Working hours and working time is a tricky one. There is of course the fundamental argumen that if people want to work, they should be able to. Some probably view Bank Holidays as lost income and it will be if you're a temporary employee or on a contract with no holiday pay.
The man who runs the cafe where I eat my breakfast is closed today and therefore not earning but perhaps he will enjoy not working a 70-hour week to spend some time with his family.
In an age of flexible working, perhaps those who want to work public holidays but have time off in lieu should be able to - most organisations will kepp their information systems active all the time so it would be possible for staff to work remotely on public holidays if that kind of organisation allows.
My observation is that regrettably it's the affluent who can enjoy the public holiday while the poorly-paid staff in places like betting shops, restaurants and tourist attractions let alone most usual shops who have to keep the show on the road. Perhaps if all public holidays were like Christmas Day and we had a near-total shutdown of shops and services, our attitude towards them would be different.
To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :
1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public. 2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU 3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government. 4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies. 5. An uninspiring Labour opposition. 6. Normal mid-term blues. 7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader. 8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies. 9. Immigration as a continuing concern.
Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.
The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.
Could it be, Alanbrooke, that knowing where our so called liberal elite has led us, that you are beginning to see the light?
I've got to say Mike, the "seeing the light" theme is dreadful it sounds like some clapped out US evangelist and patronising claptrap to boot. I'm quite capable of having my own thoughts, and I've yet to see UKIP provide any "enlightenment ". So far you still remain Peter Mandelson's best idea. The right generally hasn't got it's head on what it needs to offer the country and as I asked you downthread what makes you think you're different ?
The difference between UKIP and the mainstream parties boils down to one thing. Belief in the current governmental framework.
The main parties believe in it, and are committed to working within it. UKIP don't think its fit for purpose.
The recent terror case is a great example. The tories are promising crackdowns and gags of preachers, but its all within the current legal framework.
But people don;t want that. They want these people thrown out and their benefits withdrawn. In some cases even if they are British citizens. The main parties will never go there because its outside a legal framework they all believe in, or at least can't be ar&ed to change.
and that explains why UKIP are, and will continue to be, a force.
The other element is generational change. Generalising, most young people today generally accept both the trends you identify - they think of socialism as a historical phenomenon and broadly accept the free market, and they think multi-ethnic culture and sexual diversity is just how life is and what's the problem? Cameron and Blair both recognised that and tried to move their parties accordingly: parties don't much like being moved and they put up with it only as long as you deliver victories.
I think you are slightly misunderstanding exactly how 'most young people' view things.
In general they don't pay attention to the colour of someone's skin - it's their attitude and approach to life. For them 'British' culture is a heterogeneous construct that combines elements of the different cultures that have contributed. It's a trite example, but an Indian, Thai or Chinese takeway on a Friday night is entirely normal.
Unfortunately your party over the last 15 years has interpreted this as 'multi-culturalism': separate but equal if you want to call it by its proper name. There is a huge difference from a combined culture drawing on shared and different aspects of history and creating parallel cultures which rarely mix. It's the latter that has fostered so many of the social and political (e.g. fundamentalist) problems that we have today.
I see nothing it still happening this weekend in the finest BHols tradition.
On that note - anyone seen Warehouse 13? I've just started and it looks promising. Eureka was pretty good but by S5 it was getting itself in the usual knots re resurrected characters.
Saw the first season, thought it was ok but the premise a bit too much for me for some reason, not really sure why I didn't get into it so plan to give it another go. Of course, it crossed over with Eureka in at least one episode.
Haven is a good show worth trying out, kind of like Supernatural only less depressing, and less visually dark (seriously, sometimes you couldn't see what was happening).
Sanctuary (with Amanda Tapping from Stargate) was ok as well, a sort of Fringe like show (only instead of mad science being behind everything, it's other sentient races, like mutants) - Nicolas Tesla was a vampire in it! Had a showrunner change for season 2 which totally altered the direction, but was still pretty fun.
What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ?
A referendum on Europe. The only party that can do so.
Er, no, the Conservatives are only in a position to offer a vote IF they win a majority in 2015 and subject to David Cameron's renegotiation efforts with Brussels from 2015 to 2017.
The Conservatives are not offering a referendum.NOW which is the same as Labour and the Liberal Democrats. UKIP want a referendum now but they can say that safe in the knowledge it won't happen as they are around 326 seats short of making it happen.
