Did we all vote UKIP today

[Lord Duckhunter]

VAT is a good tax to pull in money from those who live or visit here but don't pay tax here (non doms, tourists, visitors etc). Its also pretty hard to avoid paying. Given VAT pulls in £103bn pa (about the same as National insurance) and far more than other taxes, say corporation tax (£39bn). If you didn't have some kind of consumption tax you would have much higher income taxes and be pushing up to the levels where it becomes a disincentive to work.

 

.

 

Careful, that was Mrs T's approach. Perhaps we are "all Thatcherites now" after all.

[Wes Tender]

Really Wes? I'm actually a bit shocked that you think this is a point worthy of challenging me on.

 

I'll point you in this direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

 

I'm really loving the irony in you pointing me in the direction of a Wikipedia article, (as everybody knows that they are the definitive experts on matters economic), where it details the Laffer curve theory which was used also as the basis for the tax proposals of UKIP. So you think that UKIP are heading in the right direction then? The trouble with the Laffer theory and that article, is that no conclusion is reached about what is the best tax rate to optimise the revenue gained from it, so there was certainly no backing for your opinion that below 40% the Exchequer would take less tax revenue than with a higher rate.

 

I'll also give you a helpful scenario. At 80% tax someone earning £60k pa could easily find they save money if they hire an accountant. At 40% tax that same person would be spending more on account's fees than they could ever hope to save. As such, when you lower the tax rate, you are simultaneously increasing the amount of income you someone needs to be on before they would benefit from trying to avoid tax.

 

There is a rate of taxation where higher earners accept it to be fair. There is therefore no need for them to pay accountants specialising in tax avoidance in order to reduce the bill.

 

As such, at a 80% tax rate, millions of people will find it worth their while to hire accountants and try to avoid tax; at 40% tax rate, only a few hundred thousand would benefit by doing the same. The problem is, as you push the top rate down much further, any savings that are made by a few thousand less people trying to avoid tax, would be dwarfed by the fact that you are asking millions of people to pay less overall.

 

But of course those higher earners if paying 40% tax would already be paying almost twice the tax rate that the majority of those on the basic rate pay. You might consider that fair, but I don't. Sorry.

 

Seen as you like throwing challenges my way, can you point me to any evidence that cutting taxes below 45% can actually increase tax revenue? Examples from large mixed economies only please - and no tax havens don't count.

 

Well, we had reduced our higher rate tax here to 40% under Thatcher and increased revenues, even when the tax rate fell substantially. Of course there are many countries around the World who have substantially lower tax rates than we do here.

 

Yes, you are right, but it is something that is being taken into account. The less money people have to spend, the higher the percentage of their income they spend. Conversely, the wealthier you are, the more you save. As such, reducing tax for the richest would see a ripple of investment (and a heck of a lot of 'assets' purchased); reducing tax for those in the middle or bottom would see a surge in spending.

 

I didn't see you mention it up until now. So you agree that leaving more money in peoples' pockets by lowering taxation is a good thing? Do you also agree that they are better placed to decide on what they spend it than the Taxman? Or does Nanny know best?

 

Of course, in your scenario, there's a magical tax cut for everyone. Which would see overall tax revenues rise (because of course in Wes-world tax revenues always increase the more they are cut eh?). Why don't we tax at 0% eh Wes? Surely in your view that would yield maximum revenues?

 

I refer you back to that article on Wikipedia and the Laffer curve. Don't be so bloody patronising.

 

NB, I'm finding this debate less and less interesting, primarily because you've got rather bitter in your language e.g "I understand that it is a leap of imagination too far for most of the left to make". This isn't helpful Wes. It doesn't add to the debate. It sounds suspiciously like someone lashing out in frustruation at being debated into a corner.

 

Debated into a corner by you? LOL! Wasn't it you who stated that the voting public shouldn't be allowed to vote in Referenda, as they wouldn't know enough about the issue to make a reasoned judgement? There really could be no clearer indication of the contempt that you have for those who hold a different opinion to yours.

[Dr Who?]

No!

[Wes Tender]

No surprise in was invented by the French.

 

 

They probably called it Voleur Tax and some Civil Servant in the Revenue misinterpreted it.

[pap]

I'm not sure - what about, for example, the fact that revenues raised by motoring taxes (Road Fund) would necessarily need to be included. That wouldn't be very fair on people who don't / can't drive. I'm sure there would be other examples.

 

Simple. Tolls on motorways.

 

That way, everyone who uses the roads pays for them, including foreign haulers, who presently don't.

[Verbal]

A flaw in your argument, but you won't admit it.

 

Again, Lord T - where? The flaw is surely with UKIP. Here's Farage on the subject during the local elections:

 

Every party changes their policies between general elections… Just because we stood under a different leader in a different general election with a policy of 31 per cent, doesn’t mean that’ll be our policy next time round: it won’t.

 

The 'flat rate' claim is a hang-over from Farage's dodgy predecessor, and Farage himself has no actual clue. So why should I or anyone else make any assumptions about tax allowances? Or perhaps, Lord T, you're a closet UKIP policymaker yourself. If so, do tell us: What IS the tax allowance to be on someone earning £15,000 under UKIP's non-existent policy?

 

But you'll have to find something that at least makes a half-hearted attempt to be up-to-date. The 'proposal' on their website talks about corporation tax and refers to the 'current rate' as 28%. Unlike you Lord T, I pay CT, and that figure is complete nonsense. The proposal says not one word about VAT except some vague comment about abolishing it and replacing it with a local sales tax 'at the same rate' of 17.5%. Don't these people actually pay VAT, or can they just not manage a calculator? Just for your information, assuming you're as badly informed as UKIP 'policy' makers, VAT on most things in the UK is 20%. If this is 'your' party, it really is the befuddled leading the befuddled, wouldn't you agree?

 

So go away and do a little thinking, then come back and present a nice coherent picture of what this mysterious policy actually is. But It'll be a tall order. Here's an indication of how hard it'll be, from a member of the Institute of Fiscal Studies:

 

From a distance UKIP’s policies seem to be incoherent and basically about what they don’t like – Europe, foreigners, taxes, state regulation, scientists (a total denial of climate change, based on the exploded documentary The Great Climate Change Swindle). When you look closer they seem to be rather more incoherent than that.

[Joensuu]

You do realise that while we remain part of the EU, we can not scrap VAT. If you want the British people to set their own VAT rates, put a big X next to UKIP next time you enter the polling station.

 

No Lord D, I wasn't aware that the EU force us to keep VAT (I was however aware that the EEC do).

 

Let's weigh it up, VAT is a regressive tax, that takes a larger percentage out of your wage the poorer you get. Should it be scrapped in favour of a boost to Income tax, yes, in an ideal world. Do we live in that world, no. Certain VAT vs EU membership is a no-brainer - EU membership trumps us scrapping VAT every day.

[Lord Duckhunter]

No Lord D, I wasn't aware that the EU force us to keep VAT (I was however aware that the EEC do).

 

.

 

The EEC ship sailed a long time ago.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Perhaps verbal can explain what exactly is wrong with the Farage statement he quoted "Every party changes their policies between general elections… Just because we stood under a different leader in a different general election with a policy of 31 per cent, doesn’t mean that’ll be our policy next time round: it won’t." Or is he trying to say that parties should fight election after election after election with the same tax policy?

[Joensuu]

I'm really loving the irony in you pointing me in the direction of a Wikipedia article, (as everybody knows that they are the definitive experts on matters economic), where it details the Laffer curve theory which was used also as the basis for the tax proposals of UKIP. So you think that UKIP are heading in the right direction then? The trouble with the Laffer theory and that article, is that no conclusion is reached about what is the best tax rate to optimise the revenue gained from it, so there was certainly no backing for your opinion that below 40% the Exchequer would take less tax revenue than with a higher rate.

 

For the purposes of this debate, it is not important to establish where the optimal tax rate lies, only to get you to admit that reducing taxes does not always increase revenue. Can you admit that once you reduce taxes too far the revenues will actually start to fall?

 

There is a rate of taxation where higher earners accept it to be fair. There is therefore no need for them to pay accountants specialising in tax avoidance in order to reduce the bill.

 

Yes, I agree that there is, and each person will have a different view on what they feel is fair. I'm sure some feel 40% is fair; while others would find 10% an unwelcome levy from the state. Doesn't really effect my point though does it? Reducing the tax rate will only result in an increase in revenue when the tax rate was already very high; I see no reason to think that reducing a 40% tax rate would result in anything other than reduced revenues. Can you prove otherwise?

 

But of course those higher earners if paying 40% tax would already be paying almost twice the tax rate that the majority of those on the basic rate pay. You might consider that fair, but I don't. Sorry.

 

I don't see how that is relevant to my point; and I can see how you might feel it's unfair on a personal level; I can't see how it's unfair on a private level. Surely those wealthy enough to have more to spare are happy to support those who need their help? Or would they rather the gap grew?

 

Well, we had reduced our higher rate tax here to 40% under Thatcher and increased revenues, even when the tax rate fell substantially. Of course there are many countries around the World who have substantially lower tax rates than we do here.

 

Of course revenue from top rate payers increased under Thatcher - she reduced it from 83% which I think we agree, is far too high. Of course, what you've not said here is when those increased revenues were made - most of the increased revenues were made when the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60%; there wasn't such a dramatic effect when it was dropped from 60% to 40% was there? I can promise you, dropping the top rate further would not result in increased revenues.

 

I'm aware that there are plenty of countries with lower taxes. Very few provide anything like the services we do. Very few fund massive military forces; and free health care. You could argue that we could do without some of the perks if you wish to? UKIP of course seem to want to increase military spending!

 

I didn't see you mention it up until now. So you agree that leaving more money in peoples' pockets by lowering taxation is a good thing? Do you also agree that they are better placed to decide on what they spend it than the Taxman? Or does Nanny know best?

 

As a liberal, I'm all for free choice. Lower taxation, is definitely beneficial. Two caveats, firstly, society should support people who need their assistance. Secondly, government should ensure that the gap between rich and poor doesn't grow too wide.

 

NB, liberals are as far removed from the 'Nanny' state as you can get.

 

I refer you back to that article on Wikipedia and the Laffer curve. Don't be so bloody patronising.

 

So you DO agree that there is a point beyond which reducing taxes will reduce revenue? Blimey, this feels like a breakthrough.

 

Debated into a corner by you? LOL! Wasn't it you who stated that the voting public shouldn't be allowed to vote in Referenda, as they wouldn't know enough about the issue to make a reasoned judgement? There really could be no clearer indication of the contempt that you have for those who hold a different opinion to yours.

 

No contempt for differing opinions; more than happy listening (and learning) from well thought through opinions.

 

I'm just conscious that sensible decisions can't be made by people who are only half aware of the facts, and that this is compounded by mis-information in the press. Do you honestly think referenda are the most appropriate method of making decisions? If so, should all decisions be made this way? Or just some of them? Would you honestly still be pressing for a referendum if you knew you'd lose it? For example, would you trust the public to vote on tax rates for the richest?

[Joensuu]

The EEC ship sailed a long time ago.

Ay, the EEC became the EC, then just over three years ago the EC became rebranded as a 'pillar' of the EU (have to admit, the EU does an awful job of self-promotion, someone somewhere got paid to dream up those 'pillars'). I was trying to point out that the VAT agreement was made back in the 70's and done to try and establish commonality across taxation. As I said before, it's not the fairest of taxes, but not work losing our EU membership over.

[Lord Duckhunter]

As I said before, it's not the fairest of taxes, but not work losing our EU membership over.

 

It wont be VAT that we lose our membership over. It'll be denying the people a vote for so long, unrestricted immigration, pouring people's hard earned money down the drain and our parliament being neutered by unelected foreign bureaucrats.

[solentstars]

It wont be VAT that we lose our membership over. It'll be denying the people a vote for so long, unrestricted immigration, pouring people's hard earned money down the drain and our parliament being neutered by unelected foreign bureaucrats.

unlike the unelected bureaucrats in the house of lords who we stilldo not have a chance to vote for:lol:

[Lord Duckhunter]

unlike the unelected bureaucrats in the house of lords who we stilldo not have a chance to vote for:lol:

 

Exactly, and the Germans living at SW1A 1AA

[solentstars]

Exactly, and the Germans living at SW1A 1AA

ha ha nice one

[Wes Tender]

Again, Lord T - where? The flaw is surely with UKIP. Here's Farage on the subject during the local elections:

 

 

The 'flat rate' claim is a hang-over from Farage's dodgy predecessor, and Farage himself has no actual clue. So why should I or anyone else make any assumptions about tax allowances? Or perhaps, Lord T, you're a closet UKIP policymaker yourself. If so, do tell us: What IS the tax allowance to be on someone earning £15,000 under UKIP's non-existent policy?

 

But you'll have to find something that at least makes a half-hearted attempt to be up-to-date. The 'proposal' on their website talks about corporation tax and refers to the 'current rate' as 28%. Unlike you Lord T, I pay CT, and that figure is complete nonsense. The proposal says not one word about VAT except some vague comment about abolishing it and replacing it with a local sales tax 'at the same rate' of 17.5%. Don't these people actually pay VAT, or can they just not manage a calculator? Just for your information, assuming you're as badly informed as UKIP 'policy' makers, VAT on most things in the UK is 20%. If this is 'your' party, it really is the befuddled leading the befuddled, wouldn't you agree?

 

So go away and do a little thinking, then come back and present a nice coherent picture of what this mysterious policy actually is. But It'll be a tall order. Here's an indication of how hard it'll be, from a member of the Institute of Fiscal Studies:

 

What a load of twaddle. I pointed out that your effort at applying figures to taxes paid between high earners and low earners was flawed because you hadn't taken account of the threshold below which tax was not levied. Therefore it is obvious that the conclusion you reached about the gap between them was flawed too.

 

So wind your neck in and save your breath over everything else that you have followed up with. I'm not interested in any of it. I'm not a UKIP supporter, but I find them useful in getting we the public a long overdue say on Europe and in the meantime they are useful as an alternative protest vote.

[pap]

It wont be VAT that we lose our membership over. It'll be denying the people a vote for so long, unrestricted immigration, pouring people's hard earned money down the drain and our parliament being neutered by unelected foreign bureaucrats.

 

UKIP wouldn't exist if any of the major parties did what they say they do; listen while they're in government. There has been opposition to the EU since Maastricht, yet no party has listened to the eurosceptics among us. I wasn't among them myself, but as things have unravelled, I do wonder whether it's a Ponzi scheme within a Ponzi scheme. The point is often made in places like Greece and Spain that the Germans managed to dominate Europe, after all. The dream of federalism? Load of cock. We're having enough trouble holding the Union together. Quite how the EU bigwigs think they can sort a population of 500 million out and satisfy the demands of the financial system is beyond me. Answer: they're not.

 

I expect UKIP to do even better next time round following the exposure they've got during these recent elections. Their appeal is slightly wider than coffin dodgers just to the left of Hitler. Most people will perceive them as a single issue party and vote for them on that basis. Some will just vote for them because an exit from the EU will lead to an end to uncontrolled immigration, and damn the consequences.

 

So much of politics is about personality. Farage knocks the crap out of the other party leaders personality wise. Pint in one hand, ciggie in the other and doesn't give a f**k. Electoral gold. It doesn't matter if we high minded lefties don't approve. People will vote for that sh!t.

 

The Conservatives are saying that if you vote for them, you'll get a referendum. No-one in their right minds would believe them. We've heard it all before, from all of the parties. Both Labour and the Conservatives weaseled out of their pledge to hold a referendum if the European Constitution was introduced. Neither did; the Lib Dems called them out on their weasley behaviour, correctly citing that a name change to the Lisbon Treaty didn't really cover all these new powers being instituted (which were exactly the same as the ones in the European Constitution). Up until 2009, Lib Dem policy was an in/out referendum. Today, Cameron says he can't hold a referendum because his Lib Dem partners won't let him.

 

No other party has offered the British public a choice, and no other party will. I'm not particularly happy about the prospect of UKIP's potentially racist underbelly getting into the mechanics of government, but that's the cost of not listening.

[Wes Tender]

Joennsu. You've worn me down. I really can't be arsed to argue any further with you. We'll just have to agree that as you're a L/liberal and I'm a Conservative there is going to be little consensus on our beliefs regarding taxation.

 

In any event, it isn't possible to get any consistency in your views, as shown by this:-

 

As a liberal, I'm all for free choice. Lower taxation, is definitely beneficial. Two caveats, firstly, society should support people who need their assistance. Secondly, government should ensure that the gap between rich and poor doesn't grow too wide

[Wes Tender]

UKIP wouldn't exist if any of the major parties did what they say they do; listen while they're in government. There has been opposition to the EU since Maastricht, yet no party has listened to the eurosceptics among us. I wasn't among them myself, but as things have unravelled, I do wonder whether it's a Ponzi scheme within a Ponzi scheme. The point is often made in places like Greece and Spain that the Germans managed to dominate Europe, after all. The dream of federalism? Load of cock. We're having enough trouble holding the Union together. Quite how the EU bigwigs think they can sort a population of 500 million out and satisfy the demands of the financial system is beyond me. Answer: they're not.

 

I expect UKIP to do even better next time round following the exposure they've got during these recent elections. Their appeal is slightly wider than coffin dodgers just to the left of Hitler. Most people will perceive them as a single issue party and vote for them on that basis. Some will just vote for them because an exit from the EU will lead to an end to uncontrolled immigration, and damn the consequences.

 

So much of politics is about personality. Farage knocks the crap out of the other party leaders personality wise. Pint in one hand, ciggie in the other and doesn't give a f**k. Electoral gold. It doesn't matter if we high minded lefties don't approve. People will vote for that sh!t.

 

The Conservatives are saying that if you vote for them, you'll get a referendum. No-one in their right minds would believe them. We've heard it all before, from all of the parties. Both Labour and the Conservatives weaseled out of their pledge to hold a referendum if the European Constitution was introduced. Neither did; the Lib Dems called them out on their weasley behaviour, correctly citing that a name change to the Lisbon Treaty didn't really cover all these new powers being instituted (which were exactly the same as the ones in the European Constitution). Up until 2009, Lib Dem policy was an in/out referendum. Today, Cameron says he can't hold a referendum because his Lib Dem partners won't let him.

 

No other party has offered the British public a choice, and no other party will. I'm not particularly happy about the prospect of UKIP's potentially racist underbelly getting into the mechanics of government, but that's the cost of not listening.

 

You've hit several nails on the head here. A very good summary indeed.

[Verbal]

You've hit several nails on the head here. A very good summary indeed.

 

You know you've reached a special kind of Saintsweb nadir when pap and Tender get into an icky embrace.

 

To counter that snapping sound of jerking knees, here's a very brief summary of Simon Kuper's interesting op ed in the FT this weekend.

 

"Europe," he says, "is having a terrible time - except compared with probably every other continent and any time in history."

 

The average Spaniard lives to 82 - seven years longer than in post-Fascist 1980.

Most countries where people can expect to live to 82 are European (WHO figures)

Despite the crisis, the average Spaniard's income is nearly double what it was in 1980

Crime rates have been consistently falling across Europe - British streets have not been this safe in 30 years (ONS figures)

Seven of top-10 rate countries on the World Economic Forum's gender gap index are European (ie have the most gender equality)

When the CIA (!) ranked 136 countries for income equality, the 17 most equal were all European

Russia, Brazil and China all lag well behind even Greece in average incomes (World Bank figures)

There has been no terrorist outrage in europe since 2005

When even Serbia and Kosovo make peace, something is right

"No one would predict a war in Europe involving very large powers" according to FRIDE, the European think tank on foreign policy. "Europe looks like a very pleasant suburb of geopolitics."

 

Keep in mind that UKIP appeals to the paps and Tenders of this world, and those like them - grumpy haves who want yet more because of their specialness. UKIP attracts proportionately only a tiny number of votes from those who have some genuine, non-smug claim to having been frozen out of the economy, particularly the young unemployed and under-employed who've been hardest hit by what followed after the credit crunch. UKIP appeals to the faux-rage of the provincial petit bourgeoisie, with their winter-fuel allowances, free bus passes and free TV licences, protected final-salary pensions, unearned equity in their properties. It also appeals to the out-and-out racists, including BNP members who were tasked with the job of infiltrating UKIP as councillors-elect. It appeals to those fuming at the conspiratorial gall of scientists faking all this talk about climate change, because action taken to deal with it would infringe on their small lives. And it appeals to a particular constituency represented by one-man (it's always men) 'business owners' who resent being taxed at all, or rage at having to compete for work with much better motivated and better skilled East Europeans. UKIP is not a protest. This local election was not a protest. It resulted in not one council where UKIP had any say in local government. It is, though, a cheap, convenient declaration of war against a personally perceived impotence - the kind of impotence and discontent that tends to fester when you have it all and are fearful of losing your featherbedding, even though the facts and figures suggest you won't. It is the wimpish howl of the little men, who invest in the supposedly sparkling 'personality' of strong leaders rising 'above politics' (where have you heard THAT before?), for which their model is Nigel blue-blazer Farage!

[Joensuu]

Joennsu. You've worn me down. I really can't be arsed to argue any further with you. We'll just have to agree that as you're a L/liberal and I'm a Conservative there is going to be little consensus on our beliefs regarding taxation.

:-

 

Good decision Wes, too much time wasted on this thread, but an interesting chat nontheless.

 

For example, I've learnt that:

 

1) cutting taxes for the richest few is fair.

 

2) cutting taxes for everyone, will lead to increased overall tax revenue.

 

3) you love referendum, but not on issues you think the public might vote against you like 'how much should we tax the rich?'.

 

4) you feel Germany will be happy for us to stop paying our EU membership fees, but let us keep all of the benefits (incidentally, does the same thing work in LA Fitness?)

 

Cheers guys, good enlightening debate.

[Wes Tender]

You know you've reached a special kind of Saintsweb nadir when pap and Tender get into an icky embrace.

 

To counter that snapping sound of jerking knees, here's a very brief summary of Simon Kuper's interesting op ed in the FT this weekend.

 

"Europe," he says, "is having a terrible time - except compared with probably every other continent and any time in history."

 

The average Spaniard lives to 82 - seven years longer than in post-Fascist 1980.

Most countries where people can expect to live to 82 are European (WHO figures)

Despite the crisis, the average Spaniard's income is nearly double what it was in 1980

Crime rates have been consistently falling across Europe - British streets have not been this safe in 30 years (ONS figures)

Seven of top-10 rate countries on the World Economic Forum's gender gap index are European (ie have the most gender equality)

When the CIA (!) ranked 136 countries for income equality, the 17 most equal were all European

Russia, Brazil and China all lag well behind even Greece in average incomes (World Bank figures)

There has been no terrorist outrage in europe since 2005

When even Serbia and Kosovo make peace, something is right

"No one would predict a war in Europe involving very large powers" according to FRIDE, the European think tank on foreign policy. "Europe looks like a very pleasant suburb of geopolitics."

 

Keep in mind that UKIP appeals to the paps and Tenders of this world, and those like them - grumpy haves who want yet more because of their specialness. UKIP attracts proportionately only a tiny number of votes from those who have some genuine, non-smug claim to having been frozen out of the economy, particularly the young unemployed and under-employed who've been hardest hit by what followed after the credit crunch. UKIP appeals to the faux-rage of the provincial petit bourgeoisie, with their winter-fuel allowances, free bus passes and free TV licences, protected final-salary pensions, unearned equity in their properties. It also appeals to the out-and-out racists, including BNP members who were tasked with the job of infiltrating UKIP as councillors-elect. It appeals to those fuming at the conspiratorial gall of scientists faking all this talk about climate change, because action taken to deal with it would infringe on their small lives. And it appeals to a particular constituency represented by one-man (it's always men) 'business owners' who resent being taxed at all, or rage at having to compete for work with much better motivated and better skilled East Europeans. UKIP is not a protest. This local election was not a protest. It resulted in not one council where UKIP had any say in local government. It is, though, a cheap, convenient declaration of war against a personally perceived impotence - the kind of impotence and discontent that tends to fester when you have it all and are fearful of losing your featherbedding, even though the facts and figures suggest you won't. It is the wimpish howl of the little men, who invest in the supposedly sparkling 'personality' of strong leaders rising 'above politics' (where have you heard THAT before?), for which their model is Nigel blue-blazer Farage!

 

The sound of several thumbs being hit instead of the nails.

[Wes Tender]

Good decision Wes, too much time wasted on this thread, but an interesting chat nontheless.

 

For example, I've learnt that:

 

1) cutting taxes for the richest few is fair.

 

2) cutting taxes for everyone, will lead to increased overall tax revenue.

 

3) you love referendum, but not on issues you think the public might vote against you like 'how much should we tax the rich?'.

 

4) you feel Germany will be happy for us to stop paying our EU membership fees, but let us keep all of the benefits (incidentally, does the same thing work in LA Fitness?)

 

Cheers guys, good enlightening debate.

 

Thanks for proving conclusively by your summary exactly why it is futile arguing with you. There are two ends to a stick and you unerringly manage to grasp the wrong one every time. Still, I suppose it makes you feel smug, so good for you.

[pap]

You know you've reached a special kind of Saintsweb nadir when pap and Tender get into an icky embrace.

 

To counter that snapping sound of jerking knees, here's a very brief summary of Simon Kuper's interesting op ed in the FT this weekend.

44

"Europe," he says, "is having a terrible time - except compared with probably every other continent and any time in history."

 

The average Spaniard lives to 82 - seven years longer than in post-Fascist 1980.

Most countries where people can expect to live to 82 are European (WHO figures)

Despite the crisis, the average Spaniard's income is nearly double what it was in 1980

Crime rates have been consistently falling across Europe - British streets have not been this safe in 30 years (ONS figures)

Seven of top-10 rate countries on the World Economic Forum's gender gap index are European (ie have the most gender equality)

When the CIA (!) ranked 136 countries for income equality, the 17 most equal were all European

Russia, Brazil and China all lag well behind even Greece in average incomes (World Bank figures)

There has been no terrorist outrage in europe since 2005

When even Serbia and Kosovo make peace, something is right

"No one would predict a war in Europe involving very large powers" according to FRIDE, the European think tank on foreign policy. "Europe looks like a very pleasant suburb of geopolitics."

 

Keep in mind that UKIP appeals to the paps and Tenders of this world, and those like them - grumpy haves who want yet more because of their specialness. UKIP attracts proportionately only a tiny number of votes from those who have some genuine, non-smug claim to having been frozen out of the economy, particularly the young unemployed and under-employed who've been hardest hit by what followed after the credit crunch. UKIP appeals to the faux-rage of the provincial petit bourgeoisie, with their winter-fuel allowances, free bus passes and free TV licences, protected final-salary pensions, unearned equity in their properties. It also appeals to the out-and-out racists, including BNP members who were tasked with the job of infiltrating UKIP as councillors-elect. It appeals to those fuming at the conspiratorial gall of scientists faking all this talk about climate change, because action taken to deal with it would infringe on their small lives. And it appeals to a particular constituency represented by one-man (it's always men) 'business owners' who resent being taxed at all, or rage at having to compete for work with much better motivated and better skilled East Europeans. UKIP is not a protest. This local election was not a protest. It resulted in not one council where UKIP had any say in local government. It is, though, a cheap, convenient declaration of war against a personally perceived impotence - the kind of impotence and discontent that tends to fester when you have it all and are fearful of losing your featherbedding, even though the facts and figures suggest you won't. It is the wimpish howl of the little men, who invest in the supposedly sparkling 'personality' of strong leaders rising 'above politics' (where have you heard THAT before?), for which their model is Nigel blue-blazer Farage!

 

I'm not actually a supporter of UKIP, ta.

 

We've been in dire need of a forum jester for a bit though, so I appreciate your unofficial job applications on this thread for the post.

 

At least, that's what I seriously hope your comments are about.

[Minty]

There doesn't seem a lot of point in these threads if 8 pages are going to go by with hardly anyone actually willing to be open to different views, and debate it accordingly. All I seem to have read is people with fairly fixed views, and a keenness to make snide remarks about those who disagree. Doesn't matter how much knowledge someone has of a subject, when it's underpinned by a base lack of respect for a different view, it makes you look like a bitter Skate shouting 'Scummah!' to try and win your argument.

 

Shame, because I find the subject quite interesting, and want to learn more about it, but you've all managed to put me off to be honest...

[pap]

There doesn't seem a lot of point in these threads if 8 pages are going to go by with hardly anyone actually willing to be open to different views, and debate it accordingly. All I seem to have read is people with fairly fixed views, and a keenness to make snide remarks about those who disagree. Doesn't matter how much knowledge someone has of a subject, when it's underpinned by a base lack of respect for a different view, it makes you look like a bitter Skate shouting 'Scummah!' to try and win your argument.

 

Shame, because I find the subject quite interesting, and want to learn more about it, but you've all managed to put me off to be honest...

 

Well, if I've contributed to the snarkiness, I apologise. Verbal needs to follow his own advice and read more. It's fairly clear from his reaction to my posts that he believes I'm a UKIP supporter

[buctootim]

There doesn't seem a lot of point in these threads if 8 pages are going to go by with hardly anyone actually willing to be open to different views, and debate it accordingly. All I seem to have read is people with fairly fixed views, and a keenness to make snide remarks about those who disagree. Doesn't matter how much knowledge someone has of a subject, when it's underpinned by a base lack of respect for a different view, it makes you look like a bitter Skate shouting 'Scummah!' to try and win your argument.

 

Shame, because I find the subject quite interesting, and want to learn more about it, but you've all managed to put me off to be honest...

 

I find the way people process the same bits of information differently to be more interesting than the issue often. Supposedly when you match peoples views with party policies c30% of people are actually voting for the wrong party.

 

Some people can be persuaded and "when the facts change I change my mind". Others just cant handle the implications of being wrong so mould reality to fit what they want to believe. Cognitive dissonance is a funny thing.

Edited 9 May, 2013 by buctootim

[buctootim]

Well, if I've contributed to the snarkiness, I apologise. Verbal needs to follow his own advice and read more. It's fairly clear from his reaction to my posts that he believes I'm a UKIP supporter

 

You apologise then immediately continue the snarkiness

[pap]

You apologise then immediately continue the snarkiness

 

Ah, c'mon. There are degrees, as you well know.

 

All I'm doing is pulling Verbal up on his post content, which is a far cry from his creative writing.

[Verbal]

Ah, c'mon. There are degrees, as you well know.

 

All I'm doing is pulling Verbal up on his post content, which is a far cry from his creative writing.

 

That's not true, though, is it? You've only attempted to "pull me up" on two references to you. Nothing else. The bulk of my earlier post, which consisted of a number of published facts and figures showing that we've all actually done rather well out of the EU, seems to have passed you by completely.

 

On that subject, the EU certainly has a democratic deficit, although in Britain's case, there's a self-fulfilling element to that: while we decry the EU as "dull", it nonetheless animates the huge and enduring rift in the Tory party that allows Farage's weird farrago of a party space to capture the (overall) disaffected, comfortably-off, older, white, right-wing vote. So EP electoral turnouts are appallingly low in the UK compared with other member states, and yet we kvetch about European institutions endlessly - and endlessly confuse them (eg the ECHR is NOT the EU!).

 

By the way, did you know that Farage's real surname is Farridge? Weird that such a Europhobe should Frenchify his name, don't you think?

 

As for your own political views, let's start with a corrective on the nature of human communication. It consists of what people say and what they don't say; what is made explicit and what is implied; what is heard and what is inferred; what claimed and what is logically deduced. In your case, it's possible to put together your admiration of strong-man Nigel with the conclusions I drew about you in your recent posts about the Boston bombings, in which you adopted a position regarded as too extreme even for the right wing of the Republican Party. Your unquestioning adoption of Infowars' 'false-flag' claims, and your utterly distasteful disparagement of the dead and severely injured as play-actors, leads me to some clear conclusions about your real 'when-the-chips-are-down' political proclivities. You may object to this characterisation, but it's a reasonable inference to draw.

 

Now let's get back to the wonders of the EU and Farridge's exploitation of this ragbag of over-weened moaners.

[Barry Sanchez]

That's not true, though, is it? You've only attempted to "pull me up" on two references to you. Nothing else. The bulk of my earlier post, which consisted of a number of published facts and figures showing that we've all actually done rather well out of the EU, seems to have passed you by completely.

 

On that subject, the EU certainly has a democratic deficit, although in Britain's case, there's a self-fulfilling element to that: while we decry the EU as "dull", it nonetheless animates the huge and enduring rift in the Tory party that allows Farage's weird farrago of a party space to capture the (overall) disaffected, comfortably-off, older, white, right-wing vote. So EP electoral turnouts are appallingly low in the UK compared with other member states, and yet we kvetch about European institutions endlessly - and endlessly confuse them (eg the ECHR is NOT the EU!).

 

By the way, did you know that Farage's real surname is Farridge? Weird that such a Europhobe should Frenchify his name, don't you think?

 

As for your own political views, let's start with a corrective on the nature of human communication. It consists of what people say and what they don't say; what is made explicit and what is implied; what is heard and what is inferred; what claimed and what is logically deduced. In your case, it's possible to put together your admiration of strong-man Nigel with the conclusions I drew about you in your recent posts about the Boston bombings, in which you adopted a position regarded as too extreme even for the right wing of the Republican Party. Your unquestioning adoption of Infowars' 'false-flag' claims, and your utterly distasteful disparagement of the dead and severely injured as play-actors, leads me to some clear conclusions about your real 'when-the-chips-are-down' political proclivities. You may object to this characterisation, but it's a reasonable inference to draw.

 

Now let's get back to the wonders of the EU and Farridge's exploitation of this ragbag of over-weened moaners.

Statutory voting and proportional representation would soon sort that.

[pap]

That's not true, though, is it? You've only attempted to "pull me up" on two references to you. Nothing else. The bulk of my earlier post, which consisted of a number of published facts and figures showing that we've all actually done rather well out of the EU, seems to have passed you by completely.

 

On that subject, the EU certainly has a democratic deficit, although in Britain's case, there's a self-fulfilling element to that: while we decry the EU as "dull", it nonetheless animates the huge and enduring rift in the Tory party that allows Farage's weird farrago of a party space to capture the (overall) disaffected, comfortably-off, older, white, right-wing vote. So EP electoral turnouts are appallingly low in the UK compared with other member states, and yet we kvetch about European institutions endlessly - and endlessly confuse them (eg the ECHR is NOT the EU!).

 

By the way, did you know that Farage's real surname is Farridge? Weird that such a Europhobe should Frenchify his name, don't you think?

 

As for your own political views, let's start with a corrective on the nature of human communication. It consists of what people say and what they don't say; what is made explicit and what is implied; what is heard and what is inferred; what claimed and what is logically deduced. In your case, it's possible to put together your admiration of strong-man Nigel with the conclusions I drew about you in your recent posts about the Boston bombings, in which you adopted a position regarded as too extreme even for the right wing of the Republican Party. Your unquestioning adoption of Infowars' 'false-flag' claims, and your utterly distasteful disparagement of the dead and severely injured as play-actors, leads me to some clear conclusions about your real 'when-the-chips-are-down' political proclivities. You may object to this characterisation, but it's a reasonable inference to draw.

 

Now let's get back to the wonders of the EU and Farridge's exploitation of this ragbag of over-weened moaners.

 

If your comments on my political views are based on deductions from my posts, don't ever get into the investigation lark.

 

I'd really like to answer this seriously, but find it impossible to do so. Unquestioning adoption of infowars stuff? Yeah, alright. I hardly posted any links myself on that thread. I may consider a wider breadth of material than yourself; doesn't mean I believe it or adopt all of it. Still, you are an amusing old sort. Keep up the good work.

[Wes Tender]

If your comments on my political views are based on deductions from my posts, don't ever get into the investigation lark.

 

I'd really like to answer this seriously, but find it impossible to do so. Unquestioning adoption of infowars stuff? Yeah, alright. I hardly posted any links myself on that thread. I may consider a wider breadth of material than yourself; doesn't mean I believe it or adopt all of it. Still, you are an amusing old sort. Keep up the good work.

 

Well, he labelled me as a UKIP supporter too, although I'd categorically stated that I was a Conservative. I would be interested in hearing him run through his thought processes that caused him to add two and two together and make five. No doubt it was all based on what I didn't say, what I implied, what I inferred and deduced from what others said.

[Wes Tender]

There doesn't seem a lot of point in these threads if 8 pages are going to go by with hardly anyone actually willing to be open to different views, and debate it accordingly. All I seem to have read is people with fairly fixed views, and a keenness to make snide remarks about those who disagree. Doesn't matter how much knowledge someone has of a subject, when it's underpinned by a base lack of respect for a different view, it makes you look like a bitter Skate shouting 'Scummah!' to try and win your argument.

 

Shame, because I find the subject quite interesting, and want to learn more about it, but you've all managed to put me off to be honest...

 

Sorry Minty, but the fact that posters' positions on matters like this are entrenched should come as no great surprise. People generally do have fixed views when it comes to policy matters where they are supporters of one or other of the major political parties and would probably only be interested in discussing an issue like this on here because of that affiliation. If you were wanting to learn more about the subject (UKIP), then you are unlikely in any event to get a balanced view on here. Neither will you get a balanced view from most of the media, as they all push their own agenda, whether it be from the left or the right. I really don't know where you would get an unbiased view on them from. The only thing to do is to read lots of opinions from both sides of the political spectrum and make your own judgement about how valid the opinions are and what weight they carry in your mind.

[Minty]

Sorry Minty, but the fact that posters' positions on matters like this are entrenched should come as no great surprise. People generally do have fixed views when it comes to policy matters where they are supporters of one or other of the major political parties and would probably only be interested in discussing an issue like this on here because of that affiliation. If you were wanting to learn more about the subject (UKIP), then you are unlikely in any event to get a balanced view on here. Neither will you get a balanced view from most of the media, as they all push their own agenda, whether it be from the left or the right. I really don't know where you would get an unbiased view on them from. The only thing to do is to read lots of opinions from both sides of the political spectrum and make your own judgement about how valid the opinions are and what weight they carry in your mind.

Sorry Wes, my fault for not being clear... it was more the general issue of the economy and taxation rates, stemming from the UKIP proposal, that I was interested in, rather than UKIP themselves.

 

You're right - it doesn't necessarily surprise me that peoples position on these matters are somewhat entrenched. But for my money, the only way I would increase support for my point of view is to persuade with a decent argument and interpretation of statistics, not snide comments and insults. I have several very good friends who are, broadly speaking, Conservative voters and supporters, whereas I have generally voted Lib Dem in the past (and almost certainly Green in the future) who I have had many and various discussions with on various issues, obviously with quite different opinions to them on topics... but we maintain a healthy respect for each other, we always try to demonstrate why we feel a certain way about things and, if need be, agree to disagree. But always without the need for much of what I've read here.

 

There's a key saying which I use for many things in life, but that applies nicely here IMO: "Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood." I realise it is entirely fanciful and idealistic, but politicians, and political discussions would do well to consider that IMO... and it would help the wider public (those who don't spend much time looking at the details of such discussions, and only read the headlines) to engage with issues, rather than feeling like they are picking a winner of a boxing match.

[Minty]

To be fair, I also realise I'm heading off on a tangent for this particular thread, so I'll leave it there!

[trousers]

Nigel Farage ‏@Nigel_Farage5m

And this is why UKIP are the party for the hard working British people http://fb.me/t9Bobinx

 

Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come... and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson

 

• Former minister admits Labour deliberately engineered mass immigration
  
• Between 1997 and 2010 net migration to Britain totalled 2.2million
  

[Viking Warrior]

Listening to BBC Radio Scotland , Theres this jounalist who was asking some very insulting questions to Nigel Farage this morning following his encounter with some staunch scottish independant rent a mob types . The jurno , made paxman seem like an angel. I must say I was disgusted at the line of questioning. Nigel suddenly said the journo that his views were not to disimilar to the mob he faced yesterday and quitre frankly you being discrimatory against the english as well and then Farage hung up on the guy . Really funny. but what a nasty peice of work the journo was. Im not a fan of farage but the journo was well out of order

[bridge too far]

I heard that interview too (or at least the bit the BBC broadcast). I didn't think the journalist was out of order at all. Farridge interrupted him when he was asking a question which, if he'd been allowed to finish, was underpinning a point Farridge himself had made. Not the journalist's fault that our Nige didn't allow him to finish the quote. Then he asked him how many representatives UKIP had in Scotland.

 

I can't see how anything was wrong there.

[swannymere]

Not a man i'd want anywhere near a position of authority, judging from his lack of 'cool' he's not a man to be trusted. Showed his true self today.

[SuperMikey]

Not a man i'd want anywhere near a position of authority, judging from his lack of 'cool' he's not a man to be trusted. Showed his true self today.

 

Too true. Trying to say that people protesting against his reactionary idiocy are "Anti-English" is just stupid. They weren't protesting about him being English, more his ugly policies and views.

[Batman]

Not a man i'd want anywhere near a position of authority, judging from his lack of 'cool' he's not a man to be trusted. Showed his true self today.

 

I think it was good. Infact, I thought more of Brown when he called that woman 'ghastly'.

[Batman]

Too true. Trying to say that people protesting against his reactionary idiocy are "Anti-English" is just stupid. They weren't protesting about him being English, more his ugly policies and views.

 

they were not protesting, they were set up by the SNP. A bit like when parties send members to UAF marches or even, plant them in the audience of question time

[Batman]

I heard that interview too (or at least the bit the BBC broadcast). I didn't think the journalist was out of order at all. Farridge interrupted him when he was asking a question which, if he'd been allowed to finish, was underpinning a point Farridge himself had made. Not the journalist's fault that our Nige didn't allow him to finish the quote. Then he asked him how many representatives UKIP had in Scotland.

 

I can't see how anything was wrong there.

UKIP is on the rise

the very fact that its only a matter of time before we have an in/out vote on Europe is testament to this

[Batman]

Nigel Farage ‏@Nigel_Farage5m

And this is why UKIP are the party for the hard working British people http://fb.me/t9Bobinx

 

that is an absolute disgrace. So much for British jobs for British people

[Lord Duckhunter]

I don't think the reporter did anything wrong, although I wish people would stop with the paxman act. It's just so boring now, this attack dog approach to political interviewing. These wannabes should watch Andrew Neil to learn how its done.

 

There is an anti English attitude from some in Scotland. NF was spot on when he said today that had Ukip supporters had heckled salmond like that and told him to "**** off back to Scotland you sweaty bastard" the BBC would be all over it like a rash. Showering the protesters with insults and calling them yobs. At the end of the day Ukip is Ukip not EIP , they have every right to point out the flaws in salmonds argument and Nigel has every right to turn up there without being abused.

[buctootim]

They were chanting "Racist, **** off back to England", which was amusing.

[pap]

Ah, the big UKIP hit campaign continues.

 

This will be of particular interest to trousers, as the story pertains to trousers. Women's trousers to be precise.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10064185/Ukip-donor-says-women-in-trousers-are-hostile-and-unmarried-mothers-need-a-smack.html

 

Btw, bloke in the article seems like a repellent bugger, but interesting to see the guilt-by-association thing so early.

[Viking Warrior]

I heard all the interview and the comments made after farage put the phone down . The reporter in my opinion was clearly trying to provoke farage and succeeded . The guy was pro Scottish independence . So not a balanced or neutral journo interview . You should have heard salmond bleating on about . So much so it's now causing a bit of a storm among some politicians up here . As salmond appears to have added fuel to the pro anti English debate

[solentstars]

I heard all the interview and the comments made after farage put the phone down . The reporter in my opinion was clearly trying to provoke farage and succeeded . The guy was pro Scottish independence . So not a balanced or neutral journo interview . You should have heard salmond bleating on about . So much so it's now causing a bit of a storm among some politicians up here . As salmond appears to have added fuel to the pro anti English debate

 

Sorry it shows how far farage is out of his depth when he acts like a cry baby.what I expected from a rich spoiled toff and investment banker for the rich and I bet he cannot believe how he has fooled so many gullible people to swallow his 1950s view of a world gone by.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2