BillyHunt:
Did he say he would stand down if he didn’t win? He didn’t win, he didn’t stand down. That my friend is a “fact”. The reason, no matter how you try to spin it, is irrelevant.
UKIP have 23 meps of the total of 751 seats, that is a small enough number in the European Parliament to render them useless in a place where the majority are for the European dream. That my friend is a “fact”.
The ‘fact’ not spin is that he ‘did’ ‘stand down’.The ‘Party’ then requested that he re consider 'in the best interests of ‘the Party’ and obviously the ‘out campaign’.Luckily for both he ‘then’ changed his mind.
Yes there is no argument as to the idea of the relevance of seperate sovereign representation within a ‘Federal’ government’.The ‘fact’ in this case being that it ‘isn’t’ ‘yet’ a legitimate Federal government.So long as the issues of sovereignty and secession remain in question,in the form of the UKIP presence within it,at least.However make no mistake history suggests that the argument between Federalism and anti Federalism can’t be settled along so called ‘democratic’ lines.IE no one has the right to give away the sovereignty of the State or to take it away. 
As for Labour the ‘fact’ is either change direction or commit political suicide.I doubt that even the Labour Party is stupid enough to do the latter.
Carryfast:
BillyHunt:
Did he say he would stand down if he didn’t win? He didn’t win, he didn’t stand down. That my friend is a “fact”. The reason, no matter how you try to spin it, is irrelevant.
UKIP have 23 meps of the total of 751 seats, that is a small enough number in the European Parliament to render them useless in a place where the majority are for the European dream. That my friend is a “fact”.
The ‘fact’ not spin is that he ‘did’ ‘stand down’.The ‘Party’ then requested that he re consider 'in the best interests of ‘the Party’ and obviously the ‘out campaign’.Luckily for both he ‘then’ changed his mind.
Yes there is no argument as to the idea of the relevance of seperate sovereign representation within a ‘Federal’ government’.The ‘fact’ in this case being that it ‘isn’t’ ‘yet’ a legitimate Federal government.So long as the issues of sovereignty and secession remain in question,in the form of the UKIP presence within it,at least.However make no mistake history suggests that the argument between Federalism and anti Federalism can’t be settled along so called ‘democratic’ lines.IE no one has the right to give away the sovereignty of the State or to take it away.
As for Labour the ‘fact’ is either change direction or commit political suicide.I doubt that even the Labour Party is stupid enough to do the latter.
The fact is he didn’t expect to have to stand down in the first place, hence the statement saying he would. If he’d thought for one second that he wouldn’t win he wouldn’t have said it. But he did say it, then said it again, then said he would take the summer off & then reconsider standing again on his return. That lasted about 5 minutes.
I’m still not interested in what labour do. All I know is that they will be having a leadership contest, sometime in the future. Also the fact is, as poor as they currently are, they still have 231 more MPs than ukip.
BillyHunt:
The fact is he didn’t expect to have to stand down in the first place, hence the statement saying he would. If he’d thought for one second that he wouldn’t win he wouldn’t have said it. But he did say it, then said it again, then said he would take the summer off & then reconsider standing again on his return. That lasted about 5 minutes.
I’m still not interested in what labour do. All I know is that they will be having a leadership contest, sometime in the future. Also the fact is, as poor as they currently are, they still have 231 more MPs than ukip.
Firstly even Farage can’t predict the future in terms of election results.Also bearing in mind that unlike the Cons and Labour under an electoral system that favours large established Parties there are no ‘safe’ UKIP seats.In which case what he ‘actually’ said was if ‘he’ didn’t think that UKIP had performed as well as ‘he’ would have liked,in terms of election results,then ‘he’ felt that ‘he’ should go.Which in this case was never his call to make it was the Party’s just as in the case of any other Party.The ‘Party’ ( rightly ) deciding that,in addition to his own performamce in the EU parliament and the results of the UK and Euro elections were all more than good enough to call on Farage to stay where he is.While the continuing ‘protests’ of his ‘opposition’ in that regard just confirm the wisdom of that decision.
As for Labour the facts,concerning its losses to UKIP,together with the confusion amongst the Party,as to what direction it needs to go in say it all.But it seems obvious that it is even more torn on the EU issue amongst others than the Cons are.Not surprisingly being that it can’t possibly expect the working class to go on believing,let alone supporting,the idea,that the CBI agenda,in the form of the free labour market and resulting open door immigration policy,can be anything but counter productive in terms of income levels and living standards.The problem being that Labour’s out of touch ruling ‘elite’ hasn’t got its head around that fact ‘yet’.
Which probably explains why the Daily Mirror is printing its contradictory,hypocritical,so called ‘anti immigration’ message one day,along the lines of that expected from UKIP and support for our continuing EU membership the next. 
Read this, it’s a full transcription of his press conference after his latest defeat at the general election 2015.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/po … 35792.html
Just to reiterate again as it’s obviously not something you find easy to digest. I am not interested in what the Labour Party are up to.
…of course, the Torys NEVER u-turn or renege on promises, right?
We weren’t discussing the Tories, we were discussing the fact that cf refuses to believe what was said & happened with Saint Nigel after his election defeat. I have merely posted his speech to prove what was said by the man himself.
BillyHunt:
Read this, it’s a full transcription of his press conference after his latest defeat at the general election 2015.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/po … 35792.html
Just to reiterate again as it’s obviously not something you find easy to digest. I am not interested in what the Labour Party are up to.
There is nothing within that speech which isn’t entirely consistent with the view that Farage did resign just as he said and only returned because ‘the Party’ ( correctly ) decided that it would be ( extremely ) counter productive to its interests if he was to leave his position.
It also suggests that UKIP’s fortunes are all about convincing the working class that voting for a pro immigration,pro EU,Labour that is as committed to the CBI agenda of minimising wage levels as the Cons are,is like turkeys voting for Christmas.While Cameron is only really in power, with a smaller majority than Major had,because of the damage that UKIP has done to Labour so far in that regard also bearing in mind the anti EU faction within his own Party.
Therefore any EU referendum ( should be ) a different prospect than the in campaign propaganda whitewash of 1975 and what the Labour Party does,or doesn’t decide to do,in the face of all that,is entirely relevant to the issue of wether Cameron’s administration can survive.
IE a change in Labour policy to that of Shore’s ideas now ( would ) do the same damage to Cameron as it would have done to Thatcher’s future chances of running the country in 1974-5. Whatever the eventual scenario UKIP can only get stronger.With the decision to keep Farage in place being an absolute key in that.
Yes I’m sure you’re correct, the damage that ukip inflicted on labour, by reducing their seats in government from 2 down to one, meant the Tories would get in! Nothing to do with the snp decimating labour in Scotland. 
It’s fairly obvious that you will not see what went on with farage, not surprising really considering your lovefest with all things ukip, so it’s pointless repeating it. Unless I want to go down your road, the one that means I repeat things ad nauseum until everyone stops replying making my view the correct one.
I will try it, again, not interested in the Labour Party, past or present. I think that’s five times I’ve said it but it doesn’t seem to stop you giving me an, unwanted, history lesson.
I think youve replaced Rhythm Thief as Carryfasts sparring partner - bless ya both!! 
(btw, where are you RT■■? I know you`re a married man now, but we still need you on here!) 
■■■■■■■:
I think youve replaced Rhythm Thief as Carryfasts sparring partner - bless ya both!!
(btw, where are you RT■■? I know you`re a married man now, but we still need you on here!)
I just can’t help myself. My dad warned me not to enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
BillyHunt:
Yes I’m sure you’re correct, the damage that ukip inflicted on labour, by reducing their seats in government from 2 down to one, meant the Tories would get in! Nothing to do with the snp decimating labour in Scotland.
Do the maths.Even if Labour had won all of those 56 seats instead of the SNP it wouldn’t change the fact of the Con majority.As Harry Monk ( rightly ) said Cameron won his ( pathetically small ) majority because UKIP split the Labour vote.While not splitting the Con one enough after Cameron played the Labour/SNP fear card.
The questions then being.
The result of an EU referendum,in which tactical voting and the issue of votes v seats won’t apply.
Can Cameron’s leadership survive an out referendum vote. 
What if Labour finally has the sense to join UKIP in an alliance. Instead of Labour acting as another/second pro CBI,pro immigration,pro EU,Cameron supporting,Con Party. On that note the supertanker seems to have started turning.
thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli … 449615.ece
Which just leaves the question of it reversing,its stupid,suicidal ( for the working class it supposedly ‘represents’ ) pro immigration,pro CBI,pro EU position.
A pathetically small, in your opinion, majority it may be, but it’s still a majority, and the real reason your so upset with them. Fancy them doing so well at the expense of your, recently, beloved ukip.
Now your pinning all your hopes on a ukip/labour pact! There’s more chance of nailing one of your turds to the ceiling. Don’t let their announcement that they’ve dropped their opposition to a referendum get you all excited, they aren’t in a position to stop it anyway. In case you haven’t noticed labour are pro Europe, any potential leader would be committing political suicide to suggest an alliance with ukip to leave.
BillyHunt:
Now your pinning all your hopes on a ukip/labour pact! There’s more chance of nailing one of your turds to the ceiling. Don’t let their announcement that they’ve dropped their opposition to a referendum get you all excited, they aren’t in a position to stop it anyway. In case you haven’t noticed labour are pro Europe, any potential leader would be committing political suicide to suggest an alliance with ukip to leave.
Ironically the election result figures suggest that it’s more a case of ‘New’ Labour’s position,in following the pro EU ( CBI ) agenda,being ‘political suicide’ for it,than making a sharp turn by joining UKIP,on at least the side of the EU out campaign and immigration policy,would ever be.The damage and destabilisation of Cameron’s position probably being catastrophic in that regard.The big question then being why would Labour wish to continue on its pro EU and open door immigration policy course.When all the evidence shows that :
(1) Continuing EU membership and open door immigration policy can only create an ever worsening Labour market situation from the point of view of over supply from a low wage expectation foreign workforce v demand.Together with excess demand for housing and social provision.
(2) There is no point in voting for any domestic party policy of whatever type,when the EU Federation is the supreme government on the basis of un elected foreign MEP majority vote.
As for your comments you’ve also said that there’s no chance of an earlier than 2017 EU referendum date.
I’m aware of what labour could do, virtually anything you care to come up with. What you’re struggling to comprehend is the fact that I couldn’t give one about their path.
I don’t think we will have a referendum before 2017, I’ve not seen anything to change that viewpoint.
BillyHunt:
I don’t think we will have a referendum before 2017, I’ve not seen anything to change that viewpoint.
telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … gests.html
No surprise the in campaign seem to intend to rig the vote by allowing non Brits to vote. As I said the loss of sovereignty isn’t an issue that can/should be settled by so called ‘democratic’ process.
That viewpoint depends on which rag you read.
msn.com/en-gb/news/national/ … ar-BBkcrX4
BillyHunt:
That viewpoint depends on which rag you read.
msn.com/en-gb/news/national/ … ar-BBkcrX4
I don’t think that has anything to do with the ‘viewpoint’ of ‘which rag’ it happens to be.More a case of confirmation that the Eurosceptic side of the Conservative Party this time is far stronger than it was in 1975.IE ‘‘Eurosceptic MP’s ‘confronted’ ministers over the issue’’.
To the point where Cameron knows that his pro EU agenda is arguably toast ‘unless’ he wants to risk using the support of pro EU Labour and SNP against his own Party.He obviously doesn’t see any point in doing that just over the outrageous undemocratic idea of allowing EU immigrant turkeys to vote against ( what for them ) would be Christmas.
However that ‘might’ ‘possibly’ change if/when the choice is between cancelling the promise of the ‘referendum’,on the basis of ( what the in campaign says is ) ‘successful’ ‘re negotiations’ of our membership,v taking on his Eurosceptic opposition who ( rightly ) want out of the Federal scam regardless.
What is certain is that this time,with Cameron’s internal divisions and small majority and Farage still in place,the out campaign won’t have to suffer the type of biased pro EU propaganda whitewash of 1975.With any attempt to make it so arguably tearing Cameron’s administration apart.
Which leaves the obvious question as to why Labour sees any advantage in the idea of the continuation of over supplying the Labour market with cheap immigrant Labour.Bearing in mind that Cameron’s ‘re negotiations’ are obviously based on the continuation of that idea. In which case as I said Labour have an open goal to ‘take the Cons out’ in the longer term,by making a massive change of direction,by allying with UKIP in that regard.
So, in one post you say they’re going to rig the vote, now you’re saying they won’t be rigging the vote because the Tory euro sceptics are forcing the issue!
They won’t be cancelling the referendum regardless of any negotiations, the PM has already stated that. After negotiations with the EU, good or bad we will have a referendum. Now I know this doesn’t suit your anti government, anti Tory , anti everything unless it’s ukip, agenda but that’s just tough ■■■.
In case it slipped your mind, I’m still not interested in labour policy.
BillyHunt:
So, in one post you say they’re going to rig the vote, now you’re saying they won’t be rigging the vote because the Tory euro sceptics are forcing the issue!
They won’t be cancelling the referendum regardless of any negotiations, the PM has already stated that. After negotiations with the EU, good or bad we will have a referendum. Now I know this doesn’t suit your anti government, anti Tory , anti everything unless it’s ukip, agenda but that’s just tough ■■■.
It seems obvious that the in campaign is in an uncomfortable place ( from its point of view ) and yes as part of that it obviously ‘wanted/intended’ to allow the EU immigrant vote to be counted as part of any referendum regarding an EU Brexit.
While it seems equally obvious that the Eurosceptic/out campaign is in a strong position.To the point where it is able to at least match the strength of the in campaign.So,at least in that regard,I’m ‘actually’ saying that the in campaign,which obviously includes Labour ( so far ) and the SNP and the Libdems,in addition to Cameron’s Europhile Cons,arguably ‘intended’ to rig the vote but seem to have been stopped by the Eurosceptic side of Cameron’s administration.
As for me being ‘anti Tory’.Assuming that the definition of ‘Tory’ means ideologically tied to Unionism/Federalism and an exploitative form of Capitalism, which is all about minimising wage costs.In large part by using low wage expectation immigrant Labour,that would obviously also include anti Labour too.Wether that fits your description of ‘anti government unless it’s UKIP’ is open to question.I’d suggest it doesn’t.
You don’t have any actual proof that they intended to rig anything, it’s just that your, not only a euro sceptic, but a government sceptic, assuming the worst at all times. On that point, why, after all your years of watching different parties come & go,many no doubt getting shafted by them all at some point, do you think ukip would be any different, assuming they ever get into a position to actually do anything worthwhile.
Given what you’ve put in the last paragraph I would say you fit the description very well.