UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
TheRealFingers99 said:
I think my sideswipe at Nigel amounted to little more than that he'd find the Rojava constitution too democratic! (Perhaps especially the latest addenda which fixes the male/female representation ratio.) But anyone truly interested in "ground up", grassroots politics should take a long peek at it.
Looks impressive. You'll have also noticed then that UKIP have been talking about devolving powers to local government, creating a system where a referendum can be triggered via petition, creating local elected health boards to manage and be responsible for local hospitals, having local referenda, ensuring that recall for MPs becomes a very real thing (not the absolute sham that the government tried to pass recently).You'll also be aware of UKIP's first MP, Douglas Carswell, who has written extensively on changing or political system from top to bottom to make it more democratic.
But I guess none of that matters if getting a cheap shot at Farage is what was needed on the day Cameron made a fool of himself again.
Art0ir said:
You'll also be aware of UKIP's first MP, Douglas Carswell, who has written extensively on changing or political system from top to bottom to make it more democratic.
I think the changes need to go from bottom to top! Still, I've nothing against devolution, but can't see a place for an iron-clad national state in that set up.
Part of the reason the SDP didn't have success is that it was formed very much as a top down party.
UKIP is bottom up though there are tensions with the leadership because bottom up leads to chaos, arguments and divisions which pretty much characterised most of UKIP's first decade and into the second. It needed some shaping which the bottom up nature obviously makes life difficult.
UKIP is bottom up though there are tensions with the leadership because bottom up leads to chaos, arguments and divisions which pretty much characterised most of UKIP's first decade and into the second. It needed some shaping which the bottom up nature obviously makes life difficult.
Meanwhile just what UKIP didn't want. Crawl back in your hole Griffin.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/nick-griffin-i...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/nick-griffin-i...
Daniel Hannan 10 observations about CMD immigration speech
Points 6&7 interesting though can see the reason why not outlined in 8.
Also see 9 !
Points 6&7 interesting though can see the reason why not outlined in 8.
Also see 9 !
Daniel Hannan said:
1. The Prime Minister is right: most people in Britain want controlled immigration. Some, it's true, want zero immigration; but a larger number simply want to feel that we are in charge of whom we admit, and in what numbers. At the moment, thanks to Brussels rules, they have no such sense.
2. While the only definitive way to restore control would be through an Australia-style points system, such a system would be against the European treaties. This doesn't bother me, obviously: I support withdrawal. But it does bother David Cameron, who has never pretended to want any significant disengagement from the EU.
3. The PM has therefore gone for the best possible option consistent with EU membership, one which allows free movement of labour but not free access to benefits.
4. Removing tax credits and other in-work benefits from foreign workers makes sense. Almost no other country makes equivalent grants available. You can't have 60 million people filling a welfare pot but 600 million able to draw from it.
5. Such a disqualification will also substantially cut numbers. As things stand, British taxpayers are subsidising low-paid EU workers who would not otherwise come. The pro-EU think-tank Open Europe has run the numbers. Under the existing rules, a worker on Poland's minimum wage with two dependent children who took a job on Britain's minimum wage would nearly double his income. Factor out the benefits, and his net income would instead fall by 27 per cent.
6. Various Ukippers responded immediately to the speech by saying that the EU would never accept it. They're wrong. The key governments have plainly been squared in advance and, more to the point, the benefits changes won't require a treaty change. The treaties enshrine the principle of free movement of people; but it was only through a series of power-grabs by the European Commission and Court that this came mean free access to welfare. Of all David Cameron's proposals, only one would require an Intergovernmental Conference: the suspension of free movement rights from future EU member states. Since no further expansion of the EU is planned for at least five years, he has plenty of time to work on that.
7. A better line of criticism, if you're determined to find fault, is precisely the opposite one. Since these proposals won't require treaty change, why wait? Why not enact them now?
8. There are two answers. First, it suits David Cameron to leave the issue as a differentiator among the parties at the next general election. Second, if there won't be a new treaty, immigration allows him to bring something back from the renegotiation that precedes our referendum.
9. As important as what was said is what wasn't said. It's now clear that the government isn't pursuing substantive treaty change, and is content to stay in the EU on present terms. EU law will continue to have primacy over British law. We'll still be citizens of the European Union, with passports and driving licences and all the other paraphernalia of common nationhood. We'll remain in the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Common Commercial Policy. Any idea of replacing political union with free trade has been dropped. Likewise the talk of repatriating the bulk of social and employment policy and criminal justice. And, for that matter, the promise made in 2009 that we would opt out of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.
10. All of which will make it a cleaner and clearer referendum. We'll be voting for or against the EU as it stands, not on any new deal. As for sorting out Tony Blair's immigration mess and Gordon Brown's tax credits racket, that's well worth doing. But the changes are essentially domestic. They don't involve any renegotiation of our EU membership terms. Please don't confuse the two things.
2. While the only definitive way to restore control would be through an Australia-style points system, such a system would be against the European treaties. This doesn't bother me, obviously: I support withdrawal. But it does bother David Cameron, who has never pretended to want any significant disengagement from the EU.
3. The PM has therefore gone for the best possible option consistent with EU membership, one which allows free movement of labour but not free access to benefits.
4. Removing tax credits and other in-work benefits from foreign workers makes sense. Almost no other country makes equivalent grants available. You can't have 60 million people filling a welfare pot but 600 million able to draw from it.
5. Such a disqualification will also substantially cut numbers. As things stand, British taxpayers are subsidising low-paid EU workers who would not otherwise come. The pro-EU think-tank Open Europe has run the numbers. Under the existing rules, a worker on Poland's minimum wage with two dependent children who took a job on Britain's minimum wage would nearly double his income. Factor out the benefits, and his net income would instead fall by 27 per cent.
6. Various Ukippers responded immediately to the speech by saying that the EU would never accept it. They're wrong. The key governments have plainly been squared in advance and, more to the point, the benefits changes won't require a treaty change. The treaties enshrine the principle of free movement of people; but it was only through a series of power-grabs by the European Commission and Court that this came mean free access to welfare. Of all David Cameron's proposals, only one would require an Intergovernmental Conference: the suspension of free movement rights from future EU member states. Since no further expansion of the EU is planned for at least five years, he has plenty of time to work on that.
7. A better line of criticism, if you're determined to find fault, is precisely the opposite one. Since these proposals won't require treaty change, why wait? Why not enact them now?
8. There are two answers. First, it suits David Cameron to leave the issue as a differentiator among the parties at the next general election. Second, if there won't be a new treaty, immigration allows him to bring something back from the renegotiation that precedes our referendum.
9. As important as what was said is what wasn't said. It's now clear that the government isn't pursuing substantive treaty change, and is content to stay in the EU on present terms. EU law will continue to have primacy over British law. We'll still be citizens of the European Union, with passports and driving licences and all the other paraphernalia of common nationhood. We'll remain in the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Common Commercial Policy. Any idea of replacing political union with free trade has been dropped. Likewise the talk of repatriating the bulk of social and employment policy and criminal justice. And, for that matter, the promise made in 2009 that we would opt out of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.
10. All of which will make it a cleaner and clearer referendum. We'll be voting for or against the EU as it stands, not on any new deal. As for sorting out Tony Blair's immigration mess and Gordon Brown's tax credits racket, that's well worth doing. But the changes are essentially domestic. They don't involve any renegotiation of our EU membership terms. Please don't confuse the two things.
"She campaigned to keep the UK in the E.E.C in 1975, was in favour of and and a driver behind the Single European Act, which saw a quantum leap for the Single Market, and championed EU enlargement to take in former communist states in central and eastern Europe. She saw the economic benefits of the EU if separated from what she saw as the political costs of centralisation."
A fairly balanced view here. For example.
A fairly balanced view here. For example.
FiF said:
Part of the reason the SDP didn't have success is that it was formed very much as a top down party.
UKIP is bottom up though there are tensions with the leadership because bottom up leads to chaos, arguments and divisions which pretty much characterised most of UKIP's first decade and into the second. It needed some shaping which the bottom up nature obviously makes life difficult.
Not sure if you are partially quoting the New Statesmen who did assert the sentiments of your first sentence. I think that was true, but I think less so now as UKIP is far more top-down with Farage in charge. I would also point outUKIP is bottom up though there are tensions with the leadership because bottom up leads to chaos, arguments and divisions which pretty much characterised most of UKIP's first decade and into the second. It needed some shaping which the bottom up nature obviously makes life difficult.
The SDP even managed, like Ukip, to pick up not only voters but paid-up members, too: indeed, at an estimated 145,000 in 1983 (over half of whom had apparently not previously belonged to a political party), it had more than three times the number that Farage’s outfit currently claims to have recruited
Hard to suggest that UKIP has stronger grass roots with that kind of stat.
But in the end what really matters is not us picking over the bones, by-elections or polling, it is what they can achieve in the general election, both in terms of votes and seats.
Lots has been said on here about how many seats are expected, and by implication what would be seen as a success for UKIp, what about the % of votes. What would be a "good" result for UKIP at the GE in those terms?
TheRealFingers99 said:
"She campaigned to keep the UK in the E.E.C in 1975, was in favour of and and a driver behind the Single European Act, which saw a quantum leap for the Single Market, and championed EU enlargement to take in former communist states in central and eastern Europe. She saw the economic benefits of the EU if separated from what she saw as the political costs of centralisation."
A fairly balanced view here. For example.
I know all that, I'm not 16, I voted in the first 75 referendum under Wilson for THE COMMON MARKET. Things have changed a lot since then if you hadn't noticed!A fairly balanced view here. For example.
So why do you think Geoffrey Howe a really PRO EU man, stabbed her in the back?
Ma che cazzo
dandarez said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
'Twas bound to happen!
Most puzzling, though, is Nigel holding a Maggie Mug
A pro European PM!
Pro European PM?Most puzzling, though, is Nigel holding a Maggie Mug
A pro European PM!
Oh yeah, I remember Maggie kissing and cuddling European Commission President, Jaques Delors.
'Oui, Oui, Oui'.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/p...
Especially when a trade war would actually hurt the EU federalists while benefitting us being that we would no longer be in the position of being a net contributor for the privilege of being in a trade deficit situation.
dandarez said:
I know all that, I'm not 16, I voted in the first 75 referendum under Wilson for THE COMMON MARKET. Things have changed a lot since then if you hadn't noticed!
So why do you think Geoffrey Howe a really PRO EU man, stabbed her in the back?
Ma che cazzo
So why do you think Geoffrey Howe a really PRO EU man, stabbed her in the back?
Ma che cazzo
In the context of young Nigel's Maggie cup, chi se ne frega?
He should be pictured smashing it, not fondling it lovingly!
dandarez said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
"She campaigned to keep the UK in the E.E.C in 1975, was in favour of and and a driver behind the Single European Act, which saw a quantum leap for the Single Market, and championed EU enlargement to take in former communist states in central and eastern Europe. She saw the economic benefits of the EU if separated from what she saw as the political costs of centralisation."
A fairly balanced view here. For example.
I know all that, I'm not 16, I voted in the first 75 referendum under Wilson for THE COMMON MARKET. Things have changed a lot since then if you hadn't noticed!A fairly balanced view here. For example.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 29th November 22:55
JustAnotherLogin said:
FiF said:
Part of the reason the SDP didn't have success is that it was formed very much as a top down party.
UKIP is bottom up though there are tensions with the leadership because bottom up leads to chaos, arguments and divisions which pretty much characterised most of UKIP's first decade and into the second. It needed some shaping which the bottom up nature obviously makes life difficult.
Not sure if you are partially quoting the New Statesmen who did assert the sentiments of your first sentence. I think that was true, but I think less so now as UKIP is far more top-down with Farage in charge. I would also point outUKIP is bottom up though there are tensions with the leadership because bottom up leads to chaos, arguments and divisions which pretty much characterised most of UKIP's first decade and into the second. It needed some shaping which the bottom up nature obviously makes life difficult.
The SDP even managed, like Ukip, to pick up not only voters but paid-up members, too: indeed, at an estimated 145,000 in 1983 (over half of whom had apparently not previously belonged to a political party), it had more than three times the number that Farage’s outfit currently claims to have recruited
Hard to suggest that UKIP has stronger grass roots with that kind of stat.
But in the end what really matters is not us picking over the bones, by-elections or polling, it is what they can achieve in the general election, both in terms of votes and seats.
Lots has been said on here about how many seats are expected, and by implication what would be seen as a success for UKIp, what about the % of votes. What would be a "good" result for UKIP at the GE in those terms?
Already covered in my post the issues with the leadership vs the rest.
Have no need to restate what my opinion is about seat potential. Covered that also.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/29/nick-griffin-...
Total shocker that he seems to share opinion on gays with Helmer, and probably with better part of kipperati. Not the cleverest bunch. At least Griffin didn't (that I know of) suggested cure.
Total shocker that he seems to share opinion on gays with Helmer, and probably with better part of kipperati. Not the cleverest bunch. At least Griffin didn't (that I know of) suggested cure.
FiF said:
Meanwhile just what UKIP didn't want. Crawl back in your hole Griffin.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/nick-griffin-i...
Unfortunately, lots of people who want to try and feel vindicated in their bigotry will use an endorsement from a muppet like Griffin as being evidence of a link. Gadafi was a big fan of Blair, Gen Pinochet a big fan of Thatcher, I can't think of any big fans of Milliband or Cameron, but unlike the examples I've given Gridfin has no reason to thank UKIP, in fact by raising the level of politics about subjects where the main parties tried to suppress debate with consensus, like immigration or being allowed to feel proud about being British, UKIP have done a better job of exposing how ridiculous the BNP policies were than the other parties did. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/nick-griffin-i...
Griffin was replaced by a UKIP MEP if I remember correctly and he might well want to associate his unpleasant views with a party that enjoys ever increasing support, but I hope his attempts to seem newsworthy are largely ignored. On Twitter ukip have been warning about a flurry of accounts set up with a UKIP tag line which are actually nothing to do with UKIP but attempt to post unpleasantries which would be linked to them. Having Nick Griffin endorse UKIP is like having XJ Flyer or Wombat post something on this thread that you agree with. It feels deeply wrong, but even a stopped clock is right sometimes.
XJ Flyer said:
Obviously on the basis that you believed all the propaganda put up by Thatcher amongst others that the EEC wasn't in reality the start of the federal Europe in which European federal law supersedes our own laws.Or the situation in which we pay a fortune in net contributions for the privilege of being in a trade deficit which the country was actually voting for or against at the time.As for Farage if he really wants to swing the Labour vote now might be good time to start to let Maggie and her treacherous ideology go.
Thatcher and others certainly got that right ... eh.. what.. 
Never mind the quality, feel the width of this trade deficit. Now that's quality in quantity ..
brenflys777 said:
FiF said:
Meanwhile just what UKIP didn't want. Crawl back in your hole Griffin.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/nick-griffin-i...
Unfortunately, lots of people who want to try and feel vindicated in their bigotry will use an endorsement from a muppet like Griffin as being evidence of a link. Gadafi was a big fan of Blair, Gen Pinochet a big fan of Thatcher, I can't think of any big fans of Milliband or Cameron, but unlike the examples I've given Gridfin has no reason to thank UKIP, in fact by raising the level of politics about subjects where the main parties tried to suppress debate with consensus, like immigration or being allowed to feel proud about being British, UKIP have done a better job of exposing how ridiculous the BNP policies were than the other parties did. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/nick-griffin-i...
Griffin was replaced by a UKIP MEP if I remember correctly and he might well want to associate his unpleasant views with a party that enjoys ever increasing support, but I hope his attempts to seem newsworthy are largely ignored. On Twitter ukip have been warning about a flurry of accounts set up with a UKIP tag line which are actually nothing to do with UKIP but attempt to post unpleasantries which would be linked to them. Having Nick Griffin endorse UKIP is like having XJ Flyer or Wombat post something on this thread that you agree with. It feels deeply wrong, but even a stopped clock is right sometimes.
Love her or hate her she was a woman of conviction, something ALL prime ministers since have lacked to a great degree.
Phil
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff