UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Guam said:
It doesnt mean you arent either, thse of us who have spent some time with the mandarins, rapidly discover that the machine is largely self perpetuating and the function of the civil servants is to keep the ministers on the sane side of the policy line.
One could be cynical and suggest that one could return chimpanzees to parliament and the government would function fairly well regardless. Indeed didn't the belgians do something similar recently by running without a an elected government for some time?
which is why any change that may happen has to happen right through the spectrum,starting with local councils right through every department of the civil service. One could be cynical and suggest that one could return chimpanzees to parliament and the government would function fairly well regardless. Indeed didn't the belgians do something similar recently by running without a an elected government for some time?
wc98 said:
which is why any change that may happen has to happen right through the spectrum,starting with local councils right through every department of the civil service.
Deeper than that, surely, with the workers seizing control of the means of production and distribution? 
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Saturday 18th October 18:29
Guam said:
One could be cynical and suggest that one could return chimpanzees to parliament and the government would function fairly well regardless. Indeed didn't the belgians do something similar recently by running without a an elected government for some time?
Then look at the deficit at the end of the Brown govt and tell me the same.Unless you reckon chimpanzees would have been better than Brown, Darling Balls et al. In which case I might struggle to disgree.
But the point is that a set of nice sounding policies than screw the economy for years. Fif, the policies you say are on the conservatibe site (I haven't bother to check, I am sure you are right)- those are already far more specific than the UKIP ones, plus the Tories are in power, we can tell what they are like, and before the next election the Tories will have a far more specific manifesto (look for the 2010 one as a comparison). So we know roughly what to expect from the Tories, with UKIP that is not true, as Farage says the last manifesto was "ridiculous". So yes we do have to hold them to higher standards in some respects. And until we see some specifics and the independently verified costings that Farage promised, they are just all dreams.
@britainelects: National Opinion Poll (ComRes w/ UKIP prompted):
LAB - 31% (-4)
CON - 29% (=)
UKIP - 24% (+5)
LDEM - 7% (=)
GRN - 5% (+1)
Or
@britainelects: National Opinion Poll (ComRes old methodology):
LAB - 34% (-1)
CON - 31% (+2)
UKIP - 19% (=)
LDEM - 7% (=)
GRN - 4% (=)
details here..
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1293/sunday-mirror-in...
LAB - 31% (-4)
CON - 29% (=)
UKIP - 24% (+5)
LDEM - 7% (=)
GRN - 5% (+1)
Or
@britainelects: National Opinion Poll (ComRes old methodology):
LAB - 34% (-1)
CON - 31% (+2)
UKIP - 19% (=)
LDEM - 7% (=)
GRN - 4% (=)
details here..
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1293/sunday-mirror-in...
JustAnotherLogin said:
Then look at the deficit at the end of the Brown govt and tell me the same.
Unless you reckon chimpanzees would have been better than Brown, Darling Balls et al. In which case I might struggle to disgree.
But the point is that a set of nice sounding policies than screw the economy for years. Fif, the policies you say are on the conservatibe site (I haven't bother to check, I am sure you are right)- those are already far more specific than the UKIP ones, plus the Tories are in power, we can tell what they are like, and before the next election the Tories will have a far more specific manifesto (look for the 2010 one as a comparison). So we know roughly what to expect from the Tories, with UKIP that is not true, as Farage says the last manifesto was "ridiculous". So yes we do have to hold them to higher standards in some respects. And until we see some specifics and the independently verified costings that Farage promised, they are just all dreams.
We don't know "roughly" what to expect from the Tories. Unless you reckon chimpanzees would have been better than Brown, Darling Balls et al. In which case I might struggle to disgree.
But the point is that a set of nice sounding policies than screw the economy for years. Fif, the policies you say are on the conservatibe site (I haven't bother to check, I am sure you are right)- those are already far more specific than the UKIP ones, plus the Tories are in power, we can tell what they are like, and before the next election the Tories will have a far more specific manifesto (look for the 2010 one as a comparison). So we know roughly what to expect from the Tories, with UKIP that is not true, as Farage says the last manifesto was "ridiculous". So yes we do have to hold them to higher standards in some respects. And until we see some specifics and the independently verified costings that Farage promised, they are just all dreams.
We know exactly what to expect from them.
More of the same.
More broken promises.
More Lies.
More debt that our children will have to pay off.
More expensive electricity bills.
I really struggle to understand why anybody thinks that they will change.
don4l said:
More debt that our children will have to pay off
Do you understand that the Tories inherited a huge deficit?Do you understand that no-one, not even High Wizard Farage, can wave a wand and stop the country hemorrhaging money overnight?
I just want to know so that I can tell whether your comment was through ignorance, stupidity, political zealotry or just plain contrariness, and thus how to respond.
And could anyone please explain what UKIP mean in their manifesto by "No to Political Correctness - it stifles free speech." Give me some examples of things banned now that they would allow.
JustAnotherLogin said:
don4l said:
More debt that our children will have to pay off
Do you understand that the Tories inherited a huge deficit?Do you understand that no-one, not even High Wizard Farage, can wave a wand and stop the country hemorrhaging money overnight?
"For all the talk about responsibility, the government is, in everything but name, running a massive fiscal stimulus - a throw-back to the pre-Callaghan era. Ed Balls may not agree, but there is no other way to describe a situation in which the government spends £100 billion more than it takes in taxes every year to prop up economic output. As a consequence, the Coalition will be borrowing more in five years than Gordon Brown managed in thirteen."
http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/osbrown-economics...
The reality is Osbourne has continued Brown/Balls economic policy - there isn't any significant difference between Labours and the Conservative's numbers.
a few hundred million sounds a lot, but in economy measured in thousands of billions it isn't.
rudecherub said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
don4l said:
More debt that our children will have to pay off
Do you understand that the Tories inherited a huge deficit?Do you understand that no-one, not even High Wizard Farage, can wave a wand and stop the country hemorrhaging money overnight?
"For all the talk about responsibility, the government is, in everything but name, running a massive fiscal stimulus - a throw-back to the pre-Callaghan era. Ed Balls may not agree, but there is no other way to describe a situation in which the government spends £100 billion more than it takes in taxes every year to prop up economic output. As a consequence, the Coalition will be borrowing more in five years than Gordon Brown managed in thirteen."
http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/osbrown-economics...
The reality is Osbourne has continued Brown/Balls economic policy - there isn't any significant difference between Labours and the Conservative's numbers.
a few hundred million sounds a lot, but in economy measured in thousands of billions it isn't.
Additionally, spending always lags policy by years & similarly the benefit of some of the changes already implemented will not be properly seen yet
It was ever thus.
So Osborne has had no choice but to meet the spending commitments locked in by Brown (over things like PFI, Benefits schemes, Green subsidies etc etc) whilst also trying to make sure the entire economy didn't tank and disappear down a black hole.
There is no conceivable way he could not continue to run a deficit for years . As to the size of it, that has just been a matter of judging how much pain the economy (and population) was prepared or able to take. Judging by the growth numbers, he's probably got that about right.
Look at where he started & what he started with. If you had offered the position we are in now to most people in 2010, they would probably have been more than happy to take it, its at least as good as anyone hoped for and far better than many predicted.
Wombat3 said:
rudecherub said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
don4l said:
More debt that our children will have to pay off
Do you understand that the Tories inherited a huge deficit?Do you understand that no-one, not even High Wizard Farage, can wave a wand and stop the country hemorrhaging money overnight?
"For all the talk about responsibility, the government is, in everything but name, running a massive fiscal stimulus - a throw-back to the pre-Callaghan era. Ed Balls may not agree, but there is no other way to describe a situation in which the government spends £100 billion more than it takes in taxes every year to prop up economic output. As a consequence, the Coalition will be borrowing more in five years than Gordon Brown managed in thirteen."
http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/osbrown-economics...
The reality is Osbourne has continued Brown/Balls economic policy - there isn't any significant difference between Labours and the Conservative's numbers.
a few hundred million sounds a lot, but in economy measured in thousands of billions it isn't.
Additionally, spending always lags policy by years & similarly the benefit of some of the changes already implemented will not be properly seen yet
It was ever thus.
So Osborne has had no choice but to meet the spending commitments locked in by Brown (over things like PFI, Benefits schemes, Green subsidies etc etc) whilst also trying to make sure the entire economy didn't tank and disappear down a black hole.
There is no conceivable way he could not continue to run a deficit for years . As to the size of it, that has just been a matter of judging how much pain the economy (and population) was prepared or able to take. Judging by the growth numbers, he's probably got that about right.
Look at where he started & what he started with. If you had offered the position we are in now to most people in 2010, they would probably have been more than happy to take it, its at least as good as anyone hoped for and far better than many predicted.
While Carswell talks numbers Wombat waffles.
Simply pretending there is a substantive difference between Labour and the Tories is typical spin of the usual suspects.
rudecherub said:
Wombat3 said:
rudecherub said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
don4l said:
More debt that our children will have to pay off
Do you understand that the Tories inherited a huge deficit?Do you understand that no-one, not even High Wizard Farage, can wave a wand and stop the country hemorrhaging money overnight?
"For all the talk about responsibility, the government is, in everything but name, running a massive fiscal stimulus - a throw-back to the pre-Callaghan era. Ed Balls may not agree, but there is no other way to describe a situation in which the government spends £100 billion more than it takes in taxes every year to prop up economic output. As a consequence, the Coalition will be borrowing more in five years than Gordon Brown managed in thirteen."
http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/osbrown-economics...
The reality is Osbourne has continued Brown/Balls economic policy - there isn't any significant difference between Labours and the Conservative's numbers.
a few hundred million sounds a lot, but in economy measured in thousands of billions it isn't.
Additionally, spending always lags policy by years & similarly the benefit of some of the changes already implemented will not be properly seen yet
It was ever thus.
So Osborne has had no choice but to meet the spending commitments locked in by Brown (over things like PFI, Benefits schemes, Green subsidies etc etc) whilst also trying to make sure the entire economy didn't tank and disappear down a black hole.
There is no conceivable way he could not continue to run a deficit for years . As to the size of it, that has just been a matter of judging how much pain the economy (and population) was prepared or able to take. Judging by the growth numbers, he's probably got that about right.
Look at where he started & what he started with. If you had offered the position we are in now to most people in 2010, they would probably have been more than happy to take it, its at least as good as anyone hoped for and far better than many predicted.
While Carswell talks numbers Wombat waffles.
Simply pretending there is a substantive difference between Labour and the Tories is typical spin of the usual suspects.
Carswell mentions ONE number and a load of nebulous ideals like "The government needs to actually live within the tax base. "
Of course it f
king does but if you slam the brakes on 200 miles an hour you're going through the windscreen! You can't get to that position overnight. The depth and spread of spending commitments that Brown made are far beyond what most people realise. It will take years to unravel them & to suggest it can be done & the whole thing can just change course overnight is beyond naïve.....and this is what happens with Milibands big ideas about running an economy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2797935/a-...
If you can't see the difference between that and how successfully the UK economy has been stabilised and guided over the last 4 years then there's not much hope of anything like a sensible or rational debate with you.
Wombat3 said:
rudecherub said:
Wombat3 said:
rudecherub said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
don4l said:
More debt that our children will have to pay off
Do you understand that the Tories inherited a huge deficit?Do you understand that no-one, not even High Wizard Farage, can wave a wand and stop the country hemorrhaging money overnight?
"For all the talk about responsibility, the government is, in everything but name, running a massive fiscal stimulus - a throw-back to the pre-Callaghan era. Ed Balls may not agree, but there is no other way to describe a situation in which the government spends £100 billion more than it takes in taxes every year to prop up economic output. As a consequence, the Coalition will be borrowing more in five years than Gordon Brown managed in thirteen."
http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/osbrown-economics...
The reality is Osbourne has continued Brown/Balls economic policy - there isn't any significant difference between Labours and the Conservative's numbers.
a few hundred million sounds a lot, but in economy measured in thousands of billions it isn't.
Additionally, spending always lags policy by years & similarly the benefit of some of the changes already implemented will not be properly seen yet
It was ever thus.
So Osborne has had no choice but to meet the spending commitments locked in by Brown (over things like PFI, Benefits schemes, Green subsidies etc etc) whilst also trying to make sure the entire economy didn't tank and disappear down a black hole.
There is no conceivable way he could not continue to run a deficit for years . As to the size of it, that has just been a matter of judging how much pain the economy (and population) was prepared or able to take. Judging by the growth numbers, he's probably got that about right.
Look at where he started & what he started with. If you had offered the position we are in now to most people in 2010, they would probably have been more than happy to take it, its at least as good as anyone hoped for and far better than many predicted.
While Carswell talks numbers Wombat waffles.
Simply pretending there is a substantive difference between Labour and the Tories is typical spin of the usual suspects.
Carswell mentions ONE number and a load of nebulous ideals like "The government needs to actually live within the tax base. "
Of course it f
king does but if you slam the brakes on 200 miles an hour you're going through the windscreen! You can't get to that position overnight. The depth and spread of spending commitments that Brown made are far beyond what most people realise. It will take years to unravel them & to suggest it can be done & the whole thing can just change course overnight is beyond naïve.....and this is what happens with Milibands big ideas about running an economy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2797935/a-...
If you can't see the difference between that and how successfully the UK economy has been stabilised and guided over the last 4 years then there's not much hope of anything like a sensible or rational debate with you.
That you can't see there is no meaningful difference between the Labour and Tory policy is lamentable.
The economy hasn't been successfully stablised or guided, but rather it's been business ie borrowing as usual.
Labour under Balls and yes even Red Ed, would have done very little differently.
But in your fan service for the Conservatives you are buying into the fiction.
rudecherub said:
John Redwood makes the same arguments. http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2014/10/01/where-are-...
That you can't see there is no meaningful difference between the Labour and Tory policy is lamentable.
The economy hasn't been successfully stablised or guided, but rather it's been business ie borrowing as usual.
Labour under Balls and yes even Red Ed, would have done very little differently.
But in your fan service for the Conservatives you are buying into the fiction.
Well, for a moment, let's play UKIP Fantasy Gold-Plated Unicorns For Everyone, Forever. Same rules as the SNP equivalent, different geography.That you can't see there is no meaningful difference between the Labour and Tory policy is lamentable.
The economy hasn't been successfully stablised or guided, but rather it's been business ie borrowing as usual.
Labour under Balls and yes even Red Ed, would have done very little differently.
But in your fan service for the Conservatives you are buying into the fiction.
In your own words, try to describe how a UKIP Government elected in 2010 would have done things differently, and how they would have avoided Farage & Co's heads ending up on pointy sticks as a result.
eharding said:
Well, for a moment, let's play UKIP Fantasy Gold-Plated Unicorns For Everyone, Forever. Same rules as the SNP equivalent, different geography.
In your own words, try to describe how a UKIP Government elected in 2010 would have done things differently, and how they would have avoided Farage & Co's heads ending up on pointy sticks as a result.
I don't think UKIP would have had the breadth of ability or the right support to do a better job in 2010. I think had the current government done nothing/Labour won or the cons been outright winners it would have made little difference overall. I am substantially worse off under the current govt than labour but that's because Cameron changed the universal child benefit rules after his pre election promise. In your own words, try to describe how a UKIP Government elected in 2010 would have done things differently, and how they would have avoided Farage & Co's heads ending up on pointy sticks as a result.
Whilst 2010 UKIP probably wouldn't have been up to the job, I do think that they would have had the commonsense to cut foreign aid when making cuts to things like the police and defense budgets! Cameron's brand of conservative and ring fencing foreign aid so that it exceeds the policing budget is just obscene. IMO.
rudecherub said:
John Redwood makes the same arguments. http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2014/10/01/where-are-...
That you can't see there is no meaningful difference between the Labour and Tory policy is lamentable.
The economy hasn't been successfully stablised or guided, but rather it's been business ie borrowing as usual.
Labour under Balls and yes even Red Ed, would have done very little differently.
But in your fan service for the Conservatives you are buying into the fiction.
OK smart guy, which hat are you pulling the £100Bn rabbit out of then? That you can't see there is no meaningful difference between the Labour and Tory policy is lamentable.
The economy hasn't been successfully stablised or guided, but rather it's been business ie borrowing as usual.
Labour under Balls and yes even Red Ed, would have done very little differently.
But in your fan service for the Conservatives you are buying into the fiction.
Public Pensions £150 billion
National Health Care + £133 billion
State Education + £90 billion
Defence + £46 billion
Social Security + £110 billion
State Protection + £30 billion
Transport + £20 billion
General Government + £14 billion
Other Public Services + £86 billion
Public Sector Interest + £52 billion
Total Spending = £731 billion
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff