If he could think of some rationale responses to the world we live in rather than just pandering to the basest instincts then he might be worth having a discussion with
Once again, let's look at the facts. Which precise bits are pandering? Let's argue them objectively. Or are you just going to do method 3: smear the man, rather than debate the issues. It's worth bearing in mind that in the polls last night, a large majority thought Farage had the stronger arguments.
Well, let's take the implication that up to 29m Bulgarians and Romanians are about to descend on the UK. Farage is an intelligent man. He knows they won't all come. But he makes the statement in such a way that, while technically accurate, whips up trepidation among man of his supporters who are less detail orientated than him.
To be clear: this is a similar strategy to many politicians. But it's still pandering.
Youre too used to every other politicians patronising tone... Ukip use the 29m figure to illustrate that we are powerless to control our own borders, they've never said 29m are likely to come, when pressed they instantly admit that, and no ukip supporter is stupid enough to think that 29m might come
You seem to be struggling on logic. There are three options available to us:
(1) EU membership (2) EEA membership (3) Bilateral trade deal
Three is better than two. Two is better than one. Thus two is an example of how to be better than one, without negating the fact that three would be best of all.
Garbage.
If we retain EEA membership - as Farage, when it is convenient to his argument, often suggests, by citing Norway as an example - then the position as regards immigration is IDENTICAL to the position we are currently in as EU members (and Switzerland, the other country he often cites, has also had to agree to exactly the same rules in order to get the trade agreement he praises).
In fact, for the life of me I can't see how anyone could advocate going to all the trouble of leaving the EU and then buying back in to almost everything, only with less influence, but that is a slightly separate point: my main point is that you can have a relationship like Norway's with the EU, or you can have control over borders, but you can't have both.
Farage is, in other words, and in plain English, lying.
That's not entirely true. While EEA membership requires acceptance of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU, it does allow member states to throw up administrative and benefit blocks that mean that one can effectively discourage (non-working) immigration. Norway does it, as Richard Tyndall has pointed out in the past, via requiring Norwegian language lessons for immigrant workers, for example.
So: EEA membership would not stop the Polish plumber moving to Peterborough (or the the Birmingham bricky working in Bulgaria) it would be a fairly effective deterrent against the Roma families mentioned earlier. (That said, by returning to an NI contributions based system of benefits, and an insurance based system of healthcare provision, we could achieve the same goals in the UK.)
You misunderstood my point: the stats you were posting were useless and misleading. I didn't check your maths, but i'm willing to accept it was correct.
You accused me of posting inaccurate stats and said I should fix them.
As I showed afterwards they came directly from the ONS website.
Now you're entitled to regard them as useless and arguably as misleading.
But they weren't inaccurate, they were accurate official ONS stats.
So you should withdraw that comment you made.
Fine, if it matters so much to you. they were accurate, but not fit for purpose and you drew faulty conclusions as a result of your lack of statistical rigour.
Better?
Better.
As you applied precisely zero statistical rigour yourself then still leaves me infinitely ahead.
Of course you could apply some statistical rigour any time you wish as the ONS site is open all hours. I will wait eagerly for you to put your statistical rigour where your keyboard is.
And a piece of friendly advice Charles - don't claim to be too busy with work and then continue posting comments here. It looks better if you abstain for a couple of hours.
If he could think of some rationale responses to the world we live in rather than just pandering to the basest instincts then he might be worth having a discussion with
Once again, let's look at the facts. Which precise bits are pandering? Let's argue them objectively. Or are you just going to do method 3: smear the man, rather than debate the issues. It's worth bearing in mind that in the polls last night, a large majority thought Farage had the stronger arguments.
Well, let's take the implication that up to 29m Bulgarians and Romanians are about to descend on the UK. Farage is an intelligent man. He knows they won't all come. But he makes the statement in such a way that, while technically accurate, whips up trepidation among man of his supporters who are less detail orientated than him.
To be clear: this is a similar strategy to many politicians. But it's still pandering.
He has never said that they are about to descend on the UK. He didn't even implicate it. He just said that they have the right to come. That's an entirely fair point: we have farmed out our immigration policy to the individual decisions of almost 30m Romanians and Bulgarians, as well as all the other countries.
Basically, you've decided he's a panderer, and thus when he says something entirely accurate, you interpret it as meaning something inaccurate, and then use this to show he's a rabble rouser. It's ridiculous.
Yet, somehow, when europhiles say three million jobs are at risk - which the author of the report that the number came from says is untrue - he's not a panderer. Bizarre.
I see you're following Socrates' "how to argue like a europhile" method number 2. Let's get down in the actual facts. Please can you tell me which precise "bits" that has Farage has supported are incompatible? Please provide actual quotes of what Farage said.
The biggest one - if I were like you I would call it a whopping lie - is to cite Norway as an example of how we might do better in our relation with the rest of the EU, and in almost the same breath say we can have control over immigration.
You seem to be struggling on logic. There are three options available to us:
(1) EU membership (2) EEA membership (3) Bilateral trade deal
Three is better than two. Two is better than one. Thus two is an example of how to be better than one, without negating the fact that three would be best of all.
Except that he says "we need to control immigration" let's go for option 2, without pointing out that option 2 doesn't solve the immigration issue
When has he ever said that we should go for option 2 to control immigration? Never. This only exists in your imagination.
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
I have Kwasi in my portfolio as next Tory leader at somewhere north of 50/1.
I know someone who rates him highly from his pre-political days.
I've never seen him before tonight, very impressed.
I was at university with Kwasi, and remain a (somwehat distant) friend. He was among the very brightest people I've ever met, and far outclassed my other Trinity friend Tristram Hunt.
[Note: I originally wrote 'by other' when I mean 'my other']
Did today Ed Miliband make the greatest strategic and tactical mistake since Emperor Palpatine allowed the Rebel Alliance to know the location of the second Death Star?
Surely it was wiser for him to let Dave to take the rap for not letting Farage into the debates?
Nigel Farage should be excluded from TV election debates, says Ed Miliband
Labour leader calls for repeat of 2010 debates involving three main parties, saying: 'I am not that interested in Nigel Farage'
Having read the quote the headline is perhaps a bit over the top. The quotes seem to suggest that Miliband's main priority is getting Cameron involved and a repeat of 2010 would make it easiest to arrange. However I can't believe Miliband would want to be outnumbered 2:1 by the coalition. A 2 man or 4 man debate would be best from his perspective. He should certainly keep an open mind on Farage.
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
I have Kwasi in my portfolio as next Tory leader at somewhere north of 50/1.
I know someone who rates him highly from his pre-political days.
I've never seen him before tonight, very impressed.
I was at university with Kwasi, and remain a (somwehat distant) friend. He was among the very brightest people I've ever met, and far outclassed by other Trinity friend Tristram Hunt.
Awkward English alert. Do you mean 'but far outclassed by' or ' and far outclassed'?
You seem to be struggling on logic. There are three options available to us:
(1) EU membership (2) EEA membership (3) Bilateral trade deal
Three is better than two. Two is better than one. Thus two is an example of how to be better than one, without negating the fact that three would be best of all.
Garbage.
If we retain EEA membership - as Farage, when it is convenient to his argument, often suggests, by citing Norway as an example - then the position as regards immigration is IDENTICAL to the position we are currently in as EU members (and Switzerland, the other country he often cites, has also had to agree to exactly the same rules in order to get the trade agreement he praises).
In fact, for the life of me I can't see how anyone could advocate going to all the trouble of leaving the EU and then buying back in to almost everything, only with less influence, but that is a slightly separate point: my main point is that you can have a relationship like Norway's with the EU, or you can have control over borders, but you can't have both.
Farage is, in other words, and in plain English, lying.
You didn't even attempt to address my argument. And you still haven't provided the quote where Farage advocates us having Norway's status. This is the problem with Europhiles. You all live in a fantasy world where you don't actually listen to the other side of the debate.
