The great TP election thread

Llamaman said:
Perhaps the SNP haven't been brainwashed by Murdoch's bull effluent and have realised that the EU is actually a good thing.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that it's another thing that splits Scotland and England we don't in the majority have the view that the EU is neccesarily a bad thing
 
ST4 said:
The UKIP movement is about controlled immigration, not anti immigration.
Click to expand...
No, it's about exiting the EU. The immigration line is a relatively recent line of attack to gather support for their anti-EU agenda. I don't recall them mentioning immigration at all prior to 2010.
 
Llamaman said:
Perhaps the SNP haven't been brainwashed by Murdoch's bull effluent and have realised that the EU is actually a good thing.
Click to expand...
It's amazing how many 'blokes in the street' now believe the EU is such a bad thing, but how few politicians, economists and major business owners want out of the EU. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the people with the actual facts in front of them are happy to stay in the EU? Whereas people who read the Mail, Telegraph and Sun / Times, whose owners don't even have to live here and are contributing f*** all other than their twisted opinions somehow want their readers to see the EU as the bogeyman. I wonder if it's simple deflection? No, surely not.

Intelligent people wouldn't fall for that, having their news delivered by people who are living right on the edge of illegal activity in order to make millions from their tax havens, telling us the reason we're skint is because of the bloody EU and their straight bananas and working time directives and immigration policies. People can see through that surely:naughty:
 
ST4 said:
UKIPs fired their racist members etc. Quite unlike the SNP who hasn't dealt with any sectarian issues. You'd really hate them.
Click to expand...
No previous governments have dealt with the sectarian issues. What would your answer be Steve?
 
Used - past tense, not using.

Actually against the law today but not 8 years ago! when he wrote it in reference to Rangers supporters. As he himself says, it's not a term he'd use today, the culture has changed and football is a different world.
 
Llamaman said:
No, it's about exiting the EU. The immigration line is a relatively recent line of attack to gather support for their anti-EU agenda. I don't recall them mentioning immigration at all prior to 2010.
Click to expand...

Go with the facts, its about giving us a choice if whether we wish to be in the EU or not. Big difference. There's enough discord to test the democratic will of the people to see whether we want our country to be a part of that organisation. Are you afraid your fellow countrymen may make a decision you won't like?
 
Steep said:
Used - past tense, not using.

Actually against the law today but not 8 years ago! when he wrote it in reference to Rangers supporters. As he himself says, it's not a term he'd use today, the culture has changed and football is a different world.
Click to expand...

Haven't UKIP members been slated for using colourful language and being members of fringe right groups in the distant past.

I can guess why Brendan O'Hara won't like rangers or their supporters even without political affiliation.
 
I have no idea Steve, I was just pointing our that your use of the present tense was incorrect. As you're keen on being factual I know you'll be ok with that.
 
Steve Smith said:
Not any more. Last week it changed from exiting the EU to giving us a referendum on exiting the EU.


Steve.
Click to expand...
You're quite right. That particular volte face was noted in this thread (by me!). However, the entire rest of the manifesto assumes an exit vote, Farage's comments all assume an exit vote, and the party is committed to campaign in said referendum for an exit vote. The party name is a but if a hint, too.

UKIP exist only to get the UK out of the EU. The referendum is merely a means to an end - they haven't even said what they would do if Britain voted to stay in.
 
Llamaman said:
You're quite right. That particular volte face was noted in this thread (by me!). However, the entire rest of the manifesto assumes an exit vote, Farage's comments all assume an exit vote, and the party is committed to campaign in said referendum for an exit vote. The party name is a but if a hint, too.

UKIP exist only to get the UK out of the EU. The referendum is merely a means to an end - they haven't even said what they would do if Britain voted to stay in.
Click to expand...

You have to wonder what UKIP would do if the UK left the EU - Farrage would be like 'arse , what now' , with his one policy no longer necessary he'd be pointless (moe pointless i mean)

tthe Nats in scotland are the same - if they'd won the refferendum they'd have formed one govt then never been elected again
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
What a load of b*****ks! :D
Click to expand...

well think about it their raison d etre is to get scottish independence ... they get it well hurrah wee jimmy krankie is our hero - rejoice ... give it 5 years , next election "well we stand for scottish independence" - electorate "don't we have that already? "
 
big soft moose said:
well think about it their raison d etre is to get scottish independence ... they get it well hurrah wee jimmy krankie is our hero - rejoice ... give it 5 years , next election "well we stand for scottish independence" - electorate "don't we have that already? "
Click to expand...
If that's the case, they lost the referendum, and that's put to bed for the meantime, therefore they should lose the election in Scotland.
They won't.
Independence may be their ultimate aim, but it's not the only one.
 
they might - if the scottish electorate think they had their chance and flubbed it
 
They won't. There are people in Scotland who want to support the Union but feel it's unbalanced. They voted No in the referendum, but vote SNP because they know that - until independence - the SNP will fight tooth and nail for Scotland.

Whilst I'm a Unionist, I can respect that.

UKIP, on the other hand have wasted their influence in the EU by refusing to engage with it. I couldn't believe Farage's nerve at turning up to canvas votes in fishing towns, decrying the EU fisheries policy. Yeah, it sucks - if only the committee responsible would do something... Step forward EU Fisheries Commission member Nigel Farage, who only managed to attend 1 meeting out if 47, yet has somehow claimed well in excess of £2m in expenses. UKIP know they that if they screw their voters over by getting a bad deal for the UK, they strengthen their hand for EU exit. It's cynical and disgusts me.
 
Llamaman said:
They won't. There are people in Scotland who want to support the Union but feel it's unbalanced. They voted No in the referendum, but vote SNP because they know that - until independence - the SNP will fight tooth and nail for Scotland.

Whilst I'm a Unionist, I can respect that.

UKIP, on the other hand have wasted their influence in the EU by refusing to engage with it. I couldn't believe Farage's nerve at turning up to canvas votes in fishing towns, decrying the EU fisheries policy. Yeah, it sucks - if only the committee responsible would do something... Step forward EU Fisheries Commission member Nigel Farage, who only managed to attend 1 meeting out if 47, yet has somehow claimed well in excess of £2m in expenses. UKIP know they that if they screw their voters over by getting a bad deal for the UK, they strengthen their hand for EU exit. It's cynical and disgusts me.
Click to expand...

You're not suggesting that 'breath of fresh air', 'not the usual politician' and 'man of the people' Farage is just as bent as the rest, in fact worse than most?

I'm shocked, what about all those poor voters sucked in by his 'pint and a fag' persona. Ex Banker, ex Tory member, hard line Thatcherite who wants to privatise the NHS and suck up to the City? You mean that kind of 'ordinary bloke', he's not really interested at all in ordinary working folks?

All that being true doesn't alter a thing though, the media are stuck on a path and have no reason to detract, it's a good story and they're waiting till after the election to play the rest of it out. Win or lose, Farage faces a tough time from the media after this election, if he loses he becomes ex- leader and laughing stock, if he wins he becomes an MP and has to be held to the same standards as the rest.
 
Phil V said:
Farage ...who wants to privatise the NHS
Click to expand...
Now, now Phil. Farage is on record saying he wants to keep the NHS. Of course, his policy of cutting off immigration would starve the NHS of 40% of it's workforce, but that's a different issue.

It's his deputy Paul Nuttall MEP who repeatedly forgets the official policy and blogs about wanting to scrap the NHS - and repeatedly has to keep hiding the posts when UKIP HQ tell him to stop letting the cat out of the bag.
To quote the man;
“I would argue that the very existence of the NHS stifles competition, and as competition drives quality and choice, innovation and improvements are restricted. Therefore, I believe, as long as the NHS is the ‘sacred cow’ of British politics, the longer the British people will suffer with a second-rate health service.”
Of course, that post got swiftly removed when they discovered the plebs were reading it, but thankfully, the internet never forgets...
https://tompride.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/ukip-nhs.png
Just to reiterate - this isn't an off-message minor member mouthing off - this is the Vice-Chair of UKIP so a key person in formulating their policy.
 
Llamaman said:
Now, now Phil. Farage is on record saying he wants to keep the NHS. Of course, his policy of cutting off immigration would starve the NHS of 40% of it's workforce, but that's a different issue.

It's his deputy Paul Nuttall MEP who repeatedly forgets the official policy and blogs about wanting to scrap the NHS - and repeatedly has to keep hiding the posts when UKIP HQ tell him to stop letting the cat out of the bag.
To quote the man;
“I would argue that the very existence of the NHS stifles competition, and as competition drives quality and choice, innovation and improvements are restricted. Therefore, I believe, as long as the NHS is the ‘sacred cow’ of British politics, the longer the British people will suffer with a second-rate health service.”
Of course, that post got swiftly removed when they discovered the plebs were reading it, but thankfully, the internet never forgets...
https://tompride.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/ukip-nhs.png
Just to reiterate - this isn't an off-message minor member mouthing off - this is the Vice-Chair of UKIP so a key person in formulating their policy.
Click to expand...

Donb't you think the NHS is somewhat over staffed and too big. All people consider is the NHS, but there are other things. Healthcare like A&E and essential life saving should be free, but the tiers and tiers of management within the NHS is ripe for some private sector like scrutiny.
 
ST4 said:
NHS is ripe for some private sector like scrutiny.
Click to expand...
I work in the private sector. The amount of money i've seen wasted on ineffectual management and poorly-managed IT projects is eye-watering.
The public sector does not hold a monopoly on bad project management. It's just more transparent about it.
 
Also, private sector will always need an element of profit which the public sector does not. However, value for money is important.


Steve.
 
ST4 said:
Donb't you think the NHS is somewhat over staffed and too big. All people consider is the NHS, but there are other things. Healthcare like A&E and essential life saving should be free, but the tiers and tiers of management within the NHS is ripe for some private sector like scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Well it seems to cost less and deliver better service than the private system in the U.S.
So whilst I'm sat here in an NHS walk in centre for the 3rd time this month I'd say it's far from perfect. But I fail to see how privatising it, or cutting it's funding will improve it
 
Phil V said:
Well it seems to cost less and deliver better service than the private system in the U.S.
So whilst I'm sat here in an NHS walk in centre for the 3rd time this month I'd say it's far from perfect. But I fail to see how privatising it, or cutting it's funding will improve it
Click to expand...

It doesn't need improved, but does need to be made more efficient. Its the worlds 5th largest employer, perpostrous given it is only for essential healthcare needs of a small country.
 
The NHS has plenty of faults but it does a lot more right. With all of its faults, it's much better to have it as it is than not have it. I certainly wouldn't want a US style system which exists primarily to make profit for the insurance companies.


Steve.
 
Llamaman said:
... as competition drives quality and choice, innovation and improvements are restricted.
Click to expand...
Steve Smith said:
Just like it did with the railways and gas, electric, water and telephone utilities!
Click to expand...
Well, I know something about the railways, having worked in a technical consultancy role (at first internally within BR, then externally after privatisation) for 23 years.

I'm not going to claim that the franchising model chosen for privatisation was the right one. But, having seen how franchising competitions work from the inside, there is no doubt that they do inspire innovation. There's a huge amount of money at stake whenever a franchise is let, so the bidders have huge incentives to win them, and to do that they have to come up with something special. I worked on a couple of bid teams, and I have to say that the quantity and quality of brainpower that was assembled in the bid team was absolutely formidable.

Couldn't a nationalised BR have come up with the same ideas? Maybe. BR was very innovative, in some ways.(*) But there wasn't the pressure to innovate that the franchise competitions have created. On the other hand there wasn't the dead hand micromanagement from the Department for Transport either. I guess we'll never know.

(*) There was a time in the early 90s when I worked for BR and my wife worked in a similar role for BA. If we had each described the types of things we did and the kinds of rules and policies which we had to work with, and then asked the listener to guess which one of us worked for a public sector dinosaur and which one of us worked for a glamorous, high flying private sector success story, they would all have got it wrong.
 
StewartR said:
I'm not going to claim that the franchising model chosen for privatisation was the right one. But, having seen how franchising competitions work from the inside, there is no doubt that they do inspire innovation
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But it might have been better to split it up so it was similar to its pre BR days. Whoever decided that it was a good idea to create train companies who don't own any track and track companies who don't own any trains must have been a deranged lunatic!


Steve.
 
Llamaman said:
Now, now Phil. Farage is on record saying he wants to keep the NHS. Of course, his policy of cutting off immigration would starve the NHS of 40% of it's workforce, but that's a different issue.
.
Click to expand...

Don't know the UKIP policy, but am sure that its more about uncontrolled and unskilled immigration. There are few people around who would disagree with skilled people coming over here - we should simply follow the Aussie model, if you have the skills we want, we will welcome you with open arms.
 
Steve Smith said:
Whoever decided that it was a good idea to create train companies who don't own any track and track companies who don't own any trains must have been a deranged lunatic!
Click to expand...
It follows logically (but not inevitably) from EU Directive 91/440. So if you want someone to blame...
 
ST4 said:
It doesn't need improved, but does need to be made more efficient. Its the worlds 5th largest employer, perpostrous given it is only for essential healthcare needs of a small country.
Click to expand...
Well it's not perspostrous because there's no such word, and where did you get the idea it's only for 'essential' healthcare needs, and what constitutes 'essential'? You really do have as loose a grasp on reality as you do on the English language :)
 
ST4 said:
It doesn't need improved, but does need to be made more efficient. Its the worlds 5th largest employer, perpostrous given it is only for essential healthcare needs of a small country.
Click to expand...
So have you noticed a big difference?
You used to work for a bank that was a private company that ran itself into the ground (must have done it very efficiently though). Now it's in public ownership is it overstaffed bloated and inefficient as a result?
 
Phil V said:
Well it's not perspostrous because there's no such word, and where did you get the idea it's only for 'essential' healthcare needs, and what constitutes 'essential'? You really do have as loose a grasp on reality as you do on the English language :)
Click to expand...
It should only be for essential healthcare, ie emergency and life saving. It shouldn't be paying for flat chested girls to get boob jobs cause they are unhappy they cannot get laid.

Phil V said:
No. FFS do you just make this s*** up?
Click to expand...

IIRC there is a law that prohibits favouritism to public sector bids. The best bidder got the job, and that was Virgin. Get over it.

Given how well Virgin west coast runs, it is no surprise really. I really wish you'd stop being so hysterical and aggressive.

Phil V said:
So have you noticed a big difference?
You used to work for a bank that was a private company that ran itself into the ground (must have done it very efficiently though). Now it's in public ownership is it overstaffed bloated and inefficient as a result?
Click to expand...

I've never worked for a bank that ran it's self into the ground and is now in public ownership. I work for a retail bank but not the one you think.
 
Last edited:
Let's step back a bit here...
ST4 said:
It should only be for essential healthcare, ie emergency and life saving. It shouldn't be paying for flat chested girls to get boob jobs cause they are unhappy they cannot get laid.
Click to expand...
that's not the foundation it was built on and not how it's run. It's your opinion of what it should be (who's hysterical).

ST4 said:
IIRC there is a law that prohibits favouritism to public sector bids. The best bidder got the job, and that was Virgin. Get over it.

Given how well Virgin west coast runs, it is no surprise really. I really wish you'd stop being so hysterical and aggressive.
.
Click to expand...
But that law only covers services the government choose to put out to tender, given that it was running OK and putting money into the exchequer, why did we have to re-let the contract. I can't understand why someone so interested in government spending can be in favour of them giving up all that profit, it's almost as if the mantra of 'public bad, private good' had become so ingrained people fail to check whether it's true.

The size of the NHS like lots of our government statistics is due to the size of the country, any bigger and it'd be run regionally, that's why it's a large employer, it's not that we have more people per head of population working in our healthcare, it's just they all work for the same organisation.

For someone who allegedly works in banking you struggle to understand some quite basic mathematical concepts.

Oh, and I'm neither aggressive or hysterical. I just like to point out your obvious stupidity, and sometimes my enthusiasm bubbles over.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top