Help UKIP waste lots of money

Martyn · Post by **Martyn** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:18 pm

A couple of minor points then Joe:

Firstly, immigrants keep the NHS going rather than draining it. Where do you think the nurses come from?

Secondly, if we leave the EU and prevent European citizens coming here then we have to be prepared to accept the more than 2 Million British people currently living in the EU as they are ejected from their adopted countries.

Dr.Leeds · Post by **Dr.Leeds** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:23 pm

joelufc20 wrote:All I want is out of the EU and a stop to the mass migration of people taking jobs housing, draining the nhs etc etc etc. down with labour and Cameron with his lies about a referendum

The major problem with UKIP is that, hiding behind their flagship policies on Europe and immigration which resonate with a lot of people, are a lot of things that are pretty unpalatable to most. UKIP are probably a greater threat to the NHS than any other party, and certainly a greater threat to the NHS than migrants are.

Twiggster · Post by **Twiggster** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:25 pm

Guildford White wrote:
Secondly, if we leave the EU and prevent European citizens coming here then we have to be prepared to accept the more than 2 Million British people currently living in the EU as they are ejected from their adopted countries.

With NO British citizen status rights, IF we are sent home.

Dr.Leeds · Post by **Dr.Leeds** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:25 pm

Guildford White wrote: Secondly, if we leave the EU and prevent European citizens coming here then we have to be prepared to accept the more than 2 Million British people currently living in the EU as they are ejected from their adopted countries.

Blimey. I hadn't even considered the horrific prospect of my in-laws being sent back here from Spain...

Dr.Leeds · Post by **Dr.Leeds** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:27 pm

Blimey. I hadn't even considered the horrific prospect of Twiggs being sent back here from Denmark...

Twiggster · Post by **Twiggster** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:30 pm

Dr.Leeds wrote:Blimey. I hadn't even considered the horrific prospect of Twiggs being sent back here from Denmark...

Be aware!

drsdadsotherson · Post by **drsdadsotherson** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:13 pm

That's the sinister side of UKIP. Not just their policies, but the fact that they have identified one issue that people will vote for and never mention the other ones that leave us all in the lurch afterwards.

I would be surprised if more than 5% of UKIP voters have even bothered to look at their other designs for our country. It's gonna come as one hell of a slap in the face if they ever have any power.
You're voting for the poisoned apple.

Crude · Post by **Crude** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:23 am

Instead of relying on a political party to change society, why not each person be the change in society they wish to see? UKIP, Labour, Conservative, Tea Party, Democratic, Republican..... it will be a cold day in hell before real, meaningful, and substantial positive change would ever come from their leadership. Be the change.

Martyn · Post by **Martyn** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:05 am

That's fine as far as it goes Dan, but it doesn't help with the big issues. Much as I would like to abolish our nuclear weapons I can't, just as Joe can't individually leave the European Union.

We saw the limits of citizen power when 2 Million of us marched in London in February 2003 to try to prevent Blair's illegal invasion of Iraq and were completely ignored.

The answer is to use political parties but to work in the party of your choice to make sure it reflects your own principles

Crude · Post by **Crude** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:50 pm

Guildford White wrote:That's fine as far as it goes Dan, but it doesn't help with the big issues. Much as I would like to abolish our nuclear weapons I can't, just as Joe can't individually leave the European Union.

We saw the limits of citizen power when 2 Million of us marched in London in February 2003 to try to prevent Blair's illegal invasion of Iraq and were completely ignored.

The answer is to use political parties but to work in the party of your choice to make sure it reflects your own principles

It goes as far as people want it to go. The modern political party is nothing but a crutch, that keeps everyone limping along. Get rid of the crutch, and eventually the limp will go away, and legs become strong and unencumbered to move places never dared dreamed before.

Drs.Dad · Post by **Drs.Dad** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:18 pm

Crude wrote: It goes as far as people want it to go. The modern political party is nothing but a crutch, that keeps everyone limping along. Get rid of the crutch, and eventually the limp will go away, and legs become strong and unencumbered to move places never dared dreamed before.

So you are advocating Anarchy, Crude. Only those with abilities will survive, the weak would not be able to do anything for themselves, only the strong would prosper?

Martyn · Post by **Martyn** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:02 pm

Drs.Dad wrote:

So you are advocating Anarchy, Crude. Only those with abilities will survive, the weak would not be able to do anything for themselves, only the strong would prosper?

And no public services, for there would be nobody to organise them.

No healthcare, no collection of refuse, no police, no armed forces, no education system ..........

Yes there are problems with modern political parties, every one of them is run by apparatchiks. The solution is to seize back control of the party of your choice and use that to influence policy

Crude · Post by **Crude** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 5:58 pm

DD & GW, Those are some awfully bleak examples of Anarchism, almost Ayn Randian in nature (who I despise). I would prefer something of a more progressive nature, small 'a' anarchy.

Martyn · Post by **Martyn** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:02 pm

Such as? You get rid of organised movements, how do you provide public services? Who pays for them and how?

drsdadsotherson · Post by **drsdadsotherson** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:31 pm

We should go back to the early fire brigade of the 1800s, surely?

Privatised system where you buy insurance against fire and get a nice little plaque so that in case of conflagration the guys with the water know whose houses they can save.
Sure, if you're too poor to afford the extra outlay they will just turn their backs and let everything burn. Maybe they will even torch a house or two in your neighbourhood to scare you into buying into the humanitarian scheme. Maybe a fire crew will turn up within minutes, realise your insurance is with a different company and block access. That way the rival company can't get through and their efficiency will be called into question, thus raising your market share.

Less Anarchic with a capital A, but every word of it true. I'd rather not go back to that myself.

barryanorak · Post by **barryanorak** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:48 am

Crude wrote:DD & GW, Those are some awfully bleak examples of Anarchism, almost Ayn Randian in nature (who I despise). I would prefer something of a more progressive nature, small 'a' anarchy.

Whilst I am no supporter of Rand, she hated Anarchy (or even anarchy) with a passion.

Dr.Leeds · Post by **Dr.Leeds** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:57 am

Crude wrote:DD & GW, Those are some awfully bleak examples of Anarchism, almost Ayn Randian in nature (who I despise). I would prefer something of a more progressive nature, small 'a' anarchy.

How does a society decide the appropriate level of anarchy? What authority steps in when a member of that society acts in an unacceptable anarchic manner?

Crude · Post by **Crude** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:42 pm

barryanorak wrote:

Whilst I am no supporter of Rand, she hated Anarchy (or even anarchy) with a passion.

Right, she did, which is why I insinuated about other's posters visions of anarchism as being very Rand-ian.

Martyn · Post by **Martyn** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:34 pm

Genuinely interested - what is your prescription for a small "a" anarchic society?

How would it work?