UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Einion Yrth said:
Zod said:
Einion Yrth said:
The problem is Zod that you have such an unpleasantly combative debating style that it is difficult to see why any one would attempt to engage with you. It's not as if you're going to change your mind about UKIP, is it?
Unpleasant? You just don't like being confronted with uncomfortable observations.Of course I could change my mind about UKIP. It would require very significant change from UKIP though.
k-ups. The fact is that you are unnecessarily abrasive at all times and often downright insulting for no good reason. You adopt some imagined intellectual high horse and talk down to those who disagree with you, you are sadly, frankly boorish. I apologise for the insult but I felt it had to be said.Mrr T said:
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
Dr North on Eureferendum.com shows why this is not even possible if you negotiate a trade agreement with the EU.
Linky please?...or am I missing something?
Zod said:
don4l said:
Zod said:
Nonsense. Calling my post smearing is a transparent attempt to trash it without engaging. It is entirely legitimate to ask why a party that was in favour of three new high speed lines is now against a single one. It is not as if UKIP is saying that it is in favour of HS2, but would change the route and look to reduce the cost. It just says that it would scrap it.
Let me try to engage you in a discussion about HS2.On balance, I am against it.
It seems like a hugely expensive project. I feel that our road network has been neglected for at least 2 decades. We would be better off upgrading many of our A roads.
Well I have tried to engage with you, but it is a bit like having a non-conversation with a grunting teenager.
I've told you my opinions about HS2, now it is your turn. You can agree with me, or you can disagree with me, or you can simply state your own opinions on the matter.
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
Dr North on Eureferendum.com shows why this is not even possible if you negotiate a trade agreement with the EU.
Linky please?...or am I missing something?
You can have a trade agreement with the EU and be a member of WTO. However, you can not offer the EU MFN status so the same terms must apply to all other WTO members.
So say we want a trade treaty with the EU which covers financial services. This would be esential because of the size of our financial services industry. If we want the access to the EU they will want to the same to the UK market.
In that case we would have to grant free access to the UK financial services markets to all WTO members. This is not likely to be what we want.
FiF said:
Moving on from the rancid bile that has been puked out by all sides over the last few hours.
How and why do political parties struggle to get anti-politics?
http://sotonpolitics.org/2014/09/17/parties-and-an...
In summary the final paragraph from that link.
I've broken this up to isolate what I see as the key passages that identify anti-politics. How and why do political parties struggle to get anti-politics?
http://sotonpolitics.org/2014/09/17/parties-and-an...
In summary the final paragraph from that link.
said:
None of the main parties get anti-politics. Perhaps some of the truths of anti-politics remain too hard for those working at the coalface of politics to hear. In certain respects this is understandable, party activists and leaders have committed their lives to participating in politics and must find it hard to empathise with those who see no benefit or virtue in politics. The first party leader or group of activists who really show an ability to understand the world from another’s perspective and then show a real capacity to shift the way they do politics might indeed reap a considerable reward in support. Each false dawn risks alienating the public further.
There is little sense from the evidence about anti-politics that most citizens see the solution as them becoming more active, taking more decisions, sitting on more committees or taking part in referenda.
There is some push for having more of say
but the overwhelming sentiment is for a political leadership that is seen engaged, connected and responsive and not driven by spin, self-aggrandisement and connections with big business.
People want a representative democracy that works. If a political party could show them how to get that it would be on to a winner.
There is little sense from the evidence about anti-politics that most citizens see the solution as them becoming more active, taking more decisions, sitting on more committees or taking part in referenda.
There is some push for having more of say
but the overwhelming sentiment is for a political leadership that is seen engaged, connected and responsive and not driven by spin, self-aggrandisement and connections with big business.
People want a representative democracy that works. If a political party could show them how to get that it would be on to a winner.
It seems really to be saying not much more than anti-politics = "we want a Govt that listens to the people and responds". Although it is also saying that the heartland people of anti-politics aren't really that interested in saying much more than they say right now, which is a curious tension.
At the very extreme the listening responsive government is government by plebiscites. That doesn't work: any system of rational democratic government election provides a winner where *most* people are prepared to back the *entire package* of measures/proposals that that government stands for. It also relies on upward delegation of decision making: many decisions in Govt require a detailed knowledge of a range of factors (not impossible to acquire as a MOP, but not easy either) and then an objective balance of those factors, taking into account the range of interests held by different sectors of the electorate and business (much harder for the MOP to do, as the natural instinct is self interest).
Anti-politics as identified in that passage appears to propose a paradigm of a government that can listen to and balance the squabbling 30 to 40 million adult voices in this country. That simply can't happen - a Government isn't there to please everyone. It's there to govern, and that's a very different thing.
If anti-politics is really just about disenfranchisement, it's strange to suggest that it is on the upsurge given that the population rejected PR during this Parliament. My own view is that electorate disquiet has a simpler explanation: a dissatisfaction with the perceived quality of the politicians on offer, possibly allied to the fact that there isn't a great perceived difference between left and right at the moment (due to coalescence around the centre).
The first of these would explain Farage's popularity (and Clegg's before him), because novelty is always perceived to be better, irrespective of whether it really is. The second would also explain UKIP's popularity as being a party with policies that have clear blue water between them and the "majors".
What is unusual about the present circs (linking this all back to UKIP) is that almost by definition non-mainstream parties don't attract mainstream support. UKIP's greatest achievement is to have found a lightning rod in the shape of the EU - like a modern day Emmanuel Goldstein - around which to rally its support, which at the same time does not feel extreme or overly radical.
don4l said:
Zod said:
don4l said:
Zod said:
Nonsense. Calling my post smearing is a transparent attempt to trash it without engaging. It is entirely legitimate to ask why a party that was in favour of three new high speed lines is now against a single one. It is not as if UKIP is saying that it is in favour of HS2, but would change the route and look to reduce the cost. It just says that it would scrap it.
Let me try to engage you in a discussion about HS2.On balance, I am against it.
It seems like a hugely expensive project. I feel that our road network has been neglected for at least 2 decades. We would be better off upgrading many of our A roads.
Well I have tried to engage with you, but it is a bit like having a non-conversation with a grunting teenager.
I've told you my opinions about HS2, now it is your turn. You can agree with me, or you can disagree with me, or you can simply state your own opinions on the matter.
mrpurple said:
longblackcoat said:
But having a genuine debate that doesn't descend into pointless name-calling and trolling on this thread is simply not going to happen.
Sad but true........bit like PMQ's.Last time I looked at this in late 2013, UKIP stated that they wanted to significantly increase spending on the armed forces. And when I say significant, I'm not joking. The plan was to increase total spendng to £50bn in 2016, £17.4bn more than planned by the government (£32.6bn). UKIP also stated that it planned to disband the Ministry of Defence "in order to reform it as a streamlined ministry", cancel the replacement of Trident and remove foreign military aid (£4bn) from the budget.
In addition, it planned "an initial 5 year capital expenditure programme" of £10 bn per annum "to restore threatened items including army manpower, armour, fighters, advanced surveillance platforms, the second aircraft carrier and major surface combat vessels".
My question is very simple - why? What threat do UKIP see that others don't? Especially as UKIP have pledged not to get involved in unnecessary foreign adventures.
And please don't start saying "but LibLabCon"......justify the UKIP position, if you can. Because I don't get it, I really don't. If the plan is to be more UK-contric and less world-facing, military expenditure would go down not up. And if the plan is to simply absorb the unemployed, surely that's being an expansionist state, which is precisely the opposite of what UKIP stands for.
Forget how this might be paid for - assume that coming out of the EU might somehow cover the cost - the real question is why you'd bother blowing this amount on some whizz-bangs. Our military expenditure is already significantly higher on a % basis than most other countries, so why push it higher?
Greg66 said:
At the very extreme the listening responsive government is government by plebiscites. That doesn't work.
Seems to work reasonably well in Switzerland, although I'd agree Switzerland has problems of its own.Greg66 said:
the population rejected PR during this Parliament.
The population rejected AV. AV is no more proportional than FPTP and in some edge cases can be significantly less representative.Sorry to only pick those two out of a post you obviously put some thought into, but they were the only two points I felt inclined to comment upon.
longblackcoat said:
I'll give it a go though, and restrict it to one policy.
Forget how this might be paid for - assume that coming out of the EU might somehow cover the cost - the real question is why you'd bother blowing this amount on some whizz-bangs. Our military expenditure is already significantly higher on a % basis than most other countries, so why push it higher?
Interesting. Best guess is that it's an appeal to UKIPs perceived core voter, the proud Mittle Englander. They'll probably end up introducing conscription, too. Forget how this might be paid for - assume that coming out of the EU might somehow cover the cost - the real question is why you'd bother blowing this amount on some whizz-bangs. Our military expenditure is already significantly higher on a % basis than most other countries, so why push it higher?
Mrr T said:
My comment may not have been as clear as it should.
You can have a trade agreement with the EU and be a member of WTO. However, you can not offer the EU MFN status so the same terms must apply to all other WTO members.
So say we want a trade treaty with the EU which covers financial services. This would be esential because of the size of our financial services industry. If we want the access to the EU they will want to the same to the UK market.
In that case we would have to grant free access to the UK financial services markets to all WTO members. This is not likely to be what we want.
Ahhh, I hadn't realised that WHO membership meant automatic MFN status. I should have realised it because I have pointed out several times that WTO membership brings the same trade benefits as EU membership.You can have a trade agreement with the EU and be a member of WTO. However, you can not offer the EU MFN status so the same terms must apply to all other WTO members.
So say we want a trade treaty with the EU which covers financial services. This would be esential because of the size of our financial services industry. If we want the access to the EU they will want to the same to the UK market.
In that case we would have to grant free access to the UK financial services markets to all WTO members. This is not likely to be what we want.
I have pointed out several times that doing business with Taiwan, or the USA is just as easy as doing business with France or Poland. All we need to do is join the WTO. There is no real need to negotiate with the EU, as they are already WTO members. Most of the globe is an effective "free trade" area, and has been for many years.
TheRealFingers99 said:
longblackcoat said:
I'll give it a go though, and restrict it to one policy.
Forget how this might be paid for - assume that coming out of the EU might somehow cover the cost - the real question is why you'd bother blowing this amount on some whizz-bangs. Our military expenditure is already significantly higher on a % basis than most other countries, so why push it higher?
Interesting. Best guess is that it's an appeal to UKIPs perceived core voter, the proud Mittle Englander. They'll probably end up introducing conscription, too. Forget how this might be paid for - assume that coming out of the EU might somehow cover the cost - the real question is why you'd bother blowing this amount on some whizz-bangs. Our military expenditure is already significantly higher on a % basis than most other countries, so why push it higher?
Zod said:
OK, I'm finally ready to spend a few minutes on UKIP's shiny new policies.
- We would review all legislation and regulations from the EU (3,600 new laws since 2010) and remove those which hamper British prosperity and competitiveness.
This would take years and require enormous manpower. In any case, I thought UKIP was taking us out of the EU, so we'll no longer have to keep EU-derived laws (and none of them can be worthwhile surely?).
– UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
– We would reoccupy the UK’s vacant seat at the World Trade Organisation, ensuring that we continue to enjoy ‘most favoured nation’ status in trade with the EU, as is required under WTO rules.
Yes, I'm sure it's that simple. Well done.
– Inheritance tax will be abolished.
In one go? Wow! Cost?
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
Right, so they've moved from being in favour of simplifying the personal tax system with a flat tax to complicating it by introducing yet another band. Genius!
– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover.
So, they will tax companies that make losses because they are in investment mode, building their businesses. Genius again!
– UKIP will cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn pa, prioritising disaster relief and schemes which provide water and inoculation against preventable diseases.
I think they'll find that most foreign aid is ostensibly for very worthy causes. It's how it's actually deployed that matters and that is notoriously difficult to administer.
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project which is uneconomical and unjustified.
although, we actually advocated three new high speed lines in our last manifesto (that Nigel never saw, despite having signed the foreword).
That's all I have time for right now.
Fair enough on your first few points.- We would review all legislation and regulations from the EU (3,600 new laws since 2010) and remove those which hamper British prosperity and competitiveness.
This would take years and require enormous manpower. In any case, I thought UKIP was taking us out of the EU, so we'll no longer have to keep EU-derived laws (and none of them can be worthwhile surely?).
– UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
– We would reoccupy the UK’s vacant seat at the World Trade Organisation, ensuring that we continue to enjoy ‘most favoured nation’ status in trade with the EU, as is required under WTO rules.
Yes, I'm sure it's that simple. Well done.
– Inheritance tax will be abolished.
In one go? Wow! Cost?
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
Right, so they've moved from being in favour of simplifying the personal tax system with a flat tax to complicating it by introducing yet another band. Genius!
– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover.
So, they will tax companies that make losses because they are in investment mode, building their businesses. Genius again!
– UKIP will cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn pa, prioritising disaster relief and schemes which provide water and inoculation against preventable diseases.
I think they'll find that most foreign aid is ostensibly for very worthy causes. It's how it's actually deployed that matters and that is notoriously difficult to administer.
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project which is uneconomical and unjustified.
although, we actually advocated three new high speed lines in our last manifesto (that Nigel never saw, despite having signed the foreword).
That's all I have time for right now.
But it seems bizarre to be increasing foreign aid with borrowed money and HS2 is unaffordable really.
Esseesse said:
Your entire post is devalued by writing thing such as 'eliminate crime completely', there is no comparison between that and what UKIP say they want to achieve. It's a straw man argument, frequently used by people to misrepresent their opponent because their own arguments are to weak to stand on their own.
You mean to say that leaving the EU won't eliminate all crime in the UK?Heathen. Back of the kipper queue. NOW!
London424 said:
Isn't this something that the US do (not the conscription thing)...their armed forces are pretty significant and they spend quite a lot on their military. (I could be wrong). I'll see if I can find some figures.
But the US do see themselves as the world's policemen (and, political considerations aside) not without justification. Then again, the military industrial complex has a lot of weight on Capitol Hill. If UKIP want to keep out of geo politics, it's hard to see a justification (pride aside) for a big military budget.
Glamorous railways
"Ukip will encourage a return to the glamour, grace and style of the railway companies of the past through its railway policies. Ukip seeks a return to 'Pullman' trains where justified, with appropriate branding such as 'Great Western Railway', one of the most successful British brands ever."
Has this been removed from the divine book of kipperdom?
A shame if it has, because this is one of their few manifesto policies I actually quite like.
"Ukip will encourage a return to the glamour, grace and style of the railway companies of the past through its railway policies. Ukip seeks a return to 'Pullman' trains where justified, with appropriate branding such as 'Great Western Railway', one of the most successful British brands ever."
Has this been removed from the divine book of kipperdom?
A shame if it has, because this is one of their few manifesto policies I actually quite like.
longblackcoat said:
I'll give it a go though, and restrict it to one policy.
Last time I looked at this in late 2013, UKIP stated that they wanted to significantly increase spending on the armed forces. And when I say significant, I'm not joking. The plan was to increase total spendng to £50bn in 2016, £17.4bn more than planned by the government (£32.6bn). UKIP also stated that it planned to disband the Ministry of Defence "in order to reform it as a streamlined ministry", cancel the replacement of Trident and remove foreign military aid (£4bn) from the budget.
In addition, it planned "an initial 5 year capital expenditure programme" of £10 bn per annum "to restore threatened items including army manpower, armour, fighters, advanced surveillance platforms, the second aircraft carrier and major surface combat vessels".
My question is very simple - why? What threat do UKIP see that others don't? Especially as UKIP have pledged not to get involved in unnecessary foreign adventures.
And please don't start saying "but LibLabCon"......justify the UKIP position, if you can. Because I don't get it, I really don't. If the plan is to be more UK-contric and less world-facing, military expenditure would go down not up. And if the plan is to simply absorb the unemployed, surely that's being an expansionist state, which is precisely the opposite of what UKIP stands for.
Forget how this might be paid for - assume that coming out of the EU might somehow cover the cost - the real question is why you'd bother blowing this amount on some whizz-bangs. Our military expenditure is already significantly higher on a % basis than most other countries, so why push it higher?
I'm broadly supportive of UKIP, but this is one policy I agree with you on.Last time I looked at this in late 2013, UKIP stated that they wanted to significantly increase spending on the armed forces. And when I say significant, I'm not joking. The plan was to increase total spendng to £50bn in 2016, £17.4bn more than planned by the government (£32.6bn). UKIP also stated that it planned to disband the Ministry of Defence "in order to reform it as a streamlined ministry", cancel the replacement of Trident and remove foreign military aid (£4bn) from the budget.
In addition, it planned "an initial 5 year capital expenditure programme" of £10 bn per annum "to restore threatened items including army manpower, armour, fighters, advanced surveillance platforms, the second aircraft carrier and major surface combat vessels".
My question is very simple - why? What threat do UKIP see that others don't? Especially as UKIP have pledged not to get involved in unnecessary foreign adventures.
And please don't start saying "but LibLabCon"......justify the UKIP position, if you can. Because I don't get it, I really don't. If the plan is to be more UK-contric and less world-facing, military expenditure would go down not up. And if the plan is to simply absorb the unemployed, surely that's being an expansionist state, which is precisely the opposite of what UKIP stands for.
Forget how this might be paid for - assume that coming out of the EU might somehow cover the cost - the real question is why you'd bother blowing this amount on some whizz-bangs. Our military expenditure is already significantly higher on a % basis than most other countries, so why push it higher?
JagLover said:
Zod said:
OK, I'm finally ready to spend a few minutes on UKIP's shiny new policies.
- We would review all legislation and regulations from the EU (3,600 new laws since 2010) and remove those which hamper British prosperity and competitiveness.
This would take years and require enormous manpower. In any case, I thought UKIP was taking us out of the EU, so we'll no longer have to keep EU-derived laws (and none of them can be worthwhile surely?).
– UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
– We would reoccupy the UK’s vacant seat at the World Trade Organisation, ensuring that we continue to enjoy ‘most favoured nation’ status in trade with the EU, as is required under WTO rules.
Yes, I'm sure it's that simple. Well done.
– Inheritance tax will be abolished.
In one go? Wow! Cost?
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
Right, so they've moved from being in favour of simplifying the personal tax system with a flat tax to complicating it by introducing yet another band. Genius!
– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover.
So, they will tax companies that make losses because they are in investment mode, building their businesses. Genius again!
– UKIP will cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn pa, prioritising disaster relief and schemes which provide water and inoculation against preventable diseases.
I think they'll find that most foreign aid is ostensibly for very worthy causes. It's how it's actually deployed that matters and that is notoriously difficult to administer.
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project which is uneconomical and unjustified.
although, we actually advocated three new high speed lines in our last manifesto (that Nigel never saw, despite having signed the foreword).
That's all I have time for right now.
Fair enough on your first few points.- We would review all legislation and regulations from the EU (3,600 new laws since 2010) and remove those which hamper British prosperity and competitiveness.
This would take years and require enormous manpower. In any case, I thought UKIP was taking us out of the EU, so we'll no longer have to keep EU-derived laws (and none of them can be worthwhile surely?).
– UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
– We would reoccupy the UK’s vacant seat at the World Trade Organisation, ensuring that we continue to enjoy ‘most favoured nation’ status in trade with the EU, as is required under WTO rules.
Yes, I'm sure it's that simple. Well done.
– Inheritance tax will be abolished.
In one go? Wow! Cost?
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
Right, so they've moved from being in favour of simplifying the personal tax system with a flat tax to complicating it by introducing yet another band. Genius!
– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover.
So, they will tax companies that make losses because they are in investment mode, building their businesses. Genius again!
– UKIP will cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn pa, prioritising disaster relief and schemes which provide water and inoculation against preventable diseases.
I think they'll find that most foreign aid is ostensibly for very worthy causes. It's how it's actually deployed that matters and that is notoriously difficult to administer.
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project which is uneconomical and unjustified.
although, we actually advocated three new high speed lines in our last manifesto (that Nigel never saw, despite having signed the foreword).
That's all I have time for right now.
But it seems bizarre to be increasing foreign aid with borrowed money and HS2 is unaffordable really.
The reality is that we balance off the benefits of such expenditure against the pain of the additional indebtedness (doesn't matter if its HS2, a Hospital or Foreign aid).
With regard to Foreign aid, the concept is right, the execution maybe not always so but there have been and continue to be changes made.
On HS2,my understanding of it is that its as much about freeing up capacity on other lines as it is about making a nice fast train line. On the principle that if you are going to add core infrastructure you should add high quality in order to get the most out of it in the long term it seems like the obvious way to go. Will it pay for itself directly any time soon? Unlikely. Will it create a lot of jobs & spin off numerous other benefits (in terms of things like improved national transport links, extra capacity on the rail network thereby easing capacity on the road network etc etc etc) ? Undoubtedly IMO.
The Channel Tunnel has probably not paid for itself yet directly. Indirectly? Undoubtedly IMO (but clearly very much more difficult to evaluate).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff