Question Time Last night

Moby

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Let me rephrase - he is putting the UK first, whereas other parties appear to have not done this (Labour's deliberate policy of uncontrolled immigration, the cost of the EU and their various laws). This is a similar quality to Margaret Thatcher.

It may well be a similar policy to Hitler, but surely you must admit that to mention Hitler in connection with Farage is a silly and spurious argument?

My posts have always been that we know nothing of the candidates; that there is no depth of talent; policies are chopping and changing.

My point is that Nigel Farage puts the UK first, not himself, not the EU. What's unattractive about that? Cameron and Milliband may come out and say that they put the UK foremost, unfortunately, no-one will believe them. If you don't understand the power of image, then that's a great pity.

Policies will become apparent in due course, and well before 2015. UKIP's image may well change by then, unfortunately for them, they only have Nigel Farage. There's just no-one else with any charisma or credibiity, yet.

Farage can claim all sorts of things and because he has no record/history it can seem attractive, especially to little Englanders. In no way are his views attractive to me because I'm not really the patriotic type. Also as we all know there is a difference between saying and doing and if ever (god forbid) he is faced with the reality of international power politics.... his Britain First statements will seem pretty hollow....he will have to compromise with the realities the same way as every other politician has to.

Sampong

Moby wrote: »

but surely policy is everything. People will see through his charm pretty quickly when they hear he wants to lower tax rates for the rich,

One of UKIP's tax policies is no tax on the minimum wage, thus encouraging people off welfare back into work and stimulating the economy.

I guess you must have forgotten to mention that.

Sampong

Moby wrote: »

Ok ok ........ serious now......apart from immigration/EU withdrawal what do UKIP stand for? What is it about their policies that distinguishes them from the right wing of the tory party? For instance apart from stopping immigration what do they have to offer a working class person in the North?

Well why don't you look at the manifesto?

The general philosophy behind the policies is to cut out red tape, save money, encourage business to thrive and thus employ people, and to actively take steps to benefit the British people... not those who have never lived here or who have never contributed. They also favour small government.

Now when you say apart from EU withdrawal - is that a purposeful attempt to cut down the options for the answer? Unless we leave the EU (and also the European Court of Human Rights) then it is virtually impossible for any government, regardless of political colour, to achieve these things whilst we are obeying rules and restrictions from across the water.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

he is putting the UK first, whereas other parties appear to have not done this (Labour's deliberate policy of uncontrolled immigration, the cost of the EU and their various laws).

Except of course, that's just nonsense.

The only thing he's putting first is his narrow minded 'little Englander' viewpoint of the world, and his rabble rousing populist drivel that masquerades as policy.

Immigration and being in the EU are both very good for the UK, and indeed when you look at the objective academic research, the benefits outweigh the costs by quite some margin.

It may well be a similar policy to Hitler,

Any of the various nationalists will inevitably get compared to Hitler at some point, however in this case it's simply not appropriate.

I don't actually believe the core UKIP leaders are particularly racist.

Isolationist, protectionist, backwards-looking, and perhaps even xenophobic. But not overtly racist.

They're just very effective at picking up support from those who are. And providing them with a less offensive, and so more dangerous, platform to disguise and hide their racist views as 'legitimate concerns about immigration'.

to mention Hitler in connection with Farage is a silly and spurious argument

It certainly is.

Hitler had far more charisma, personality, credibility and indeed support than Farage could ever dream of.

Which is probably a good thing....

Because nationalistic and isolationist policies in Europe usually don't end well.

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Hitler had far more charisma, personality, credibility and indeed support than Farage could ever dream of.

It comes as no surprise to me that you're a fan of Hitler.

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Except of course, that's just nonsense.

No - it's really not.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The only thing he's putting first is his narrow minded 'little Englander' viewpoint of the world, and his rabble rousing populist drivel that masquerades as policy.

Back to the insulting tactics again - the establishment are in the process of doing a big U - turn on that sort of things to hold on to the tatters of credibility they have left.

You should consider this too (although it may be too late)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Immigration and being in the EU are both very good for the UK, and indeed when you look at the objective academic research, the benefits outweigh the costs by quite some margin.

Except that's nonsense. Or at least it needs to be properly debated rather than ignoring the facts and branding those who offer an opposition view racist.

How many times now have you ignored this?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration— generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.

(*credit to Graham who originally posted it).

You constantly cherry pick facts to suit your own agenda.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

They're just very effective at picking up support from those who are. And providing them with a less offensive, and so more dangerous, platform to disguise and hide their racist views as 'legitimate concerns about immigration'.

Absolute bunk. No other word for it. This is the kind of arrogant attitude that has resulted in the establishment losing so much support - insulting their core voters. Genuine people with legitimate concerns are labelled racist. And you've just done it again.

CLAPTON

It's a funny thing that if some-one says they want to put Britain first then they are 'little Englanders', protectionist, back would looking etc.


Virtually no-one things that China or USA don't put their own countries first but the vocabulary describing their behaviour is usually very different.


Whiles some 'academic research' concludes that UK benefits from being part of a protectionist, corrupt inward looking Europe, they tend to be the same people who strongly supported the Uk joining the Euro, strongly supported the breaking of all the Euro rules on budget deficits to enable the Euroland to be set up and have no policies for solving the problems of Greece, Spains or Cyprus.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sampong wrote: »

How many times now have you ignored this?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

(*credit to Graham who originally posted it).

You constantly cherry pick facts to suit your own agenda.

Pot calling the kettle black there.

I've posted dozens of times about numerous research papers, showing quite conclusively that....

-Immigration does not steal jobs from the native born

-Immigration increases the average wages for the local born population as a whole

-Immigration does have a tiny negative outcome for wages in the bottom 5% of earners, but that is less than a penny an hour. The other 95% are neutral or benefit.

-Immigrants are a net economic benefit to the UK, and consume less in services than they contribute in revenue

-Immigration is the primary reason the UK is forecast to be more successful than Germany and France economically over the next few decades

- Immigration is vital to the nations finances, and the deficit would be far bigger without it over even the next 5 years.

And yet you ignore all of those papers, form sources ranging from the ONS to respected Academics and Economists, in favour of a paper by a dozen old peers and some stats from UKIP/migration watch.

Talk about cherry picking.....:(

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sampong wrote: »

It comes as no surprise to me that you're a fan of Hitler.

I'm no fan of Hitler.... Which should probably tell you how little I like Farage.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Pot calling the kettle black there.

I've posted dozens of times about numerous research papers, showing quite conclusively that....

-Immigration does not steal jobs from the native born

-Immigration increases the average wages for the local born population as a whole

-Immigration does have a tiny negative outcome for wages in the bottom 5% of earners, but that is less than a penny an hour. The other 95% are neutral or benefit.

-Immigrants are a net economic benefit to the UK, and consume less in services than they contribute in revenue

-Immigration is the primary reason the UK is forecast to be more successful than Germany and France economically over the next few decades

- Immigration is vital to the nations finances, and the deficit would be far bigger without it over even the next 5 years.

And yet you ignore all of those papers, form sources ranging from the ONS to respected Academics and Economists, in favour of a paper by a dozen old peers and some stats from UKIP/migration watch.

Talk about cherry picking.....:(

just remind us how many of these respected acedemics and economists

- predicted the financial melted down

-were strongly in favour of our joining the Euro

-expressed strong and continuing objection to the initial corrupt euroland setup with virtually everyone colluding together to break all the rules for the political dream.

- have proper theoretically reasons why immigration is a blessing for the UK but a problem for most other countries

-have consistently been correct with their forecasts (or even occasionally )