Reasons to vote UKIP

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be great to see a good, unbiased analysis of what we gain from the eu and what it costs us. My suspicion is that overall it's a benefit to the uk. But it would be good to see both the positive and negativedetailed
Click to expand...

If Trust me Dave gets in again, and If he sticks to his word, and gives us a referendum on EU membership (yes, I know, and look at those pink elephants flying over London!) then we might get a better idea of the detail. I suspect though that we will just get politicians talking and most of us knowing they are lying because their mouths are moving.
 
POAH said:
nuclear weapons in the UK does not prevent anything.
Click to expand...

stops people attacking us pretty well (in the last 60 or so years)

The trouble with "oh we'll rely on Nato" is do you really think america (the only nato power that matters) would go to war on our behalf ? - their track record on that isnt great - didnt join WW2 until they were attacked, didnt help us over the falklands etc
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
If Trust me Dave gets in again, and If he sticks to his word, and gives us a referendum on EU membership (yes, I know, and look at those pink elephants flying over London!) then we might get a better idea of the detail. I suspect though that we will just get politicians talking and most of us knowing they are lying because their mouths are moving.
Click to expand...

I suspect Trust Me Dave has as little idea as the rest of us. Purely because I suspect it's easy to concentrate on immigrants and not worry about some of the less easy to quantify benefits, like jobs and investment only made as a result of us being in the EU
 
big soft moose said:
stops people attacking us pretty well (in the last 60 or so years)
Click to expand...

There are families who are multi-generational that have never experienced war on their own turf. Folk born late 1940's till now have experienced relatively immense wealth, healthcare, infrastructure and education. War, fear, rations and famine is so distant to even my generation (born 70's) that its inconceivable that could ever happen here. This is the good times.

No one wants to spend 100billion on bombs let alone ones never to be used. Maybe this nuclear threat has ironically let us experience the good times.

Humans are a warring species and history proves it irrefutably. Arguably we progress the species the greatest amount technologically in the theater of war or through the fear of race annihilation.

For those who want rid of the deterrent; remember that the thing we learn from history, is that we never learn from history.
 
Daryl said:
Thing is UKIP would get my vote, but they don't seem to make sure their candidates are not idiots. They should be strict on who they have and once in say nothing in private or off mic and never ever voice you their private opinions .

Media wants them to slip up and will pounce on them.

Just need a party that is Pro on getting this Country back to the top. A party that does NOT have idiots with racist or bigot views. Politicians who believe in the people already here in this Country and those new to this Country to push forward as one.

And discipline in the Education services. not taking flack from idiot children disrupting others. Throw them out and enlist them as cannon fodder for the army. Return of National service, That would be good.
Click to expand...


Daryl I agree re much better vetting of their candidates is needed, I guess being relatively new to the arena isn't helping, but it should improve with time.

I remember a few months ago UKIP were pounced on because of a candidate who had a criminal conviction for something. It was only later that it was pointed out that as a % of candidates he amounted to less than half the number of Tories or Labour candidates with the same conviction!
Trouble is slur campaigns & half truths are what many folk believe as the most important issues.

I also agree about much of the media wanting to jump quickly on any mistakes they make, but tbh it isn't surprising with the pressure put on by our govt owned/run BBC & big business backers.
 
we dont get back anywhere near what we contribute, however that research money wouldnt find its way into research, it would be spent on other stuff. Whole different argument though is what the money COULD be spent on. we pay a lot to the EU.
 
AHILL said:
Carbon trust!! now that is a farce, especially if you live in the north of England.
I dont know where all those millions get spent but it is not with your typical UK business.
We have tried to make a claim on two occaisions over the past 6 yrs following advice from various government/green parties, it is not free you have to purchase the carbon trust grants folder at a cost of £500 a time
you then sit down and read it for what seems to be forever to try and find what grants or help is available in your area. then you find out there are none in the north of England and you have just waisted £500 on another door stop!
Click to expand...

It wasn't long ago that it was suggested that every person or household in the UK would all have some sort of `allowance` we'd have to live within :rolleyes: .......& presumably have to pay handsomely if we didn't.

The whole concept of the carbon trust is a joke imho & what's that `carbon trading` all about!?!?


Talking of The North.

There was a survey published 4 or 5 years ago by the North West Climate Change Partnership :rolleyes: which says over the next 10 years 25% of the 3 million workers in the region will need some level of skills enhancement in order to make the transition to a low carbon economy.

