Turn on thread page Beta

Why don't all Conservative voters defect to UKIP? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    The NHS is NOT safe under Laboutr - just look at what is happening in Wales where the style over substance policies of the period 1997-2010 have continued ...
    I've heard all sorts of things about the health service in Wales. I am wondering whether this is just 'look over there' politics...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    This is only true if we take your own personal views of what 'loyalist' means. This is especially problematic as you write off a third of the country as 'wrong', as if your personal view matters more.
    A Loyalist is someone who supports the Glorious Revolution, English Bill of Rights and Monarchy. Unionist is someone who supports Parliament over the Monarchy and English Bill of Rights. So I am right and those other people 1/3 of the country is wrong. So I say they are wrong. It isn't my opinion, it is objective fact they are wrong.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Yeah so you are progressive. I am a Loyalist so a radical Tory.
    So you're from Northern Ireland or Govan?

    Surely there are other parties for Loyalists?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So you're from Northern Ireland or Govan?

    Surely there are other parties for Loyalists?
    I am from Cumberland.

    No there are no Loyalist parties in England. Only smaller parties in Ulster.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    A Loyalist is someone who supports the Glorious Revolution, English Bill of Rights and Monarchy. Unionist is someone who supports Parliament over the Monarchy and English Bill of Rights. So I am right and those other people 1/3 of the country is wrong. So I say they are wrong. It isn't my opinion, it is objective fact they are wrong.
    Definitions change, and people's values change. The majority of people are monarchists of a hazy sort at best, and the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights are moot points. Loyalism can have the definition you claim but only among isolated communities in the country.

    The Tories, like the rest of the country, have moved on. Time you did too.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    Why should UKIP respect an 'in' vote if they believe it's been rigged? UKIP also wants severely restricted EU and non EU immigration. That's what its points style immigration policy is about. Do you only want non-EU immigration severely restricted? If so, why? It's a non starter anyway with the Tories.

    What's 'backward' about UKIP's social policy?
    Because the UK is not Uganda, rigged in this case just means not the result they wanted.

    Sure but I don't want a points system. Often they are too restrictive for people that want to change careers or start businesses.

    I don't mind EU immigration because half of it is from rich countries and 90% of it is from countries whose values don't conflict with our own.

    True. But Ukip is little closer to me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I am from Cumberland.

    No there are no Loyalist parties in England. Only smaller parties in Ulster.
    Aren't you old enough to stand as an MP for one of those parties?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Definitions change, and people's values change. The majority of people are monarchists of a hazy sort at best, and the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights are moot points. Loyalism can have the definition you claim but only among isolated communities in the country.

    The Tories, like the rest of the country, have moved on. Time you did too.
    Loyalism is what it always has been, it hasn't changed at all. Idea's don't change, people change their idea's. So definitions people use doesn't matter, when the idea is clear.

    No the majority of people are Royalists, as in they support Queen but don't want her to have any power. Monarchists want the Monarchy as an institution to have power and to use its power to block Parliaments power.

    No the Glorious Revolution and English bill of rights aren't moot points they are the basis for the British state and law, they are anything but moot.

    Loyalism is what I say, anything different from what I say isn't Loyalism from the Glorious Revolution.

    Moved on to something worse, so no I think I will stand and maintain Loyalism to improve the country over time and if not the country then my life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Aren't you old enough to stand as an MP for one of those parties?
    Yes but I don't live in Ulster. I also hate politics and find it constraining and boring.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Loyalism is what it always has been, it hasn't changed at all. Idea's don't change, people change their idea's. So definitions people use doesn't matter, when the idea is clear.
    But that doesn't negate what I said. People don't much care for loyalism as you define it any more. It's no longer relevant to their lives, the State, or how they see themselves. So arguing that the Tories are no good because they aren't loyalists as you see them will make most people shrug their shoulders and ask 'so what?'

    No the majority of people a Royalists, as in they support Queen but don't want her to have any power. Monarchists want the Monarchy as an institution to have power and to use its power to block Parliaments power.
    Here's an example of where definitions differ. 'monarchism' advocates a monarchic system of government, whether that be parliamentary, constitutional, absolute or otherwise. 'Royalism' does the same, but advocates a specific royal line.

    No the Glorious Revolution and English bill of rights aren't moot points they are the basis for the British state and law, they are anything but moot.
    They are one aspect of the British state, and much of it rather unimportant for British parliamentarism, which more properly evolved in the 19th century. Honestly, if we abolished the Act of Settlement, the country would carry on fine.

    Loyalism is what I say, anything different from what I say isn't Loyalism from the Glorious Revolution.
    Despite what you insist, ideas and their definitions evolve with time.

    Moved on to something worse, so no I think I will stand and maintain Loyalism to improve the country over time and if not the country then my life.
    Again, 'something worse' is your opinion. If it were so obviously true, then the country would freely and democratically elect to go back. It doesn't. Feel free to campaign for such a change, but I have to say, your way of advocating such a change isn't very effective.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Yes but I don't live in Ulster. I also hate politics and find it constraining and boring.
    And thats why you're posting in UK Politics...?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    I've heard all sorts of things about the health service in Wales. I am wondering whether this is just 'look over there' politics...
    Labour is held to ransom by the unions , therefore it is hobbled in making necessary changes to public sector services , as if it makes the 'wrong' choice it is biting the hand that feeds far more than any other party .

    The solution labour has to any problem is always a statist and authoritarian one and usually includes the imposition of Political Commissars - we have seen this with the health service and education in the period 1997 -2010 across the UK and the continued practices of WAG with regard tothe health service

    the Welsh ambulance service can't meet it's targets ( which are less than the English and Scottish targets) . the WAG was told what it needed to do , but refused to make the changes needed despite the evidence from Staffs over the whole 'Rogertastic' system in the broadest sense and from the english services who have adopted parts of the Roger model

    Labour and Unison have a problem with the medical profession and any none medical health professional or organisation that doesn;t follow their line ( hence the vitiriol from unison members towards towards none union or RCN members over the recent strike ) . and despite the party officially abandoning clause 4 the Unison power overthe party means that health proviision wise there is a strong 'clause 4 ' type movement ... it does not matter who owns the provider units as long as the service remains true to the NHS model - the monolitihic public sector NHS is grossly inefficient and there are thousands of excess management posts in the nHS as a whole ( 99 % of lay managers )

    plus of course thereare 1970s style job demarcation issues and the deliberate Union led mis reading of the AfC job evaluation criteria ( e.g. band 5 Ambulance techs and paramedics should be in band 6 on qualification - not even Midwives get that)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    So one would assume then that they would have another referendum?

    Of course that isn't true. UKIP isn't about democracy or doing the right thing. It is an interest group for Nige and his mates who want out of the EU. EU membership is their thing - all the other stuff they come up with are add on policies they thought up by seeing what was on the front page of the Mail on any given day.

    They don't care whether most people want to stay in or whether membership is a benefit to the UK. That's why they would not hold a referendum or respect an in vote if one was held.
    I don't whether they'd have another referendum. Perhaps the BBC could ask Diane James instead of obsessing over race. From a personal pov, I can't really see the point of expecting a second referendum to be fair when run by the same people who rigged the previous one (if that is what they do. You see, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. I just don't expect them to justify even that faint concession.)

    If EU membership is UKIP's thing, it's as a result of them being elected to the European parliament with EU based researchers for so long. However, UKIP's other policies still make a lot more sense to me than their rivals policies ever will.

    Of course UKIP cares whether people want to stay in. It seems to be the only party that thinks people should have a say! And again, why should UKIP respect a rigged referendum? They and others have demonstrated a clear case for the UK leaving the EU and it should be debated in a referendum campaign along with EU supporters case for staying in. And only UKIP's rivals are desperate enough to cite the Mail.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Because the UK is not Uganda, rigged in this case just means not the result they wanted.

    Sure but I don't want a points system. Often they are too restrictive for people that want to change careers or start businesses.

    I don't mind EU immigration because half of it is from rich countries and 90% of it is from countries whose values don't conflict with our own.

    True. But Ukip is little closer to me.
    Of course the UK isn't Uganda. And what a country to judge the UK by! The UK wasn't Uganda when the last referendum was held but the last referendum was still very heavily skewed in favour of a 'yes' vote, rigged I'd say. So no, in no way is 'rigged' just not the result we want.

    Is it the immigrant's interest you're concerned with or this country's? And we now admit some immigrants who clearly do not share the values of decency, and immigrants from countries in which corruption is rife. It seems to be a difficult culture for some to shake off at best. A points system beats that for me.

    No party is for everyone so I'm happy to accept that UKIP is little closer to you
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    And thats why you're posting in UK Politics...?
    I have idea's and I like debating with people about them. Politics isn't about debate or idea's it is about stealing other peoples money and giving it to other people.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    Of course UKIP cares whether people want to stay in. It seems to be the only party that thinks people should have a say!
    Really? UKIP have said that if they hold the balance of power after the election, they'd push for EU withdrawal without a referendum. That's not very democratic, is it?

    (Original post by Tamora)
    but the last referendum was still very heavily skewed in favour of a 'yes' vote, rigged I'd say.
    How so?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The vast majority of LibLabCon voters are ignorant morons, the rest are those who profit from the nations destruction.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I have idea's and I like debating with people about them. Politics isn't about debate or idea's it is about stealing other peoples money and giving it to other people.
    Thats pretty much what you have to do if you want to implement any idea, from punishing someone for a crime to having a common currency in an area.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    But that doesn't negate what I said. People don't much care for loyalism as you define it any more. It's no longer relevant to their lives, the State, or how they see themselves. So arguing that the Tories are no good because they aren't loyalists as you see them will make most people shrug their shoulders and ask 'so what?'



    Here's an example of where definitions differ. 'monarchism' advocates a monarchic system of government, whether that be parliamentary, constitutional, absolute or otherwise. 'Royalism' does the same, but advocates a specific royal line.



    They are one aspect of the British state, and much of it rather unimportant for British parliamentarism, which more properly evolved in the 19th century. Honestly, if we abolished the Act of Settlement, the country would carry on fine.



    Despite what you insist, ideas and their definitions evolve with time.



    Again, 'something worse' is your opinion. If it were so obviously true, then the country would freely and democratically elect to go back. It doesn't. Feel free to campaign for such a change, but I have to say, your way of advocating such a change isn't very effective.
    When I say worse it can be objectively measured. In terms of cultural stability, economic freedom and geopolitical power. In all these measurements the country is worse of since 1880's. People can't vote to improve the governmental system unless a political party wants to improve it. No political party wants to do so because it means the political parties would have to give up power to the House of Lords, Monarchy, Anglican Church, Courts and the Media. Basically nobody puts forward what I want and people have never been given the option. They never will in Parliament because it goes against the political parties interest.

    The only way to put into action the government system I want is for the Monarch, supported by the Church of England, the Aristocracy and Court to start fighting back politically against the Commons and the Political parties which run it.

    So instead of going into politics what I should do it join the Church of England, join the Courts, join the Media.

    Sure at first the removal of the English Bill of Rights will have little affect, however over time the affect will be the destruction of the British state and break down of law.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Thats pretty much what you have to do if you want to implement any idea, from punishing someone for a crime to having a common currency in an area.
    No you can use voluntary taxation where the government asks for money and people give the government money if they want to do so. Punishment doesn't have to be done by the government, it could be social punishment by other people. No you can have many different currencies if you want, just one currency must be available to everybody through the territory under the control of a government within a state. So you could have currency competition, it happened before.
 
 
 
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.