tom

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics...

Same guy in Westminster, UKIP got free publicity at the expense of the public purse, a guy who spent loads on expenses because, well he wanted a nice flat in westminster and things like that.

What's changed?

Not much, expect UKIP party (in the sense of drinking alcohol) is probably going strong and a lot of drunk UKIPers pretending they're important.

Here are the facts.

UKIP got 27.49% of the vote.

They got 4.3 million people to vote for them.

Turnout was 34.19%.

Is this a bombshell?

Let's put this into persepctive.

The Tories got 10.7 million votes in 2010.

Labour got 8.6

The Lib Dems got 6.8 million.

UKIP got 2.5 million votes in the 2009 EU election. Yes, they've had an increase of nearly 2 million. nearly double.

If they get double the votes in the GE they'll have 1.8 million votes which may not be enough to win any seats.

Chances are they will lose a lot of voters and anyone who didn't vote on Thursday isn't going to vote UKIP next year.

Is this really a bombshell, or is this UKIP trying to get free publicity and make themselves out as bigger than they really are? They got less votes than the Lib Dems at the last GE. In fact it was in 1979 that the Lib Dems got below 4.4 million votes.

http://www.politicshome.com/images/1.1.Other/UKIP_...

http://shops.lsimages.co.uk/poundstretcher.jpg

I saw an advert in the paper on the bus today, and it shocked me. For all the UKIP are, for that people claim them to be, for the hysteria over nothing much, this was something different.

The advert said something like "vote for Farage's UKIP", it was a UKIP advert too. So, has UKIP now just become about the personality of one guy and nothing about anything else?

Are people just voting for the personality, and not bothering with real politics?

I'm looking for images of St. George, from early English history. Edward III introduced St. George as important in England, and I was looking for images from this time, or later, that relate directly to England.

Could you tell me what it says UKIP will do if they get elected?

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5308a9...

Here's the piece of paper they supposedly call a manifesto to help you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616537/Fa...

One reason he claimed he doesn't want to run is because "Has no links to seat and says he does not want to look like an 'opportunist'"

However Farage has stood in seven different seats, 5 of them not in the county he is from.

Itchen, Test and Avon, European Parliament Election 1994 – 12,423 votes, representing 5% of total votes cast

Eastleigh by-election, 1994 – 952, 1.4%

Salisbury, 1997 general election – 3,332, 6%

European Parliament election, 1999 – elected member for South East England from party list

Bexhill and Battle, 2001 general election – 3,474, 8%

European Parliament election, 2004 – elected member for South East England from party list

South Thanet, 2005 general election – 2,079, 5%

Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, 2006 – 2,307, 8%

European Parliament election, 2009 – elected member for South East England from party list.

Buckingham, 2010 general election – 8,410, 17%

Does this mean that Farage actually doesn't want to win a seat in Westminster because it would disrupt his party lifestyle?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25142557

A quote in this article about Nicky Crane on the BBC.

""I accepted him at face value, as he was a nationalist," Donaldson told a fanzine years later."

Crane was seen as a "nationalist" by people in the NF and BNP during these times. Not much has changed other than there is less violence in these groups.

Note: This question isn't about how much Labour wasted before. Don't write about it, we know they wasted money too.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/...

"Up to £425 million has been wasted and may need to be written-off, including £140 million on IT equipment which is no longer suitable for the project. The left hand does not know, or even seem to care, what the right hand is doing."

The amount of U-turns by the Tories where they spend money to change the system, then realise it won't work is also incredible.

So for a govt that has come in claiming to try and save money, how much have they wasted.

Okay, Hitler, some kind of gun control, then he killed loads of Jews. Without gun control the Jews would have fought back, WW2 would never have happened, Hitler would have died, right? (half a million people out of 67 million people)

So, why did the black people not rise up in the USA and stand up to their white oppressors when there were 4 million slaves in 1860 out of a population of 31.4 million. (so about 1/10 were slaves, compared to 1/134 for Jews in Germany) Surely the lack of gun control would have made it certain they would rise up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24559869

If youlook at the chart, under Clinton the debt ceiling stayed the same. Then under Bush, with majority house, senate and the president all Republican, and the economy BOOMING, the debt ceiling rose and rose.

Isn't this just a little bit of hypocrisy?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24559869

""We fought the good fight," Republican House Speaker John Boehner said in an interview with an Ohio radio station. "We just didn't win.""

The idea that it's all about winning, rather than actually about doing what is good for the people. This whole crisis cost the US about $24 billion, and seems to have been done by the Republicans just so they could "win".

Perhaps he thought the football hooliganism at home to Hyde would be a lot more fun than hanging out with a bunch of football hooligans in Bradford.

I looked at the dates of EDL marches a few years back and all but three had been on days when Luton Town FC did not play home matches.

Now there's this conflict of interest, do you think football hooligan Yaxley-Lennon (who goes by Tommy Robinson who is actually another football hooligan) has made it clear what his favourite pastime is?

Seriously, we've had boom and bust in the housing market, we know that it leads to younger people being unable to buy a house, that it increases house prices massively and means that a house is an INVESTMENT and not a HOME.

Isn't it time that the govts of this country start making sure that a house is a home rather than just an investment, and limit mortgages to around 3 times a person's salary?

Is it Milliband of Labour, Cameron of the Tories, Clegg of the Lib Dems, Griffin of the BNP, Farage of UKIP, Bennett of the Greens or Yaxley-Lennon of the EDL?

10 points for the first correct answer.

Just wondering what links, whether just contact between the two or anything more substantial.