Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

Some might not like this BUT the main thing holding UKIP back is Farage himself.
Don't get me wrong here, I love the way he comes across over europe and politics in general but is just doesn't seem to be able to connect with the mainstream public.
Most mp's just laugh at him or ignore him on any debate shows to the point of embarasment.

Imo UKIP needs a leader who can calm down a little and get the partys policys across to the public and also generate the amount of money threw donations that will let them fight the next gereral election on a more even footing.

I disagree entirely. Farage is just the sort of leader UKIP needs. No, what has been holding UKIP back is (until recently) zero-coverage in the media, and a lack of funding. There is a snowball effect, however. As a political party gains traction it's existence can no longer be ignored by the media. Once that happens, increasing numbers who had never even thought about the party are made aware of its existence and start to take it seriously. If they like what they see, they switch their vote and, alongside that, more funds move into the party, thus enabling it to reach out to more. I've seen many, many comments from people who are now switching to UKIP. The snowball is gathering pace.   

[Kevin Wood]

Camerloon and Tosbourne don't live in the real world, never worked for a living, career politicians with no grasp of anything except themselves and their wealth. They have no concept of what the people in this country want, all promises and no action, Back bone less self serving rich boys.

Yep, same goes for Clegg and Miliband, Balls, etc.. although the degree of wealth varies, or, at least, that's what they'd have us believe.

They could all do with being 20 years older, IMHO. 20 years more industrial experience behind them, in a real job, and 20 years less feeding at the Brussels gravy train ahead of them when they've finished with us. I think they'd be grappling with real problems then.

[tigers_gonads]

Some might not like this BUT the main thing holding UKIP back is Farage himself.
Don't get me wrong here, I love the way he comes across over europe and politics in general but is just doesn't seem to be able to connect with the mainstream public.
Most mp's just laugh at him or ignore him on any debate shows to the point of embarasment.

Imo UKIP needs a leader who can calm down a little and get the partys policys across to the public and also generate the amount of money threw donations that will let them fight the next gereral election on a more even footing.

I disagree entirely. Farage is just the sort of leader UKIP needs. No, what has been holding UKIP back is (until recently) zero-coverage in the media, and a lack of funding. There is a snowball effect, however. As a political party gains traction it's existence can no longer be ignored by the media. Once that happens, increasing numbers who had never even thought about the party are made aware of its existence and start to take it seriously. If they like what they see, they switch their vote and, alongside that, more funds move into the party, thus enabling it to reach out to more. I've seen many, many comments from people who are now switching to UKIP. The snowball is gathering pace. 

Hope your right Kev because if the political landscape doesn't change in a big way in the next few years, I dred to think what it will be like for our kids 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Some might not like this BUT the main thing holding UKIP back is Farage himself.
Don't get me wrong here, I love the way he comes across over europe and politics in general but is just doesn't seem to be able to connect with the mainstream public.
Most mp's just laugh at him or ignore him on any debate shows to the point of embarasment.

Imo UKIP needs a leader who can calm down a little and get the partys policys across to the public and also generate the amount of money threw donations that will let them fight the next gereral election on a more even footing.

I disagree entirely. Farage is just the sort of leader UKIP needs. No, what has been holding UKIP back is (until recently) zero-coverage in the media, and a lack of funding. There is a snowball effect, however. As a political party gains traction it's existence can no longer be ignored by the media. Once that happens, increasing numbers who had never even thought about the party are made aware of its existence and start to take it seriously. If they like what they see, they switch their vote and, alongside that, more funds move into the party, thus enabling it to reach out to more. I've seen many, many comments from people who are now switching to UKIP. The snowball is gathering pace. 

Hope your right Kev because if the political landscape doesn't change in a big way in the next few years, I dred to think what it will be like for our kids 

That is what worries me more than anything else now!

In fact I have got to the stage, a loyal Conservative supporter since the age of 20 (before that I was with Labour) that I must accept a radical change of heart to bring sense back to the mess we seem to be continually in.  Which ever party, in their current form, that may gain power in a future General Election, will not be able to cut it and resolve the mass of issues the UK faces.  NONE of them have the strident leader, a true charismatic leader, to drive policies forward without constant dithering, side stepping, face saving, excuse politics.

Now, to surprise many of you, I will say there could be an answer to that that could change my voting habits to someone who could bring a central socialist prospective to it all; David Miliband.  Yes, I am saying as a Conservative Socialist, that I could be persuaded to vote Labour if that particular man took control of that Party and fulfilled the potential he has personally got.  Maybe I am wrong, but as Churchill crossed the House and supported the Liberals in socialist policies, then who am I not to for a man that is again increasing his exposure, has got that "something", with far more charisma than his brother will ever have.

No, if he can come forward, take control, and produce sound firm policies of a central socialist nature, I could live with that for the sake of our country, our children and the Grandchildren.

[Rog]

Yep, same goes for Clegg and Miliband, Balls, etc.. although the degree of wealth varies, or, at least, that's what they'd have us believe.

I think it was Billy Connolly who once said that the very fact that a person WANTS to be a politician should prohibit them from ever being one.

I always seriously doubt the motives any politician, regardless of political party.

[Rods2]

Some might not like this BUT the main thing holding UKIP back is Farage himself.
Don't get me wrong here, I love the way he comes across over europe and politics in general but is just doesn't seem to be able to connect with the mainstream public.
Most mp's just laugh at him or ignore him on any debate shows to the point of embarasment.

Imo UKIP needs a leader who can calm down a little and get the partys policys across to the public and also generate the amount of money threw donations that will let them fight the next gereral election on a more even footing.

Unlike CaMoron, Millipede and Thick Clegg, Farage has actually had a real job in banking, which is why he has a very, very good grasp on economics.

He is deliberately not taken seriously here by other politicians as they are scared of the threat of UKIP, so are playing we don't take him seriously, so don't you. The UK media have very little time for him, mainly because they are very left wing, especially the BBC and most of the right wing press like the DM and DT are still firmly aligned with the Conservative party, along with much of their readership, but the DT is beginning to change as more of their readers are becoming UKIP supporters. Hence they were the lead newspaper on the Rotherham scandal.

Watch a few of Farage's interviews on US TV, where he has a very big following, much bigger than the UK and that might change your perception of the man as somebody who actually knows what he is talking about, has his convictions as a libertarian and will voice them. Unlike the other main party leaders he doesn't need to be fed sound bites, for today's spin as he creates his own PR from his knowledge and convictions. Something the Conservative PR spiv can't do as he hasn't got any apart from climbing the greasy pole of which being PM is the top prize. He prefers to play games on his children's Nintendo DS when he should be getting a grip according to a few comments I've seen from other cabinet members.

Unfortunately, all the three main parties are left wing socialist, and the problem with socialism is it always runs out of other peoples money. The last Labour Government did and the next Labour Government will. While they build their client states and personal public service empires to make themselves feel important and to reward their political cronys with top well paid non-jobs all they are doing is stealing from the productive wealth creating part of the economy, to give to their clients, all to often the undeserving. Eventually you end up with more puppies than the dog has teats.

The fatal weakness of Western democracy is that the party that promises their voters the most of other peoples money, generally wins.

The Western worlds current crisis is NOT a capitalist crisis, but a socialism crisis, having now promised cradle to grave state mollycoddling promises there is not the money to deliver, even with their unsustainable borrowing. As a result, particularly Western Europe will end up very poor, Greece is a foretaste of the fate that awaits most Western countries. The US will probably escape this fate, even from Obummers massive borrowing, due to cheap energy prices from shale gas and oil. Many US industries are on-shoring to take advantage of this.

The UK also might if the Greens and EU don't stop us developing shale oil and gas, as it is estimated that we have more reserves than the US and could end up with the sort of wealth of Saudi Arabia. But with shale oil and gas exploration banned in France by Hollende and a strong green movement particularly in Germany, don't be surprised if the French ban becomes an EU wide ban.

[Rog]

Unlike CaMoron, Millipede and Thick Clegg, Farage has  . . . .

(bit in between)

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  if the French ban becomes an EU wide ban.

Whew . . . . right . . . . . ok . . . . . well said     I'm sold, I think 

So . . . . is it time to finish work and go to the pub yet ?   

[tigers_gonads]

Unlike CaMoron, Millipede and Thick Clegg, Farage has  . . . .

(bit in between)

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  if the French ban becomes an EU wide ban.

Whew . . . . right . . . . . ok . . . . . well said     I'm sold, I think 

So . . . . is it time to finish work and go to the pub yet ?   

Sounds good to me rog 
If your buying, i'll have a pint and a whiskey chaser 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I have spent time digesting your very interesting views Rods2 on the current political situation.

You make some excellent points I believe, but I do have some argument with one passage of your piece:

"The Western worlds current crisis is NOT a capitalist crisis, but a socialism crisis, having now promised cradle to grave state mollycoddling promises there is not the money to deliver, even with their unsustainable borrowing.

To me its HAS been a Capitalist crisis.  Capitalism is meant to produce the profits, thus wealth, to keep GB plc., with a healthy balance sheet.  It has failed to do so, yet again, in it's long history.  Today we rely on the financial institutions to produce that wealth, rather than hard industrial might.  That policy has failed, as like a pack of cards bad financial practice in one area, this time the USA with prime mortgages, brought down the wealth and financial confidence of the market and it's investors across the Western World, if not on a wider basis.

Capitalism's wealth should put us in a position to provide comfort and security to our citizens, with a welfare policy to match. The power of capitalism has failed to maintain that situation, hence the appalling cuts that the Coalition have been forced to make in the UK, and the even worse reductions required elsewhere in the World.

To be fair Cameron warned before the General Election in 2010 that very hard times had to come, with severe reductions in spending.  Labour, sheepishly, also accepted that cuts would be necessary, although on a longer time scale.

To think of our state going back to a historical situation of children starving in the streets, men and women in poor houses, high infant fatality, men walking the streets begging, very high housing occupation, as a result of no sick pay, no health care, no financial safety net, etc, etc, - NO WELFARE - is to me totally unacceptable. This would favour the rich, but leave the poor, the weak, the sick, the unfortunate, absolutely without hope. This must never happen again.

No, Capitalism has been the cause of the recent problems, as it was in 1929, and throughout the 1930s, and so it must be aided to again come back up to full strength, with new political, industrial policies, to give our nation and the people their fair dues. 

I am a Conservative Socialist, as Churchill was to join the Liberals in 1907 to vote against spending on yet two more Dreadnoughts, instead of introducing reforming social policies.  He and the Liberals won the day, and that kind of dedication to socialist policies must remain.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I have spent time digesting your very interesting views Rods2 on the current political situation.

You make some excellent points I believe, but I do have some argument with one passage of your piece:

"The Western worlds current crisis is NOT a capitalist crisis, but a socialism crisis, having now promised cradle to grave state mollycoddling promises there is not the money to deliver, even with their unsustainable borrowing.

To me its HAS been a Capitalist crisis.  Capitalism is meant to produce the profits, thus wealth, to keep GB plc., with a healthy balance sheet.  It has failed to do so, yet again, in it's long history.  Today we rely on the financial institutions to produce that wealth, rather than hard industrial might.  That policy has failed, as like a pack of cards bad financial practice in one area, this time the USA with prime mortgages, brought down the wealth and financial confidence of the market and it's investors across the Western World, if not on a wider basis.

Capitalism's wealth should put us in a position to provide comfort and security to our citizens, with a welfare policy to match. The power of capitalism has failed to maintain that situation, hence the appalling cuts that the Coalition have been forced to make in the UK, and the even worse reductions required elsewhere in the World.

To be fair Cameron warned before the General Election in 2010 that very hard times had to come, with severe reductions in spending.  Labour, sheepishly, also accepted that cuts would be necessary, although on a longer time scale.

To think of our state going back to a historical situation of children starving in the streets, men and women in poor houses, high infant fatality, men walking the streets begging, very high housing occupation, as a result of no sick pay, no health care, no financial safety net, etc, etc, - NO WELFARE - is to me totally unacceptable. This would favour the rich, but leave the poor, the weak, the sick, the unfortunate, absolutely without hope. This must never happen again.

No, Capitalism has been the cause of the recent problems, as it was in 1929, and throughout the 1930s, and so it must be aided to again come back up to full strength, with new political, industrial policies, to give our nation and the people their fair dues. 

I am a Conservative Socialist, as Churchill was to join the Liberals in 1907 to vote against spending on yet two more Dreadnoughts, instead of introducing reforming social policies.  He and the Liberals won the day, and that kind of dedication to socialist policies must remain.

That should read 1909

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Some might not like this BUT the main thing holding UKIP back is Farage himself.
Don't get me wrong here, I love the way he comes across over europe and politics in general but is just doesn't seem to be able to connect with the mainstream public.
Most mp's just laugh at him or ignore him on any debate shows to the point of embarasment.

Imo UKIP needs a leader who can calm down a little and get the partys policys across to the public and also generate the amount of money threw donations that will let them fight the next gereral election on a more even footing.

Agreed. The shouty pratt tends to piss off as many people as he pleases. I do agree though that UKIP are on the rise.

[Rods2]

Hi Lizzie,

Thank you for your reply to my comments  and I've added to what I've said

A banking crisis is not a universal capitalism crisis as most companies have done well, with bankruptcies much below what we have seen in recession nowhere near as bad as this one. Companies are sitting on record cash piles, waiting for investment opportunities and will be investing again, once the economy picks up.

Even in banking most of the problems have been mainly caused by politicians. The sub-prime crisis of Clinton forcing banks to do social lending and his repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act 1932 which seperated investment and retail banks (quite rightly so) and in the UK big-bang of allowing retail banks to also be investment banks, but the biggest UK disaster was McRuin's tripartite split of banking regulation between the BOE, the Treasury and the FSA, which allowed the banks to run riot (not that bad regulation means what they did was right), encouraged by the BOE keeping interest rates artificially low and McRuin encouraging the banks to be reckless as he got more tax money to spend.

It is also socialism that rescued the banks, the Government should have let them fail, badly and recklessly run companies should fail to be replaced by better run businesses. It is only because both of the banks saved were in McRuin land that they were rescued, with HBOS dragging Lloyds bank down in the process because of McRuin. The one that wasn't in McRuin land was allowed to go to the wall.

At no time is my statements have I suggested there should be no welfare, but I would have a very different structure than our current excessively expensive failed system including the Ponzi pensions system. Identified wasted Government spending was over £101bn in 2008 and is probably much higher now and there will also be much that is unidentified. (Source: The Bumper Book of Government Waste 2008)

"To think of our state going back to a historical situation of children starving in the streets, men and women in poor houses, high infant fatality, men walking the streets begging, very high housing occupation, as a result of no sick pay, no health care, no financial safety net, etc, etc, - NO WELFARE - is to me totally unacceptable. This would favour the rich, but leave the poor, the weak, the sick, the unfortunate, absolutely without hope. This must never happen again."

Sorry to disappoint you but that is all coming back, for exactly the same reasons that it has in Greece. Why, because this country does not pay its way in the world. Two measures that show this is our balance of payments and Government borrowing. As the Government tries to squeeze more revenue out of a shrinking pot, so the wealthy move elsewhere, entrepreneurs find better countries to do business in and the skilled find better places with more disposable income to ply their trades. Especially skilled engineers and scientists.

There is no growth is this country and very little prospect of growth in the near future, only falling real incomes (13.2% fall so far since 2008) and with QE and Government printing presses running at full speed above target inflation leading to stagflation. Without the economy being rebalanced with reduced Government spending and tax cuts there will be no or very little growth. Without private sector growth there cannot be any deficit reduction in smaller Government spending or increased tax receipts (or both) without the economy shrinking. This is basic economics.

The UK is rapidly losing it wealth creators and highly skilled scientists and engineers because there are better places to live and work. And it is not all about tax rates as people that have moved to Denmark and Switzerland will tell you, yes they do pay high taxes, but in return they get first class public services. Engineers and Scientists also have a much better status in society in much of Europe and are vastly better paid.

In this country we have the worst of both world, high taxes and very poor public services. Many highly paid very skilled people are leaving because they will accept low taxes and poor public services, or high taxes and world class public services, but not what the UK has got, the worst of both.

Everything is about balance, I not against all welfare, but when a Government is spending 50% of what the country earns and we still have a third world health system, that is very dependent on charitable donations for much of its equipment. Where we have a road system that is falling to pieces and a military being skinned to the bone.

You have to ask the question: Why in the history of mankind, is so much wealth being collected, to be spent on the many, when it is benefiting so few. (sorry Churchill)

[Rog]

Unlike CaMoron, Millipede and Thick Clegg, Farage has  . . . .

(bit in between)

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  if the French ban becomes an EU wide ban.

Whew . . . . right . . . . . ok . . . . . well said     I'm sold, I think 

So . . . . is it time to finish work and go to the pub yet ?   

Sounds good to me rog 
If your buying, i'll have a pint and a whiskey chaser 

Well, I'm back from the pub, and had a curry (well done Mrs Rog!)

But  . . . . . . Hmmmmmmm . . . G'nite 

[Sir Tigger KC]

Some might not like this BUT the main thing holding UKIP back is Farage himself.
Don't get me wrong here, I love the way he comes across over europe and politics in general but is just doesn't seem to be able to connect with the mainstream public.
Most mp's just laugh at him or ignore him on any debate shows to the point of embarasment.

Imo UKIP needs a leader who can calm down a little and get the partys policys across to the public and also generate the amount of money threw donations that will let them fight the next gereral election on a more even footing.

I quite like Farage, but I don't like the way he personally insults other politicians and can't see how anyone will take him seriously when he does that...    Although I did chuckle when he described Tony Blair as a man who pours snake oil over his cornflakes!!! 

To be honest I think UKIP are missing a trick and they should be portraying Farage (and others) as a man of the people who has had a real job, and is not just another career politician like Camoron, Osbourne, Clegg, Milliband et al

I think the problem with Farage is that he comes across as if he's 'on a bit of a wheeze' and he'll go round poking and generally pissing people off and it's all good fun, but it won't last forever.... 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Hi Lizzie,

Thank you for your reply to my comments  and I've added to what I've said

A banking crisis is not a universal capitalism crisis as most companies have done well, with bankruptcies much below what we have seen in recession nowhere near as bad as this one. Companies are sitting on record cash piles, waiting for investment opportunities and will be investing again, once the economy picks up.

Even in banking most of the problems have been mainly caused by politicians. The sub-prime crisis of Clinton forcing banks to do social lending and his repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act 1932 which seperated investment and retail banks (quite rightly so) and in the UK big-bang of allowing retail banks to also be investment banks, but the biggest UK disaster was McRuin's tripartite split of banking regulation between the BOE, the Treasury and the FSA, which allowed the banks to run riot (not that bad regulation means what they did was right), encouraged by the BOE keeping interest rates artificially low and McRuin encouraging the banks to be reckless as he got more tax money to spend.

It is also socialism that rescued the banks, the Government should have let them fail, badly and recklessly run companies should fail to be replaced by better run businesses. It is only because both of the banks saved were in McRuin land that they were rescued, with HBOS dragging Lloyds bank down in the process because of McRuin. The one that wasn't in McRuin land was allowed to go to the wall.

At no time is my statements have I suggested there should be no welfare, but I would have a very different structure than our current excessively expensive failed system including the Ponzi pensions system. Identified wasted Government spending was over £101bn in 2008 and is probably much higher now and there will also be much that is unidentified. (Source: The Bumper Book of Government Waste 2008)

"To think of our state going back to a historical situation of children starving in the streets, men and women in poor houses, high infant fatality, men walking the streets begging, very high housing occupation, as a result of no sick pay, no health care, no financial safety net, etc, etc, - NO WELFARE - is to me totally unacceptable. This would favour the rich, but leave the poor, the weak, the sick, the unfortunate, absolutely without hope. This must never happen again."

Sorry to disappoint you but that is all coming back, for exactly the same reasons that it has in Greece. Why, because this country does not pay its way in the world. Two measures that show this is our balance of payments and Government borrowing. As the Government tries to squeeze more revenue out of a shrinking pot, so the wealthy move elsewhere, entrepreneurs find better countries to do business in and the skilled find better places with more disposable income to ply their trades. Especially skilled engineers and scientists.

There is no growth is this country and very little prospect of growth in the near future, only falling real incomes (13.2% fall so far since 2008) and with QE and Government printing presses running at full speed above target inflation leading to stagflation. Without the economy being rebalanced with reduced Government spending and tax cuts there will be no or very little growth. Without private sector growth there cannot be any deficit reduction in smaller Government spending or increased tax receipts (or both) without the economy shrinking. This is basic economics.

The UK is rapidly losing it wealth creators and highly skilled scientists and engineers because there are better places to live and work. And it is not all about tax rates as people that have moved to Denmark and Switzerland will tell you, yes they do pay high taxes, but in return they get first class public services. Engineers and Scientists also have a much better status in society in much of Europe and are vastly better paid.

In this country we have the worst of both world, high taxes and very poor public services. Many highly paid very skilled people are leaving because they will accept low taxes and poor public services, or high taxes and world class public services, but not what the UK has got, the worst of both.

Everything is about balance, I not against all welfare, but when a Government is spending 50% of what the country earns and we still have a third world health system, that is very dependent on charitable donations for much of its equipment. Where we have a road system that is falling to pieces and a military being skinned to the bone.

You have to ask the question: Why in the history of mankind, is so much wealth being collected, to be spent on the many, when it is benefiting so few. (sorry Churchill)

Thanks Rod2!