***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU52ENFkUaI
Have been watching a few of MR Farage speaches.I feel some admiration for him when he speaks all heads go down in the room.He must be hitting a raw nerve who still believe in this European Project.Greece down the pan.Spain and Portugal not far behind.Here in the UK we are printing more money to cover our debt.The Dutch had enough.And the country what supposed to have lost the war is in charge again.Oh I forgot France where the super right got a big vote.Politics is strange.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 7 Mar 13 at 12:45
|
|
He was on Questiontime a couple of weeks ago - Not a man I naturally feel as an ally, but his arguments was very strong. And totally agree with Dutchie. Germany is strong for a reason - there was a very good programme about Britain in the 70s last week, the clip about German post-war re-industrialization was an eye-opener.
|
"Europe is similar to the Soviet Union in the way that the euro crisis has the potential of destroying, undermining the European Union," he said in a debate on public policy education Tuesday. "With the profound social, economic and moral crisis that Europe is in, we can see a similar process of disintegration."
"The euro is undermining the political cohesion of the European Union, and, if it continues like that, could even destroy the European Union," he said in comments carried by Reuters. "You can grow out of excessive debt, you cannot shrink out of excessive debt."
~ George Soros – the man who broke The Bank of €ngland
|
I declare an interest - I've joined Ukip!
Policies are not solely out of the EU!
Here they are:- www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies
|
|
I do see you Roger as the very epitome of a UKIP member.
|
Good!
I see one or two members of this forum as the very epitome of just the types who support the LibLabCon failures who have got us into the sad state we are in today. ;-)
Last edited by: Roger on Tue 24 Apr 12 at 23:15
|
>>"With the profound social, economic and moral crisis that Europe is in"
Yeah 'cos the UK is just so much better.
Usual far right rhetoric.
Yawn.
The Euro is splintering because some members deemed mahoosive debt to be a good way to pay for their operating costs.
If they'd kept to their budgets they'd not be in the current mire.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 24 Apr 12 at 23:30
|
|
Does he pronounce his name Farage as in garage or Farridge as in garridge?
|
>> Does he pronounce his name Farage as in garage or Farridge as in garridge
Depends on how you pronounce garage I suppose... They read the same to me :)
I've always heard him referred to on the TV news as rhyming with "barge", i.e. short fa-, long -raj.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Tue 24 Apr 12 at 23:44
|
|
As in 'barrage' from Barrage Balloon. If that makes any sense.
|
There are three pronunciations for garage, Shirley.
Garridge
Gararge
Garahge
I think Mr Farage rhymes with the last one.
|
Garage is garaje is Spanish, pronounced ga rah key, the j should sound like the ch in the the Scottish Loch.
I give French lessons as well.
:o)
|
...I give French lessons as well...
So it was your card I saw in that phone box in Bayswater all those years ago.
|
|
We are back in recession.I think we never left it.Whatever you may think about Nigel he speaks with conviction.Farage like Garage very simples.>:)
|
How you'r doing Dog? We are off this morning to daughter and granddaughter.
Exciting times..;)
|
|
I'm doin fine thanks Dutchie, in what part of the world does your daughter live?
|
I'm pretty certain he doesn't pronounce his name as "Farridge", as I remember his appearance some time back on Have I Got News for You, when he was mercilessly ribbed about his name, being called "Niggle Farridge" most of the time.
He took it all very well and seems a reasonably sane and balanced individual. I don't support most of his policies, but he has my respect and I did send a message of support after his plane crash.
|
It's true that Nigel Farage is very smart and quite personable. He's identified a market and is carving out a slice of it.
UKIP's name is too silly to be taken seriously though.
|
I emailed one of their MEPs before the last local elections, but got no response. I tried again, but still no response.
I did exactly the same with another of their MEPs, but he was no more forthcoming than the first one.
Strange, really. They may well have got another vote.
|
I like him, a lot, good to see someone elected not afraid to say what needs to be said, and in a humourous way....who could possibly take offence..:-)
UKIP have my vote, the way the other party is shaping up, all three factions, i suspect UKIP will be the only party i support for the rest of me innings, the other party does not speak for me and seldom has.
Was there something on the news today about a new recession....stating the blindingly obvious must be a career path all of its own.
|
|
Well, that's two of us here!
|
>> Nah, s'three Dodger.
>>
Plus one lapsed paid-up member who might be persuaded again. Unfortunately it's a wasted vote down here in Wales; there are many who agree with UKIP policy but they all vote Conservative, as do I.
|
See i'm not so sure its going to be a wasted vote, thats how the one party state keeps the party in power because everyone votes for the least worse faction of The Party.
Be honest it doesn't matter which branch of The Party get in, the results are the same, the same PC claptrap corruption and spin, so it could be equally said that its a waste of a vote to vote for the current set of three stooges.
Equally by voting for any one of them you endorse the headlong flight into our country's financial demise, i cannot bring myself to ever endorse them so such is the mess they have made of our country over the last decades.
The non event that this government has been, from outright lies over referenda to a total failure to make any sort of impact on slowing the defecit spiral, has left natural tory voters unless they are completely gaga shell shocked in disbelief.
We now have the George Osborne factor too, i wonder what will happen round the country in other areas where people sick of their brother's homelands being used as battlegrounds based on oil decide to vote no.
|
Some of the posts here make me feel quite sentimental about Marxism. Marxism and the 18th century. And the Edwardian era, and Churchill, and Harold Wilson and good old whatsisname the policeman's friend. Even Tony Blair almost.
Tchah, knowImean?
|
Nothing I see written/spoken by any of these creeps makes me think "Hey this guy is looking out for me and my values."
They reek of people who want to run the world/country.
Absolutely the same as all the other parties.
If they had such an awesome idea and were going to bring Britain back to its rightful place as Masters of the Universe, maybe someone would like to point out where similar parties have done this for other countries?
Maybe Hugo Chavez in Venezuela?
Castro in Cuba?
Pffft.
|
I'm not a big fan of UKIP, or of Nigel Farage.
However, I dislike the other parties more, so I tend to vote for UKIP.
Mind you, up here they don't get many votes, and often don't bother putting up candidates, so I don't always get the chance to vote for them, and when I do get the chance, my vote doesn't make much difference.
|
Sometimes voting for the less obvious can work... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1965569.stm
Apparently just starting his third term, and being pretty successful with it...
|
I think one of the main reasons for so much weakness in our politicians is that they don; get any training.
Many of us on here either have a qualification or many years of experience in their line of work - or both. Politicians can go straight into office with nothing by way of experience except a few years as an MP - and then, just as they are starting to learn the ropes in their department from the civil servants, they are moved somewhere else in a reshuffle. To huis credit, David Cameron has so far reshuffled only when he's been forced to by resignations.
If you think of the high-calibre people whom you have most respected and admired in your life, how many of them are politicians?
|
>>
>> If you think of the high-calibre people whom you have most respected and admired in
>> your life, how many of them are politicians?
>>
My grandfather, whom I both respected and admired, was an MP for 20 years.
He was well respected in the local community as a good MP, even by those who didn't vote for him. Was known as the moral conscience of the House of Commons.
Not sure anyone would feel the same way about his successors.
|
I think the problem with very many of our recent and current crop of politicians is that they have had no experience other than as career politicians, (or employment in closely related areas.)
|
>> they have had no experience other than as career politicians, (or employment in closely related areas.)
Quite right Roger. And it shows.
|
>> I think the problem with very many of our recent and current crop of politicians
>> is that they have had no experience other than as career politicians, (or employment in
>> closely related areas.)
>>
Like that odious little weasel Livingston, though all parties have them.
I'm voting UKIP this time, and probably in the next general Election too.
|
>> Nothing I see written/spoken by any of these creeps makes me think "Hey this guy
>> is looking out for me and my values."
>>
>> They reek of people who want to run the world/country.
>>
Is this:- libertarianpartyuk.com/ your political home?
|
Not really, but my basic premises would be:
- if someone does something that isn't harming anyone else, what business is it of mine?
- and what right do I have to control that which they are doing ?
- and is the world a better place for me having been on it ?
Non-authoritarian right-winger with a social conscience maybe closer to the mark.
|
Nige was on the wireless (Radio 4) this morning at 6.53am www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ghc41/Today_26_04_2012/ 53 mins in.
He certainly gives a good account of himself and his policies.
I would most certainly cast my vote for the UK Independence Party come the next election unless I believed that in doing so would let 'the other lot' in, which could well turn out to be the case.
|
My sis-in-law used to work with Farrage in the City - he liked his long lunches ...
It seems to me that all politicians say one thing in opposition/at election time, then do another when they get in power. I like most of the UKIP policies, but will we ever know if Farrage is any different?
|
>> will we ever know if Farrage is any different?
How can he be any different in that sense? When they're in opposition they say what they would like to do in an ideal world. When they've been elected they have to restrict themselves to the possible, or to what seems possible.
Actually the real hypocrites and carphounds are the voters who pretend not to know that, and the real idiots are the voters who really don't know that.
|
|
Crickey AC even by your high standards of lucidity that last post and in particular your last sentence is about the most succinct and accurate summary of the political condition I have ever read.
|
>> >> will we ever know if Farrage is any different?
>>
>> How can he be any different in that sense? When they're in opposition they say
>> what they would like to do in an ideal world. When they've been elected they
>> have to restrict themselves to the possible, or to what seems possible.
True - but not completely so. It seems to me that nobody joins a tiny party (i.e. one which has never had a candidate returned to the House of Commons in an election) out of ambition. You have be be idealistic to join UKIP or the Greens. You get idealists in the 3 major parties, but you also get careerists. Of course, most people are somewhere between pure idealist and pure careerist, but the larger the party, the more careerist the leaders will be. It seems to me, for example, that David Cameron would never have joined a tiny party. In Cameron's defense, I don't remember him making any promises when he was in opposition that he has not sought to keep, but I'm sure someone will think of some!
Last edited by: tyro on Thu 26 Apr 12 at 18:35
|
|
Not going to happen in a meaningful way - we're too deeply embedded in its institutions. I reckon we're Euro bound as well.
|
>> I would most certainly cast my vote for the UK Independence Party come the next
>> election unless I believed that in doing so would let 'the other lot' in, which
>> could well turn out to be the case.
>>
I used to think like that, but consider - is there any REAL difference between LibLabCon?
I think not: it therefore makes sense to ignore the argument that votes for UKIP may let "the other lot" in as there is no difference between any of them.
A vote for a minority party with which you are in broad agreement is not wasted, really. You have voted from principal; can say "It wasn't my fault that LibLabCon got in; I didn't vote for them".
Remember also, that just because a party or movement is small doesn't mean they are wrong.
"Mighty oaks from little acorns grow." (even if it takes a long time!)
|
|
Nige is on Question Time tonight @ 10.35 on BBC1
|
There was a question about moving people from London on housing benefits to other areas of the UK.Immigration was brought up and I'm not sure if Nigel was on the right track here.
Nigel blamed immigrants from the EU adding to the housing problem in London.I don't know.
|
>>Nigel blamed immigrants from the EU adding to the housing problem in London<<
Nige wasn't specifically talking about the housing problems in London, he was refering to the fact
that the rents are high and Newham had asked Stoke on Trent to take peeps.
He also mentioned peeps from Eastern Europe not the EU as a whole, coming to the UK and getting a NI number and then being eligible for housing. Some of the panel disagreed with him on rights to housing.
The audience was with Nige as I bet were most of the viewers.
The panel did say not as easy as that to move peeps hundreds of miles from family, school, friends and jobs they may already have.
|
>> The audience was with Nige as I bet were most of the viewers.
He got into a bit of trouble by claiming that anyone could get a NI number within a couple of days of arriving and get on housing benefit etc. within a couple of weeks. Several people on the panel and in the audience took issue with him on it and he shut up.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 27 Apr 12 at 12:09
|
I haven't checked but arn't most of the eastern europe countrys in the EU.?
I agree with AC his argument was a bit weak regarding housing for immigrants.We've got to be carefull blaming all our ills on immigration.A discussion which will go on forever..;)
|
>> EU Referendum
I certainly don't recall hearing anyone promising that.
>> I used to think like that, but consider - is there any REAL difference between
>> LibLabCon?
I think that is the big issue - and the main reason that I tend to vote UKIP.
While David Cameron, before the election, never actually said "We'll basically do the same as Tony Blair did" - that was what I was hearing when I listened to him.
David Cameron's political positions seemed to me to be pretty much the same as those of the Labour Party. They were not quite the same - Labour would move slightly more quickly, but the Conservatives and the Lib Dems were basically going in the same direction. UKIP was not.
|
The man is at it again!
tinyurl.com/6s574xk
|
|
Brilliant Dodger! - the man shoots from the hip but, where its gonna end gawd above only knows.
|
|
Good news for today.The Siemens windfarm complex will go ahead in Yorkshire.The Duitsers will be building it.>:)
|
|
How can you take a bloke that flies through his own banner and crashes seriously?
|
|
Nigel is always in the driving seat Rob you should know that..:)
|
"Almost one in three people who voted Conservative at the last election are ready to back the UK Independence Party" ...
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/ios-exclusive-cameron-hit-by-big-rise-in-hostility-to-europe-7768850.html
|
One for Dutchie ...
Greg Palast - investigative journalist -published a book last year called 'Vultures Picnic'
Here he talks about it to Alex Jones www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0dD5pwsfMQ&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLD88EEC9B63121883
Worth a listen if you've got a couple o' light years to spare.
|
|
Was he on last night? Not on my Iplayer copy Dog.
|
He didn't make much of an impression. Has little or nothing to say. He revealed though that he was only two or three years old in 1972 (was it?) when the last useless and inconclusive plebiscite on the EC was held, and that's why he wants another one, silly fellow.
I'm surprised he's such a whippersnapper. He has a misleadingly middle-aged appearance.
|
|
He was born in 1964 AC so he was a little older than that. As they say around here - gone ugly young !
|
>> born in 1964
A bit immature for his age then. Nothing wrong with that in itself of course.
|
>>He didn't make much of an impression. Has little or nothing to say<<
He has already said 'I told you so', what more does he need to say. The debate has swung in his favour anyway, the europhiles are making such a mess of things he just needs to wait for election time.
He is making an impression on the Conservative Party, that much is evident given the panic UKIP is causing them They are as worried about him as they are about Labour because he is erroding the core conservative vote away from them while they chase the liberal vote.
Its extremely funny.
|
>>>> Its extremely funny.
>>
It would be if it wasn't all so serious.
|
>>It would be if it wasn't all so serious<<
The situation in the Eurozone is a triumph of bad ideas and vested interests over common sense. As is the implosion of the Conservative Party. Self-inflicted situations deserve little sympathy.
|
>>Was he on last night? Not on my Iplayer copy Dog<<
He should be on the link I posted Mister E as I've just this minute finished watching it.
|
|
He made a good speech Dog.The whole system is corrupt to the core.
|
>>The whole system is corrupt to the core<<
All the world over Dutchie!
|
|
Thanks for that Dodger, the next general election should be quite interesting!
|
|
I can see a federal Europe in the future.(Mystic Mec.) >:) It will happen no matter how we vote in the UK. There is to much vested interest for it to fail,I admire Nigel the way he puts it but when it comes to the crunch and people have to vote in or out,if it means losing jobs they will vote in.What Cameron is on about I don't know.Our relationship with Europe what does he mean.? Gobblygook.
|
Nigel says "We'll all be back in August".
tinyurl.com/cwp7r9e (YouTube clip.)
Last edited by: Roger on Tue 3 Jul 12 at 20:26
|
|
You never know with Nigel as long he keeps away from air planes.>:)
|
|
He certainly 'shoots from the hip', plus he speaks for all of €urope, not just the UK.
|
|
Farage speaks for Farage. He is just another politician out for what he can get, only in his case just shouting a different tune for a different audience.
|
Quite possibly, I've lived in this world long enough to have seen them all feathering their own nests.
