Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 9:53 am  

Horatio Yed wrote:

He's not the BNP and forced repatriation, those workers would still be here working (rightly).

Some people have it in their head he's racist and hates foreigners?
I'm fed up to the back teeth of being told i'm a closest racist for supporting them too by Mr Clarke.

Who has said that here?

BTW, you haven't responded yet to the stuff about the UK being a federation with differing laws etc.

[DaveO]

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 10:02 am  

Mintball wrote:

And in a further rather obvious response to UKIP, Lord Lawson, writing in Murdoch's Times today, says the case for exit from the EU is clear.

Mind, I love the bit where he accuses businesses of being lazy and prepared to sit on their laurels, trading with the EU, when they should be out there, trading with China. "Globalisation" is the game, apparently.

This is from the chancellor who sold off BNOC and thus removed any chance of oil revenues being used at they have been in Norway that oft quoted example of how to succeed outside the EU.

I have read what Lawson said and it is just amazingly naive. Whether he wants us to trade with China or not the fact remains we do roughly 50% of our business with the EU and this won't change just because he thinks it should. He may as well be saying lets go back to trading with the Commonwealth!

As such in or out of the EU we will be subject to the same rules and regulations as we are now in order to trade with Europe. We would still have to make a large capital l contribution toward the EU, just as Norway does (they are the 10th net largest contributor to the EU budget) but we'd have no say in the rules and regulations we would have to abide by. He must know this, so what is his agenda?

In fact Farage must know this as well so how come he isn't constantly put in the spot and challenged on these issues?

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 10:03 am  

Mintball wrote:

As the anecdote I posted earlier illustrated, it's not rational thinking - it's gut politics. And anyone with a brain cell would not have any respect for so wing that works on the basis of: 'oh, I'll completely duck a point and just come out with a bit of dumbs hit rhetoric instead'.

And as has been pointed out, it's largely disenchanted Conservative right wingers switching - so hardly likely to be considering the entire spectrum of political options on a ballot paper.

Going back to Standee's point: two things.

First: I'm not sure that anyone really knows that the middle ground is any more. That could arguably be because of 30-odd years of neo-liberalism, which for many, doesn't fit within the old political certainties. Labour moved to the right to become electable, ditching, for instance, Clause 4 on public ownership, which, in effect, said that it was no longer a socialist party; the Conservatives moved to the right to try to become electable - and failed - and then have moved to some socially liberal positions in an effort to distance themselves from being 'the nasty party'.

One of the elements behind UKIP's current position is serious anger about equal marriage. I think that's actually an ideal illustration of a number of things - not least how far many in society, from across the mainstream political spectrum, have moved on social issues in just a generation. Which itself also suggests that 'the middle ground' has shifted, certainly on social attitudes.

I think that this is also born out by the point I raised a while back, that someone had done research showing just how many politicians, from across the mainstream spectrum, had done exactly the same course at exactly the same institution, reflecting a very limited range of political, philosophical and economic ideas across that same spectrum. It's part of the reason that there is actually little to differentiate between the main parties on the big issues at present - which inevitably offers opportunities (whether taken or not) by parties further to either side of the spectrum.

But there's another factor at play too. And that is the media.

I can't remember, off the top of my head, who it was, the other day, who wrote a piece asserting that, if the 1970s had seen the question being asked 'who really runs the country' as one about the power of the trades unions, then the same question today produces a different answer, in big finance and the bulk of the mainstream media. And for the latter, blaming 'Europe' for everything Is a delightfully useful and effective tactic - and I would not, for a moment, suggest that the EU is anything other than, at best, a deeply flawed political institution, but part of the problem the is the way that Europe and the political institutions of the EU have become conflated.

In conjunction with that, and perhaps in part because of widespread disillusionment with the state of domestic politics in 'the middle', we have seen an increasing militaristic culture growing over the last decade, and with that goes increased patriotism/nationalism, cultures that themselves are also added to by issues around a variety of subjects including immigration and perceptions of a culture under attack, multiculturalism v integration and so on. Again, there are legitimate questions, but the way in which the most successful newspapers in the UK present these is rather more one-sided - and again, it distracts from what is happening economically, which is a continued neo-liberal agenda, pursed with ever greater rigour as the last 30 years have passed.

In summary, I think that the point about a middle ground is a good one, but the shifting sands of domestic mainstay politics, and the influences of the mass of the media, mean it's far from a simple one, and certainly is not a question of there being some sort of old-fashioned left cabal running the roost.

What seems more and more evident to me is that the economic crash was invented by the financial sector, which in turn has given more power to those in the financial sector by placing them in high up positions in governments, particularly in Europe, to ensure that a financial crash wont happen again. Most took their own money out as it started to slide and have bunged it back in at the bottom.

