What's Italian for 'kipper? Anti-migrant stunt goes awry.
Discussion
There was no "I thought this " or "I think I heard that" in your original post. And I have no desire or need to try and misrepresent what you said. The reason why I picked up on it was because it appeared completely wrong.living standards may have fallen over the last 5 years, they certainly haven't fallen over the last "couple of decades"
Got it from an analysis on Sky discussing that very topic, in order for us to have been as well off as we should be there should have been a 50% increase in incomes over the decades they specified, in truth I was doing other things so couldn't get where the analysis came from, I will however ( as is my wont) go hunting for it when I have time.
Likely tomorrow now as she who must be obeyed wants the telly back
A simple " Sorry, I misheard" rather than trying to backtrack and a load of waffle about baselines would have been better IMO.
Guam said:
Countdown said:
Guam said:
I doubt even Osborne can make up the 30% fall in living standards (in real terms) over the last couple of decades,
Could you explain how your 30% is calculated?Likely tomorrow now as she who must be obeyed wants the telly back
Edited by Guam on Wednesday 16th April 20:57
Lol,
WW why did you delete your STFU post? There are plenty of kippers ready to defend you. Once again, I'm really curious about falling standards statement. I'm not holding my breath. Maybe you should ask Guam if that question qualifies for 'daft gotcha' question.
Kind of typical for kipper, Guam makes statement which is so patently false, maybe time to crank up the old hearing aid? WW makes ridiculous statement and when questioned resorts to 'STFU, stop asking that question' or similar. So civil.
Calculating where we should be is so beyond stupid, taking into account 2008, that only morons can take any such analysis seriously. Lest we think that with Nigel in charge, with his eminently qualified cabinet, we would completely avoid 2008.
And for simpleton who keeps asking why people 'bash' UKIP. For me, answer is simple. Curiosity. I'm curious about why people think that anything would change, even if UKIP gets enough MPs to form coalition.
I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
Happy holidays.
WW why did you delete your STFU post? There are plenty of kippers ready to defend you. Once again, I'm really curious about falling standards statement. I'm not holding my breath. Maybe you should ask Guam if that question qualifies for 'daft gotcha' question.
Kind of typical for kipper, Guam makes statement which is so patently false, maybe time to crank up the old hearing aid? WW makes ridiculous statement and when questioned resorts to 'STFU, stop asking that question' or similar. So civil.
Calculating where we should be is so beyond stupid, taking into account 2008, that only morons can take any such analysis seriously. Lest we think that with Nigel in charge, with his eminently qualified cabinet, we would completely avoid 2008.
And for simpleton who keeps asking why people 'bash' UKIP. For me, answer is simple. Curiosity. I'm curious about why people think that anything would change, even if UKIP gets enough MPs to form coalition.
I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
Happy holidays.
league67 said:
Lol,
I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
Just dipped in to this thread. But one Ukip policy that would make me (and everyone else) better off is to repeal the climate change act thus reducing energy costs.I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
15 years and nothing to show? Are you mad? They have gone from something like 2% to perhaps 20% support. That is a huge achievement. They basically forced the conservatives to offer a referendum to stop Tory voters jumping ship. Another huge achievement. They have increased the number of Ukip MEPs and local councilors significantly, another big achievement, and are set to come first or a good second in the Euro elections. This is nothing?
NicD said:
examples please?
Show me the threads where anyone can be bothered to bash the open goals of the main parties (all of which I have voted for over the years and may well vote for again).
And of course the reason is obvious, its much easier in opposition.
and yes, I am sensitive to undeserved slurs and twisting of 'facts'
But really, I just want to know why you people can be bothered to rabbit away at your keyboards so much.
Slurs are untrue statements.....agreed? So how is asking how well UKIP have done in Scotland, or by asking, do you expect them to actually keep a deposit next time round in Scotland? Your views please.... Have I twisted any facts here? Show me the threads where anyone can be bothered to bash the open goals of the main parties (all of which I have voted for over the years and may well vote for again).
And of course the reason is obvious, its much easier in opposition.
and yes, I am sensitive to undeserved slurs and twisting of 'facts'
But really, I just want to know why you people can be bothered to rabbit away at your keyboards so much.
pcvdriver said:
Slurs are untrue statements.....agreed? So how is asking how well UKIP have done in Scotland, or by asking, do you expect them to actually keep a deposit next time round in Scotland? Your views please.... Have I twisted any facts here?
Is that because scotland is of a higher moral standing then england or is it because scotland is full of borderline communists?pcvdriver said:
NicD said:
examples please?
Show me the threads where anyone can be bothered to bash the open goals of the main parties (all of which I have voted for over the years and may well vote for again).
And of course the reason is obvious, its much easier in opposition.
and yes, I am sensitive to undeserved slurs and twisting of 'facts'
But really, I just want to know why you people can be bothered to rabbit away at your keyboards so much.
Slurs are untrue statements.....agreed? So how is asking how well UKIP have done in Scotland, or by asking, do you expect them to actually keep a deposit next time round in Scotland? Your views please.... Have I twisted any facts here? Show me the threads where anyone can be bothered to bash the open goals of the main parties (all of which I have voted for over the years and may well vote for again).
And of course the reason is obvious, its much easier in opposition.
and yes, I am sensitive to undeserved slurs and twisting of 'facts'
But really, I just want to know why you people can be bothered to rabbit away at your keyboards so much.
The title of this thread is itself a slur, but whatever, its a free country, well sort of.
s2art said:
league67 said:
Lol,
I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
Just dipped in to this thread. But one Ukip policy that would make me (and everyone else) better off is to repeal the climate change act thus reducing energy costs.I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
15 years and nothing to show? Are you mad? They have gone from something like 2% to perhaps 20% support. That is a huge achievement. They basically forced the conservatives to offer a referendum to stop Tory voters jumping ship. Another huge achievement. They have increased the number of Ukip MEPs and local councilors significantly, another big achievement, and are set to come first or a good second in the Euro elections. This is nothing?
From 2% to 20% support you say. I'll take your word for it. How many MPs will UKIP have comes 2015? Enough to form coalition with anyone?
As far as forcing referendum, I believe that don4l would disagree with you. Lets say that you are right, you think that this is 'huge achievement' after 15 years?
In 2009 they had 13 MEPs. Now they have 10. Significant increase? Anything particular achievement that you can attribute to those MEPs (not a trick question, pure curiosity).
Just had a quick look, and do correct me if I'm wrong, another policy is to increase defense budget by 40%. Four zero. Where is the money going to come from? Scraped wind turbines? Exit from EU?
Missed this last week. Surely this is enough of a transfer of power for a referendum on our EU membership?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
First three paragraphs
"One of the few “successes” of the British negotiations over the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in 2009, was a partial opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This political agreement was proclaimed by EU institutions some 14 years ago to replicate the European Convention on Human Rights. The difference is that while the convention comes under the auspices of the Council of Europe, an organisation of more than 40 countries – including Russia and Turkey – the charter is an EU document."
"The distinction is significant. Whereas the convention is administered through the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, the charter is enforced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. The former, at least in theory, has no direct jurisdiction over our courts; but the latter is the supreme judicial body, whose decisions are binding. This is because EU law has a direct effect under the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore overrides British courts and Parliament."
"Increasingly, these rights are being transferred to the EU. Viviane Reding, the vice-president of the European Commission, says she wants the charter to be the EU’s “very own” Bill of Rights, which would apply to all member states and have legally binding force. The UK’s so-called exemption would effectively be null and void. In fact, the ECJ is already attempting to impose charter rights on Britain, much to the alarm of senior judges and MPs."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
First three paragraphs
"One of the few “successes” of the British negotiations over the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in 2009, was a partial opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This political agreement was proclaimed by EU institutions some 14 years ago to replicate the European Convention on Human Rights. The difference is that while the convention comes under the auspices of the Council of Europe, an organisation of more than 40 countries – including Russia and Turkey – the charter is an EU document."
"The distinction is significant. Whereas the convention is administered through the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, the charter is enforced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. The former, at least in theory, has no direct jurisdiction over our courts; but the latter is the supreme judicial body, whose decisions are binding. This is because EU law has a direct effect under the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore overrides British courts and Parliament."
"Increasingly, these rights are being transferred to the EU. Viviane Reding, the vice-president of the European Commission, says she wants the charter to be the EU’s “very own” Bill of Rights, which would apply to all member states and have legally binding force. The UK’s so-called exemption would effectively be null and void. In fact, the ECJ is already attempting to impose charter rights on Britain, much to the alarm of senior judges and MPs."
league67 said:
s2art said:
league67 said:
Lol,
I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
Just dipped in to this thread. But one Ukip policy that would make me (and everyone else) better off is to repeal the climate change act thus reducing energy costs.I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
15 years and nothing to show? Are you mad? They have gone from something like 2% to perhaps 20% support. That is a huge achievement. They basically forced the conservatives to offer a referendum to stop Tory voters jumping ship. Another huge achievement. They have increased the number of Ukip MEPs and local councilors significantly, another big achievement, and are set to come first or a good second in the Euro elections. This is nothing?
From 2% to 20% support you say. I'll take your word for it. How many MPs will UKIP have comes 2015? Enough to form coalition with anyone?
As far as forcing referendum, I believe that don4l would disagree with you. Lets say that you are right, you think that this is 'huge achievement' after 15 years?
In 2009 they had 13 MEPs. Now they have 10. Significant increase? Anything particular achievement that you can attribute to those MEPs (not a trick question, pure curiosity).
Just had a quick look, and do correct me if I'm wrong, another policy is to increase defense budget by 40%. Four zero. Where is the money going to come from? Scraped wind turbines? Exit from EU?
No idea about number of MPs. If they get their act together, like the LibDems and target their best chances, they will get some.
Yes, I think forcing CMDs hand for a referendum is a great achievement. Our leaders hate asking the people.
Why target 2009. The date for 15 years is 1999. How many did they have then? Not to mention councilors.
The tax payers alliance estimates the true cost of being in the EU in the many 10's of billions. So once out they may be able to significantly increase defense spending. Note that we currently spend less than the NATO minimum, that will have to change soon.
s2art said:
league67 said:
s2art said:
league67 said:
Lol,
I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
Just dipped in to this thread. But one Ukip policy that would make me (and everyone else) better off is to repeal the climate change act thus reducing energy costs.I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
15 years and nothing to show? Are you mad? They have gone from something like 2% to perhaps 20% support. That is a huge achievement. They basically forced the conservatives to offer a referendum to stop Tory voters jumping ship. Another huge achievement. They have increased the number of Ukip MEPs and local councilors significantly, another big achievement, and are set to come first or a good second in the Euro elections. This is nothing?
RepealTheAct.org said:
The Climate Change Act Is A Tax On Everything
The Climate Change Act is having huge social and economic consequences, which MPs can no longer ignore.
The EU's and UK's climate and energy policies are too expensive, too ambitious, too complex - and ineffective. The government's blind faith in drastically reducing CO2 emissions and liberalising energy markets will profit only a select group of companies and officials at the expense of everyone else. MPs would do well to rethink these policies - before the public rises up in anger.
Under the UK’s Climate Change Act the government is currently legally committed to cutting emissions by 35 per cent by 2022 and 50 per cent by 2025. In contrast, the EU is only committed to cutting emissions 20 per cent by 2020, and while the UK and a number of other countries are lobbying Brussels for this target to be increased to 30 per cent several member states remain resistant to any change.
At the Conservative Party Conference the Chancellor George Osborne expressed concerns that the climate and energy policy is:
“piling costs on the energy bills of households and companies” and argued that the government should not adopt green targets that damage the business sector.
“We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business,” he said. “So let’s at the very least resolve that we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”
He also stressed, "the UK accounts for less than two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 40 per cent from the US and China, warning that if the UK attempts to cut emissions too quickly carbon intensive businesses will simply migrate overseas.”
Reports also indicate that fuel poverty will kill 2,700 people in the UK this winter, more than were killed in the twin towers terrorist attacks and more than the UK’s road deaths.
Skyrocketing energy bills have forced 6 million households in fuel poverty and the proposed Carbon Floor Price will increase this number to 12 million - that is 1 in 4 households. Recent reports indicate that the ‘Green Deal’ will not work to alleviate this serious problem.
The NHS spends £850 million a year on cold related illnesses.
Food manufactures have warned us that soaring energy costs are increasing food prices.
UK food producers currently face energy bills that are 10% higher than rivals in Germany and the gap is set to widen to 15% in April 2013, when the government introduces the Carbon Floor Price - these cost will be passed on to the consumer.
Air travel is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The UK has the highest flight tax in the world. UK charges are 8.5 times more than the average in the rest of Europe.
That one UKIP policy alone would have massive benefits and the saving on household energy bills would be a small part of the much larger total saved, arising from the costs to various industries which are passed on to us. It's not as if the CCA will do anything measurable for anybody if it's kept on the statute books, it's based on a myth and can't even do anything about that myth when only 2% of the myth is based in the UK and we have no control over the other 98%.The Climate Change Act is having huge social and economic consequences, which MPs can no longer ignore.
The EU's and UK's climate and energy policies are too expensive, too ambitious, too complex - and ineffective. The government's blind faith in drastically reducing CO2 emissions and liberalising energy markets will profit only a select group of companies and officials at the expense of everyone else. MPs would do well to rethink these policies - before the public rises up in anger.
Under the UK’s Climate Change Act the government is currently legally committed to cutting emissions by 35 per cent by 2022 and 50 per cent by 2025. In contrast, the EU is only committed to cutting emissions 20 per cent by 2020, and while the UK and a number of other countries are lobbying Brussels for this target to be increased to 30 per cent several member states remain resistant to any change.
At the Conservative Party Conference the Chancellor George Osborne expressed concerns that the climate and energy policy is:
“piling costs on the energy bills of households and companies” and argued that the government should not adopt green targets that damage the business sector.
“We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business,” he said. “So let’s at the very least resolve that we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”
He also stressed, "the UK accounts for less than two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 40 per cent from the US and China, warning that if the UK attempts to cut emissions too quickly carbon intensive businesses will simply migrate overseas.”
Reports also indicate that fuel poverty will kill 2,700 people in the UK this winter, more than were killed in the twin towers terrorist attacks and more than the UK’s road deaths.
Skyrocketing energy bills have forced 6 million households in fuel poverty and the proposed Carbon Floor Price will increase this number to 12 million - that is 1 in 4 households. Recent reports indicate that the ‘Green Deal’ will not work to alleviate this serious problem.
The NHS spends £850 million a year on cold related illnesses.
Food manufactures have warned us that soaring energy costs are increasing food prices.
UK food producers currently face energy bills that are 10% higher than rivals in Germany and the gap is set to widen to 15% in April 2013, when the government introduces the Carbon Floor Price - these cost will be passed on to the consumer.
Air travel is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The UK has the highest flight tax in the world. UK charges are 8.5 times more than the average in the rest of Europe.
s2art said:
league67 said:
s2art said:
league67 said:
Lol,
I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
Just dipped in to this thread. But one Ukip policy that would make me (and everyone else) better off is to repeal the climate change act thus reducing energy costs.I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
15 years and nothing to show? Are you mad? They have gone from something like 2% to perhaps 20% support. That is a huge achievement. They basically forced the conservatives to offer a referendum to stop Tory voters jumping ship. Another huge achievement. They have increased the number of Ukip MEPs and local councilors significantly, another big achievement, and are set to come first or a good second in the Euro elections. This is nothing?
From 2% to 20% support you say. I'll take your word for it. How many MPs will UKIP have comes 2015? Enough to form coalition with anyone?
As far as forcing referendum, I believe that don4l would disagree with you. Lets say that you are right, you think that this is 'huge achievement' after 15 years?
In 2009 they had 13 MEPs. Now they have 10. Significant increase? Anything particular achievement that you can attribute to those MEPs (not a trick question, pure curiosity).
Just had a quick look, and do correct me if I'm wrong, another policy is to increase defense budget by 40%. Four zero. Where is the money going to come from? Scraped wind turbines? Exit from EU?
No idea about number of MPs. If they get their act together, like the LibDems and target their best chances, they will get some.
Yes, I think forcing CMDs hand for a referendum is a great achievement. Our leaders hate asking the people.
Why target 2009. The date for 15 years is 1999. How many did they have then? Not to mention councilors.
The tax payers alliance estimates the true cost of being in the EU in the many 10's of billions. So once out they may be able to significantly increase defense spending. Note that we currently spend less than the NATO minimum, that will have to change soon.
As I said earlier in this thread, EU membership costs £55m per day. Or it costs the price of a turnip a day. Or somewhere in between - it all depends what you are adding in, what you are leaving out and, most importantly, what side of the argument you happen to be on.
But one thing is crystal clear - if the UK leaves the EU then the Treasury will not have an extra £55m per day to play with, or anything like it
Personally I find UKIP's policy to increase defence spending by 40% rather amusing in one way, and rather frightening in another. What the feck are we going to spend it on? More troops? What are they going to do all day, or are UKIP going to declare war on somebody just to give the buggers some gainful employment?
Perhaps we're going to spend it all on more equipment? And what might that be? And what/who are we going to use this new equipment against? We do nothing in this country militarily without the Yanks say-so and, if my memory serves me well, the last time we did - Suez - the Yanks told us to get out PDQ. Of course, a lot of Yanks didn't like our involvement in Northern Ireland, and the IRA got a good deal of their funding from Noraid. No, we don't get to do things that the Yanks don't want us to do, whether war is declared or not.
To me, this proposed increase in defence spending is not, as some on this thread might like to think, a positive policy but a monumental waste of time and taxpayers money - my money, your money - which will result in staff resources sitting around twiddling their thumbs and/or equipment going rusty for lack of use were it not for the extra squaddies cleaning it now and again because they'd have bugger all else to do.
Finally, on one of Mr League's earlier points, I too wonder what real influence the EU has on our ordinary daily lives in reality. Let me think
Street lights, road repairs, emptying the bins - my local council
Speed limits, parking restrictions and various other traffic-jamming schemes - my local council
Tax rates - Whitehall
NHS - Whitehall with a good deal of local involvement
Education - Whitehall with a good deal of local involvement
So what has the EU ever done for us? Nothing. Oh, wait...
The Single Market
Deregulation of the airlines leading to the growth of low cost air travel
Europe-wide consumer protection
Forcing mobile phone operators to reduce their colossal roaming charges
Oh, read it all for yourself:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25963806
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6455879.st...
But Mr Barroso is a communist and they want to ban rhododendrons, don't they? Time we wuz out, if you asks me
turbobloke said:
s2art said:
league67 said:
s2art said:
league67 said:
Lol,
I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
Just dipped in to this thread. But one Ukip policy that would make me (and everyone else) better off is to repeal the climate change act thus reducing energy costs.I still wait for an answer to; 'Which UKIP policy would make you better off'. Not society at large, but you personally. Once again, say it loud; 15 years and nothing to show for.
15 years and nothing to show? Are you mad? They have gone from something like 2% to perhaps 20% support. That is a huge achievement. They basically forced the conservatives to offer a referendum to stop Tory voters jumping ship. Another huge achievement. They have increased the number of Ukip MEPs and local councilors significantly, another big achievement, and are set to come first or a good second in the Euro elections. This is nothing?
RepealTheAct.org said:
The Climate Change Act Is A Tax On Everything
The Climate Change Act is having huge social and economic consequences, which MPs can no longer ignore.
The EU's and UK's climate and energy policies are too expensive, too ambitious, too complex - and ineffective. The government's blind faith in drastically reducing CO2 emissions and liberalising energy markets will profit only a select group of companies and officials at the expense of everyone else. MPs would do well to rethink these policies - before the public rises up in anger.
Under the UK’s Climate Change Act the government is currently legally committed to cutting emissions by 35 per cent by 2022 and 50 per cent by 2025. In contrast, the EU is only committed to cutting emissions 20 per cent by 2020, and while the UK and a number of other countries are lobbying Brussels for this target to be increased to 30 per cent several member states remain resistant to any change.
At the Conservative Party Conference the Chancellor George Osborne expressed concerns that the climate and energy policy is:
“piling costs on the energy bills of households and companies” and argued that the government should not adopt green targets that damage the business sector.
“We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business,” he said. “So let’s at the very least resolve that we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”
He also stressed, "the UK accounts for less than two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 40 per cent from the US and China, warning that if the UK attempts to cut emissions too quickly carbon intensive businesses will simply migrate overseas.”
Reports also indicate that fuel poverty will kill 2,700 people in the UK this winter, more than were killed in the twin towers terrorist attacks and more than the UK’s road deaths.
Skyrocketing energy bills have forced 6 million households in fuel poverty and the proposed Carbon Floor Price will increase this number to 12 million - that is 1 in 4 households. Recent reports indicate that the ‘Green Deal’ will not work to alleviate this serious problem.
The NHS spends £850 million a year on cold related illnesses.
Food manufactures have warned us that soaring energy costs are increasing food prices.
UK food producers currently face energy bills that are 10% higher than rivals in Germany and the gap is set to widen to 15% in April 2013, when the government introduces the Carbon Floor Price - these cost will be passed on to the consumer.
Air travel is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The UK has the highest flight tax in the world. UK charges are 8.5 times more than the average in the rest of Europe.
That one UKIP policy alone would have massive benefits and the saving on household energy bills would be a small part of the much larger total saved, arising from the costs to various industries which are passed on to us. It's not as if the CCA will do anything measurable for anybody if it's kept on the statute books, it's based on a myth and can't even do anything about that myth when only 2% of the myth is based in the UK and we have no control over the other 98%.The Climate Change Act is having huge social and economic consequences, which MPs can no longer ignore.
The EU's and UK's climate and energy policies are too expensive, too ambitious, too complex - and ineffective. The government's blind faith in drastically reducing CO2 emissions and liberalising energy markets will profit only a select group of companies and officials at the expense of everyone else. MPs would do well to rethink these policies - before the public rises up in anger.
Under the UK’s Climate Change Act the government is currently legally committed to cutting emissions by 35 per cent by 2022 and 50 per cent by 2025. In contrast, the EU is only committed to cutting emissions 20 per cent by 2020, and while the UK and a number of other countries are lobbying Brussels for this target to be increased to 30 per cent several member states remain resistant to any change.
At the Conservative Party Conference the Chancellor George Osborne expressed concerns that the climate and energy policy is:
“piling costs on the energy bills of households and companies” and argued that the government should not adopt green targets that damage the business sector.
“We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business,” he said. “So let’s at the very least resolve that we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”
He also stressed, "the UK accounts for less than two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 40 per cent from the US and China, warning that if the UK attempts to cut emissions too quickly carbon intensive businesses will simply migrate overseas.”
Reports also indicate that fuel poverty will kill 2,700 people in the UK this winter, more than were killed in the twin towers terrorist attacks and more than the UK’s road deaths.
Skyrocketing energy bills have forced 6 million households in fuel poverty and the proposed Carbon Floor Price will increase this number to 12 million - that is 1 in 4 households. Recent reports indicate that the ‘Green Deal’ will not work to alleviate this serious problem.
The NHS spends £850 million a year on cold related illnesses.
Food manufactures have warned us that soaring energy costs are increasing food prices.
UK food producers currently face energy bills that are 10% higher than rivals in Germany and the gap is set to widen to 15% in April 2013, when the government introduces the Carbon Floor Price - these cost will be passed on to the consumer.
Air travel is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The UK has the highest flight tax in the world. UK charges are 8.5 times more than the average in the rest of Europe.
turbobloke said:
Read it on the BBC? Funny. Don't inhale or swallow the information pollution.
Also if you get hay fever avoid rhododendrons.
Read it on RepealtheAct.org and add it to an EU thread?Also if you get hay fever avoid rhododendrons.
If you read the snip you posted in detail, you will see that it isn't the evil EU that is forcing targets on the UK - the UK is forcing more stringent targets on itself, and wants the EU to play along. Which it won't.
So if you have to have targets at all, which ones would you prefer? EU targets or UK targets?
rs1952 said:
turbobloke said:
Read it on the BBC? Funny. Don't inhale or swallow the information pollution.
Also if you get hay fever avoid rhododendrons.
Read it on RepealtheAct.org and add it to an EU thread?Also if you get hay fever avoid rhododendrons.
http://www.thegwpf.org/peter-lilley-nick-stern/
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2012/10/Vah...
rs1952 said:
If you read the snip you posted in detail, you will see that it isn't the evil EU that is forcing targets on the UK - the UK is forcing more stringent targets on itself, and wants the EU to play along. Which it won't.
Which is fine as this thread is about UKIP primarily, as opposed to the failing EU which has its own threads, and my post referred to a key UKIP policy.rs1952 said:
So if you have to have targets at all, which ones would you prefer? EU targets or UK targets?
Hang on, with the biased beeb out of bounds I'll just pop over to The Guardian to get some info on that.My preferred target isn't restricted in the manner you suggest and for tax gas emission reductions it's zero, as any significant reduction will harm national conpetitiveness and reduce further our individual quality of life for no measurable benefit even in mythland.
s2art said:
Not sure where that £63 is from, or when. The cost to us will be several hundred pounds a year by 2020, and we lose competitiveness every year for industry cost on energy.
No idea about number of MPs. If they get their act together, like the LibDems and target their best chances, they will get some.
Yes, I think forcing CMDs hand for a referendum is a great achievement. Our leaders hate asking the people.
Why target 2009. The date for 15 years is 1999. How many did they have then? Not to mention councilors.
The tax payers alliance estimates the true cost of being in the EU in the many 10's of billions. So once out they may be able to significantly increase defense spending. Note that we currently spend less than the NATO minimum, that will have to change soon.
Figure is from Govt data based on 9% of the bill for eco + investment. Investment includes nuclear as well, hence, this was quick glance so figures might be somewhat off, half was for eco technologies. Wind and renewables account for £18 of average bill. No idea about number of MPs. If they get their act together, like the LibDems and target their best chances, they will get some.
Yes, I think forcing CMDs hand for a referendum is a great achievement. Our leaders hate asking the people.
Why target 2009. The date for 15 years is 1999. How many did they have then? Not to mention councilors.
The tax payers alliance estimates the true cost of being in the EU in the many 10's of billions. So once out they may be able to significantly increase defense spending. Note that we currently spend less than the NATO minimum, that will have to change soon.
As far as EU is concerned, I believe that UK still has some of the lowest prices for both gas and electricity.
How can you predict that you'll lose hundreds of pounds by 2020 is beyond me.
This is the part that we'll disagree most. If economic trend continues, probably even if it doesn't, they'll be in no position to form coalition, and again, no influence whatsoever. IMO, influence of UKIP on forcing everything is greatly overstated on PH due to it's demographics. PH is by no means representative of wider population.
2009 was first google results when looking for meps from UKIP. Even if it was constant increase to 2009 and decrease since then, it doesn't support your position that numbers have significantly increased. Looking at affiliation
While estimates do agree that UK is net contributor to EU, the actual costs differ. UKIP figure is £150bn derived from Congdon's research (based on figures by Mandelson it seems). TPA quotes that figure. I would imagine that real figure will be a lot less. Certainly not enough to increase defense budget by 40%. I'll try to get more information on this.
I'm very much in favor of referendum. And that will not be delivered by UKIP.
Major influence on your living standards will be due to decisions made in Whitehall, rather than Brux/Stras/Lux (or wherever else). And, from where I'm sitting, it's looking pretty good.
My prediction is that come general election, UKIP will have protest vote, that in tangible terms of being able to influence anything will amount to nothing. Well, those 9 MEPs will obviously still have their salaries, expenses and allowances. With faithful seeing that as a good thing.
league67 said:
How can you (s2art) predict that you'll lose hundreds of pounds by 2020 is beyond me.
It's not beyond basic economics, set out here.http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/...
Article said:
The true costs, therefore, equate to between £15.6bn and £25.1bn a year, or over £1000 per household.
UKIP have got it right on that particular policy.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff