Worcester UKIP candidate Richard Delingpole in Photoshopped Hitler picture row

The picture featuring Richard Delingpole and Adolf Hitler

The picture featuring Richard Delingpole and Adolf Hitler

First published in News
Last updated
Worcester News: Tom Edwards Exclusive by , Political Reporter

A UK Independence Party election candidate in Worcester has published a doctored image of himself on the internet standing behind Adolf Hitler.

Richard Delingpole, who is standing for county council election in the Riverside ward, posted the image on Twitter.

One political rival has branded the picture “sickening and abhorrent”.

But the businessman, of Henwick Road, St John’s, has insisted the image was a joke in response to reports that the Conservative party is trawling social networking sites looking for dirt on UKIP candidates.

The picture shows Adolf Hitler, with three henchmen standing behind him, all of whom have had their faces changed to a youthful looking Mr Delingpole.

Yesterday UKIP’s Worcester branch apologised, blaming a “very deep sense of humour” which could be misunderstood.

Carl Humphries, the branch organiser for Worcester and Mid-Worcestershire, said he would not be thrown out of the party.

“I can assure you he is definitely not a Nazi or anything like that - he’s got a very deep sense of humour,” he said.

“He has been vetted by me, all our candidates are clean in every respect, but I am sorry if this offended people.”

Mr Delingpole, who runs a design agency, has now deleted the picture.

“There’s a story going around that the Tories are trawling Facebook accounts of UKIP candidates to drag up things about them, this was a joke based on that,” he said.

“Of course people won’t think I’m an Adolf Hitler sympathiser, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

“It’s clearly a picture of Adolf Hitler I have photo-shopped, it shows we’ve got a sense of humour.”

Mr Delingpole, who is a war re-enactor, said the image first appeared on his Facebook page some time ago after a friend joked that he was a Nazi.

He posted it on Twitter yesterday morning with the caption: “I really must get rid of some of these old Facebook images before the Tories get hold of them” before deleting it.

But the image was seen by a Conservative councillor in another part of the country, who tipped off colleagues in Worcestershire.

Yesterday Coun Simon Geraghty, who is standing for the Conservative party in Riverside, said: “I find it absolutely sickening and abhorrent.

“I think the vast majority of British people will find this shocking - it’s not funny at all, it’s dreadful and I can’t believe he’s done it.”

UKIP is fielding 1,734 candidates in tomorrow’s council elections, but over the last few days it has been forced to suspend three candidates - one for being an ex-BNP activist, another for “liking” the extremist English Defence League on Facebook, and the third for being a former National Front Organiser.

Yesterday, a spokesman from UKIP’s national HQ in London said: “Richard Delingpole‘s not dodgy in any way - he did it because he’s fed up of people being professionally outraged.”

Meanwhile, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has waded into the controversy today, by saying it was "a joke" in the wake of yesterday's coverage of rotten UKIP candidates in the Daily Mirror.

He said: "To present it as anything else would be a travesty."

In today's Sun newspaper another UKIP candidate, Bradley Monk, aged 19, who is standing at Hampshire County Council, was outed for posting snaps of himself online as shamed pervert Jimmy Savile.

He wore a mask of the disgraced paedophile at a Halloween party last year.

He said it was a "harmless joke" and added he was "in no way endorsing" what Savile did.

Mr Farage has admitted the party is too small to properly vet the record number of council candidates standing in the elections.

* The other candidates in Riverside are Labour’s Lynn Denham, Green Louis Stephen, Sean McCauley for Trades Unionists and Socialists Against the Cuts and Julie Whitwam for the BNP.

 

Comments (74)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:29am Wed 1 May 13

AlfredTheGreat says...

The latest ComRes poll puts UKIP on 22%. UKIP Facebook Likes have also jumped up hugely, as well as their membership. The Conservative Central Office plan of smearing UKIP seems to have backfired spectacularly. We shall see in a couple days what the people think. Remember, the flak is always heaviest when you are directly over the target.
The latest ComRes poll puts UKIP on 22%. UKIP Facebook Likes have also jumped up hugely, as well as their membership. The Conservative Central Office plan of smearing UKIP seems to have backfired spectacularly. We shall see in a couple days what the people think. Remember, the flak is always heaviest when you are directly over the target. AlfredTheGreat
  • Score: 1

9:34am Wed 1 May 13

Paul Oldroyd says...

Non-story.
Non-story. Paul Oldroyd
  • Score: 1

9:46am Wed 1 May 13

lizzyloolah says...

Tactless!
Tactless! lizzyloolah
  • Score: 0

10:25am Wed 1 May 13

Guy66 says...

Clearly not ready for political life!
Clearly not ready for political life! Guy66
  • Score: 0

10:28am Wed 1 May 13

CJH says...

“It’s clearly a picture of Adolf Hitler I have photo-shopped, it shows we’ve got a sense of humour.”
.
Yesterday UKIP’s Worcester branch apologised, blaming a “very deep sense of humour” which could be misunderstood.
.
He said it was a "harmless joke" and added he was "in no way endorsing" what Savile did.

So now we know then. They have a sense of humour. Apparently. Hopefully they won't be laughing after the election results. Worcestershire, please come to your senses and see these people for what they really are! Arrogant, self serving bigots who to entertain themselves pose as Nazis and paedophiles.
“It’s clearly a picture of Adolf Hitler I have photo-shopped, it shows we’ve got a sense of humour.” . Yesterday UKIP’s Worcester branch apologised, blaming a “very deep sense of humour” which could be misunderstood. . He said it was a "harmless joke" and added he was "in no way endorsing" what Savile did. So now we know then. They have a sense of humour. Apparently. Hopefully they won't be laughing after the election results. Worcestershire, please come to your senses and see these people for what they really are! Arrogant, self serving bigots who to entertain themselves pose as Nazis and paedophiles. CJH
  • Score: 0

10:30am Wed 1 May 13

Hwicce says...

@CJH - which party are you referring to? There are several who could fall into your criteria.
@CJH - which party are you referring to? There are several who could fall into your criteria. Hwicce
  • Score: 0

10:37am Wed 1 May 13

Guy66 says...

@CJH - a little harsh and bordering on libellous.
@CJH - a little harsh and bordering on libellous. Guy66
  • Score: 0

10:39am Wed 1 May 13

CJH says...

Hwicce wrote:
@CJH - which party are you referring to? There are several who could fall into your criteria.
Naive...again
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @CJH - which party are you referring to? There are several who could fall into your criteria.[/p][/quote]Naive...again CJH
  • Score: 0

10:41am Wed 1 May 13

CJH says...

Guy66 wrote:
@CJH - a little harsh and bordering on libellous.
Harsh? Good.
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: @CJH - a little harsh and bordering on libellous.[/p][/quote]Harsh? Good. CJH
  • Score: 0

10:55am Wed 1 May 13

Robot 3021 says...

It was clearly a joke, but a rather silly one.

The huge over-reaction though is unsurprising, modern-day politics is more and more about personality and appearance.

It's sad that so little time has been given over to actually studying UKIP's policies, which from what I have seen (on taxation, jobs, and health for a start) are ill thought out or unworkable. No wonder they are considering buying policies off the shelf from think tanks. That's only my opinion from what I have read though - some debate on this would be nice, some analysis, rather than petty finger-pointing and point-scoring which does little credit to anyone.

But no, lets talk about photoshops and defaced posters, the issues that really matter...
It was clearly a joke, but a rather silly one. The huge over-reaction though is unsurprising, modern-day politics is more and more about personality and appearance. It's sad that so little time has been given over to actually studying UKIP's policies, which from what I have seen (on taxation, jobs, and health for a start) are ill thought out or unworkable. No wonder they are considering buying policies off the shelf from think tanks. That's only my opinion from what I have read though - some debate on this would be nice, some analysis, rather than petty finger-pointing and point-scoring which does little credit to anyone. But no, lets talk about photoshops and defaced posters, the issues that really matter... Robot 3021
  • Score: 0

11:32am Wed 1 May 13

RogerLFC says...

A joke but a I don't find it very funny ...
A joke but a I don't find it very funny ... RogerLFC
  • Score: 0

11:37am Wed 1 May 13

CJH says...

Robot 3021 wrote:
It was clearly a joke, but a rather silly one.

The huge over-reaction though is unsurprising, modern-day politics is more and more about personality and appearance.

It's sad that so little time has been given over to actually studying UKIP's policies, which from what I have seen (on taxation, jobs, and health for a start) are ill thought out or unworkable. No wonder they are considering buying policies off the shelf from think tanks. That's only my opinion from what I have read though - some debate on this would be nice, some analysis, rather than petty finger-pointing and point-scoring which does little credit to anyone.

But no, lets talk about photoshops and defaced posters, the issues that really matter...
"It was clearly a joke, but a rather silly one". No, not silly: tactless, offensive, arrogant. It shows their mind set. This IS an issue that matters. They are not a bunch of kids posting daft photos on Facebook or Twitter. They are standing for election, to represent us! They could not represent my views in a million years. Good God, I'd sooner vote Conservative...
[quote][p][bold]Robot 3021[/bold] wrote: It was clearly a joke, but a rather silly one. The huge over-reaction though is unsurprising, modern-day politics is more and more about personality and appearance. It's sad that so little time has been given over to actually studying UKIP's policies, which from what I have seen (on taxation, jobs, and health for a start) are ill thought out or unworkable. No wonder they are considering buying policies off the shelf from think tanks. That's only my opinion from what I have read though - some debate on this would be nice, some analysis, rather than petty finger-pointing and point-scoring which does little credit to anyone. But no, lets talk about photoshops and defaced posters, the issues that really matter...[/p][/quote]"It was clearly a joke, but a rather silly one". No, not silly: tactless, offensive, arrogant. It shows their mind set. This IS an issue that matters. They are not a bunch of kids posting daft photos on Facebook or Twitter. They are standing for election, to represent us! They could not represent my views in a million years. Good God, I'd sooner vote Conservative... CJH
  • Score: 0

11:51am Wed 1 May 13

Robot 3021 says...

Steady on, don't do anything rash CJH!

By silly, I did sort of mean tactless, offensive, arrogant... it's just my vocabulary not really getting the point across I'm afraid - it was a 'silly' thing to do as it was all of those things. Sorry, I wasn't using "silly" in the naughty toddler sense, I just prefer it to the harsher 'stupid'.

I do think though that it would be far, far easier to discredit UKIP by actually putting their (often non-existent) policies under the microscope, rather than shouting about things like this. Or do both of course. But there does seem to be a real lack of political discussion, other than headline stuff, and it's a real shame.
Steady on, don't do anything rash CJH! By silly, I did sort of mean tactless, offensive, arrogant... it's just my vocabulary not really getting the point across I'm afraid - it was a 'silly' thing to do as it was all of those things. Sorry, I wasn't using "silly" in the naughty toddler sense, I just prefer it to the harsher 'stupid'. I do think though that it would be far, far easier to discredit UKIP by actually putting their (often non-existent) policies under the microscope, rather than shouting about things like this. Or do both of course. But there does seem to be a real lack of political discussion, other than headline stuff, and it's a real shame. Robot 3021
  • Score: 0

11:58am Wed 1 May 13

CJH says...

Robot 3021 wrote:
Steady on, don't do anything rash CJH!

By silly, I did sort of mean tactless, offensive, arrogant... it's just my vocabulary not really getting the point across I'm afraid - it was a 'silly' thing to do as it was all of those things. Sorry, I wasn't using "silly" in the naughty toddler sense, I just prefer it to the harsher 'stupid'.

I do think though that it would be far, far easier to discredit UKIP by actually putting their (often non-existent) policies under the microscope, rather than shouting about things like this. Or do both of course. But there does seem to be a real lack of political discussion, other than headline stuff, and it's a real shame.
ok I won't vote Conservative...
[quote][p][bold]Robot 3021[/bold] wrote: Steady on, don't do anything rash CJH! By silly, I did sort of mean tactless, offensive, arrogant... it's just my vocabulary not really getting the point across I'm afraid - it was a 'silly' thing to do as it was all of those things. Sorry, I wasn't using "silly" in the naughty toddler sense, I just prefer it to the harsher 'stupid'. I do think though that it would be far, far easier to discredit UKIP by actually putting their (often non-existent) policies under the microscope, rather than shouting about things like this. Or do both of course. But there does seem to be a real lack of political discussion, other than headline stuff, and it's a real shame.[/p][/quote]ok I won't vote Conservative... CJH
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Wed 1 May 13

sarah and her chickens says...

Well in my area I emailed the labour guy asking his opinion on the incinerator,social care provision,budget cuts ,recycling costs,carers and support for the elderly. He sent back that Summerfield rd needed traffic calming but he coukdnt comment on anything else as the labour lot were going to have a meeting after the election.
Now that really is a joke of a candidate.
Well in my area I emailed the labour guy asking his opinion on the incinerator,social care provision,budget cuts ,recycling costs,carers and support for the elderly. He sent back that Summerfield rd needed traffic calming but he coukdnt comment on anything else as the labour lot were going to have a meeting after the election. Now that really is a joke of a candidate. sarah and her chickens
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Wed 1 May 13

Hwicce says...

@Sarah - you can't say that, CJH will start calling you naïve if you don't support his views. :-)
@Sarah - you can't say that, CJH will start calling you naïve if you don't support his views. :-) Hwicce
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Wed 1 May 13

CJH says...

Hwicce wrote:
@Sarah - you can't say that, CJH will start calling you naïve if you don't support his views. :-)
'his' views? Hwicce? At least get my gender correct...
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @Sarah - you can't say that, CJH will start calling you naïve if you don't support his views. :-)[/p][/quote]'his' views? Hwicce? At least get my gender correct... CJH
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Wed 1 May 13

DiglisBassinet says...

A very deep sense of humour is generally the excuse for a closeted racist who desperately wants out. What is it with people that want to be Nazis on Stag weekends and fancy dress parties? What is it with this guy that would take the time and effort to photoshop himself into a very, very provocative photo?

At what point does it enter someone's mind "I know, I'll put my face THREE times as a henchman to one of the greatest mass murders the planet has ever known"?? At what point does this person's political filter have to kick in to say "Hmm, maybe this isn't such a good idea".

UKIP would be wise to distance themselves as far as possible from someone who feels that dark, offensive humour is the way to strike back at dark offensive allegations mainly coming from jumped up left-wingers. It's playing directly into the hands of their opponents and detractors.

That said, since when has UKIP been known for their wisdom? Clearly this guy is a moron on the grandest scale, and they're DEFENDING him.
A very deep sense of humour is generally the excuse for a closeted racist who desperately wants out. What is it with people that want to be Nazis on Stag weekends and fancy dress parties? What is it with this guy that would take the time and effort to photoshop himself into a very, very provocative photo? At what point does it enter someone's mind "I know, I'll put my face THREE times as a henchman to one of the greatest mass murders the planet has ever known"?? At what point does this person's political filter have to kick in to say "Hmm, maybe this isn't such a good idea". UKIP would be wise to distance themselves as far as possible from someone who feels that dark, offensive humour is the way to strike back at dark offensive allegations mainly coming from jumped up left-wingers. It's playing directly into the hands of their opponents and detractors. That said, since when has UKIP been known for their wisdom? Clearly this guy is a moron on the grandest scale, and they're DEFENDING him. DiglisBassinet
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Wed 1 May 13

bmoc55 says...

Possibly a joke, and in poor taste. But then in a free society everyone has the right to expression.
HOWEVER, there is a question over whether he is a suitable person to vote for as his action was juvenile and reinforces his lack of credibility.
Don't put this joker in the Council.
Possibly a joke, and in poor taste. But then in a free society everyone has the right to expression. HOWEVER, there is a question over whether he is a suitable person to vote for as his action was juvenile and reinforces his lack of credibility. Don't put this joker in the Council. bmoc55
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Wed 1 May 13

BadgerMash says...

I understand Mr Delingpole used to keep reptiles as a lad. Or was it the other way round? Perhaps David Icke is right and we are being taken over by Nazi lizards?

Joking apart this party political festival of propaganda and personality only high-lights the lack of any radical policy change in local government by the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, New Labour or UKIP. All variations on the same failed theme.
I understand Mr Delingpole used to keep reptiles as a lad. Or was it the other way round? Perhaps David Icke is right and we are being taken over by Nazi lizards? Joking apart this party political festival of propaganda and personality only high-lights the lack of any radical policy change in local government by the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, New Labour or UKIP. All variations on the same failed theme. BadgerMash
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Wed 1 May 13

JKay00 says...

Oh how flipping hilarious. I never knew UKIP was full of such witty existentialists. There was me thinking that they'd all been to 'the university of life' and were a bit on the thick side.
Oh how flipping hilarious. I never knew UKIP was full of such witty existentialists. There was me thinking that they'd all been to 'the university of life' and were a bit on the thick side. JKay00
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Wed 1 May 13

Europeanist64 says...

Absolutely sick and ignorant. Not for for public office at all. This so called joke is an insult to the memory of those who suffered, and those who fought the war.

There are many things wrong with the EU, but UKIP is not fit to govern at any level.
Absolutely sick and ignorant. Not for for public office at all. This so called joke is an insult to the memory of those who suffered, and those who fought the war. There are many things wrong with the EU, but UKIP is not fit to govern at any level. Europeanist64
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Wed 1 May 13

pronstar says...

I wonder what Delingpole has to say for himself and to the people he hopes to represent. He was quick to attack someone in another story's comments section, let's see if he is so quick to defend himself in this one.

Can't wait to hear what excuses Jabbadad, MoreTeaVicar & Lewscmozel's have lined up for him.
I wonder what Delingpole has to say for himself and to the people he hopes to represent. He was quick to attack someone in another story's comments section, let's see if he is so quick to defend himself in this one. Can't wait to hear what excuses Jabbadad, MoreTeaVicar & Lewscmozel's have lined up for him. pronstar
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Wed 1 May 13

Europeanist64 says...

What if this man was elected, and then sat on the Education and Social Services committee of Worcestershire County Council? Not worth thinking about is it?
What if this man was elected, and then sat on the Education and Social Services committee of Worcestershire County Council? Not worth thinking about is it? Europeanist64
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Wed 1 May 13

Mary79 says...

maybe he could sit on the scrutiny committee?
maybe he could sit on the scrutiny committee? Mary79
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Wed 1 May 13

ushmush83 says...

I'm not a UKIP supporter, but if you are offended by this then you should probably just give up on life.
I'm not a UKIP supporter, but if you are offended by this then you should probably just give up on life. ushmush83
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Wed 1 May 13

DiglisBassinet says...

ushmush83 wrote:
I'm not a UKIP supporter, but if you are offended by this then you should probably just give up on life.
I'm not personally offended by it, in fact I find it a hysterical lack of judgement for a man that's putting himself forward for public office.

There are, however, millions of people who's lives have been directly affected that may disagree with you.
[quote][p][bold]ushmush83[/bold] wrote: I'm not a UKIP supporter, but if you are offended by this then you should probably just give up on life.[/p][/quote]I'm not personally offended by it, in fact I find it a hysterical lack of judgement for a man that's putting himself forward for public office. There are, however, millions of people who's lives have been directly affected that may disagree with you. DiglisBassinet
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Wed 1 May 13

Letterman says...

This may sound controversial, but if UKIP do have right wing views, and with their key policies being immigration and the EU, I suspect there are more people than we think who support their views. Immigration and foreign people in the UK is a hot topic at the moment, but it's also at the forefront of many people's minds and I suspect these people would like see the UK returned to its indigenous population. I believe that inherent and institutional racism is increasing in the UK and some parties are gaining widespread and increased support as a result.
This may sound controversial, but if UKIP do have right wing views, and with their key policies being immigration and the EU, I suspect there are more people than we think who support their views. Immigration and foreign people in the UK is a hot topic at the moment, but it's also at the forefront of many people's minds and I suspect these people would like see the UK returned to its indigenous population. I believe that inherent and institutional racism is increasing in the UK and some parties are gaining widespread and increased support as a result. Letterman
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Wed 1 May 13

i-cycle says...

Me thinks Ken Clark may be wrong.

"Clowns" are amusing and don't have malicious intent.

Please think very carefully about who and what you're voting for (not against) tomorrow.

But more importantly please do vote.
Me thinks Ken Clark may be wrong. "Clowns" are amusing and don't have malicious intent. Please think very carefully about who and what you're voting for (not against) tomorrow. But more importantly please do vote. i-cycle
  • Score: 1

4:21pm Wed 1 May 13

i-cycle says...

Letterman wrote:
This may sound controversial, but if UKIP do have right wing views, and with their key policies being immigration and the EU, I suspect there are more people than we think who support their views. Immigration and foreign people in the UK is a hot topic at the moment, but it's also at the forefront of many people's minds and I suspect these people would like see the UK returned to its indigenous population. I believe that inherent and institutional racism is increasing in the UK and some parties are gaining widespread and increased support as a result.
The true indigenous population of the UK are the Welsh, Cornish, Picts and Scots.

The rest of us are just immigrants who arrived over the centuries.

But I'm sure Plaid Cymru and the SNP would welcome the opportunity!

IMHO the past waves of immigration has only helped us to become a stronger, better, more dynamic and entrepreneurial nation.

I'm sure we all agree it needs to be controlled better, but the misinformed and all to often overtly malicious portrayal of recent immigrants as being the cause of our society's problems is simply unfounded.
[quote][p][bold]Letterman[/bold] wrote: This may sound controversial, but if UKIP do have right wing views, and with their key policies being immigration and the EU, I suspect there are more people than we think who support their views. Immigration and foreign people in the UK is a hot topic at the moment, but it's also at the forefront of many people's minds and I suspect these people would like see the UK returned to its indigenous population. I believe that inherent and institutional racism is increasing in the UK and some parties are gaining widespread and increased support as a result.[/p][/quote]The true indigenous population of the UK are the Welsh, Cornish, Picts and Scots. The rest of us are just immigrants who arrived over the centuries. But I'm sure Plaid Cymru and the SNP would welcome the opportunity! IMHO the past waves of immigration has only helped us to become a stronger, better, more dynamic and entrepreneurial nation. I'm sure we all agree it needs to be controlled better, but the misinformed and all to often overtly malicious portrayal of recent immigrants as being the cause of our society's problems is simply unfounded. i-cycle
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Wed 1 May 13

laidback says...

Only an S.A. Truppfuhrer? Surely of insufficient rank for membership of the Worcestershire Reichstag.
Only an S.A. Truppfuhrer? Surely of insufficient rank for membership of the Worcestershire Reichstag. laidback
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Wed 1 May 13

pinkfluff says...

"many a true word spoken in jest" sums it up for me. I'm not shocked or surprised at this either, true colours I do believe. Very offensive imho.
"many a true word spoken in jest" sums it up for me. I'm not shocked or surprised at this either, true colours I do believe. Very offensive imho. pinkfluff
  • Score: 0

5:58pm Wed 1 May 13

i-cycle says...

bmoc55 wrote:
Possibly a joke, and in poor taste. But then in a free society everyone has the right to expression.
HOWEVER, there is a question over whether he is a suitable person to vote for as his action was juvenile and reinforces his lack of credibility.
Don't put this joker in the Council.
What do you expect from someone who dresses up in uniforms and plays with toy soldiers.

It so obvious UKIP are willing to put forward candidates who are so obviously completely unsuitable for public office.

You get what you vote for!
[quote][p][bold]bmoc55[/bold] wrote: Possibly a joke, and in poor taste. But then in a free society everyone has the right to expression. HOWEVER, there is a question over whether he is a suitable person to vote for as his action was juvenile and reinforces his lack of credibility. Don't put this joker in the Council.[/p][/quote]What do you expect from someone who dresses up in uniforms and plays with toy soldiers. It so obvious UKIP are willing to put forward candidates who are so obviously completely unsuitable for public office. You get what you vote for! i-cycle
  • Score: 1

6:05pm Wed 1 May 13

Landy44 says...

REALLY? and this numpty expects to be taken seriously? Our politicians are going from inadequate to commically inadequate.
REALLY? and this numpty expects to be taken seriously? Our politicians are going from inadequate to commically inadequate. Landy44
  • Score: 1

7:11pm Wed 1 May 13

The Doosra says...

Mr Delingpole has shown himself to be totally unfitted to public office by this ridiculous prank.
Mr Delingpole has shown himself to be totally unfitted to public office by this ridiculous prank. The Doosra
  • Score: 1

7:12pm Wed 1 May 13

Redhillman says...

This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.
This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from. Redhillman
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Wed 1 May 13

Lew Smoralz says...

" Carl Humphries, the branch organiser for Worcester and Mid-Worcestershire, said he would not be thrown out of the party.

“I can assure you he is definitely not a Nazi or anything like that - he’s got a very deep sense of humour,” he said. "

The man is a p*ll*ck of the first degree! There have been thousands of similar idiots standing for the LibLabCon over the last century, and UKIP do not have a monopoly.

After all the hard work put in by devoted party members over the last years this fool comes along and prejudices it all. I hope that he never gets in a position to damage UKIP again.
" Carl Humphries, the branch organiser for Worcester and Mid-Worcestershire, said he would not be thrown out of the party. “I can assure you he is definitely not a Nazi or anything like that - he’s got a very deep sense of humour,” he said. " The man is a p*ll*ck of the first degree! There have been thousands of similar idiots standing for the LibLabCon over the last century, and UKIP do not have a monopoly. After all the hard work put in by devoted party members over the last years this fool comes along and prejudices it all. I hope that he never gets in a position to damage UKIP again. Lew Smoralz
  • Score: 1

7:25pm Wed 1 May 13

CJH says...

Redhillman wrote:
This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.
"They have local views and policies in mind" Please don't say you've fallen for this old claptrap. Farage has his own agenda. And it's not fixing potholes that's at the top of it. He wants power. Power to implement his own petty minded bigoted policies. I fear for all of us.
[quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.[/p][/quote]"They have local views and policies in mind" Please don't say you've fallen for this old claptrap. Farage has his own agenda. And it's not fixing potholes that's at the top of it. He wants power. Power to implement his own petty minded bigoted policies. I fear for all of us. CJH
  • Score: 1

8:22pm Wed 1 May 13

AlfredTheGreat says...

i-cycle wrote:
Letterman wrote:
This may sound controversial, but if UKIP do have right wing views, and with their key policies being immigration and the EU, I suspect there are more people than we think who support their views. Immigration and foreign people in the UK is a hot topic at the moment, but it's also at the forefront of many people's minds and I suspect these people would like see the UK returned to its indigenous population. I believe that inherent and institutional racism is increasing in the UK and some parties are gaining widespread and increased support as a result.
The true indigenous population of the UK are the Welsh, Cornish, Picts and Scots.

The rest of us are just immigrants who arrived over the centuries.

But I'm sure Plaid Cymru and the SNP would welcome the opportunity!

IMHO the past waves of immigration has only helped us to become a stronger, better, more dynamic and entrepreneurial nation.

I'm sure we all agree it needs to be controlled better, but the misinformed and all to often overtly malicious portrayal of recent immigrants as being the cause of our society's problems is simply unfounded.
Controlled and assimilated migration is vastly different to open-door migration which places strain on local services and public finances. That is UKIP's point which you have accepted - well done you've won yourself round to common sense. Remember it is only because of UKIP that immigration is even on the agenda. Democracy is alive and kicking it seems, despite the best efforts of Labour and the Coalition to kill it.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Letterman[/bold] wrote: This may sound controversial, but if UKIP do have right wing views, and with their key policies being immigration and the EU, I suspect there are more people than we think who support their views. Immigration and foreign people in the UK is a hot topic at the moment, but it's also at the forefront of many people's minds and I suspect these people would like see the UK returned to its indigenous population. I believe that inherent and institutional racism is increasing in the UK and some parties are gaining widespread and increased support as a result.[/p][/quote]The true indigenous population of the UK are the Welsh, Cornish, Picts and Scots. The rest of us are just immigrants who arrived over the centuries. But I'm sure Plaid Cymru and the SNP would welcome the opportunity! IMHO the past waves of immigration has only helped us to become a stronger, better, more dynamic and entrepreneurial nation. I'm sure we all agree it needs to be controlled better, but the misinformed and all to often overtly malicious portrayal of recent immigrants as being the cause of our society's problems is simply unfounded.[/p][/quote]Controlled and assimilated migration is vastly different to open-door migration which places strain on local services and public finances. That is UKIP's point which you have accepted - well done you've won yourself round to common sense. Remember it is only because of UKIP that immigration is even on the agenda. Democracy is alive and kicking it seems, despite the best efforts of Labour and the Coalition to kill it. AlfredTheGreat
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Wed 1 May 13

WilkoJ says...

Redhillman wrote:
This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.
Some will discredit your comments in support for the true clowns that are Labour, Conservatives and the LibDems, who do little to focus on local services and are more concerned about issues which many people list as lesser priority. Not to mention the constant rhetoric and bickering between these parties which is embarrassing and nothing more than a comedy show.

UKIP may possibly have some extreme views, but could it be that they're brave enough to speak aloud and actually spell out what so many people genuinely feel about immigration and ethnic minorities?

And with what you say about UKIP's shake up of County Hall staff, that in itself is worthy of people's votes to ensure local services are delivered in a better way than they are now, and to give staff a much needed kick up the backside.
[quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.[/p][/quote]Some will discredit your comments in support for the true clowns that are Labour, Conservatives and the LibDems, who do little to focus on local services and are more concerned about issues which many people list as lesser priority. Not to mention the constant rhetoric and bickering between these parties which is embarrassing and nothing more than a comedy show. UKIP may possibly have some extreme views, but could it be that they're brave enough to speak aloud and actually spell out what so many people genuinely feel about immigration and ethnic minorities? And with what you say about UKIP's shake up of County Hall staff, that in itself is worthy of people's votes to ensure local services are delivered in a better way than they are now, and to give staff a much needed kick up the backside. WilkoJ
  • Score: 0

11:52pm Wed 1 May 13

The Doosra says...

Redhillman wrote:
This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.
You're a racist and a fool
[quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.[/p][/quote]You're a racist and a fool The Doosra
  • Score: 0

11:56pm Wed 1 May 13

The Doosra says...

WilkoJ wrote:
Redhillman wrote:
This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.
Some will discredit your comments in support for the true clowns that are Labour, Conservatives and the LibDems, who do little to focus on local services and are more concerned about issues which many people list as lesser priority. Not to mention the constant rhetoric and bickering between these parties which is embarrassing and nothing more than a comedy show.

UKIP may possibly have some extreme views, but could it be that they're brave enough to speak aloud and actually spell out what so many people genuinely feel about immigration and ethnic minorities?

And with what you say about UKIP's shake up of County Hall staff, that in itself is worthy of people's votes to ensure local services are delivered in a better way than they are now, and to give staff a much needed kick up the backside.
And you are totally divorced from reality too.

You NEVER engage in debate: you simply trot out this myopic "private sector good, public sector bad" mantra - and never provide any evidence to back up your case. Put up or shut up - please.
[quote][p][bold]WilkoJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.[/p][/quote]Some will discredit your comments in support for the true clowns that are Labour, Conservatives and the LibDems, who do little to focus on local services and are more concerned about issues which many people list as lesser priority. Not to mention the constant rhetoric and bickering between these parties which is embarrassing and nothing more than a comedy show. UKIP may possibly have some extreme views, but could it be that they're brave enough to speak aloud and actually spell out what so many people genuinely feel about immigration and ethnic minorities? And with what you say about UKIP's shake up of County Hall staff, that in itself is worthy of people's votes to ensure local services are delivered in a better way than they are now, and to give staff a much needed kick up the backside.[/p][/quote]And you are totally divorced from reality too. You NEVER engage in debate: you simply trot out this myopic "private sector good, public sector bad" mantra - and never provide any evidence to back up your case. Put up or shut up - please. The Doosra
  • Score: 0

8:31am Thu 2 May 13

Keith B says...

It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP.

In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent.

It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service.

But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look.

So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post.

And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP.

Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power.

I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community.

The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power.

The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.
It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP. In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent. It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service. But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look. So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post. And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP. Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power. I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community. The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power. The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that. Keith B
  • Score: 0

8:49am Thu 2 May 13

vertis43ad says...

Hitler & Delingpole.and UKIP. What did shock me was the Worcester News probably for the first time in 68 years filling the whole of the front page with a story which included a large photo dominated by the image of Adolf Hitler.
Hitler & Delingpole.and UKIP. What did shock me was the Worcester News probably for the first time in 68 years filling the whole of the front page with a story which included a large photo dominated by the image of Adolf Hitler. vertis43ad
  • Score: 0

8:50am Thu 2 May 13

More Tea Vicar says...

The Doosra wrote:
WilkoJ wrote:
Redhillman wrote:
This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.
Some will discredit your comments in support for the true clowns that are Labour, Conservatives and the LibDems, who do little to focus on local services and are more concerned about issues which many people list as lesser priority. Not to mention the constant rhetoric and bickering between these parties which is embarrassing and nothing more than a comedy show.

UKIP may possibly have some extreme views, but could it be that they're brave enough to speak aloud and actually spell out what so many people genuinely feel about immigration and ethnic minorities?

And with what you say about UKIP's shake up of County Hall staff, that in itself is worthy of people's votes to ensure local services are delivered in a better way than they are now, and to give staff a much needed kick up the backside.
And you are totally divorced from reality too.

You NEVER engage in debate: you simply trot out this myopic "private sector good, public sector bad" mantra - and never provide any evidence to back up your case. Put up or shut up - please.
I think UKIP's issue is absolutely NOT with local govt in general. It just wants to see better services, with money going to the front line, not non-jobs and not on high salaries at the top. That's actually a message that appeals to quite a lot of public sector workers.

There is a debate to be had about the merits and appropriateness of public v private sector. Our European neighbours have health services that tend to be way better than ours, for example, and they are way more private-sector than ours, and largely insurance/contributi
ons based.

Unfortunately, that debate, the one we actually need, doesn't happen.
[quote][p][bold]The Doosra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WilkoJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.[/p][/quote]Some will discredit your comments in support for the true clowns that are Labour, Conservatives and the LibDems, who do little to focus on local services and are more concerned about issues which many people list as lesser priority. Not to mention the constant rhetoric and bickering between these parties which is embarrassing and nothing more than a comedy show. UKIP may possibly have some extreme views, but could it be that they're brave enough to speak aloud and actually spell out what so many people genuinely feel about immigration and ethnic minorities? And with what you say about UKIP's shake up of County Hall staff, that in itself is worthy of people's votes to ensure local services are delivered in a better way than they are now, and to give staff a much needed kick up the backside.[/p][/quote]And you are totally divorced from reality too. You NEVER engage in debate: you simply trot out this myopic "private sector good, public sector bad" mantra - and never provide any evidence to back up your case. Put up or shut up - please.[/p][/quote]I think UKIP's issue is absolutely NOT with local govt in general. It just wants to see better services, with money going to the front line, not non-jobs and not on high salaries at the top. That's actually a message that appeals to quite a lot of public sector workers. There is a debate to be had about the merits and appropriateness of public v private sector. Our European neighbours have health services that tend to be way better than ours, for example, and they are way more private-sector than ours, and largely insurance/contributi ons based. Unfortunately, that debate, the one we actually need, doesn't happen. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

9:13am Thu 2 May 13

AlfredTheGreat says...

Keith B wrote:
It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP.

In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent.

It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service.

But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look.

So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post.

And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP.

Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power.

I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community.

The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power.

The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.
PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.
[quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP. In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent. It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service. But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look. So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post. And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP. Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power. I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community. The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power. The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.[/p][/quote]PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day. AlfredTheGreat
  • Score: 0

9:43am Thu 2 May 13

Keith B says...

Whipping elected people in the small party's is like trying to heard cats, because they are really the people setting the agenda's for their Party's. They are in effect their own leaders. So Alfred is totally correct - they are in effect independents or at least have an independent type of approach to their position - therefore are much more able to represent their electorate than those from big Party's who are told how to vote even if it is against the wishes of their electorate.

As I said - the established Party's need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Whipping elected people in the small party's is like trying to heard cats, because they are really the people setting the agenda's for their Party's. They are in effect their own leaders. So Alfred is totally correct - they are in effect independents or at least have an independent type of approach to their position - therefore are much more able to represent their electorate than those from big Party's who are told how to vote even if it is against the wishes of their electorate. As I said - the established Party's need to wake up and smell the coffee. Keith B
  • Score: 0

9:56am Thu 2 May 13

i-cycle says...

AlfredTheGreat wrote:
Keith B wrote:
It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP.

In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent.

It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service.

But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look.

So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post.

And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP.

Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power.

I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community.

The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power.

The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.
PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.
The downside to this is you don't actually know what an indivudal candidate is standing for.

From a recent contact with a UKIP candidate he obviously didn't have a clue what was in his own party' s manifesto and actually said things that contradicted it.

So when it comes to vote UKIP are we voting for a party with coherent policies (I'll leave that to your own judgement!) or an 'independent' who can effectively say or do what they want as long as they haven't been a BNP member and don't raise their right arm too much.
[quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP. In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent. It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service. But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look. So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post. And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP. Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power. I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community. The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power. The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.[/p][/quote]PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.[/p][/quote]The downside to this is you don't actually know what an indivudal candidate is standing for. From a recent contact with a UKIP candidate he obviously didn't have a clue what was in his own party' s manifesto and actually said things that contradicted it. So when it comes to vote UKIP are we voting for a party with coherent policies (I'll leave that to your own judgement!) or an 'independent' who can effectively say or do what they want as long as they haven't been a BNP member and don't raise their right arm too much. i-cycle
  • Score: 1

6:27pm Thu 2 May 13

The Doosra says...

More Tea Vicar wrote:
The Doosra wrote:
WilkoJ wrote:
Redhillman wrote:
This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.
Some will discredit your comments in support for the true clowns that are Labour, Conservatives and the LibDems, who do little to focus on local services and are more concerned about issues which many people list as lesser priority. Not to mention the constant rhetoric and bickering between these parties which is embarrassing and nothing more than a comedy show.

UKIP may possibly have some extreme views, but could it be that they're brave enough to speak aloud and actually spell out what so many people genuinely feel about immigration and ethnic minorities?

And with what you say about UKIP's shake up of County Hall staff, that in itself is worthy of people's votes to ensure local services are delivered in a better way than they are now, and to give staff a much needed kick up the backside.
And you are totally divorced from reality too.

You NEVER engage in debate: you simply trot out this myopic "private sector good, public sector bad" mantra - and never provide any evidence to back up your case. Put up or shut up - please.
I think UKIP's issue is absolutely NOT with local govt in general. It just wants to see better services, with money going to the front line, not non-jobs and not on high salaries at the top. That's actually a message that appeals to quite a lot of public sector workers.

There is a debate to be had about the merits and appropriateness of public v private sector. Our European neighbours have health services that tend to be way better than ours, for example, and they are way more private-sector than ours, and largely insurance/contributi

ons based.

Unfortunately, that debate, the one we actually need, doesn't happen.
We need to go back to first principles and determine precisely what services are best delivered locally. Then we can decide the "who does what" bit, involving not just the public and private sectors but the voluntary sector as well.

My guess is that it would be a combination of all three, building on the expertise built up over many years (and I don't use the word lightly) in the public and voluntary sectors allied to strong commercial mangement skills from the private sector.
[quote][p][bold]More Tea Vicar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Doosra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WilkoJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: This story apart, UKIP want to see council staff wages at County Hall reduced substantially in return for more money to deliver local services, like road repairs and education, a reduction in excessive time off entitlement and a cessation of overtime payments and perks. They also want to see officers taking responsibility for their actions and held to account if they fail in their duties or make a costly and serious error of judgement, while they also want to see the public have more of a say in services and give hem greater power to demand what they want. They have local views and policies in mind, while it is important to vote for local reasons as its County Hall where your money goes too and where services come from.[/p][/quote]Some will discredit your comments in support for the true clowns that are Labour, Conservatives and the LibDems, who do little to focus on local services and are more concerned about issues which many people list as lesser priority. Not to mention the constant rhetoric and bickering between these parties which is embarrassing and nothing more than a comedy show. UKIP may possibly have some extreme views, but could it be that they're brave enough to speak aloud and actually spell out what so many people genuinely feel about immigration and ethnic minorities? And with what you say about UKIP's shake up of County Hall staff, that in itself is worthy of people's votes to ensure local services are delivered in a better way than they are now, and to give staff a much needed kick up the backside.[/p][/quote]And you are totally divorced from reality too. You NEVER engage in debate: you simply trot out this myopic "private sector good, public sector bad" mantra - and never provide any evidence to back up your case. Put up or shut up - please.[/p][/quote]I think UKIP's issue is absolutely NOT with local govt in general. It just wants to see better services, with money going to the front line, not non-jobs and not on high salaries at the top. That's actually a message that appeals to quite a lot of public sector workers. There is a debate to be had about the merits and appropriateness of public v private sector. Our European neighbours have health services that tend to be way better than ours, for example, and they are way more private-sector than ours, and largely insurance/contributi ons based. Unfortunately, that debate, the one we actually need, doesn't happen.[/p][/quote]We need to go back to first principles and determine precisely what services are best delivered locally. Then we can decide the "who does what" bit, involving not just the public and private sectors but the voluntary sector as well. My guess is that it would be a combination of all three, building on the expertise built up over many years (and I don't use the word lightly) in the public and voluntary sectors allied to strong commercial mangement skills from the private sector. The Doosra
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Thu 2 May 13

AlfredTheGreat says...

i-cycle wrote:
AlfredTheGreat wrote:
Keith B wrote:
It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP.

In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent.

It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service.

But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look.

So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post.

And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP.

Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power.

I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community.

The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power.

The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.
PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.
The downside to this is you don't actually know what an indivudal candidate is standing for.

From a recent contact with a UKIP candidate he obviously didn't have a clue what was in his own party' s manifesto and actually said things that contradicted it.

