Ukip 'Most Favourably Regarded Party'

[claig]

Is there a quiet revolution going on despite the insults aimed at UKIP and their voters by some people in other parties who refer to good people as nutters, fruitcakes and racists?

How has this happened, how has UKIP become so popular despite the wishes of the great and the good and the TV propaganda of the paid-for media puppets?

I am bafffled and

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/18/ukip-most-favourably-regarded_n_4623876.html

[claig]

'One thing I have noticed is that quite a few (a lot) are public school educated.'

It doesn't surprise me because they will be the ones that would normally have been Tory and wanted a sovereign United Kingdom, but that was not offered by the Tories.

[DonnaDishwater]

The sooner we are out of the EU, the sooner this country can start rebuilding itself again.

[Isitmebut]

As UKIP cannot legislate to bring the UK out of the EU, or currently have ANY domestic policies on anything UNTIL the 2015 general Election, why NOT just vote for Labour in BOTH elections?

Any current Ulkip policies on domestic issues like education, are being made up on the hoof, as Mr Farage admits that their 2010 general election manifesto they tried to hide, was just “drivel” and that they are going into the 2015 general Election with “a blank piece of paper”.



"UKIP leader Nigel Farage has disowned the party's entire (2010) general election manifesto - which he helped launch - branding it "drivel".
news.sky.com/story/1200525/nigel-farage-disowns-ukip-manifesto-as-drivel
"I didn't read it. It was drivel. It was 486 pages of drivel ... It was a nonsense. We have put that behind us and moved onto a professional footing."


As for leaving the EU, even if Ukip had 100 parliamentary seats in Westminster (from the zero currently), it is the Labour and Liberal Dem Lords STOPPING a referendum – that the Conservatives with just over 300 seats CURRENTLY can not get passed them, to ensure the UK has a say on Europe in a 2017 Reforendum.



Jan 31st 2014; "David Cameron has pledged to get behind a fresh attempt to get an EU referendum bill into law after legislation was killed off by (Labour & Liberal) peers."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25977258

"Today the Labour Party in the House of Lords voted to block our bill that would have ensured a referendum on Britain's EU membership by the end of 2017," Mr Cameron said.

"This is disappointing news for all of us, but we are not going to give up in our efforts to turn our referendum commitment into law. Far from it.
"After all, we succeeded in passing it through the House of Commons - a huge achievement.

"We are going to try to reintroduce the same bill in the next session of Parliament and, if necessary, rely on the provisions in the Parliament Act to stop Labour and Liberal Democrat peers killing the bill once again."


So clearly a Ukip vote in the EU elections in May is worthless as a protect vote as the Labour and Lib Dem parties are committed to the EU come what may, and a vote for Ukip in the 2015 General Election on domestic issues (they have not decided on yet), is also a vote for Labour – as it weakens the parliamentary Conservative Party, which is the ONLY mainstream party that both CAN & WANTS TO implement the will of the people, via an EU Referendum – ensuring a pro EU Labour Party forms the next government in 2015.

If 'the peoples' main priority is leaving the EU, it is time they woke up to THE TRUTH. IMO.

[ttosca]

The sooner we are out of the EU, the sooner this country can start rebuilding itself again.

Yeah, sure. Everything will be just peachy when the government abolishes the Human Rights Act and starts dismantling the very few basic rights which British citizens have left.

And won't it be great if we could turn back the clock to the 1920s, when Britain had a monoculture, consisting almost exclusively of old, white men, and people of colour were a rarity?

Here are some of the nuttier policies of UKIP which were so embarrassing, that even Nigel Farage abandoned them:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/23/the-ukip-politices-disowned-by-nigel-farage

[Isitmebut]

If in mentioning ‘Human Rights’ is meant to be positive to staying ‘in’ the EU, then the ‘in’ camp has more problems articulating there case than I thought.

First the Human Rights Act of 1998 has caused more problems for our governments and courts than it has solved, as it confuses British law (and therefore judges, by default) to such an extent, that criminals and suspected terrorists often have more ’rights’ than the victims and State – as evidenced by numerous high profile cases, also costing the taxpayer many £millions more in appeal legal fees.

The Human Rights Act example is also a bad example as it WILL NOT disappear if the UK leaves the EU, the Labour Party guaranteed that, by taking old international law brought in after WWII and LEGISLATING IT INTO UK LAW, which is why the Act has a 1998 date, when criminals/terrorists and their lawyers hide behind it.

The Conservatives in power until 1997, would NOT enshrine it into UK law and has done it’s best since to replace it with a a clearer more legally user friendly British Bill of Rights, but again, as a government without a majority in parliament etc, has not been able to get the Labour and Lib Dem parties to agree to it.

“British Bill of Rights commission fails to reach agreement”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20757384

[ttosca]

It doesn't 'confuse British laws'. The Human Rights Act simply means that judges must take in to account the the European Convention on Human Rights when drafting or interpreting laws:

---

The Human Rights Act 1998

Section 1 of the HRA makes the rights contained in the ECHR legally enforceable in the UK. The HRA came into force on 2 October 2000.

Under section 2 of the HRA the UK courts must take into account any relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights when considering human rights issues. However, European Court decisions are not legally binding on the UK.

Section 3 of the HRA requires laws to be interpreted as far as possible so as to be compatible with human rights. If a law cannot be interpreted to make it human rights compliant, the courts can make ‘declarations of incompatibility’ (section 4 of the HRA). These declarations are statements that a law is not compatible with human rights. Judges in the UK cannot overturn primary legislation if they find that it is not human rights compliant, although they can overturn secondary legislation.

If a declaration of incompatibility is made, the Government can then decide whether to amend the legislation in order to make it compatible with human rights. There is a special Parliamentary procedure for amending legislation declared incompatible under the HRA (section 10 and schedule 2).

www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/human-rights-act/

The Human Rights Act example is also a bad example as it WILL NOT disappear if the UK leaves the EU, the Labour Party guaranteed that, by taking old international law brought in after WWII and LEGISLATING IT INTO UK LAW, which is why the Act has a 1998 date, when criminals/terrorists and their lawyers hide behind it.

First of all, calm down. Secondly, as far as I understand, no Parliament is bound by the laws of any previous Parliament. It would be technical possible so some reactionary party, like the Tory scum or UKIP, to abolish the act. I'm pretty sure that's is, or has been, in the UKIP manifesto - though I may be wrong.

Oh yeah, here we go: Tory scum threaten to repeal act:

www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/30/conservitives-scrap-human-rights-act

And the HRA has done more to protect the citizens of this country and their rights than any opposition government. The UK currently has no written constitution, in the sense of a set of written rules and guidelines limiting state power.

This nonsense about terrorists 'abusing' the HRA is propaganda from the reactionary crowd in order to abolish these rights. In most cases, it is right that the people in question aren't deported (from the cases I heard) - they were suspects, not convicts, and it was highly like that they would be tortured or killed if extradited. This is precisely the sort of thing the HRA is for.

---

The 'British Bill of Rights', especially one laid out by the Tories, would be an utter joke and completely fail to protect citizens basic rights. You can expect a government which has brought in the recent Gagging law and which tried to make a new law which prevented people from being a 'nuisance in public' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25648019 to create any Bill of Rights which isn't a complete joke and completely meaningless.

[ttosca]

• can't expect

[JuliaScurr]

tulo.3cdn.net/f54ca16809554ca164_mlbrwtwgc.pdf

cut maternity leave
sounds great

[TheHammaconda]

Isitmebut

The HRA enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Parliament is not bound by previous Parliaments; it could overturn this law at any time. The ECHR is nothing to do with the European Union, it is overseen by the Council of Europe (although all EU members are part of the CoE).

If a Bill of Rights were introduced and the HRA removed, people would still be able to sue the govt at the European Court of Human Rights. You'd just have to wait until your case has been through all of the domestic courts.

Is any party considering withdrawing from the Convention?

[claig]

'Is any party considering withdrawing from the Convention?'

I think that UKIP is.

"8. UKIP would withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Convention on Refugees. This would enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable. UKIP would allow genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations.

None of these policies can be implemented while Britain is still a member of the European Union, and that is just one of the reasons why UKIP policy is to leave the European Union."

www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/immigration

[ttosca]

Threatening to withdraw from the HRA is a reason not to vote for a political party, not a vote for.

You're a fool if you think withdrawing from the HRA will make you more free. The only more freedom you will enjoy is the freedom of Parliament to further erode the few civil rights and liberties you still enjoy which have been hard fought for over the centuries.

[claig]

'The only more freedom you will enjoy is the freedom of Parliament to further erode the few civil rights and liberties you still enjoy which have been hard fought for over the centuries.'

'You're a fool if you think withdrawing from the HRA will make you more free.'

I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the box, unlike you. But I wasn't fool enough to vote New Labour. I could see that they were going to wreck our civil liberties with their biometric ID cards, DNA databases and heaven knows what else if we had left them in power to do their worst.

[ttosca]

I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the box, unlike you. But I wasn't fool enough to vote New Labour. I could see that they were going to wreck our civil liberties with their biometric ID cards, DNA databases and heaven knows what else if we had left them in power to do their worst.

That's right. Removing the HRA would allow parties like New Labour to do their worst.

So don't allow it to happen.

[claig]

I trust the commonsense of our lawmakers and MPs (with the exception of the New Labour ones who wanted to give us biometric ID cards and DNA databases). I trust our system and our parties (apart from New Labour) more than I trust the bureaucrats, lawmakers and judges from a supranational body.

[ttosca]

lol!

Because MPs - of all parties - have shown themselves to be sensible, and trustworthy, right?

What a joke.

[claig]

'Because MPs - of all parties - have shown themselves to be sensible, and trustworthy, right?'

Not all parties. Not New Labour

[StookeyBlue]

Nigel Farage on women for example, UKIP on gay marriages and meteorology, UKIP on hitting people with rolled up brochures...

In the first link we can see that the construct of Farage as a 'normal working class man' with his pint is tosh, his father was a stockbroker and he was educated at Dulwich College. He dismissed his own manifesto as drivel - not wrong there, but people would seriously vote for a man who failed to read his own manifesto?

They are a single issue pressure group - to leave Europe. Like all single issue pressure groups they fall apart on any serious policy making or when asked to come up with anything coherent. Like a Residents Association who come together on some NIMBY issue and then expect to share a common belief on how they should manage a community hall or whether parking spaces or trees are a good thing, or speed humps or a wind turbines...but the only thing that remains is the mean ugly heart of the original NIMBYISM. If they are seriously popular it can only be because they appeal to the mean ugly heart of the DM reading public of this country.

[ttosca]

claig

'Because MPs - of all parties - have shown themselves to be sensible, and trustworthy, right?'

Not all parties. Not New Labour

Did you just miss the point entirely? Has your logic failed you?

If you don't trust New Labour, or Labour, or any party at all, then you should support the HRA to help prevent abuse of power.

I don't care how much you love the Tory scum or idiotic reactionary UKIP, you can't guarantee that either will be in power in the future. None of us can guarantee any particular party will be in government - that's precisely why we need legislation to prevent abuse of power.

[ttosca]

If they are seriously popular it can only be because they appeal to the mean ugly heart of the DM reading public of this country. sad

UKIP are popular because of sentiment: I hatred and mistrust of the mainstream parties. They're not popular because of policies. They're a protest party - especially that the Lib Dems have shown themselves to be Tory enablers.

Unfortunately, there are people like claig who will foolishly vote for UKIP, hoping to 'stick it to the man', having no idea what their policies are, and more important what the consequences would be should they gain power.

The outcome would not be favourable to 'the common man' at all.

[Isitmebut]

ttosca…..you keep talking about “the Tory Scum”, yet you clearly belong to, and support the policies a Labour Party who did not just BETRAY the people that SAY they represent, but everyone in this country – having had the best decade in over 100-years to shape society and this country for the better.

Here is the summary, enjoy the achievements of a Labour Party with a huge parliamentary majority over an uninterrupted 13-year period, that if ANYONE who supported them had a conscience, they would shun both them and their failed ideology, as traitors not just failures.



Labour were the most spun media controlled and corrupt administration in living memory with ‘Blairs cash for Lordships’ investigated by the police and MP expenses totally out of hand on THEIR watch and Labour’s Parliament Speaker Michael Martin running the show, Knighted for his services to MP’s expenses.

Pro EU without trusting the people to vote… pro swing door immigration from 2004 for personal gain AND without increasing home building to make room …with 580,000 under 25-year olds here already unemployed... pro dumbed down education results to make the thick feel better rather than raise standards…pro needless laws/police State… pro Human Rights Act in 1998 causing so many ‘rights’ problems.

Pro killer germ infested NHS hospitals hiring more managers than nurses.. pro saddling hospital with 25-year Private Finance Initiative debts….pro 24-hour drinking, gambling and declassifying drugs….pro expensive quangos costing over £70 bil a year to run.. pro expensive to run local government (with non jobs) leading to Council Tax hikes up 110% on their watch..

Pro raiding private pension funds from 1998 to near final salary extinction...pro screwing state pensioners with derisory annual State pension e.g. 75p in 2000….pro raising the lower band tax rate to screw the poor in 2007…pro sale of 40% of UK gold reserves under $300 an ounce versus $1.900 high…..pro relaxation of banking regulation to dangerous levels pre financial crash..…pro sending 1 million of our manufacturing jobs elsewhere by 2005 BEFORE the crash

Pro lying to go to war and without equipping soldiers with basic kit and helicopters... ….pro nuclear energy to stop lights going off in 2015, but didn’t get around to building any.…pro defence/Trident, who knows, let someone else get around to it….and leaving us less domestic food production secure than in 1997.

With a balanced budget in 2002/3 having adopted 1997 Tory spending plans, pro ANNUAL budget deficit MORE than £160 bil a year in 2010 and national debt of £1.5 trillion by 2015 needing unpopular austerity, or go the way of bankrupt Greece…….pro equality but left power in 2010 with more inequality than in 1997…and finally as mentioned in their 2010 manifesto, pro increased taxes to pay for ALL their incompetence (that will then kill economic growth), they never got around to telling us about in any detail, but like death, you know it is coming.


People should check out the above and see how many of those Labour policies badly affected them and THEN decide who is “the scum”, an incompetent Labour Party, or the party in 1979 and 2010 that has to dig the country out of Labour’s hole.

[Spinflight]

Wow there are some really nasty people out there...

And they all seem to hate UKIP!

[Isitmebut]

Spinflight….when a new political party gets very gobby and say that they are an alternative to existing political parties, but have no domestic policies and their main EU policy they CAN NOT deliver, why wouldn’t anyone who follows politics get gobby back?

Few people realise how bad our situation was in 2010 and bad decisions then, could have taken the UK over the economic and social edge, so with clear choices in ideology at the next election, who needs a cult like 4th party, with many blindly following a leader, just like the Moonies?

Most people not realise a coalition of any permutation does not work, Ukip only make the likelihood of a coalition a sure bet, to what end re the good of this country?

[Isitmebut]

Labour’s Human Right Act of1998 – buying into the Federal Europe dream, making UK Courts subservient to the Strasbourg court.

OK I get it, that the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a binding international agreement that the UK helped draft and has sought to comply with for over half a century. However, for many years the Convention was not a full part of our own law, so using the Convention usually meant taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. This was often time-consuming and expensive.

Since coming into force on 2 October 2000 within the UK, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) has made rights from the ECHR (the Convention rights) enforceable in our own courts.

However It's all very well saying the 1998 version of the act effectively recognised, and empowered victims. all too often since it has been used against the victims. namely the British people. Too often our rights have. been ignored by those who mean us harm, like the prisoners that have wronged society wanting the vote, or just the illegal immigrants looking for a lame excuse to stay and can’t be shifted.

And all get to challenge the British courts with legal Aid, paid for by the taxpayer ‘money tree’, that Labour planted and picked on an all too regular basis through 13-years in power..

And who are these people in Strasbourg, and what right do they have to micromanage laws within the UK and other member states – rather their original purpose, to fight against major human rights abuses?

Who gave them these powers, or have they taken them on themselves as business is a bit slow elsewhere – maybe as in all EU uncontrolled, virtually unaccoutable bureaucracies, they have too many jobsworths looking to justify their huge remuneration packages?

In reality the 47 Strasbourg judges have virtually no democratic legitimacy and are poorly qualified compared to Britain's own senior judges.

And similar to the Labour administration’s policies, shortcutting appeals to Strasbourg may ideologically look good on paper to them, but is not "fit for purpose" for day to day use in the REAL world..

Therefore we should now either press for reforms by all member states, or cut our ties with the court because it is, increasingly gaining influence over the UK courts by trivialising and over-extending the concept of human rights into areas where it really doesn't belong.

Whatever, the first step by a Conservative government with a majority in parliament (it currently does not have) is to repeal The Human Rights Act of 1998 to regain control back to our courts on more domestic issues, while adhering to the original aims and purposes of the ECHR on big picture Human Rights abuses, signed way back before John Wayne was a cowboy.

[Spinflight]

Isitmebut...

Whilst I normally have a rule about not replying to those who insist on using their CapsLock..

UKIP does indeed have a full raft of domestic policies, indeed it is because of these that I am a member.

I personally think a hung parliament in 2015 is the best possible thing for this country. Whenever new or old Labour had a large majority in the houses of Parliament large tracts of Magna Carta went missing, presumably vandalised. I've seen what all three of the old, failed, parties can do in Government and I don't like any of them.

Regards...