Who should win the next General Election? [ENDS 07/02/2010]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

What does this country stand for then Jake - soft on crime?

On UKIP, do not make them out to be liars. If they break their promises i'll join you in calling them liars, but as it stands only Labour has broken its promises and the Conservatives under Cameron have broken their promise to hold a referendum. If UKIP gained office they would hold referendums on important issues such as the European Union and the death penalty, period. It is a fundemental part of their Conservative beliefs. Anyway, you seem pretty sure about people not voting in the death penalty, then surely you wouldn't mind holding a referendum on it?

---

What makes this country tick? What made it so great? Immigration. I don't know UKIP policies on this but I'm sure to hell it won't be beneficial to this country. You can talk about the amount of illegal immigrants all day long and sure, those who come here to cause trouble should be deported or whatever happens. However, the majority actually have dead end jobs on less then minimum wage, saving the country millions. They do it to help themselves and their families and do a hell of a lot more than some British nationals do.

Do you realise how much money all those referendums would cost in man power with regards to organising it? I obviously don't know but it doesn't take a genius to work out, it'd probably be millions. Then implementing changes would probably cost millions too. The economy isn't great and Labour have proposed cuts, UKIP won't be dealing with the hard hitting issues but rather messing about with their instability causing referendums on whether to have a cup of tea or what ever other insignificant things they wish to hold them on.

Quote:

---

On a local level referendums would also be held, do you want a new park or a leisure centre are so forth - meaning the community have a say in the way their community is shaped.

---

Seriously, that's one of the funniest things I have read all day. Shows how incapable UKIP leaders are in telling what the people really want or being able to make decisions.
Hold bloody meetings if you want feedback, not send a referendum through everyone's door every hour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saurav

Not my shop. I didn't beat them up. It was someone elses shop and I was telling a story. Shows how much attention you pay.
Anyway punishing someone by beating them up is very different to the death penalty. If you disagree then I don't even see the point in ever replying to your posts as it shows your lack of understand in things.

If you were wrongly accused of murder and faced the death penalty, I am sure you would still support it in full, wouldn't you? :)

Referendums for a local leisure center etc? Oh myyy! What a waste of money. If the MP or PM cant make their own decisions and cant tell what the community / country really wants, they shouldn't be MP. Ergo, UKIP aren't in power and never will be. They cant make their own decisions.

---

From what I remember you fully supported them ambushing the thieves and giving them a good beating? - on the difference, yes there is. While it does not involve death, the one you support is vigilantism which does not involve a trial or any sort of court/justice. The death penalty meanwhile would be given based on hard-hitting evidence in a professional court of law. That is a major difference. On if I was accused, i'd feel angry of course - but that would not mean I would not loose support for it and for my fellow inmates such as the likes of Ian Huntley and Ian Bradey. As I have said in the past, it would be introduced and used only for the most serious of crimes which can be proved without a doubt using DNA evidence and any other means.

Yeah and its called local democracy, it would mean the community get a say in what they want to be built rather than the council/s which don't have a very good track record in spending/picking useful projects. UKIP can make their own decisions, however they believe it should be the people who make the choice and not the politicians.

Quote:

---

What makes this country tick? What made it so great? Immigration. I don't know UKIP policies on this but I'm sure to hell it won't be beneficial to this country. You can talk about the amount of illegal immigrants all day long and sure, those who come here to cause trouble should be deported or whatever happens. However, the majority actually have dead end jobs on less then minimum wage, saving the country millions. They do it to help themselves and their families and do a hell of a lot more than some British nationals do.

Do you realise how much money all those referendums would cost in man power with regards to organising it? I obviously don't know but it doesn't take a genius to work out, it'd probably be millions. Then implementing changes would probably cost millions too. The economy isn't great and Labour have proposed cuts, UKIP won't be dealing with the hard hitting issues but rather messing about with their instability causing referendums on whether to have a cup of tea or what ever other insignificant things they wish to hold them on.

---

UKIP do not want to end immigration, all I want and all UKIP wants, and what most people want is just some form on control over it to stop the extremists and the criminals getting in - what is so hard to understand about that simple concept? It is so simple yet so far. On the referendums, i'm afraid Switzerland manages it and they have far less money made by their smaller economy every year, the money we'd save by leaving the European Union and slashing red tape would easily pay for referendums and many many other things. You are scratching at the walls now Jake.

UKIP would deal with the hard-hitting issues on a national level, such as the European Union and the death penalty. As I asked earlier on, since you said you were pretty sure when push comes to shove the death penalty would not pass here, do you accept the fact we should have a referendum on it then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

From what I remember you fully supported them ambushing the thieves and giving them a good beating? - on the difference, yes there is. While it does not involve death, the one you support is vigilantism which does not involve a trial or any sort of court/justice. The death penalty meanwhile would be given based on hard-hitting evidence in a professional court of law. That is a major difference. On if I was accused, i'd feel angry of course - but that would not mean I would not loose support for it and for my fellow inmates such as the likes of Ian Huntley and Ian Bradey. As I have said in the past, it would be introduced and used only for the most serious of crimes which can be proved without a doubt using DNA evidence and any other means.

Yeah and its called local democracy, it would mean the community get a say in what they want to be built rather than the council/s which don't have a very good track record in spending/picking useful projects. UKIP can make their own decisions, however they believe it should be the people who make the choice and not the politicians.

UKIP do not want to end immigration, all I want and all UKIP wants, and what most people want is just some form on control over it to stop the extremists and the criminals getting in - what is so hard to understand about that simple concept? It is so simple yet so far. On the referendums, i'm afraid Switzerland manages it and they have far less money made by their smaller economy every year, the money we'd save by leaving the European Union and slashing red tape would easily pay for referendums and many many other things. You are scratching at the walls now Jake.

UKIP would deal with the hard-hitting issues on a national level, such as the European Union and the death penalty. As I asked earlier on, since you said you were pretty sure when push comes to shove the death penalty would not pass here, do you accept the fact we should have a referendum on it then?

---

Should we have a new sign? Should we change the days the bins are collected?
No, UKIP just cant make their decisions hence they want to waste millions every year and ask the public to make the decisions. All the MP will do is just ... well nothing. He will hire people to process the referendums.

If someone gets caught on CCTV robbing a place, and then gets caught actually robbing the shop, they don't need a trial.
The shopkeeper has beaten them up. The court will just do nothing because they are under 18s "/ and if they were over 18, they will get off lightly as it was just robbery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saurav

Should we have a new sign? Should we change the days the bins are collected?
No, UKIP just cant make their decisions hence they want to waste millions every year and ask the public to make the decisions. All the MP will do is just ... well nothing. He will hire people to process the referendums.

If someone gets caught on CCTV robbing a place, and then gets caught actually robbing the shop, they don't need a trial.
The shopkeeper has beaten them up. The court will just do nothing because they are under 18s "/ and if they were over 18, they will get off lightly as it was just robbery.

---

Are they important issues?
No, UKIP can make their decisions but believe the public should have a say in the important decisions, and on a regional level. On the MP, it is a council which decides things such as a new leisure centre/park and not an MP. The MP will still have a useful job, voting on economic and security issues in parliament and raising any issues within Parliament which his electorate have raised.

I agree with you Saurav, it is a disgrace and that is exactly why I support UKIP because I want a no-nonsense approach to crime. However the very thing you are complaining about (criminals having more rights than their victims) is a syptom of this Labour government and the European Union who have introduced legislation such as the Human Rights Act which has meant hard working shop owners are placed below the rights of criminals.

It needs to stop.

To tell you the truth, I don't have a clue. All I know is that Labour have been in power for the majority of my lifetime and that somehow just tells me I don't want them around any longer. Maybe I don't agree that the death penalty should be reintroduced, maybe I don't think every citizen who isn't of British descendancy should be exported, but there is an endless list of stuff I don't like about the current government and I'm yet to discover a single unique positive aspect of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I found a great poll tool which shows who you genuinely support/agree with; http://www.takethequiz.co.uk/

---

Politics isn't really something I'm intrested in, but here are my quiz results.. :P - a clear winner.

Labour 28%
Conservative 57%
Greens 28%
LibDem 28%
UKIP 98%

Labour 20%
Conservative 54%
Greens 33%
LibDem 26%s to

UKIP 74%


unfortantly i am like 5 months to young to vote this time (as voting age is 18 rite?) but if i could i would dego go UKIP or conservative, had labour for all i can remember and from what i see all they do is **** this country up and screw us tax payers over.

That quiz thing wouldn't work for me, it just kept looping the same question over and over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saurav

Should we have a new sign? Should we change the days the bins are collected?
No, UKIP just cant make their decisions hence they want to waste millions every year and ask the public to make the decisions. All the MP will do is just ... well nothing. He will hire people to process the referendums.

If someone gets caught on CCTV robbing a place, and then gets caught actually robbing the shop, they don't need a trial.
The shopkeeper has beaten them up. The court will just do nothing because they are under 18s "/ and if they were over 18, they will get off lightly as it was just robbery.

---

Yes they do. The law is reason free from passion; beating up someone who presents no threat to you because you've detained them runs on the same eye for an eye principle as the death penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

UKIP do not want to end immigration, all I want and all UKIP wants, and what most people want is just some form on control over it to stop the extremists and the criminals getting in - what is so hard to understand about that simple concept? It is so simple yet so far. On the referendums, i'm afraid Switzerland manages it and they have far less money made by their smaller economy every year, the money we'd save by leaving the European Union and slashing red tape would easily pay for referendums and many many other things. You are scratching at the walls now Jake.

UKIP would deal with the hard-hitting issues on a national level, such as the European Union and the death penalty. As I asked earlier on, since you said you were pretty sure when push comes to shove the death penalty would not pass here, do you accept the fact we should have a referendum on it then?

---

Why do you want to prevent something which this country was built on? I don't know their policies but don't they want an immigration freeze for 5 years? Here. What the hell? That would cripple the country and parts of the economy rather than tackle it. I'm sure if you traced your family back enough, you'd be an immigrant too. They want a points system? Why? We need more than just skilled workers, we need workers who will do the tasks that British people refuse to do or are mocked by society for doing. Can you not see this? They are essential to Britain and it's been that way for hundreds of years.

Back to the death penalty issue. I don't believe it would be passed, no. There would be a mass revolt if it was. If it was even being considered, the ruling class would see that it wasn't passed anyway, i.e. people with intellect to realise what a ridiculous suggestion it is. We criticise China and other states for continuing with punishments suited to the Dark Ages, why would we want to go backwards. Holding a referendum would probably cost millions, something we could do without and which could be used for much more constructive means.

Quote:

---

Why do you want to prevent something which this country was built on? I don't know their policies but don't they want an immigration freeze for 5 years? Here. What the hell? That would cripple the country and parts of the economy rather than tackle it. I'm sure if you traced your family back enough, you'd be an immigrant too. They want a points system? Why? We need more than just skilled workers, we need workers who will do the tasks that British people refuse to do or are mocked by society for doing. Can you not see this? They are essential to Britain and it's been that way for hundreds of years.

---

Wrong Jake, we both know immigration was different back then. The problem now is very very very simple; the wrong type of people are getting into this country, extremists and criminals. UKIP propose a 5 year freeze because its the only way we can sort out the current problems, this government does not know who is here Jake - do you see the very big problem with that?

That means we need to freeze immigration for a period of 5 years or less, when the problem is sorted then introduce a new system which will only allow those who we want and need into this country. As usual its almost next to impossible to have a debate over immigration because you are doing what the left has always done by saying; either you support large-scale, uncontrolled immigration or you support no immigration at all - wrong. UKIP and myself do not want to stop immigration, neither do the majority of the British people. All we want is some form of control, something that isn't even up for debate in most other countries. It is your type of view that you hold and the ruling leftist-elite hold that drives people to the BNP.

Quote:

---

Back to the death penalty issue. I don't believe it would be passed, no. There would be a mass revolt if it was. If it was even being considered, the ruling class would see that it wasn't passed anyway, i.e. people with intellect to realise what a ridiculous suggestion it is. We criticise China and other states for continuing with punishments suited to the Dark Ages, why would we want to go backwards. Holding a referendum would probably cost millions, something we could do without and which could be used for much more constructive means.

---

How would there be a mass revolt if something that got passed in a referendum? - that would be like me saying if the Conservatives formed the next government with a 70% majority there would be a mass revolt. :rolleyes: On the death penalty in China, again wrong. We criticise China for using the death penalty for political means, most people in this country would agree with the notion of execution for the likes of Ian Huntley are so forth.

On the referendum, do not preach about costs when you support Labour. The referendums would cost buttons compared to what we spend on the European Union and lots of other wasteful things every year. You only are mentioning costs (which you never have criticised Labour for despite Labour spending and spending) because you are scratching at the walls for an excuse not to support giving a referendum to the British public.

I shall ask again, if you are so confident that a referendum would not pass, why are you so against the idea of giving the British people a say on the matter? ..could it possibly be the fact you know it would pass and you think your opinion is worth more than that of the majority?

I wonder.