UKIP poster boy is a racist immigrant, film at 11

[Eddie Teach]

it always bemuses me when people define their politics in terms of economics. Economics are just a means to an end. Not the end in itself.

Different economic policies are means to different ends.

[Sheilbh]

But that is  part of the problem don't you see? By voting on a government, you decide who gets how much power over Yi's list.

You get rather more than that: war and peace; independent states or a UK; in Europe or not.

There are very few genuine solely policy driven voters and, for the most part, they're single issue eccentrics like some Greens or Eurosceptics. Which isn't to say that policy doesn't matter in winning voters over but as in economics, people aren't rational decision makers and perishingly few vote based solely, or mainly, on their economic self interest.

Most people - myself included - vote based on who we feel we are, how we feel about the world and the party leaders. Frankly I think that's the right way to do things. I dread to think what sort of politics we'd get if people just voted on their own economic position

[Eddie Teach]

Thing is, a person's economic situation is a pretty strong filter on "who we feel we are".

[Admiral Yi]

Carter was voted out of office in large part because of stagflation and benzin shortages.  Bush Sr. was voted out of office in large part because he couldn't feel the economic pain of voters.  William Jennings Bryant came close to winning the White House on a platform of easy money.

[Sheilbh]

It's a bit of it.

As I say, how did Maggie and Reagan won the working class? Why do highly educated high earning Asian Americans vote Democrat? Why do the working poor (often receiving benefits) and pensioners (dependent on them) want the welfare system massively trimmed?

I think as in economics we maybe overestimate human rationality (a myth) when even the economic bits of our identity are about sentiment.

Take inequality, it's been bad and growing for a while. Did it suddenly hit a percentage point that made the mainstream talk about it again? My theory is the feelings of inequality have started to effect the upper middle class, the sort of people who are friends with journalists and wonks and politicians and those people started to hear it.

It doesn't matter that it objectively worsened (in the UK it didn't really since 97), but that the people who feel lacking and envious are further up the scale.

[Sheilbh]

Carter was voted out of office in large part because of stagflation and benzin shortages. Bush Sr. was voted out of office in large part because he couldn't feel the economic pain of voters.  William Jennings Bryant came close to winning the White House on a platform of easy money.

A- which fed into a sentiment of national decline which Reagan countered with aspiration, optimism and patriotism.
B- exactly my point. What mattered was that he couldn't feel the voters' pain. Like Romney, like Cameron: is he on our side? Does he even understand people like me?
C- I'm not sure a guy using crucifixion imagery to describe his policies is who you want as an example of non-cultural, identity politics

[Admiral Yi]

Sounds to me like you do think economics are important, you just want to rephrase it in your queer theory mumbo jumbo.

[Gups]

What's wrong with Ed?
He seems quite a welcome bit of substance over style after Cameron and Blair

Substance?

I know. I'm struggling to think how he could possibly have any less substance. In fairness, he had very little style either.

Not sure if he can reasonably described as the worst leader of the two parties since the war but he's definately in the top (bottom) three with IDS and Michael Foot.

[Josquius]

Ed really seems to know what he is talking about. I really get the impression from him that rather than being the typical people person that our political community is dominated by, he is far more of a intellectual who is mainly concerned with running the country. The sort of person kids imagine politicians to be but who, without his family being who they are, wouldn't have stood a chance at breaking into politics.

He isnt a great politician, but i say that as a compliment. I think he would be a very good pm.

[Agelastus]

Ed really seems to know what he is talking about. I really get the impression from him that rather than beong the typical people person that our political community is dominated by, he is far more of a intellectual whobis mainly concerned with running the country. The sort of person kids imagine politicians to be but who, without his family being who they are, wouldbt have stood a chance at breaking into politics.

He isnt a great politician, but i say that as a compliment. I think he would be a very good pm.

Interesting. It's interesting how people can hear the same things yet take completely different impressions from the experience.

Personally, I find that Ed (along with Harriet Harman) are the two most clueless sounding members of the Labour front bench. Not to mention that he also seems somewhat politically inept (admittedly, he can't be quite as politically inept as he appears to be given his rise to the Leadership.)

[Zanza]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11203783/Germany-says-UK-could-leave-EU-if-David-Cameron-insists-on-migrant-quotas.html

David Cameron's bid to overhaul freedom of movement rules to restrict immigration from within the European Union could take Britain to a "point of no return", German government sources have reportedly warned

Germany would be prepared to accept that Britain will have to leave the European Union if David Cameron insists on restricting the number of immigrants from the bloc who can live and work in the UK.

Mr Cameron's bid to curb levels of migration from the EU is taking Britain to a "point of no return", according to Der Spiegel.

Mr Cameron has said that he will reform Britain's relationship with the EU before holding an in-out referendum in 2017.

The Prime Minister used his speech last month to the Tory Party conference to pledge to put reform of the freedom of movement principle would be "at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe".

However, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has said that she would not support any plans to change the freedom of movement rules that allow an unlimited number of EU migrants to live and work in the UK.

At a recent summit in Brussels, Mrs Merkel is reported to have told Mr Cameron that Germany would not accept any of his demands of freedom of movement and told him: "That's it."

Ministers had said that Mr Cameron had been planning to introduce a quota system to restrict the number of foreigners coming to the UK from other EU countries.

It has also been claimed that Mr Cameron will now attempt to appease the Germans by abandoning any plans to reform freedom of movement rules.

The Prime Minister could instead pledge that a Conservative government would ban EU migrants from the UK unless they have a job.

The Sunday Times also reported that foreigners could in future be deported from the UK if they are unable to support themselves.

One minister said that the Prime Minister is now attempting to "stretch the existing rules to their limits" instead of overhauling free movement principles.

Downing Street has attempted to take an increasing tough line on immigration in a bid to tackle the UK Independence Party.

Mr Cameron pledged to reduce net migration to the "tens of thousands" by next year but is expected to fall well short of that target.

This is one of the four freedoms of the internal market, the very core of the European Union. There is really nothing to discuss here. If Britain can't accept these anymore, it's time to leave.

[Valmy]

Oh but Hungary can basically run a fascist state and Germany has no problem with that.

[Gups]

This is one of the four freedoms of the internal market, the very core of the European Union. There is really nothing to discuss here. If Britain can't accept these anymore, it's time to leave.

I think you are right and if the Tories win the next election we may well be heading for an exit. Cameron is wedged between a rock and a hard place.

[Tonitrus]

We could always invite the UK into NAFTA. 

[Martinus]

Oh but Hungary can basically run a fascist state and Germany has no problem with that.

The European Union has a huge problem with that, actually.

But the four freedoms are the cornerstone of the European Union's raise d'etre, so in this sense, they are in fact more important than what form of state Hungary is running.

If Mexico suddenly started to introduce tarriffs within NAFTA, that would probably enrage the US government more than the fact that it is a lawless state run by thugs. So stop being a doofus.