But I'll still be voting for him in 2015.
|
Me too + SWMBO - and we've joined UKip and I subscribe to their sovereign draw and I donate modest amounts directly from time to time.
Ukip needs money, as do all political parties, so help if you agree with their message and other policies!
|
>> Farage speaks for Farage. He is just another politician out for what he can get,
>> only in his case just shouting a different tune for a different audience.
I agree. Just a run of the mill populist with one record to play giving his public what they want to hear. If by some bazaar accident he were to be in power he would rapidly find that the world's problems are a lot more difficult to solve that he would like to have his followers believe. He is either very naive or very cynical. My guess is the latter
|
>> either very naive or very cynical.
A bit of both. Cynical enough to recognize that there are people willing to buy his simplistic, evasive guff; naive enough to give his party a name that underlines its non-serious status.
|
" He is either very naive or very cynical "
Applies to pretty much any male politician in history.
|
"Applies to pretty much any male politician in history."
It doesn't actually.
|
|
Consider - Labour who do not look out for, well, labour: Conservatives who do not conserve and LibDems who are neither liberal nor democratic.
|
|
Oops - missed the Greens, who are actually Reds!
|
Labour lurch to the Right, the Conservatives lurch left/right, Lib Dems have lost the plot totally, one thing that hasnt changed is ole Nige.
A quick check on ConHome reveals Cameron isnt considered a conservative and Eddy Milliband is on a populism drive by going to the Right of Cameron - its all rather strange atm - the day Milliband sounds like a Tory backbencher is a strange one indeed.
I guess Nigel has been saying the same stuff for a decade despite being ignored by many for that decade, unlike the other parties who have pretty much trodden both sides depending on where they think the public mood lies. So ill stick with Nigel, anyone who makes Cameron pout is alright in my book.
|
If you vote for UKIP, then you are in effect supporting the Labour Party, because you are taking away a vote for the Tories, thus failing to counteract Labour.
UKIP or the Lib Dems will never win an election outright, so although they might more closely match your political view, you're wasting your vote.
I agree the main parties are muddling things, tying to get the centrist vote, but those two are the only ones likely to be voted in.
I've had this conversation many times with my f-i-l. We both agree UKIP most closely matches our views. I cannot vote for them as it would fragment the Tory vote and they have a much better chance of being elected than UKIP does, so it's tactical voting for me.
|
Vote Labour get a Leftwinger, vote Tory get a Leftwinger, both parties run by metropolitan elitists who squabble over the same territory.
Just because it says Conservative on the tin, doesnt mean the content will be conservative - it hasnt been so far save for a few bits here and there, that were no further Right than anything Blair ever did.
Cameron is toxic - neither the Right nor the Left believe him, nor that he is in either camp.
There is a suspicion he may never have fully formed a thought of his own, much less have any kind of conviction.
|
>> Just because it says Conservative on the tin, doesnt mean the content will be conservative
>> - it hasnt been so far save for a few bits here and there, that
>> were no further Right than anything Blair ever did.
Just in case you haven't noticed, or are on a different planet to the rest of us, we HAVEN'T GOT a Tory Government. We have a COALITION.
|
>>Just in case you haven't noticed, or are on a different planet to the rest of us, we HAVEN'T GOT a Tory Government. We have a COALITION<<
The culture of the Conservative Party and the policies that come from them have nothing to do with the Lib Dems unless on your planet they have merged? What they do as a coalition is a separate issue.
|
A minority party can produce as many policies as it likes, but they're no use whatsoever unless it can get some help pushing it through Parliament.
What am I missing?
|
>>If you vote for UKIP, then you are in effect supporting the Labour Party, because you are taking away a vote for the Tories, thus failing to counteract Labour<<
Yes, I have thought of that, my main reason for voting Conservative at the last election was to eject the other lot from #10 so we'll have to see how things play out over the next couple of years.
Maybe the wishy washy Liberals will go with Labour next time, maybe we could even have a UKIP/Tory coalition.
A week is a long time in politics, so what will 2 years bring I wonder?
|
|
I'd like him to join the Tory party and take over as leader.
|
I had the same thought as you last time Dog, but tbh, my local is Philip Hollobone and he is about as close to UKIP as you can get, nor is he in much danger as UKIPpers rather like him since he is an irritant to Cameron, so he could loose a few votes but still retain - he is the perfect example of the hinted at joint UKIP/Conservative candidate.
The growing dislike between the supporters of Cameron and UKIP supporters is starting to get really nasty from the former side, the latter seem to take this as proof they are more worried about UKIP than they say in public.
|
As has been said, there is so little difference between the three main parties that a vote for any means that we get more of the same.
Personally I think that a vote for UKIP is not wasted. OK, in some constituencies, it may mean that enough votes are siphoned from the Tories to ensure that a Labour MP is elected. It, taken overall, may also be the difference between having a Tory government and a Labour one.
Does that really matter? (See my opening sentence).
I think that another period for the Tories in the political wilderness may well concentrate their minds into pursuing policies which chime with so many of us, which are basic Conservative values. If the Tories lose because of UKIP it just may bring home to them that it is time to put some clear blue water between themselves and the other two main parties.
In any event, it is true that in many constituencies the voters (left or right leaning) would vote for a monkey if it sported the rosette of their own traditional party.
It's time to vote for principles, not for a tactical advantage.
A vote for UKIP will not be wasted.
Every vote for UKIP will send a clear message that current policies do not meet the wishes of many ordinary people. More of the same tired old "carp" is not required, whatever label is attached to the party disseminating it.
|
|
Good post Roger, you should have become a Politician.
|
>> Good post Roger, you should have become a Politician.
Yes he should. Only a politician could move to spain to live under the rights granted to him by the EU, then come home when it suits him and decide to dump europe.
He night even make a good head of Barclays.
|
>> >> Good post Roger, you should have become a Politician.
>>
>> Yes he should. Only a politician could move to spain to live under the rights
>> granted to him by the EU, then come home when it suits him and decide
>> to dump europe.
>>
>>
>> He night even make a good head of Barclays.
>>
Praise indeed - can I use you for a reference for a multi-million £ a year job?
|
>> I think that another period for the Tories in the political wilderness may well concentrate
>> their minds into pursuing policies which chime with so many of us, which are basic
>> Conservative values.
Don't agree.
Tony Blair worked it out...and so has David Cameron. If you don't take Mondeo Man with you (or whatever the modern equivalent is called), you aren't getting elected.
A Nigel Farage type Tory leader would have the Tories out of power for a long time.
Traditional voters, as you say, will vote automatically and unthinkingly, you need to grab the thinking middle of politics to stand a chance.
I'd willing have a Farage type Tory leader, if it would work. As it won't i'll go for the Cameron one.
|
>> I'd willing have a Farage type Tory leader, if it would work. As it won't
>> i'll go for the Cameron one.
+ a half! Farage is a great crowd pleaser, but that doesn't make him a good politician. To watch him winding up the Eurocrats is hilarious, but would you really want him having to borrow the French aircraft carrier to retake the Falklands?
|
That's the problem that politicians have, they need your votes but also need to extract as much tax from your wallets that you will put up with before snapping into civil unrest.
They need to balance financially crippling you while you still believe in them like some brain washed zombie.
As for Nigel Farage, I have a good laugh at what he says and for once I actually like an MP.
|
>>A Nigel Farage type Tory leader would have the Tories out of power for a long time<<
Come 2015 they will be and Cameron will be off to work for some multinational.
Cameron thought you could detoxify conservatism by abandoning it, instead of going back to its core values and explaining how these core values can be positive to many different types of voter.
What most voters ask themselves is what can this lot do for me, something Cameron never bothered with. Instead he embarked on meaningless double speak, visionless nonsense with no clear societal goals. He doesnt know what he wants so its no suprise he couldnt score an open goal against Gordon Brown.
|
>> Come 2015 they will be and Cameron will be off to work for some multinational.
Quite possible
>> Cameron thought you could detoxify conservatism by abandoning it, instead of going back to its
>> core values and explaining how these core values can be positive to many different types
>> of voter.
>> What most voters ask themselves is what can this lot do for me, something Cameron
>> never bothered with. Instead he embarked on meaningless double speak, visionless nonsense with no clear
>> societal goals. He doesnt know what he wants so its no suprise he couldnt score
>> an open goal against Gordon Brown.
This is where I disagree.
I agree with your statement personally, but a huge chunk of society doesn't 'get' core Conservative values...or automatically vote labour because their dad did and their granddad did, so...in the same fashion that New Labour did with old labour values when they realised that the country had moved away from traditional socialism...Dave has gone centrist with the Tory party.
I'd personally prefer the old Tory party, in which case UKIP wouldn't need to exist. Trouble is great chunks of the North of England, most of Scotland and a fair chunk of Wales don't tend to vote Tory. Bung in a few in the Westcountry who traditionally vote Liberal/Social Democrat/Liberal Democrat...then unless Dave got wise, he wasn't going to be anywhere near no.10.
As it happens, even with that buffoon Brown's antics sharp in our minds, there still wasn't a majority for the Tories. A right wing Tory party would have had Labour back in...even after all the shenanigans.
|
|
So, Westpig, basically you have given up?
|
>> So, Westpig, basically you have given up?
So you think UKIP could manage a majority in Parliament? When the Tories couldn't, and they're quite moderate?
The world - the UK definitely - is currently in a centrist period - much as the 80s were a right-wing period and the nineties a left-wing period.
Just principles don't get you elected, I'm afraid, if nobody else agrees with them. Politics is a game, getting elected is a game so you have to play it if you want to get in. The current lot are well to the right of Brown so they suit me reasonably well.
|
"but a huge chunk of society doesn't 'get' core Conservative values."
On the contrary a huge portion of the country does get core Conservative values. They simply don't want a government that exhibits them. Farage is a good joke but he is never going to be taken seriously by more than a small percentage of the population.
|
>> On the contrary a huge portion of the country does get core Conservative values. They
>> simply don't want a government that exhibits them.
I'll bat that one back with another 'on the contrary'. If they did 'get' the true Conservative values, there'd be no reason why they wouldn't want them.
If however they listen to or apply negativity or spin to any message promoting those values.. then they will constantly misunderstand them and only believe what they want to believe.
|
>>I agree with your statement personally, but a huge chunk of society doesn't 'get' core Conservative value<<
I agree, but thats a failure on the party of CCHQ for not having come up with a campaign and a set of policies that reach a wide range of people. People didnt 'get it' because there was no strong simple message for them.
I recall the 2010 campaign and it was shocking nor is Cameron able to relate to ordinary people because he is far from ordinary, nor does he have the empathy to connect, so your average minimum wage voter is going to take one look at him with his obession with green issues yet nothing to help that voter better their lot in life.
A new Conservative campaign should say to that person, we are going to make it possible for you to improve your circumstances, heres what we will do, heres what you will need to do - its a simple concept, its the sort of concept that helped my dad believe that despite his humble beginnings, he could do anything and he absolutely did.
|
>>heres what we will do, heres what you will need to do - its a simple concept,
Go on, spell out your simple concept. What will they do, what will you need to do?
|
>>Go on, spell out your simple concept. What will they do, what will you need to do?<<
May have escaped your attention, but im not a political party.
Heres a concept for you though since you asked: get over it, whatever it is that drives you to be soo b***** minded towards me, im not especially interested in your barbs, childish doesnt begin to describe it. Grow up, your nowhere near as clever as you suppose.
:-)
|
???
A simple question gets me sworn at?
|
>> ???
>>
>> A simple question gets me sworn at?
>>
maybe symptomatic of Farage supporters.
|
|
I confess I planned to vote UKIP for my first choice in the Mayoral campaign in the hope of pushing the lib dems into 5th place. Sadly UKIP's name didn't feature on the ballot paper owing to an administrative error.
|
>>A simple question gets me sworn at?<<
I didnt swear AT you. A victim complex doesnt suit you, try a different tack ;-)
|
>> I didnt swear AT you. A victim complex doesnt suit you, try a different tack
>> ;-)
And this isn't a victim complex?
>>whatever it is that drives you to be soo bloody minded towards me, im not especially interested in your barbs, childish doesnt begin to describe it. Grow up, your nowhere near as clever as you suppose.
<<
Pot and kettle anyone?:)
Pat
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 19 Jul 12 at 00:44
|
>>Pot and kettle anyone?:)<<
MM has been making a point of saying something unhelpful/unpleasent on many threads of mine for a little while now, not entirely sure whats eating Gilbert, who has a particular obession with my personal finances.
Its got to the point that its a bit creepy and I admit, Im curious why I get his goat quite so much. I dont mind robust exchanges, but when people make consistantly personal digs, you have to wonder why, nobody else does it :-/
|
>> you have to wonder why, nobody else does it :-/
Maybe I have a lower threshold than others for challenging such delights as (paraphrasing): "Why doesn't a Coalition Government produce Tory policies. Cameron is therefore a leftie."
|
>>Maybe I have a lower threshold than others for challenging such delights as (paraphrasing): "Why doesn't a Coalition Government produce Tory policies. Cameron is therefore a leftie."<<
Thats not what I said though dear fellow. I am not of the opinion that Cameron would do a great deal different with a majority and he simply uses the Lib Dems as very effective cover for his social democrat inside.
As for your threshold, man up ;-)
|
>> to connect, so your average minimum wage voter is going to take one look at
>> him with his obession with green issues yet nothing to help that voter better their
>> lot in life.
You average minimum wage earner has always voted labour, and will continue to vote labour. Regardless of who they are, what they do or what they stand for.
|
>>You average minimum wage earner has always voted labour, and will continue to vote labour. Regardless of who they are, what they do or what they stand for<<
My wife was going to vote Labour, but then she met the candidate and voted ED instead :-/
|
>> people. People didnt 'get it' because there was no strong simple message for them.
>>
>>
I think you may be overlooking the actual results. The Tories did quite well, but the Liberals spoilt the party:
news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51828000/gif/_51828396_results_graphic_308.gif
ukpolitics.telegraph.co.uk/docroot/flash/electionNightMap_640_deep.swf
static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/05/08/ElectMapstory.jpg
Conservative
307 +97
Labour
258 -91
Liberal Democrat
57 -5
Give Scotland independence, and the Tories will do fine in England.
Last edited by: John H on Thu 5 Jul 12 at 17:49
|
|
John, he answered that at 13:57 above when I pointed that little fact out...
|
>> John, he answered that at 13:57 above when I pointed that little fact out...
>>
I thought looking at some pretty graphics might help him understand the figures better.
|
|
He didn't get it because there was no strong simple message for him.
|
>>Give Scotland independence, and the Tories will do fine in England <<
Which wont happen so totally irrelevant.
|
>> >>Give Scotland independence, and the Tories will do fine in England <<
>>
>> Which wont happen so totally irrelevant.
>>
Have you told Salmond?
|
>>Have you told Salmond?<<
He knows, no other reason for anyone to have heard of 'devomax' which undoubtedly is where he thinks the land really lies.
|
|
I have nothing against conservatis'm if a soceity is run fair for all.I find it hyprocritical when people at the top of certain industries getting away with fraud and deceit.Labour where no different when it came to some of their policies than the tories.I just don't trust the tories regarding our NHS.Now it is pension reforms and DLA allowences.Maybe it's better we all take the tablet at 65 and go to sleep or people work till they drop it's cheaper.
|
>> where no different when it came to some of their policies than the tories.I just
>> don't trust the tories regarding our NHS.Now it is pension reforms and DLA
>>
Tories have committed to spend more on NHS than promised by Labour in their manifesto.
BTW - regarding giving away money to all and sundry, have a look at this graphic
www.dailystatistic.com/2011/02/uk-government-spending-and-debt-mountain-infographic/
it shows you how big a mountain you need to climb to meet the ideals of a socialist state. the mountain is not shrinking either, it is still growing despite the cutbacks on spending.
|
Westpig,
You would vote for a party that will decimate the service that you were once part of. Suppose you're more interested in that comfy pension to worry about the guys left behind.
Last edited by: Mr. Ecs on Thu 5 Jul 12 at 19:30
|
>> You would vote for a party that will decimate the service that you were once
>>
decimate = one in ten.
Not so bad, then. ;-)
|
>> You would vote for a party that will decimate the service that you were once
>> part of. Suppose you're more interested in that comfy pension to worry about the guys
>> left behind.
>>
Predictable low ball from you X.
I vote for the party that will do my country the best.... that's it. I've never looked at the personal stuff and voted just for me.
I fully accept that compared to many I do have a 'comfy pension', however I left home at 17, went 250 miles away to somewhere strange where I knew no one...and stayed there for 30 years, most of it doing shift work that has given me IBS and a permanent tiredness. Add in the stress/injuries sustained on duty/divorce etc...and the fact in the latter years I paid 12% of my salary into my pension fund...then there's no guilt here.
I do miss those left behind and realise they are going through very difficult time...however...I also agree with what the Govt has done. For this country to have to pay for things, it has to earn it and afford it....so split loyalties.
|
|
I don't begrudge your pension Westpig.I was lucky to have a reasonable pension from a big oil company.I left home at about your age and ended up abroad to make a living.Political parties are a emotial subject .It depends on anybody's background what happens in your life.I never liked the look and behaviour of Tony Blair to much of a two faced caracter.John Smith who died was the man I respected.Gordon Brown came in the leadership role to late in my opinion he had lost the plot.This country was sold to the Dogs sorry the pun when we walked away from manufacturing into the financial sector.These people where and still are acting like rogues and have to be stopped.
|
Nigel in the Daily Telegraph!
tinyurl.com/75bn2ex
|
Interesting comment from that article, could almost be from someone on this forum :)
"Ha! I laugh at all of the tribalist conservatives commenting that a vote of UKIP is a vote for labour. Don't you see? Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative - THEY'RE ALL THE SAME PARTY.
Only the ties are different. All three of them are happy with us in EU servitude".
|
Not me El Perro!
Of course, I do agree with the comment, though!
|
|
I did say 'almost' Dodger ;)
|
Why a low ball WP?
Just wanted to know why, now your not in the service, why you would vote Tory, when the colleagues you left behind are in dispute having their conditions changed considering many joined under the same conditions as you did.
You vote for a party that will do best for the country. They haven't done their best so far. Not only the police, but the armed forces, health service and many social services are facing cuts that will not make this country better. Yet the scandal of the banks and tax dodgers is not addressed before that. And don't give me the line theres no money in the coffers. They've managed alright with the taxes they're getting in at the moment. The PS pensions are sustainable they just need to manage the whole thing better.
When you left home at 17 I would bet you had your heart set on joining the police. Place yourself in the place of a current 18 year old who passionately wants to join the service. Well it's not going to happen soon is it. Their dreams are going to be dashed by this government you support.
During the 80s you were seen as the blue eyed boys of the Tories. You did their dirty work during the miners strike and you could do no wrong. Yet it is a Tory led government that is going to ruin the service over the coming years. For those that do eventually join, their conditions and pensions will be nothing like yours. In fact the police service in general did quite well under Labour for numbers.
In my job I joined at 18, I've nearly completed 31 years. Shift work has taken its toll on me as well both mentally and physically. You are not alone. I've suffered from stress and injury and have paid 11% into my pension all those years too.
So I cannot understand why you wave the Tory banner knowing full well how they are treating the job you loved or the colleagues you worked with.
|
>>The PS pensions are sustainable they just need to manage the whole thing better.
???
When pensions were first introduced (in Germany by Kaiser Wilhelm) they were introduced at age 70 on the basis that the average life expectancy was 45. (Depending on the story you believe, maybe it was at 65 on the basis of a life expectancy of 65. Whatever, you weren't expected on average to receive any pension.)
Now the average life expectancy is over 80. Fifty years ago it was 70. That is THREE TIMES the period that a pension has to provide for (based on 65 retirement). Yet the pensions arrangements of half a century ago are almost completely unchanged. Something has to pay for the difference, and it isn't the tooth fairy. I don't know whether these numbers relate to average life expectancy, or expectancy at birth, or whatever. It doesn't really matter, they still illustrate the point perfectly.
tinyurl.com/6onhh7w
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 6 Jul 12 at 11:23
|
>> So I cannot understand why you wave the Tory banner knowing full well how they
>> are treating the job you loved or the colleagues you worked with.
>>
It's called putting the country first...not mine/former colleagues, as the first priority
|
Nigel's at it again! Good response to a question from a socialist Austrian MEP Europhile, too!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vms_vd_yWgY&feature=g-all-u
|
|
F U to the E U and Bullocks to €urope.
|
We should all get behind Our Dear Leader Barroso, he is the future of our society and Europe. Together with him, we can defeat democracy.
Or alternatively we as a country should grow a pair.
|
|
Brilliant speech BTW Dodger!
|
UKIP's Godfrey Bloom has thrown his thrown his hat into the ring as Police and Crime Commissioner. Equally outspoken. He has a dislike for speed cameras:
'He also dismissed speed cameras as a "money-making scam" which are reducing public confidence in the police.
"If your only contact with the police is an officer jumping out from behind a bush with a radar gun because you're doing 34mph, and then they can't come out when your house is burgled, you are going to lose confidence in them," said Mr Bloom.
"There are lots of cameras which are out there just to entrap people and make money. It also means a police officer sitting at the side of the road when they could be out on the beat.'
He also stated that if 'speed kills' there would be more deaths in F1.
Could be worth a punt particularly as he is up against John Prescott.
|
Sounds like a complete twerp, spouting the sort of stuff you hear down the pub from the guy has has collected a shed load of points on his license . Beginning to think John Prescott might have a chance.
|
Are we nearly there?
tinyurl.com/8dz6tjs
|
F U to (oh, I've done that one already)
I voted no, and I think we've got a majority decision.
|
|
Here's one for Dodger: www.wideawakenews.com/
|
|
Keiser report not bad, ex trader knows what is going on.It's like the Matrix Dog take the blue or red pill.>:)
|
I don't think Nigel will be receiving that many votes Dog.We will be going back to the two partys in the next election in my opinion.Nick Clegg will be ousted or leave voluntary.We live on a Island but bussiness is so intergrated that I can't see us leavingt the E.U..Conservatives and Labour won't allow a referendum on this issue.Just my thoughts for what its worth.
|
If the Lib Dems do a left turn at the next general election Dutchie, The Cons will need Nige to save them from being turfed out from number 10.
We're still two and a half years away from that scenario, and anything could happen in between (see WW3)
Personally, I will-not vote for Dave (again) Millipede or Corporal Clegg, so Nige will be getting at least one vote.
:}
|
There was an interesting piece on Radio 4 yesterday evening about UKIP in general and Nige in particular.
When I came to listen again this morning on the iplayer, the BBC have cut all but a one minute nasty bit:
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p2vtx/Saturday_Review_01_12_2012/
Why would that be I wonder, or am I missing something?
|
>> Why would that be I wonder, or am I missing something?
>>
I haven't listened to the clip D, i won't listen to propaganda, which an edited version always is, the full original i would be glad to.
When UKIP in this case or any other subject gets the MSM in a frenzy of slurs innuendo editing and reactionary scribbling from far and wide, then i reckon the subject of vilification might just be onto something 'they' will stop at nothing to prevent, and by their combined overegging efforts shoot themselves further in the foot.
Notice how the antis never used reasoned argument to beat the subjects (UKIP here) argument, hence the racist innuendo from the other thread.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Sun 2 Dec 12 at 10:36
|
Excellent result in Rotherham, the child fostering row obviously made a difference, but in other areas those who want to vote with their beliefs instead of the best of the three worse cases will take heart.
Tories and Libs might as well have stayed in bed..:-)
Did i read right, second also in Middlesborough, old cast iron dave better get the failed tory leader kevlar waistcoat out again.
The mould is breaking, it cannot be glued back together as it is...the three cheeks will no longer be able to pass the baton with impunity.
|
Now let's go with the conspiracy theory for a second - if the BBC did chop the end of the iPlayer bit don't you think Mr Farage would make a fuss ??
Is the BBC Right or Left leaning today ???
|
>>If the BBC did chop the end of the iPlayer bit don't you think Mr Farage would make a fuss ??<<
I'd still like answer to that one, I can't believe our good old BBC would do such a thing, but then ... ?
(BTW, it was only the last minute of the piece on Nige that they put on the iplayer link)
|
|
Technical defeat. Thats a new one on me. Funny how they got their best result in a constituency riven with racial issues, where even the BNP polled well.
|
Funny how they got their best result in a constituency riven with racial issues, where even the BNP polled well.
>>
As expected.
Its not the racial issues, its final realisation by a rapidly increasing number of people, who at last have had their blinkers removed, that not one of the three cheeks speaks for them or is in the least interested in them.
The more they overegg the pudding the more people see through the whole charade.
tinyurl.com/cbrgda4
Peter Hitchens article in the Mail hits nail firmly on head...bye dave...;)
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Sun 2 Dec 12 at 12:24
|
|
And the rest of the crap on that page by Hitchins hasn't given you the slightest clue?
|
And thats why the staus quo is doomed.
No reasoned argument, anyone who disagrees must be racist or xenophope or talks crap, fascist taunt not been hurled yet but give it time.
Usual reaction, it won't wash any more because an increasing number of people who can think for themselves now see it for what it was.
|
Even allowing that by elections are a special case, the result was bad for the ruling parties.
Labour 46.25%
UKIP 21.79%
BNP 8.46%
Respect 8.34%
Conservative 5.42%
Ind 2.73%
Lib Dem 2.11%
TUSC 1.22%
Ind 0.24%
EDL 0.14%
Turnout 34% (General Election 59%)
The BNP candidate polled more votes than the Conservatives and LibDems combined, as did Galloway's Respect party. That said, I don't think I'd have bothered to turn out had I been one of their supporters in Rotherham.
Even the DM seems to be ready to write the Tories' obituary.
goo.gl/fxjmG
|
Sorry, my mistake, mainly, the beeb had put the final bit of Nige's program, at the beginning of another.
Here is the 15 minute "Profile" program on Nigel Farage:
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p2vtv/Profile_Nigel_Farage/
|
|
Who are you Mr Von Rumpole? >:) A lowgrade bankclerk nice one.
|
I took the decision six months or so ago both to stop complaining about politics, and to completely disengage from it. Voting, reading manifestos, engaging in it in any way is history for me.
Apart from stopping smoking, I can't remember doing anything that has so drastically improved my sense of wellbeing.
|
|
Unfortenately politics affect all our lives we can't get away from it.We are living in changing times and for lots of people not for the better.Went forced shopping with the missus today in M&S.I got talking to a 24 year old lad working there and no enthusiasm in anything what so ever.At that age I was full of live.
|
|
Thanks for that Dog, very interesting.
|
|
You're welcome Stu, not many people listen to the wireless on a Saturday evening, I'll wager :)
|
|
You're right of course, Dutchie. But it's just not worth getting wound up about. Not one party has anything other than its own interests at heart. None give straight answers to straight questions. I understand even now Cameron won't implement the full recommendations of a very lengthy and expensive inquiry into the press standards. But he won't say that outright and had his minions speak in riddles when asked why not. Labour slagging off policies they themselves introduced when in power. They are all nauseating.
|
|
Good advice DP never to old to take it.>:)
|
>> tinyurl.com/bfe4ecn
>>
People have some exceptionally short memories then, looking at Labour's figures.
|
I have been wondering when the Kirkcaldy submarine will surface - it seems one has to wave your chequebook at him. He really should stand down if he doesnt want to do the job.
Tories seem to be entering a full identity crisis, they seem set for one almighty bust up over gay marriage as Im afraid Cameron didnt do any legwork to bring the party with him. 16% is hardly a suprise in that context.
|
>> I have been wondering when the Kirkcaldy submarine will surface - it seems one has
>> to wave your chequebook at him. He really should stand down if he doesnt want
>> to do the job.
>>
Unfortunately I think he is secure in the commons. I live near his constituency in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Fife, his patch is known locally as the "Golden Triangle". Funding seems to gravitate in its direction.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 10 Dec 12 at 19:08
|
>> Funding seems to gravitate in its direction.
Hopefully independence means it wont be from those of us south of the border in the future.
|
>>
>> >> Funding seems to gravitate in its direction.
>>
>> Hopefully independence means ................
................ Dream on. :-)
|
>> Funding seems to gravitate in its direction.
>>
And so did most of our local hospital including its A&E.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 10 Dec 12 at 19:22
|
>> People have some exceptionally short memories then, looking at Labour's figures.
Or people realise that the crisis that began in 2007 was one of Capitalism not of government. The austerity regime seems to be much the same in rest of Europe and USA irrespective of who was in power.
Labour's task now is to expose the 'Strivers v Shirkers' narrative as the propaganda lie that it is.
|
>>Labour's task now is to expose the 'Strivers v Shirkers' narrative as the propaganda lie that it is. <<
Or everyone else can expose the Labour narrative that it cares about the working classes when infact it abandoned them under Blair and has no interest in them now.
|
>> >>Labour's task now is to expose the 'Strivers v Shirkers' narrative as the propaganda lie
>> that it is. <<
>>
>> Or everyone else can expose the Labour narrative that it cares about the working classes
>> when infact it abandoned them under Blair and has no interest in them now.
No issue with that Stu. The real Strivers include a huge number in low paid jobs topped up by benefit or tax credit. But they're just as much caught by sub CPI benefit increases as the vanishingly small group of fraudsters/black economy lurkers who comprise the real shirkers.
|
>>The real Strivers include a huge number in low paid jobs topped up by benefit or tax credit. But they're just as much caught by sub CPI benefit increases as the vanishingly small group of fraudsters/black economy lurkers who comprise the real shirkers. <<
It is a couple of % that is being lost, which is a tiny amount in cash terms on all but the biggest claims.
Most people getting working tax credits wont be getting a fortune, maybe up to £200 a month and will notice more variation year to year due to their own wage variation affecting the value of the claim than a few % less of an increase. I should know.
If they can get inflation under control, it wont really matter a great deal anyway, though of course that is a big if.
If you want a laugh, consider that you are penalised if you wish to stop your tax credits between July and the following April and instead are encouraged to continue claiming them until the April to avoid a penalty. It is bizarre but goes some way to explaining why the bill is so high, im sure there are other examples.
|
>> Labour's task now is to expose the 'Strivers v Shirkers' narrative as the propaganda lie
>> that it is.
>>
Well, I'll just have to accept that i'm prone to believing propaganda then.
I suppose my 30 years of public service and experience going in and out of the homes of these fictitious people doesn't count..or my wife's 15 years on home visits.
|
>>I suppose my 30 years of public service and experience going in and out of the homes of these fictitious people doesn't count..or my wife's 15 years on home visits.<<
In the eyes of the Left wing propaganda machine, no chance, it is all in your mind. The only truth is what the Labour Party tell you is the truth, you have had long enough to get on the same page as everyone else. Maybe a spell in zee re-education camp for you :-) I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year...
|
>> Well, I'll just have to accept that i'm prone to believing propaganda then.
>>
>> I suppose my 30 years of public service and experience going in and out of
>> the homes of these fictitious people doesn't count..or my wife's 15 years on home visits.
I'm not saying shirkers are fictitious WP. I too have 30+ years of public service and have met my fair share of fiddlers trying to appeal their way from what's obviously right.
My point is that those people need focussed action whether punitive or assistive.
Well over half of the DWP budget is spent on 'pensioners'. Most of the rest is either short term help for those between jobs or assisting the low paid.
Osborne is keen to conflate the low paid with the shirkers to advance his neo-con agenda.
|
>> >> Labour's task now is to expose the 'Strivers v Shirkers' narrative as the propaganda
>> lie
>> >> that it is.
>> >>
>>
>> Well, I'll just have to accept that i'm prone to believing propaganda then.
What you have to accept is that your job meant you almost exclusively dealt with scum and the victims,
A sewer cleaner only ever sees merde.
It colours your life and outlook, brown.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 10 Dec 12 at 20:21
|
>> What you have to accept is that your job meant you almost exclusively dealt with
>> scum and the victims,
>>
>> A sewer cleaner only ever sees merde.
>>
>> It colours your life and outlook, brown.
I understand the point..and it may well apply to some, but fortunately not me.
It does however make me very cross that some in society do not see the reality for what it is...
i.e. a small minority ruin it for the majority and the only thing they recognise is strength and the rest of us owe it to the unfortunate to apply that strength where needed.
|
>> >> People have some exceptionally short memories then, looking at Labour's figures.
>>
>> Or people realise that the crisis that began in 2007 was one of Capitalism not
>> of government.
You sound like a member of the last Labour cabinet, they are all still in denial about being resonsible for the state they left the economy in !
|
>> You might like this Roger, if you haven't seen it.
Yes, thank you, FoR.
I have seen and have posted it elsewhere, too!
|
>> Or people realise that the crisis that began in 2007 was one of Capitalism not of government. The austerity regime seems to be much the same in rest of Europe and USA irrespective of who was in power.
Quite right of course.
>> Labour's task now is to expose the 'Strivers v Shirkers' narrative as the propaganda lie that it is.
Up to a point, yes. But there are a lot of shirkers, people who play the system unscrupulously. But I agree a lot of those who pass for 'strivers' are jumped-up scammers in soft overpaid jobs. It's a persistent hangover of Thatcherism.
Which category costs the taxpayer more is hard to estimate.
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bXuum3OdWA
This cartoon makes some sense of it.
|
|
@ Bromptonaut: I disagree with your politics (as we know!), but I was not I who gave you a scowly face for a position honestly held.
|
>> @ Bromptonaut: I disagree with your politics (as we know!), but I was not I
>> who gave you a scowly face for a position honestly held.
Roger,
I gave up worrying about scowls yonks ago. They're pretty meaningless really. If something's really crass or legally dubious we can flag it for the mods.
In fact given the pub talk nature of this forum I cannot see need for either them or the thumbs.
Even 'Likes' as on Cyclechat are of limited value.
|
Ukip more popular than ever.
British voters are moving away from the Tories and towards Ukip as a result of their hard line on the EU.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/9751997/Ukip-deserves-to-be-taken-seriously-after-by-elections-surge-says-Vince-Cable.html
|
>> Ukip more popular than ever.
>>
>> British voters are moving away from the Tories and towards Ukip as a result of
>> their hard line on the EU.
But, under the electoral system they chose to retain, such divisions are likley to split the right/libertarian vote and let Labour in through the middle.
The main losers will be the Tories themselves.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 18 Dec 12 at 12:05
|
Beautiful. Hoist by their own petard.
I'd find it funny if it wasn't going to deliver another disastrous Labour government.
|
|
............as opposed to a disastrous ConLib government?
|
|
Nope. Never seen one of those before. This one's Not ideal, but not exactly disastrous either. It's pretty tricky to be a runaway success when you're sweeping up the broken glass for at least two terms (if they were to get another term that is, which they probably won't).
|
It is Labour in 2015, done deal, all that matters is whether the Tories have any members left and if the Lib Dems can recover.
2015 should be national 'Ive got a bad back' year since the welfare kings will be back in business.
|
A serious question;
Why do people give credibility to statements such as "Labour is the party to get the country out of this mess and make everything better and everybody happy" and completely fail to recall that Labour was at the helm when it all went south in the first place?
Whatever your political allegiance, surely that sticks in your mind?
And if it does, do you not wonder what policies might have failed at that time, and then wonder if they will still follow those behaviours?
Don't get me wrong, I think they're all equally idiotic, with UKIP up there in the misguided, delusional, idiot stakes with all the others.
I'm just mystified as to why some kind of blindness drops over ordinary people's eyes when listening or talking about politics.
|
>>I'm just mystified as to why some kind of blindness drops over ordinary people's eyes when listening or talking about politics<<
Because peeps are more interested in what's in it for them personally than whether this country goes down the pan or not.
|
|
The crash. Did any Government in the developed world counteract it successfully? Before this event ,which has affected all developed economies and led to deflation and slump, Brown spent billions of UK gold reserves to bolster an American bank that was about to go bust. Later there was little that could be done to deal with the backwash of the effects of the packaged debt swindles, such was it's size. The failure of the Tories friends and supporters, the banks and the auditors?
|
That's exactly what I mean.
I wasn't talking about what anyone else did, I didn't say anyone else was blameless.
I merely question the credibility given to a group that say they can fix it now, by doing the same things they were doing when it went wrong. Even Tony Blair says they should have done differently.
And why did Brown support a US Bank? I don't particularly like his policies, but he is neither evil nor stupid, although he may have been wrong. So rather than introducing the word "American", which comes across much the same way as Obama talking of BRITISH Petroleum, work out why he did it, and what in Labour's intended behaviour would mean that it wouldn't need to happen again.
And frankly at least so far, the current government is certainly less crap. It may not be much good, but it does seem to be less crap.
|
>> The crash. Did any Government in the developed world counteract it successfully?
Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Turkey...........
|
|
The Canadians and Australians have certainly suffered. They too were affected by the 2008 crash as were all the western economies. None saw it coming. That is the point. As for Brown in '99, the support for the US was to try to avert a failure that would cause global damage, caused by bullion banks playing games with gold. Then found themselves 2 tonnes short.
|
>>Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Turkey...........<<
Poland..........
|
>> I'm just mystified as to why some kind of blindness drops over ordinary people's eyes when listening or talking about politics.
It doesn't really FMR. They are blind to start with by definition. There's the dumbed-down general political discourse for the masses, and there's realpolitik as practised by the professionals. Naturally they don't want their elbows constantly jogged by the faffing multitudes.
Democratic politics is far bigger, more complex, more multi-layered, more subtle, more difficult and more downright terrifying than people think. I couldn't do it and I don't know anyone who could. Indeed it sometimes looks to me as if no one can.
A propos: it occurs to me that the Prime Minister's apparently suicidal espousal of the relatively trivial cause of gay marriage may be a feint, to be tactically abandoned in order to win support over some genuine substantive issue. But perhaps I flatter him.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 18 Dec 12 at 15:19
|
>> A serious question;
>>
>> Why do people give credibility to statements such as "Labour is the party to get
>> the country out of this mess and make everything better and everybody happy" and completely
>> fail to recall that Labour was at the helm when it all went south in
>> the first place?
>>
>> Whatever your political allegiance, surely that sticks in your mind?
>>
Labour were on the bridge when the banking storm of 07/08 hit. That wasn't a crisis of government, it was a crisis of capitalism.
One would love to be able to re-enact the situation with Howard or IDS at the helm.
|
"Labour were on the bridge when the banking storm of 07/08 hit. That wasn't a crisis of government, it was a crisis of capitalism."
True of course but since Brown was more than happy to take credit for the preceding good times which were equally not down to him or the Labour government it seems only fair to heap opprobrium on him for the disaster.
|
The Labour faction of the Three Cheeks Party will get the baton next time, no doubt about.
Mainly because Labour politicians are convinced the money trees at Croydon are stll bearing rich fruit at no cost, and millions of entitled to be kept Labour followers believe them.
Brilliant, can't wait for the next instalment of Lunacy Inc. to be followed by wailing and gnashing of teeth at the state of the country, even EU president elect Blair won't be able to have enough money printed to keep the country afloat, where will they find the massively increased EU contributions plus all the dosh Saint Cast Iron promised for wind farms on the African plains.
And on it goes, 5 year cycles of mayhem yah boo finger pointing and ever increasing debt, and the electorate doggedly insist on voting in the same cabals of crooks and con men.
Meanwhile our increasingly irreversible subjugation to the EU masterstate marches on.
|
|
What would you like to see a Gordon.? A referendum regarding the EU.In or out.The Irish tried it so did the Dutch.The powers to be didn't take any notice will they do in the future?
|
>> What would you like to see a Gordon.? A referendum regarding the EU.In or out.
UKIP are our only hope IMO, not as they will get elected or necessarily hold the balance of MP's in the next decade which the Shaky Dems now do, but its become obvious now to anyone that the present Conservative party is no longer fit for purpose, it has become a frankly laughable caricature of the NuLabour party under Saint Cast Iron's father former war monger PM and currently Peace Envoy Blair...blessed may he be and all his blood £millions.
The rapid and sustained increase of popularity of UKIP is the result, IMO, of the realisation of rapidly increasing numbers of (sensible productive contributing working) people that the Three Cheek Party is one and the same with only a fag paper seperating them, and that the only hope we have of gaining back our national independence is by not voting for one of the Three.
If UKIP can force a real referendum on in/out then they will have achieved magnificently, the remaining Conservative Party even the most blinkered petty socialists among them must see that unless they can steal UKIP's thunder over the EU then they are bound for the wilderness for several terms possibly 15 years, after which there may well be no possibility of an in/out referendum ever again, we may no longer have our own armed forces, we may no longer police our own streets but have the unpleasant prospect of EU shock troops to quell demonstrations, dealing with dissidents in such a way as has been seen over the water in recent months.
I fear however that Mr Slippery (donning the hat without the halo) will have a weasel referendum worded to confuse the electorate, not an in/out but a toothless renegotiation document cleverly worded and spun by the BBC state broadcaster to sound like it means the business.
I hope the electorate take their attention from booze and the barrage of dumbed down television for a while to really think, won't be holding me breath though.
''The masterstate run by the Germans history is repeating itself. ''
I don't know if thats how they see it Dutchie, doubt the German bloke working his hands to the bone like we do or have done wants that any more than we do, unfortunately Germans and the British have an unfortunate common theme of electing bad people to high office, who then appoint others of a like mind to keep them there.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Tue 18 Dec 12 at 20:02
|
>> lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/12/the-ukip-threat-is-not-about-europe/#more-1866
Thanks FoR, i hadn't see that and have only skimmed through it now cos bed is calling and i have a heavy day tomorrow.
On the face of it the piece reads like subtle Tory spin, but i'll read it in depth hopefully tomorrow.
|
>>Thanks FoR, i hadn't see that and have only skimmed through it now cos bed is calling and i have a heavy day tomorrow.<<
His polls are usually pretty well done and I think the sample was 20,000 people so a reasonable stab at drawing conclusions. It is non-partisan, he saves that for his own commentary in another article.
There is a link to the full article on the page.
|
>>Meanwhile our increasingly irreversible subjugation to the EU masterstate marches on.<<
I hear some parts of Europe are really into marching :-)
|
|
The masterstate run by the Germans history is repeating itself.
|
|
We've still got a couple of airworthy Lancaster Bombers, Dutchie ... well, okay, one then.
|
Before anyone else brings brings it up, I feel, as a member of UKIP, should mention the completely unacceptable "personal manifesto" of Geoffrey Clark, a Kent County Council candidate for the party.
He has suggested compulsory abortion for foetuses showing signs of disability such as spina bifida and Downs syndrome.
UKIP has moved swiftly in issuing the following statement:-
"UKIP reject the abhorrent views expressed in the personal manifesto of Mr Geoffrey Clark, a candidate in the local elections. The party was not aware of these views when it allowed him to stand under our name.
We can confirm that Mr Clark has been formally suspended as a UKIP candidate and will not be standing for the party again.
We would like to apologise to anyone who has suffered distress as a result of this matter."
Personally, I must say that I find his views unacceptable, particularly as the step-grandfather of a very severely disabled boy, who will require care for all his life.
|
A very swift and sound move, these people need to be weeded out.
Worth noting that Labour are happy for their councillors to publically declare their wish for Thatcher to die and even mark the occasion with a party. That is perfectly acceptable to the Left and they call Tories 'nasty' :-/
|
>> Worth noting that Labour are happy for their councillors to publically declare their wish for Thatcher to die and even mark the occasion with a party. That is perfectly acceptable to the Left and they call Tories 'nasty' :-/
Leave it out Stu. Why should the PLP be any more tolerant of balderdash from twits of provincial councillors than UKIP with this eugenicist nerd? You know perfectly well that any sizeable political party is going to contain nasty idiots and nutters.
|
>>Why should the PLP be any more tolerant of balderdash from twits of provincial councillors than UKIP with this eugenicist nerd? You know perfectly well that any sizeable political party is going to contain nasty idiots and nutters. <<
I dont know why it should, I would like to know. It is an issue of whether you allow the nutters to stay once you know they are there. Since Labour like to throw the 'nasty party' insult at the Tories, I always wonder whether they say it while looking in the mirror.
|
>> Personally, I must say that I find his views unacceptable,
Unfortunately Roger, being such a relatively new party without time served tried and trusted local officers keeping an eye on things in all areas, the odd weirdo will slip through the selection process.
No doubt this minor irritant will be headline news for a few days.
|
|
Why has the party chairman suspended the UKIP forum Roger? Are they worried that others in the party share Mr Clark's views?
|
>> Before anyone else brings brings it up, I feel, as a member of UKIP, should
>> mention
"WHISTLE" FOUL!
Not on here you don't, its unacceptable to use this forum for political broadcasts Of course you can defend your party or leader if so attacked, but that is discussion or argument, not a party political press statement.
You have a lot to learn about spin and propaganda, until you do, cut it out.
I have protested this one to the management and scowled at you.
|
|
I shall treasure a scowly face from you, Zero, as a badge of honour.
|
>> "WHISTLE" FOUL!
>>
TBH Zero I think we're a mature enough audience to cope with Roger's post.
Other Ukip supporters will nod sagely while those of us who who've always seen something nasty will hum/hah about the party's hidden ar*e.
The debate might or might not get furthered on.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 19 Dec 12 at 09:05
|
>> Labour were on the bridge when the banking storm of 07/08 hit. That wasn't a
>> crisis of government, it was a crisis of capitalism.
>>
>> One would love to be able to re-enact the situation with Howard or IDS at
>> the helm.
Vince Cable saw it all coming, but no-one wanted to listen as the good times were still rolling. If he'd been on the bridge, we'd have fared batter.
If UKIP were on the bridge, or ever do get on it, we're sunk.
|
>> If UKIP were on the bridge, or ever do get on it, we're sunk.
>>
INEPTOCRACY is a system of government where the least capable of leading are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
-what, it seems, we have now, and for the forseeable future.
|
>> INEPTOCRACY is a system of government where the least capable of leading are elected by
>> the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain
>> themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth
>> of a diminishing number of producers.
>>
>> -what, it seems, we have now, and for the forseeable future.
Well, it's a mixture of that and Kleptocracy so far as I can tell. Hard to know what better alternatives there are though.
|
|
This lot are an Inquiocracy.
|
>>
>> If UKIP were on the bridge, or ever do get on it, we're sunk.
>>
A couple of interesting pieces in last week's Economist on the subject of leaving the EU e.g. tinyurl.com/bw5qeqb
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Wed 19 Dec 12 at 11:33
|
If ever there's a referendum, every registered voter should be locked in a windowless room until they have read that article, and signed a declaration that they've understood it.
If they then vote "Out", they can be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. ;-)
|
I think I'll start a party that blames the country's economic ills on having too large a burden of pensioners and elderly requiring expensive healthcare just so they can continue to receive pensions and further benefits.
The reason it won't be successful is because that's the truth ;-)
|
UKIP's apparent surge towards power and influence is a bubble that will deflate as quickly as it inflated.
UKIP isn't fascist, but this stuff reminds me of these fussy self-important poisonous little fascist parties in Spain and Greece that think they are important and get alarmist coverage in the media both there and here.
|
>> If ever there's a referendum, every registered voter should be locked in a windowless room
>> until they have read that article, and signed a declaration that they've understood it.
