At least we've finally agreed that they (sports direct) were in the wrong, halleluyah

Back to the NHS.
Where has anyone said we should just throw money at it ??
I've said it is underfunded and that the Tory press and the Tory party are throwing a smokescreen of "too many immigrants abusing the service" in order to cover the underfunding.
We've had 7 years of austerity cuts and whilst something had to be don to address the budget deficit, there has been a pretence of system abuse.
People haven't suddenly started going to casualty, instead of seeing their doctor, it's happened for years.
Clearly wrong and educating people will help reduce this aspect.
Also "health tourists", again not acceptable but, not the reason that the NHS is "failing".

Whichever party gains power, needs to front up and give us a firm choice, similar to the Libdems policy.
However, it's more likely that the NHS will be kicked about as a political football, rather than dealing with the need for funding.

My postal vote has been returned today. 2 votes from our house for Mr Gove MP.
I populated the missus's form to make sure it was completed correctly. Every little helps.

I would argue that the strongest economies, the most stable, have high degrees of control of their economies, have high levels of state ownership of energy, water, rail, health service & social care. These are the areas the left is arguing for. None of the main left/liberal parties are arguing for complete state ownership of every enterprise. But that doesn't fit your warped view.

Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Sweden and Norway - all versions of socialism that seem to be working quite nicely.

I fully accept that pure socialism in the traditional sense doesn't work - due to human nature and the corruption of the model - but there are modern versions of collectivism that can and do work.

Aye, I think that China is the fastest growing economy in the world (it's certainly one of them) and not a Tory in sight

UKIP say they would take passports off anyone travelling to countries such as libya, one way ticket not to return... especially if they are being watched by security services too

can anyone not agree with this?! should be in every parties manifesto.

Will Paul Nuttall be sat at the immigration desk in Tripoli chucking passports into a fire? On a serious note, how can they legally not let UK nationals back in the country?

Suspects arrested & questioned upon their return to the UK would be an obvious step, but you can't render a person stateless.

So people cannot visit relatives, friends, do humanitarian work or academic research?

Brearley is a UKIP fanboy, laps up anything they say. He was throwing loads of random statements out during the referendum, offering zero reasoning or insight.

They (UKIP) will have enough work on their plate, managing their 1 in 1 out policy.
I know that they can promise whatever they want (just like the EU campaign) as they will never be in power. However, t would be really, really interesting to see how we could go from a country with net immigration of 300,000 (approx) to having "balanced" immigration. - would they have a list of people who they would throw out.

Following your strange sentence construction - yes, I can not agree with it. Or I can just disagree with it - which I prefer.

UKIP say all sorts of strange and fanciful things; personally, if possible, I'd like to avoid a police state - and I tend not to see the demented pronouncements of Paul Nutall, a serial liar, as serious political discourse, however much the BBC are in love with him.

Sadly, no. This is a matter of national security and as Brearley rightly imo pointed out, should be in every Party manifesto.

Would our arms suppliers still be able to travel there to sell them arms to kill their own people?

"Countries such as Libya"?

Can we have a list of all the countries to which you'd ban any travel, then?

What if the sneaky blighters go to somewhere you don't dislike as much first, and make their way to Libya (or any other country on your list) from there without telling anybody?

Not sure you've thought this through, even ignoring the impossibility of refusing re-admission to a British citizen - can you explain exactly how that could actually work?