To-day is the day, Nigel beckons

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Re 76

There is no mystery to running a 'sound economy'. The basic requirements are obvious: Maintaining international confidence in your currency; controlling public spending; controlling open ended defense procurement; controlling duplication; removing red tape and obstructive bureaucracy. Income from manufactured exports and the service industries tend to maintain their own momentum as they are profit driven by private industry.

UKIP can, with the help of the supposedly, politically neutral permanent civil service maintain a sound economy - if that is what they inherit. If not, then they might for a time struggle. I trust Nigel Farage and his economists to run a tight ship. I doubt that any other party could match the deliberate profligacy of the socialists.

Yes. My glass is 'half full' !

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 10

I'm interested in how many nUKIP voters voted out of protest and have no plans to vote for them in the GE, although personally, I think there are much better ways of registering your protest. I'd also like to know how many UKIP voters actually have any idea of their other policies. There seems ot be so much bias in the reporting of this. It's not really clear where they stand on a lot of other issues, the same with Europe, it's not just case of voting yes or no, it depends on what terms are agreed. If we vote out are we then to be in the same position as say, Switzerland, where we have to be governed by treaties but have no say in how those treaties are made? I think 16 yr olds should be able ot voite in this asa it affects them and their ability to be able to work/study aboprad etc too, it's of no concern to some 70 yr old man, unless he's one of the thousands of 70 yr olds who go over to Spain every year and drain their health resources. But that's allowed, yes? Because they are proper British people and not Bulgarians etc.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

John - there is little more to say here as we are in danger of going round in circles.

I admire your faith particularly that which assumes the civil service will carry on regardless. Constitutional History for A Level taught me that that was a myth, more years ago than I care to remember.

Good luck - I hope you are selected.

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 7,025

I think 16 yr olds should be able ot voite in this asa it affects them and their ability to be able to work/study aboprad etc too, it's of no concern to some 70 yr old man, unless he's one of the thousands of 70 yr olds who go over to Spain every year and drain their health resources. But that's allowed, yes? Because they are proper British people and not Bulgarians etc.

Regarding the first part of your post ,it was a protest vote and the odds of UKIP doing anything is very small BUT they will be able to take votes from others whilst not winning themselves.
Allowing 16 year olds to vote- NO NO NO - when you are legally able to fight for your country,drink become an adult basically then yes.16 year olds have very little real world experience--trust me i am the parent of 2 teenagers.I daresay a few may be ok BUT the majority no.I would even cast a doubt over the ability of a huge percentage of adults to hold a reasonable understanding of issues so important to people.Just look at this forum, a different point of view for everyone on here.
People are like sheep ,one bleats loud enough the others follow if they don't understand but it sounds good.
70 year olds in Spain,are they paying taxes in that country ? a small percentage of people do this,a lot larger come over here for the NHS tourism trick.
I had to go into hospital in London a few years ago for some stitches and i was the only white English person in there,nothing racist it was a fact of the matter but i hope all these people were paying their taxes and contributing into the NHS as well.

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980

I bet they had this conversation when the Labour party was formed and the Liberals and Conservatives thought they'd do nowt either

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980

Allowing 16 year olds to vote- NO NO NO - when you are legally able to fight for your country

You can join the Army at 16, you can fight at 17, neither of which can vote.

But to put it more bluntly, you can pay taxes at 16 in employment, so perhaps a 16 year old should be able to have a say in how their taxes are being spent.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

I bet they had this conversation when the Labour party was formed and the Liberals and Conservatives thought they'd do nowt either

If Farage had the breadth and depth of support the Labour movement had between the 1890s and through its creation to 1910 he wold be a very confident man. And even then the first successes were thanks to a secret deal between Hardie and Gladstone.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Re 84

No Charlie, I don't do 'circular' discussions. Straight to the point without too many 'highways and by-ways'.

I've lived on this Earth for quite a long time and seen Governments come and go. I cannot ever recall any break of any consequence in the continuity provided by the permanent civil service.

I attribute this not to any lack of political affiliation or sensitivity but to an old concept, the residues of which perhaps linger on; "noblesse oblige".

Duty calls, and if such is the case, I can only applaud those who discharge that duty regardless of any political leanings.

Member for

14 years

Posts: 4,996

Now Tony Bliar has joined the fight to increase UKIP's popularity.

".....Behind the Ukip facade was something pretty nasty and unpleasant, Bliar told BBC Radio 4's Today programme...."

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

How odd he seemed not have noticed when he was spear carrying for them!! Broon may have been an unmitigated disaster in many ways but we should be thankful for his restraint regarding the EU despite his Prime Minister's love affair with it.

John - perhaps I didn't make my point with much clarity. The civil service can only implement what is required by the policies it is provided with. Politicians for good or ill provide the course to navigate, with the way points identified, and the crew (civil service) then follow it. Forgive my maritime analogy for its inaccuracies!

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 7,025

You can join the Army at 16, you can fight at 17, neither of which can vote.

But to put it more bluntly, you can pay taxes at 16 in employment, so perhaps a 16 year old should be able to have a say in how their taxes are being spent.

Ok i stand corrected on that part i thought 18 was the age to fight but i still don't think you have enough experience in life at the age of 16.The reality of being employed at 16 nowadays i would think is a rarity,education ,further education as there are very few jobs going and it keeps the dole queue figures down .

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Re 91

Charlie,

Your comments never lack clarity. I understood you perfectly. Yes, of course you are correct. Let me amplify my answer: With the permanent civil service there should be no slackening or wavering during the transition from a Govt. of one colour to that of another. The economy will rattle on its way. As time goes by and the new govt. makes known its economic policies, these will be taken up by those charged with economic administration.

Should any changes to economic policy be for any reason delayed, the life of the nation will still go on - the bills will be paid.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

That is of course all true. But I inferred from an earlier post that you were suggesting UKIP could govern without difficulty until they had gained experience and settled their policies.

That is not the same as the relatively brief period of transition - 2/4 weeks - between governments. Civil servants expect their new marching orders pretty doom after the appointment of the ministers. And of course there are few surprises because much of what is intended is in the manifesto.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

As time goes by and the new govt. makes known its economic policies

It shows more of your crashing political naivety if you honestly think UKIP can win a general election on a "Leave the EU and keep the wogs out" platform, and make up an economic policy the day after the election.

That isn't how it works.

Moggy

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

In many ways, the rise of UKIP is analogous to the rise of Militant although that remained as part of the Labour party.

UKIP speaks to traditional (by which I mean Thatcherite) conservatives, like John, as it offers them 'more of the same', from a brand which could be construed as being successful in the 80's and 90's. Indeed, in many ways, they were, but its important to understand why, along with the reason that New Labour was so successful for much of its tenure, and why Cameron actually had no choice but to abandon the Thatcherite conservatism that John is so enamoured of.

In 1979, when Margaret Thatcher came to power, no-one, surely can pretend that Britain was not on its knees. We were in a hell of a state. Thatcher didn't just bring historic conservative principles with her though, much of what she did was based on the work of others. Much has been said before about the free market, but by applying it on such a wide scale, she was able to start to bring the economy back from oblivion.

The Labour party didn't actually know how to react, and this in fact parallels what happened to the Conservatives in the early part of this century. Michael Foot continued as a socialist leader, espousing more of the same policies that had got us into the mess in the seventies. As did Neil Kinnock. At no point did they make much inroads into the Conservative lead until the Tories made their big miscalculation - the Poll Tax. That was the beginning of the end of predominantly right wing policy IMHO. At about that time, the Labour party finally realised that what they had to do was to completely reorganise, and meet the Tories half way. John Smith started it, Tony Blair finished it. He also finished the LibDems; they just haven't stopped moving yet.

Blair is misunderstood - regardless of the big mistake - the Iraqi war, he was, and is an excellent communicator. He also understands the basic issues, probably far more than any other premier before or since. Not that I ever voted for him, but I respect some of what he achieved. The Graph that Tony published above is quite interesting, and appears to give the lie to the tax, spend and deficit argument, at least in the early years of New Labour. However, it hides a basic problem.

Blair and Brown made a clever (if ultimately fatal) move, in around 2001/2. Working Tax credits brought a huge number of working families effectively out of the tax system. Yes, they paid their taxes like the rest of us, but then the government gave them back again. If they had more than two kids, they were actually in credit! Of course, this was a huge economic stimulus and cancelled out the expected recession. 'An end to boom and bust'. Remember that! The problem was that to pay for it, they had to rely on big tax revenues from the financial sector, which meant that they didn't pay too much heed to what was going on. The rest is history.

In the meantime, and after successive defeats campaigning on Thatcherite policies, David Cameron finally realised that, in fact, Tony Blair had the right idea all along, so he tacked left, aligned himself with New Labour, and finally got the top job - but only just.

The point is, for anyone who has read this far, that Right Wing Conservatism, of the sort currently espoused by Nigel Farage, ultimately didn't work any more than Left Wing Socialism. Both parties realised that the centre ground would get them the votes they needed for power. For John, and other UKIP supporters, that is akin to selling their souls, but if Cameron hadn't moved left, he would be just the latest in a succession of failed Tory Leaders, we would still have Gordon Brown, and perhaps David Davis would be doing what Ed Milliband is doing now.

The Lib Dems, who came up with the idea in the first place, will lose heavily at the next election, and be confined to the also ran bin, along with many others. There was never going to be four party politics. What we might see is three party politics with UKIP replacing the LibDems for a while, but as has been said above, they need to work out what their policies are. For me, they are little more than a disparate group intent on getting away from Europe, but with no clear idea what to do next.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Re 95

There is on occasion, more than a hint of spitefulness about your comments. You appear to have an interesting imagination coupled with perhaps a sense of being undervalued ?

If you want to engage in a civilised discussion then at least discuss sensibly and politely.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

Apologies.

Your assertion that economic policy could be set after the election seemed to preclude 'sensible' discussion

Moggy

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Re 96

Bruce, that is a good summary. We differ on a couple of points. David Cameron's move to 'left of center' was the cause of much grief to many core Tory supporters - they moved to UKIP and are still there. That, for David Cameron, is his most intractable problem.

Yes, I was a Thatcherite Tory. She was the lure that took me into local politics. I am as sure as one can be about these matters that if David Cameron had continued with her policies he would not have needed a Coalition to keep him in power. Why vote Tory ? There was little clear space between Left and Right. Remember ? Dave's claim of being 'heir to Blair' ?

John Major? I think that his public image strongly contributed to his downfall. Here is a confession: When Tony Blair was elected, I felt a sense of 'new brooms sweeping clean'. Some mild feelings of relief - of escape from an exhausted Tory Govt. that had lost its way.

My support for UKIP is conditional and attached to one principle. The removal of Britain from membership of the EU and Britain's return to full sovereignty and independence. That is all. It is now confirmed that I share that opinion with millions whose numbers increase daily - the result of the Newark by-election should be interesting.

Your Moderator colleague refers to 'Bongo, Bongo land' and 'keeping wogs' out as tho' this is both excuse and justification incorporated into UKIPs manifesto. UKIP's attitude is both measured, responsible and in tune with most people:

When coming to this country, immigrants should be able to speak English
They should be able to support themselves and not be a liability on the State
If they subsequently commit criminal acts, they should be deported.

Every other country in the world that admits immigrants has these caveats in place - why not Britain ?

Finally, my oft stated distaste and dislike for all things socialist as the fount of all evil, has probably reached a state of caricature. I don't mind. But, let me even things up. I have an equal distaste and dislike for capitalism in its most extreme forms. Selfishness and greed whether from the Left or the Right should, ideally, play no part. But, they do, and all too often they exist, as man made influences, to corrupt what were, in their beginnings, untainted ideologies.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Re 98

Accepted. Thank you.

I've re-read my previous comments for any indication that 'economic policy could be set after the election'. My comment at #93 mentions 'transition'.

I think that you are 'nit picking' and 'splitting hairs'. I have no doubt that UKIP's economic policies for this country (subject to Brussels permission before we withdraw) will be clearly set out.

If UKIP have inherited a successful economy from a previous Govt. Why would they IMMEDIATELY want to change anything. It would be more of the same. Doesn't that make sense ?

By way of an example, during the weeks following election, UKIP might want to adjust the effect of personal or corporate taxation or, perhaps, make a reduction in VAT. This is what I referred to as 'tweaking'.

