As far as THE BRITISH VOICE is concerned, the only things that matter in such debates are: do they represent British people? Will the British people benefit from their policies, or immigrants? Do they and their policies sincerely reflect a pro-British cause? Any politician can promise the earth – and most do – but have they got the interests of the BRITISH PEOPLE at heart? Or do they really represent globalist bankers, industrialists, Bilderbergers, Communists? Do they support our British democracy and Brexit or do they wish to subvert it? Are they ‘fluffy & friendly wolves in sheep’s clothing’ or straight talking and genuine?
Summary ratings for Candidates: Pro-British; anti-British; Globalist; Communist; Pro-immigration; anti-democratic; pro-Brexit; anti-Brexit; Genuine; Phony.
As a brand new leader of Ukip, he is not used to this sort of debate and his inexperience showed; particularly when his opponents tried to steer him off message, as he should have continued speaking regardless of interruptions. Also, he was somewhat apologetic on the subject of immigration. Instead of saying Britain should have a points-based immigration system; he should’ve said categorically that, other than Brexit, the British people have NEVER been asked if we wish to allow immigrant-invaders into OUR LAND. This land belongs to the indigenous Caucasoid people of England, Scotland, Wales & Ireland and – and NOT the politicians – WE will decide who CAN and CANNOT come to settle in OUR land. Also, many of the present immigrants will be sent back home. He was attacked by all of the anti-British traitors, over the background of the terrorists and he should have said: “During the IRA bombing campaigns, the police were allowed to profile the type of potential bombers, eg: White adult Catholic males, aged between 18 and 50, that regularly travelled back and forth between England and Ireland, especially if they had some Irish roots. Back then, us white British Catholics had to take it on the chin and were given extra security checks at airports and ferries, because people who looked like us and had the same faith as us, were killing people – although I’m not sure the word ‘faith’ is appropriate here, because genuine Christians would not murder innocent people. But nowadays, elderly and very young indigenous Caucasoid people are made to suffer outrageously undignified security checks, simply because the police are no longer allowed to focus on the typical terrorist – who, more often than not, these days, is a Muslim!
Although he wasn’t emphatic enough on immigration, he did get some very good points across on that subject and became more vocal towards the end. He made some excellent points about stopping the Foreign Aid hand-out, the proceeds of which could just about fund all of the areas where our society is sorely lacking: such as investment in… the NHS, to bring our waiting list down from the appalling levels they’re currently at; British industry, to create millions of jobs; enlarging our shipping fleet and Armed Forces, to protect our fishermen and our borders; protect our youngsters, our elderly, and our women, from predatory immigrants and paedophiles from whatever background.
He should also have said that Britain CAN afford the things that our people NEED and we can pay for this by allowing our government to issue the money we require to fund those needs; this could be done without increasing our National Debt – in fact, we could issue enough money to repay that debt – so that we can start afresh, with a debt-free monetary system. Without this initiative, Britain will always be in false tax-debt slavery to the banksters. Overall, Paul Nuttall gave a less than polished presentation, but that is NOT the way us ‘Scousers’ behave. We have a habit of calling a spade a spade, whether our opponents like it, or not, and Paul Nuttall should stick to that principle and fight his corner more vigorously.
Despite his rookie performance, he did quite well, overall, and for me he, or rather his party’s policies, won the debate. As Paul Nuttall is a rookie, Nigel Farage should’ve spoken in his place, because other Leaders chose others to speak on their behalf. Whatever people think of Farage, he is an excellent speaker and would’ve destroyed all of his opponents.
Paul Nuttall – Summary ratings: Pro-British; anti-democratic; pro-Brexit; Genuine.
She had an aggressive attitude, but did not back that up with information on policies and she did NOT destroy Labour over their appalling policy of PFI – the phony Private Finance Initiative, which has enabled globalist companies to triple the cost of every PFI contract, to make them and the bankers £trillions, and has placed our grandchildren into debt for the rest of their lives.
She wasn’t strong enough on Brexit and she was quite weak, particularly against Corbyn. She admitted that she had been in the Remain camp, but is happy to accept the will of the people in the referendum. She should have enforced Theresa May’s comment that “Britain WILL walk away’ and will NOT accept a bad Brexit deal from Brussels.” Also, she should have slaughtered Jeremy Corbyn on Brexit, by pointing out that he has been against the European Union for over 30 years and he was suspiciously quiet during the Brexit campaign. When he DID speak, he went against everything he’d been saying about it, for over thirty years.
If she’d have majored on Brexit, very firmly, she would’ve had a commanding lead, but she did not and she came second, behind Ukip.
Amber Rudd – Summary ratings: Globalist; Pro-immigration; pro-British; anti-Brexit; Genuine.
I won’t beat about the bush; Jeremy Corbyn is a lying shyster. He tried several times to gain support by praising the Manchester community for behaving very well after the Muslim bombing, last week. He was arrogant toward the others, and was especially insulting to Paul Nuttall, stating that Nuttall’s views on immigration were “hate speech”! What an anti-British Corbyn is. Also, he claimed that Labour would stop the free movement of people – in lay terms ‘open-door’ immigration – but he is actively involved in projects that welcome immigrants to Britain –against the wishes of the indigenous British people.
Corbyn has vowed not to accept a Brexit deal which does NOT involve Britain staying in the Single Market, because he knows very well, as everyone does, the EU will NOT allow Britain to remain in the Single Market, without agreeing to the Free Movement of People (mass-immigration) or joining the Shengen Agreement, which amounts to the same thing – open-door immigration. This proved that his earlier comments; about opposing open-door immigration was a LIE.
This man is NOT to be trusted and nor is his Labour Party, as they would ditch Brexit at the first opportunity.
Jeremy Corbyn – Summary ratings: anti-British; Globalist; Communist; Pro-immigration; anti-democratic; anti-Brexit; Phony.
Actually the Green Party should be called the ‘Watermelon Party’ GREEN on the outside, but RED through and through! What a smarmy beggar! Trotting out the lying chestnut of phoney “global warming”, whilst banging on about any Tom, Dick or Harry – or should that be any Ali, Mbutu or Mugabee – to come and live in OUR country, against the wishes of the British people! She should’ve told the truth that the Green Party’s policies on immigration and lots of other areas virtually mirror the Communist Manifesto; which begs the question: why are they called the Green Party, when they should be called the Communist Party?
The only decent thing she said, throughout the debate, was: “we must STOP fracking”. However, voters should only vote for this anti-British ‘watermelon’ party if they want MORE immigration!
Caroline Lucas – Summary ratings: anti-British; Globalist; Communist; Pro-immigration; anti-democratic; anti-Brexit; Phony.
She came across as a dizzy person who had been plucked out of the audience to make up the numbers on the panel – she was completely out of her depth and almost drowned, several times. I’m not even sure if she knew what day it was. The interviewer reminded her of Plaid Cymru’s policy of wanting to continue with open-door immigration despite the fact that the people of Wales voted for Brexit, and asked if she was not confident enough in the Welsh work force. Wood tried to salvage her face and her party, by stating that they are very happy with the Welsh work force, but we need more. The interviewer then asked if more Welsh people could be trained, instead. Wood floundered and her party was lost – thank goodness – as I live in Wales and have witnessed the fact that Plaid Cymru, like the Green Party, is farther to the Left than Labour; and that is extreme left!
Just like their friends in the SNP, Plaid Cymru is certainly NOT a nationalist party Regardless of her quiet and mousey performance, Leanne Wood showed us that Plaid Cymru favours immigration.
Leanne Wood – Summary ratings: anti-British; Globalist; Communist; Pro-immigration; anti-Brexit; Phony.
This is an ignorant little man with a big mouth, which will never shut, even when prompted by the interviewer. This man could never be a “nationalist” in a million years! He is very “proud” of the SNP’s open-door policy on immigration and proud of the contribution immigrants have made to Scotland – regardless of the fact that most Scottish people do NOT want immigration. Typical bigoted traitor; ignoring the views of the people! I trust that the genuine Scottish people will give him a rough ride at every hustings, in Moray, between now and next Thursday, along with every other anti-Scottish, anti-British SNP candidate. It is scandalous that the SNP can get 56 seats in the British Parliament, with just under one and a half million votes (1,454,436) when Ukip only got one seat in Parliament, after being voted for by almost four million people (3,881,099). This is an electoral disgrace and is effectively the ‘tail wagging the dog’!
Robertson showed that the SNP is certainly NOT a nationalist party and cannot be trusted to carry out the will of the Scottish and British people. And, you can guarantee that the SNP will let far more immigrants come to Britain.
Angus Robertson – Summary ratings: anti-British; Globalist; Communist; Pro-immigration; anti-democratic; anti-Brexit; Phony.
No. This is NOT Stan Laurel; it’s another clown. This man is the last, and definitely the least, of the panel. He doesn’t give a damn about democracy, as he clearly wants to ignore the wishes of the people – to leave the European Union – and stay in it anyway! What an arrogant git! He is another anti-British rat that deserves to get 0.0 votes in next week’s election. He trotted out the new weapon-word of “Climate Change Denier” and duly pointed his finger, in a typical lefty manner, to Paul Nuttall. He also said Paul Nuttall’s comments were racist.
All in all, Tim Farron proved that he is NOT a middle of the roader, as he is definitely on the LEFT, and anti-British, side of the road, as he is very much in favour of immigration – regardless of the views of the British people.
Tim Farron – Summary ratings: anti-British; Globalist; Communist; Pro-immigration; anti-democratic; anti-Brexit; Phony.
Any British politician that uses such terms as – Racism; anti-Semitic; Holocaust Denier; Global Warming Denier; Hate Speech; Nazi; Pro-Immigration; We Need Immigrants; Multi-Culturalism; Cultural Enrichment; Black Lives Matter; White Supremacist; White Privilege…
– is clearly anti-British, anti-Caucasoid and cannot be trusted.
The British Lion has awoken and woe betide any politician that attempts to ignore our common law, our Constitution, or Brexit, as they will get a dog’s life.