Farage unravels on LBC.

sungod

michael_roadie wrote:

It's not about that, it's about the fact that laws and regulations (whether good or bad) are being made elsewhere by people we didn't elect, but we have to abide by/implement them.

eu commissioners are appointed by the people we elected, exactly as many other uk institutions, presumably you also want all those eliminated too?

the way eu rules are enacted in uk law is 100% in the control of the uk parliament, which, for instance, is why in the uk large companies can trash pension schemes with impunity and allow people to be treated like a bulk commodity via tupe and zero hour contracts, whereas in some other eu states these things are very different

blaming the eu for the mistakes, failures, dishonesty and scheming of state governments is very easy and very common, and because so few people understand how things actually work it is accepted as 'fact' that it's the eu's fault

but it's not fact, it's nonsense

the eu is not perfect, it absolutely needs reforming, but i'd sooner trust the eu commissioners over the thieving, lying, power hungry, self serving, corrupt, scum that infest much of uk politics, both elected and non-elected

nathancom

sungod wrote:

michael_roadie wrote:

It's not about that, it's about the fact that laws and regulations (whether good or bad) are being made elsewhere by people we didn't elect, but we have to abide by/implement them.

eu commissioners are appointed by the people we elected, exactly as many other uk institutions, presumably you also want all those eliminated too?

the way eu rules are enacted in uk law is 100% in the control of the uk parliament, which, for instance, is why in the uk large companies can trash pension schemes with impunity and allow people to be treated like a bulk commodity via tupe and zero hour contracts, whereas in some other eu states these things are very different

blaming the eu for the mistakes, failures, dishonesty and scheming of state governments is very easy and very common, and because so few people understand how things actually work it is accepted as 'fact' that it's the eu's fault

but it's not fact, it's nonsense

the eu is not perfect, it absolutely needs reforming, but i'd sooner trust the eu commissioners over the thieving, lying, power hungry, self serving, corrupt, scum that infest much of uk politics, both elected and non-elected

Spot on but then most of the anti European sentiment is generated by the same self serving politicians. If you say the same lie enough times then people will start to believe it.

I think there is also something in us being an island nation that generates this sense of standing apart. It is part of the national character resulting from not living next door to other nations and having to learn to accommodate each other. I don't think that sense of being someone apart from Europe is going to disappear overnight but our Politicians should not be playing up to it.

MountainMonster

DeVlaeminck wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

michael_roadie wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

List the negative things that we are being dictated about, be my guest. Say how those policies directly affect you in a negative way.

It's not about that, it's about the fact that laws and regulations (whether good or bad) are being made elsewhere by people we didn't elect, but we have to abide by/implement them.

OK, so even if these laws are giving you a better quality of life and more stability in work you still don't think it is a good thing? Simply based on the fact they are not British or elected by us?

You have to be joking not to like things that make your life better based on the simple fact it is not done by someone you voted for.

I don't think he has to be joking to want the people who govern us to be democratically accountable ! I've noticed a lot of people portraying scepticism about the EU as some kind of right wing lunacy but in fact many prominent left wing Labour figures have questioned the undemocratic nature of the EU.

As far as your earlier point about them funding stuff - they are funding it with money we give them so let's not pretend we are gaining anything through that.

You may be right about it being an effective trading block - but it has become far more than that and other countries seem to trade effectively without being part of the EU.

If people had a genuine reason to be mad about the EU they would realise they can lobby for pressure for people to leave the government much the same as any other governmental body. But, like usual, people are complaining about things that go wrong even though the EU really has nothing to do with it.

The EU is democratic and their representatives are voted in or appointed based on what our politicians, and others across the EU, say.

If you want someone thrown out, do the same as you would for your local MP, get a large petition going and start from there.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

morstar wrote:

But the Tories would have had an equally big mess in 2008.

I keep saying the same thing, but they keep ignoring it.

indeed. They supported the same financial deregulation. Not quite sure what the Tories would have done differently during a global financial crisis which stemmed from a US sub-prime mortgage crisis.

You and a couple of others above are assuming that the Tories would have been in the same position. Whereas it is a fact that the last labour govt left us in a massive financial mess - as did the previous one in the late 70's when we were bailed out by the IMF. So in my living memory Labour have a 100% strike rate on ****ing the country's economy. Unfortunately socialism doesn't seem to learn from its mistakes.

The other point several of you are missing is that a large part of the mess from the Blair/Brown era was caused by them trying spend beyond our means as a country. Even before the financial crisis the dent was mounting.

If you think that it would have been any different under the Tories, then I suggest you go and read their 2001 and 2005 manifestos.

michael_roadie

MountainMonster wrote:

michael_roadie wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

List the negative things that we are being dictated about, be my guest. Say how those policies directly affect you in a negative way.

It's not about that, it's about the fact that laws and regulations (whether good or bad) are being made elsewhere by people we didn't elect, but we have to abide by/implement them.

OK, so even if these laws are giving you a better quality of life and more stability in work you still don't think it is a good thing? Simply based on the fact they are not British or elected by us?

You have to be joking not to like things that make your life better based on the simple fact it is not done by someone you voted for.

Some things are more important than a few extra bob in your pocket. Not to all, of course...

pinno

madasahattersley wrote:

From a purely selfish point of view no, the standard of living, healthcare or education in Britain are not higher because of the EU. In fact probably worse because of the vast amount of money we can't spend on those things because it's going to the EU instead. With the money saved from not giving money to the EU for 1 day we could build several schools or hospitals or affordable housing developments.

Health costs - Nothing to do with very poor physical education, diet and lifestyle?
Education - Nothing to do with the fact that it has been interfered with for years and used as a political football?
Housing - Nothing to do with an ad hoc voluntarist approach since the mid sixties and too much development left in the hands of commercial builders and the 'market'?

Come on ffs.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

If you think that it would have been any different under the Tories, then I suggest you go and read their 2001 and 2005 manifestos.

Well of course it all happens exactly as it says in the manifesto :roll:

Here's what the New Labour manifesto said in 2005 on some key economic and EU/regulatory points:
"Our economic record has finally laid to rest the view that Labour could not be trusted with the economy."


"We will only regulate where necessary and will set exacting targets for reducing the costs of administering regulations."


"We will take further action in Europe to ensure that EU regulations are proportionate and better designed."


"We will continue to meet our fiscal rules: over the economic cycle,we will borrow only to invest, and keep net debt at a stable and prudent level."


"We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax in the next Parliament"


Like I said before, Labour had 2 goes and screwed it up twice - badly. Fact. You can only speculate about what would have happened if the Tories had been in power instead of Labour in the last decade. The last time the Tory Govt was outgoing in 1997, it left the country in a pretty good state economically. Labour took a few years after that but they ****ed it up eventually.

The problems of Xenophobia, racism etc usually get worse when the economy is in a mess and people are having a hard time financially. So ironically a vote for Labour - the party guaranteed to **** up the finances of the UK sooner or later based on their past record - will get us more of these sorts of issues.

finchy

OK, let's put this one simply - the Tories supported most of Labour's worst economic policies. In fact, they initiated many of them - PFI, de-regulation of the banks etc.

Do you really think that Gideon Osborne, a man who wanted the British banking system to be more like the Irish one, is the man who should be entrusted with our nation's finances? And looking at what's happening now, with house prices rising rapidly once again, do you feel that the British economy is being put on a sound footing for the future?

My answer to these 2 is "no", and as I have said many a time before, I don't trust Labour with the economy, but the Tories were lucky to be out of power when the financial system that both parties supported collapsed. If they had got elected in 2005, they would (unfairly) have taken all the blame.

pblakeney

johnfinch wrote:

Do you really think that Gideon Osborne, a man who wanted the British banking system to be more like the Irish one, is the man who should be entrusted with our nation's finances? And looking at what's happening now, with house prices rising rapidly once again, do you feel that the British economy is being put on a sound footing for the future?

These are very good questions.
I fear that absolutely nothing has been learned from the past.
I will go on the record now and predict that what happened in 2008 will be repeated.
An easy prediction you may say, so I will put a year on it . 2022. The prime indicator will be all the press front page news being about how we have never had it so good. That will be the year.
I will probably be a few years out but there you go. I was saying the financial system would go burst from 2000 and was 8 years out but I was still way ahead of the so called experts who never saw it coming.
(Or did, cashed in and kept quiet).

finchy

^^^

I remember lots of conversations I had with people in the early 200s. They all seemed so blind to the fact that our economy was built on such weak foundations. It was really frustrating having people laughing at me when I said it was all going to blow up one day. Funnily enough, those people tended to become wise after the event.

I think it might go down the toilet even earlier than 2022. Oil prices are unlikely to fall any time soon, total debt has stabilised but isn't falling, I just can't see how our economic "recovery" is going to last more than a few years.

Anyway, back to my thistle patch...

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Do you really think that Gideon Osborne, a man who wanted the British banking system to be more like the Irish one, is the man who should be entrusted with our nation's finances?

The immediate alternative is the current shadow chancellor Ed Balls, who was Gordon Brown's right hand man when Labour was last in power. Nuff said - easy choice.

johnfinch wrote:

And looking at what's happening now, with house prices rising rapidly once again, do you feel that the British economy is being put on a sound footing for the future?

What can this or any Government do when they have limited influence over (a) the supply of housing stock and (b) demand for housing fuelled by a growing population?

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Do you really think that Gideon Osborne, a man who wanted the British banking system to be more like the Irish one, is the man who should be entrusted with our nation's finances?

The immediate alternative is the current shadow chancellor Ed Balls, who was Gordon Brown's right hand man when Labour was last in power. Nuff said - easy choice.

Do you think that Gideon Osborne is competent?

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

And looking at what's happening now, with house prices rising rapidly once again, do you feel that the British economy is being put on a sound footing for the future?

What can this or any Government do when they have limited influence over (a) the supply of housing stock and (b) demand for housing fuelled by a growing population?

Capital gains tax policies, higher interest rates, tighter regulation of mortgage lenders, build more houses.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

What can this or any Government do when they have limited influence over (a) the supply of housing stock and (b) demand for housing fuelled by a growing population?

a) Ease planning permission on brownfield sites.
b) See a.

Also, have predefined limits for rental accommodation with increases linked to inflation.
Set the levels at a fair price and the landlords will be happy, and the tenants even happier.
Low cost rental accommodation will stop house prices going out of control.

You can argue details and limits but the logic seems straightforward. Possibly too simple?

morstar

The current housing policy is truly astonishing. Forgetting about resolving the long term issues, fuelling a housing bubble is just incomprehensibly stupid. It was and still is the bedrock of modern Britain conservatism. House prices must rise and that my friends is how you will secure an affluent retirement.
If nothing else, rents do need regulation, that is what has cost social security so dearly. Personally I'd also go for punitive taxation of empty 2nd properties. With a housing shortage, it is against the national interest to be able to sit on empty property and should be made economically untenable.

nathancom

PBlakeney wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Do you really think that Gideon Osborne, a man who wanted the British banking system to be more like the Irish one, is the man who should be entrusted with our nation's finances? And looking at what's happening now, with house prices rising rapidly once again, do you feel that the British economy is being put on a sound footing for the future?

These are very good questions.
I fear that absolutely nothing has been learned from the past.
I will go on the record now and predict that what happened in 2008 will be repeated.
An easy prediction you may say, so I will put a year on it . 2022. The prime indicator will be all the press front page news being about how we have never had it so good. That will be the year.
I will probably be a few years out but there you go. I was saying the financial system would go burst from 2000 and was 8 years out but I was still way ahead of the so called experts who never saw it coming.
(Or did, cashed in and kept quiet).

This is the scary thing, the system almost collapsed entirely and would have done so without governments pumping in trillions into the banks. And to prevent it happening again we have just tinkered around the edges. But then the instability of bubbles are how banks make money.

finchy

@morstar and nathancom - yes, it is insane if you care about the future of your nation. It isn't insane if you've got a vested interest in ever-rising property prices, as many MPs have, as many of the big donors to the main parties have. They'll party while the bubble inflates, line up for government bailouts when the bubble bursts and then they'll party some more. Again.

MountainMonster

michael_roadie wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

michael_roadie wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

List the negative things that we are being dictated about, be my guest. Say how those policies directly affect you in a negative way.

It's not about that, it's about the fact that laws and regulations (whether good or bad) are being made elsewhere by people we didn't elect, but we have to abide by/implement them.

OK, so even if these laws are giving you a better quality of life and more stability in work you still don't think it is a good thing? Simply based on the fact they are not British or elected by us?

You have to be joking not to like things that make your life better based on the simple fact it is not done by someone you voted for.

Some things are more important than a few extra bob in your pocket. Not to all, of course...

Of course, i'll take job security, proper contracts and human rights additions happily too.

pblakeney

johnfinch wrote:

I think it might go down the toilet even earlier than 2022. Oil prices are unlikely to fall any time soon, total debt has stabilised but isn't falling, I just can't see how our economic "recovery" is going to last more than a few years.

Quite probably.
I added on a few years as I was 8 years out the last time.

michael_roadie

While we're on the topic of housing - and speaking purely from a London perspective - everyone seems to go on about the lack of supply as the problem. Well surely, given the difficulty in getting sufficient supply in London, we should be looking at what is driving the demand. Because one way to increase the supply (relative to demand) is to reduce the demand. And - without having done any research into it whatsoever - one of the major sources of demand is "investment" buyers, whether from overseas or local BTLers. And of course their actions are driving up the price for prospective home owners by significantly increasing the demand for the limited housing stock.

So surely the best way to address the housing problem, given that significantly increasing the supply simply isn't going to happen, is to reduce the demand - not from home owners, but from investors. Home owners should be the primary purchasers of property, with investors being made to jump through hoops. After all these should be "homes", not "investment vehicles" - especially when so many people want to have a home of their own but can't afford to, with investment buyers snapping everything up and driving prices ever upwards.

And another thing that stood out to me was watching a recent Question Time where some member of the audience said he wouldn't be able to afford his mortgage payments if interest rates rose. Well surely this is something he should have considered before taking out the mortgage. In fact the reason why I didn't end up buying a flat last year I quite liked was that I suddenly decided to calculate what my repayments would be at 7%. Yes I'd still have been able to afford it easily after taking into account the amount I'd have paid off during the 4 year fixed period, but it was still more than I was hoping to be paying at that time. (I ended up not buying the flat, then regretting missing out, but that's another story.) So there's two things I'm wondering about: (a) how many others are in his situation? My guess is a lot, as low rates have been around a good while and people will likely have taken out large sums at these low rates without fully appreciating what will happen with a couple points rise in the base rate. And (b), will the BoE be hesitant to raise rates because they might think there are a lot of people who would be vulnerable as far as housing if they did so?

I find myself having missed out on purchasing a place in the last few years - I was looking to save a certain amount to get a lower mortgage rate, and by the time I'd saved what I wanted I realised I didn't want the sort of place I thought I wanted, so could have bought earlier/when prices were lower. And in the meantime prices took off and I'm now unwilling to pay 30% above the previous bubble peak. So for now I'm in a cash position, hoping rates will rise and hurt enough people who borrowed unwisely (hopefully investors), and I may well be a cash purchaser by then.

michael_roadie

MountainMonster wrote:

michael_roadie wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

michael_roadie wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

List the negative things that we are being dictated about, be my guest. Say how those policies directly affect you in a negative way.

It's not about that, it's about the fact that laws and regulations (whether good or bad) are being made elsewhere by people we didn't elect, but we have to abide by/implement them.

OK, so even if these laws are giving you a better quality of life and more stability in work you still don't think it is a good thing? Simply based on the fact they are not British or elected by us?

You have to be joking not to like things that make your life better based on the simple fact it is not done by someone you voted for.

Some things are more important than a few extra bob in your pocket. Not to all, of course...

Of course, i'll take job security, proper contracts and human rights additions happily too.

I'd happily do without all three. My company (or rather, the company I work for) has a load of dead weight due to "job security" and other workers' rights nonsense. And "human rights" can go f**k themselves.

morstar

michael_roadie wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

michael_roadie wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

michael_roadie wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

List the negative things that we are being dictated about, be my guest. Say how those policies directly affect you in a negative way.

It's not about that, it's about the fact that laws and regulations (whether good or bad) are being made elsewhere by people we didn't elect, but we have to abide by/implement them.

OK, so even if these laws are giving you a better quality of life and more stability in work you still don't think it is a good thing? Simply based on the fact they are not British or elected by us?

You have to be joking not to like things that make your life better based on the simple fact it is not done by someone you voted for.

Some things are more important than a few extra bob in your pocket. Not to all, of course...

Of course, i'll take job security, proper contracts and human rights additions happily too.

I'd happily do without all three. My company (or rather, the company I work for) has a load of dead weight due to "job security" and other workers' rights nonsense. And "human rights" can go f**k themselves.

Rubbish, your company has poor management. Rights in this country are about right. They balance the need to protect staff from unscrupulous employers but do not provide employees security to be lazy or incompetent. It just takes a bit of effort to get rid of somebody. And rightly so. But the system does not prohibit an employer from removing dead wood.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

If anyone can find the equivalent graph for the UK results of the European elections as soon as the results are all in I'd be grateful. So we can see what the UK electorate thought of the idea of closer European integration

We may then have to listen to a lot of patronising hot air about how people 'are not listening' or 'have not got the message'

joenobody

Stevo 666 wrote:

So we can see what the UK electorate thought of the idea of closer European integration

Or at least see what the UKIP voters in 35% of the UK electorate thought of the idea of closer European integration

pinno

Housing needs re-establishment of the Rent Authority, dismantled by Thatcher so I doubt the incumbent administration would over turn Queen Traitors decision.

pinno

Oh, BTW - UKIP didn't do well in Scotland. Maybe the voters ain't so thick as overweight Jack and Jill Smith from Chelmsford smoking fags and wearing trackies sat outside the Coach and Horses drinking their housing benefit.
Maybe in Scotland, we are not bought by the shyte spewing from Farage's anu... sorry mouth.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Oh, BTW - UKIP didn't do well in Scotland. Maybe the voters ain't so thick as overweight Jack and Jill Smith from Chelmsford smoking fags and wearing trackies sat outside the Coach and Horses drinking their housing benefit.
Maybe in Scotland, we are not bought by the shyte spewing from Farage's anu... sorry mouth.

Scotland has got it's own independence party in case you hadn't noticed...

BTW: as mentioned above - the graph comes first, then the excuses

nathancom

27% of 33.8% is about 9% of the UK adult population voted for UKIP. BNP vote fell from 6% to 1% so really we are looking at the consolidation of the Far Right. Not a mandate for leaving Europe.

Still Hitler got less than 5% of the vote in 1928, losing his deposit, and managed to win the election 5 years later so it is definitely an earthquake and something to worry about.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Oh, BTW - UKIP didn't do well in Scotland. Maybe the voters ain't so thick as overweight Jack and Jill Smith from Chelmsford smoking fags and wearing trackies sat outside the Coach and Horses drinking their housing benefit.
Maybe in Scotland, we are not bought by the shyte spewing from Farage's anu... sorry mouth.

Scotland has got it's own independence party in case you hadn't noticed...

BTW: as mentioned above - the graph comes first, then the excuses

We didn't have local erections in Scotland , we had Euro elections - the results may have been different.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Oh, BTW - UKIP didn't do well in Scotland. Maybe the voters ain't so thick as overweight Jack and Jill Smith from Chelmsford smoking fags and wearing trackies sat outside the Coach and Horses drinking their housing benefit.
Maybe in Scotland, we are not bought by the shyte spewing from Farage's anu... sorry mouth.

Scotland has got it's own independence party in case you hadn't noticed...

BTW: as mentioned above - the graph comes first, then the excuses

We didn't have local erections in Scotland , we had Euro elections - the results may have been different.

Err - it was the Euro election I was talking about (we had both lots down here at the same time). I assume Scotland is represented by MEPs - for now at least?

Stevo_666

nathancom wrote:

27% of 33.8% is about 9% of the UK adult population voted for UKIP. BNP vote fell from 6% to 1% so really we are looking at the consolidation of the Far Right. Not a mandate for leaving Europe.

Still Hitler got less than 5% of the vote in 1928, losing his deposit, and managed to win the election 5 years later so it is definitely an earthquake and something to worry about.

Didn't take long for Godwins law to kick in...comparing UKIP to Hitler is a bit of a stretch by most peoples standards.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that one useful function of UKIP may be to put a bit more 'spine' into our dealings with Brussels - reading pretty much any media source on the impact of the euro elections it looks like that may well be happening, as a share of the vote of that size indicates a sizeable part of the population are hacked off with the 'main' parties approach to the subject. The pro-EU parties in the European parliament itself still hold a workable majority, but the political parties in the UK cannot ignore the message.

A protest vote much of it might be, but it's certainly shaken things up. 'Up yours Delors' is making a comeback