Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Eastleigh By-election
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Thank God, we can't afford them!
UKIP might have all these ideas that appeal to a certain kind of voter, but no clue how to implement any of them and that's the better way to challenge them and their supporters. Ask them to produce considered studies showing exactly how they are going to achieve the change in sentencing law or a proper economic plan detailing the pros and cons of withdrawing from Europe and a timetable for action, or a breakdown of how they can save all this money for taxpayers - they won't be able to do any of it.
If they were in charge of the country it would be a shambles within a week and they'd probably all top themselves from the sheer stress within 6 months.
And more importantly, I'm not interested in voting for racists.
There is an argument that the banking crisis, over time, will not cost the UK anything as the support given to prop up the ailing banks will be repaid. Then you could throw in the net contribution the financial sector has added to UK plc over the years, as well as the tax paid by the numerous financial sector workers...you can prove (or not) anything with statistics. Banks are obligated by law to operate within limits imposed by UK (& government) approved authorities, auditors and watchdogs. There were an awful lot of people asleep at the wheel...
x-post with Xine.
Precisely - let them have their 10 minutes in the sun, and their wider policies won't hold up to much under scrutiny
But then we will always be stuck with the same shit 3 parties we have now, of course lots of thier policies don't stack up but neither did the Libdems.
As for branding UKIP as racists is just a cheap shot at stifling any debate on immigration....
As far as I can see all politician from all parties are corrupt, power hungry, short sighted career politicians who wouldn't know a policy that would be good for GB in the long term if it bit them on the arse.
Their raison d'être is to provide a socially acceptable party for closet racists who at least realise that voting BNP is going too far.
So we should put people in charge of the country who have no idea of how to run it? Outstanding.
At least the LibDems have Vince Cable who is an extremely competent economist. Who have UKIP got to do the fiddly little things like make sure we don't have to go back to a barter system?
The lack of quality in UKIPs talent pool just shows that serious politicians, or ambitious newcomers, think they are a waste of time. If people want to work on reducing crime then they'd be better placed to do so from within the ranks of the existing parties, or form another party that isn't based on one policy (and that one policy being to withdraw from Europe)
There is no immigration debate. People will always migrate to places to provide better lives for themselves and their family. They always have done and always will. Why should your welfare as a human being be limited by the imaginary borders in which you have been born?
People who complain of immigration are rich people from rich countries. It's nothing but protectionism, keeping the wealth in one place. Some many claim "culture protection", but culture isn't static. It constantly evolves. Despite the scaremongering propaganda people come to the UK to work. Those that sign on more often than not are doing so because our laws prevent them from working. Sorry, but despite what some think people do not uproot their family and travel thousands of miles to sign on the dole and get racially abused by some of the locals.
You want to curb immigration then spread the wealth. The likes of the UK got rich of the exploitation of other nations natural resources. The Empire built roads alright. Straight down to the docks to bring the goods to London, Liverpool, Glasgow etc. Funnily enough spreading the wealth would be somewhat along the lines of the EU, the very thing UKIP despise. Remember kids no EU membership and look forward to many of your employment rights going bye-bye. Some of us are old enough to remember the days before four weeks annual leave was a legal requirement.
Immigration is a red herring in terms of cost to the UK. The wealthy tend to detest taxation and blame cost on the poor. They serve to protect themselves and exploit others at any cost. Remember when the minimum wage was going to destroy the country? If we had that the country was doomed according to the Tories, same with signing up to the EU employment legislation. Funnily enough they did love sucking the big fat cock of corporations and banks and remain awfully low key on tax avoidance in the "we're all in this together" camp.
Deporting people from a country en mass. Shutting up shop like a scared little child and abandoning human rights act isn't political thinking. It's protectionism for the wealthy and trying to pretend the world doesn't exist.
Didn't Thatcher get the rebate from the EU over the CAP?
Hasn't the bloated welfare state so beloved of the labour government benefitted the non-working man?
I'd argue that shutting down primary, inefficient and costly industries in the 1980s has , over time benefitted the working man: a long term plan, that was unpopular at the time, and forced the UK to expand where it has a comparative advantage.
Sadly as I've got older, I realise that none of the parties are in it for the long term, and none of them give me a cohesive argument to vote for them anymore.
Despite right of centre political leanings, I'd advocate more cross party groups, and longer term (10yr+) policies
you think it was about destroying villages and towns, I think it was about costs.
'ethnic cleansing'.....really?
It had nothing to do with costs. It was a exercise in breaking the Unions and she was more than happy to destroy large swathes of the country to exercise that plan.
so would we be better off if cost ineffective primary industries that hold the governemnet to ransom were still prevalent? Obviously the working conditions in those days were also much better.
Yes, pretty much everything they privatised would be better nationalised in my opinion. Of course things like working conditions, union influence and many other factors would have evolved as anything does over a period of 30 years.
Also "cost ineffective" is invalid, as many of the closures made were to profit making sites at that time.
Yes it would. Shareholders are benefitting at the cost of the users that's wrong.
Incidentally, someone on another website the other day made the point that EDF is a state-owned French company that privately runs part of Britains electricity supply and makes a profit - for the French!
On one hand that's scandalous but on another - if they can do it, surely so can we?
Looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_United_Kingdom
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom
seems that there are plenty of laws brought in for the good of the working man by parties other than Labour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Age_Pensions_Act_1908
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Boards_Act_1909
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance_Act_1911
(Ignoring your 100 years rule, round numbers are overrated)
I live in an area that had low unemployment for years..............and then the industry was all taken away so that anyone educated moved away and those left were left with no work..........and then generations were on benefits..........blame the people for being on benefits if it helps.......but who took the jobs that 40 years later still haven't been replaced
and then let them hear stories of poeple getting enough bonuses that would probably feed the whole village for a week at teh same time as losing millions of money.........and you wonder why the divide seems to get bigger
Seren I'm not in any way in favour of benefits except for the extreme cases, but you're right and I also agree with some of the above, the exercise in the 80s was about clearing the decks for the Tory party, the removal of strong opposition, and the re-distribution of wealth back to the "ruling classes" look today at inflated Utility prices, and the ever increasing private housing market.
The tory party did once bring in a social measure though, the Poll tax, and wasn't that a roaring success