Ed Miliband has not ruled out a referendum if he wins a majority in 2015 - he has only ruled out one before 2015. Nick Clegg's position is similar.
Therefore, none of the three main parties with seats in the Commons is advocating a referendum before 2015 - the Conservatives are only committed to having one after 2015 subject to a two-year renegotiation process if they win a majority.
Note this means that IF they are in Opposition, they are not committed to supporting a proposal for a referendum put forward by, for example, a minority Labour Government.
Please don't swallow the simplistic CCHQ line on this - do a little thinking for yourself. You'll feel so much better, my friend.
To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :
1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public. 2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU 3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government. 4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies. 5. An uninspiring Labour opposition. 6. Normal mid-term blues. 7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader. 8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies. 9. Immigration as a continuing concern.
Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.
The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.
I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.
The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.
The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.
It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)
But people don;t want that. They want these people thrown out and their benefits withdrawn. In some cases even if they are British citizens. The main parties will never go there because its outside a legal framework they all believe in, or at least can't be ar&ed to change.
and that explains why UKIP are, and will continue to be, a force.
Are UKIP really planning that? Are they attracting support because they are the BNP its OK to support?
I don't think that's true of the leadership. maybe some of the newer members..?
The difference between UKIP and the mainstream parties boils down to one thing. Belief in the current governmental framework.
The main parties believe in it, and are committed to working within it. UKIP don't think its fit for purpose.
The recent terror case is a great example. The tories are promising crackdowns and gags of preachers, but its all within the current legal framework.
But people don;t want that. They want these people thrown out and their benefits withdrawn. In some cases even if they are British citizens. The main parties will never go there because its outside a legal framework they all believe in, or at least can't be ar&ed to change.
and that explains why UKIP are, and will continue to be, a force.
I could't have put better, taffys.
....and to Alanbrooke: Let's not quibble over semantics, the point is I notice a change in your attitude if not entirely in your thinking. And theres nothing wrong with that.
I see nothing it still happening this weekend in the finest BHols tradition.
On that note - anyone seen Warehouse 13? I've just started and it looks promising. Eureka was pretty good but by S5 it was getting itself in the usual knots re resurrected characters.
Saw the first season, thought it was ok but the premise a bit too much for me for some reason, not really sure why I didn't get into it so plan to give it another go. Of course, it crossed over with Eureka in at least one episode.
Haven is a good show worth trying out, kind of like Supernatural only less depressing, and less visually dark (seriously, sometimes you couldn't see what was happening).
Sanctuary (with Amanda Tapping from Stargate) was ok as well, a sort of Fringe like show (only instead of mad science being behind everything, it's other sentient races, like mutants) - Nicolas Tesla was a vampire in it! Had a showrunner change for season 2 which totally altered the direction, but was still pretty fun.
I can't stand shows or movies filmed in Black-O-Vision - I have no idea why they do it - its really annoying. Always reminds me of the
Designed to help the wearer develop a relaxed attitude to danger. The lenses turn completely black at the first hint of trouble, thus preventing the wearer from seeing anything that might alarm him/her. Appeared in episode 3 of the TV series and in chapter 5 and 6 of the novel The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
None of the parties, UKIP included, have come close to explaining how you sustain a society in which only a small minority see their living standards improve; a larger group see theirs stagnate and the biggest group of all see theirs fall back. That's what is happening in the real world and there is absolutely no indication that there will be any change any time soon. As all the leaders of all the parties - UKIP again included - are drawn from that small first minority no wonder voters are alienated. There's no-one in charge, or with a chance of being in charge, who has any idea of what the real world is like.
It's somewhat suspicious to me that UKIP often appear to claim automatically to believe in everything the 'mainstream' parties do not, making them the only alternative. It may not be that way, but it comes across like that, and it feels very reactionary, as though their only driving force is find out what the main parties support, in general, and then oppose it. Of course, sometimes all the main parties believe in something because most people do believe in it too, but either way the UKIP strategy seems dependent on chasing their rivals, rather than forming their own ideas sometimes.
To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :
1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public. 2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU 3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government. 4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies. 5. An uninspiring Labour opposition. 6. Normal mid-term blues. 7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader. 8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies. 9. Immigration as a continuing concern.
Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.
The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.
I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.
The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.
The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.
It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)
A lot in there I agree with Charles, but it still doesn't explain the CP blindspot, maybe it's just something as simple as DC doesn't want the job enough. But when the papers now come round to thinking of his "legacy" there isn't going to be much positive to say. Perhaps he was the right PM for different times, but at present he's letting events dictate to him.
The difference between UKIP and the mainstream parties boils down to one thing. Belief in the current governmental framework.
The main parties believe in it, and are committed to working within it. UKIP don't think its fit for purpose.
The recent terror case is a great example. The tories are promising crackdowns and gags of preachers, but its all within the current legal framework.
But people don;t want that. They want these people thrown out and their benefits withdrawn. In some cases even if they are British citizens. The main parties will never go there because its outside a legal framework they all believe in, or at least can't be ar&ed to change.
and that explains why UKIP are, and will continue to be, a force.
I could't have put better, taffys.
....and to Alanbrooke: Let's not quibble over semantics, the point is I notice a change in your attitude if not entirely in your thinking. And theres nothing wrong with that.
Well Mike it's taken you a while to notice then, since I've been saying the same things since GOs second year as CoE.
Wee-Timmy: It is your useless self that is the fool. In mainland Europe it is often a fact that, if a bank-holiday falls on a week-end, that there is no in-lieu mechanism.
Sadly I doubt you have ever traveled to Europe. And, no, Wales does not count.
" You need to deploy both short term and long term measures,
In the short term there is a need to avoid catastrophic falls in house prices as have been experienced on the continent, even in the strong economies, like the Netherlands where house prices fell by 8.9% last year.
Such falls destroy bank balance sheets, depress consumer confidence and aggravate downside recessionary risks. "
The problem is your 'short term' becomes long term.
So 0.5% interest rates were meant to be 'short term', QE was meant to be 'short term' and then reversed and Osborne's sub-prime schemes are meant to be 'short term'.
each time the market gets hooked on the new 'short term' drug and the long term situation is further damaged.
Meanwhile we're due for the next cyclical recession in 2016-7 while your still bringing in more 'short term' policies to stop the correction which should have happened after the last recession.
And there is nothing wrong with house prices falling - it helps economic and social mobility, especially among the young, and it kills the utterly malign mentality of people treating their houses as cash machines.
Yes , bankrupting the majority of households would really help to help growth, great thinking. Far better they stay as they are , people can pay their mortgages and over time the values are deflating.
" You need to deploy both short term and long term measures,
In the short term there is a need to avoid catastrophic falls in house prices as have been experienced on the continent, even in the strong economies, like the Netherlands where house prices fell by 8.9% last year.
Such falls destroy bank balance sheets, depress consumer confidence and aggravate downside recessionary risks. "
The problem is your 'short term' becomes long term.
So 0.5% interest rates were meant to be 'short term', QE was meant to be 'short term' and then reversed and Osborne's sub-prime schemes are meant to be 'short term'.
each time the market gets hooked on the new 'short term' drug and the long term situation is further damaged.
Meanwhile we're due for the next cyclical recession in 2016-7 while your still bringing in more 'short term' policies to stop the correction which should have happened after the last recession.
And there is nothing wrong with house prices falling - it helps economic and social mobility, especially among the young, and it kills the utterly malign mentality of people treating their houses as cash machines.
Yes , bankrupting the majority of households would really help to help growth, great thinking. Far better they stay as they are , people can pay their mortgages and over time the values are deflating.
The majority of households weren't going bankrupt before interest rates were reduced to 0.5% for the 'short term' and they wouldn't go bankrupt again if they return to 'normal' levels ie slightly higher than the inflation rate.
Doubtless some greedy fools who haven't used the 'short term' interest rates to get their personal finances in order might suffer but they would have nobody to blame but themselves for that.
None of the parties, UKIP included, have come close to explaining how you sustain a society in which only a small minority see their living standards improve; a larger group see theirs stagnate and the biggest group of all see theirs fall back. That's what is happening in the real world and there is absolutely no indication that there will be any change any time soon. As all the leaders of all the parties - UKIP again included - are drawn from that small first minority no wonder voters are alienated. There's no-one in charge, or with a chance of being in charge, who has any idea of what the real world is like.
Exactly,
Economic staganation Increasing wealth divides Reduced social and economic mobility Self-perpetuating overclass Sneering condescension from the 'elite'
"Whether its national government, local government or the unions it follows the same pattern - a power mad egotist ordering the proles around while personally enriching themselves"
So this has persuaded you that the answer is Nigel Farage who exploits a primeval fear of foreigners to frighten the old and uneducated?
I don't think Farage is the answer any more than I think any of the politicians we now have is.
But at least UKIP are provoking some debate.
BTW many of the old and uneducated do have reason to regret the changes to society of the last decade and to fear future ones.
Comments
The man who runs the cafe where I eat my breakfast is closed today and therefore not earning but perhaps he will enjoy not working a 70-hour week to spend some time with his family.
In an age of flexible working, perhaps those who want to work public holidays but have time off in lieu should be able to - most organisations will kepp their information systems active all the time so it would be possible for staff to work remotely on public holidays if that kind of organisation allows.
My observation is that regrettably it's the affluent who can enjoy the public holiday while the poorly-paid staff in places like betting shops, restaurants and tourist attractions let alone most usual shops who have to keep the show on the road. Perhaps if all public holidays were like Christmas Day and we had a near-total shutdown of shops and services, our attitude towards them would be different.
The main parties believe in it, and are committed to working within it. UKIP don't think its fit for purpose.
The recent terror case is a great example. The tories are promising crackdowns and gags of preachers, but its all within the current legal framework.
But people don;t want that. They want these people thrown out and their benefits withdrawn. In some cases even if they are British citizens. The main parties will never go there because its outside a legal framework they all believe in, or at least can't be ar&ed to change.
and that explains why UKIP are, and will continue to be, a force.
In general they don't pay attention to the colour of someone's skin - it's their attitude and approach to life. For them 'British' culture is a heterogeneous construct that combines elements of the different cultures that have contributed. It's a trite example, but an Indian, Thai or Chinese takeway on a Friday night is entirely normal.
Unfortunately your party over the last 15 years has interpreted this as 'multi-culturalism': separate but equal if you want to call it by its proper name. There is a huge difference from a combined culture drawing on shared and different aspects of history and creating parallel cultures which rarely mix. It's the latter that has fostered so many of the social and political (e.g. fundamentalist) problems that we have today.
Haven is a good show worth trying out, kind of like Supernatural only less depressing, and less visually dark (seriously, sometimes you couldn't see what was happening).
Sanctuary (with Amanda Tapping from Stargate) was ok as well, a sort of Fringe like show (only instead of mad science being behind everything, it's other sentient races, like mutants) - Nicolas Tesla was a vampire in it! Had a showrunner change for season 2 which totally altered the direction, but was still pretty fun.
The Conservatives are not offering a referendum.NOW which is the same as Labour and the Liberal Democrats. UKIP want a referendum now but they can say that safe in the knowledge it won't happen as they are around 326 seats short of making it happen.
Ed Miliband has not ruled out a referendum if he wins a majority in 2015 - he has only ruled out one before 2015. Nick Clegg's position is similar.
Therefore, none of the three main parties with seats in the Commons is advocating a referendum before 2015 - the Conservatives are only committed to having one after 2015 subject to a two-year renegotiation process if they win a majority.
Note this means that IF they are in Opposition, they are not committed to supporting a proposal for a referendum put forward by, for example, a minority Labour Government.
Please don't swallow the simplistic CCHQ line on this - do a little thinking for yourself. You'll feel so much better, my friend.
The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.
The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.
It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)
I don't think that's true of the leadership. maybe some of the newer members..?
....and to Alanbrooke: Let's not quibble over semantics, the point is I notice a change in your attitude if not entirely in your thinking. And theres nothing wrong with that.
Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses
Designed to help the wearer develop a relaxed attitude to danger. The lenses turn completely black at the first hint of trouble, thus preventing the wearer from seeing anything that might alarm him/her. Appeared in episode 3 of the TV series and in chapter 5 and 6 of the novel The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
UKIP appeal for voters is the politics of potency - we can't do what we want because of our EU treaty commitments.
As to what they would do with that potency - Well, that's a topic that's very much up for debate, it seems to me.
Sadly I doubt you have ever traveled to Europe. And, no, Wales does not count.
:hugs-from-brabant:
Doubtless some greedy fools who haven't used the 'short term' interest rates to get their personal finances in order might suffer but they would have nobody to blame but themselves for that.
Economic staganation
Increasing wealth divides
Reduced social and economic mobility
Self-perpetuating overclass
Sneering condescension from the 'elite'
Not a recipe for a happy society.
But at least UKIP are provoking some debate.
BTW many of the old and uneducated do have reason to regret the changes to society of the last decade and to fear future ones.
Your problem is that they personify what is becoming the image of the Conservative party.
Sneering condescension might get some laughs at the dinner party but it doesn't win over swing voters in marginal constituencies.