Politics, The Election May 2015

[Worthy4England]

Rather sensible views on the NHS here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30972569" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Interestingly enough, it has nothing to do with the title on the page.)

I think this lot have trouble with their "numbers" too... Especially regarding how much they'll save by withdrawing from the EU. They believe they'll save £8Bn - i.e. all of our net contributions. They forget that Norway and Switzerland (who they hold up as the model) pay about half (or more in the case of Norway) per captia, what the UK pays - to sit outside it. On that basis, I'm not sure how they think they're going to save the full £8Bn...Their paper "How much does membership of the European Union cost Britain", acknowledges that Norway and Switzerland make "moderate financial contributions" to the EU - strangely they don't mention that Norway's per capita contribution to EU/EEA and EFTA was £106 per capita in 2011 - compared to the UK's £128 per capita for the UK - that's rather more than "moderate financial contributions" in my book - that's most of your £8Bn pi$$ed up the wall. The Swiss pay around £53 per capita. [Figures from Leaving the EU RESEARCH PAPER 13/42 1 July 2013 produced by the Cabinet Office. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... ing-the-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ].

So which model is it? One where we are in EEA and EFTA and cough up 70% of current, or the "Swiss model" where we pay 40% of current - neither of which saves the £8bn...

Barking (II)

[Hoboh]

Rather sensible views on the NHS here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30972569" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Interestingly enough, it has nothing to do with the title on the page.)

I think this lot have trouble with their "numbers" too... Especially regarding how much they'll save by withdrawing from the EU. They believe they'll save £8Bn - i.e. all of our net contributions. They forget that Norway and Switzerland (who they hold up as the model) pay about half (or more in the case of Norway) per captia, what the UK pays - to sit outside it. On that basis, I'm not sure how they think they're going to save the full £8Bn...Their paper "How much does membership of the European Union cost Britain", acknowledges that Norway and Switzerland make "moderate financial contributions" to the EU - strangely they don't mention that Norway's per capita contribution to EU/EEA and EFTA was £106 per capita in 2011 - compared to the UK's £128 per capita for the UK - that's rather more than "moderate financial contributions" in my book - that's most of your £8Bn pi$$ed up the wall. The Swiss pay around £53 per capita. [Figures from Leaving the EU RESEARCH PAPER 13/42 1 July 2013 produced by the Cabinet Office. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... ing-the-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ].

So which model is it? One where we are in EEA and EFTA and cough up 70% of current, or the "Swiss model" where we pay 40% of current - neither of which saves the £8bn...

Barking (II)

I could afford it

4/5 billion out of foreign aid and a further 3 pa for 30 years from non replacement of trident should help the NHS and social care no end.
And I could make savings on projected spending of around 5 billion per year (at a very conservative guess) for at least the next two parliaments by not building that ridiculous train set!
To be honest I'd cut the expected 11/12 billion foreign aid down to about 1.5 billion to help with unforeseen overseas disasters, making even a bit of manoeuvre for tax cuts/training.

[Worthy4England]

Rather sensible views on the NHS here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30972569" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Interestingly enough, it has nothing to do with the title on the page.)

I think this lot have trouble with their "numbers" too... Especially regarding how much they'll save by withdrawing from the EU. They believe they'll save £8Bn - i.e. all of our net contributions. They forget that Norway and Switzerland (who they hold up as the model) pay about half (or more in the case of Norway) per captia, what the UK pays - to sit outside it. On that basis, I'm not sure how they think they're going to save the full £8Bn...Their paper "How much does membership of the European Union cost Britain", acknowledges that Norway and Switzerland make "moderate financial contributions" to the EU - strangely they don't mention that Norway's per capita contribution to EU/EEA and EFTA was £106 per capita in 2011 - compared to the UK's £128 per capita for the UK - that's rather more than "moderate financial contributions" in my book - that's most of your £8Bn pi$$ed up the wall. The Swiss pay around £53 per capita. [Figures from Leaving the EU RESEARCH PAPER 13/42 1 July 2013 produced by the Cabinet Office. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... ing-the-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ].

So which model is it? One where we are in EEA and EFTA and cough up 70% of current, or the "Swiss model" where we pay 40% of current - neither of which saves the £8bn...

Barking (II)

I could afford it

4/5 billion out of foreign aid and a further 3 pa for 30 years from non replacement of trident should help the NHS and social care no end.
And I could make savings on projected spending of around 5 billion per year (at a very conservative guess) for at least the next two parliaments by not building that ridiculous train set!
To be honest I'd cut the expected 11/12 billion foreign aid down to about 1.5 billion to help with unforeseen overseas disasters, making even a bit of manoeuvre for tax cuts/training.

Great that's £18Bn a 2.5% saving on our budget - bravo! There are a couple of questions I have.

I see in true politician vernacular, you're headlining the saving in aid at the beginning of the paragraph (4/5 bn) and at the end (10.5bn). I'm guessing this counts once? rather than twice?

You're also saving us £5Bn pa that we've never spent anywhere (HS2) - we might but we haven't yet - We've spent £300m between Jan 2011 and Oct 2013 - I know the thing's hardly kicked-off yet in terms of project ramp-up, but it's a long way currently from you being able to save £5Bn per annum.

How much of your 2.5% saving are you looking to plough back into tax cuts/training/NHS and Social Care? All of it? Don't think it'll make much of a dint in our £84Bn borrowing, if you hand it all back out like a regular Mr Nice Guy....

[Lord Kangana]

Just out of interest Worthy, which of these policies would you wholeheartedly disagree with?

The constitutional functions of the monarchy should be abolished and the House of Lords should be replaced by a wholly elected second chamber.

A new written constitution should be devised defining the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

Elections should be by a system of proportional representation. The voting age should be reduced to 16 years.

A 'recall' system needs introducing - where politicians must step down to face re-election if petitioned to do so by a significant proportion of electors.

More local and regional decision - making and greater public participation at all levels.

We recognise the importance of addressing issues of common concern at the European and international levels, but not through a European super-state or inappropriate global bodies like the World trade Organisation (WTO) which undermine local democracy and global justice. Each function of government has an appropriate level, and defence would remain a national responsibility.

[Hoboh]

Rather sensible views on the NHS here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30972569" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Interestingly enough, it has nothing to do with the title on the page.)

I think this lot have trouble with their "numbers" too... Especially regarding how much they'll save by withdrawing from the EU. They believe they'll save £8Bn - i.e. all of our net contributions. They forget that Norway and Switzerland (who they hold up as the model) pay about half (or more in the case of Norway) per captia, what the UK pays - to sit outside it. On that basis, I'm not sure how they think they're going to save the full £8Bn...Their paper "How much does membership of the European Union cost Britain", acknowledges that Norway and Switzerland make "moderate financial contributions" to the EU - strangely they don't mention that Norway's per capita contribution to EU/EEA and EFTA was £106 per capita in 2011 - compared to the UK's £128 per capita for the UK - that's rather more than "moderate financial contributions" in my book - that's most of your £8Bn pi$$ed up the wall. The Swiss pay around £53 per capita. [Figures from Leaving the EU RESEARCH PAPER 13/42 1 July 2013 produced by the Cabinet Office. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... ing-the-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ].

So which model is it? One where we are in EEA and EFTA and cough up 70% of current, or the "Swiss model" where we pay 40% of current - neither of which saves the £8bn...

Barking (II)

I could afford it

4/5 billion out of foreign aid and a further 3 pa for 30 years from non replacement of trident should help the NHS and social care no end.
And I could make savings on projected spending of around 5 billion per year (at a very conservative guess) for at least the next two parliaments by not building that ridiculous train set!
To be honest I'd cut the expected 11/12 billion foreign aid down to about 1.5 billion to help with unforeseen overseas disasters, making even a bit of manoeuvre for tax cuts/training.

Great that's £18Bn a 2.5% saving on our budget - bravo! There are a couple of questions I have.

I see in true politician vernacular, you're headlining the saving in aid at the beginning of the paragraph (4/5 bn) and at the end (10.5bn). I'm guessing this counts once? rather than twice?

You're also saving us £5Bn pa that we've never spent anywhere (HS2) - we might but we haven't yet - We've spent £300m between Jan 2011 and Oct 2013 - I know the thing's hardly kicked-off yet in terms of project ramp-up, but it's a long way currently from you being able to save £5Bn per annum.

How much of your 2.5% saving are you looking to plough back into tax cuts/training/NHS and Social Care? All of it? Don't think it'll make much of a dint in our £84Bn borrowing, if you hand it all back out like a regular Mr Nice Guy....

You are correct over the foreign aid the other 5 Bn would be used, sorry for any confusion
Yes put like you do, it sounds little but with creation of jobs, trained workforce, etc would mean more tax income and less social security benefit spending.
There are other measures to get the UK back to fair work such as restricting immigrants from filling up the lower skilled jobs, no matter where they come from, so as to provide a base to build upon through further training and dwindling benefits.
Robustly chasing multi nationals for their tax dues with new law if required.
I would stop winter fuel payments for wealthier pensioners or those abroad, re-directing any savings to insulate the homes of the less well off, Child benefit would not extend past two children and I would run similar adds on booze as they do now on cigs showing someone's liver rotting or people getting squashed by trucks as the fell in the road The sugary food industry would get a health tax banged on them and I'd even consider banning Coke and Pepsi.
Finely on health it goes without saying I'd string up all drug pushers even the minor ones, I would however legalise and tax wacky baccy for now anyway.
Oh did I mention once business is a risk? and Governments lie renegotiation on PFI would be interesting

[Hoboh]

Just out of interest Worthy, which of these policies would you wholeheartedly disagree with?

The constitutional functions of the monarchy should be abolished and the House of Lords should be replaced by a wholly elected second chamber.
Check
A new written constitution should be devised defining the rights and responsibilities of citizens.
Check
Elections should be by a system of proportional representation. The voting age should be reduced to 16 years.
No chance it should be raised to 21 to stop people grooming impressionable youths!
A 'recall' system needs introducing - where politicians must step down to face re-election if petitioned to do so by a significant proportion of electors.
Check
More local and regional decision - making and greater public participation at all levels.
Not too sure on this if it means more Fat Controllers!

We recognise the importance of addressing issues of common concern at the European and international levels, but not through a European super-state or inappropriate global bodies like the World trade Organisation (WTO) which undermine local democracy and global justice. Each function of government has an appropriate level, and defence would remain a national responsibility.
Now your rocking!

[Worthy4England]

Just out of interest Worthy, which of these policies would you wholeheartedly disagree with?

The constitutional functions of the monarchy should be abolished and the House of Lords should be replaced by a wholly elected second chamber.

A new written constitution should be devised defining the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

Elections should be by a system of proportional representation. The voting age should be reduced to 16 years.

A 'recall' system needs introducing - where politicians must step down to face re-election if petitioned to do so by a significant proportion of electors.

More local and regional decision - making and greater public participation at all levels.

We recognise the importance of addressing issues of common concern at the European and international levels, but not through a European super-state or inappropriate global bodies like the World trade Organisation (WTO) which undermine local democracy and global justice. Each function of government has an appropriate level, and defence would remain a national responsibility.

These are fairly minor in the scheme of things, but here goes.

Constitutional functions of monarchy - don't care one way or another - if we ain't got some Germans we could end up with Boris or Ed or David or Nick (well probably not Nick) as President - don't think it's important.

Elected HoL - in favour, always have been.

Written constitution - not too fussed about. Wouldn't win my vote on this.

Elections by PR - I'm in favour, the electorate very recently weren't - so no. The people have spoken, recently. Vote at 16 - no, not in favour.

Recall - Not too fussed one way or another - I actually think this could be counter-productive although it sounds nice - what happens on a recall? A new constituency election?

More local and regional decision making - I'm still getting over the Big Society - I'd need to understand more about the details if they're replacing tiers of bureaucracy, then it might help - the downside is an elected idiot locally is no better for you than an elected idiot in Westminster or Brussels.

The last para is "stuff and nonsense" largely - European super state doesn't impress me much, bargaining power of a collection of European nations Vs the US I think is broadly helpful. WTO (a bit like IMF) are largely there because the previous models of local states sorting stuff out didn't work as they didn't trust each other - with good reason. Defence - don't disagree it's a national responsibility, but I think it's also a regional and trans-global one too.

Most of these don't weigh too heavily with me to be honest...

[Worthy4England]

You are correct over the foreign aid the other 5 Bn would be used, sorry for any confusion
Yes put like you do, it sounds little but with creation of jobs, trained workforce, etc would mean more tax income and less social security benefit spending.
There are other measures to get the UK back to fair work such as restricting immigrants from filling up the lower skilled jobs, no matter where they come from, so as to provide a base to build upon through further training and dwindling benefits.
Robustly chasing multi nationals for their tax dues with new law if required.
I would stop winter fuel payments for wealthier pensioners or those abroad, re-directing any savings to insulate the homes of the less well off, Child benefit would not extend past two children and I would run similar adds on booze as they do now on cigs showing someone's liver rotting or people getting squashed by trucks as the fell in the road The sugary food industry would get a health tax banged on them and I'd even consider banning Coke and Pepsi.
Finely on health it goes without saying I'd string up all drug pushers even the minor ones, I would however legalise and tax wacky baccy for now anyway.
Oh did I mention once business is a risk? and Governments lie renegotiation on PFI would be interesting

Reasonable - more folks in work less on benefit. This restricting immigrants - what does this bit do? We stop current immigrants or cut future immigrants - if it's the former, then I think we have a problem or two - if it's the latter then we need to create extra jobs - how you going to do this? When we get unemployment down to zero (or somewhere near), what do we do about labour inflation? Surely we need some flex in the supply of labour or we risk significant upward pressure on wages leading to inflation. I guess we could always look to some immigration to curb this...

Chasing tax dodging - in favour of - but might have unintended consequences (could lead to shell companies over here with consequences on current employees)

Winter fuel payments - maybe - need to see how this would impact the numbers of geriatrics in A&E with hypothermia...CHB sounds reasonable, but I think it would have to be phased - if you cut to two on day one, then I'm fairly sure there'll be more pressure on other benefits funding. Problem is, the people affected would likely be the kids, not just the adults that had them.

I'm good with the dangers of booze advertising...Wacky baccy - interesting one - I think there would need to be a significant enforcement cost, to persuade folks away from current illegal channels if it involved paying more than they currently do - good news is I can fall under a truck giggling my tits off without living in fear of the negative advertising - wonder what the long term health cost will be?...fizzy drinks - either we don't like them or we do - don't think it would work to just ban Pepsi/Coke - you'd need to ban them all...

[Hoboh]

You are correct over the foreign aid the other 5 Bn would be used, sorry for any confusion
Yes put like you do, it sounds little but with creation of jobs, trained workforce, etc would mean more tax income and less social security benefit spending.
There are other measures to get the UK back to fair work such as restricting immigrants from filling up the lower skilled jobs, no matter where they come from, so as to provide a base to build upon through further training and dwindling benefits.
Robustly chasing multi nationals for their tax dues with new law if required.
I would stop winter fuel payments for wealthier pensioners or those abroad, re-directing any savings to insulate the homes of the less well off, Child benefit would not extend past two children and I would run similar adds on booze as they do now on cigs showing someone's liver rotting or people getting squashed by trucks as the fell in the road The sugary food industry would get a health tax banged on them and I'd even consider banning Coke and Pepsi.
Finely on health it goes without saying I'd string up all drug pushers even the minor ones, I would however legalise and tax wacky baccy for now anyway.
Oh did I mention once business is a risk? and Governments lie renegotiation on PFI would be interesting

Reasonable - more folks in work less on benefit. This restricting immigrants - what does this bit do? We stop current immigrants or cut future immigrants - if it's the former, then I think we have a problem or two - if it's the latter then we need to create extra jobs - how you going to do this? When we get unemployment down to zero (or somewhere near), what do we do about labour inflation? Surely we need some flex in the supply of labour or we risk significant upward pressure on wages leading to inflation. I guess we could always look to some immigration to curb this...

Chasing tax dodging - in favour of - but might have unintended consequences (could lead to shell companies over here with consequences on current employees)

Winter fuel payments - maybe - need to see how this would impact the numbers of geriatrics in A&E with hypothermia...CHB sounds reasonable, but I think it would have to be phased - if you cut to two on day one, then I'm fairly sure there'll be more pressure on other benefits funding. Problem is, the people affected would likely be the kids, not just the adults that had them.

I'm good with the dangers of booze advertising...Wacky baccy - interesting one - I think there would need to be a significant enforcement cost, to persuade folks away from current illegal channels if it involved paying more than they currently do - good news is I can fall under a truck giggling my tits off without living in fear of the negative advertising - wonder what the long term health cost will be?...fizzy drinks - either we don't like them or we do - don't think it would work to just ban Pepsi/Coke - you'd need to ban them all...

The wacky baccy seems to be working well in the states, so much so others are interested in the concept the police say there is no noticeable crime rise with it.
Pepsi/Coke just used as an example, ever watch obese people on TV programmes? common denominator, fizzy drinks.
Of course child benefit would have to be phased in or a year, couldn't have one in the tub and do for them could you? This would not be retrospective btw if you are paid for them now that would continue it's future savings.
No old person would die of hypothermia for want of not being able to afford heating.
On companies and tax I think you'd find not many would like to loose the markets over here and given if we did it others would do it also.
There is little we can do with immigrants already working here but unless we do restrict future migration any success we may gain for our economy will be negated by Europe's unemployed coming over.
There are rafts of things out there that people want politicians to look at, love or hate UKIP at least they have brought into the open the previously unmentionable, they infuriate me by being a bunch of disorganised so n so's very amateur they really should be smashing down the ivory towers by now with a decent set of agreed principles, they are not and it will be the downfall of 'fresher' politics.

[Hoboh]

Oh and I'm opposed to fracking as well, as much as on the why bother it won't mean any cheaper fuel as the environmental case.

[Hoboh]

Finally what most of us already knew!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general ... ow-up.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some people worry about a vicious circle of non-participation, fretting that young people who don’t vote now will never get into the habit. The electoral balance will tip ever further towards the old until democracy gives way to gerontocracy.
Maybe. But here’s an alternative theory of why young people are taking less interest in politics: they are just taking longer to grow up.
In an age of terrifyingly mature-seeming teenagers whose smartphones expose them to every fleshy aspect of adult life, that may appear counter-intuitive. But there’s more to adulthood than smutty messages on Snapchat.

[Hoboh]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-overseas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sharia law anyone?

[Worthy4England]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-overseas

Sharia law anyone?

Dork - Which party do you think they'll vote for, that is likely to get a majority and introduce Sharia Law? Did I miss it in the Green Party manifesto somewhere?

Stupid article that assumes that all migrants would want Sharia Law and overlooks the fact that if they won every seat on the maps presented, for a single party that was standing on a banner of introducing Sharia Law, they'd still be 306 seats short of a fcking majority.

#Ho-perbole

[Hoboh]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-overseas

Sharia law anyone?

Dork - Which party do you think they'll vote for, that is likely to get a majority and introduce Sharia Law? Did I miss it in the Green Party manifesto somewhere?

Stupid article that assumes that all migrants would want Sharia Law and overlooks the fact that if they won every seat on the maps presented, for a single party that was standing on a banner of introducing Sharia Law, they'd still be 306 seats short of a fcking majority.

#Ho-perbole

Laugh in the next 15-20 years when they organise, ISIS sprang up from nowhere!
You are already talking about nearly the same amount of foreign born voters as there are Scots and look at the SNP.
Carry on Ostrich!

[thebish]

I know you claim not to like the idea hobes - but most of your views on crime and punishment at FAR more closely aligned to sharia law than to UK/EU law... you should be welcoming your bonkers fears with open arms!

[Worthy4England]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-overseas

Sharia law anyone?

Dork - Which party do you think they'll vote for, that is likely to get a majority and introduce Sharia Law? Did I miss it in the Green Party manifesto somewhere?

Stupid article that assumes that all migrants would want Sharia Law and overlooks the fact that if they won every seat on the maps presented, for a single party that was standing on a banner of introducing Sharia Law, they'd still be 306 seats short of a fcking majority.

#Ho-perbole

Laugh in the next 15-20 years when they organise, ISIS sprang up from nowhere!
You are already talking about nearly the same amount of foreign born voters as there are Scots and look at the SNP.
Carry on Ostrich!

It's not remotely similar. We devolved a Scottish Parliament and it's pretty much operating as envisaged. I don't recall the UK ever having a country called Manchester Withington.

ISIS did not "spring up from nowhere." It sprang up from the Soviet/Afghan war - it just wasn't called ISIS then. The reason it's gaining so much traction stemmed in large part from the coalition withdrawal from Iraq, civil war in Syria and Bin Laden being topped.

[Hoboh]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-overseas

Sharia law anyone?

Dork - Which party do you think they'll vote for, that is likely to get a majority and introduce Sharia Law? Did I miss it in the Green Party manifesto somewhere?

Stupid article that assumes that all migrants would want Sharia Law and overlooks the fact that if they won every seat on the maps presented, for a single party that was standing on a banner of introducing Sharia Law, they'd still be 306 seats short of a fcking majority.

#Ho-perbole

Laugh in the next 15-20 years when they organise, ISIS sprang up from nowhere!
You are already talking about nearly the same amount of foreign born voters as there are Scots and look at the SNP.
Carry on Ostrich!

It's not remotely similar. We devolved a Scottish Parliament and it's pretty much operating as envisaged. I don't recall the UK ever having a country called Manchester Withington.

ISIS did not "spring up from nowhere." It sprang up from the Soviet/Afghan war - it just wasn't called ISIS then. The reason it's gaining so much traction stemmed in large part from the coalition withdrawal from Iraq, civil war in Syria and Bin Laden being topped.

Actually you find they sprang up from a couple of US/Iraqi detention camps and prisons.

You really are out of touch with how people can work these sorts of things aren't you?, let me put it this way if UKIP had a proper organisation and discipline, rooted out a few loons and had this 12 months ago I would more or less expect them to run into mid 30's to possibly early 40's in terms of seats, now I reckon 5-8 is about what to expect and blow the hopes of Euro sceptic's, that should cheer you up some.
Muslims are far more organised and disciplined than that and once they realise the way forward is to take over by population and voting, they will.
Example Merkel and the bloody Germans, I'm really rooting for the Greeks to kick her fat ass.

[Hoboh]

I know you claim not to like the idea hobes - but most of your views on crime and punishment at FAR more closely aligned to sharia law than to UK/EU law... you should be welcoming your bonkers fears with open arms!

I don't quite ever remember advocating chucking Gays off tower blocks or stoning some poor woman or shooting someone for watching football or having a fag
Persistent tea leafs, well they maybe some merit there and murderers, rapists kiddie fiddlers, drug dealers, goes without saying

Oh nearly forgot, violent offenders would be flogged beginning and end of their sentence with a proper cat and salt water!

[Worthy4England]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-overseas

Sharia law anyone?

Dork - Which party do you think they'll vote for, that is likely to get a majority and introduce Sharia Law? Did I miss it in the Green Party manifesto somewhere?

Stupid article that assumes that all migrants would want Sharia Law and overlooks the fact that if they won every seat on the maps presented, for a single party that was standing on a banner of introducing Sharia Law, they'd still be 306 seats short of a fcking majority.

#Ho-perbole

Laugh in the next 15-20 years when they organise, ISIS sprang up from nowhere!
You are already talking about nearly the same amount of foreign born voters as there are Scots and look at the SNP.
Carry on Ostrich!

It's not remotely similar. We devolved a Scottish Parliament and it's pretty much operating as envisaged. I don't recall the UK ever having a country called Manchester Withington.

ISIS did not "spring up from nowhere." It sprang up from the Soviet/Afghan war - it just wasn't called ISIS then. The reason it's gaining so much traction stemmed in large part from the coalition withdrawal from Iraq, civil war in Syria and Bin Laden being topped.

Actually you find they sprang up from a couple of US/Iraqi detention camps and prisons.

You really are out of touch with how people can work these sorts of things aren't you?, let me put it this way if UKIP had a proper organisation and discipline, rooted out a few loons and had this 12 months ago I would more or less expect them to run into mid 30's to possibly early 40's in terms of seats, now I reckon 5-8 is about what to expect and blow the hopes of Euro sceptic's, that should cheer you up some.
Muslims are far more organised and disciplined than that and once they realise the way forward is to take over by population and voting, they will.
Example Merkel and the bloody Germans, I'm really rooting for the Greeks to kick her fat ass.

No, I won't, because they didn't there's plenty of research that shows that they are a conglomeration (or a reincarnation if you prefer) of a number of other groups that had been around for a long time. (a la Monty Python's Judean People's Front, the People's front of Judea) etc. They have been around for ages, just not called ISIS or ISIL.

I'm not at all out of touch with how people can work these things out. As it stands, assuming they didn't get broad support of either the Tories or Labour party, they'd need to win an election or take the country by force. I'm assuming for a moment that you're not suggesting that they are going to do the latter? So they have to win an election or get one of the two main parties to adopt Sharia Law as a route forwards.

To win an election they're going to need around 9-10 million votes - so approximately 5 times the number of muslims as actually exist in the UK today. Not only will they have to get that number of votes, they'll have to be fairly distributed across the constituencies so that they're not polling 100% of the vote in Manchester Withington and none in all the adjoining constituencies. Tell me how you think they're going to do that in 10-15 years?

[Hoboh]

Read this it explains it easy for you.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/d ... side-story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And on voters
Twenty years ago, the world had about 1.1 billion Muslims. Twenty years from now, it will have about twice as many - and they'll represent more than a quarter of all people on earth, according to a new [Pew] study released [January 27, 2011] Thursday.
That's a rise from less than 20 percent in 1990.
From 1990 to 2000, the Muslim population grew at an average annual rate of 2.3%.
The Muslim share of the global population will rise primarily because of their relatively high birth rate, the large number of Muslims of childbearing age, conversion will play relatively little part in the increase, the report anticipates. It says little data is available on conversion, but what little there is suggests Islam loses as many adherents via conversion as it gains.




Who would 20 years ago have envisaged the immigration to the UK we have had or the fact places like tower hamlets are almost a foreign country?
True as things stand now you'd need a lot of voters but that is changing, the young are too feckin' idle to vote and the old dying off, some people and I include myself here are not prepared to sell out large parts of what we believe to vote for pc political parties frightened of upsetting anyone and delivering nothing as a result, who is to say that in time 4-6 million will get you into government?
If hand on heart you thought the UK would be what it is now, your cleverer than I give you credit for.