David Cameron opposes UKIP taking part in election debates - Polidicks

[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;39282688]wait, explain to me why the first Televised election debates were only in 2010[/QUOTE] In theory you are only voting for your local MP so election debates never made very much sense. It's not like in presidential systems where each candidate is persuading you to vote directly for them

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39282534]Yeah man who cares about the people who actually need government support, clearly we need to focus more on helping the poor misunderstood upper class who need more tax breaks otherwise they wont be able to afford another countryside escape :([/QUOTE] I mean, a party that's exclusive for the working class. That's the reason why they lost to Thatcher back then.

[QUOTE=redhaven;39282759]I mean, a party that's exclusive for the working class. That's the reason why they lost to Thatcher back then.[/QUOTE] They lost back then because the party was awful. A lot of socialist leaders did quite well like Attlee.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39282431]I'm very much looking forward to it, just so I can laugh at his awful awful arguments. [editline]19th January 2013[/editline] That doesn't mean we need the homophobic, racist, libertarian party. I'd much rather just see Labour come back, even if Ed isn't a real socialist or as charismatic as Blair.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;39282534]Yeah man who cares about the people who actually need government support, clearly we need to focus more on helping the poor misunderstood upper class who need more tax breaks otherwise they wont be able to afford another countryside escape :([/QUOTE] Can you support your accusation of UKIP being homophobic and racist? True, they are opposed to gay marriage - but that is because forcing religious institutions to marry gay people is infringement of their religious freedoms. Gay people are sufficiently covered by the law in the same way that married people are. Secondly, racism is a hard claim to back up - every single party can be accused of being racist/homophobic in some form due to the actions of members or MPs, that doesn't mean that the party as a whole and every single supporter of it is racist. Also I like how you've thrown libertarian in there with homophobic and racist as if to link the three together as being evil.. To your next comment about tax breaks for the rich.. High level earners are already taxed at 40%, as a percentage they give up more of their gross earnings than a lower level earner does - you also seem to forget the increases in personal tax allowance that low level earners will benefit from? The hidden part of the new tax banding is that more people lower down the scale will be paying more tax. As the higher 50p rate is abolished, those people earning over £100,000 will see their personal tax allowance of up to £8,000 disappear, this means that someone who is earning £110,000 - who hasn't been liable to 50p tax and will not be affected by that change - will actually have to pay more tax than before. The 50p tax was brought in in the last days of Brown's government in order to make it harder for the Conservatives, so they would seem like they are giving tax breaks to the rich as you believe - the tax was supposed to bring in billions of revenue and instead it brought in less as more people looked to avoid tax. On-topic: I think it's pathetic that David Cameron can refuse a party coverage in election debates when they are polling as high as they are. Just goes to show that he is trembling at the fact that UKIP will severely damage the Conservatives come 2015.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39283122]Can you support your accusation of UKIP being homophobic and racist? True, they are opposed to gay marriage - but that is because forcing religious institutions to marry gay people is infringement of their religious freedoms. Gay people are sufficiently covered by the law in the same way that married people are. Secondly, racism is a hard claim to back up - every single party can be accused of being racist/homophobic in some form due to the actions of members or MPs, that doesn't mean that the party as a whole and every single supporter of it is racist. Also I like how you've thrown libertarian in there with homophobic and racist as if to link the three together as being evil.. To your next comment about tax breaks for the rich.. High level earners are already taxed at 40%, as a percentage they give up more of their gross earnings than a lower level earner does - you also seem to forget the increases in personal tax allowance that low level earners will benefit from? The hidden part of the new tax banding is that more people lower down the scale will be paying more tax. As the higher 50p rate is abolished, those people earning over £100,000 will see their personal tax allowance of up to £8,000 disappear, this means that someone who is earning £110,000 - who hasn't been liable to 50p tax and will not be affected by that change - will actually have to pay more tax than before. The 50p tax was brought in in the last days of Brown's government in order to make it harder for the Conservatives, so they would seem like they are giving tax breaks to the rich as you believe - the tax was supposed to bring in billions of revenue and instead it brought in less as more people looked to avoid tax. On-topic: I think it's pathetic that David Cameron can refuse a party coverage in election debates when they are polling as high as they are. Just goes to show that he is trembling at the fact that UKIP will severely damage the Conservatives come 2015.[/QUOTE] No religious institutions are being forced to marry anyone, they're opposing it based on pure homophobia. They're anti immigrant for no real reason, despite the fact that immigration has been shown to be good for the country. As for more tax making less money, maybe we should close up the loopholes then.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39283407]No religious institutions are being forced to marry anyone, they're opposing it based on pure homophobia. They're anti immigrant for no real reason, despite the fact that immigration has been shown to be good for the country. As for more tax making less money, maybe we should close up the loopholes then.[/QUOTE] If it was passed that the Christians, Muslims, Jews - whoever - were allowed to conduct gay marriages then the individual churches and ministers could be prosecuted for discrimination if they refused, even if on account of their religious views. So you genuinely believe that mass, unchecked immigration has been 100% positive for this country? Labour predicted that 13,000 people would come from Poland.. Over 1 million turned up. There are over 150,000 illegal immigrants 'missing' who the border agency simply won't be able to find. Bulgarians and Romanians will have unlimited access to the UK come next year, easily another 1 million people. We also have 2.5 million people unemployed and 17% of people considered at risk of falling under the poverty line and you think we should continue to let people in en mass? I would love to see some statistics with what you have just posted. Also, the 'loopholes' aren't as easy to close as you would think.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39283661]If it was passed that the Christians, Muslims, Jews - whoever - were allowed to conduct gay marriages then the individual churches and ministers could be prosecuted for discrimination if they refused, even if on account of their religious views.[/QUOTE] The gay marriage law is going to include a "quadruple lock" to prevent religions from being forced to conduct gay marriages. One of these measures is: [quote]Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924[/url]

[QUOTE=smurfy;39283696]The gay marriage law is going to include a "quadruple lock" to prevent religions from being forced to conduct gay marriages. One of these measures is: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924[/url][/QUOTE] I would imagine that the ECHR could overturn that in a heartbeat. A lot of fuss for just the use of a word. Gay people already have equality and full coverage under the law, I should image that they would be allowed a ceremony at an individual church's discretion too. Merely political posturing by the Conservatives when there are much more important things to address..

[QUOTE=butt2089;39283909]I would imagine that the ECHR could overturn that in a heartbeat. A lot of fuss for just the use of a word. Gay people already have equality and full coverage under the law, I should image that they would be allowed a ceremony at an individual church's discretion too. Merely political posturing by the Conservatives when there are much more important things to address..[/QUOTE] If it's just a word what's the problem, let's do it

[QUOTE=smurfy;39283999]If it's just a word what's the problem, let's do it[/QUOTE] It would be nice if it was that simple, the fact that there needs to be so many measures in place and various laws shows how complex it will be

I just noticed what UKIP has in their description on Google [img]http://puu.sh/1QjxB[/img] I find it hilarious that they have to specify 'non-racist' :v:

I like Farage. [video=youtube;bypLwI5AQvY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY[/video] Shortly after this happened, I emailed him. Just some guy from the US emailing him. He personally responded to me just a couple hours later. It was amazing. I have to wait 3 weeks to get a canned reply from my own representatives in government that has nothing to do with the reason I emailed him in the first place.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39294674]I like Farage.[/QUOTE] oh, so you like immatured politicians? EDIT: That video is an example of what we'd like to call "schoolchildren politics". Populistic and flashy but no substance. The perfect politics for Neanderthals.

[QUOTE=redhaven;39294751]oh, so you like immatured politicians?[/QUOTE] Wait you get matured politicians?

[QUOTE=butt2089;39284038]It would be nice if it was that simple, the fact that there needs to be so many measures in place and various laws shows how complex it will be[/QUOTE] Equality is so hard, let's just not bother :(

[QUOTE=Ridge;39294674]I like Farage. Shortly after this happened, I emailed him. Just some guy from the US emailing him. He personally responded to me just a couple hours later. It was amazing. I have to wait 3 weeks to get a canned reply from my own representatives in government that has nothing to do with the reason I emailed him in the first place.[/QUOTE] I'm not a fan of the politics, but that was pretty funny to say the least. It would be much better if these people could just come to a workable solution rather than shouting at each other with no real gain.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39282431]I'm very much looking forward to it, just so I can laugh at his awful awful arguments. [editline]19th January 2013[/editline] That doesn't mean we need the homophobic, racist, libertarian party. I'd much rather just see Labour come back, even if Ed isn't a real socialist or as charismatic as Blair.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between being racists and arguing against free loaders who just happen to be a different ethnicity. You can enter this country and life on the doll too easily.

[QUOTE=smurfy;39294623]I just noticed what UKIP has in their description on Google [img]http://puu.sh/1QjxB[/img] I find it hilarious that they have to specify 'non-racist' :v:[/QUOTE] It's not surprising given that people label them as racist with absolutely nothing to back their claim with. It would be refreshing for any of the 'main three' parties to actually engage with UKIP in some form, instead of dismissing them entirely or labelling them as 'racists' or 'weird'. [QUOTE=redhaven;39294751]oh, so you like immatured politicians? EDIT: That video is an example of what we'd like to call "schoolchildren politics". Populistic and flashy but no substance. The perfect politics for Neanderthals.[/QUOTE] No substance? What he is accusing Herman van Rompuy of in that video is opposing democracy. As a citizen within the European Union, I have not once been informed of who Mr van Rompuy is, his role in the EU nor have I had a vote on whether I wish for him to be the president of the European Council. Also, try to find a politician with substance - how about Cameron with his referendum pledges? Or Clegg with his tuition fee u-turn? Maybe Miliband with anything he's ever said? [QUOTE=CatFodder;39294995]Equality is so hard, let's just not bother :([/QUOTE] Equality exists for gay people, they have full coverage under the law thanks to civil partnerships and anti-discrimination laws. Do you really think extending the use of the word marriage will help them become more 'equal' in any way?

Nigel Farage is fucking quality though [video=youtube;TpYIKF1wuyE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpYIKF1wuyE[/video] [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] "Perhaps that's because you come from Belgium.. which of course, is pretty much a non-country" British politics is basically a large group of grown men still thinking they're radical teenagers shouting at eachother and cheering like it's a fight in the middle of the playground.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39305924] Equality exists for gay people, they have full coverage under the law thanks to civil partnerships and anti-discrimination laws. Do you really think extending the use of the word marriage will help them become more 'equal' in any way?[/QUOTE] Yes, as the law will no longer be effectively saying 'marriage is only for straight people, you can just have a pretend marriage with a different name'. Separate but equal didn't work for race and it won't work for sexuality.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39305924]No substance? What he is accusing Herman van Rompuy of in that video is opposing democracy. As a citizen within the European Union, I have not once been informed of who Mr van Rompuy is, his role in the EU nor have I had a vote on whether I wish for him to be the president of the European Council.[/QUOTE] Preaching to the choir. But why Van Rompuy? He is elected under the mechanics designed by the member-states themselves. Danharibo said what is needed to be said: [QUOTE]It would be much better if these people could just come to a workable solution rather than shouting at each other with no real gain.[/QUOTE] While it was funny, this asshat is representing Britain by acting like an asshat. Don't get me started on that slaphead who made that Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer remark. This isn't a "Yo Mama" contest. This is how European countries sees us. [QUOTE]Also, try to find a politician with substance - how about Cameron with his referendum pledges? Or Clegg with his tuition fee u-turn? Maybe Miliband with anything he's ever said?[/QUOTE] "Yeah, well, you're maybe right, but let's go off-topic and mention other people unrelated to this to hopefully invalidate your statement."

[QUOTE=RichyZ;39309341]i find it sad that people legitimately support ukip[/QUOTE] Who else can people support who wish to have a referendum on whether or not to remain in the EU? Cameron promised that he would give a referendum, but has yet to produce it. Most new UKIP supporters are angry Conservatives who want a vote on membership, from what I have read online on places like the Telegraph. If Cameron would be a man of his word, I am sure that their popularity would wan.