>>
>> If they then vote "Out", they can be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. ;-)
>>
Maybe so, I wasn't intentionally advancing an argument on the matter, merely pointing out that this provides what is in my opinion a reasoned analysis of the likely consequences which (as you probably wish to imply) people on both sides of the argument might like to read.
|
Some interesting stuff there. Sceptics will read it as saying is that your earliest loss is your least loss - the longer the UK stays in, the worse it gets.
And it doesn't contemplate how things develop if UK stays, but remains out of the euro, or if it joins the euro, which is a disaster that can only be mitigated by political union.
If the EU is an economic success (which it currently isn't in large parts) leaving it might be bad. If it implodes under the stress of reconciling monetary union with separate sovereign governments, then being in will be a disaster.
The only hope for long term stability of the EU with the euro is if national sovereignty can eventually be set aside and the members submit to a European government. Currently that implies control by a Franco-German axis; but in time the EU will include Turkey and possibly Russia - if it lasts long enough. Incidentally, Turkey (already 'aided' to the tune of £1bn or so a year by UK) can't even get over Cyprus existing, so happy families looks a long way off.
Junking the euro might be a way out, but seems hard to envisage.
This will take decades to play out and there will be a lot of grief before it has.
|
Longest interview ive seen of Farage, some interesting bits and a bit of depth.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlYbubyGerE
|
I can't help but agree FoR - he was talking on the radio the other afternoon - he certainly talks a good job..
|
Thanks for linking that FoR.
Sounded more like a party political broadcast than an interview to me, but, very interesting to hear such confident firm held views and such a clear explanation of the thoughts of Chairman Farage.
Wasn't much there to argue with.
Be interesting to compare that with Cast Iron Dave's suddenly postponed speech on Europe, more important is what Mr Slippery doesn't actually say in the pronouncments.
|
>>Be interesting to compare that with Cast Iron Dave's suddenly postponed speech on Europe, more important is what Mr Slippery doesn't actually say in the pronouncments. <<
What I cannot fathom is why on earth has has to go abroad to make the blinking speech, what a waste of tax payers cash, stupid man - is he that worried about the reaction he decided pre-empt the need to run for the hills?
Looking forward to Question Time Roger, did you catch the trio of Kippers on Daily Politics this lunchtime? Couple of faces ive not seen on before. What is the bet Olly 'incest' Neville will be in the questions somewhere? What a strange young man!
|
Olly, judging by his pronouncements, never was a subscriber to UKIP policies. He comes across as an anarchist, who may well now be on his way to the Labour party to cause mayhem there!
He is currently much seen on Twitter throwing his toys out of his pram re his sacking!
|
I, of course, have seen it too and agree that he comes over well in a longer and more thoughtful interview (I would, wouldn't I ?)
Nigel will be on Question Time tonight.
|
|
A great question time for Nigel & UKIP. Wiped the floor with the others and judging by the audience reaction, they agreed!!
|
|
Do you know just how sycophantic you sound? Its like some teen girl swooning round jimmy saville.
|
>> Do you know just how sycophantic you sound? Its like some teen girl swooning round
>> jimmy saville.
>>
That's rich coming from someone whose idea of fun is to take pictures of trains.
Now THAT is caught in the past!
|
|
At least I dont want Farange to stick his tongue down my throat.
|
>>At least I dont want Farange to stick his tongue down my throat. <<
Says the man who has wet dreams about the Fat Controller! :-p
|
|
Gosh, Roger made a comment about train spotting and got two thumbs up. Gosh what fun loving wags you all are.
|
|
Your wrong again. Its more than two.
|
>>Events outpace me.....<<
Cmon, admit it, you are David Cameron surely.
|
>> A great question time for Nigel & UKIP. Wiped the floor with the others and
>> judging by the audience reaction, they agreed!!
>>
You see what you want to see. I thought he just trotted out the usual old scare stories, ironic seeing as that's what he accuses his opponents of. The audience's response seemed roughly balanced between him and the Roland chappie to be frank.
The Tory and the pseudo-Socialist were, as always, empty vessels making lots of noise and Mary Beard is a bit of a daft old cat lady. My vote would go to Roland Rudd (unfortunate name). Farage, as always, totally ignored the reality of the situation in which Norway and Switzerland find themselves in relation to the EU - they pay for it, they are bound to accept its rules and they get none of the benefits. That's where we'll end up if we're removed form it. I think I linked to an Economist article on here recently which gave a fair and balanced view of the in/out consequences - anyone who understands it would never want us out. Anyone who refuses to find out the facts and bases their opinion on what Farage and the Daily Mail say should have their vote removed from them.
|
|
The lady on Question Time complaining that immigration had made Boston "Like s foreign country" has obviously not been to London or the midland cities recently.
|
|
He comes across well - I want to like what he says but I fear he's a one trick pony...mind you that might be a qualification for politician.
|
|
Appearing on HIGNFY should automatically disqualify anyone from high office. Boris Johnson, Louise Mensch, Bob Crow and, yes, Nigel Farage. Politics is serious (ask anyone whose disability benefits are under threat) and no place for playing to the gallery.
|
>> The lady on Question Time complaining that immigration had made Boston "Like s foreign country"
"I'm half Polish, my grandparents came during the war". But pull up the drawbridge now please. Bizarre. No one on that side of the argument ever seems to admit that without immigration the number of people leaving this country to live elsewhere under EU freedom to move (along with emigration to other parts of the world) would utterly cripple us in terms of workforce and tax take. Are they suggesting that it's a good idea to stop immigration from the EU, because if they did we'd likewise have to stop our own people freely moving to the Costa Blanca etc. Not a very nice prospect. I for one hope to move abroad for a part of my life, France for example, and would like to be able to do so freely and easily.
Roger - if we were outside of the EU and disallowing immigration, would you have been happy those years ago to have been similarly barred from moving to Spain? It's a double edged sword, isn't it?
|
>> Roger - if we were outside of the EU and disallowing immigration, would you have
>> been happy those years ago to have been similarly barred from moving to Spain? It's
>> a double edged sword, isn't it?
If, after proving that I was financially self sufficient and was buying my own home for pesetas and thus would contribute to Spain's economy, I was not allowed in I would have been surprised.
If however the sovereign state which is (or should be) Spain decided I was a no good. no hoper oik whom they did not want in their country - well that is (or should be) their right and is to be respected.
|
|
+1. The Economist article was very useful, but I don't think most UKIP supporters are capable of reading at that level. As for the coalition: they are creating deflation through dogma. If Roosevelt had followed their line in the 30's, we'd still have the great Depression. The germans helped in that situation of course: went to war. The Yanks made a mint. By keeping out until they tweaked the Japanese sufficiently (oil embargo), supplying UK with old ships/armaments at a price, and getting their industries up to speed through re-arming. Post war: stealing German and UK jet engine designs. The Americans have long used an amalgam of public aid to selected industries whilst pretending to be "free enterprise". In reality it's a military dominated military-industrial complex. If their economy doesn't recover, they will ramp up their current wars to the next level. Taking leave of Europe and expecting the Americans to play cricket? Not a good position to be in.
Last edited by: NIL on Fri 18 Jan 13 at 09:32
|
>> The Tory and the pseudo-Socialist were, as always, empty vessels making lots of noise and Mary Beard is a bit of a daft old cat lady <<
Shapps may be empty, but the lad does a fair job of talking nonsense - he is more than a bit heir to Blair in that respect. I do wish they would stop trotting out Mary Beard - the poor woman is obviously very intelligent and thoughtful, but she is also quite disconnected from reality and is not good at talking on TV.
>> Farage, as always, totally ignored the reality of the situation in which Norway and Switzerland find themselves in relation to the EU <<
Farage tends to look towards the notion of freedom rather than the practicalities of their individual situations. If one is talking about the reality of situations though, one must spare a thought for the EU bureaucrats who seem to find it alarmingly easy to turn a blind eye to the suffering of ordinary people in some of the more debt ridden states.
You can dislike Farage for his politics by all means, but he is one of the few people who goes to the heart of the EU and time and time again says to their faces ' Look at these people who are suffering in Greece, Spain etc '.
When Barroso said crisis over I wanted to give him a slap.
>>Anyone who refuses to find out the facts and bases their opinion on what Farage and the Daily Mail say should have their vote removed from them <<
Nice and democratic. Stupid people, ignorant people, it doesnt matter, they all have the right to vote. They also have the right to form an opinion that is different from your own even if you perceive it to be wrong. I may not agree with you, but I would happily defend your right to hold a differing opinion even if I thought you were 100% wrong.
|
|
I'd have given you two green thumbs for that post stu, if it were at all possible.
|
>> Nice and democratic. Stupid people, ignorant people, it doesnt matter, they all have the right
>> to vote. They also have the right to form an opinion that is different from
>> your own even if you perceive it to be wrong. I may not agree with
>> you, but I would happily defend your right to hold a differing opinion even if
>> I thought you were 100% wrong.
>>
Of course, I'm being hyperbolic. I'd never in reality support a removal of the franchise from anyone qualified to vote.
If you're so keen on Farage's notion of "freedom", would you kindly answer the question I posed to Roger about the restrictions of movement, both intentional and consequential, that the British people would be subjected to in the wake of an EU withdrawal? Where does that sit with the concept of freedom he's so keen on?
|
>>If you're so keen on Farage's notion of "freedom", would you kindly answer the question I posed to Roger about the restrictions of movement, both intentional and consequential, that the British people would be subjected to in the wake of an EU withdrawal? Where does that sit with the concept of freedom he's so keen on? <<
Freedom to be governed by your elected peers rather than a remote foreign institution. The UK parliament is already very remote from the people, so adding another even more remote layer to government does not bring democracy closer. I believe in stronger local government so it can hardly be a suprise that I despise any notion of power moving further away.
There are already restrictions on the movement of people outside of the EU and I firmly believe it is up to the government of the day who they will and wont allow entry to this country at any given time. I want the power to decide to rest in Westminster, but that doesnt mean they have to close the border, simply exercise control over it when they feel it is required.
Why do you assume that if we leave the EU, EU governments will automatically decide you cannot visit or live in an EU state? If they believe free movement of people is right, they wont stop anyone coming in will they? In the 70's my grandparents and my mother and father went on holiday to East Germany - 10 minutes at the border and they were on their way - and Im sure you know what East german officials would think of a Ford Zodiac full of westerners.
Your doomsday assumptions are not realistic. UKIP policy is not to close the border completely but have control over it like we supposedly do for all non-EU nationals - my physio is Kenyan and subject to the kind of controls UKIP want equalised for all entrants and yet he is here and working ( very good he is too ).
|
|
You're overdramatising my point, as is often the case with restrictedborderists. The remainder EU would not make it impossible for UK citizens to travel there, however they would remove the right of UK citizens to live and work in those countries without being subjected to visa and eligibility requirements, hindering free movement of labour and people. It was like that between Spain and the UK before they joined. As a youngster I wanted to work during the summers I spent there (my Mum spent a few years living there, but she did not need to work so it was easyish for her), but there was no point trying due to the work permit hoops that had to be jumped through. If it's difficult to do something, it puts people off doing it. We'd quite simply be less free to do as we pleased in a European context than we are now. And I don't want that. I like the current situation. And I'm happy to share that right with other EU passport holders.
|
>>You're overdramatising my point, as is often the case with restrictedborderists. The remainder EU would not make it impossible for UK citizens to travel there, however they would remove the right of UK citizens to live and work in those countries without being subjected to visa and eligibility requirements <<
Without knowing what the visa and eligibility requirements are, it is impossible to say whether it would act as much of a restriction. My sister went on a working holiday to Australia with the appropriate visa which despite their reputation for border control was easily aquired. When she subsequently married an aussie citizen she applied for a visa allowing her to stay, again easily aquired. If you are serious about making your home in a new country, filling in a few forms hardly seems like a big ask and it is rather arrogant to think you should be able to stroll into any country no questions asked.
>>And I don't want that. I like the current situation. And I'm happy to share that right with other EU passport holders.<<
That is fair enough. I however am not happy with the current situation and I am happy to have my to right free movement removed and for any country to decide whether they wish to allow me entry or not.
|
I believe that anybody should be allowed to live and work anywhere. Without restriction.
If somebody wants to support their friends and relatives, good luck to them.
I would have only two restrictions;
No benefits until contributions have reached an acceptable level. (never worked out what that is).
Any significant crime and you're drop kicked across the border.
I do not now, and never have, understood what anybody has against "foreigners". I totally get, and support, that there should not be an automatic right to health care and other benefits, but then that should be the same for Brits as well.
Why is a Brit having 5 children they can't support any different from someone from abroad claiming benefits.
Why is a Brit who has never worked, living from benefits any different from someone arriving in this country and expecting to sit on their bum?
There is only one difference, the person concerned is not British.
I accept (but don't like) that people want a scapegoat for their own issues, and that the nasty foreigner is increasingly the preferred route.
And that would be the centre of UKIPs policies. And I do not support racism, however you spin it and however you justify it to yourself.
Now tell me its not racist, UKIP is not racist, etc. etc. I do not believe you, I do not accept your excuses.
And if you truly believe that "foreigners" using the country's benefits and health system is the core issue, or even a major issue, then you are as foolish as you are misguided.
|
>>Now tell me its not racist <<
There is no 'British race', it is a stupid premise to start with so it cannot be defended from any other race.
Managing the number of people that a national budget covers is not racist, it is sensible and border controls form a part of good national planning.
|
>>There is no 'British race', it is a stupid premise to start with so it cannot be defended from any other race.
And that is the extent of your argument? Wow, turns out its all sweetness and light then...
>> border controls form a part of good national planning.
Racist, xenophobic, ignorant, short-sighted b*******.
And economically laughable.
|
|
And who has got the balls to own up to the scowly face?
|
>>And who has got the balls to own up to the scowly face?
As I thought.
|
|
It looks lonely on its own, think it needs a mate?
|
|
I'm surprised it hasn't had several already.
|
>> I'm surprised it hasn't had several already.
>>
There was another one for you just a few post further up.
|
>> >>And who has got the balls to own up to the scowly face?
>>
>> As I thought.
>>
I've come to this late and can't claim the earlier one(s)...but I have added to it/them. There's no need to be so rude.
|
>>There's no need to be so rude<<
^ I'm with this geezer.
|
>> >>There's no need to be so rude<<
>>
>> ^ I'm with this geezer.
Yes me too. Personal insults don't add to a discussion.
|
>>Racist, xenophobic, ignorant, short-sighted b******* <<
No idea what border controls have to do with race but I suspect you have a deep seated personal issue over race that you are over compensating for.
You really need to work through it with a professional rather than here, it isnt healthy and your angry little outburst of name calling because I suggested that to work out national budgets you need to know how many people there are in order to provide adequate funding for services, really it is just bizarre.
|
>>you need to know how many people there are in order to provide adequate funding for services, really it is just bizarre.
You don't really understand this stuff, do you?
It matters not a jot how many there are, it matters how many you are funding.
Limiting people who come into the country is not about knowing how many there are, that would simply take a list. It is about controlling how many people there are. So, how long before compulsory birth control for people who have a financial standing you don't approve of? Or do you maintain its only ever foreigners you will try to control?
Tit.
Ignorant tit at that.
|
>> Tit.
>>
>> Ignorant tit at that.
>>
Go easy on the guy. He has a medical condition.
Don't want another Duchess-of-Cambridge/Aussie-DJ type situation.
|
>>Go easy on the guy. He has a medical condition.
Clearly.
|
>> >>Go easy on the guy. He has a medical condition.
>>
>> Clearly.
>>
Seriously
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=5260&m=116404&v=e
|
|
Going there AGAIN? Really? Thats just low, it isnt clever.
|
>> Going there AGAIN? Really? Thats just low, it isnt clever.
>>
Why is it low? You posted it there for all to see (unless it was made up or make believe).