So when it comes to vote UKIP are we voting for a party with coherent policies (I'll leave that to your own judgement!) or an 'independent' who can effectively say or do what they want as long as they haven't been a BNP member and don't raise their right arm too much.
Leaving aside the unnecessary slander about right arm raising, you seem to be missing the link to UKIP's local manifesto. Here it is to save you having to lift your right hand to Google it: http://www.ukipworce
ster.org.uk/ukip_loc
al_manifesto.html and don't forget to vote UKIp like everyone else seems to be doing ;-)
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP. In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent. It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service. But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look. So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post. And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP. Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power. I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community. The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power. The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.[/p][/quote]PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.[/p][/quote]The downside to this is you don't actually know what an indivudal candidate is standing for. From a recent contact with a UKIP candidate he obviously didn't have a clue what was in his own party' s manifesto and actually said things that contradicted it. So when it comes to vote UKIP are we voting for a party with coherent policies (I'll leave that to your own judgement!) or an 'independent' who can effectively say or do what they want as long as they haven't been a BNP member and don't raise their right arm too much.[/p][/quote]Leaving aside the unnecessary slander about right arm raising, you seem to be missing the link to UKIP's local manifesto. Here it is to save you having to lift your right hand to Google it: http://www.ukipworce ster.org.uk/ukip_loc al_manifesto.html and don't forget to vote UKIp like everyone else seems to be doing ;-) AlfredTheGreat
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Thu 2 May 13

i-cycle says...

AlfredTheGreat wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
AlfredTheGreat wrote:
Keith B wrote:
It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP.

In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent.

It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service.

But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look.

So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post.

And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP.

Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power.

I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community.

The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power.

The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.
PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.
The downside to this is you don't actually know what an indivudal candidate is standing for.

From a recent contact with a UKIP candidate he obviously didn't have a clue what was in his own party' s manifesto and actually said things that contradicted it.

So when it comes to vote UKIP are we voting for a party with coherent policies (I'll leave that to your own judgement!) or an 'independent' who can effectively say or do what they want as long as they haven't been a BNP member and don't raise their right arm too much.
Leaving aside the unnecessary slander about right arm raising, you seem to be missing the link to UKIP's local manifesto. Here it is to save you having to lift your right hand to Google it: http://www.ukipworce

ster.org.uk/ukip_loc

al_manifesto.html and don't forget to vote UKIp like everyone else seems to be doing ;-)
HI Alfred The Grate

I think you mean libel.

Either way I was referring to an actual case that even UKIP could not stomach, even if they're happy to support a local candidate that dresses up in military uniforms, plays war games with toy soldiers and goes out of his way to associate himself with Adolf Hitler because he has such a good sense of humour. Just the sort of candidate we want to have control over running Education and Social Services.

The link you provided also didn't seem to work.

Not that I'm particularly bothered as I've had a long and close look at your national manifesto.

I'm sure if more people bothered to look at the detail rather rhetoric of what UKIP stand for they'd realise they're not fit to stand for local public office.

Even more so when a local candidate goes out of his way to prove the point and another supporter on these pages suggests I'm being unfair on a new party that still has to learn 'the tricks of the trade'.

'Clowns' are great in a circus, but probably not all that good at running a County Council.

Two and a half hours left to vote. Please think who you're voting for and vote wisely.
[quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP. In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent. It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service. But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look. So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post. And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP. Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power. I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community. The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power. The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.[/p][/quote]PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.[/p][/quote]The downside to this is you don't actually know what an indivudal candidate is standing for. From a recent contact with a UKIP candidate he obviously didn't have a clue what was in his own party' s manifesto and actually said things that contradicted it. So when it comes to vote UKIP are we voting for a party with coherent policies (I'll leave that to your own judgement!) or an 'independent' who can effectively say or do what they want as long as they haven't been a BNP member and don't raise their right arm too much.[/p][/quote]Leaving aside the unnecessary slander about right arm raising, you seem to be missing the link to UKIP's local manifesto. Here it is to save you having to lift your right hand to Google it: http://www.ukipworce ster.org.uk/ukip_loc al_manifesto.html and don't forget to vote UKIp like everyone else seems to be doing ;-)[/p][/quote]HI Alfred The Grate I think you mean libel. Either way I was referring to an actual case that even UKIP could not stomach, even if they're happy to support a local candidate that dresses up in military uniforms, plays war games with toy soldiers and goes out of his way to associate himself with Adolf Hitler because he has such a good sense of humour. Just the sort of candidate we want to have control over running Education and Social Services. The link you provided also didn't seem to work. Not that I'm particularly bothered as I've had a long and close look at your national manifesto. I'm sure if more people bothered to look at the detail rather rhetoric of what UKIP stand for they'd realise they're not fit to stand for local public office. Even more so when a local candidate goes out of his way to prove the point and another supporter on these pages suggests I'm being unfair on a new party that still has to learn 'the tricks of the trade'. 'Clowns' are great in a circus, but probably not all that good at running a County Council. Two and a half hours left to vote. Please think who you're voting for and vote wisely. i-cycle
  • Score: 1

8:07pm Thu 2 May 13

AlfredTheGreat says...

i-cycle wrote:
AlfredTheGreat wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
AlfredTheGreat wrote:
Keith B wrote:
It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP.

In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent.

It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service.

But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look.

So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post.

And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP.

Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power.

I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community.

The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power.

The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.
PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.
The downside to this is you don't actually know what an indivudal candidate is standing for.

From a recent contact with a UKIP candidate he obviously didn't have a clue what was in his own party' s manifesto and actually said things that contradicted it.

So when it comes to vote UKIP are we voting for a party with coherent policies (I'll leave that to your own judgement!) or an 'independent' who can effectively say or do what they want as long as they haven't been a BNP member and don't raise their right arm too much.
Leaving aside the unnecessary slander about right arm raising, you seem to be missing the link to UKIP's local manifesto. Here it is to save you having to lift your right hand to Google it: http://www.ukipworce


ster.org.uk/ukip_loc


al_manifesto.html and don't forget to vote UKIp like everyone else seems to be doing ;-)
HI Alfred The Grate

I think you mean libel.

Either way I was referring to an actual case that even UKIP could not stomach, even if they're happy to support a local candidate that dresses up in military uniforms, plays war games with toy soldiers and goes out of his way to associate himself with Adolf Hitler because he has such a good sense of humour. Just the sort of candidate we want to have control over running Education and Social Services.

The link you provided also didn't seem to work.

Not that I'm particularly bothered as I've had a long and close look at your national manifesto.

I'm sure if more people bothered to look at the detail rather rhetoric of what UKIP stand for they'd realise they're not fit to stand for local public office.

Even more so when a local candidate goes out of his way to prove the point and another supporter on these pages suggests I'm being unfair on a new party that still has to learn 'the tricks of the trade'.

'Clowns' are great in a circus, but probably not all that good at running a County Council.

Two and a half hours left to vote. Please think who you're voting for and vote wisely.
You're quite right, you were being libellous and not slanderous. Either way, it is a typical form of attack against an upcoming party made up of ordinary people who are prepared to fight for what they believe in. And they shouldn't have to "learn the tricks of the trade" that would just make them like the real clowns - you know, the ones who have messed up the economy royally and at a local level believe building a £1bn incinerator in the county is a good thing to do.Two hours left to vote, vote for common sense not professional politicians who simply tow the party line.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP. In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent. It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service. But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look. So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post. And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP. Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power. I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community. The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power. The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.[/p][/quote]PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.[/p][/quote]The downside to this is you don't actually know what an indivudal candidate is standing for. From a recent contact with a UKIP candidate he obviously didn't have a clue what was in his own party' s manifesto and actually said things that contradicted it. So when it comes to vote UKIP are we voting for a party with coherent policies (I'll leave that to your own judgement!) or an 'independent' who can effectively say or do what they want as long as they haven't been a BNP member and don't raise their right arm too much.[/p][/quote]Leaving aside the unnecessary slander about right arm raising, you seem to be missing the link to UKIP's local manifesto. Here it is to save you having to lift your right hand to Google it: http://www.ukipworce ster.org.uk/ukip_loc al_manifesto.html and don't forget to vote UKIp like everyone else seems to be doing ;-)[/p][/quote]HI Alfred The Grate I think you mean libel. Either way I was referring to an actual case that even UKIP could not stomach, even if they're happy to support a local candidate that dresses up in military uniforms, plays war games with toy soldiers and goes out of his way to associate himself with Adolf Hitler because he has such a good sense of humour. Just the sort of candidate we want to have control over running Education and Social Services. The link you provided also didn't seem to work. Not that I'm particularly bothered as I've had a long and close look at your national manifesto. I'm sure if more people bothered to look at the detail rather rhetoric of what UKIP stand for they'd realise they're not fit to stand for local public office. Even more so when a local candidate goes out of his way to prove the point and another supporter on these pages suggests I'm being unfair on a new party that still has to learn 'the tricks of the trade'. 'Clowns' are great in a circus, but probably not all that good at running a County Council. Two and a half hours left to vote. Please think who you're voting for and vote wisely.[/p][/quote]You're quite right, you were being libellous and not slanderous. Either way, it is a typical form of attack against an upcoming party made up of ordinary people who are prepared to fight for what they believe in. And they shouldn't have to "learn the tricks of the trade" that would just make them like the real clowns - you know, the ones who have messed up the economy royally and at a local level believe building a £1bn incinerator in the county is a good thing to do.Two hours left to vote, vote for common sense not professional politicians who simply tow the party line. AlfredTheGreat
  • Score: -1

8:49pm Thu 2 May 13

i-cycle says...

AlfredTheGreat wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
AlfredTheGreat wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
AlfredTheGreat wrote:
Keith B wrote:
It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP.

In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent.

It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service.

But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look.

So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post.

And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP.

Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power.

I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community.

The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power.

The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.
PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.
The downside to this is you don't actually know what an indivudal candidate is standing for.

From a recent contact with a UKIP candidate he obviously didn't have a clue what was in his own party' s manifesto and actually said things that contradicted it.

So when it comes to vote UKIP are we voting for a party with coherent policies (I'll leave that to your own judgement!) or an 'independent' who can effectively say or do what they want as long as they haven't been a BNP member and don't raise their right arm too much.
Leaving aside the unnecessary slander about right arm raising, you seem to be missing the link to UKIP's local manifesto. Here it is to save you having to lift your right hand to Google it: http://www.ukipworce



ster.org.uk/ukip_loc



al_manifesto.html and don't forget to vote UKIp like everyone else seems to be doing ;-)
HI Alfred The Grate

I think you mean libel.

Either way I was referring to an actual case that even UKIP could not stomach, even if they're happy to support a local candidate that dresses up in military uniforms, plays war games with toy soldiers and goes out of his way to associate himself with Adolf Hitler because he has such a good sense of humour. Just the sort of candidate we want to have control over running Education and Social Services.

The link you provided also didn't seem to work.

Not that I'm particularly bothered as I've had a long and close look at your national manifesto.

I'm sure if more people bothered to look at the detail rather rhetoric of what UKIP stand for they'd realise they're not fit to stand for local public office.

Even more so when a local candidate goes out of his way to prove the point and another supporter on these pages suggests I'm being unfair on a new party that still has to learn 'the tricks of the trade'.

'Clowns' are great in a circus, but probably not all that good at running a County Council.

Two and a half hours left to vote. Please think who you're voting for and vote wisely.
You're quite right, you were being libellous and not slanderous. Either way, it is a typical form of attack against an upcoming party made up of ordinary people who are prepared to fight for what they believe in. And they shouldn't have to "learn the tricks of the trade" that would just make them like the real clowns - you know, the ones who have messed up the economy royally and at a local level believe building a £1bn incinerator in the county is a good thing to do.Two hours left to vote, vote for common sense not professional politicians who simply tow the party line.
Actually I wasn't being either. I was making a statement of fact, but it obviously does't seem to concern you.

A couple of quick questions.

As a UKIP supporter do you support and find it amusing that one of your local candidates Richard Delingpole deliberately posted photoshopped images of himself with Adolf Hitler?

And if you do are you seriously suggesting he's a suitable candidate to be involved in running our local county council services?
[quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: It's interesting how "the establishment" which includes the media organisations as well as the three long established Party's, round on any small party that raises it's head above the parapit - be it UKIP, the Greens or indeed the SDP. In the main people who stand for election do so because they want to put something back in to their communities. They do so because they have a sense that the way they see things is the right route to follow for the good of the community and sometimes they think that they can better represent the community than the incumbent. It is later, after they are elected, that a few turn to the dark side where power becomes their motivation rather than service. But the adversarial way politics work is that often you are not elected for how good you are but on how bad you can make your opponent look. So mostly we get nasty elections and clowns in post. And yet, I listen to Farage of UKIP and think what a lot of common sense he talks. I listen to Bennett of the Greens and find the woman a total idiot. Yet instinctively I'd be more likely to vote Green than UKIP. Politics is complex but the Tory's, Labour and to an extent the Lib Dems are frightened to death that others are starting to encroach on their monopoly of power. I think we will see a rise in the future of groups like Herefordshires "It's OUR County" - local people, unaffiliated to mainsteam Party's, who are interested in their local community. The world is changing and at the moment neither the media or the Tory/Labour Alliance seem to have grasped that they have given up belief in a truly democratic process in order to maintain their status quo of power. The only truly democratic answer on a multi party situation we are now in is some kind of proportional representation - and the Tory/Labour Alliance are never going to allow that.[/p][/quote]PR would certainly help the smaller parties and in theory lead to consensus government. But then has that worked in practice as you see with the Coalition? Hmmm, will be some mixed views on that I'm sure. Coincidentally, UKIP do not whip their local candidates and allow them to fully represent the views of their constituents rather than just tow the party line. That effectively makes them independent. Food for thought on polling day.[/p][/quote]The downside to this is you don't actually know what an indivudal candidate is standing for. From a recent contact with a UKIP candidate he obviously didn't have a clue what was in his own party' s manifesto and actually said things that contradicted it. So when it comes to vote UKIP are we voting for a party with coherent policies (I'll leave that to your own judgement!) or an 'independent' who can effectively say or do what they want as long as they haven't been a BNP member and don't raise their right arm too much.[/p][/quote]Leaving aside the unnecessary slander about right arm raising, you seem to be missing the link to UKIP's local manifesto. Here it is to save you having to lift your right hand to Google it: http://www.ukipworce ster.org.uk/ukip_loc al_manifesto.html and don't forget to vote UKIp like everyone else seems to be doing ;-)[/p][/quote]HI Alfred The Grate I think you mean libel. Either way I was referring to an actual case that even UKIP could not stomach, even if they're happy to support a local candidate that dresses up in military uniforms, plays war games with toy soldiers and goes out of his way to associate himself with Adolf Hitler because he has such a good sense of humour. Just the sort of candidate we want to have control over running Education and Social Services. The link you provided also didn't seem to work. Not that I'm particularly bothered as I've had a long and close look at your national manifesto. I'm sure if more people bothered to look at the detail rather rhetoric of what UKIP stand for they'd realise they're not fit to stand for local public office. Even more so when a local candidate goes out of his way to prove the point and another supporter on these pages suggests I'm being unfair on a new party that still has to learn 'the tricks of the trade'. 'Clowns' are great in a circus, but probably not all that good at running a County Council. Two and a half hours left to vote. Please think who you're voting for and vote wisely.[/p][/quote]You're quite right, you were being libellous and not slanderous. Either way, it is a typical form of attack against an upcoming party made up of ordinary people who are prepared to fight for what they believe in. And they shouldn't have to "learn the tricks of the trade" that would just make them like the real clowns - you know, the ones who have messed up the economy royally and at a local level believe building a £1bn incinerator in the county is a good thing to do.Two hours left to vote, vote for common sense not professional politicians who simply tow the party line.[/p][/quote]Actually I wasn't being either. I was making a statement of fact, but it obviously does't seem to concern you. A couple of quick questions. As a UKIP supporter do you support and find it amusing that one of your local candidates Richard Delingpole deliberately posted photoshopped images of himself with Adolf Hitler? And if you do are you seriously suggesting he's a suitable candidate to be involved in running our local county council services? i-cycle
  • Score: 1

9:52pm Thu 2 May 13

Keith B says...

He's suitable if he gets elected.
He's suitable if he gets elected. Keith B
  • Score: -1

9:55pm Thu 2 May 13

AlfredTheGreat says...

Keith B wrote:
He's suitable if he gets elected.
The people will have spoken. Who am I to judge...

5 minutes to cast a vote for UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: He's suitable if he gets elected.[/p][/quote]The people will have spoken. Who am I to judge... 5 minutes to cast a vote for UKIP. AlfredTheGreat
  • Score: -1

9:57pm Thu 2 May 13

CJH says...

Keith B wrote:
He's suitable if he gets elected.
Oh good grief, now I've heard it all!
[quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: He's suitable if he gets elected.[/p][/quote]Oh good grief, now I've heard it all! CJH
  • Score: -1

10:02pm Thu 2 May 13

Keith B says...

So you don't believe in democracy!!!
So you don't believe in democracy!!! Keith B
  • Score: -1

10:05pm Thu 2 May 13

i-cycle says...

Keith B wrote:
He's suitable if he gets elected.
HI Keith

So what you're really saying is that all candidates that get elected are suitable?

I think 99.9% of the electorate may have a different opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: He's suitable if he gets elected.[/p][/quote]HI Keith So what you're really saying is that all candidates that get elected are suitable? I think 99.9% of the electorate may have a different opinion. i-cycle
  • Score: 1

10:09pm Thu 2 May 13

i-cycle says...

Keith B wrote:
So you don't believe in democracy!!!
You obviously can't differentiate between a candidate right to be elected and whether he's suitable for public office.

Of course we believe in democracy, but there's a difference between voting for a suitable candidate and a "Monster Raving Looney'
[quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: So you don't believe in democracy!!![/p][/quote]You obviously can't differentiate between a candidate right to be elected and whether he's suitable for public office. Of course we believe in democracy, but there's a difference between voting for a suitable candidate and a "Monster Raving Looney' i-cycle
  • Score: 1

10:10pm Thu 2 May 13

More Tea Vicar says...

CJH wrote:
Keith B wrote:
He's suitable if he gets elected.
Oh good grief, now I've heard it all!
If you check the record of some of the great and the good of other parties, be it George Galloway saying to "sir, we salute you" to Saddam Hussein, or Lord Ahmed blaming his driving conviction on a Jewish plot, the "rage" over this incident looks a bit synthetic. And judging by the reaction of most people I've spoken to it seems to be not widely shared.
People either don't know or don't care.
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: He's suitable if he gets elected.[/p][/quote]Oh good grief, now I've heard it all![/p][/quote]If you check the record of some of the great and the good of other parties, be it George Galloway saying to "sir, we salute you" to Saddam Hussein, or Lord Ahmed blaming his driving conviction on a Jewish plot, the "rage" over this incident looks a bit synthetic. And judging by the reaction of most people I've spoken to it seems to be not widely shared. People either don't know or don't care. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: -1

10:13pm Thu 2 May 13

i-cycle says...

AlfredTheGreat wrote:
Keith B wrote:
He's suitable if he gets elected.
The people will have spoken. Who am I to judge...

5 minutes to cast a vote for UKIP.
HI Alfred

The people haven't spoken. A guy called Keith has said anyone who gets elected is a suitable candidate.

Just like the UKIP budget policy, It don't add up.

And if, as you say you can't judge over the suitabilty of one of your own UKIP candidates, then how do you expect anyone else to vote for them.
[quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: He's suitable if he gets elected.[/p][/quote]The people will have spoken. Who am I to judge... 5 minutes to cast a vote for UKIP.[/p][/quote]HI Alfred The people haven't spoken. A guy called Keith has said anyone who gets elected is a suitable candidate. Just like the UKIP budget policy, It don't add up. And if, as you say you can't judge over the suitabilty of one of your own UKIP candidates, then how do you expect anyone else to vote for them. i-cycle
  • Score: -1

10:24pm Thu 2 May 13

AlfredTheGreat says...

i-cycle wrote:
AlfredTheGreat wrote:
Keith B wrote:
He's suitable if he gets elected.
The people will have spoken. Who am I to judge...

5 minutes to cast a vote for UKIP.
HI Alfred

The people haven't spoken. A guy called Keith has said anyone who gets elected is a suitable candidate.

Just like the UKIP budget policy, It don't add up.

And if, as you say you can't judge over the suitabilty of one of your own UKIP candidates, then how do you expect anyone else to vote for them.
Because I dont control their minds nor attempt to unlike the PC world which certain people would like us to live in (not the actual PC World store for the avoidance of doubt). UKIP are setting out a costed budget policy next year, unlike Labour who have failed to do so (did you hear Ed Miliband squirming about where the money would come from for his proposed VAT cut i.e. from more borrowing) and the Coalition who are set to double our borrowing levels from the atrocious position Labour left them in. Time has proven to be the one true judge - the mess is in plain view, nowhere to hide anymore. The game has changed...
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: He's suitable if he gets elected.[/p][/quote]The people will have spoken. Who am I to judge... 5 minutes to cast a vote for UKIP.[/p][/quote]HI Alfred The people haven't spoken. A guy called Keith has said anyone who gets elected is a suitable candidate. Just like the UKIP budget policy, It don't add up. And if, as you say you can't judge over the suitabilty of one of your own UKIP candidates, then how do you expect anyone else to vote for them.[/p][/quote]Because I dont control their minds nor attempt to unlike the PC world which certain people would like us to live in (not the actual PC World store for the avoidance of doubt). UKIP are setting out a costed budget policy next year, unlike Labour who have failed to do so (did you hear Ed Miliband squirming about where the money would come from for his proposed VAT cut i.e. from more borrowing) and the Coalition who are set to double our borrowing levels from the atrocious position Labour left them in. Time has proven to be the one true judge - the mess is in plain view, nowhere to hide anymore. The game has changed... AlfredTheGreat
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Thu 2 May 13

Keith B says...