The report, entitled ‘Assessment of the Skills Need and Provision for a Low Carbon North West’
blyawn.gif
highlights how reducing carbon emissions is paramount for the region’s economic vitality and environmental wellbeing.

To reach the North West’s goal to become less carbon intensive, 70,000+ regional employees per year will need some level of training in new climate change-related skills over the next 10 years to equip themselves for the economic transition ahead.
Over half of them will have to incorporate a professional understanding and industrial knowledge of how their job role will have to adapt.

A sample selection of expertise required for a low carbon economy ranges from knowledge in sustainable procurement, green construction and biofuel production to offshore wind energy installation, energy efficient product design and specialised environmental service advice.

These `greens` are well entrenched now eh (like the lefties in education etc)

Oh & who's gonna pay for all this?
whistling.gif
.......yep, you and me!
 
Last edited:
Matt said:
the EU actually gave more money to UK research institutions than any other country in 2013, i was told this by a bunch of stoney faced euro-penpushers after I made a quip about the europeans hating the british...

whichever way it goes, people wont be happy with the outcome of the election, personally i dont want to see the country bankrupt and in the same position as Greece, so im not made keen on financially illiterate people getting into power.
Click to expand...

Kind of reminds me that recently a statistic was put out that stated there's actually 30,000 more expat Brits claiming benefits in other eu nations than the are others eu nations expats within the UK claiming benefits...to my shame I don't remember where I read this though
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
stops people attacking us pretty well (in the last 60 or so years)

The trouble with "oh we'll rely on Nato" is do you really think america (the only nato power that matters) would go to war on our behalf ? - their track record on that isnt great - didnt join WW2 until they were attacked, didnt help us over the falklands etc
Click to expand...

the U.S. offered a super carrier to help with the Falklands and provided the AIM-9L which had an 80% kill rate in the war so yes they did help us
 
POAH said:
well who does it prevent from attacking us?
Click to expand...

Russia, North Korea and the nuclear ambitions of Iran ? And we need to factor in the requirement to deter countries which might in the future seek to sponsor nuclear terrorism from their soil. We must assume that the global struggle in which we are engaged today between moderation and extremism isn't going to go away anytime soon. it's a deterrent and its still relevant today as it was 50 years ago.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Russia, North Korea and the nuclear ambitions of Iran ? And we need to factor in the requirement to deter countries which might in the future seek to sponsor nuclear terrorism from their soil. We must assume that the global struggle in which we are engaged today between moderation and extremism isn't going to go away anytime soon. it's a deterrent and its still relevant today as it was 50 years ago.
Click to expand...


Russia are not going to attack the UK with nuclear or conventional weapons, North Korea don't have nukes or a method of delivery to the UK and Iran has nothing either. There is nothing to deter. What about all the other countries that don't have nukes? Japan doesn't have them neither does Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Greece, Canada, etc etc The only two NATO member states with nukes is the US and the UK.
 
POAH said:
the U.S. offered a super carrier to help with the Falklands and provided the AIM-9L which had an 80% kill rate in the war so yes they did help us
Click to expand...

For cash and to make sure their 'prime' ally in the cold war stayed that way, not out of the goodness of their hearts.

In regard to nukes, they served their purpose but are no longer a credible deterrent. No large nation is going to use nukes as a weapon of attack because they would create a wasteland and 'war between nations' is never fought for anything other than profit. What we have to worry about is some small faction getting hold of nukes, they would use them regardless of the consequences and regardless of how many we had stockpiled.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Russia, North Korea and the nuclear ambitions of Iran ? And we need to factor in the requirement to deter countries which might in the future seek to sponsor nuclear terrorism from their soil. We must assume that the global struggle in which we are engaged today between moderation and extremism isn't going to go away anytime soon. it's a deterrent and its still relevant today as it was 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

Even Mossad and the US intelligence agency have concluded that Iran is NOT seeking nuclear weapons. You would be better advised to worry about Pakistan, India and ISRAEL, all of whom have decided NOT to sign up to the NPT.
The simple fact of the matter is, that since the end of WW2, the most beligerent nations - the ones who have started most wars, attacked and invaded countries and organised coups, are the ones who possessed nuclear weapons.
 
Here is my take on the UKIP Party and some other thoughts......

It is not a racist party as it does not promote the hatred or degradation of other humans of different colour or culture but what it does seem to be is a partythat want to prevent the influx of people who wish to come to this country as unskilled immigrants or those who wish to avail of our generous benefits system or NHS.
Now some people will say that this being racist......but it is not........some will cry "DISCRIMINATION" it is NOT.....What is discrimination is the inability to offer more Skilled foreign nationals from India, Japan, China, Australia New Zealand, Canada and the USA among others because they are unable to freely come to this country without visas and immigration control......By introducing a points based system for the UK, we can control immigration and ensure that the right immigrants with the right skills get priority into this country.....Skills which will help us become a great nation once again......having a policy like this does not make UKIP or any other party racist.... it makes them a proactive party who wish to return this country into a nation that produce an economy envious of all others rather than making it a cash cow for the masses to freely come and go and bleed the NHS and the Benefits system.......on saying that we also need to address the British public who also use the system as a means to bleeding cash from benefits and abusing NHS services...... but the fact still stands that if we allow uncontrolled immigration we are putting undue pressures on the British economy and the social services provided for those really in need........



As for having a nuclear deterrent....I am all in favour of having massive missiles that can protect and deter international threats and other acts of war......Who ever is in power have a duty of care to the people of the UK......this means protection not only from warfare but also from overpopulation through a lax immigration policy, protection from the idiots in Brussels who control our laws, bend bananas and general meddling with our British way of life.

If a party offers these ideals I will certainly vote for them whether it is UKIP, The Greens or The Monster Raving Loony Party......


I could go on about educational reform, human rights and other stuff but I have a date with my camera....:D
 
POAH said:
Russia are not going to attack the UK with nuclear or conventional weapons, North Korea don't have nukes or a method of delivery to the UK and Iran has nothing either. There is nothing to deter. What about all the other countries that don't have nukes? Japan doesn't have them neither does Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Greece, Canada, etc etc The only two NATO member states with nukes is the US and the UK.
Click to expand...

That is why the nuclear deterrent works, you either get it or you don't. Anyway I'm not discussing it further. Go and troll somewhere else. I have no time for CND ban the bomb types.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I love this thread, reminds me of the letters pages in the times full of moral outrage from 'disgusted, of tunbridge wells'
 
POAH said:
the U.S. offered a super carrier to help with the Falklands and provided the AIM-9L which had an 80% kill rate in the war so yes they did help us
Click to expand...

Correct, we were bounced up the queue by Regan and had them delivered early. Woodward said the Harriers wouldn't have been effective without them, but there was a little bit of political bias in that. Analysis afterwards showed the majority of the kills from behind and close, which the 9g would have been effective at. The L brought head on and a higher side angle lock on capability, which helped. There's no doubting it was much better than the 9g
 
Blank_Canvas said:
That is why the nuclear deterrent works, you either get it or you don't. Anyway I'm not discussing it further. Go and troll somewhere else. I have no time for CND ban the bomb types.
Click to expand...

so putting up rational logical points about why the UK have no need for nukes is trolling - oh dear, someone can't take loosing an argument.
 
ST4 said:
Having to get up for morning prayer at 5am, being invaded by Russia, prevents us being marginised in global affairs.

We need more, not less.
Click to expand...

so just to keep for future reference you think nukes are stopping the UK becoming an Islamic country that will get invaded by Russia - ahahahahahahahaha
 
Yv said:
Dunno about UKIP, saw a great reason not to vote Labour this morning - one of the bloody pink buses to get women to vote - how flaming patronising and condescending can you get?!? :eek:
Click to expand...

why, woman like pink :P
 
Are people trying to convince me that these other countries with nukes will see us get rid of ours.. ...think nows our chance.. nuke the UK killing millions of innocent people.. and then what?.

Seriously? In a cartoon maybe....
 
POAH said:
the U.S. offered a super carrier to help with the Falklands and provided the AIM-9L which had an 80% kill rate in the war so yes they did help us
Click to expand...

Nope- they were asked for a super carrier and airwing but said no because they were too worried about the hispanic vote (with a full blown US carrier on our side the war would have been very short and one sided) and while we had the AIM9L we purchased those on the open arms market principally from diehl bgt defence who were building them under licence - so in essence they gave us jacks*** (not that they were required to as the NATO treaty doesnt apply in the south atlantic - the clue is in the name)
 
KIPAX said:
Are people trying to convince me that these other countries with nukes will see us get rid of ours.. ...think nows our chance.. nuke the UK killing millions of innocent people.. and then what?.

Seriously? In a cartoon maybe....
Click to expand...

nope but they might attack us with conventional arms - they might also use chemical or biological weapons against british forces in theatres of war over seas as there'd be no deterent not to. And its not limited to other countries with nukes - any country could attack us or our interests over seas if theres no deterent not to do so
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top