UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

s2art

18,937 posts

252 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
zygalski said:
s2art said:
Sorry, but that is nonsense. What put the Great into Great Britain was the scientific and industrial revolution. It was the huge increase in productivity that came with steam and stuff like the power loom. There were people all over the world earning a lot less than the British workers, and having their livelyhoods threatened by cheap industrially made goods.
Well yes, that & selling cotton to captive Indian markets...
Not sure if that made much difference. The UK could undercut anybody in the world at that point.

BGARK

5,493 posts

245 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
Mmm, I wonder what the Greek car manufacturers would have to say about this?

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
s2art said:
Well, maybe. The timing on CO2 limits for vehicles is indeed an EU matter, rather than a supranational one. But I doubt the UK's vote made the difference, I suspect Germany would have got its way without us.

Not sure what you are driving at in the bit you added. If the UK manufacturers had been investing heavily to meet the proposed target (now deferred) to gain competitive advantage, then why side with Germany on delaying the regs?

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 22 December 18:41
Sorry I got my wording mixed up-I was meaning if the UK wasn't in the EU then UK carmakers would have no say at all in the delayed target.

zygalski

7,759 posts

144 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
s2art said:
Not sure if that made much difference. The UK could undercut anybody in the world at that point.
Do you just ignore great chunks of our fairly recent past that don't fit in with your particular political bent?
I'm talking British rule over the largest empire in history. All those captive markets, slave traders, sweatshops, tax revenues, free defence forces... honestly you really need to go back to school to find out just to what extent a country like India was plundered for many decades.
I doubt you'll like what you discover.

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
s2art said:
zygalski said:
Let's face it - since the industrial revolution cheap (often imported) labour is what has put the Great into Great Britain.
I assume you support an increase in the minimum wage?
Sorry, but that is nonsense. What put the Great into Great Britain was the scientific and industrial revolution. It was the huge increase in productivity that came with steam and stuff like the power loom. There were people all over the world earning a lot less than the British workers, and having their livelyhoods threatened by cheap industrially made goods.
Cheap energy was the key.

First came steam power, and then came cheap electricity,.


turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
cookie118 said:
s2art said:
Well, maybe. The timing on CO2 limits for vehicles is indeed an EU matter, rather than a supranational one. But I doubt the UK's vote made the difference, I suspect Germany would have got its way without us.

Not sure what you are driving at in the bit you added. If the UK manufacturers had been investing heavily to meet the proposed target (now deferred) to gain competitive advantage, then why side with Germany on delaying the regs?

Edited by s2art on Monday 22 December 18:41
Sorry I got my wording mixed up-I was meaning if the UK wasn't in the EU then UK carmakers would have no say at all in the delayed target.
What actual say do car manufacturers have at the moment? They can lobby the UK government, the UK government will go to the EU, and be ignored as usual.

zygalski said:
s2art said:
Not sure if that made much difference. The UK could undercut anybody in the world at that point.
Do you just ignore great chunks of our fairly recent past that don't fit in with your particular political bent?
I'm talking British rule over the largest empire in history. All those captive markets, slave traders, sweatshops, tax revenues, free defence forces... honestly you really need to go back to school to find out just to what extent a country like India was plundered for many decades.
I doubt you'll like what you discover.
hehe

don4l said:
Cheap energy was the key.
It still is, this is why post-marxist green zealots see energy policy as a means of choking capitalism on their path backwards to medieval lifestyles.

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 22 December 19:34

hidetheelephants

23,764 posts

192 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
KareemK said:
turbobloke said:
Prejudice and jingoistic nonsense in a single dose of dreck from Rompuy.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-chief-bloc-will-surviv...
All he's saying is that without France the "European" idea would be dead. Being as how France and Germany are the glue that binds this idea together thats not so far from the truth.
These days France is more of a deadweight sinking the EZ ship than glue holding the EZ together.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
KareemK said:
turbobloke said:
Prejudice and jingoistic nonsense in a single dose of dreck from Rompuy.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-chief-bloc-will-surviv...
All he's saying is that without France the "European" idea would be dead. Being as how France and Germany are the glue that binds this idea together thats not so far from the truth.
These days France is more of a deadweight sinking the EZ ship than glue holding the EZ together.
Yes but that's only the reality of it, not the idea of it rotate

DJRC

23,563 posts

235 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
s2art said:
zygalski said:
Let's face it - since the industrial revolution cheap (often imported) labour is what has put the Great into Great Britain.
I assume you support an increase in the minimum wage?
Sorry, but that is nonsense. What put the Great into Great Britain was the scientific and industrial revolution. It was the huge increase in productivity that came with steam and stuff like the power loom. There were people all over the world earning a lot less than the British workers, and having their livelyhoods threatened by cheap industrially made goods.
It was? fk me, I thought it was kicking the living st out of any and everybody who got in our way!

Hooooowever, zygy actually has a fair point in the cheap imported labour lark. Throughout history the grand nation building/improving infrastructure projects that countries/States/Empires have been won't to undertake have traditional been done using cheap imported labour.

Cheap imported unskilled labour has never really bothered the English public much, frankly we didn't really give a st because we regarded everybody else as scum to do our bidding anyway. Note the deliberate use of the English there, prior to the Union we included exploiting the Welsh, Irish and Scottish aswell. Now, what really has got us traditionally riled is cheap "skilled" Labour...second note is to accept a contemporary context of the world "skilled". Watt Tyler et al were motivated by labour restrictions and essentially the difference between the "skilled" labourer who could act as one and the "unskilled" masses who could do the same stuff by force of numbers and be paid a carrot a day. The Luddites saw themselves as "skilled" and being replaced by cheap "unskilled", i.e. machines. And of course a pre-cursor to the Luddites were there much less well known agricultural forefathers who rebelled against the agricultural revolution of Tudor England. And yes there is a reason its a much less well known event in British history - its fking dull to have to study!

Anyway, the pattern being we the English masses get distinctly itchy bum time when we feel our "skilled" labour is under threat from unskilled scum/masses. Now then the S2 goes onto discuss the increase in productivity from the industrial and scientific revolution. Hmm.

That productivity revolution was very much demand lead. War, conquering, expansion very much drove a need to produce greater and more. It wasn't supply driven at all - there wasn't a sudden random supply increase for the greater good, like fk there was. We were a scum society on the make - on the make with the wider world and on the make even from ourselves. Just the English (and increasingly the Scottish) being a bunch of piratical robbing bds as usual. Good grief, the ability to enrich ourselves at the expense of others has been the single biggest definable attribute of the English nation since the Plantagenets put the place together. And we werent even that successful at that until the Tudors (the Plantagenets mostly lost stuff to others) took over, but since then its been our biggest and best attribute. We never gave a fk about anybody else's poverty because they just there to be killed.

And this largely is the problem. We have stopped being expansionist. Ultimately if UKIP want an economically commercial driven forward thinking/driving British agenda - then that is where they should be going. Replace the war aspect with commerce, aim for glory, sell the country on optimism (not fear) for the future. Emphasise & highlight education to drive knowledge/ability levels higher for the next generations and you can sell a political path from being anti-EU, anti-immigration to being a "Pro" party. What the hell do you think underpins the Bavarian "laptops and lederhosen" ethos?

As for XJ protectionist crap? Knock it off son, thats defensive retrograde thinking and it has never ever worked strategically in British history at any level. Offensive, expansionist, attack minded has been the model for every English and then British success in every field. And before some smart arse tries to mention Wellington and ridges then read about his exploits as Wellesley/Wesley before he was Wellington smile

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
DJRC said:
s2art said:
zygalski said:
Let's face it - since the industrial revolution cheap (often imported) labour is what has put the Great into Great Britain.
I assume you support an increase in the minimum wage?
Sorry, but that is nonsense. What put the Great into Great Britain was the scientific and industrial revolution. It was the huge increase in productivity that came with steam and stuff like the power loom. There were people all over the world earning a lot less than the British workers, and having their livelyhoods threatened by cheap industrially made goods.
It was? fk me, I thought it was kicking the living st out of any and everybody who got in our way!

As for XJ protectionist crap? Knock it off son, thats defensive retrograde thinking and it has never ever worked strategically in British history at any level. Offensive, expansionist, attack minded has been the model for every English and then British success in every field. And before some smart arse tries to mention Wellington and ridges then read about his exploits as Wellesley/Wesley before he was Wellington smile
Of course Wellington was highly dependent on foreign armies (albeit with British funding via our 'European System'), and even the Royal Navy at Trafalgar had almost 10% of its sailors born outside the UK
  1. justsaying

DJRC

23,563 posts

235 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
DJRC said:
s2art said:
zygalski said:
Let's face it - since the industrial revolution cheap (often imported) labour is what has put the Great into Great Britain.
I assume you support an increase in the minimum wage?
Sorry, but that is nonsense. What put the Great into Great Britain was the scientific and industrial revolution. It was the huge increase in productivity that came with steam and stuff like the power loom. There were people all over the world earning a lot less than the British workers, and having their livelyhoods threatened by cheap industrially made goods.
It was? fk me, I thought it was kicking the living st out of any and everybody who got in our way!

As for XJ protectionist crap? Knock it off son, thats defensive retrograde thinking and it has never ever worked strategically in British history at any level. Offensive, expansionist, attack minded has been the model for every English and then British success in every field. And before some smart arse tries to mention Wellington and ridges then read about his exploits as Wellesley/Wesley before he was Wellington smile
Of course Wellington was highly dependent on foreign armies (albeit with British funding via our 'European System'), and even the Royal Navy at Trafalgar had almost 10% of its sailors born outside the UK
  1. justsaying
In terms of the Peninsular? Not really he wasn't, the Portuguese were fairly useful, but only once Beresford has trained them properly. The Spanish were fking useless. The guerrillas were good, but also very well rewarded with gold! Not to mention highly motivated anyway!

Unless of course you mean the other armies in Europe facing Boney. Hmm. For the vast majority of time they were st. There is no other word for it, just plain st. It took Boney being a twit, a Russian Emperor realising he had to be an utter and Wellington beating every single Marshall who had become a legend under Boney for the rest of them to actually discover half a backbone and competency. And even then they nearly fked it up. The Grand Alliance can almost be said to have written the template for European co-operative incompetence. Except of course said template had already been written 100 yrs earlier when damn nr the same model conspired to prevent Churchill from defeating the French properly. The irony being that had Churchill been allowed to invade France properly as was his desired strategy then he would quite probably have averted the later French Revolution.

I presume you arent daft enough to mention Waterloo?

Interesting sidebar with the Navy, well brought up even if its interesting for entirely the wrong reason of course. Whilst the RN were justifiably known as being a bunch of disciplinarian s who would press gang any bum they could, it is also well documented about their foreign contingent and their extremely overwhelming support for being in the RN. The foreign chaps rarely took part in the mutinies and were extremely enthusiastic about serving as it almost always offered vastly enhanced chances of improving themselves and adventure.

vonuber

17,868 posts

164 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
Waterloo was pretty much won by the Germans with Wellington fighting a brilliant holding action (helped by Napoleon's piles).

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
DJRC said:
Interesting sidebar with the Navy, well brought up even if its interesting for entirely the wrong reason of course. Whilst the RN were justifiably known as being a bunch of disciplinarian s who would press gang any bum they could, it is also well documented about their foreign contingent and their extremely overwhelming support for being in the RN. The foreign chaps rarely took part in the mutinies and were extremely enthusiastic about serving as it almost always offered vastly enhanced chances of improving themselves and adventure.
Not sure why you think it is brought up for the wrong reasons. It is a good example from history where immigrants (both from EU and further afield) made a valuable contribution to Britain

Your view of the RN of that period is somewhat outdated. Most reputable modern historians would argue most strongly that discipline (in our terms, they meant something very different by the word of course) in the RN of the time was no harsher than shore life; was supported by the ordinary seamen, that harsh captains were the exception and were usually dealt with by the Admiralty. The press gang was hated, but again has a reputation far worse than modern historians would place on it.

I would recommend Dudley Pope or N.A.M Rodger as good examples of how modern historians view the "social" aspects of the RN of that time

KareemK

1,110 posts

118 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
hidetheelephants said:
KareemK said:
turbobloke said:
Prejudice and jingoistic nonsense in a single dose of dreck from Rompuy.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-chief-bloc-will-surviv...
All he's saying is that without France the "European" idea would be dead. Being as how France and Germany are the glue that binds this idea together thats not so far from the truth.
These days France is more of a deadweight sinking the EZ ship than glue holding the EZ together.
Yes but that's only the reality of it, not the idea of it rotate
Exactly. yes

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
KareemK said:
turbobloke said:
hidetheelephants said:
KareemK said:
turbobloke said:
Prejudice and jingoistic nonsense in a single dose of dreck from Rompuy.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-chief-bloc-will-surviv...
All he's saying is that without France the "European" idea would be dead. Being as how France and Germany are the glue that binds this idea together thats not so far from the truth.
These days France is more of a deadweight sinking the EZ ship than glue holding the EZ together.
Yes but that's only the reality of it, not the idea of it rotate
Exactly. yes
hehe

silly

DJRC

23,563 posts

235 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
DJRC said:
Interesting sidebar with the Navy, well brought up even if its interesting for entirely the wrong reason of course. Whilst the RN were justifiably known as being a bunch of disciplinarian s who would press gang any bum they could, it is also well documented about their foreign contingent and their extremely overwhelming support for being in the RN. The foreign chaps rarely took part in the mutinies and were extremely enthusiastic about serving as it almost always offered vastly enhanced chances of improving themselves and adventure.
Not sure why you think it is brought up for the wrong reasons. It is a good example from history where immigrants (both from EU and further afield) made a valuable contribution to Britain

Your view of the RN of that period is somewhat outdated. Most reputable modern historians would argue most strongly that discipline (in our terms, they meant something very different by the word of course) in the RN of the time was no harsher than shore life; was supported by the ordinary seamen, that harsh captains were the exception and were usually dealt with by the Admiralty. The press gang was hated, but again has a reputation far worse than modern historians would place on it.

I would recommend Dudley Pope or N.A.M Rodger as good examples of how modern historians view the "social" aspects of the RN of that time
You brought up it up because you thought the immigrant aspect was the interesting bit - it wasn't. The RN was a roving itinerant semi independent force as each Captain and ship was a self contained island. As such enterprising/bored/in trouble locals took advantage of the ship visiting the area to leg it from their boredom. As bases got established, a self perpetuating infrastructure of human labour supply arose offering constant employment. As such it isn't an "immigration" story at all. Thats just normal human dynamics with no impact on migration issues because each instance/ship/fleet is essentially a singular entity. Its interesting precisely because of the different behaviour dynamics of the foreign nationals within the RN than to the local Plymouth and Chatham boys for instance. Nor did they make a valuable contribution to Britain, they made contributions to their ships in order to enrich themselves. You want to make the immigration thing interesting and/or relevant, it is neither.

Now then, as to outdated. Absolute cobblers. Exactly how many of Popes' books have you read not involving the word Ramage? I would hazard a guess at Life in Nelsons Navy and possibly Decision at Trafalgar. And Im being generous to you there. Im absolutely positive you haven't read his Henry Morgan book or his Danae book. Please do, they rather support me. In addition, just exactly how revisionist would you care to get about Spithead? Or we can flick back to the immediate post Restoration era Navy and discuss the violence, repression and damn nr internal civil war that was going on inside the Navy due to the old v new. Discipline was and always has been the second watchword of the Navy in any of its forms since Baker re-invented ships as something other than floating castles (gunnery being the first watchword).

Its vaguely amusing, I think I actually referenced Pope in my thesis back in the day - such modern thinking in fact that it was at least 30yrs after he wrote them!

"RN at that time" rather gives away your more narrow reference period.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
DJRC said:
As for XJ protectionist crap? Knock it off son, thats defensive retrograde thinking and it has never ever worked strategically in British history at any level. Offensive, expansionist, attack minded has been the model for every English and then British success in every field. And before some smart arse tries to mention Wellington and ridges then read about his exploits as Wellesley/Wesley before he was Wellington smile
Feel free to explain how you are going to make a modern developed industrial western economy work in the interests of the general working class and the economy as a whole not just for a few at the top.Within the wage restraints imposed in the global free market model based on the use ( exploitation ) of the cheapest labour expectations possible either in the form of cheap immigrant labour or offshoring of jobs.

As opposed to the Fordist model within a protectionist economic trading environment which insulates it from the wage and working condition pressures which apply in that global free market model.

Bearing in mind the budget required for civilised ( private ) levels of income protection,retirement provision and health care cover not just for the workers but also their families.In addition to sufficient budget to cover ( decent ) housing costs and provide the consumer spending power to keep the economy moving forward.

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
Cobblers DJRC

I chose that time, because we were talking about that time

Discipline in the RN at anything close to that time, meant roughly training. They had no word for what we mean by it.

The Spithead mutiny had nothing to do with "discipline" in any sense of the word. It was more of a strike to do with pay - in particular the non-payment of wages owed by various practices such as keeping the ships in commission (they were only paid when the left the ship).

I would say winning Trafalgar (and other battles) made a valuable contribution to the country. They may have done it for their community (ship in this case) or themselves, but guess what, that's true of most people down the ages

Anyway, rather off topic

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
Feel free to explain how you are going to make a modern developed industrial western economy work in the interests of the general working class and the economy as a whole not just for a few at the top.Within the wage restraints imposed in the global free market model based on the use ( exploitation ) of the cheapest labour expectations possible either in the form of cheap immigrant labour or offshoring of jobs.

As opposed to the Fordist model within a protectionist economic trading environment which insulates it from the wage and working condition pressures which apply in that global free market model.

Bearing in mind the budget required for civilised ( private ) levels of income protection,retirement provision and health care cover not just for the workers but also their families.In addition to sufficient budget to cover ( decent ) housing costs and provide the consumer spending power to keep the economy moving forward.
Asphinctersayswhat?

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
I would say winning Trafalgar (and other battles) made a valuable contribution to the country. They may have done it for their community (ship in this case) or themselves, but guess what, that's true of most people down the ages

Anyway, rather off topic
Bearing in mind that the anti UKIP vote is all about maintaining an open door immigration policy,within a federal Europe with EU legislation overruling that of seperate state sovereignty,what exactly was the point of 'the Battle of Trafalgar' in that case.

As for the delights of Georgian rule,or the enthusiasm of 'foreign' pressed crews and immigrant labour within the British sphere of influence.At that point in time our illustrious leadership,just like now,was all about the exploitation of cheap labour.Which at that point also translated up to and including being enthusiastic slave traders.Not to mention the 'issues' related to the British American war of 1812 a bit later caused in large part by the seizure of American nationals to be forced into service on British ships.Under a typically British Tory style Communist type system of exploitation and so called 'discipline' which hadn't changed much,if at all,from the circumstances which caused the Mutiny on the Bounty.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED