Jump to content

UKIP - the real Tory party, just 1% behind official Tories

Recommended Posts

There is no mainstream left-wing ideology. The three main parties are almost bang in the centre. The left wing of the Labour party has been neutered. The Tory left is dead, its giants like Heseltine, Patten, Young and Clarke marginalised with no successors. The LibDem lefti-ness shown to be a sham. The right wing of the Tory party is shrill, childish and irrelevant. UKIP won't win many if any seats at the general election.

 

All you got is a mainstream (neo) liberal politics essentially anchored almost bang in the centre.

 

I think this is the travesty of British politics, it has robbed us of real choice, because they're all the same. People who are more left or right rather than centrist are marginalised. At least UKIP are offering an alternative home for the right.

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2013 at 23:50 ----------

 

This move to the right you're talking about is I think a temporary situation. Even if you conbine Ukip/Tory/BNP support this does only amounts to around low to mid 40's in%. I think that there will be a backlash at some point in this country as the inequalities between the wealthy and the rest continue to grow and the Bankers etc who fuelled the boom which lead to the credit crunch go unpunished.

 

I think there will be a backlash alright.

 

Today provides yet another excellent example with Europe meddling in our domestic justice affairs by ruling whole life sentences illegal.

 

Who will have the guts to remove us from the European Convention on Human Rights? Or revoke the UK enactment of the ECHR, the Human Rights Act?

 

Will the Tories do it? Labour? Lib Dems?

None of them, because they're all committed europhile parties, and people have had enough of it, so bring on the backlash I say, for UKIP are the only credible party that will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes there was a big dip as the World-wide credit crunch kicked in, but they had got the economy moving again with 5 quarters of growth........until the ConDems turned wiped the growth out and we have been flatlining ever since.

 

Flatlining. You've been in the sun too long.

 

Credit to Osbourne because clearly the world credit crunch is still with us. I note today the IMF upgraded the UKs growth forcast at the same time it downgraded the rest of the world and in particular the EU.

 

The UK currently has the highest growth rate of any EU nation and whilst the Eurozone is back in recession the UK doubled its forecast growth rate in the 3 months up to June. You hate that don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that:

a. it wasn't "illegal" (probably meaning "unlawful") as it infracted no laws; and

b. it wasn't a "war" either, as only the Head of State can declare war- and the P.M. is a mere Head of Government.

 

As I recall the Queen twice has used her powers to stop that being reversed as well - she stopped debate of the first bill and indicated that she would refuse Assent of another unless a clause was dropped.

 

Far from being a figurehead as some reckon she is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
b. it wasn't a "war" either, as only the Head of State can declare war- and the P.M. is a mere Head of Government.

 

So a war is not something where armies fight each other but a decision taken by the monarch. World War 2 wasn't actually a war then because it was only Chamberlain who declared

 

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11.00 a.m. that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us.

 

I have to tell you that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany".

 

And you work in law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World War II was assuredly declared. Your error lies in your own wording- even an Ambassador is a Head of State (Monarchy) representative, not a Head of Government (politician) representative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thread is essentially about how many people usually ex Tory or far-right sympathisers, now support Ukip and it's effect on Tory support, though I don't deny Labour has lost a bit of support to the Ukip loons, it is the right-wing parties which have suffered while Ukip have prospered.

 

UKIP have actually got the other parties talking about immigration...and the soon to be influx of romanians and bulgarians...nobody wants them so lets shut the door...the country is ours...we can do what we want...we are not europeans we are british...

let them go to greece and spain...plenty of jobs and houses there...:hihi::hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
World War II was assuredly declared. Your error lies in your own wording- even an Ambassador is a Head of State (Monarchy) representative, not a Head of Government (politician) representative.

 

First you said the Head of State. Now you say Head Of State representative. But the British ambassador was not taking orders from the King. He was taking orders from the government. Monarchs no longer declare war. I know you UKIP members live in the past but we have a parliamentary system now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Parliamentary system is subordinate to the Crown. Did you not learn any Constitutional Law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the Parliamentary system is subordinate to the Crown. Did you not learn any Constitutional Law?

 

Christ. You insist in carrying on with your ignorant posts, don't you? From the horse's mouth;

 

"Time has reduced the power of the monarchy, and today it is broadly ceremonial."

 

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-crown/

 

If you think the Crown lords it over Parliament then dream on. Your knowledge of Constitutional Law is up there with your denial of the existence of International Law;

 

NO SUCH THING AS INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

Obviously UKIP are saying that British troops would not be protected by the Geneva Convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christ. You insist in carrying on with your ignorant posts, don't you? From the horse's mouth;

 

"Time has reduced the power of the monarchy, and today it is broadly ceremonial."

 

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-crown/

 

If you think the Crown lords it over Parliament then dream on. Your knowledge of Constitutional Law is up there with your denial of the existence of International Law;

 

 

 

Obviously UKIP are saying that British troops would not be protected by the Geneva Convention.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_Kingdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you read your link then you'll see that our most recent wars have been fought without formally declaring war. But they're still wars. This is true of Suez, the Falklands, the Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan and others. The decisions for these were taken by governments. The Queen hasn't actually declared war on anyone apart from her former daughter-in-law. You and JS are talking protocol. I'm talking bombs and bullets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.