UkipWeather (@UkipWeather) 18/01/2014 21:28 EXTREME WEATHER WARNING! Tonight for the first time, just about half past ten. For the first time in history it's gonna start rainin' men
There is actually a good reason to be very cautious about China right now. Private sector debt is rising much faster than economic growth. Between 2007 and 2012, private sector debt in the UK fell by about 30% of GDP, while in China it rose by the same amount. There are also good reasons to believe that the true level of debt in China much higher than the published number, with a very substantial "shadow banking sector". The negative case is that - following in the footsteps of Spain in the 2000s - each incremental dollar of GDP requires an increasing amount of debt. In addition, and this will surprise many, exports as a percentage of GDP are now higher in the UK than in China, a sharp reversal of the situation five years ago.
By the way, on the subject of "and the first shall be last", Italian industrial orders (a very good leading indicator) are out, and they're showing a sharp improvement - up 2.3% year-over-year, and about 1% ahead of expectations. While it's not exactly a UK-like number, it does suggest that the Italian economy is (very slowly) following the Irish and Spanish out of slump.
With a layman's understanding of economics, the Chinese situation has echoes of the US, pre-Wall Street Crash.
One of the things that democracy is good at, from a management and preservation of Capitalism point of view, is flexing at times of crisis, to provide an outlet for public anger and contain it at the same time. It looks to me as though China will provide a natural experiment of whether their form of bureaucratic authoritarianism is as good at responding to crisis.
Not that the 'non-Green' energy industry has a very good record of wilderness conservation :-)
Indeed. Note I am not automatically anti-wind power; there is a development a few miles from me that I'm in no way bothered about. I can see the turbines from Mrs J's window.
But there is a vast difference between building a windfarm on farmland or an old airfield site, and creating heavy-weight haul roads into wilderness areas, and erecting turbines.The uplands are precious, and the damage will never be put right.
The Mail are a bit bipolar on kippers from my experience, though they have published this story today about Farage suspending the recent Conservative defector, who had been saying the same kind of thing for years whilst with the Tories without censure
So UKIP welcomed this ex-Tory in full knowledge that he was a bit unusual in his views, because he had been airing them for years. This suggests that their suspension of him is only due to his views receiving censure in the Press, and that they don't actually have a problem with those views - ie the suspension of the councillor is dishonest.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the individual in question, that's precisely the sort of political duplicity that the Farage brand is set in opposition to.
Allow me to express my shock and outrage that UKIP are... exactly the same as other political parties.
With a layman's understanding of economics, the Chinese situation has echoes of the US, pre-Wall Street Crash.
One of the things that democracy is good at, from a management and preservation of Capitalism point of view, is flexing at times of crisis, to provide an outlet for public anger and contain it at the same time. It looks to me as though China will provide a natural experiment of whether their form of bureaucratic authoritarianism is as good at responding to crisis.
The US in the 1920s is a very good analogy. The US had a trade surplus (as China does today), and lent that money to other countries to buy its goods. When China uses its trade surplus to buy US government bonds, and keep the value of the Yuan down, it is following a very similar path.
The danger is that this leads Chinese firms to make investment decisions based on a permanently weak Yuan. But if the US economy continues to recover then the ability of the Chinese government to buy up its debt becomes derailed. (Different issues that would cause the same effect would be if Chinese politicians become worried by the extent to which they are creditors of the American government, or if the US government took active steps to reduce Chinese participation in the Treasury Bond market.)
China also looks dangerously like Spain: easy credit (the country has the wrong interest rates due to the artificial suppression of the Yuan and the existence of extensive foreign exchange controls), has led to vast misallocation of resources. This photo collection (http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1975397_2094492,00.html) shows an extraordinary ghost town in China that makes Southern Spain look positively underbuilt. Chinese banks have lent hundreds of billions to enterprises that may never be profitable - yet show next to no loan losses yet.
We shall see how it ends, but I would be extremely cautious.
This suggests that their suspension of him is only due to his views receiving censure in the Press, and that they don't actually have a problem with those views - ie the suspension of the councillor is dishonest.
They suspended him for continuing to carry out media when they asked him not to (they were concerned that he was being treated as an official UKIP spokesperson on this when he clearly wasnt). Their original reaction to the letter was relatively enlightened - that they accepted a diversity of views.
This suggests that their suspension of him is only due to his views receiving censure in the Press, and that they don't actually have a problem with those views - ie the suspension of the councillor is dishonest.
They suspended him for continuing to carry out media when they asked him not to (they were concerned that he was being treated as an official UKIP spokesperson on this when he clearly wasnt). Their original reaction to the letter was relatively enlightened - that they accepted a diversity of views.
I tend to agree: I think UKIP has acted very maturely on this.
We shall see how it ends, but I would be extremely cautious.
One of the interesting things about the Wall Street Crash, and the Great Depression that followed, was that they did not prevent the US continuing its ascent to worldwide economic dominance.
Potentially, the same is true for China, but I would suggest that the key uncertainty and difference is political, rather than economic. The other difference that might be important is that the US had large indigenous reserves of oil, while China does not.
With a layman's understanding of economics, the Chinese situation has echoes of the US, pre-Wall Street Crash.
One of the things that democracy is good at, from a management and preservation of Capitalism point of view, is flexing at times of crisis, to provide an outlet for public anger and contain it at the same time. It looks to me as though China will provide a natural experiment of whether their form of bureaucratic authoritarianism is as good at responding to crisis.
The US in the 1920s is a very good analogy. The US had a trade surplus (as China does today), and lent that money to other countries to buy its goods. When China uses its trade surplus to buy US government bonds, and keep the value of the Yuan down, it is following a very similar path.
The danger is that this leads Chinese firms to make investment decisions based on a permanently weak Yuan. But if the US economy continues to recover then the ability of the Chinese government to buy up its debt becomes derailed. (Different issues that would cause the same effect would be if Chinese politicians become worried by the extent to which they are creditors of the American government, or if the US government took active steps to reduce Chinese participation in the Treasury Bond market.)
China also looks dangerously like Spain: easy credit (the country has the wrong interest rates due to the artificial suppression of the Yuan and the existence of extensive foreign exchange controls), has led to vast misallocation of resources. This photo collection (http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1975397_2094492,00.html) shows an extraordinary ghost town in China that makes Southern Spain look positively underbuilt. Chinese banks have lent hundreds of billions to enterprises that may never be profitable - yet show next to no loan losses yet.
We shall see how it ends, but I would be extremely cautious.
The poor performance of Anthony Bolton's China fund suggests that not all is straight forward or transparent in the Middle Kingdom.
We shall see how it ends, but I would be extremely cautious.
One of the interesting things about the Wall Street Crash, and the Great Depression that followed, was that they did not prevent the US continuing its ascent to worldwide economic dominance.
Potentially, the same is true for China, but I would suggest that the key uncertainty and difference is political, rather than economic. The other difference that might be important is that the US had large indigenous reserves of oil, while China does not.
Yes: I suspect this will be a speedbump. But a very severe one.
The Mail are a bit bipolar on kippers from my experience, though they have published this story today about Farage suspending the recent Conservative defector, who had been saying the same kind of thing for years whilst with the Tories without censure
So UKIP welcomed this ex-Tory in full knowledge that he was a bit unusual in his views, because he had been airing them for years. This suggests that their suspension of him is only due to his views receiving censure in the Press, and that they don't actually have a problem with those views - ie the suspension of the councillor is dishonest.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the individual in question, that's precisely the sort of political duplicity that the Farage brand is set in opposition to.
Allow me to express my shock and outrage that UKIP are... exactly the same as other political parties.
Apparently the suspension was due to him breaking the party line on doing more interviews about it
If you believe that then there's no duplicity, but I guess you won't.
They have done their bit to stop nutters joining by banning ex BNP members, although I don't know if I completely agree with that. Im sure there are ex BNP members that were young, foolish and desperate when they were in that party, and have left as they matured, but I its guess its one way of trying to limit crazy racism on Facebook etc being linked to Ukip
They have done their bit to stop nutters joining by banning ex BNP members, although I don't know if I completely agree with that. Im sure there are ex BNP members that were young, foolish and desperate when they were in that party, and have left as they matured, but I its guess its one way of trying to limit crazy racism on Facebook etc being linked to Ukip
Yes, it's quite illiberal of them to ban ex-BNPers but they are probably wise to do it because the media and their opponents would have a field day otherwise.
Are parties not really clubs in nature? Can members not choose to expel someone? Surely an individual has no right to be a member of a body that no-one else wants them to be in. If the LDs abhor Rennard despite being unable to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt can they not just vote him out of the party?
No , parties have a Constitution and rules on disciplinary action / expulsion which they have to follow . It appears that not all LDs abhor Rennard and in particular the majority of LD members of the HofL do not .
Why cannot Rennard just something like. "If I have inadvertently offended any female party members, then I apologise. I'll take note and learn from this experience!"
After all, many, particularly older, men may well have made, years ago when the world was different, comments, perhaps in jest, which while they then simply caused the female to move away or "feel uncomfortable" would now be regarded as cause for vocal complaint.
Disputes such as this, and the way it's being handled, do not encourage this ex-LD to come back!
Are parties not really clubs in nature? Can members not choose to expel someone? Surely an individual has no right to be a member of a body that no-one else wants them to be in. If the LDs abhor Rennard despite being unable to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt can they not just vote him out of the party?
No , parties have a Constitution and rules on disciplinary action / expulsion which they have to follow . It appears that not all LDs abhor Rennard and in particular the majority of LD members of the HofL do not .
Why cannot Rennard just something like. "If I have inadvertently offended any female party members, then I apologise. I'll take note and learn from this experience!"
After all, many, particularly older, men may well have made, years ago when the world was different, comments, perhaps in jest, which while they then simply caused the female to move away or "feel uncomfortable" would now be regarded as cause for vocal complaint.
Disputes such as this, and the way it's being handled, do not encourage this ex-LD to come back!
Yes he could , and if it were me or you we probably would but it is clear that he has had legal advice from a legal friend and colleague that he should not . We should remember that the women concerned had a number of choices , ignore it and walk away , press/ hope for a criminal prosecution , press / hope for internal disciplinary action and lastly sue Lord Rennard for perceived damages in the civil courts . None of them have chosen the latter course so far .
The Mail are a bit bipolar on kippers from my experience, though they have published this story today about Farage suspending the recent Conservative defector, who had been saying the same kind of thing for years whilst with the Tories without censure
So UKIP welcomed this ex-Tory in full knowledge that he was a bit unusual in his views, because he had been airing them for years. This suggests that their suspension of him is only due to his views receiving censure in the Press, and that they don't actually have a problem with those views - ie the suspension of the councillor is dishonest.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the individual in question, that's precisely the sort of political duplicity that the Farage brand is set in opposition to.
Allow me to express my shock and outrage that UKIP are... exactly the same as other political parties.
Apparently the suspension was due to him breaking the party line on doing more interviews about it
If you believe that then there's no duplicity, but I guess you won't.
They have done their bit to stop nutters joining by banning ex BNP members, although I don't know if I completely agree with that. Im sure there are ex BNP members that were young, foolish and desperate when they were in that party, and have left as they matured, but I its guess its one way of trying to limit crazy racism on Facebook etc being linked to Ukip
I am pretty sure that all parties tolerate people with related, but, shall we say quirky, views that would be vulnerable to this game of discredit by association.
So you would be right to criticise my post for being a bit unfair.
Are parties not really clubs in nature? Can members not choose to expel someone? Surely an individual has no right to be a member of a body that no-one else wants them to be in. If the LDs abhor Rennard despite being unable to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt can they not just vote him out of the party?
No , parties have a Constitution and rules on disciplinary action / expulsion which they have to follow . It appears that not all LDs abhor Rennard and in particular the majority of LD members of the HofL do not .
Why cannot Rennard just something like. "If I have inadvertently offended any female party members, then I apologise. I'll take note and learn from this experience!"
After all, many, particularly older, men may well have made, years ago when the world was different, comments, perhaps in jest, which while they then simply caused the female to move away or "feel uncomfortable" would now be regarded as cause for vocal complaint.
Disputes such as this, and the way it's being handled, do not encourage this ex-LD to come back!
Yes he could , and if it were me or you we probably would but it is clear that he has had legal advice from a legal friend and colleague that he should not . We should remember that the women concerned had a number of choices , ignore it and walk away , press/ hope for a criminal prosecution , press / hope for internal disciplinary action and lastly sue Lord Rennard for perceived damages in the civil courts . None of them have chosen the latter course so far .
Really can't see the advantage in suing for damages. If a criminal or disciplinary case is unlikely to succeed, surely any damages would be minimal and the case possibly demeaning to both sides. That's if it wasn't settled out of court!
And yet, the public view UKIP more favourably than they view the Conservatives.
"UKIP weather" not "Tory weather" making the weather today.
Ukip becoming a byword for white male intolerance - takes the heat off the Tories.
What's wrong with being a white male, or a white female for that matter. You sir, are a racist!
Ah - the Salmond defence... pawn to c5.
Never heard of such a thing. Though I have heard of the devo-max zugzwang as deployed in the last game with Mr Cameron, after spotting the flaws in the latter's logic over the referendum (final result to be obtained yet, admittedly).
Seriously, though, what is your evidence? I'm more aware of the incipient attempt by Tories to complain that any - any - criticism of the policies of a Tory-dominated Westminster Goernment is a priori anti-English and therefore racist. Though they seem to have stopped that more recently (someone must have had a word). Like the attempt to complain that the Tory cabinet were being racially vilified when they were likened to Lord Snooties - Lord Snooty being, as any fule kno, a character in a Scottish comic anyway.
Are parties not really clubs in nature? Can members not choose to expel someone? Surely an individual has no right to be a member of a body that no-one else wants them to be in. If the LDs abhor Rennard despite being unable to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt can they not just vote him out of the party?
No , parties have a Constitution and rules on disciplinary action / expulsion which they have to follow . It appears that not all LDs abhor Rennard and in particular the majority of LD members of the HofL do not .
Why cannot Rennard just something like. "If I have inadvertently offended any female party members, then I apologise. I'll take note and learn from this experience!"
After all, many, particularly older, men may well have made, years ago when the world was different, comments, perhaps in jest, which while they then simply caused the female to move away or "feel uncomfortable" would now be regarded as cause for vocal complaint.
Disputes such as this, and the way it's being handled, do not encourage this ex-LD to come back!
Yes he could , and if it were me or you we probably would but it is clear that he has had legal advice from a legal friend and colleague that he should not . We should remember that the women concerned had a number of choices , ignore it and walk away , press/ hope for a criminal prosecution , press / hope for internal disciplinary action and lastly sue Lord Rennard for perceived damages in the civil courts . None of them have chosen the latter course so far .
Really can't see the advantage in suing for damages. If a criminal or disciplinary case is unlikely to succeed, surely any damages would be minimal and the case possibly demeaning to both sides. That's if it wasn't settled out of court!
Agreed , though people do sue for reasons that are not always clear . Incidentally I agree with your comments on times long gone . In the times of today I could well have been facing a Rennard type complaint but instead the woman concerned married me .
There wasa an exchange on C-i-F recently, where someone asked another poster if he'd never put his hand up a woman's skirt, to which the answer was "only when I knew it would be welcomed!"
There wasa an exchange on C-i-F recently, where someone asked another poster if he'd never put his hand up a woman's skirt, to which the answer was "only when I knew it would be welcomed!"
I've had to deal with sexual harassment at work this morning.
Women: I'm being sexually harassed by a colleague
Me: Why, what's he doing?
Woman: He keeps on telling me "your hair smells lovely"
Me: That's not sexual harassment.
Woman: It's Kevin the dwarf that keeps on saying it
We shall see how it ends, but I would be extremely cautious.
One of the interesting things about the Wall Street Crash, and the Great Depression that followed, was that they did not prevent the US continuing its ascent to worldwide economic dominance.
Potentially, the same is true for China, but I would suggest that the key uncertainty and difference is political, rather than economic. The other difference that might be important is that the US had large indigenous reserves of oil, while China does not.
The US also had a globally-traded currency. Even so, I'm not sure it's true to say that the Great Depression didn't prevent the US continuing its ascent to dominance. The US globally was probably in a weaker position in 1930 or 1935 than it was in 1920 or 1925. The Crash and Depression did act as inhibitors in that rise, but were then themselves massively countered by the impact of WWII which left every other great power exhausted or worse.
I'd suggest that Russia pre-1914 is a better comparison for present day China than inter-war America.
There wasa an exchange on C-i-F recently, where someone asked another poster if he'd never put his hand up a woman's skirt, to which the answer was "only when I knew it would be welcomed!"
I've had to deal with sexual harassment at work this morning.
Women: I'm being sexually harassed by a colleague
Me: Why, what's he doing?
Woman: He keeps on telling me "your hair smells lovely"
Me: That's not sexual harassment.
Woman: It's Kevin the dwarf that keeps on saying it
There wasa an exchange on C-i-F recently, where someone asked another poster if he'd never put his hand up a woman's skirt, to which the answer was "only when I knew it would be welcomed!"
I've had to deal with sexual harassment at work this morning.
Women: I'm being sexually harassed by a colleague
Me: Why, what's he doing?
Woman: He keeps on telling me "your hair smells lovely"
Me: That's not sexual harassment.
Woman: It's Kevin the dwarf that keeps on saying it
There wasa an exchange on C-i-F recently, where someone asked another poster if he'd never put his hand up a woman's skirt, to which the answer was "only when I knew it would be welcomed!"
I've had to deal with sexual harassment at work this morning.
Women: I'm being sexually harassed by a colleague
Me: Why, what's he doing?
Woman: He keeps on telling me "your hair smells lovely"
Me: That's not sexual harassment.
Woman: It's Kevin the dwarf that keeps on saying it
Definitely one to e-mail to the complainants against Lord Rennard.
Some hefty weighting revisions going on there with the Lib Dems and UKIP (again), from an unweighted split of about 2:1 in UKIP's favour to 3:2 in the Lib Dems.
Other Others at 8% is interestingly high (Greens at 3% plays a part - a guide to the Euros?).
Still virtually no Lab-Con movement from 2010, with 6% of 2010 Con voters now planning to vote Lab and 4% of Labour's 2010 support going the other way.
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
When people call UKIP xenophobic for wanting controls on EU migration, are they admitting their own xenophobia for not campaigning for worldwide freedom of movement for workers? why discriminate between one group and another?
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
In other word the people Cameron chose to ignore - and still does - while chasing Guardian readers.
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
It's surprising to hear UKIP described as flush though:
"They don't have many people on the ground but they have lots of money"
When people call UKIP xenophobic for wanting controls on EU migration, are they admitting their own xenophobia for not campaigning for worldwide freedom of movement for workers? why discriminate between one group and another?
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
In other word the people Cameron chose to ignore - and still does - while chasing Guardian readers.
along with those that Blair and Brown took for granted, assuming working class tradesman were 'progressive types' who would overlook the threat to their job security New Labour policies created, would always vote for the Reds
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
Does "patriotism" necessarily mean being anti-immigration?
When people call UKIP xenophobic for wanting controls on EU migration, are they admitting their own xenophobia for not campaigning for worldwide freedom of movement for workers? why discriminate between one group and another?
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
In other word the people Cameron chose to ignore - and still does - while chasing Guardian readers.
I'm not a Guardian reader, and of the four party leaders, Cameron's nearest my mindset, although we differ on a fair few points.
The core of people he's chasing may not include you, but it's certainly wider than just Guardian readers.
I'd suggest that Russia pre-1914 is a better comparison for present day China than inter-war America.
If I compare a graph of 19th century share of world manufacturing output by country, with one for the early 21st century, then it is clear to me that economically, China has more similarities to the pre-Great Depression US than to the pre-WWI Russia.
If one were making a political comparison then I would be inclined to agree with you.
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
It's surprising to hear UKIP described as flush though:
"They don't have many people on the ground but they have lots of money"
Q3 2013 donations received by political party ( the latest available ) showed UKIP receiving just £ 113,000 compared to Lib Dems £ 800,000 and Conservatives and Labour over £ 3,000,000
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
Does "patriotism" necessarily mean being anti-immigration?
I don't think so, although it probably means anti mass uncontrolled immigration... Seems that to be patriotic is an old fashioned virtue (?), and that the more extreme left wingers think of it as a hideous concept.
I think that New Labour assumed that patriotic old labour types would let them get away with mass immigration because they knew they wouldn't vote Tory and there was nowhere else to go... slightly fortuitously perhaps, Ukip have become the go to place for these types of people, and are now capitalising on it
Accusing others of being “racist” is a routine for some people, but often their own hypocrisy is invisible.
Discrimination based on genetic differences is silly as the real genetic difference are almost imperceptible. The marker for this used to be skin colour, but in many countries nowadays, the marker is more likely to be culture - a sort of code for "tribe".
There is an instinctive like for your own “culture” over others that are seen as foreign. So we are all probably a bit racist by that definition – and it’s not a matter of left or right.
A good example is the recent upsurge in violence againt Christians across the globe . It has passed almost unnoticed by the the media. Why?
Regis Debray, the left-wing, French intellectual who fought with Che Guevara,talking about Christian victimisation in the developing world, said that these victims are ...
“ ... too Christian to excite the Left, too foreign to interest the Right.”
Exactly.
He knew the Left mindset very well, and was his usual cynical self with regards to the Right.
As ever, the people who like to brand others, look into a mirror and project the faults they see onto other people. That may be normal human behaviour, but their lack of self-awareness is embarrassing.
Yes I think your positions are entirely logical, and those who welcome free movement between EU countries but accept that the rest of the world need controlled immigration are completely inconsistent.
I said it before, if the BNP suggested free movement of labour for Europeans while demanding all sorts of controls for Africans and Asians it wouldn't be those who opposed it getting called racist
Accusing others of being “racist” is a routine for some people, but often their own hypocrisy is invisible.
Discrimination based on genetic differences is silly as the real genetic difference are almost imperceptible. The marker for this used to be skin colour, but in many countries nowadays, the marker is more likely to be culture - a sort of code for "tribe".
There is an instinctive like for your own “culture” over others that are seen as foreign. So we are all probably a bit racist by that definition – and it’s not a matter of left or right.
A good example is the recent upsurge in violence againt Christians across the globe . It has passed almost unnoticed by the the media. Why?
Regis Debray, the left-wing, French intellectual who fought with Che Guevara,talking about Christian victimisation in the developing world, said that these victims are ...
“ ... too Christian to excite the Left, too foreign to interest the Right.”
Exactly.
He knew the Left mindset very well, and was his usual cynical self with regards to the Right.
As ever, the people who like to brand others, look into a mirror and project the faults they see onto other people. That may be normal human behaviour, but their lack of self-awareness is embarrassing.
THE Christmas Day bombing of Churches in Iraq went almost unmentioned on here
When people call UKIP xenophobic for wanting controls on EU migration, are they admitting their own xenophobia for not campaigning for worldwide freedom of movement for workers? why discriminate between one group and another?
Bring it on. And even if you don't agree with me about that, most of the arguments against visa-free travel and work only really apply to poorer countries, or countries without adequate welfare states. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to making an agreement to extending the right to work without the need for a visa, in exchange for a reciprocal right for British people, to citizens of - say - New Zealand.
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
It's surprising to hear UKIP described as flush though:
"They don't have many people on the ground but they have lots of money"
Q3 2013 donations received by political party ( the latest available ) showed UKIP receiving just £ 113,000 compared to Lib Dems £ 800,000 and Conservatives and Labour over £ 3,000,000
Wouldn't those be donations >£7,500, rather than all donations?
When people call UKIP xenophobic for wanting controls on EU migration, are they admitting their own xenophobia for not campaigning for worldwide freedom of movement for workers? why discriminate between one group and another?
Some of us want freedom of movement for everyone.
Indeed. True patriots want to make the country more prosperous and therefore back immigration.
Accusing others of being “racist” is a routine for some people, but often their own hypocrisy is invisible.
Discrimination based on genetic differences is silly as the real genetic difference are almost imperceptible. The marker for this used to be skin colour, but in many countries nowadays, the marker is more likely to be culture - a sort of code for "tribe".
There is an instinctive like for your own “culture” over others that are seen as foreign. So we are all probably a bit racist by that definition – and it’s not a matter of left or right.
A good example is the recent upsurge in violence againt Christians across the globe . It has passed almost unnoticed by the the media. Why?
Regis Debray, the left-wing, French intellectual who fought with Che Guevara,talking about Christian victimisation in the developing world, said that these victims are ...
“ ... too Christian to excite the Left, too foreign to interest the Right.”
Exactly.
He knew the Left mindset very well, and was his usual cynical self with regards to the Right.
As ever, the people who like to brand others, look into a mirror and project the faults they see onto other people. That may be normal human behaviour, but their lack of self-awareness is embarrassing.
THE Christmas Day bombing of Churches in Iraq went almost unmentioned on here
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
It's surprising to hear UKIP described as flush though:
"They don't have many people on the ground but they have lots of money"
Q3 2013 donations received by political party ( the latest available ) showed UKIP receiving just £ 113,000 compared to Lib Dems £ 800,000 and Conservatives and Labour over £ 3,000,000
Maybe they have lots of money relative to their number of people on the ground?
This would suggest that if they are being funded at a greater than 1:26 disadvantage compared to the Conservatives (1:7 Lib Dems) that they have a people on the ground disadvantage that is higher still.
I would guess that their media coverage disadvantage is far lower than their disadvantage in funding or activists.
When people call UKIP xenophobic for wanting controls on EU migration, are they admitting their own xenophobia for not campaigning for worldwide freedom of movement for workers? why discriminate between one group and another?
Bring it on. And even if you don't agree with me about that, most of the arguments against visa-free travel and work only really apply to poorer countries, or countries without adequate welfare states. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to making an agreement to extending the right to work without the need for a visa, in exchange for a reciprocal right for British people, to citizens of - say - New Zealand.
Plenty of poorer countries in the EU now...
But I respect your position of visa free travel and work for all much more than the hypocrites who cry racist and xenophobe while restricting the rights of non Europeans on grounds of not being European
"It was Christmas Day, people were probably busy."
True, but as a general point, it's the selectivity that's the issue. I'm not criticising people for not making a fuss, only when they make a fuss about other things, and then criticise others for not whole-heartedly backing their own particular issue.
Yes I think your positions are entirely logical, and those who welcome free movement between EU countries but accept that the rest of the world need controlled immigration are completely inconsistent.
I'm on the same side as rcs1000 and Neil on this one, but I guess the argument would be that freedom of movement goes along with free trade. If you say you're going to have unrestricted trade with the rest of the EU, you're giving employers the right to take your job and give it to someone in Romania, so you may as well give employers the right to employ a Romanian in the UK, which will at least keep some of the related employment in the UK.
Of course there's then an argument for having a free trade area with everyone instead of just participating European countries, but the thought is then that you should have a bunch of shared standards within the free trade area for what you can sell, without which countries with low safety and environmental standards will undercut countries with higher standards. So then you want the free trade area to have a single organization to set those standards, and give it the power to regulate interstate commerce. And the power to regulate interstate commerce is what created a strong federal government in the US; If you do it on a global level, you've just created a one-world government.
Conservative Cheryl Gillan on Daily Politics saying the the only UKIP representative who gets airtime is Nigel Farage... While sitting next to a UKIP representative that isn't Nigel Farage on national tv.
When people call UKIP xenophobic for wanting controls on EU migration, are they admitting their own xenophobia for not campaigning for worldwide freedom of movement for workers? why discriminate between one group and another?
Some of us want freedom of movement for everyone.
Indeed. True patriots want to make the country more prosperous and therefore back immigration.
"In their annual Fiscal Sustainability Report, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility concluded in August 2013:
“In our attempt to summarise the vast literature on the impact of immigration on the labour market and productivity we have not found definitive evidence on the impact of immigrants on productivity and GDP."
Accusing others of being “racist” is a routine for some people, but often their own hypocrisy is invisible.
Discrimination based on genetic differences is silly as the real genetic difference are almost imperceptible. The marker for this used to be skin colour, but in many countries nowadays, the marker is more likely to be culture - a sort of code for "tribe".
There is an instinctive like for your own “culture” over others that are seen as foreign. So we are all probably a bit racist by that definition – and it’s not a matter of left or right.
A good example is the recent upsurge in violence againt Christians across the globe . It has passed almost unnoticed by the the media. Why?
Regis Debray, the left-wing, French intellectual who fought with Che Guevara,talking about Christian victimisation in the developing world, said that these victims are ...
“ ... too Christian to excite the Left, too foreign to interest the Right.”
Exactly.
He knew the Left mindset very well, and was his usual cynical self with regards to the Right.
As ever, the people who like to brand others, look into a mirror and project the faults they see onto other people. That may be normal human behaviour, but their lack of self-awareness is embarrassing.
THE Christmas Day bombing of Churches in Iraq went almost unmentioned on here
When people call UKIP xenophobic for wanting controls on EU migration, are they admitting their own xenophobia for not campaigning for worldwide freedom of movement for workers? why discriminate between one group and another?
Some of us want freedom of movement for everyone.
Indeed. True patriots want to make the country more prosperous and therefore back immigration.
I guess if you want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, with an net increase in GDP then backing immigration is the way to go
“In our attempt to summarise the vast literature on the impact of immigration on the labour market and productivity we have not found definitive evidence on the impact of immigrants on productivity and GDP."
Does this really mean that immigration's had no impact on productivity? Or that the evidence is all over the place?
If you do it on a global level, you've just created a one-world government.
There already is a one-world government - ask Tap!
Right, I would used the traditional Tapestry nomenclature of OWG, but I thought it might go over new posters' heads. Anyway I think it's pretty clear that's where isam's logic leads us, which says to me that isam must be working for the OWG.
True patriots want to make the country more prosperous and therefore back immigration.
I reckon there are plenty of kippers who would agree with you. Thing is, they don;t see why, along with the wealth creating immigrants, we have to accept rapists, drug dealers, wife beaters, money launderers, people traffickers, benefit cheats, health tourists, students who never pay their fees, pick pockets, genital mutilators, terrorists, hate mongers etc.etc.etc.
Now, you may say that in order to get the good people from abroad, we have to let in the dregs as well. Fair enough, but I think that you, Neil and everybody who supports that view should be honest about it.
People who want free movement should also be honest about the fact that the overseas wealth creators tend to enhance already prosperous UK areas, whereas the overseas dregs put extra pressure on already struggling areas.
The appeal of UKIP is that working class areas are fed up of the ''toxic by product ''of creating wealth through immigration being dumped on them.
Yes I think your positions are entirely logical, and those who welcome free movement between EU countries but accept that the rest of the world need controlled immigration are completely inconsistent.
I'm on the same side as rcs1000 and Neil on this one, but I guess the argument would be that freedom of movement goes along with free trade. If you say you're going to have unrestricted trade with the rest of the EU, you're giving employers the right to take your job and give it to someone in Romania, so you may as well give employers the right to employ a Romanian in the UK, which will at least keep some of the related employment in the UK.
Of course there's then an argument for having a free trade area with everyone instead of just participating European countries, but the thought is then that you should have a bunch of shared standards within the free trade area for what you can sell, without which countries with low safety and environmental standards will undercut countries with higher standards. So then you want the free trade area to have a single organization to set those standards, and give it the power to regulate interstate commerce. And the power to regulate interstate commerce is what created a strong federal government in the US; If you do it on a global level, you've just created a one-world government.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration. His view I believe (certainly not speaking for you @Sam) is that he is not totally ok with this.
Now you can come out with any number of economic stats to say everything's fine and growth is positively correlated and so forth but this is the nub.
@MikeSmithson to say he wants our country to prosper and hence is a fan of immigration is actually saying nothing helpful; how much is ok?
One doesn't have to have a strong opinion of this one way or the other to see why the Kippers get so frustrated with the terms of the discussion and the restricted way it is allowed to be framed.
True patriots want to make the country more prosperous and therefore back immigration.
I reckon there are plenty of kippers who would agree with you. Thing is, they don;t see why, along with the wealth creating immigrants, we have to accept rapists, drug dealers, wife beaters, money launderers, people traffickers, benefit cheats, health tourists, students who never pay their fees, pick pockets, genital mutilators, terrorists, hate mongers etc.etc.etc.
Now, you may say that in order to get the good people from abroad, we have to let in the dregs as well. Fair enough, but I think that you, Neil and everybody who supports that view should be honest about it.
People who want free movement should also be honest about the fact that the overseas wealth creators tend to enhance already prosperous UK areas, whereas the overseas dregs put extra pressure on already struggling areas.
The appeal of UKIP is that working class areas are fed up of the ''toxic by product ''of creating wealth through immigration being dumped on them.
You should go to SE Asia and see some of the Brits who've emigrated there! They're not all (now, reasonably) respectable novelists!
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
"And I’m afraid for you that it is the same story with our railways, but not in the way you envisage. You see, our rail privatisation occurred as part of an EU directive, too. It’s a conversation I have had with Bob Crow, who is very keen to renationalise the railways. But we can’t do is as members of the EU."
UKIP offering rail nationalisation would certainly throw Labour into a spin. A popular policy, that requires leaving the EU.
When people call UKIP xenophobic for wanting controls on EU migration, are they admitting their own xenophobia for not campaigning for worldwide freedom of movement for workers? why discriminate between one group and another?
Some of us want freedom of movement for everyone.
Indeed. True patriots want to make the country more prosperous and therefore back immigration.
I want controlled immigration,immigration what this country needs,even you must agree with that.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
You should go to SE Asia and see some of the Brits who've emigrated there!
It's a country's own business who and what they let in. My point is that immigration isn't a matter of race, creed or culture, its a matter of character.
I reckon that all most UKIPers really want is a system that allows in the wealth creators and worker and stops the dregs at the borders or boots them out when they're here.
Is such a thing possible? I don;t know. But that's what kippers really want.
I'd suggest that Russia pre-1914 is a better comparison for present day China than inter-war America.
If I compare a graph of 19th century share of world manufacturing output by country, with one for the early 21st century, then it is clear to me that economically, China has more similarities to the pre-Great Depression US than to the pre-WWI Russia.
If one were making a political comparison then I would be inclined to agree with you.
The graph linked to is very broad brush. Russia in the twenty years before WWI was industrialising and growing rapidly, thanks in no small part to the Witte reforms. While China now is substantially bigger relative to its rivals, I do think that economically as well as politically, China bears more relation to early 20th century Russia than 1920s or 30s America. 1870s/80s America, on the other hand, might be a different question.
As an aside, there's strong evidence that one reason that Germany was happy to give Austria the backing it did in 1914 was because the leaders thought the chances of winning a war against Russia would decline quite quickly as the years went by.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Also it's not a case of the government stepping in and preventing social change, they stepped in and caused social change with their policies (which were never in their manifesto, never voted for, and the size of which were, to be kind, grossly underestimated)
True patriots want to make the country more prosperous and therefore back immigration.
I reckon there are plenty of kippers who would agree with you. Thing is, they don;t see why, along with the wealth creating immigrants, we have to accept rapists, drug dealers, wife beaters, money launderers, people traffickers, benefit cheats, health tourists, students who never pay their fees, pick pockets, genital mutilators, terrorists, hate mongers etc.etc.etc.
Now, you may say that in order to get the good people from abroad, we have to let in the dregs as well. Fair enough, but I think that you, Neil and everybody who supports that view should be honest about it.
People who want free movement should also be honest about the fact that the overseas wealth creators tend to enhance already prosperous UK areas, whereas the overseas dregs put extra pressure on already struggling areas.
The appeal of UKIP is that working class areas are fed up of the ''toxic by product ''of creating wealth through immigration being dumped on them.
You should go to SE Asia and see some of the Brits who've emigrated there! They're not all (now, reasonably) respectable novelists!
Well it's up to those SE Asian countries to do something about it,like booting them out.
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
I'm not sure if they're still doing it but they've experimented with all possible combinations: Paying Japanese to go to Brazil, paying them to come back to Japan, paying Brazilians to come to Japan and paying them to go back to Brazil.
The one they don't seem to have tried, which I think would be worth looking at, is not paying anyone to do anything and just letting people come and go as they please.
Yes but you don;t live in the neighbourhood that has to take the strain. Most liberal left wingers live in comfortable middle class areas that benefit from immigration through the Indian doctor, French scientist or polish cleaner. Immigration is a huge positive for them.
Its completely different in a working class area I reckon, and that's what people who argue for completely unfettered immigration don't see.
Some hefty weighting revisions going on there with the Lib Dems and UKIP (again), from an unweighted split of about 2:1 in UKIP's favour to 3:2 in the Lib Dems.
Other Others at 8% is interestingly high (Greens at 3% plays a part - a guide to the Euros?).
Still virtually no Lab-Con movement from 2010, with 6% of 2010 Con voters now planning to vote Lab and 4% of Labour's 2010 support going the other way.
Also interesting that Lab and Con are virtually equal for ABC1 votes, with only modest differences between AB and C1. Labour is a bit more ahead in C2 and 2-1 ahead in DE, but it is at 35% or higher in every social group and no higher than 45% in any - a one nation party, to coin a phrase.
The Greens are IMO doing OK everywhere except Brighton, where their encounter with power has not gone smoothly.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
Mentioning japan and racism
Nippon airlines apologises for 'racist' advert that pokes fun at Westerners' big noses and blonde hair
True patriots want to make the country more prosperous and therefore back immigration.
I reckon there are plenty of kippers who would agree with you. Thing is, they don;t see why, along with the wealth creating immigrants, we have to accept rapists, drug dealers, wife beaters, money launderers, people traffickers, benefit cheats, health tourists, students who never pay their fees, pick pockets, genital mutilators, terrorists, hate mongers etc.etc.etc.
Now, you may say that in order to get the good people from abroad, we have to let in the dregs as well. Fair enough, but I think that you, Neil and everybody who supports that view should be honest about it.
People who want free movement should also be honest about the fact that the overseas wealth creators tend to enhance already prosperous UK areas, whereas the overseas dregs put extra pressure on already struggling areas.
The appeal of UKIP is that working class areas are fed up of the ''toxic by product ''of creating wealth through immigration being dumped on them.
You should go to SE Asia and see some of the Brits who've emigrated there! They're not all (now, reasonably) respectable novelists!
Well it's up to those SE Asian countries to do something about it,like booting them out.
I'm just saying that not all those who change country do so for "respectable" reasons. Most do, a few don't.
Some hefty weighting revisions going on there with the Lib Dems and UKIP (again), from an unweighted split of about 2:1 in UKIP's favour to 3:2 in the Lib Dems.
Other Others at 8% is interestingly high (Greens at 3% plays a part - a guide to the Euros?).
Still virtually no Lab-Con movement from 2010, with 6% of 2010 Con voters now planning to vote Lab and 4% of Labour's 2010 support going the other way.
The Greens are IMO doing OK everywhere except Brighton, where their encounter with power has not gone smoothly.
Perhaps they could organise joint seminars with the LibDems.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
Mentioning japan and racism
Nippon airlines apologises for 'racist' advert that pokes fun at Westerners' big noses and blonde hair
Comments
18/01/2014 21:28
EXTREME WEATHER WARNING! Tonight for the first time, just about half past ten. For the first time in history it's gonna start rainin' men
Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage)
20/01/2014 10:24
@UkipWeather @halfon4harlowMP I shall tell the girls in the press office. They'll be delighted.
One of the things that democracy is good at, from a management and preservation of Capitalism point of view, is flexing at times of crisis, to provide an outlet for public anger and contain it at the same time. It looks to me as though China will provide a natural experiment of whether their form of bureaucratic authoritarianism is as good at responding to crisis.
UKIP Daily @UKIPDaily 18m
Another fab article: 'Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results - Banking in Crisis, Part 1' http://www.ukipdaily.com/insanity-thing-expecting-different-results-banking-crisis-part-1/#.Utz61RDFLIU …
But there is a vast difference between building a windfarm on farmland or an old airfield site, and creating heavy-weight haul roads into wilderness areas, and erecting turbines.The uplands are precious, and the damage will never be put right.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the individual in question, that's precisely the sort of political duplicity that the Farage brand is set in opposition to.
Allow me to express my shock and outrage that UKIP are... exactly the same as other political parties.
The danger is that this leads Chinese firms to make investment decisions based on a permanently weak Yuan. But if the US economy continues to recover then the ability of the Chinese government to buy up its debt becomes derailed. (Different issues that would cause the same effect would be if Chinese politicians become worried by the extent to which they are creditors of the American government, or if the US government took active steps to reduce Chinese participation in the Treasury Bond market.)
China also looks dangerously like Spain: easy credit (the country has the wrong interest rates due to the artificial suppression of the Yuan and the existence of extensive foreign exchange controls), has led to vast misallocation of resources. This photo collection (http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1975397_2094492,00.html) shows an extraordinary ghost town in China that makes Southern Spain look positively underbuilt. Chinese banks have lent hundreds of billions to enterprises that may never be profitable - yet show next to no loan losses yet.
We shall see how it ends, but I would be extremely cautious.
Potentially, the same is true for China, but I would suggest that the key uncertainty and difference is political, rather than economic. The other difference that might be important is that the US had large indigenous reserves of oil, while China does not.
The poor performance of Anthony Bolton's China fund suggests that not all is straight forward or transparent in the Middle Kingdom.
If you believe that then there's no duplicity, but I guess you won't.
They have done their bit to stop nutters joining by banning ex BNP members, although I don't know if I completely agree with that. Im sure there are ex BNP members that were young, foolish and desperate when they were in that party, and have left as they matured, but I its guess its one way of trying to limit crazy racism on Facebook etc being linked to Ukip
After all, many, particularly older, men may well have made, years ago when the world was different, comments, perhaps in jest, which while they then simply caused the female to move away or "feel uncomfortable" would now be regarded as cause for vocal complaint.
Disputes such as this, and the way it's being handled, do not encourage this ex-LD to come back!
We should remember that the women concerned had a number of choices , ignore it and walk away , press/ hope for a criminal prosecution , press / hope for internal disciplinary action and lastly sue Lord Rennard for perceived damages in the civil courts . None of them have chosen the latter course so far .
So you would be right to criticise my post for being a bit unfair.
How can that be defensible?
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 2m
Conservatives already attacking Lab's new literacy/maths test:
pic.twitter.com/e7qy36mLjI
Expect more of this in run up to 2015
Edit: Ooops, its not the Tories.
Seriously, though, what is your evidence? I'm more aware of the incipient attempt by Tories to complain that any - any - criticism of the policies of a Tory-dominated Westminster Goernment is a priori anti-English and therefore racist. Though they seem to have stopped that more recently (someone must have had a word). Like the attempt to complain that the Tory cabinet were being racially vilified when they were likened to Lord Snooties - Lord Snooty being, as any fule kno, a character in a Scottish comic anyway.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 2m
Farage on David 'gay marriage caused the floods' Silvester: "If you accept defectors from Conservatives, you'll always have embarrassments'
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nigel-farage-after-owen-joness-open-letter-toukip-voters-last-week-here-is-my-reply-9070436.html
Women: I'm being sexually harassed by a colleague
Me: Why, what's he doing?
Woman: He keeps on telling me "your hair smells lovely"
Me: That's not sexual harassment.
Woman: It's Kevin the dwarf that keeps on saying it
I'd suggest that Russia pre-1914 is a better comparison for present day China than inter-war America.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Anyway, isn't she guilty of some sort of ism?
http://popu.lu/s_vi140120
Some hefty weighting revisions going on there with the Lib Dems and UKIP (again), from an unweighted split of about 2:1 in UKIP's favour to 3:2 in the Lib Dems.
Other Others at 8% is interestingly high (Greens at 3% plays a part - a guide to the Euros?).
Still virtually no Lab-Con movement from 2010, with 6% of 2010 Con voters now planning to vote Lab and 4% of Labour's 2010 support going the other way.
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
... pawn to c5.
Surely..... Mornington Crescent
"They don't have many people on the ground but they have lots of money"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100254439/why-labour-should-be-terrified-of-ukip-2/
The accounts published by the Electoral Commission put UKIP way behind the other parties in fund-raising, 2013 must have been a bumper year.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-parties-annual-accounts/2012#UKIP
The core of people he's chasing may not include you, but it's certainly wider than just Guardian readers.
If one were making a political comparison then I would be inclined to agree with you.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world
I think that New Labour assumed that patriotic old labour types would let them get away with mass immigration because they knew they wouldn't vote Tory and there was nowhere else to go... slightly fortuitously perhaps, Ukip have become the go to place for these types of people, and are now capitalising on it
Accusing others of being “racist” is a routine for some people, but often their own hypocrisy is invisible.
Discrimination based on genetic differences is silly as the real genetic difference are almost imperceptible. The marker for this used to be skin colour, but in many countries nowadays, the marker is more likely to be culture - a sort of code for "tribe".
There is an instinctive like for your own “culture” over others that are seen as foreign. So we are all probably a bit racist by that definition – and it’s not a matter of left or right.
A good example is the recent upsurge in violence againt Christians across the globe . It has passed almost unnoticed by the the media. Why?
Regis Debray, the left-wing, French intellectual who fought with Che Guevara,talking about Christian victimisation in the developing world, said that these victims are ...
“ ... too Christian to excite the Left, too foreign to interest the Right.”
Exactly.
He knew the Left mindset very well, and was his usual cynical self with regards to the Right.
As ever, the people who like to brand others, look into a mirror and project the faults they see onto other people. That may be normal human behaviour, but their lack of self-awareness is embarrassing.
Yes I think your positions are entirely logical, and those who welcome free movement between EU countries but accept that the rest of the world need controlled immigration are completely inconsistent.
I said it before, if the BNP suggested free movement of labour for Europeans while demanding all sorts of controls for Africans and Asians it wouldn't be those who opposed it getting called racist
This would suggest that if they are being funded at a greater than 1:26 disadvantage compared to the Conservatives (1:7 Lib Dems) that they have a people on the ground disadvantage that is higher still.
I would guess that their media coverage disadvantage is far lower than their disadvantage in funding or activists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25804728
But I respect your position of visa free travel and work for all much more than the hypocrites who cry racist and xenophobe while restricting the rights of non Europeans on grounds of not being European
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/18/ukip-donor-help-euro-elections
"It was Christmas Day, people were probably busy."
True, but as a general point, it's the selectivity that's the issue. I'm not criticising people for not making a fuss, only when they make a fuss about other things, and then criticise others for not whole-heartedly backing their own particular issue.
Of course there's then an argument for having a free trade area with everyone instead of just participating European countries, but the thought is then that you should have a bunch of shared standards within the free trade area for what you can sell, without which countries with low safety and environmental standards will undercut countries with higher standards. So then you want the free trade area to have a single organization to set those standards, and give it the power to regulate interstate commerce. And the power to regulate interstate commerce is what created a strong federal government in the US; If you do it on a global level, you've just created a one-world government.
“In our attempt to summarise the vast literature on the impact of immigration on the labour market and productivity we have not found definitive evidence on the impact of immigrants on productivity and GDP."
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/pdfs/BP12_4.pdf
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/briefing-papers
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12473/9125087/cash-strapped-lotus-team-announce-new-sponsorship-deal-with-danish-saxo-bank
Hopefully that'll help the Enstone lot out a bit. The money situation generally in F1 is precarious.
Does this really mean that immigration's had no impact on productivity? Or that the evidence is all over the place?
I reckon there are plenty of kippers who would agree with you. Thing is, they don;t see why, along with the wealth creating immigrants, we have to accept rapists, drug dealers, wife beaters, money launderers, people traffickers, benefit cheats, health tourists, students who never pay their fees, pick pockets, genital mutilators, terrorists, hate mongers etc.etc.etc.
Now, you may say that in order to get the good people from abroad, we have to let in the dregs as well. Fair enough, but I think that you, Neil and everybody who supports that view should be honest about it.
People who want free movement should also be honest about the fact that the overseas wealth creators tend to enhance already prosperous UK areas, whereas the overseas dregs put extra pressure on already struggling areas.
The appeal of UKIP is that working class areas are fed up of the ''toxic by product ''of creating wealth through immigration being dumped on them.
Lib Dem Lord Reeves calls for Northern Ireland-style peace talks to solve Rennard crisis: 'If it can work for Gerry Adams...'
Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound 4m
Lord Greaves suggests same healing that 'worked with Gerry Adams' and 'in South Africa' should now be used to 'heal the chasm' in Lib Dems
Now you can come out with any number of economic stats to say everything's fine and growth is positively correlated and so forth but this is the nub.
@MikeSmithson to say he wants our country to prosper and hence is a fan of immigration is actually saying nothing helpful; how much is ok?
One doesn't have to have a strong opinion of this one way or the other to see why the Kippers get so frustrated with the terms of the discussion and the restricted way it is allowed to be framed.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 24s
Tessa Jowell indicates she won't decide whether to stand as London Mayor "until the other side of the election" #bbcdp
"And I’m afraid for you that it is the same story with our railways, but not in the way you envisage. You see, our rail privatisation occurred as part of an EU directive, too. It’s a conversation I have had with Bob Crow, who is very keen to renationalise the railways. But we can’t do is as members of the EU."
UKIP offering rail nationalisation would certainly throw Labour into a spin. A popular policy, that requires leaving the EU.
I mean...really????
It's a country's own business who and what they let in. My point is that immigration isn't a matter of race, creed or culture, its a matter of character.
I reckon that all most UKIPers really want is a system that allows in the wealth creators and worker and stops the dregs at the borders or boots them out when they're here.
Is such a thing possible? I don;t know. But that's what kippers really want.
As an aside, there's strong evidence that one reason that Germany was happy to give Austria the backing it did in 1914 was because the leaders thought the chances of winning a war against Russia would decline quite quickly as the years went by.
Also it's not a case of the government stepping in and preventing social change, they stepped in and caused social change with their policies (which were never in their manifesto, never voted for, and the size of which were, to be kind, grossly underestimated)
The one they don't seem to have tried, which I think would be worth looking at, is not paying anyone to do anything and just letting people come and go as they please.
Yes but you don;t live in the neighbourhood that has to take the strain. Most liberal left wingers live in comfortable middle class areas that benefit from immigration through the Indian doctor, French scientist or polish cleaner. Immigration is a huge positive for them.
Its completely different in a working class area I reckon, and that's what people who argue for completely unfettered immigration don't see.
Greaves, Carlile, Rennard, LibDems are now making a powerful case for Lords Reform.
The Greens are IMO doing OK everywhere except Brighton, where their encounter with power has not gone smoothly.
Nippon airlines apologises for 'racist' advert that pokes fun at Westerners' big noses and blonde hair
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542569/Nippon-airlines-sorry-racist-advert-pokes-fun-Westerners-big-noses-blonde-hair.html
Chris Huhne brought crabs home from European Parliament: Vicki Pryce required 'medical intervention', court hears