Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Boomstick on September 26, 2014, 08:00:32 am
-
:scarf:
Surprised this has not had a thread so thought I'd start one. (Even though any discussion will be ruined by the usual short sighted lefty's)
Personally I welcome this, especially if it makes the leader of the opposition and the establishment sweat.
Just listening to Farage on R4, he talks ALOT of sense
'No tax on minimum wage'
'Free and fair referendum on membership of the 'EU'
I also notice they have a short film made called 'return to Doncaster'
I'd be very interested to see this,
-
Clearly a strategy to woo the Labour vote that's for sure.
What struck a chord for me this morning is the proposal to cut the 40% tax rate. Whilst that's great for those within it, I don't see how that can be funded. Mind it's better than the flat rate tax they once peddled.
They have a brand that is easy to resonate with for many people and that's understandable. They probably have a big opportunity actually in the labour vote rather than Tory.
-
Would be nice to pay less tax, albeit it not convinced it should be at the expense of suffering a UKIP government!
-
UKIP, of Wolf in Sheeps clothing!
-
Would be nice to pay less tax, albeit it not convinced it should be at the expense of suffering a UKIP government!
That's a classic contradiction, you like their policies but don't want them in government?
What!?
Vote for them, you may like it!
-
Clearly a strategy to woo the Labour vote that's for sure.
What struck a chord for me this morning is the proposal to cut the 40% tax rate. Whilst that's great for those within it, I don't see how that can be funded. Mind it's better than the flat rate tax they once peddled.
They have a brand that is easy to resonate with for many people and that's understandable. They probably have a big opportunity actually in the labour vote rather than Tory.
Funded by leaving the EU and lowering overseas aid.
Have you not listened to the full report?
-
Would be nice to pay less tax, albeit it not convinced it should be at the expense of suffering a UKIP government!
That's a classic contradiction, you like their policies but don't want them in government?
What!?
Vote for them, you may like it!
I would never vote for a political party for a single policy, you have to look at the wider picture and whilst UKIP might promise something that leaves me with a few more quid in my back pocket every month it doesn't mean that I would like to see them in power.
They will obviously go for the sensationalist headlines and those who think about no one but themselves will probably buy into it.
-
Would be nice to pay less tax, albeit it not convinced it should be at the expense of suffering a UKIP government!
That's a classic contradiction, you like their policies but don't want them in government?
What!?
Vote for them, you may like it!
I like a couple of their policies, but I dislike the rest. And I really dislike their leader.
-
Can you give me examples of the policies you dislike and explain why please?
-
A few I don't like for various reasons.
• Proof of private health insurance must be a precondition for immigrants and tourists to enter the UK.
• No votes for prisoners - that’s what losing your liberty means.
• Prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally.
• Make welfare a safety net for the needy, not a bed for the lazy. Benefits only available to those who have lived here for over 5 years.
• Scrap HS2, all green taxes and wind turbine subsidies.
• Develop shale gas to reduce energy bills and free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas - place the tax revenues into a British Sovereign Wealth Fund.
• Make cuts to foreign aid that are real and rigorous.
• Save £55m a day in membership fees by leaving the EU and give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers.
• Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.
-
Ok so you have copied and pasted some of their policies, but WHY don't YOU like them?
Can you give another post with bullit points explaining why you don't like each one please?
-
Must be me but all of those policies I agree with
-
Must be me but all of those policies I agree with
So do I, join the revolution and vote UKIP!
It's hard to understand how anyone could not like those points!
Unless your a stubborn lefty who's running scared and won't deviate from voting labour.
-
• Proof of private health insurance must be a precondition for immigrants and tourists to enter the UK. On what moral basis have we to decide who is and who isn't fit to receive treatment based on their nationality? Some immigrants are running away from wart do we really think health insurance is that vital to them?
• No votes for prisoners - that’s what losing your liberty means. This shouldn't be for all prisoners but some. A blanket change is too narrow minded, though for some I would definitely agree, it's circumstantial.
• Prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally. Why? If you're the child of an immigrant but UK born why should you go to the bottom of the queue? What if you have moved to obtain work, but then struggle to get a house? Again narrow minded.
Not everyone chooses to live where their family are. I certainly don't and my family were all born in different places, under this I would have zero chance - that isn't right.
• Make welfare a safety net for the needy, not a bed for the lazy. Benefits only available to those who have lived here for over 5 years. Again, this is too broad. Child benefit should be universal for all, if the parents come here within immigration laws they should be able to get the same as everyone else in our society from the off - under the immigration model I would go for they would have been working etc. If they lose their jobs that should continue pending any VISA negotiations. I am not against ending visas if jobs end, but this could seriously damage people.
• Scrap HS2, all green taxes and wind turbine subsidies. Again narrow minded and popularist. We have to take the environment situation seriously and simply scrapping to be popular helps nobody. We should consider future generations in this. Equally, whilst HS2 clearly isn't perfect, something of that ilk is required.
• Develop shale gas to reduce energy bills and free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas - place the tax revenues into a British Sovereign Wealth Fund. Shale gas I am all for, but I am against the wealth fund simply because financially it does not add up. We have a deficit to reduce with debts to pay and it makes us more money getting the debt and deficit down than any fund would - basic finance there, something UKIP lack.
• Make cuts to foreign aid that are real and rigorous. Again circumstantial. Each case is different and must be assessed on merit. You can't simply say "oh we're going to cut it", it's much more complex than that and actually it's something that as a country we should be proud of.
• Save £55m a day in membership fees by leaving the EU and give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers.
There's a debate to be had on leaving the EU, I'm neither for or against and it has to be discussed as a priority in the future.
Again it's situational, should someone who's been here 20 years have less of a chance than someone who's born here? I think not, particularly if they have kids and a base here. New people then yes I fully agree, but not on a blanket basis, it's not that simple.
• Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it. This does not work. We could lose out on innovation and face skills shortages because of this. For example, should we remove the opportunity to bring in a top scientist because he doesn't have the funding? Let's go to football terms, should we have told say Mark De Val, sorry mate, you don't have 5 years worth of finance behind you jog on? It's not all as black and white as UKIP suggest. I worked abroad and took no cash with me, I wouldn't have a chance if this policy existed in that country.
Then there is today's policy in cutting the 40% tax rate, raising tax thresholds etc. So how are they going to fund all of these tax cuts?
This is my problem, UKIP want everything to be black and white and clearly it isn't. There's a lot on immigration there. Foreigners should not be feared, there are weaknesses but not as grand as is made out above.
-
Question for Farage.
Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.
What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.
You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.
-
Save £55m a day in membership fees by leaving the EU and give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers.
This policy could be bloody dangerous! Say theres position for a doctor at the local hospital. A british man and a french man aplpy for the position. The frenchman has 10 more years experience, lower salary expectations and a better track record under his belt. The job goes to the British man, however, because he is British.
WTF?
-
Save £55m a day in membership fees by leaving the EU and give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers.
This policy could be bloody dangerous! Say theres position for a doctor at the local hospital. A british man and a french man aplpy for the position. The frenchman has 10 more years experience, lower salary expectations and a better track record under his belt. The job goes to the British man, however, because he is British.
WTF?
Shut up, that's not an argument. If my auntie had b*llocks, shed be my uncle
-
Question for Farage.
Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.
What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.
You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.
Question for Farage.
Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.
What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.
You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.
Re- evaluating trade agreements? Means nothing. what are they ACTUALLY DOING?
I dare say the Swiss have factored in any possibilities like this, it's a VERY efficient country and envy of most of the EU.
I dare say the only loser there is the EU, come back when you have fact and figures of the Swiss being at a disadvantage of their freedom from the EU
-
Question for Farage.
Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.
What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.
You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.
Question for Farage.
Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.
What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.
You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.
Re- evaluating trade agreements? Means nothing. what are they ACTUALLY DOING?
I dare say the Swiss have factored in any possibilities like this, it's a VERY efficient country and envy of most of the EU.
I dare say the only loser there is the EU, come back when you have fact and figures of the Swiss being at a disadvantage of their freedom from the EU
For some one wanting facts and figures and then come out with " I dare say" makes you look a little silly, to use your own words " facts and figures" young man!
-
Ok then, they don't have to pay 55 million a day membership fee
-
No answers to any of my points.
What about this one?
"By reforming the Barnett formula, which so unfairly discriminates against English taxpayers, you can save several billion," Mr O'Flynn said.
That saves money, what effecively Mr O'Flynn is saying is that it is a spending cut to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Nothing but that, it is a pure spending cut, which the regions would then have to decide - be that the NHS in the devolved areas (Labour have already screwed that up in Wales), or education spending etc etc... Do they not understand where this money goes?
-
Ok then, they don't have to pay 55 million a day membership fee
And lose how much in the money that comes back in from Europe - what's that figure?
As for doctors, it's exactly what is proposed. I agree with the sentiment in some areas, eg taxi drivers or bin men, admin staff where we have many British people who can do the jobs. But it's not as simple as is made out.
-
But if we cut back on immigration etc we wouldn't need as many doctors and nurses to come into the country
-
Boomstick
UKIP are in cloud cuckoo land. There are 500 million people in the EU, all working to a common set of rules, which include freedom of movement. They require countries that want to trade as part of the same open market to sign up to this set of rules. That is why they are already hitting Switzerland (before the Swiss have even fully applied the referendum result to pull out of the free movement agreement).
(Why am I not surprised that you didn't actually read what I wrote. The EU sanctions are ALREADY being applied to Swizerland. They are ALREADY biting.)
The EU CANNOT allow associate countries to pick and choose what is appropriate for them, without suffering any penalties. The effects are already being felt inSwitzerland. In my area of work, I was speaking last week to a lab manager (a world-leading researcher who does work in Switzerland for Fiat and Audi, and who wins done funding through EU research projects). He is already laying off staff because the EU funding has been stopped. He is livid that his countrymen have blundered into this decision without considering the consequences. It's a tiny example, but you can multiply that one by hundreds and thousands as the penalties start to bite.
-
Boomstick
UKIP are in cloud cuckoo land. There are 500 million people in the EU, all working to a common set of rules, which include freedom of movement.
I stopped reading after the opening 2 sentences BST because you are so removed from reality it's not true.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee. UKIP are not in Cloud Cuckoo Land; they are in OUR land and I imagine their views about immigration resonate with millions of people who have major concerns in that respect.
-
And nobody has mentioned the abolition of inheritance tax. Not gonna be a vote winner to take donny, surely
-
Neil
In claiming that we can:
a) leave the EU
b) stop free movement of EU citizens
AND
c) have all the benefits of the European free market
they are so far into cloud cuckoo land, they are off the map.
UKIP feed on a feeling that Something Must Change. They are trying to tap into (justified) grievances of people in areas like ours. But do not be misled. They care not one shite for the working class people that they were courting today. Look at their headline tax policy. The numbers don't stack up anyway, but even taking them at face value, they would give a £600 a year tax cut to someone on £200 a week, and £1300 a year to someone on £500 a week.
If they are REALLY on the side of the people of Donny, why skew the benefits to the people of Tonbridge?
And that's before you drill down into what sort of Society UKIP really wants. Their attitude to public services makes Thatcherism look like Tony Benn's manifesto.
Don't be wooed by these. They may well end up holding the balance of power in 8 months if enough idiots say "aye, let's give em a chance". And THEN you'd see what they would do for people round here. We saw what happened when Thatcherism was off the leash 30 years back. Double that and add some.
-
Time for a reality check. UKIP are not going to win the general election. Their policies are therefore pretty meaningless. They have no chance of being implemented. Take my advice and don't even bother considering them for more than a few seconds.
If they get more than 5 MPs I'd be amazed. Unless they get more Tory defections I reckon 2 is probably what they'll get. This is not likely to give them any power at Westminster.
So everyone needs to take a chill pill and stop getting their knickers in a twist. The only reason to vote for UKIP is if you want out of Europe. That is what the party is all about.
I will be voting UKIP as I want out of Europe. I will also be voting tactically because I want to damage Labour as much as possible. In Doncaster the Tories are never going to beat Labour. The only possible chance Labour will be defeated is if UKIP manage to get enough votes. It's a long shot but I'm prepared to do my bit to try and make it happen. If I thought the Tories had a better chance than UKIP I'd vote for them.
UKIP are a breath of fresh air and I certainly broadly support most of their policies. However the general election will be fought between Labour and the Tories due to the first past the post system. If you want out of Europe then vote Tory where they have a chance of winning the seat. Where they have no chance, vote for UKIP. We must all do our duty and try and keep Labour out of power.
-
A word to any Ex-Labour supporters who are thinking of voting UKIP.
It is perfectly possible that UKIP will hold the balance of power next year. UKIP sell themselves to people who don't think deeply about issues. They sell themselves as a party that ONLY cares about Europe and immigration, and who exist only to sort that out.
It's bullshit.
They have a long-term aim to drive politics in this country way over to the Right. They want to do this by forcing the Tory party to become more right wing.
UKIP's strategy was there for everyone to see in their previous manifesto. Their long term aim is to reduce every aspect of state funding (railways, education, NHS, etc etc) and to privatise the lot. Except defence spending, which they would massively increase.
You'll not hear much from them about this long term aim in 2015. That's because Farage is a very clever politician. He knows that if they say what they REALLY want society to look like, they'll not get 2% support. So he's playing a long game. He wants MPs in place in 2015. Maybe 2. Maybe 5. He wants to gain credibility and, ideally, he wants a coalition with the Tories where he can slowly pull the Tories further to the right.
Farage reminds me of Alec Salmond. The SNP used to be a bunch of fruitcakes with pie in the sky policies. Salmond shared their long term aspirations, but knew that they had to tone down the rhetoric if they were going to convince people. He did that spectacularly well and made the SNP so credible that they damn nearly pulled off the most dangerous initiative for Britain in the past 100 years.
Like Samond, Farage is presenting a face that says "I'm on your side. And I'm not scary."
But he is. UKIP's ideal society would be the very antithesis of what most people in South Yorkshire want, and most people in the UK want. So they won't talk about that. But when they've got your support, that's what they'll be wanting to impose on us.
Farage said the biggest lie of his career yesterday. He said "If you vote UKIP, you'll get UKIP". Utter bullshit. If you vote UKIP, you're voting for a coalition between Farage and a Tory party that will lurch to the right in response. It'll make Thatcherism look like a left wing Govt.
Think about it.
-
We must all do our duty and try and keep Labour out of power.
Don't worry, Mick. Agent Miliband is doing a splendid job. ;)
-
TRB
Ouch!
And yet, Labour are STILL in comfortable majority territory in the polls, like they have been for nearly 4 years now.
-
A word to any Ex-Labour supporters who are thinking of voting UKIP.
It is perfectly possible that UKIP will hold the balance of power next year. UKIP sell themselves to people who don't think deeply about issues. They sell themselves as a party that ONLY cares about Europe and immigration, and who exist only to sort that out.
It's bullshit.
They have a long-term aim to drive politics in this country way over to the Right. They want to do this by forcing the Tory party to become more right wing.
UKIP's strategy was there for everyone to see in their previous manifesto. Their long term aim is to reduce every aspect of state funding (railways, education, NHS, etc etc) and to privatise the lot. Except defence spending, which they would massively increase.
You'll not hear much from them about this long term aim in 2015. That's because Farage is a very clever politician. He knows that if they say what they REALLY want society to look like, they'll not get 2% support. So he's playing a long game. He wants MPs in place in 2015. Maybe 2. Maybe 5. He wants to gain credibility and, ideally, he wants a coalition with the Tories where he can slowly pull the Tories further to the right.
Farage reminds me of Alec Salmond. The SNP used to be a bunch of fruitcakes with pie in the sky policies. Salmond shared their long term aspirations, but knew that they had to tone down the rhetoric if they were going to convince people. He did that spectacularly well and made the SNP so credible that they damn nearly pulled off the most dangerous initiative for Britain in the past 100 years.
Like Samond, Farage is presenting a face that says "I'm on your side. And I'm not scary."
But he is. UKIP's ideal society would be the very antithesis of what most people in South Yorkshire want, and most people in the UK want. So they won't talk about that. But when they've got your support, that's what they'll be wanting to impose on us.
Farage said the biggest lie of his career yesterday. He said "If you vote UKIP, you'll get UKIP". Utter bullshit. If you vote UKIP, you're voting for a coalition between Farage and a Tory party that will lurch to the right in response. It'll make Thatcherism look like a left wing Govt.
Think about it.
BST says 'It is perfectly possible that UKIP will hold the balance of power next year'. I agree. However what BST fails to say is that it is extremely unlikely. Realistically they'll get 2 MPs. I don't call that the balance of power. So just ignore BST's scaremongering. It is a tactic that lefties seem to employ whenever they know they are losing the argument.
The reality is that a vote for UKIP is not a vote for the far right. It is a vote that sends a message to the establishment that we are fed up of being ruled by an out of touch elite, that we want control of our borders and that we want out of Europe. It's as simple as that.
Now BST you can't have it both ways. You criticise their previous manifesto and say it provides conclusive proof that UKIP are a far right party. You then go on to say that Farage is a very clever politician. You can't think he's that clever if he came up with such (in your opinion) an absurd manifesto. Again you miss the point of what UKIP is all about. I'll not explain it again but you do know he stated he never even read the manifesto. Of course you already know this but being as economical with the truth as ever you fail to point this out. Why didn't he even read it? Because he knew it would never be implemented so was not that important a document. He knows that the public see UKIP as just a party that wants out of Europe.
It's as simple as that.
By voting UKIP we also get the chance to give the established parties a good kicking. It's something we British enjoy doing. It's risk free as well. No need to worry about any UKIP policy you don't like as they will never get implemented. It's a free hit.
The only reason you should not vote UKIP is if misguidedly you want to stay in the EU. Otherwise get onboard and lets shake politics up.
-
BST
I'm not sure they will be much longer. I thought Miliband's speech was a very poor effort. His activists will have lapped it up, of course, but it didn't seem to me to address a lot of concerns of the ordinary voter. Immigration for one.
Labour can't just rely on their core vote any more than the Tories can. His speech last week may well have turned off a lot of people who voted for Labour between 1997-2005 but don't consider themselves dyed-in-the-wool Labour.
-
TRB
Labour can absolutely rely on getting into power if they can mobilise their core vote. That might not be a fair outcome, but it is a facet of the electoral system that we have. If Labour get 35-36% in May, Miliband is in No10.
So it doesn't matter if he doesn't reach out to wavering Tory voters. He doesn't need to do. He needs to reassure the centre-left voters that he is on their side. That is Labour's entire strategy. And it has worked astonishingly well over the past 4 years.
If Labour end up in power 5 years after so spectacular a defeat in 2010, it will be unprecedented in the past 100 years. It generally takes parties at least 2 General Elections to bounce back from that sort of a defeat. It took Labour 14 years to recover from 1983. It took the Tories 13 years to recover from 1997. It was perfectly possible that Labour would have collapsed into inter-necine recriminations after 2010, especially given the bad blood between the Blairites and the Brownites. The fact that they haven't, and that they have stayed ahead in the polls for four years solid is a testament to Miliband's leadership, despite how he's portrayed.
-
Anyone think that a war is a good vote catcher - seems to have worked over last few years
Also don't think Milliband has captured the public
-
Farage may well have said that he didn't read the 2010 manifesto. That, by definition, makes him either a liar or a fool. Because he wrote the executive summary to the document, and launched it at a press conference. Only a fool would put his name to anything without knowing what he was signing up to.
Now. Nothing that Farage has done recently makes me think he is a fool. So, by definition, he is a liar.
Interesting case study. Back in 2010, you got a clear look at the soul of UKIP. Proposals for massive tax cuts for millionaires (£200k a year tax cut for someone earning £1M per year) and the dismemberment of public services (other than defence, which they would massively increase spending on). Farage signed up to that. As I say, he wrote the f**king Executive Summary of the manifesto. When it's exposed as utterly barking mad and divorced from reality, what does he do? Pretends it never existed (the manifesto has been deleted from the UKIP website), lies about it then re-boots himself as a different person.
Remind you of anyone?
-
Bst
Like it or not politics is largely about personalities and rhetoric, depressingly. That's why Labour won't mobilise their core vote because ed Miliband is such a poor leader. Nothing stands out about Labour's policies to oppose Tory or hoop. They do not provide an alternative way of thinking.
I used to be a Labour voter but at the moment they don't do it for me, the greens do
-
Get in. Another Tory MP defects to UKIP. We are on the march.
-
Farage may well have said that he didn't read the 2010 manifesto. That, by definition, makes him either a liar or a fool. Because he wrote the executive summary to the document, and launched it at a press conference. Only a fool would put his name to anything without knowing what he was signing up to.
Now. Nothing that Farage has done recently makes me think he is a fool. So, by definition, he is a liar.
Interesting case study. Back in 2010, you got a clear look at the soul of UKIP. Proposals for massive tax cuts for millionaires (£200k a year tax cut for someone earning £1M per year) and the dismemberment of public services (other than defence, which they would massively increase spending on). Farage signed up to that. As I say, he wrote the f***ing Executive Summary of the manifesto. When it's exposed as utterly barking mad and divorced from reality, what does he do? Pretends it never existed (the manifesto has been deleted from the UKIP website), lies about it then re-boots himself as a different person.
Remind you of anyone?
You won't have it will you. UKIP in 2010 were only bothered about pulling out of the EU. They paid lip service to a manifesto that no-one in the party took seriously. You try and take it seriously because you are all about scaremongering. Well we can all see through you. You are a leftie nutjob that will do or say anything that promotes socialism. Why don't you do us all a favour and go and live in France? That's a similar country to the UK in many respects. The main difference is that they have a socialist president that has tried to implement BST type policies. Not got them very far has it?
-
Mick
There's previous little interesting about you, but one thing is consistently fascinating. It's the way that you assume that everyone you talk to is thick and unable to put two and two together.
UKIP in 2010 were a single issue party? They paid lip service to a manifesto?
Their manifesto was nearly FIVE HUNDRED pages long! It included policies ranging from precisely what contracts to give to what UKIP supporting companies, to introducing laws to make taxi drivers and train drivers wear uniforms and have trains painted in traditional liveries.
Some lip-service!
As for Farage claiming that the manifesto was drivel and he didn't write it, and he didn't know what was in it, as I say, he's a liar or an idiot. Because he wrote the foreword to the f***ing rag.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/UKIPManifesto2010.pdf
You make your mind up. Is Farage an idiot or a bare-faced liar. He has to be one or the other.
-
I don't like UKIP. I don't like the things they want and I certainly don't like the way they are making the little Englanders cream their pants at the thought of driving out any one whose ancestors were not slightly peeved at the arrival of William the bas**rd.. (that being the conquer not Hague )
It is so easy to say what those who moan loudest want. I don't trust them nothing specific, I just don't.
-
BST. You need to get a grip. You are taking their 2010 manifesto far too seriously. It was a work of fiction and not put together with any rigour as the party knew it would never get implemented.
The fact is that Nige is a straight talking man of the people who is as honest as the day is long. When asked a question he gives a straight honest answer. You are on shaky ground trying to paint him as a liar. The one thing that makes UKIP politicians stand out from politicians of other parties is that they say what they think and answer questions directly and honestly. When was the last time you could say that about the vast majority of politicians from the Labour party? Have you forgotten what happened in Rotherham recently?
-
So which one is it about Farage?
Is he an idiot for writing a foreword to a document he hadn't read?
Or is he a liar for claiming that he hadn't read it?
Has to be one or the other.
-
BST. You need to get a grip. You are taking their 2010 manifesto far too seriously. It was a work of fiction and not put together with any rigour as the party knew it would never get implemented.
Presumably their new one should be treated exactly the same as that one, it's just as funny. Although it is a concern that they didn't say they'd only brought out the 2010 manifesto as a joke during the election campaign itself...
-
Excuse my ignorance, not living in the UK, but who is this Nigel fella with the European name?
Is he the one that looks like he suffers from dwarfism? Little shoulders, not quite long enough arms that have only ever managed to reach his pockets when he claimed from the EU?
-
Looks like a frog, I always expect him to gribbit.
-
Jucy
I thought I was the only one to notice that. Put a pair of goggles, a cap and a pair of driving gloves on him and he'd pass for Toad of Toad Hall.
And he looks normal at the side of their Tory recruit Carswell. Has he had one side of his face compressed in a vice?
-
Watching the chanting on the news last night made me feel even more uncomfortable with the thought of ukip than ever.
Brutish, thuggish sounding. More like a rally from the past than anything that might appeal today.
As for Reckless, well if they really believe his defection has anything to do with a disaffection with his former party they must want their bumps read. .
The cynic in me questions the motivation of a man who is quite liable to lose his seat in what one way or another is going to be a blood bath next year... Suddenly found principles or self preservation and a desire to stay on the Westminster gravy train?
-
Watching the chanting on the news last night made me feel even more uncomfortable with the thought of ukip than ever.
Brutish, thuggish sounding. More like a rally from the past than anything that might appeal today.
As for Reckless, well if they really believe his defection has anything to do with a disaffection with his former party they must want their bumps read. .
The cynic in me questions the motivation of a man who is quite liable to lose his seat in what one way or another is going to be a blood bath next year... Suddenly found principles or self preservation and a desire to stay on the Westminster gravy train?
Excuse me. He had a 10,000 majority. A totally safe Tory seat. He's taken a big gamble trying to take it to UKIP. What an honourable man.
-
Jucy
I thought I was the only one to notice that. Put a pair of goggles, a cap and a pair of driving gloves on him and he'd pass for Toad of Toad Hall.
And he looks normal at the side of their Tory recruit Carswell. Has he had one side of his face compressed in a vice?
Shame on you for criticising people just because of the way they look. If people were judged on looks I bet 95% of Rovers fans wouldn't be let into the ground (I'd still get in).
-
Once again Mick, you're confusing fact with opinion. Carswell DOES look as if one side of his face has been compacted. I'm not making any comment on my opinion of that look.
-
Watching the chanting on the news last night made me feel even more uncomfortable with the thought of ukip than ever.
Brutish, thuggish sounding. More like a rally from the past than anything that might appeal today.
As for Reckless, well if they really believe his defection has anything to do with a disaffection with his former party they must want their bumps read. .
The cynic in me questions the motivation of a man who is quite liable to lose his seat in what one way or another is going to be a blood bath next year... Suddenly found principles or self preservation and a desire to stay on the Westminster gravy train?
It's called passion. I'm all for it.
-
Once again Mick, you're confusing fact with opinion. Carswell DOES look as if one side of his face has been compacted. I'm not making any comment on my opinion of that look.
I think we all know you were judging people by their looks. I suspect if your avatar is anything to go by, you are on very dodgy ground (I wouldn't be).
-
I don't like UKIP. I don't like the things they want and I certainly don't like the way they are making the little Englanders cream their pants at the thought of driving out any one whose ancestors were not slightly peeved at the arrival of William the b*****d.. (that being the conquer not Hague )
It is so easy to say what those who moan loudest want. I don't trust them nothing specific, I just don't.
So you think it's OK for half a billion people in the EU to up sticks and come to our already overcrowded island if they wake up one morning and suddenly decide life is rosier for them here than their own countries? Don't make me laugh.
-
BST. You need to get a grip. You are taking their 2010 manifesto far too seriously. It was a work of fiction and not put together with any rigour as the party knew it would never get implemented.
The fact is that Nige is a straight talking man of the people who is as honest as the day is long. When asked a question he gives a straight honest answer. You are on shaky ground trying to paint him as a liar. The one thing that makes UKIP politicians stand out from politicians of other parties is that they say what they think and answer questions directly and honestly. When was the last time you could say that about the vast majority of politicians from the Labour party? Have you forgotten what happened in Rotherham recently?
For your perusal
Does honesty matter? The example of Nigel Farage
Posted on May 15, 2014 by labourinternationalparis
“Cheeky chappy”.
“You’d have a pint with him.”
“The others ones are such odd t**ts.”
Every single reasonably aware British voter has heard these phrases – or similar versions thereof – with regards to Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, that seemingly unstoppable political juggernaut currently on 20-30% in most national polls for the upcoming European election in May, closely behind Labour. This improbable party leader, this Eurosceptic husband of a German wife, this former commodities trader now seen as a “man of the people” figure by many Britons, is such a Teflon politician that he even experienced a bump in popularity when it was revealed that he may well have been conducting an affair with his longstanding spokeswoman Annabelle Fuller (an affair that was an open secret for many UKIP members).
This comes despite much talk of expenses scandals, a lack of commitment to parliamentary duties, and the regular nomination of what more than one Tory has called “swivel eyed loons” as candidates for office at a European, national and local level. One look at current and recent Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) is enough to see that apart from Mr. Farage himself, UKIP’s elected representatives in Brussels have made sexist comments and been accused of sexual assault, been convicted and jailed for expenses fraud, and in the case of Ashley Mote held onto an MEP position despite actually serving prison time while still in office.
One might think any mainstream political movement would have long disappeared if it had UKIP’s record and elected officials. Yet even in polling for the upcoming general election in 2015 – national elections being notoriously bad for third, fourth and fifth parties – UKIP is polling at 10-15%, often ahead of the Liberal Democrats, and certainly high enough that it is now systematically counted as a “big” national party and not a fringe movement. How is this possible?
Well, let’s call it the “Berlusconi factor” – or perhaps the “Rob Ford factor”, after the crack cocaine-smoking drunkard who is currently mayor of Toronto. This factor is one that I remember all too well from my teenage years (in the early 2000s) in Dublin, when the obviously corrupt and incompetent Bertie Ahern (who once, as I remember, declared that drink driving rules shouldn’t apply to him as he ‘could drive just fine after ten pints’) was Prime Minister (or Taoiseach, as the Irish would say). The general populace had little to no trust in Ahern, yet he was elected in 1997 and re-elected twice thererafter. One might also call it the “George W Bush factor”, after that famous teetotaler who was voted into office as the candidate that the electorate would like to have a beer with.
That factor decreases with time, as voters actually see what such obvious populists can and will do once they actually get into power. However, it’s a slow process – Berlusconi is only now being gradually pushed to the sidelines – and the damage in terms of the destruction of public trust in their elected officials as obviously bonkers politicians exercise public office in the meantime is potentially awful. Little to nothing suggests that UKIP’s popularity is waning even as light is shed on the inner workings of the party. When and where their progression will be stopped is not clear.
http://labourinternationalparis.com/2014/05/15/does-honesty-matter-the-example-of-nigel-farage/
I dont live in Rotherham so I dont have the full picture on the ground at the time. What I do know is what came out from the trial and the recent report. But at the time must surely have been signs that something was wrong below the surface.
Nigel Farage may be honest (or he may not yet have been caught doing anything dishonest) but he leads a party full of self-serving nutters and criminals who have shown that once in office they have no actual capabilities, never mind doing anything for the benefit of the people of the UK. And people are seriously thinking of voting for them!!!
But yes I see your parrallels with Rotherham, there will be some big problems ahead if UKIP do well next May, but unlike Rotherham we have a chance to stop that happening.
-
I don't like UKIP. I don't like the things they want and I certainly don't like the way they are making the little Englanders cream their pants at the thought of driving out any one whose ancestors were not slightly peeved at the arrival of William the b*****d.. (that being the conquer not Hague )
It is so easy to say what those who moan loudest want. I don't trust them nothing specific, I just don't.
So you think it's OK for half a billion people in the EU to up sticks and come to our already overcrowded island if they wake up one morning and suddenly decide life is rosier for them here than their own countries? Don't make me laugh.
Like Nigel Farage's wife for instance? He didnt mind her coming over?
-
TRB
Labour can absolutely rely on getting into power if they can mobilise their core vote. That might not be a fair outcome, but it is a facet of the electoral system that we have. If Labour get 35-36% in May, Miliband is in No10.
So it doesn't matter if he doesn't reach out to wavering Tory voters. He doesn't need to do. He needs to reassure the centre-left voters that he is on their side. That is Labour's entire strategy. And it has worked astonishingly well over the past 4 years.
If Labour end up in power 5 years after so spectacular a defeat in 2010, it will be unprecedented in the past 100 years. It generally takes parties at least 2 General Elections to bounce back from that sort of a defeat. It took Labour 14 years to recover from 1983. It took the Tories 13 years to recover from 1997. It was perfectly possible that Labour would have collapsed into inter-necine recriminations after 2010, especially given the bad blood between the Blairites and the Brownites. The fact that they haven't, and that they have stayed ahead in the polls for four years solid is a testament to Miliband's leadership, despite how he's portrayed.
BST
I have to disagree with the last point. Labour did not suffer the kind of defeat they did in 1983 or that the Tories did in 1997. They weren't that far away from being able to remain in power after the 2010 GE via a coalition. Had it not involved them getting into bed with their sworn enemies the SNP then they might have done it.
Also it strikes me you're trying to have it both ways. If Labour can take advantage of the quirks of the electoral system and unreformed constituency boundaries to obtain an overall majority on 35-36% of the popular vote, then there really is nothing "unprecedented" about a Labour victory. Quite the opposite in fact: if they can't achieve a majority at the next election then some serious questions will need to be asked about their strategy and leadership.
-
Time for a reality check. UKIP are not going to win the general election. Their policies are therefore pretty meaningless. They have no chance of being implemented. Take my advice and don't even bother considering them for more than a few seconds.
If they get more than 5 MPs I'd be amazed. Unless they get more Tory defections I reckon 2 is probably what they'll get. This is not likely to give them any power at Westminster.
So everyone needs to take a chill pill and stop getting their knickers in a twist. The only reason to vote for UKIP is if you want out of Europe. That is what the party is all about.
I will be voting UKIP as I want out of Europe. I will also be voting tactically because I want to damage Labour as much as possible. In Doncaster the Tories are never going to beat Labour. The only possible chance Labour will be defeated is if UKIP manage to get enough votes. It's a long shot but I'm prepared to do my bit to try and make it happen. If I thought the Tories had a better chance than UKIP I'd vote for them.
UKIP are a breath of fresh air and I certainly broadly support most of their policies. However the general election will be fought between Labour and the Tories due to the first past the post system. If you want out of Europe then vote Tory where they have a chance of winning the seat. Where they have no chance, vote for UKIP. We must all do our duty and try and keep Labour out of power.
In June Mad Mick wrote-
"Jonrover, you have posted the biggest load of b*llocks I've read on this forum in a long time. UKIP are the only party talking sense about Europe. Forget all their other policies. They exist to get us out of Europe end of."
Well, well, well. I knew eventually you would contradict yourself. Mick, go and pull yourself off into a moist flannel because all you are is a pathetic WUM and it would be a much more rewarding use of your time. I'd like to say your credibility is gone, but you never had none in the first place.
-
Jucy
I thought I was the only one to notice that. Put a pair of goggles, a cap and a pair of driving gloves on him and he'd pass for Toad of Toad Hall.
And he looks normal at the side of their Tory recruit Carswell. Has he had one side of his face compressed in a vice?
Shame on you for criticising people just because of the way they look. If people were judged on looks I bet 95% of Rovers fans wouldn't be let into the ground (I'd still get in).
I brought that point up you silly cnut, he is freaky and looks like the result of an incestuous family line. However, your pugnacious approach in chasing Billy around this board is commendable. Your openly homo exotic crush on Billy is akin to the boys of the DRSG, and their following of Silent Majority. I admire you for coming out.
P.S,
Are you ginger?
-
Jucy
I thought I was the only one to notice that. Put a pair of goggles, a cap and a pair of driving gloves on him and he'd pass for Toad of Toad Hall.
And he looks normal at the side of their Tory recruit Carswell. Has he had one side of his face compressed in a vice?
Shame on you for criticising people just because of the way they look. If people were judged on looks I bet 95% of Rovers fans wouldn't be let into the ground (I'd still get in).
I brought that point up you silly cnut, he is freaky and looks like the result of an incestuous family line. However, your pugnacious approach in chasing Billy around this board is commendable. Your openly homo exotic crush on Billy is akin to the boys of the DRSG, and their following of Silent Majority. I admire you for coming out.
P.S,
Are you ginger?
You strike me as being one of the 95%. Luckily for you most of us are more tolerant than you are. You are still allowed into the Keepmoat.
-
Jonrover I don't know what you are on about as I'm sure don't other readers of this forum. So I'll say it again. UKIP exist to get us out of Europe. Their other policies won't get implemented. They come up with other policies because they are expected to by the media. The other 'policies' they come up with aren't worth too much scrutiny as they are just produced to play the politics game.
It just so happens that I agree with a lot of what they have come up with. Hopefully Labour or the Tories will nick some of their ideas and they may see the light of day.
-
TRB
Accepted. I am having it both ways. But whichever way you look at it, Labour were in a pickle after 2010.
After 13 years in power, Labour in 2010 received the second lowest popular vote of either of the two major parties in 100 years. They did very nearly as badly as under Foot in 1983 (longest suicide note in history and all that).
Only one party since WWII has won a subsequent election after gaining fewer seats than Labour did in 2010. That was Labour in 1992-97. And THAT was the result of a confluence of two streams - the most incompetent Govt in recent history, and the biggest lurch rightwards that Labour has ever contemplated, to take votes off the Tories (and look where THAT took us!)
Miliband has managed to maintain a poll lead without having either of those two advantages.
This Govt has been chronically, rather than acutely shite. It has been drip-drip problems rather than the big ker-pow of 1992-97 - Black Weds, Archer, Hamilton, Aitken, Yeo, Milligan etc, etc - that meant that Labour would have won in 1997 with Postman Pat as the PM.
And Miliband has stood on traditional Labour ground, and not sold its soul in the way that Blair did. That means he's deliberately giving up on the idea of winning over soft Tory votes.
Miliband has played a high-risk strategy to perfection. It pisses off the Blairites in the Labour party, because they have made a career on the premise that Labour has to compromise on the Tories' principles. Miliband may yet win in 2015 without compromising anything. Then we'll see a genuinely left-of-centre Govt for the first time in 40 years.
Coming after 2010, that would be astonishing.
-
Jonrover I don't know what you are on about as I'm sure don't other readers of this forum. So I'll say it again. UKIP exist to get us out of Europe. Their other policies won't get implemented. They come up with other policies because they are expected to by the media. The other 'policies' they come up with aren't worth too much scrutiny as they are just produced to play the politics game.
It just so happens that I agree with a lot of what they have come up with. Hopefully Labour or the Tories will nick some of their ideas and they may see the light of day.
Hmmm, lets see, first you say UKIP are a one issue party, next you say you agree with most of their policies. And now their a one issue party but have to have other policies because the media expect them to. You will make your mouth say owt!
Which one is it you thick turd? Filled your moist flannel yet?
Oh & PS. Isn't it funny all these Tory defectors crawling into the sewer to join Farage. Massive own goal with regard to winning Labour votes...vote UKIP, get a TORY! And what must the UKIP party faithful think. I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in.
Farage is allowing Labour to sail home in 2015 with his daft antics. GET IN!!
-
Jonrover I don't know what you are on about as I'm sure don't other readers of this forum. So I'll say it again. UKIP exist to get us out of Europe. Their other policies won't get implemented. They come up with other policies because they are expected to by the media. The other 'policies' they come up with aren't worth too much scrutiny as they are just produced to play the politics game.
It just so happens that I agree with a lot of what they have come up with. Hopefully Labour or the Tories will nick some of their ideas and they may see the light of day.
Hmmm, lets see, first you say UKIP are a one issue party, next you say you agree with most of their policies. And now their a one issue party but have to have other policies because the media expect them to. You will make your mouth say owt!
Which one is it you thick turd? Filled your moist flannel yet?
Oh & PS. Isn't it funny all these Tory defectors crawling into the sewer to join Farage. Massive own goal with regard to winning Labour votes...vote UKIP, get a TORY! And what must the UKIP party faithful think. I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in.
Farage is allowing Labour to sail home in 2015 with his daft antics. GET IN!!
Haha. You do make me laugh. I'll try once more. The reason UKIP exist is to get us out of Europe. That is it. Plain and simple. They are a one issue party. To achieve this goal they have to play the political game. This means coming up with policies that will never be implemented. It just so happens that the policies they come up with are by and large excellent.
Now what the stupid people out there need to understand is that by voting for UKIP you are not running the risk of any of these policies being implemented so they can all be discounted immediately. Have you got it yet? Duh.
-
485 pages of policies at the last election. Just to pay lip service.
See, the problem is Mick, you have been wrong on every prediction that you've ever made on here, from the result of the Scottish referendum to the winner of the National. So, with respect, I'll treat your opinion on UKIP's intentions with same as I would a piece of dogshite - avoid interacting with it, turn my nose up at it and stick it in the bin.
Ok. Tell you what. I would have a huge amount of respect for UKIP if they said:
"We are a single issue party. We want NOTHING other than to get the UK out of Europe so that we can control our own borders. If you elect us, we will abstain on every other issue and we will disband after securing a referendum."
In the absence of that sort of statement, I'll trust my instinct that they are run by a bunch of far-right nut jobs who see their role as akin to the Tea Party in the States - to pull the centre of gravity of politics way over to the right.
-
to pull the centre of gravity of politics way over to the right.
Britain has been moving rightwards since the early eighties and speeded up after the miners defeat
-
485 pages of policies at the last election. Just to pay lip service.
See, the problem is Mick, you have been wrong on every prediction that you've ever made on here, from the result of the Scottish referendum to the winner of the National. So, with respect, I'll treat your opinion on UKIP's intentions with same as I would a piece of dogshite - avoid interacting with it, turn my nose up at it and stick it in the bin.
Ok. Tell you what. I would have a huge amount of respect for UKIP if they said:
"We are a single issue party. We want NOTHING other than to get the UK out of Europe so that we can control our own borders. If you elect us, we will abstain on every other issue and we will disband after securing a referendum."
In the absence of that sort of statement, I'll trust my instinct that they are run by a bunch of far-right nut jobs who see their role as akin to the Tea Party in the States - to pull the centre of gravity of politics way over to the right.
You are either just scaremongering or you are genuinely worried about the rise of UKIP or a bit of both. What is it that you don't understand when Nige says he will quit politics when we are out of the EU? That tells you all you need to know. UKIP was formed to get us out of the EU. Nige has said he will quit once this objective has been achieved. He has no desire to be PM.
It doesn't matter a jot if their so called 'policies' are right wing. It doesn't matter if they are left wing or somewhere in the middle. Nige has said that he would sup with the devil and do any kind of deal he had to if it meant he got a referendum. I take this to mean he would even do a deal with red Ed. He would even support any policies red Ed wanted to implement if it meant he got a referendum as part of the deal.
So there you have it. UKIP want out of the EU (which is much more than just controlling our own borders). Once this has been achieved then it is up to the electorate and politicians of various parties as to how they want to reform the political landscape.
Have you got it now? Or are you just as stupid as everyone else that takes their manifesto seriously? From reading all your drivel on the subject I'm inclined to lump you in with the stupid who should not be allowed within a mile of a ballot box.
-
Yargo
It's not just Britain. The whole of world politics and economics has done so.
Politics and economics goes in big, long cycles. It'll not stay like this forever. In this case, the neo-liberal "victory" in economics in the 1980s has led us to a situation where wealth is being consolidated into a small number of hands, and where we have a relatively wealthy older section of the population, with all the shit being thrown at the young.
And not just here. It's happening across the West. We hear politicians telling us that we must cut back the debt because we don't want to leave that to our young. So what we do is bring in Austerity policies that pile unemployment on the young instead. And look at Osborne's star policy on pensions today - a tax giveaway to very wealthy 75 year olds, at a time that Cameron is sticking the boot into the young who can't find work.
It'll change. It'll be a generational change when it does. The people who have won from the neo-liberal revolution are dying out. Literally.
That's why we're in a last hurrah of those policies and politics now. The Tories and UKIP get a disproportionate amount of their support from the over 60s. Take last Friday's YouGov poll.
Age Group - Lab - Con - UKIP
18-24--------41-----25------5
25-29--------40-----29------8
40-59--------36-----30-----16
60+ ----------30-----37-----17
That demogrpahic issue is why the Tories have struggled to get over 40% in opinion polls for the past 20 years. Their support base is dying off. And it's why UKIP conferences are full of tweed jacketed old dodderers moaning about things not being like they used to be.
-
Go on Mick. Give us a link.
-
Jonrover I don't know what you are on about as I'm sure don't other readers of this forum. So I'll say it again. UKIP exist to get us out of Europe. Their other policies won't get implemented. They come up with other policies because they are expected to by the media. The other 'policies' they come up with aren't worth too much scrutiny as they are just produced to play the politics game.
It just so happens that I agree with a lot of what they have come up with. Hopefully Labour or the Tories will nick some of their ideas and they may see the light of day.
Hmmm, lets see, first you say UKIP are a one issue party, next you say you agree with most of their policies. And now their a one issue party but have to have other policies because the media expect them to. You will make your mouth say owt!
Which one is it you thick turd? Filled your moist flannel yet?
Oh & PS. Isn't it funny all these Tory defectors crawling into the sewer to join Farage. Massive own goal with regard to winning Labour votes...vote UKIP, get a TORY! And what must the UKIP party faithful think. I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in.
Farage is allowing Labour to sail home in 2015 with his daft antics. GET IN!!
Did you see the reaction of the UKIP faithful when Mr Reckless walked on the stage at their conference? Obviously not. The crowd went wild. Jucyberry saw it and disapproved of the crowd's reaction. It was like a football crowd after a goal has been scored. It went on for 5 minutes. Now given the evidence, I'd be grateful if you could explain your comment 'And what must the UKIP party faithful think. I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in'.
You really do make yourself look daft. Don't bother replying because you won't be able to justify your outlandish, unsubstantiated, ridiculous comment.
-
But equally it's commonly thought of that people become 'more Tory' as they grow older. There's a lot of theory in that which makes sense and some that doesn't quite hold true. What won't happen is the Labour vote goes up as the older generations die, it's not quite that simple is it?
-
Go on Mick. Give us a link.
Are you that stupid you can't even work out how to use Google?
-
The reason Labour has more support amongst the young is because they haven't had the terrible experience of living under as many Labour governments as older people have. It's that simple.
-
Oh I've found one Mick. It's the one where Farage says his ambition is to
1) destroy the Tory party,
2)establish a new radical right wing party,
3)get Britain out of the EU
4)and THEN quit politics.
I assumed you, being such a straightforward and honest person, would have one where he said that he didn't plan to do steps 1 and 2.
Or are you still assuming that we're all as thick as pigshit like you?
-
Go on Mick. Give us a link.
Are you that stupid you can't even work out how to use Google?
You've been told before, when you copy and paste to provide the link to other peoples work that you've stolen to pass them off as your own
-
I assume you're talking to Billy. If it's me I'd be grateful if you could show where you think I've copied and pasted on this thread as I can assure you that I haven't.
-
Oh I've found one Mick. It's the one where Farage says his ambition is to
1) destroy the Tory party,
2)establish a new radical right wing party,
3)get Britain out of the EU
4)and THEN quit politics.
I assumed you, being such a straightforward and honest person, would have one where he said that he didn't plan to do steps 1 and 2.
Or are you still assuming that we're all as thick as pigshit like you?
You are unbelievably thick. UKIP's main reason for existence is to get Britain out of the EU as I've said all along. This won't just happen without a strategy. At the moment the strategy Nige is adopting is damaging the Tory party (I think you'll find he has already established a new radical right wing party, it's called UKIP). This is only the current strategy and is proving to be successful.
If the Tories immediately offered an In Out referendum, I think you'd find that this strategy would change. All UKIP is bothered about is getting us out of the EU. They will do whatever it takes. If that means even dealing with red Ed then this would happen. Have you got it yet?
Just to get Filo off your back I'll post the link you should have in your last post.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638377/Now-I-destroy-Tory-party-In-crowing-interview-Nigel-Farage-reveals-quit-politics-hes-got-UK-EU.html
-
From the very link you posted.
"Rampant Nigel Farage aims to destroy the Tory Party, take over a new Right-wing British political party, get Britain out of the EU - and then quit politics."
I swore not to get dragged down into your morass again Mick, but there's something about your deliberate lying that really, really gets my f***ing goat. You are an utterly obnoxious man who treats the truth as a passing inconvenience. You lie so often, I'm not even sure you realise that you are doing it any more. It's second nature to you.
No wonder you support a party run by an unashamed liar. You're two peas from the same rotten pod.
-
Another swivel-eyed Tory far-righter is reported to be joining UKIP imminently by the way.
Great int it? Every one of the defections shows UKIP for exactly what it is - a party of the right. Far, far to the right of the Tories. Any Labour supporter thinking if dabbling with them, think on. You'd be voting for a party far to the right of Tebbit and Thatcher.
-
From the very link you posted.
"Rampant Nigel Farage aims to destroy the Tory Party, take over a new Right-wing British political party, get Britain out of the EU - and then quit politics."
I swore not to get dragged down into your morass again Mick, but there's something about your deliberate lying that really, really gets my f***ing goat. You are an utterly obnoxious man who treats the truth as a passing inconvenience. You lie so often, I'm not even sure you realise that you are doing it any more. It's second nature to you.
No wonder you support a party run by an unashamed liar. You're two peas from the same rotten pod.
Where have I lied? Let me go through your points one by one even though I've already done this as it seems you need things explaining many times before it eventually sinks in.
Rampant Nigel Farage aims to destroy the Tory party. Your point is? Its obvious he's damaging them. Nothing earth shattering there.
take over a new Right-wing British political party Where have you been? He's already done this. The party is called UKIP.
get Britain out of the EU Thats what I keep saying. What don't you understand?
and then quit politics Your point is? This is what I said. What planet are you on?
Now as for calling me a liar, you are entitled to your view. It is my contention that you are the worst of liars. You are so economical with the truth and tell such bare faced lies it is unbelievable. You rely on people's ignorance and peddle so much bullshit that eventually some of it gets through to those of a lesser intelligence than myself. You should be ashamed of yourself.
If you want me to prove where you've lied in the past I am up for the challenge. You only have to ask.
-
Mick.
"take over a new Right-wing British political party Where have you been? He's already done this. The party is called UKIP."
Read the article that YOU posted you utter imbecile. Farage clearly and unambigiously discusses the example of Canada, where a populist right wing party first hobbled the ruling Conservative party at a General Election, then merged with it to form a new party well to the right of the previous Conservative party. Farage is discussing this as an example and and aim for UKIP.
You posted the f***ing article. Read it you clown. And stop insulting everyone else's intelligence with your combination of bone-headed stupidity and lies.
It's not about your opinions. Your opinions are worthless - they are a combination of lies, half-truths and fantasies. Time after time after time.
I find it incomprehensible that you can go through this so many times - you utterly, utterly ignore facts that are there in front of your eyes. Even in links that you yourself post. You see something that disagrees with what you want to say so you simply ignore it and pretend it isn't there. Read the f***ing article. Farage says that what happened in Canada can happen here. That is what his aim is you numbskull. It's there in his own f***ing words, so why give us your opinion on it?
-
There you go again being economical with the truth. There are 2 ways to take the article. One is to believe the headline and peddle this misinformation as fact. This is what you have done. The other approach is to take the headline with a pinch of salt (it is the Mail after all) and read the article to see if Nige actually said what the headline claims. He didn't.
Nowhere in the article does he claim he wants to lead a new right wing party. He already does this. Again you are peddling sensationalist journalism as fact.
Given your low opinion of the Mail this beggars belief. The reason for you believing the Mail is because it fits your anti UKIP agenda. Why let a good story get in the way of the facts eh?
Now issue an abject apology and I promise I won't dig up more examples of your deceit.
-
Jesus f**king Christ Mick. Where is the entrance door that allows facts into your brain!
We are talking about what Farage himself is actually quoted as saying.
In an interview with this newspaper earlier in the campaign, Mr Farage said a Canadian-style Tory meltdown ‘could happen’ here – and compared attacks on him to those on Reform Party leader Preston Manning and Reform’s first Canadian MP, schoolteacher Deborah Grey.
‘They called him a Right-wing extremist, a nutter, away with the fairies, he’ll never get anywhere and what happens? They won one by-election, a schoolmistress way out West, who resisted every bribe and temptation to rejoin the Conservative Party.
‘Now you have a Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who was first elected on a Reform ticket, as were half the Cabinet.
‘Don’t think this can’t happen here. The public want something different. We are catalysing a big change in British politics on fundamental issues (note Mick: Farage's own words: plural, not singular you cretin) that have been brushed under the carpet and ignored by a completely out-of-touch career political class for too long.’
Now, I don't give a shot about what Farage's personal ambitions are. I don't care if HE will stand up, stand down, or stand on his head with his cock in a pumpkin. I raised the issue about what the aim of the entire party is. And this is clear. The leader of UKIP is raising the exame if what happened in Canada and saying that it can happen here.
Clear enough dipshit?
Now, I do not give a f**k what you want to post about times when I have supposedly lied on here. We've been through this before and you were unable to differentiate between mistakes, and typos, rapidly corrected, and your modus operandi of simply lying. Repeatedly. So post what the f**k you want if it amuses you. Once again you will not be able to find anything I have ever written that comes remotely close to your continual spouting if lies and stupidity.
-
Oh I've found one Mick. It's the one where Farage says his ambition is to
1) destroy the Tory party,
2)establish a new radical right wing party,
3)get Britain out of the EU
4)and THEN quit politics.
I assumed you, being such a straightforward and honest person, would have one where he said that he didn't plan to do steps 1 and 2.
Or are you still assuming that we're all as thick as pigshit like you?
Let's go back to this post as a clear example of you being economical with the truth and peddling misinformation. Nowhere can you show where Nige said he wanted to destroy the Tory party or establish a new right wing party that he wanted to lead.
You are peddling journalistic licence as fact. You should know that journalists tend to exaggerate and make things up to sell newspapers. I think you'd make a very good journalist.
-
Jesus f***ing Christ Mick. Where is the entrance door that allows facts into your brain!
We are talking about what Farage himself is actually quoted as saying.
In an interview with this newspaper earlier in the campaign, Mr Farage said a Canadian-style Tory meltdown ‘could happen’ here – and compared attacks on him to those on Reform Party leader Preston Manning and Reform’s first Canadian MP, schoolteacher Deborah Grey.
‘They called him a Right-wing extremist, a nutter, away with the fairies, he’ll never get anywhere and what happens? They won one by-election, a schoolmistress way out West, who resisted every bribe and temptation to rejoin the Conservative Party.
‘Now you have a Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who was first elected on a Reform ticket, as were half the Cabinet.
‘Don’t think this can’t happen here. The public want something different. We are catalysing a big change in British politics on fundamental issues (note Mick: Farage's own words: plural, not singular you cretin) that have been brushed under the carpet and ignored by a completely out-of-touch career political class for too long.’
Now, I don't give a shot about what Farage's personal ambitions are. I don't care if HE will stand up, stand down, or stand on his head with his cock in a pumpkin. I raised the issue about what the aim of the entire party is. And this is clear. The leader of UKIP is raising the exame if what happened in Canada and saying that it can happen here.
Clear enough dipshit?
Now, I do not give a f*** what you want to post about times when I have supposedly lied on here. We've been through this before and you were unable to differentiate between mistakes, and typos, rapidly corrected, and your modus operandi of simply lying. Repeatedly. So post what the f*** you want if it amuses you. Once again you will not be able to find anything I have ever written that comes remotely close to your continual spouting if lies and stupidity.
So where does it say he wants to destroy the Tory party? All I can see him saying is that a Tory meltdown could happen here. Where does it say that he wants to run a new right wing party? All he says is that it is possible that one could be formed.
You sir are way off the mark. You are using sensationalist journalism for your own ends. You'd have more respect around here if you were more honest like what I am.
To avoid causing you further embarrassment I won't point out your many other 'lies'. On two conditions. You must agree to mend your ways and issue an immediate abject apology.
-
Still waiting.
-
Right. You've had your chance. In the absence of an abject apology and promise to mend your ways I'm going to start taking you apart and show you up for the peddler of misinformation and liar that you are.
Question for Farage.
Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.
What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.
You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.
I think I can speak for Nige and say that Switzerland is a totally different case to the UK so trying to make out that what happens to Switzerland is what awaits the UK should it pull out of the EU is a load of cobblers and is a case of you indulging in scaremongering again. You are totally wrong. For starters we are a much bigger trading partner. The Swiss have a trade surplus, we have a trade deficit. We are the EU's biggest trading partner. We are Germany's biggest trading partner. The EU gets the best of the deal by trading with the UK. Switzerland gets the best of the deal by trading with the EU.
So let's get one thing straight. We have got a lot of power when it comes to negotiating a new deal should we pull out of the EU. It is in their interests not to piss us off. Trust me they won't.
Another point. UKIP don't want to stop immigration. Another one of your lies. UKIP want to control immigration. Two completely different things.
Until we get that abject apology there will be more to come.
-
Oh please give us more
-
IC1967, do you live on your own? Or in your mums box room?
-
Jonrover I don't know what you are on about as I'm sure don't other readers of this forum. So I'll say it again. UKIP exist to get us out of Europe. Their other policies won't get implemented. They come up with other policies because they are expected to by the media. The other 'policies' they come up with aren't worth too much scrutiny as they are just produced to play the politics game.
It just so happens that I agree with a lot of what they have come up with. Hopefully Labour or the Tories will nick some of their ideas and they may see the light of day.
Hmmm, lets see, first you say UKIP are a one issue party, next you say you agree with most of their policies. And now their a one issue party but have to have other policies because the media expect them to. You will make your mouth say owt!
Which one is it you thick turd? Filled your moist flannel yet?
Oh & PS. Isn't it funny all these Tory defectors crawling into the sewer to join Farage. Massive own goal with regard to winning Labour votes...vote UKIP, get a TORY! And what must the UKIP party faithful think. I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in.
Farage is allowing Labour to sail home in 2015 with his daft antics. GET IN!!
Did you see the reaction of the UKIP faithful when Mr Reckless walked on the stage at their conference? Obviously not. The crowd went wild. Jucyberry saw it and disapproved of the crowd's reaction. It was like a football crowd after a goal has been scored. It went on for 5 minutes. Now given the evidence, I'd be grateful if you could explain your comment 'And what must the UKIP party faithful think. I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in'.
You really do make yourself look daft. Don't bother replying because you won't be able to justify your outlandish, unsubstantiated, ridiculous comment.
Now, I know you are as thick as pig shit but I thought even you would have been able to work out it was a personal opinion, hence " I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in." If a few hundred people in an auditorium went "wild for 5 mins" because Reckless was rolled in on a fanfare then whoopy f**kin doo! Does that automatically reflect the opinion of the majority of UKIP members? It still doesn't alter the fact that if I was a UKIP activist with desire to stand as a candidate I would be pretty cheesed off. In fact after the demo on Saturday we followed 4 delegates walking into town who were overheard saying that they might as well rejoin the Tories if any more Tories join.
-
Mick you little wag. "Trust me". Titter.
Trust you? On a prediction? Trust you?
That's you who predicted that Yes would win the Scottish referendum is it?
Or is it the you who predicted that we'd get relegated in 2012/13 because of our possession efficiency? Is that the you we are talking about?
Or is it the you who predicted the winner of the National?
Trust you? I wouldn't trust you to find your arsehole with a map and compass.
-
Mick you little wag. "Trust me". Titter.
Trust you? On a prediction? Trust you?
That's you who predicted that Yes would win the Scottish referendum is it?
Or is it the you who predicted that we'd get relegated in 2012/13 because of our possession efficiency? Is that the you we are talking about?
Or is it the you who predicted the winner of the National?
Trust you? I wouldn't trust you to find your arsehole with a map and compass.
He's already found it, his head is stuck there :)
-
Jonrover I don't know what you are on about as I'm sure don't other readers of this forum. So I'll say it again. UKIP exist to get us out of Europe. Their other policies won't get implemented. They come up with other policies because they are expected to by the media. The other 'policies' they come up with aren't worth too much scrutiny as they are just produced to play the politics game.
It just so happens that I agree with a lot of what they have come up with. Hopefully Labour or the Tories will nick some of their ideas and they may see the light of day.
Hmmm, lets see, first you say UKIP are a one issue party, next you say you agree with most of their policies. And now their a one issue party but have to have other policies because the media expect them to. You will make your mouth say owt!
Which one is it you thick turd? Filled your moist flannel yet?
Oh & PS. Isn't it funny all these Tory defectors crawling into the sewer to join Farage. Massive own goal with regard to winning Labour votes...vote UKIP, get a TORY! And what must the UKIP party faithful think. I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in.
Farage is allowing Labour to sail home in 2015 with his daft antics. GET IN!!
Did you see the reaction of the UKIP faithful when Mr Reckless walked on the stage at their conference? Obviously not. The crowd went wild. Jucyberry saw it and disapproved of the crowd's reaction. It was like a football crowd after a goal has been scored. It went on for 5 minutes. Now given the evidence, I'd be grateful if you could explain your comment 'And what must the UKIP party faithful think. I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in'.
You really do make yourself look daft. Don't bother replying because you won't be able to justify your outlandish, unsubstantiated, ridiculous comment.
Now, I know you are as thick as pig shit but I thought even you would have been able to work out it was a personal opinion, hence " I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in." If a few hundred people in an auditorium went "wild for 5 mins" because Reckless was rolled in on a fanfare then whoopy f***in doo! Does that automatically reflect the opinion of the majority of UKIP members? It still doesn't alter the fact that if I was a UKIP activist with desire to stand as a candidate I would be pretty cheesed off. In fact after the demo on Saturday we followed 4 delegates walking into town who were overheard saying that they might as well rejoin the Tories if any more Tories join.
Excuse me. There was more than a few hundred. They were all UKIP members. You couldn't get in unless you were a member. So I think it is reasonable to assume that their reaction was indicative of what party members think throughout the country. Now toddle off before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have done.
-
Mick you little wag. "Trust me". Titter.
Trust you? On a prediction? Trust you?
That's you who predicted that Yes would win the Scottish referendum is it?
Or is it the you who predicted that we'd get relegated in 2012/13 because of our possession efficiency? Is that the you we are talking about?
Or is it the you who predicted the winner of the National?
Trust you? I wouldn't trust you to find your arsehole with a map and compass.
Right. You've got until midnight to offer up an abject apology. Otherwise you will be further exposed tomorrow for what you are. A hardcore leftie that makes things up to try and convince people that socialism is the way forward.
-
Boomstick
UKIP are in cloud cuckoo land. There are 500 million people in the EU, all working to a common set of rules, which include freedom of movement. They require countries that want to trade as part of the same open market to sign up to this set of rules. That is why they are already hitting Switzerland (before the Swiss have even fully applied the referendum result to pull out of the free movement agreement).
(Why am I not surprised that you didn't actually read what I wrote. The EU sanctions are ALREADY being applied to Swizerland. They are ALREADY biting.)
The EU CANNOT allow associate countries to pick and choose what is appropriate for them, without suffering any penalties. The effects are already being felt inSwitzerland. In my area of work, I was speaking last week to a lab manager (a world-leading researcher who does work in Switzerland for Fiat and Audi, and who wins done funding through EU research projects). He is already laying off staff because the EU funding has been stopped. He is livid that his countrymen have blundered into this decision without considering the consequences. It's a tiny example, but you can multiply that one by hundreds and thousands as the penalties start to bite.
Blatant lies and misinformation are highlighted in bold. EFTA members are allowed to run their own affairs. Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein have an EFTA/EEA agreement. This allows allow them access to the Single Market. Crucially though they still keep control of agriculture, fisheries, Home Affairs and Justice. They do not have to sign up to all the EU regulations. They are only subject to the 4,500 EEA regulations. They are not signed up to the additional 15,000 EU regulations. Switzerland has a similar arrangement and has negotiated several free trade bi-lateral agreements with the EU.
So BST, it is clear for all to see that it is you that is living in cloud cuckoo land. You lie to give people the impression that if we left the EU and still wanted to trade with them we'd still be subject to all their rules. This is a monumental lie. It doesn't get much bigger than this. How you've got the nerve to perpetrate such a lie is beyond belief. You really must think everyone on this forum is stupid.
Luckily for all the stupid people on this forum that believe all your utterances I am around to expose you.
Now I'd suggest you get on with that abject apology before I further expose you. You've got until midnight or I'll be posting more damning evidence again tomorrow.
-
Mick
Once again we go through the tiresome experience of you getting all het up and missing the f***ing point.
(And you're copying and pasting without attribution too - http://www.brugesgroup.com/EFTAorEUQ%26As.pdf )
Go back and read what I said. I was specifically talking about immigration and the consequences of opting out of the agreement of freedom of movement.
Of the countries that you mention Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland are in the EEA and are fully signed up to the EEA requirements on freedom of movement (in fact, moreover, they are all signatories to the Schengen Agreement). I can't for the life of me think why you didn't mention that. Or why that Bruges Group article doesn't mention it either. The fact that those countries have control over their agriculture and fisheries is a historical issue. We may well have the same rights if we left the EU and joined the EEA. But we would NOT have the right to join the EEA and abrogate the freedom of movement agreement. So that path is out.
So, if we wanted to leave the EU and stop freedom of movement of EU citizens, we would have to negotiate from scratch, our own bi-lateral trade agreements with the EU. Switzerland is not a member of the EEA. It had to set up its own bi-lateral trade agreements with the EU. It took them TEN YEARS to do it (1992-2002), during which time they faced import/export levies and their companies were de-barred from tendering for EU contracts. The consequence? Their economy flat-lined throughout the 1990s, and didn't take off until the Swiss economy was fully integrated into the European Single Market in the early 2000s.
So, a best case scenario for us is ten years of economic trouble whilst we sort out the minutiae of bi-lateral agreements with the EU.
But that's before we look at immigration. The whole of the Swiss agreement is now in jeopardy because of their vote to abrogate the freedom of movement agreement. They were sold a pup by the Swiss UKIP equivalent, that the EU was bluffing. They weren't. The EU is stonewalling any moves by Switzerland to get round this. Switzerland has not yet implemented the immigration law following the referendum. If it does, the trade agreement WILL be cancelled.
So, by all means leave the EU. By all means pull out of the treaty on freedom of movement. But the economic consequences will be monumental. Just go and ask a Swiss businessman. I have.
-
Is that the best you can do? What a twisty turny thing you are. You were only on about immigration. Don't make me laugh. I've got you bang to rights.
You said 'there are 500 million people in the EU, all working to a common set of rules, which include freedom of movement. The key phrase here is 'all working to a common set of rules'. You then said 'They require countries that want to trade as part of the same open market to sign up to this set of rules'.
You didn't say 'They require countries that want to trade as part of the same open market to sign up to freedom of movement'. Your last post tries to make out that this is what you said. You didn't. You said that if countries wanted to trade with the EU then they had to sign up to all the rules including freedom of movement.
As I have pointed out, this is a blatant lie. So what do you do? You lie again. You try to con people into thinking you were only on about immigration (freedom of movement). Anyone with half a brain can see that you were clearly on about all the EU rules and not just freedom of movement. Talk about digging an even bigger hole than you were already in.
Why are you surprised I didn't mention freedom of movement? My post was about exposing your blatant lies. I wasn't hiding anything. I know that EFTA members sign up to freedom of movement. I haven't tried to pretend otherwise. All I was doing was exposing you as a liar.
Now stop digging yourself into an even bigger hole and get that abject apology sorted and promise to mend your ways. You've got until midnight or you will be further exposed tomorrow.
-
Mick, f**k off you're boring the tits off of everyone!
-
For the love of God Mick, just f**k off you asinine t**t.
Look at what I wrote.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=249032.msg485992#msg485992
You, as you ALWAYS do when you are wrong, focus on one semantic point.
Countries who join the EEA DO sign up to a commonly agreed set of rules. For HISTORICAL reasons, a handful are allowed to make their own decisions on how they grow their carrots. But on the BIG issues, there is no wiggle room.
I'll repeat, not that you will listen, you irredeemable dipshit, we WILL NOT be allowed to join the EEA if we don't accept freedom of movement. Which is the central point that I was making before you went off on your own private w**k.
-
Where have I said that I think we should join the EEA? I'll tell you. Nowhere.
I fully accept that if we wanted to join we would have to sign up to freedom of movement. I've never disputed this or tried to pretend otherwise.
The whole point of my post was to show people your blatant lies and show them how you try to twist things to suit your hardcore leftie view of life.
I'm quite happy to get into a debate about how the UK would survive outside of the EU but that is a separate subject to the one I am currently addressing.
You accused me of being a liar. All I'm doing is showing that it is infact you that is the liar not me.
Now get on with that abject apology or your reputation will be further trashed tomorrow.
-
Mick
You lie about your identity. You lie about your photographic memory. You lie about your betting tips. You lie about your betting slips. You lie as a general approach to life.
You misunderstand something I write and you pounce on it to "prove" I am a liar. Grand. If it makes you loathe yourself a little less then lovely. Congratulations.
Now f**k off and stop boring us all with your infantile stupidity.
-
On a lighter note David Cameron's speech today was very good I thought. He just got a lot right. Pretty sure it will give them a boost. Also really impressed with Theresa may, surely the next Tory leader?
-
Dave was great today. What a contrast to red Ed. He's never going to be able to forget that he forgot to mention the deficit, immigration and welfare in his speech. Then again maybe he will be able to.
-
Mick
You lie about your identity. You lie about your photographic memory. You lie about your betting tips. You lie about your betting slips. You lie as a general approach to life.
You misunderstand something I write and you pounce on it to "prove" I am a liar. Grand. If it makes you loathe yourself a little less then lovely. Congratulations.
Now f*** off and stop boring us all with your infantile stupidity.
Like I said. You've got until midnight.
-
BFYP
Hmmm. He complains that Labour's economic policies don't add up, then conjures out of thin air a tax policy that would disproportionately give money away to those earning over £50k per year.
No indication of how this will be paid for. No costings. The independent IFS says it is "very difficult" to see how this will be paid for without "extraordinary levels of cuts in public spending." The IFS head suggests that this is a headline gimmick, likely to be funded by putting up other taxes.
Hey ho. A £1600 per year giveaway to 800,000 people earning over £50k. A £500 a year giveaway to everyone else. And tax rises all round to pay for it.
-
Mick
I'm cowering in a corner dreading your next onslaught. Please be gentle with me.
-
There is a question to be answered as to how that's funded, I certainly agree with that. I thought there was a lot of promise in it though and tax cuts are never a bad thing. Of course that is a headline pleaser, it was always going to be that way. I liked the passion DC spoke with and the tone just came accross as much more authoratitve and senior than Ed did last week.
It upped the ante a little this week, I was pessimistic but it a little less so now. Still in Labour's hands I feel, I still think there's a big chance they'll lose it.
-
BFYP
It's unravelling already. The Financial Times (that well-known nest of Socialist vipers!) has the following Editorial header:
"Cameron trades votes for credibility"
It's saying that the numbers don't make sense and they are relying on the headline to win votes.
It goes on to say:
"The Tory leader’s tax cut promises risk degrading public services too far"
The Times calls it "£7bn giveaway to the middle class".
Even the Telegraph questions how the numbers stack up.
This is a barmy promise. Apart from the numbers not stacking up, to deliberately decide to give far, far bigger tax cuts to high earners (just like they did with the 50% top rate) is political madness. It gives Labour a bloody great big stick to crack them with.
Interestingly, it doesn't give UKIP a stick, because they would give even bigger tax cut giveaways to high earners. And they still claim to be the party of the working class in Donny.
-
I'm not sure the figures add up either, but I don't agree about Cameron's pledges being electoral madness. His whole speech was addressed at the sort of people who are disillusioned with the Tories and drifting over to UKIP. Also don't forget that the tax cuts that he was talking about are to be delivered over the lifetime of a Parliament (i.e. by 2020). The whole exercise was about projecting a brand image- that the Tories are a tax-cutting party and Labour are a tax-raising one. He also shot one of Miliband's foxes in that he directly addressed the "squeezed middle"- although Labour seem to have given up talking about them recently. Maybe they realise they are more likely to go UKIP than Labour.
More problematic for him than the tax cuts though was his pledge on renegotiation with Europe. I can't see the EU moving on Freedom of Movement and many within the EU will consider that if the price of that is a UK withdrawal then it is a price worth paying.
PS. Although it would be stretching a point to call the FT a left-wing paper it has been a pretty consistent editorial supporter of Labour in recent years.
-
TRB
You might well be right about the electoral appeal of the proposed tax cuts. Certainly The Sun/Mail/Express are entirely shedding any vestige of impartiality and cranking up into "Tory Victory" mode on that subject. Whether it makes as much difference as it used to do, I'm not sure, but it's going to be relentless from now.
On the EU and freedom of movement, we're finally going into the end game for the Tories on this one, after 25 years. As you say, there is no way that the EU will back down in this issue. It is fundamental to the whole concept of the single market. So we have a choice. Accept freedom if movement or leave the EU. But as I said yesterday, the case of Switzerland shows how hellish leaving would be. While they were negotiating entry to the single market (including freedom of movement remember!) their economy slipped badly compared to the rest of Europe. In the first five years of the Single Market, their GDP per capita fell by $500. Inside the Single Market, ours grew by $4000, France's by $2500, Italy's by $2000, Spain's by $2000. Even Germany, which was going through the economic trauma of integrating the East's system into West Germany's economy saw a $1000 increase.
Just like with the Scottish referendum, that is the message that will be pushed by the supporters of the stays quo. Have your romantic idea of cutting yourself off if you want. But look at the economic consequences. Do you REALLY want to spend the next decade getting poorer?
If the Tories win in 2015, they are in an appaling position on this. Cameron knows this argument (at least he bloody well ought to, or all that money his family spent getting him an education that culminated in a First in PPE at Oxford was wasted!) He knows how catastrophic leaving the EU would be. But he also knows that he has few friends in Europe prepared to chuck him a bone, because Britain has been pissing off the rest of the EU for decades. So he's got a terrible hand to play over his promised referendum.
And if they lose in 2015, Cameron's out and the gloves are off as the party tears itself apart in a leadership campaign, played out in the fear of UKIP out-flanking them on the Right.
This next five years is going to be the culmination of a fight that has riven the Tory party throughout my lifetime. I can well see it finally finishing them off, in the way that the old Labour Party was killed off by the splits of the 1980s.
And THAT of course is precisely what Farage wants to see happen, so that a re-alignment on the Right would see a merge of UKIP and the right-half of the Tories.
Interesting times.
-
BST
Yes, Cameron has really painted himself into a corner on Europe. Again, he was speaking to potential UKIP voters, because one of the charges levelled at him by the Tory defectors is that they didn’t believe that Cameron was serious about renegotiating with the EU on fundamental matters.
A lot of people, myself included, have suspected that Cameron wanted to be able to recommend a vote to stay in on the basis of concessions won. On this scenario he would gain some concessions on issues that seemed important but in fact no-one in Europe cared all that much about. Then, like Harold Wilson, he would campaign for an “IN” vote. He could probably get most of his Cabinet to line up behind him (an odd maverick like, say, Iain Duncan-Smith, could be tolerated) and would have the support of the Labour and Lib Dem leadership. Now all that has gone, because he has said he will seek a change to Freedom of Movement as a centre-piece of his negotiations. That is something that the EU will regard as non-negotiable, so he will be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
So he may end up in a position of campaigning for something he really doesn’t want and also knowing that unless he wins the referendum then he’s history. Not a good place to be in!
-
The headline grabbing £12,500 tax free allowance is just that. I can see how it could quite easily be fiscally neutral. People are talking as if the allowance is going to go up to £12,500 straight away. It isn't. Its by 2020.
In 2015 the allowance is already planned to be £10,500. So in reality we are looking at a £2000 increase by 2020. Thats 5 years, during which time it would have gone up anyway with inflation at the very least. If we assume a rate of 2.4% inflation (the current rate) up until 2019 then that would take the allowance to £11,545. It would not be a massive jump to £12,500 in 2020. Less than £1000. This is eminently possible given that the economy should be in much better shape by then. The Tories will also have cut benefits such as Tax Credits during this period. These cuts and increased tax receipts and less or even no borrowing would make a £12,500 allowance easily affordable.
Dave has been very clever. He knows the British public by and large don't understand the personal allowance. Most of them will think 'great, I'll be able to earn £12,500 before paying tax'. It won't dawn on most of them that this isn't such a massive change as is being portrayed and they won't realise they won't be getting it until 2020.
A masterstroke by the Tories.
-
Yes Mick.
Except we're going to have deflation by...when was it?
-
Deflation is on the way. Its already arrived in the Eurozone and will be arriving in the UK in the not too distant future.
I said its a headline grabber. I never said I believe it will be implemented. I've just shown how a lot of hot air is being spoken about the policy and that if things stayed as most people expect them to, then it is not such a big jump. The case I've put forward is a hypothetical one that I don't believe will happen for a second.
The policy is predicated on the deficit being removed by 2018. Thats a big 'if'. It assumes inflation at the current rate or slightly higher. Another big 'if'.
I don't think the policy will be implemented. However that is neither here nor there. Dave is conning the public and they will fall for it. This will lead to more votes for the Tories which is great news.
-
So if deflation is on the way, that means that your previous post is a load of b*llocks, right?
EDIT: Sorry! I've got it! What you were saying in that previous post was something that you didn't actually believe!
When you said "I can see how this can be fiscally neutral", you didn't mean YOU could see it. You meant that you could see how other people would see it?
I get it now. You don't write what you actually think. You write what you think idiots think. It makes most of your other posts suddenly more understandable.
-
My post makes perfect sense. In my first sentence I said it was purely a headline grabber. I don't think I could have been much clearer in my view of the policy. I then outlined using conventional wisdom why the policy was not what it initially seemed. I used words such as 'could', 'assume' etc. At no point did I give the impression that I believed the policy. Its obvious to anyone that knows my views on deflation that I couldn't possibly think it would happen.
However the great British public are not as clued up as me. They will fall for it. Get in. You are obviously doing your usual thing of trying to twist what I say in an effort to discredit me. Good luck with that. You've had that many batterings off me I've lost count. Do yourself a favour and ignore my posts. You'll only get battered again.
-
Right. Thanks for clearing that up. See, on first reading, for someone who doesn't have your ability to read what the f**k you want into simple words, it really, really looked like you were just talking b*llocks again. I'd hate for anyone to have that misconception.
-
Right. Thanks for clearing that up. See, on first reading, for someone who doesn't have your ability to read what the f*** you want into simple words, it really, really looked like you were just talking b*llocks again. I'd hate for anyone to have that misconception.
I think you'll find that you're the only one that didn't understand my post. In future I'll try and simplify what I say so that people of low intelligence such as yourself can understand what I'm on about.
-
That'd be grand Mick.
I realise that in the Micktionary, saying that "I could quite easily see" how something could happen actually means "I reserve the right to claim that I didn't actually mean this when it turns out I'm talking ba-baa again." See, that Micktionary is just too intellectually difficult for me to get my head round. So Just make it 100% clear what you actually think, then it'll be easy for us.
-
Blatant lies and misinformation are highlighted in bold. EFTA members are allowed to run their own affairs. Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein have an EFTA/EEA agreement. This allows allow them access to the Single Market. Crucially though they still keep control of agriculture, fisheries, Home Affairs and Justice. They do not have to sign up to all the EU regulations. They are only subject to the 4,500 EEA regulations. They are not signed up to the additional 15,000 EU regulations. Switzerland has a similar arrangement and has negotiated several free trade bi-lateral agreements with the EU.
So BST, it is clear for all to see that it is you that is living in cloud cuckoo land. You lie to give people the impression that if we left the EU and still wanted to trade with them we'd still be subject to all their rules. This is a monumental lie. It doesn't get much bigger than this. How you've got the nerve to perpetrate such a lie is beyond belief. You really must think everyone on this forum is stupid.
Luckily for all the stupid people on this forum that believe all your utterances I am around to expose you.
Now I'd suggest you get on with that abject apology before I further expose you. You've got until midnight or I'll be posting more damning evidence again tomorrow.
EEA/EFTA gives member countries access to Free Trade with the EU, NOT the Single Market. Completely different things. No wonder you don't know what you're blathering about. As usual.
-
Glyn
You can equally point that finger at me. I made the same mistake.
-
Blatant lies and misinformation are highlighted in bold. EFTA members are allowed to run their own affairs. Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein have an EFTA/EEA agreement. This allows allow them access to the Single Market. Crucially though they still keep control of agriculture, fisheries, Home Affairs and Justice. They do not have to sign up to all the EU regulations. They are only subject to the 4,500 EEA regulations. They are not signed up to the additional 15,000 EU regulations. Switzerland has a similar arrangement and has negotiated several free trade bi-lateral agreements with the EU.
So BST, it is clear for all to see that it is you that is living in cloud cuckoo land. You lie to give people the impression that if we left the EU and still wanted to trade with them we'd still be subject to all their rules. This is a monumental lie. It doesn't get much bigger than this. How you've got the nerve to perpetrate such a lie is beyond belief. You really must think everyone on this forum is stupid.
Luckily for all the stupid people on this forum that believe all your utterances I am around to expose you.
Now I'd suggest you get on with that abject apology before I further expose you. You've got until midnight or I'll be posting more damning evidence again tomorrow.
EEA/EFTA gives member countries access to Free Trade with the EU, NOT the Single Market. Completely different things. No wonder you don't know what you're blathering about. As usual.
Not quite sure what you are on about (as usual). I'm not sure even you know what you think you are on about.
Let me explain so the likes of you and Billy can understand. I'll try not to use too many big words.
EEA is short for the European Economic Area. Member countries have free movement of goods, services, people and capital. This is the Single market. All the countries in the EU are members of the EEA. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, who are members of EFTA are also members of the EEA and also have access to the Single Market. It is not just about free trade as you seem to think.
I don't think I can make it any easier to understand. If you're still not sure then let me know exactly what it is you don't understand. If you still think I'm not right, then please try and show me where I'm going wrong as I could do with a good laugh.
Look, Like Billy you've probably had one battering too many in the past. Take the advice I've given Billy. Ignore my posts. You only end up making yourself look daft when you try and prove I've made a mistake.
-
I've had a few political sparrings with bst in the past and whilst we are at different ends of the political divide I always try and discuss it without getting into a row which this has done...However whatever the individual opinions of people are I'm sure that bst will admit Labour have totally failed to engage with the public..Edd was the wrong choice of leader and Balls doesn't come across very well and people just don't trust them..In truth with a government who have had to make some hard descisions to the public purse Labour should be flying in the polls and the fact that they are not makes grim reading for any labour supporter...
-
WC
I respect your views, but I'm going to have to demur on each point, except the fact that Balls doesn't come across well. I'll give you that one!
I simply don't agree that Labour should be flying in the polls. It would be unprecedented for a party to have such a thumping as Labour got in 2010 and to romp home the next time round with a huge majority. It's never happened in any of our lifetimes. The fact that Labour are still favourites to be the largest party next year is quite something in itself.
As for picking the wrong brother, I disagree again. Certainly, EM is not photogenic material. But then neither is his brother. Remember how the press rounded on him when it looked like he might be about to topple Brown and give Labour a fresh face in the run-up to 2010? The "Mr Bean" headlines.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/1728215/Miliband-no-rival-for-Mr-Bean.html
You reckon the Sun would have given him respect as Leader of the Opposition?
And then there's policy. One of the reasons that Labour got such a thumping in 2010 is that, between 2001 and 2010, something like 2 million Labour voters deserted them for the Lib Dems. They were turned off by New Labour. New Labour lost them. David Miliband was the flag-bearer for New Labour.
Since the 2010 election, more than a million of those voters have consistently said that they will now vote Labour. You think they would have come back if Blair MkII was Leader of the Opposition?
-
I've had a few political sparrings with bst in the past and whilst we are at different ends of the political divide I always try and discuss it without getting into a row which this has done...However whatever the individual opinions of people are I'm sure that bst will admit Labour have totally failed to engage with the public..Edd was the wrong choice of leader and Balls doesn't come across very well and people just don't trust them..In truth with a government who have had to make some hard descisions to the public purse Labour should be flying in the polls and the fact that they are not makes grim reading for any labour supporter...
I know what you mean. I try my best to be civil to Billy but he doesn't reciprocate. You should see some of the names he calls me. I get the impression he doesn't like me.
Well, I have to say I don't dislike Billy but I will not put up with being called a liar. That is going too far, especially when it is him that is a liar. I've been too soft on him in the past but he has stepped over the line. Until he starts treating me in a civil manner he'll get short shrift from me.
-
Mick
Let's see:
Outright barefaced lies:
Identity
Photographic memory/plagiarism
Grand National tips
Scottish referendum bets
That'll do for now.
Wrong Predictions:
Scottish referendum result
Grand National result
Rovers getting relegated in 2012/13
The UK facing hyperinflation in 2013
The UK being in deflation by July 2014
Labour being on 26% in the polls by May 2014.
That's a decent list off the top of my head to start with.
I don't dislike you. I hover somewhere between pity and disgust.
-
Blatant lies and misinformation are highlighted in bold. EFTA members are allowed to run their own affairs. Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein have an EFTA/EEA agreement. This allows allow them access to the Single Market. Crucially though they still keep control of agriculture, fisheries, Home Affairs and Justice. They do not have to sign up to all the EU regulations. They are only subject to the 4,500 EEA regulations. They are not signed up to the additional 15,000 EU regulations. Switzerland has a similar arrangement and has negotiated several free trade bi-lateral agreements with the EU.
So BST, it is clear for all to see that it is you that is living in cloud cuckoo land. You lie to give people the impression that if we left the EU and still wanted to trade with them we'd still be subject to all their rules. This is a monumental lie. It doesn't get much bigger than this. How you've got the nerve to perpetrate such a lie is beyond belief. You really must think everyone on this forum is stupid.
Luckily for all the stupid people on this forum that believe all your utterances I am around to expose you.
Now I'd suggest you get on with that abject apology before I further expose you. You've got until midnight or I'll be posting more damning evidence again tomorrow.
EEA/EFTA gives member countries access to Free Trade with the EU, NOT the Single Market. Completely different things. No wonder you don't know what you're blathering about. As usual.
Not quite sure what you are on about (as usual). I'm not sure even you know what you think you are on about.
Let me explain so the likes of you and Billy can understand. I'll try not to use too many big words.
EEA is short for the European Economic Area. Member countries have free movement of goods, services, people and capital. This is the Single market. All the countries in the EU are members of the EEA. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, who are members of EFTA are also members of the EEA and also have access to the Single Market. It is not just about free trade as you seem to think.
I don't think I can make it any easier to understand. If you're still not sure then let me know exactly what it is you don't understand. If you still think I'm not right, then please try and show me where I'm going wrong as I could do with a good laugh.
Look, Like Billy you've probably had one battering too many in the past. Take the advice I've given Billy. Ignore my posts. You only end up making yourself look daft when you try and prove I've made a mistake.
No it isn't. You don't know what you're talking about. No country outside of the EU is in the Single Market. Twenty years as an International Trade Officer for Customs/HMRC makes me know the difference inside out. Your problem, Mick, is that when you cut and paste from someone who doesn't understand things, it shows you don't either.
-
Blatant lies and misinformation are highlighted in bold. EFTA members are allowed to run their own affairs. Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein have an EFTA/EEA agreement. This allows allow them access to the Single Market. Crucially though they still keep control of agriculture, fisheries, Home Affairs and Justice. They do not have to sign up to all the EU regulations. They are only subject to the 4,500 EEA regulations. They are not signed up to the additional 15,000 EU regulations. Switzerland has a similar arrangement and has negotiated several free trade bi-lateral agreements with the EU.
So BST, it is clear for all to see that it is you that is living in cloud cuckoo land. You lie to give people the impression that if we left the EU and still wanted to trade with them we'd still be subject to all their rules. This is a monumental lie. It doesn't get much bigger than this. How you've got the nerve to perpetrate such a lie is beyond belief. You really must think everyone on this forum is stupid.
Luckily for all the stupid people on this forum that believe all your utterances I am around to expose you.
Now I'd suggest you get on with that abject apology before I further expose you. You've got until midnight or I'll be posting more damning evidence again tomorrow.
EEA/EFTA gives member countries access to Free Trade with the EU, NOT the Single Market. Completely different things. No wonder you don't know what you're blathering about. As usual.
Not quite sure what you are on about (as usual). I'm not sure even you know what you think you are on about.
Let me explain so the likes of you and Billy can understand. I'll try not to use too many big words.
EEA is short for the European Economic Area. Member countries have free movement of goods, services, people and capital. This is the Single market. All the countries in the EU are members of the EEA. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, who are members of EFTA are also members of the EEA and also have access to the Single Market. It is not just about free trade as you seem to think.
I don't think I can make it any easier to understand. If you're still not sure then let me know exactly what it is you don't understand. If you still think I'm not right, then please try and show me where I'm going wrong as I could do with a good laugh.
Look, Like Billy you've probably had one battering too many in the past. Take the advice I've given Billy. Ignore my posts. You only end up making yourself look daft when you try and prove I've made a mistake.
No it isn't. You don't know what you're talking about. No country outside of the EU is in the Single Market. Twenty years as an International Trade Officer for Customs/HMRC makes me know the difference inside out. Your problem, Mick, is that when you cut and paste from someone who doesn't understand things, it shows you don't either.
I think you need to get a new job. You obviously haven't got a clue what you are on about. I'll say it again in the hope that the information may penetrate your thick skull.
The EEA is most definitely the European Economic Area. The EEA includes all EU countries and also Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. It allows them to be part of the Single Market!!! Switzerland is not a member of the EU or EEA and is also part of the Single market!!! Have you got it yet? I can't believe I'm having to explain it again!!!
Stop making yourself look stupid!!!
Maybe you'll believe what the government publishes on its website!!!
https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea
Now get that abject apology sorted and we'll say no more about it.
-
When countries who are part of the Single Market move goods between themselves, there are no C88 Customs Declarations needed, and there is no VAT charged on the goods. There is complete freedom of movement without the need for any documentation to be presented at any internal borders.
Imports/exports to the EEA countries DO have to have C88 Customs declarations presented, and the goods are subject to VAT. Therefore there is Customs control and are not part of the Single Market. Just because you cut and paste something you like doesn't mean it was written by somebody who knows what they're talking about. Or that you do either. But carry on, it's hilarious watching you.
-
When countries who are part of the Single Market move goods between themselves, there are no C88 Customs Declarations needed, and there is no VAT charged on the goods. There is complete freedom of movement without the need for any documentation to be presented at any internal borders.
Imports/exports to the EEA countries DO have to have C88 Customs declarations presented, and the goods are subject to VAT. Therefore there is Customs control and are not part of the Single Market. Just because you cut and paste something you like doesn't mean it was written by somebody who knows what they're talking about. Or that you do either. But carry on, it's hilarious watching you.
Unbelievable. You have stated that No country that is outside of the EU is in the Single Market. This is patently untrue and totally absurd. Here's what the UK government's own website says:
The EEA includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It allows them to be part of the EU’s single market.
Switzerland is neither an EU or EEA member but is part of the single market - this means Swiss nationals have the same rights to live and work in the UK as other EEA nationals.
You strike me as someone that can't see the wood for the trees. So what if there are different forms for the above 4 countries to fill in. That is not a surprise and is to be expected. The main point is as I have said above and what the government and numerous other sources have said. I repeat. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland are part of the Single Market!!! There are no trade tariffs!!!
Being outside the EU has not prevented them from being part of the Single Market!!!
Have you got it yet?
Now get on with that abject apology and we'll try and move on from this sorry mess.
-
"Being outside the EU has not prevented them from being part of the Single Market!!!"
Abrogating the freedom of movement aspects of the EEA (or the bi-lateral agreement in the case of Switzerland) most certainly WOULD result in the economic barriers going up. In fact it is already doing so in the case of Switzerland. Which was the point I was making before this thread followed so many into the black hole of "It's all about Mick".
-
"Being outside the EU has not prevented them from being part of the Single Market!!!"
Abrogating the freedom of movement aspects of the EEA (or the bi-lateral agreement in the case of Switzerland) most certainly WOULD result in the economic barriers going up. In fact it is already doing so in the case of Switzerland. Which was the point I was making before this thread followed so many into the black hole of "It's all about Mick".
Nice to see you agreeing with me for a change. Hopefully Mr Wigley will get that abject apology sorted now his best mate has pointed out the error of his ways as well.
Let me get this straight. You seem to still be indulging in scaremongering again. You seem to be suggesting that if the UK were part of EEA but out of the freedom of moment aspect then the economic barriers would go up. You say 'most certainly WOULD'. You use Switzerland as the example that proves your case.
How do you know what would happen to the UK? As I've pointed out earlier in this thread there are many reasons why it would not be in the interests of the EU to erect economic barriers. Such a move would hurt them more than us. They gain from trading with us. We lose out. We are a much bigger country than Switzerland etc. We are Germany's biggest trading partner. In case you don't know, what Germany says, goes in the EU.
I fully accept that it is possible that what you say 'may' happen but for you to say it 'most certainly WOULD' is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
-
I think I can speak for Nige and say that Switzerland is a totally different case to the UK so trying to make out that what happens to Switzerland is what awaits the UK should it pull out of the EU is a load of cobblers and is a case of you indulging in scaremongering again. You are totally wrong. For starters we are a much bigger trading partner.
The Swiss have a trade surplus, we have a trade deficit. We are the EU's biggest trading partner. We are Germany's biggest trading partner. The EU gets the best of the deal by trading with the UK. Switzerland gets the best of the deal by trading with the EU.
Mick
You know how much trouble I have keeping up with your brilliant and idiosyncratic use of English?
Can you help me out on a few issues here. The ones highlighted above.
When you say that Switzerland has a trade surplus, do you mean on trade with the EU?
When you say that Switzerland gets the best out of the deal with the EU, what exactly do you mean?
When you say that we are a "much bigger trading partner", how do you define "much"?
Just some simple points to clear up for a simpleton like me.
-
When countries who are part of the Single Market move goods between themselves, there are no C88 Customs Declarations needed, and there is no VAT charged on the goods. There is complete freedom of movement without the need for any documentation to be presented at any internal borders.
Imports/exports to the EEA countries DO have to have C88 Customs declarations presented, and the goods are subject to VAT. Therefore there is Customs control and are not part of the Single Market. Just because you cut and paste something you like doesn't mean it was written by somebody who knows what they're talking about. Or that you do either. But carry on, it's hilarious watching you.
Unbelievable. You have stated that No country that is outside of the EU is in the Single Market. This is patently untrue and totally absurd. Here's what the UK government's own website says:
The EEA includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It allows them to be part of the EU’s single market.
Switzerland is neither an EU or EEA member but is part of the single market - this means Swiss nationals have the same rights to live and work in the UK as other EEA nationals.
You strike me as someone that can't see the wood for the trees. So what if there are different forms for the above 4 countries to fill in. That is not a surprise and is to be expected. The main point is as I have said above and what the government and numerous other sources have said. I repeat. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland are part of the Single Market!!! There are no trade tariffs!!!
Being outside the EU has not prevented them from being part of the Single Market!!!
Have you got it yet?
Now get on with that abject apology and we'll try and move on from this sorry mess.
See what I mean about you being hilarious? It's very entertaining. :)
-
I think I can speak for Nige and say that Switzerland is a totally different case to the UK so trying to make out that what happens to Switzerland is what awaits the UK should it pull out of the EU is a load of cobblers and is a case of you indulging in scaremongering again. You are totally wrong. For starters we are a much bigger trading partner.
The Swiss have a trade surplus, we have a trade deficit. We are the EU's biggest trading partner. We are Germany's biggest trading partner. The EU gets the best of the deal by trading with the UK. Switzerland gets the best of the deal by trading with the EU.
Mick
You know how much trouble I have keeping up with your brilliant use of English?
Can you help me out on a few issues here as I am incredibly thick and a right pedant who just loves arguing for the sake of it. The ones highlighted above.
a) When you say that Switzerland has a trade surplus, do you mean on trade with the EU?
b) When you say that Switzerland gets the best out of the deal with the EU, what exactly do you mean?
c) When you say that we are a "much bigger trading partner", how do you define "much"?
Just some simple points to clear up for a simpleton like me.
You are a right thicko. You are obviously trying to 'trap' me into making a wrong statement. Well you don't intimidate me. I've decided to humour you just to see what silly game you are trying to play and to show you up for the pedant that you are. It is obvious from my statements what I mean. As you appear to be of subnormal intelligence, let me clarify things.
a) Yes.
b) They have a trade surplus with the EU. See answer to (c for further information.
c) Currently Britain has a trade deficit with EU countries, of around £40 billion a year, which is the equivalent of exporting 1 million jobs. Britain has only once had a trade surplus with EU countries, otherwise a deficit, not the win-win agreement people thought they were getting. Having a deficit, means other countries benefit from the jobs, the income taxes, corporation taxes and VAT that come from producing those goods and services. Countries like Norway and Switzerland have generally a trade balance or surplus with EU countries.
If you want to know more you can have a look at this link.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/EFTAorEUQ%26As.pdf
From the previous posts of you and Mr Wigley it seems you don't know half as much about the EU as me. Any more questions please feel free to ask. I am an expert on this subject and am happy to pass on the benefit of my knowledge.
-
When countries who are part of the Single Market move goods between themselves, there are no C88 Customs Declarations needed, and there is no VAT charged on the goods. There is complete freedom of movement without the need for any documentation to be presented at any internal borders.
Imports/exports to the EEA countries DO have to have C88 Customs declarations presented, and the goods are subject to VAT. Therefore there is Customs control and are not part of the Single Market. Just because you cut and paste something you like doesn't mean it was written by somebody who knows what they're talking about. Or that you do either. But carry on, it's hilarious watching you.
Unbelievable. You have stated that No country that is outside of the EU is in the Single Market. This is patently untrue and totally absurd. Here's what the UK government's own website says:
The EEA includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It allows them to be part of the EU’s single market.
Switzerland is neither an EU or EEA member but is part of the single market - this means Swiss nationals have the same rights to live and work in the UK as other EEA nationals.
You strike me as someone that can't see the wood for the trees. So what if there are different forms for the above 4 countries to fill in. That is not a surprise and is to be expected. The main point is as I have said above and what the government and numerous other sources have said. I repeat. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland are part of the Single Market!!! There are no trade tariffs!!!
Being outside the EU has not prevented them from being part of the Single Market!!!
Have you got it yet?
Now get on with that abject apology and we'll try and move on from this sorry mess.
See what I mean about you being hilarious? It's very entertaining. :)
You need to be made aware of the fact that we are laughing at you and not with you. Now get on with that abject apology and people may start to think better of you. At the moment your reputation as a pedant is sky high but your reputation as someone who knows what he's on about is as low as it can get. You've got a big repair job on your hands. What the hell have you been doing in your job for the last 20 years? You should by now know the basics of the Single Market.
-
Mick.
I'm not trying to trap you into doing anything. I AM interested in where you get your numbers from, however, because they are invariably wrong.
Have a look at the official figures from the EU.
I'll point you to the right place. Top of Page 2. Key Figures Table. Have a look at the EU's Imports to and Exports from Switzerland. and the EU's trade balance with Switzerland.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113450.pdf
So, when your Swivel-Eyed-Rght-Wing-Nutter.com source says "Countries like Switzerland generally have a trade balance or surplus with the EU", what they actually mean is "Switzerland had a 75 BILLION Euro trade deficit with the EU in 2013, but if we lie, bell ends like Mick who are incapable of doing their own research, but perfectly capable of repeating outright lies will spread the word for us."
Is that about right?
PS: That source took me precisely 20 seconds to find. There's a world of fact out there if you're prepared to look in the right places, instead of diving straight for mendacious propaganda that tells you what you want to hear.
-
Statistics and damned lies eh? I'd much rather trust the figures from the Bruges Group than any you find. You've spent 20 seconds finding what you want and post it immediately without checking. Typical. Call that research?
Anyway whatever the merits of the figures my main point holds water. The UK would be in a much more powerful position to negotiate with the EU on freedom of movement than Switzerland. You need to start trying to see the wood for the trees and stop getting bogged down in minutiae. It is obvious that I am a big picture sort of person. You would do well to take a leaf out of my book.
For your information, the Bruges group is non party and has many Labour supporters. You really must try to control your tendency for exaggeration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruges_Group
-
Reading this with interest, and even followed Mick's link, but it doesn't mention Labour supporters, just some Labour members who have spoken to the group. Why would you trust the Bruges group figures more than the actual EEC, surely one is dissembling, the other fact. I'd go with the EEC figures unless, of course, they have been shown to be fictional.
-
You're definitely a big something Mick
We'll chalk that one up to another blatant lie then.
"Lies, damn lies and statistics?"
You odious little Kitson. We are talking about FACTS here. The things that underpin and provide foundations for any rational discussion.
You built a case on the supposed fact that could be checked quicker than you could wipe your arse. It was wrong. And then you say, "Who cares, I'm right anyway."
You are utterly beneath contempt.
-
Look. It's the big picture that counts. I'm fully prepared to accept the Bruges Group may have got their figures wrong. But in terms of the big picture it is neither here nor there. My main point does not stand or fall on those figures.
The Bruges Group is non party and not a hardcore right wing organisation. It exists to argue the case for EU withdrawal and has support from Tory and Labour.
So take a chill pill and just admit you've lost the argument (again).
-
Mick
The Bruges a Group article didn't show any figures. That's the whole f**king point. They know what the figures are. Anyone with a shred of self-respect an a modicum of intelligence can find them in seconds. (I accept that is a tough bar for you, but most people have higher standards.)
The whole point is that they don't CARE about setting the truth before people. They want out if Europe for ideological reasons and they are prepared to dissemble and lie about awkward facts that don't support them.
If you want out of Europe for ideological reasons, then fine. Argue that case. But don't invent "facts" when the real facts don't support you.
Doh! I'd forgotten who I was talking to for a moment. You lie as easily and naturally as you breathe.
Hey ho. That's another episode of Take Down Mick finished for this week. Tune in next week to see what utter dogshite he trots out, insists for days that it is fact, finally backs down and eventually says it doesn't matter anyway.
-
Right. You've asked for it. I'm going to start to make the case for EU withdrawal. By the time I've finished with you, you'll be begging for mercy.
-
Just so long as you don't quote any "facts" (sic) while you're doing it.
In fact, just do it quietly and let us know when you've finished.
-
Right. Before I start taking Billy apart yet again I just need to clarify what has happened over the most recent posts. Billy keeps calling me a liar. So I've called him a liar. I've proved that he has told a monumental lie about the EU so in desperation he has been using diversionary tactics to try and change the subject.
Here in a nutshell is what has happened. Billy lied by saying that the EFTA countries and SWitzerland had to abide by all the rules of the EU if they wanted to trade with them. He did this to scare British people into thinking there is no point leaving the EU as we'll still have to comply with all the rules and have no influence over them. The big lie that I've exposed is that if we did for example join EFTA, we'd only be governed by a fraction of the rules. I haven't mentioned this before, but we would also have some influence over any new rules that were created. Billy wants everyone to think we'd have to abide by all the rules and we'd have no influence over any new ones. What a liar.
So what does billy do when he's been exposed. He calls me a liar because I've posted information from the well respected think tank the Bruges Group. He thinks he's found a small mistake in that they have stated that Switzerland generally has a trade surplus with the EU whereas Billy has found some figures that contradict this. In good grace I've said that I am prepared to accept Billy's findings. He's then banged on about this minor detail trying to convince everyone that because he may have found a small mistake he has won the main argument and everything I've said before has been a lie! Unbelievable.
He really does think that the readers of this forum are so stupid that they'll fall for this diversionary tactic. I have comprehensively won this part of the debate. Of this there is no doubt. So all I ask is that when you read any of Billy's future posts you remember this incident. He thinks he knows everything and can't stand it when he is shown up to be a liar and a fool. I always give him the respect of weighing up his views before deciding I was right all along. I get the impression he just takes the opposite view to me just for the sake of it. Anyone can see that I talk a lot of sense.
Right pretty soon I'll be making the case for EU withdrawal. Trust me, by the time I'm finished you'll all be begging for it.
-
If you google "Do EFTA countries have to abide by EU trade rules", the answer is yes. They also pay into the EU budget, Norway about 10th highest contributor. Both Norway and Switzerland follow 80-90% of EU regulations. Sorry I couldn't do a link.
-
If you google "Do EFTA countries have to abide by EU trade rules", the answer is yes. They also pay into the EU budget, Norway about 10th highest contributor. Both Norway and Switzerland follow 80-90% of EU regulations. Sorry I couldn't do a link.
That's OK I trust you. You don't have to back up everything you say with tons of research and cross checking. I believe you, whether Billy will is another matter.
Here's what Billy said:
UKIP are in cloud cuckoo land. There are 500 million people in the EU, all working to a common set of rules, which include freedom of movement. They require countries that want to trade as part of the same open market to sign up to this set of rules. That is why they are already hitting Switzerland (before the Swiss have even fully applied the referendum result to pull out of the free movement agreement).
See Billy wasn't just talking about 'trade' rules. He was talking about the full set of rules, most of which have nothing to do with trade. He was trying to con everyone into thinking that if we joined EFTA we'd still be bound by all the rules of the EU. We wouldn't. We'd be bound by a small fraction. Of course he knows he's been exposed as a liar so is doing all he can to try and use diversionary tactics to try and stop people realising the monumental lie he's come up with. All this banging on about whether Switzerland has a trade deficit or trade surplus is a small detail that is neither here nor there. He's tried to turn it into a massive issue to throw everyone off the scent. He thinks we're all stupid.
Your'e also right about these countries making a contribution. However it is much less than it would be if they were full members.
The following information is out of date but is still very pertinent to the debate.
EFTA comes close to realising the dispensation that most British voters always wanted from Europe: free trade without unnecessary regulation or political union. Its rude prosperity is embarrassing to British Euro-sophists, who have been telling us for 30 years that the EU is vital to our economic survival. Naturally, Eurocrats have evolved a series of arguments to disparage the EFTA states. Since this is likely to become a lively debate in Britain in the coming years, it is worth looking at these arguments in turn. I shall try to cover all the assertions habitually made by supporters of the EU.
The EFTA states have to assimilate thousands of EU laws over whose drafting they have had no say.
This is the so-called “fax diplomacy” argument: because EFTA states are obliged to adopt several single market measures, their lawmakers are portrayed as sitting next to their fax machines waiting for the directives to come from Brussels. It is certainly true that the three EEA states, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, have to apply a number of single market regulations. But these tend to be technical in nature, and are limited to a clearly defined part of their economy. Since the EEA was born in 1992, Norway and Iceland have each adopted around 3,000 EU legal acts (the figure is lower in Liechtenstein, which joined later). But few of these rules were important enough to need legislation in those countries: the 3,000 legislative acts have required fewer than 50 parliamentary statutes in the Norway’s Storting and Iceland’s Althing. They deal with such matters as the correct way to list ingredients on a ketchup bottle; they do not tell the Norwegians and Icelanders what to tax, where to fish, whom to employ or what surplus to run. And it is not true that the EEA states have no say over these rules. There are formal consultation mechanisms built into the EEA accord. Oddly, those who point so excitedly to the 3,000 Euro-laws adopted by Norway neglect to mention the 18,000 that Britain has had to accept over the same period. In any case, if the Norwegian option is regarded as undesirable, there is always the Swiss option: Switzerland, being outside the EEA, relies instead on bilateral treaties with the EU, synchronising its regulations with its neighbours only when it wishes (which, being an exporting country, it often does). One final point, which is almost always overlooked. The founding charter of the EEA, the Lisbon Treaty, enshrines the EU’s jurisdiction as it stood on 2 May 1992. It provides no mechanism to impose on Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein the extensions of EU power that have happened in subsequent treaties, notably in the fields of employment law, social policy and justice and home affairs. It is up to these countries to decide whether they wish to alter their own law to keep pace with the EU in these areas.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/?article=10488
Now, let's get one thing straight. Just because I'm banging on about EFTA doesn't mean that I think that is the way forward. I'm just showing one side of the argument so people can be better informed about our options. There is an unbelievable amount of anti EFTA propaganda which Billy is guilty in peddling. All I'm doing is trying to redress the balance is a very small way.