Last edited by: John H on Fri 18 Jan 13 at 22:23
|
>>Why is it low? <<
Depends if you think using a persons past difficulties in life to take the mikey out of them is a decent way to behave.
|
>> >>Why is it low? <<
>>
>> Depends if you think using a persons past difficulties in life to take the mikey
>> out of them is a decent way to behave.
>>
No intention to take the mickey - Just advising NoFM2R to tread carefully with someone who has issues of depression brought about by past bullying.
|
>>No intention to take the mickey <<
Sure, if you say so. I havent forgotten past exchanges with you dear boy and I can be quite sure that my well being is not something you would concern yourself with.
I wouldnt worry though, these days the only people who's opinion I really care about are those closest to me ( including the voices in my head and the fairies ).
I find people like NoFM2R curious rather than distressing, the opinions of strangers about me have a value similar to a chocolate tea pot.
|
>> Sure, if you say so. I havent forgotten past exchanges with you dear boy and
>> I can be quite sure that my well being is not something you would concern
>> yourself with.
>> I wouldnt worry though, these days the only people who's opinion I really care about
>> are those closest to me ( including the voices in my head and the fairies
>> ).
>>
>> I find people like NoFM2R curious rather than distressing, the opinions of strangers about me
>> have a value similar to a chocolate tea pot.
>>
Feeling paranoid?
Is it any wonder people pick on you? But we obviously shouldn't worry because you sure can handle it.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 18 Jan 13 at 22:48
|
>>Feeling paranoid? <<
Hardly. People behave in predictable ways. People who dont like you dont suddenly try and help you, only in the movies.
>> Is it any wonder people pick on you? <<
Is that your diagnosis, Doctor? :-)
|
Thank you for making my case.
Q.E.D.
|
>>Thank you for making my case <<
I thought you might go for it in the end, over confidence is a killer with these things, dont ever become a criminal 'mastermind' will you, you will be caught ;-p
You were trying to make a case, a negative one at that, not the act of a person genuinely trying to help someone. The 'Im trying to help' swerve was cute, but a bit amatuer, must try harder. Dont assume vunerability makes someone stupid.
|
>> Depends if you think using a persons past difficulties in life to take the mikey
>> out of them is a decent way to behave.
>>
Well I certainly do not....and I do not see why a forum such as this has to have such ignorance and rudeness displayed, just because you disagree with someone else.
|
>> >> Depends if you think using a persons past difficulties in life to take the
>> mikey
>> >> out of them is a decent way to behave.
>> >>
>>
>> Well I certainly do not....and I do not see why a forum such as this
>> has to have such ignorance and rudeness displayed, just because you disagree with someone else.
>>
And who could argue with that.
However, pointing out that a person has previously laid bare their vulnerabilities, and so to be especially careful in how you respond to that person, is something you should agree with if you care about that person's health.
|
>>is something you should agree with if you care about that person's health.<<
IF that was the case yes. What people who care dont do is offer up extra material to a bully - he is trying to convince me Im Nick Griffin's righthand man - at what point do you think anything in that thread will encourage him to change his tone exactly? Might give him a new angle of attack but that is about it.
|
>> >> righthand man - at what point do you think anything in that thread will encourage
>> him to change his tone exactly? Might give him a new angle of attack but
>> that is about it.
>>
He is unlikely to have been aware of your medical issues, which you have openly and honestly talked about. Having now seen your history, it might persuade NoFM2R to respond to you in a friendlier manner. We will wait and see.
|
>>He is unlikely to have been aware of your medical issues <<
It isnt a medical issue. It is psychological. It is hardly a secret either, obviously.
>>it might persuade NoFM2R to respond to you in a friendlier manner. We will wait and see.<<
Oh god I hope not, how boring.
|
Whatever I think of FoR's views I find it difficult he to believe would really wish me to pat him on the head and patronise him by pretending something else because he's "ill".
And as far as I know he's NOT ill, he has stuff to deal with. Don't we all.
He is more than capable of arguing with me, and until HE asks me to treat him artificially gently I shall continue not to do so.
So to all of you getting all weepy on his behalf......
Well, I'm sure you know.
|
>> However, pointing out that a person has previously laid bare their vulnerabilities, and so to be especially careful in how you respond to that person, is something you should agree with if you care about that person's health.
You weren't really doing that though JH. You were reminding people that Stu has suffered from depression as a way of making him, and by association his arguments, seem weak. Low or not, it isn't the sort of point a gentleman - a well brought up person - would make except under very extreme provocation.
Call me pompous if you like, but don't start that grandiosity stuff again or I will scream.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 18 Jan 13 at 23:27
|
>> Seriously
John H, seeing as you like raking up the past, how about this one which I wrote in reply to your other alias on here.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=8305&m=183626
Seeing as you continue to maliciously harass the same forum member once again, how about taking a week off.
Account temp disabled.
VxFan.
|
Just because your note has got loads of thumbs up, and whilst I am not offended by it, let me say I don't agree with it.
Whatever John's behaviour may be, and whatever level of irritation it causes, banning him is inappropriate. And awfully ineffective as we well know.
And "maliciously harass" is a bit over the top.
|
>> And "maliciously harass" is a bit over the top.
malicious = nasty / spiteful / cruel / wicked / hateful etc
harass = pester / annoy / pursue / be a nuisance / stalk / hound / bully etc
You're entitled to your opinion on the matter though, as am I.
edit - and no, I didn't give you the gong, btw.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 19 Jan 13 at 14:51
|
>>and no, I didn't give you the gong, btw.
Wouldn't ever think it was you, not your style.
The use of frowny faces and thumbs up usually comes across as either cowardly or sycophantic so I've pretty much stopped taking any notice.
>>malicious = nasty / spiteful / cruel / wicked / hateful
Exactly.
|
>> Seeing as you continue to maliciously harass the same forum member once again, how about
>> taking a week off.
>>
>> Account temp disabled.
>>
>> VxFan.
>>
I didn't notice the earlier transgression...and...am usually a fully paid up member of free speech even if I don't like what I hear..but...am 100% happy with this action, which let's face it is unusual on this site.
Thank you for your fair but firm moderation.
|
What's been said against John H (without me looking) that he didn't normally deserve?
If you ban temporarily Westpig then this site's moderation sucks (Dave anyway). Although I will go and check what has been said.
EDIT: I had a typo... still think Westpig has had excellent contributions on here. Someone must have pulled Dave's chain?
EDIT2: What post did he respond to that you say this? No direct/obvious reply so far.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 00:38
|
|
I just worked out it was John H in the wrong - sorry mods and especially Dave.
|
|
And I'm not wrong in thinking I recognised the posting style. But I SUPPOSE you cannot report someone for this can you?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 00:52
|
I am deeply confused.
Which posting style by whom?
|
>> sorry mods and especially Dave.
You're forgiven.
Apart from spammers, John H is the first person to be served a red card - albeit only a temporary one.
Whilst I agree with you (and Mark) in not knowing what the final outcome of this will be, I'm hoping it will give him time to reflect on his actions and to think about what he is writing in the future. Ultimately though, I rarely give anyone a 2nd chance.
If nothing else, it'll give you lot a break from him for a few days ;)
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 01:29
|
>>It matters not a jot how many there are, it matters how many you are funding.
Limiting people who come into the country is not about knowing how many there are, that would simply take a list. It is about controlling how many people there are. So, how long before compulsory birth control for people who have a financial standing you don't approve of? Or do you maintain its only ever foreigners you will try to control?<<
How exactly would you decide how many people you provide funding for if you dont know how many people there are likely to be? It is just your sort of nonsense guesswork that has left us with a social housing crisis, but then Im sure the poor people look rather tiny from your ivory tower.
Is there compulsary birth control in Australia or the US? Have I missed something?
>>Ignorant tit at that <<
Perhaps, but you are just rude. I knew when you started hurling insults like a silly child that you are one of those who throws their toys out the pram when someone holds a different view from them. It is hilarious that you preach tolerance to me while being utterly intolerant of views other than your own - typical of the breed though, utterly narrow minded.
It is not me that looks at people and sees the colour of their skin, it is you, your obession and you need to get over it. I have had both black and asian girlfriends, Im really terrible at being a racist I guess, tut tut. Ive had several boyfriends too. Gosh Im really off message arent I?
|
>>but you are just rude.
No, i am not just rude.
But you are just an ignorant tit who blames johnny foreigner for all your ills and believes that limiting the dreaded in flux will make your life better.
Spin it any way you want, the truth remains there to be seen. It is a pity that you are not clever enough to see it.
And really "some of my best friends are black"? Surely you could do better than that.
Pillock.
|
>>But you are just an ignorant tit who blames johnny foreigner for all your ills and believes that limiting the dreaded in flux will make your life better <<
I dont blame anyone for wanting to come to the UK, it is a great place to live.
>>And really "some of my best friends are black"? Surely you could do better than that.<<
I dont have any black friends. Im not trying to do better, Im stating a fact - sorry if it doesnt fit your expectations but facts trump your guesswork. I simply dont care about a persons skin colour, nor do I think it has anything to do with British citizenship.
Race is a blunt tool of the ignorant and Im afraid you simply cannot put the tool down. Why you want everyone to be seen primarily by their skin colour doesnt bear thinking about, it is creepy. You and Griffin are welcome to eachother, two of a kind.
|
You truly do not have the wit to understand either the economic or sociological impact of the drivel that you blindly repeat.
You seem not to understand your own words, so I'm guess mine are a complete mystery to you.
I believe you to be a fool who talks of things of which he understands nothing.
|
>>How exactly would you decide how many people you provide funding for if you dont know how many people there are likely to be?
You count them, you idiot, you count them. You do not need to restrict them. And you restrict their right to benefits and free care, as you should also do to the idle Brit.
And the VAST majority of funding is spent on idle Brits, not the scary foreigner.
So, will these policies forever be restricted to the Foreigner, or will they at some point be directed at the real problem, which would be British.
Will you start to authorise the number of children permitted to be born because otherwise you are incapable of setting a funding budget?
And if not, why not? surely you lack of understanding remains constant?
And if there is not enough money will you then start to restrict who may have children, or how many they may have?
|
Ya know, despite my apparent mental weakness, it appears to be you that is having a meltdown.
Half my family are foreigners, Im not scared of them, ignorant, illogical comment.
Name me a western country that has border controls which limits the number of children. No? Ignorant comment.
I should say, I think you are really funny and I have enjoyed the exchanges today, I can appreciate your zeal for what you believe in, even if you are crackers.
I know for a fact that you open borderists wouldnt protest to Obama that he is racist for presiding over a country with border control, doesnt fit your stereotype does he? Gosh darn it.
I would quite like you see you with your sign marching about outside the US embassy though, do send a piccie if you decide to have the courage of your convictions.
|
>>while being utterly intolerant of views other than your own
You have no idea how intolerant of the views you repeat I am. I don't think you understand them well enough to call them your own.
|
|
What would the question be on the referendum form.Ether vote for in or out the EU. Stay in the EU as a trade agreement but no involvement in social policies.Would the rest of Europe accept this cherrie picking I can't see it.Be interesting to see what Cameron has to say in his speech.My guess no change.Regarding freedom,don't pay your council tax and see what freedom is.
|
>> Regarding freedom,don't pay your council
>> tax and see what freedom is.
>>
Council tax? In some places all you have to do is put your bin in the wrong place or out on the wrong day.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 18 Jan 13 at 13:18
|
"Regarding freedom,don't pay your council tax and see what freedom is."
If you don't pay your council tax you will get a reminder and then a warning of possible court action and then a letter advisiing you that you will be prosecuted and then there will be a court case and then you will be fined and if you refuse to pay the fine you might end up in jail.
What other system do you propose. Should payment of council tax be optional?
|
Nigel Farage hits back after Dave says only parties that might govern the country can take party in TV debates:
“If he wants to restrict it to those parties who are likely to form the next government, he’d better not be booking studio time himself.”
|
>>Dave says only parties that might govern the country can take party in TV debates <<
In that case are we going to have every debate with Ed Milliband talking to himself in a mirror?
:-P
|
|
.......I thought Ed M. did that anyway!
|
|
Let's have a open debate about Britains role in the E.U.If it means job losses so be it,we need some honesty from our politicians instead of ducking and diving the issues which they have been doing for years.The only reason Nissan and Honda are here because they can export cars to the continent there are no restrictions.Not because they like us.It's bussiness.
|
This thread has been going on for 10 months or so now.
Roger has been brave enough to put his head above the parapet and made some very good points. I've always enjoyed reading the views and counter views on this one.
I get up this morning and see it's turned into a complete and utter shambles, as is almost always the case now.
Stu thinks the whole world is picking on him, Mark thinks no-one else is intelligent enough to have a view on anything and John H gets banned for a week for being 10% as rude as Mark is to everyone who dares to have a different view pint to him.
Well done all, you don't deserve a free forum to enjoy, and you wonder where so many old posters have gone?
It won't be long before you end up a small group of sad old men sitting in the corner of your virtual bar complaining that no-one bothers speaking to you all.
Intelligence?
It's just over bearing pomposity of the lowest order.
Education and knowledge should bring with it good manners but in my experience it rarely does, and the level of rudeness on this thread alone has hit an all time low.
Hang your heads in shame....
Pat
PS Roger, please start another thread on this subject, I had enjoyed the balanced viewpoints until today.
|
Ah Pat, that gave a me a morning chuckle, you are right of course although I would caution you to consider that not everybody takes it quite so seriously, something that doesnt always translate in the typed word.
Not the whole world I might add - John has singled me out in the past and a little birdie tells me that under his many names he uses, it isnt just me, he has a long history of doing similar things, so I dont feel bad about it, some people are like that.
One thing any UKIP supporter knows the moment they 'come out' is that there will be people who cannot and will not have any interest in understanding why. I know whenever anyone mentiones UKIP the same old people will say the same old things. True, I took the decision yesterday to tie a certain poster in knots because he was being aggressive, but occasionally I feel the need to give a bit back. Always with a smile though.
|
Stu, I don't care who started it, if it had been on our forums I'd have banned all three of you for a week until you apologised to each other.....so there!
Pat
|
>>I'd have banned all three of you for a week until you apologised to each other.....so there! <<
Fair enough, ill take the ban. Apologies to anyone I offended.
|
>> Fair enough, ill take the ban. Apologies to anyone I offended.
Thats not anyone's decison except a mod to make FoR, and as far as i can see you have no apologies to make, you've behaved with courtesy and manners and given reasonable argument in the face of personal jibes and abuse.
Reducing one's argument to personal abuse and snide comments shows the antagonist to be dogmatic and unable to allow another person to have a point of view, any arguments they may have validly put forward are diminished as a result.
Its the sort of response one often finds from misnamed anti fascist groups, who seem unable to grasp the irony of wishing to silence, violently en mass, views they don't agree with.
I have no problem with people disagreeing and arguing their cases politely.
|
>> I took the decision yesterday to tie a certain poster in knots
I look forward to you trying.
|
Wow! A red card! Is that first one we have had on here?
I have to say this thread is tedious.
|
>>
>> Wow! A red card! Is that first one we have had on here?
>>
>>
>> I have to say this thread is tedious.
And a Flounce!
And I said this thread was tedious.
|
>> And a Flounce!
You mean "ill take the ban"? Hope not.
|
"And a Flounce!
And I said this thread was tedious."
Take a card and enjoy it!
greylining.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/flounce-bingo.jpg
|
While I agree Mark can be frank and direct to the point of rudeness that's the way he is. Or at least it's the persona he chooses for here. If you engage him in debate then you expect some vigour and vim and hell take it as happily as dish it out. Same goes for Z.
The John H stuff is in a different league - there was a deliberate nastiness verging on bullying.
Red card justified.
I don't think Stu has anything to apologise for either.
|
He most certainly doesn't have to apologise for being rude to me.