I do not know of any Govt. taking office that, responding to political ideology or any other impetus of a leisurely nature made swift changes to the economic life of the nation. It would be unthinkable, given the need to maintain at least outwardly the picture of stability so necessary to the world's financial centers.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

Re 96

Bruce, that is a good summary. We differ on a couple of points. David Cameron's move to 'left of center' was the cause of much grief to many core Tory supporters - they moved to UKIP and are still there. That, for David Cameron, is his most intractable problem.

John, with the best will in the world, Cameron is clearly not left of centre - he is well right of the Labour party, and of the Lib Dems. Your belief that he would have won by sticking to core Thatcherite policies is not supported by the evidence. The Tories failed on three separate occasions, under Hague, Duncan Smith and Michael Howard, to win back the electorate to Margaret Thatchers principles. Moving left was the only way they stood a chance of getting back to power. The promise of ever more money from the Labour party nearly confounded them - he still didn't get a majority. Had he been able to, I have no doubt that the appeal of UKIP would be less.

Yes, I was a Thatcherite Tory. She was the lure that took me into local politics. I am as sure as one can be about these matters that if David Cameron had continued with her policies he would not have needed a Coalition to keep him in power. Why vote Tory ? There was little clear space between Left and Right. Remember ? Dave's claim of being 'heir to Blair' ?

Yes, I too was a Thatcherite Tory, but I have to say that I learnt a lot from Tony Blair. A very clever man, who understood the people. I think he even claimed to be Margaret Thatchers heir at one point! Anyway - Blair and Thatcher has one thing absolutely in common; They were leaders. Major was not, Brown was not, Milliband is not, Cameron isn't quite, but he is the best the Tories have right now. What Nigel Farage has in common with Blair, and Thatcher, is a huge amount of charisma, a quality that must not be under rated. I would say that David Davis doesn't have it either.

John Major? I think that his public image strongly contributed to his downfall. Here is a confession: When Tony Blair was elected, I felt a sense of 'new brooms sweeping clean'. Some mild feelings of relief - of escape from an exhausted Tory Govt. that had lost its way.

Yes quite. Major is a thoroughly decent man, and unusually for the Tories comes from a lowly background. No charisma though.

My support for UKIP is conditional and attached to one principle. The removal of Britain from membership of the EU and Britain's return to full sovereignty and independence. That is all. It is now confirmed that I share that opinion with millions whose numbers increase daily - the result of the Newark by-election should be interesting.

Fair enough - but that wont win them an election - they need to be more than that. It is difficult at present to be certain they are more than a protest vote; especially if one looks at where the votes could be drawn from - BNP supporters? Certainly, Disaffected LibDems? - possibly, Right Wing Conservatives? - No doubt. Labour party? I rather doubt it.

Your Moderator colleague refers to 'Bongo, Bongo land' and 'keeping wogs' out as tho' this is both excuse and justification incorporated into UKIPs manifesto. UKIP's attitude is both measured, responsible and in tune with most people:

When coming to this country, immigrants should be able to speak English
They should be able to support themselves and not be a liability on the State
If they subsequently commit criminal acts, they should be deported.

Every other country in the world that admits immigrants has these caveats in place - why not Britain ?

As I say above, I don't think its enough. The issue for UKIP right now is to be clear what the message is, and to stay on it. Too many people, are taking up the UKIP flag as one of convenience, and espousing their own views as policy - because there is a policy vacuum at the top. That rather confuses the overall message, and leads to the claims of racism and worse. That can be difficult to counter - if those who are standing for election have demonstrably racist views, and they become a majority, then the party is racist. If there are only one or two, and they are quickly removed, then it isn't. You see the problem?

Finally, my oft stated distaste and dislike for all things socialist as the fount of all evil, has probably reached a state of caricature. I don't mind. But, let me even things up. I have an equal distaste and dislike for capitalism in its most extreme forms. Selfishness and greed whether from the Left or the Right should, ideally, play no part. But, they do, and all too often they exist, as man made influences, to corrupt what were, in their beginnings, untainted ideologies.

Actually we agree on that - and perhaps you have taken the first step to the left...