The normal weasal form of words is that farage is OK but he leads an unpleasant, racist party. You've gone the other direction. I would love to know the basis for your judgement of Farage.
An overall impression, based on his tone, some of the comments he makes, some of the people he associates with and the policies he advocates. But it's a totally subjective judgement: I've never met the man.
But I would say that the "damp rag" speech he us so proud of was childish, boorish, unconstructive, self-regarding and unpleasant. Not the sort of speech any one in public life should make, let alone be proud of.
What alternative method do you believe would highlight the extent of completely undemocratic rule by non-entities who's primary asset is their lack of publicity and oversight?
Farage's migration goals could only be achieved by leaving the EEA; rather like Salmond he is deliberately vague on details.
True independence could only be achieved by also leaving the ECJ and NATO. While NATO consists mostly of EU nations, and is head-quartered in Brussels, its foreign policy and military commitments will be decided by the EU in conjunction with the USA.
I see you're following Socrates' "how to argue like a europhile" method number 2. Let's get down in the actual facts. Please can you tell me which precise "bits" that has Farage has supported are incompatible? Please provide actual quotes of what Farage said.
The biggest one - if I were like you I would call it a whopping lie - is to cite Norway as an example of how we might do better in our relation with the rest of the EU, and in almost the same breath say we can have control over immigration.
You seem to be struggling on logic. There are three options available to us:
(1) EU membership (2) EEA membership (3) Bilateral trade deal
Three is better than two. Two is better than one. Thus two is an example of how to be better than one, without negating the fact that three would be best of all.
Except that he says "we need to control immigration" let's go for option 2, without pointing out that option 2 doesn't solve the immigration issue
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
Camilla Cavendish is excellent. But then she did get a First in PPE from Brasenose College, Oxford. It tends to be a route to the top!
Kwasi Kwarteng frustrates me because he has the brains and has been tipped as a future Tory great but his diffidence and languour (an occasional unwanted side-effect of an Eton education) seems to prevent him grabbing opportunity when it arises. He should be a Minister by now. Why isn't he?
Incidentally both went to Harvard to do post-graduate degrees. Another CV indicator of future success. See the two Balls.
The normal weasal form of words is that farage is OK but he leads an unpleasant, racist party. You've gone the other direction. I would love to know the basis for your judgement of Farage.
An overall impression, based on his tone, some of the comments he makes, some of the people he associates with and the policies he advocates. But it's a totally subjective judgement: I've never met the man.
But I would say that the "damp rag" speech he us so proud of was childish, boorish, unconstructive, self-regarding and unpleasant. Not the sort of speech any one in public life should make, let alone be proud of.
What alternative method do you believe would highlight the extent of completely undemocratic rule by non-entities who's primary asset is their lack of publicity and oversight?
courtesy never hurt anyone
Nonsense. Courtesy gets 0 youtube hits, 0 publicity, and you know it.
Lets all just be polite about a democratic outrage taking place and it will be resolved just as quickly as if we protest?
Farage's migration goals could only be achieved by leaving the EEA; rather like Salmond he is deliberately vague on details.
True independence could only be achieved by also leaving the ECJ and NATO. While NATO consists mostly of EU nations, and is head-quartered in Brussels, its foreign policy and military commitments will be decided by the EU in conjunction with the USA.
I see you're following Socrates' "how to argue like a europhile" method number 2. Let's get down in the actual facts. Please can you tell me which precise "bits" that has Farage has supported are incompatible? Please provide actual quotes of what Farage said.
The biggest one - if I were like you I would call it a whopping lie - is to cite Norway as an example of how we might do better in our relation with the rest of the EU, and in almost the same breath say we can have control over immigration.
You seem to be struggling on logic. There are three options available to us:
(1) EU membership (2) EEA membership (3) Bilateral trade deal
Three is better than two. Two is better than one. Thus two is an example of how to be better than one, without negating the fact that three would be best of all.
Except that he says "we need to control immigration" let's go for option 2, without pointing out that option 2 doesn't solve the immigration issue
Must be why Germany was forced to attack Libya as part of the NATO intervention.
If he could think of some rationale responses to the world we live in rather than just pandering to the basest instincts then he might be worth having a discussion with
Once again, let's look at the facts. Which precise bits are pandering? Let's argue them objectively. Or are you just going to do method 3: smear the man, rather than debate the issues. It's worth bearing in mind that in the polls last night, a large majority thought Farage had the stronger arguments.
Well, let's take the implication that up to 29m Bulgarians and Romanians are about to descend on the UK. Farage is an intelligent man. He knows they won't all come. But he makes the statement in such a way that, while technically accurate, whips up trepidation among man of his supporters who are less detail orientated than him.
To be clear: this is a similar strategy to many politicians. But it's still pandering.
Youre too used to every other politicians patronising tone... Ukip use the 29m figure to illustrate that we are powerless to control our own borders, they've never said 29m are likely to come, when pressed they instantly admit that, and no ukip supporter is stupid enough to think that 29m might come
That's not entirely true. While EEA membership requires acceptance of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU, it does allow member states to throw up administrative and benefit blocks that mean that one can effectively discourage (non-working) immigration.
No, that is wrong, Norway - who were indeed trying to game the system - are bound by European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004:
If he could think of some rationale responses to the world we live in rather than just pandering to the basest instincts then he might be worth having a discussion with
Once again, let's look at the facts. Which precise bits are pandering? Let's argue them objectively. Or are you just going to do method 3: smear the man, rather than debate the issues. It's worth bearing in mind that in the polls last night, a large majority thought Farage had the stronger arguments.
Well, let's take the implication that up to 29m Bulgarians and Romanians are about to descend on the UK. Farage is an intelligent man. He knows they won't all come. But he makes the statement in such a way that, while technically accurate, whips up trepidation among man of his supporters who are less detail orientated than him.
To be clear: this is a similar strategy to many politicians. But it's still pandering.
He has never said that they are about to descend on the UK. He didn't even implicate it. He just said that they have the right to come. That's an entirely fair point: we have farmed out our immigration policy to the individual decisions of almost 30m Romanians and Bulgarians, as well as all the other countries.
Basically, you've decided he's a panderer, and thus when he says something entirely accurate, you interpret it as meaning something inaccurate, and then use this to show he's a rabble rouser. It's ridiculous.
Yet, somehow, when europhiles say three million jobs are at risk - which the author of the report that the number came from says is untrue - he's not a panderer. Bizarre.
Actually th 3m jobs at risk line really p1sses me off. It's garbage, and the people who say it should know better.
If he could think of some rationale responses to the world we live in rather than just pandering to the basest instincts then he might be worth having a discussion with
Once again, let's look at the facts. Which precise bits are pandering? Let's argue them objectively. Or are you just going to do method 3: smear the man, rather than debate the issues. It's worth bearing in mind that in the polls last night, a large majority thought Farage had the stronger arguments.
Well, let's take the implication that up to 29m Bulgarians and Romanians are about to descend on the UK. Farage is an intelligent man. He knows they won't all come. But he makes the statement in such a way that, while technically accurate, whips up trepidation among man of his supporters who are less detail orientated than him.
To be clear: this is a similar strategy to many politicians. But it's still pandering.
Youre too used to every other politicians patronising tone... Ukip use the 29m figure to illustrate that we are powerless to control our own borders, they've never said 29m are likely to come, when pressed they instantly admit that, and no ukip supporter is stupid enough to think that 29m might come
If he could think of some rationale responses to the world we live in rather than just pandering to the basest instincts then he might be worth having a discussion with
Once again, let's look at the facts. Which precise bits are pandering? Let's argue them objectively. Or are you just going to do method 3: smear the man, rather than debate the issues. It's worth bearing in mind that in the polls last night, a large majority thought Farage had the stronger arguments.
Well, let's take the implication that up to 29m Bulgarians and Romanians are about to descend on the UK. Farage is an intelligent man. He knows they won't all come. But he makes the statement in such a way that, while technically accurate, whips up trepidation among man of his supporters who are less detail orientated than him.