I don't like his views anymore than he likes mine; and he is about as likely to say "oh, sorry, I'll change my opinion" as I am and he certainly wouldn't do it as a result of anything I write.
But what, in the name of all that's holy, would be the point of arguing with someone you agree with?
|
>> John H gets banned for a week for being 10% as rude as Mark is to everyone who dares to have a different view pint to him.
I thought I explained my reason for the temp ban?
Whilst most of us can tolerate the occasional banter and name calling; when it becomes an obsession by the same person to continue to harass another person time and time again, to the point where it becomes malicious and personal is not acceptable.
Yes, some of us pull one anothers legs, but not the point where someone takes offence. If someone does take offence, then generally an apology is made afterwards - i.e. everyone kisses and makes up and doesn't keep raking up the past time and time again.
Vx.
|
Eh? What? Wassup? You go away for a few days and all manner of things happen !
:-)
Could someone give me a precis please? Who's upset who? Eh? What? Pardon?
|
I was right and calm.
Everybody else was wrong and outrageous.
I think that covers it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 19 Jan 13 at 14:44
|
>> I was right and calm.
You forgot restrained?
|
Oh yes, thank you.
I was right, calm and needed to be restrained.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 19 Jan 13 at 14:47
|
Oh ok. I find that happens to me too...
:-)
|
Wow you Brits can fall out with each other reading the post on here.Iam a bit confused which is not difficult) abourt Roger who lived in Spain for years and has returned to the UK.What is this with UKIP and Johnny foreigner Roger did you have a hard time in Spain?
Why did you return.What you want Stu won't happen,unless the UK leaves the EU and carts everybody out who is not welcome here.Mark and John call a spade a spade so does Zero nothing changes..;)
|
Calling a spade a spade Dutchie is just fine. I do that myself.
Calling a fellow forum member names and directing insults at them simply says far more about the person doing it than it does about the person they are directed at.
It is perfecpossibleible to put forward a point without resorting to insulting anyone.
I'm in touch with quite a few past forum members who no longer post or even bother to visit the forums, and without a doubt, the reason given is exactly what we've seen on this thread over the past 24 hours.
Even when it isn't directed to them, it seems a lot of people don't want to read that sort of thing, so they exercise (quite rightly) their option not to visit agconducive condusuccessful succesful, expanding and varied forum though, is it?
...and No Stu, you have nothing to apologise for, just remember the whole world isn't against you. Even I stick up for you sometimes:)
Pat
|
|
I too believe that it is perfecpossibleible to be agconducive and very condusuccessful.
|
When I pay to use this forum I will expect it to work perfectly with IE 9, while it is free for me to use I have to live with it's failings without complaint.
Just for you Mark, here is the original text as typed.
*insert words to suit*
Pat
|
>>expect it to work perfectly with IE 9
I think it does.
You're not using a wireless keyboard, are you?
|
I am, but I do so on every other forum I post on without a problem.
Pat
|
Quite often when that stuff happens its down to flat batteries or interference.
That could not be the reason if it was working perfectly the rest of the time.
But I don't think its IE9 and this site causing your difficulty.
|
There have been posts in the past by others having the same problem on here and we have all learned to live with it.
The cursor sticks and sometimes dissapears completely so you have no idea where you're typing!
I think it was L'es or mapmaker who suggested he always scrolls the page up or down to get it working again and that does work.
It will be fine for weeks and lulls you into not checking your posts then it throws a wobbly and has a hissy fit for a day or two.....I'm sure you'll recognise that:)
Pat
|
>> But I don't think its IE9 and this site causing your difficulty.
It is, there is an issue with IE9 and this forum, I can reproduce it with ease, the curser in the text input boxes disappears form time to time and you end up typing not where you thought.
I assume its an IE9 issue as it does not happen on any other browser I care to use. Does not happen on IE10 (the one with Windows 8) or IE8
|
>>It is, there is an issue with IE9 and this forum
Well, I'll take your word for it, although I never noticed it. I don't see how it can be IE9 though, surely it must be specifically this forum?
I use Chrome these days, so it doesn't affect me.
|
>> >>It is, there is an issue with IE9 and this forum
>>
>> Well, I'll take your word for it, although I never noticed it. I don't see
>> how it can be IE9 though, surely it must be specifically this forum?
No I've had it one other forum
>> I use Chrome these days, so it doesn't affect me.
And me.
|
>Even when it isn't directed to them, it seems a lot of people don't want to read that sort of thing
So you mean that we shouldn't make reading all the threads compulsory?
If you stick your head above the parapets the indians are going to shoot at it. Its usually a preliminary and warning shot which only takes your hat off, but a shot nonetheless.
If one then thrusts ones head even higher, then the shooting starts aiming for the nose.
I find that most people with strong opinions are willing to stick their head above the parapet and both shoot and be shot at.
I do not understand where the bleeding hearts come from. If you don't like it, don't read it. Leave those of us with our heads over the parapets to defend our own noses.
And if I don't want to take the shots, I won't stick my head up. I have never seen anyone around here summarily picked on without some kind of initial and tentative skirmish.
Strikes me its a touch of the Mary Whitehouses. That woman found more porn and nudity to complain about than I as a desperate and searching teenager could ever find.
You repeatedly say that nobody can offend you Pat and that you're used to taking all sorts of crap from the legendary truck driver, so why do you spend so much time taking offence either for others, or for conversations that didn't offend you?
There's never yet been an opinion worth hearing that hasn't been born from a fire of some sort.
|
I love hearing opinions Mark, educated opinions, allowing me to muse over them in my mind.
I don't get offended at all by your (or anyone else's) insults, but I'm in a minority and it's obvious others do.
What you fail to see is you're letting yourself down by trying to bully rather than argue intelligently as you abviously have the ability to do, so why do it?
Listen to others, disect their reasons but don't try and debase them by telling them they don't know anything.....all that says is that you don't either!
Pick the bones out of an opinion and let us bystanders enjoy the threads, who knows, we may even find the nerve to contribute.
Pat
|
Pat,
>> don't try and debase them by telling them they don't know anything.....all that says is that you don't either!
I am not trying to debase anyone, I don't care about them enough. Not because they're bad, or good, or right, or wrong, but because they are just someone hanging out in an internet discussion forum and not part of my real world, anymore than I am part of theirs.
If I tell them that they know nothing, its because I think they know nothing. No other reason.
And if all it says is that I know nothing, then perhaps I don't. Can't see why that would bother anyone either.
>>and it's obvious others do
Really. FoR seemed to be coping, as indeed was I.
So who was offended, how was it obvious, and how were they offended? And I don't mean all the little sad "me too"s who trot out their thumbs and scowly faces but contribute nothing to any part or any side of the argument, or those who sit and whine off to one side about how its too rough for them without ever stepping up to one point of view or the other.
>>What you fail to see is you're letting yourself down
I fail to see nothing. But if you believe I do, please feel free not to protect me.
>>so why do it?
The same reason I do everything, because I choose to do so.
|
Your ego will hurt when it falls off that pedestal Mark, and Karma says it will happen...sometime.
Pat
|
What ego? Or rather, why my ego in particular?
I say stuff I truly believe to be correct. If I didn't truly believe it was correct, then why on earth would I say it?
Having said something and believing it to be correct, I will argue the point. Why would I bother saying something I would not defend?
I sometimes get excessively excited about something, but like farting in your own bedroom, if you can't do it here where can you do it?
I have no issue criticizing people I believe to be wrong, and saying so out loud. I have no issue with people doing it to me
I have little time for people who snipe from the edges.
Where in there do you find evidence of a faulty ego?
And karma reigns, because sometimes I'm wrong and I get told. I just have no issue with being wrong, I can learn. That'll just be one more thing I'm right about next time.
And "willy waving"? Hardly, I need at least one hand to type with.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 19 Jan 13 at 16:52
|
A real man doesn't use his hand to wave his willy.....and on that note I'm off to prepare a meal.
Salad.....
Pat
|
Just a thought....does that mean this UKIP thread is now a load of cock?
Pat
|
"now"?
What do you mean "now"?? When has it not been?
|
>> A real man doesn't use his hand to wave his willy.....and on that note I'm
>> off to prepare a meal.
>>
>> Salad.....
>>
>> Pat
It'll be burned I wager.
|
|
Mental image suddenly put you off meat Pat? :)
|
>>Really. FoR seemed to be coping, as indeed was I. <<
Agreed. I dont go for all that touchy-feely emotional rubbish which lost me more than it ever gained. I get bored eventually of such vitriolic exchanges, but you would have to set the bar rather higher to cause genuine offence - that isnt an invitation to try, Pat will get upset!
Maybe we need a rumpus room, then again they still havent paved the driveway so we could be waiting a while!
|
No, IE9 is my preferred browser and works fine on every other site I use.
Pat
|
>> Have you tried Firefox?
What, to cook a salad?
|
>> Calling a fellow forum member names and directing insults at them simply says far more about the person doing it than it does about the person they are directed at.
Yes. Both FMR and the equally tittish (but brighter and more amusing) Zero are given to doing that, apparently for reasons more connected to their fantasy lives than anything said here.
These two unstable characters are worse than that though. When they get a dose of their own medicine they flounce around with their little noses in the air pretending they are too cool to speak to someone as rude as they are. A couple of snivelling curs.
As for this thread, it is quite phenomenally boring and pointless. UKIP is nothing and nowhere, a trivial one-issue fringe party that trades on kneejerk British xenophobia.
|
AC totally wrong about UKIP, but he'll learn that with some experience of life...;)
signed...British well half Irish xenophobe, presumably not agreeing with the ambitions of the three cheeks of the same backside party means i must be a xeno'?
Mods MODS MOOODDDDSSSahhh.
Any chance of starting a second chapter of this Farage links thread please, this one's now so long its taking ages to load to see the next tiff.
|
That's the best idea you've had in ages GB, I'd like a new thread too without the constant willy waving of the strongest personalities!
Pat
|
>> www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/special-report-what-voters-should-know-about-ukip-8517997.html
>>
The joke one trick party of friutcakes and closet racists must have them running scared.
Good, carry on Nige.
|
>> >> www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/special-report-what-voters-should-know-about-ukip-8517997.html
>> >>
>>
>> The joke one trick party of friutcakes and closet racists must have them running scared.
>>
>> Good, carry on Nige.
Yes, but ....who in the greater UK actually buys and reads The "Indy"?
|
>> Yes, but ....who in the greater UK actually buys and reads The "Indy"?
>>
Well if thats an example of an in depth article, only those with a good sense of humour.
|
>>Well if thats an example of an in depth article, only those with a good sense of humour.
The comments (in the news? papers) are often more in depth than the actual articles :)
|
>> A couple of snivelling curs.
I should have qualified this harsh judgement by adding that it applies to their behaviour here. I have every reason to suppose that Zero is perfectly civil and well-behaved in person, and no reason to suppose that FMR isn't. Here though they are carphounds, sometimes anyway.
|
Pat, you said...
>>Stu, I don't care who started it, if it had been on our forums I'd have banned all three of you for a week until you apologised to each other.....so there! <<
I thought about it and figured worth a go...
>>and No Stu, you have nothing to apologise for <<
If you are going to discipline us, atleast be consistant or you loose your authority ( been looking after a 2 year old for the last month, hard lessons! ). :-p
|
Stu, Quit while you're in front...don't expect me to be consistent.
I'm female after all;)
Pat
|
|
Not that's it would happen, but suppose at the next election UKIP have the most seats in Westiminter.... who would be prime minister? I assume Farage remains an MEP and does not stand as an MP.
|
|
He has hinted that after the Euro elections he will likely contest any by-election himself in the run up to 2015. Whether he gets that chance remains to be seen. I expect if he doesnt get that chance he will likely stand somewhere in either the SE or East where UKIP are strongest - apparently Lincolnshire is very 'Kip'.
|
|
Lincolnshire born and Lincolnshire bred, strong in the arm and thick in the head
|
>> Good interview with dear leader:
Yes. Impressive.
I agreed with everything he said.....yet I'm a Tory voter....Nigel Farage cannot do everything on his own and you never seem to hear of anyone else. Plus there's the 'no point of voting for someone who cannot win' syndrome.
If the Tories implode and some merge with UKIP...now that could be scene changing.
2015 will have Labour back in...amazingly. But if that's what the public wants, that's what they get.....but you reap what you sow.
|
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal".
~Emma Goldman
|
>>2015 will have Labour back in...amazingly.
You reckon? I think it will be another stalemate. Look at Eastleigh.
1. The LibDems were hammered.
2. The Tories were trounced.
3. The Labour party was destroyed.
|
I don't think you can draw too many conclusions. It was a by-election caused by a headline event and fought at the shortest possible notice in an area where the LD's are well organised. Labour's share of the vote was almost exactly same as in 2010 and it may well be that it lost potential share to UKIP or stay at homes. The candidate was also vicously and repeatedly slurred by the Sun and Mail using out of context quotes from the past.
The UKIP vote was likely to be a protest and will evaporate as they're exposed as being short of detail on everything except immigration and things European. If I'm wrong about that I think they're likley to affect the Conservatives more than Labour. The effect then would mirror that of the SDP in 1983 where split votes let Tories in only this time working in Labour's favour
|
blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/03/the-truth-about-ukip-supporters/
On the day UKIP polled more votes: LibDems (fair play to them for their strategy!) mostly due to their local strength and the very short campaign, received a huge bundle of postal votes, cast before the campaign really got going.
|
I expect people who vote so early and by post are those whose affiliations to a particular party are pretty clear. They are probably the least likely to change their minds during a campaign. If someone is a floater, they are more likely to leave their mind and options open and vote on the day, I would think.
I don't think the postal vote really skews anything all that much, despite what UKIP want to have us believe in this case.
|
"Most of the rest of the findings fit with the common view of Ukip voters. They are more likely to be male, old, working class, religious and to read the Daily Mail, the Express or the Sun than the electorate as a whole. They are less likely to have stayed in education beyond the age of 16, to have gone to university or to earn more than £40,000 a year"
That more or less sums me up then, apart from the old bit, 72 is the new 30 ... according to the,um, Daily Mail.
:-)
|
|
So 77 is the new 35 - I wish!
|
>>Most of the rest of the findings fit with the common view of Ukip voters. They are more likely to be male, old, working class, religious and to read the Daily Mail, the Express or the Sun than the electorate as a whole. They are less likely to have stayed in education beyond the age of 16, to have gone to university or to earn more than £40,000 a year <<
Well Im not old or religious and I read 4 newspapers across the spectrum - the Guardian pieces on Farage the man are usually more insightful than anyone elses so I always look forward to those and they tend to hightlight some interesting folk in articles. No mention of the blogs that people might follow which can be quite revealing.
I was in education until 18 so fail on that one but I am cash poor so fit with that bit, but I grew up in a well-off family or rather it became well-off as I grew up and my dads business expanded.
I think that UKIP will do OK with younger working class men who are a bit fed up with things if their long term prospects look as bleak as it seems they are.
|
You don't sound daft to me Stu.I left school at sixteen have plenty of live experience that is all i can say for myself.Most of my family are University educated one of my nephew is a director of a commercial radio staton in Holland.He is very left wing did all his studying in Amsterdam which is a rebel city.
I'm over sixty ther is no trust left in politicians it's a scam we're all in it together what a joke.
|
Lies, damned lies and statistics. I'd like to see the cross tabs.
The most pronounced divergence from the other segments is on age, with UKIP support being heavily biased to over 50s.
As the narrative says, that at least partly accounts for the apparent divergence on education level and income. "Over 50s" includes a signifcant proportion of retired. The proportion of the total population of school leavers going to university only passed 13% in the 1970s, and at the start of the 1960s it was 4% - so we can't infer much about the relative intelligence or education of UKIPpers from those stats.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 5 Mar 13 at 17:06
|
>> I read 4 newspapers across the spectrum - the Guardian pieces on Farage the man are usually more insightful than anyone elses
If one is the Telegraph Stu, did you see the Blower cartoon a day or so back based on the HMV logo with the gramophone trumpet and the little terrier?
