He sounds like a premier league manager. It might well be true, he seems to have more backing than Carswell, and who will take him on given he put down the last mini rebellion, but though I like the guy, he seems difficult to get on with, in party management terms.
Just read Carswell's comments. I'm not sure he has any idea on who makes up the bulk of UKIP supporters and voters. It has been obvious for a while that UKIP draw more from Labour's wwc voters than they do from the Tory radical libertarian right. There are a lot more of them than there are of us.
Myself, Richard Tyndall and Rob Smithson don't really add up to a party. Targeting such a small number of voters seems counter productive for UKIP given they are polling in the early teens and scored 12% in the GE and could push up towards 20% if Corbyn stays in place for 2020. Getting rid of Nigel is a must, make him the party chairman or something but they need a new leader with new drive and energy. Paul Nuttall would be my bet. Northern, speaks well and can galvanise the wwc voters better than Nigel. Keep Nigel there to "speak the unspeakable" about immigration etc... But get new energy in there as well.
Mr felix, what is your position on migrant benefits?
I would give no-one benefit entitlement for 4 or 5 years without contributions including UK nationals and returning ex-pats. I live in Spain where you get nothing till you contribute and then it is strictly time-limited. To put it bluntly I believe in people looking after themselves as long as they are able-bodied.
Thanks, so if the PM doesn't get that will you vote to Leave?
No - because he doesn't need the permission of the EU to enact it - nor could the EU stop him doing it. But surely you know that the only current problem with the British proposal relates to discrimination against non-British EU nationals. A blanket proposal solves the problem very neatly imho.
Hang on a minute, I want you to be clear here, are you saying Cameron could stop benefits to migrants without EU consent?
Yes. Of course he could - the only problem with the current proposal is that it applies ONLY to migrants. If the ban applied to everyone in the UK for 4 years without contributions the EU could do nothing about it as it would not be discriminatory. The reason this is an issue is that Britain currently provides many benefits far more generously than is the case in many EU countries.
Well it begs the question: if he could stop it why is he posturing about it?
He would prefer not to hit UK citizens as well. Understandable but not an area I agree with him on.
You sound confused. You said he could stop migrant benefits without the EU consent but now it seems there are caveats.
Interesting.
Actually you're being a bit thick. I said he could stop benefits for as many years as he wants without EU consent provided the rule applies to UK citizens as well. I could not have been clearer. The EU problem with his current proposal is that it applies only to EU migrants and that would be discriminatory in EU law. A blanket ban on benefits for x years without contributions would be perfectly legal and the EU could do nothing about it.
You sound confused. You said he could stop migrant benefits without the EU consent but now it seems there are caveats.
Interesting.
It would be possible to stop migrant benefits without EU consent.
All you would have to do is to say "all benefits require the recipient to have made four years of National Insurance contributions".
Unfortunately, that would be politically unacceptable.
As an aside, the Italian health system is contributory for all except emergency care. The result is that economic migrants - who are not paying contributions - cannot access it without paying.
It is the same in Spain and I believe in France. The problem in Britain is we are way too generous in terms of benefits generally.
Your excitement before seeing the Remake seems to have drained away, somewhat.
Well, I felt it was a good film in terms of effects, action and acting, but essentially it was a remake of the very first Star Wars from 1977. Without giving away spoilers, the plot was almost identical. And I guess I did feel a bit conflicted when I left the cinema. Reading through the reviews on IMDB (which I must stress I only started reading AFTER I watched it), I find myself agreeing with more of the negative points than the positive ones.
I do hope Episode VIII will be better and more original, plot-wise.
The Empire Strikes Back (1980) is still my favourite film in the Franchise.
Empire is a lot of people's favourite film. And that means that there is a very strong possibility that the next movie ends up as an Empire remake.
I caught Film 2015's review and they were talking about whooping and cheering during their screening for journalists. It strikes me that Disney have placed plants in the audience for these screenings to whoop and cheer and give journalists a completely different reaction to ordinary people.
At my screening there was absolutely no reaction other than an audible intake of breath (not in a good way) when Kylo Ren got rapey with Rey.
''There are three reasons why we might theoretically have allies:''
Maybe but these will all be superseded by the overriding desire to prevent an alternative option to the status quo being created.
Europe does not do competition.
I've come to think so. One thing that drove me over the edge was the constant impression given that Britain would find no allies in asking for anything, and what's more the EU was getting sick and tired of hearing us complain and holding them back. That sort of no doubt officially sanctioned on and off the record talk makes me doubt there is any actual consideration of concerns the UK might raise, and therefore suspicious of anything we would be granted as being substantive. I can see the powers that be being willing to throw us a bauble to get us to shut up, but at the end of the day they do want us to shut up and stop rocking the board, and though we might have allies on some few issues (which we may be doing a poor job of marshalling) the majority seem to be in accord with the EU powerbrokers on that, and therefore have no genuine interest in reform, only stopping us and others from whinging.
That's not healthy moving forward, for either side.
You can understand everyone else getting fed up with Britain constantly whinging about something, though.
I can, absolutely. We are holding most of them back from what they want to do, that would be frustrating. But it makes the agonized, drawn out process tiresome, and makes the occasional 'I'm sure we can work out something' seem false, since the true feeling of much of the EU elite seems to be that all is well, or at least that all will be well with more EU not less, and so pretending they can resolve our concerns lacks sincerity.
Leaving might be a mistake. But if we stay we will be unhappy with the direction of travel, and they unhappy with our moaning, that's not fair to them or us.
Leaving would be a mistake. For both sides, but the really bad consequences would be mostly on our side.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
I completely agree with what you're saying. However it may be that they think Rhodes was a baddy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...
Well, Rhodes has paid for 8,000 people to be educated at Oxford University, so plainly he did some good.
Should we eradicate any memorial to Queen Victoria, Gladstone, Disraeli, Winston Churchill etc. on the ground that they were imperialists? Utter idiocy.
I can, absolutely. We are holding most of them back from what they want to do, that would be frustrating. But it makes the agonized, drawn out process tiresome, and makes the occasional 'I'm sure we can work out something' seem false, since the true feeling of much of the EU elite seems to be that all is well, or at least that all will be well with more EU not less, and so pretending they can resolve our concerns lacks sincerity.
Leaving might be a mistake. But if we stay we will be unhappy with the direction of travel, and they unhappy with our moaning, that's not fair to them or us.
Though the EU elites and the rest of the EU citizens are not the same thing whatsoever. Just as we Brits don't want to lose our nation to the EU the French are no more content to lose France to the EU either.
You can understand everyone else getting fed up with Britain constantly whinging about something, though.
I think that wanting to clarify and safeguard the position of non-Euro members is something that would not be seen as whingeing by any reasonable person. At least I would hope so. I think that will come to a head if not resolved.
Alastair Meekes is of course right that we shouldn't pay too much attention to the public statements and speculation about the EU renegotiation. No deal has been done yet, and, as is invariably the case, no deal will be done until the last possible moment.
Having said that, I think we can glean a little bit of insight from the tone of the announcements. Clearly our EU friends have taken on board the idea that a Remain vote is not a given, and they will therefore have to find some way of responding to the four 'baskets'. In this context, Laura Kuenssberg made an interesting point on the Today programme this morning: EU leaders already have one very major crisis (migration) on their hands, and they also have the on-going problems of low growth and high unemployment in the Eurozone. The last thing they want is to add Brexit to those two headaches. It's as favourable an environment for getting improvements as we could reasonably expect, and better than it looked when Cameron first mooted the idea of renegotiation.
fELIX..I am..my wife is not and she still uses the system...I also used it before I was 65...I had extensive treatment for an eye problem..which was cured.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
I completely agree with what you're saying. However it may be that they think Rhodes was a baddy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...
Well, Rhodes has paid for 8,000 people to be educated at Oxford University, so plainly he did some good.
Should we eradicate any memorial to Queen Victoria, Gladstone, Disraeli, Winston Churchill etc. on the ground that they were imperialists? Utter idiocy.
Get those slave owning bastards Jefferson and Washington memorials knocked down in DC too...
We should aim to emulate the continental benefits system. Contribution based. 12 months of full time work for 12 months of unemployment support. Cap it at 3 years if support total and make it a bit more generous. Our current system of in work benefits and all that rubbish is just too easy to abuse. It might take 10 years for the changes to have any real effect but we have to start somewhere and with Corbyn leading Labour into the abyss the Tories should be pushing much larger benefits reform than they are. Making unemployment support contribution based and eliminating in work benefits is a must do if we are ever going to balance the books over the long term.
We should aim to emulate the continental benefits system. Contribution based. 12 months of full time work for 12 months of unemployment support. Cap it at 3 years if support total and make it a bit more generous. Our current system of in work benefits and all that rubbish is just too easy to abuse. It might take 10 years for the changes to have any real effect but we have to start somewhere and with Corbyn leading Labour into the abyss the Tories should be pushing much larger benefits reform than they are. Making unemployment support contribution based and eliminating in work benefits is a must do if we are ever going to balance the books over the long term.
A basics minimum yes but anything more contributions based like Germany
... 2. Our departure could spur Ireland and others to also go. This would have financial and other consequences. (Amusingly, the Irish government has apparently war-gamed leaving the EU but keeping the Euro.)....
Ireland would not have a choice. And they know it....
Comments
Myself, Richard Tyndall and Rob Smithson don't really add up to a party. Targeting such a small number of voters seems counter productive for UKIP given they are polling in the early teens and scored 12% in the GE and could push up towards 20% if Corbyn stays in place for 2020. Getting rid of Nigel is a must, make him the party chairman or something but they need a new leader with new drive and energy. Paul Nuttall would be my bet. Northern, speaks well and can galvanise the wwc voters better than Nigel. Keep Nigel there to "speak the unspeakable" about immigration etc... But get new energy in there as well.
Mr felix, what is your position on migrant benefits?
I would give no-one benefit entitlement for 4 or 5 years without contributions including UK nationals and returning ex-pats. I live in Spain where you get nothing till you contribute and then it is strictly time-limited. To put it bluntly I believe in people looking after themselves as long as they are able-bodied.
Thanks, so if the PM doesn't get that will you vote to Leave?
No - because he doesn't need the permission of the EU to enact it - nor could the EU stop him doing it. But surely you know that the only current problem with the British proposal relates to discrimination against non-British EU nationals. A blanket proposal solves the problem very neatly imho.
Hang on a minute, I want you to be clear here, are you saying Cameron could stop benefits to migrants without EU consent?
Yes. Of course he could - the only problem with the current proposal is that it applies ONLY to migrants. If the ban applied to everyone in the UK for 4 years without contributions the EU could do nothing about it as it would not be discriminatory. The reason this is an issue is that Britain currently provides many benefits far more generously than is the case in many EU countries.
Well it begs the question: if he could stop it why is he posturing about it?
He would prefer not to hit UK citizens as well. Understandable but not an area I agree with him on.
You sound confused. You said he could stop migrant benefits without the EU consent but now it seems there are caveats.
Interesting.
Actually you're being a bit thick. I said he could stop benefits for as many years as he wants without EU consent provided the rule applies to UK citizens as well. I could not have been clearer. The EU problem with his current proposal is that it applies only to EU migrants and that would be discriminatory in EU law. A blanket ban on benefits for x years without contributions would be perfectly legal and the EU could do nothing about it. It is the same in Spain and I believe in France. The problem in Britain is we are way too generous in terms of benefits generally.
I caught Film 2015's review and they were talking about whooping and cheering during their screening for journalists. It strikes me that Disney have placed plants in the audience for these screenings to whoop and cheer and give journalists a completely different reaction to ordinary people.
At my screening there was absolutely no reaction other than an audible intake of breath (not in a good way) when Kylo Ren got rapey with Rey.
I know my pride in what we did as colonisers and Empire builders is very unfasionable, but I'm glad we had the Romans here in Britain too.
Many places we've exited from are a mess. The fad for independence during the 70s/80s was most ill-advised in too many instances.
There were plenty during the 3D screening I saw last night, and applause at the end.
Having said that, I think we can glean a little bit of insight from the tone of the announcements. Clearly our EU friends have taken on board the idea that a Remain vote is not a given, and they will therefore have to find some way of responding to the four 'baskets'. In this context, Laura Kuenssberg made an interesting point on the Today programme this morning: EU leaders already have one very major crisis (migration) on their hands, and they also have the on-going problems of low growth and high unemployment in the Eurozone. The last thing they want is to add Brexit to those two headaches. It's as favourable an environment for getting improvements as we could reasonably expect, and better than it looked when Cameron first mooted the idea of renegotiation.
He got elected. Unlike Nige. 8 times.
New Thread New Thread