Rochester By-Election. Consequences of UKIP Win on Tory/Lab

[NicD]

Yazar said:

One of the UK's biggest assets, and top USP, is its stability in its laws. This is a major reason why the rich flood here and companies invest here.

This is a 'fact, is it? That few real changes can be made to the laws here is good is it?
And the 'rich flooding here' is good is it?

I would much rather have a country that looks after its long term interests, that does not allow huge chunks of future prosperity (assets) to be sold off to foreign investors.
A country that can analyse the problems and solve them in a sure footed and direct way.

You can keep your 'USP', I will vote UKIP.

[XJ Flyer]

NicD said:

Yazar said:

One of the UK's biggest assets, and top USP, is its stability in its laws. This is a major reason why the rich flood here and companies invest here.

This is a 'fact, is it? That few real changes can be made to the laws here is good is it?
And the 'rich flooding here' is good is it?

I would much rather have a country that looks after its long term interests, that does not allow huge chunks of future prosperity (assets) to be sold off to foreign investors.
A country that can analyse the problems and solve them in a sure footed and direct way.

You can keep your 'USP', I will vote UKIP.

The point/question in this case being that UKIP can't/won't deliver because too much of its vote is made up of those with an interest in keeping the status quo in the form of the LabLibdemCon agenda.IE doing what the CBI wants and the immigrant vote wants.Not what the indigenous working class wants.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 21st November 20:10

[WinstonWolf]

Zod said:

WinstonWolf said:

UKIP are not the party for you, the BNP would better suit your aspirations.

Indeed.

Blimey, something we agree on

As you were...

[NicD]

XJ Flyer said:

The point/question in this case being that UKIP can't/won't deliver because too much of its vote is made up of those with an interest in keeping the status quo in the form of the LabLibdemCon agenda.IE doing what the CBI wants and the immigrant vote wants.Not what the indigenous working class wants.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 21st November 20:10

I cant make sense of this at all, it is diametrically opposite to what I expect from UKIP

[NicD]

XJ Flyer said:

The point/question in this case being that UKIP can't/won't deliver because too much of its vote is made up of those with an interest in keeping the status quo in the form of the LabLibdemCon agenda.IE doing what the CBI wants and the immigrant vote wants.Not what the indigenous working class wants.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 21st November 20:10

I cant make sense of this at all, it is diametrically opposite to what I expect from UKIP

[XJ Flyer]

NicD said:

XJ Flyer said:

The point/question in this case being that UKIP can't/won't deliver because too much of its vote is made up of those with an interest in keeping the status quo in the form of the LabLibdemCon agenda.IE doing what the CBI wants and the immigrant vote wants.Not what the indigenous working class wants.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 21st November 20:10

I cant make sense of this at all, it is diametrically opposite to what I expect from UKIP

Try this.With a few exceptions it seems a bit closer to what's needed.

www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/policies/full-manifest...

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 21st November 20:46

[HarryW]

If you filter to most liked comments on the BBC story, it's quite an eye opener

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30140747

[BooHoo]

HarryW said:

If you filter to most liked comments on the BBC story, it's quite an eye opener

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30140747

It's the mood of the nation, captured in text. Interesting times.

[Mr_B]

Dennis Skinner welcomed Reckless with some authentic Labour gibberish and typical loud rant based on not much more than his own senility. It got a big cheer, but was mired in the stupidity of the embarrassing old thinking that managed migration and selecting the people you need, is somehow turning away doctors and medical professionals and the collapse of the NHS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30141159

[XJ Flyer]

Mr_B said:

Dennis Skinner welcomed Reckless with some authentic Labour gibberish and typical loud rant based on not much more than his own senility. It got a big cheer, but was mired in the stupidity of the embarrassing old thinking that managed migration and selecting the people you need, is somehow turning away doctors and medical professionals and the collapse of the NHS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30141159

To be fair he won't be the first person who's been caught in the catch 22 of the contradictions between socialism and reality.In this case reality being indigenous doctors and nurses trained in the NHS at the taxpayers expense.Who then leave the country for better pay in Australia,USA and Canada etc.While we import doctors,from the third world who are badly needed at home,to keep wage levels in the NHS down.So as to save the employers the wages needed to fund a decent health care system regardless of wether it is privately funded or taxation funded.Then we spend more money on foreign aid and send volunteer medical staff to provide the missing health care ability in those less developed countries because we've taken most of their best doctors.

By Skinner's logic we could have imported cheap labour to staff our coal mines.While our own indigenous miners would then either have to look for other jobs,or possibly higher paid mining jobs in Australia etc.IE Skinner is just a misguided Socialist who has fallen into the trap of his own ideology.Rather than beating UKIP at its own game in changing policy to one of indigenous jobs for indigenous workers at indigenous wage rates.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 22 November 02:55

[NicD]

Mr_B said:

Dennis Skinner welcomed Reckless with some authentic Labour gibberish and typical loud rant based on not much more than his own senility. It got a big cheer, but was mired in the stupidity of the embarrassing old thinking that managed migration and selecting the people you need, is somehow turning away doctors and medical professionals and the collapse of the NHS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30141159

[johnxjsc1985]

I see David Cameron is adamant they will get back this seat in the GE, someone needs to tell him its not up to him its up to the people of Rochester and Strood.

[NicD]

Its a desire, much like all the other 'commitments' politicians make.

[Esseesse]

johnxjsc1985 said:

I see David Cameron is adamant they will get back this seat in the GE, someone needs to tell him its not up to him its up to the people of Rochester and Strood.

I really hope UKIP can hold it, but realistically a swing back to both main parties is likely. One thing that might save them is Labour voters who tactically voted Tory in the by-election going back to red. Mr Reckless needs to get a couple of solid local achievements under his belt.

[don4l]

HarryW said:

If you filter to most liked comments on the BBC story, it's quite an eye opener

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30140747

I liked this one:-

Ben said:

It must be pretty embarrassing for the Monster Raving Loony Party, getting beat by a Lib Dem.

[Maxf]

NicD said:

I would much rather have a country that looks after its long term interests, that does not allow huge chunks of future prosperity (assets) to be sold off to foreign investors.

Hold on here - if you take away 'foreign investors' do you know what will happen to the value of assets? They will plummet - and so will the value of your pension!

I value property for a living (big commercial stuff) and the foreign investors are a major part of the cycle - take some of the largest shopping centres in the UK as an example - there are lots of foreign investors in that market with Sovereign Wealth Funds being major investors. If you remove the ability of non-uk investors to buy into that asset class the pool of investors will shrink, and values will drop significantly. Surely that is a long term interest? We are in a global economy, pandora's box is open and we can't reverse it, nor should we.

[McWigglebum4th]

Maxf said:

Hold on here - if you take away 'foreign investors' do you know what will happen to the value of assets? They will plummet - and so will the value of your pension!

I value property for a living (big commercial stuff) and the foreign investors are a major part of the cycle - take some of the largest shopping centres in the UK as an example - there are lots of foreign investors in that market with Sovereign Wealth Funds being major investors. If you remove the ability of non-uk investors to buy into that asset class the pool of investors will shrink, and values will drop significantly. Surely that is a long term interest? We are in a global economy, pandora's box is open and we can't reverse it, nor should we.

So you are saying that if we vote UKIP that foreign investment will abandon the UK

Meaning large out of town shopping centres will collapse

Meaning i won't be able to go to large out of town shopping centres ever again






Sounds good to me

[NicD]

Maxf said:

Hold on here - if you take away 'foreign investors' do you know what will happen to the value of assets? They will plummet - and so will the value of your pension!

I value property for a living (big commercial stuff) and the foreign investors are a major part of the cycle - take some of the largest shopping centres in the UK as an example - there are lots of foreign investors in that market with Sovereign Wealth Funds being major investors. If you remove the ability of non-uk investors to buy into that asset class the pool of investors will shrink, and values will drop significantly. Surely that is a long term interest? We are in a global economy, pandora's box is open and we can't reverse it, nor should we.

Yes, there would be a belt tightening adjustment period, but having just read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/112317...
while some is bks

there is an element of truth about governments taking the easy route instead of taking tough decisions for the future

[Maxf]

McWigglebum4th said:

So you are saying that if we vote UKIP that foreign investment will abandon the UK

Meaning large out of town shopping centres will collapse

Meaning i won't be able to go to large out of town shopping centres ever again






Sounds good to me

City offices, hotels, industrial estates, distribution parks - many property asset classes would be affected.

[Maxf]

NicD said:

Yes, there would be a belt tightening adjustment period, but having just read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/112317...
while some is bks

there is an element of truth about governments taking the easy route instead of taking tough decisions for the future

The nature of politics is for the easy route to be taken - they don't want to upset too many people as they need votes in 4 years time. I agree (if thats what you're saying) that the current system is broken - however I really fail to see how UKIP can change it - to me it seems they have very few real policies, capitalise on fear and 'easy wins' by blaming recent immigration for problems which have been largely home grown over the past 30 years (at least).

I've been saying for years that the baby boomers fked my generation (I'm 37, although a false start and change of profession probably sets me in a peer group of early 30s) ever since I realised my uncle retired at 60 with a final salary pension, which no matter how hard I worked would never be available to me. But again, I don't see how UKIP can change this.

To me though, voting UKIP wouldn't be anything more than a protest - indeed I think they'd be worst placed to sort the many issues. What I hope is that the Tories get a huge kick up the arse and a bloody nose from UKIP - but don't end up in the gutter because of it, because UKIP in power genuine scares me.

I think the bigger question is what is the better system - what allows longer term decisions to be made, where politicians aren't eyeing the next election with every move?