UKIP are the new future?

(152 Posts)
LadyPessaryPam Fri 01-Mar-13 22:30:45

Just a small positive thread about UKIP that doesn't involve smears from other parties. I was very glad about Eastleigh and pleased that the voters had seen through the smokescreens and disinformation sent out by the 3 main parties.

BIWI Fri 01-Mar-13 22:59:56
frisson Fri 01-Mar-13 23:00:19

Gomez: So shoot.

aquashiv Fri 01-Mar-13 23:01:48

Yes am also glad to see the Beer, Baccy and Crumpet party did rather well too.
Anyone but the Tories.

TheSecondComing Fri 01-Mar-13 23:03:14

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YouTheCat Fri 01-Mar-13 23:04:26

I'd vote for Beer, Baccy and Crumpet party over UKIP anytime.

No, they're not the future. They're a load of ignorant xenophobes. I'm not sure that will change the more threads you start.

I was disgusted by their policies for children with disabilities, too.

frisson Fri 01-Mar-13 23:05:49

BIWI:

From your link:

Ukip had initially backed Geoffrey Clark, saying that members held "a range of views and opinions" that were not party policy and adding that while it disagreed with his comments, they were contained in a "personal manifesto".

I'm by no means a UKIP 'apologist' but that is not an instance which can be used to denigrate the party as a whole.

frisson Fri 01-Mar-13 23:07:11

What is xenophobic about them? What are their policies relating to children with disabilities?

gordyslovesheep Fri 01-Mar-13 23:07:28

'they are sheep' oh I get it now - you want a nice thread where only you can insult people

sp far you have given a pretty good example of why I dislike UKIP - passive aggressive, unpleasant to people who have a different view and not actually saying anything much

please do carry on x

YouTheCat Fri 01-Mar-13 23:07:30

Wishes to hug LDR in a most unmumsnetty way.

Yes, what LDR said. And their disabled policies (children and adults) are quite abhorrent tbh.

Really?

So they couldn't be bothered to censure someone for holding these views - are they desperate for support, so they don't care how unpleasant someone's views are? Or do they secretly like these views, so don't want to criticize them? Neither option makes them look good, does it?

Sorry, I was responding to frisson, there, and not youthecat.

The same to you, cat, of course. smile

Harriet <sniggers> you said curry when talking about ukip!

I agree that it's a party for baby boomers of the 'I'm not racist but...' Persuasion.

LadyPessaryPam Fri 01-Mar-13 23:09:23

What was their policy regarding disabled children LRD? Please elucidate, also on the xenophobia accusation.

Geoffrey Clark was slung out from UKIP as he was an arse. I wish other parties would do the same.

BenjaminButton172 Fri 01-Mar-13 23:09:50

OP you didnt convince me on the other thread and you wont convince me on this one. Ukip are NOT the future.

Gomez Fri 01-Mar-13 23:10:16

Frisson. Best part of a bottle down. On an iPad and quite frankly can't be arsed cutting and pasting. Google Farage is an arse, for example. That should give you plenty to be cracking on with.

HarrietSchulenberg Fri 01-Mar-13 23:10:56

Frisson read their manifesto. That might answer your question.

LadyPessaryPam Fri 01-Mar-13 23:11:16

So many closed minds here.

frisson Fri 01-Mar-13 23:11:40

LRD: No of course it doesn't make them look good but failure to immediately censure someone is hardly a tacit endorsement of their views. Or perhaps David Cameron agrees that policemen are 'fucking plebs'.

BIWI Fri 01-Mar-13 23:11:56

Ah yes, but:

"Ukip had initially backed Geoffrey Clark, saying that members held "a range of views and opinions" that were not party policy and adding that while it disagreed with his comments, they were contained in a "personal manifesto".

So they only disassociated themselves from him when it became expedient so to do.

YouTheCat Fri 01-Mar-13 23:13:39

Compulsory abortions, LadyP? Is that okay?

LadyPessaryPam Fri 01-Mar-13 23:14:17

And it was probably the amount of time it took to understand that the guy was twat. Of course this has never happened to any other party... Oh hang on a mo...

frisson Fri 01-Mar-13 23:15:16

The article says they backed him, which I suppose they decided to gratuitously infer from '[members hold] a range of views and opinions'.

Oh, dear. I think failure to censure someone immediately often is a tacit endorsement of their views. Especially in the case you cite. So, I rather feel you proved the caee against you there.

frisson Fri 01-Mar-13 23:17:02

Why would I Google 'Farage is an arse' in order to get a balanced view of a party (which I have never voted for and am in no way affiliated with)?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now