Who is gonna vote in the EU parliament elections? What candidates are you going to vote for, and what parties within the parliament are they with?
I'm probably going to vote SD or Green, as the policies of the EPP have not been good for Europe so I'd like to decrease their majority. Looks like SD are going to have the majority next time round.ALDE can go hang, as far as I'm concerned. I'm worried about Ireland not sending any non-eurosceptic socialists to the table, because it's important for us to have people in all the major groups so our voice gets heard. I'm also worried about the number of Sinn Féin candidates we might send, as I don't see them having a coherent ideology with regard to Europe, just simplistic populism.
What about you guys? I'm expecting UKIP to do well, which I think is interesting. Anyone voting UKIP? Do you expect them to ally with the likes of the French National Front, the Dutch sceptics and (hilariously) Sinn Féin? They will be pretty politically impotent without an alliance, so I'm interested to hear what you think. If all the nationalist parties can pull of an alliance, that could be pretty interesting, and bad for my personal beliefs. I doubt they will though, to be honest. I expect a lot of sound and fury from the sceptics but no real impact on how things are done.
What about the EU president? Any opinions on who is good there? I'm leaning towards Martin Schulz, but I'm a bit leery of voting a German in when they have so much sway already. He is at least a member of the SPD, who are nominally left wing, at least.
If you are not going to vote, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why that's more than simplistic cynicism. The EU parliament is a massive and important organisation, it's a damn shame it doesn't get covered better by our various media outlets.
I can see the school they use for the polling station from my house, so there really is no reason for me not to vote.
I'll probably be voting Green, perhaps SNP as while I'm not sold on the whole Independence thing they are certainly friendlier to Europe.
Was pretty Euro-skeptic myself before I looked into the subject more. There are a lot of advantages towards being part of Europe. Certainly a strong argument for Independence would be that the rest of the UK wants to move away from Europe, by becoming Independent we could circumvent that.
Not really sure of the President. Really don't know enough about them. I feel like quite the fool for not knowing more about this, but I can imagine there are people that aren't even aware the election is coming up.
I will be digging out my polling card from wherever it has been hidden. Plan to go green (Hulk for president!).
Other than that, no views on el presidente as I don't know any of the people who might be up for it. Would be nice to get a UK green in the race but probably not going to happen.
Greens usually do much better in EU elections than in local or national ones, which is nice. I'm fairly pro Green, though I wish they'd stop being anti nuclear and anti GM.
On not knowing about this stuff, well, on the one hand, it is out there to read about if you like, but it's rather dry. On the other hand, our various national media outlets do a pretty poor job of keeping people informed. As an outsider, all British media, even the BBC, has a Euroceptic slant. You can find Eurosceptic articles all over the BBC, and they don't (as far as I've noticed) particularly cover the various parliament groupings or European institutions very well. I don't entirely blame people who don't know this stuff- I only became marginally well informed because I was unemployed and bored during a couple of important referenda in Ireland an an EU election, so I looked into it and spent a week reading about it. Still, it's good to know, and even better, to discuss with your friends to raise awareness generally.
I've tried to read through the greens site but it is really hard to read on a phone and doesnt really seem to have much useful information.
As for the wider eu structure... meh. Picked up a little and am trusting my vote for the greens will help them reform the cesspool that is the eu political machine to actually benefit people
What about you guys? I'm expecting UKIP to do well, which I think is interesting. Anyone voting UKIP? Do you expect them to ally with the likes of the French National Front, the Dutch sceptics and (hilariously) Sinn Féin? They will be pretty politically impotent without an alliance, so I'm interested to hear what you think. If all the nationalist parties can pull of an alliance, that could be pretty interesting, and bad for my personal beliefs. I doubt they will though, to be honest. I expect a lot of sound and fury from the sceptics but no real impact on how things are done.
It's an interesting one, to be sure. I'm tempted to vote for them, as I do think the UK needs more independenec from the EU and there's a chance they can get that, but on the other hand, it seems a little cynical to be voting for any MEPs given that I don't think we should be a part of it at all. I may well vote for UKIP come the UK elections, as they promise an EU referendum that they can actually go through with, but filling the European Parliament with those unsympathetic with Europe but still working with it seems counterproductive to me.
I won't ever vote Lib Dems after they became such sellouts in the last election, and I won't vote Conservative as I don't agree with what ideals they have left. Similarly, though, Labour are no longer the left-wing party they once were, far closer to centre than I'd like. I'm not calling for socialist revolution on the streets or anything, but I do wish we could go back to a format of politics where the various parties had some motive beyond getting in power and actually stuck to their ideologies.
What about the EU president? Any opinions on who is good there? I'm leaning towards Martin Schulz, but I'm a bit leery of voting a German in when they have so much sway already. He is at least a member of the SPD, who are nominally left wing, at least.
If you are not going to vote, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why that's more than simplistic cynicism. The EU parliament is a massive and important organisation, it's a damn shame it doesn't get covered better by our various media outlets.
No idea on the president, I haven't really looked into it, but I might do before the elections. If I don't vote UKIP, I'll abstain, but will still submit a ballot paper, rather than just not turning up. Political apathy is one thing that really annoys me; how are politicians going to realise you don't like their policies if you don't submit any kkind of vote?
Edit: Though on the whole I think it's disingenuous to say the EU doesn't do anything to benefit it's citizens. It's certainly complex, and sometimes decisions are made which are quite poor (There's been a good few of those, lately), but the EU does plenty of good stuff. Like promoting human rights, promoting equality, ending discriminatory practices, enforcing food and industrial standards. All of these things benefit citizens. The EU is also stronger on consumer protection than many national governments. I think that many national parliaments tend to use the EU as a bit of a punching bag- take credit for any good stuff to come out of it and blame it for anything that goes wrong. I think from my time living in and next door to the UK, the british establishment and media are especially bad for this.
That said, there are valid criticisms of the EU, and I'd certainly like it reformed to be less technocratic and more accountable to the citizens.
The nationalists and Euro-sceptics are split into like, what, six alliances? I don't really expect that to change soon.
That said, these elections are horrible for me:
I think Schulz would make a decent Commission President, he seems to have a vision, but I can hardly stomach the European socialists; their Austrian variant positively makes me want to throw up.
On a European level I'm "green", but again, the local green party is a fundamentalist, far-left bunch I despise. Sigh.
The local alliance partner of ALDE is a great choice, but ALDE (and Verhofstadt) not so much...
FPÖ is bad enough on her own merits, but allied with Wilders' and Le Pen's bunch, they are simply an absurd choice in European parliament elections.
Which would leave me with the conservatives as the fall-back option, but a vote for them is one that says "Europe is fine as it is", and that's not the kind of message that I want to send. Also, I have a lot of respect for Juncker, but I think by now he's too spent to make a good President.
Sigvatr wrote: Valid point. I really don't like the different parties. Most parties are far left nowadays, some far-right, and there's very little in-between.
Hey... be glad you're not stuck with a two party system... like the US.
Sigvatr wrote: Fortunately, I really don't have to care for politics anymore given my current job, ...
What a strange notion. Care to elaborate?
Upper management in a very big company - whoever gets in charge, you win. It's a different perspective on politics and disheartening at first when you realize how little political parties actually influence bigger scale changes.
Sigvatr wrote: Valid point. I really don't like the different parties. Most parties are far left nowadays, some far-right, and there's very little in-between.
Hey... be glad you're not stuck with a two party system... like the US.
I'd appreciate such a system, though. In Germany, right now, there might be a lot of different parties, but they are barely different from each other. Voters consistenly state their similarity as one of the main reasons for not going to vote and I can understand that attitude. Having two parties that clearly stand for something is a good thing in my opinion.
Allod wrote: The nationalists and Euro-sceptics are split into like, what, six alliances? I don't really expect that to change soon.
That said, these elections are horrible for me:
I think Schulz would make a decent Commission President, he seems to have a vision, but I can hardly stomach the European socialists; their Austrian variant positively makes me want to throw up.
I kinda agree- I don't like the socialists in Germany, Britain or Ireland (which are the three groups I'm most familiar with), though in my case it's because I don't believe they are actually socialist, simply protectors of a certain kind of vested interest.
Is that a similar reason for yourself, or are you more centrist/right orientated? Also, what is the FPO?
-Shrike- wrote: Hey, we have the Conservatives, the not-really-very-left Labour, and the whatever-it-takes-to-get-into-power Lib Dems.
This is precisely why it's so tempting to vote UKIP, just to shake things up a bit. If they get enough support (say 25-30% of the vote), the Big Three are going to have to rethink their polcies rather than holding onto the mostly-centrist-power-grabbing-vote-manupilating we're stuck with now. As much as I found parts of my recent study on early 20th Century British politics a little dull, at least the parties actually had ideals they stuck to and sought to change things, rather than maintain this cooperate-ruled Status-quo.
-Shrike- wrote: Hey, we have the Conservatives, the not-really-very-left Labour, and the whatever-it-takes-to-get-into-power Lib Dems.
This is precisely why it's so tempting to vote UKIP, just to shake things up a bit. If they get enough support (say 25-30% of the vote), the Big Three are going to have to rethink their polcies rather than holding onto the mostly-centrist-power-grabbing-vote-manupilating we're stuck with now. As much as I found parts of my recent study on early 20th Century British politics a little dull, at least the parties actually had ideals they stuck to and sought to change things, rather than maintain this cooperate-ruled Status-quo.
A lot of people ive spoke with say "i would vote for party abc, but they will never get enough votes to win so i vote for xyz".
Stand by your convictions and you might be surprised.
But I entirely agree that ukip are doing well because they are a protest vote rather than any real traction withtheir policies.
-Shrike- wrote: Hey, we have the Conservatives, the not-really-very-left Labour, and the whatever-it-takes-to-get-into-power Lib Dems.
This is precisely why it's so tempting to vote UKIP, just to shake things up a bit. If they get enough support (say 25-30% of the vote), the Big Three are going to have to rethink their polcies rather than holding onto the mostly-centrist-power-grabbing-vote-manupilating we're stuck with now. As much as I found parts of my recent study on early 20th Century British politics a little dull, at least the parties actually had ideals they stuck to and sought to change things, rather than maintain this cooperate-ruled Status-quo.
A lot of people ive spoke with say "i would vote for party abc, but they will never get enough votes to win so i vote for xyz".
Stand by your convictions and you might be surprised.
But I entirely agree that ukip are doing well because they are a protest vote rather than any real traction withtheir policies.
I'd say their policy of having a referendum on EU status has a lot of traction, but nobody really knows any of their other policies.
Sigvatr wrote:Upper management in a very big company - whoever gets in charge, you win. It's a different perspective on politics and disheartening at first when you realize how little political parties actually influence bigger scale changes.
Ah, I see what you mean. I think you're right, too, I'm just too much of a political animal to arrive at such a Zen-like state.
Da Boss wrote:
I kinda agree- I don't like the socialists in Germany, Britain or Ireland (which are the three groups I'm most familiar with), though in my case it's because I don't believe they are actually socialist, simply protectors of a certain kind of vested interest.
Is that a similar reason for yourself, or are you more centrist/right orientated?
Difficult question, because I don't really fit into the European left/right mentality, but am not really "centrist" either. For what it's worth, I find myself most in what is the "right-wing liberal" camp here in Austria, but keep in mind that in France or the Benelux countries, I would probably be a "green" voter. I can muster a lot of respect for social democrats and christian socials and find myself in tune with many of their goals and positions; "true" socialists of the hammer and sickle variety and "true" conservatives of the "never change a losing team" ilk both turn me off immensely.
-Shrike- wrote: Hey, we have the Conservatives, the not-really-very-left Labour, and the whatever-it-takes-to-get-into-power Lib Dems.
This is precisely why it's so tempting to vote UKIP, just to shake things up a bit. If they get enough support (say 25-30% of the vote), the Big Three are going to have to rethink their polcies rather than holding onto the mostly-centrist-power-grabbing-vote-manupilating we're stuck with now. As much as I found parts of my recent study on early 20th Century British politics a little dull, at least the parties actually had ideals they stuck to and sought to change things, rather than maintain this cooperate-ruled Status-quo.
A lot of people ive spoke with say "i would vote for party abc, but they will never get enough votes to win so i vote for xyz".
Stand by your convictions and you might be surprised.
But I entirely agree that ukip are doing well because they are a protest vote rather than any real traction withtheir policies.
I'd say their policy of having a referendum on EU status has a lot of traction, but nobody really knows any of their other policies.
Apart from Johnny Foreigner's bad mkay?
Besides the Greens also want a referendum on Europe so if that's what you want you don't have to jump over to the far right
Da Boss wrote: Heh heh, didn't really help that much Allod, but I appreciate the explanation.
I'm pretty ignorant of Austrian politics. I'm trying to get to grips with France first, but I should put Austria on my list too.
Sorry, but I tried.
And don't put Austria on your list, it'll just make you cry. And I don't mean manly tears here, I'm talking rocking-back-and-forth while bawling like a two-year-old!
Apart from Johnny Foreigner's bad mkay? Besides the Greens also want a referendum on Europe so if that's what you want you don't have to jump over to the far right
The problem there is that the policy of increasing petrol tax that is inherent with an environment-centric party means that anyone who owns any kind of motor vehicle loses out from Green getting traction and power. If people are trying to make a point, UKIP are the better chance.
The issue is that UKIP are made up of idiots (see the Gay Marriage=floods incident) that undermines every chance they have.
I'm not a massive fan of the EU in terms of the huge piles of cash it swallows up to no good effect. Indeed the European parliament is an utterly gak form of democracy in that there is no sense that voting really impacts on what it does.
For that reason, I might have been minded to vote UKIP, but I don't really buy into their immigration policy. My team at work includes people from Germany, Portugal, Poland and the States, while today I was working on a project with a guy from Greece. All good people who just want to work and get on with life. Open migration is the way of the future anyway. Nobody owns any one part of our planet. Countries and borders are just an illusion, so we may as well just chill out and hang together.
-Shrike- wrote: Hey, we have the Conservatives, the not-really-very-left Labour, and the whatever-it-takes-to-get-into-power Lib Dems.
This is precisely why it's so tempting to vote UKIP, just to shake things up a bit. If they get enough support (say 25-30% of the vote), the Big Three are going to have to rethink their polcies rather than holding onto the mostly-centrist-power-grabbing-vote-manupilating we're stuck with now. As much as I found parts of my recent study on early 20th Century British politics a little dull, at least the parties actually had ideals they stuck to and sought to change things, rather than maintain this cooperate-ruled Status-quo.
A lot of people ive spoke with say "i would vote for party abc, but they will never get enough votes to win so i vote for xyz".
Stand by your convictions and you might be surprised.
But I entirely agree that ukip are doing well because they are a protest vote rather than any real traction withtheir policies.
I'd say their policy of having a referendum on EU status has a lot of traction, but nobody really knows any of their other policies.
Apart from Johnny Foreigner's bad mkay?
Besides the Greens also want a referendum on Europe so if that's what you want you don't have to jump over to the far right
Yeah, but their stance on nuclear power is nonsensical. Until such time as renewable energy is actually efficient at producing energy, nuclear fission is the best option.
Fully agree on the nuclear energy point. It's pretty safe and gets us a lot of cheap energy. I don't understand Germany's decision to ban all nuclear power...even if there was a nuclear accident in any neighboring country with Radioactive plants, the fallout would devastate Germany just as well. The only consequence is higher energy cost for the average German citizen.
I probably won't be voting. Primarily because I don't believe that in this election, my vote really makes the slightest bit of difference. I don't elect the European President, or any of the senior appointments. Not one single 'European' candidate has actually bothered to come to Britain to canvas. There are no 'European' policies advocated by any candidates, only individual national objectives and personal power grabbing. None of the parties who would like my vote have even laid out a manifesto as to exactly what policies they would fight for in Europe, for Christ's sake.
Da Boss wrote: Greens usually do much better in EU elections than in local or national ones, which is nice. I'm fairly pro Green, though I wish they'd stop being anti nuclear and anti GM.
On not knowing about this stuff, well, on the one hand, it is out there to read about if you like, but it's rather dry. On the other hand, our various national media outlets do a pretty poor job of keeping people informed. As an outsider, all British media, even the BBC, has a Euroceptic slant. You can find Eurosceptic articles all over the BBC, and they don't (as far as I've noticed) particularly cover the various parliament groupings or European institutions very well. I don't entirely blame people who don't know this stuff- I only became marginally well informed because I was unemployed and bored during a couple of important referenda in Ireland an an EU election, so I looked into it and spent a week reading about it. Still, it's good to know, and even better, to discuss with your friends to raise awareness generally.
Is the Green party in England the same as the Green party here in the states?
Who I vote for is between me and the ballot box...
But that said I am amazed that anyone would vote Green.
But then I do live in an area were half the community centres were either shut or had the rents hiked to beyond affordable levels for community groups in order that the Greens could push through a proposal for loft insulation. Which sounds great, except the houses they were insulating - or rather their mates were insulating out of rate payers money - were gerry built victorian red brick terraces that were not losing heat through the roof, but through the single skinned walls
I'm sure to the Greens this was a nice little earner but it is little consolation to the mother and toddler groups, pensioners coffee morning, wargamers, alcoholics anonymous etc or indeed to the council staff that got laid off from caretaking jobs.
Still,the lady potters - who no doubt voted Green - who sip latte in the remaining community centres - having driven out the riff raff - are pleased.
The Greens will probably net a lote of votes for having positioned themselves as "the more dynamic social democrats", coupled with a pronounced pro-European stance that still acknowledges there's need for improvement. They are trying to offer something for everybody, and they need to, because their core-credos of environmental protection and sustainable economic behaviour have become so mainstream that they are hardly USPs anymore.
How well this translates to the policies of their national constituents is another story.
BTW, did anybody else watch that cringeworthy Eurovision "debate" with the candidates?
Pirate Party. Not much faith in other options that are running.
it's a damn shame it doesn't get covered better by our various media outlets.
The most I've heard was few propaganda commercials on the radio and few posters. Not much talk with the people too, most of them are fairly uninterested. I'm rather certain most of the people I've talked to won't vote.
I can honestly say if it wasn't for the steady stream of articles about UKIP on BBC News, I wouldn't even be aware there was an EU election.
As for me, I'm voting apathy. Whatever choice I make isn't going to make a blind bit of difference, as whoever gets in is just trying to fuel some self-serving agenda, and doesn't have their population's best interests at heart anyway.
I dunno, I've just always felt that the purpose of voting is to decide the colour of the t-shirt worn by the guy that bends you over and gives you one until your eyes water...
Unfortunately it looks as if UKIP are going to dramatically increase the number MEPs they send to Europe in order to claim expenses, whilst not bothering to actually do anything.
Of all of the parties in all of the countries in the whole of the EU, UKIP representatives have the worst attendance record, worst voting record and worst work performance of the entire lot.
UKIP MEPs don't do anything to represent British interests in the EU, they just make grandstanding speeches and claim expenses. On the rare occasions they turn up, they belligerantly vote against every piece of legislation, no matter how worthy, and with no consideration of how the legislation would affect British interests. All the while they claim expenses, and even, in some cases put their non-British family members on the taxpayer funded payroll.
In this article I'm going to provide two clear examples of how UKIP are an appalling party, that behave in a shamefully unpatriotic way, whilst simultaneously harping on about what a wonderful band of loyal British patriots they are.
Ivory
In January 2014 six UKIP MEPs, including party leader Nigel Farage, voted against an EU motion to clamp down on the illegal ivory trade. Aside from Farage, the other five UKIP MEPs to vote against this motion were Paul Nuttall (the deputy leader), Gerrard Batten, John Stuart, William Dartmouth and Derek Roland.
Thankfully the motion passed by 671 votes to 14, but for me, it is a source of national shame that half of the votes against this motion were cast by British MEPs (6 of them the aforementioned UKIP members and the other one Nicole Sinclare, who was elected as a UKIP member in 2009 but defected to set up her own We Demand a Referendum party).
Not only are UKIP MEPs the laziest in the whole of Europe, when they do bother to turn up to vote, they vote in a way that the vast majority of British people would find abhorrent.
The UKIP excuse for voting against the Combating Wildlife Crime motion is that they have an ideological obligation to vote against any piece of legislation that would give the EU more powers. I could write my own explanation of why it is bad to rigidly adhere to an ideological stance, even when doing so would cause you to do something appalling, but I'll leave it to the notoriosly Eurosceptic historian and Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley to state the case:
"[I] expect Ukip to explain that they always vote against anything that expands EU power. As a passionate anti-EU conservative, I appreciate that stance. But when it comes to taking action against something as squalid as the ivory trade, even this rabid patriot would compromise my anti-EU principles. What next? Refusing to uphold a ban on child labour?"
If you head off to the polls to vote for UKIP, be sure to remember that they are the laziest of all European political parties, and in all likelihood they're going to continue voting in appalling ways, that bring shame on our country.
Fish
The 2014 UKIP European election video contains a section attacking the EU for the damage that has been done to the UK fishing industry, and the practice of forcing fishermen to sling perfectly good fish back into the sea to be eaten by seagulls because of arbitrary quota requirements.
I actually agree with their argument that the EU fisheries policy has been a complete shambles for decades, that the discard policy wasted countless millions of tonnes of perfectly good fish, and that the British fishing industry has suffered appallingly as a consequence of this mismanagement.
There is one glaring problem with UKIP harping on about how terrible the EU fisheries policy is. That problem is that a certain Mr Nigel Farage was a member of the European Fisheries committee for three years, yet he only ever bothered to turn up to one single meeting out of 42*.
So UKIP are happy to use the suffering of the British fishing industry as part of their Vote UKIP propaganda campaign, yet when Farage actually had an opportunity to stand up and fight for the British fishing industry in a place where he could have made an actual difference, he couldn't even be arsed to turn up to 97.6% of the meetings.
To put this absolute lack of effort into perspective, we can look at a celebrity chef called Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. This guy is not a politician, and he doesn't have access to the EU fisheries committee, however what he does have is a determination to fight against the appalling waste caused by the discards policy, and a commitment to stand up for the interests of small scale British fishing operations.
Hugh was so incensed by the insanity of the EU discards policy that he set up Hugh's Fish Fight, got more than 870,000 people all over Europe to sign his petition against the discards policy, and eventually got the EU discards law changed.
It really is a shameful performance from UKIP. They harp on about protecting the British fishing industry in their party political broadcast, but when it comes to the crunch, some liberal, environmentalist celebrity chef has done infinitely more to make a positive difference than the supposedly patriotic leader of their party who was actually signed up to the EU fisheries committee (which has the power to table amendments to existing legislation and table new legislation), but couldn't even be arsed to turn up.
What is even worse is that the UKIP party political broadcast harps on about discards as a stick to beat the EU with, as if they are completely ignorant of the fact that some borderline hippy celebrity chef went and did what UKIP MEPs couldn't be arsed to do, and has already got the stupid discards law changed.
Working against Britain's interests
There are two very significant ways in which the behavoiur of UKIP MEPs work against Britian's interests.
Sometimes legislation is proposed that would actually work in Britain's interests, yet their ideological voting habits mean that they end up voting against it, on the grounds that they don't want to EU to have more powers. An example could be legislation to allow EU member states to impose import taxes on products that are produced in conditions that would be illegal in the UK. Putting a tax on pork products from caged pigs, or eggs from battery hens in tiny cages (both illegal in the UK but widely practiced elsewhere in Europe) would help the British farming industry by preventing foreign farmers from undercutting their prices with barbaric animal welfare conditions. UKIP would probably belligerently vote against such a motion, even though the outcome would be positive for UK farmers and the UK economy.
The other way that UKIP work against the British national interest is their appalling attendance record, which means that they often don't bother to turn up to vote at all. This means that legislation that is bad for British interests can scrape through simply because UKIP couldn't be bothered to actually vote against it.
The former UKIP deputy leader Patrick Bannerman (who quit through the revolving door between UKIP and the Tory party) criticised UKIP for their ideological stance and their lack of participation saying "I believe in leaving the European Union, but it is important to engage as much as possible . . . Not engaging is not helpful".
Alternatives
If you are Eurosceptic there are other parties you can vote for to get the outcome you want.
The Green party has a manifesto commitment to a referendum on membership of the EU, but you can guarantee that their MEPs will also work tirelessly to make the system better for Britain and more democratic too, rather than bagging millions in expenses despite being the laziest party in the whole of Europe.
If you don't like the idea of voting Green, there are several other Eurosceptic parties such as No2EU and New Deal that have strong anti-EU philosophies, but don't come with all of the toxic Thatcherite ideology, failed Tories and complete raving nutcases (the gay equality causes floods chap, the single finger salute woman, the my political opponents should be hung guy, the we should shoot a "poofter guy, the gays have sex with animals woman, the "is Tuna a real fish like one that swims in the sea?" woman and the guy that calls the police on bloggers who fact check spoof UKIP posters).
Conclusion
You might think that voting UKIP is good way of expressing your discontent with the EU, but it isn't. There are plenty of other anti-EU parties that offer us a referendum on the EU without being the laziest political party in Europe, voting against British interests for purely ideological reasons and shaming the UK by voting in appalling ways that virtually nobody in the UK would actually support.
Voting for UKIP is wasting your vote in an incredibly belligerent manner.
The promise of the EU referendum is basically the current political climate equivalent of the pavlov's dog experiment
Every party will ring that bell time and time again, watch us get all excited and salivating, while knowing full well there no bowl of winalot at the end.
Sigvatr wrote: Fully agree on the nuclear energy point. It's pretty safe and gets us a lot of cheap energy. I don't understand Germany's decision to ban all nuclear power...even if there was a nuclear accident in any neighboring country with Radioactive plants, the fallout would devastate Germany just as well. The only consequence is higher energy cost for the average German citizen.
Lol, from one of the news articles I read when I was stationed there, most of the nuclear plants were being shut down for "security" reasons, rather than fallout safety and those sorts of issues?
Also, I should point out that during my time in Germany, I always felt that the US should adopt similar campaign laws to Germany and other countries (ie. you are only allowed to run campaign ads, place signs out, etc. during a set period of time in the run up to the election), as it is now, the US campaign system is a fething nightmare.
Sigvatr wrote: Fully agree on the nuclear energy point. It's pretty safe and gets us a lot of cheap energy. I don't understand Germany's decision to ban all nuclear power...even if there was a nuclear accident in any neighboring country with Radioactive plants, the fallout would devastate Germany just as well. The only consequence is higher energy cost for the average German citizen.
Lol, from one of the news articles I read when I was stationed there, most of the nuclear plants were being shut down for "security" reasons, rather than fallout safety and those sorts of issues?
Also, I should point out that during my time in Germany, I always felt that the US should adopt similar campaign laws to Germany and other countries (ie. you are only allowed to run campaign ads, place signs out, etc. during a set period of time in the run up to the election), as it is now, the US campaign system is a fething nightmare.
I get the impression that politics is pervasive in the USA. Presidential elections every 4 years. Mid-term elections. Candidates announcing that they're running for election a full year or two prior to an election - preceded by months of rumours and hype over who is going to run. Then campaign fund raising, and then actual campaigning.
It seems like the American political system is one long never ending electoral cycle.
I get the impression that politics is pervasive in the USA. Presidential elections every 4 years. Mid-term elections. Candidates announcing that they're running for election a full year or two prior to an election - preceded by months of rumours and hype over who is going to run. Then campaign fund raising, and then actual campaigning.
It seems like the American political system is one long never ending electoral cycle.
It is... and it bugs the gak out of me... Which is why I was amazed and quite happy to see in Germany the campaign season, you'd only see the signs up for a few weeks or whatever. IIRC, you guys in Britain have a fairly limited window for announcing and running campaigns as well, right?
I get the impression that politics is pervasive in the USA. Presidential elections every 4 years. Mid-term elections. Candidates announcing that they're running for election a full year or two prior to an election - preceded by months of rumours and hype over who is going to run. Then campaign fund raising, and then actual campaigning.
It seems like the American political system is one long never ending electoral cycle.
It is... and it bugs the gak out of me... Which is why I was amazed and quite happy to see in Germany the campaign season, you'd only see the signs up for a few weeks or whatever. IIRC, you guys in Britain have a fairly limited window for announcing and running campaigns as well, right?
Err...I'm not sure. I think we always hold elections around may, and usually on a Thursday. It used to be that a Prime Minister could choose to dissolve parliament at any time and trigger a general election, but our current Coalition Government did away with that by introducing Fixed Term Parliaments. We now have have regular general elections every 5 years, similar to the USA.
Yeah.. I'm not even gonna bother voting on this. I've done only a little research and it clearly showed me, there was no choice here, every single one gave me just as many pro's and con's. So, who the hell cares what happens.
Da Boss wrote: Sad to see people not voting- engaging with the process is the only way to change it.
Let's be serious here.. this is the EU we are talking about.
An EU of of sovereign nation states, each of whom send an unelected commissioner to do their bidding and to make the real decisions.... assuming our American overlords allow them.... the parliament has next to no power on making decisions and the elections for the parliament are effectively rigged... certainly in the UK... yeah I will vote... and I will take my kids along to the voting station so they at least get a notion of the process... but let's not kid ourselves, I know what party I am voting for, but I have no idea of the place'person' they will send to pick up the expenses check.... who they are, what they think, if they are any good or not. It's a total sham.
It all rather reminds me of the situation in late 19th century Germany with the Frankfurt parliament and the Kaiser... and that can hardly be said to have turned out well...
I must be the only one on dakka who supports the right wing. Mind you that I am talking about Finish politics, as I am unfamiliar with politics of the other EU states.
The reason why I think those are the best option is becasue the other options are in my opinion not as good. The four big parties are the only onews which are somehow powerful and here are they summed up by me, and why I do not support/support them.
Keskusta. The Center Party. Generally has no strong opinions, exept will do all it can to defend the rural areas. In my opinion, the farmers already get enough support, and their idea of economy, which is to cover the whole country with social services, is in my opinion economically bad, as the country is too large to have all services everywhere.
SDP. The social democrats. No longer a true socialist party, but rather has an ideology similar to the greens, but is a bit more right. I think thay are to liberal and their economic ideas don't seem to be good in my opinion.
Perussuomalaiset. Basicfinns. The party that I would go with. Has a kind of economic policy of mixed Keskusta and SDP, which I don't like, but they have a conservative ideology, which I support. They are also Somehow anti EU, which I support, as I want EU to stay as an economic union. Also, while they have also some not so sensible members, thay do have few ones who argue using facts and provide sensible solutions.
Kokoomus. The Conservatives. From all the parties these are the most right wing one, and they are conservatives, and in my mind, they have the best economic policy, but the reason I do not support them, is that they are heavily pro EU, and generally can "sell" their ideology to have more power.
So, what are your thoughts?
Spoiler:
Here is a political test for those who are interested in how will they be based on the political spectrum: http://www.euvox.eu/language-select.php .It gave me FPÖ as the most recommended party out of all EU. Can anybody Austrian tell me what are they kind?
I was going to vote but I realised there's not one party or candidate I could vote for to make things better. I think every option would either make no difference or make things actively worse.
Voted Green. Didn't recognise "Britain First", but assume they are UKIP-esque. The Bold BNP still on the ballet.
Zond wrote: I was going to vote but I realised there's not one party or candidate I could vote for to make things better. I think every option would either make no difference or make things actively worse.
Flashman wrote:
Hilariously long ballot paper though - took me a few minutes to read it
I too was surprised by this, lots of people I've never even heard of.
Medium of Death wrote:Everybody who voted UKIP: Why?
I thought long and hard between Ukip and blank ballot, and came to the following conclusion: it doesn't look like we're getting out of the EU at any time soon, so I figure the next best thing is to at least have a party willing to look out for British interests. The European parliament is not a system I like us being a part of, but at least Ukip claim to offer some willingness to contradict it where necessary; the Tories are happy thing things as they are, and I don't think Labour have the guts to challenge it really. I'll never vote lib dem (because they're sellouts) or BNP (as they're idiots) and hadn't heard of the rest/didn't think they'd manage anything meaningful. Green lose my vote with the anti-nuclear nonsense. So Ukip it was.
Flashman wrote: Voted for the Peace Party, because war is bad and stuff.
Hilariously long ballot paper though - took me a few minutes to read it
If there's a Peace party, is there a "War Party" that one could vote for, if they felt so inclined?
Regrettably not
As I stated earlier, I would have UKIPed my ballot paper as I think the EU is a nonsensical undemocratic establishment that hoovers up money for no good purpose, but given that I'm very pro open borders, their anti-immigration polemic doesn't mesh very well with my world view.
Today, we got invited to a birthday party on Sunday, starting with a morning-get-together. Might not be going to vote after all then - or go vote being drunk
This was the first time I've been able to vote and I was quite disappointed about how little parties did to inform you about their policies, the only thing I had heard anything about was homosexual marriage and abortion.
I gave the greens my 4th vote though, just so I could say I done my part for the environment.
Well, that was my second ever crack at voting, and managed to surprise the two people in charge of the station by actually telling the truth about what my number was. They couldn't find it for ages, so assumed I was telling a porky.
Sienisoturi wrote: It gave me FPÖ as the most recommended party out of all EU. Can anybody Austrian tell me what are they kind?
As far as this election is concerned, I'll try to sum up their positions as fairly as I can manage:
Main slogan is "Time to show the government, time to show the EU!"
Speech buzzphrase is "Europe of Fatherlands instead of unified state/state of uniformity" ("Einheitsstaat" can take both meanings)
They are for strengthening the principle of legal subsidiarity; for a return to an EFTA-like system while keeping the Euro *if* the "no bail-out" clause gets reinstituted; for leaving the Union if the aforementioned goals aren't achievable; for denial of welfare to non-Austrian citizens.
They are against free trade outside of Europe; against a harmonization of refugee politics; against any further steps of European integration; against freedom of movement for workers; against ever admitting Turkey into the Union.
Andreas Mölzer, the former front runner, was forced by his party to retract his candidature after comparing the EU with the Third Reich and calling it a "negro conglomerate" for good measure. The new front runner, Harald Vilimsky, is counted amongst the "pro-Europeans" of the party and personally does not view leaving the Union as a viable alternative to reforms. Vilimsky calls Russia an "important partner" and opposes sanctions against her that would, and I paraphrase: "make us the henchmen of the US in the pursuit of their hegemonic interests".
Medium of Death wrote: I thought this election was a simple one vote for a single party, rather than the ranking system that we've got for general elections?
It certainly was just the choice of one party up here anyway.
Same here, the sentence "put a cross in one box" - or something to that effect - was handily bolded and the word 'one' put in caps.
I didn't vote (at all), mainly because 1. There isn't a single politician that is worth voting for, and 2. I'm not allowed to register my opinion by popping out a pinecone in the ballot box.
But I can see why people are voting UKIP.
UKIP are basically the only party that have bothered to actively do anything to secure votes. In the past fortnight I have binned:
4 'vote for ukip' flyers shoved through my door
1 'vote for conservative' flyer
and that's it, considering 7 parties run for EU in wales, that's a pretty lax approach to trying to win my vote, in fact, I didn't even know which parties were running until the results came out.
Elections aren't won by sensible policies and political agendas, they are won by the party that shouts louder, for longer, than the others.
Labour, Lib dems, and the conservatives have sat back in their offices, relying on their own inertia to carry them through without actually bothering to try and convice a by-and-large disillusioned public to continue voting for them. All the while, UKIP has been wandering around town with a bell and a megaphone shouting 'vote for me! vote for me!'
It doesn't matter about UKIPs policies, I think people are largely voting for UKIP simply because UKIP seem to be the only ones who gave a pinecone about winning.
Medium of Death wrote: I thought this election was a simple one vote for a single party, rather than the ranking system that we've got for general elections?
It certainly was just the choice of one party up here anyway.
Same here, the sentence "put a cross in one box" - or something to that effect - was handily bolded and the word 'one' put in caps.
In Northern Ireland we have the ranking system for all of our elections.
I don't think Farage himself is an out and out racist in the 'white people are superior to black people' sense, he's just a spot xenophobic. He doesn't approve of large amounts of foreigners in 'his' country. It's not that he dislikes foreigners on racial/ethnic grounds, he just doesn't think they should be here.
Which, at the end of the day, is a perfectly valid viewpoint I suppose. The world would be a boring place if everyone thought the same. Just because I regard the view is illogical and pointless doesn't mean he should be shouted down for having it, any more than people who believe in a big bearded guy in the sky should be.
No, the worrying thing about UKIP is the number of ex-BNP members who seem to have infiltrated the UKIP ranks over the last few years, and who are trying to use it as a vehicle to express their actual racism (as opposed to that general xenophobia which was the founding tenet of UKIP). The result being that people who are of the same mind as Farage vote UKIP, and end up pushing those more unsavoury BNP types into actual positions of authority on council seats and whatnot.
Because they are the only party that currently even comes close to representing my views.
Because I view LibLabCon as a corrupt, out of touch clique lead by a bureaucratic elite.
Because a UKIP surge acts as a kick up the arse to LibLabCon, and increases the likelihood that they'll begin to pay attention and change their ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: I don't think Farage himself is an out and out racist in the 'white people are superior to black people' sense, he's just a spot xenophobic. He doesn't approve of large amounts of foreigners in 'his' country. It's not that he dislikes foreigners on racial/ethnic grounds, he just doesn't think they should be here.
Thats bollocks.
UKIP is not against foreigners, and immigration in general. Its against uncontrolled Mass Immigration. UKIP wants a points system for immigration, that grades potential immigrants based on Britain's current needs and what they can offer Britain.
Are you an unskilled poorly educated white European from eastern Europe? Then you're a low priority.
Are you a well educated scientist or engineer with a degree and PHD from India or China? Then you're a high priority.
And vice versa.
Which, at the end of the day, is a perfectly valid viewpoint I suppose. The world would be a boring place if everyone thought the same. Just because I regard the view is illogical and pointless doesn't mean he should be shouted down for having it, any more than people who believe in a big bearded guy in the sky should be.
I agree. Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to say unpleasant things, and the correct response is to excercise your own Freedom of Speech. If someone says something that you dislike and regard as wrong, then say so. Disagree with them, publicly criticize them, explain why you think they are wrong. Nobody should have the right or the power to silence others for expressing views that you dislike.
No, the worrying thing about UKIP is the number of ex-BNP members who seem to have infiltrated the UKIP ranks over the last few years, and who are trying to use it as a vehicle to express their actual racism (as opposed to that general xenophobia which was the founding tenet of UKIP). The result being that people who are of the same mind as Farage vote UKIP, and end up pushing those more unsavoury BNP types into actual positions of authority on council seats and whatnot.
As I understand it, UKIP has placed a blanket ban on former members and associates of Far Right organizations like the BNP and EDL joining UKIP. They've also expelled several members in recent years for making racist, homophobic and sexist remarks. So IMO UKIP is just as concerned as you and are taking steps to address that.
This sums up my view on LibLabCon and UKIP quite well.
Rejoice! But Not Too Much - a first response to the elections
I think that by Sunday night it will be even clearer that the discredited old parties of British politics are in serious trouble. They are paying for nearly 50 years of treachery and lies.
They lied about the real nature of the Common Market and its successor, the European Union.
They lied about immigration. They lied about the economy, they lied about schools, they lied about crime and justice. They lied about unemployment and they lied about global warming. They are still lying about all of them, aided by great battalions of professional liars, hired by them but paid for by you and me.
I have been saying all these things for years, and derided for it by the 'mainstream opinion' which is now utterly puzzled by an unprecedented bvoters' revolt. They maunder about what the existing parties can do to head this off, or contain it, or defeat it, not realizing that the whole point of it is that these parties have themsleves been rejected by legions who once supported them. and in many cases will never do so again.
They see the voters' revolt as a problem to be managed not a reason for change. They are too used to lying, and they lie too instinctively, to turn for honesty when it is the only possible remedy.
As so often I am reminded of Rudyard Kipling’s bitter jibe in another circumstance, summarising the secret motto of the politician as
‘I would not dig, I dared not rob - and so I lied to please the mob’.
These parties, their spokesmen and the supposedly independent commentators who have been in their pockets and at their lunch tables for so long have no idea what has hit them. How funny that the Republic of London, which is barely part of Britain any more, was the only major part of England where UKIP’s surge was weak. But London is where all these people live, who do not understand their own country because they never visit it, except for swift and insulated photo-opportunities.
On Friday morning they floundered to explain the UKIP vote, which they had all hoped to destroy with a tornado of smears. Well, the smears failed. The collusion between media and political parties failed. The BBC’s blatant bias failed. If they can fail once, can they fail again? Will they keep on failing? That is one of the things I am not sure of.
Listen. Millions of people really are sick of the unwanted changes forced on them by European Union government. They are tired above all of the mass immigration which they were never asked about and which has changed their lives.
Will this now turn into a real political change? That is very doubtful. The major parties still have huge resources, especially access to millionaire donors, to state aid and to the special treatment which the BBC gives them under broadcasting rules (not to mention the even more special, but less helpful, treatment it gives UKIP).
And UKIP itself is a formless thing, a mixture of exiled Thatcherites, golf-club nostalgists and now of Labour defectors who might not feel much in common with their fellow-voters. It has no coherent position beyond departure from the EU, no real answer to the Left’s cultural and moral revolution, only one significant or persuasive figure (and dozens of very unpersuasive ones).
The Conservative Party, which ought years ago to have been closed down for multiple fraud, may yet survive, especially if David Cameron’s luck holds and Scotland votes to leave the United Kingdom. That would give him the real chance of a Westminster majority, an aim which would otherwise be laughable.
So today I delight in the discomfiture of the enemies of Britain, and in the defeat of a nauseating and inexcusable alliance between politicians and media against the people.
But I still see no clear way out of the deep steep-sided pit into which this country has been led by its political class. All that is happened is that we now know that we are *in* such a pit.
So if people plan to vote this way for the general election, god help us...
Lets leave Europe and see the workforce exploited by a UKIP/Conservative alliance.
They will destroy the welfare state or reduce it to the point that it will be privatised. Completely tearing the heart of what was this Country's proudest accomplishment.
UKIP is not against foreigners, and immigration in general. Its against uncontrolled Mass Immigration. UKIP wants a points system for immigration, that grades potential immigrants based on Britain's current needs and what they can offer Britain.
Are you an unskilled poorly educated white European from eastern Europe? Then you're a low priority.
Are you a well educated scientist or engineer with a degree and PHD from India or China? Then you're a high priority.
And vice versa.
I believe there was a quote a few days back by Farage about Romanians moving in next door? Whilst the media blew it all out of proportion and context, the fact remains that even in context and proportion, it was still xenophobic. It was basically him saying that anyone with Romanians moving in next door would be worried, because a lot of criminals are Romanian, and therefore, most people would suspect Romanians of being criminals. Which is nice, if you're Romanian and y'know, not a criminal.
I didn't see him mentioning postscript that Romanian nurses/doctors/academics/researchers were totally excluded from that unfair generalisation about every single Romanian. Like most things Farage says, there's a grain of truth in it, but his viewpoint is tainted by a fear of foreigners/outsiders. And frankly, I don't believe it's a viewpoint based on logic or fact, more on the innately psychological fear of people who aren't 'us' that everyone has.
As I understand it, UKIP has placed a blanket ban on former members and associates of Far Right organizations like the BNP and EDL joining UKIP. They've also expelled several members in recent years for making racist, homophobic and sexist remarks. So IMO UKIP is just as concerned as you and are taking steps to address that.
Farage is terrified because he's finally looking at trying to get an MP or two into Parliament, and he knows he needs to appeal to a wider audience to achieve that. All those ex-BNP members drag him down by association, and relegate him to the radical right corner, which he's struggling to break out of. If he can't expunge them, they'll ruin his chances for Westminster. It's a completely selfish and thoroughly understandable motive.
His problem is that UKIP doesn't yet have a large reserve stock of non-racist/non-xenophobic people who are prepared to run, so for him to contest so many council seats/parliamentary seats, he's having to rely on unknowns, or people with less than salubrious views. Because he actually has nobody else as of yet.
UKIP are very small fish in a very big pond despite all the media attention. Farage might amount to something in ten years if he plays the game right, and actually develops some policies beyond generalised xenophobia. But not in this round of elections.
Because they are the only party that currently even comes close to representing my views.
Which views? Do you support raising income tax on the poorest 88% so that the richest 12% get a tax cut? Cutting education spending to increase military spending? Making it legal for a husband to rape his wife? Cancelling paid maternity and holiday pay? Privatising the NHS? Abolishing all human rights?
Because I view LibLabCon as a corrupt, out of touch clique lead by a bureaucratic elite.
If you want corrupt then look no further than Farage taking £2m a year of taxpayers money to fund his own political party. If you want out of touch then look no further than the likes of Godfrey Bloom or the donor Demetri Marchessini, both of whom would have been behind the times half a century ago.
I agree. Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to say unpleasant things, and the correct response is to excercise your own Freedom of Speech. If someone says something that you dislike and regard as wrong, then say so. Disagree with them, publicly criticize them, explain why you think they are wrong. Nobody should have the right or the power to silence others for expressing views that you dislike.
So why do UKIP feel it necessary to send the police around to a blogger who hadn't broken the law, but had simply documented their less savoury policies? Or send the police round to someone who put a 14 second film on youtube of themselves laughing at a UKIP sign?
A lot of people in the UK are naturally upset because if you are not part of the golden 5% you are worse off than five years ago. "Furriners" are an easy target to blame. It has happened many times in many countries.
UKIP are using legitimate concern about the lack of democratic accountability in the EU government processes to put a respectable mask on top of what is basically a xenophobic agenda that appeals to the anti-furriner feeling.
I believe there was a quote a few days back by Farage about Romanians moving in next door? Whilst the media blew it all out of proportion and context, the fact remains that even in context and proportion, it was still xenophobic. It was basically him saying that anyone with Romanians moving in next door would be worried, because a lot of criminals are Romanian, and therefore, most people would suspect Romanians of being criminals. Which is nice, if you're Romanian and y'know, not a criminal.
I didn't see him mentioning postscript that Romanian nurses/doctors/academics/researchers were totally excluded from that unfair generalisation about every single Romanian. Like most things Farage says, there's a grain of truth in it, but his viewpoint is tainted by a fear of foreigners/outsiders. And frankly, I don't believe it's a viewpoint based on logic or fact, more on the innately psychological fear of people who aren't 'us' that everyone has.
Under a points based immigration policy educated Romanian nurses/doctors/academics/researchers would (or should) be prioritized over unskilled and uneducated Romanians, and thus wouldn't be treated unfairly.
I doubt Farage was saying that he'd be worried if Romanian nurses/doctors/academics/researchers moved next door to him. He was referring more to Romanian pickpockets and criminals, given that the Metropolitan Police statistics that he cited indicate that Romanian immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. (is that true? I haven't seen those statistics first hand, other than what I've heard reported by the media etc).
Presumably, once Farage/people got to know their Romanian neighbors and are reassured that they're not pickpockets and other criminals then they would no longer be worried.
The only Romanians I know personally are fantastic people - two families who attend my parents' church. One of the families are close friends with my parents. The dad is an electrician/painter/plasterer etc and a damn good one - hes been redecorating my parents bedroom and fixing our electrics throughout the house. Hes done a better job than the last electrician we had in. His eldest daughter is a university student (I don't recall the course). They all speak perfect English, except for the mom.
However, my neighbors in my third year of Uni (when I rented a private house off campus with some friends) were altogether different (though I don't know what their nationality was). They drank in the streets, they fought, they vandalized cars and banged on peoples windows (my bedroom was converted from a ground floor lounge, with massive bay windows facing directly onto the street - I had to sleep with ear plugs). The kids were truants, playing on the street in the middle of the day during school terms. The Police were frequently called to my street.
Hopefully under a points based immigration system, the former (skilled and educated people, e.g. electricians, university students) would be prioritized over the latter.
UKIP are very small fish in a very big pond despite all the media attention. Farage might amount to something in ten years if he plays the game right, and actually develops some policies beyond generalised xenophobia. But not in this round of elections.
I agree. UKIP is an embryonic party. Currently they're gaffe-prone amateurs, but all political parties need to start somewhere.
I voted for them because they're the only party that even comes close to representing my views - not all of my views however - they're not as Libertarian as I'd like but they're at the least crap option. If a UKIP surge gets the attention of mainstream parties and forces them to reconsider their own policies and priorities especially on the EU, then great, I'll switch my vote to Labour or the Conservatives.
Under a points based immigration policy educated Romanian nurses/doctors/academics/researchers would (or should) be prioritized over unskilled and uneducated Romanians, and thus wouldn't be treated unfairly.
I doubt Farage was saying that he'd be worried if Romanian nurses/doctors/academics/researchers moved next door to him. He was referring more to Romanian pickpockets and criminals, given that the Metropolitan Police statistics that he cited indicate that Romanian immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. (is that true? I haven't seen those statistics first hand, other than what I've heard reported by the media etc).
Presumably, once Farage/people got to know their Romanian neighbors and are reassured that they're not pickpockets and other criminals then they would no longer be worried.
But this is the thing. I don't look at French neighbours and worry. I don't look at German, or Spanish, or American people, and feel threatened. I don't need to 'get to know them' in order to reassure myself that they're not criminals. Because I'm not daft enough to look at the nationality of someone, and assume that because they come from a certain part of the world, they're going to be criminals.
Farage disagrees with that view. He would be worried by the fact that those foreign Romanians have moved in. His supposed justification for that generalised suspicion of his, is that there are more Romanian crime gangs in Britain than there are Polish ones or French ones. But logically, that doesn't hold water. You don't automatically assume that all black neighbours are going to be members of gangs, just because the majority of inner city gangs are made up of black youths. You don't assume that all Muslims are members of Al Qaeda, just because Al Qaeda is made up primarily of Muslims.
The only thing it ultimately comes down to, is xenophobia. 'They are not like us'.
With regards to immigration policy, his viewpoints again fall down when faced with scrutiny. Farage says that we should leave the EU because all these foreigners come over under the EU's freedom of movement. But roughly half of the immigration into Britain last year came from outside the EU boundaries.
Farage and UKIP would respond then that we should make it harder to get into the country altogether to bring numbers down. But what part should we squeeze? The quota for legitimate refugees, fleeing from war, and persecution? That would be inhumane. The fact this country refused to take in the Holocaust survivors seventy years ago is a black mark on this country's history as far as I'm concerned. I accept that we can't take everyone, but bringing down those numbers is not the morally right thing to do (*YMMV).
So. We institute a points based system? It already exists. It's been instituted. This isn't a new idea or policy.
So what's the new policy Farage is bringing to the table? Raising the number of points needed? TBH, if you're filling that form in, and you're getting in that way now, the odds are pretty strong that already are someone we want here. If we need 6,000 nurses, what's the point in lowering the number we let in to 4,000?
The only thing you really could do to bring down immigration, is to seriously beef up funding for the border police to stop illegal immigration, or leave the EU. Toughening up the points system is a red herring.
Because they are the only party that currently even comes close to representing my views.
Which views?
Leaving the EU.
Reducing taxes for EVERYONE.
Lower Council tax.
Cutting the absurdly high salaries for senior Council staff that exceed the Prime Minister's own salary.
Shutting down government Quangos, and stop funding the government funded 'Fake' Charities that use taxpayers money to bully taxpayers.
Reducing wasteful public spending.
No more dodgy illegal wars and interfering in foreign sovereign countries. Iraq. Afghanistan. Syria. Libya. Ukraine.
Controlled Immigration, capped to levels that we can accommodate without increasing the strain on housing, welfare, education, NHS, and other public services; and
Prioritizing immigrants based on their skills and expertise, depending on what Britain needs. We have a huge oversupply of unskilled labour - which increases unemployment and depresses wages. Scientists and engineers from India or China for instance should be prioritised over unskilled poorly educated immigrants from eastern europe.
Do you support raising income tax on the poorest 88% so that the richest 12% get a tax cut?
No. Neither does UKIP apparently. I can't find any mention of that in their 2014 manifesto. In fact, it claims that they're in favour of cuts to council tax.
Besides, didn't Gordon Brown abolish the 10p tax rate?
Cutting education spending to increase military spending?
Again, I can't find any mention of that in their manifesto. It does mention "Reduce bureaucracy in the education system". Is that what you're referring to?
I can't find any mention of increased military spending. But given the mainstream LibLabCon habit of launching illegal unprovoked wars of aggression in countries and regions where we have no business sticking our nose in, we probably need more military spending. If a country is frequently going to war and helping America police the world,
Making it legal for a husband to rape his wife?
Que?
Cancelling paid maternity and holiday pay?
Que?
Privatising the NHS?
You mean like Labour did, with all its PFI's and local authority contracts?
The NHS has been getting more and more privatized over the last decade without any input from UKIP. I suggest you read The Private Eye sometime.
Abolishing all human rights?
Que?
I think it needs to be reformed - Human Rights law is far too imbalanced in favour of criminals, with the human rights of victims of crime being poorly protected. I think the ultimate court responsible for Human Rights law in the UK should be our own Supreme Court, not the European Court.
You're going to have to provide sources for all of that, because I don't have a clue what you're talking about and the 2014 manifesto doesn't mention any of that.
And besides, I said that UKIP is the only party that comes close to representing my views. That doesn't mean I agree with all of their policies. When LibLabCon reconsider their own priorities and policies, and stop interfering in people's private lives (I'm libertarian) then I'll consider voting for a mainstream party.
Because I view LibLabCon as a corrupt, out of touch clique lead by a bureaucratic elite.
If you want corrupt then look no further than Farage taking £2m a year of taxpayers money to fund his own political party. If you want out of touch then look no further than the likes of Godfrey Bloom or the donor Demetri Marchessini, both of whom would have been behind the times half a century ago.
Considering the €13.8bn that we contribute to the EU, and the fact that I want the UK to withdraw from the EU - and UKIP is the only party that is promising this, I'd say thats money well spent. Better than the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats using their expenses to fund their parties, anyway.
So why do UKIP feel it necessary to send the police around to a blogger who hadn't broken the law, but had simply documented their less savoury policies? Or send the police round to someone who put a 14 second film on youtube of themselves laughing at a UKIP sign?
I've not heard about that. Please elaborate?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: With regards to immigration policy, his viewpoints again fall down when faced with scrutiny. Farage says that we should leave the EU because all these foreigners come over under the EU's freedom of movement. But roughly half of the immigration into Britain last year came from outside the EU boundaries.
As you say yourself, they have to apply through a points based immigration system.
But the other half of immigrants do not have to do that, because as EU citizens they have an absolute right to immigrate.
Farage and UKIP would respond then that we should make it harder to get into the country altogether to bring numbers down. But what part should we squeeze? The quota for legitimate refugees, fleeing from war, and persecution? That would be inhumane. The fact this country refused to take in the Holocaust survivors seventy years ago is a black mark on this country's history as far as I'm concerned. I accept that we can't take everyone, but bringing down those numbers is not the morally right thing to do (*YMMV).
Absolutely. That was sickening. But I didn't advocate that, and neither did Farage so that is a Strawman. You're conflating economic migration and asylum seekers/refugees.
In fact a while back Farage called for the UK government to take in more Syrian refugees, and took flak for it from elements within his own party. I agree with that - we should be providing more humanitarian aid and sanctuary for Syrian refugees - not bombing the Syrian Military like the US Government wanted to with their "Limited Strike" that fizzled out when Obama failed to convince Congress to support him.
So. We institute a points based system? It already exists. It's been instituted. This isn't a new idea or policy.
From that link...this is the problem. Does this points system apply to EU citizens? I'm under the impression that it does not, which is the whole point of the Schengen Agreement on borders and immigration. So your remark is a red herring, because you scoff that "we already have a points based immigration policy" whilst omitting that it does not apply to half of the immigrants who come to this country.
f you are a national of a country from within the European Economic Area (EEA) you do not need to apply to work in the UK.
So what's the new policy Farage is bringing to the table? Raising the number of points needed? TBH, if you're filling that form in, and you're getting in that way now, the odds are pretty strong that already are someone we want here. If we need 6,000 nurses, what's the point in lowering the number we let in to 4,000?
You're forgetting the most important UKIP policy - leaving the EU and having that point system immigration policy apply to everyone. None of the three mainstream parties are offering that, but UKIP is. So thats the policy that Farage is bringing to the table.
If we already have all the nurses we need, why are we increasing that oversupply of labour by importing thousands more nurses, driving up unemployment and driving down wages?
The only thing you really could do to bring down immigration, is to seriously beef up funding for the border police to stop illegal immigration, or leave the EU. Toughening up the points system is a red herring.
No, its not a red herring because I think we should leave the EU, and have that points system apply to everyone, whether you're European, African, Asian, or American.
No, its not a red herring because I think we should leave the EU, and have that points system apply to everyone, whether you're European, African, Asian, or American.
Okay. But generally, you accept the reasoning I gave before, which is:
Ketara wrote:The only thing you really could do to bring down immigration, is to seriously beef up funding for the border police to stop illegal immigration, or leave the EU.
The question one truly has to grapple with after coming to that conclusion, is why is immigration a problem? And secondly, If it is a bad thing, is it a problem of such a large magnitude so as to be worth causing massive diplomatic and economic upheaval which leaving the EU would cause?
And of those "policies", which ones are official party policies or merely the opinions of individual members and candidates?
And how credible is the source of that image? Is he officially affiliated with any of the establishment parties? Theres been a ferocious smear campaign against UKIP, with all three parties and most of the MSM colluding together.
Also, it would be polite to provide those links in a text format that can be c&p to the url bar, as opposed to simply providing an img that forces anyone who wants to test the validity of those claims to waste time typing them in by hand, character by character.
Medium of Death wrote: Everybody gets smear stories. UKIP just attract more because they are particularly repellent.
No, they're attracting more smear campaigns because they are the first true alternative to the Established LibLabCon parties that don't wish to change their ways, and (rightly) view UKIP as a threat to their electoral support.
Back in the days of the Labour government, we had the likes of despicable figures such as the spin doctor Alistair Campbell secretly briefing the Press against political opponents. Now, according to the Private Eye we have the Conservative party briefing the Guardian newspaper with smear stories against UKIP - a direct threat to their electoral support, as shown by the seats they've lost to UKIP, and the Councils in which UKIP have denied the Tories overall majority control.
I don't particularly think the current big three parties are an attractive vote but i'm not about to vote for UKIP because of that. I do not trust them.
However I would like to see the smaller parties become a bit bigger so we can have a bigger shake up of parties. If the big three lost about half their seats to other parties it'd be a nice shake up.
No, its not a red herring because I think we should leave the EU, and have that points system apply to everyone, whether you're European, African, Asian, or American.
Okay. But generally, you accept the reasoning I gave before, which is:
Ketara wrote:The only thing you really could do to bring down immigration, is to seriously beef up funding for the border police to stop illegal immigration, or leave the EU.
The question one truly has to grapple with after coming to that conclusion, is why is immigration a problem? And secondly, If it is a bad thing, is it a problem of such a large magnitude so as to be worth causing massive diplomatic and economic upheaval which leaving the EU would cause?
I await your answer with interest.
Yes.
Should a sovereign country not be in control of its own borders and law-making? Should we not have the right to choose who is permitted into this country?
Should we not be governed by Governments, and judicial institutions, that are directly accountable to the British people?
Should we not be instituting laws that are in Britain's best interests, rather than laws designed and passed by foreign bureaucrats who we have no power to remove and replace through the ballot box?
Should we not have been consulted via referenda on whether Britain joined the European Union? - a failed political project that is now crumbling, as seen in Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, and shown by the rise of anti-EU parties (UKIP) and Far Right extremist parties (the Greek Golden Dawn, Bulgarian Jobbik etc) all over Europe.
Should the British people not have been consulted over whether to allow mass immigration to reform beyond recognition British culture and society through the influx of millions of people with radically different values?
I'm 23. I have never been consulted on my views of the EU. Vast swathes of my country's laws, immigration included, are made by an international government of foreign politicians, unelected Bureaucrats, Presidents and appointed Commissioners that we have no power to challenge and remove by voting against them. The only referendum that this country has ever had was on the European Economic Community. No government has since sought electoral approval for mass open door immigration, or for undermining British democracy (which has always been fragile and tenuous) by surrendering British sovereignty to a foreign government.
Ukrainians are waging a Civil War for the right to be a sovereign, independent nation in control of its own fate, free from the interference of Russia and are encouraged and applauded for it by European governments.
Why is it so wrong to ask for the same democratic and sovereign independence for Britain?
I looked some more and they are the tea party minus the religious fervor. They want to increase defense spending, don't care about human rights, don't believe in climate change, cut important services while cutting the taxes of corporations (and apparently lacking the ability to do math), and are extremely anti-immigration and nationalist, apparently thinking that their country is the best and no other country is any good at all.
purplefood wrote: I don't particularly think the current big three parties are an attractive vote but i'm not about to vote for UKIP because of that. I do not trust them.
However I would like to see the smaller parties become a bit bigger so we can have a bigger shake up of parties. If the big three lost about half their seats to other parties it'd be a nice shake up.
Do you support raising income tax on the poorest 88% so that the richest 12% get a tax cut?
2010 manifesto (the last actual manifesto for a general election) had the flat rate set at 30%, do you think that we could have a flat rate of less than that without running a massive deficit?
Cutting education spending to increase military spending?
Again, 2010 manifesto had increase of the military budget by 40% whilst reducing spending on new schools.
we probably need more military spending. If a country is frequently going to war and helping America police the world
We have the 4th largest spending in the world, more money for the military is certainly not needed, especially so if you wish to pursue an isolationist foreign policy.
Making it legal for a husband to rape his wife?
As you can see from that graphic, this stems from the voting records and the views of major donor Demetri Marchessini.
Cancelling paid maternity and holiday pay?
That is what leaving the EU means, our employment rights stem from the EU.
Privatising the NHS?
I know how kippers love to 'whatabout so and so', but that isn't an actual argument. Whilst Labour have introduced some appalling practices they haven't yet said they plan to charge people to see their GP.
Abolishing all human rights?
I think it needs to be reformed - Human Rights law is far too imbalanced in favour of criminals, with the human rights of victims of crime being poorly protected. I think the ultimate court responsible for Human Rights law in the UK should be our own Supreme Court, not the European Court.
Exactly which rights in the ECHR do you take issue with?
Also, a lot of cases taken to the European Court are against the government, personally I would rather someone actually independent preside over them.
I'm libertarian
UKIP aren't, everything points toward a very socially authoritarian way of governing if they were ever to get any sort of power.
Considering the €13.8bn that we contribute to the EU, and the fact that I want the UK to withdraw from the EU - and UKIP is the only party that is promising this, I'd say thats money well spent. Better than the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats using their expenses to fund their parties, anyway.
14bn out of 888bn (£720bn converted to Euros), is quite frankly bugger all for the benefits we gain. This is rather like the UKIP "cancel all foreign aid" argument, it sounds a lot until you compare it to overall spending, and then it doesn't.
So why do UKIP feel it necessary to send the police around to a blogger who hadn't broken the law, but had simply documented their less savoury policies? Or send the police round to someone who put a 14 second film on youtube of themselves laughing at a UKIP sign?
Also, for something to be a smear, it has to be false, reporting the idiotic things that UKIP candidates get up to isn't slander, its simply reporting facts.
]Should a sovereign country not be in control of its own borders and law-making?
We are. Our sovereign and democratically elected Government decided to sign a treaty and abide by the terms inside. We could choose to break that treaty tomorrow if we wanted. As long as that remains the case, we are not forced to do anything. We signed a treaty saying that anyone from the rest of the EU could come and work here. Voluntarily. And as UKIP would like us to do, we can stop that being the case by leaving the EU.
Thus, we are a sovereign country in control of our own borders and lawmaking.
Should we not have the right to choose who is permitted into this country?
We do. The Home Secretary can still block individuals from entering the country.
Should we not be governed by Governments, and judicial institutions, that are directly accountable to the British people?
We are. And those democratically elected Governments and Institutions decided to allow some other institutions to make rules which they permit to apply within their country.
Should we not be instituting laws that are in Britain's best interests, rather than laws designed and passed by foreign bureaucrats who we have no power to remove and replace through the ballot box?
You do. Hence the ability to vote for UKIP. If you had no power to remove them through the ballot box, UKIP wouldn't be an option. You're not living in a dictatorship here.
Should we not have been consulted via referenda on whether Britain joined the European Union? - a failed political project that is now crumbling, as seen in Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, and shown by the rise of anti-EU parties (UKIP) and Far Right extremist parties (the Greek Golden Dawn, Bulgarian Jobbik etc) all over Europe.
We actually begged to join. After Old Labour drove this country into the ground, and Harold Wilson went cap in hand to the IMF because Britain was bankrupt, we joined Europe. We even took a referendum on it two years later. You might say that this has nothing to do with the EU today, but generally speaking, the British public doesn't vote on the continuation of every foreign policy or economic treaty every fifteen years.
Should the British people not have been consulted over whether to allow mass immigration to reform beyond recognition British culture and society through the influx of millions of people with radically different values?
Sorry? That's a lot of hokum. People have been emigrating to this country in whole waves for the last two centuries. From the Jews of the East End, to the Commonwealth immigrants in the 1960's. Enoch Powell said this about it back then:
Enoch Powell wrote:'Here is a decent, ordinary fellow-Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that the country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen.'
Sound familiar? This was back in 1968. It's known as the 'Rivers of Blood' speech. The numbers he's referring to are lower, but so was the population of the country back then. He goes on about foreigners monopolising hospital beds, etcetc. Yet the funny thing is that the country still runs, fifty years later. Despite all his talk of the dangers of immigrants swallowing up the country and killing native culture, I can still get a pint at the pub, the fish and chip shops still run, and the Daily Mail is still a load of garbage. In other words, he was wrong.
To sum up, 90% the stuff you've listed about Europe has nothing to with immigration. You have yet to prove that immigration is actually a problem. Let alone a large enough one to be worth leaving Europe over. I have no problem with the concept of leaving Europe (I'm not fond of it myself), but saying we should do it because of immigration, a truly peripheral issue if one at all, is just daft.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Should a sovereign country not be in control of its own borders and law-making? Should we not have the right to choose who is permitted into this country?
Should we not be governed by Governments, and judicial institutions, that are directly accountable to the British people?
Should we not be instituting laws that are in Britain's best interests, rather than laws designed and passed by foreign bureaucrats who we have no power to remove and replace through the ballot box?
Should we not have been consulted via referenda on whether Britain joined the European Union? - a failed political project that is now crumbling, as seen in Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, and shown by the rise of anti-EU parties (UKIP) and Far Right extremist parties (the Greek Golden Dawn, Bulgarian Jobbik etc) all over Europe.
Should the British people not have been consulted over whether to allow mass immigration to reform beyond recognition British culture and society through the influx of millions of people with radically different values?
I'm 23. I have never been consulted on my views of the EU. Vast swathes of my country's laws, immigration included, are made by an international government of foreign politicians, unelected Bureaucrats, Presidents and appointed Commissioners that we have no power to challenge and remove by voting against them. The only referendum that this country has ever had was on the European Economic Community. No government has since sought electoral approval for mass open door immigration, or for undermining British democracy (which has always been fragile and tenuous) by surrendering British sovereignty to a foreign government.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The EU parliament, if it exist at all, should not be dictating UK policy, especially when, as you point out, we as the public did not choose to be part of it, or it's policies.
Because they are the only party that currently even comes close to representing my views.
Because I view LibLabCon as a corrupt, out of touch clique lead by a bureaucratic elite.
Because a UKIP surge acts as a kick up the arse to LibLabCon, and increases the likelihood that they'll begin to pay attention and change their ways.
This too. The status quo needs shaking up, and UKIP are our best bet for that.
Kilkrazy wrote: The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.
No! But we do have to abide by certain EU rules. For example, on immigration where even the current government may want a different policy, they can't have that as they have to go by the EU laws.
The EU parliament doesn't even dictate EU policy. The Council, made up out of the heads of government of the member states, is still by far the most powerful EU institution. It becomes awkward when government parties complain about EU involvement when their prime minister is actually one of the people in charge of the EU policy making.
Kilkrazy wrote: The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.
No! But we do have to abide by certain EU rules. For example, on immigration where even the current government may want a different policy, they can't have that as they have to go by the EU laws.
To me, that is not a situation that should exist.
We only abide by those rules for so long as we wish to abide by our treaty. There is no EU police or army to crush us should we choose to no longer do so.
This repeated viewpoint in which abiding by the terms of an agreement that you chose to make is somehow slavery is somewhat bizare.
I won't be able to vote for this elections because of an administrative issue (moved to a new town last year and couldn't register on the electoral lists in time), but honestly I don't miss it.
It's not that I fail to see the importance of this election, but rather that the choices we have in France are not appealing.
The National Front, led by the Le Pen family and relatives is a strongly populist party is given for the winner of the elections.
It's followed by the UMP (conservative right wing party) with a strong tendency to change it's mind about Europe according to whether or not it could be used as a scapegoat might come in second.
Then the Socialist Party ends on the third step of the podium, suffering from the pathetic last two years of president Hollande's mandate (and the even more pathetic prime minister Ayrault who resigned a month ago.
After that the greens are following, as well as a radicals/communists coalition.
My view is that the National Front is a terrible party and can not be trusted since they have no real solutions or proposition for Europe except making it as difficult as possible to work correctly. However, they benefit from two elements : Marine Le Pen and her number two are good communicants and they know how to exploit the general resentment of the population against the political class.
UMP is a disbanded party since Sarkozy lost the presidency ( a chaos that he is told to voluntarily maintain within his own party to ensure his return as a providential man for the Nextel presidential election). Their not-too-keen-on-federalism position should seduce a large part of the population who still consider voting for the National Front as something "dirty"
The socialist party is discredited because while they have been the opposition for ten years they were all but prepared to be in charge and spent two years repeating that if their policy showed no result yet it was because the UMP did a terrible job before them. Yéti they Stills havé a string elective base.
Greens are simply not serious, they are the political remains of the broken dreams from the post 68 years.
Communists...well...would you believe me if I told you they are as caricatural as you expect them to be?
France is (sadly) a powder keg, and the result of this election won't prevent it to explode whithin the next fifteen years. People feel betrayed by the whole political an mediatical class (not whithout any reason by the way). The European Union is not what was promised by the political leaders of the 80s.
Of course that's just my point of view, but I feel that here, it's mainly an election between Kang, Kodos, and Tahiti Bob
Kilkrazy wrote: The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.
No! But we do have to abide by certain EU rules. For example, on immigration where even the current government may want a different policy, they can't have that as they have to go by the EU laws.
To me, that is not a situation that should exist.
We only abide by those rules for so long as we wish to abide by our treaty. There is no EU police or army to crush us should we choose to no longer do so.
This repeated viewpoint in which abiding by the terms of an agreement that you chose to make is somehow slavery is somewhat bizare.
But if we break the treaty,then why bother being a part of the EU at all? My point is, British policy should be made by the British government in the interest of British residents. The EU rules, which we do choose to abide by whether we have to or not (and really the option are agree or leave), are not always in the interest of the nation, and I'd rather vote for party that is willing to challenge them rather than just smiling and waving.
But if we break the treaty,then why bother being a part of the EU at all? My point is, British policy should be made by the British government in the interest of British residents. The EU rules, which we do choose to abide by whether we have to or not (and really the option are agree or leave), are not always in the interest of the nation, and I'd rather vote for party that is willing to challenge them rather than just smiling and waving.
I believe the Conservatives have just pledged to renegotiate or leave? And Thatcher negotiated a rebate previously whilst threatening to leave? And the Conservatives are currently part of the Coalition Government? Therefore, the logical thing to do if you believe the EU to be such a large issue would be to vote Conservative, as Labour and Lib Dem have refused to even address the issue, and UKIP haven't got a hope in hell of getting anywhere (the xenophobia issue to one side).
Regardless of all that though, the fact we choose to abide by the agreement we made kind of draws the teeth from the concept that the EU is infringing on our sovereignty and enforcing their will upon us. Likewise, I have yet to hear a single coherent argument about immigration that doesn't rely on heavily spun figures and basic xenophobia.
So are we looking for a majority conservative parliament? Yeah, sure that'll go well, though I suppose there's been plenty of conservatives in power for years. Maybe the word I was looking for was introverted. Yes, just how many of the parties that will secure seats this time are like Britain's UKIP? The EU isn't the most well oiled machine at the best of times, having fethheads like those parties (who btw I don't even understand why their running for seats, given that its their goal to abolish said seats) in it is hardly going to make that any better.
Kilkrazy wrote: The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.
No! But we do have to abide by certain EU rules. For example, on immigration where even the current government may want a different policy, they can't have that as they have to go by the EU laws.
To me, that is not a situation that should exist.
We only abide by those rules for so long as we wish to abide by our treaty. There is no EU police or army to crush us should we choose to no longer do so.
Not yet. It is on the agenda however.
This repeated viewpoint in which abiding by the terms of an agreement that you chose to make is somehow slavery is somewhat bizare.
There are many things on the agenda in the European Parliament, along with many different viewpoints. But If we considered every single Bill and amendment proposed in the House of Commons to be official Government policy, we wouldn't get very far.
Thats your word, not ours.
Wouldn't you agree that someone is ruled over by laws and rules which he cannot change is a slave to them? I don't believe I'm using too inaccurate a word to describe the viewpoint of the EU being proposed here by some people.
Wouldn't you agree that someone is ruled over by laws and rules which he cannot change is a slave to them? I don't believe I'm using too inaccurate a word to describe the viewpoint of the EU being proposed here by some people.
I am aware that we have the freedom to not follow any EU policy we choose, so it's not slavery, but my issue is that we have a government and MEPs that do follow that policy, whereas UKIP seem able to stand up to said policies when they aren't in the interest of the nation.
Also, on a different note, I'd point out that I probably wouldn't vote UKIP in a general election where the EU matter wasn't so prominent. I don't want them running the country at all. However, they seem at the moment to be the best way to motivate the LibLabCon into actually doing something policy-wise that goes back to the respective ideologies, which is something that does need to happen. The reason LibLabCon don't get my vote at the moment is because they aren't, in my opinion, showing any interest in the people, only in power. I know that kind of comes with the territory of being a politician, but I would like at least some idealism to creep back into main-party politics.
And if we need to use UKIP to do that, then frankly I'd rather have them in a European parliament where they can be of some use but without being in charge than in a British Parliament where some of the more mental policies might get through.
But if we break the treaty,then why bother being a part of the EU at all? My point is, British policy should be made by the British government in the interest of British residents. The EU rules, which we do choose to abide by whether we have to or not (and really the option are agree or leave), are not always in the interest of the nation, and I'd rather vote for party that is willing to challenge them rather than just smiling and waving.
I believe the Conservatives have just pledged to renegotiate or leave?
Their pledge is disingenuous, because they know full well that renegotiation of powers is not possible. Not one article in the Lisbon Treaty permits renegotiation. The only method by which renegotiation is possible is by invoking Article 50. The Four Freedoms are not up for renegotiation and a power once ceded will never be returned - for that to happen would be the death knell for the EU.
And Thatcher negotiated a rebate previously whilst threatening to leave?
Then Tony Blair gave most of it back for very little in return. No renegotiation of the CAP. No protections for Britain's now decimated fishing industry.
And the Conservatives are currently part of the Coalition Government? Therefore, the logical thing to do if you believe the EU to be such a large issue would be to vote Conservative, as Labour and Lib Dem have refused to even address the issue,
And you think the Conservatives are trustworthy? They, who lie and make all manner of promises to swindle our vote, then refuse to fulfill those promises?
I will vote for the Conservatives when they deliver on their promises of European reform and a referendum on Britain's exit. Not before.
I remember the last time the Tories made a promise on the EU. They called it a "Cast Iron Pledge", but attached a get out clause in the small print that they used to wiggle out of it. I will not settle for and give them my vote for vague ifs, buts and maybes. If they want me to ever vote for them, then they must take the initiative and deliver on their promises, without excuses.
If it takes a surge in support for UKIP and hell, even extremist parties like the BNP to get them to pull their finger out of their collective arse and listen, then so be it.
and UKIP haven't got a hope in hell of getting anywhere (the xenophobia issue to one side).
A surge in support does however have a chance of making it clear to the mainstream parties that resentment, voter alienation and anti-EU sentiments is a problem that will not go away, no matter how much they try to ignore it or smear it as racist and xenophobic. My hope is that rising support for UKIP will force the Conservatives to support British independence. It sure as hell will not happen without UKIP - the Tories are in favour of British membership, just like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, and David Cameron has made it clear that even if in the unlikely event that they keep their word and give us an In / Out referendum, the Conservatives will be campaigning for the Status Quo, to remain in the EU.
Regardless of all that though, the fact we choose to abide by the agreement we made kind of draws the teeth from the concept that the EU is infringing on our sovereignty and enforcing their will upon us. Likewise, I have yet to hear a single coherent argument about immigration that doesn't rely on heavily spun figures and basic xenophobia.
And I havn't heard an argument in favour of the EU that does not also rely on heavily spun figures, propaganda, scare mongering, Ad Hominem insults and hysterical accusations of "Racist! Racist!"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Do I want UKIP running the country? No. As I said, they're an amateur party, and I don't necessarily agree with all of their polices (their social conservatism for example - given that I'm an atheist libertarian). But I voted for them because they're setting the agenda on Europe and forcing the other parties to reconsider their own stances.
Will I vote for UKIP in a General Election? Yes. I live in a North East safe Labour seat (Tony Blair's own constituency, actually) so theres little prospect of my vote actually putting a non Labour candidate into office.
Their pledge is disingenuous, because they know full well that renegotiation of powers is not possible. Not one article in the Lisbon Treaty permits renegotiation. The only method by which renegotiation is possible is by invoking Article 50. The Four Freedoms are not up for renegotiation and a power once ceded will never be returned - for that to happen would be the death knell for the EU.
Thatcher managed to get some cash back. Blair might have given it away again, but the precedent exists for negotiation.
Then Tony Blair gave most of it back for very little in return. No renegotiation of the CAP. No protections for Britain's now decimated fishing industry.
Wasn't the fishing debate one of the ones the UKIP MEPS were too busy out wining and dining to bother attending?
And you think the Conservatives are trustworthy?
Trustworthy politicans? Aren't those mutually exclusive words?
I will vote for the Conservatives when they deliver on their promises of European reform and a referendum on Britain's exit. Not before.
I remember the last time the Tories made a promise on the EU. They called it a "Cast Iron Pledge", but attached a get out clause in the small print that they used to wiggle out of it. I will not settle for and give them my vote for vague ifs, buts and maybes. If they want me to ever vote for them, then they must take the initiative and deliver on their promises, without excuses.
Their argument would be that they're in a coalition government, not a majority one, and the Lib Dems are so pro-EU they couldn't pass any anti-EU legislation if they wanted to. And quite frankly, that's not even wiggling particularly, it's accurate. Clegg would refuse to lend Lib Dem support to any such venture, and the coalition would dissolve there and then.
A surge in support does however have a chance of making it clear to the mainstream parties that resentment, voter alienation and anti-EU sentiments is a problem that will not go away, no matter how much they try to ignore it or smear it as racist and xenophobic. My hope is that rising support for UKIP will force the Conservatives to support British independence. It sure as hell will not happen without UKIP - the Tories are in favour of British membership, just like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, and David Cameron has made it clear that even if in the unlikely event that they keep their word and give us an In / Out referendum, the Conservatives will be campaigning for the Status Quo, to remain in the EU.
Nothing wrong with a protest vote. The funny thing is though, is that most of the Conservative backbench is anti-EU. Conservatives are inherently suspicious of anything from the Continent, and Cameron's had a lot of trouble over the years trying to draw their venom enough that he can hold a working government together.
And I havn't heard an argument in favour of the EU that does not also rely on heavily spun figures, propaganda, scare mongering, Ad Hominem insults and hysterical accusations of "Racist! Racist!"
I'm not making an argument in favour of the EU. I'm asking you to substantiate the views you've espoused against immigration. Which you have yet to do.
Ketara wrote: Wouldn't you agree that someone is ruled over by laws and rules which he cannot change is a slave to them? I don't believe I'm using too inaccurate a word to describe the viewpoint of the EU being proposed here by some people.
We appear to have different views on the definition of Slavery.
My problem with the EU is not that its enslaved us. Thats nonsensical hyperbole. My problem is that its undemocratic, in the areas that matter most.
A lot of Scots want home rule, to be governed by a Scottish Government making decisions and laws in Scotland's interests but they're not derided by the MSM and mainstream political parties as racist and xenophobic. But anyone who wants a British exit from the EU is. Why the double standard?
A lot of Scots want home rule, to be governed by a Scottish Government making decisions and laws in Scotland's interests but they're not derided by the MSM and mainstream political parties as racist and xenophobic. But anyone who wants a British exit from the EU is. Why the double standard?
Who's deriding? I'm not saying we should stay in the EU, or even that it's a good thing. I've offered very little in the way of personal opinion at all. I just keep pressing you to substantiate your own views on it.
On that note, I'm quite keen to hear you substantiate your earlier comments about why immigration is bad.
Ketara wrote: Wouldn't you agree that someone is ruled over by laws and rules which he cannot change is a slave to them? I don't believe I'm using too inaccurate a word to describe the viewpoint of the EU being proposed here by some people.
We appear to have different views on the definition of Slavery.
My problem with the EU is not that its enslaved us. Thats nonsensical hyperbole. My problem is that its undemocratic, in the areas that matter most.
A lot of Scots want home rule, to be governed by a Scottish Government making decisions and laws in Scotland's interests but they're not derided by the MSM and mainstream political parties as racist and xenophobic. But anyone who wants a British exit from the EU is. Why the double standard?
It's not a double standard because you don't see the Yes campaign members and SNP politicians going around mentioning nationalities as a major reason why we need the vote. That's really not what the debate is about and to draw a comparison to UKIP is utter hyperbole and a red herring as the issues are completely unrelated
Ketara wrote: Thatcher managed to get some cash back. Blair might have given it away again, but the precedent exists for negotiation.
That was long before the Lisbon Treaty. My understanding of its articles is that powers, once ceded under the Lisbon Treaty (a.k.a. the EU Constitution), cannot be renegotiated. The only alternative is secession.
Then Tony Blair gave most of it back for very little in return. No renegotiation of the CAP. No protections for Britain's now decimated fishing industry.
Wasn't the fishing debate one of the ones the UKIP MEPS were too busy out wining and dining to bother attending?
Which debate? You're going to have to name the debate in question and the debate, otherwise thats an unverifiable, unchallengeable assertion. My guess is that it occurred long before UKIP even had MEPS. Maybe even before it was formed.
And you think the Conservatives are trustworthy?
Trustworthy politicians? Aren't those mutually exclusive words?
True. But I at least think a new Political party that's never been tested in office and has never reneged on its pledges, is at least less untrustworthy than parties that have been in office and numerous governments for decades, broken countless pledges and been proven to be untrustworthy.
Its better to vote for someone who's not yet been proven a liar, than someone who has been proven a liar many times over.
I will vote for the Conservatives when they deliver on their promises of European reform and a referendum on Britain's exit. Not before.
I remember the last time the Tories made a promise on the EU. They called it a "Cast Iron Pledge", but attached a get out clause in the small print that they used to wiggle out of it. I will not settle for and give them my vote for vague ifs, buts and maybes. If they want me to ever vote for them, then they must take the initiative and deliver on their promises, without excuses.
Their argument would be that they're in a coalition government, not a majority one, and the Lib Dems are so pro-EU they couldn't pass any anti-EU legislation if they wanted to. And quite frankly, that's not even wiggling particularly, it's accurate. Clegg would refuse to lend Lib Dem support to any such venture, and the coalition would dissolve there and then.
The Liberal Democrats included a pledge for an In Out referendum in their manifesto. Then went back on their word.
The Conservatives don't want British independence. Cameron is in favour of British membership and will campaign for the status quo.
I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt for breaking a promise that they never wanted to keep.
A surge in support does however have a chance of making it clear to the mainstream parties that resentment, voter alienation and anti-EU sentiments is a problem that will not go away, no matter how much they try to ignore it or smear it as racist and xenophobic. My hope is that rising support for UKIP will force the Conservatives to support British independence. It sure as hell will not happen without UKIP - the Tories are in favour of British membership, just like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, and David Cameron has made it clear that even if in the unlikely event that they keep their word and give us an In / Out referendum, the Conservatives will be campaigning for the Status Quo, to remain in the EU.
Nothing wrong with a protest vote. The funny thing is though, is that most of the Conservative backbench is anti-EU. Conservatives are inherently suspicious of anything from the Continent, and Cameron's had a lot of trouble over the years trying to draw their venom enough that he can hold a working government together.
The Conservative back backbenchers are spineless cowards, who grumble and bitch but will never act. Hopefully the threat of UKIP costing them their seats and thus their careers will prompt them to act.
And I havn't heard an argument in favour of the EU that does not also rely on heavily spun figures, propaganda, scare mongering, Ad Hominem insults and hysterical accusations of "Racist! Racist!"
I'm not making an argument in favour of the EU. I'm asking you to substantiate the views you've espoused against immigration. Which you have yet to do.
I think I have. We're clearly never going to agree on that point.
That was long before the Lisbon Treaty. My understanding of its articles is that powers, once ceded under the Lisbon Treaty (a.k.a. the EU Constitution), cannot be renegotiated. The only alternative is secession.
Any diplomat will tell you that virtually nothing is unnegotiable. It's just the trick of applying the right pressure in the right way. The Lisbon Treaty wasn't chiselled in stone from God himself, it can be modified.
Which debate? You're going to have to name the debate in question and the debate, otherwise thats an unverifiable, unchallengeable assertion. My guess is that it occurred long before UKIP even had MEPS. Maybe even before it was formed.
Truthfully? I can't remember where I read it off the top of my head. I just recall reading something about a recent fishing vote in the EU Parliament being one of UKIP's key campaigning policies before, and then not a single one of them bothered to actually show up on the day of the vote. The UKIP response was something along the lines of 'We protested that the entire issue was illegitimate and our votes wouldn't have affected it anyway, so we didn't participate'.
Nonetheless, I've always regarded it as bad form to be out lunching (I think they were throwing a cocktail party or something) instead of in the chamber voting. I'm prepared to be proven wrong on this entire affair though, as I genuinely cannot remember where I read it.
True. But I at least think a new Political party that's never been tested in office and has never reneged on its pledges, is at least less untrustworthy than parties that have been in office and numerous governments for decades, broken countless pledges and been proven to be untrustworthy.
Its better to vote for someone who's not yet been proven a liar, than someone who has been proven a liar many times over.
Eh. Politicians do what's in their best interest. Make it in their best interest to talk about the EU, and they'll pay attention. After all, isn't that the whole stated point of voting for UKIP by a lot of people?
The Liberal Democrats included a pledge for an In Out referendum in their manifesto. Then went back on their word.
The Conservatives don't want British independence. Cameron is in favour of British membership and will campaign for the status quo.
The Lib Dems have always been in the wonderful position that UKIP is in now. Namely, they knew they had no hope of power, so they promised anything and everything in the hope of winning votes. Now they're in the shocking surprise position of actually having influence in what goes on. I doubt they'll be so rash and generous in their promises this year.
The Conservative back backbenchers are spineless cowards, who grumble and bitch but will never act. Hopefully the threat of UKIP costing them their seats and thus their careers will prompt them to act.
Only a fool ignores the backbench. Thatcher didn't get removed in a general election.
I think I have.
Sorry? When was that?
I must have missed it. I only saw one line stating that mass immigration would reform British culture beyond recognition. But I haven't seen a single article linked or developed argument to substantiate it yet. If you could link back to your asserted proofs/defence for me, that would be useful.
Ketara wrote: On that note, I'm quite keen to hear you substantiate your earlier comments about why immigration is bad.
Oh, I notice what you did there, you sly git.
I'm not arguing against Immigration. We need immigration - scientists, engineers, electricians and other skilled trades and expertise that we may lack.
I'm arguing against Mass Immigration. The sort that changes the demographics of entire cities, turning white people into ethnic minorities and making them uncomfortable in their own local communities. The kind that creates ethnic ghettos, importing entire new cultures, values and morality that often conflict with and threaten our tolerant, secular, liberal values.
People can tolerate and welcome foreigners. But what they don't like is an influx of so many people that it radically changes their country to the point that they don't recognize it anymore.
I'm not arguing about race. I don't give a gak about a persons skin colour. We're not responsible for our skin colour - its totally irrelevant. What I do care about is western values of tolerance, liberalism and secularism, and those values are undermined by huge influxes of un-assimilated people from cultures that do not share those values (e.g. Islam).
(And yes, I'm aware that UKIP is socially authoritarian, thats not why I voted for them. In fact, had I not cared so much about the EU I probably would have abstained or spoiled my ballot).
Mass immigration was a deliberate policy of New Labour to "rub the rights nose in diversity". They sought to increase their electoral support by changing the demographics of Britain. This policy was never declared. They never presented it to the British electorate in a manifesto and asked for its approval.
Renewed controversy on the subject came to the fore when Andrew Neather — a former adviser to Jack Straw, Tony Blair and David Blunkett — claimed that Labour ministers had a hidden agenda in allowing mass immigration into Britain, to "change the face of Britain forever".This alleged conspiracy has become known by the sobriquet "Neathergate".
According to Neather, who was present at closed meetings in 2000, a secret Government report called for mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up, and that “mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”. Neather went on to say that “the policy was intended — even if this wasn’t its main purpose — to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.[75][76][77]
This was later affirmed after a request through the freedom of information act secured access to the full version of a 2000 government report on immigration that had been heavily edited on a previous release.[78] The Conservative party demanded an independent inquiry into the issue and alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism for political ends.
In February 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron stated that the "doctrine of state multiculturalism" (promoted by the previous Labour government) has failed and will be no longer be state policy.[79] He stated that the UK needed a stronger national identity and signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.
Ketara wrote: On that note, I'm quite keen to hear you substantiate your earlier comments about why immigration is bad.
Oh, I notice what you did there, you sly git.
I'm not arguing against Immigration. We need immigration - scientists, engineers, electricians and other skilled trades and expertise that we may lack.
My apologies. As you can see in my last post, I specified the 'mass' part there, it was just my shorthand style.
I'm arguing against Mass Immigration. The sort that changes the demographics of entire cities, turning white people into ethnic minorities and making them uncomfortable in their own local communities.
So presumably you'd be alright with mass immigration from white countries? Like from within Europe? Since then 'white' people wouldn't be ethnic minorities.
The kind that creates ethnic ghettos,
Like the Jews of East London? The ones recognised today as having been a healthy cultural force for British society?
importing entire new cultures, values and morality that often conflict with and threaten our tolerant, secular, liberal values.
Surely for that to occur, you'd need some sort of hive mind? I mean, within this 'mass immigration' wouldn't people be coming from all over the place? And therefore each have different cultural values depending on which country they came from? And then different opinions and beliefs within that cultural framework?
It's not like there's a country called 'The Democratic Republic of Al Qaeda' that sends us 500,000 people a year. Immigrants come from all around the world.
People can tolerate and welcome foreigners. But what they don't like is an influx of so many people that it radically changes their country to the point that they don't recognize it anymore.
To go back to my response to Enoch Powell who said the same thing sixty years ago, I can still buy a pint in the pub. What part from fifty years ago exists that you personally can't recognise anymore?
Not to mention that culture is a continuously evolving thing. It's not some static force that you can point to and say, 'this is the way things should be', and then measure all changes against. Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in the somewhat racist/sexist/homophobic Britain of sixty years ago. If immigration has helped to change that, then hurrah!
I'm not arguing about race. I don't give a gak about a persons skin colour. We're not responsible for our skin colour - its totally irrelevant. What I do care about is western values of tolerance, liberalism and secularism, and those values are undermined by huge influxes of un-assimilated people from cultures that do not share those values (e.g. Islam).
Islam is a religion, not a culture. If it were that simple, the Shias and Sunnis wouldn't be butchering each other the way they do.
Mass immigration was a deliberate policy of New Labour to "rub the rights nose in diversity". They sought to increase their electoral support by changing the demographics of Britain. This policy was never declared. They never presented it to the British electorate in a manifesto and asked for its approval.
...snip...
Sorry, but those are links talking about the previous immigration policy of a previous government. I'm not entirely sure how they prove that mass immigration is bad. As well as how it drowns out British cultures and values. Could you outline it for me? As well as what numbers of people would be acceptable 'immigration', and at what stage it becomes the unacceptable 'Mass Immigration'.
Mass immigration was a deliberate policy of New Labour to "rub the rights nose in diversity". They sought to increase their electoral support by changing the demographics of Britain. This policy was never declared. They never presented it to the British electorate in a manifesto and asked for its approval.
Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when - hard as it is to imagine now - the booming economy was running up against skills shortages.
But my sense from several discussions was there was also a subsidiary political purpose to it - boosting diversity and undermining the Right's opposition to multiculturalism.
I was not comfortable with that. But it wasn't the main point at issue.
Somehow this has become distorted by excitable Right-wing newspaper columnists into being a "plot" to make Britain multicultural.
There was no plot. I've worked closely with Ms Roche and Jack Straw and they are both decent, honourable people whom I respect (not something I'd say for many politicians).
What's more, both were robust on immigration when they needed to be: Straw had driven through a tough Immigration and Asylum Act in 1999 and Roche had braved particularly cruel flak from the Left over asylum seekers.
That was long before the Lisbon Treaty. My understanding of its articles is that powers, once ceded under the Lisbon Treaty (a.k.a. the EU Constitution), cannot be renegotiated. The only alternative is secession.
Any diplomat will tell you that virtually nothing is unnegotiable. It's just the trick of applying the right pressure in the right way. The Lisbon Treaty wasn't chiselled in stone from God himself, it can be modified.
So then we should demand renegotiation and threaten to leave the EU if we don't get our own way.
The only prospect I see of David Cameron doing that is if UKIP twists his arm by threatening him with electoral annihilation by Labour.
Which debate? You're going to have to name the debate in question and the debate, otherwise thats an unverifiable, unchallengeable assertion. My guess is that it occurred long before UKIP even had MEPS. Maybe even before it was formed.
Truthfully? I can't remember where I read it off the top of my head. I just recall reading something about a recent fishing vote in the EU Parliament being one of UKIP's key campaigning policies before, and then not a single one of them bothered to actually show up on the day of the vote. The UKIP response was something along the lines of 'We protested that the entire issue was illegitimate and our votes wouldn't have affected it anyway, so we didn't participate'.
I'm thinking more of the original decision to cede control of our waters for fishing by all EU nations i.e. the Common Fisheries Policy, that permitted Spanish fisherman to fish our waters and placed caps on the amount of fish that we can catch (prompting media stories of fishermen having to dump dead fish because they've gone over their fishing quota and don't want to be fined). That was probably in the 80s or 90s, during the Conservative government, before the foundation of UKIP.
As I understand it our waters are now over fished, and our fishing industry is a shadow of its former self as a direct result of EU membership.
Which is one of many reasons why Iceland probably shouldn't join.
Nonetheless, I've always regarded it as bad form to be out lunching (I think they were throwing a cocktail party or something) instead of in the chamber voting. I'm prepared to be proven wrong on this entire affair though, as I genuinely cannot remember where I read it.
Well, like I said they are amateurs.
True. But I at least think a new Political party that's never been tested in office and has never reneged on its pledges, is at least less untrustworthy than parties that have been in office and numerous governments for decades, broken countless pledges and been proven to be untrustworthy.
Its better to vote for someone who's not yet been proven a liar, than someone who has been proven a liar many times over.
Eh. Politicians do what's in their best interest. Make it in their best interest to talk about the EU, and they'll pay attention. After all, isn't that the whole stated point of voting for UKIP by a lot of people?
Thats what I hope for.
The Liberal Democrats included a pledge for an In Out referendum in their manifesto. Then went back on their word.
The Conservatives don't want British independence. Cameron is in favour of British membership and will campaign for the status quo.
The Lib Dems have always been in the wonderful position that UKIP is in now. Namely, they knew they had no hope of power, so they promised anything and everything in the hope of winning votes. Now they're in the shocking surprise position of actually having influence in what goes on. I doubt they'll be so rash and generous in their promises this year.
Hopefully they'll stop making promises they have no intention of ever keeping.
The Conservative back backbenchers are spineless cowards, who grumble and bitch but will never act. Hopefully the threat of UKIP costing them their seats and thus their careers will prompt them to act.
Only a fool ignores the backbench. Thatcher didn't get removed in a general election.
Its a shame they haven't shown that much backbone for two decades.
I think I have.
Sorry? When was that?
I must have missed it. I only saw one line stating that mass immigration would reform British culture beyond recognition. But I haven't seen a single article linked or developed argument to substantiate it yet. If you could link back to your asserted proofs/defence for me, that would be useful.
I'm arguing against Mass Immigration.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm against ALL immigration.
I'm not. I just want my government to control it, according to the country's current needs and circumstances.
In a recession, with a huge oversupply of unskilled labour that makes it hard for the people already here whatever their background, race and nationality to find employment, therefore depressing wages and driving up unemployment? Cap the numbers of new unskilled migrants permitted to stay.
In a boom, with big demand by businesses for unskilled labour? Raise the cap or lift it entirely.
We can't do that with the EU. Which is almost exclusively white.
Mass immigration was a deliberate policy of New Labour to "rub the rights nose in diversity". They sought to increase their electoral support by changing the demographics of Britain. This policy was never declared. They never presented it to the British electorate in a manifesto and asked for its approval.
Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when - hard as it is to imagine now - the booming economy was running up against skills shortages.
But my sense from several discussions was there was also a subsidiary political purpose to it - boosting diversity and undermining the Right's opposition to multiculturalism.
I was not comfortable with that. But it wasn't the main point at issue.
Somehow this has become distorted by excitable Right-wing newspaper columnists into being a "plot" to make Britain multicultural.
There was no plot. I've worked closely with Ms Roche and Jack Straw and they are both decent, honourable people whom I respect (not something I'd say for many politicians).
What's more, both were robust on immigration when they needed to be: Straw had driven through a tough Immigration and Asylum Act in 1999 and Roche had braved particularly cruel flak from the Left over asylum seekers.
Thanks. I'll check that link out tomorrow. I really ought to get to bed.
So presumably you'd be alright with mass immigration from white countries? Like from within Europe? Since then 'white' people wouldn't be ethnic minorities.
Uncontrolled, unconditional Mass Immigration? No - no matter the country, no matter the skin colour.
Carefully controlled and targeted immigration that filters people based on their skills, qualifications and education according to Britains current needs; and on our ability to accommodate them without placing excessive pressure on education, NHS, housing, etc, and to integrate them peacefully into a common British identity based on tolerant, liberal and secular values? Yes - no matter the country, no matter the skin colour.
But if an immigrant believes that homosexuals are filthy and immoral, that Jews are sub-human, that a woman has no right to an education and career and other freedoms, that supports female genital mutilation, who believes that Honour Killing is an appropriate way of dealing with rebellious teenage experimentation and so on...we should be very cautious about allowing them to settle here.
If you allow a large influx of people who aren't tolerant, who aren't liberal, who aren't secular, who aren't tolerant and don't want to assimilate, liberal secular values will be undermined.
Hell, if we're arguing over skin colour, how is it fair that people from white European countries automatically get priority no matter their qualifications and education over people from Asian, Middle Eastern or African countries?
The kind that creates ethnic ghettos,
Like the Jews of East London? The ones recognised today as having been a healthy cultural force for British society?
Tell that to their babies foreskins.
Seriously though, I quite like Jews (well, except maybe the ultra conservative sects like the people who build Jewish settlements in Palestine). I don't perceive Judaism to be as totalitarian, xenophobic and intolerant as say, Islam. Given the historical persecution and demonisation of Jews throughout the world and throughout history in every country they've ever had a presence in culminating in the Holocaust, I think Jews may be the only valid exception.
Do you have any other examples?
Surely for that to occur, you'd need some sort of hive mind? I mean, within this 'mass immigration' wouldn't people be coming from all over the place? And therefore each have different cultural values depending on which country they came from? And then different opinions and beliefs within that cultural framework?
It's not like there's a country called 'The Democratic Republic of Al Qaeda' that sends us 500,000 people a year. Immigrants come from all around the world.
People can tolerate and welcome foreigners. But what they don't like is an influx of so many people that it radically changes their country to the point that they don't recognize it anymore.
To go back to my response to Enoch Powell who said the same thing sixty years ago, I can still buy a pint in the pub. What part from fifty years ago exists that you personally can't recognise anymore?
Bradford. Birmingham. Parts of London. etc. Places where huge numbers of people haven't, or don't want to be British, with everything that being British is supposed to entail.
But I don't why you're asking if I personally don't recognise the change in demographics. Do you think I own a Tardis?
It took centuries for a tolerant British secular and liberal democracy to develop. I don't want to see that threatened by mass immigration of people who don't share those values, or who actively despise them. Much better for immigration to be slow, at a pace we can carefully control and accommodate and make sure that western style values are not threatened and undermined.
Nor do I want to see what little democracy we have snuffed out by an unaccountable bureaucratic elite in Brussels.
Not to mention that culture is a continuously evolving thing. It's not some static force that you can point to and say, 'this is the way things should be', and then measure all changes against. Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in the somewhat racist/sexist/homophobic Britain of sixty years ago. If immigration has helped to change that, then hurrah!
Nor do I. But in some places, I think that mass immigration is bringing it back. Do you really think Islamic values in general, are as tolerant, liberal and secular as western values?
I'm not arguing about race. I don't give a gak about a persons skin colour. We're not responsible for our skin colour - its totally irrelevant. What I do care about is western values of tolerance, liberalism and secularism, and those values are undermined by huge influxes of un-assimilated people from cultures that do not share those values (e.g. Islam).
Islam is a religion, not a culture. If it were that simple, the Shias and Sunnis wouldn't be butchering each other the way they do.
Shia's and Sunni's are butchering each other because the values and beliefs that they derive from the Quran direct them to butcher heretics and non-believers. They have different interpretations of the Quran, therefore they view each other as heretics. Those Islamic values are IMO broadly incompatible with western values. For instance, Islam's views on apostasy and homosexuality and the appropriate punishments.
Mass immigration was a deliberate policy of New Labour to "rub the rights nose in diversity". They sought to increase their electoral support by changing the demographics of Britain. This policy was never declared. They never presented it to the British electorate in a manifesto and asked for its approval.
...snip...
Sorry, but those are links talking about the previous immigration policy of a previous government. I'm not entirely sure how they prove that mass immigration is bad. As well as how it drowns out British cultures and values. Could you outline it for me?
See above.
As well as what numbers of people would be acceptable 'immigration', and at what stage it becomes the unacceptable 'Mass Immigration'.
Those details are for experts to decide, not an opinionated 23 year old running his mouth off on the internet and making a fool of himself in the process.
But IMO it would become "unacceptable Mass Immigration" when its a level that we cannot reasonably accommodate in terms of housing, education, Policing, employment, NHS services, social cohesion etc. What specifically that level is I have no fething clue.
Uncontrolled, unconditional Mass Immigration? No - no matter the country, no matter the skin colour.
Carefully controlled and targeted immigration that filters people based on their skills, qualifications and education according to Britains current needs; and on our ability to accommodate them without placing excessive pressure on education, NHS, housing, etc, and to integrate them peacefully into a common British identity based on tolerant, liberal and secular values? Yes - no matter the country, no matter the skin colour.
But if an immigrant believes that homosexuals are filthy and immoral, that Jews are sub-human, that a woman has no right to an education and career and other freedoms, that supports female genital mutilation, who believes that Honour Killing is an appropriate way of dealing with rebellious teenage experimentation and so on...we should be very cautious about allowing them to settle here.
If you allow a large influx of people who aren't tolerant, who aren't liberal, who aren't secular, who aren't tolerant and don't want to assimilate, liberal secular values will be undermined.
Hell, if we're arguing over skin colour, how is it fair that people from white European countries automatically get priority no matter their qualifications and education over people from Asian, Middle Eastern or African countries?
To be frank, I would never have mentioned skin colour, except you specifically said ' turning white people into ethnic minorities'.
With regards to how allowing people with certain views to settle here undermines our 'liberal secular values', I assure you that I could most likely find a batch of 'British' people who probably hold the same views separately. Facists, racists, sexists and homophobes do come from home as well. There's a reason Turing was hounded to death for being gay within roughly a decade of Powell worrying about all those foreigners eroding our values.
Seriously though, I quite like Jews (well, except maybe the ultra conservative sects like the people who build Jewish settlements in Palestine). I don't perceive Judaism to be as totalitarian, xenophobic and intolerant as say, Islam. Given the historical persecution and demonisation of Jews throughout the world and throughout history in every country they've ever had a presence in culminating in the Holocaust, I think Jews may be the only valid exception.
Do you have any other examples?
You should meet some really frum Jews, they'd change your mind fast enough. Overly devout religion in any aspect tends to breed intolerance like dogs do fleas.
In terms of other examples, how about the Jamaican mass immigration to Britain back in the 1950's? They're well into their fourth generation now, and making a valid contribution to UK society. Yet back in the 1950's, you had the Notting Hill riots, and many people saying the same things about them as they do the Romanians now.
Integration is a wonderful thing. You might not be very British in terms of values, but your grandchildren tend to be.
Bradford. Birmingham. Parts of London. etc. Places where huge numbers of people haven't, or don't want to be British, with everything that being British is supposed to entail.
But I don't why you're asking if I personally don't recognise the change in demographics. Do you think I own a Tardis?
The funny thing is that Jews of the East End totally overpopulated the place (Hence being Jews of the 'East End'). They kept their own culture initially, and you had yids as far as the eye could see. Jews resorted to Beth Din to settle disputes (note the parallels with Sharia?). But look around today. How many of them are still there? And even more importantly, how many of their descendants are still Jewish Germans?
My point with regards to asking you if you personally can see any difference from the fifties, is because you can't. Culture in general has shifted so much, from our progressive attitude to homosexuals, to the introduction of computers, to so many things, that nobody, not you, not me, and not Mr Powell, can point to the Jamaicans and say 'They caused all that!'. Culture is a wonderful thing of give and take, and it evolves organically over time.
It took centuries for a tolerant British secular and liberal democracy to develop. I don't want to see that threatened by mass immigration of people who don't share those values, or who actively despise them.
For Mr Powell, those liberal values you're worrying about vanishing today were things that he would no doubt have been horrified by, and thought they had no place in 'British culture'. There are never going to be enough facist/racist/sexist immigrants to threaten the status quo here. Parliament will never be replaced by Sharia because too many muslims moved here. Why?
Because of integration. Sure, there might be a few people who think Sharia is great. Sure, they might even dominate a local council for ten, twenty years if they're particularly prolific in an area. But their kids will grow up watching Dr Who. Their grandchildren will be used to having a cup of tea to get through the day. Their great-grandchildren will marry someone who was descended from someone from the opposite side of the globe. Integration and values are a two way street. There will always be nuts, but they grow old and die. And the next generation supersedes them.
Then fifty years later, you have adults descended from Jamaican settlers agonising about Romanians swamping the job market, and Afghans dominating their local culture. If we fast forward another fifty years, it'll be the lovechilds of those Romanians and Afghans complaining about the evil Brazilian immigrants, or something. It's a regular cycle in domestic politics in this country, and will continue to be for as long as people keep coming here instead of leaving.
Much better for immigration to be slow, at a pace we can carefully control and accommodate and make sure that western style values are not threatened and undermined.
The thing is, most people who come here come here because they actually want to integrate. You have Africans who look around in wonder at a country where there's no risk of getting dragged off in the night by the police. You have ex-Gurkhas from Nepal who can't believe the benefits offered by public healthcare. Syrians who want nothing more than to settle down and rebuild their lives after fleeing a civil war. Romanians who love the amount of work they can find and the high tech nature of British society. Russians who love they can publish without fear of Government censorship.
These people are here because they love those values you're worrying about losing. Sure, there's always a few nuts. But if you talk to most immigrants, you'll find that they're not here to supersede British culture with their own. They're here because one person came, and liked it so much that they sent the message home for their entire family to up sticks and join them. Then that family tells their friends, and because they want to be close, they all buy houses on the same street.
Nor do I. But in some places, I think that mass immigration is bringing it back. Do you really think Islamic values in general, are as tolerant, liberal and secular as western values?
I don't believe for one minute that the few immigrants who are hardcore muslims will impact on British society in a meaningful way. They simply don't have the numbers, and people know nutters when they hear them. 99.9% of people in the world just want to get on with their lives. Most muslims just want to enjoy their dinner, go to work, love their spouses, nod their head at the altar when appropriate, and tune into the Only Fools and Horses Christmas Special. They're really not worrying about installing Sharia Law and beheading all women who don't cover themselves up.
Shia's and Sunni's are butchering each other because the values and beliefs that they derive from the Quran direct them to butcher heretics and non-believers. They have different interpretations of the Quran, therefore they view each other as heretics. Those Islamic values are IMO broadly incompatible with western values. For instance, Islam's views on apostasy and homosexuality and the appropriate punishments.
Try Leviticus in the Bible for comparable Western 'culture'. 'Western Values' used to consist of women doing as they were told and 'queers' being shamed out of town. Maybe less extreme than stoning, but not much different in sentiment. That's only changed extremely recently, and a lot of older people still feel that way about things.
As well as what numbers of people would be acceptable 'immigration', and at what stage it becomes the unacceptable 'Mass Immigration'.
Those details are for experts to decide, not an opinionated 23 year old running his mouth off on the internet and making a fool of himself in the process.
But IMO it would become "unacceptable Mass Immigration" when its a level that we cannot reasonably accommodate in terms of housing, education, Policing, employment, NHS services, social cohesion etc. What specifically that level is I have no fething clue.
See, the strain on public services, that I can totally get behind as a reason to limit immigration.
It's the whole 'drowning out British culture' that I find ludicrous as a motive. It only ever comes down to anecdotal evidence, and that basic psychological awareness of people who are different from 'us'. I find though that when you sit down with most people and ask them to rationally and logically pin that eel of a thought/opinion/belief down with the fork of their mind, they actually realise it's not particularly based on reason.
I know you're disagreeing with me, but I just couldn't help but exalt that comment. Even when you're tearing my arguments to shreds, you remain polite and refrain from making insults. I still have no regrets voting for UKIP in the EU elections (no local elections this time in my town) as they're the only one in favour of withdrawal but I'll certainly re-examine their policies on immigration and reconsider my own opinions.
It was a pleasure talking with you. Now I really ought to get to bed.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I know you're disagreeing with me, but I just couldn't help but exalt that comment. Even when you're tearing my arguments to shreds, you remain polite and refrain from making insults. I still have no regrets voting for UKIP in the EU elections (no local elections this time in my town) as they're the only one in favour of withdrawal but I'll certainly re-examine their policies on immigration and reconsider my own opinions.
It was a pleasure talking with you. Now I really ought to get to bed.
A pleasure talking with you too, squire. I always like it when internet debates can end amicably, even when both sides disagree.
Although having said that, I don't necessarily disagree with you on that we need to somehow bring down the levels of immigration if they continue at their current rate. But my motivation for that is simply because of the pressure on local services, and the skyrocketing population on one corner of what is ultimately, a very small island. We need to have some space here for people in forty years time, eh wot?
Having said that though, I'm not convinced the current level of immigration will carry on much longer anyway. Simply because, all the Eastern Europeans who want to move here already have. And there aren't many nations in Europe left to join the EU to provide a fresh influx of immigrants. So logic dictates that immigration will slow over the next year regardless, which no doubt the Conservatives will (inaccurately) pass off as a victory for their (supposedly) tighter border controls.
People feel betrayed by the whole political an mediatical class (not whithout any reason by the way).
The feeling might be similar on my end, though I feel we (citizens) are partially responsible for not acting and being too passive and the old guard far too stuck in their own old ways. I'm not sure what's going to happen, but right now I think it is the worst time to be apathetic. I'm sure in due time I'm going to listen from people who didn't vote, how others decide instead of them.
Kilkrazy wrote: The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.
No! But we do have to abide by certain EU rules. For example, on immigration where even the current government may want a different policy, they can't have that as they have to go by the EU laws.
To me, that is not a situation that should exist.
The UK has to abide by international laws that it has entered into under treaty.
On immigration, I do agree that mass immigration is potentially detrimental to Britain as a nation. I don't say this because I'm racist or Xenophobic, but simply pratical.
I think we should be prioritising those who are actually going to contribute to Britain as a society. Those with education, respect for the law and a willingness to work, should. ewelcomed with open arms, regardless of their nation of origin, EU or outside it. But by the same token, those that are coming over just to exploit the welfare state (and they do exist regardless of what we're always told) should not be welcomed the way they our. When we struggle to look after the unemployed in our own country then we should not be offering such an incentive for more unemployed or unemployable to come into the nation.
And this is a policy that would be far more effective if we weren't forced to take the influx of EU immigrants in leiu of more useful Asians, Africans, Americans or anyone else.
Then theres the culture issue. While I am all for cultural integration, and happy to accept any advance to culture in Britain, the problem is where that culture is coming from. Not being funny, but the majority of immigrants are from Poland and Romania, and with absolutely no offence intended, those cultures hardly offer anything to ours, they're not celebrated internationally as pinnacles of culture, the arts, food or whatever. So all we are doing by bringing them in is dilouting the ever changing British culture with something that really adds nothing. I don't ever recall anyone deciding to go out for a Polish meal or celebrating Romanian art.
To reiterate, I have no intention to be racist. If anything, I can be accused of being meritocratic in that I want a nation in which those with useful, relevant, diverse and professional skillsets are welcomed regardless of origin, but at the same time, if you don't contribute, you don't get anything for that. And for the record, I support the same for British citizens as well, those who just sponge off benefits and won't contribute shouldn't get those benefits if you ask me. But that's a different matter entirely.
Kilkrazy wrote: No-one ever used to go out for an Indian meal or a Chinese meal before there were Indian and Chinese immigrants to set up restaurants.
I know, but what I'm saying is that even in a couple of generations, people won't be going for a Polish. The culture does not seem as prone to that kind of thing as Indian or Chinese, which is notably different from British food. It may just be lack of exposure, but I've never seen Poland referred to as a culinary innovator.
Out of interest, does anyone know the hallmarks of Polish cooking? Is it something you can see becoming a part of British culture in the same way Chinese, Indian or Thai food has?
So the value of an immigrant has to be judged two generations after they come and it will be based on whether people like to go to their restaurants.
That doesn't sound like a viable method of deciding on entry requirements.
There is lots of Polish cooking in the USA, like pierogies, sauerkraut and kielbasa. I bet you can get them here if you go to one of the many Polish delicatessens that have sprung up.
Kilkrazy wrote: So the value of an immigrant has to be judged two generations after they come and it will be based on whether people like to go to their restaurants.
Only culturally, as culture will take that time to integrate, and of course the restaurants is just a simplification. When immigrating, though, the concerns should be on what they can offer the country, be it a skill, a culture, a profession or a service.
Paradigm wrote: On immigration, I do agree that mass immigration is potentially detrimental to Britain as a nation. I don't say this because I'm racist or Xenophobic, but simply pratical.
Go on.
I think we should be prioritising those who are actually going to contribute to Britain as a society.
What about refugees?
Those with education, respect for the law and a willingness to work, should. ewelcomed with open arms, regardless of their nation of origin, EU or outside it.
Wait, you need to have an education to make a contribution to British society? Most artists I know of have little in the way of academic qualifications. Lots of nurses, plumbers, and whatnot also aren't exactly loaded down with them. You might want to double-check your entrance criteria there.
But by the same token, those that are coming over just to exploit the welfare state (and they do exist regardless of what we're always told) should not be welcomed the way they our.
To an extent, for most of them, it's not 'coming over to exploit us', as much as it is, 'I have no health cover and I'd like to live somewhere where I do'. Generally speaking, it's been calculated several times that immigrants generate more money in taxation than they extract from the country in public services.
The issue is that even if the paycheque to the government is larger and meets costs, the numbers of immigrants just swamp a system that isn't prepared to handle the additional numbers. There aren't enough school places, hospital beds, and houses. It's not a question of cost, or immigrants 'exploiting' the system, but that the system at any given time has trouble coping with the sheer numbers of people it's expected to handle.
For example, you might have 1,200 primary school places at a school, but if there are 1,300 children, you have a problem. Now whilst the money generated by the immigrants will be forthcoming to help mitigate that, it won't arrive for a year or two, and it certainly won't mitigate the issues of space within the school/teachers available. So you skip forward a year and make do, and increase yourself to 1,300 school places and another two teachers, but by then you now have 1,400 kids who need school places. It's an infrastructure issue as opposed to a financial one. You can apply it to hospitals, council housing, and most other things.
When we struggle to look after the unemployed in our own country then we should not be offering such an incentive for more unemployed or unemployable to come into the nation.
Incentive? You mean the benefits system? Most immigrants are drawn by the availability of work, healthcare and education far more than the benefits system. Benefits are annoyingly hard to claim for a new immigrant. And more refugees from outside the EU tend to be benefits claimants rather than European migrants. Simply because EU immigrants tend to be moving for work reasons, whereas Middle-East/African immigrants are usually fleeing something with whatever they can carry with them.
And this is a policy that would be far more effective if we weren't forced to take the influx of EU immigrants in leiu of more useful Asians, Africans, Americans or anyone else.
See my last response above. I believe this is a fallacy.
Then theres the culture issue. While I am all for cultural integration, and happy to accept any advance to culture in Britain, the problem is where that culture is coming from. Not being funny, but the majority of immigrants are from Poland and Romania, and with absolutely no offence intended, those cultures hardly offer anything to ours, they're not celebrated internationally as pinnacles of culture, the arts, food or whatever.
Culture is an entirely subjective thing as with regards to what's an 'advance'. I'm sure that those Polish immigrants could name various cultural achievements and personages you wouldn't recognise, and you'd be able to do the same vice versa. You also have to remember that Poland's been carved up a number of times and ceased to exist historically, so a number of their own achievements can get passed off as other nation's ones.
So all we are doing by bringing them in is dilouting the ever changing British culture with something that really adds nothing. I don't ever recall anyone deciding to go out for a Polish meal or celebrating Romanian art.
Diluting British culture? Oh God. Not this again.
Culture tends to be strengthened by multiple influences and inputs. Otherwise you end up worrying about things like 'degenerate artwork' amongst other things. Selective insularity is almost as bad as complete insularity. You may find little merit in a piece of artwork or music, but that does not mean that there are not those who do.
To boot, culture isn't something you can 'dilute' without wandering into the Enoch Powell end of things, which only works if you accept the very loosest and most static subjective definition of 'culture' to begin with.
To reiterate, I have no intention to be racist. If anything, I can be accused of being meritocratic in that I want a nation in which those with useful, relevant, diverse and professional skillsets are welcomed regardless of origin, but at the same time, if you don't contribute, you don't get anything for that. And for the record, I support the same for British citizens as well, those who just sponge off benefits and won't contribute shouldn't get those benefits if you ask me. But that's a different matter entirely.
It's a grand thing the vast majority of immigrants don't do that then I guess. Trust me, as someone who's lived on benefits for a period, it's bleeding difficult to live off the welfare estate and have any quality of life. People who are prepared to sponge do exist, but they're very much in the minority, and usually have to supplement it with petty crime and cash in hand work to make it livable.
Refugees are of course a different case, but as there is not really a part of the EU from which we get refugees, it's kind of irrelevant here.
By 'an education', I don't mean you have to have a double First from Cambridge or be a Nobel Prize winner. I imagine those plumbers, artists and nurses had some kind of basic education, they weren't born with the knowledge of how to do that job.
I agree it's only a small percentage that live on benefits and scrounge from the system without really trying to work, and that they both British citizens and immigrants are part of this group, which is precisely why, at no point, have I said I have an issue with immigration as a concept. My issue is that, by dint of EU immigration laws, we are forced to accept that minority and can do very little about it.
And by incentive, I mean a combination of both the British welfare system, state education and healthcare and the fact that you can basically enter the country whatever you have, or don't have, to offer. So if immigrants are going to come here and use the NHS and other services, putting a strain on them both practically and economically, they should be giving something back for that. In fairness, the majority do, but as I said above, we still have to deal with the ones that don't.
The culture thing really is a matter of perspective, really, but in my own experience, I have yet to see any evidence that mass immigration is adding to British culture. In fact, I see the opposite- ethnic groups form fairly insular communities, and almost shy away from integrating in my experience, which doesn't really benefit either party.
As a final point, you refer to how the largest strain is the expanding population on the infrastructure rather than the economy. Surely, though, if this is the case, the British government should have the power to be able to do something about this, like slowing the rate of immigration through stricter border control? In the EU, we can't really do that.
Paradigm wrote: Refugees are of course a different case, but as there is not really a part of the EU from which we get refugees, it's kind of irrelevant here.
Gotcha. Your original statement was a little bit generalistic, so I was just pegging out exactly where you stood on that one.
By 'an education', I don't mean you have to have a double First from Cambridge or be a Nobel Prize winner. I imagine those plumbers, artists and nurses had some kind of basic education, they weren't born with the knowledge of how to do that job.
In places like Romania, you'd be surprised how often an 'education' consists of 'What my dad who is a general handyman taught me about plumbing/electrics/bricklaying'. Not saying that applies for all of them, but certainly for the more menial/hands on jobs.
I agree it's only a small percentage that live on benefits and scrounge from the system without really trying to work, and that they both British citizens and immigrants are part of this group, which is precisely why, at no point, have I said I have an issue with immigration as a concept. My issue is that, by dint of EU immigration laws, we are forced to accept that minority and can do very little about it.
We did actually have transitional controls in place whereby the numbers of Romanians who could emigrate to Britain were strictly limited for the first seven years of Romania's EU membership. It would appear to be a sensible thing to negotiate a suitable extension/amendment/modification to those rules.
And by incentive, I mean a combination of both the British welfare system, state education and healthcare and the fact that you can basically enter the country whatever you have, or don't have, to offer. So if immigrants are going to come here and use the NHS and other services, putting a strain on them both practically and economically, they should be giving something back for that. In fairness, the majority do, but as I said above, we still have to deal with the ones that don't.
Fortunately, as long as the majority contribute, there still seems to be a general net benefit across the country. But then that gets into a separate question; namely whether or not we should have a safety net available for all at the risk of the occasional exploitation, or whether we should just cancel/restrict the safety net altogether.
The culture thing really is a matter of perspective, really, but in my own experience, I have yet to see any evidence that mass immigration is adding to British culture. In fact, I see the opposite- ethnic groups form fairly insular communities, and almost shy away from integrating in my experience, which doesn't really benefit either party.
I work with two Polish ladies right now. Wonderful women. One of them spends her time doing touristy things around London, and the other one just got married to a Turkish bloke. They both shop in Polski scleps, they both do a fine job and pay their taxes, and buy drinks from the local pub. True, a good number of their friends are Polish, but that's to be expected. Their kids though, will go to local schools, and integrate. They'll be bilingual, have some tastes for some Polish foods (and Turkish), and culture marches on. And who knows? One of them might be the next Einstein/Hawking.
As a final point, you refer to how the largest strain is the expanding population on the infrastructure rather than the economy. Surely, though, if this is the case, the British government should have the power to be able to do something about this, like slowing the rate of immigration through stricter border control? In the EU, we can't really do that.
I agree. I agree that this is an issue. I'm far from convinced it's something to leave the EU over, or indeed, even that it's a set in stone unnegotiable point.
Very reasonable post there, I can't really argue with a lot of it. It may well be your experience with immigrants is the more common one than mine, and to be honest, I hope it is. If there are people coming into the country who are engaging with it socially, economically and culturally then that can't be a bad thing (which is why I have no problem with immigration as a whole).
I do think capping immigration numbers-wise can be a good solution, but we need a representation in both UK and EU politics willing to do that. If it's not set in stone, then we need MPs and MEPs that are willing to attempt to renegotiate the terms.
Paradigm wrote: Very reasonable post there, I can't really argue with a lot of it.
Thank you. Needless to say, if you or Edithae are ever local to London at any point, feel free to send me a message for a drink and a game.
It may well be your experience with immigrants is the more common one than mine, and to be honest, I hope it is. If there are people coming into the country who are engaging with it socially, economically and culturally then that can't be a bad thing (which is why I have no problem with immigration as a whole).
I do think capping immigration numbers-wise can be a good solution, but we need a representation in both UK and EU politics willing to do that. If it's not set in stone, then we need MPs and MEPs that are willing to attempt to renegotiate the terms.
The problem is that no political party ever offers everything you want. The Tories are less likely to do something about the EU than UKIP, but UKIP are somewhat moronic in the rest of their policies as things stand. I don't like any of them particularly, but I have a feeling I'm going to be forced into voting Tory simply for pure tactical voting reasons. The less said about New Labour and the Lib Dems, the better.
Which is why I voted for Ukip for the EU elections, as I agree with their policy on that aspect. There is very little chance I'd vote for them in a general election as their ideas on domestic policy are somewhat odd, to say the least.
Hailing from the country who contributes the largest single immigrant group to the UK, and having lived in the UK and had people complain about "bloody immigrants" to me, even though I am an immigrant, I am pretty sure there's a bit of "they're too different!" to it, and it's not just motivated by economic concerns. I was over there, taking their jobs, and yet my polish colleague got a lot more of that crap off people than I did- they mostly used to complain conspiratorially about the Poles to me.
I find the whole thing pretty hilarious, and kind of pathetic. "Oh no, our country is so awesome that other people uproot their lives at a shot at living here!"
Coming from a country that has historically and presently been ravaged by widespread emigration, it's hard not to be scornful of the attitude.
Also, considering UKIP vote No to everything, even if it is in the British interest, and that they rarely bother showing up at committees or showing up to vote, I don't see how they're representing british interests at all, really.
Da Boss wrote: Hailing from the country who contributes the largest single immigrant group to the UK, and having lived in the UK and had people complain about "bloody immigrants" to me, even though I am an immigrant
That's because to the British, the Irish don't count as immigrants.
I agree it's only a small percentage that live on benefits and scrounge from the system without really trying to work, and that they both British citizens and immigrants are part of this group, which is precisely why, at no point, have I said I have an issue with immigration as a concept. My issue is that, by dint of EU immigration laws, we are forced to accept that minority and can do very little about it.
And by incentive, I mean a combination of both the British welfare system, state education and healthcare and the fact that you can basically enter the country whatever you have, or don't have, to offer. So if immigrants are going to come here and use the NHS and other services, putting a strain on them both practically and economically, they should be giving something back for that. In fairness, the majority do, but as I said above, we still have to deal with the ones that don't.
British euro skeptics were the champions of rapid EU expansion. They supported full membership for East European countries as a counter to Franco-German efforts for greater integration. It's typical that they now blame the EU for the immigration problem they themselves helped to create. Leaving the EU wouldn't necessarily change immigration, as free trade agreements like EEA also require similar rights of free movement.
The right of free movement and residency in the EU goes two ways. There are close to two million UK nationals residing in other member states. Do you suppose they are all hardworking, well educated or an addition to local culture?
I agree it's only a small percentage that live on benefits and scrounge from the system without really trying to work, and that they both British citizens and immigrants are part of this group, which is precisely why, at no point, have I said I have an issue with immigration as a concept. My issue is that, by dint of EU immigration laws, we are forced to accept that minority and can do very little about it.
And by incentive, I mean a combination of both the British welfare system, state education and healthcare and the fact that you can basically enter the country whatever you have, or don't have, to offer. So if immigrants are going to come here and use the NHS and other services, putting a strain on them both practically and economically, they should be giving something back for that. In fairness, the majority do, but as I said above, we still have to deal with the ones that don't.
British euro skeptics were the champions of rapid EU expansion. They supported full membership for East European countries as a counter to Franco-German efforts for greater integration. It's typical that they now blame the EU for the immigration problem they themselves helped to create. Leaving the EU wouldn't necessarily change immigration, as free trade agreements like EEA also require similar rights of free movement.
The right of free movement and residency in the EU goes two ways. There are close to two million UK nationals residing in other member states. Do you suppose they are all hardworking, well educated or an addition to local culture?
Devils advocate here: Can you point to any links or article that denounce these benefits scrounging lazy and yet job thieving UK nationals as threats to the EU?
I agree it's only a small percentage that live on benefits and scrounge from the system without really trying to work, and that they both British citizens and immigrants are part of this group, which is precisely why, at no point, have I said I have an issue with immigration as a concept. My issue is that, by dint of EU immigration laws, we are forced to accept that minority and can do very little about it.
And by incentive, I mean a combination of both the British welfare system, state education and healthcare and the fact that you can basically enter the country whatever you have, or don't have, to offer. So if immigrants are going to come here and use the NHS and other services, putting a strain on them both practically and economically, they should be giving something back for that. In fairness, the majority do, but as I said above, we still have to deal with the ones that don't.
British euro skeptics were the champions of rapid EU expansion. They supported full membership for East European countries as a counter to Franco-German efforts for greater integration. It's typical that they now blame the EU for the immigration problem they themselves helped to create. Leaving the EU wouldn't necessarily change immigration, as free trade agreements like EEA also require similar rights of free movement.
The right of free movement and residency in the EU goes two ways. There are close to two million UK nationals residing in other member states. Do you suppose they are all hardworking, well educated or an addition to local culture?
Devils advocate here: Can you point to any links or article that denounce these benefits scrounging lazy and yet job thieving UK nationals as threats to the EU?
I don't know of any evidence of the free movement of EU citizens being a threat to the economies of other member states, so that is an impossible question to answer, but abuse does exist. Not that the British are worse on average then anyone else.
Kilkrazy wrote: So the value of an immigrant has to be judged two generations after they come and it will be based on whether people like to go to their restaurants.
Only culturally, as culture will take that time to integrate, and of course the restaurants is just a simplification. When immigrating, though, the concerns should be on what they can offer the country, be it a skill, a culture, a profession or a service.
We've had a significant number of Poles living in the UK since WW2, when they contributed various services to the defence of the nation as pilots in the Battle of Britain, and as infantry and paratroops in the invasion of France.
10 or so years ago a younger generation of Poles started to contribute services as attractive, polite and attentive waitresses in restaurants, and as skilled, reliable tradesmen in the building business.
Kilkrazy wrote: We've had a significant number of Poles living in the UK since WW2, when they contributed various services to the defence of the nation as pilots in the Battle of Britain, and as infantry and paratroops in the invasion of France.
Yes, this. The Poles made up a significant proportion of the "few" and therefore did more to save the UK from the Nazis than say... the Americans.
Kilkrazy wrote: We've had a significant number of Poles living in the UK since WW2, when they contributed various services to the defence of the nation as pilots in the Battle of Britain, and as infantry and paratroops in the invasion of France.
Yes, this. The Poles made up a significant proportion of the "few" and therefore did more to save the UK from the Nazis than say... the Americans.
And I don't think anyone in their right mind would take issue with that. Confusing wartime refugees with modern economic migrants is rather irrelevant, and an entirely different conversation.
Kilkrazy wrote: We've had a significant number of Poles living in the UK since WW2, when they contributed various services to the defence of the nation as pilots in the Battle of Britain, and as infantry and paratroops in the invasion of France.
Yes, this. The Poles made up a significant proportion of the "few" and therefore did more to save the UK from the Nazis than say... the Americans.
And I don't think anyone in their right mind would take issue with that. Confusing wartime refugees with modern economic migrants is rather irrelevant, and an entirely different conversation.
Yes, but when a group of people put their lives on the line to save your country, it seems a bit harsh to say to their grandchildren, "Bugger off, you're not coming in."
Regardless, fear of immigrants is a red herring. As has probably been said on this thread already, migrants actually support the economy because they come here, work and spend money. This in turn creates more business, more jobs etc. Trust me, if all the European migrants went home tomorrow, we'd soon know about it.
Jaysus. Our locals elections are enough to make me despair.
Fianna Fáil, the party whose pro cyclical bubble friendly non existent regulation policies resulted in our financial crash, and whose blanket bailout of our toxic banks is the reason the country is in the gakker, is the biggest single group of council seats again after only 1 electoral cycle.
Goldfish memory doesn't begin to describe the memories of the Irish electorate. Disgusting.
Don't think it's just the Irish that are guilty of that, my good man.
I'm looking forward to the results being talked about. David Dimbleby has a program starting at 9 GMT on BBC News 24 that will be discussing the results. I think taking a particular slant to see how well UKIP have done. I'm hopeful that Scottish voters have chosen to stay away from UKIP.
I don't know, it did at least show Labour/Conservative that they need to get their heads out of their collective arses. Lib Dems have all but disappeared, which is what I expected.
Da Boss wrote: Who is going to show UKIP that they need to get their head out of their arse?
They don't need to. UKIP are essentially a protest vote, which will either split the conservative (note the lower-case "c") vote, and let Labour come into power, or they will have to join forces with the Conservative party to get any power in the next general elections.
That's assuming the current state of support for all of the parties. Hopefully, Lab/Con. will get their gak together and beat UKIP outright.
They're (EDIT: referring to Eurosceptic parties here) still a minority overall, I believe? In Britain, UKIP, Labour and Conservatives all got around 25% of the vote, which is a clear enough message without giving anyone an outright majority (not that it matters, given that UK MEPS are a minority in the overall parliament).
UKIP won the majority in the European elections. Given the size of the countries, that means UKIP are sending 23 good for nothing, won't show up, claim expenses but don't bother working MEPs to Europe for Ireland's generically mediocre 11.
They're sending 5 more MEPs than Labour or the Conservatives.
Edit: Just saw that you're reference the overall parliament.
They are indeed, and likely they won't co-operate well, and even more likely, they won't bother to show up and vote. But that means essentially that major decisions get made with less input from the nations who voted Eurosceptic, and the cries of "We're not represented by Europe!" can continue, even though that is what was voted for.
Da Boss wrote: Who is going to show UKIP that they need to get their head out of their arse?
Probably the BNP in ten or so years.
Nah, the BNP have had their time and their form of racism is patently not electable. I assume that former BNP voters have turned out for UKIP along with those apathetic to Labour, Tories or the Lib Dems.
With these results I'm expecting there be another poll over Scottish independence soon. I'd imagine that even some of the naysayers won't be taking all that purple too well. Though can any of this be taken as an indication as to how people will vote in the general elections? =/
Yes but ultimately it wont really change anything aside form the Tories moving even further to the right. The European Parliament is still overwhelmingly pro Europe and the euroskeptic block still doesn't have any real power. At the end of the day the EU elections are not a 'real' election, peoples voting habits will be completely different in the general election and only about a third of people even bothered to vote, I certainly didn't.
In a few years UKIP will go back to being a fringe party, as they already are in national politics. In fact UKIP is quite a 'good' thing as it will draw the extreme right winger Tories away from the Conservatives so their share of the vote will decline so a Lib/Lab or Labour majority government is a lot more likely. Not that this will be a good thing per say, just the lesser of two evils. A UKIP/Conservative government would be a terrible, terrible thing and I would seriously consider emigrating should such a thing occur.
I can't say that I am surprised that the Lib Dems did so badly, I can see them getting a caning at the General Election as well.
Wyrmalla wrote: With these results I'm expecting there be another poll over Scottish independence soon. I'd imagine that even some of the naysayers won't be taking all that purple too well. Though can any of this be taken as an indication as to how people will vote in the general elections? =/
News media is saying its good for the pro independence movement as they will want to be part of the EU.
I'm considering if the anti-independence media in England will continue with the "if Scotland becomes independent, then they won't be in the EU", given that being out of the EU's, to an extent, the goal of the Tories and UKIP. So, based on the arguments of those parties, even if Scotland doesn't gain independence, we'd still be out of the EU, making that a moot point. Though I suppose one shouldn't question the arguments of media so often, as that's the way of madness.
Whatever, should Britain somehow allow UKIP to gain seats in the general election then my opinion of the union's going to pot (though its a wonder it can sink any lower after the Tories took power in the last one). =P
Yes but ultimately it wont really change anything aside form the Tories moving even further to the right. The European Parliament is still overwhelmingly pro Europe and the euroskeptic block still doesn't have any real power. At the end of the day the EU elections are not a 'real' election, peoples voting habits will be completely different in the general election and only about a third of people even bothered to vote, I certainly didn't.
In a few years UKIP will go back to being a fringe party, as they already are in national politics. In fact UKIP is quite a 'good' thing as it will draw the extreme right winger Tories away from the Conservatives so their share of the vote will decline so a Lib/Lab or Labour majority government is a lot more likely. Not that this will be a good thing per say, just the lesser of two evils. A UKIP/Conservative government would be a terrible, terrible thing and I would seriously consider emigrating should such a thing occur.
I can't say that I am surprised that the Lib Dems did so badly, I can see them getting a caning at the General Election as well.
UKIP pulled a lot of support from labour - protest against Milliband and Balls- The lib dems are paying the price of being the third option for so long. Once in power it was obvious a lot of their policies were never going to acted upon.
This is something labour need to wise up to a little bit. They need an overall majority to be effective - and that's not taking into consideration that Milliband may be hampering their efforts or that their policy direction or lack of is going to hurt come next year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: I'm considering if the anti-independence media in England will continue with the "if Scotland becomes independent, then they won't be in the EU", given that being out of the EU's, to an extent, the goal of the Tories and UKIP. So, based on the arguments of those parties, even if Scotland doesn't gain independence, we'd still be out of the EU, making that a moot point. Though I suppose one shouldn't question the arguments of media so often, as that's the way of madness.
Whatever, should Britain somehow allow UKIP to gain seats in the general election then my opinion of the union's going to pot (though its a wonder it can sink any lower after the Tories took power in the last one). =P
Whilst I'm no particular lover of the tories they are at least not spending their way to cling to power like Labour did under Blair/Brown.
The days of Labour being for the people (and a force for change/good) are long gone.
I'm very disappointed that the Green Party lost a seat over all in these elections.
The UK is heading down a slippery slope with its attitude to the Environment. Just have a look at UKIP's policies and Dave's support for fracking. Not to mention HS2 and the damage that's going to do to England's beautiful countryside, all for what? To increase commute speeds? Ridiculous. Technology has outstripped/is outstripping the need for people to commute long distances for face to face meeting frequently. Moving further away from Europe will only make this worse.
Hopefully the general election goes very differently than this Euro one. It's certainly looking like Scotland will be making its exit from the UK.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm very disappointed that the Green Party lost a seat over all in these elections.
The UK is heading down a slippery slope with its attitude to the Environment. Just have a look at UKIP's policies and Dave's support for fracking. Not to mention HS2 and the damage that's going to do to England's beautiful countryside, all for what? To increase commute speeds? Ridiculous. Technology has outstripped/is outstripping the need for people to commute long distances for face to face meeting frequently. Moving further away from Europe will only make this worse.
Hopefully the general election goes very differently than this Euro one. It's certainly looking like Scotland will be making its exit from the UK.
the Green parties 'values'
A real change: from austerity and welfare cuts to investment in decent jobs.
A real change: from privatisation for the benefit of the 1% to public management of essential services not driven by corporate greed.
A real change: from subsidies to fracking and dependence on fossil fuels to a sustainable world we can pass on to our children.
meaningless twaddle - what, when, how and why? I could get the same kind of vague values or directions from the main parties.
The reality is that they can espouse their ideals as loudly and as widely as possible being so far down the food chain, they do not have to act on any of them.
At the moment people here are considering independence just to move away from the southern politics, rather much of a sense of nationalism, at least based on my own little clique. Talking about the Tories and their opinion of the environment, I'll pull out the "these are the people that tried to sell of Sherwood Forest for logging" card as ever. Whatever party managed to take power in the last election the country would've still been in a bad way, its just the face of that party that people seem to care about. Oh yes, Labour really aren't the people's party any more, but the Tories hardly give a damn at all for the little guy. Politics in the UK needs a shake-up definitely, but voting in a party which policies come down to "we hate the EU" and "we had foreign migrants", whilst having little other actual ideas, is hardly the way to go. Its kind of shameful that at the moment in Europe so many countries are moving towards electing parties who seem to just want to complain about the situation their in and blame it on foreigners, rather than trying to build foreign relations and sort out the issue (fixing an economy doesn't come down to selling off all the country's assets and making cuts btw).
Medium of Death wrote: I'm very disappointed that the Green Party lost a seat over all in these elections.
The UK is heading down a slippery slope with its attitude to the Environment. Just have a look at UKIP's policies and Dave's support for fracking. Not to mention HS2 and the damage that's going to do to England's beautiful countryside, all for what? To increase commute speeds? Ridiculous. Technology has outstripped/is outstripping the need for people to commute long distances for face to face meeting frequently. Moving further away from Europe will only make this worse.
Hopefully the general election goes very differently than this Euro one. It's certainly looking like Scotland will be making its exit from the UK.
the Green parties 'values'
A real change: from austerity and welfare cuts to investment in decent jobs.
A real change: from privatisation for the benefit of the 1% to public management of essential services not driven by corporate greed.
A real change: from subsidies to fracking and dependence on fossil fuels to a sustainable world we can pass on to our children.
meaningless twaddle - what, when, how and why? I could get the same kind of vague values or directions from the main parties.
The reality is that they can espouse their ideals as loudly and as widely as possible being so far down the food chain, they do not have to act on any of them.
Quoted for truth. As others have pointed out in this very thread, they also have an irrational hatred/fear of nuclear (fission) power stations, which isn't exactly going to help wean the country off fossil fuels.
Wow. Our labour party took such a drubbing in the locals and europeans that the leader of it, who is our Tánaiste (deputy PM) had to step down!
Wowser. If the new leader is not in favour of coalition, this could bring down the government and precipitate a General. Considering the gains made by Sinn Féin (to the point where they're now the third biggest party at a local level) we could be looking at Gerry Adams as Tánaiste soonish. *shudder*
A real change: from austerity and welfare cuts to investment in decent jobs.
A real change: from privatisation for the benefit of the 1% to public management of essential services not driven by corporate greed.
A real change: from subsidies to fracking and dependence on fossil fuels to a sustainable world we can pass on to our children.
meaningless twaddle - what, when, how and why?.
Firstly a Keynesian program of government investment, such as housebuilding programs and investment in R&D in renewable energies to make the UK the world leader in green tech. Welfare becoming more universal rather than implementing stricter and stricter means tests, expensive and useless private work programmes and sanctions.
Renationalisation of the train service and post office. Opposition to TTIP which could potentially force through more privatisation of the NHS.
No contracts for companies like Cuadrilla to frack, heavy investment in green tech, subsidies for house builds to include solar, wind or geothermal in the build.
The only policy of UKIP's that I actually quite like is their Greenspace policy. Preserving the countryside is very important and having the ability to strong arm housing developers to use more brownfield sites would certainly be a good thing. It's such a shame that they will be worse for the Environment as a whole considering they don't acknowledge climate change. 1 Step forward 10 Steps back. Wonder where Farage was in the HS2 question?
A real change: from austerity and welfare cuts to investment in decent jobs.
A real change: from privatisation for the benefit of the 1% to public management of essential services not driven by corporate greed.
A real change: from subsidies to fracking and dependence on fossil fuels to a sustainable world we can pass on to our children.
meaningless twaddle - what, when, how and why?.
Firstly a Keynesian program of government investment, such as housebuilding programs and investment in R&D in renewable energies to make the UK the world leader in green tech. Welfare becoming more universal rather than implementing stricter and stricter means tests, expensive and useless private work programmes and sanctions.
Renationalisation of the train service and post office. Opposition to TTIP which could potentially force through more privatisation of the NHS.
No contracts for companies like Cuadrilla to frack, heavy investment in green tech, subsidies for house builds to include solar, wind or geothermal in the build.
Would the greens ever actually do this though? if in power? No, no they would not.
As I said their vision could be spouted by any of the other main parties.
Firstly a Keynesian program of government investment, such as housebuilding programs and investment in R&D in renewable energies to make the UK the world leader in green tech. Welfare becoming more universal rather than implementing stricter and stricter means tests, expensive and useless private work programmes and sanctions.
Renationalisation of the train service and post office. Opposition to TTIP which could potentially force through more privatisation of the NHS.
No contracts for companies like Cuadrilla to frack, heavy investment in green tech, subsidies for house builds to include solar, wind or geothermal in the build.
Sounds good. To steal a line, 'where's the money?'. Because all those things cost vast amounts of it. And last time I checked, we were running an operational deficit. So either you're going to have to cut waaaaay more stuff to pay for it, or you're just going to rack up our national deficit to absolutely insane levels.
The Green Party's method is to select a third option:- raise more taxes to pay for your policies.
No confidence: an epitaph for Green politics in Brighton and Hove
January 26, 2014 · by Neil Schofield
It’s becoming a truism in Brighton and Hove that the city’s political crises unfold against a background of uncollected rubbish. Last summer’s crisis was of course all about refuse collection, and the dispute over council workers’ allowances; this time, as the ruling Green administration sets out its plans for a referendum on a 4.75% Council Tax rise, uncollected rubbish – for completely unrelated reasons – sits in the street. The image of a seagull picking at an uncollected refuse sack may turn out to be the epitaph for Green politics in Brighton and Hove.
And there seems to be little doubt that now is the time when epitaphs need to be written, with the Labour group on the Council proposing a motion of no-confidence in the administration at the Full Council meeting on 30 January. The proposal for a council tax increase of this magnitude is doomed to fail; the Greens’ reputation as a serious political party capable of running a medium-sized city is in tatters. What began with so much hope in 2011 – a promise of a new style of politics and resistance to austerity – now appears to be ending in complete failure.
In nearly three years in office, the list of failures is daunting – the CityClean dispute, the Seven Dials Elm Tree, the constant internal warfare inside the Green Party between Watermelon and Mango factions, the attempted coup against Jason Kitcat’s leadership, the Hanover and Elm Grove By-election – and now the decision to propose a referendum on a large Council Tax increase. And it is not just failures of policy: the experience of governing our city has cruelly exposed the Green methodology of “doing politics differently”. I have blogged about those systemic failures before but it’s worth summarising them once more.
First and foremost, there has been a failure of vision. What does the Green Party in Brighton and Hove stand for? Ask that question and you will get a range of answers – 20mph zones, higher parking charges, meat-free Mondays. Those are policy positions; probe further and ask for the strategic vision, and you will for the most part be met by silence. Or, more likely, ridicule and anger. Like Liberal Democrat community politicians – whom in method and approach they often resemble – they have discovered the hard way that Government is hard and testing, and requires something more than pure oppositionism.
Second, there has been a failure of competence. Greens claim to do politics differently: yet the administration has been a shambles. The recurrent refuse crises are just the tip of the iceberg; the record on recycling and air quality, core Green issues, is poor and lags badly behind other authorities. The Seven Dials Elm Tree episode probably marks the point where the Green administration turned into a laughing stock; a Green Council seeking to cut down a historical elm tree to facilitate a traffic scheme, a Green MP standing underneath it giving press conferences to save the tree, two Green Party activists camped in the tree, the Council Leader – in whose ward the tree was situated – nowhere to be seen and a councillor for the adjoining ward admitting to voting for the policy because she hadn’t read the papers. The politics of skipping the tragedy and moving straight to the farce, you might reasonably reflect.
And, as a self-proclaimed party of change, there has been a notable failure of advocacy. Take for example the policy of 20mph limits throughout the city – a popular policy implemented by many Labour and even some Tories councils elsewehere, but toxic here, because the administration has failed to sell it. It’s tempting to blame pressure groups like Unchain the Motorist, but the fact is that such groups have not sprung up in other cities and have not exercised anything like the same grip on the debate. Telling your electors they’re the problem has never been a productive way of doing things.
The latest moves to raise Council Tax display a failure that runs through the history of this administration – a failure of responsibility. Put simply, it’s a council’s job to set a budget. That’s what councillors are elected for. But then this is the same administration that sought to avoid responsibility in last summer’s Cityclean dispute, leaving crucial negotiations in the hands of officers. There appears to be an endemic culture within the Green Group of unwillingness to take tough decisions. It was obvious from the moment the Greens took office that they would need to deal with swingeing cuts – and indeed their manifesto gave a commitment to oppose cuts as far as they could. It’s not as if any of this came as a surprise. But here, as well as in the CityClean dispute, Greens chose to walk away from politics when the crunch came. It’s a fundamental failing.
And in the latest proposal for a Council Tax referendum, the Green Party continues to show a serious failure to understand the meaning of democracy. I have blogged before about how plebiscites are anti-politics, and how they play into the hands of people who want to undermine the processes that are such an essential part of democracy. The point about grown-up politics is that it often involves doing the right but unpopular thing; plebiscitary politics makes that immeasurably more difficult and plays into the hands of well-funded and well-organised lobby groups. In representative democracies it’s the job of politicians to make judgements. Yes, sometimes those judgements turn out to be wrong – obviously. But that’s life, and the alternatives tend to be rather worse. And even, in the depths of their naivety, does anyone in the Green Party seriously believe that Pickles’ introduction of council tax referendums in the Localism Act was designed to make councils more democratic? The terms of this particular piece of localism are set down entirely from the centre; even the wording on the ballot paper. This particular piece of democratic choice involves the Green administration effectively going cap in hand to Whitehall – a bit like a tousle-haired Oliver Twist asking Beadle Pickles for more.
And at heart the Greens have shown a failure to move beyond gesture politics – most notably in their ludicrous plans for a Progressive Council Tax. To place your claim to be opponents of austerity on this ill-conceived, completely unworkable and probably unlawful charade suggests a party that prefers the indulgence of protest to the mechanics of government – with the compromises that Government in a democracy inevitably entails. I have also blogged before about the limitations of Green politics in the context of the protests at Balcombe; the contrast between the Green comfort zone of protest and the demands of effecting real political change through democratic institutions. It’s a conflict the Green Party seems barely aware of, let alone close to resolving.
Moreover, for a party that claims to be the sole voice against austerity economics, its failure to oppose austerity and speak for the disadvantaged is particularly damning. It’s not just that the Green Party conference last autumn voted for an economic policy based on hardcore monetarist faddism; the current proposals to raise council tax by 4.75% reflect an inability of the Brighton party faithful – largely drawn from affluent professional backgrounds – to get their heads around the effects on so many of their fellow citizens. While it’s true that the overall effect of council tax is probably progressive, it is most deeply regressive for those just above the benefits level – the very people who have been hit hardest by austerity and have seen their standard of living fall the furthest. Yes, Caroline Lucas in Parliament and on BBC Question Time talks a good anti-austerity talk. But you do not become an anti-austerity party by supporting a tax rise that will raise £2.75m out of a total cut in grant of £24m, at a likely cost of £500k, with the burden falling hardest on some of the most vulnerable people in the city – people who have experienced forty months of soaring prices and steadily falling real pay, in a city whose living costs were already among the highest in Britain. At a time when many people in this city are choosing between eating and heating, and not just in its poorest areas either, to talk of a rise of “only” £6 per month is both breathtakingly out-of-touch and as potent a symbol as one could wish for of who the Green Party represents and comprises.
And finally, the Green Party’s internal structures – or lack of them – are symptomatic of a failure to move beyond the politics of personal indulgence. As I’ve blogged before, those who wield power and wealth are organised and united by networks that are often largely informal and massively pervasive. To take on that power – and effect real change – you need organisation and discipline. When you’re dealing with an entrenched establishment, one that is rapidly moving beyond even paying lip-service to democracy, they’re all you’ve got. Anything else is basically fancy dress outside foie-gras restaurants; picturesque, liable to produce a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, and utterly incapable of shifting the balance of power. Greens seem incapable of submitting to collective rules and discipline – they resent structure. And, internally, that lack of structure means that power relations inside the party mirror rather than challenge those outside. It is rumoured that this is the root cause for the mediation proposed last summer. Most extraordinary of all, a Green councillor who sought to enrol the help of the Labour leader in an attempt to oust her own Group Convenor is hailed in some Green corners as a hero. There is at the heart of all this, as I and others have written before, a basic culture of Thatcherite individualism: a reluctance to understand that politics is, at its heart, a collective enterprise.
Over the weekend, as a new Labour Party member rediscovering the joys of doorknocking, I spent some time on the doorstep in one of the Green Party’s wards, Preston Park. Time and time again, even here in what had been a Green stronghold, I found a hostility to the Green administration that was almost visceral. A little more than twelve hours earlier, Caroline Lucas had launched her re-election campaign; the city was due to be invaded by a small army of Young Greens to argue the case for the council tax increase. And the combination of those two events revealed a fundamental truth about the Green Party’s profile. Caroline Lucas remains one of Britain’s most respected voices on the left – outside Brighton and Hove. But in the only city in Britain where the Green Party has wielded power, voters appear desperate to get rid of it. A BBC opinion poll recently suggested the Greens would come third in the next local elections. So far, Caroline Lucas’ campaign has begun increasingly to look like one founded on distancing itself as far as possible from the Green Council – and gives every sign of being funded and staffed from outside the city. A recent leaflet posted to every household in the city barely mentions the council, or the Green Party. I did wonder whether this was the first time in which a Parliamentary candidate who had recently led her political party and remained a revered member of it sought so strenuously to avoid referring to that party on her election literature.
And yet the vote for Brighton Pavilion’s next MP cannot be divorced from the record of the Green Party in office in Kings House. Anyone can say fine things in opposition – especially as an opposition of one. But the failures I have listed above are endemic in the political method of the Green Party; most of all in its inability to understand the realities and responsibilities of speaking truth to power. The Green Party likes to accuse Labour of “neoliberalism” – but fails to recognise the irony that many Labour councils, unhindered by the Greens’ post-Thatcherite political methods, have, even at a time of austerity, and even while forced to make cuts every bit as agonising as those in Brighton and Hove, made real progress where they can in improving the lives of their citizens. And that includes what Greens regard as their flagship policies like the living wage. There is nothing that Brighton and Hove Greens can claim to have achieved that other authorities have not done elsewhere.
And Greens continue to talk of challenging austerity, in the city and beyond; they even appear to suggest that a Council Tax referendum could galvanise opposition to neoliberal thinking. But, quite simply, that pass has been sold. It’s too late. To lead a campaign against what remains the default thinking of the political establishment, you need to be credible and command respect; the Brighton and Hove Green Party isn’t and doesn’t. The time for building coalitions with those on the front line has passed, and, as the 20mph debacle has shown, the cruel fact is that the involvement of the Green Party can too easily turn potentially popular issues toxic. And it cannot be argued strongly enough – the reasons for that failure lie not just in political failures peculiar to Brighton, but in the way in which the Green Party seeks to conduct its politics.
I have said many times: to be green you have to be red, and to be red you have to be green. Issues of climate change, environmental justice, poverty, affluence and for whose benefit economic activity is carried on remain completely interwoven. And those are questions of political method as well as of political ends. It is the political method of the Green Party that has been found so desperately wanting in Brighton and Hove; and that is why, as a city, it sits so solidly behind the motion of No Confidence that will be presented to the Council on 30 January.
Medium of Death wrote:Good on him for being against it. Better than Labour at any rate. Although that's not saying much.
That graph doesn't seem quite right. Population of the UK doesn't seem to add up, well at least in my mind...
I think the actual figures for turn out will be somewhere between 20 & 30% which is shocking.
Da Boss wrote:Complain about the EU but then don't bother to vote to change it, showing your political system that it can continue to keep about it's business.
This. Unless 70% of the population want to cede all right to complain (yeah right) then the turnout figures are appalling. Even if you choose to abstain/spoil your ballot, at least make an effort. Political apathy does no one any good.
Slow decline since the 40's to the 90's and then a sudden drop from then on. I wonder if the next general election will show that slow rise or whether it'll drop down again.
Kilkrazy wrote: 35% turnout in the south-east and east areas of the UK.
Mind you, electoral participation in general elections has been poor for years.
It all shows the disillusionment of the public with "politics as usual".
Which should, in an ideal world, make the parties a little more proactive seeking votes and supports, maybe by having some relevant policies?
Instead, they just sit in the status quo thinking that because people show so little interest, they clearly don't care and so they keep on with the same bland stuff... Which then leads to politics becoming 'boring' and triggs the cycle for the next generation.
Mr. Burning wrote:
Would the greens ever actually do this though? if in power? No, no they would not..
How do you know they wouldn't? Caroline Lucas is undoubtedly one of the hardest working MPs in the House of Commons, just as she was one of the hardest working MEPs that the UK had (an far cry from UKIP there). There are things you can criticise about her but dedication is not one of them.
As I said their vision could be spouted by any of the other main parties
But this vision isn't spouted by any other party, they seek austerity and neoliberalism, the Greens are the only alternative if you don't buy in to a vision which will just cause increasingly inequality.
Ketara wrote:
Sounds good. To steal a line, 'where's the money?'. Because all those things cost vast amounts of it. And last time I checked, we were running an operational deficit. So either you're going to have to cut waaaaay more stuff to pay for it, or you're just going to rack up our national deficit to absolutely insane levels.
The Green Party's method is to select a third option:- raise more taxes to pay for your policies.
Here's a more general analysis of the Green Party in Brighton:-
If they were in charge nationally they could borrow, which ( I think, macroeconomics isn't really something I can claim to be an expert on ) is kind of the point of Keynesian theory, to use government cash during recession to keep the economy fluid during a time of decreased demand. As a council the only option is to raise tax or make cuts.
That is an interesting blog post ( although you can very much see the authors bias ), they are a young party and do lack the infrastructure of someone like labour. Now that isn't particularly comforting if it is your rubbish not being collected, but it is something that will plague all young parties, I have lost count of the number of UKIP councillors who have been forced to 'step down', each time causing a vastly expensive re-election. Not to invalidate that blogger's anecdote, but simply to add my own, I have a Green local councillor and not once in the 4 years he has been in office have we had a missed rubbish collection.
Also, that map does seem to show how well compulsory voting works for Belgium, I personally wouldn't mind if it were made compulsory here, certainly for general election if not local and european ones.
Well, despite having cumpolsory voting, belgium's political system is a shambles, so I'm not sure forcing people is the way forward. Worth a try though.
If they were in charge nationally they could borrow, which ( I think, macroeconomics isn't really something I can claim to be an expert on ) is kind of the point of Keynesian theory, to use government cash during recession to keep the economy fluid during a time of decreased demand. As a council the only option is to raise tax or make cuts.
Keynesian theory has nothing to do with it. Recession has nothing to do with it. Examine about what was posted before. The original post was about the Green Party values, which presumably would true to their intended manifesto for the next general election, right? Now your response was a list of things that you said/thought the Green Party would enact.
Spoiler:
dæl wrote:Firstly a Keynesian program of government investment, such as housebuilding programs and investment in R&D in renewable energies to make the UK the world leader in green tech. Welfare becoming more universal rather than implementing stricter and stricter means tests, expensive and useless private work programmes and sanctions.
Renationalisation of the train service and post office. Opposition to TTIP which could potentially force through more privatisation of the NHS.
No contracts for companies like Cuadrilla to frack, heavy investment in green tech, subsidies for house builds to include solar, wind or geothermal in the build.
Now frankly, I don't know if those are the Green Party's intended policies, but running off of the things you've said, the recession is actually kind of irrelevant. Because we're not actually in a recession right now. Growth is mediocre and unimpressive, but the economy is just about holding together. Therefore you're not borrowing money to stimulate the economy during a recession, and frankly, even if we were in recession, those policies are not the sort of policies which do stimulate growth.
For example, renationalising the railway service is one of the things you listed. Now that policy is well and good, and driven by a desire to stop private industry from deriving profits at the cost of a captive audience. Logically, the reason you would want to take it over is so that you can get the railways to charge their running costs and nothing more. But that policy would be fraught with risk. Firstly, you'd need to raise the necessary cash to pay a fair price to buy it back. If you don't, you'll scare private investors into withdrawing all of their cash out of anything the Government so much as looks sideways at, for fear you'll nationalise other industries at below market rates. But that cash has to come from somewhere, and if you plan on delivering rail services at cost (the whole point of nationalisation), you won't be making it up through charging for tickets.
So where does that money come from? This project is also extremely unlikely to stimulate growth, in fact, if anything it would do the opposite as you'll make private investors worry. Ergo, this actually has nothing to do with stimulating growth, and everything to do with political policy. And that holds true for most of what you posted.
Opening up welfare? That doesn't stimulate the economy particularly much, but does cost a big chunk of moolah. Nationalising the post office? Same as the railways. Investing in green tech? The solar panels industry which was subsidised up until has more or less all gone to Chinese companies, and renewables are never going to be a large enough part of the energy market to either provide all the power, or stimulate growth directly or indirectly.
These are all policies, which whilst admirable, need funds and have little in the way of payback to the public purse. Which means either cuts, taxes, or debt. Or a mix of the three.
Kilkrazy wrote: 35% turnout in the south-east and east areas of the UK.
Mind you, electoral participation in general elections has been poor for years.
It all shows the disillusionment of the public with "politics as usual".
Which should, in an ideal world, make the parties a little more proactive seeking votes and supports, maybe by having some relevant policies?
Instead, they just sit in the status quo thinking that because people show so little interest, they clearly don't care and so they keep on with the same bland stuff... Which then leads to politics becoming 'boring' and triggs the cycle for the next generation.
It doesn't matter to the parties if the turnout is low. As the old saw has it, "Voting is useless, the government always gets elected". If only the motivated party workers voted elections would be like the old rotten boroughs.
The problem with UK politics at the moment is that we have had 40 years of unrelieved right wing policies, which have basically failed to create jobs, investment and widespread prosperity, but for some reason the electorate wants more of them. That is why the Labour Party lurched to the right, and why the Liberals have done so badly by being more left wing. (Also they blew it on university fees and various things like that.)
RE: Green funding, I'm sure cutting Nuclear Weapons from the budget would make a fairly good start.
Halting plans for a massive railway line for the "elite" would be another good one.
Stimulating growth? Define what you mean by growth? Unsustainable growth like that which was seen before the recession in the Housing market/Banking Sector or what?
Medium of Death wrote: RE: Green funding, I'm sure cutting Nuclear Weapons from the budget would make a fairly good start.
Halting plans for a massive railway line for the "elite" would be another good one.
Stimulating growth? Define what you mean by growth? Unsustainable growth like that which was seen before the recession in the Housing market/Banking Sector or what?
Are these comments addressed to me? Because the two about funding seem to be, but I'm not sure about the bottom one.
Medium of Death wrote:Yes, due to you emphasising the potential impact upon growth through renationalisation.
Gotcha.
Medium of Death wrote:RE: Green funding, I'm sure cutting Nuclear Weapons from the budget would make a fairly good start.
I agree. After all, having another country guarantee your security in perpetuity in exchange for giving up your nuclear weapons always works out. Right?
Halting plans for a massive railway line for the "elite" would be another good one.
No comment on that one. That whole project has been so marred by manipulated figures by both sides that I'm educated enough to know I have no real idea of the situation.
Stimulating growth? Define what you mean by growth? Unsustainable growth like that which was seen before the recession in the Housing market/Banking Sector or what?
What I would mean by growth would be the textbook definiton. Not sure where you're going with that.
Economic Growth: An increase in the amount of goods and services produced per head of the population over a period of time.
Nationalising the railways wouldn't deliver growth of any variety, sustainable or unsustainable.
Keynesian theory has nothing to do with it. Recession has nothing to do with it. Examine about what was posted before. The original post was about the Green Party values, which presumably would true to their intended manifesto for the next general election, right? Now your response was a list of things that you said/thought the Green Party would enact.
Spoiler:
dæl wrote:Firstly a Keynesian program of government investment, such as housebuilding programs and investment in R&D in renewable energies to make the UK the world leader in green tech. Welfare becoming more universal rather than implementing stricter and stricter means tests, expensive and useless private work programmes and sanctions.
Renationalisation of the train service and post office. Opposition to TTIP which could potentially force through more privatisation of the NHS.
No contracts for companies like Cuadrilla to frack, heavy investment in green tech, subsidies for house builds to include solar, wind or geothermal in the build.
Now frankly, I don't know if those are the Green Party's intended policies, but running off of the things you've said, the recession is actually kind of irrelevant. Because we're not actually in a recession right now. Growth is mediocre and unimpressive, but the economy is just about holding together. Therefore you're not borrowing money to stimulate the economy during a recession, and frankly, even if we were in recession, those policies are not the sort of policies which do stimulate growth.
I split those three statements on purpose, they cover separate issues. The first line is about opposing austerity, which we only have because of the recession, so the recession is very much relevant. Also, apart from the London property bubble we would have even less growth, potentially negative. The economy is very much in need of stimulus right now, just as it is in need of a vast house building program.
For example, renationalising the railway service is one of the things you listed. Now that policy is well and good, and driven by a desire to stop private industry from deriving profits at the cost of a captive audience. Logically, the reason you would want to take it over is so that you can get the railways to charge their running costs and nothing more. But that policy would be fraught with risk. Firstly, you'd need to raise the necessary cash to pay a fair price to buy it back. If you don't, you'll scare private investors into withdrawing all of their cash out of anything the Government so much as looks sideways at, for fear you'll nationalise other industries at below market rates. But that cash has to come from somewhere, and if you plan on delivering rail services at cost (the whole point of nationalisation), you won't be making it up through charging for tickets.
This would not be done to stimulate growth, this would be done to provide a cheap and effective public transport system, I don't know if you use the trains much but they are gloriously expensive, while the companies running them make "excessive" profits.
Opening up welfare? That doesn't stimulate the economy particularly much, but does cost a big chunk of moolah.
We would certainly see a decline in the food bank industry, although I would need to be convinced that this is a bad thing.
Investing in green tech? The solar panels industry which was subsidised up until has more or less all gone to Chinese companies, and renewables are never going to be a large enough part of the energy market to either provide all the power, or stimulate growth directly or indirectly.
So forget solar, look at Thorium, or improved geothermal, or tide (we are an island after all), or wind. The point being that we could, with investment, be the people that other countries come cap in hand to in a decade or two. Renewables very much are going to be a large part of the energy market eventually, finite resources run out and while they do they increase in cost exponentially.
These are all policies, which whilst admirable, need funds and have little in the way of payback to the public purse. Which means either cuts, taxes, or debt. Or a mix of the three.
The problem with these policies is not that you would not get a return, its more that the return will take longer than an election cycle to arrive, probably several. But that is more a problem with democracy and how it is focused on short term solutions, what we need is another post war consensus as we had in '45.
I guess my main response would be that growth in that particular sector should not be necessary or even warranted as transport should solely be public infrastructure and not private enterprise. I don't really see it having a massive effect on businesses beyond those that operate within that sector currently.
"educated enough to know I have no real idea of the situation". Really? One as particularly intelligent as yourself? I thought it particularly obvious that a very expensive railway line that is intended to service London and reduce commute times is not beneficial for the country. Technology should be being adopted to better facilitate communication in place of travel. Saving time (an hour, perhaps 2) for a minority of people compared to the potential rolling stock upgrade across the country seems like a complete non-starter to me.
Surely Nuclear weapons aren't any form of defense beyond an "end of days" scenario? In the event of any Nuclear exchange we'd be fethed regardless. You don't need to have Nuclear weapons to be able to prevent them from being used on yourself.
@dael
But none of that answers the crux of the issue, and my first point. Namely, where does the money for all these policies come from? We are running an operational deficit. I'd like us to have a space program and half a dozen other things as a nation, but that doesn't mean that the funds are there.
So, I repeat, if the Green Party wanted to follow through with any of this sort of thing, they would have to cut other services, raise taxes, or borrow vast sums of money. Like UKIP, and the Lib Dems up until now, it's all very well and good to promise pie, but if the pie is in the sky and there's no means to reach it, people aren't likely to take you very seriously.
A mixture of progressive taxes (wealth, 2nd property etc.), some debt, some cuts to what would be termed 'crony capitalist' schemes, and proper tax collection from multinationals. Also, bear in mind that a considerable chunk of the welfare budget goes to those in work, a liveable wage would reduce billions, if not tens of billions, from the budget, leaving it to be reapplied more effectively elsewhere.
Medium of Death wrote: I guess my main response would be that growth in that particular sector should not be necessary or even warranted as transport should solely be public infrastructure and not private enterprise. I don't really see it having a massive effect on businesses beyond those that operate within that sector currently.
I actually agree with you wholeheartedly on that score. I don't think public utilities and transport should be under private ownership.
When they sold off the railways initially, they were barely functioning due to constant strikes, insane operating costs, and terrible inefficiencies. So I can see the logic behind the action of the time, and would have agreed with it back then. Since then though, the East Coast Mainline operated at a profit under government control, which would appear to indicate that the railways can work under state control, if organised properly.
"educated enough to know I have no real idea of the situation". Really? One as particularly intelligent as yourself?
Not sure if being flattered or insulted.
I thought it particularly obvious that a very expensive railway line that is intended to service London and reduce commute times is not beneficial for the country. Technology should be being adopted to better facilitate communication in place of travel. Saving time (an hour, perhaps 2) for a minority of people compared to the potential rolling stock upgrade across the country seems like a complete non-starter to me.
The problem there is the very nature of our service based economy. With our physical industry dead in the water, London makes the money, and if one works with the assumption that we want to continue to inspire growth, the easiest way to do it is to make it easier for London to make money. It's certainly easier than trying to kickstart non-productive industry in the Midlands again, and is a way of stimulating a housing bubble outside of London. It really depends on your opinion of economic priorities, and your personal vision of the future of the economy of this country. I can see the merit of both positions, and as such, refrain from taking sides.
Surely Nuclear weapons aren't any form of defense beyond an "end of days" scenario? In the event of any Nuclear exchange we'd be fethed regardless. You don't need to have Nuclear weapons to be able to prevent them from being used on yourself.
The wonderful thing about nuclear weapons is their deterrent to physical invaders and conventional warfare. North Korea's proved what having them can do to help keep you secure, and Ukraine's proved what lacking them can do. On the whole, I want my country to be sustained for as along as possible without undue outside military interference, and see them as one of the best logical guarantees of that. We're under no massive threat now, but in fifty years? Who knows? Borders and Governments have a habit of changing, historically speaking. Better we have and don't need, rather than vice versa.
I was being a bit snide with that comment, but you generally do post rather well... so a little for column A, little from column B
I think we'll agree to disagree on the Nuclear Weapons thing though.
So does anybody else think that Nick Clegg really should go? I don't think him leaving could damage his party any further. I'd like to see Charles Kennedy as the leader to be honest.
Clegg needs to go before the next election if the
LibDems are to even have a chance, but I think he's already done too much damage to make a difference. He's nothing more than a sellout and a liar in my eyes.
Paradigm wrote: Clegg needs to go before the next election if the
LibDems are to even have a chance, but I think he's already done too much damage to make a difference. He's nothing more than a sellout and a liar in my eyes.
After the Lib Dems went into a coalition with the Tories they were always going to get battered in the next general election, its too much of a betrayal for their voters. The tuition fee 'promise' really didn't help them either, nor has their track record in government. A new leader may salvage something but unless he is Jesus its not going to do much for them overall. Its a shame that Charlie Kennedy isn't still the leader to be honest.
I quite liked his proposals to change voting for elections, but sadly that was shot down.
The student thing really fethed him over. I can't see him or hear him without thinking about it. It didn't effect me, being in Scotland and getting my fees paid, but it did piss me off for all the other students around the country. Such blatant lying. Where was their "spin Dr" when they made that decision?
Time to go Mr. Clegg, you fethed your career and party at a shot for power. The Lib Dems are equally responsible though.
Le Pen seems pretty out there. I heard on the BBC that they (her party) were quite heavily anti-Semitic in the past. The commentator said that "they've done a lot to get rid of that image and it isn't really a valid criticism anyore" which I think is a load of bs.
While UKIP undoubtedly has some racist & unsavoury elements, I'd say Farage is more of a jingoist than an out & out racist. He'd be shooting himself in the foot to side with Le Pen.
The Lib dems would have been found out in either a Tory or Labour led coalition.
They would have had to back track on key policy points either way, and would always be a junior partner in any coalition- leading to them winning points on marginal matters of policy and having to convince their members that key election pledges being flipped is "the best thing in the long run".
Really though Liberal MP's wanting Cleggs head should have shouted louder before any agreement was entered into after the last general election. They all wanted to be the ones to clip the tories wings.
Medium of Death wrote: Le Pen seems pretty out there. I heard on the BBC that they (her party) were quite heavily anti-Semitic in the past. The commentator said that "they've done a lot to get rid of that image and it isn't really a valid criticism anyore" which I think is a load of bs.
The Front National are like the Far-Right All-Star. They are very, very good in making very different brand of people vote for them. They get votes from Christian extremists and very anti-Christian NSBM fans. They get votes from “anti-Zionist” nutcases and the get votes from hardline anti-Muslim jews. Or at least they are trying in the last case.
I have never been to a Front National meeting, but I would love to, just to see how they manage not to fight each others .
They have been working hard to get a clean face to show to the general public, and actually, the less stuff they actually say about their opinions, the better it is for them. So, they mostly say populist consensual stuff, and a lot of various attacks on the other partys. They have coined the expression UMPS to describe how the two main party, the UMP and the PS, are actually just the same gak with another name.
What do they actually believe in? I am not sure. But I do not want to get them in power just to find out!
Da Boss : I feel pretty bad for not having voted, mostly.
Medium of Death wrote:I was being a bit snide with that comment, but you generally do post rather well... so a little for column A, little from column B
Good enough for me!
I'm a somewhat arrogant sod from time to time, so it probably does me good to get brought back to earth every once in a while.
I think we'll agree to disagree on the Nuclear Weapons thing though.
Fair enough, that's a whole other debate, and tends to ultimately come down to opinion at the end of the day.
I did see a funny clip with a comedian once though. He said we should scrap the nukes, but just not tell anybody. Make cardboard missiles or something, and the deterrent effect will be the same, just cost a lot less!
So does anybody else think that Nick Clegg really should go? I don't think him leaving could damage his party any further. I'd like to see Charles Kennedy as the leader to be honest.
I doubt it would make much of a difference by this stage tbh. The Lib dems in general are taking a kicking.
Palindrome wrote:
After the Lib Dems went into a coalition with the Tories they were always going to get battered in the next general election, its too much of a betrayal for their voters. The tuition fee 'promise' really didn't help them either, nor has their track record in government.
I don't think there was anything inherently wrong in going into coalition. The Lib Dems haven't had a sniff of power in decades, and it would have given them a chance to do something finally. I think that where they went wrong, was prioritising the accumulation of power above all else. That's what burned them.
The Lib Dems, as junior partners were never going to be able to have more than two or three red line policies that they were going to be able to push on the Tories. Clegg sat down, and thought about it, and decided that it wasn't going to be tuition fees. It wasn't going to be anything on his manifesto. It was going to be anything economy related ( in the middle of a recession). No. Clegg decided that the two things he wanted the Tories to let him push for were House of Lords reform, and voting reform ( the AV system).
The reason he picked those is because the Lib Dems have always polled fairly well, but not got very many seats into either chamber. They scored 23% of the general vote in the 2010 election, meaning almost 1 in 4 people voted for them, but only got 57 seats out of almost 650 due to the first past the post system. If AV had come in, it would have built them into a serious contender for second largest party at any given time, and given them the chance of forming their own government some day. Likewise, if the House of Lords was directly elected, their own influence in there would have been greatly increased.
The yellow is the Liberal Democrats percentage of the overall vote
In other words, Clegg picked to push the two policies that would give his party the best shot at hanging onto power/gaining more power in future, over holding to any of his election pledges. And it's ruined him. Both policies were shot down, one of which was in a national referendum. The Lib Dems then moaned and complained at the Tories about not just forcing these things through despite being democratically shot down (very liberalistic, eh wot?).
They then deliberately sabotaged the Tories from returning the constituency boundaries (to where they were before Labour strategically redrew them to give themselves voting advantage) as a revenge tactic. Which was very mature.
~And on that day was the Earth plunged into an eternal darkness of misdirection, incompetence & general fudging~
Frankly, the Liberal Democrats have acted like nothing more than power hungry, petulant, untrustworthy children, and the thought of a Clegg/Miliband coalition ruling the country fills me with horror. I don't like Cameron much, but I'll be voting Tory just to avoid that.
Ketara wrote: I don't like Cameron much, but I'll be voting Tory just to avoid that.
While I will be voting for the Red Tories to do my bit in preventing the abomination that would be Farage and Cameron.
The Lib Dems could have re-created themselves as a genuine alternative to the nearly identical Labour and Conservatives, the UK is almost completely lacking in genuinely left wing political parties and that is the role that the Lib Dems should be filling. Painting themselves grey and attaching themselves to the Tories has done nothing but force them to support policies that their own voters find objectionable and it will be a millstone around the parties neck for years to come. The Lib Dems have accomplished very little of note in this parliament (except perhaps restraining the Tories more outlandish schemes) and while it may have gotten them close to power it isn't close enough to have been worth the fallout.
Mr. Burning wrote: The Lib dems would have been found out in either a Tory or Labour led coalition.
They would have had to back track on key policy points either way, and would always be a junior partner in any coalition- leading to them winning points on marginal matters of policy and having to convince their members that key election pledges being flipped is "the best thing in the long run".
Really though Liberal MP's wanting Cleggs head should have shouted louder before any agreement was entered into after the last general election. They all wanted to be the ones to clip the tories wings.
For decades the major charge filed against the Liberals was that they had no experience of real government.
Medium of Death wrote:]I think we'll agree to disagree on the Nuclear Weapons thing though.
Fair enough, that's a whole other debate, and tends to ultimately come down to opinion at the end of the day.
I did see a funny clip with a comedian once though. He said we should scrap the nukes, but just not tell anybody. Make cardboard missiles or something, and the deterrent effect will be the same, just cost a lot less!
That'd work for 5 min...and then Wiki-leaks would get wind of it.
Well it didn't take long. Less than a week in and the first UKIP councillor is suspended. Alas, this will probably be the first of many, and considering his comments and attitude were previously known this must be seen as a failure of the party to properly vet candidates.
dæl wrote: Well it didn't take long. Less than a week in and the first UKIP councillor is suspended. Alas, this will probably be the first of many, and considering his comments and attitude were previously known this must be seen as a failure of the party to properly vet candidates.
While this is certainly a nice bit of ammo for the anti-Ukip-ers, I do think the fact they bothered to suspend him suggests the party are just as aware of the fact they have dangerous idiots on the inside as the public are. They are obviously trying to do something about it, which is good.
The one thing holding Ukip back more than anything is people like this. If they get rid of the extremists, racists and general plonkers, I think people would take them far more seriously.
So Reding, the vice-president of the EU, has branded a significant portion of the parliament fascist. Great. I'm sure that will really help everyone get along.
I still have no regrets voting for UKIP in the 