Who are you to say Galloway isn't suitable for the people who elected him. He was their choice and they can change him if they wish in 2015. You might disagree with his views, I certainly do, but he really does represent a fairly large chunk of our British population who supported Saddam, and who view politics in a completely different way to many of us in the Shires, whether left or right. Go to Bradford, Dewsbury, Whitechapel, Birmingham, Southall, Burnley, Rochdale and you will find thousands of people who think like Galloway. They need representing otherwise their alternative is to fight the state - and some are, as we know.

It's exactly the same as the Greens in Brighton. That one constituency gives the Greens a voice. Are they Monster Raving Looney's too.

It's called Democracy and just because you don't like any one of them it doesn't make them unsuitable.
Who are you to say Galloway isn't suitable for the people who elected him. He was their choice and they can change him if they wish in 2015. You might disagree with his views, I certainly do, but he really does represent a fairly large chunk of our British population who supported Saddam, and who view politics in a completely different way to many of us in the Shires, whether left or right. Go to Bradford, Dewsbury, Whitechapel, Birmingham, Southall, Burnley, Rochdale and you will find thousands of people who think like Galloway. They need representing otherwise their alternative is to fight the state - and some are, as we know. It's exactly the same as the Greens in Brighton. That one constituency gives the Greens a voice. Are they Monster Raving Looney's too. It's called Democracy and just because you don't like any one of them it doesn't make them unsuitable. Keith B
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Thu 2 May 13

AlfredTheGreat says...

Keith B wrote:
Who are you to say Galloway isn't suitable for the people who elected him. He was their choice and they can change him if they wish in 2015. You might disagree with his views, I certainly do, but he really does represent a fairly large chunk of our British population who supported Saddam, and who view politics in a completely different way to many of us in the Shires, whether left or right. Go to Bradford, Dewsbury, Whitechapel, Birmingham, Southall, Burnley, Rochdale and you will find thousands of people who think like Galloway. They need representing otherwise their alternative is to fight the state - and some are, as we know.

It's exactly the same as the Greens in Brighton. That one constituency gives the Greens a voice. Are they Monster Raving Looney's too.

It's called Democracy and just because you don't like any one of them it doesn't make them unsuitable.
I agree Keith. People should argue their point and, importantly, be allowed to argue their point without having the attack dogs set on them, and if their arguments convince people then that is democracy in action. Actually, whilst I do not personally agree with Galloway, I had to admire the way he took on the US Senate committee - that was gutsy by any standard.
[quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: Who are you to say Galloway isn't suitable for the people who elected him. He was their choice and they can change him if they wish in 2015. You might disagree with his views, I certainly do, but he really does represent a fairly large chunk of our British population who supported Saddam, and who view politics in a completely different way to many of us in the Shires, whether left or right. Go to Bradford, Dewsbury, Whitechapel, Birmingham, Southall, Burnley, Rochdale and you will find thousands of people who think like Galloway. They need representing otherwise their alternative is to fight the state - and some are, as we know. It's exactly the same as the Greens in Brighton. That one constituency gives the Greens a voice. Are they Monster Raving Looney's too. It's called Democracy and just because you don't like any one of them it doesn't make them unsuitable.[/p][/quote]I agree Keith. People should argue their point and, importantly, be allowed to argue their point without having the attack dogs set on them, and if their arguments convince people then that is democracy in action. Actually, whilst I do not personally agree with Galloway, I had to admire the way he took on the US Senate committee - that was gutsy by any standard. AlfredTheGreat
  • Score: 0

10:46pm Thu 2 May 13

i-cycle says...

Keith B wrote:
Who are you to say Galloway isn't suitable for the people who elected him. He was their choice and they can change him if they wish in 2015. You might disagree with his views, I certainly do, but he really does represent a fairly large chunk of our British population who supported Saddam, and who view politics in a completely different way to many of us in the Shires, whether left or right. Go to Bradford, Dewsbury, Whitechapel, Birmingham, Southall, Burnley, Rochdale and you will find thousands of people who think like Galloway. They need representing otherwise their alternative is to fight the state - and some are, as we know.

It's exactly the same as the Greens in Brighton. That one constituency gives the Greens a voice. Are they Monster Raving Looney's too.

It's called Democracy and just because you don't like any one of them it doesn't make them unsuitable.
Good point well made.

It still doesn't make everyone elected suitable for public office, but like you I agree that if that's the people's choice they have the right to be elected.

Its also everyone's democratic right to express their own views as to whether a particular candidate is suitable for public office.
[quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: Who are you to say Galloway isn't suitable for the people who elected him. He was their choice and they can change him if they wish in 2015. You might disagree with his views, I certainly do, but he really does represent a fairly large chunk of our British population who supported Saddam, and who view politics in a completely different way to many of us in the Shires, whether left or right. Go to Bradford, Dewsbury, Whitechapel, Birmingham, Southall, Burnley, Rochdale and you will find thousands of people who think like Galloway. They need representing otherwise their alternative is to fight the state - and some are, as we know. It's exactly the same as the Greens in Brighton. That one constituency gives the Greens a voice. Are they Monster Raving Looney's too. It's called Democracy and just because you don't like any one of them it doesn't make them unsuitable.[/p][/quote]Good point well made. It still doesn't make everyone elected suitable for public office, but like you I agree that if that's the people's choice they have the right to be elected. Its also everyone's democratic right to express their own views as to whether a particular candidate is suitable for public office. i-cycle
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Thu 2 May 13

AlfredTheGreat says...

i-cycle wrote:
Keith B wrote:
Who are you to say Galloway isn't suitable for the people who elected him. He was their choice and they can change him if they wish in 2015. You might disagree with his views, I certainly do, but he really does represent a fairly large chunk of our British population who supported Saddam, and who view politics in a completely different way to many of us in the Shires, whether left or right. Go to Bradford, Dewsbury, Whitechapel, Birmingham, Southall, Burnley, Rochdale and you will find thousands of people who think like Galloway. They need representing otherwise their alternative is to fight the state - and some are, as we know.

It's exactly the same as the Greens in Brighton. That one constituency gives the Greens a voice. Are they Monster Raving Looney's too.

It's called Democracy and just because you don't like any one of them it doesn't make them unsuitable.
Good point well made.

It still doesn't make everyone elected suitable for public office, but like you I agree that if that's the people's choice they have the right to be elected.

Its also everyone's democratic right to express their own views as to whether a particular candidate is suitable for public office.
And that is freedom of speech (as long as it remains within the Law). Group hug lol
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: Who are you to say Galloway isn't suitable for the people who elected him. He was their choice and they can change him if they wish in 2015. You might disagree with his views, I certainly do, but he really does represent a fairly large chunk of our British population who supported Saddam, and who view politics in a completely different way to many of us in the Shires, whether left or right. Go to Bradford, Dewsbury, Whitechapel, Birmingham, Southall, Burnley, Rochdale and you will find thousands of people who think like Galloway. They need representing otherwise their alternative is to fight the state - and some are, as we know. It's exactly the same as the Greens in Brighton. That one constituency gives the Greens a voice. Are they Monster Raving Looney's too. It's called Democracy and just because you don't like any one of them it doesn't make them unsuitable.[/p][/quote]Good point well made. It still doesn't make everyone elected suitable for public office, but like you I agree that if that's the people's choice they have the right to be elected. Its also everyone's democratic right to express their own views as to whether a particular candidate is suitable for public office.[/p][/quote]And that is freedom of speech (as long as it remains within the Law). Group hug lol AlfredTheGreat
  • Score: -1

10:58pm Thu 2 May 13

i-cycle says...

AlfredTheGreat wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Keith B wrote:
Who are you to say Galloway isn't suitable for the people who elected him. He was their choice and they can change him if they wish in 2015. You might disagree with his views, I certainly do, but he really does represent a fairly large chunk of our British population who supported Saddam, and who view politics in a completely different way to many of us in the Shires, whether left or right. Go to Bradford, Dewsbury, Whitechapel, Birmingham, Southall, Burnley, Rochdale and you will find thousands of people who think like Galloway. They need representing otherwise their alternative is to fight the state - and some are, as we know.

It's exactly the same as the Greens in Brighton. That one constituency gives the Greens a voice. Are they Monster Raving Looney's too.

It's called Democracy and just because you don't like any one of them it doesn't make them unsuitable.
Good point well made.

It still doesn't make everyone elected suitable for public office, but like you I agree that if that's the people's choice they have the right to be elected.

Its also everyone's democratic right to express their own views as to whether a particular candidate is suitable for public office.
And that is freedom of speech (as long as it remains within the Law). Group hug lol
Thanks Alfred.

The electorate have now decided!
[quote][p][bold]AlfredTheGreat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: Who are you to say Galloway isn't suitable for the people who elected him. He was their choice and they can change him if they wish in 2015. You might disagree with his views, I certainly do, but he really does represent a fairly large chunk of our British population who supported Saddam, and who view politics in a completely different way to many of us in the Shires, whether left or right. Go to Bradford, Dewsbury, Whitechapel, Birmingham, Southall, Burnley, Rochdale and you will find thousands of people who think like Galloway. They need representing otherwise their alternative is to fight the state - and some are, as we know. It's exactly the same as the Greens in Brighton. That one constituency gives the Greens a voice. Are they Monster Raving Looney's too. It's called Democracy and just because you don't like any one of them it doesn't make them unsuitable.[/p][/quote]Good point well made. It still doesn't make everyone elected suitable for public office, but like you I agree that if that's the people's choice they have the right to be elected. Its also everyone's democratic right to express their own views as to whether a particular candidate is suitable for public office.[/p][/quote]And that is freedom of speech (as long as it remains within the Law). Group hug lol[/p][/quote]Thanks Alfred. The electorate have now decided! i-cycle
  • Score: 1

6:30am Fri 3 May 13

laidback says...

A warning from history; Reichkanzler candidate Adolf Hitler was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Germany for twelve bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Bolshevik leader "Lenin" was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Russia and the associated Soviet Union for ~73 bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Do not think that those whom you elect may always make it possible for their future removal.
A warning from history; Reichkanzler candidate Adolf Hitler was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Germany for twelve bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Bolshevik leader "Lenin" was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Russia and the associated Soviet Union for ~73 bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Do not think that those whom you elect may always make it possible for their future removal. laidback
  • Score: 0

8:36am Fri 3 May 13

AlfredTheGreat says...

Seems the people are speaking. With only a quarter of results in UKIP have 43 wins and 200 second place with 26% of the vote. All the dirty tricks, lies and slander have spectacularly backfired. Oh look outside, the sun is shining so brightly today :-)
Seems the people are speaking. With only a quarter of results in UKIP have 43 wins and 200 second place with 26% of the vote. All the dirty tricks, lies and slander have spectacularly backfired. Oh look outside, the sun is shining so brightly today :-) AlfredTheGreat
  • Score: -1

9:36am Fri 3 May 13

Keith B says...

laidback wrote:
A warning from history; Reichkanzler candidate Adolf Hitler was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Germany for twelve bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Bolshevik leader "Lenin" was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Russia and the associated Soviet Union for ~73 bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Do not think that those whom you elect may always make it possible for their future removal.
Do you really think that the Tory/Labour Alliance make it possible for themselves to be removed. The PR referendum campaign proved that they are just as unwilling to give up power in the longer term as Stalin or Hitler. And do you really believe that Government of either side will make it possible for an EU referendum that would result in withdrawal. Will the political and media "establishment" really allow Scotland to vote for independence from English rule (which ironically would be very much in English Conservative Party interest).

Every reform that challenges the status quo is quashed from Lords reform to constituency Boundary changes.

Those with the power want to keep it.

But at the moment we work in a system where everyone accepts "the system" and stands down if the other side wins an election. It is done by reason and tradition.

One of the UKIP message's is that our traditional system could be radically changed if that balance is upset by a huge influx of people with a different tradition - all of whom can register to vote.

One question I have for UKIP and the Tory Euro-sceptics is, if we were to leave the EU, what happens to all those non-indigenous EU nationals who have settled here - many of whom have children who are British born? Are they to be sent away or can they choose to remain and register as British?
[quote][p][bold]laidback[/bold] wrote: A warning from history; Reichkanzler candidate Adolf Hitler was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Germany for twelve bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Bolshevik leader "Lenin" was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Russia and the associated Soviet Union for ~73 bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Do not think that those whom you elect may always make it possible for their future removal.[/p][/quote]Do you really think that the Tory/Labour Alliance make it possible for themselves to be removed. The PR referendum campaign proved that they are just as unwilling to give up power in the longer term as Stalin or Hitler. And do you really believe that Government of either side will make it possible for an EU referendum that would result in withdrawal. Will the political and media "establishment" really allow Scotland to vote for independence from English rule (which ironically would be very much in English Conservative Party interest). Every reform that challenges the status quo is quashed from Lords reform to constituency Boundary changes. Those with the power want to keep it. But at the moment we work in a system where everyone accepts "the system" and stands down if the other side wins an election. It is done by reason and tradition. One of the UKIP message's is that our traditional system could be radically changed if that balance is upset by a huge influx of people with a different tradition - all of whom can register to vote. One question I have for UKIP and the Tory Euro-sceptics is, if we were to leave the EU, what happens to all those non-indigenous EU nationals who have settled here - many of whom have children who are British born? Are they to be sent away or can they choose to remain and register as British? Keith B
  • Score: 0

9:58am Fri 3 May 13

ScottCM says...

Personally I think everyone is making a massive song and dance about this. This link proves that UKIP have a heart - http://tinyurl.com/y
8ufsnp
Personally I think everyone is making a massive song and dance about this. This link proves that UKIP have a heart - http://tinyurl.com/y 8ufsnp ScottCM
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Fri 3 May 13

laidback says...

To compare a western democracy with the vile dictatorships of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union Keith B is ridiculous as is the stance that UK boundary changes have not historically occurred, many have in my lifetime, and that Scotland is ruled by England are the notions of a conspiracy theorist and suited to beer hall bluster where political rhetoric overrides common sense.
To compare a western democracy with the vile dictatorships of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union Keith B is ridiculous as is the stance that UK boundary changes have not historically occurred, many have in my lifetime, and that Scotland is ruled by England are the notions of a conspiracy theorist and suited to beer hall bluster where political rhetoric overrides common sense. laidback
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Tue 7 May 13

BrownSauce says...

Keith B wrote:
laidback wrote:
A warning from history; Reichkanzler candidate Adolf Hitler was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Germany for twelve bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Bolshevik leader "Lenin" was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Russia and the associated Soviet Union for ~73 bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Do not think that those whom you elect may always make it possible for their future removal.
Do you really think that the Tory/Labour Alliance make it possible for themselves to be removed. The PR referendum campaign proved that they are just as unwilling to give up power in the longer term as Stalin or Hitler. And do you really believe that Government of either side will make it possible for an EU referendum that would result in withdrawal. Will the political and media "establishment" really allow Scotland to vote for independence from English rule (which ironically would be very much in English Conservative Party interest).

Every reform that challenges the status quo is quashed from Lords reform to constituency Boundary changes.

Those with the power want to keep it.

But at the moment we work in a system where everyone accepts "the system" and stands down if the other side wins an election. It is done by reason and tradition.

One of the UKIP message's is that our traditional system could be radically changed if that balance is upset by a huge influx of people with a different tradition - all of whom can register to vote.

One question I have for UKIP and the Tory Euro-sceptics is, if we were to leave the EU, what happens to all those non-indigenous EU nationals who have settled here - many of whom have children who are British born? Are they to be sent away or can they choose to remain and register as British?
If born here they are British. UKIP supports settled immigrants and there is no "send-em all home" element in their policies.

The party just wants to regain control of our borders from the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels before they destroy us all together!
[quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laidback[/bold] wrote: A warning from history; Reichkanzler candidate Adolf Hitler was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Germany for twelve bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Bolshevik leader "Lenin" was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Russia and the associated Soviet Union for ~73 bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Do not think that those whom you elect may always make it possible for their future removal.[/p][/quote]Do you really think that the Tory/Labour Alliance make it possible for themselves to be removed. The PR referendum campaign proved that they are just as unwilling to give up power in the longer term as Stalin or Hitler. And do you really believe that Government of either side will make it possible for an EU referendum that would result in withdrawal. Will the political and media "establishment" really allow Scotland to vote for independence from English rule (which ironically would be very much in English Conservative Party interest). Every reform that challenges the status quo is quashed from Lords reform to constituency Boundary changes. Those with the power want to keep it. But at the moment we work in a system where everyone accepts "the system" and stands down if the other side wins an election. It is done by reason and tradition. One of the UKIP message's is that our traditional system could be radically changed if that balance is upset by a huge influx of people with a different tradition - all of whom can register to vote. One question I have for UKIP and the Tory Euro-sceptics is, if we were to leave the EU, what happens to all those non-indigenous EU nationals who have settled here - many of whom have children who are British born? Are they to be sent away or can they choose to remain and register as British?[/p][/quote]If born here they are British. UKIP supports settled immigrants and there is no "send-em all home" element in their policies. The party just wants to regain control of our borders from the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels before they destroy us all together! BrownSauce
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Tue 7 May 13

More Tea Vicar says...

BrownSauce wrote:
Keith B wrote:
laidback wrote:
A warning from history; Reichkanzler candidate Adolf Hitler was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Germany for twelve bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Bolshevik leader "Lenin" was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Russia and the associated Soviet Union for ~73 bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Do not think that those whom you elect may always make it possible for their future removal.
Do you really think that the Tory/Labour Alliance make it possible for themselves to be removed. The PR referendum campaign proved that they are just as unwilling to give up power in the longer term as Stalin or Hitler. And do you really believe that Government of either side will make it possible for an EU referendum that would result in withdrawal. Will the political and media "establishment" really allow Scotland to vote for independence from English rule (which ironically would be very much in English Conservative Party interest).

Every reform that challenges the status quo is quashed from Lords reform to constituency Boundary changes.

Those with the power want to keep it.

But at the moment we work in a system where everyone accepts "the system" and stands down if the other side wins an election. It is done by reason and tradition.

One of the UKIP message's is that our traditional system could be radically changed if that balance is upset by a huge influx of people with a different tradition - all of whom can register to vote.

One question I have for UKIP and the Tory Euro-sceptics is, if we were to leave the EU, what happens to all those non-indigenous EU nationals who have settled here - many of whom have children who are British born? Are they to be sent away or can they choose to remain and register as British?
If born here they are British. UKIP supports settled immigrants and there is no "send-em all home" element in their policies.

The party just wants to regain control of our borders from the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels before they destroy us all together!
According to the Guardian

..."Ukip also says it would "enable people to come and work in the UK by means of a points-based work permit system for limited periods of time and to fulfil specific gaps in the job market that cannot be filled by the existing work force". No detail is given.

It offers a form of amnesty, saying "EU citizens who have been established in the UK for seven years or more will, depending on their circumstances, be able to apply for permanent leave to remain (provided they fulfil certain criteria and are eligible to apply for work permits)".

Ukip also adds it would leave the European convention of human rights and the European convention on refugees."

That implies that some EU-ers could stay, and others would have to go. I could imagine that being practical and popular.
[quote][p][bold]BrownSauce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laidback[/bold] wrote: A warning from history; Reichkanzler candidate Adolf Hitler was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Germany for twelve bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Bolshevik leader "Lenin" was "suitably elected" following which there was no other political representation in Russia and the associated Soviet Union for ~73 bloody years of repressive, criminal government. Do not think that those whom you elect may always make it possible for their future removal.[/p][/quote]Do you really think that the Tory/Labour Alliance make it possible for themselves to be removed. The PR referendum campaign proved that they are just as unwilling to give up power in the longer term as Stalin or Hitler. And do you really believe that Government of either side will make it possible for an EU referendum that would result in withdrawal. Will the political and media "establishment" really allow Scotland to vote for independence from English rule (which ironically would be very much in English Conservative Party interest). Every reform that challenges the status quo is quashed from Lords reform to constituency Boundary changes. Those with the power want to keep it. But at the moment we work in a system where everyone accepts "the system" and stands down if the other side wins an election. It is done by reason and tradition. One of the UKIP message's is that our traditional system could be radically changed if that balance is upset by a huge influx of people with a different tradition - all of whom can register to vote. One question I have for UKIP and the Tory Euro-sceptics is, if we were to leave the EU, what happens to all those non-indigenous EU nationals who have settled here - many of whom have children who are British born? Are they to be sent away or can they choose to remain and register as British?[/p][/quote]If born here they are British. UKIP supports settled immigrants and there is no "send-em all home" element in their policies. The party just wants to regain control of our borders from the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels before they destroy us all together![/p][/quote]According to the Guardian ..."Ukip also says it would "enable people to come and work in the UK by means of a points-based work permit system for limited periods of time and to fulfil specific gaps in the job market that cannot be filled by the existing work force". No detail is given. It offers a form of amnesty, saying "EU citizens who have been established in the UK for seven years or more will, depending on their circumstances, be able to apply for permanent leave to remain (provided they fulfil certain criteria and are eligible to apply for work permits)". Ukip also adds it would leave the European convention of human rights and the European convention on refugees." That implies that some EU-ers could stay, and others would have to go. I could imagine that being practical and popular. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree