, everything bad is their fault" politics. People are forgetting, that at the highest, broadest level, we are all liberals today (historically speaking). I don't think we want to forget that now and throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I do wish you'd stop misusing "liberals" when putting together your great streams of lexicon. |  | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:21 - Nov 29 with 2308 views | THEBUSH |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:08 - Nov 29 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
Hmmm
I on the other hand think it's the most liberating thing that's happen in politics EVER in my life time and I'm sure for generations before me who took that opportunity emphatically.
A trully meaningful vote. True democracy. [Post edited 29 Nov 2016 19:13]
|
Maybe meaningful for you, but for me it's split the country in two, also looks like Scotland will break away from the Union, very meaningful that. | | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:29 - Nov 29 with 2289 views | QPR_John |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:21 - Nov 29 by THEBUSH |
Maybe meaningful for you, but for me it's split the country in two, also looks like Scotland will break away from the Union, very meaningful that. |
Why should we leave the EU when the majority voted to stay. Why should we be governed by a Conservative Government when the majority did not vote for them. You might also add Labour Government should there be one in the future. It is the same old mantra from the SNP the referendum made no difference [Post edited 29 Nov 2016 19:31]
|  | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:29 - Nov 29 with 2287 views | Hunterhoop |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 18:45 - Nov 29 by essextaxiboy |
I try and argue Brexit without immigration ... I agree that a lot of this is stirred up by the likes of the Mail ..but things like Lee Rigbys murder committed in the name of Islam will stir up anger and fear especially in older folk
You dont have to have skin in the game personally to be concerned for your country and towns that are losing identity with their history .
I do have points regarding EU migration but its about numbers and planning , pick a town around London and tell me how many GPs are needed over ten years . You just cant as we have no control ....Its really not about individuals ..for me at least |
Essex,
I get your point; I do. My post was merely supporting ingeminate's about UKIP's support base. Their support is a photographic negative of immigrant population in the UK when put on a map. There are the occasional exception, but it's true.
As I said above in my far too long ramble to Disco, I think far more should have been invested in infrastructure and integration in recent decades.
I think the concept of unfettered across the EU is flawed. I said earlier I think the EU is flawed. I think it would have changed beyond recognition or folded within 20 years, but that I'd have rather we had stayed in to a) influence this change, b) see any impacts hitting gradually, and c) not have an economic hit in the short term, when the British people and economy is still recovering from the financial crash and recession.
For me, a key way to look at it is "volume of people" vs "infrastructure". If the net migration to this country did not exist but was matched by an increase in the birth rate or even a two fold increase in the birth rate, would everyone who voted Leave be in favour of capping the number of children you could legally have? I doubt it, governments would need to be investing in infrastructure to handle the growing population. I know with a birth rate spike you have longer to plan in that infrastructure investment, but the issue today is lack of investment and lack of willingness to invest (from recent chancellors) not migration. To continue to be a strong economy, to develop, to have high standards of living, we should be welcoming migrants. However, I agree, the very limited control freedom of movement in the EU hampers countries. But, I still think it is and was manageable through better infrastructure and integration investment. And, as I said above, I think that unfettered freedom of movement across the EU was one of it's flaws, given the significant variation in living standards, wages, etc across the EU. But I do think that political pressures would have seen the EU ultimately either fall apart or amend this "pillar" of the EU.
I just think leaving risked (and still does, when it actually happens) too much of a negative shock to the UK economy, which will ultimately hit the lives of ordinary citizens, not the likes of Boris or Farage.
I don't think we're as far apart on this as you think. | | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:35 - Nov 29 with 2271 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:21 - Nov 29 by THEBUSH |
Maybe meaningful for you, but for me it's split the country in two, also looks like Scotland will break away from the Union, very meaningful that. |
Well I'm sure not just for me.
Not liking the outcome and dealing with the consequences, happends with any political outcomes.
It's those not accepting the result that are the problem, not the result itself. |  |
| |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:39 - Nov 29 with 2259 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:29 - Nov 29 by QPR_John |
Why should we leave the EU when the majority voted to stay. Why should we be governed by a Conservative Government when the majority did not vote for them. You might also add Labour Government should there be one in the future. It is the same old mantra from the SNP the referendum made no difference [Post edited 29 Nov 2016 19:31]
|
Why should we leave the EU when the majority voted to stay.
What ? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:41 - Nov 29 with 2253 views | QPR_John |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:39 - Nov 29 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
Why should we leave the EU when the majority voted to stay.
What ? |
Read the last sentence | | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:42 - Nov 29 with 2225 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:41 - Nov 29 by QPR_John |
Read the last sentence |
ok sorry | |
| |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:54 - Nov 29 with 2206 views | Esox_Lucius |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:08 - Nov 29 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
Hmmm
I on the other hand think it's the most liberating thing that's happen in politics EVER in my life time and I'm sure for generations before me who took that opportunity emphatically.
A trully meaningful vote. True democracy. [Post edited 29 Nov 2016 19:13]
|
If only there had been full disclosure by both sides before the vote so you vote on an informed basis. |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 20:08 - Nov 29 with 2187 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:54 - Nov 29 by Esox_Lucius |
If only there had been full disclosure by both sides before the vote so you vote on an informed basis. |
I honesty think that's a red herring, clutching at straws.
Reasons for voting one way or another, were very diverse, nothing I've heard since has changed my mine and I believe that's the same for the majority, there has not been any indication that a large or even a moderate % have changed their minds, it would be headline news if there had, just wishfull thinking. [Post edited 29 Nov 2016 20:09]
| |
| |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 20:14 - Nov 29 with 2172 views | QPR_John |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:47 - Nov 29 by THEBUSH |
Someone asked the question, if a referendum should have been called, so I replied.
Why your trying to be smart with me, not sure why  |
Not trying to be smart at all. Just answering your point about Scotland I don't think the referendum changed the attitude of the SNP | | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 20:27 - Nov 29 with 2153 views | Brightonhoop |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:08 - Nov 29 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
Hmmm
I on the other hand think it's the most liberating thing that's happen in politics EVER in my life time and I'm sure for generations before me who took that opportunity emphatically.
A trully meaningful vote. True democracy. [Post edited 29 Nov 2016 19:13]
|
Well, you should know your history better.
Churchill sought a Referrundum on extending his role as M after the war from Atlee, and Atlee told him to get stuffed and get on with an Election. In part, citing Hitlers successful use of Refs to do what he did. Even Thathcer rejected the idea of Refs.
They are the antithesis of British Democracy.
Proven by Hitler. |  | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 20:43 - Nov 29 with 2125 views | BasingstokeR |
Godwins Law satisfied for this thread now 
 |  | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 20:44 - Nov 29 with 2123 views | essextaxiboy |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:29 - Nov 29 by Hunterhoop |
Essex,
I get your point; I do. My post was merely supporting ingeminate's about UKIP's support base. Their support is a photographic negative of immigrant population in the UK when put on a map. There are the occasional exception, but it's true.
As I said above in my far too long ramble to Disco, I think far more should have been invested in infrastructure and integration in recent decades.
I think the concept of unfettered across the EU is flawed. I said earlier I think the EU is flawed. I think it would have changed beyond recognition or folded within 20 years, but that I'd have rather we had stayed in to a) influence this change, b) see any impacts hitting gradually, and c) not have an economic hit in the short term, when the British people and economy is still recovering from the financial crash and recession.
For me, a key way to look at it is "volume of people" vs "infrastructure". If the net migration to this country did not exist but was matched by an increase in the birth rate or even a two fold increase in the birth rate, would everyone who voted Leave be in favour of capping the number of children you could legally have? I doubt it, governments would need to be investing in infrastructure to handle the growing population. I know with a birth rate spike you have longer to plan in that infrastructure investment, but the issue today is lack of investment and lack of willingness to invest (from recent chancellors) not migration. To continue to be a strong economy, to develop, to have high standards of living, we should be welcoming migrants. However, I agree, the very limited control freedom of movement in the EU hampers countries. But, I still think it is and was manageable through better infrastructure and integration investment. And, as I said above, I think that unfettered freedom of movement across the EU was one of it's flaws, given the significant variation in living standards, wages, etc across the EU. But I do think that political pressures would have seen the EU ultimately either fall apart or amend this "pillar" of the EU.
I just think leaving risked (and still does, when it actually happens) too much of a negative shock to the UK economy, which will ultimately hit the lives of ordinary citizens, not the likes of Boris or Farage.
I don't think we're as far apart on this as you think. |
I hope not ...
Anyway Disco aint UKIP , I saw him out on the lash with the Govester with my own eyes ...ask PP.. |  | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 20:55 - Nov 29 with 2097 views | Discodroids |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:15 - Nov 29 by Hunterhoop |
Disco,
Always been fascinated by your take on things politically. From what you've said about your life, career history, background, current job, etc, plus your extremely well worded posts, you are clearly intelligent, aware, and not a racist. Many of the points you are making, whilst shrouded in exuberant metaphor, do get to the heart of a few issues.
I think I understand where you're coming from in your support for UKIP and it's very interesting to hear Nuttall's first speech; it plays to exactly what you are saying, or at least I think some of it does. It is also where I see UKIP's biggest political opportunity: the working man.
Whilst you know I'm not a UKIP supporter, I'm intrigued to get your take on a few things UKIP. As you probably know I am a liberal - in the John Stuart Mills sense, ie, social liberalism, but economically tend to sit nearer Keynesian economics than neoliberal economics.
Am I right in saying you are coming to UKIP as a former Labour supporter, because you feel none of the major parties are truly looking out for the working man, whether than be a steel worker in Port Talbot or a delivery driver in East Ham, or a nurse in Brixton, etc, etc? I tend to agree that all major parties, have shifted too far towards neoliberal economics, have failed to facilitate integration alongside immigration, and have done too little to help out the "losers" from globilisation (which I'm broadly in favour of, I should note).
I completely agree that politicians from across the political spectrum don't really know/understand the working man. I agree that many in the media do fit the wonderfully verbose descriptions you come up with, save for your unjustified and inaccurate use of the the word "liberal".
However, without getting into all that, what I'm interested, is whether you think UKIP truly are, can become or even truly want to become, the party of the working man?
For me, they appear to have two incongruent strands.
On the one hand much of UKIP's support comes from low income, working, white, males, many of whom actually come into little contact with immigrants. This was true of their 3.8m votes at the last election. It's similar to Trump supporters in the Rust Belt. I truly believe their fear of immigrants and "globalisation", which in some instances is justified, but is, in the in the main, misguided, drives this support. Fear driven by media owned by extremely wealth, white establishment men.
On the other hand, UKIP were a party founded, led and funded entirely (until now) by very wealthy, private school educated, white men, who favour neoliberal economics, a reduction in the size of the state and a return to the days of "Great" Britain. They utilised rhetoric which was anti immigrant in order to gain the support of those I mentioned in the first strand....As a result, this attracted some people to their party who are actual racists. That does need to be acknowledged.
Now, clearly, these two strands clash. As far as I can see it, UKIP have a choice. These are:
1) Become the true party of the working man (whilst Labour and the north Islington set pissball about with socialism, which helps few about from those governing, just like neoliberalism), supporting local workers, engaging and trying to woo the trade unions, opposing the EU, opposing immigration, espousing protectionist economic approaches, etc. However, at the same time, they need to drop the neoliberal economic aspects several in the party espouse; they need to champion the NHS and welfare, not criticise it and they need to leave behind the former old school Conservative "Jag and Gin" set they have historically courted, because the "Jag and Gin" set are entirely opposed to the concept of the supporting the working man.
I think this is what you want. Tell me if I'm wrong. If so, I think this is absolutely fine, They would, in effect, become the true "labour" party. Not socialist, not liberal, and not conservative. A country should have a political party representing this demographic.
Option 2) They pander to the "Jag and Gin" set who made their money in the 70s and 80s and want to hark back to that country where there were TV shows openly racist, where Britain was great and Johnny Foreigner should be kept out, and where money could be made (especially if you had money in the first place!). In this instance, they are really going after the right wing aspects of the Conservative vote. For me, this is really where Farage sits and comes from.
This I'm less fine with. I consider it regressive, broadly rascist and self serving.
At present, they are trying to woo both strands, but I simply don't think they can put forward a credible narrative by trying to be both. There is some cross over (albeit for different reasons) that both strands have, notably immigration, hence why they play so hard on it. But it isn't really a road to electoral success, especially when either (or both) of the following happen: 1) Britain regains total control of its borders (post Brexit taking effect). 2) An economic impact is felt, in terms of increased cost of living, which worsens livings standards, which isn't offset by improved national salaries/employment, after Brexit takes affect.
What's your take?
As I've said I'm broadly in favour of globilisation (most economic studies show it has a net improvement on a country's standard of living), but only globalisation with a conscience, where governments put far more effort and money towards retraining the minority who lose out (in the job sense) from globilisation, and the globilsation serves people (through jobs, living standards, opportunity and choice), not big corporations' shareholders. A "John Stuart Mills" globilisation, if you will, albeit that's a horribly crude concoction of political theory.
I'm in favour of immigration. I believe it is not just necessary, but desired, to improve and develop any developed country's economy and living standard (and society, frankly!). But I think governments should do a lot more to invest in infrastructure to handle additional migrants, without worsening the infrastructure available to their citizens, and to ensure social integration. Again, this has been a huge failing from recent governments. Huge. Both Labour and the Tory's are at fault here.
I broadly favour investment in infrastructure during economic downturns (money is so cheap, why not borrow to create work, disposable income, etc, which will all flow cyclically around the economy), but believe countries gains more from having people employed by profitable private companies than employed in needless state sector roles, it drives the economic progression of a country in comparison with other countries, thus improving living standards.
And I'm broadly in favour of some small redistribution of wealth, albeit I am no socialist.
But with your background and political views, do you really think UKIP are or will be a party that matches your political views? And, if they don't fully go down that strand....what then?
In my view, the demographic you (possibly rightly) feel have been forgotten and ignored for too long, would actually be best served, in today's political climate, by the Lib Dems. Not saying they are the party of the working man. But neither do I truly believe UKIP are, ever were, or ever will be. Labour haven't been since Foot, and are a mess at the minute. Socialism, whilst supposedly being in the interests of the working man, almost always leads to a worse standard of living than capitalism and I don't think the people you often refer to in your posts as having lost out, actually really want this. And in my view, one I think you share, Labour today are a Champagne Socialist group who's lack of competence would mean everyone would be worse of. Workers benefit from successful business. They provide jobs, disposable income, and opportunities. However, unfettered capitalism, that neoliberalism I refer to, vastly favours those with capital already. Globalisation with a conscience, social liberalism, investment in public services, and a little redistribution of wealth....would this not be in the interests of the working man?
I think politics in the UK and globally needs tweaking, a rebalancing if you will...not a complete overhaul and harking back to authoritarian socialist, neoliberal OR closed borders "lock 'em out, everything bad is their fault" politics. People are forgetting, that at the highest, broadest level, we are all liberals today (historically speaking). I don't think we want to forget that now and throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I do wish you'd stop misusing "liberals" when putting together your great streams of lexicon. |
Hunter me old mucker.. ive just imbibed 9 bottles of portuguese Lager, can i get back to you on that biblical post!. it would have george smileys circus weeping with pride. [Post edited 29 Nov 2016 20:59]
|  |
| The Duke Of New York. A-Number One.
|
| |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 21:00 - Nov 29 with 2082 views | Discodroids |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 20:44 - Nov 29 by essextaxiboy |
I hope not ...
Anyway Disco aint UKIP , I saw him out on the lash with the Govester with my own eyes ...ask PP.. |
A creepy cat was Gove..he reminded me of the silent assassin Kevin in sin city. | |
| The Duke Of New York. A-Number One.
|
| |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 21:00 - Nov 29 with 2079 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 20:27 - Nov 29 by Brightonhoop |
Well, you should know your history better.
Churchill sought a Referrundum on extending his role as M after the war from Atlee, and Atlee told him to get stuffed and get on with an Election. In part, citing Hitlers successful use of Refs to do what he did. Even Thathcer rejected the idea of Refs.
They are the antithesis of British Democracy.
Proven by Hitler. |
Ahh Godwin's Law
I wondered when that would pop up. | |
| |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 21:04 - Nov 29 with 2074 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 20:43 - Nov 29 by BasingstokeR |
Godwins Law satisfied for this thread now
|
 | |
| |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 21:11 - Nov 29 with 2064 views | Brightonhoop |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 21:00 - Nov 29 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
Ahh Godwin's Law
I wondered when that would pop up. |
Hmmm sounds like shutting down arguments to me. Fact,Hitler used Refs to achieve his diabolical outcomes. The British political Establishment rejected their use for those very reasons. You cant win an argument by limiting it's parameters. Carry on.
Ignore history at your peril. | | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 21:15 - Nov 29 with 2054 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 21:11 - Nov 29 by Brightonhoop |
Hmmm sounds like shutting down arguments to me. Fact,Hitler used Refs to achieve his diabolical outcomes. The British political Establishment rejected their use for those very reasons. You cant win an argument by limiting it's parameters. Carry on.
Ignore history at your peril. |
Ignore the will of the people as the french aristocracy found out.
Chop chop | |
| |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 21:18 - Nov 29 with 2050 views | Hunterhoop |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 20:55 - Nov 29 by Discodroids |
Hunter me old mucker.. ive just imbibed 9 bottles of portuguese Lager, can i get back to you on that biblical post!. it would have george smileys circus weeping with pride. [Post edited 29 Nov 2016 20:59]
|
Ha! Excused.
But I am genuinely interested so whenever you have the time, mate. | | | |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 21:23 - Nov 29 with 2464 views | HollowayRanger |
| Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 09:56 - Nov 29 by QPR_John |
Unfortunately for a great number of MP's asking for a say on how and when is simply a euphemism for blocking the whole thing.
What I haver never understood is that if most MP's think it would be a disaster for us to leave why did they vote in such numbers for a referendum. Did they feel then that was in the best interest of the country |
never in a million years did they think the plebs would rise up and vote out |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
