Languish.org

QuoteUkip has been forced to suspend the "poster boy" of its European election broadcast, after it was revealed he had posted a series of vile racist comments on Twitter.

Builder Andre Lampitt was one of principal characters in the slickly produced promotional film which was aired across the BBC and ITV on Tuesday night.

Mr Lampitt was shown walking across a building site describing the difficulty he had a finding work as a result of unrestricted immigration from Europe.

"Since the lads from Eastern Europe are prepared to work for a lot less than anybody else, I've found it a real struggle," he laments. "It's getting hard to provide for my family."

But despite appearing to be an immigrant himself from Zimbabwe – or Rhodesia as he prefers to call it – it was Mr Lampitt's other views which landed in him hot water with the party of which he is a member.

In a series of Tweets going back over more than a year he reveals his thoughts on everything from Muslims, to AIDS, Syria and forced sterilisation.

They do not make pretty reading.

"Get over it, slavery was an act of war," he wrote on 19 March. "You lost stop being so damn jealous and move forward."

Then in response to two other Twitter users he wrote: "Muslims are animals their faith is disgusting their prophet is (a) pedophile". (sic)

Other forthright views included on Ed Miliband ("He is Polish and not British so how'd he know what's good for Britain?"), Africa ("I was born and grew up in Africa please leave Africa for the Africans lets them kill themselves off don't go there") and Syria ("When I voted they did not tell me they would spend our tax money on Syrians I'm sorry but this is unfair")

The tweets were first brought to the attention of the party by The Independent - and they swiftly moved to suspend Mr Lampitt.

A party spokesman said: "We are deeply shocked that Mr Lampitt has expressed such repellent views. His membership has been suspended immediately pending a full disciplinary process."

Quote from: Tamas on April 25, 2014, 04:49:51 AM

QuoteA party spokesman said: "We are deeply shocked that Mr Lampitt has expressed such repellent views. His membership has been suspended immediately pending a full disciplinary process."

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 26, 2014, 01:26:19 AM
UKIP will attract those sort of people. I'm more interested in the respectable and decent component of their support; they are not being catered for by the established political parties hence the protest vote.

We are failing to keep up with the house construction, schools, hospitals etc that are necessary for an expanding population. Shortages in these areas acts as a recruitment tool for racism; tolerance is stretched if people can't get a place to live, or a sensible school place for their child............by no means all of the grumbling is coming from racists.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2014, 01:54:31 PM
Odd how so many people who subscribe to right wing populism turn out to be vile bigots.  You'd almost think there is some sort of connection.

Quote from: mongers on April 26, 2014, 01:57:37 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2014, 01:54:31 PM
Odd how so many people who subscribe to right wing populism turn out to be vile bigots.  You'd almost think there is some sort of connection.

But this leaves me confused as to why Tamas is flirting with them.   :hmm:

Quote from: mongers on April 26, 2014, 01:57:37 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2014, 01:54:31 PM
Odd how so many people who subscribe to right wing populism turn out to be vile bigots.  You'd almost think there is some sort of connection.

But this leaves me confused as to why Tamas is flirting with them.   :hmm:

Quote from: Tamas on April 26, 2014, 03:01:57 PM
By very definition classical liberalism, or libertarianism if you will, is ought to be smack in the middle.

QuoteNigel Farage is a phoney. Scrutinise him and he'll crumble
Instead of tearing into the preposterous Ukip leader, Britain's famously aggressive media have made him a celebrity

Nick Cohen
The Observer, Saturday 26 April 2014 17.30 BST

Allow me to sketch you a portrait of a political leader. Even by the lax standards of the powerful, he is England's greatest living hypocrite. He courts popularity by warning that tens of millions from the dole queues of Europe are coming to take British jobs, while employing his German wife as his secretary. He denounces "the political class" for living like princes at the taxpayers' expense while pocketing every taxpayer-funded allowance he can claim for himself, his wife and his colleagues.

He says he represents "ordinary people". But he is a public school-educated former banker, whose policies will help him and his kind. He claims he is the voice of "common sense", while allying with every variety of gay-hater, conspiracy crackpot, racist, chauvinist and pillock. The only sense he and his followers have in common is a fear of anyone who is not like them.

You might expect that Britain's famously aggressive media would tear into his multiple deceits. Yet so tame has their treatment of Nigel Farage been, so indulgent and complicit, viewers were surprised when the BBC's political editor found the courage last week to raise a timorous voice and ask him why he was employing his German wife rather than giving a British job to a British worker. Broadcasters are ferocious when they tackle mainstream politicians, but are as eager to please as wet-tongued labradors when they meet Ukip. To understand why, you need to grasp how the political culture of modern democracies encourages both conformism and zealotry.

Broadcasters say they give Britain's representative of Europe's rightwing wave such prominence because Farage is good on television: a cheeky and witty guest rather than a formulaic political pro. As Hollywood doesn't cast ugly actors as romantic leads and radio producers seldom hire presenters with stammers, accusing broadcasters of double standards because they favour people who are good on television feels as absurd as accusing Brendan Rodgers of bias because he picks gifted footballers to play for Liverpool or publishers of prejudice because they commission authors who write well.

Media managers would have every right to sneer at bland "professional politicians", and promote exciting alternatives, had they not helped create the soundbite-spouting robots they are so keen to denounce. With the arrival of 24-hour news, they had to fill hours of empty schedules. Every ill-considered statement by a politician became a "gaffe"; every disagreement with the leader a "split". Ambitious politicians responded by saying nothing that might be used against them. Social media and mobile phones have accelerated their desire to march in step with the herd. Now a public figure must behave as if they are on camera whenever they are in a public space.

I am not trying to excuse our leaders. Political parties, private companies and public bureaucracies need to relax if they want a hearing in the 21st century, and stop treating the smallest deviation from the party line as an "unprofessional" affront. But it is rich of broadcasters to preach against professional politics when they were its midwives, and sinister of them to promote fanaticism as a cure for the boredom it generates.

For in the kingdom of the bland, the intolerant man is king. British and US TV have turned newspaper pundits into minor celebrities: a curious addition to the Z-list that makes little sense until you realise that the pundit is free to posture and foam and provide the gladiatorial aggression that will keep the audience from reaching for the remote. Extremist politicians such as Nigel Farage and George Galloway serve the same purpose. They don't have to worry about breaking party lines because their parties are their own private personality cults, which believe whatever they tell them to believe.

Mainstream politicians, who have abandoned plain speaking, should blame themselves when viewers turn away, of course. But they cannot be blamed for the broadcasters' abnegation of the basic journalistic responsibility to ask questions without fear or favour.

To pick one of hundreds of examples, Ukip had a party political broadcast featuring "ordinary people" last week. A builder complained that foreigners had taken his job. As you might have predicted, the builder turned out to be an obsessional creep, who thought that Ed Miliband wasn't British because his parents were refugees from Hitler. My friends in the anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate have files the thickness of telephone directories on how Ukip recruits every species of bigot from women-haters to neo-Nazis. They are open for journalists to inspect. But when Farage announced that he was suspending the builder from his party, the media were satisfied and did not ask him why he attracts and retains thousands more like him. They would never let a mainstream leader escape so lightly.

The English have a strong desire to avoid seriousness, a character trait that makes England both an attractive and a remarkably gullible country. We too easily dismiss people as performers putting on a show. "He can't really mean that," we say as the far-left politician salutes Saddam Hussein after he has ordered the genocide of the Kurds, or defends Bashar al-Assad as his forces torture civilians. "He isn't being serious," we say, as the far-right politician declares his admiration for Vladimir Putin and signs up members who want to kick out the blacks.

Experience has taught English media managers in particular to believe that no one means what they say. Editors demand opinion pieces that confirm their readers' prejudices and find willing hacks who will write as required, regardless of whether they believe what they say or not. In broadcasting, BBC researchers call and ask thousands of journalists and intellectuals to take a genuinely held belief and reduce it to absurdity. "Would you come on and say that 2+2=5?" they ask. You refuse. They hang up and phone round until they find someone so desperate for attention that they will say it.

When considering Ukip, we should remember the advice of Lord Renwick, a Foreign Office mandarin and Labour peer. He told young diplomats from good families that their background made them suckers for "the Wykehamist fallacy". When they went abroad, they were in danger of believing that foreign potentates merely struck blood-curdling poses for effect. For all the bombast, they would think that, underneath, these must be civilised men with an ironic sensibility who might have been educated at Winchester. "They haven't," said Renwick. "Actually, they're a bunch of thugs."

The same should be said of Ukip.

Quote from: Tyr on April 26, 2014, 02:38:54 AM
If you don't want to vote for one of the big three parties then vote for the greens; they're about more than the environment. You don't have to vote for closet racists....

QuoteLunacy of the town that turned green: A ban on bacon butties. Traffic-calming sheep. Transgender toilets. Sounds like a send-up? In fact, it's the all-too-real story of how Britain's loopiest party took over Brighton...
Brighton Pavilion is the Green Party's only seat in Parliament
Idealism and environmental improvements have gone down well
Other stunts like Meat-free Monday and transgender toilets, not so much
In addition, the party's inexperience in power has left them struggling
By IAN BIRRELL
PUBLISHED: 22:08, 26 April 2014 | UPDATED: 11:28, 27 April 2014

With the sun shining down on a shimmering sea, children playing on the beach and families thronging its cafes and boutiques, Brighton seems the perfect postcard portrayal of English serenity.

Strolling down the cheerful promenade, the resort's celebrated blend of raffish charm and Regency elegance appear little changed over the years. It is difficult to imagine this is the home of a civic revolution.

Yet this is the greenest city in Britain, the launchpad for an attempt to reshape the nation's political landscape – and the result is a dismal farce.

A rising tide of splits, stunts,  U-turns, gaffes and divisive industrial disputes has alienated voters and angered businesses here in a city better known for its bohemian tolerance, while outlandish proposals for a ban on bacon butties and plans to use sheep for traffic calming have earned only derision.

The serious side of politics has suffered, too – a demonstration  of the dangers that await when protest parties win power. A doomed attempt to impose the biggest council tax rise in the country ended with humiliating warnings that Whitehall could be forced to take over the Town Hall.

Welcome to the Green Republic of Brighton and Hove.

Starting with just one councillor in 1996, the Green Party's rise to power in Brighton has been unprecedented and rapid. In 2010  there was the election of Caroline Lucas as the MP for Brighton Pavilion – the party's first Westminster seat – and then came the capture of the city council just a year later.

A clever mix of protest, pavement politics and promises of change proved popular with residents, many of them families forced from London by soaring house prices, students, or those attracted by the city's liberal approach to life.

In 2011, the Greens ousted the Conservatives to become the largest group on the council with 23 seats. According to their leader Jason Kitcat, this was to be the future of British politics.

It is hard to share his optimism. The party's cuddly combination of middle-class idealism and municipal inexperience has hit the rocks of political reality as it grapples with a fast-growing city of 275,000 people in tough economic times.

'Winning was the worst thing possible for them,' said one opposition councillor privately. 'You can see they still want to be popular the whole time and dislike responsibility.'

The Green honeymoon was short-lived. Take the surreal story of an elderly elm tree.

First the Greens voted to upgrade a roundabout in the city called Seven Dials, but then found that there were protests to protect the 170-year-old tree beside the site. Eco-warriors camped out in the branches and pinned poems to the trunk. The national media showed an interest. So the Greens switched sides, joined the campaign to spare the 60ft elm from the chop and then spent a small fortune altering their own traffic scheme.

Then there was its manifesto pledge for 'Meat-free Mondays', which would have banned bacon rolls and beef pies from council-run staff canteens. It led to complaints from manual workers and the proposal was ditched.

Residents were similarly  surprised at Green plans to introduce livestock to one of the main routes into the city  as part of a 'speed reduction package'. The scheme was deferred after protests.

There have been times when it seemed that the business of town hall administration was descending into absurdity on a daily basis.

Brighton was declared a 'no fracking zone', even though there is no prospect of shale gas drilling in the city. Needless to say,  Green councillors have flocked to anti-fracking protests in nearby Balcombe, where Caroline Lucas was among dozens arrested last summer. She was cleared of public order charges last week.

At last month's council meeting,  a Green member accused a former Tory leader of wearing a swastika. She wasn't. It turned out to be a traditional Irish emblem on her necklace.

Yet beyond the comedy lie serious consequences. After three years of political mismanagement, Brighton's citizens face soaring charges for council services and increasingly scruffy streets. Yesterday, the Greens were under fresh attack after part of the seafront collapsed into a pub below. Even recycling levels have fallen to half those achieved by Tory-run Bournemouth.

The governing party is fatally split with, inevitably, divisions erupting into the open. Unlike other political parties, Greens do not 'whip' members into line to get policies passed, and meetings can descend into rows more suited to the Punch and Judy shows down on the beach.

A slim majority of moderates under amiable council leader Mr Kitcat have fought ceaseless challenges from a cabal of hard-Left councillors led by his deputy Phelim Mac Cafferty, a prominent gay activist.

The different factions are known  as 'mangos' (green on the outside yet yellow, like Lib Dems, in the middle) and 'watermelons' (green on the outside but red in the middle). The groups sit apart in the chamber during council meetings.

So serious are their differences that outside mediators were reportedly called in to reconcile the two sides. Mr Kitcat narrowly survived the latest attempt to depose him only last month – thanks to the support of his Polish-born wife Ania, a fellow moderate on the council.

So much for the new politics.

When refuse workers went on strike against efforts to stop long-standing Spanish practices in working hours and to harmonise pay with female council staff, they were supported by the watermelons – Mr Mac Cafferty and eight colleagues.

According to one councillor, some  of these staff earned more than £50,000 a year by manipulating allowances and overtime payments. 'They must be the highest paid bin drivers in the country,' he said.

The strike last June led to the strange sight of the council leader telling binmen to get back to work, while his deputy joined the picket line as rubbish piled up in the streets. Ms Lucas, the MP, added fuel to the fire by backing the protesters. Earlier this month, the unions threatened another strike.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the Green utopia – and the dignity of a proud and successful city – came two months ago when Mr Kitcat proposed a 4.75 per cent council tax increase. Supposedly a response to government cuts, this was interpreted by opponents as an effort to unite his fractious forces. The huge rise required a local referendum, the first since the Coalition Government brought in new rules to protect taxpayers. Yet even holding the vote would have cost at least £300,000.

The whole initiative was defeated in the council chamber, leading to deadlock over the budget. Officials warned that a team from Whitehall might have to take over the running of their city.

Days later, Labour and some moderate Greens backed a compromise increase just under the two per cent permitted without the need for a referendum. As Labour leader Warren Morgan put it: 'The rise might have been fine for those who can afford organic food, but not everyone lives in the trendy city centre.'

Then there was the case of the Christian councillor who opposed gay marriage. Christina Summers said she was 'accountable to God above any political party', so she was abused by her colleagues and drummed out of the Green group.

'I was called everything from a bigot to a fascist,' she told me.

'For some of these people, ideology is far more important than personal relationships. They just think anyone identifying as a Christian is against homosexuals.'

Ms Summers now sits as an independent. 'I feel very sad, since our election successes were amazing achievements,' she said. 'Unfortunately they have no understanding what being in government means, which is the need to show some compromise.' This from a party that claims on its website to be committed to 'a caring, inclusive and democratic society' that enables everyone to 'follow their interests'.

A 74-page report on 'Trans Equalities Strategy' to eliminate discrimination and avoid discomforting transsexuals asked for gender- neutral toilets and transgender-only sports sessions. Doctors were also urged to stop identifying patients according to gender on forms at GPs' surgeries.

Residents are being offered the category 'Mx' (for Mixter) alongside Mr, Ms and Mrs on council forms. This prevents 'an unnecessary sense of exclusion and frustration to be forced to accept a title  that doesn't reflect someone's gender expression.'

Political rivals say that a Green addiction to gesture politics is changing the nature of the city. It does not take long to find evidence supporting their claim.

Typical was the Occupy Brighton camp set up shortly after the Green takeover. At first it was praised by party councillors. Inevitably, however, the cluster of tents began to attract people with drink and drug problems. It was eventually closed down after a fireman was assaulted while putting out a blaze.

Graham Cox, a Tory councillor and former head of Sussex CID, said the Green council promoted an image of Brighton as a place of protest and alternative lifestyles that welcomed the homeless.

'They don't care about things like cutting the grass and keeping flower-beds tidy, so our town is getting scruffier. They are basically hippies who don't give a damn about such things.'

Others residents I spoke to said the same. And, sure enough, walking back along the main street connecting Brighton with Hove, I found five rough-sleepers on one 200-yard stretch amid the smart cafes, food shops and clothing outlets.

Luke, 47, was sitting on a cardboard sheet in a shop doorway reading a Wilbur Smith thriller. 'I came here because I heard that the facilities were good with drop-in centres and free food,' he said, adding that he had been pestered by drug dealers offering him free samples.

The council has also been accused of attracting travellers. Its policy was described by one rueful Green councillor as 'come in and take over our parks' – which is precisely what happened last summer.

Council officials unlocked the gates for 30 travellers' caravans to enter Wild Park, the area's largest nature reserve with spectacular views over the city.

Their action – reportedly taken to prevent injuries should the travellers try to break in – made it harder to evict the group, costing local taxpayers thousands of pounds in legal fees. This pushed up the bill for dealing with illegal travellers last year to nearly £200,000, the second highest in the country.

Yet the gates were unlocked again last month to let in another convoy of 19 caravans.

Little wonder that a poll last summer found the party plunging to third place behind the Tories and Labour, a disaster for this fledgling political force in its heartland.

Time and again I heard complaints over transport. Parking fees have soared – one woman told me she was giving up her part-time bar job since it was no longer viable once she had paid the charges.

As for the business community, one boss of a Brighton-based green business who was initially delighted when the party took control of the council told me: 'Now it's just embarrassing – they're making a pig's ear of everything.

'They have fine ideals but lack any sense of reality.

'How could they not see that if you double the price of parking in a downturn, it drives away business?'

At least the cycle lanes look good.

Mr Kitcat told me he was proud of his party's record, especially raising the minimum wage for council staff and contractors and improving Brighton's air quality. Yet the council leader – a republican educated  at one of the country's top public schools – admitted he was disappointed by the internal dissent.

'This is the first time we have  been in administration and it is definitely a learning curve,' he said.

'While it is a lot messier than  people going with the party flow, isn't it quite healthy to have this freedom?'

Caroline Lucas, whose marginal seat is threatened by the meltdown in the Greens' popularity, denied the party was any more divided than others in local politics.

But Ben Duncan, a prominent 'watermelon' who has proposed taxes on tourists and the introduction of 'cannabis cafes', said there were major philosophical differences between Greens seeking revolutionary change to society and those not wanting to alarm voters.

He admitted wanting to kick out the council leader. Indeed, in a blog he said that Mr Kitcat had betrayed both his city and his party.

Contempt is growing for mainstream politics and, on the eve of local elections next month, voters must question if they really want more of these alternative protest politicians actually taking office.

They might heed the words of one Brighton shopper I met.

'They seemed to have so many fresh ideas,' she told me. 'Now we just roll our eyes at any mention of the Greens – they've turned out even worse than the others.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613905/Lunacy-town-turned-green-A-ban-bacon-butties-Traffic-calming-sheep-Transgender-toilets-Sounds-like-send-In-fact-real-story-Britains-loopiest-party-took-Brighton.html#ixzz309Bq5oOu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 27, 2014, 10:24:01 PM
.....

They are also disastrously running Brighton. I know this is the Daily Mail but it seems well reported and it's the only compilation I can find for the horror stories you occasionally see in the Brighton and Hove Argus:
......

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2014, 07:35:18 AM
God bless the Utopians.

Quote from: mongers on April 28, 2014, 07:42:56 AM
I don't think you could call them that, as it sort of implies theres some thought out plan and internal structure to what they want to do.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2014, 08:02:38 AM

Quote from: mongers on April 28, 2014, 07:42:56 AM
I don't think you could call them that, as it sort of implies theres some thought out plan and internal structure to what they want to do.

I think it fits very well.  They seem to be operating under the assumption that if you're nice to everyone that things will turn out smashingly.

Quote from: mongers on April 28, 2014, 08:28:46 AM

But what more typically happens, you get people who seize on a rag-tag collection of ideas, sentiments, instant judgments and this then becomes their own personal ideology.

Quote from: Tamas on April 28, 2014, 09:22:48 AM

Quote from: mongers on April 28, 2014, 08:28:46 AM

But what more typically happens, you get people who seize on a rag-tag collection of ideas, sentiments, instant judgments and this then becomes their own personal ideology.

No need to be singling out Raz, dude.

Quote from: mongers on April 28, 2014, 09:27:37 AM

Quote from: Tamas on April 28, 2014, 09:22:48 AM

Quote from: mongers on April 28, 2014, 08:28:46 AM

But what more typically happens, you get people who seize on a rag-tag collection of ideas, sentiments, instant judgments and this then becomes their own personal ideology.

No need to be singling out Raz, dude.

That's ironic coming from you.  ;)

Quote from: mongers on April 28, 2014, 08:28:46 AM
But what more typically happens, you get people who seize on a rag-tag collection of ideas, sentiments, instant judgments and this then becomes their own personal ideology.

Anyone who disagrees with any significant part is assumed to be either just wrong, against them or even the enemy/govt agent. The perfect set up for 'personality' driven politics/conflict.

Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2014, 10:29:37 AM

Quote from: mongers on April 28, 2014, 08:28:46 AM
But what more typically happens, you get people who seize on a rag-tag collection of ideas, sentiments, instant judgments and this then becomes their own personal ideology.

Anyone who disagrees with any significant part is assumed to be either just wrong, against them or even the enemy/govt agent. The perfect set up for 'personality' driven politics/conflict.

Well that is third party politics in the US in a nutshell.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 27, 2014, 10:24:01 PM
They are also disastrously running Brighton. I know this is the Daily Mail but it seems well reported and it's the only compilation I can find for the horror stories you occasionally see in the Brighton and Hove Argus:

Quote from: Tamas on April 28, 2014, 10:03:22 AMYou are not much better either  :P

Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2014, 03:48:06 PM

Quote from: Tamas on April 28, 2014, 10:03:22 AMYou are not much better either  :P

He's more self-aware and thus funnier.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2014, 03:25:40 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 27, 2014, 10:24:01 PM
They are also disastrously running Brighton. I know this is the Daily Mail but it seems well reported and it's the only compilation I can find for the horror stories you occasionally see in the Brighton and Hove Argus:

Also the Greens too are Eurosceptic. I don't know if they want out of the EU but they're totally opposed to it as it is now.

Today Ukip's 'Common Sense' battlebus crashed into Portsmouth train station:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.mirror.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle3470850.ece%2Falternates%2Fs615%2FUkip-campaign-bus-collision.jpg&hash=7939bf1bc8304831237a676d2b2d7466755d0ab6)

Meanwhile there was a rally there for them and their South-Eastern candidates. The crowd included many ex-Lib Dem voters who are angry about their MP, serial sex pest and possible Russian spy, Mike Hancock. Farage's most cheered line, 'this country is now run by a bunch of college kids who've never done a proper day's work in their lives'.

Quote from: Tamas on April 28, 2014, 09:22:48 AM

Quote from: mongers on April 28, 2014, 08:28:46 AM

But what more typically happens, you get people who seize on a rag-tag collection of ideas, sentiments, instant judgments and this then becomes their own personal ideology.

No need to be singling out Raz, dude.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 28, 2014, 05:55:50 PM
Have you ever done a proper day's work in your life? :hmm:

Quote from: Agelastus on April 28, 2014, 05:29:22 PM

Christ, that bus is a horrible shade.

Maybe I'll have to rethink my decision to finally break ranks with the Tories and vote UKIP in the upcoming Euro elections if their sartorial taste is that bad. :hmm:

Quote from: Agelastus on April 28, 2014, 05:29:22 PM
Christ, that bus is a horrible shade.

Maybe I'll have to rethink my decision to finally break ranks with the Tories and vote UKIP in the upcoming Euro elections if their sartorial taste is that bad. :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2014, 06:19:12 PM

Quote from: Agelastus on April 28, 2014, 05:29:22 PM
Christ, that bus is a horrible shade.

Maybe I'll have to rethink my decision to finally break ranks with the Tories and vote UKIP in the upcoming Euro elections if their sartorial taste is that bad. :hmm:

Well the Ukip logo/colour scheme is awful:
http://www.ukip.org/
:bleeding:

Quote from: celedhring on April 28, 2014, 07:43:41 PM
There's yellow, but who would vote for a yellow party? :yuk: Think of the pee jokes

Quote from: celedhring on April 28, 2014, 07:43:41 PM
There's yellow, but who would vote for a yellow party? :yuk: Think of the pee jokes

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2014, 12:35:36 PM
Last couple of polls have Ukip in the lead for the Euro elections, up to 38% in the latest poll.

I'm surprised and shocked that a bunch of Oxbridge educated journalists and MPs shouting 'racist' at them hasn't worked.

QuoteFarage attacks backfire on Labour and Tories
Attacks have confirmed Ukip leader as anti-establishment candidate, according to telephone polling and focus groups

Patrick Wintour, Rowena Mason and Nicholas Watt
The Guardian, Wednesday 21 May 2014
Jump to comments (953)

Labour and Conservative polling is showing that attacks claiming Nigel Farage is a racist have backfired since voters do not regard him as such and see the assaults as a sign members of the political establishment are ganging up to undermine him.

The apparent backlash is coming to both parties from telephone polling and focus groups, which say that the attacks have raised Farage's profile and confirmed him as the anti-establishment candidate. It does not tally with published opinion polls that show the Ukip lead in the European elections narrowing slightly.

One source said: "Calling people names does not work. It confirms the old politics."

The findings on the penultimate day of campaigning before Thursday's European and local elections are especially acute for the Labour party, which has been locked in an internal battle about how aggressively to attack Farage. Ed Miliband has studiously not called him a racist and tried instead to offer policy solutions to the issues driving the Ukip vote. Other strategists within the party are arguing that only a more direct attack will bear fruit with traditional Labour voters.

The row over whether Ukip is racist spilled into the streets on Tuesday when Farage failed to attend his own mini-street carnival in Croydon, south London, after it descended into bitter rows and one of his local candidates, Winston McKenzie, described the area as an unsafe "dump".

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F5%2F20%2F1400601533728%2FA-man-argues-with-anti-Uk-006.jpg&hash=0572e898f74e5f159ae3d1c154bf65e56724bca6)
A man argues with anti-Ukip protesters at a party rally for the European and local elections in Croydon. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP

The event was organised after a series of controversies over allegedly racist comments made by Ukip candidates and Farage's suggestion that people might not want to live on a street with Romanians.

Farage later insisted the organisers of the event had wanted him to go but he "didn't have time" and was busy.

At a rally later in Eastleigh, Hampshire, Farage quoted Gandhi as he dismissed criticism of his party by the political establishment and media. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you ... then you win," he said, predicting that Ukip would definitely come first in the European elections.

Miliband had his own personal nightmare when he appeared on BBC Wiltshire and tried to bluff his way out of the fact that he did not know the name of the Labour leader on the local Swindon council, one of Labour's key target councils.

He also looked uncomfortable when he appeared on morning TV and was asked how much he spent on groceries in a week.

The chancellor, George Osborne, is planning to mount an eve-of-poll attack on Labour and Ukip urging the country to "reject the forces of pessimism on the left and the populist right".

In a speech to the CBI on Wednesday he will say: "Political parties on the left and the populist right have this in common: they want to pull up the drawbridge and shut Britain off from the world.

"They want to set prices, regulate incomes, impose rent controls, wage war on big business, demonise wealth creation, renationalise industries – and pretend that they can re-establish control over all aspects of the economy. Whether from the left or the populist right, we now see a deeply pessimistic, depressing, anti-business agenda.

"It takes advantage of the understandable anxieties of a population unsettled by the pace of globalisation, and peddles a myth that Britain can stop the world and get off."

Farage's Ukip Croydon event started to go wrong when two members of the steel band hired to provide a carnival atmosphere said they were uncomfortable and had no idea they would be playing for Ukip.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F5%2F20%2F1400601977665%2FUkip-candidate-Winston-Mc-011.jpg&hash=6a78e76492ba67845771410b9bdde07b373e4929)
Ukip candidate Winston McKenzie, right, speaks to a woman at the Croydon event. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP

Marlon Hibbert, 22, whose parents are Jamaican, said he thought Ukip was racist and he was upset about the booking. "They are something I don't like the idea of," he said. "My parents came over here to work. Our country is for everybody with opportunities for everyone."

Fellow musician, 16-year-old Kishan Shorter agreed, saying he was not happy with Ukip's views.

As the band played for a short while, one of the party's most prominent black activists, Winston McKenzie, a Croydon council candidate, used a loud-hailer to say he was proud to be a supporter.

But he was interrupted by two protesters, who claimed to be from Romania and declined to give their names, accusing Ukip of being a Nazi party and holding a banner saying "Nigel Farage Racist Scum".

Farage and Ukip were defended by several candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds, including Rathy Alagaratnam, who is standing in Merton. The former Labour activist, who tried to take her former party to a tribunal for racial discrimination, said accusations of racism against Ukip were "an excuse because people do not want to debate the European question".

Marjorie King, a black Ukip candidate in north Croydon, said she did not think Farage was racist and had not seen his comments about Romanians. She said she was attracted to Ukip because it was the only party "standing up for Christianity".

Asked whether Farage was frightened of attending, McKenzie, standing in Croydon North, explained : "If he hasn't turned up he is a very sensible man. Croydon, which was once the place to be, the place to shop, has now become sadly a dump ... How can you ask an international leader to turn up somewhere where he feels unsafe?"

Labour will be reviewing how it is briefing Miliband after he stumbled on radio and television.

He ran into trouble when he was asked on BBC Wiltshire for his views of Jim Grant by the presenter Ben Prater, who stopped short of mentioning that he is the leader of the Labour group on Swindon borough council.

"You will enlighten me I'm sure," Miliband said when he was asked by Prater whether he knew who Grant is.

Miliband then wrongly described Grant as the leader of the Tory-led council. "Well he is doing a good job as leader of the council – Jim is. And I think that is the case."

When Prater pointed out that Grant is not leader of the council, Miliband said: "Well, I think he is doing a good job for Labour on the council. He is doing a good job for Labour on the council."

Miliband's awkward radio interview came after he said he was well placed to focus on the cost of living crisis in Britain even though he appeared to underestimate his family's weekly grocery bill.

The Labour leader, who said it was right to place the issue at the front of his general election campaign even though he is "relatively comfortably off", told ITV's Good Morning Britain that his family spent at least £70 to £80 a week – and probably more – on groceries.

When he was told that the average weekly bill for a family of four was more than £100, he said: "Right, well it [the grocery bill] is more than £100."

Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2014, 04:12:59 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29549414


IIRC the British conclusion over here was that nobody would vote for the  UKIP in a serious election. Well, here they are winning one out of 3 and getting prettttty close to winning the other two as well.

Back in Hungary I was part of (one of) the scapegoat group(s) for being liberal and pro-West, here I will be able to be in the scapegoat group for being from Hungary. Yay!

Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2014, 07:57:38 AM
His economics may be libertarian, but you cannot be a libertarian if you want to kick immigrants around.

Quote from: Gups on October 10, 2014, 08:04:37 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2014, 07:57:38 AM
His economics may be libertarian, but you cannot be a libertarian if you want to kick immigrants around.

He doesn't. But he doesn't think Hungarians or Germans should have a greater right to enter the UK than Americans or Inidians.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100247981/what-would-a-rational-immigration-system-look-like/

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2014, 05:35:25 PM
But he wants to cut welfare and taxes too.

And I kind of agree. I don't necessarily get why just anyone from Europe is better than the thousands of Aussies, Indians and other nationalities who want to migrate here.

Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2014, 05:40:33 PM
Because you've signed a deal with Europe that gives Brits the right to go to all of those Euro countries, but you have not made those deals with Aussies and Indians.

QuoteIt's not that someone thought Euros were better per se, it's that you've signed on to the common market and the free movement of labour within Europe.

Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2014, 04:12:59 AMIIRC the British conclusion over here was that nobody would vote for the  UKIP in a serious election. Well, here they are winning one out of 3 and getting prettttty close to winning the other two as well.

QuoteFor fox sake
John McTernan  |  10 October 2014   |  Comments: 64
The Last WordLiz McInnes
Last night I received an email from the Labour party. It was about foxhunting. The issue of the day yesterday. My only regret was that the email hadn't gone out earlier – it would surely have been an issue that would have boosted our vote in Heywood and Middleton massively.

I honestly didn't know what to say when I opened that email. And I still can't decide whether it would be worse if it had been part of an explicit strategy or if it had simply been sent out irrespective of the overall gameplan. One thing is for sure – the results in Clacton and Heywood have put paid, once and for all, to any of those policies aimed at the latte-sipping, chino-wearing, light Green, inner-city left. Surely?

We failed in three ways in Heywoood and Middleton and succeeded in one. The success first: We kept our share of the vote. That was no mean achievement. The 2010 general election vote was a warning to us – the combined rightwing vote (Tories, United Kingdom Independence party and British National party) was nearly equal to the Labour vote. It just required voters to coalesce around Ukip to give us a scare. And it did. Boosted by a collapse in the Liberal Democrat vote too. That latter point is really scary – Ukip became ABL (Anyone But Labour). We have been here before – and it does not have a happy ending. This is exactly what happened in the 2011 elections to the Scottish parliament, which set us on the road to the referendum. There is no comfort in the fact this happened to the Tories in Clacton too. And first past the post is no protection. When the voters decide to punish you they will break the electoral system to do so.

So that was the good news. What's the bad news? Apparently we have lost the power of hearing.

For Labour, this was a by-election about the NHS. That was what voters 'brought up on the doorstep'. For voters, visitors and the casual observer it was a by-election about immigration. Even in politics a conversation isn't simply waiting for your turn to speak – it has to be about engagement. There is a perfectly defensible line to take on Labour's record on immigration and its plans. It just doesn't involve not mentioning it. And there is a blindingly obvious link to the NHS – a service that would stop tomorrow without immigrant workers.

That was a lack of courage.

So too was our response to Ukip raising the grooming and rape of young women in Rochdale. You could see we were outraged. But not by the rapes, instead by the fact the issue was raised. I'd have loved a Labour candidate who could say – 'That's right, it was disgusting. Those young women were betrayed. I want to be your MP to work with Simon Danczuk and Tom Watson to tackle historic abuse – and to make sure it never happens again'. The voice that David Blunkett would bring if he stood for South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner. The voice of working-class morality – and outrage – channelled politically to achieve change.

With no engagement and no passion, what we were left with was a campaign with no vision. I fully appreciate how difficult by-elections are, and the extent to which their dynamic is revealed on the ground and not imposed, but we chose to be bloodless. I often quote New Zealand Labour leader and prime minister Norman Kirk who said: 'New Zealanders don't ask for much: someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for.' Those wise words should be the starting point for everyone in thinking about the Heywood and Middleton by-election. They capture precisely what is missing from today's depressing, desiccated politics. Lift, hope, ambition and above all life.

We talk about housing policies when people want a home. We talk about jobs as an end in themselves when people see them as the start of something – the ability to make a downpayment on a dream. We see life as a set of problems to be solved by policies when people see life as something to be lived and enjoyed.

We are in deep, deep trouble. We are lost and our voters want us back. They keep sending us messages. When will we listen?

———————————

John McTernan is former political secretary at 10 Downing Street and was director of communications for former prime minister of Australia Julia Gillard. He writes The Last Word column on Progress and tweets @johnmcternan

QuoteDouglas Carswell, UKIP's optimistic moderniser

Posted on 9 October 2014
Douglas Carswell's "Bright Purple" venture, to create a future-facing UKIP, may be the most audacious modernisation project in British politics, writes Sunder Katwala

Douglas Carswell will tonight become the first MP elected to the House of Commons under the UKIP banner. Observers across the political spectrum agree that he is a sure-fire certainty to win the Clacton by-election, overturning the 12,000 majority that he himself delivered for the Conservatives at the General Election, having changed party colours and resigned his seat.

Immigration is the Number One issue that matters to UKIP voters, nationally, so has undoubtedly played a significant role in Clacton's choice of an insurgent party. And yet the voters of Clacton will be electing a strikingly pro-immigration UKIP MP, as he made clear in his speech joining the party.
"On the subject of immigration, let me make it absolutely clear; I'm not against immigration. The one thing more ugly that nativism is angry nativism.

Just like Australia or Switzerland, we should welcome those that want to come here to contribute. We need those with skills and drive. There's hardly a hospital, GP surgery or supermarket in the country that could run without that skill and drive. Real leadership would make this clear."

So a recurring feature of reports from the Clacton campaign trail has been candidate Carswell challenging voters who say they will back him because they are anti-immigrant. As the Telegraph's James Kirkup noted at the weekend:
"I can report that Mr Carswell is pretty open about his views on immigration. When voters tell him there are too many foreigners in the country, he tells them that they are wrong to blame immigrants for the problems they associate with immigration. It is perfectly rational for people to take up the opportunity to come to Britain, he says. The fault lies not with immigrants but with the immigration system that admits them: blame politicians, not immigrants. He also points out that immigrants make positive contributions to the UK economy and public services, especially the NHS. And on the whole, voters who complain to him about immigration seem to accept his arguments."

The other defining thread in the Carswell creed is optimism. He could probably claim to be, with the possible exception of Boris Johnson, the most optimistic man or woman in British politics. He believes that Britain is "a much better country" than when he was born four decades ago.

Yet UKIP has not been the party of optimism. As the authoritative academic work by Rob Ford and Matthew Goodwin sets out, it is not a 'catch all' party but has a sociologically distinct appeal to the voters who feel most 'left behind' by the economic, cultural and social changes of the last thirty years.

So, what's going on? It seems a curious conundrum: the case of a pro-immigration optimist joining the immigration-sceptic party whose 'left behind' core voters feel considerably more pessimistic than their fellow citizens.

Carswell has a different view of the party he has joined. In his insistence that 'UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world', he would appear to be embarking on the most audacious modernisation project in British politics. Move over, Tony Blair and New Labour. Never mind the debate about David Cameron's Progressive Conservatism. What we could dub Carswell's 'Bright Purple' project, to create a new future-facing UKIP, may well have ambitions to outstrip them all.

One simple explanation for Carswell's pro-immigration stance is principle – and personality too.

It is clear that Carswell feels it is important for politicians to oppose racism, and to challenge xenophobia, which he calls 'angry nativism'. And since he is in favour of the benefits of immigration for Britain, when it is managed well, Carswell thinks the democratic thing to do is to let the voters know that. He believes that politicians should say what they think – and that even voters who disagree may well respect them more for doing so.

So why choose UKIP? There is method rather than madness here. Indeed, there is a deeper, steely strategic logic behind Carswell's choice to change party.

Douglas Carswell wants to get the United Kingdom out of the European Union.

That cause matters rather more to him than which major party leader gets to be Prime Minister next Spring. ("Different clique, same sofa", as he has put it).

And so he has joined the party for whom leaving the EU is its founding mission and cause. His core aim is to make it fit for that purpose.

For its core cause could become a victim of the party's political success.

In short, the Carswell defection is a response to the 'Farage paradox'.

As UKIP won the European Elections – a low turnout contest – it became clear that the rise and rise of UKIP has done nothing to significantly boost support for Britain leaving the European Union. If anything, the opposite is true. As UKIP's profile and poll rating has risen, it has been associated with rising support for staying in the EU. (In fact, the latest Transatlantic Trends tracking poll suggests that this paradox may well be true of populist Eurosceptic parties across the continent).

UKIP's intense appeal to the 'left behind' minority is pushing fence-sitters into the opposing camp.

Douglas Carswell's most intriguing insight is that immigration might explain the Farage paradox. Even though campaigning on immigration looks like it has been the making of UKIP, being too tough on immigration could prove the breaking of it too.

Several months before his defection, Carswell responded to the Farage-Clegg debates over the EU, setting out a clear warning to his fellow 'Outers'  that being against immigration could ultimately harm their cause rather than help it:
"Immigration, many Outers seem to believe, is our strongest card. It links one of the public's number one concerns with the questions of our EU membership. Perhaps. But the Out campaign must not descend into any kind of angry nativism. First and second generation Britons must feel as comfortable voting to quit the EU as those whose ancestors came over before William the Conqueror. An independent Britain is not going to have no immigration. It will have democratic control over immigration – like Switzerland, where one in five workers is non-Swiss. Or Australia, where thousands of new arrivals become new Australians each year."

So while Carswell's case against "angry nativism" is rooted in a principled distaste for prejudice, it is also one of enlightened political self-interest too. His argument is not just that nativism is wrong in principle; it is also that it would irreparably damage his core Eurosceptic cause.

Carswell's message was that the campaign's embryonic title is 'Better Off Out' for a reason: because it has to offer a viable vision of modern Britain's economic, social and cultural future after leaving the EU, not merely a lament for a lost past. Campaigning for a 'no' vote in a referendum would not be the job of UKIP alone, but the potency and profile of the UKIP brand means that it would be difficult for an 'out' campaign to compete.

Perhaps the only way to shape the Eurosceptic brand was to join the party that looks set to define it, and to seek to change it from within.

The Carswell challenge raises the question of what UKIP is for – and what it wants its high profile political insurgency to achieve.

UKIP doesn't need to change. It should stay just as it is if it wants to fish mostly among the 25% of the electorate who feel most left behind by economic, social and cultural change. Its "party of no" arguments are already pitch perfect for this sizeable minority, who hear UKIP offering them something they don't get from other parties.

That would be enough to win the low turnout European elections, and to put up a significant fight in at least half a dozen Parliamentary constituencies, in Essex and Kent, Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire, and to establish a Commons bridgehead. That could give Nigel Farage a significant 'wildcard' role during the General Election – and probably a prominent post-political career in the media too.

What it could never do is get Britain out of the European Union.

That requires an appeal not to 25% of the voters, but to half of the country.

As Alex Salmond could tell Nigel Farage, that is a very high bar to reach. The Scottish Yes campaign peaked at 45% of the vote, and fell short of victory, despite all of the democratic energy and mobilisation of the Yes campaign.

There are three groups of voters whom UKIP has probably been doing more to put off than to attract over the last couple of years: women, young people and ethnic minority Britons.

UKIP has the most male electorate of any British party. Women are considerably more likely to be 'don't knows' on the EU – but may default to voting 'in' if they feel that UKIP is seeking to turn the clock back several decades in general.

Both UKIP and 'out' are much more popular with those born before 1954, who have an adult memory of Britain being outside the European Union. UKIP has so far had a limited appeal to younger voters, who are considerably less likely to find the pace of change culturally unsettling, having grown up in a more diverse Britain. UKIP will need to show it can take its argument to first-time voters as well as to pensioners.

Ethnic minorities will make up an ever-growing share of the electorate, particularly given the younger age profile of non-white groups.

Now, it shouldn't be hard to persuade non-white Britons to consider the case for leaving the EU. For most, Brussels is a faraway bureaucracy of which they know little. The EU institutions are strikingly white, lagging a generation or two behind the changing demography of our continent. And there is the practical issue that EU free movement means having to give preferential treatment to EU citizens, while tightening restrictions on those from Commonwealth countries with historic links to the UK.

But relatively few non-white Britons have seriously considered UKIP so far. Academics Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford have calculated that the UKIP vote is 99.4% white. Non-white voters can take a similar view to the economic and social pressures of migration, but respond very differently to arguments about its negative cultural impacts. Nigel Farage's claim that parts of Britain have become 'unrecognisable' because of immigration can appeal to the core UKIP vote – though, overall, levels of both local and national belonging have risen  considerably over the last decade – but they risk sending a signal to second and third generation Britons that their own presence as equal citizens remains in question.

There has been a deliberate softening of UKIP's language since the European Elections. New immigration spokesman Steven Woolfe's first public comments on taking up the role clearly signalled that he regarded Nigel Farage's comments about Romanians as a regrettable mistake, saying that "It is important for me that we don't stigmatise or give the impression that we are attacking individual nationalities."

So Douglas Carswell is not the only UKIP moderniser, but changing UKIP certainly won't be easy.

If there are future defections from the Conservatives to UKIP after the Rochester by-election, Carswell may find himself joined by Bones or Hollobones, both of whom take a considerably tougher view of immigration than he does.

And taking the referendum challenge seriously risks trading in one of UKIP's great advantages of assymetric political warfare. An insurgent party doesn't need to worry about policy, or keeping the promises it makes in government. When trying to jump the 50% referendum hurdle, however, the insurgents will have to construct broad electoral coalitions.

There has always been a brand of libertarian Euroscepticism which is pro-openness, wanting to leave the European club to be more globally engaged. But it is much outnumbered, among the population, by those whose motives for leaving are considerably more protectionist.

A coalition between pro-globalisation libertarians of the City of London and the left behind voters of Great Grimsby requires a rather broad tent – but the'out' campaign will have to answer the questions of what 'out' would look like if they want voters to seriously consider their pitch.

Perhaps it would take an incurable optimist to take on the task of changing UKIP and recasting the Eurosceptic argument too. It seems clear that Douglas Carswell will be giving it his best shot.

Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2014, 07:57:38 AM
His economics may be libertarian, but you cannot be a libertarian if you want to kick immigrants around.

And that goes for the rest of their party: their economics can be as close to me as it gets (I honestly haven't checked it out), but they make me into a scapegoat for the UK's troubles, so fuck them.

QuoteCan Douglas Carswell ride the Ukip tiger?
By Matthew Holehouse Politics Last updated: October 10th, 2014
43 Comments Comment on this article

Douglas Carswell is a history buff, dropping references to his hero Gladstone, the abolition of slavery, the lessons of Empire and the bloodshed of Anglo-Irish history into conversation at rapid-fire pace.

And so he surely knows the story that crops up through European history, in France in 1789, and Russia in 1905 as well as in Britain, of the radical liberal MPs and lawyers who have yearned for years to smash the corrupt, venal governing classes.

Then a popular uprising mounts – often over bread prices – and they perceive that their cause, and that of the angry public, are aligned. The lawyers and the sans-culottes take to the barricades.

Mr Carswell is self-described libertarian, and one of Parliament's most radical thinkers about who has power in Britain, what a Parliament is for, and how the country must change if is to be rich again.

He says new political parties should be like Uber and Spotify, tearing through markets and disrupting vested interests. He quit the Tories not because he missed the fifties, but because it refused to modernise enough and junked its 2010 manifesto on power of recall. He likes 'iDemocracy' so much he wrote a book on it.

He loves free markets. He hates corporate cartels. He hates the Old Boys in Westminster who killed off open primaries. He welcomes the free movement of people, but worries about how to create a common British identity with which people can feel British in an age of transient labour and Skype relationships. He hails feminism, and says political correctness is just "good manners".

He really does abhor hate racists, and – as he puts it – "ugly nativism".

So much so, that in his acceptance speech last night he told his new party that future victories were contingent on being a party for "all Britons" including first generation migrants.

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive," wrote Wordsworth of the French revolution.

Carswell was similarly euphoric to see the people of blowy Clacton reject the three main parties, and swing behind him.

"I feel like I've come home," he told us on polling day morning. "It's wonderful. It feels incredibly invigorating. All the time I've been in politics, I've suddenly realised this past six weeks what I've been missing," he said, hailing the low-budget, high-energy Ukip operation. He later described meeting a 73-year-old woman vote for the first time, for him.

At Clacton golf club on Monday, we asked how many more defectors would come over. He objected to the term. What would he prefer, we asked. He paused.
"A tribune. A people's tribune. In Roman times, someone who held power to account."

Now consider his new, rude, raucous party. Best known for posters warning of an influx of Bulgarians, a former MEP who called women sluts – not a word you would ever hear from Mr Carswell's mouth – and a leader who, in carefully calculated titbits, calls for foreigners with HIV to be kept out the country, says he feels uncomfortable at hearing foreign voices on trains, warns against Romanian neighbours and admits much of his support is the ex-BNP vote.

At Ukip conference, the single loudest cheers came in response to a call to deport Afghan migrants who had entered Britain illegally. Mr Carswell's speech, on his vision of Britain as a free trading liberal nation, was met with warm but more restrained applause.

Mr Carswell insists you could not fit a cigarette paper between him and Mr Farage on policy, saying their biggest difference is a preference for McFlurrys versus beer. (Friends say Mr Carswell is not a regular drinker, celebrating last night with a cup of tea at home.) And they do agree on migration reform, leaving Europe and cutting taxes.

But for many voters, as Mr Carswell knows, Ukip is not about policy but identity.

Asked to defend Mr Farage on the foreigners-on-a-train and HIV remarks, he insisted tersely and repeatedly today that the comments had been "mischaracterised". Mr Carswell's father was a pioneering doctor who first diagnosed the disease in Africa, and he surely understands the need to remove stigma in order to prevent its spread.

But Mr Carswell revealed this afternoon he had sought extensive and specific assurances from Mr Farage that Ukip bans former members of hate groups (it insists it does).

Having grown up overseas, he added that he finds the notion of blind patriotism – 'my country, right or wrong' – as "bizarre".

He said he wished his daughter had been old enough to appreciate the modern, patriotic opening ceremony of the Olympic Games at which Tory MPs sneered, and wanted to grow up in a country free from anxieties over ethnicity because it has democratic control over migration.

Then I asked what he would do if he encountered racism in Ukip, and he said we'd spent a lot of time on the campaign trail together.

"You must have heard me dozens of times challenge people whose votes I wanted who expressed views that I thought were illiberal," he said.

"I do so respectfully, I did so determinedly, and I do so using arguments that I thought had traction. Every single time I tackled I those issues, I think I left behind voters who I think a) agreed with me, b) were reassured to hear that their pessimism was unjustified. I remember saying to someone who said something I disagreed with, hang on a second, we've got a shortage of GPs, and I know your GP was born in Egypt. And we could do more GPs in this area.

"So let's not blame outsiders for failures caused by our political insiders. I make that argument, I make it fiercely, and I make it where it counts, to voters. I have demonstrated that you can make those arguments. If you don't say what's populist, don't say what people automatically agree with, people will come with you if you make those arguments."

Perhaps Mr Carswell, despite explicitly ruling out a leadership bid, thinks through force of argument he can shave off the rough edges of his party. The more unsavoury outbursts, he has suggested, are an expression of frustration with a broken political system.

Sometimes, history shows, the radicals and the liberals do ride the populist tiger, and do bring down the system. But then, sometimes, the tiger eats them.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2014, 06:38:42 PM
Course you can.  Kicking around minorities is like a central pillar to libertarianism.  The freedom to hate.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2014, 06:12:16 PM
Yeah. What I mean is I'm not sure that deal's worth it. The cost of a free immigration from Europe which politicians can't control is clamping down on immigration that they can from the rest of the world such as students and skilled workers. I think immigration from Europe has been great, but I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the costs of less immigration from the rest of the world.

QuoteI've said before but I'm genuinely unsure how I'd vote in a referendum, especially given that it wouldn't just be a vote on the Europe we're in or the Europe we joined but the direction Europe's going in. I think the Tory jibe that it's like shackling yourself to a corpse has some truth to it.

QuoteBut isn't there an element of protectionism of labour in that?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2014, 06:38:42 PM
Course you can.  Kicking around minorities is like a central pillar to libertarianism.  The freedom to hate.

Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2014, 10:52:37 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2014, 06:38:42 PM
Course you can.  Kicking around minorities is like a central pillar to libertarianism.  The freedom to hate.

In theory libertarians should be all for immigration etc, but in practice it does seem that a lot of people who proclaim themselves libertarians are pretty unkeen on foreign types.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2014, 07:12:36 PM
And one other article on the Tamasian Douglas Carswell:

QuoteCan Douglas Carswell ride the Ukip tiger?
By Matthew Holehouse Politics Last updated: October 10th, 2014
43 Comments Comment on this article

Douglas Carswell is a history buff, dropping references to his hero Gladstone, the abolition of slavery, the lessons of Empire and the bloodshed of Anglo-Irish history into conversation at rapid-fire pace.

And so he surely knows the story that crops up through European history, in France in 1789, and Russia in 1905 as well as in Britain, of the radical liberal MPs and lawyers who have yearned for years to smash the corrupt, venal governing classes.

Then a popular uprising mounts – often over bread prices – and they perceive that their cause, and that of the angry public, are aligned. The lawyers and the sans-culottes take to the barricades.

Mr Carswell is self-described libertarian, and one of Parliament's most radical thinkers about who has power in Britain, what a Parliament is for, and how the country must change if is to be rich again.

He says new political parties should be like Uber and Spotify, tearing through markets and disrupting vested interests. He quit the Tories not because he missed the fifties, but because it refused to modernise enough and junked its 2010 manifesto on power of recall. He likes 'iDemocracy' so much he wrote a book on it.

He loves free markets. He hates corporate cartels. He hates the Old Boys in Westminster who killed off open primaries. He welcomes the free movement of people, but worries about how to create a common British identity with which people can feel British in an age of transient labour and Skype relationships. He hails feminism, and says political correctness is just "good manners".

He really does abhor hate racists, and – as he puts it – "ugly nativism".

So much so, that in his acceptance speech last night he told his new party that future victories were contingent on being a party for "all Britons" including first generation migrants.

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive," wrote Wordsworth of the French revolution.

Carswell was similarly euphoric to see the people of blowy Clacton reject the three main parties, and swing behind him.

"I feel like I've come home," he told us on polling day morning. "It's wonderful. It feels incredibly invigorating. All the time I've been in politics, I've suddenly realised this past six weeks what I've been missing," he said, hailing the low-budget, high-energy Ukip operation. He later described meeting a 73-year-old woman vote for the first time, for him.

At Clacton golf club on Monday, we asked how many more defectors would come over. He objected to the term. What would he prefer, we asked. He paused.
"A tribune. A people's tribune. In Roman times, someone who held power to account."

Now consider his new, rude, raucous party. Best known for posters warning of an influx of Bulgarians, a former MEP who called women sluts – not a word you would ever hear from Mr Carswell's mouth – and a leader who, in carefully calculated titbits, calls for foreigners with HIV to be kept out the country, says he feels uncomfortable at hearing foreign voices on trains, warns against Romanian neighbours and admits much of his support is the ex-BNP vote.

At Ukip conference, the single loudest cheers came in response to a call to deport Afghan migrants who had entered Britain illegally. Mr Carswell's speech, on his vision of Britain as a free trading liberal nation, was met with warm but more restrained applause.

Mr Carswell insists you could not fit a cigarette paper between him and Mr Farage on policy, saying their biggest difference is a preference for McFlurrys versus beer. (Friends say Mr Carswell is not a regular drinker, celebrating last night with a cup of tea at home.) And they do agree on migration reform, leaving Europe and cutting taxes.

But for many voters, as Mr Carswell knows, Ukip is not about policy but identity.

Asked to defend Mr Farage on the foreigners-on-a-train and HIV remarks, he insisted tersely and repeatedly today that the comments had been "mischaracterised". Mr Carswell's father was a pioneering doctor who first diagnosed the disease in Africa, and he surely understands the need to remove stigma in order to prevent its spread.

But Mr Carswell revealed this afternoon he had sought extensive and specific assurances from Mr Farage that Ukip bans former members of hate groups (it insists it does).

Having grown up overseas, he added that he finds the notion of blind patriotism – 'my country, right or wrong' – as "bizarre".

He said he wished his daughter had been old enough to appreciate the modern, patriotic opening ceremony of the Olympic Games at which Tory MPs sneered, and wanted to grow up in a country free from anxieties over ethnicity because it has democratic control over migration.

Then I asked what he would do if he encountered racism in Ukip, and he said we'd spent a lot of time on the campaign trail together.

"You must have heard me dozens of times challenge people whose votes I wanted who expressed views that I thought were illiberal," he said.

"I do so respectfully, I did so determinedly, and I do so using arguments that I thought had traction. Every single time I tackled I those issues, I think I left behind voters who I think a) agreed with me, b) were reassured to hear that their pessimism was unjustified. I remember saying to someone who said something I disagreed with, hang on a second, we've got a shortage of GPs, and I know your GP was born in Egypt. And we could do more GPs in this area.

"So let's not blame outsiders for failures caused by our political insiders. I make that argument, I make it fiercely, and I make it where it counts, to voters. I have demonstrated that you can make those arguments. If you don't say what's populist, don't say what people automatically agree with, people will come with you if you make those arguments."

Perhaps Mr Carswell, despite explicitly ruling out a leadership bid, thinks through force of argument he can shave off the rough edges of his party. The more unsavoury outbursts, he has suggested, are an expression of frustration with a broken political system.

Sometimes, history shows, the radicals and the liberals do ride the populist tiger, and do bring down the system. But then, sometimes, the tiger eats them.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2014, 07:04:04 AM
The Tea Party's the best thing about the GOP right now.

Quote from: The Larch on October 11, 2014, 08:55:18 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2014, 07:04:04 AM
The Tea Party's the best thing about the GOP right now.

Have you ever been told that your politics are fucking weird?  :P

Btw, check your private messages!

Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2014, 10:50:55 PMAnd you genuinely think that if the free movement of labour from Europe is stopped, they'll open up again to the rest of the world?

QuoteThat would not be my assumption, but I have little in the way of specific knowledge of the UK so perhaps I'm wrong. Still, I'm curious if anyone is campaigning for closing off the inflow from Europe so they can open up more to Asia, Africa, and the Anglosphere?

QuoteIt'd be interesting to see whether you'd have to shoot your own hand off to get our of the shackles.

QuoteUh... maybe? What does that have to do with anything?

QuoteSo let me get this straight - the UK now wants to be out of the European Convention of Human Rights? One even Russia and Turkey are a party to? One only Belarus and Kazakhstan do not want? What the fuck is wrong with your country?

QuoteI could probably like the guy but  he is making the most classic mistake of the moderate right: laying down for the populist vile masses, thinking he can ride into power on their back and control them. That always fails. The mob always takes over. For most recent example, look at the Tea Party and what it has done to the Republicans.

QuoteA non-physical business, for instance, can often decide pretty freely where, for the purposes of taxation, it wants to live. Naturally, it will choose benign jurisdictions. Governments can try to ban it from doing so, but they will either fail, or find that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. The very idea of a "tax base", on which treasuries depend, wobbles when so much value lies in intellectual property and intellectual property is mobile. So taxes need to be flatter to keep their revenues up. If they are flatter, they will be paid by more people.

Therefore it becomes much harder for government to grow, since most people do not want to pay more.

Increasingly, money itself is subject to the same personal choice. There is now little physical difficulty in paying for things in currencies other than one's own. This allows people to decide which currency they wish to trust and use. So "fiat" money – the money created at the orders of a national treasury or the European Central Bank – may find that it has no means of commanding the confidence of the public. The trick of governments, from which we are all suffering acutely just now, is to debase the currency in order to postpone the bill. How much longer, asks the author, can that trick be played?

Lest anyone think that this is just personal greed cloaking itself in the language of freedom, Mr Carswell gives many examples of social rather than financial benefit. When he first became an MP in 2005, he writes, he dealt with many inquiries from the parents of children with special needs. They desperately needed his help to fight their way through the system. Then, in a matter of months, the flow dried up. This was because, once most families had the internet, they learnt how to share the know-how required to fight their cases. Mr Carswell was the middle man they simply didn't need any more: he was delighted to be made redundant.
...
In this new world, our political parties ("a two-and-half-horse race") scarcely begin to reflect the variety of people's wishes and views. The bigger the state, the less able it is to respond to this new environment, and therefore the less likely to survive. The biggest such state in this part of the world is the European Union. In the face of the digital revolution, its gigantism is its doom.

QuoteHave you ever been told that your politics are fucking weird?  :P

QuoteHe likes political spectacle.

QuoteBtw, check your private messages!

QuoteYeah. We've cut visas to the rest of the world as EU immigration has increased. I think the opposite is also true, if people believed that there was control over European migration then we'd be easier for the rest of the world.
.

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 01:19:42 PM
I believe in democracy with the only caveat that those who pay the bills should decide how big those bills should be.

Quote from: Tyr on October 12, 2014, 01:24:29 PM
re: the tea party. I agree too that they're a good thing to happen for American politics. Shows up the crappiness of the two party system a little bit and hopefully helps set the saner republicans onto a more righteous less hateful path.

Quote from: mongers on October 12, 2014, 01:33:28 PM

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 01:19:42 PM
I believe in democracy with the only caveat that those who pay the bills should decide how big those bills should be.

So that's a no, you don't believe in democracy.

Quote from: mongers on October 12, 2014, 01:33:28 PM
So that's a no, you don't believe in democracy.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 02:08:39 PM

Quote from: mongers on October 12, 2014, 01:33:28 PM
So that's a no, you don't believe in democracy.

Tamas is one of those people who look at government in a vacuum. A flat tax is "fair" while progressive taxation is "unfair", never mind the inequities of the economic system that caused some people to make hundreds of times as much as others.

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 01:52:01 PM

Quote from: mongers on October 12, 2014, 01:33:28 PM

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 01:19:42 PM
I believe in democracy with the only caveat that those who pay the bills should decide how big those bills should be.

So that's a no, you don't believe in democracy.

There could be tweaks to the system. eg. what the Romans considered democracy was hardly anything like it. Maybe one day people will look back and consider the present system as coercing and not truly modern democratic.

Mind you, I still consider the present democracy solution much better than any kind of autocracy. But it has an inherent deathtrap with populism that only the most disciplined societies can avoid on the long run. Trying to figure out a way to minimise the inherent dangers while keeping checks and balances in place is not something I consider heretic.

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 02:15:52 PM
So because we have an old aristocracy which got its wealth in an "unfair" manner, we ought do disadvantage everyone who manages to earn more than the poor? Gotcha.

Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2014, 02:41:29 PM
Sadly, Tamas represents a typical worldview of someone from this part of the world. What never ceases to amaze me is that people like this seem so confident that they - heirs to a failed communist system - have somehow managed to discover the holy grail of socio-economic thought while all the Western Europeans are misguided fools clinging to their ideas.

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 02:49:39 PM
Also don't get the whole flat tax thing started again. Flat taxation is the very definition of fair. It might be INADEQUATE to maintain the desired government spending (although you know my view there). So progressive taxation might be more efficient in getting the government what it wants (as much tax as possible without pissing the majority off) but that doesn't make it more fair.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 02:55:02 PM

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 02:49:39 PM
Also don't get the whole flat tax thing started again. Flat taxation is the very definition of fair. It might be INADEQUATE to maintain the desired government spending (although you know my view there). So progressive taxation might be more efficient in getting the government what it wants (as much tax as possible without pissing the majority off) but that doesn't make it more fair.

Only when you consider the question of how much to take from people without regard to why they have as much as they do. Like I said, government in a vacuum.

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 03:02:47 PM
with progressive taxation becoming a punishment of success.

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 02:49:39 PM

The hell are you talking about? Libertarianism is basically nonexistant in Hungary.

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 03:02:47 PM
"Why" is a silly question at best, maybe even dangerous.

Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2014, 03:05:30 PM
One of the most common definitions of "fairness" is "to each according to his needs, from each according to his means". Your worldview must be very limited if you think that "to each and from each the same" is the only (or most popular) definition.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2014, 03:15:17 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2014, 03:05:30 PM
One of the most common definitions of "fairness" is "to each according to his needs, from each according to his means". Your worldview must be very limited if you think that "to each and from each the same" is the only (or most popular) definition.

That one didn't work out too well historically.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 03:14:03 PM

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 03:02:47 PM
"Why" is a silly question at best, maybe even dangerous.

It's an important one to ask before making moral judgments.

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 05:27:22 PM
I don't want tax laws making moral judgements that's sort of the point.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 05:35:28 PM

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 05:27:22 PM
I don't want tax laws making moral judgements that's sort of the point.

Calling a flat tax "fair" or "unfair" is a moral judgment.

Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2014, 02:41:29 PM
Sadly, Tamas represents a typical worldview of someone from this part of the world. What never ceases to amaze me is that people like this seem so confident that they - heirs to a failed communist system - have somehow managed to discover the holy grail of socio-economic thought while all the Western Europeans are misguided fools clinging to their ideas.

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 03:02:47 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 02:55:02 PM

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 02:49:39 PM
Also don't get the whole flat tax thing started again. Flat taxation is the very definition of fair. It might be INADEQUATE to maintain the desired government spending (although you know my view there). So progressive taxation might be more efficient in getting the government what it wants (as much tax as possible without pissing the majority off) but that doesn't make it more fair.

Only when you consider the question of how much to take from people without regard to why they have as much as they do. Like I said, government in a vacuum.

"Why" is a silly question at best, maybe even dangerous. If somebody got their "wealth" illegally, the law should take it away. If it was obtained legally, then "why" is just vile populism with progressive taxation becoming a punishment of success.

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 06:09:50 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 05:35:28 PM

Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2014, 05:27:22 PM
I don't want tax laws making moral judgements that's sort of the point.

Calling a flat tax "fair" or "unfair" is a moral judgment.

You made the moral judgement by calling it unfair. In that context it is fair precisely because it lacks moral judgement.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 12, 2014, 05:21:50 PM
As a layabout i really hate the idea of ".......from each according to his ability......"

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2014, 12:52:31 AM
Who is "they?" Marx and Engels?

Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 12:56:31 AM
The fact that you are expecting everyone to contribute according to their ability is the cornerstone of modern social contract.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2014, 01:10:46 AM

Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 12:56:31 AM
The fact that you are expecting everyone to contribute according to their ability is the cornerstone of modern social contract.

How is this expectation manifested?  For example, what sort of policies are in place to ensure that people contribute according to their ability?

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
Besides, when everyone is paying X% of their income as tax how does that NOT meN that everyone is paying according to their abilities?

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
I am confused. Where did I say that I want people who could work but don't want to should be treated the same way as those want but can't? What does this have to do with a flat income tax?

Besides, when everyone is paying X% of their income as tax how does that NOT meN that everyone is paying according to their abilities?

Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 05:01:00 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
I am confused. Where did I say that I want people who could work but don't want to should be treated the same way as those want but can't? What does this have to do with a flat income tax?

Besides, when everyone is paying X% of their income as tax how does that NOT meN that everyone is paying according to their abilities?

I am showing to you that "from each according to his ability" is already a principle espoused in the democratic West. Only someone very ignorant and dogmatic would consider it "socialist" or "communist".

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 03:31:02 AM
Solution of course is to limit government spending to a level where discriminative taxation doesn't become a necessity. :contract:

Quote from: frunk on October 13, 2014, 05:15:33 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 03:31:02 AM
Solution of course is to limit government spending to a level where discriminative taxation doesn't become a necessity. :contract:

That would be....zero?

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:16:44 AM

Quote from: frunk on October 13, 2014, 05:15:33 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 03:31:02 AM
Solution of course is to limit government spending to a level where discriminative taxation doesn't become a necessity. :contract:

That would be....zero?

No.

Quote from: frunk on October 13, 2014, 05:23:01 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:16:44 AM

Quote from: frunk on October 13, 2014, 05:15:33 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 03:31:02 AM
Solution of course is to limit government spending to a level where discriminative taxation doesn't become a necessity. :contract:

That would be....zero?

No.

What would the flat tax rate be that would not take a greater percentage of after expenses income from poorer indviduals?

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:29:14 AM
I get what you mean, of course, but you are wording it wrong. It is taking off exactly the same percentage of income.

And what is needed is minimalizing state spending to a bare minimum anyways (where that is, is up to debate, I admit).

The state should be the one establishing the same rules applying to all citizens and then ensuring those rules are kept. NOT to be the handler of "social justice" and remover of inequality. These are communist concepts adopted by states once they realised they are a great way to increase power and money intake as well as maintaining the status quo of the aristocracy.

Quote from: frunk on October 13, 2014, 05:46:48 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:29:14 AM
I get what you mean, of course, but you are wording it wrong. It is taking off exactly the same percentage of income.

And what is needed is minimalizing state spending to a bare minimum anyways (where that is, is up to debate, I admit).

The state should be the one establishing the same rules applying to all citizens and then ensuring those rules are kept. NOT to be the handler of "social justice" and remover of inequality. These are communist concepts adopted by states once they realised they are a great way to increase power and money intake as well as maintaining the status quo of the aristocracy.

Let's say you have a country that has a minimal budget but still needs a 10% flat tax to cover expenses, it's strictly military, courts, police, infrastructure.  This minimal budget means there are no social programs whatsoever, you end up destitute that's tough on you.  The lowest levels of society make just enough money to cover their expenses if there is no tax.  Any tax whatsoever means they'll have to go hungry, homeless or skip out on utilities.  Do you consider a 10% tax on them fair and the only right thing to do?  Would you be in favor of dropping the 10% tax on the poorest if it meant the top 10% would have to pay an 11% flat tax to keep things balanced?

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:52:14 AM
There are all kinds of assumptions there. But yes, I would prefer a system where the poorest is not paying taxes. Before Marty starts typing, yes, a 0% income tax and another % of income tax means it is technically not flat. But such a system would still mean that you are being helped if you are poor, and not punished when you are (near) middle class.

Quote from: frunk on October 13, 2014, 06:10:54 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:52:14 AM
There are all kinds of assumptions there. But yes, I would prefer a system where the poorest is not paying taxes. Before Marty starts typing, yes, a 0% income tax and another % of income tax means it is technically not flat. But such a system would still mean that you are being helped if you are poor, and not punished when you are (near) middle class.

Where would you put the dividing line between 0 and 10%?  Obviously there's the group that would end up destitute, but there's also the groups for which "any unexpected expenses means we're toast" if they pay the tax for gradually increasing amounts (or number) of unexpected expenses.  I'm assuming any sharp dividing line of 0-10% means that there's also an incentive to stay just shy of having to pay.

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 06:31:21 AM

First of all you cannot avoid having poor people. Only option you have is make sure everyone is poor. Apart from that, inequality is a reality you need to accept to have a healthy economy and the right given to the talented citizens to excel and lift others with them.

As you just pointed out, the more rules you have, the more problems you are creating. You solve one, and two others are put in their place. There was actually a recent article about this somewhere, how complexity just keeps creeping in to legislation in the developed world.
There is a necessary minimum of laws and such of course, but tax is one area where simplicity could be achieved. The only barrier is the never-ending increase to state spending.

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 06:31:21 AM

Quote from: frunk on October 13, 2014, 06:10:54 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:52:14 AM
There are all kinds of assumptions there. But yes, I would prefer a system where the poorest is not paying taxes. Before Marty starts typing, yes, a 0% income tax and another % of income tax means it is technically not flat. But such a system would still mean that you are being helped if you are poor, and not punished when you are (near) middle class.

Where would you put the dividing line between 0 and 10%?  Obviously there's the group that would end up destitute, but there's also the groups for which "any unexpected expenses means we're toast" if they pay the tax for gradually increasing amounts (or number) of unexpected expenses.  I'm assuming any sharp dividing line of 0-10% means that there's also an incentive to stay just shy of having to pay.

First of all you cannot avoid having poor people. Only option you have is make sure everyone is poor. Apart from that, inequality is a reality you need to accept to have a healthy economy and the right given to the talented citizens to excel and lift others with them.

As you just pointed out, the more rules you have, the more problems you are creating. You solve one, and two others are put in their place. There was actually a recent article about this somewhere, how complexity just keeps creeping in to legislation in the developed world.
There is a necessary minimum of laws and such of course, but tax is one area where simplicity could be achieved. The only barrier is the never-ending increase to state spending.

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 03:31:02 AM
Solution of course is to limit government spending to a level where discriminative taxation doesn't become a necessity. :contract:

Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2014, 02:23:00 PM
Romans never practiced democracy.  :huh:

Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 06:40:30 AM
I just don't see what kind of internally consistent axiology could claim that progressive taxation is unfair but at the same time maintain that flat taxation is fair.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2014, 02:19:51 PM
It's easy: the value to the individual of government services does not increase per dollar of income as income increases.

Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2014, 01:47:27 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2014, 02:23:00 PM
Romans never practiced democracy.  :huh:

:huh:  Laws could only be passed by the People's Assembly or the Tribal Assembly, both of which were democratic institutions.  The leaders of the republic were elected by the People's Assembly, Centuriate Assembly or the Tribal Assembly, all of which were democratic institutions.  Dunno where you get the idea that the "Romans never practiced democracy."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2014, 02:19:51 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 06:40:30 AM
I just don't see what kind of internally consistent axiology could claim that progressive taxation is unfair but at the same time maintain that flat taxation is fair.

It's easy: the value to the individual of government services does not increase per dollar of income as income increases.

Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 02:57:13 PM
Republic is not the same as democracy.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2014, 12:16:14 PM

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 06:31:21 AM

Quote from: frunk on October 13, 2014, 06:10:54 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:52:14 AM
There are all kinds of assumptions there. But yes, I would prefer a system where the poorest is not paying taxes. Before Marty starts typing, yes, a 0% income tax and another % of income tax means it is technically not flat. But such a system would still mean that you are being helped if you are poor, and not punished when you are (near) middle class.

Where would you put the dividing line between 0 and 10%?  Obviously there's the group that would end up destitute, but there's also the groups for which "any unexpected expenses means we're toast" if they pay the tax for gradually increasing amounts (or number) of unexpected expenses.  I'm assuming any sharp dividing line of 0-10% means that there's also an incentive to stay just shy of having to pay.

First of all you cannot avoid having poor people. Only option you have is make sure everyone is poor. Apart from that, inequality is a reality you need to accept to have a healthy economy and the right given to the talented citizens to excel and lift others with them.

As you just pointed out, the more rules you have, the more problems you are creating. You solve one, and two others are put in their place. There was actually a recent article about this somewhere, how complexity just keeps creeping in to legislation in the developed world.
There is a necessary minimum of laws and such of course, but tax is one area where simplicity could be achieved. The only barrier is the never-ending increase to state spending.

And of course, you are one of those talented people, right?

Quote from: frunk on October 13, 2014, 02:56:27 PM
The value to the individual of having a functional government that follows the rule of law goes up as their income increases.  Yes, if you are wealthy enough you could set up your own security forces, currency, company store, but not as efficiently as the government does.  High income individuals have more to lose from a dysfunctional government.  In Russia it was the businessmen outside the oligarchy that got taken down first.

Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 02:58:44 PM
It also doesn't increase as income increases, period. You should support poll tax.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:00:44 PM
Economic policy is always, always trumped by identity whether you're a pensioner who wants to cut the top rate of tax and is sick of scroungers on benefits, or a green tea sipping wealthy lawyer who'll vote for a mansion tax.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 13, 2014, 05:17:33 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:00:44 PM
Economic policy is always, always trumped by identity whether you're a pensioner who wants to cut the top rate of tax and is sick of scroungers on benefits, or a green tea sipping wealthy lawyer who'll vote for a mansion tax.

Spoken like a man who owns a castle.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:00:44 PM
Two things I'm confused by. First, how can you want a flat tax and the reduction of government spending to subsistence level and simultaneously decry the Tea Party as populist extremists?

Second, what democracies have fallen to welfare spending populism? Possibly, maybe Hungary if things keep going, based on what Tamas says. But I can't think of another example.

I think economics is the single least important part of politics. Just behind environmentalism and the protection of the Cornish language. It's all about identity and social and cultural make up. That's what makes people vote the way they do.

There's no reason why the poor would automatically vote for someone promising lots of giveaways, in fact very often they don't. The modern left especially isn't very successful with the poor or the working class (not least because a lot of the workers got stolen by Maggie and Reagan). Economic policy is always, always trumped by identity whether you're a pensioner who wants to cut the top rate of tax and is sick of scroungers on benefits, or a green tea sipping wealthy lawyer who'll vote for a mansion tax.

Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2014, 05:27:24 PM
What's wrong with Ed? :(
He seems quite a welcome bit of substance over style after Cameron and Blair

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:31:25 PM
1. The tea party is dominated by religious freaks. Their "liberalism" is about they being free to do what they want, and everyone else being free to do what the Tea Party wants them to do. Economic freedom is just one part of freedom. Essential, but not exclusive.

Quote2. Democracies falling to welfare spending populism? Well, South America comes to mind. France comes to mind. Greece comes to mind. Etc. It is a natural process of welfare ideas plus democracy only the most advanced societies can weaken (eg. UK).

Quote3. "Economics" as part of a political identity is very important. After all, economical political decisions define the very core of your everyday life: what possibilities you have, who decides about your survival, etc. In an ideal state, there would be as less intrusive economic policies as possible, and removing any attempt by the state to enforce any particular morales that are beyond the sanctity of personal freedom and its defense.

Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2014, 05:27:24 PM
What's wrong with Ed? :(
He seems quite a welcome bit of substance over style after Cameron and Blair

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:32:50 PM
Does "oh right I wanted to talk about the budget deficit, but it slipped my mind" count as substance? :D

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:00:44 PM
I think economics is the single least important part of politics.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2014, 05:46:22 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:00:44 PM
I think economics is the single least important part of politics.

Income distribution, stagnant wages, unemployment, national budgets: all unimportant? :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:42:00 PM

How does any of that form your identity? Whereas whether you identify with the upwardly mobile, with risk and aspiration, or with the more precarious, the conservative and secure will shape your economic thinking.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:48:16 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2014, 05:46:22 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:00:44 PM
I think economics is the single least important part of politics.

Income distribution, stagnant wages, unemployment, national budgets: all unimportant? :mellow:

In terms of how people vote: yes.

Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2014, 05:23:00 PM
:yes: 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.

Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2014, 05:50:42 PM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2014, 06:07:32 PM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:43:35 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2014, 05:27:24 PM
What's wrong with Ed? :(
He seems quite a welcome bit of substance over style after Cameron and Blair

Substance? :blink:

Quote from: Tyr on October 14, 2014, 08:20:53 AM
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.

QuoteDavid 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.

Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2014, 03:13:51 PM

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.

Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2014, 04:34:52 PM
Oh but Hungary can basically run a fascist state and Germany has no problem with that.

Quote from: Gups on November 03, 2014, 03:00:43 AM

Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2014, 03:13:51 PM

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.

Quote from: Tonitrus on November 03, 2014, 03:02:05 AM
We could always invite the UK into NAFTA.  :)

Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2014, 04:54:05 AM
Sorry, Tamas. You are distorting the market. :(

Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 05:19:58 AM
I know there are issues, and Hod knows I have grown to hate the over-regulated nature of the EU, but painting a picture where the UK is a victim of the common market and free movement of workforce is quite the stretch isn't it?

Quote from: PJL on November 03, 2014, 06:01:43 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 05:19:58 AM
I know there are issues, and Hod knows I have grown to hate the over-regulated nature of the EU, but painting a picture where the UK is a victim of the common market and free movement of workforce is quite the stretch isn't it?

It's not the common market & free movement of workers that's the problem. It's the Eurozone policies that are distorting the market. If that was fixed then there would a more functional market in the EU. Fact is, the EU either a purely free trade only block or a political & economic union. Anything else wouldn't work.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:48:16 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2014, 05:46:22 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2014, 05:00:44 PM
I think economics is the single least important part of politics.

Income distribution, stagnant wages, unemployment, national budgets: all unimportant? :mellow:

In terms of how people vote: yes.

Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2014, 07:31:17 AM
Its not a hot topic in the uk. Only around 10% of the population rates the eu as an important issue either way. No matter how important the media says it is

Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2014, 04:34:52 PM
Oh but Hungary can basically run a fascist state and Germany has no problem with that.

Quote from: PJL on November 03, 2014, 04:25:02 AM
At least if we left we could control some of the market distortions.

Quote from: Zanza on November 03, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
I am the first to say that Germany shouldn't cozy up so much to Orban, but I don't really see how the foreign policy towards Hungary is relevant when discussing the foreign policy towards Britain.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2014, 12:59:35 PM

Quote from: Zanza on November 03, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
I am the first to say that Germany shouldn't cozy up so much to Orban, but I don't really see how the foreign policy towards Hungary is relevant when discussing the foreign policy towards Britain.

Because you claim it's a matter of irreducible principle.  Surely a functioning democracy should be one of the core principles of the EU as well.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2014, 12:59:35 PM
Because you claim it's a matter of irreducible principle.  Surely a functioning democracy should be one of the core principles of the EU as well.

Quote from: Zanza on November 03, 2014, 01:09:33 PM
Yes and as I said I think Germany should do more about Hungary's failed democracy.
I still don't see how that has relevance to the question of whether we should tolerate Britain's well-working democracy abolishing one of the core principles of the EU.
Lamenting the inconsistency of German foreign policy doesn't mean we should apply our failure to act on Hungarian developments to Britain as well.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2014, 01:31:21 PM

Quote from: Zanza on November 03, 2014, 01:09:33 PM
Yes and as I said I think Germany should do more about Hungary's failed democracy.
I still don't see how that has relevance to the question of whether we should tolerate Britain's well-working democracy abolishing one of the core principles of the EU.
Lamenting the inconsistency of German foreign policy doesn't mean we should apply our failure to act on Hungarian developments to Britain as well.

Because a supposed core principle that is applied situationally is not a core principle.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2014, 01:31:21 PM

Quote from: Zanza on November 03, 2014, 01:09:33 PM
Yes and as I said I think Germany should do more about Hungary's failed democracy.
I still don't see how that has relevance to the question of whether we should tolerate Britain's well-working democracy abolishing one of the core principles of the EU.
Lamenting the inconsistency of German foreign policy doesn't mean we should apply our failure to act on Hungarian developments to Britain as well.

Because a supposed core principle that is applied situationally is not a core principle.

Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2014, 03:50:43 PM
only because you think something should be an EU core principle does not make it one.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 03, 2014, 04:05:02 PM
Luckily we don't have to vote the tories in at the next General Election, instead, waiting in the wings, we have the titanic figure of Ed Miliband and the A-team of Balls and Harman............ :lmfao:.........oh well.............guess we are fucked.

QuoteDemocracy is not one of the core principles of the ToFEU. Four freedoms are.

QuoteBy the way, one important thing to notice here is who is actor and who only reacts. Britain wants to change the status quo, Germany and the rest of the EU don't. The UK doesn't have to go, they are very welcome to stay part of the EU. But only when they are willing to accept the core principles of the treaties they signed in 1973.

Quote from: Gups on November 03, 2014, 11:28:32 AM

Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2014, 07:31:17 AM
Its not a hot topic in the uk. Only around 10% of the population rates the eu as an important issue either way. No matter how important the media says it is

Nonsense. It's a massively important topic for a huge number of people in this country. In the last "issues" poll for Yougov more people picked immigration as one of the three most important issues facing the country than any other topic including the economy and health.

Europe polled 4th, ahead of education, crime, tax, welfare and housing.

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jxo2nz2p9p/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Issues(2)-Most-important-issues-281014.pdf

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 05:16:34 PM
That may recently be the demand for £1.7 billion by 1 December :lol:

Quote from: Zanza on November 03, 2014, 02:31:38 PMBy the way, one important thing to notice here is who is actor and who only reacts. Britain wants to change the status quo, Germany and the rest of the EU don't. The UK doesn't have to go, they are very welcome to stay part of the EU. But only when they are willing to accept the core principles of the treaties they signed in 1973.

Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 06:48:26 PM
1. How did the free movement environment changed since 1973?

Quote2. Is there any reliable statistics on how much welfare abuse is being done by EU immigrants? Lets put being long-term unemployed ones on that list as well, for convenience.

Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2014, 03:50:43 PM

Democracy is not one of the core principles of the ToFEU.

Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2014, 05:13:27 PM

Thats unusual. I was actually referring to yougov polls, if you look back it was quite consistently around 10%. Europe seems to have really blown up in recent months. :hmm:

Quote from: Gups on November 04, 2014, 03:03:19 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2014, 03:50:43 PM

Democracy is not one of the core principles of the ToFEU.

According to the treaty of Lisbon it is. Unless you think later treaties don't count.

Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 07:49:48 PM
So when UKIP talks about curbing welfare to combat immigration (IIRC they do that), its total BS.

I do agree with curbing welfare, and that WILL ease up on the immigration thing, as Brits will be forced, to, you know, take up jobs.

Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 07:49:48 PM
So when UKIP talks about curbing welfare to combat immigration (IIRC they do that), its total BS.

I do agree with curbing welfare, and that WILL ease up on the immigration thing, as Brits will be forced, to, you know, take up jobs.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2014, 03:59:22 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 07:49:48 PM
So when UKIP talks about curbing welfare to combat immigration (IIRC they do that), its total BS.

I do agree with curbing welfare, and that WILL ease up on the immigration thing, as Brits will be forced, to, you know, take up jobs.

Well that's the point of curbing welfare, to hurt people you don't like.  They want to hurt immigrants, you want to hurt lazy brits.  Same thing.

Quote from: Gups on November 04, 2014, 03:54:17 AM
Except Cameron has  said nothing about ending freedom of movement within EU countries. He has said it need to be considered when admitting new entrants and hinted Britain may veto new entries if controls are not put in place.

It should be absolutely obvious to Merkel that this is positioning ahead of a general election and that she should keep out of it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2014, 04:24:19 AM
The article reported Merkel's response to the reported plans Cameron's coming up with. It's all a bit distant.

Welfare as 'lifestyle choice', you really should consider the Tories/UKIP :P

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 04:04:09 AM
It is welfare which is about hurting people. It is hurting those who have to finance it for people who have made it a lifestyle choice to live on it.

Quote from: Iormlund on November 04, 2014, 06:54:19 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 04:04:09 AM
It is welfare which is about hurting people. It is hurting those who have to finance it for people who have made it a lifestyle choice to live on it.

That line of thought is something I don't really understand. Outside of some fringe groups (Roma), my experience is that people want to be employed. During the happy early 2000s male unemployment over here was virtually zero (~3%). Now it's over 20% but I doubt this is indicative of potential workers somehow getting lazier in the last ten years.

QuoteEven until the 90s to qualify as a worker you had to have a job offer in the other country. It also didn't include dependants or non-working, non-EEA citizens.

Edit: And the Maastricht idea of common European citizenship was a pretty huge shift too.

QuoteSo when UKIP talks about curbing welfare to combat immigration (IIRC they do that), its total BS.

I do agree with curbing welfare, and that WILL ease up on the immigration thing, as Brits will be forced, to, you know, take up jobs.

QuoteI am not saying its the majority, but isn't kind of a known thing for example that young girls in a poor environment and no ambition choose to give birth ASAP to rake in the benefits.

Quote from: Gups on November 04, 2014, 03:05:41 AM

Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2014, 05:13:27 PM

Thats unusual. I was actually referring to yougov polls, if you look back it was quite consistently around 10%. Europe seems to have really blown up in recent months. :hmm:

But immigration has been a big issue for a long time now and that's equated with the EU in most people's minds.

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 12:39:25 PM
Yeah but you would have liked the coal mines to be kept open on taxpayers money so I will take your opinion with a pinch of salt :P

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 12:39:25 PM
Yeah but you would have liked the coal mines to be kept open on taxpayers money so I will take your opinion with a pinch of salt :P

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 12:39:25 PM
Yeah but you would have liked the coal mines to be kept open on taxpayers money so I will take your opinion with a pinch of salt :P

Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2014, 12:51:39 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 12:39:25 PM
Yeah but you would have liked the coal mines to be kept open on taxpayers money so I will take your opinion with a pinch of salt :P

And you would oppose that on principal even if it saves the taxpayers money so...

Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2014, 12:51:39 PM
And you would oppose that on principal even if it saves the taxpayers money so...

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 04:04:09 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2014, 03:59:22 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 07:49:48 PM
So when UKIP talks about curbing welfare to combat immigration (IIRC they do that), its total BS.

I do agree with curbing welfare, and that WILL ease up on the immigration thing, as Brits will be forced, to, you know, take up jobs.

Well that's the point of curbing welfare, to hurt people you don't like.  They want to hurt immigrants, you want to hurt lazy brits.  Same thing.

It is welfare which is about hurting people. It is hurting those who have to finance it for people who have made it a lifestyle choice to live on it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2014, 01:00:49 PM
You've alluded to this before, that closing Teh Coal Mines was a net loss.  Would you care to substantiate this claim?

Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2014, 01:59:29 PM
£500 million in subsidies that allow the miners to earn a decent wage and support the economy of broad swathes of the country vs. £500 million in unemployment benefits to provide the miners with just barely enough to survive and knock out the cornerstone of the economy of broad swathes of the country.

Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2014, 01:59:29 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2014, 01:00:49 PM
You've alluded to this before, that closing Teh Coal Mines was a net loss.  Would you care to substantiate this claim?

£500 million in subsidies that allow the miners to earn a decent wage and support the economy of broad swathes of the country vs. £500 million in unemployment benefits to provide the miners with just barely enough to survive and knock out the cornerstone of the economy of broad swathes of the country.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2014, 01:55:03 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 04:04:09 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2014, 03:59:22 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 07:49:48 PM
So when UKIP talks about curbing welfare to combat immigration (IIRC they do that), its total BS.

I do agree with curbing welfare, and that WILL ease up on the immigration thing, as Brits will be forced, to, you know, take up jobs.

Well that's the point of curbing welfare, to hurt people you don't like.  They want to hurt immigrants, you want to hurt lazy brits.  Same thing.

It is welfare which is about hurting people. It is hurting those who have to finance it for people who have made it a lifestyle choice to live on it.

Yeah, you can tell yourself that, but it's not true.

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 02:08:19 PM
Spend some years working in the private sector, then come back and let me know what you think.

Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2014, 02:13:44 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 02:08:19 PM
Spend some years working in the private sector, then come back and let me know what you think.

Raz is right. What you're saying is not true.

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 02:19:49 PM

It was overdramatic, maybe, but not incorrect. The very concept of welfare/redistribution is that you take money by force from people who have earned it, and give it to people who didn't.

Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2014, 02:31:45 PM
Well, both anti-welfare and anti-immigration people should thank Mrs. Thatcher. She is the one who destroyed British industry and started the process of transitioning to an economy model which is incapable of providing full employment to all those who wish to work. If you want to look out for a model which does not have these problems, look to Germany - but the question is to what extent this is irreversible for Britain.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2014, 02:33:28 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2014, 02:31:45 PM
Well, both anti-welfare and anti-immigration people should thank Mrs. Thatcher. She is the one who destroyed British industry and started the process of transitioning to an economy model which is incapable of providing full employment to all those who wish to work. If you want to look out for a model which does not have these problems, look to Germany - but the question is to what extent this is irreversible for Britain.

You know Marty, countries that have favored industry have experienced unemployment too. :mellow:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 04, 2014, 02:36:57 PM
A quick check at the back of The Economist gives unemployment of 6.0% for the UK and 6.7% for Germany.

Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2014, 02:40:30 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 04, 2014, 02:36:57 PM
A quick check at the back of The Economist gives unemployment of 6.0% for the UK and 6.7% for Germany.

But I was not talking about unemployment (in my original post), Yi did. I was talking about the fact that Germany does not seem to have such tensions surrounding welfare and immigration as the UK does now.

Quote"The German social welfare system is not a self-service convenience store for all the Europeans that come to our country," he said on Friday in Munich. He expressed his shock at how the "EU Commission is frivolously torpedoing the national social security system."

Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2014, 02:40:30 PM
But I was not talking about unemployment (in my original post), Yi did. I was talking about the fact that Germany does not seem to have such tensions surrounding welfare and immigration as the UK does now.

QuoteWell, both anti-welfare and anti-immigration people should thank Mrs. Thatcher. She is the one who destroyed British industry and started the process of transitioning to an economy model which is incapable of providing full employment to all those who wish to work. If you want to look out for a model which does not have these problems, look to Germany - but the question is to what extent this is irreversible for Britain.

Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2014, 02:40:30 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 04, 2014, 02:36:57 PM
A quick check at the back of The Economist gives unemployment of 6.0% for the UK and 6.7% for Germany.

But I was not talking about unemployment (in my original post), Yi did. I was talking about the fact that Germany does not seem to have such tensions surrounding welfare and immigration as the UK does now.

Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2014, 02:31:45 PM
Well, both anti-welfare and anti-immigration people should thank Mrs. Thatcher. She is the one who destroyed British industry and started the process of transitioning to an economy model which is incapable of providing full employment to all those who wish to work. If you want to look out for a model which does not have these problems, look to Germany - but the question is to what extent this is irreversible for Britain.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 04, 2014, 02:36:57 PM
A quick check at the back of The Economist gives unemployment of 6.0% for the UK and 6.7% for Germany.

Quote from: frunk on November 04, 2014, 02:29:52 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 02:19:49 PM

It was overdramatic, maybe, but not incorrect. The very concept of welfare/redistribution is that you take money by force from people who have earned it, and give it to people who didn't.

You are presuming both that individuals can earn what they earn without the support of a stable and functioning society around them, and that they are entirely in control of their own fate and therefore every penny they earn was not because of luck or any other outside influence.

Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2014, 02:36:47 PM
Yes, but not as chronic (with a comparable economy).

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 07:02:05 AM
Some of the stories I have heard from Britons, or read here (in regards to council housing for example) seems to show that a lot of the welfare system here can be used/abused to make life easier for people who could make it on their own (even if in a very modest way). That should never be the case, because it is highly unfair to:
-those who actually finance those benefits. They lose it in tax to be payed, instead of being able to spend/invest on their own
-those who actually need welfare, because there are less resources available to help them

QuoteIt was overdramatic, maybe, but not incorrect. The very concept of welfare/redistribution is that you take money by force from people who have earned it, and give it to people who didn't.

QuoteBut I was not talking about unemployment (in my original post), Yi did. I was talking about the fact that Germany does not seem to have such tensions surrounding welfare and immigration as the UK does now.

QuoteYes, but not as chronic (with a comparable economy). Comparing the UK economy to something like Venezuela does not work - Germany is the only competitor of equal footing that chose a different model.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2014, 03:24:34 PM
Alternately maybe welfare actually isn't that easily abused by anyone. Which would certainly explain the annual figures of less than 1% of the welfare budget being lost in fraud (less than by mistake).

Quote from: Zanza on November 04, 2014, 03:14:43 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2014, 02:36:47 PM
Yes, but not as chronic (with a comparable economy).

Germany had chronic high unemployment in the late 90s and early 2000s. And it solved it mainly by expanding the low wage, low benefits, low security sector of the economy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2014, 03:28:04 PM
Your welfare system may be eminently fair and just, but a fraud % doesn't help you know that.  That just tells you that people are following the rules as they're written.

QuoteFor my part, my understanding of British welfare is informed entirely by Trainspotting.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2014, 03:31:01 PM
My understanding of American race politics is solely informed by Do the Right Thing.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2014, 03:36:28 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2014, 03:31:01 PM
My understanding of American race politics is solely informed by Do the Right Thing.

Don't catch much Oscar bait, eh?

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 04, 2014, 02:47:44 PM
I'm also not sure about the tensions. They are there in the media but not apparent in my day-to-day life, conversations with friends and family does not reveal any great angst either; but then I don't know any unemployed people in, say, Clacton  :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2014, 03:28:32 PM
I think Germany's possibly storing up a few problems for the next recession, one is what you've mentioned. I'm not sure how long you can improve the economy by keeping labour costs down rather than improving productivity (which is still higher than the UK because that's our permanent curse). But I've also read that infrastructure investment's at quite historically low levels and, though I could be wrong, I can't think of a single structural reform that Merkel's passed in her time in office - though I understand the latest coalition does plan to lower the retirement age :lol:

I feel like Germany's going through something a bit like our 97-2007 which'll be looked back on as a missed opportunity.

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 02:19:49 PM

Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2014, 02:13:44 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2014, 02:08:19 PM
Spend some years working in the private sector, then come back and let me know what you think.

Raz is right. What you're saying is not true.

It was overdramatic, maybe, but not incorrect. The very concept of welfare/redistribution is that you take money by force from people who have earned it, and give it to people who didn't.

QuoteNew EU migrants add £5bn to UK, report says

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2014, 03:24:34 PM
The source of those stories is the exact same right-wing populist press (see the News of the World's 'sponger-watch' articles) as the anti-immigration stuff. You see the latter's bullshit because it touches on you, but when it comes to shaming the scroungers and the spongers you lap it up.

In this thread you've said that the UK has a welfare system where a lot can be abused and pointed out, correctly, that Europeans abuse it very little. Given that we've a huge range of in-work benefits and a generally universal welfare system rather than a predominately contributory one then the only way I can make sense of those two things is that either Europeans are stupider or more virtuous than the natives.

Alternately maybe welfare actually isn't that easily abused by anyone. Which would certainly explain the annual figures of less than 1% of the welfare budget being lost in fraud (less than by mistake).

This is partly what I mean about you being a natural UKIP voter. As well as your Carswellian libertarianism, when you talk about the economy and welfare you're a pair of union jack braces and a pint of bitter away from full Farage :P

Quote from: Jacob on November 05, 2014, 01:02:16 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2014, 03:24:34 PM
The source of those stories is the exact same right-wing populist press (see the News of the World's 'sponger-watch' articles) as the anti-immigration stuff. You see the latter's bullshit because it touches on you, but when it comes to shaming the scroungers and the spongers you lap it up.

In this thread you've said that the UK has a welfare system where a lot can be abused and pointed out, correctly, that Europeans abuse it very little. Given that we've a huge range of in-work benefits and a generally universal welfare system rather than a predominately contributory one then the only way I can make sense of those two things is that either Europeans are stupider or more virtuous than the natives.

Alternately maybe welfare actually isn't that easily abused by anyone. Which would certainly explain the annual figures of less than 1% of the welfare budget being lost in fraud (less than by mistake).

This is partly what I mean about you being a natural UKIP voter. As well as your Carswellian libertarianism, when you talk about the economy and welfare you're a pair of union jack braces and a pint of bitter away from full Farage :P

Well put.

QuoteGermany struggles to adapt to immigrant influx
By Jenny Hill
BBC Berlin correspondent

"Everyone's moving to Germany."

So says Govan, a thin, bearded French jazz musician from Lyon whom I meet in a German language class for people recently arrived in Berlin.

"In one month," he says, "I met lot of people from everywhere."

The faces around the table are young, the accents mainly European. They tell a story about how the demography of this country is changing fast.

Germany is now the world's second most popular destination - after the US - for immigrants. And they are arriving in the hundreds of thousands.

Net migration to Germany has not been this high for 20 years, and even the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) describes it as a boom. In 2012, 400,000 so-called "permanent migrants" arrived here.

They are people who have the right to stay for more than a year. That represents an increase of 38% on the year before.

They are coming from Eastern Europe, but also from the countries of the southern Eurozone, lured by Germany's stronger economy and jobs market.

And they are being welcomed with open arms - by the government at least - because Germany has a significant skills gap, and a worryingly low birth rate.

"Immigrants are on average younger and the German population is on average older, so immigrants are welcome," says Dr Ingrid Tucci, from the German Institute for Economic Research.

"It's important to attract students and highly qualified people. So the government is making it easier for them, trying to invest and put a culture of welcome in place."

Here they call it "Willkommenskultur".

In practice it means free or cheap German language lessons for immigrants plus integration and citizenship classes.

As Berlin's senator for work, integration and women, it is Dilek Kolat's job to facilitate Willkommenskultur in the city.

"Every academic, every employer will tell you we need skilled migration. There's a change in perception in wider society.

"We don't look at migrants as a possible threat or a possible problem, but we look at them as potential.

"What can they bring to society? Business[es] are approaching the senate and asking how can we get the young refugees into apprenticeships which at the moment aren't taken up by German kids."

But Willkommenskultur is also about attitude.

And - politically at least - it's changed substantially since the days of Helmut Kohl.

Under his leadership Germany was 'not a country of immigration' despite the hundreds of thousands of Turkish migrant workers who'd been invited here in the sixties.

They had been recruited to help with Germany's post-war reconstruction.

And - as their families and friends arrived to join them - Germany's immigration figures spiked for the first time since the Second World War. In 1970 for example annual net immigration stood at more than half a million.

Private papers recently published by the German news website Spiegel Online reveal Chancellor Kohl told then UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1982 that he wanted to halve the number of Turks living in Germany. They did not, he said, "integrate well".

Today they are an established community. Stroll through the Berlin district of Neukoln and you pass hundreds of businesses run by their children and grandchildren.

In the window of one of the restaurants here, a large chunk of roasting meat turns slowly on a spit. Inside, a woman with a headscarf sips tea from a glass in front of a counter stacked with kebabs and and flatbreads ready for the lunchtime rush.

It is owned by Hassan - an earnest man in his 40s, who arrived in Germany with his parents when he was 13. But he worries about immigration today.

'It's great people come to Germany. They should be able to come. But people who don't work shouldn't be able to stay. Look at me - I work 20 hours a day.

"There are a lot of beggars. They have no money but ask for food. I give them kebabs, pizzas, but my heart breaks - I can't give food to everyone."

Neither, it seems, can some German towns and cities, who are largely responsible for the welfare of immigrants.

Last year the mayors of 16 large German cities wrote to the government asking for help with unemployed migrants flooding into their regions from Eastern Europe. Places like Cologne, Dortmund and Hanover have struggled to cope.

And there is growing support in Germany for a new political party. Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) acknowledges the need for migrant workers but still wants tighter controls on immigration.

This, though, is a country still haunted by the atrocities of World War Two.

People here are mindful of how devastating the consequences of "Rassenhass" - racial hatred - can be.

And bear in mind most of today's migrants are moving within the EU.

Since Bulgaria and Romania acceded in 2007 there's been a significant increase of immigrants from both countries - 67,000 Romanians and 29,000 Bulgarians arrived in the first half of 2013.

In response to public concern about the numbers, Angela Merkel's government pledged to crack down on migrants who fraudulently claimed benefits but - in the words of one politician from her conservative CDU party - free movement for workers is "one of the main pillars of the European Union".

So, as Dr Tucci says: "There aren't a lot of tensions - Germany doesn't compare with countries like France where tensions are more virulent.

"It's important though to say the population has to be prepared for immigration. There are perhaps fears of newcomers. So political rhetoric is important."

Back in the language class, I meet Alissa and David - an architect and a musicians' agent - who have arrived from Milan.

"We discovered that Milan was too expensive for us and the quality of life was not so good," says David.

"We had some money and we decided to buy a flat here in Berlin because it was cheaper than Italy.

"We were looking for a real metropolis, and in Europe the big cities are too expensive. Berlin was the only solution. The only problem is the language."

But, adds Alissa: "I feel at home."

She is in good company. More than 7.6 million foreigners are registered as living in Germany. It is the highest number since records began in 1967.

In the words of President Joachim Gauck: "A look at our country shows how bizarre it is that some people cling to the idea that there could be such a thing as a homogenous, closed single-coloured Germany.

"It's not easy to grasp what it is to be German - and it keeps changing."

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2014, 03:28:32 PM
I think Germany's possibly storing up a few problems for the next recession, one is what you've mentioned. I'm not sure how long you can improve the economy by keeping labour costs down rather than improving productivity (which is still higher than the UK because that's our permanent curse). But I've also read that infrastructure investment's at quite historically low levels and, though I could be wrong, I can't think of a single structural reform that Merkel's passed in her time in office - though I understand the latest coalition does plan to lower the retirement age :lol

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 12:57:01 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

QuoteNew EU migrants add £5bn to UK, report says

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 05:01:44 PM
Well we are sorry to be a nuisance.

Quote from: Agelastus on November 05, 2014, 05:13:55 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 05:01:44 PM
Well we are sorry to be a nuisance.

I'd really like to know why you're so convinced I personally want to throw you out, or consider you a nuisance, Tamas...I didn't think I'd made such a bad impression the one time we met. :(

I've said this before - the best, most reliable people I've ever worked with were Poles.

Quote from: Agelastus on November 05, 2014, 04:57:40 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 12:57:01 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

QuoteNew EU migrants add £5bn to UK, report says

It says exactly the same thing as the report from a couple of years ago (heck, given the dates involved, it may even be the same report, only this time the final, not the preliminary version.) EU migrants add more to the economy than they take - but when you take the headline figure and break it down by number of migrants and number of years the value added per migrant per year is ridiculously low. Low enough to make one wonder if the costs (such as the deflationary pressure they've placed on wages at the lower end of the market) is worth it.

£5 billion over a 7 year period is frankly pathetic.

Quote from: Agelastus on November 05, 2014, 05:13:55 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 05:01:44 PM
Well we are sorry to be a nuisance.

I'd really like to know why you're so convinced I personally want to throw you out, or consider you a nuisance, Tamas...I didn't think I'd made such a bad impression the one time we met. :(

I've said this before - the best, most reliable people I've ever worked with were Poles.

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 05:16:07 PM
Plus, deflationary pressure on wages in this day and age is a totally wrong argument: those guys from Pakistan or Romania could might as well do the factory work in Romania and Pakistan, posing a much bigger deflationary pressure on UK wages.

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 05:18:29 PM
You didn't. :) But it is a very personal matter to me, and puzzling as well, as this whole thing must be very hidden in society, since I just don't encounter it at all in my daily life (kudos for Britain on that by the way).

QuoteBut I guess my point is sort of: those Poles you liked, me, etc: we ARE the immigrants you think are hurting the UK. You are entitled to your opinion and ultimately it is your country and I am just a guest here. But you and the rest of the UKIP voters should be aware of this.

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 05:18:29 PM
You didn't. :) But it is a very personal matter to me, and puzzling as well, as this whole thing must be very hidden in society, since I just don't encounter it at all in my daily life (kudos for Britain on that by the way).

But I guess my point is sort of: those Poles you liked, me, etc: we ARE the immigrants you think are hurting the UK. You are entitled to your opinion and ultimately it is your country and I am just a guest here. But you and the rest of the UKIP voters should be aware of this.

Quote from: Agelastus on November 05, 2014, 05:39:18 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 05:18:29 PM
You didn't. :) But it is a very personal matter to me, and puzzling as well, as this whole thing must be very hidden in society, since I just don't encounter it at all in my daily life (kudos for Britain on that by the way).

But I guess my point is sort of: those Poles you liked, me, etc: we ARE the immigrants you think are hurting the UK. You are entitled to your opinion and ultimately it is your country and I am just a guest here. But you and the rest of the UKIP voters should be aware of this.

And that's where you have an issue; you assume all UKIP voters are against all immigration. Or even most of it. What we want is a sense that it can be controlled. That our government can control it.

I want out of the EU for many reasons, some rational, some more irrational (I'm aware that my patriotism and sense of national pride is somewhat out-of-date.) On the issue of immigration I want out so we can rebalance it. I don't want us to have to excessively discriminate against the rest of the world (particularly our Commonwealth) because we have a completely unpredictable number coming in from Europe - which is what we are doing now.

Our country needs immigration. We need it for the economy. We need it because of the birth rate and the aging population. We need it because in some ways it's a zero sum game; the world economy has expanded, at the moment, past the number of qualified people to man it. We need it because we can't stick our head in the sands. We need it because it makes us stronger.

What we don't need is immigration that swamps local services (there are other examples than the town Sheilbh mentioned) because we have no clue about how many people are going to arrive. And if we are to have immigration it damn well needs to be of the sort that adds more value to the economy than £5 billion over seven years from hundreds of thousands of people.

-----------

My examples for wage deflation are like Sheilbh's; I've worked for a company that employed a trained, qualified welder of Polish origin for not much more than the minimum wage. That's not base level outsourced factory work.

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 05:33:51 PM
And especially in the service industry, if there is an immigrant who is willing to take the job with X conditions for Y salary, and there is a native British person who is willing to take it as well with  X and Y while showing the same level of skill and experience as the immigrant, there is no way on Earth it is not the native guy being hired. Not here, not anywhere.

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 05:33:51 PM
How would raising the minimum wage help? Already what you are saying is that immigrants are more willing to take minimum wage jobs than natives. If you raise the minimum wage, it will also raise prices accross the board, promote the grey economy, etc. Hardly a surefire way to improve living standards.

QuoteAnd especially in the service industry, if there is an immigrant who is willing to take the job with X conditions for Y salary, and there is a native British person who is willing to take it as well with  X and Y while showing the same level of skill and experience as the immigrant, there is no way on Earth it is not the native guy being hired. Not here, not anywhere.

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 05:44:35 PM
Well, those are fair points, actually.

Quote from: Agelastus on November 05, 2014, 06:12:16 PM
I would suspect that London has a disproportionately high level of turnover among its bar and pub staff, partly due to the large number of students in the capital.

I also suspect that bar work is a traditional job for the overqualified (again, see students.)

I also suspect that their qualifications are working for them as it proves them to be hardworkers compared to others (again, see students.)

Quote from: Agelastus on November 05, 2014, 04:57:40 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 12:57:01 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

QuoteNew EU migrants add £5bn to UK, report says

It says exactly the same thing as the report from a couple of years ago (heck, given the dates involved, it may even be the same report, only this time the final, not the preliminary version.) EU migrants add more to the economy than they take - but when you take the headline figure and break it down by number of migrants and number of years the value added per migrant per year is ridiculously low. Low enough to make one wonder if the costs (such as the deflationary pressure they've placed on wages at the lower end of the market) is worth it.

£5 billion over a 7 year period is frankly pathetic.

Quote from: Martinus on November 06, 2014, 01:22:41 AM
To be honest, the more I read most British posters on this board, the more I am convinced: you guys should leave. I think you guys just don't get the EU, to be honest. The point of the EU is not that you can look at every single freedom or privilege in isolation and wonder whether it helps you or not - the point is that you get a package, with some of the elements of it helping some countries and other elements helping other countries (for example, Poland mainly benefits from free movement of workers and services, and from structural funds at the moment; the UK is not meant to benefit from these freedoms but it benefits significantly from free movement of capital and, to a lesser extent, free movement of goods).

Just know that, contrary to what UKIP says, the British economy will sink as a result because the City will dwindle. Right now, you can open a bank in the UK, start an insurance company in the UK or list your stock at the London Stock Exchange - and then have it "passported", without much ado, into every single EU member state. This is thanks to the EU and this will go away. You can get a judgement in an English court and have it enforced throughout the EU without having to go through an onerous foreign judgement recognition procedure - this will go away. You can freely invest from the UK into every single EU member state, without any special permits or consents (other than those locals would also need to obtain) - this will go away.

So London will lose out to New York on the one hand (because on equal footing now, New York will be more attractive) and Frankfurt on the other (because it will not become the largest unchallenged financial centre giving one an access to the entire EU common market). And there is no chance in hell, for this very reason, that Germans will not let you keep any of these privileges.

Quote from: PJL on November 06, 2014, 04:38:37 AM
Honestly, I think even losing the pre-eminance of the City of London wouldn't be a bad thing. The UK is too reliant on it to sustain the economy, which needs to be rebalanced back towards manufacturing and the north. Sure there'd be a short term decline, but in the areas that don't really need the extra jobs anyway, but it would benefit in the long term.

Quote from: Warspite on November 06, 2014, 04:30:38 AM
That £5bn is just for the 2004+ entrants. Why is it 'frankly pathetic'?  This is purely an examination of fiscal contribution. On this limited basis, the report suggests that migrants are a net benefit to the public purse. (Which is important, particularly in a time of austerity, to keeping the spending on services for the rest of the population going.) If you start factoring in things like consumption (which creates jobs) and skills provided to the economy, then the benefit would be even higher. And the skills thing is important: as the report says, we get a huge inflow of £££ by not having to have paid for the education that migrant workers bring.

Quote from: Warspite on November 06, 2014, 04:55:49 AM
:lol:

Someone please explain this fetish with manufacturing that so many people have? As if the value of a good is somehow conceptually different to the value of a service? Only in Britain do people actually want to destro- sorry, "rebalance" away from the most productive sector of the economy.

Presumably, this would require reviving the UK's glorious history of state planning and industrial policy which led to the remarkable economic successes of the twentieth-century.

By the way, the UK has a lot of high-value manufacturing that is considered world-leading. Unfortunately, it's mostly in the Midlands and the south.

Quote from: Tyr on November 06, 2014, 01:48:42 PM
The well reported trend is for eastern europeans to go home after a few years in Britain. Not many settle.

Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2014, 01:33:32 PM
I, for one, welcome the dilution of national identities, if they will be replaced by a common European identity

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:56:17 PM
Should they stay or should they go?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 06, 2014, 02:58:23 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2014, 01:56:17 PM
Should they stay or should they go?

If they stay, it will be trouble.

Quote from: Ed Anger on November 09, 2014, 06:05:54 PM
300 Hungarian women.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 05:25:39 PM
Still blows my mind you can elect a PM with only a high school education.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 05:40:08 PM
Could it be used by any party?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 05:25:39 PM
Still blows my mind you can elect a PM with only a high school education.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 05:47:18 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 05:40:08 PM
Could it be used by any party?

No, not right now :(

There would be a putsch in Labour if Alan Johnson showed the slightest interest in being leader, but he's ruled himself out repeatedly and said he's not up to the job. He'd have a similar story. Orphaned at the age of 12 and raised in a council flat by his older sister. He left school at 15 and stacked shelves in Tesco, when he was 18 he became a postman and joined the union - on the more communist wing - then about 18 years later a full time union official. Ended up as a reformist, pro-Blair head of the union (the only one to support Blair on Clause IV - the part of Labour's constitution about public ownership of the economy). Then elected as an MP in 97 and a competent, rather dashing minister.

He resigned from the front bench (he was Shadow Chancellor) after he'd lost the Labour Deputy Leadership (to privately educated Harriet Harman) and it was revealed that his wife was having an affair with his police protection officer from when he was a minister.

But there's not many like him, sadly, which is part of the problem with all the parties.

Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2014, 06:31:38 PM
Why is this win such a shock? At least half of the Brits here on Languish seem to be at least leaning toward UKIP, for better or worse :P

Quote from: PJL on November 20, 2014, 07:20:38 PM
LOL, the last time a mainstream party came behind the MRLP, the leader resigned and the party wound itself up. Granted this was the post '87 rump SDP led by David Owen who didn't want to join with the Lib Dems. Still would be funny if history repeated itself.

QuoteEric Pickles (our Local Government Secretary who spent £30 000 on biscuits for his office)

Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2014, 06:31:38 PM
Why is this win such a shock? At least half of the Brits here on Languish seem to be at least leaning toward UKIP, for better or worse :P

Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2014, 02:56:55 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2014, 06:31:38 PM
Why is this win such a shock? At least half of the Brits here on Languish seem to be at least leaning toward UKIP, for better or worse :P

Augustelas yes, but who else?

Quote from: Ed Anger on November 20, 2014, 08:48:34 PM
Looks like a fat Adolf Hitler. NOM NOM NOM

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 03:29:53 AM

Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2014, 02:56:55 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2014, 06:31:38 PM
Why is this win such a shock? At least half of the Brits here on Languish seem to be at least leaning toward UKIP, for better or worse :P

Augustelas yes, but who else?

PJL.

But I wouldn't say he and Agelastus make up "half of Brits".

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 04:03:02 AM
Sheilbh is strongly tempted by them.

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 04:32:15 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 04:03:02 AM
Sheilbh is strongly tempted by them.

No, he is not. Sheilbh just has a fetish for weird politics.

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 04:03:02 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 03:29:53 AM

Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2014, 02:56:55 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2014, 06:31:38 PM
Why is this win such a shock? At least half of the Brits here on Languish seem to be at least leaning toward UKIP, for better or worse :P

Augustelas yes, but who else?

PJL.

But I wouldn't say he and Agelastus make up "half of Brits".

Sheilbh is strongly tempted by them.

Quote from: Agelastus on November 21, 2014, 05:38:47 AM
Sheilbh is conflicted about whether or not to vote to take us out of Europe (as is Gups?) That's not the same as being tempted by/to vote for UKIP.

Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2014, 05:48:49 AM
No country is an island.

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 04:03:02 AM
Sheilbh is strongly tempted by them.

Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2014, 06:25:43 AM

Quote from: Agelastus on November 21, 2014, 05:38:47 AM
Sheilbh is conflicted about whether or not to vote to take us out of Europe (as is Gups?) That's not the same as being tempted by/to vote for UKIP.

Nope. I have no doubt that withdrawing from Europe woudl be a catastrophe for the economy pluinging us into another horrible recession. I would not only vote to stay in the EU, I'd volunteer for the campaign and donate money to it.

I only differ from my fellow pro-EUers in that I recognise that there are some significant downsides and I do think that while immigration is generally a good thing, the levels in the last few years put huge strains on the the country's infrastructure and wage rates. I think UKIP's POV is reasonably arguable and I intensely dislike that their voters are accused of being closet racists and loons etc, it's boorish and counter-productive.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 08:19:45 AM
I love Dennis Skinner:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30141159

QuoteEarlier this week, Mr Reckless suggested that some EU citizens living in the UK would only be able to stay for a "transitional period" if the UK left the European Union - although he and his party later clarified the comments to say anyone legally in the UK would be able to stay.

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 08:38:57 AM
At any rate I wish this thing would just move on faster. If being the financial and service center of Europe is so horrible, the UK should just leave and figure out if they also want to toss me and the rest of the EU immigrants out or not. It's kind of annoying to try and plan for a future when a rapidly rising political force puts you (ok, the group you belong to, but that is the same thing) in the forefront as the cause of all trouble.

Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2014, 08:39:12 AM
What's amusing is that the EU would rather lose the UK than lose Romania.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 08:42:03 AM

You've got the UKIP view there though. Even they don't want to kick people out.

QuoteEarlier this week, Mr Reckless suggested that some EU citizens living in the UK would only be able to stay for a "transitional period" if the UK left the European Union

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 08:42:32 AM
No. The EU would rather lose the UK than desintegrate due to either making compromises on the very basic core values the whole thing was put together for, or for letting one member drop all the duties and keep all the benefits.

QuoteFree movement of people is a core principle of the Union and that must be so:  if we agree on free movement of capital and a free market, we cannot deny free movement.  Nor, as a matter of economic self-interest, should we:  across the EU, with its low birth rate and ageing population, our economies need young migrants with skills to power our economies.

I hear it said by eminent Europeans that freedom of movement is sacrosanct.  It is one of the four freedoms set out in the founding Treaty.  The argument is that if we tamper with freedom of movement, the other freedoms will fall.

I understand that view but it has a flaw.  Twenty five years after the Single European Act, the other founding freedoms are notfully honoured by the EU.  Not one of them.  If freedom of movement is immutable, when will member states complete the Single Market?  When will they end closed shops and protectionism, and open their markets to British services – especially our professional services?  When will they fully integrate capital markets?  Or the energy market?  Or digital?  Need I go on?  If these had been implemented in full, then Britain's case on free movement would be weakened.  But they are not.

...

The EU has a well-merited reputation for pragmatism.  It can pass a camel through the eye of a needle if it wishes to do so.  If France breaches her deficit limits – and this is not unknown – we all know time will be granted for France to meet her obligations:  no one doubts an accommodation can be found.  That genius for pragmatism – for compromise – is needed now.

QuoteThat's their MP. Telling that people, of whom the vast majority is working here and contributing, would be handled an eviction notice from the country if he had his way. And he just got elected.

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 08:55:40 AM
Ok so Major's point is that we should just give up on the whole EU thing? Since freedom of movement is the only thing working as intended, and now the UK wants it out.

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 08:55:40 AM
Ok so Major's point is that we should just give up on the whole EU thing? Since freedom of movement is the only thing working as intended, and now the UK wants it out.

QuoteAnd the UK case on free movement is as compelling as it is misunderstood.  And it is misunderstood.  It is a matter of numbers.  Whereas some European populations are falling, the UK has grown by 7% in a decade.  Matching migrants to the size of host countries, the UK has accepted one of – if not the – largest population movement in peacetime European history.  That is our problem.

It is easy to see why the UK is such an attractive option.  We are an open society, with a flexible and open labour market.  We have a popular language.  We have a comprehensive welfare system.  We are probably the most diverse nation in the EU, and London may be the most cosmopolitan City in the world.

Many new arrivals are able to join existing communities of their fellow nationals.

All this, I understand.  I am not surprised that so many migrants wish to improve their lifestyle by moving to the UK.  It is a tribute to my country that they wish to do so.  And, if the numbers can be absorbed, we welcome them.  But the sheer scale of the influx has put strains on our health, welfare, housing and education services that we struggle to meet – and has held down wages for many of the poorest members of our society.

I hate having to make this argument.  I hate it.  As a boy, I was brought up among immigrants in South London.  They were my friends and my neighbours.  I have huge admiration for people prepared to uproot themselves to find work and a better way of life for themselves and their families.  It takes a great deal of courage to do so.  They deserve a warm welcome – not a chilly rebuff.

I do not wish to close our doors to strangers – especially strangers with skills from countries that are often allies.  But I do recognise – reluctantly – that our small island simply cannot absorb the present and projected numbers at the current speed:  it is not physically or politically possible without huge public disquiet

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 09:23:59 AM
You have to remember the freedoms are a package - UK may be getting a short end of the stick on migration while Poland is a net beneficiary - but at the same time Poland is in no way benefiting from the fact that a UK bank or an insurance company can freely open a Poland branch that does not need to comply with Polish regulations as long as they comply with the UK ones. Or that Germany can sell their manufactured goods here with no tarriffs.

Presenting the free movement of workers as a standalone freedom - and then arguing it does not benefit each EU member state - is extremely disingenous.

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 09:32:20 AM
Sheilbh you are wrong. I have opened UK and French banks and insurers' branches in Poland before and they are not subject to Polish regulator's supervision. This is part of the EU wide passporting procedures. (the Polish regulator hates this by the way)

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 09:41:54 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 09:32:20 AM
Sheilbh you are wrong. I have opened UK and French banks and insurers' branches in Poland before and they are not subject to Polish regulator's supervision. This is part of the EU wide passporting procedures. (the Polish regulator hates this by the way)

Ok, sorry.

But aren't they having to set up branches anywhere because, unlike in the market for goods, you have to establish a physical presence in a country?

He's not saying free movement's a standalone freedom, but rather that all of the freedoms are compromised and incomplete and it's misleading to set up this one as the sine qua non of the EU. If we had a perfectly free single market in all other areas then absolutely your point would be valid, but we don't.

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 09:45:54 AM
Still Marty's point is valid: free migration is the only EU aspect that is disadvantegous to the UK (supposedly, I think the jury is very much out on that). So getting increasingly demanding on it and threatening throwing your shoe in the soup bowl over it is not very nice.

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 08:42:32 AM

Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2014, 08:39:12 AM
What's amusing is that the EU would rather lose the UK than lose Romania.

No. The EU would rather lose the UK than desintegrate due to either making compromises on the very basic core values the whole thing was put together for, or for letting one member drop all the duties and keep all the benefits.

Quote from: alfred russel on November 21, 2014, 09:36:15 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 09:23:59 AM
You have to remember the freedoms are a package - UK may be getting a short end of the stick on migration while Poland is a net beneficiary - but at the same time Poland is in no way benefiting from the fact that a UK bank or an insurance company can freely open a Poland branch that does not need to comply with Polish regulations as long as they comply with the UK ones. Or that Germany can sell their manufactured goods here with no tarriffs.

Presenting the free movement of workers as a standalone freedom - and then arguing it does not benefit each EU member state - is extremely disingenous.

Good point, equal access to markets like bulgaria and romania are key for british finance and industry. :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 09:41:54 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 09:32:20 AM
Sheilbh you are wrong. I have opened UK and French banks and insurers' branches in Poland before and they are not subject to Polish regulator's supervision. This is part of the EU wide passporting procedures. (the Polish regulator hates this by the way)

Ok, sorry.

But aren't they having to set up branches anywhere because, unlike in the market for goods, you have to establish a physical presence in a country?

He's not saying free movement's a standalone freedom, but rather that all of the freedoms are compromised and incomplete and it's misleading to set up this one as the sine qua non of the EU. If we had a perfectly free single market in all other areas then absolutely your point would be valid, but we don't.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 08:42:03 AM
[It'd be exciting if the options weren't so depressing :(

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 10:02:30 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 09:41:54 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 09:32:20 AM
Sheilbh you are wrong. I have opened UK and French banks and insurers' branches in Poland before and they are not subject to Polish regulator's supervision. This is part of the EU wide passporting procedures. (the Polish regulator hates this by the way)

Ok, sorry.

But aren't they having to set up branches anywhere because, unlike in the market for goods, you have to establish a physical presence in a country?

He's not saying free movement's a standalone freedom, but rather that all of the freedoms are compromised and incomplete and it's misleading to set up this one as the sine qua non of the EU. If we had a perfectly free single market in all other areas then absolutely your point would be valid, but we don't.

They do have to set up a branch, yes, but this is much less onerous than setting up a subsidiary for example (a branch is effectively just an address with a director - it does not need to meet local funding/equity requirements etc. - which can be quite hefty, especially for banks and insurance companies).

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 10:36:22 AM
Moving on from 'never having been so angry' Ed Miliband's now said he 'feels respect' whenever he sees a white van :lol: :weep:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 10:36:22 AM
Moving on from 'never having been so angry' Ed Miliband's now said he 'feels respect' whenever he sees a white van :lol: :weep:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 10:36:22 AM
Moving on from 'never having been so angry' Ed Miliband's now said he 'feels respect' whenever he sees a white van :lol: :weep:

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 10:47:26 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 10:36:22 AM
Moving on from 'never having been so angry' Ed Miliband's now said he 'feels respect' whenever he sees a white van :lol: :weep:

That guy is just shockingly unfit for politics, let alone leadership.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 10:36:22 AM
Moving on from 'never having been so angry' Ed Miliband's now said he 'feels respect' whenever he sees a white van :lol: :weep:

QuoteThe Labour MP John Mann said Thornberry's behaviour was "horrendous". He explained:

It insults people like me, it insults the people I know - my friends and family - Labour voters across the country because white vans, England flags, they're Labour values and actually pretty routine Labour values for most of us.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2014, 10:50:35 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 10:36:22 AM
Moving on from 'never having been so angry' Ed Miliband's now said he 'feels respect' whenever he sees a white van :lol: :weep:

I'm beginning to pity him now  :(

He needs to get out of politics.

Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2014, 10:54:57 AM

QuoteThe Labour MP John Mann said Thornberry's behaviour was "horrendous". He explained:

It insults people like me, it insults the people I know - my friends and family - Labour voters across the country because white vans, England flags, they're Labour values and actually pretty routine Labour values for most of us.

Flags and vans are "values" now...?  WTF

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 11:21:43 AM
Yep. Basically.

We've moved to a new stage of political correctness that is based on what we think she was thinking when she sent that message. As Miliband has 'never been so angry' she had to go.

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 11:17:36 AM
Wait, what? I missed the "flags and vans" thing but what I now read makes me think I misunderstood it somehow.

My - obviously misunderstood - understanding is that a MP posted a picture of a house with flags and a white van in front of it, and titled it "image from Rochester".

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 11:17:36 AMAnd then everybody had a bout of collective insanity.

:huh: :huh: :huh:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 11:21:43 AM
Yep. Basically.

We've moved to a new stage of political correctness that is based on what we think she was thinking when she sent that message. As Miliband has 'never been so angry' she had to go.

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 01:07:28 PM
I think all this concentrating on idiotic issues is in a big part because true choice in mainstream politics have diead.

When you look at mainstream political parties you have choices between a mild welfare state and a slightly less mild welfare state, with no real ideological difference.

Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2014, 05:27:25 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2014, 04:32:15 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 04:03:02 AM
Sheilbh is strongly tempted by them.

No, he is not. Sheilbh just has a fetish for weird politics.

And basing an entire identity and lifestyle on a fetish is bad, Mart?

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 01:07:28 PM
I think all this concentrating on idiotic issues is in a big part because true choice in mainstream politics have diead.

When you look at mainstream political parties you have choices between a mild welfare state and a slightly less mild welfare state, with no real ideological difference.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 02:41:56 PM
I saw two white vans on the high street today. My heart swelled with pride and respect :)

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2014, 03:15:54 PM
Ed needs to book his Yorkie bar scoffing photo-op asap ........

QuoteC'mon, there can't be any doubt what message she intended to convey even though it's obviously trivial it absolutely plays up to the narrative of Lab pols hating on the white working class. They had to do something once the Sun put it on their front page and probably resignation/sacking was the only way to lance it. But then you say -  she cocked up, she's resigned, that's the end of it. You don't make transparently false attempts to identify yourself with white van man.

QuoteEd Miliband is too good at politics – he can't stop playing the game
Too often, it feels as though the Labour leader has so assiduously studied the rules of political communication that he can't forget them.
BY IAN LESLIE PUBLISHED 21 NOVEMBER, 2014 - 16:40

Emily Thornberry's resignation was the moment when extreme political correctness morphed from a left-wing obsession into one shared by right-wingers. It was also the moment we went full Orwell. Apparently it's no longer enough to jump on every word a politician utters; now we jump all over their thoughts too.

This is a strange time. In July the Labour leader made a speech bemoaning the superficiality of politics; its focus on image over substance. Then on Thursday, he fired his shadow attorney-general for something that people on Twitter said that she thought about an image. The day after he found himself telling an interviewer that whenever he sees a white van he feels "respect".

For all the talk, ever since his leadership campaign, of wanting to do politics differently, Ed Miliband plays the game like the political pro he is. The stock criticism of him is that he isn't very good at politics, but there's a sense in which he's too good at it. It's as if he has so assiduously studied the rules of political communication that he can't forget them.

The rules are there to be broken, however, because at the moment they're breaking us. There is no chance this country will get the politicians it wants until it cuts the politicians it has a bit of slack. Right now, our treatment of the people that govern us is so brutal and unforgiving that we're forcing them to be dishonest. When you feel that you're under attack no matter what you say, you resort to obfuscation and dishonesty. It's the only way to survive. "The weak cannot be sincere", said Francois de La Rochefoucauld.


Victoria Talwar is a psychologist at McGill University in Canada. A few years ago she came across a unique opportunity to test the way that lying behaviour responds to different rules. She was introduced to two schools in West Africa a few miles apart, with similar intakes but very different disciplinary regimes. One of them  - we'll call it School A - was strict but run more or less according to Western norms - if you broke the rules you got a detention or extra homework.

The other - School B - had a draconian regime of corporal punishment, inherited from the French Catholic nuns that founded it. If the kids were deemed to have done anything wrong - including and especially lying - they were beaten. Talwar refers to it as "a punitive environment". She got permission from both schools to carry out an experiment with their pupils to test their propensity for lying.

The experiment she ran is known as The Peeking Game. Here's how it works. The child is asked to sit facing the wall. Behind him, the experimenter brings out a series of toys that make a noise and the child has to guess from the noise which kind of toy it is. If they get it right they win the toy. The first couple are pretty easy - a fire engine making a fire engine noise, for instance. The third is made impossible to get. Talwar brings out a toy football, and opens up a greeting card that plays a tinny tune. The child can't possibly guess what the toy is from the noise.

Before the child can say anything at all, the experimenter says, "I need to take a quick call outside, I'll be back in a minute. Have a think. Whatever you do, don't peek.'"Of course, just about every child peeks. And when the experimenter comes back, the child invariably "guesses" the right answer. The question is, do they lie when the experimenter says, "Did you peek?"

This experiment has been run many times, and about 60 per cent of three and four-year-olds lie in answer to this question. This number goes up with age. It's not just whether the children lie that's interesting, but how well they lie. When very young kids are challenged on their lie by the experimenter - "If you didn't peek, how did you guess?" - many of them fold immediately and say, "I looked". Others maintain the lie, come up with an explanation and deliver it with a straight face.

When Talwar reviewed the tapes of her experiments at the two schools, what she found surprised her. The kids from School A lied at about the same rate and in the same way to kids from Western schools. The kids from School B, however - the punitive environment - were in a different league. They all lied, without exception, and they did so brilliantly, displaying real creativity in the stories they came up with, and mastery of their delivery. It turned out that by attempting to eradicate lying, School B had become a factory for producing highly proficient little liars.

British politics is now something like a punitive environment. We punish politicians for dishonesty. But we also punish them for telling the truth. No party leader is being remotely honest about the scale of cuts that will take place after the next election. They're in a competition to see who can lie to us most persuasively, because they know that the first one to tell the truth will get pulverised by a cynical press and by voters who act like children angry at being told they can't have dessert.

Since our rulers know that whatever they say they'll be accused of dishonesty then, like the pupils from School B, they try and say whatever it is they think we want to hear. Except that most of them aren't as skilled at lying as the kids in School B. That's why they often end up sounding so painfully inauthentic. It's why they claim to feel surges of emotion at the sight of white vans, or tell us unbelievable stories about some bloke they supposedly met in a park. If we really want more honest politicians, we'll have to start treating them like grown-ups, and acting like grown-ups ourselves.

The larger point here, though, is that perhaps the reason we have politicians in the first place is to allow us a margin of dishonesty in our dealings with each other. The term "politician" or "politique" was first used widely in its modern sense in sixteenth and seventeenth century France, where it was applied to those who were trying to mediate between warring Catholic and Protestant tribes, who were tearing each other apart in the name of Truth.

The politiques were the only ones saying, you know what, chaps, maybe "truth" isn't the most important thing here. Isn't it more important that we find a way to get along without killing each other? If that means a few fudges, evasions and deceptions - allowing different people to believe different things - then isn't a price worth paying?

They were despised for it, of course. Truth has all the best tunes. But they were right.

Quote from: Warspite on November 21, 2014, 08:44:21 PM
Ed Miliband: but is he as good as Michael Foot?

Quote from: Warspite on November 21, 2014, 08:31:56 PM
Back on the EU: I was discussing this with a Spanish (anglophile) scholar yesterday. He is terrified the UK will leave because in his mind, it actually unravels the entire European project, as Britain is a counterweight to Franco-German competition.

QuoteLike Gups and Shelf I know there are big problems with the EU, particularly over the implications of Eurozone integration for the rest, and the continuing alienation of average Europeans from the EU itself. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the way the problems of immigration and European integration have manifested themselves will actually be solved by skipping out of the EU. Particularly as we are then in a situation where we have even less influence on continental legislation.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 09:13:10 PM

Quote from: Warspite on November 21, 2014, 08:31:56 PM
Back on the EU: I was discussing this with a Spanish (anglophile) scholar yesterday. He is terrified the UK will leave because in his mind, it actually unravels the entire European project, as Britain is a counterweight to Franco-German competition.

I don't know what Europe would look like without the UK. I imagine a few other countries like the Swedes and the Danes might begin to feel a little less comfortable.

On the other hand I don't know if we've ever been an effective counterweight. My impression is most British governments aren't very good at European politics (ironically, Thatcher's was). It's a shame we've ended up as a truculent, miserable semi-detached member rather than, as David Owen suggested we should be a sort-of chair of countries in the European slow-lane.

Quote

QuoteLike Gups and Shelf I know there are big problems with the EU, particularly over the implications of Eurozone integration for the rest, and the continuing alienation of average Europeans from the EU itself. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the way the problems of immigration and European integration have manifested themselves will actually be solved by skipping out of the EU. Particularly as we are then in a situation where we have even less influence on continental legislation.

I think the FTT and Euro trading rulings will matter in my vote. But it's beyond alienation, the 'more Europe' option's produced a 4 year recession in Italy (whose economy is now smaller than it was before the launch of the Euro) and unbelievable levels of unemployment. If the situation in 2017 is the same as it is in 2014 and was in 2010 then I think it's very difficult to see a positive case for it. I remember when Cameron first promised a referendum and I was speaking about it to a lefty Italian friend who said she'd love the chance to vote to leave Europe.

I don't desperately want to leave but if there's no change I don't see how I could support something that's in my view causing that much damage.

Quote from: Warspite on November 21, 2014, 09:37:34 PM
The manner in which EU integration was carried out is at fault to a good degree, yes, but there's also the long-run sustainability of an economic model that relied on periodic competitive devaluations to stay afloat.

Quote from: Ed Anger on November 21, 2014, 08:36:50 PM
I love Ed Millipede's facial expression.  :lol:

Quote from: Warspite on November 21, 2014, 08:31:56 PM
I'm sure she was just an avid white van spotter. :rolleyes: Come on chaps, there was a clear implication in that tweet.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 08:34:55 PMBut it's what Tamas says, what it revealed is that we all think politicians sneer at the white working class.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2014, 09:13:10 PM
It's a shame we've ended up as a truculent, miserable semi-detached member rather than, as David Owen suggested we should be a sort-of chair of countries in the European slow-lane.

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 02:11:13 AM
But pretty much every middle class and upper class person everywhere (with the possible exception of the handful of upper class deviants with a blue collar fetish) sneers at the "white working class" (or its local social equivalent).

QuotePolish government's behaviour is a great example of this - there used to be an almost instinctive tendency of Polish governments to side with the Brits, to counterbalance French and Germans in the past, over a number of issues, such as tax harmonisation, labour law etc. But the anti-immigration rhetoric of the tories is seen as so offensive here, it has become politically toxic, internally, for the Polish government to support any British position in the EU in the recent months.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 09:13:13 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 02:11:13 AM
But pretty much every middle class and upper class person everywhere (with the possible exception of the handful of upper class deviants with a blue collar fetish) sneers at the "white working class" (or its local social equivalent).

No.

It's pretty rare in my experience and as I say personally I think there's little uglier than snobbishness. I hate it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 09:30:44 AM
Guardian headline:
'Miliband pledge to white van man' :lol: :bleeding:

Is there no one in the shadow cabinet who can tell him to stop, or lock him in a cupboard for a while?

Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2014, 01:07:28 PM
I think all this concentrating on idiotic issues is in a big part because true choice in mainstream politics have diead.

When you look at mainstream political parties you have choices between a mild welfare state and a slightly less mild welfare state, with no real ideological difference.

Quote from: mongers on November 22, 2014, 09:35:26 AM
Did he give several interviews about that or was it just the one on the bbc, whilst he was at a school the next morning?

I ask because what he was quoted as saying, was a deliberate shortening of the sentence he said, missing out a couple of words that rather changed the emphasis.

I know it's open season on portraying him as an out of touch nerd, but in the interview he gave, what he said sounded reasonable and unforced.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 09:13:13 AM
You give two reasons for this though one is because your interests are the complete opposite, the other is a reaction to British domestic politics. Which is it, or is it more that anger about British politics sort of drove Poland to her national interests, not her national allies more quickly?

One seems sensible and the other a little hysterical :P

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 01:51:35 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 09:13:13 AM
You give two reasons for this though one is because your interests are the complete opposite, the other is a reaction to British domestic politics. Which is it, or is it more that anger about British politics sort of drove Poland to her national interests, not her national allies more quickly?

One seems sensible and the other a little hysterical :P

Err, this is hardly a domestic issue - you want to change rules in the EU in a way that will benefit you and harm Poland.  :huh:

Not to mention, anti-immigration rhetoric is already affecting Polish citizens living in the UK.

Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2014, 01:55:52 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 01:51:35 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 09:13:13 AM
You give two reasons for this though one is because your interests are the complete opposite, the other is a reaction to British domestic politics. Which is it, or is it more that anger about British politics sort of drove Poland to her national interests, not her national allies more quickly?

One seems sensible and the other a little hysterical :P

Err, this is hardly a domestic issue - you want to change rules in the EU in a way that will benefit you and harm Poland.  :huh:

Not to mention, anti-immigration rhetoric is already affecting Polish citizens living in the UK.

Keeping uneducated Poles working in Poland would be beneficial for Poland no?

Crap for those people themselves of course, but for Poland as a whole not losing productive years of its young people like that would be good.

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 01:59:49 PM
Btw, where does the perception that Poles working in the UK are uneducated come from?  :huh:

Edit: and assuming they are uneducated, why would it be beneficial to keep them in Poland?

You makes absolutely no sense.  :huh:

Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2014, 02:17:25 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 01:59:49 PM
Btw, where does the perception that Poles working in the UK are uneducated come from?  :huh:

Edit: and assuming they are uneducated, why would it be beneficial to keep them in Poland?

You makes absolutely no sense.  :huh:

I said nothing of the sort.
The uneducated ones are the ones UKIP and co want to keep out however.
I've read a bit about worker shortages in parts of Poland due to most of the young going off to work abroad for a few years. Polish MPs have campaigned for them to come back.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 22, 2014, 03:55:02 PM
The economy seems to generate enough jobs, there would be skill shortages if UKIP had their way, but there is a big housing problem. British planning law is highly restrictive and we are currently constructing about 100,000 houses per annum, meanwhile household formation is running at 250,000 per annum........it is a recipe for overcrowding and tension.

I want the state to get involved in this and start producing social housing in large quantities until the pressure is relieved. We are probably talking about 250,000 houses a year for a the forseeable future.

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 01:51:35 PMErr, this is hardly a domestic issue - you want to change rules in the EU in a way that will benefit you and harm Poland.  :huh:

QuoteNot to mention, anti-immigration rhetoric is already affecting Polish citizens living in the UK.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2014, 04:24:50 PM
Since the construction of housing projects (as we call them in our country) would presumably involve changes to the planning laws, why not just change the planning laws and let private builders do it?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2014, 02:44:16 PM
Everything else being equal, I imagine Poland would prefer those people work in Poland than somewhere else, as their earnings can be taxed and they consume locally produced goods and services.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 04:34:53 PM
Why would you need to change the planning laws?

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 04:35:47 PM
Not really. First of all, unemployment in Poland is around 8-9%. It's not crushing by any stretch (at least if you compare this to the likes of Spain) but it means that there is not enough jobs in the market for all who want to work - so emigration deals with that (and unemployment among people under 30% is much higher and they are the ones most likely to emigrate).

QuoteThirdly (while many of course are dodging taxes in Poland), they technically do have to pay taxes here, or at least the difference between what they already pay in the UK and what they would have to pay here (since they are residents for tax purposes). Given that the tax free amount is much lower in Poland than it is in the UK, this is not insignificant.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2014, 04:38:40 PMI'm assuming planning laws restrict government construction as well as private.

QuoteSecondly, as I already said, they usually do not move permanently but tend to leave their families here so they keep sending money home.

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 04:35:47 PM
Thirdly (while many of course are dodging taxes in Poland), they technically do have to pay taxes here, or at least the difference between what they already pay in the UK and what they would have to pay here (since they are residents for tax purposes). Given that the tax free amount is much lower in Poland than it is in the UK, this is not insignificant.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 04:57:56 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 04:35:47 PM
Thirdly (while many of course are dodging taxes in Poland), they technically do have to pay taxes here, or at least the difference between what they already pay in the UK and what they would have to pay here (since they are residents for tax purposes). Given that the tax free amount is much lower in Poland than it is in the UK, this is not insignificant.

Surely they'd normally be tax residents here as they'd be here over 180 days in a year?

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 04:51:06 PM
No, the tax free amount (and progressive tax thresholds) are lower in Poland.

So, for example, imagine that the tax free amount in the UK is $1000 per month. Once you reach it you pay 19%, and only once you reach $5000 per month you pay the higher bracket.

At the same time, in Poland, the tax free amount is $500 per month - once you reach it you pay 19% and you get into the higher (32%) bracket upon reaching $1500 per month.

Now imagine you are earning $2000 per month. In the UK the tax on this would be $190 but in Poland that would be taxed at $350 ($190 for the 1000 between 500 and 1500; and $160 for the 500 between 1500 and 2000).

So in a situation like this you would have to pay the excess $160 in Poland after having paid the $190 in the UK.

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 04:51:06 PM
No, the tax free amount (and progressive tax thresholds) are lower in Poland.

So, for example, imagine that the tax free amount in the UK is $1000 per month. Once you reach it you pay 19%, and only once you reach $5000 per month you pay the higher bracket.

At the same time, in Poland, the tax free amount is $500 per month - once you reach it you pay 19% and you get into the higher (32%) bracket upon reaching $1500 per month.

Now imagine you are earning $2000 per month. In the UK the tax on this would be $190 but in Poland that would be taxed at $350 ($190 for the 1000 between 500 and 1500; and $160 for the 500 between 1500 and 2000).

So in a situation like this you would have to pay the excess $160 in Poland after having paid the $190 in the UK.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 22, 2014, 03:55:02 PM
The economy seems to generate enough jobs, there would be skill shortages if UKIP had their way, but there is a big housing problem. British planning law is highly restrictive and we are currently constructing about 100,000 houses per annum, meanwhile household formation is running at 250,000 per annum........it is a recipe for overcrowding and tension.

I want the state to get involved in this and start producing social housing in large quantities until the pressure is relieved. We are probably talking about 250,000 houses a year for a the forseeable future.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 22, 2014, 03:55:02 PM
The economy seems to generate enough jobs, there would be skill shortages if UKIP had their way, but there is a big housing problem. British planning law is highly restrictive and we are currently constructing about 100,000 houses per annum, meanwhile household formation is running at 250,000 per annum........it is a recipe for overcrowding and tension.

I want the state to get involved in this and start producing social housing in large quantities until the pressure is relieved. We are probably talking about 250,000 houses a year for a the forseeable future.

Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2014, 08:52:13 PMOur cities need a big slap to realise medium rise flats arent a bad thing

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 09:00:18 PM

Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2014, 08:52:13 PMOur cities need a big slap to realise medium rise flats arent a bad thing

Yep. But we've a pretty dodgy record of building higher density areas. The last time councils built houses are a big part of the reason people don't like high density housing.

Quote from: Warspite on November 22, 2014, 09:00:09 PM
- Our Cabinet is stuffed full of rich property owners.

I do not think the last point is trivial.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2014, 09:07:21 PM

Quote from: Warspite on November 22, 2014, 09:00:09 PM
- Our Cabinet is stuffed full of rich property owners.

I do not think the last point is trivial.

Surely your planning ordinances aren't set at the national level, are they?

Quote from: Warspite on November 22, 2014, 09:10:42 PM
For example, in London there are protected sightlines in which no building must obscure the view of St Paul's cathedral from a variety of London spots.

QuoteAlso: does anyone else find Owen Jones insufferable?

Quote from: Warspite on November 22, 2014, 09:00:09 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 22, 2014, 03:55:02 PM
The economy seems to generate enough jobs, there would be skill shortages if UKIP had their way, but there is a big housing problem. British planning law is highly restrictive and we are currently constructing about 100,000 houses per annum, meanwhile household formation is running at 250,000 per annum........it is a recipe for overcrowding and tension.

I want the state to get involved in this and start producing social housing in large quantities until the pressure is relieved. We are probably talking about 250,000 houses a year for a the forseeable future.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I think there are far too many vested interests in keeping house prices propped up. The problem is:
- The young, who suffer from rising house prices, tend not to vote
- Rising/stable house prices at this high plateau are keeping consumption going
- More straightforward NIMBYism
- Our Cabinet is stuffed full of rich property owners.

I do not think the last point is trivial.

Quote from: Warspite on November 22, 2014, 09:05:18 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 09:00:18 PM

Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2014, 08:52:13 PMOur cities need a big slap to realise medium rise flats arent a bad thing

Yep. But we've a pretty dodgy record of building higher density areas. The last time councils built houses are a big part of the reason people don't like high density housing.

It boggles the mind. My grandparents received a flat in 1960s Yugoslavia - where along the Dalmatian coast, available land is even more squeezed than the UK will ever be - that was spacious and solidly built, if functional rather than luxurious. Today we still use this flat, and it's nicer than four of the five London homes I've lived in (across Muswell Hill, Herne Hill, Colliers Wood, Parsons Green and Pimlico).

We are unable to build to the quality that Communist Yugoslavia could sixty years ago.

Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2014, 09:44:45 PM
Most brits would agree with you only sub out 1960s yugoslavia for 1900s uk.
We never build decent flats yet our modern houses are also really pretty shit.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 09:48:43 PM

Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2014, 09:44:45 PM
Most brits would agree with you only sub out 1960s yugoslavia for 1900s uk.
We never build decent flats yet our modern houses are also really pretty shit.

Yep. And they're all apparently incredibly wasteful when they're being built compared to other European countries.

That's what's really galling about high house prices. Generally you're paying a lot for a really crap place to live :(

Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2014, 10:10:09 PM
Well there goes the fantasy about every British person living in a castle with their own butler.

Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2014, 10:16:59 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2014, 10:10:09 PM
Well there goes the fantasy about every British person living in a castle with their own butler.

Sheilbh still has one though. :console:

Quote from: mongers on November 22, 2014, 10:46:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2014, 10:16:59 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2014, 10:10:09 PM
Well there goes the fantasy about every British person living in a castle with their own butler.

Sheilbh still has one though. :console:

Indeed, the butler is locked in the under-stairs cupboard, lured to Sheilbh flat by promises of working in an ancestral pile.  :bowler:

Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2014, 10:16:59 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2014, 10:10:09 PM
Well there goes the fantasy about every British person living in a castle with their own butler.

Sheilbh still has one though. :console:

Quote from: Warspite on November 22, 2014, 08:45:43 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2014, 04:51:06 PM
No, the tax free amount (and progressive tax thresholds) are lower in Poland.

So, for example, imagine that the tax free amount in the UK is $1000 per month. Once you reach it you pay 19%, and only once you reach $5000 per month you pay the higher bracket.

At the same time, in Poland, the tax free amount is $500 per month - once you reach it you pay 19% and you get into the higher (32%) bracket upon reaching $1500 per month.

Now imagine you are earning $2000 per month. In the UK the tax on this would be $190 but in Poland that would be taxed at $350 ($190 for the 1000 between 500 and 1500; and $160 for the 500 between 1500 and 2000).

So in a situation like this you would have to pay the excess $160 in Poland after having paid the $190 in the UK.

But how does it work in practice? The tax-free threshold is higher in Britain, for example, because the cost of living is much higher.

EDIT: Actually Marty this EU website says only people resident in Poland pay Polish income tax:

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/taxes/income-taxes-abroad/poland/index_en.htm

Quote from: Warspite on November 22, 2014, 09:05:18 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 09:00:18 PM

Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2014, 08:52:13 PMOur cities need a big slap to realise medium rise flats arent a bad thing

Yep. But we've a pretty dodgy record of building higher density areas. The last time councils built houses are a big part of the reason people don't like high density housing.

It boggles the mind. My grandparents received a flat in 1960s Yugoslavia - where along the Dalmatian coast, available land is even more squeezed than the UK will ever be - that was spacious and solidly built, if functional rather than luxurious. Today we still use this flat, and it's nicer than four of the five London homes I've lived in (across Muswell Hill, Herne Hill, Colliers Wood, Parsons Green and Pimlico).

We are unable to build to the quality that Communist Yugoslavia could sixty years ago.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2014, 09:00:18 PM

Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2014, 08:52:13 PMOur cities need a big slap to realise medium rise flats arent a bad thing

Yep. But we've a pretty dodgy record of building higher density areas. The last time councils built houses are a big part of the reason people don't like high density housing.

Also another Guardian headline - 'Labour party at war over Emily Thornberry's 'snobby' tweet'.

Christ's sake :bleeding:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2014, 04:06:43 AM
Interestingly tower blocks do not achieve as high a population density as traditional terraced housing, nor are they as popular of course.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2014, 04:36:11 AM
What does "terraced housing" mean?

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2014, 04:06:43 AM
Interestingly tower blocks do not achieve as high a population density as traditional terraced housing, nor are they as popular of course.

Take a look at this report, some particularly germane information on page 11 :

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/create%20streets.pdf

An updated approach to terraced housing could achieve high population densities and satisfy British preferences for their own front door and whatnot.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2014, 09:41:40 AM
Apparently the highest densities are achieved with slab-sided medium-rise blocks of flats or maisonettes. But again this is an unpopular style here in the UK.

QuoteYou Brits get a Cabrini-Green type of situation with your towers?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2014, 09:24:16 AM
Terraced houses are the ones Tamas finds depressing. I quite like them :blush:

Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2014, 01:48:02 AM
Were your grandparents communist apparatchiks though? That could go a long way towards explaining it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2014, 11:17:34 AM
This may be of purely local interest but a pair of films about my area (and others) from the early 60s (I think):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwuvwHYraKo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhuagMMcA_E

The view on housing is very striking.

QuoteWhen it was built though the council decided not to lock the main doors, or employ security, or have security cameras because that would be 'social fascism'. Needless to say it attracted lots of problems and became a sink estate.

QuoteAndrew Mitchell loses Plebgate libel trial
Ruling that former Conservative chief whip probably did use 'politically toxic' word pleb leaves MP with legal bill of up to £3m

• Andrew Mitchell loses libel case – live
Karen McVeigh
The Guardian, Thursday 27 November 2014 17.42 GMT

Andrew Mitchell, the Tory MP and former cabinet minister at the centre of the Plebgate row lost his high court libel trial on Thursday in a ruling which sees him facing a legal bill of millions of pounds and leaves his political career in tatters.

Outside the court, Mitchell told reporters he was bitterly disappointed with the ruling and that it had been "a miserable two years" for him, but that he now hoped to move on with his life.

He had sued News Group Newspapers (NGN) over a September 2012 story in the Sun which claimed he had launched an offensive and arrogant attack on Downing Street police officers who refused to allow him to cycle through the main vehicle gates, branding them "fucking plebs".

The Sun based its report on the account given in his log by PC Toby Rowland.

The judge, Mr Justice Mitting, told the court: "For the reasons given, I'm satisfied, at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words attributed to him, or so close to them as to amount to the same, the politically toxic word pleb."

In his judgment at the end of the £3m joint libel trial, Mitting described PC Toby Rowland, the police officer who claimed the MP had used the word, as a "rather old fashioned police officer" who was "well-suited to his job" as a member of the Diplomatic Protection Group, and that he believed him.

"He is not the sort of man who had the wit, the imagination or the inclination" to "invent in the spur of the moment what a senior cabinet minister would have said to him" Mitting said, in a ruling which took over two hours.

Neither, Mitting said, did Rowland have the inclination to "perform the pantomime which the invention would require".

After the ruling, in courtroom 13 of the Royal Court of Justice in London, Rowland said that he had tried "everything possible" to stop the need for legal action.

"Even before this trial began I had been cleared of any wrongdoing by four extensive and wide-reaching investigations including a criminal one. I am delighted that here again my innocence, integrity and reputation as a police officer has been recognised."

The joint libel suit began after an altercation between the police officer and the politician at the gates of Downing Street on 19 September 2012, as the MP demanded to be allowed to cycle through the main gates.

Mitchell sued the News Group Newspapers over a story that appeared in the Sun on 21 September 2012, in which Mitchell was alleged to have called Rowland a "fucking pleb". The MP denied using the words attributed to him. Rowland then sued Mitchell, for accusing him of lying.

Mitting described the MP's behaviour as "childish" and found his version of events was inconsistent with the CCTV recording from that evening.

He said, of Mitchell: "I'm satisfied that he did lose his temper" and that the MP's admission that he was "ill-tempered" but did not lose his temper was splitting hairs.

He added that gaps and inconsistencies in PC Rowland's account did not demonstrate he fabricated his account, as Mitchell's lawyers had claimed.

If he was making up his account, PC Rowland would have had to have come up with the words within seconds, according to the judge.

The libel trial, conducted over eight days in the royal court of justice, was a preliminary one to decide on what happened at the gate,

The judge has said there will be a 14-day grace period for all parties to digest his ruling and decide on what action to take.

Mitchell was asked to pay £300,000 costs, split between the parties, by 3 January 2015. Further costs were to be discussed.

Mitchell had been in a hurry to get to the Carlton Club that evening and was expecting to be let through as he had been without difficulty that morning and after lunch. He thought it "extremely odd" when Rowland issued him with a warning under the Public Order Act, but apologised to the officer for his language the next day.

Mitchell agreed that the chief whip's role required a mixture of charm and menace and that he could occasionally be abrasive, but said he did not merit the "extraordinary tsunami of vitriol which descended on my head over a prolonged period of time".

His counsel, James Price QC, said a "web of lies, deceit and indiscipline" by police officers led to a press campaign and public hostility, and the version of the encounter which was leaked to the newspaper by a number of officers was "wholly false". "In the end, the lies brought Mr Mitchell down, destroying a political career of 27 years," he said.

Statements supplied in court by a range of people, from musician Sir Bob Geldof to painter and decorator Richard Robinson, showed he was not a "Tory toff" who would think of putting someone down because of their class, social background or occupational status by use of a "toxic and class-laden" expression like pleb.

But Desmond Browne QC, representing Rowland, claimed Mitchell was a "Jekyll and Hyde" character whose capacity for menace found its outlet in foul temper and foul language. He said the MP was regularly let through the vehicle gates, in the face of the security policy, because of the "unpleasant fuss" he made.

Rowland said he did not know who Mitchell was when he saw the "agitated" MP having a disagreement with a fellow officer and went to speak to him. "I was perfectly calm, perfectly polite. It is quite common to have disagreements about entrances and times people can come and go."

Steve White, chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: "We are pleased that the judge has ruled in PC Toby Rowland's favour. Toby's name has been cleared and his integrity restored.

"Toby has conducted himself with dignity and professionalism in relation to this incident and subsequent inquiries and legal cases.

"It is important that this incident is now brought to a close to allow Toby and his family to look to the future."

Quote from: The Brain on November 27, 2014, 05:00:28 PM
What would have been acceptable? Cunt?

Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 05:34:44 PM
All kinds of suggestions from Cameron, most reasonable, but also he wants to deport EU citizens unemployed in the UK for six months.  :huh:

QuoteAnd there is a suggestion to have EU migrants register with the police.

Quote from: The Larch on November 28, 2014, 05:47:41 PM
What if the answer is "None, my country was neutral", or "One in each side"?  :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2014, 05:42:49 PM

Allowed under the treaties after three months. Most countries already do this.

Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 05:54:49 PMOk, but how is that enforceable when you have free movement? Can't somebody just go home, being deported, then board the next plane to London? Or what if an EU citizen is just living here on his accumulated wealth with no intention of finding a job nor claiming a benefit?

Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 05:54:49 PM
Ok, but how is that enforceable when you have free movement? Can't somebody just go home, being deported, then board the next plane to London? Or what if an EU citizen is just living here on his accumulated wealth with no intention of finding a job nor claiming a benefit?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2014, 06:01:26 PMI think Syt mentioned it's done in Austria. My assumption is that at some point they require you to demonstrate you're in work or have enough capital to support yourself.

Quote from: The Larch on November 28, 2014, 05:47:41 PM
What if the answer is "None, my country was neutral", or "One in each side"?  :P

QuoteYes, you have three months to do so; they changed it fortunately after I arrived here. :P I'm not certain how seriously or rigorously it's enforced, however.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2014, 05:42:49 PM

Again standard practice across the continent. Though I agree it's awful.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2014, 05:42:49 PM

Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 05:34:44 PM
And there is a suggestion to have EU migrants register with the police.

Again standard practice across the continent. Though I agree it's awful.

QuoteEastern Europe should have been kept out of the EU. Way way out. Sure, keeping them from automatically joining the Russian sphere has some advantage but it's hardly worth the price of Romanian beggars outnumbering citizens 10:1 in Stockholm.

Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2014, 06:09:58 AM
Are illegal immigrants a problem in the UK? I thought the main objection is to legal immigrants using the welfare system?

Quote from: The Brain on November 29, 2014, 06:20:32 AM
Eastern Europe should have been kept out of the EU. Way way out. Sure, keeping them from automatically joining the Russian sphere has some advantage but it's hardly worth the price of Romanian beggars outnumbering citizens 10:1 in Stockholm.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 29, 2014, 03:49:16 AM
Was somebody ever impressed by Cameron?

QuoteBack home in Britain, Westminster politicians, echoing tabloid newspaper grumbles, claim the EU's regime of health-care rights across borders is too generous. They are referring, however, not to the sort of sun-seeking pensioner found in Rabbies, but to those migrants who move to Britain from the union's poorer, eastern and southern member states. David Cameron is planning to unveil tough new measures to curb their access to the British welfare state. But as the scene at Rabbies suggests, Britons benefit from equivalent access in other EU countries. Roughly as many are thought to live in them (slightly under 2m) as do EU nationals in Britain (slightly over 2m). Restricting pan-EU rights to health care will affect elderly Brits living in Spain more than young Poles in Britain.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 29, 2014, 03:49:16 AM
Was somebody ever impressed by Cameron?

QuoteOne thing that could potentially help with immigration I've encountered in Switzerland- when applying for an apartment they demand proof of your working permission in the UK.

QuoteThere is a difference between EU migrants having to register with the same municipal authority that locals register with and EU migrants being singled out for registration with the police.

QuoteAre illegal immigrants a problem in the UK? I thought the main objection is to legal immigrants using the welfare system?

QuoteThe other Eastern Europeans haven't been so bad though. With the possible exception of Hungary.

Quote from: Tyr on November 29, 2014, 09:34:58 AM
Health care is a pretty bad argument considering in most countries you have to pay for doctors.

QuoteThe irony is Hungary was fine during the admission process. This has all happened since they joined. I still don't think the Baltics or Cyprus should've been let in.

Quote
The thing about UK migration to the EU is it's a bit different in that it's mostly ex-pats or pensioners who'd probably do it anyway. I think there's relatively few Brits who just up sticks and move within Europe.

QuoteWe go to Australia, New Zealand or Canada or, a little bit, to the US.

Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2014, 12:29:18 PM

Quote from: Tyr on November 29, 2014, 09:34:58 AM
Health care is a pretty bad argument considering in most countries you have to pay for doctors.

I don't think this is true.

Quote from: Tyr on November 29, 2014, 12:50:36 PM
Why not them?
I would agree with Cyprus- tell them to sort out their crap with the north first.

QuoteWould do it anyway....that's kind of true but the EU does make things a lot easier. It seems unlikely that many companies would bend over backwards to bring in a non-EU Brit as compared to just hiring a Brit as they would a local. I doubt I would have gotten my current job if the UK wasn't in the EU for instance.

QuoteThats a different sort of migration, that's full on emigration, not just movement for work. The sort of people who do that have a very different mindset IMO.

QuoteIf there's a need for skills and an expat is the way to do it then companies will bend over backwards to move them. Normally the reason you move an expat is because of their skills, their career development or the lack of local skills. Moving them to the EU is really easy but it's still generally massively expensive and having to get a visa would barely add anything to the cost or hassle.

Quote
But yeah it's different than your situation though maybe you'll be caught by the Swiss kicking out EU migrants :o

Quote from: Tyr on November 29, 2014, 02:18:35 PM
It is really tough to bring in non-EU folks below the top exec level in a lot of countries.
Before you can do it you have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove you can't hire a local (or for legal purposes an EUer) for the same job.
In this climate of widespread unemployment...it would only be a very special outsider who gets the nod.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2014, 03:04:01 PM
Ugh. Some nasty dog whistle politics in Thurrock by the Tories.

It's a seat UKIP should win. The UKIP candidate is of Turkish descent and though he's been known his entire life as Tim Akers, Tory leaflets are now referring to him with his full first name Timür Akers :bleeding:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 02:24:10 PM

Quote from: Tyr on November 29, 2014, 02:18:35 PM
It is really tough to bring in non-EU folks below the top exec level in a lot of countries.
Before you can do it you have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove you can't hire a local (or for legal purposes an EUer) for the same job.
In this climate of widespread unemployment...it would only be a very special outsider who gets the nod.

Not really. Companies have entire departments dedicated to doing this, failing that they have consultants (I used to work for one in 2009-10) who help them move people. The bureaucratic hoops are easy to jump through if you, the company, want to move someone. I know someone now working in India whose company got that visa (an Indian visa!) sorted in under a week because it became urgent. They're the same age as me and not a top executive.

The only time from work, or from friends who've been moved around the world, that it's not happened has been for a business reason. If there's ever an issue with the visa they just postpone it.

QuoteThe virtual mob that got Emily Thornberry is coming for you, too

The internet can turbo-charge national hypocrisy so that it turns ferocious within hours

Are we heading for a new barbarism? Is this the return of the 18th-century mob? Here are more questions than answers. I ask because when all the fuss about Emily Thornberry and her photo tweet from Rochester has died down, we shall be left with something more disturbing than whatever sin she may or may not have committed. We've just seen demonstrated the speed, the destructiveness, the sheer violence of the modern tempest that information technology can create. In the world of opinion, climate change has arrived already.

As a workaday columnist, I reflect that I could equally easily write a spirited defence of Ms Thornberry; or a spirited attack; or I could attack Ed Miliband for publicly laying into her; or for privately agreeing with her.

In the Telegraph Boris Johnson achieved all four within the compass of a single column. He argued that Thornberry was unlucky; that it served her jolly well right; that Ed Miliband shouldn't have attacked her; and that he must secretly agree with her.

Well, it would be fun to tease Boris for running so nimbly with the hare and hunting so stylishly with the hounds. We may wipe a tear from the eye after reading his touching tribute to White Van Man (barely — but just — avoiding the phrase 'salt of the earth') while remaining doubtful whether, if a Johnson daughter declared her intention to shack up with a van man in Rochester who decorated his house with English flags, he would greet the affair with rapture. But we should not single Boris out. Horror at the match would be shared by the entire cabinet, the shadow cabinet, the editors of any of our newspapers, most Spectator readers and doubtless Nigel Farage too. Truly we are a nation of hypocrites.

But that's not new. What's new is the way IT can now turbo-charge national hypocrisy, turning it into a ferocious force within the space of a couple of hours.

Here's a warning: a warning equally to those inclined to praise Emily Thornberry and those inclined to blame her; to those inclined to admire Mr Miliband's prompt command and those inclined to mock it. It's a warning to the likes of myself; and Boris, too, who will remember his run-in with Liverpool over Hillsborough and the late Ken Bigley a decade ago, and will ask himself whether in an age of Twitter he would even have survived. It's a warning to left and right, to liberals and conservatives, to black and white, feminists and sexists, racists and multiculturalists alike.

All should quail. For the mob is fickle and knows no single creed. It has no favourites — or rather its favourites may switch in the blinking of an eye. Its prey may rise from nowhere into sudden public contempt, and be forgiven as fast. One day the mob is with the fox, the next with the hounds. All you can be sure of is that if you attract the mob's attention in the morning, by sundown you may have been smothered with kisses or beaten to a pulp.

And as 18th-century grandees may have peered nervously down from the windows of their dining rooms, always in fear of the gathering of the mob in the street, so in the internet age those who may be in (or have the misfortune to catch) the public eye can never be sure whence the next virtual mob may gather and strike. Those who call themselves reputation managers may become the new bodyguards against the footpads prowling the Twittersphere.

There are two keys to this dawning dynamic: speed and volume.

Until a few years ago, and for the whole of human history before that, inbuilt blocks, inefficiencies and delays acted to retard the spreading of — and reaction to — information. Word of mouth was very slow; manuscript was intrinsically slow; the printing press did accelerate the dissemination of news but there remained brakes to its speed, and very severe breaks to the spreading of public reaction to news. Letters to the editor were the closest we got to an internet flash mob.

Sound amplification, then broadcasting and the telephone, gave new wings to the spreading of report, but again there were limitations to speed and volume of response. We might know almost instantaneously that a murderer had been caught or a politician indicted; and know pretty fast what we thought about that. But it took much longer to know what everyone else thought. Opinion may echo and amplify with the knowledge of others' opinion; waves of public indignation were hard to gather on the instant.

Street mobs in an earlier age, and radio phone-ins and pollsters' reports in our own, have been the closest we got to that. There were inbuilt restraints to rapid report and reaction. Almost overnight, those restraints have gone. All at once I can know immediately what has happened, can know that everyone else knows too; can know their reaction; and know that they know mine. Tremendous self-reinforcing surges of anger, outrage — and indeed distress, admiration or generosity — can be the near-instantaneous result. We have no time to sleep on it and see whether we still feel the same in the morning: the wave is already breaking.

In this case it broke over Emily Thornberry's head. Recently it broke, too, over the heads of the 'pick-up artist' Julien Blanc and the comedian Dapper Laughs. I regard both these characters as pond life, but there must be fairer ways of deciding whether to withdraw Blanc's visa or cancel Laughs's ITV show. It was crude volume that swung these decisions, with little thought as to how easy it might be to assemble the 150,000 signatures that did for Blanc, or the 60,000 signatures that finished Laughs.

And there but for the grace of God go I — and quite possibly you, reader — and certainly Boris. Will mankind learn to start ignoring these storms? Or will people start going down like ninepins? Or will everybody become horribly circumspect, like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four confiding only in old friends in safe houses? Who knows? I end, as I began, with questions.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 02:24:10 PM

Quote from: Tyr on November 29, 2014, 02:18:35 PM
It is really tough to bring in non-EU folks below the top exec level in a lot of countries.
Before you can do it you have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove you can't hire a local (or for legal purposes an EUer) for the same job.
In this climate of widespread unemployment...it would only be a very special outsider who gets the nod.

Not really. Companies have entire departments dedicated to doing this, failing that they have consultants (I used to work for one in 2009-10) who help them move people.

QuoteThe bureaucratic hoops are easy to jump through if you, the company, want to move someone. I know someone now working in India whose company got that visa (an Indian visa!) sorted in under a week because it became urgent. They're the same age as me and not a top executive.