UKIP could go bankrupt

I haven't been following things that closely but what exactly is it about John Bolton that the UKIP membership don't like? I know about his girlfriends recent comments, which added fuel to the fire, but aside from that...?

I haven't been following things that closely but what exactly is it about John Bolton that the UKIP membership don't like? I know about his girlfriends recent comments, which added fuel to the fire, but aside from that...?

I think they are fine with John Bolton.

That Henry Bolton though ....

It is probably because he’s even too embarrassing for your average Kipper.

And he consorts with overt racists.

 

Who pays what is merely this week's sideshow for the hard of thinking. Bills need to be paid, well whoopydoo, who knew! As it happens I am not making any proposal for action or non action, it's a discussion point around the effect on democracy.

Such a weak responose from you. You really are doing a great job of showing who is the biggest idiot in this thread.

It's not a 'sideshow', because it highlights the moral hazard at the centre of the issue, which is that if the Labour MPs insanely paid the hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs for their successful libel action, probably bankruping themselves in the process, it would provide no deterrent to members of political parties libelling each other. Libelling is a form of proven lying, remember? So it would incentise lying among politicians - we have more than enough of that already.

That's why you daren't answer the question. I'll answer yours though, because I'm the lesser idiot: Yes, I think it would be good for the democratic process. Politicians and their parties should take responsibility for their actions and those actions should have consequences. The more egregious the action, the more severe the consequence should be. This is an important principle not just in politics but in life in general, which has already been eroded by the banks largely getting away with their crashing of the economy in 2008. If UKIP were to be given exemption from it then it sends entirely the wrong message to everyone in Britain.

The fact that UKIP get significantly more media coverage than the Green Party despite getting a similar number of votes suggests there are greater issues with the democratic process that you could be turning your attention to.

Such a weak responose from you. You really are doing a great job of showing who is the biggest idiot in this thread.

 

It's not a 'sideshow', because it highlights the moral hazard at the centre of the issue, which is that if the Labour MPs insanely paid the hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs for their successful libel action, probably bankruping themselves in the process, it would provide no deterrent to members of political parties libelling each other. Libelling is a form of proven lying, remember? So it would incentise lying among politicians - we have more than enough of that already.

 

That's why you daren't answer the question. I'll answer yours though, because I'm the lesser idiot: Yes, I think it would be good for the democratic process. Politicians and their parties should take responsibility for their actions and those actions should have consequences. The more egregious the action, the more severe the consequence should be. This is an important principle not just in politics but in life in general, which has already been eroded by the banks largely getting away with their crashing of the economy in 2008. If UKIP were to be given exemption from it then it sends entirely the wrong message to everyone in Britain.

 

The fact that UKIP get significantly more media coverage than the Green Party despite getting a similar number of votes suggests there are greater issues with the democratic process that you could be turning your attention to.

You're still not getting it Bob, and it's been explained to you a few times now. It's all there in my first few posts if you could just stop projecting for a moment or two. Let's try again. Forget the UKIP farce for a moment, imagine you never heard about it so we can get some basic principles in place. Think big picture for just a moment.

First, if a political party fizzles out because it is no longer relevant that is an excellent result for democracy working as it should do. Good ideas winning out and all that jazz.

Second, if a political party is extinguished by the actions of another party that's bad for democracy and the millions of people who still find it relevant. Disenfranchised citizens are bad for democracy, and I would say society in general.

Third, bad ideas don't just go away, and they are reinforced when marginalised. Bad ideas often find other, more extreme outlets.

I don't want to go all Godwin, but you're a clever chap, you know how it can work. Labour being seen to extinguish UKIP might not be the best idea. It doesn't matter if YOU or I understand the strict legal cause and effects (like I said, bills, whoopydoo) , the optics are poor to democracy. Take a slightly more overarching philosophical view in your reply if possible, don't just come back with "yea, but, bills, libel, stuff".

If Labour had sued them out of existence 2/3 years ago when UKIP were riding the crest of a wave (of excrement) then yeah it would be a massive problem.

But if Labour sue them out of existence now I think all they'd be doing is knocking a few bricks of a building that's already been demolished.

UKIP are finished as a political party now. Nige milked that cash cow until it was dry.

If Labour had sued them out of existence 2/3 years ago when UKIP were riding the crest of a wave (of excrement) then yeah it would be a massive problem.

 

But if Labour sue them out of existence now I think all they'd be doing is knocking a few bricks of a building that's already been demolished.

 

UKIP are finished as a political party now. Nige milked that cash cow until it was dry.

Labour aren’t suing anyone. Let’s be clear about that.

We’ve got enough obfuscation from ENG, without any more from anywhere else

If Labour had sued them out of existence 2/3 years ago when UKIP were riding the crest of a wave (of excrement) then yeah it would be a massive problem.

 

But if Labour sue them out of existence now I think all they'd be doing is knocking a few bricks of a building that's already been demolished.

 

UKIP are finished as a political party now. Nige milked that cash cow until it was dry.

A good point well made. I still think that the essential point stands but as you say it's very much looking like the end of the line of it's own accord. In some respects that could creates a totem for adherents to gather around and I do have concerns about what might rise from the ashes under the scenario if it comes to pass.

You're still not getting it Bob, and it's been explained to you a few times now. It's all there in my first few posts if you could just stop projecting for a moment or two. Let's try again. Forget the UKIP farce for a moment, imagine you never heard about it so we can get some basic principles in place. Think big picture for just a moment.

 

First, if a political party fizzles out because it is no longer relevant that is an excellent result for democracy working as it should do. Good ideas winning out and all that jazz.

 

Second, if a political party is extinguished by the actions of another party that's bad for democracy and the millions of people who still find it relevant. Disenfranchised citizens are bad for democracy, and I would say society in general.

 

Third, bad ideas don't just go away, and they are reinforced when marginalised. Bad ideas often find other, more extreme outlets.

 

 

I don't want to go all Godwin, but you're a clever chap, you know how it can work. Labour being seen to extinguish UKIP might not be the best idea. It doesn't matter if YOU or I understand the strict legal cause and effects (like I said, bills, whoopydoo) , the optics are poor to democracy. Take a slightly more overarching philosophical view in your reply if possible, don't just come back with "yea, but, bills, libel, stuff".

So despite a well worded argument, you see no merit in it all and just want people to agree with you. The only opinion you want is the same one as yours.

You need to word your thread titles more carefully in future, it will save loads of time and effort.

You're still not getting it Bob, and it's been explained to you a few times now. It's all there in my first few posts if you could just stop projecting for a moment or two. Let's try again. Forget the UKIP farce for a moment, imagine you never heard about it so we can get some basic principles in place. Think big picture for just a moment.

 

First, if a political party fizzles out because it is no longer relevant that is an excellent result for democracy working as it should do. Good ideas winning out and all that jazz.

 

Second, if a political party is extinguished by the actions of another party that's bad for democracy and the millions of people who still find it relevant. Disenfranchised citizens are bad for democracy, and I would say society in general.

 

Third, bad ideas don't just go away, and they are reinforced when marginalised. Bad ideas often find other, more extreme outlets.

 

 

I don't want to go all Godwin, but you're a clever chap, you know how it can work. Labour being seen to extinguish UKIP might not be the best idea. It doesn't matter if YOU or I understand the strict legal cause and effects (like I said, bills, whoopydoo) , the optics are poor to democracy. Take a slightly more overarching philosophical view in your reply if possible, don't just come back with "yea, but, bills, libel, stuff".

Yeah, but bills, libel, stuff

Labour aren’t suing anyone. Let’s be clear about that.

 

We’ve got enough obfuscation from ENG, without any more from anywhere else

I was being rhetorical Sibon

Yeah, but bills, libel, stuff

Or in other words, the law.

So despite a well worded argument, you see no merit in it all and just want people to agree with you. The only opinion you want is the same one as yours.

 

You need to word your thread titles more carefully in future, it will save loads of time and effort.future.

Yeah, but bills, libel, stuff

You really don't have anything better to offer?

---------- Post added 19-02-2018 at 12:00 ----------

Or in other words, the law.

The law is created and upheld with the consent of the people in a democracy, which takes us back to the OP.