UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
FredClogs said:
Scuffers said:
After last night, I truly hope the wider electorate have a better grasp on reality than the audience last night, if not, we are shurley f**ked!
I wasn't surprised Nigel turned on the audience last night, it was quite clear that even though Dimbleby quickly put him straight he'd achieved his objective which was to appeal to those at home who believe all this LibLabCon conspiracy BBC bias McCarthyism nonsense. Luckily Farage is ever appealing to a narrowing section of the disaffected, it's quite clear he's taken the paranoia and conspiracy schtick too far and whilst it might appeal to his core his end game is going to be a strong cabal of crypto fascists and conspiracy nut jobs - which is where he was 3 years ago. Even the tacit support of Desmond now (an absolute disgrace of a man) I think Farage and UKIP will fall away to nothing before May 7th
The audience was in no way representative of the voting population.
FredClogs said:
Guam said:
WTF, I seriously hope this not true, if it is what the hell are they thinking?
A grand a day to give away money we dont have.
Dear god I hope its actually b
ks!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571066/Overseas-a...
Yes I know, it's tragic that a mainstream Daily newspaper run by a xenophobic pornographer with an obsession for conspiracy has become the mouth piece for UKIP.A grand a day to give away money we dont have.
Dear god I hope its actually b
ks!http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571066/Overseas-a...
But no surprise.
JustAnotherLogin said:
FiF said:
On the wider fiscal issue and trade etc, there have been many studies which show positive and negative results based on various scenarios. As usual the antis automatically assume that any unknowns will always impact negatively, yet UKIP is often accused of negative campaigning and attitudes. Such one eyed approaches are repetitive and tiresome. The path would be difficult no one denies that.
But what is surely wrong is for UKIP to ask the CEBR to build in the positives (which they have done by including the savings in payments to EU etc); but to exclude the negatives (which they have also done by specifically excluding any consideration of loss of industry to the EU, cost of tariffs etc). Whilst all the while claiming that their numbers are independently verifiedComplete con
Labour, Cons, Libs and others have given vague notions of where they can save but promised absolute numbers for the extra funding! NHS £8 BN from where... £12 BN savings from welfare but from where specifically? Who knows. The UKIP costings are more specific than the other parties, they've raised their game. It's not perfect and it's not unbiased but it's a sight better than the magic money tree cons/labour are using.
Esseesse said:
Tory Backs Farage In BBC Bias Row, Corporation Selected Anti-UKIP Londoners
The audience was in no way representative of the voting population.
Even being as charitable as possible, it was a locally representative audience for a nationally important debate. The audience was in no way representative of the voting population.
Before Farage threw his toys out of the pram I was wondering if the volume was selectively being dropped up and down. I listened to the last 40 mins on radio and the noise from the audience was even more noticeable. Nationally UKIP have been averaging 13% in the poles, but the vocal support for far left parties that nationally combined struggle to that figure was amazing.
Now the conservatives are polling about the same as Labour but the cacophony greeting anything criticising the Torys was huge. This audience wasn't just hostile to Farage, it was even hostile to Milliband except when he was being more socialist. There might be a multitude of reasons but it didn't give the impression of balance.
Guam said:
WTF, I seriously hope this not true, if it is what the hell are they thinking?
A grand a day to give away money we dont have.
Dear god I hope its actually bks!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571066/Overseas-a...
This is no surprise. A grand a day to give away money we dont have.
Dear god I hope its actually b
ks!http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571066/Overseas-a...
The foreign aid budget was increased from £4Bn to £12Bn in a very short period of time.
This could never have been done efficiently.
FiF said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Go on, tell me what I am not being accurate about.
I see you don't deny deliberately selective quoting then. On your way. I posted some extracts that highlighted the limitations of the independent assessment and why as a result UKIPs numbers don't come close to adding up in reality.
I even quoted the section and bullet numbers.
And all you can do is make vague, unsubstantiated accusations that I am misrepresenting the report. I do not believe I am. If you think I am, show why
Put up or shut up
JustAnotherLogin said:
FiF said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Go on, tell me what I am not being accurate about.
I see you don't deny deliberately selective quoting then. On your way. I posted some extracts that highlighted the limitations of the independent assessment and why as a result UKIPs numbers don't come close to adding up in reality.
I even quoted the section and bullet numbers.
And all you can do is make vague, unsubstantiated accusations that I am misrepresenting the report. I do not believe I am. If you think I am, show why
Put up or shut up
Just one example.
earlier today you wrote
JustAnotherLogin said:
JustAnotherLogIn meant to have said:
or bullet 4
“withdrawal from the EU would leave a policy vacuum which the Government would have to fill in order to avoid certain regions and sector losing out. How it chose to do so would have important implications for the fiscal and broader economic consequences of withdrawal”
Right, shall we have the full bullet point now?“withdrawal from the EU would leave a policy vacuum which the Government would have to fill in order to avoid certain regions and sector losing out. How it chose to do so would have important implications for the fiscal and broader economic consequences of withdrawal”
CEBR report said:
Bullet point 4
Whilst our assessments of the projected savings from net EU contributions appear reasonable, the House of Commons report recognises that
“withdrawal from the EU would leave a policy vacuum which the Government would have to fill in order to avoid certain regions and sectorslosing out. How it chose to do so would have important implications for the fiscal and broader economic consequences of withdrawal”. At present, UKIP’s savings assume that current subsidies are maintained at their existing levels and have been provided for within this budget, being funded purely from a UK government instead.
As you asked, evidence of your selective quoting put up for all to see. Whilst our assessments of the projected savings from net EU contributions appear reasonable, the House of Commons report recognises that
“withdrawal from the EU would leave a policy vacuum which the Government would have to fill in order to avoid certain regions and sectorslosing out. How it chose to do so would have important implications for the fiscal and broader economic consequences of withdrawal”. At present, UKIP’s savings assume that current subsidies are maintained at their existing levels and have been provided for within this budget, being funded purely from a UK government instead.
Now whether that deals with the issue fully in terms of the consequences of a Brexit is open to debate, but clearly the whole caveat has a different tenor to the selective bit you quoted.
End.
DMN said:
I cannot see any gaff, or blunder. It seems like common sense.Economic migrants come here for the money. If you increase the amount of money that they get, then you will increase the number of immigrants.
FiF said:
As you asked, evidence of your selective quoting put up for all to see.
Now whether that deals with the issue fully in terms of the consequences of a Brexit is open to debate, but clearly the whole caveat has a different tenor to the selective bit you quoted.
End.
Not at all, it shows exactly the point that bit was answering that it doesn't cover all the impact. How can it when we don't know how UKIP will address them? Policy vacuum was their phrase, not mine. I was just highlighting the crucial bitNow whether that deals with the issue fully in terms of the consequences of a Brexit is open to debate, but clearly the whole caveat has a different tenor to the selective bit you quoted.
End.
How about bullet 3 then, I'll quote it all this time so you have no excuse for pedantic whingeing
CEBR said:
To caveat our assessment, this report does not comment on the change to EU policies that could occur as a result of Britain exing the European Union (Brexit) or any changes due to devoluon from the EU. We understand that UKIP policy is in favour of calling for a referendum and withdrawing from the EU, by invoking Arcle 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This allows any member state to negoate and make arrangements for withdrawal from the European Union over a period of 2 years in accordance with its own constuonal requirements
We don't know what impact the EUs actions would have on u, so all the possible negative impacts of losing the finance industry, the car industry, quietly swept under the carpet. Disgracefully deceptive to claim that its "fully costed" Or incredibly naive to assume that there would be no negative implications of Brexit
don4l said:
DMN said:
I cannot see any gaff, or blunder. It seems like common sense.Economic migrants come here for the money. If you increase the amount of money that they get, then you will increase the number of immigrants.
UKIP support increasing the minimum wage combined with leaving the EU and ending the free movement of people.
JustAnotherLogin said:
FiF said:
As you asked, evidence of your selective quoting put up for all to see.
Now whether that deals with the issue fully in terms of the consequences of a Brexit is open to debate, but clearly the whole caveat has a different tenor to the selective bit you quoted.
End.
Not at all, it shows exactly the point that bit was answering that it doesn't cover all the impact. How can it when we don't know how UKIP will address them? Policy vacuum was their phrase, not mine. I was just highlighting the crucial bitNow whether that deals with the issue fully in terms of the consequences of a Brexit is open to debate, but clearly the whole caveat has a different tenor to the selective bit you quoted.
End.
How about bullet 3 then, I'll quote it all this time so you have no excuse for pedantic whingeing
CEBR said:
To caveat our assessment, this report does not comment on the change to EU policies that could occur as a result of Britain exi?ng the European Union (Brexit) or any changes due to devolu?on from the EU. We understand that UKIP policy is in favour of calling for a referendum and withdrawing from the EU, by invoking Ar?cle 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This allows any member state to nego?ate and make arrangements for withdrawal from the European Union over a period of 2 years in accordance with its own cons?tu?onal requirements
We don't know what impact the EUs actions would have on u, so all the possible negative impacts of losing the finance industry, the car industry, quietly swept under the carpet. Disgracefully deceptive to claim that its "fully costed" Or incredibly naive to assume that there would be no negative implications of Brexit
Quite amused at the complaint about pedantic whinging, which incidentally it is not, from the king of pedantic must have last word-ing.
FiF said:
Well it all depends upon how people interpret those comments.....
On the wider fiscal issue and trade etc, there have been many studies which show positive and negative results based on various scenarios. As usual the antis automatically assume that any unknowns will always impact negatively, yet UKIP is often accused of negative campaigning and attitudes. Such one eyed approaches are repetitive and tiresome. The path would be difficult no one denies that.
My issue is that UKIP don't seem to be addressing the unknowns, their manifesto didn't go any further into that aspect of it. They just seem to assume the EU will give us what we want after we tell them we're pissing off.On the wider fiscal issue and trade etc, there have been many studies which show positive and negative results based on various scenarios. As usual the antis automatically assume that any unknowns will always impact negatively, yet UKIP is often accused of negative campaigning and attitudes. Such one eyed approaches are repetitive and tiresome. The path would be difficult no one denies that.
I thought Farage was disappointing again in the debate-in my eyes his stock is falling but UKIP's seems to be rising-maybe they're not the one person party I thought?
cookie118 said:
FiF said:
Well it all depends upon how people interpret those comments.....
On the wider fiscal issue and trade etc, there have been many studies which show positive and negative results based on various scenarios. As usual the antis automatically assume that any unknowns will always impact negatively, yet UKIP is often accused of negative campaigning and attitudes. Such one eyed approaches are repetitive and tiresome. The path would be difficult no one denies that.
My issue is that UKIP don't seem to be addressing the unknowns, their manifesto didn't go any further into that aspect of it. They just seem to assume the EU will give us what we want after we tell them we're pissing off.On the wider fiscal issue and trade etc, there have been many studies which show positive and negative results based on various scenarios. As usual the antis automatically assume that any unknowns will always impact negatively, yet UKIP is often accused of negative campaigning and attitudes. Such one eyed approaches are repetitive and tiresome. The path would be difficult no one denies that.
I thought Farage was disappointing again in the debate-in my eyes his stock is falling but UKIP's seems to be rising-maybe they're not the one person party I thought?
The EU is in a bad way, my thoughts is that it will not survive after the UK departs, not straight away, they will try to keep it going, but you can not keep taking from the pot when there is only a few contributors to it, the problems with Greece are not going to go away along with problems in Spain Italy and even France things are not looking good.
If you take a look at British roads and look at where the cars are manufactured, most are from Europe, I do not think they will want to cut themselves off from such a large market, a market that is growing in comparison to the rest of Europe, deals will be done, trade will continue.
I agree Farage appears not up to his normal standard, but as you say it may be to change the perception that it is only a one man party allowing others to come through.
BBC to give Farage his own TV slot for 30mins of questions
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/571294/Nige...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/571294/Nige...
PRTVR said:
Should you talk about things that you have no answer for? We do not know any outcome from negotiations till they happen, speculating achieves nothing, except leaving yourself open to scrutiny of what is said by the other parties, better to say nothing.
..........
If you take a look at British roads and look at where the cars are manufactured, most are from Europe, I do not think they will want to cut themselves off from such a large market, a market that is growing in comparison to the rest of Europe, deals will be done, trade will continue.
I agree Farage appears not up to his normal standard, but as you say it may be to change the perception that it is only a one man party allowing others to come through.
UKIP do seem pretty certain that as a minimum they will achieve a free trade deal from any negotiations, I think there is speculating, where you gather the relevant data together and make a valid prediction based on the knowns and unknowns, and then there is speculating the kind where you pull a finger out and base it on nothing...........
If you take a look at British roads and look at where the cars are manufactured, most are from Europe, I do not think they will want to cut themselves off from such a large market, a market that is growing in comparison to the rest of Europe, deals will be done, trade will continue.
I agree Farage appears not up to his normal standard, but as you say it may be to change the perception that it is only a one man party allowing others to come through.
There's a lot of data around and many studies for and against that UKIP could aggregate together and point out why they think they would get a free trade deal and it would help their cause.
Maybe Farage is specifically targetting the core UKIP voters while the rest of the party is going after new voters and increasing the share.
cookie118 said:
UKIP do seem pretty certain that as a minimum they will achieve a free trade deal from any negotiations, I think there is speculating, where you gather the relevant data together and make a valid prediction based on the knowns and unknowns, and then there is speculating the kind where you pull a finger out and base it on nothing.
sorry, but you seem to be on the speculating trail?in the real world, trade is done between businesses, not governments.
Guam said:
It's another variant of the gotcha game and it's pretty pathetic
Speculate on an unknown and you get nailed for it
Don't and you still get nailed for it
It's pathetic and they are using a tried and tested hard left maxim known as the precautionary principle
"This could happen so safer not to risk it"
They know it's bks and so does anyone with an intellect higher than a fruit fly
Indeed plus the other issue is the one eyed nature of things. Speculate on an unknown and you get nailed for it
Don't and you still get nailed for it
It's pathetic and they are using a tried and tested hard left maxim known as the precautionary principle
"This could happen so safer not to risk it"
They know it's b
ks and so does anyone with an intellect higher than a fruit fly Nobody with any common sense believes that a Brexit would be anything other than complicated, need careful negotiations and thoughtful approach with compromises.
Several academic and business analyses as to how this can be accomplished yet we see the accusation that people think there is the expectation that GB will give notice and the EU will offer up everything requested. Total strawman b
ks. Then when the issue of the unknowns are acknowledged there is the immediate assumption that the outcome of the unknowns will always be guaranteed to be as negative as possible with no negatives or risks attached to remaining in the EU. That's just ignored e.g. the exposure and risk of 110 billion to the European Union including exposure of 60 billion to the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, if 26 nations screw up then the 27th pays up. Then the billions of exposure to the European Central Bank and European Investment bank. Bob Lyddon's Bruges Grp paper ref.
Seems to me the adults in this are people who openly acknowledge it's a difficult scenario and could go either way as best solution, but that there isn't enough information yet to make a decision. A lot hangs on any reform, nothing there then for me it's a decision already made, on balance it to come out. With reforms then it depends.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff