Lib Dems win Eastleigh by-election as UKIP come second - Polidicks

UKIP is a far right reactionary party and nothing else you're deluded to think otherwise

[QUOTE=thisispain;39770405]are you gonna make a point or is his picture supposed to inspire patriotic anger[/QUOTE] What, you posted 'haha' to UKIP policies - not much of a point either? [QUOTE=Bobie;39770410]UKIP is a far right reactionary party and nothing else you're deluded to think otherwise[/QUOTE] Oh hello Mr. Citation - would you care to post some support for your assertion?

[QUOTE=butt2089;39770546]What, you posted 'haha' to UKIP policies - not much of a point either? Oh hello Mr. Citation - would you care to post some support for your assertion?[/QUOTE] Protip: He laughed at the policies because they're bad policies.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39770546]What, you posted 'haha' to UKIP policies - not much of a point either? [/QUOTE] i wasnt making a point i read that site and it made me laugh you posted the picture because you wanted to prove something, and now youre not even explaining what you meant by it so what are you trying to accomplish

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39770612]Protip: He laughed at the policies because they're bad policies.[/QUOTE] [quote]• Repeal the Human Rights Act to end abuses by convicted criminals and illegal immigrants. • Free the police force from the straitjacket of political correctness and ‘targets’.[/quote] Referring to my earlier post, do you think that Abu Qatada should remain in the UK under Human Rights laws? [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada]I'm sure he's a great guy[/url] [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-failed-to-investigate-alleged-rapist-who-went-on-to-kill-his-children-8511311.html]Police failed to investigate alleged rapist who went on to kill his children[/url] - thanks police targets! [QUOTE=thisispain;39770669]i wasnt making a point i read that site and it made me laugh you posted the picture because you wanted to prove something, and now youre not even explaining what you meant by it so what are you trying to accomplish[/QUOTE] Please explain what part of it made you laugh - that the likes of Abu Qatada can remain in the country because of Human Rights laws? [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21489072]Googled this in 5 seconds[/url] [quote]Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd, killed a 12-year-old girl in a hit-and-run in Lancashire. He was jailed for four months in 2003 and allowed to remain in the UK with his family on his release. Ibrahim's lawyers argued human rights laws permitted him to stay in the UK, because of his family. Italian citizen Learco Chindamo was jailed for life after killing headteacher Philip Lawrence in 1995. Chindamo's lawyers successfully argued deporting him would be illegal as he was from a European Union country and had already lived in the UK for 10 years at the time of the attack. A Jamaican drug dealer was allowed to stay in the UK with his family after his release. The High Court blocked the Home Office's decision to deport him saying it had not sufficiently looked at the effect his absence would have on his nine-year-old son who suffers from attention deficit hyperactive disorder.[/quote]

human rights grr they make me so angry [editline]2nd March 2013[/editline] if only there was a party that would literally say anything to achieve votes in the upcoming election

I really don't see why Captain Hook had to be extradited, he could have been charged here and put in prison here, it really makes no difference, and that second policy is a very thinly veiled attempt at getting the xenophobic vote. There is literally no reason to vote for UKIP, they are literally the worst party.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39770677]Referring to my earlier post, do you think that Abu Qatada should remain in the UK under Human Rights laws? [/QUOTE] yeah i do [quote]he has not been prosecuted there for any criminal or conspiracy offences[/quote] and i think its a good thing that people arent deported for criminal offenses, because it means that people get a fair trial

[QUOTE=Bobie;39770708]human rights grr they make me so angry [editline]2nd March 2013[/editline] if only there was a party that would literally say anything to achieve votes in the upcoming election[/QUOTE] Any answer to my earlier point? And a party that would literally say anything to achieve votes? What like Labour? [url=http://www.50percenttax.co.uk/index/2013/2/15/labour-proposes-10pc-income-tax-to-be-funded-by-mansion-tax.html]10% tax funded by a mansion tax![/url] - what a great idea Ed Miliband, give the poor a break whilst getting more out of those nasty rich people! Oh wait, he's said that it's not a manifesto commitment or even a policy, just a suggestion - one that isn't even properly funded. Great. [QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39770720]I really don't see why Captain Hook had to be extradited, he could have been charged here and put in prison here, it really makes no difference, and that second policy is a very thinly veiled attempt at getting the xenophobic vote. There is literally no reason to vote for UKIP, they are literally the worst party.[/QUOTE] Why would you want him in prison here, it costs money to keep people in prison. And how is removing barriers from the Police force xenophobic? They need to be enforcing the law. [QUOTE=thisispain;39770735]yeah i do and i think its a good thing that people arent deported for criminal offenses, because it means that people get a fair trial[/QUOTE] How does people not getting deported for criminal offenses mean they get a fair trial?

[QUOTE=butt2089;39770768]Any answer to my earlier point? And a party that would literally say anything to achieve votes? What like Labour? [url=http://www.50percenttax.co.uk/index/2013/2/15/labour-proposes-10pc-income-tax-to-be-funded-by-mansion-tax.html]10% tax funded by a mansion tax![/url] - what a great idea Ed Miliband, give the poor a break whilst getting more out of those nasty rich people! Oh wait, he's said that it's not a manifesto commitment or even a policy, just a suggestion - one that isn't even properly funded. Great. Why would you want him in prison here, it costs money to keep people in prison. And how is removing barriers from the Police force xenophobic? They need to be enforcing the law. How does people not getting deported for criminal offenses mean they get a fair trial?[/QUOTE] Because I've never seen the police actually bound by anything here, where I live they don't give a fuck who you are, political correctness doesn't stop any police force in the UK, it's a fucking buzzword that the UKIP love using. And yeah I'd rather he was in prison here because if we send him elsewhere there's a good chance of human rights abuses occuring, he might be a cunt but there's no need to cause suffering and agony in anyones life. By the way did you seriously just complain about the rich being taxed more than the poor? Did you [i]really[/i] just bitch about people who might not have a lot of money, being taxed less than people who have money? Full retard, arguments done folks.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39770776]Because I've never seen the police actually bound by anything here, where I live they don't give a fuck who you are, political correctness doesn't stop any police force in the UK, it's a fucking buzzword that the UKIP love using. And yeah I'd rather he was in prison here because if we send him elsewhere there's a good chance of human rights abuses occuring, he might be a cunt but there's no need to cause suffering and agony in anyones life. By the way did you seriously just complain about the rich being taxed more than the poor? Did you [i]really[/i] just bitch about people who might not have a lot of money, being taxed less than people who have money? Full retard, arguments done folks.[/QUOTE] Newspaper report for kent police and the political correctness in force [url=http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/march/18/police_and_pc_guidelines.aspx]there[/url] - it's not just a 'fucking buzzword', it exists. So you would be happy to spend £47,000 - at least - to keep him in the UK in prison? Currently we pay more because he's under surveillance and they have to stop a mob of protesters from demonstrating outside his house. Why does the human rights of one man matter more than the human rights of thousands of people in this country? Article 5 of human rights. [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9062960/Radical-Muslims-target-young-inmates-in-prison.html]Look at this[/url] - you really want extremist Muslims in our prisons? My point about Ed Miliband's speech was that he had pulled up a 'policy' to just snatch up votes and support. The policy is giving to the poor and taking from the rich, and you were whinging about UKIP creating policies to please the masses? You also completely warped my point and then attacked that instead - taxes on the rich are irrelevant to what I'm saying.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39770841]My point about Ed Miliband's speech was that he had pulled up a 'policy' to just snatch up votes and support. The policy is giving to the poor and taking from the rich, and you were whinging about UKIP creating policies to please the masses? You also completely warped my point and then attacked that instead - taxes on the rich are irrelevant to what I'm saying.[/QUOTE] 'everyone else does it so it's ok when farage does it more!'

[QUOTE=Bobie;39770851]'everyone else does it so it's ok when farage does it more!'[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bobie;39770851] UKIP is a far right reactionary party and nothing else you're deluded to think otherwise [/QUOTE] No, you were making a fuss out of UKIP being a 'reactionary' party, I then put forward my point that Labour thinks up reactionary and populist 'policies', you haven't actually posted anything to support your claim.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39770841]Newspaper report for kent police and the political correctness in force [url=http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/march/18/police_and_pc_guidelines.aspx]there[/url] - it's not just a 'fucking buzzword', it exists. So you would be happy to spend £47,000 - at least - to keep him in the UK in prison? Currently we pay more because he's under surveillance and they have to stop a mob of protesters from demonstrating outside his house. Why does the human rights of one man matter more than the human rights of thousands of people in this country? Article 5 of human rights. [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9062960/Radical-Muslims-target-young-inmates-in-prison.html]Look at this[/url] - you really want extremist Muslims in our prisons? My point about Ed Miliband's speech was that he had pulled up a 'policy' to just snatch up votes and support. The policy is giving to the poor and taking from the rich, and you were whinging about UKIP creating policies to please the masses? You also completely warped my point and then attacked that instead - taxes on the rich are irrelevant to what I'm saying.[/QUOTE] See the thing is though, Ed's policy is actually functional and serves a purpose, you know taking from those who can afford it as opposed to those who can't afford the tax while on the other hand Cuntface McCuncunt is maliciously playing on some peoples fear of foreigners and political correctness. And yeah I'm happy to pay that because it's the right thing to do. [editline]2nd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=butt2089;39770876]No, you were making a fuss out of UKIP being a 'reactionary' party, I then put forward my point that Labour thinks up reactionary and populist 'policies', you haven't actually posted anything to support your claim.[/QUOTE] You're actually a complete retard, the UKIP is literally founded as a popular reaction to the EU and the envisioned ghastly threat that foreign muck is going to contaminate good old british values. Labour on the other hand actually formed to serve a purpose to fight for workers rights and rights for the man on the street. So let's review: A. UKIP formed for EU hating, xenophobic cripple cunts who scream "Fucking pakis!" every time the news comes on. B. Labour formed to actually support workers unions and give them some muscle as well as help your average cunt on the street to actually survive the brutal taxes on the poor (ARE YOU SEEING THE PATTERN ABOUT TAXES HERE?) as well as support workers and their families, as well as everyone else through welfare and they created the NHS. C. You're deluded.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39770895]See the thing is though, Ed's policy is actually functional and serves a purpose, you know taking from those who can afford it as opposed to those who can't afford the tax while on the other hand Cuntface McCuncunt is maliciously playing on some peoples fear of foreigners and political correctness. And yeah I'm happy to pay that because it's the right thing to do. [editline]2nd March 2013[/editline] You're actually a complete retard, the UKIP is literally founded as a popular reaction to the EU and the envisioned ghastly threat that foreign muck is going to contaminate good old british values. Labour on the other hand actually formed to serve a purpose to fight for workers rights and rights for the man on the street. So let's review: A. UKIP formed for EU hating, xenophobic cripple cunts who scream "Fucking pakis!" every time the news comes on. B. Labour formed to actually support workers unions and give them some muscle as well as help your average cunt on the street to actually survive the brutal taxes on the poor (ARE YOU SEEING THE PATTERN ABOUT TAXES HERE?) as well as support workers and their families, as well as everyone else through welfare and they created the NHS. C. You're deluded.[/QUOTE] Ed Miliband's policy (don't forget it's not a commitment) would raise [url=http://www.cps.org.uk/about/news/q/date/2012/03/05/mansion-tax-would-only-raise-1-billion-in-revenue-the-t/]£1bn for the treasury[/url] and cost [url=http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2013/02/14/ed-miliband-pledges-10p-tax-rate-and-a-mansion-tax-to-fund-it-91466-32810381/]£2.5 billion to fund[/url] 'Cuntface McCuncunt' - seriously, you just outright hate UKIP. Why? I can appreciate if you disagree with their policies but you're just showing blind hatred.. A. Right, except that's your own blind prejudice. People are entitled to oppose the EU and immigration and should be encouraged to do so, it's a shit country we live in if people are branded as racists and bigots for questioning these topics. B. Lol. Labour don't give a shit about workers - they bailed out the banks for £billions but left MG Rover to flounder. C. You're ignorant and clearly getting upset

[QUOTE=butt2089;39770960]Ed Miliband's policy (don't forget it's not a commitment) would raise [url=http://www.cps.org.uk/about/news/q/date/2012/03/05/mansion-tax-would-only-raise-1-billion-in-revenue-the-t/]£1bn for the treasury[/url] and cost [url=http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2013/02/14/ed-miliband-pledges-10p-tax-rate-and-a-mansion-tax-to-fund-it-91466-32810381/]£2.5 billion to fund[/url] 'Cuntface McCuncunt' - seriously, you just outright hate UKIP. Why? I can appreciate if you disagree with their policies but you're just showing blind hatred..[/QUOTE] Because they're a fucking idiotic party for xenophobes and knuckle dragging retards, they want to take us out of the EU for reasons, no valid reasons, just reasons despite the fact the UK is literally absolutely, 100% reliant of the EU for trade. They want to go back to an isolationist policy in a globalised world, it doesn't work, it won't work and that's never going to change. A better question is why you support xenophobic retards so fervently, does the idea of a permanently cripple british economy and xenophobic society make your dick twitch?

immigration is literally the most basic cornerstone of a successful economy how can anyone care about workers and want to cap immigration indefinitely

