"If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system." - Tony Benn, Eurosceptic.
A Republican can vote for which Democratic candidate they want in a primary in order to get the (Democratic) person they think they can beat in the real thing,
Not in the majority of states which either have closed primaries, in that only members of the party can vote for their candidate, or semi-closed in that only members or those who are not affiliated can vote. Barking mad system all the same.
The more policies they articulate, the more that voters will wake up and find another home. Therefore Farage and Co. will say as little as they can possibly get away with. Where some allege a media conspiracy it's ironic that the media (and the Internet) will be (ideally) providing a service to the public by shining a light on each of the four parties in this new era. There are eight months to go in this game so plenty of time for the debate to unfold.
I can't see who on my phone right now but would the person who flagged my post last night please come forward and explain exactly what you found offensive about it. If you have an issue with what I said bring it to me so we can debate in an adult, open way. Don't just run to admin because you dislike someone else's opinion.
I can't see who on my phone right now but would the person who flagged my post last night please come forward and explain exactly what you found offensive about it. If you have an issue with what I said bring it to me so we can debate in an adult, open way. Don't just run to admin because you dislike someone else's opinion.
I'm not a grass mate but petrol and matches and you'll be getting warm in more ways than one. Probably a slip of the finger.
I've just looked at UKIP's website and their policies are quite clear and for me there is hardly anything to dislike.
It is no good looking at a site such as the New Statesman for UKIP policies, have a look at UKIP's own website.
OK so what exactly does 'regain control of our borders' actually mean and how do you do it? How will they protect the NHS against the secretive and predatory actions of those unelected people currently working on TTIP?
What people don't understand is the wages in the construction industry are being driven down by immigration. The average home owner in this country needs to earn a decent wage a day to cover the cost of their mortgage, council tax, energy bills etc whilst supporting their family. When you get a group of 10 Eastern Europeans living in a house together sharing the bills amongst them they may only need £140 a week to cover the cost, this results in them agreeing to work for £80 a day as they don't need to earn as much as me and you. This then means employers know they can get labour for a lower price and so when we walk on a job that is all they are willing to pay hence keeping wages down and to a minimum, I've been quite fortunate I've landed an excellent job but go back two years and I was earning the same as when I finished my apprentaship 14 years ago, when really with growth and inflation I should of been getting a lot more but you can't and that's because immigration drives the cost down, fellow tradesmen are struggling and agencies are as bad.
Absolutely spot on.
My son is a self-employed carpenter and would back up absolutely every word you say.
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Who do you two reckon pays the wages?
Supply and demand, it's a dog eat dog world employers ain't gonna pay more than they need to maximising profit, if Eastern European Dimitrov will do it for £80 a day he ain't gonna pay Dave £150, but you sit behind your desk in your office where they ain't driving your wages down so you wouldn't understand, take a step out and onto a building site and you will see the true problem immigration has caused.
The employers love you to think they are at the mercy of market forces, and they love it if you blame someone else other than them. Maybe you are an employer, or maybe you believe in market forces and want to go along with it and hope you can outcompete your fellow workers. Or you could unionise and take on the employers. Real world enough for you?
Sorry mate but you really have no idea of the real world.
Let me just re-iterate what smiffyboy has said. When my son was training as an apprentice about 8 years ago, the guys who were training him were earning between £150 - £200 a day. But up until recently - rates have increased just recently owing to a shortage of skilled labour - if he earned £100 a day through an agency he was doing blooming well. That's the facts of what has happened in this country. And it happened because we let a whole load of people in who were prepared to work for peanuts.
My son was building up a good little business until the Eastern Europeans were let in. Now he quotes for jobs and constantly finds he's been undercut by Eastern Europeans charging prices that can only mean either a) they are not paying taxes or b) they must be living in crowded accommodation, meaning their outlay on rent is minimal so they can work for less. My son simply cannot compete with the prices they are quoting and still pay his bills and as a result he is struggling to make a living despite working his balls off.
As I say, there's more and more people who are beginning to say enough.
So your son sets his own wage wage, subject to what people are prepared to pay- so he's genuinely self-employed and not a typical worker on a contract of employment where wages are set by an employer. Far from being a 'typical worker', he's self-employed so perhaps he employs others too, as in a small business, all be it feeling the squeeze, especially during the recent recession. Now I see now why you chose to respond to my answer to smiffyboy and not that to yourself which was about setting of wages, when you said you didn't get the question i posed. I can see why that may have been relatively difficult.
So back to your son who who you use to illustrate our point; is it right to say that he feels stuck in this competitive set of relationships, his current trade, for whatever reasons, struggles to differentiate from the competition and finds it harder and harder as income can't keep up. He can't go on the books or get out to another sector, for whatever reason so in response, blames the foreigners? Is that a fair summary? If it is, i wonder if you worry about how the political momentum of UKIP mirrors the rise of the far right in similar settings in other times, and furthermore are you happy to go along with that?
I am a liberal and as long as I have a hole in my a*se I will always be one, small "l" and large "L".
I have spent my adult life opposing nationalism and xenophobia.
I am passionately pro - European - not because the EU is faultless, it plainly is far from that, but because I believe that the EU is the best way the peoples of Europe can put behind them the ancient emnities that resulted in two catastrophic world wars during the 20th Century.
Of course NATO was formed to put a structure to the armed forces but it is economic strength and a spreading of economic benefit which will stop people from huddling around their nationalist narrow horizons.
I am angry that the party I have supported all my life has got themselves into a disastrous state. They did the right thing going into coalition - it showed huge courage given they were bound to take a kicking. Unfortunately even I didn't expect them to have made such a horlicks of things. The student loans fiasco was so poorly handled and Clegg looked far too much like his head was up Cameron's jacksie for far too long. They should have dumped him at least a year ago in my view.
It troubles me even more than when nationalism is on the rise in our country, when civil liberties are being threatened every day, when a reemergence of the nasty party has jettisoned the "green crap", and wants to withdraw from the Human Rights legislation written by British Lawyers and given life by one W S Churchill, when Labour is weak and it's policies are ill - defined, and when the positive case for the EU is never more than a whisper; the country needs a strong progressive party as a counter - weight to all of this yet it is unable to get its message across due to the toxicity of its leader.
The Lib Dems will take a huge kicking at the next General Election - they will lose many seats. UKIP may well gain a larger share of the vote, and some MPs but I don't see them getting anything more than a dozen or so.
This may lead to a realignment of politics in this country with UKIP maybe even replacing the Tories as the right of centre party over the next few years. What I do know is there will always be progressive centre left leaning Liberal (Lib Dem) Party that is not classed based, it may never break the mold, I am pretty certain it won't win a majority in my lifetime but there are millions of people like me who will never turn to parties who pit nation against nation, that seek to create division, by class or otherwise and find scapegoats to blame for all the ills of citizens lives.
As regard the EU, We are at a crossroads. The EU is in crisis - the Euro-zone is a car crash.
Don't let it's problems though blind us from the fact that if it all falls apart - all of the countries, including us will be massively and negatively affected. We are are seeing an economic downturn in our economy as a direct result of recession in the Euro-zone already. Imagine the fall out if the market collapsed?
It's all very well Farage and UKIP wanting us out but they ignore the huge economic disaster that will bring. He can claim that in the long run we will trade successfully from outside - it ain't going to happen in any time scale that won't result in economic disaster followed by huge levels of unemployment . Those who support smiley Nige now will be burning him in effergy should he get his way as the UK economy falls off the cliff.
What really f*cks me off is that there is no proper debate. Clegg screwed it up by playing the man, not the ball whilst the biggest beasts in UK politics looked the other way, or buried their heads in the sand.
Call me Dave is offering a referendum but in truth he doesn't want one and will find any excuse to want to stay in. Silibland has a policy on Europe which is completely incoherent. Why he doesn't offer a referendum god only knows?
I believe the time is overdue for a referendum and we can't duck it any longer. I will be out there fighting for our country to remain part of a market and a group of countries which does allow free movement of labour - which will, despite its many faults, remain a huge trading area for the benefit of jobs and prosperity - especially once the Euro-zone has resolved it's structural weaknesses.
As a PHD student in economics I can say that on the "resulting economic disaster" that you mentioned. You have been sold a lie and propaganda that the main parties do not want you to know! There is such as thing as the EFTA European free trade area. As part of this you get all the trading privileges of being in the EU which let's face it is the only benefit and you lose all the political union bullshit such as a European national anthem and a European air force and all the rest. It pays a small subscription fee less than a hundredth of what we pay to the EU. It would allow us to make our own trade deals wi th India China Brazil and any other non EU country which would be massively beneficial. We would also be able to represent ourselves on the world trade organisation rather than have a Belgium bureaucrat do it for us. We would be allowed to freely fish our own waters and to freely farm out own land without being ruled by the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. There are endless benefits and very few costs. There would certainly be no economic disaster. The economy may take some time to adjust but we would be better in the long run.
Cantersaddick, i was following that until you starting relying on 'us' and 'we'. Have you really reached the highest level of academia writing like this or are you just tailoring it for the CL audience? It would seem to indicate an absence of critical reasoning. You do appreciate the economy is made up of contesting interests and your references are quite offensive to those who aren't beneficiaries of the trading system you profess to analyse?
We can regain control of our borders by limiting the number of people who can come here.
According to The Optimum Population Trust, England is the 5th most densely populated country in the world and the UK as a whole has increased its population by a fifth since 1950. How can that not have an effect on housing, public services, roads etc.?
But apart from stopping immigration and leaving the EU, what are UKIP's policies?
I don't really know, and tbh I don't really care. But if the other parties start to face these two issues head on because of UKIP's popularity then that's a good thing in my opinion.
So if UKIP's policies were to privatise the NHS, move to a flat rate income tax (which would mean lower earners would have to pay a higher percentage to make up for the shortfall in revenue from higher earners - I think 31% was suggested) abolish the minimum wage, maternity leave entitlement and other employment protections, you'd still be happy to vote for them as long as they took us out of the EU?
If you actually read the policy you would realise the 31% is actually the combination of income tax and national insurance This act alone would save hundreds of millions a year on terms of bureaucracy. Also as a combination of the two it would actually be a reduction in tax for those in the lowest band. Not a fan of the policy but you might as well get your facts right.
This will NEVER EVER HAPPEN . I cannot emphasise enough what a non-starter of an idea merging NI and IT is. Sure it has the potential to get rid of bureaucracy (perhaps in the long term, after the change has been managed), but that bureaucracy is actually a far better thing to have than a huge risk. Sensible governments are always looking for ways to increase the basket of taxes as a means of spreading the risk of non-payment, not ways of lumping it all together into one huge hazard waiting to happen. As with all his half baked ideas, Farage has never been in a position where he's had to think this through. Let's hope he never has to, because this is a great example of complete non-starter. I suppose we should be thankful that NF realises that now, but how many of his other ideas wouldn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
The hissing and spitting at UKIP rings hollow after what happened in Rotherham. Kids were being taken away from UKIP supporting families whilst reports on industrial scale child abuse were being shredded to protect community relations. The right on supporters of multiculturalism and mass immigration are in denial as to how this has changed the attitudes of large swathes of the electorate.
I can't see who on my phone right now but would the person who flagged my post last night please come forward and explain exactly what you found offensive about it. If you have an issue with what I said bring it to me so we can debate in an adult, open way. Don't just run to admin because you dislike someone else's opinion.
I'm not a grass mate but petrol and matches and you'll be getting warm in more ways than one. Probably a slip of the finger.
Thanks @RedChaser. I'll leave it there cos at least I know now the chance of reasoned debate is pretty slim.
But apart from stopping immigration and leaving the EU, what are UKIP's policies?
I don't really know, and tbh I don't really care. But if the other parties start to face these two issues head on because of UKIP's popularity then that's a good thing in my opinion.
So if UKIP's policies were to privatise the NHS, move to a flat rate income tax (which would mean lower earners would have to pay a higher percentage to make up for the shortfall in revenue from higher earners - I think 31% was suggested) abolish the minimum wage, maternity leave entitlement and other employment protections, you'd still be happy to vote for them as long as they took us out of the EU?
Did I say I voted for them? I was merely stating that it was a good thing these issues were being brought to the limelight.
The hissing and spitting at UKIP rings hollow after what happened in Rotherham. Kids were being taken away from UKIP supporting families whilst reports on industrial scale child abuse were being shredded to protect community relations. The right on supporters of multiculturalism and mass immigration are in denial as to how this has changed the attitudes of large swathes of the electorate.
I think you need to be cautious in assuming that what you think SantaClaus is what the large swathes of the electorate think. The random linking of disparate issues here is not helpful.
With child abuse any discussion has to be clearly rooted in addressing the issue, with the aim to protect the children and look at the situation so that policy helps to prevent it happening again. To have effective procedures and process to prevent abuse in all situations and all cultures. To ensure that there is sufficient funding for agencies working in the area. The trouble is that many use the Rotherham abuse scandal to drive an anti immigration agenda. That does not help vulnerable children. It uses them as well, which is really out of order.
Investigation of child abuse needs to consider the ethnicity of those involved so that the investigation is effective and particular circumstances of that community are addressed. Abuse of children happens right across society, culture and class. It is not helpful to try and use it to prove prejudice. The discussion should always remember to keep the vulnerable children and families at the centre.
The hissing and spitting at UKIP rings hollow after what happened in Rotherham. Kids were being taken away from UKIP supporting families whilst reports on industrial scale child abuse were being shredded to protect community relations. The right on supporters of multiculturalism and mass immigration are in denial as to how this has changed the attitudes of large swathes of the electorate.
I think you need to be cautious in assuming that what you think SantaClaus is what the large swathes of the electorate think. The random linking of disparate issues here is not helpful.
With child abuse any discussion has to be clearly rooted in addressing the issue, with the aim to protect the children and look at the situation so that policy helps to prevent it happening again. To have effective procedures and process to prevent abuse in all situations and all cultures. To ensure that there is sufficient funding for agencies working in the area. The trouble is that many use the Rotherham abuse scandal to drive an anti immigration agenda. That does not help vulnerable children. It uses them as well, which is really out of order.
Investigation of child abuse needs to consider the ethnicity of those involved so that the investigation is effective and particular circumstances of that community are addressed. Abuse of children happens right across society, culture and class. It is not helpful to try and use it to prove prejudice. The discussion should always remember to keep the vulnerable children and families at the centre.
The use of virtually one off examples is the staple ammunition of the frothing classes for excusing their outrage.
The hissing and spitting at UKIP rings hollow after what happened in Rotherham. Kids were being taken away from UKIP supporting families whilst reports on industrial scale child abuse were being shredded to protect community relations. The right on supporters of multiculturalism and mass immigration are in denial as to how this has changed the attitudes of large swathes of the electorate.
I think you need to be cautious in assuming that what you think SantaClaus is what the large swathes of the electorate think. The random linking of disparate issues here is not helpful.
With child abuse any discussion has to be clearly rooted in addressing the issue, with the aim to protect the children and look at the situation so that policy helps to prevent it happening again. To have effective procedures and process to prevent abuse in all situations and all cultures. The trouble is that many use the Rotherham abuse scandal to drive an anti immigration agenda. That does not help vulnerable children. It uses them as well, which is really out of order.
Investigation of child abuse needs to consider the ethnicity of those that are involved so that the investigation is effective and particular circumstances of that community are addressed. Abuse of children happens right across society, culture and class. It is not helpful to try and use it to prove prejudice. The discussion should always remember to keep the vulnerable children and families at the centre.
My point is that (whether you like it or not) the two issues are connected in huge numbers of voters minds. It's patently obvious that UKIP wouldn't have made anything like the inroads it has in the north if the champions of immigration and multiculturalism hadn't enraged so many of their natural supporters by going out of their way to suppress systematic child abuse. Honestly VFF if you have any better ideas why UKIP has kicked on so much in the affected communities I'd be interested to hear them.
I know this is a discussion forum and that is what is happening.
However, anyone that thinks we have too much immigration and this needs to be controlled, is likely to have some sort of support for UKIP, be it a strong support or very small support.
Anyone that thinks we should continue, with uncontrolled immigration from Europe and possibly even the rest of the world and perhaps, like Vince Cable, think we need more immigration, will totally disagree with UKIP.
Whatever anyone says in this discussion, is highly unlikely to change people's views.
It is not down to whether I like or not Santaclaus, all there is your viewpoint that the rise of UKIP is connected to the Rotherham abuse scandal and multiculturalism is not supported by evidence. I am not sure whether you are talking about UKIP in certain areas, or nationally. It is possible that in the specific area of Rotherham, certain groups or people may try to exploit the issue to stoke discrimination. Like I said above, I think that is out of order. It doesn't help vulnerable children being abused in similar situations to avoid the same thing happening again.
I have listened to Police Inspectors who have lead investigations into child abuse that involves perpetrators from an minority ethnic background. The one thing they say, is that it is vital that the ethnic background is taken account of. This allows the investigation to be effective to talking to the communities that they come from and with getting successful convictions. The Police also say that it is important to point out that abuse of children happens with all groups of people. Considering the ethnicity of perpetrators is not the same as generalising across the wider community.
I understand that in Rotherham, some appalling mistakes where made. It is an important lesson of how not to handle things. I am hoping that Farage and UKIP would steer away from crude connections and not play party politics with the appalling experience of those vulnerable kids in Rotherham.
Vote UKIP i think nigel is great, you might not always agree what he says but unlike Cameron or Milliband he says what he thinks will win votes from disaffected voters and those who don't wish to elect a party with sound economic policies
Comments
http://audioboom.com/boos/2550913-what-do-ukip-stand-for-james-o-brien-s-takedown-of-this-supporter-is-effortless
There are eight months to go in this game so plenty of time for the debate to unfold.
It is no good looking at a site such as the New Statesman for UKIP policies, have a look at UKIP's own website.
So back to your son who who you use to illustrate our point; is it right to say that he feels stuck in this competitive set of relationships, his current trade, for whatever reasons, struggles to differentiate from the competition and finds it harder and harder as income can't keep up. He can't go on the books or get out to another sector, for whatever reason so in response, blames the foreigners? Is that a fair summary? If it is, i wonder if you worry about how the political momentum of UKIP mirrors the rise of the far right in similar settings in other times, and furthermore are you happy to go along with that?
UKIP claim to be anti establishment but are full of establishment figures and their policies support but don't undermine the whole establishment.
My view is most people vote for the same party without knowing what that particular parties policies are.
According to The Optimum Population Trust, England is the 5th most densely populated country in the world and the UK as a whole has increased its population by a fifth since 1950. How can that not have an effect on housing, public services, roads etc.?
Thanks @RedChaser. I'll leave it there cos at least I know now the chance of reasoned debate is pretty slim.
With child abuse any discussion has to be clearly rooted in addressing the issue, with the aim to protect the children and look at the situation so that policy helps to prevent it happening again. To have effective procedures and process to prevent abuse in all situations and all cultures. To ensure that there is sufficient funding for agencies working in the area. The trouble is that many use the Rotherham abuse scandal to drive an anti immigration agenda. That does not help vulnerable children. It uses them as well, which is really out of order.
Investigation of child abuse needs to consider the ethnicity of those involved so that the investigation is effective and particular circumstances of that community are addressed. Abuse of children happens right across society, culture and class. It is not helpful to try and use it to prove prejudice. The discussion should always remember to keep the vulnerable children and families at the centre.
Honestly VFF if you have any better ideas why UKIP has kicked on so much in the affected communities I'd be interested to hear them.
However, anyone that thinks we have too much immigration and this needs to be controlled, is likely to have some sort of support for UKIP, be it a strong support or very small support.
Anyone that thinks we should continue, with uncontrolled immigration from Europe and possibly even the rest of the world and perhaps, like Vince Cable, think we need more immigration, will totally disagree with UKIP.
Whatever anyone says in this discussion, is highly unlikely to change people's views.
I have listened to Police Inspectors who have lead investigations into child abuse that involves perpetrators from an minority ethnic background. The one thing they say, is that it is vital that the ethnic background is taken account of. This allows the investigation to be effective to talking to the communities that they come from and with getting successful convictions. The Police also say that it is important to point out that abuse of children happens with all groups of people. Considering the ethnicity of perpetrators is not the same as generalising across the wider community.
I understand that in Rotherham, some appalling mistakes where made. It is an important lesson of how not to handle things. I am hoping that Farage and UKIP would steer away from crude connections and not play party politics with the appalling experience of those vulnerable kids in Rotherham.