I liked it anyway.
|
>> The UKIP vote was likely to be a protest and will evaporate as they're exposed
>> as being short of detail on everything except immigration and things European. If I'm wrong
>> about that I think they're likley to affect the Conservatives more than Labour. The effect
>> then would mirror that of the SDP in 1983 where split votes let Tories in
>> only this time working in Labour's favour
>>
Very,very simply..
Huge chunks of the country automatically vote Labour without a great deal of thought (their prerogative in a democracy) some because their dad's did and their grandad's did.
The constituency boundaries are currently slightly skewed against the Tories.
Ukip will take Tory votes and water down the chances of a right or centre right party winning.
Libs have no chance.
That leaves Labour....despite Ed Miliband..and despite their appalling economic record etc.
C'est la vie.
|
>>That leaves Labour....despite Ed Miliband..and despite their appalling economic record etc.<<
2015 is lost for the Tories but they deserve it. Cameron has been a failure of presentation over substance but the party voted for him and they can live with the consequences, I dont feel the least bit sorry for them.
In 2010 I was considering joining the Tories but once I had met a few of the Cameroon types with their arrogance and contempt for anyone with a different view, I gave it a miss, if I wanted that id join the Lib Dems.
|
>>Huge chunks of the country automatically vote Labour without a great deal of thought (their prerogative in a democracy) some because their dad's did and their grandad's did.
Whereas, other huge chunks of the country vote Conservative without any thought at all, because their maters and paters did, or because they were conned into thinking they were middle class capitalists by Margaret Thatcher (who was twice the man that Cameron is).
If you work for a living, you're working class. Never forget it.
Sadly, the party of labour is as rotten as the party of capitalism. I think that was an indirect consequence of Thatcher's appeal - Labour had to bribe back its supporters, and had enthusiastically to take up the borrowing fiddles pioneered by the Tories to pay for it.
The rest, as they say, is geography.
|
''If you work for a living, you're working class. Never forget it''
Hells bells MT, you carry on writing the truth like this and they'll be organising a Kelly.
Thats the most honest gut feeling posts i've ever read here, you don't happen to write one of the several political blogs i regularly read and sometimes comment on i suppose, are you Old Rightie or Max Farquar or one of the others..:-)
|
>> If you work for a living, you're working class. Never forget it.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
The so called working classes and middle classes have all merged anyway.
|
>> >> If you work for a living, you're working class. Never forget it.
>>
>> What a ridiculous thing to say.
>>
>> The so called working classes and middle classes have all merged anyway.
Workers by hand or by brain. Those who sell their effort for money are the working class.
The middle class are a self identified cross over between the better paid workers and the petty bourgeoisie.
|
>> Workers by hand or by brain. Those who sell their effort for money are the
>> working class.
>>
>> The middle class are a self identified cross over between the better paid workers and
>> the petty bourgeoisie.
>>
What are you then?
|
>> What are you then?
>>
Well off working class.
|
>> Well off working class.
>>
In my book, it doesn't matter any more...but if you were to push me for a decision, it would be: 'a manager in the civil service would be middle class'.
Yours and others viewpoints has somewhat proven my point. It doesn't matter what your personal circumstances are, where you fit in, in life...you consider yourself 'working class' and that's it.
|
>> In my book, it doesn't matter any more...but if you were to push me for
>> a decision, it would be: 'a manager in the civil service would be middle class'.
>>
>> Yours and others viewpoints has somewhat proven my point. It doesn't matter what your personal
>> circumstances are, where you fit in, in life...you consider yourself 'working class' and that's it.
I Suppose to some extent it depends on whether your'e talking political class or economic class. Politically, in a Marxian analysis, I sell my physical, technical or academic labour for money. Economically, as only a few £k shy of 40% tax others would put me in middle class.
Either way my instinct is that I'm better off under a Labour government. If I had realistic expectations of vastly increasing my income or stood to leave or inherit a fortune to be reduced by IHT I might feel more Tory.
I'd wager there are as many people who self identify as middle class but who on rational analysis would be better off under Labour vote Tory through instinct or what they aspire to as do the reverse.
|
If I
>> had realistic expectations of vastly increasing my income or stood to leave or inherit a
>> fortune to be reduced by IHT I might feel more Tory.
I don't vote Tory for me or through the thought I will suddenly be noticeably better off....I do so because I believe the country has to prosper to be able to afford all the things it needs to do, including looking after the less well off. So it needs to encourage people to be successful businessmen/women, to make a profit and pay back some of that profit through taxes and/or by employing other people or buying goods/services.
One Christmas, my father-in-law (hotel owner) summed it up...he said " I need to be successful, so we can afford you (pointing to his two daughters and their husbands), because I'm the only one here earning anything"... (his kids and their spouses are/were 2 teachers, a GP and a police officer). He was right.
>>
>> I'd wager there are as many people who self identify as middle class but who
>> on rational analysis would be better off under Labour vote Tory through instinct or what
>> they aspire to as do the reverse.
I might well be better off personally under Labour...but I don't think my country as a whole will be...so they don't get my vote (not that they would anyway).
|
>>What a ridiculous thing to say
To a member of the working class who votes for the party of the establishment I don't suppose it would make much sense.
"working class" isn't an insult or a label of inferiority, it simply describes a dependence on being employed, for wages.
That is fundamentally different from being the owner of a business, or an owner of capital invested in one.
The first tries to maximise his income, the second to pay the first as little as he reasonably can. That sets them apart, inevitably. The best that can be hoped for is a peaceful equilibrium.
Of course there are more or less blurred intermediate positions , but there is the axis and you don't have to be a Marxist (they don't exist any more because the rest of the theory didn't work) to see that what Marx and Engels called a class struggle is the basis of an industrial economy.
It's us and them. Not all out war, since there is a symbiosis. Enlightened self interest is required. Sensible turkeys think hard before voting for Christmas.
|
>> To a member of the working class who votes for the party of the establishment
>> I don't suppose it would make much sense.
>>
>> "working class" isn't an insult or a label of inferiority, it simply describes a dependence
>> on being employed, for wages.
If that is so...then it must cover 99% of the population...and would exclude a fair chunk of what was considered upper class and all of middle class.
if others agree with that, no wonder huge parts of the country automatically vote Labour
>>
>> That is fundamentally different from being the owner of a business, or an owner of
>> capital invested in one.
I now part own a business....does that mean I automatically come out of the working class category?...but what happens when I drive someone else's van for a few mornings? Am I back in the club again? What about Sundays? I don't do anything then, i'm a retired cop.
>>
>> (they don't exist any more because
>> the rest of the theory didn't work)
Neither did this bit. Upper, Middle and Lower classes went out with the Victorians. Yes there are some who can stereotypically still fit some of them...but mostly the demarcation lines have been so blurred, that the monikers are not fit for purpose.
If some are still clinging to the old fashioned and defunct definition of working class...it explains to me nicely why huge chunks of an election map are red. It has genuinely puzzled me.
>> It's us and them.
Go and join them, there's nothing stopping you.
|
Nothing wrong with a working class chap or chappess voting Conservative Westpig - I did mention enlightened self interest, and if you think that the Tories are most likely to keep afloat the ship we all sail in then that's reason enough. I think they are probably the best of a bad lot at the moment, in the absence of a proper labour party, though it might choke me to vote for them.
It's hard to take Labour seriously when they harangue the government for not spending more on investment to stimulate the economy, yet oppose every proposed cut in spending that might help pay for it.
And of course you're right, the divisions are perhaps more blurred - nobody would call a FTSE100 CEO on £5m a year working class.
I'm a tycoon myself now of course - but I employ no-one except myself, and I sell my labour, so working class I remain
You can argue about the terminology, and there's a good argument that the the old class labels are redundant - but whatever you call it, the basic distinction is still there. There are the people who want their wages to be higher, and the people who want to pay them as little as they can get away with.
A depressing thought is that there is so little governing for any of them to do now - so much of what you might want a government to tackle is now in the purview of Brussels.
|
I think my mate is a good example of why we are classless nowadays and why the old definitions are defunct.
He left school on an apprenticeship and became a carpenter/joiner at a local large cabinet making company...so working class.
Over the next 5 years, he became a supervisor........working class with ambition/talent
Then a foreman.........working class/maybe peeping over the wall at middle class
Then the works manager for the whole outfit..................middle class pretentions if not middle class
Then moved to another company as works manager (company that provided exclusive joinery skills to Bond St shops/celebrities/exceptionally well off or indeed Upper Class).................middle class
Then became a director............................................definitely middle class
Business sold, his services not needed...went back on his tools working for himself.... back to working class or remains as middle class?...bearing in mind he still lives in a £500K house,with a cottage as an annexe which he rents out...yet his cashflow isn't what it was.
The whole class thing has gone.
My wife's cousin's wife comes from minor aristocracy, she is entitled to use the title 'Lady' (but doesn't)...yet she is an average worker on an average wage married to someone like the rest of us (still got an amazingly plummy accent though, from the public school)...and they have struggled to buy a flat on a mortgage. Her family in the past were definitely Upper Class...what is she now?
Give it up..it doesn't matter any more, it's irrelevant.
|
>>Give it up..it doesn't matter any more, it's irrelevant.
It will never be irrelevant in a capitalist, more or less market driven economy.
Perhaps I have confused the very simple point by using an old social class label rather than the even more outdated Marxian 'proletarian'. There must be a modern term too that I can't put my finger on.
Why is it important? It's just part of the thought process for me.
Consider this.
There is a huge amount of wealth in private hands in the UK.
The establishment has got us all thinking that welfare is the cause of our current insolvency. Why would they do that?
Somehow, the poor have run off with all the money - does that sound credible?
Not to me, even allowing for the inevitable spongers.
|
>> Somehow, the poor have run off with all the money - does that sound credible?
>>
>>
>> Not to me, even allowing for the inevitable spongers.
Spot on Mr Dugong. The present govt push the message that the problems of the 'squeezed middle' are down to the poor. Meanwhile, the rich continue picking everybody's pockets.
Since 2010 the poor have got poorer and the rich richer so by his supporters measures Osborne is a successful Tory Chancellor
|
>Since 2010 the poor have got poorer and the rich richer so by his supporters measures
>Osborne is a successful Tory Chancellor
Why don't you link to the public sector's fave fishwrap Bromp?
www.guardian.co.uk/society/datablog/2012/jun/22/household-incomes-compare
"And, it's grown at different rates for different groups. Essentially, the rich have got comparatively richer, while the poor have got poorer since 1997."
|
>> >> Somehow, the poor have run off with all the money - does that sound
>> credible?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not to me, even allowing for the inevitable spongers.
>>
>> Spot on Mr Dugong. The present govt push the message that the problems of the
>> 'squeezed middle' are down to the poor. Meanwhile, the rich continue picking everybody's pockets.
>>
>> Since 2010 the poor have got poorer and the rich richer so by his supporters
>> measures Osborne is a successful Tory Chancellor
>>
It's good for the rich to be rich....they can afford to invest, re-invest, run businesses, be entreprenurial and make more money....so the rest of us can live well. Some might even be philanthropic.
We don't need to be curbing wealth, we need to generate more.
The ideal of freeing it all up and distributing it evenly is hopelessly flawed...some humans are different to other humans, always have been and always will be.
Tell me any socialist system of equality that has worked? Capitalism might well have its flaws..and it needs curbs and checks...but it is far better than any alternative.
USSR anybody? Everbody is equal..well except for the Zil lanes and the Politburo and the local party apparatchiks. No thanks..I can handle someone being rich when I'm not..and I quite like my freedom and democracy.
|
>> It's good for the rich to be rich....they can afford to invest, re-invest, run businesses,
>> be entreprenurial and make more money....so the rest of us can live well. Some might
>> even be philanthropic.
Up to a point. The fabulously rich don't need to invest, just hang on to it, and there's a lot of that going on just now. And when they do invest, it doesn't automatically mean the rest of us live well - it just means more people have jobs.
>> We don't need to be curbing wealth, we need to generate more.
Did I mention curbing wealth? You can have a discussion about the sustainability of geometric growth v. finite resources but that's a separate topic.
>> The ideal of freeing it all up and distributing it evenly is hopelessly flawed.
Of course it is. I never suggested that. Communism failed, and it's had to see how it could succeed. The Soviet planned (not market) economy was incredibly inefficient. The Americans thought the USSR was spending 25% of GDP on 'defence' - it turned out to have been 75%. QED.
>> Capitalism might well have its flaws..and it needs curbs and checks...but it is far better than any alternative.
For now anyway - the resource and population issues are a couple of elephants.
The fact remains that the exchequer is insolvent but for its ability to inflate and print money. The public finances are in a terrible mess, and it isn't the poor folk who have got the money is it?
Redistribution doesn't mean equality or a planned economy. It just means recognising that we do generate enough wealth collectively for everyone to be comfortable, and working towards that.
The reality is that without full employment, which I don't expect to see in my lifetime, untrammelled market forces minimise wages and what the Marxists called "the surplus of production" accumulates with the owners of capital.
The huge increases in productivity of the Industrial Revolution accelerated this and made large numbers of people very rich, and even larger numbers very poor, giving rise to the Labour movement (the alternatives are slavery and revolution).
This is basic stuff. It doesn't change, it just gets blurred.
Well illustrated by this classic drama, which is what a truly laissez-faire environment gets you -
www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000NTPCJW
|
>> Somehow, the poor have run off with all the money - does that sound credible?
>>
They are just one of the many groups having the finger pointed at them, its their turn as it happens, the finger points whichever way serves the state best in its quest during divide and rule phases...which has been working remarkably well since the days of the miners strikes.
Its worked well we have a people at each others throats, unable to see through the wood for the trees.
Still after all thats happened believing the mainstream politicians still promising their vision of utopia if only we would vote for their particular version of more of the same of the last 40 years of decline, Christmas, Turkeys, Jam, Tomorrow.
On the subject of class, i call myself working class for the simple reason that i have to get up and go to work to provide for myself and my family, self provision makes the difference between working and shirking class.
My Geordie mate had the right expression for people who were confused about their place, 'trouble is they don't know which pot to P in'.
The various factions of the one party state have muddied the class waters to suit their agendas over the years, selling council houses cheaply to now middle class previous renters being one of the first obvious moves.
|
>> Very,very simply..
>>
>> Huge chunks of the country automatically vote Labour without a great deal of thought (their
>> prerogative in a democracy) some because their dad's did and their grandad's did.
>>
Do you seriously believe that huge swathes of the North, Wales or Scotland don't think about their votes?
In any event I seriously doubt that habitual voting is any more common in Labour seats than Tory (or Lib Dem or Nationalist) seats. There are seats aplenty in the leafy suburbs of Leeds, Bradford or Manchester that have been Tory all my life.
Election results are, barring landslides like 83 or 97, invariably determined in a relative handful of swing seats.
|
>> Do you seriously believe that huge swathes of the North, Wales or Scotland don't think
>> about their votes?
No. Not as simple as that...but........take a look at the map on election night, which bits are predominantly red and which bits are blue.
Many people in the areas you've highlighted consider themselves working class and vote accordingly.
In other parts of the country they don't see it in the same way...either class isn't such an issue or they see themselves as perhaps middle class.
|
Could the mods please start a volume 2 of this thread?
Pain to read on mobile devices.
|
|
...............and change the name of the thread - "Politics", perhaps? That's suitably non-party-specific. ;-)
|
|
Diane James on QT tomorrow night. Looks like she wont be disappearing from view after Eastleigh.
|
|
She's a bright lady: booked to view already.
|
|
I think it is a smart move to use her media exposure from the by-election to give UKIP another face for TV, especially a female one. Im fairly confident she will do well - she did extremely well to look more mainstream than the Tory candidate which for UKIP is always a battle against perception.
|
Nigel Farage. - R.P.