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39770989]Because they're a fucking idiotic party for xenophobes and knuckle dragging retards, they want to take us out of the EU for reasons, no valid reasons, just reasons despite the fact the UK is literally absolutely, 100% reliant of the EU for trade. They want to go back to an isolationist policy in a globalised world, it doesn't work, it won't work and that's never going to change. A better question is why you support xenophobic retards so fervently, does the idea of a permanently cripple british economy and xenophobic society make your dick twitch?[/QUOTE] Once again, it's your own blind prejudice against UKIP voters - nothing to back that up. I made a post about some of the shit we get from the EU, [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1249095&p=39698542&viewfull=1#post39698542]read it.[/url] 100% reliant on EU for trade? You're pulling figures out of your ass, we even have a trade deficit with the EU and get warped figures from the Rotterdam effect. They don't want to go back to an isolationist policy, they want the opposite - they want more interaction WITH the globalised world, not just the isolation of trading with the EU where we can't even form our own trade treaties. [QUOTE=Bobie;39770995]immigration is literally the most basic cornerstone of a successful economy how can anyone care about workers and want to cap immigration indefinitely[/QUOTE] Yes immigration can boost the economy but not just anyone, Barnardo's released a poverty report featuring the low employment rates of ethnic minorities - why let them in if they're going to be on benefits? [url=http://www.barnardos.org.uk/it_doesnt_happen_here_full_report.pdf]source[/url] 30% of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women in the UK are employed compared to 72% White British

[QUOTE=butt2089;39771010]Once again, it's your own blind prejudice against UKIP voters - nothing to back that up. I made a post about some of the shit we get from the EU, [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1249095&p=39698542&viewfull=1#post39698542]read it.[/url] 100% reliant on EU for trade? You're pulling figures out of your ass, we even have a trade deficit with the EU and get warped figures from the Rotterdam effect. They don't want to go back to an isolationist policy, they want the opposite - they want more interaction WITH the globalised world, not just the isolation of trading with the EU where we can't even form our own trade treaties. Yes immigration can boost the economy but not just anyone, Barnardo's released a poverty report featuring the low employment rates of ethnic minorities - why let them in if they're going to be on benefits? [url=http://www.barnardos.org.uk/it_doesnt_happen_here_full_report.pdf]source[/url] 30% of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women in the UK are employed compared to 72% White British[/QUOTE] If you leave the EU then you've totally lost any ability to trade competively with your nearest neighbours, they won't even entertain the thought of trade with the UK when they can get what they need within the EU, I know this because I work in Kuehne Nagel Drink Logistics and we're already losing business due to the UKs economy forcing massive amounts of pubs to close, if we lose the competitive edge that being an EU member gives us then we're well and truly fucked.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39771044]If you leave the EU then you've totally lost any ability to trade competively with your nearest neighbours, they won't even entertain the thought of trade with the UK when they can get what they need within the EU, I know this because I work in Kuehne Nagel Drink Logistics and we're already losing business due to the UKs economy forcing massive amounts of pubs to close, if we lose the competitive edge that being an EU member gives us then we're well and truly fucked.[/QUOTE] The worst part I find about the EU is that most people want the free trade area but little else. The EU would continue to trade with the UK regardless, in the same way that all other countries in the world still trade with the UK - if we were able to form our own trade agreements we could do so much better: - No. 1 investor into Brazil - Heritage and link with Hong Kong (thus China) - Commonwealth and language relationship with resource rich: -India -Canada -Australia - We have a closer economic and social relationship to Germany than France or south Europe does We need to utilise some of this stuff ^

[QUOTE=butt2089;39770143]Please read up on UKIPs policies [url=http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies]here[/url] - anything in there about what people really care about? You know, the economy, crime and immigration? If you're defining a 'Leftist' as someone on the economic left then there's still every chance they'll switch to UKIP, read the UKIP policies - not all of them are economic and there's no reason that they can't appeal to core Labour supporters. [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1249095&p=39698542&viewfull=1#post39698542]Here[/url] is a post of mine with a few views on why the EU is shit. Please, as I clearly have a lack of knowledge about the EU and it's process, especially those damn EU bureaucrats, would you be as kind as to explain why we must not question the EU?[/QUOTE] The point is that your average voter cares more about the domestic issues more than the EU, because they are more knowledgeable/have more experience of the former than the later. Which is why your Labour voters are more likely that they'll switch to other mainstream parties OR a small party that is closer to them than to the UKIP, whose raison d'etre is the EU. TLDR: Why should they vote for UKIP when there are parties that are more closely aligned to them, and that the EU is of lesser importance? Face it, Farage fanboy, your party is a radical party to the Right (economic) spectrum with Authoritarian tendencies and the only people it will attract are mostly Tory voters.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39771010]Yes immigration can boost the economy but not just anyone, Barnardo's released a poverty report featuring the low employment rates of ethnic minorities - why let them in if they're going to be on benefits? [url=http://www.barnardos.org.uk/it_doesnt_happen_here_full_report.pdf]source[/url] 30% of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women in the UK are employed compared to 72% White British[/QUOTE] Immigration from the A8 countries directly benefited this countries economy every financial year. They also created more jobs than they took. Participation in the workforce from A8 countries was far higher than the average 'native'. There literally isn't a solid economic argument against immigration. Even business minded Tory MPs say our immigration policy is too strict. Which I find hilarious, because we have daily mail readers who think we've got open boarders to the world or something when the reality is that we've got a really lengthy, anal and expensive process that is starting to damage our economy. We have less migrants, less visiting students, less foreign business and investment every damn year because of these policies and we have stupid parties like UKIP trying to turn this into a catastrophe. Britain used to be a desirable place in the world, and we're squandering it and the damage might be permanent when that global economic lifeblood starts going elsewhere. You talk about how UKIP is trying to make Britain competitive in the globalised world - [B]bullshit[/B]. Its going to be like trying to run with our shoes tied. I honestly think the only reason UKIP has any support is because our school system has failed to teach even basic economics.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39771489]Immigration from the A8 countries directly benefited this countries economy every financial year. They also created more jobs than they took. Participation in the workforce from A8 countries was far higher than the average 'native'. There literally isn't a solid economic argument against immigration. Even business minded Tory MPs say our immigration policy is too strict. Which I find hilarious, because we have daily mail readers who think we've got open boarders to the world or something when the reality is that we've got a really lengthy, anal and expensive process that is starting to damage our economy. We have less migrants, less visiting students, less foreign business and investment every damn year because of these policies and we have stupid parties like UKIP trying to turn this into a catastrophe. Britain used to be a desirable place in the world, and we're squandering it and the damage might be permanent when that global economic lifeblood starts going elsewhere. You talk about how UKIP is trying to make Britain competitive in the globalised world - [B]bullshit[/B]. Its going to be like trying to run with our shoes tied. I honestly think the only reason UKIP has any support is because our school system has failed to teach even basic economics.[/QUOTE] However the thing that people oppose is [B]unrestricted[/B] Immigration, it's ridiculous to say that letting absoluetly everyone in regardless of contibution is a good thing because you have to acknowledge that not everyone who comes here wants to work or aren't Medication tourists.

[QUOTE=The mouse;39774514]However the thing that people oppose is [B]unrestricted[/B] Immigration[/QUOTE] How can you oppose something that has never existed?

the moon has unrestricted immigration and it seems to be doing fine

I don't have the first idea about politics but my college is in Eastleigh. As long as they don't fuck with it then I don't care

Back on the topic, I'm quite surprised that the L-D got this. They received a lot of beating this term, including that scandal thing that's going on right now. While it is true that "by-elections =/= general elections", it seems that the more shift the Tories do to where UKIP is, the more of its centrist and moderate voters turn to L-D. It just shows that the UKIPers who perceive themselves are the "silent majority" turns out to be the vocal minority, and the true silent majority (who cares more about the most relevant issues) end up going elsewhere. [QUOTE=The mouse;39774514]However the thing that people oppose is [B]unrestricted[/B] Immigration, it's ridiculous to say that letting absoluetly everyone in regardless of contibution is a good thing because you have to acknowledge that not everyone who comes here wants to work or aren't Medication tourists.[/QUOTE] Wasn't the Economist complaining that the UK's getting stricter on this?

[QUOTE=redhaven;39782284]Back on the topic, I'm quite surprised that the L-D got this. They received a lot of beating this term, including that scandal thing that's going on right now. While it is true that "by-elections =/= general elections", it seems that the more shift the Tories do to where UKIP is, the more of its centrist and moderate voters turn to L-D. It just shows that the UKIPers who perceive themselves are the "silent majority" turns out to be the vocal minority, and the true silent majority (who cares more about the most relevant issues) end up going elsewhere. Wasn't the Economist complaining that the UK's getting stricter on this?[/QUOTE] eastleigh isn't a normal seat tbh, its a lib dem stronghold and they were always the favourite to win

[QUOTE=redhaven;39782284]Wasn't the Economist complaining that the UK's getting stricter on this?[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.store.economist.com/Images/ECO/CMS/TE%20cover%2020th%20October_Large.jpg[/img] yup

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39788277]eastleigh isn't a normal seat tbh, its a lib dem stronghold and they were always the favourite to win[/QUOTE] I did read that the Lib Dems lost more ground than the Tories, but I'm guessing they both lost it to UKIP. But it's a bit like Portsmouth South, that's always been a Lib Dem stronghold as well, so even scandals aren't going to rock it much.