***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
Uh ho.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467
Kind of torpedoes UKIP, does it not? Or will fingers be deployed in to ears accompanied by the good old la-la-la I'm not listening?
Dunno where Stu is these days, but I'm sure others on here will be rushing to shove their digits in to their shell-likes and proclaim: "We're full"!!
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 18 Jan 14 at 21:05
|
>>Dunno where Stu is these days, but I'm sure others on here will be rushing to shove their
>>digits in to their shell-likes and proclaim: "We're full"!!
Well, of couse we *are* full. We have a real shortage of housing, we have n million unemployed yet continue to let others in to beg, steal and work very hard.
|
|
And there it is. Fingers in ears and emotive, unsubstantiated fear mongering deployed. Didn't take long.
|
All countries are "full" until such time as the economy has expanded to accommodate the new-comers. The necessary growth is often generated by the immigrants themselves. That's how the West was won.
It would be ludicrous if it were the other way round - we would build a lot of houses we didn't need, factories with no workers and no one to sell the products to, and have to flare-off billions of barrels of unwanted oil and gas. Then we could issue invitations to the rest of the world "UK vacancies, callers welcome".
|
>> And there it is. Fingers in ears and emotive, unsubstantiated fear mongering deployed. Didn't take
>> long.
Somebody didn't read to the end of my sentence, did he, Alanović. Didn't think you'd bother; I was right.
|
Oh, I did. Yes, most work hard. I know that. Couldn't quite see what that point was doing in there to be honest.
If you're just saying that some do and some don't, then that's pretty obvious, and the point of the article I linked to is to confirm that the positive effect outweighs the negative.
So your post was a bit unclear.
|
"So your post was a bit unclear."
Bit like the benefits from immigration.
You can laud the economic benefits all you like, but there is more to life than plain economics. Something that causes widespread unhappiness is more than just a cash feature.
Without immigrants: who would clean my office; who would drive my bus; who would sell me my lunch; who would serve me my dinner etc.? Is the answer really the 3 million indigenous unemployed? I doubt it. But why not? If there were a workhouse rather than benefits, then there wouldn't be 3 million unemployed.
|
>> Uh ho.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467
>>
>> Kind of torpedoes UKIP, does it not?
Not really. It's just a couple more data points.
Frankly I'd have expected the immigrants to come out better than they have. Presumably a greater proportion are of working age compared with indigenes. To be 97% as likely to live in social housing as UK natives is quite an achievement given the general difficulty in getting it.
I'd like to see a quota matched comparison by age. What will the effect look like when the permanent migrants are all older, iller, and less economically active? What demands will their children (future as well as present) put on resources?
It's a very complicated picture. Economic migrants select themselves, to their advantage (quite rationally) and potentially, though not necessarily, to the target country's disadvantage.
As to what policy should be, that's another debate. But it would be nice if we could have one, independently of the EU. As long as benefits (including healthcare) that are available as of right here have to be earned in other EU countries, the UK will be the destination of choice, and there's sod all that UK can do about that as far as the intra EU migration is concerned.
It seems very possible to me that UK would fare better economically outside the EU, which is essentially insolvent, corrupt, and wastes vast resources on non-productive politics and economic fiddling.
Europhiles are blinded by the ideal. The project has failed, and it will fail worse yet. The mass of people here don't buy into the superstate idea, and when it dawns that that is all there really is, as it must as we get ever closer to it, support will evaporate.
Of course, things are never so bad that they can't be made worse, as Bogey is supposed to have said.
|
Both SWMBO & I are in the BBC QT audience this Thursday, where *Nigel Farage* is on the panel!
Perhaps one of our questions - if we are selected to ask one - should be on this!
OTH the new Defence under- secretary is on too and I fancy a hard question on defence cuts and service morale.
Last edited by: Roger on Tue 5 Nov 13 at 13:53
|
>> I'd like to see a quota matched comparison by age. What will the effect look
>> like when the permanent migrants are all older, iller, and less economically active?
Well if Roger's anything to go by, they'll go back to their country of origin.
|
You are making some wild statements Manatee,the project hasn't failed regarding the EU and the UK won't be allowed to leave mark my words there will never be a vote regarding leaving the EU.
You don't think the powers in charge take any notice of the mass of people,that would be a first.
|
>> You are making some wild statements Manatee
Maybe, it's open to debate and it isn't all bad...
>>the project hasn't failed regarding the EU
It's in a serious mess. The Eurozone has an enforced degree of political union that doesn't apply to the rest of us, so there are currently two classes of membership. The Eurozone is heading in the direction of one state - it can't be otherwise - but I don't think UK is prepared to be part of that now.
The eurozone itself is an unresolved problem that could yet unwind with a currency breakup or much greater enforced convergence of those states, reinforcing the two-speed aspect.
>>and the
>> UK won't be allowed to leave mark my words there will never be a vote
>> regarding leaving the EU.
That's a distinct possibility. Even if the Conservatives win the next election they can still fix it one way or another. Cameron is making it up as he goes along, saying what gets him through the moment and trying to avoid upsetting more than the minimum number of people.
>> You don't think the powers in charge take any notice of the mass of people, that
>> would be a first.
They take notice of votes. Time perhaps to have a serious think about how best to use the vote. Under a first-past-the-post system it's naive to think the right thing to do is always to vote for the candidate or party that you would most like (or even least dislike) to have in power.
|
|
Remember the Irish people when they voted against the E.U.So did the Dutch it made no difference.I might sound cynical but there is a program going on which won't be stopped.And how many people still bother to vote?
|
"……..and proclaim: "We're full"!!"
In the year to 30 June 2013, the UK experienced the fastest population growth in Europe; it's now at 63.7 million.
Do you think that this can go on indefinitely, Alanovic? If not, where do you think the line should be drawn? I should add that I am a biologist, not a racist.
|
>> Do you think that this can go on indefinitely, Alanovic?
The cycle of immigration/emigration will. Ebbs and flows are natural, peaks and troughs. People come and stay, people come and they go home. Indigines emigrate also.
|
"Ebbs and flows are natural, peaks and troughs. "
So far, it's all 'peak' - at what point do you think it will become so uncomfortable that a trough will occur?
|
|
They have and continue to occur. Many people who came from Eastern Europe originally have already departed.
|
To re-plug UKIP's immigration stance. Sigh.
We are NOT against immigration, just uncontrolled immigration.
We would like to see a visa system, similar to that used in Australia.
We favour immigrants ,from both inside and outside the E.U., who have skills which we need as a country, being admitted subject to their having firm job offers in specific categories.
We cannot apply such a common-sense system while we remain in the E.U.
Last edited by: Roger on Tue 5 Nov 13 at 14:04
|
I am looking forward to spotting you in the QT audience on Thursday Roger. Any distinguishing marks apart from the dreadlocks? Spectacles, bow tie, thick Geordie accent, anything like that?
We are much of an age, but some people show it more than others. I am a tottering geriatric really, but you may be a spring lamb more or less.
:o}
|
>> We cannot apply such a common-sense system while we remain in the E.U.
>>
Roger, forgive me if you've covered this before, but I'm curious. Would you say you've benefited from British EU membership personally by taking up the opportunity to live freely in Spain? If so, why do you wish to withdraw the privilege from others now that you're no longer there?
|
We moved to Spain for several reasons some family, some financial.
I must emphasise that we were self-sufficient in housing - we bought an apartment: in income - our income was sufficient to pay our way.
You are quite right in saying that we benefited from the UK being in the EU, as our state pensions were inflation linked and most importantly, for us, we enjoyed the health service benefits. These latter were, of course, not paid for by Spain but by a contribution from the UK social services as we were fully "opted out" of the UK NHS system.
We were also fully fiscally resident in Spain and paid all our taxes due in that country.
We bought a car, we spent money and overall brought quite a reasonable cash inflow to Spain.
I think our political awareness and interests were pretty low when we first moved there, but grew over the years until there was a head-v- heart conflict in many respects.
I think part, certainly not the major part though, of our decision to move back to Britain was influenced by the conflict between living in a country which embraced the EU full (at the time!) and one where we felt we could fit in better with the mood.
Yes - I guess you could say we were selfish and you are probably right, but many of life's decisions are taken by the majority of people, bearing in mind what seems best for oneself, at the time.
|
I wouldn't say you were selfish in doing what you thought was in our own best interests. Quite understandable.
What rankles is that now you seek to prevent others from taking the same decisions and benefiting from the system you exploited to your benefit by standing for election to office as a UKIP candidate. That seems hypocritical and mean spirited.
Moving back to Britain as your new-found principles conflicted with your position in Spain is laudable - but it's the genesis of those new-found principles against a system which benefited you which confuses, and the wish to withdraw those potential benefits from others which offends.
Have I got something wrong here?
|
That seems hypocritical and mean spirited.
>> Moving back to Britain as your new-found principles conflicted with your position in Spain is
>> laudable - but it's the genesis of those new-found principles against a system which benefited you which confuses, and the wish to withdraw those potential benefits from others which offends.
>> Have I got something wrong here?
Not by your lights, I guess.
As I said in my reply to Dutchie, that element of our decision to move back, was by no means the major part!
I take the view now, that the future of Britain is rather more important than whether UK citizens may freely settle in Spain - or other parts of the EU.
I would say that the vast majority of UK expats. to Europe are retired folk with independent income - certainly the majority of people we knew fell into that category. I would think that they would be quite acceptable as incomers, in that category, without the UK being part of a European Federal State with its own police, Armed Forces and central bank - that is surely the way the EU is moving.
|
|
.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 5 Nov 13 at 17:05
|
That is a strange reason to leave a country Roger.Because they embraced the E.U.
I don't think you was selfish you missed your own culture,you are not a foreigner now and you let it be known.
|
>> That is a strange reason to leave a country Roger.Because they embraced the E.U.
>>
>> I don't think you was selfish you missed your own culture,you are not a foreigner
>> now and you let it be known.
I did say it was not the major part, Dutchie. Yes, we did miss Britain, that is true.
|
>> We are NOT
>> We would like
>> We favour
>> We cannot apply
Ah the royal "We".
|
|
"No, not the Royal "we", the UKIP "we"!
|
I never went anywhere Al, just nothing much to say tbh, I know you disagree with anything a Kipper says so I dont waste the time on it, you wont convince me and I wont convince you. Since you named me though here goes - I dont consider the UK 'full', that is too simplistic, I think the quiet racism that has become accepted on the Left of discriminating heavily against non-Europeans on immigration rights is a result of politicians trying to marry their pro-EU politics against the immigration numbers issue which they wish to make political points with - the result is that they make an African or Indian jump through different hoops to gain access to the UK purely so they can be seen to be 'in control' of numbers.
My preference if for a system that exerts control over immigration from any country and can offer the same conditions for entry to the UK to any immigrant regardless of origin. We already have a points system in place, my BIL is going through it as we speak and it is not only complex but designed to be hard to understand - it happens that my BIL has English as his first language so he has a chance but if it isnt then you can hardly blame people for slinging themselves under a lorry.
I would argue that the financial restrictions for those who go through the proper channels are simply too restricting, essentially only the wealthy can qualify, especially from poorer countries. These restrictions exist to restrict numbers at the expense of quality which may come from non-EU immigrants so the government meet sits numbers targets. Remove the open-door scenario and you could hold a partially open-door internationally instead of a fully open door within the EU while still exercising control over numbers. But that is just what I think.
On brighter news, Roger, I made committee, feel the power dude :-)
|
Good quote from Frankie Boyle:
"When people have no real choice you start to embrace the irrational. That's why the poor are often preyed on by mediums and spiritualists. And that's exactly what voting for UKIP is, really: the sort of irrational decision we make when we are powerless. UKIP are political tea-leaf readers encroaching on the territory of politicians engaged in a sophisticated long con operation, in the same way clairvoyants used to infringe on the swindle being worked by the Church."
|
>> quote from Frankie Boyle:
Yeah, pretty good. He's a clever little carphound.
|
>> >> quote from Frankie Boyle:
>>
>> Yeah, pretty good. He's a clever little carphound.
>>
>>
"He is a follower of Noam Chomsky and says that he has had a great influence on his political beliefs, claiming to be more left-wing than Chomsky"..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_Boyle
So therefore he is strongly against "state capitalism" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
and therefore by inference is strongly against the NHS. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
|
QED madf? Boyle's political views aren't quite philosophically consistent?
Big deal. Whose are?
|
|
so please vote Labour as we have better tea leaf readers. Not to be confused with future planning :-)
|
"When people have no real choice you start to embrace the irrational.
One of those phrases that sounds like it means something but is really total twaddle.
Are poor people irrational and rich people totally rational? I don't think so. Condescending rubbish.
The poor are preyed on by mediums and spiritualists?
No more that the rich are preyed on by pedlars of quasi-religious new age clap-trap. I don't think Prince Charles or Cherie Blair for example are short of a few bob and have plenty of choice but you would have to search the working classes for a long while before you encountered any one quite so irrational as that pair of loons.
Frankie Boyle should stick to comedy.
Supporters of UKIP may be all sorts of things but they are as rational or irrational as the rest of us.
|
>>Frankie Boyle should stick to comedy.
I think you mean Frankie Boyle should try comedy.
|
>> I think you mean Frankie Boyle should try comedy.
>>
Couldn't agree more
|
|
I suppose that's humour, one man's meat etc. I think he's very funny, if not the funniest around.
|
>> I don't think Prince Charles or Cherie Blair for example are short of a few bob and have plenty of choice but you would have to search the working classes for a long while before you encountered any one quite so irrational as that pair of loons.
Not all that long in my considerable experience. And to give the devil his due I don't think Boyle views the poor as irrational and the rich as rational. I agree his remarks are poorly phrased, but his intention is to badmouth parliament and the Church which he does with style (although not with great originality).
|
>> Supporters of UKIP may be all sorts of things but they are as rational or
>> irrational as the rest of us.
Of course they are.
There may well be a degree of protest vote out there, voting for UKIP, but equally so there will be legions of decent straightforward people who rationally decide 'that's the party for them' and there will be some who most/many would label racist (as there will be with the other parties).
The thing that gets my gander up..is the BBC sort of thinking, that has it there's only one true way and everything else is abnormal and to be scoffed at and looked down on.
A Right or Centre Right thinking person should accept that there are those on the Left or Centre Left that see things differently and accept their entitlement to vote accordingly...and vice versa....only some people are not able to achieve this fairly straightforward and tolerant viewpoint.
It does make me wonder sometimes how those of the Islington Set/ BBC mentality/ Guardianistas.. or whatever you'd wish to label them..can explain to themselves how it is that the Tories get voted in so many times. Do they think the population suddenly has an aberration and goes mad?
The extremes of either Left or Right are awful, but I wonder why the straightforward Right gets vilified, whilst the straightforward Left or significant Left, does not?
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 27 Dec 13 at 18:08
|
>> It does make me wonder sometimes how those of the Islington Set/ BBC mentality/ Guardianistas.
>> or whatever you'd wish to label them..can explain to themselves how it is that the
>> Tories get voted in so many times. Do they think the population suddenly has an
>> aberration and goes mad?
Use of the words I've hi-lited gives a good idea of where your political viewpoint starts from.
The Guardian has no particular political attachment but a liberal newspaper with soft left sympathies. It's under no obligation to be fair but does try to be intellectually consistent unlike other voices in the media.
The BBC is quite different. It's obligedto be impartial and as every politician since Lloyd George and Churchill have lambasted it for bias I'm going to suggest it does a good job.
I guess I've met a few of the 'Islington Set', neighbours of Tony Blair indeed, but I didn't get the impression they self identify.
As to changes of government they're determined by a handful of voters in 'swing seats'. Even in landslides like 97 the seat I live in and excepting the SW Liberal bias yours too were Tory. Low turnouts distort the results further as, next time might UKIP.
We had the option of a more sensible electoral system but the public took the lies sold by the Tories and kicked it into the long grass for a generation.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 27 Dec 13 at 18:43
|
>>>> Use of the words I've hi-lited gives a good idea of where your political viewpoint
>> starts from.
I've never hidden it..I vote Tory...I agree with a fair bit of what UKIP are about. I'm a Maggie Thatcher fan in most things...and in the others I'd be more aligned with a Tory Wet.
>> The BBC is quite different. It's obligedto be impartial and as every politician since Lloyd
>> George and Churchill have lambasted it for bias I'm going to suggest it does a
>> good job.
The BBC has an undisputed left bias, but cannot see it. A bit like someone with a narcissistic personality disorder, they think their way is the right way. It cannot possibly be impartial if it has an imbalance to start with.
>>
>> I guess I've met a few of the 'Islington Set', neighbours of Tony Blair indeed,
>> but I didn't get the impression they self identify.
They wouldn't do..see my BBC explanation
>>
>> As to changes of government they're determined by a handful of voters in 'swing seats'.
>> Even in landslides like 97 the seat I live in and excepting the SW Liberal
>> bias yours too were Tory. Low turnouts distort the results further as, next time might
>> UKIP.
A huge chunk of England vote Tory. The electoral map is a sea of blue. The large cities and the North of England are more Labour inclined and a chunk of the SW votes Liberal.....The Tories get sod all support in Wales or Scotland.
That's the reality..along with an current electoral distortion on constituency numbers that disadvantages the Tories..but...that's been the same for all parties over a long period of time..so c'est la vie.
>>
>> We had the option of a more sensible electoral system but the public took the
>> lies sold by the Tories and kicked it into the long grass for a generation.
PR would have us lumbered with coalitions for ever more..Italian politics anyone?..no thanks.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 27 Dec 13 at 22:54
|
>> The extremes of either Left or Right are awful, but I wonder why the straightforward Right gets vilified, whilst the straightforward Left or significant Left, does not?
Haven't you been reading any of the Labour-vilifying carp here then Wp? Actually I thought you'd written some of it yourself...
:o}
|
>>We had the option of a more sensible electoral system but the public took the lies sold by the Tories and kicked it into the long grass for a generation.
ahahahahaaaaa - the only reason Labour would have fancied a bit of PR in 2010/11 was because after losing the last election they expected to be out for a generation.
Tory lies?
No - whoever is in power wants ALL the power, left, right or whatever leaning they have.
|
>> Haven't you been reading any of the Labour-vilifying carp here then Wp? Actually I thought
>> you'd written some of it yourself...
>>
>> :o}
>>
I'd happily sit down with a pint or 6 with you AC and discuss this until it got boring...and I suspect we'd not be far off agreement on most of it.
|
|
A very interesting article indeed.
|
You won't get a referendum. Not a clear cut, unbiased choice that is. The 'Euro Beast' that has been created needs constant feeding and will march on and on gobbling all in its path. Eventually there will be the breakdown of social order and then we're back to square one. Trust me, I'm a Builder.
x
|
>> Trust me, I'm a Builder.
I trust used car salesmen in the East End more.
|
Joke of the year so far? Trust me, I'm a Builder.
Last edited by: madf on Thu 2 Jan 14 at 20:42
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10546394/Europe-is-slowly-strangling-the-life-out-of-national-democracy.html
>>
Interesting article.
Indeed, Peter Oborne writes some very interesting material. I'm currently reading his book A Dangerous Delusion: Why the West Is Wrong About Nuclear Iran. (tinyurl.com/kkm6zxu)
It is a pretty scary indictment of the political establishment in Washington D.C., the UK, and the EU. And it thus goes some way to explaining why (as per my comment further up this thread), whereas some people are scared of UKIP, I'm pretty scared of the political establishment, including the "mainstream" parties, who are widely regarded as "safe."
|
>> Peter Oborne writes some very interesting material.
I agree, although several people here are very scornful of him. But you have to remember he's a columnist, working for a paper whose owners are phenomenally right-wing, miles to the right of the PM whom they regard as a wimpish lefty like the US president, and alarmism always sells. In any case UKIP isn't much of a threat because it won't get anywhere near power. The mainstream parties are much more of a threat because their mistakes or bad decisions can really affect us.
That's why we hope they will stay calm, listen to sage advice from all sources and above all, not try to be interesting. Nigel Farage can turn handsprings all he wants. He's a sideshow essentially.
|
>> Nigel Farage can turn handsprings all he
>> wants. He's a sideshow essentially.
>>
He is..but...he's affecting the mainstream politicians...and IMO that's good, because the mainstream politician has got used to ignoring the electorate.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 16:27
|
"The common enemy has become the European Union".
Roll on the May elections.
|
"Roll on the May elections."
I must admit, I don't usually await elections with 'eagerness' - but I am this one! And anyway - I like fruitcake!
|
|
Apparently the referendum bill will likely get tied up in the Lords and not make it onto the books, not really a suprise.
|
So an unelected body can snarl up the progress of the elected house? Great democracy init. I would abolish it, Bishops the lot.
The main problem with voting for Farrage and his crowd is that you will most likely end up with Milliband. What a great voting system we have.
|
|
Nige is a Clown. Milligram would be the other painted face selling tickets to see the show.
|
"What a great voting system we have."
As far as I can see, this is how Egypt ended up with Morsi. Oh, the joys of our voting system!
|
Y'all had a chance to change it but stuck to FPTP.
|
|
There are no Statesmen. Just short term self important Pratts.
|
>> Y'all had a chance to change it but stuck to FPTP.
Said a mouthful there, Doc. Ain't that the truth. But oh no. We fear change.
|
>> >> Y'all had a chance to change it but stuck to FPTP.
>>
>>
>> Said a mouthful there, Doc. Ain't that the truth. But oh no. We fear change.
Yeah, just think, we could have been like Italy. Had we known that coalitions could be so good
|
>> Yeah, just think, we could have been like Italy. Had we known that coalitions could
>> be so good
>>
2 questions then:
In what way is the current government any worse than any of its forebears (i.e. non-coalition governments)? In what way did FPTP prevent a coalition government at the last election?
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 10:06
|
>> In what way is the current government any worse than any of its forebears (i.e.
>> non-coalition governments)?
Its paralysed.
>>In what way did FPTP prevent a coalition government at the last election?
It didn't, but its not the norm is it. Its almost unique in modern post war governance.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 10:14
|
>> Its paralysed.
The economy is in recovery. They're doing fine and are in no way paralysed. Where do you see paralysis?
>> It didn't, but its not the norm is it. Its almost unique in modern post
>> war governance.
Chances are the next government will be a coalition also. It may well become the norm for this century. FPTP is no guarantor against coalition, despite the arguments of the No campaign in the referendum, and coalition is not by definition A Bad Thing. That much is clear now. The electoral system should be changed, and I'm arguing that with the knowledge that UKIP, who I detest, would benefit in a PR system.
|
>>
>> >> Its paralysed.
>>
>> The economy is in recovery.
Despite, not because of the current government.
>>They're doing fine and are in no way paralysed. Where
>> do you see paralysis?
Little in the way of legislation, planning or goal setting is being done for the future, instead we have a government of internal agitation, faction and rumour making the leadership look weak. Too much time is spent soothing brows and pandering to swivelled eyed loons within the party than governing the country. Its perfect UKIP breeding ground.
>> Chances are the next government will be a coalition also.
based on past results that not a likely outcome.
>>It may well become the
>> norm for this century.
FPTP will more or less ensure this won't happen. PR will.
|
>> Despite, not because of the current government.
Arguable. Many factors, including government.
>> Little in the way of legislation
Not always A Bad Thing. Look at the amount of crap legislation the Blair/Brown years left us with. Horrific.
>>
>> based on past results that not a likely outcome.
The world has changed significantly. UKIP and other fringe parties are gaining votes, meaning more likely coalitions. We've never seen this before.
>> FPTP will more or less ensure this won't happen. PR will.
>>
Time will tell. The past is no reliable predictor of the future. And anyway, you still overlook the fact that coalition is not, by definition, A Bad Thing. This assumption is never addressed by FPTPers. All they ever say is Italy Italy Italy. Which is by no means the only example of PR. Germany seems to do fine by it. So please find a better argument to support your position.
|
>> Time will tell. The past is no reliable predictor of the future. And anyway, you
>> still overlook the fact that coalition is not, by definition, A Bad Thing. This assumption
>> is never addressed by FPTPers. All they ever say is Italy Italy Italy. Which is
>> by no means the only example of PR. Germany seems to do fine by it.
>> So please find a better argument to support your position.
I don't have to. You can't just dismiss Italy and say it doesn't exist as an argument and say find a better one, because it does exist and it is an example of enforced coalitions . PR gurus always say Ah yes look at Germany. You need to find a better argument because Germany is the only country where coalition works and that because the partners are fundamentally of the same persuasion and political "colour"
This is not Germany. Coalition government world wide almost always equals short term cronyism and internal favours and inevitably leads to decline.
And don't say "it worked for us in the war" That wasn't coalition that was a dictatorship.
|
Coalition government world wide almost always equals short term cronyism and
>> internal favours and inevitably leads to decline.
And single party governments under FPTP or any system don't......
|
Devolved Scotland also has PR (despite the current SNP majority government which was not expected to be possible) and much as I despise politicians of all flavours it hasn't gone as badly as I expected.
Politicians can work together quite well once the parties are neutralised somewhat, otherwise you simply have a change in dictatorship.
|
>> Devolved Scotland also has PR (despite the current SNP majority government which was not expected
>> to be possible) and much as I despise politicians of all flavours it hasn't gone
>> as badly as I expected.
>>
>> Politicians can work together quite well once the parties are neutralised somewhat, otherwise you simply
>> have a change in dictatorship.
They haven't actually got too much power yet, we still have some control over how they spend our money.
|
>>They haven't actually got too much power yet, we still have some control over how they spend our money.
Indeed: my main concern if Scotland was independent is a succession of idiot governments trying to 'do a Brown/Blair' and overspend themselves into 3 or 4 terms, leaving a mess for the next 20 years.
|
>> change in dictatorship.
No objection to the burden of yr message Lygonos, but must people make incorrect use of the emotional term 'dictatorship'? I couldn't stand Mrs Thatcher at the time, but I really despised the lefty contention that she had installed a dictatorship here. It was just balderdash. Even Zero's description of the WW2 coalition under Churchill as a dictatorship is a bit over the top.
Dictatorships are what deplorable foreigners have. We haven't had one since the absolutist monarchy was overthrown by Cromwell. Or so I like to think.
|
|
Cromwell, at least in his later years was surely as much of a Dictator as any king.
|
>> as much of a Dictator as any king.
I meant that to be implicit in my post CGN.
|
>> No objection to the burden of yr message Lygonos
Apologies for the thread drift but I feel I have to ask - why the switch to (partial) txtspk AC ie. "yr" (not just in this thread)? I had you down as the last member of this forum to do such a thing. Not that I object, just surprised.
|
>> the switch to (partial) txtspk AC ie. "yr"
Not txtspk, an earlier version of it, hacks' telex shorthand from seventies and eighties. There were a number of other standard abbreviations but I can't think of any offhand.
|
>>must people make incorrect use of the emotional term 'dictatorship'?
I think you're mixing dictatorship with totalitarianism.
Back in Roman times the Senate would choose a dictator to dig them out of the poo, but would equally expect them to go away once the dirty was done.
Dictators still need a gang around them to get the job done - I see little difference in practice between a majority rule government with a strong Prime Minister and these ancient dictatorships.
What we don't appear to have in the UK is a totalitarian state - once the people eject a leader/party they do 9eventually) have the good grace to go away.
|
>> I think you're mixing dictatorship with totalitarianism.
Guh, yeah, OK, but to a British ear the two are generally closely associated. Totalitarian states have dictators who are usually bad guys. 'Democratic' states have governments or administrations, quite often staffed by, er, fairly bad guys actually. But as you say, we can vote them out without being massacred. Who'd like to be a Syrian or Iraqi?
|
>> >> In what way is the current government any worse than any of its forebears
>> (i.e.
>> >> non-coalition governments)?
>>
>> Its paralysed.
And you are saying that is a bad thing?
:-)
Would that more of our governments had been paralysed. A lot more paralysed than this one. In fact, utterly and completely paralysed.
:-O
|
>>The main problem with voting for Farrage and his crowd is that you will most likely end up with Milliband. What a great voting system we have <<
The Tories couldnt even beat Gordon Brown in 2010, nothing to do with UKIP but the inability of the Tories to overcome hardened voter attitudes in areas they need to win for a majority. They have done nothing to address this either.
2015 is for Milliband to loose, at worst he will have Clegg as a DPM.
|
>>2015 is for Milliband to loose, at worst he will have Clegg as a DPM.
You can thank UKIP for that ;-)
|
>>
>> The Tories couldnt even beat Gordon Brown in 2010, nothing to do with UKIP but
>> the inability of the Tories to overcome hardened voter attitudes in areas they need to
>> win for a majority. They have done nothing to address this either.
>>
>> 2015 is for Milliband to loose, at worst he will have Clegg as a DPM.
>>
Peter Oborne and others will tell you the reason the Tories have not greater appeal is due to not being right wing enough..
The reality is that after Mrs Thatcher, the Tories are effectively a Party for Southern and Middle England (and the countryside) with effectively no MPs in Scotland and Wales. Nothing is likely to change that in the next half century in my view.
And the only candidate for their last leadership election with any ability to speak properly was Cameron . All the others were useless on the leadership hustings and would likely do far worse. A significant number of Tory MPs would be happy to bring back hanging, grammar schools and lower taxes for the very wealthy - thus reinforcing the views of many who currently do not vote Tory..and probably never will.
A Miliband Government would in my view make President Hollande look farsighted and competent by comparison. At least he (Hollande) has a stated economic policy - although it's a failure.
Last edited by: madf on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 04:09
|
>>Peter Oborne and others will tell you the reason the Tories have not greater appeal is due to not being right wing enough..<<
I dont think it matters what policies the Tories come up with, their issue with voters is psychological, not practical, for both the Tory leadership and voters.
>>Nothing is likely to change that in the next half century in my view.<<
Agreed.
UKIP will only be responsible for the degree that the Tories loose by, not whether or not they win.
|
Now here's a thing - at our UKIP branch meeting tonight there was a Labour District councillor who is retiring in May and also the former chairman of the local constituency's Tory party!
Who says we don't appeal to a wide audience?
|
"at our UKIP branch meeting tonight……………….."
Another one has spotted the iceberg :-)
|
I like the profile image for Roger V.
;-)
|
>> Who says we don't appeal to a wide audience?
>>
It's not the width of your audience that interests concerns me. It's the depth.
|
Have to wait and see what the policies are really Al, only then can one really check the depth, it is all a bit suspended animation atm.
It was interesting watching Miranda Green last night suggest Farage was playing smart politics by going down the social rather than economic aspect of immigration.
I am on the fence about that but she is smarter than I am on the political game, I think it depends entirely on where you live as to whether it has any traction - obviously it does in Haverhill.
|
The economic aspects of immigration are largely blind to xenophobia.
The social ones are not.
QED.
|
>>The economic aspects of immigration are largely blind to xenophobia.
The social ones are not<<
Perhaps but why choose now to switch? I wondered if it was because the immigration debate is becoming less polarised.
I think always reverting to the default position of any debate on immigration being xenophobic is becoming somewhat outdated.
Watching Chukka Umunna squirm on the issue recently trying to look like he always thought it was an issue open for discussion was bizarre indeed, cant say I ever thought I would witness it.
|
"The economic aspects of immigration…………………"
I met an old friend for coffee this morning; he's a Guardian reader, and blind to both economic and social aspects.
|
|
You mean he isn't a UKIP supporter?
|
People talk about immigration as if there weren't a dozen different sorts. The overall import of the term with all its nuances is different for every individual. Few people bother to specify precisely what they mean by it before starting to speak, if indeed they are capable of doing that and not simply confused to start with. Either way any dialogue on the subject is almost certain to become confused very quickly.
As a subject of general conversation it reminds me of a festering needle-hole on the inside of a junky's elbow.
|
"You mean he isn't a UKIP supporter?"
Well, he's in a bit of a quandary because he wouldn't vote UKIP on principle, yet he's too intelligent to see any value in the Lib/Lab/Con offering.
I don't suppose he's the only one who feels that way.
|
Tell him to vote for whoever he voted last time. The current government is actually not doing too badly despite all the doom-mongers and I think and another 5 years of a similar coalition wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
Why on earth is Haverhill a hotbed of Ukippery?
|
>>Why on earth is Haverhill a hotbed of Ukippery? <<
The guy that was elected was already a county councillor so an established figure, maybe they like him.
The town councillor was a well known local man, fruit and veg seller I think.
In the borough election the Tory vote collapsed dramatically, could be local party factors in play there.
|
"Why on earth is Haverhill a hotbed of Ukippery?"
Frankly, I don't know; Haverhill is a London-overspill town and, like Thetford, this may have affected certain aspects of its culture. Some of my friends have taught there, and they might be able to come up with some suggestions.
I was quite taken aback when I followed Roger's link this morning and saw that result. It's a bit concerning that people feel so strongly against the current Lib/Lab/Cons; it's quite clear that the folks at Westminster just aren't listening to the populus. I fear that UKIP just don't have enough people of the right calibre and could be swamped by a massive protest vote - and I'm afraid I was NOT impressed by Paul Nuttall on Question Time last night.
|
Interesting article from the 'enemy':
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/10/farage-political-nose-gdp-immigration
>>I fear that UKIP just don't have enough people of the right calibre and could be swamped by a massive protest vote - and I'm afraid I was NOT impressed by Paul Nuttall on Question Time last night. <<
Paul did struggle last night, London is a tough crowd, it was I think the worst performance I have ever seen from him, he is usually very solid, I got the impression he was poorly briefed on some subjects too.
On calibre, the 'next generation' of council candidates should be better, the selection process is far tougher now to avoid past issues. The MEP candidates I have met have been extremely professional, as have some of the prospective MP candidates I know have been selected. The difficulty is finding people who want the hassle and it is major hassle being in politics, puts many people off.
|
The audience was very, very, hostile to any pronouncement from Paul Nuttall.
I guess given the demographic of Lewisham that was to be expected, although the BBC is supposed to try for balance.
The only panellists whose every word received ecstatic applause were Umunna and the Mirror columnist, the latter even more than Umunna, possibly as she was shoutier and more radical!
Nadine did well in that bear garden though, I thought. It's a real pity that her drawbacks outweigh her abilities :-)
|
It was indeed a tough audience Roger, I dont think Paul was ever supposed to 'win' there, more survive, but I expect he knew what to expect, London isnt a strong area for us.
Nadine, what to do with her bless her cotton socks, she has a backbone, I will give her that and I have heard of some praise from members on our side, just a shame she has been so combative on expenses, it has done her no favours.
|
"The audience was very, very, hostile to any pronouncement from Paul Nuttall."
I have to say that last night, the Beeb did seem to have selected a particularly leftist audience/rentacrowd. The dead give-away was when the Mirror columnist suggested taking money from pensioners and giving it to single mothers - cue loud applause. Purlease!
|
>>I have to say that last night, the Beeb did seem to have selected a particularly leftist audience/rentacrowd. <<
It is sad really that the BBC feel the need to exclude locals and bus in people from other towns/cities to get the mix they desire. It would be far more authentic if tickets were only available to locals and just see what happens on the day, if they didnt want locals in the audience they shouldnt take the circus on the road.
|
>> BBC feel the need to exclude locals and bus in people from other towns/cities to get the mix they desire.
Have you any evidence they actually do it Eqh? I wouldn't have thought they would need to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find some anti-UKIP elements.
But perhaps the world has passed me by again. It often does.
|
The truth on UK immigration (according to Doug Stanhope)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQQgb5hXQGU
|
>>Have you any evidence they actually do it Eqh? I wouldn't have thought they would need to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find some anti-UKIP elements.<<
I have spoken to fellow members who managed to attend tapings and they said there is quite alot of time to chat to people before and after the show - they said many turned out to be activists from various parties not from the town but from the general region. There are locals there but it is far from a local crowd as a whole.
I dont think the BBC want to risk not getting the audience mix they want, it is far more stage managed than they let on and greatly edited, you dont see all the answers the panel give nor all the questions the audience ask. It gives the impression of being a sort of posh town hall meeting but it isnt at all, someone said to me that it is entertainment pretending to be a serious political show.
|
>> I dont think the BBC want to risk not getting the audience mix they want, it is far more stage managed than they let on and greatly edited,
That must be right up to a point. They wouldn't want a unanimous audience shoehorned in by zealots of one party or another. Another thing is that they need plenty of duplication. An individual who appears confident in informal conversation can easily fall silent and gasping with terror when the cold eye of the camera stares them down and the time has come to utter their rehearsed question sweating under the Klieg lights... One sees it again and again on QT.
>> entertainment pretending to be a serious political show.
What's the difference?
|
>> I have to say that last night, the Beeb did seem to have selected a
>> particularly leftist audience.
>>
This is normal for the BBC these days, Such that I rarely watch QT these days, or many other BBC programmes.
|
>> This is normal for the BBC these days, Such that I rarely watch QT these days, or many other BBC programmes.
So what do you substitute for it Boxster? Al Jazeera? Pravda? Fox? I suppose Sky would seem a safe choice to many. I do like that moon-faced Malaysian (I think) speakerine with the velvety dimples.
However, I can't help feeling you don't really know what our population is like in practice. On their best behaviour in public, many fall back on mixed-up PC blather in a craven attempt to stay out of trouble. What they let themselves say on QT may be very different from what they say down the pub to friends after a few scoops. Human nature. Especially when the portmanteau subject 'immigration' is raised.
|
>> Farage was playing smart politics by going down the social rather than economic aspect of immigration.
The switch is because the economic argument against immigration has largely failed or at least is unproven, and previously a negative economic argument could be shown to have social consequences (and thus feed into the aformentioned xenophobia).
Ultimately no-one really cares about raw economics (despite what the politicians may try to make us believe) - people care about "How does it affect me?"
|
>>Ultimately no-one really cares about raw economics (despite what the politicians may try to make us believe) - people care about "How does it affect me?"<<
I think you are spot on. I speak to alot of people now about these issues and it rarely seems to come down to an economic or sometimes even a rational argument, it can take a few bad experiences and their mind is made up - nor do they trust politicians who spout stats.
This isnt something limited to immigration but what politicians say in general, they often dive for the stats but in the end people dont live in the big economic or social picture but that of their own life and often they couldnt care less about what happens in the next town, let alone the country as a whole, it is often very parochial.
I think many people seem to become more narrow in their view when they feel the people that hold power over their lives dont appear to understand their particular circumstances and so they need to protect themselves in some way. Politics serves us quite badly for the most part in this respect.
|
UKIP - Mapmaker