All the while, UK politicians bend over and do whatever banks tell them to - give them some free money, implement new regulations which fall way short of the recommendations.

This love in between politicians and banks seems to benefit only themselves. But, the clever bit is that the parties can have a little argument about whether the new regulations are correct, amongst other such important matters, which makes it look like they stand on opposing sides and makes the public take sides.

We're more bothered about arguing a cause for our chosen political party (whether we know which politician is standing for our area or not) that we completely miss the politics. We fight for our parties because we feel like we should, and we do it for them for free. We do it because it is engrained into our perception of politics. How many times have we seen on here the phrase "I've always voted ..."? A good example of this was the recent police commissioners elections. I spoke to so many people that voted for a party instead of voting for a candidate. Many people simply didn’t know who was standing and couldn’t be bothered finding out. It was far easier to just tick the same box as usual.

The people we are voting for (in the majority) are career politicians. They decided they would be a politician foremost and picked a political party where available. They are not actually bothered about policy or making a difference. Policies are manufactured to create an illusion to the electorate that they are actually voting for something - a good example is the Tories referendum on the EU.

We are unfortunately all guilty of party politics, and there is not really an obvious solution. Luckily we have been kept busy with a financial crash, operation yew tree is having a good go at keeping us occupied as well.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 10:35 am  

DaveO wrote:

... As such in or out of the EU we will be subject to the same rules and regulations as we are now in order to trade with Europe. We would still have to make a large capital l contribution toward the EU, just as Norway does (they are the 10th net largest contributor to the EU budget) but we'd have no say in the rules and regulations we would have to abide by. He must know this, so what is his agenda?...

I think his agenda is purely City of London based, he doesn't like the idea of transaction taxes.
So his answer is to pull out of the EU and sod everything except the City.

He also thinks (despite not being a climatologist or a scientist of any kind) that the predicted effects of global warming are wildly exaggerated.

He thinks what he wants to think, and doesn't allow inconvenient facts to get in the way.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 10:36 am  

Chris28 wrote:

Because vilifying immigrants is what its all about instead?

Unfortunately, a lot of people who have a "problem" with immigration don't really understand it, and for example would allow say Luis Suarez (an immigrant) to come here without complaining, because he plays football, yet moan about say A N Other from India who is a highly skilled computer professional, when he may be filling a post that keeps perhaps hundreds of UK citizens in work. That may be an extreme example, but thats what it comes down to, a one fits all rejection of foreigners.

Yep. I read their manifesto out of interest and to educate myself on their policies. As I've said before I was not born in this country and it wasn't an EU country for that matter either. When my mother brought me back I was made a ward of court aged 22 months. I had to have permission from the courts to leave this country when we went abroad on holiday. I kept up with my US citizenship because I (mistakenly) believed that it would have no bearing on me living and working here as I'd been here since a baby. I started school at 4 years old, got my NI number at 16 years old and started paying taxes at 18 years old. I bought my own house with a mortgage and had a good, steady job, all without problems. Then I became ill, had to go on numerous benefits to survive and keep a roof over my head. UKIPs manifesto states that even with Indefinate Leave to Remain (which I've had since 22 months of age) I would be entitled to zero benefits, nothing, a big fat fook all. I would have had absolutely no income coming in whatsoever and with £200 in the bank I would have been out on the streets.

In 2004 I got my British Citizenship so this would never happen to me, but if UKIP did ever get in government its a day I've been scared of for most of my life.

[DaveO]

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 10:44 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

I think his agenda is purely City of London based, he doesn't like the idea of transaction taxes.
So his answer is to pull out of the EU and sod everything except the City.

I did see his comments on that but does he think the City of London won't be affected by or would somehow be immune to what goes on inside the EU?

He is right about one thing and that is globalisation is what drives things these days but what he seems to be ignoring is whether he considers it washed up or not an isolated UK would just have to deal with the much larger EU as it would any large global economic entity. That is just like it can't dictate how it does business with China it won't be able to dictate terms to the EU and it will not, despite his comments about lazy businesses, stop being our major trading partner.

He also thinks (despite not being a climatologist or a scientist of any kind) that the predicted effects of global warming are wildly exaggerated.

He thinks what he wants to think, and doesn't allow inconvenient facts to get in the way.

Well I suppose if there is anyone out there who wants to make the case for EU membership at least he has given them some nice targets to hang their arguments on. Is there anyone?

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 1:21 pm  

DaveO wrote: I did see his comments on that but does he think the City of London won't be affected by or would somehow be immune to what goes on inside the EU? ... This is another bit of his thinking (and not just his) that beggars belief. If the UK pulled out, EU transactions would flow more and more through Frankfurt instead of the City, the remaining EU certainly wouldn't be sympathetic to the City of London just because the City doesn't want to pay the small transaction tax ... it's OK by the City when the City takes fees upon fees off the top of every transaction incurred by your pension and mine resulting in a typical British pension being a third smaller than an equivalent Dutch one (*) but it's certainly not OK by the City for a state (i.e. the people) to take a modest tax. (*) Multiple sources for this ... I have chosen a Torygraph one ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... Dutch.html

DaveO wrote: I did see his comments on that but does he think the City of London won't be affected by or would somehow be immune to what goes on inside the EU? ... This is another bit of his thinking (and not just his) that beggars belief. If the UK pulled out, EU transactions would flow more and more through Frankfurt instead of the City, the remaining EU certainly wouldn't be sympathetic to the City of London just because the City doesn't want to pay the small transaction tax ... it's OK by the City when the City takes fees upon fees off the top of every transaction incurred by your pension and mine resulting in a typical British pension being a third smaller than an equivalent Dutch one (*) but it's certainly not OK by the City for a state (i.e. the people) to take a modest tax. (*) Multiple sources for this ... I have chosen a Torygraph one ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... Dutch.html

[DaveO]

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 3:44 pm  

El Barbudo wrote: This is another bit of his thinking (and not just his) that beggars belief. If the UK pulled out, EU transactions would flow more and more through Frankfurt instead of the City, the remaining EU certainly wouldn't be sympathetic to the City of London just because the City doesn't want to pay the small transaction tax ... it's OK by the City when the City takes fees upon fees off the top of every transaction incurred by your pension and mine resulting in a typical British pension being a third smaller than an equivalent Dutch one (*) but it's certainly not OK by the City for a state (i.e. the people) to take a modest tax. (*) Multiple sources for this ... I have chosen a Torygraph one ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... Dutch.html Fees on investments have been an issue for some time. Most index-tracking stocks and shares ISA's have low fees (less than 0.5% usually) yet most actively managed funds with so called experts handing the investment charge at least 1% and often 1.5%. For the actively managed fund to outperform the tracker the fund manager has to consistently beat the market by enough to cover their expenses. The trouble is they are the market so are kind of doomed to failure unless they are Warren Buffet and few come close to that. They rarely beat it. What the article refers to is you or me sticking our pension funds in the hand of a fund manager and paying the price of high fees. The company I work for contributes to a defined contribution scheme but actively manages which company provides it. It recently changed to one that lowered the expenses to 0.65%. So I ought to be on a par with the Dutch - that is if anyone's pension is worth anything in a few years!

El Barbudo wrote: This is another bit of his thinking (and not just his) that beggars belief. If the UK pulled out, EU transactions would flow more and more through Frankfurt instead of the City, the remaining EU certainly wouldn't be sympathetic to the City of London just because the City doesn't want to pay the small transaction tax ... it's OK by the City when the City takes fees upon fees off the top of every transaction incurred by your pension and mine resulting in a typical British pension being a third smaller than an equivalent Dutch one (*) but it's certainly not OK by the City for a state (i.e. the people) to take a modest tax. (*) Multiple sources for this ... I have chosen a Torygraph one ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... Dutch.html Fees on investments have been an issue for some time. Most index-tracking stocks and shares ISA's have low fees (less than 0.5% usually) yet most actively managed funds with so called experts handing the investment charge at least 1% and often 1.5%. For the actively managed fund to outperform the tracker the fund manager has to consistently beat the market by enough to cover their expenses. The trouble is they are the market so are kind of doomed to failure unless they are Warren Buffet and few come close to that. They rarely beat it. What the article refers to is you or me sticking our pension funds in the hand of a fund manager and paying the price of high fees. The company I work for contributes to a defined contribution scheme but actively manages which company provides it. It recently changed to one that lowered the expenses to 0.65%. So I ought to be on a par with the Dutch - that is if anyone's pension is worth anything in a few years!

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 5:02 pm  

DaveO wrote:

that is if anyone's pension is worth anything in a few years!

Me and that chicken bloke are currently investigating how to divvy up this between us:



and

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 7:15 pm  

Mintball wrote:

And in a further rather obvious response to UKIP, Lord Lawson, writing in Murdoch's Times today, says the case for exit from the EU is clear.

Mind, I love the bit where he accuses businesses of being lazy and prepared to sit on their laurels, trading with the EU, when they should be out there, trading with China. "Globalisation" is the game, apparently.

My level of dislike for that man has just increased by an order of magnitude.