I have made my mind up!!

You need to read the story, not just the headline.

When he talks about “British” people, he doesn’t say they have to be “White”. Which is what many people
assume he means.

Results of mock election held at a Sudbury School.:

UKIP ——— 272 votes (23%)
Conservative – 252 votes (22%)
Labour ——- 247 votes (21%)
Lib Dem —— 246 votes (21%)
Green ——– 151 votes (13%)

Looks like a last-ditch attempt to get the white van man vote? :sleeping:

I filled out some questions last night, based on individual policies rather than parties, and apparently my views are 50% green, 25% SNP and 25% conservative. Annoyingly whoever promised to publish the Chilcot Inquiry ASAP was also against the renewal of Trident. One policy I like and one I dislike in the same breath.

Nigel Farage would axe ‘much of’ race discrimination laws

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31846453

He is either exposing his true self or exposing a complete lack of appreciation and understanding of the real issues this would case.
Or more likely both.
Either way not good.

Since when was UKIP popular with younger voters? Not at this Northern latitude, and you
cannot blame it all on whining Scots either as all the students up here in Edinburgh are English anyway. :stupid:

Students at Suffolk school grill parliamentary candidates during special debate

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2015-03-11/suffolk-school-holds-special-debate-and-mock-election/

Students at Thomas Gainsborough School in Sudbury have been posing questions to a panel of parliamentary
candidates from the five main political parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Green and UKIP).

There was an interesting result when they cast their votes. A narrow win for the UKIP candidate.
The same UKIP which only older people vote for

Oh they try alright – everyone’s patience. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, you’ll still get politicians. I’m sure I’m not the only person who feels that it doesn’t matter which party it is , the politicians all do what’s best for their pockets rather than what’s best for the country. I think that pretty much applies in all ‘democrasies’.
The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that a democracy lets you choose your dictator.

This raises an interesting point. Have people begun to believe that having a vote or perhaps maybe more accurately having an opinion de facto means that their desires expressed under that opinion will automatically be met?
I think an element of that has crept into todays society, fuelled by politicians desperate to gain votes but in the main by commercial interests desperate to extract money from the consumer.
People seem to think that the “rules” under which a commercial transaction is conducted, exchange of goods for services, the customer is always right etc. also apply to life in general.
A viewpoint that I would argue is fundamentally flawed.
It does go some way to explaining the mentality of society today.

An excellent point.

No one political party will ever encompass all of our beliefs in one go. Part of their problem is that they try..

I am sure there is a great deal of truth in that suggestion. And to some extent it runs parallel to the associated belief that the state owes people a living. That responsibility for events and actions relating to the individual all lie outside the individual’s control. Some do of course but many do not.

Have people begun to believe that having a vote or perhaps maybe more accurately having an opinion de facto means that their desires expressed under that opinion will automatically be met?

When it comes to ‘the government’, yes…..whether those desires are realistic of not!

You only have to look at what is happening in Greece right now.

I watched something on TV the other day about this and there was an ‘anti-bedroom tax’ campaigner who claimed that the bedroom had to be of a certain size to qualify as a ‘bedroom’ (can’t remember the size) and also had to have room for a bed, a wardrobe, a chest-of-drawers and a table and chair…

…I’ve lived in plenty of houses (paid the mortgages) and very few of my ‘bedrooms’ would qualify!!!

True…..even if everybody votes for it!

This raises an interesting point. Have people begun to believe that having a vote or perhaps maybe more accurately having an opinion de facto means that their desires expressed under that opinion will automatically be met?
I think an element of that has crept into todays society, fuelled by politicians desperate to gain votes but in the main by commercial interests desperate to extract money from the consumer.
People seem to think that the “rules” under which a commercial transaction is conducted, exchange of goods for services, the customer is always right etc. also apply to life in general.
A viewpoint that I would argue is fundamentally flawed.
It does go some way to explaining the mentality of society today.

The opposite is the case. Foodbanks are on the rise because they are needed in Britain today, and part, but certainlynot all, of the reason is that the benefits system which is there to support the needy is not working as effectively as it should.

A recent report by the all party Parliamentary enquiry into Hunger’s report, which is not intent in scoring political points, makes an interesting, if depressing, read:

https://foodpovertyinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/food-poverty-feeding-britain-final.pdf

If you can’t be bothered to read this, then the Spectator review makes some interesting reading:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/food-bank-report-is-a-chance-to-end-the-toxic-political-stand-off/

For balance, as the Spectator is not known to be very liberal in its views here is the Guardian’s review
http://www.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2014/dec/08/in-thier-own-words-rise-of-food-banks-devastating-human-impact

Thank you for this. Let me turn the question on its head. At some point in the past, during periods of crisis, and before the idea of food banks came about, there was still an issue of food poverty. What did we do then? I believe they came about, in part, in order to ensure that benefit payments were targeted at ensuring that people ate, rather than chose to use their payments in another manner.

This is, no doubt at all, one of the reasons that measures such as ‘zero hours contracts’ are unacceptable. There is no doubt that they affect the claimant count, and show an artificially rosy picture. The ridiculous ‘bedroom tax’ is another one – even if many families wanted to move out of their existing homes, they cant as there are no smaller ones available.

The crisis was a failure of democracy, politics, society and basic human greed rather than a product of a particular political standpoint. It happened in the past and will happen again, unless society, people, evolve to understand that something can truly not be had for nothing.

True…..even if everybody votes for it!

The idea that a particular party has much real influence on events and economy is a major fallacy, the perpetuation of which is one of the major faults with the current system…

I’d tend to agree with that except with one caveat…

…the idea that one party can have much more of a positive influence on events and economy is false!

I don’t want to appear flippant, but the rise in food bank use happens because they are there. .

The opposite is the case. Foodbanks are on the rise because they are needed in Britain today, and part, but certainlynot all, of the reason is that the benefits system which is there to support the needy is not working as effectively as it should.

A recent report by the all party Parliamentary enquiry into Hunger’s report, which is not intent in scoring political points, makes an interesting, if depressing, read:

https://foodpovertyinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/food-poverty-feeding-britain-final.pdf

If you can’t be bothered to read this, then the Spectator review makes some interesting reading:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/food-bank-report-is-a-chance-to-end-the-toxic-political-stand-off/

For balance, as the Spectator is not known to be very liberal in its views here is the Guardian’s review
http://www.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2014/dec/08/in-thier-own-words-rise-of-food-banks-devastating-human-impact

I’m not sure I would entirely agree with your first point, but there is an element of that, yes.

It is important to note, that not every major economy crashed in 2007/8. Australia and Canada largely escaped the financial crisis. Politics could have influenced that crisis for the better, but as long as we were riding that wave, it was difficult for any one person, or country to stop it.

The idea that a particular party has much real influence on events and economy is a major fallacy, the perpetuation of which is one of the major faults with the current system.
The years 2001 – 2006 were relatively good around the world not just in the UK. Whilst the Labour party rode that wave they only did the same as others of an opposing viewpoint in other countries.
The crisis was a failure of democracy, politics, society and basic human greed rather than a product of a particular political standpoint.

Due to the adversarial nature of politics it was not in any political parties interest to be honest and take a stand against the good times.
It happened in the past and will happen again, unless society, people, evolve to understand that something can truly not be had for nothing.

I’m serious…..when was this time?

Approx 2001-2006 – and I would hope that everybody can now see, with hindsight, what was being stored up for the future.

Hi All,
Tony and Trekbuster,
I bow down to your wider knowledge of carrier operations I was merely speaking in monetary terms I just don’t think with all the down sizing plus the extra still to come it makes any sense, as far as the aircraft go I still think the F-35 is a waste of everybody’s money when you consider if they had put the money into an upgraded Harrier or next gen Harrier it would have been more cost effective than a brand new design that has had nothing but delay after delay. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is now visible to certain radars that have been developed as is the norm when you develop a new weapon a counter weapon is also developed by the enemy ?

I think you need to consider that when the coalition came in, they would have approached the chiefs of staff, and asked how they would trim their respective budgets. The Air Force would have immediately replied – ‘Take Harrier and Nimrod’. The former was quite dated technology; the latter they never wanted anyway, it was a politically expedient design, aimed at job creation by the previous several governments.

Economy.
The economy is only doing well if you have spare dosh or your business is doing well, as for everything else the economy is not doing well despite all the figures given these are a smoke screen for the real problems that are the cause of so many of the following problems.

You need to look at the UK economy relative to others. It isn’t an absolute that our economy is doing well. It is that it is doing better than it was, and much better than others in the Eurozone. You also need to consider how bad it got in 2008-10, despite what the Labour party tell us.

Employment High.
How do you define more people are employed than before if this is true why are there so many unemployed ?

The figures suggest that there are more in employment than ever before. The population has grown over the years, and the proportion of people in work is higher than it has been in the past. Agreed that Zero Hr contracts are an issue

Unemployment Low.
Unemployment figures do not include Those who cannot claim/Those who are retraining/Those On the sick/Those who are in education/Those who are part-time.

That has always been the case, no matter who was in power. Unemployment is running at around 6% of the available workforce. Percentage terms is a better indicator than absolute numbers, which are misleading. Clearly 2m unemployed in a workforce of 20m is much worse than 2m in a workforce of 60m. Again, agree that zero hours contracts are misleading, and IMHO, quite wrong.

Interest rates Low.
Why are the interest rates low ? because nobody can afford to borrow any more if you try and get a mortgage these days it’s very difficult to get favourable terms that give the lender a chance to pay it off, the lender is forced to take a mortgage over a longer period thus paying more interest, as an example lenders used to be able to afford a 25 Yr mortgage now the usual is 50Yr mortgage.

Interest rates are low in order to allow the economy room to grow. Once it picks up, they will start to rise. The role of the individual is largely irrelevant. Mortgages are running over longer periods in order to make them affordable, bearing in mind the record highs of house prices, which refuse to come down.

Low Inflation.
If someone was working and has a descent wage packet coming in where you have quite a disposable income left after paying Bills/Food/Transport/Tax etc.etc.etc. then I suppose you would think that, but for the vast majority who work Full time Zero Hr contract minimum wage jobs they would not agree, let alone those who find themselves on benefit through no fault of their own. If inflation is that low why are there so many food banks springing up around the country that are being used more and more ? lets not forget you just cannot turn up to a food bank and put your hand out, you have to register with the DWP (Please correct if wrong) then you are given a token on top of that you are only allowed to use them so many times.

Low inflation at present is largely related to the slump in oil prices. Oil prices have slumped owing to a reduction in demand, principally from China. No single country would set a rate so low, as they rely heavily on inflated oil prices in order to service their own national debt. Consider, incidentally what would have happened to Scotland if they had decided to break from the union, when much of their plans was based on a continual rise in oil prices. I don’t want to appear flippant, but the rise in food bank use happens because they are there.

Oil Prices Low.
Well yes they are but why ? It’s not through the goodness of their hearts treating us for being loyal customers it’s all a game, as an example the Ukraine conflict has a lot to do with it at present. Russia’s main export is energy in the form of Gas and Oil, because of the sanctions applied they rely on that income even more so what other way can they be crippled cut the oil price and that is exactly what the US/Mid East has done by dropping their oil prices meaning Russia cannot compete or it lowers it’s own oil price thus not earning anything like what they should. :eagerness:

Geoff.

Oil price is determined on an international market – not by the companies producing the oil. Demand is low, so prices are low. Additionally, new finds, particularly with shale in the USA has increased supply. It wont last forever – a few years maybe. Enjoy it while it lasts!

That might explain a popularity with the younger voters, but I’m not so sure about the older members of society,
who have seen the major parties come and go over the years. ?

Since when was UKIP popular with younger voters? Not at this Northern latitude, and you cannot blame it all on whining Scots either as all the students up here in Edinburgh are English anyway. :stupid:

A friend of mine worked in one of the call centres for a while, and was tasked with phoning up individuals and asking of their favoured political party. A surprising number answered UKIP, but given that he was calling in the middle of the day we can safely assume they were either elderly or unemployed. UKIP does well (all things relative) in the more urban constituencies up here, which also happen to house greater numbers of immigrants and have a tendency to be more greatly deprived. Make of that what you will.

…instead of looking at Britain in the world and how we are seen by the world, shouldn’t we be concentrating on looking at our selves by getting our own country sorted out first then worry about other country after were all back in the black so to speak…

You miss my point completely; I’m not worried about other countries or how they see Britain…

…I’m trying to get a balanced view of how our economy / government is actually doing.

You’re obviously not happy so let me ask you a serious question; when were you happy with the government in Britain? What Prime Minister did you respect and trust? When was this golden age when the economy was in rude health, unemployment was low, it was easy to get a mortgage and everybody had ‘spare dosh’?

I’m serious…..when was this time?