To be clear: this is a similar strategy to many politicians. But it's still pandering.
Youre too used to every other politicians patronising tone... Ukip use the 29m figure to illustrate that we are powerless to control our own borders, they've never said 29m are likely to come, when pressed they instantly admit that, and no ukip supporter is stupid enough to think that 29m might come
At no point in that leaflet do they say that 29 million will come or are likely to come. They just say 29 million are allowed to come, which will cause another influx of people needing jobs, government services etc. That's entirely true.
You misunderstood my point: the stats you were posting were useless and misleading. I didn't check your maths, but i'm willing to accept it was correct.
You accused me of posting inaccurate stats and said I should fix them.
As I showed afterwards they came directly from the ONS website.
Now you're entitled to regard them as useless and arguably as misleading.
But they weren't inaccurate, they were accurate official ONS stats.
So you should withdraw that comment you made.
Fine, if it matters so much to you. they were accurate, but not fit for purpose and you drew faulty conclusions as a result of your lack of statistical rigour.
Better?
Better.
As you applied precisely zero statistical rigour yourself then still leaves me infinitely ahead.
Of course you could apply some statistical rigour any time you wish as the ONS site is open all hours. I will wait eagerly for you to put your statistical rigour where your keyboard is.
And a piece of friendly advice Charles - don't claim to be too busy with work and then continue posting comments here. It looks better if you abstain for a couple of hours.
When I am not traveling I am based at my desk, so can multi-task. But working with statistics takes time which I don't have.
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
I have Kwasi in my portfolio as next Tory leader at somewhere north of 50/1.
I know someone who rates him highly from his pre-political days.
I've never seen him before tonight, very impressed.
I was at university with Kwasi, and remain a (somwehat distant) friend. He was among the very brightest people I've ever met, and far outclassed by other Trinity friend Tristram Hunt.
That reads as if Kwasi was outclassed BY Hunt.
Do you mean Kwasi outclassed MY other friend Hunt ?
I'd reverse the question: find me a quote where Farage says "No, having a relationship like Norway's or Switzerland's is a waste of time because it wouldn't give us the freedom we need to control our borders". That would be the honest thing to say.
You misunderstood my point: the stats you were posting were useless and misleading. I didn't check your maths, but i'm willing to accept it was correct.
You accused me of posting inaccurate stats and said I should fix them.
As I showed afterwards they came directly from the ONS website.
Now you're entitled to regard them as useless and arguably as misleading.
But they weren't inaccurate, they were accurate official ONS stats.
So you should withdraw that comment you made.
Fine, if it matters so much to you. they were accurate, but not fit for purpose and you drew faulty conclusions as a result of your lack of statistical rigour.
Better?
Better.
As you applied precisely zero statistical rigour yourself then still leaves me infinitely ahead.
Of course you could apply some statistical rigour any time you wish as the ONS site is open all hours. I will wait eagerly for you to put your statistical rigour where your keyboard is.
And a piece of friendly advice Charles - don't claim to be too busy with work and then continue posting comments here. It looks better if you abstain for a couple of hours.
When I am not traveling I am based at my desk, so can multi-task. But working with statistics takes time which I don't have.
My problem with UKIP (other than the fact that I think that allowing 485 million people to work in the UK is an indisputably good thing):
I don't - outside leaving the EU and being in favour of grammar schools - know what they believe in. Mr Farage has claimed that the old, broadly libertarian 2010 manifesto, is 'garbage'. Policies from 18 months ago, like the "people's pension" seem to have been disappeared from their website, and the new economics spokesman has talked about abolishing state provision of pensions in their entirety. The website has changed recently, but until about a month ago, the number one listed policy on their 'policies' page was a sovereign wealth fund for the profits of fraccing - a policy so far in advance of reality as to be basically absurd. And the white paper on taxation, which I praised on this site, also seems to have disappeared.
UKIP's 91 page document on leaving the EU contains several pages on the benefits of a commonwealth free trade area, ignoring the fact that getting the Indians and the Pakistanis to the same table, let alone getting them in a pan-commonwealth FTA, would be essentially impossible. Is that really UKIP policy?
UKIP also wants to cut government spending: but the largest components of government spending - pensions, the NHS, and interest on government debt are largely outside their control, and with other areas such as police and defence it seems unlikely there is an active policy of reducing spending. All oppositions are weak on specifics of spending cuts - but other than the c. £10bn saved on not being in the EU it is not clear how UKIP plans to genuinely reduce spending.
And finally, I think Nigel Farage is too fond of the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra: how else to explain his somewhat bizarre Putin love-in.
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
I have Kwasi in my portfolio as next Tory leader at somewhere north of 50/1.
I know someone who rates him highly from his pre-political days.
I've never seen him before tonight, very impressed.
I was at university with Kwasi, and remain a (somwehat distant) friend. He was among the very brightest people I've ever met, and far outclassed by other Trinity friend Tristram Hunt.
That reads as if Kwasi was outclassed BY Hunt.
Do you mean Kwasi outclassed MY other friend Hunt ?
That is *exactly* what I meant. Remind me to double check my posts, and thanks for pointing that out.
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
Camilla Cavendish is excellent. But then she did get a First in PPE from Brasenose College, Oxford. It tends to be a route to the top!
Kwasi Kwarteng frustrates me because he has the brains and has been tipped as a future Tory great but his diffidence and languour (an occasional unwanted side-effect of an Eton education) seems to prevent him grabbing opportunity when it arises. He should be a Minister by now. Why isn't he?
Incidentally both went to Harvard to do post-graduate degrees. Another CV indicator of future success. See the two Balls.
Oh I didn't know he was an old Etonian... I take it all back , he's scum,
Just kidding of course. I don't know where working class people get off with the inverted snobbery. My old boss was head boy at Eton, and I found him very interesting to be around, I'd never met anyone like it before. The fact he thought of me as some Dickensian chimney sweep was neither here nor there! why wouldn't he. He came from a different world. I wouldn't have had him down the pub with my mates either, we call public schoolboys "wallies with confidence", but it takes all sorts!
NATO is a defensive alliance, so if Germany, or Latvia, or indeed Turkey were attacked by a foreign power, then we would be obliged to come to their aid.
Offensive action is more optional, but there were wermacht troops in Afghanistan.
Farage's migration goals could only be achieved by leaving the EEA; rather like Salmond he is deliberately vague on details.
True independence could only be achieved by also leaving the ECJ and NATO. While NATO consists mostly of EU nations, and is head-quartered in Brussels, its foreign policy and military commitments will be decided by the EU in conjunction with the USA.
I see you're following Socrates' "how to argue like a europhile" method number 2. Let's get down in the actual facts. Please can you tell me which precise "bits" that has Farage has supported are incompatible? Please provide actual quotes of what Farage said.
The biggest one - if I were like you I would call it a whopping lie - is to cite Norway as an example of how we might do better in our relation with the rest of the EU, and in almost the same breath say we can have control over immigration.
You seem to be struggling on logic. There are three options available to us:
(1) EU membership (2) EEA membership (3) Bilateral trade deal
Three is better than two. Two is better than one. Thus two is an example of how to be better than one, without negating the fact that three would be best of all.
Except that he says "we need to control immigration" let's go for option 2, without pointing out that option 2 doesn't solve the immigration issue
Must be why Germany was forced to attack Libya as part of the NATO intervention.
My big fear about Nigel Farage's manlove for Vladimir Putin is that we may shortly be treated to pictures of UKIP's supremo bare chested and toting a Kalashnikov.
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
Camilla Cavendish is excellent. But then she did get a First in PPE from Brasenose College, Oxford. It tends to be a route to the top!
Kwasi Kwarteng frustrates me because he has the brains and has been tipped as a future Tory great but his diffidence and languour (an occasional unwanted side-effect of an Eton education) seems to prevent him grabbing opportunity when it arises. He should be a Minister by now. Why isn't he?
Incidentally both went to Harvard to do post-graduate degrees. Another CV indicator of future success. See the two Balls.
Oh I didn't know he was an old Etonian... I take it all back , he's scum,
Just kidding of course. I don't know where working class people get off with the inverted snobbery. My old boss was head boy at Eton, and I found him very interesting to be around, I'd never met anyone like it before. The fact he thought of me as some Dickensian chimney sweep was neither here nor there! why wouldn't he. He came from a different world. I wouldn't have had him down the pub with my mates either, we call public schoolboys "wallies with confidence", but it takes all sorts!
He's not a minister because coalition has meant there simply are not many jobs for bright, young(ish) Conservative MPs.
My big fear about Nigel Farage's manlove for Vladimir Putin is that we may shortly be treated to pictures of UKIP's supremo bare chested and toting a Kalashnikov.
There's something much worse (and I apologise for posting this before some PBers go to bed)
Pretended that he didn't understand why benefits might need to rise faster than wages sometimes, and alsost certainly made up a conversation he had with "low paid workers at Heathrow"- at least some of them would have been in receipt of tax credits which he voted to limit.
NATO is a defensive alliance, so if Germany, or Latvia, or indeed Turkey were attacked by a foreign power, then we would be obliged to come to their aid.
Offensive action is more optional, but there were wermacht troops in Afghanistan.
Farage's migration goals could only be achieved by leaving the EEA; rather like Salmond he is deliberately vague on details.
True independence could only be achieved by also leaving the ECJ and NATO. While NATO consists mostly of EU nations, and is head-quartered in Brussels, its foreign policy and military commitments will be decided by the EU in conjunction with the USA.
I see you're following Socrates' "how to argue like a europhile" method number 2. Let's get down in the actual facts. Please can you tell me which precise "bits" that has Farage has supported are incompatible? Please provide actual quotes of what Farage said.
The biggest one - if I were like you I would call it a whopping lie - is to cite Norway as an example of how we might do better in our relation with the rest of the EU, and in almost the same breath say we can have control over immigration.
You seem to be struggling on logic. There are three options available to us:
(1) EU membership (2) EEA membership (3) Bilateral trade deal
Three is better than two. Two is better than one. Thus two is an example of how to be better than one, without negating the fact that three would be best of all.
Except that he says "we need to control immigration" let's go for option 2, without pointing out that option 2 doesn't solve the immigration issue
Must be why Germany was forced to attack Libya as part of the NATO intervention.
Oh wait, it wasn't.
That's not NATO law overriding UK law though, in the way EU law does though, is it? UK law is still prime. Thus sovereignty rests with the UK.
Apparently Vegetables should be subsidised. How bloody cheap would they need to be for the sort of people these policies are aimed at to take any notice. It is already much cheaper to cook your own meals. The problem here is people, not prices.
That's not entirely true. While EEA membership requires acceptance of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU, it does allow member states to throw up administrative and benefit blocks that mean that one can effectively discourage (non-working) immigration.
No, that is wrong, Norway - who were indeed trying to game the system - are bound by European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004:
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
Camilla Cavendish is excellent. But then she did get a First in PPE from Brasenose College, Oxford. It tends to be a route to the top!
Kwasi Kwarteng frustrates me because he has the brains and has been tipped as a future Tory great but his diffidence and languour (an occasional unwanted side-effect of an Eton education) seems to prevent him grabbing opportunity when it arises. He should be a Minister by now. Why isn't he?
Incidentally both went to Harvard to do post-graduate degrees. Another CV indicator of future success. See the two Balls.
Oh I didn't know he was an old Etonian... I take it all back , he's scum,
Just kidding of course. I don't know where working class people get off with the inverted snobbery. My old boss was head boy at Eton, and I found him very interesting to be around, I'd never met anyone like it before. The fact he thought of me as some Dickensian chimney sweep was neither here nor there! why wouldn't he. He came from a different world. I wouldn't have had him down the pub with my mates either, we call public schoolboys "wallies with confidence", but it takes all sorts!
As we are unashamedly dealing in stereotypes, it might be worth pointing out that Kwasi was a King's Scholar at Eton (i.e. he probably, not necessarily, had most of his school fees paid) so you can release some of the take back.
He is also of Ghanaian origin. There is no gentler country in Africa. I had a Ghanaian PA for many years and knew a number of prominent Ghanaians in London. I loved them all but I wouldn't want them to fight on my behalf. Far too laid back.
NATO is a defensive alliance, so if Germany, or Latvia, or indeed Turkey were attacked by a foreign power, then we would be obliged to come to their aid.
Offensive action is more optional, but there were wermacht troops in Afghanistan.
Farage's migration goals could only be achieved by leaving the EEA; rather like Salmond he is deliberately vague on details.
True independence could only be achieved by also leaving the ECJ and NATO. While NATO consists mostly of EU nations, and is head-quartered in Brussels, its foreign policy and military commitments will be decided by the EU in conjunction with the USA.
I see you're following Socrates' "how to argue like a europhile" method number 2. Let's get down in the actual facts. Please can you tell me which precise "bits" that has Farage has supported are incompatible? Please provide actual quotes of what Farage said.
The biggest one - if I were like you I would call it a whopping lie - is to cite Norway as an example of how we might do better in our relation with the rest of the EU, and in almost the same breath say we can have control over immigration.
You seem to be struggling on logic. There are three options available to us:
(1) EU membership (2) EEA membership (3) Bilateral trade deal
Three is better than two. Two is better than one. Thus two is an example of how to be better than one, without negating the fact that three would be best of all.
Except that he says "we need to control immigration" let's go for option 2, without pointing out that option 2 doesn't solve the immigration issue
Must be why Germany was forced to attack Libya as part of the NATO intervention.
Oh wait, it wasn't.
That's not NATO law overriding UK law though, in the way EU law does though, is it? UK law is still prime. Thus sovereignty rests with the UK.
Haven't we signed up to a number of supranational bodies, such as the International Criminal Court at the Hague which over-rule British law?
I don't think the concept of allowing bodies outside the UK to have jurisdiction over certain matters is that ridiculous, the issue with the EU, surely, is more that (a) many of the laws propagated are done by an indirectly elected executive, and (b) the extent of laws is very great, considering that the British people have not been consulted (or at least, not directly) about the degree to which sovereignty has been transferred.
I'd reverse the question: find me a quote where Farage says "No, having a relationship like Norway's or Switzerland's is a waste of time because it wouldn't give us the freedom we need to control our borders". That would be the honest thing to say.
Did you even watch the video? He said there are still drawbacks to the EEA because we'd still be compelled to follow some EU rules. That's exactly the honesty you were wanting. He then says the EEA should just be a holding position to negotiate a new deal. How on Earth is that recommending permanent EEA status?
Now, if we're talking about honesty in our European options, why hasn't Cameron said all the things it will be impossible to repatriate back, because the French and others would never sign up to it? No - he's letting all his supporters cherry pick their fantasy vision. So Farage is actually saying his plan, while Cameron just uses the word "renegotiation" over and over again.
Did today Ed Miliband make the greatest strategic and tactical mistake since Emperor Palpatine allowed the Rebel Alliance to know the location of the second Death Star?
Surely it was wiser for him to let Dave to take the rap for not letting Farage into the debates?
Nigel Farage should be excluded from TV election debates, says Ed Miliband
Labour leader calls for repeat of 2010 debates involving three main parties, saying: 'I am not that interested in Nigel Farage'
Having read the quote the headline is perhaps a bit over the top. The quotes seem to suggest that Miliband's main priority is getting Cameron involved and a repeat of 2010 would make it easiest to arrange. However I can't believe Miliband would want to be outnumbered 2:1 by the coalition. A 2 man or 4 man debate would be best from his perspective. He should certainly keep an open mind on Farage.
Yep, it's a disgraceful headline on an article by one of Nick Clegg's biggest fans.
We would not be in sole control of our foreign and military policy if we stay in an EU dominated NATO.
If Latvia were attacked by Farage's "clever player" Putin, or Syria were to attack Turkey, we would either be at war, or fail to live up to our treaty.
Our relationship with the EU is based on bilateral treaties, but we are in many other treaty arrangements. If we really want Independence, then we should avoid treaties.
NATO is a defensive alliance, so if Germany, or Latvia, or indeed Turkey were attacked by a foreign power, then we would be obliged to come to their aid.
Offensive action is more optional, but there were wermacht troops in Afghanistan.
Farage's migration goals could only be achieved by leaving the EEA; rather like Salmond he is deliberately vague on details.
True independence could only be achieved by also leaving the ECJ and NATO. While NATO consists mostly of EU nations, and is head-quartered in Brussels, its foreign policy and military commitments will be decided by the EU in conjunction with the USA.
I see you're following Socrates' "how to argue like a europhile" method number 2. Let's get down in the actual facts. Please can you tell me which precise "bits" that has Farage has supported are incompatible? Please provide actual quotes of what Farage said.
The biggest one - if I were like you I would call it a whopping lie - is to cite Norway as an example of how we might do better in our relation with the rest of the EU, and in almost the same breath say we can have control over immigration.
You seem to be struggling on logic. There are three options available to us:
(1) EU membership (2) EEA membership (3) Bilateral trade deal
Three is better than two. Two is better than one. Thus two is an example of how to be better than one, without negating the fact that three would be best of all.
Except that he says "we need to control immigration" let's go for option 2, without pointing out that option 2 doesn't solve the immigration issue
Must be why Germany was forced to attack Libya as part of the NATO intervention.
Oh wait, it wasn't.
That's not NATO law overriding UK law though, in the way EU law does though, is it? UK law is still prime. Thus sovereignty rests with the UK.
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
Camilla Cavendish is excellent. But then she did get a First in PPE from Brasenose College, Oxford. It tends to be a route to the top!
Kwasi Kwarteng frustrates me because he has the brains and has been tipped as a future Tory great but his diffidence and languour (an occasional unwanted side-effect of an Eton education) seems to prevent him grabbing opportunity when it arises. He should be a Minister by now. Why isn't he?
Incidentally both went to Harvard to do post-graduate degrees. Another CV indicator of future success. See the two Balls.
Oh I didn't know he was an old Etonian... I take it all back , he's scum,
Just kidding of course. I don't know where working class people get off with the inverted snobbery. My old boss was head boy at Eton, and I found him very interesting to be around, I'd never met anyone like it before. The fact he thought of me as some Dickensian chimney sweep was neither here nor there! why wouldn't he. He came from a different world. I wouldn't have had him down the pub with my mates either, we call public schoolboys "wallies with confidence", but it takes all sorts!
As we are unashamedly dealing in stereotypes, it might be worth pointing out that Kwasi was a King's Scholar at Eton (i.e. he probably, not necessarily, had most of his school fees paid) so you can release some of the take back.
He is also of Ghanaian origin. There is no gentler country in Africa. I had a Ghanaian PA for many years and knew a number of prominent Ghanaians in London. I loved them all but I wouldn't want them to fight on my behalf. Far too laid back.
That's not NATO law overriding UK law though, in the way EU law does though, is it? UK law is still prime. Thus sovereignty rests with the UK.
As an aside, so long as the UK is free to leave the EU by dint of vote of parliament (and the assent of the Queen, obviously), then sovereignty rests with the UK. The same is not true of the people of Hampstead, whose UDI would be unlikely to be recognised by the British government.
"On public sector pay, I think we've gone very soft on this. What happened in 1931 is when the National Government was formed, they cut public sector pay by 10%. That was a different political era and they really understood the economics of very aggressive cuts to public expenditure. I think there's only one of my colleagues who's suggested something like that, but generally there's very little political appetite.
My suspicion is that a government that was bold enough to tackle some of these issues would actually find more public support than they anticipated, though the interest groups would be squealing"
What happened in 1931 was that the pay cuts further deflated the economy. And caused a mutiny in the Navy.
We had to come off the Gold Standard, which was what the pay cuts had been supposed to avoid.
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
Camilla Cavendish is excellent. But then she did get a First in PPE from Brasenose College, Oxford. It tends to be a route to the top!
Kwasi Kwarteng frustrates me because he has the brains and has been tipped as a future Tory great but his diffidence and languour (an occasional unwanted side-effect of an Eton education) seems to prevent him grabbing opportunity when it arises. He should be a Minister by now. Why isn't he?
Incidentally both went to Harvard to do post-graduate degrees. Another CV indicator of future success. See the two Balls.
Oh I didn't know he was an old Etonian... I take it all back , he's scum,
Just kidding of course. I don't know where working class people get off with the inverted snobbery. My old boss was head boy at Eton, and I found him very interesting to be around, I'd never met anyone like it before. The fact he thought of me as some Dickensian chimney sweep was neither here nor there! why wouldn't he. He came from a different world. I wouldn't have had him down the pub with my mates either, we call public schoolboys "wallies with confidence", but it takes all sorts!
As we are unashamedly dealing in stereotypes, it might be worth pointing out that Kwasi was a King's Scholar at Eton (i.e. he probably, not necessarily, had most of his school fees paid) so you can release some of the take back.
He is also of Ghanaian origin. There is no gentler country in Africa. I had a Ghanaian PA for many years and knew a number of prominent Ghanaians in London. I loved them all but I wouldn't want them to fight on my behalf. Far too laid back.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
"On public sector pay, I think we've gone very soft on this. What happened in 1931 is when the National Government was formed, they cut public sector pay by 10%. That was a different political era and they really understood the economics of very aggressive cuts to public expenditure. I think there's only one of my colleagues who's suggested something like that, but generally there's very little political appetite.
My suspicion is that a government that was bold enough to tackle some of these issues would actually find more public support than they anticipated, though the interest groups would be squealing"
What happened in 1931 was that the pay cuts further deflated the economy. And caused a mutiny in the Navy.
We had to come off the Gold Standard, which was what the pay cuts had been supposed to avoid.
He's all bluster. Hedge fund spiv.
Sir Joshua
Which would you consider a better subject for an C.18th still-life:
"On public sector pay, I think we've gone very soft on this. What happened in 1931 is when the National Government was formed, they cut public sector pay by 10%. That was a different political era and they really understood the economics of very aggressive cuts to public expenditure. I think there's only one of my colleagues who's suggested something like that, but generally there's very little political appetite.
My suspicion is that a government that was bold enough to tackle some of these issues would actually find more public support than they anticipated, though the interest groups would be squealing"
What happened in 1931 was that the pay cuts further deflated the economy. And caused a mutiny in the Navy.
We had to come off the Gold Standard, which was what the pay cuts had been supposed to avoid.
He's all bluster. Hedge fund spiv.
Leaving the gold standard was an absolute pre-requisite for recovery. Complaining that we did it by accident is rather peevish.
Kwasi Kwarteng impressive on QT... Camila too, the rest nowhere
Camilla Cavendish is excellent. But then she did get a First in PPE from Brasenose College, Oxford. It tends to be a route to the top!
Kwasi Kwarteng frustrates me because he has the brains and has been tipped as a future Tory great but his diffidence and languour (an occasional unwanted side-effect of an Eton education) seems to prevent him grabbing opportunity when it arises. He should be a Minister by now. Why isn't he?
Incidentally both went to Harvard to do post-graduate degrees. Another CV indicator of future success. See the two Balls.
Oh I didn't know he was an old Etonian... I take it all back , he's scum,
Just kidding of course. I don't know where working class people get off with the inverted snobbery. My old boss was head boy at Eton, and I found him very interesting to be around, I'd never met anyone like it before. The fact he thought of me as some Dickensian chimney sweep was neither here nor there! why wouldn't he. He came from a different world. I wouldn't have had him down the pub with my mates either, we call public schoolboys "wallies with confidence", but it takes all sorts!
As we are unashamedly dealing in stereotypes, it might be worth pointing out that Kwasi was a King's Scholar at Eton (i.e. he probably, not necessarily, had most of his school fees paid) so you can release some of the take back.
He is also of Ghanaian origin. There is no gentler country in Africa. I had a Ghanaian PA for many years and knew a number of prominent Ghanaians in London. I loved them all but I wouldn't want them to fight on my behalf. Far too laid back.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
The 1931 and 1932 budgets were certainly dramatic, with public sector pay cuts, leaving the gold standard and a haircut for war bond holders.
Within a two years we had the fastest growing economy in the developed world and continuous economic growth until the war.
by 1934 all the pay levels and benefits were restored, and the economy grew very strongly still, re-armament did not begin until 1937 or so.
Neville Chamberlain will always be remembered for appeasment, however essential this was until rearmament had happened, rather than his expertise as one of the most successful Chancellors ever.
Ladbrokes have Kwarteng at 66/1 for leader still. I think Sajid Javid also is worth considering at 33/1. He has handled a ministerial brief well, speaks well and has a northern working class background rather than Eton and hedge fund. Neither could be depicted as stereotypical Tory toffs.
"On public sector pay, I think we've gone very soft on this. What happened in 1931 is when the National Government was formed, they cut public sector pay by 10%. That was a different political era and they really understood the economics of very aggressive cuts to public expenditure. I think there's only one of my colleagues who's suggested something like that, but generally there's very little political appetite.
My suspicion is that a government that was bold enough to tackle some of these issues would actually find more public support than they anticipated, though the interest groups would be squealing"
What happened in 1931 was that the pay cuts further deflated the economy. And caused a mutiny in the Navy.
We had to come off the Gold Standard, which was what the pay cuts had been supposed to avoid.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Carola
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Carola
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
Dear Avery, much as I admire your knowledge, I think that Farage is not a Moseley.
He is the new Tony Benn, the charismatic populist speaker whose followers were fanatical enough to split their party and put the opposition in power for a generation. They of course then learned their lesson, dropped their Bennite policies and became the natural party of government.
I forecast much the same result for UKIP. History repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Carola
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Carola
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
Desperate stuff Avery, surprised at you.
No it is not. I have discovered something very interesting which I should have known about Staffordshire and Sir Oswald this evening.
A renowned orator, brimming with the self-confidence allowed by aristocratic pedigree and matinee idol looks, Sir Oswald served on the Conservative, Independent and Labour benches in the House of Commons as well as a Minister in Sir Ramsay MacDonald's 1929-30 government.
There is much more to Mosley than the BUF.
Who does this remind you of:
the most polished literary speaker in the Commons, words flow from him in graceful epigrammatic phrases that have a sting in them for the government and the Conservatives. To listen to him is an education in the English language, also in the art of delicate but deadly repartee. He has human sympathies, courage and brains"
Well, if not achievements then certainly aspiration.
The 1931 and 1932 budgets were certainly dramatic, with public sector pay cuts, leaving the gold standard and a haircut for war bond holders.
Within a two years we had the fastest growing economy in the developed world and continuous economic growth until the war.
by 1934 all the pay levels and benefits were restored, and the economy grew very strongly still, re-armament did not begin until 1937 or so.
Neville Chamberlain will always be remembered for appeasment, however essential this was until rearmament had happened, rather than his expertise as one of the most successful Chancellors ever.
Ladbrokes have Kwarteng at 66/1 for leader still. I think Sajid Javid also is worth considering at 33/1. He has handled a ministerial brief well, speaks well and has a northern working class background rather than Eton and hedge fund. Neither could be depicted as stereotypical Tory toffs.
Coming off the Gold Standard was clearly very important.
Sajid Javed is appalling. Really unpleasant manner and just repeats stuff like "Labour want more debt".
I think there's inevitably been a lot of "looking for the British Obama" thing. Karteng worked for a hedge fund, and Javed a merchant bank. Not the ideal background.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Carola
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
Desperate stuff Avery, surprised at you.
No it is not. I have discovered something very interesting which I should have known about Staffordshire and Sir Oswald this evening.
A renowned orator, brimming with the self-confidence allowed by aristocratic pedigree and matinee idol looks, Sir Oswald served on the Conservative, Independent and Labour benches in the House of Commons as well as a Minister in Sir Ramsay MacDonald's 1929-30 government.
There is much more to Mosley than the BUF.
Who does this remind you of:
the most polished literary speaker in the Commons, words flow from him in graceful epigrammatic phrases that have a sting in them for the government and the Conservatives. To listen to him is an education in the English language, also in the art of delicate but deadly repartee. He has human sympathies, courage and brains"
Well, if not achievements then certainly aspiration.
Sajid Javed replaced Julie Kirkbride in Bromsgrove. At one time she was regarded as one of the Tories' most promising future prospects. IIRC she was the youngest female Tory MP from 1997 to 2005.
The 1931 and 1932 budgets were certainly dramatic, with public sector pay cuts, leaving the gold standard and a haircut for war bond holders.
Within a two years we had the fastest growing economy in the developed world and continuous economic growth until the war.
by 1934 all the pay levels and benefits were restored, and the economy grew very strongly still, re-armament did not begin until 1937 or so.
Neville Chamberlain will always be remembered for appeasment, however essential this was until rearmament had happened, rather than his expertise as one of the most successful Chancellors ever.
Ladbrokes have Kwarteng at 66/1 for leader still. I think Sajid Javid also is worth considering at 33/1. He has handled a ministerial brief well, speaks well and has a northern working class background rather than Eton and hedge fund. Neither could be depicted as stereotypical Tory toffs.
Coming off the Gold Standard was clearly very important.
Sajid Javed is appalling. Really unpleasant manner and just repeats stuff like "Labour want more debt".
I think there's inevitably been a lot of "looking for the British Obama" thing. Karteng worked for a hedge fund, and Javed a merchant bank. Not the ideal background.
I think there's inevitably been a lot of "looking for the British Obama" thing. Karteng worked for a hedge fund, and Javed a merchant bank. Not the ideal background.
It all rather depends whether you consider the primary task of the next government will be to manage the public finances effectively or to run up debt.
Both Karteng and Javed's background would be ideal for the former.
Dear Avery, much as I admire your knowledge, I think that Farage is not a Moseley.
He is the new Tony Benn, the charismatic populist speaker whose followers were fanatical enough to split their party and put the opposition in power for a generation. They of course then learned their lesson, dropped their Bennite policies and became the natural party of government.
I forecast much the same result for UKIP. History repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Carola
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
Not really. They haven't split the Conservative Party, they simply have left it. This should, of course, leave it more united.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Carola
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
Desperate stuff Avery, surprised at you.
No it is not. I have discovered something very interesting which I should have known about Staffordshire and Sir Oswald this evening.
A renowned orator, brimming with the self-confidence allowed by aristocratic pedigree and matinee idol looks, Sir Oswald served on the Conservative, Independent and Labour benches in the House of Commons as well as a Minister in Sir Ramsay MacDonald's 1929-30 government.
There is much more to Mosley than the BUF.
Who does this remind you of:
the most polished literary speaker in the Commons, words flow from him in graceful epigrammatic phrases that have a sting in them for the government and the Conservatives. To listen to him is an education in the English language, also in the art of delicate but deadly repartee. He has human sympathies, courage and brains"
Well, if not achievements then certainly aspiration.
Henry Blofeld?
My dear old thing, Henry is Norfolk not Staffordshire.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Carola
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
Desperate stuff Avery, surprised at you.
No it is not. I have discovered something very interesting which I should have known about Staffordshire and Sir Oswald this evening.
A renowned orator, brimming with the self-confidence allowed by aristocratic pedigree and matinee idol looks, Sir Oswald served on the Conservative, Independent and Labour benches in the House of Commons as well as a Minister in Sir Ramsay MacDonald's 1929-30 government.
There is much more to Mosley than the BUF.
Who does this remind you of:
the most polished literary speaker in the Commons, words flow from him in graceful epigrammatic phrases that have a sting in them for the government and the Conservatives. To listen to him is an education in the English language, also in the art of delicate but deadly repartee. He has human sympathies, courage and brains"
Well, if not achievements then certainly aspiration.
Henry Blofeld?
My dear old thing, Henry is Norfolk not Staffordshire.
He's lovely, just listening to him for a few minutes brightens my day.
He talks absolute nonsense but in such a wonderfully eccentric English way you cannot help but love him.
Dear Avery, much as I admire your knowledge, I think that Farage is not a Moseley.
He is the new Tony Benn, the charismatic populist speaker whose followers were fanatical enough to split their party and put the opposition in power for a generation. They of course then learned their lesson, dropped their Bennite policies and became the natural party of government.
I forecast much the same result for UKIP. History repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Carola
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
Well, having watched QT and now watching TW... seems the WC/poor can't toilet train their offspring, don't have any books at home and would be stumped at the sight of a vegetable. Oh, and some musing on why politicians are unpopular just before defending Maria Miller.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Carola
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
Desperate stuff Avery, surprised at you.
No it is not. I have discovered something very interesting which I should have known about Staffordshire and Sir Oswald this evening.
A renowned orator, brimming with the self-confidence allowed by aristocratic pedigree and matinee idol looks, Sir Oswald served on the Conservative, Independent and Labour benches in the House of Commons as well as a Minister in Sir Ramsay MacDonald's 1929-30 government.
There is much more to Mosley than the BUF.
Who does this remind you of:
the most polished literary speaker in the Commons, words flow from him in graceful epigrammatic phrases that have a sting in them for the government and the Conservatives. To listen to him is an education in the English language, also in the art of delicate but deadly repartee. He has human sympathies, courage and brains"
Well, if not achievements then certainly aspiration.
Henry Blofeld?
My dear old thing, Henry is Norfolk not Staffordshire.
He's lovely, just listening to him for a few minutes brightens my day.
He talks absolute nonsense but in such a wonderfully eccentric English way you cannot help but love him.
Did today Ed Miliband make the greatest strategic and tactical mistake since Emperor Palpatine allowed the Rebel Alliance to know the location of the second Death Star?
Surely it was wiser for him to let Dave to take the rap for not letting Farage into the debates?
Nigel Farage should be excluded from TV election debates, says Ed Miliband
Labour leader calls for repeat of 2010 debates involving three main parties, saying: 'I am not that interested in Nigel Farage'
Having read the quote the headline is perhaps a bit over the top. The quotes seem to suggest that Miliband's main priority is getting Cameron involved and a repeat of 2010 would make it easiest to arrange. However I can't believe Miliband would want to be outnumbered 2:1 by the coalition. A 2 man or 4 man debate would be best from his perspective. He should certainly keep an open mind on Farage.
Miliband is going to be in a pretty good position when it comes to the debates really. If Clegg does some tag-team effort with Dave and defends the government's policies, then that will only tighten Labour's grip on those crucial 2010 LDs. If Clegg tries to repent and starts posturing with leftwing rhetoric and disowning everything the government did, then that will make Cameron look even more isolated and extreme to moderates. Either way, it's advantage Ed. So all he'll need then to take advantage of it is a coherent policy platform and to speak vaguely like a humanbeing...
One question after the Clegg vs Farage dance around the handbags like they really meant it routine. What on earth was Clegg thinking challenging Farage to a debate on our membership of the EU after the Libdems effectively ruled out any voter participation on the issue before hand by voting with Labour to scupper an In/Out EU referendum in the next Parliament? You don't get much more arrogant or cynically out of touch politically than that IMHO, Clegg lost this debate before it even started as a result.
The nonsense about working class people not being able to afford fresh fruit and vegetables being trotted out again by Boris's sister, of all people.
I have just finished reading "The Road To Wigan Pier" by George Orwell. In the chapter on food, he describes the poor diet of some of the people living in slums and poverty (in the industrial north of England in 1936). One example he gives is a family surviving on a diet of mostly white bread, potatoes and lots of sugared tea, where it would be cheaper and more nutritious to have brown bread, carrots and onions etc.
But the point he makes is that their lives were so dreary that they preferred to have a bit of taste and excitement rather than just making do with what was "good for them".
As Orwell himself wrote, ""First you condemn a family to live on thirty shillings a week, and then you have the damned impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money."
A similar problem (if "problem" is the right word) is that they were sometimes reluctant to move out of their damp-ridden, rotten, crumbling, overcrowded back-to-back slums to go to the new out-of-town modern housing, because it was soulless, remote, in-the-countryside, with big supermarkets instead of friendly local small shops, had a long journey into town to get to work, and with no friendly pub just round the corner.
Coming off the Gold Standard was clearly very important.
Sajid Javed is appalling. Really unpleasant manner and just repeats stuff like "Labour want more debt".
I think there's inevitably been a lot of "looking for the British Obama" thing. Karteng worked for a hedge fund, and Javed a merchant bank. Not the ideal background.
As opposed to Oxford/PPE never had a proper job?
I was answering the earlier point that they couldn't be seen as stereotypical Tory toffs. I think they'll look for a leader who isn't (just as Douglas Hurd's background seemed to count against him in 1990). Karteng and Javed are just city spivs.
I think there's inevitably been a lot of "looking for the British Obama" thing. Karteng worked for a hedge fund, and Javed a merchant bank. Not the ideal background.
It all rather depends whether you consider the primary task of the next government will be to manage the public finances effectively or to run up debt.
Both Karteng and Javed's background would be ideal for the former.
If you want the latter you need a Balls up.
You mean the latter.
You realise that the jump in public debt came from nationalising private debt, right?
Comments
So: EEA membership would not stop the Polish plumber moving to Peterborough (or the the Birmingham bricky working in Bulgaria) it would be a fairly effective deterrent against the Roma families mentioned earlier. (That said, by returning to an NI contributions based system of benefits, and an insurance based system of healthcare provision, we could achieve the same goals in the UK.)
As you applied precisely zero statistical rigour yourself then still leaves me infinitely ahead.
Of course you could apply some statistical rigour any time you wish as the ONS site is open all hours. I will wait eagerly for you to put your statistical rigour where your keyboard is.
And a piece of friendly advice Charles - don't claim to be too busy with work and then continue posting comments here. It looks better if you abstain for a couple of hours.
Basically, you've decided he's a panderer, and thus when he says something entirely accurate, you interpret it as meaning something inaccurate, and then use this to show he's a rabble rouser. It's ridiculous.
Yet, somehow, when europhiles say three million jobs are at risk - which the author of the report that the number came from says is untrue - he's not a panderer. Bizarre.
[Note: I originally wrote 'by other' when I mean 'my other']
True independence could only be achieved by also leaving the ECJ and NATO. While NATO consists mostly of EU nations, and is head-quartered in Brussels, its foreign policy and military commitments will be decided by the EU in conjunction with the USA.
Kwasi Kwarteng frustrates me because he has the brains and has been tipped as a future Tory great but his diffidence and languour (an occasional unwanted side-effect of an Eton education) seems to prevent him grabbing opportunity when it arises. He should be a Minister by now. Why isn't he?
Incidentally both went to Harvard to do post-graduate degrees. Another CV indicator of future success. See the two Balls.
Lets all just be polite about a democratic outrage taking place and it will be resolved just as quickly as if we protest?
Nonsense.
If its taxpayer money they use to buy it then paying over the odds is the Labour way.
Oh wait, it wasn't.
http://anthonymasters.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/how-to-annoy-me-on-a-saturday-morning/
http://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/
Do you mean Kwasi outclassed MY other friend Hunt ?
http://www.efdgroup.eu/newsroom/item/eea-farage-s-response-to-pm-cameron.html
I'd reverse the question: find me a quote where Farage says "No, having a relationship like Norway's or Switzerland's is a waste of time because it wouldn't give us the freedom we need to control our borders". That would be the honest thing to say.
I don't - outside leaving the EU and being in favour of grammar schools - know what they believe in. Mr Farage has claimed that the old, broadly libertarian 2010 manifesto, is 'garbage'. Policies from 18 months ago, like the "people's pension" seem to have been disappeared from their website, and the new economics spokesman has talked about abolishing state provision of pensions in their entirety. The website has changed recently, but until about a month ago, the number one listed policy on their 'policies' page was a sovereign wealth fund for the profits of fraccing - a policy so far in advance of reality as to be basically absurd. And the white paper on taxation, which I praised on this site, also seems to have disappeared.
UKIP's 91 page document on leaving the EU contains several pages on the benefits of a commonwealth free trade area, ignoring the fact that getting the Indians and the Pakistanis to the same table, let alone getting them in a pan-commonwealth FTA, would be essentially impossible. Is that really UKIP policy?
UKIP also wants to cut government spending: but the largest components of government spending - pensions, the NHS, and interest on government debt are largely outside their control, and with other areas such as police and defence it seems unlikely there is an active policy of reducing spending. All oppositions are weak on specifics of spending cuts - but other than the c. £10bn saved on not being in the EU it is not clear how UKIP plans to genuinely reduce spending.
And finally, I think Nigel Farage is too fond of the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra: how else to explain his somewhat bizarre Putin love-in.
Just kidding of course. I don't know where working class people get off with the inverted snobbery. My old boss was head boy at Eton, and I found him very interesting to be around, I'd never met anyone like it before. The fact he thought of me as some Dickensian chimney sweep was neither here nor there! why wouldn't he. He came from a different world. I wouldn't have had him down the pub with my mates either, we call public schoolboys "wallies with confidence", but it takes all sorts!
Offensive action is more optional, but there were wermacht troops in Afghanistan.
twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/450713334266880000
Pretended that he didn't understand why benefits might need to rise faster than wages sometimes, and alsost certainly made up a conversation he had with "low paid workers at Heathrow"- at least some of them would have been in receipt of tax credits which he voted to limit.
Theodore Dalrymple demolishes that argument in this article:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_oh_to_be.html
It is hard to keep a straight face being lectured on healthy eating by Dianne Abbott!
He is also of Ghanaian origin. There is no gentler country in Africa. I had a Ghanaian PA for many years and knew a number of prominent Ghanaians in London. I loved them all but I wouldn't want them to fight on my behalf. Far too laid back.
Ah right, so we can just ignore it when other members are attacked?
They'll be delighted to hear that, I'm sure.
This is feeble pedantry on your part. If we've signed a treaty to do something, we should do it, right? And that limits our sovereignty?
I don't think the concept of allowing bodies outside the UK to have jurisdiction over certain matters is that ridiculous, the issue with the EU, surely, is more that (a) many of the laws propagated are done by an indirectly elected executive, and (b) the extent of laws is very great, considering that the British people have not been consulted (or at least, not directly) about the degree to which sovereignty has been transferred.
Now, if we're talking about honesty in our European options, why hasn't Cameron said all the things it will be impossible to repatriate back, because the French and others would never sign up to it? No - he's letting all his supporters cherry pick their fantasy vision. So Farage is actually saying his plan, while Cameron just uses the word "renegotiation" over and over again.
If Latvia were attacked by Farage's "clever player" Putin, or Syria were to attack Turkey, we would either be at war, or fail to live up to our treaty.
Our relationship with the EU is based on bilateral treaties, but we are in many other treaty arrangements. If we really want Independence, then we should avoid treaties.
"On public sector pay, I think we've gone very soft on this. What happened in 1931 is when the National Government was formed, they cut public sector pay by 10%. That was a different political era and they really understood the economics of very aggressive cuts to public expenditure. I think there's only one of my colleagues who's suggested something like that, but generally there's very little political appetite.
My suspicion is that a government that was bold enough to tackle some of these issues would actually find more public support than they anticipated, though the interest groups would be squealing"
What happened in 1931 was that the pay cuts further deflated the economy. And caused a mutiny in the Navy.
We had to come off the Gold Standard, which was what the pay cuts had been supposed to avoid.
He's all bluster. Hedge fund spiv.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/82nd_(West_Africa)_Division
Ghanains were highly thought of Jungle fighters in the Burma campaign, a skill very useful in the political world.
I agree about being lovely people to work with, I have some great Ghanaian colleagues. I think Ghana has one of the best education systems in Africa.
Yet they don't get the Farage thing.
Which would you consider a better subject for an C.18th still-life:
A pomegranate or an aubergine?
It was probably early independence and the becalming effect of the sixties that did for their military prowess.
Within a two years we had the fastest growing economy in the developed world and continuous economic growth until the war.
by 1934 all the pay levels and benefits were restored, and the economy grew very strongly still, re-armament did not begin until 1937 or so.
Neville Chamberlain will always be remembered for appeasment, however essential this was until rearmament had happened, rather than his expertise as one of the most successful Chancellors ever.
Ladbrokes have Kwarteng at 66/1 for leader still. I think Sajid Javid also is worth considering at 33/1. He has handled a ministerial brief well, speaks well and has a northern working class background rather than Eton and hedge fund. Neither could be depicted as stereotypical Tory toffs.
Farage is so faux. At least Sir Oswald Mosley had the right credentials to harangue the populace. Brought up in Staffordshire too.
He is the new Tony Benn, the charismatic populist speaker whose followers were fanatical enough to split their party and put the opposition in power for a generation. They of course then learned their lesson, dropped their Bennite policies and became the natural party of government.
I forecast much the same result for UKIP. History repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce.
A renowned orator, brimming with the self-confidence allowed by aristocratic pedigree and matinee idol looks, Sir Oswald served on the Conservative, Independent and Labour benches in the House of Commons as well as a Minister in Sir Ramsay MacDonald's 1929-30 government.
There is much more to Mosley than the BUF.
Who does this remind you of:
the most polished literary speaker in the Commons, words flow from him in graceful epigrammatic phrases that have a sting in them for the government and the Conservatives. To listen to him is an education in the English language, also in the art of delicate but deadly repartee. He has human sympathies, courage and brains"
Well, if not achievements then certainly aspiration.
Sajid Javed is appalling. Really unpleasant manner and just repeats stuff like "Labour want more debt".
I think there's inevitably been a lot of "looking for the British Obama" thing. Karteng worked for a hedge fund, and Javed a merchant bank. Not the ideal background.
I think there's inevitably been a lot of "looking for the British Obama" thing. Karteng worked for a hedge fund, and Javed a merchant bank. Not the ideal background.
It all rather depends whether you consider the primary task of the next government will be to manage the public finances effectively or to run up debt.
Both Karteng and Javed's background would be ideal for the former.
If you want the latter you need a Balls up.
He talks absolute nonsense but in such a wonderfully eccentric English way you cannot help but love him.
Well Nige did spank Nick last night.
There are certainly some genetic connections.
Like Dr. Sox's hero Benn was.
But the point he makes is that their lives were so dreary that they preferred to have a bit of taste and excitement rather than just making do with what was "good for them".
As Orwell himself wrote, ""First you condemn a family to live on thirty shillings a week, and then you have the damned impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money."
A similar problem (if "problem" is the right word) is that they were sometimes reluctant to move out of their damp-ridden, rotten, crumbling, overcrowded back-to-back slums to go to the new out-of-town modern housing, because it was soulless, remote, in-the-countryside, with big supermarkets instead of friendly local small shops, had a long journey into town to get to work, and with no friendly pub just round the corner.
I have been racking my brains to think why his face looks so familiar, then I realized - he looks like Peter Mandelson.
I was answering the earlier point that they couldn't be seen as stereotypical Tory toffs. I think they'll look for a leader who isn't (just as Douglas Hurd's background seemed to count against him in 1990). Karteng and Javed are just city spivs.
You realise that the jump in public debt came from nationalising private debt, right?