UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[Einion Yrth]

I think it's more that he lies naturally, unblushingly and without pause if he views it as expedient to him and in HIS best interests and fck the rest of us.

[NicD]

Scuffers said:

I may have missed it, but has anybody seen a single statement from Millipead or Cleggy on this EU surcharge?

I get the impression they are keeping their heads down

The Liebore bully boy Balls has said that it can't have been a surprise to the Government:
' it was wrong that an "unfair" bill had been "sprung upon" the UK but suggested that the Treasury should have acted sooner.'

[NicD]

Einion Yrth said:

I think it's more that he lies naturally, unblushingly and without pause if he views it as expedient to him and in HIS best interests and fck the rest of us.

I don't see him as different to most politicians in power, except perhaps, he is more convincing. The true master was/is Blair.

[Scuffers]

and t be fair, he has a point...

I get the feeling the politicians here were totally clueless as to what they were agreeing in the first place and their aid's (and civil service?) neglected to either pick up on it or tell them.

ONS changed the way they calculated the stats, were they totally ignorant as to what the effect of this would be?

Not trying to defend the politicians (they should be bright enough to understand and see this stuff coming), but I can 100% understand how it happens.

I mean, let's face it, Balls/Osborne are really not up to understanding this stuff, which is bad enough, but who exactly is in the negotiations of these deals?

[steveT350C]

Merkel confirms what we new already in The Times[url]

|http://thumbsnap.com/nxUVmWvv[/url]

[Axionknight]

Now there is a surprise...

[NicD]

Scuffers said:

and t be fair, he has a point...

I get the feeling the politicians here were totally clueless as to what they were agreeing in the first place and their aid's (and civil service?) neglected to either pick up on it or tell them.

ONS changed the way they calculated the stats, were they totally ignorant as to what the effect of this would be?

Not trying to defend the politicians (they should be bright enough to understand and see this stuff coming), but I can 100% understand how it happens.

I mean, let's face it, Balls/Osborne are really not up to understanding this stuff, which is bad enough, but who exactly is in the negotiations of these deals?

yes, there are two strands, first the revised calculation method itself, second the backdating leading to this huge one off surcharge.
How is it fair that a countries' EU contribution is based on illegal thus untaxed activities such as drugs dealing and prostitution? How can we have any confidence in the estimates for these?


Changes related to improved comparability of Gross National Income

GNI is an important statistic within the national accounts. It is used in the calculation of a Member State’s contribution to the EU budget. Because of this operational importance, the EU statistical office (Eurostat) carries out regular audits of the methods and data used to estimate GNI. In 2012, following a comprehensive audit of the methods used across EU countries, a number of issues were identified which Member States have to address by 2014. Blue Book 2014 will include improvements to methods and data to address these issues in respect of the UK.

One of these relates to consistency across the EU Member States in the measurement of illegal activities. In the case of the UK, this means that activities such as drugs dealing and prostitution will henceforward be included within the national accounts, further details on this and the other changes under this category are set out in changes stemming from improved comparability of Gross National Income measurement.

[FiF]

Max Hastings summed Cameron up Marr this morning.
"He has to say what he means, and mean what he says."

For people to believe him will take longer but it's a start. On the EU negotiation he is screwed and it's his own fault for hoping it and UKIP plus the Eurosceptics would all shut up once again after the fun of the Euro elections. He has been very badly advised on this. Some of the prime examples of the sort of logic are on this thread.

[steveT350C]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807844/Oh...

"Oh, the irony... For years I was accused of being racist - just for warning about immigration. Now I'm being made a Lord: The expert who told the truth about migrants can, at last, have his say...."

[don4l]

FiF said:

Max Hastings summed Cameron up Marr this morning.
"He has to say what he means, and mean what he says."

So, I'm not the only one who distrusts Cameron.

[wc98]

jogon said:

The political establishment and msm are currently in the opinion that all these closet racists, freaks and loons will all suddenly see supposed sense come May, they have had their fun during the Euro's and recent By-Elections, and will now all fall in to line for the 'real' election as has happened in previous years.

Only problem is the public don't seem too onside this time around and why should they as UKIP is looking at its third successive major win on the trot.

The argument of vote ukip get labour is looking more pathetic by the day.

yep,it is a complete nonsense. i have said it before,and will say it again,labour are unelectable,and will remain so for at least a generation. the resignation of lamont(hardly a political heavyweight in the first place) as scottish leader,and the possibility of miliband getting the heave pre or post election will highlight how shallow the talent pool available to them actually is.

this is payback for filling the party with common purpose ideologists that have no real connection to the voting public (same for lib dums) an approach still carried out at grass roots level by brainwashing kids of well connected party members in the beginning of the school,university,politics degree,party researcher ,candidate,mp , mep,eu commission life plan of gravy train existence.

imo,the labour party died the day john smith died,it will be a long time,if ever ,before recovery. personally i hope the current party politics system dies a quick death. no matter the perceived sentiment behind the statement, farage was correct when he said the issue was no longer about left or right, but right or wrong.

[wc98]

NicD said:

yes, there are two strands, first the revised calculation method itself, second the backdating leading to this huge one off surcharge.
How is it fair that a countries' EU contribution is based on illegal thus untaxed activities such as drugs dealing and prostitution? How can we have any confidence in the estimates for these?


Changes related to improved comparability of Gross National Income

GNI is an important statistic within the national accounts. It is used in the calculation of a Member State’s contribution to the EU budget. Because of this operational importance, the EU statistical office (Eurostat) carries out regular audits of the methods and data used to estimate GNI. In 2012, following a comprehensive audit of the methods used across EU countries, a number of issues were identified which Member States have to address by 2014. Blue Book 2014 will include improvements to methods and data to address these issues in respect of the UK.

One of these relates to consistency across the EU Member States in the measurement of illegal activities. In the case of the UK, this means that activities such as drugs dealing and prostitution will henceforward be included within the national accounts, further details on this and the other changes under this category are set out in changes stemming from improved comparability of Gross National Income measurement.

if that is the case we can only hope for a true assessment of the spanish black economy , they would be paying every other country in europe a few billion at least i believe if it were to happen.zero chance of it happening though,at one point there were cash in hand aircraft engineers working at all the major spanish airports,with companies using a few certified individuals on the books to sign off paperwork.

if it can ahppen with one of the most regulated industries in europe,the scale in other sectors must be fairly large.

[0a]

Guardian said:

Nearly a third of voters prepared to support Ukip

Observer/Opinium poll shows 31% of voters would back Nigel Farage’s party if they believed it could win in their constituency

The phenomenal rise in support for Ukip is underlined by a new Opinium/Observer poll which shows almost one-third of voters would be prepared to back Nigel Farage’s party if they believed it could win in their own constituency.

Article

Oops I notice Steve posted it earlier. A significant poll though.

I wonder how this breaks down regionally - there will be a lot of MPs thinking they have a better chance of winning under the UKIP banner than their current party, particularly Tory MPs with any principles.

Edited by 0a on Sunday 26th October 12:11

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

Greg66 said:

You say its because he lies about everything, but it is obvious to anyone that your views are formed around an immovable preconception that he lies about everything; hence everything he says is construed (contorted really) by you into a gross untruth that fits into your preconception.

Cognitive bias at its very best.

I don't think that he lies about everything.

He says whatever he thinks will serve him best.

If the truth will serve his interests best, why would he lie?

So, the question is - why would you believe that I think that he lies about everything?

No, that isn't the question. The question (which you have yet to answer) is why you chose to contort what Cameron said to focus on the two courses of action which would make what he said truthful in only the most technical of senses.

[anonymous-user]

NicD said:

Most people would agree that politicians do not, in the main, tell the truth.
I had no statistic, so Googled and found this MORI poll from 15 February 2013 https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/re...
Just one in five (18%) Britons trust politicians to tell the truth compared to 21% trusting journalists and bankers and 24% who trust estate agents.

Leave aside that not telling the truth is not ipso facto, lying. The latter requires the intent to deceive, but with politicians, this is a reasonable assumption.

Greg,

are you a comedian or Russell Brands pen pal?
you say 'but it is obvious to anyone' htf do you know this?

you say 'Cognitive bias at its very best.' but the preceding 'proof' is anything but. You need to up your game, by using logic and presenting evidence, not wild speculation dressed up as 'it is obvious to anyone'

Thanks for the tip. Perhaps you should reflect on the question of whether Britons trust politicians to tell the truth means that in fact politicians are not telling the truth. Perception vs reality and all that. There's a Mark Twain quote about getting up late that sheds some light on this.

As you concede, lying and not telling the truth are different again. The reasonableness of your assumption is no doubt assisted by, err, what's he concept I'm looking for, err, oh yes - cognitive bias!

[jogon]

Good article on the common purpose liberalism tearing both the Tories and Labour apart..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/1118...

[brenflys777]

Cognitive bias isn't something I've come across under that name.

I do think the conservatives under Cameron seem to be suffering from two negative concepts familiar to my field in aviation.

Confirmation bias and poor situational awareness. They are being overwhelmed by events, at home and in the EU and seem to be ignoring mounting evidence that they need to change - not the voters.

[Zod]

wc98 said:

jogon said:

The political establishment and msm are currently in the opinion that all these closet racists, freaks and loons will all suddenly see supposed sense come May, they have had their fun during the Euro's and recent By-Elections, and will now all fall in to line for the 'real' election as has happened in previous years.

Only problem is the public don't seem too onside this time around and why should they as UKIP is looking at its third successive major win on the trot.

The argument of vote ukip get labour is looking more pathetic by the day.

yep,it is a complete nonsense. i have said it before,and will say it again,labour are unelectable,and will remain so for at least a generation. the resignation of lamont(hardly a political heavyweight in the first place) as scottish leader,and the possibility of miliband getting the heave pre or post election will highlight how shallow the talent pool available to them actually is.

So you two think UKIP is going to win the GE?

Or are you banking on a UKIP/Conservative coalition in which Cameron, Osborne and most of the current ministers are defenestrated and someone like UKIP hero, David Davis, takes over as Farage's Prime Minister?

Edited by Zod on Sunday 26th October 13:43

[jogon]

Zod said:

o you two think UKIP is going to win the GE?

Or are you banking one UKIP/Conservative coalition in which Cameron, Osborne and most of the current ministers are defenestration and sonebody like UKIP hero, David Davis takes over as Farage's Prime Minister?

Edited by Zod on Sunday 26th October 13:42

Do you really think the Conservatives or Labour will be able to form a majority?

[NicD]

Greg66 said:

NicD said:

Most people would agree that politicians do not, in the main, tell the truth.
I had no statistic, so Googled and found this MORI poll from 15 February 2013 https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/re...
Just one in five (18%) Britons trust politicians to tell the truth compared to 21% trusting journalists and bankers and 24% who trust estate agents.

Leave aside that not telling the truth is not ipso facto, lying. The latter requires the intent to deceive, but with politicians, this is a reasonable assumption.

Greg,

are you a comedian or Russell Brands pen pal?
you say 'but it is obvious to anyone' htf do you know this?

you say 'Cognitive bias at its very best.' but the preceding 'proof' is anything but. You need to up your game, by using logic and presenting evidence, not wild speculation dressed up as 'it is obvious to anyone'

Thanks for the tip. Perhaps you should reflect on the question of whether Britons trust politicians to tell the truth means that in fact politicians are not telling the truth. Perception vs reality and all that. There's a Mark Twain quote about getting up late that sheds some light on this.

As you concede, lying and not telling the truth are different again. The reasonableness of your assumption is no doubt assisted by, err, what's he concept I'm looking for, err, oh yes - cognitive bias!

You might try writing something that makes sense instead of trying to be clever. I have not conceded anything.